Reverse fluoridation in our tap water petition

WoollyRedHat · 18-04-2008 8:23pm #1

Fluoridation in tap water has more negative effects than good and the goverment is forcing us on us by pumping it in tap water.

If you really want fluoride you can get it in other ways, but by putting it in something we consume every day is unaceeptable. Minister John Gormley promised to remove fluoridation from our tap water, a promise that he is yet to deliver on.

Please sign the petition, started by the The Fluoride Free Water Group here:http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/reverse-mandatory-water-fluoridation-in-ireland.html

Also if you can forward this link on as it affects everyone.

Wibbs · 18-04-2008 8:28pm

I'm as concerned about chlorine TBH. But yea fluoridation is something that needs more study.

Supercell · 18-04-2008 8:33pm

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Fluoridation in tap water has more negative effects than good and the goverment is forcing us on us by pumping it in tap water.

And your reasons for why its worse than not having it are????

Ross_Mahon · 18-04-2008 8:35pm

They can put Kryptonite in the water if they want, I'm not too fussy.

Sherifu · 18-04-2008 8:40pm

Could you present a more convincing argument OP?

WoollyRedHat · 18-04-2008 8:43pm

Supercell wrote: »

And your reasons for why its worse than not having it are????

Sure. It benefits the teeth.

Now put that against links to Alzheimer's, weakening bones, cancer, poisonous to our kidneys and it is an extremely poor excuse to insert it into something which we use.

Like I said, you can get fluoride in your toothpaste.

We still a lot of research to be done and it being a grey area, I personally would much rather have it purified of it rather than taking something that can be harmful to your health. Wouldn't you?

WoollyRedHat · 18-04-2008 8:46pm

Sorry, I double posted by accident, feel free to delete this post.

Karoma · 18-04-2008 8:47pm

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

It benefits the teeth.

And saves millions on healthcare as a result?

Put that against links to Alzheimer's, weakening bones, cancer,... rabble.

So have oranges, biscuits, butter, and everything else under the sun. Provide more substantial reasons / research.

WoollyRedHat · 18-04-2008 8:53pm

Yes, but we buy those items freely! Water is free and yet this is being put in the water supply without the peoples consent. It is also consumed much more than Oranges, butter etc.
and is unmonitored, unlike toothpaste containing fluoride which is controlled.

For those interested read this:http://www.health-science.com/fluoride_toxicity.html

There's also an interesting video about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNtTctC_7qc

"[F]luoride causes more human cancer deaths, and causes it faster, than any other chemical" - Dr. Dean Burk. -http://homepage.eircom.net/~fluoridefree/home.htm

As mentioned in the link a group of 30 dentists are demanding it's removal from the water system, on the grounds it has negative effects as well

This is what millions of people drink every day. I admitted it helped your teeth, but use toothpaste with flouride ( and not too much, a spec of it is enough) rather than being forced to gulp down the stuff against your will

We are one of the few countries that still has it in our taps, so surely that tells you something on it's side effects.

Marksie · 18-04-2008 9:01pm

Ross_Mahon wrote: »

They can put Kryptonite in the water if they want, I'm not too fussy.

They already have kryptonspiridium in Galway

Thrill · 18-04-2008 9:04pm

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

rather than being forced to gulp down the stuff against your will

No-one is forcing me to drink tap water against my will. If I was really concerned about this I'd buy bottled water.

We do have that option.

buckfast4me · 18-04-2008 9:07pm

Sure everythings bad for ya these days. Might aswell just starve to death.

WoollyRedHat · 18-04-2008 9:07pm

Thrill wrote: »

No-one is forcing me to drink tap water against my will. If I was really concerned about this I'd buy bottled water.

We do have that option.

Why should we have to buy it when it's free. I can't see much people being able to afford buying bottled water for everything they need it for, it would be too expensive.

kerash · 18-04-2008 9:09pm

My tap water tastes like sh1t its undrinkable. I get water from the well so your flouride issue dont affect me mate. Also i've email gromless on other issues and never even got an automated reply.

fearcruach · 18-04-2008 9:23pm

Fluorine is a very dangerous chemical and very toxic but that is not what is put into our water. Fluoride is released into our water by the ionisation of hydrofluorosilicic acid and is in concentrations much lower than any potential toxic amount. To say that fluorine causes more cancer than any other chemical is laughable. As we live in an industrialised country, we are exposed to many carcinogenic compounds that are far more carcinogenic than fluoride. Most major health organisations support water fluoridation. Of course there is opposition but then there is opposition to everything. A good example of this was the report that anti-depressants don't work, they just work by placebo. This is incorrect and an example of where there is opposition to an idea doesn't necessarily make it true. In these cases majority rules. More studies say water fluoridation is safe than don't.

Wertz · 18-04-2008 9:46pm

I used to feel very strongly about this when I was younger but the effects of the fluorine on your mental faculties really kick in your 30's and you start worrying about more mundane crap instead. But hey at least my teeth are nice and shiny*

*Yellow and crooked, but still shiny.

WoollyRedHat · 18-04-2008 9:51pm

fearcruach wrote: »

Fluorine is a very dangerous chemical and very toxic but that is not what is put into our water. Fluoride is released into our water by the ionisation of hydrofluorosilicic acid and is in concentrations much lower than any potential toxic amount. To say that fluorine causes more cancer than any other chemical is laughable. As we live in an industrialised country, we are exposed to many carcinogenic compounds that are far more carcinogenic than fluoride. Most major health organisations support water fluoridation. Of course there is opposition but then there is opposition to everything. A good example of this was the report that anti-depressants don't work, they just work by placebo. This is incorrect and an example of where there is opposition to an idea doesn't necessarily make it true. In these cases majority rules. More studies say water fluoridation is safe than don't.

Then why have many countries banned it? Why did the Greens spokesman for health at the time deliver a promise to remove it from our water supplies? That really doesn't sound like something that is great for you!

This is more than just opposition and a few gruntles here and there.

Voodu Child · 18-04-2008 9:55pm

Actually, recent studies have shown that flouride prevents mind cancer.

WoollyRedHat · 18-04-2008 10:02pm

Could you link it please?

Wibbs · 18-04-2008 10:03pm

fearcruach wrote: »

A good example of this was the report that anti-depressants don't work, they just work by placebo. This is incorrect and an example of where there is opposition to an idea doesn't necessarily make it true.

Not quite, the study suggested that placebos were nearly as effective as some forms of anti depressants. Different thing entirely from saying anti depressants don't work as a blank statement. What the study(and it's not the first one) suggests is that anti depressants are not as effective or as much of a panacea as many think.

Which for the record I agree with. they hand them out like fúcking smarties far too often. The side effects I've seen up close too. We do not want to go the route of the US where it's a pill for every bloody ill.

Yes if someone is clinically depressed or has some other clinical mental illness where tehse drugs are warranted I say go for it. Bloody right. For many others on them it's simply not warranted and other options could and should be explored. If someone has a broken leg, then slap a cast on the bugger. If however you have a bruise on your leg a cast is no bloody use is it? Sadly all too often a good analogy. It's complete madness to allow GP's who often have little training in mental illness, or alternatives to drugs to start handing these very powerful drugs out.

It also pointed out that these results were for low level mental illness where cognitive therapy would be pretty effective too. In which case the placebo effect would likely be high. It's high in general anyway. The placebo effect has been shown to be quite effective when compared to drugs in other illnesses(and useless in the rest). The mechanism of which aren't fully understood.

As for fluoride, I would agree in part with the OP. Yes it reduces dental decay, so clearly in that case it has a strong effect on the body. Is it possible it has other less obvious effects? It's not beyond the bounds of possibility. There are enough learned people who consider it does. While the majority rule is all very well, consensus is not always right. History, even recent history in medicine bears that out. We are not at some end point in medicine where we can say "ah sure we know it's fine". We never will be.

Look how many muppets were handing out antibiotics like there was no tomorrow for diseases that didn't require them and see where that got us. To suggest 20 or even 10 years ago that this would turn out to be the problem it is now and you would have been equally pilloried.

As I wrote earlier chlorine is as much of an issue for me. I read a few reports of studies that found quite strong links between chlorinated water and increased plaque deposits in veins. There was a few studies with animal subjects that bore this out. One study that looked at battle casualties in both the Korean and Vietnam wars that showed otherwise healthy young men with more plaque deposits than expected. It was noted that as the army heavily chlorinates water to sterilise it for the troops this link bore further examination. Another one I read was when the rates of heart disease were tracked with the rates of chlorination in the US there was a noticeable jump in the former when the latter was introduced.

It could be tin foil hat territory, but until we look at this from a middle ground and not a defensive or offensive position, then we may lose good science and public medicine and problems could result, no matter what the findings turn out to be.

Wibbs · 18-04-2008 10:05pm

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Why did the Greens spokesman for health at the time deliver a promise to remove it from our water supplies? That really doesn't sound like something that is great for you!

In fairness pretty much anything the green party trots out as gospel can usually be taken to be misinformed, not thinking ahead far enough, or plain wrong. While I do support your point those idiots a yardstick you should not make.

squibs · 18-04-2008 10:16pm

Ye're all mad.

Tinfoil hat FTW!

WoollyRedHat · 18-04-2008 10:17pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Not quite, the study suggested that placebos were nearly as effective as some forms of anti depressants. Different thing entirely from saying anti depressants don't work as a blank statement. What the study(and it's not the first one) suggests is that anti depressants are not as effective or as much of a panacea as many think.

Which for the record I agree with. they hand them out like fúcking smarties far too often. The side effects I've seen up close too. We do not want to go the route of the US where it's a pill for every bloody ill.

Yes if someone is clinically depressed or has some other clinical mental illness where tehse drugs are warranted I say go for it. Bloody right. For many others on them it's simply not warranted and other options could and should be explored. If someone has a broken leg, then slap a cast on the bugger. If however you have a bruise on your leg a cast is no bloody use is it? Sadly all too often a good analogy. It's complete madness to allow GP's who often have little training in mental illness, or alternatives to drugs to start handing these very powerful drugs out.

It also pointed out that these results were for low level mental illness where cognitive therapy would be pretty effective too. In which case the placebo effect would likely be high. It's high in general anyway. The placebo effect has been shown to be quite effective when compared to drugs in other illnesses(and useless in the rest). The mechanism of which aren't fully understood.

As for fluoride, I would agree in part with the OP. Yes it reduces dental decay, so clearly in that case it has a strong effect on the body. Is it possible it has other less obvious effects? It's not beyond the bounds of possibility. There are enough learned people who consider it does. While the majority rule is all very well, consensus is not always right. History, even recent history in medicine bears that out. We are not at some end point in medicine where we can say "ah sure we know it's fine". We never will be.

Look how many muppets were handing out antibiotics like there was no tomorrow for diseases that didn't require them and see where that got us. To suggest 20 or even 10 years ago that this would turn out to be the problem it is now and you would have been equally pilloried.

As I wrote earlier chlorine is as much of an issue for me. I read a few reports of studies that found quite strong links between chlorinated water and increased plaque deposits in veins. There was a few studies with animal subjects that bore this out. One study that looked at battle casualties in both the Korean and Vietnam wars that showed otherwise healthy young men with more plaque deposits than expected. It was noted that as the army heavily chlorinates water to sterilise it for the troops this link bore further examination. Another one I read was when the rates of heart disease were tracked with the rates of chlorination in the US there was a noticeable jump in the former when the latter was introduced.

It could be tin foil hat territory, but until we look at this from a middle ground and not a defensive or offensive position, then we may lose good science and public medicine and problems could result, no matter what the findings turn out to be.

That story on Cholorine is certainly a scary one alright, I can see your concern for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=431777&in_page_id=1770

An article on Chlorine in Bathwater and swimming pools

.

Wibbs · 18-04-2008 10:25pm

Chlorine is an interesting one alright.

Jebus with long posts of utter trollop that I'm posting here I'm bringing down the tone of AH........:D

Voodu Child · 18-04-2008 10:31pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I read a few reports of studies that found quite strong links between chlorinated water and increased plaque deposits in veins.

Well, then they should just put more flouride in the water to help fight the plaque.

Wibbs · 18-04-2008 10:57pm

smartarse

kerash · 18-04-2008 11:16pm

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

That story on Cholorine is certainly a scary one alright, I can see your concern for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=431777&in_page_id=1770

An article on Chlorine in Bathwater and swimming pools

.

Yes it says;

Low levels of chlorine in tap water used for bathing can almost double the risk of bladder cancer, a study claims. Scientists found chemical by-products from mains water containing the disinfectant can be absorbed through the skin in the bath or shower and accumulate in the bladder.

How many of these studies have we all read in recent times on various topics.

But it also says the following; Ed Yong, campaigns officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "This is one of a number of studies suggesting this link, but larger studies are needed before we can say for sure if high exposure to chlorinated water can cause bladder cancer.
"In the meantime, people shouldn't be worried every time they step into the bath, shower or swimming pool. Any potential cancer risks must be weighed against the risk of the many infectious diseases caused by improperly disinfected water."

a lot more research needs to be done as far as i can see...
Also daily mail article is not what i would base my life choices on:rolleyes:

cooperguy · 18-04-2008 11:25pm

I studied this as part of my degree, there are no negative health effects to fluoridation of the water supply. The concentration of fluoride in the water is tiny, has no effect on you but at the same time strengthens your teeth and cleans your mouth. Its win win.

Back in the good old days when they first started putting it in water they didnt know what concentrations were correct and basically used the human population as guinea pigs (which is obviously completely wrong). Some people suffered negative effects at that time and that is where all this "Fluoride is bad" stuff comes from.

Everything at the right levels and in the right form is bad for you or toxic. There is very small concentrations of a chemical in almonds that can cause serious harm or even kill you if the concentration is right/enough almonds are consumed. Should almonds be banned?

WoollyRedHat wrote:

Then why have many countries banned it? Why did the Greens spokesman for health at the time deliver a promise to remove it from our water supplies? That really doesn't sound like something that is great for you!

A politicians job is to keep himself elected. If there is enough people like you in a country then a politician will do it no matter how little evidence there is for it. That's why he said that.

<edit> In fact your own links back me up on this. You have a link in the first page that says all the bad things fluoride does to you. All the concentrations quoted for those effects are huge (between 20 and 60mg/day) This WHO document is a study on fluoride and its effects and says the average person consumes 2mg/day in a region with fluorinated water.

Wibbs · 18-04-2008 11:55pm

cooperguy wrote: »

As a guy who has studied this as part of his degree I can say here and now that there is no negative health effects to fluoridation of the water supply. The concentration of fluoride in the water is tiny, has no effect on you but at the same time strengthens your teeth and cleans your mouth. Its win win.

So it has no effect on you but strengthens your teeth? That's a pretty big effect right there. It also effects bone. BTW Where are you getting the cleans your mouth bit. Flouride encourages remineralisation of the enamel, by bonding calcium from the saliva onto the enamel of the teeth and reduces the bacterias ability to produce acid. That's it. In the concentrations we're talking about it hardly has either an antiseptic nor antibiotic effect. You're confusing colgate minty freshness there Ted.

Everything at the right levels and in the right form is bad for you or toxic.

Well duh of course. I think most people understand that. Hardly needs spelling out. That's not at issue. What's at issue is the tooth protection mechanism a good pay off for the possible side effects.

There is very small concentrations of a chemical in almonds that can cause serious harm or even kill you if the concentration is increased enough. Should almonds be banned?

Of course, even water has a toxicity level. In any case I can decide to avoid almonds(cyanide/prussic acid IIRC) or alcohol or nicotine, all of which seem to have some positive effects, but clearly more negative effects(alcohol appears to have some protection against heart disease/nicotine seems to have some protective effect against parkinsons/hyperactivity etc).

You can also look at short term versus long term effects. Short term flouride clearly helps with tooth decay, but may and I stress, may come with some concomitant negative issues that are harder to quantify. You cannot say that levels are set right without further investigation. If as you write early floridation may have caused problems, then, while we don't see the obvious problems of a larger dose, it doesn't mean those problems may not show up over time with smaller doses.

Zzippy · 19-04-2008 2:14am

Marksie wrote: »

They already have kryptonspiridium in Galway

And it tastes grrrreeeeaaaaatttttttttttttt............

Irish Halo · 19-04-2008 11:14am

The water has been fluoridated for what 40 years now? Has the instances of the conditions caused by this fluoridation gone up in that time or have I just been ignoring the fact that any over the age of 60 has Alzheimers?

Remember that is 40 ****ing years if it was killing us all we'd be dead by now.

Reverse fluoridation in our tap water petition

Comments