- Email: [email protected]
Pollution link
Letters– Fluoride flayed From James Beck Your report on fluoride in tea includes the sentence: “In places where people ingest too little fluoride, it is added to water supplies to strengthen tooth enamel and prevent cavities” (6 October, p 21).
informed consultation, and the effects of which are not monitored by competent professionals. In North America fluoridation fails on all counts, being unapproved, unevaluated, not consented to, not controlled and not subject to refusal. Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Question for Watson
This is surprising, given that in Europe the battle against fluoridation is largely won. Fluoride (in the generic sense) is not a nutrient; there is no “too little”. It does not strengthen enamel or prevent cavities except for a slight topical effect. There is now ample evidence that the reduction in tooth decay (caries) in industrialised countries in recent decades has occurred as much – or more – in nonfluoridated areas as in fluoridated ones, and that cessation of fluoridation is not followed by any increase in the incidence of caries. There is, however, much evidence associating fluoridation with bone cancer, suppressed thyroid function, lowered IQ, bone fracture, increased levels of lead and other intoxicants in body tissues, and bad effects on other body systems. All these associations hold for concentrations of fluoride comparable to those imposed in fluoridated water supplies in North America. Aside from efficacy and toxicity, it is unethical, if not illegal, to administer a substance that has not been approved by a proper authority, that is not controlled in dosage, that is not consented to by the recipient after 24 | NewScientist | 24 November 2007
From Philip John Cleary Why did Peter Aldhous not ask James Watson about Rosalind Franklin (20 October, p 58)? He saw fit to question Craig Venter about the size of his ego and gene patenting – but not to ask Watson about the woman without whose work he and Francis Crick could not have deduced DNA’s structure. Watson says he wishes to “encourage younger people to want to go into science”. The way Franklin’s crucial contribution to the discovery of DNA’s structure has been overlooked hardly encourages young people, especially women. Moreland, Victoria, Australia
Pollution link From Pete Myers Your story about “double diabetes” taunts readers with the possibility that “we might have understood it completely” (27 October, p 48) and then misses some of the most important new science on diabetes in the past two years, which suggests that environmental contaminants increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. Analysis by Duk-Hee Lee and colleagues of data from the US Centers for Disease Control’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey indicates that within the general US population – excluding occupational exposure – people in the highest exposure group to a mixture of persistent organic pollutants are 38 times more likely to have type 2 diabetes. Crozet, Virginia, US
Treating schizophrenia From Morgan Haldane, Sophia Frangou and Spilios Argyropoulos, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London David Kingdon argues that trying to “unpick the biological basis of schizophrenia… has been utterly unhelpful to patients” (13 October, p 22). We would be interested to see him explain this to the thousands of people who have benefited from the fruits of 50 years of research into antipsychotic drugs, beginning with the discovery of chlorpromazine. What’s more, understanding potential causative mechanisms has led to the development of the first non-dopaminergic antipsychotic drug. Studies of the impact of environmental stressors on individuals with certain neurotransmitter genotypes has, likewise, massively advanced our understanding of psychotic illness. Development of the new “atypical” antipsychotics with fewer side effects has greatly benefited patients, as has clozapine for those with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. As a consequence of these developments, patients are discharged from hospital much more quickly. Has cognitive behavioural therapy had any role in this? No. Psychotherapies have no role in the treatment of people who are acutely ill. Even their ability to help schizophrenic patients in remission is highly questionable and has minimal evidence to support it. Kingdon suggests
that changing diagnostic terms may help. Possibly, but it won’t make people better. London, UK
Lip-hearing From Lawrence Rosenblum, University of California, Riverside I thoroughly enjoyed your article on mind tricks (22 September, p 34), and appreciate your inclusion of the McGurk effect and our demonstration of it. As you say, the McGurk effect demonstrates the “fights” or compromises that occur when what we see is different to what we hear. It has also been crucial to recent proposals that the majority of the perceptual brain is designed for multi-sensory input. This idea is supported by the McGurk effect’s ubiquity: it works in all languages, with pre-verbal infants, and even when touching, rather than seeing, a face. Study of audiovisual speech has been central to the emerging realisation that many brain areas once considered specific to a single sense, in fact process input from multiple senses. Imaging evidence shows that regardless of whether one can hear, lip-reading visual speech information alone can affect activity in the supposed “auditory” parts of the brain. Riverside, California, US
Researching race From Bob Muirhead Robert Sternberg asserts that race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one (27 October, p 24). Such politically correct assertions serve only to inhibit potentially useful research into the various manifestations of humanity. Certain human groups have obviously different biological attributes, such as skin colour, eye shape, ability to metabolise ethanol, susceptibility to malaria and athletic performance. No doubt there are many others that we have not yet discovered – and www.newscientist.com
informed consultation, and the effects of which are not monitored by competent professionals. In North America fluoridation fails on all counts, being unapproved, unevaluated, not consented to, not controlled and not subject to refusal. Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Question for Watson
This is surprising, given that in Europe the battle against fluoridation is largely won. Fluoride (in the generic sense) is not a nutrient; there is no “too little”. It does not strengthen enamel or prevent cavities except for a slight topical effect. There is now ample evidence that the reduction in tooth decay (caries) in industrialised countries in recent decades has occurred as much – or more – in nonfluoridated areas as in fluoridated ones, and that cessation of fluoridation is not followed by any increase in the incidence of caries. There is, however, much evidence associating fluoridation with bone cancer, suppressed thyroid function, lowered IQ, bone fracture, increased levels of lead and other intoxicants in body tissues, and bad effects on other body systems. All these associations hold for concentrations of fluoride comparable to those imposed in fluoridated water supplies in North America. Aside from efficacy and toxicity, it is unethical, if not illegal, to administer a substance that has not been approved by a proper authority, that is not controlled in dosage, that is not consented to by the recipient after 24 | NewScientist | 24 November 2007
From Philip John Cleary Why did Peter Aldhous not ask James Watson about Rosalind Franklin (20 October, p 58)? He saw fit to question Craig Venter about the size of his ego and gene patenting – but not to ask Watson about the woman without whose work he and Francis Crick could not have deduced DNA’s structure. Watson says he wishes to “encourage younger people to want to go into science”. The way Franklin’s crucial contribution to the discovery of DNA’s structure has been overlooked hardly encourages young people, especially women. Moreland, Victoria, Australia
Pollution link From Pete Myers Your story about “double diabetes” taunts readers with the possibility that “we might have understood it completely” (27 October, p 48) and then misses some of the most important new science on diabetes in the past two years, which suggests that environmental contaminants increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. Analysis by Duk-Hee Lee and colleagues of data from the US Centers for Disease Control’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey indicates that within the general US population – excluding occupational exposure – people in the highest exposure group to a mixture of persistent organic pollutants are 38 times more likely to have type 2 diabetes. Crozet, Virginia, US
Treating schizophrenia From Morgan Haldane, Sophia Frangou and Spilios Argyropoulos, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London David Kingdon argues that trying to “unpick the biological basis of schizophrenia… has been utterly unhelpful to patients” (13 October, p 22). We would be interested to see him explain this to the thousands of people who have benefited from the fruits of 50 years of research into antipsychotic drugs, beginning with the discovery of chlorpromazine. What’s more, understanding potential causative mechanisms has led to the development of the first non-dopaminergic antipsychotic drug. Studies of the impact of environmental stressors on individuals with certain neurotransmitter genotypes has, likewise, massively advanced our understanding of psychotic illness. Development of the new “atypical” antipsychotics with fewer side effects has greatly benefited patients, as has clozapine for those with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. As a consequence of these developments, patients are discharged from hospital much more quickly. Has cognitive behavioural therapy had any role in this? No. Psychotherapies have no role in the treatment of people who are acutely ill. Even their ability to help schizophrenic patients in remission is highly questionable and has minimal evidence to support it. Kingdon suggests
that changing diagnostic terms may help. Possibly, but it won’t make people better. London, UK
Lip-hearing From Lawrence Rosenblum, University of California, Riverside I thoroughly enjoyed your article on mind tricks (22 September, p 34), and appreciate your inclusion of the McGurk effect and our demonstration of it. As you say, the McGurk effect demonstrates the “fights” or compromises that occur when what we see is different to what we hear. It has also been crucial to recent proposals that the majority of the perceptual brain is designed for multi-sensory input. This idea is supported by the McGurk effect’s ubiquity: it works in all languages, with pre-verbal infants, and even when touching, rather than seeing, a face. Study of audiovisual speech has been central to the emerging realisation that many brain areas once considered specific to a single sense, in fact process input from multiple senses. Imaging evidence shows that regardless of whether one can hear, lip-reading visual speech information alone can affect activity in the supposed “auditory” parts of the brain. Riverside, California, US
Researching race From Bob Muirhead Robert Sternberg asserts that race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one (27 October, p 24). Such politically correct assertions serve only to inhibit potentially useful research into the various manifestations of humanity. Certain human groups have obviously different biological attributes, such as skin colour, eye shape, ability to metabolise ethanol, susceptibility to malaria and athletic performance. No doubt there are many others that we have not yet discovered – and www.newscientist.com