Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fluoride endgame approaches....

Options
24567…22

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    I don't mind some tap water, but where I live now, it's very hard and tastes disgusting
    we use a jug filter thingy


  • Options
    #33
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    It's worth pointing out that fluoride is tasteless, so the nastiness of certain region's tap water is down to other factors. Whether the Nazis were involved I can't say for sure.


  • Options
    #34
    hardCopy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    bren50c wrote: »
    Yeah op you need to chill out and enjoy life

    That's just what Rothschilds would want the sheeple to do!


  • Options
    #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Fluoride endgame sounds like a pretty **** video game to me.


  • Options
    #36
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    No problem with tap water here. We use a filter jug because it's nice to have a couple of litres of cold water in the fridge, but I've no problem drinking from the tap.

    It's probably the reason why I've no fillings or problems with my teeth despite decades of poor dental hygiene.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Junior D
    Registered Users Posts: 563 ✭✭✭Junior D


    The Nazi's added a load of other chemicals to the water in the hope it would calm or sedate the population


  • Options
    #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,025 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    hardCopy wrote: »
    That's just what Rothschilds would want the sheeple to do!

    What do the Rothschilds family have to do with flouride? never heard them mentioned in same sentence as flouride before :)


  • Options
    #39
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Junior D wrote: »
    The Nazi's added a load of other chemicals to the water in the hope it would calm or sedate the population

    I heard it was MiWadi. Preferred squash of all totalitarian regimes.


  • Options
    #40
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    alastair wrote: »
    It's worth pointing out that fluoride is tasteless, so the nastiness of certain region's tap water is down to other factors. Whether the Nazis were involved I can't say for sure.

    More to do with the chlorine, imo. Most water filters don't remove the fluoride either so if people are having a problem with the tap water and find the problem goes away with use of a jug filter then the problem is not the fluoride.


  • Options
    #41
    Sea Filly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭Sea Filly


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I don't mind some tap water, but where I live now, it's very hard and tastes disgusting
    we use a jug filter thingy

    I LOVE hard water, has such a nice bite to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Cienciano
    Registered Users Posts: 14,248 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    Junior D wrote: »
    Those anti-Fluoride groups are actually some of the stupidest people I've ever seen. They just like to report the sensationalist, untrue claims. I've seen one website which claimed Fluoride was a method of brain control and it turns your brain to mush.

    Just read a few anti flouride websites. It takes about 10 seconds to google each of their claims to realise it's either bullshite.
    What a bizarre thing to get caught up in, against something like this. Just pick a random thing and pretend the government are somehow out to get us!
    Chemtrails is another one.


  • Options
    #43
    Lawliet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,761 ✭✭✭Lawliet


    I'd rather drink tap water; it's under much stricter regulation than bottled water. Boiling and filtering water doesn't get rid of fluorine, you'd need a osmosis filter to remove the molecules.
    Fluorine is tasteless -it's chlorine that has a taste and smell.
    Also I can't think of anything in water that would react with fluorine to give a brown precipitate, I think a more likely cause would be iron in the water supply from rusty pipes.


  • Options
    #44
    mauzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,033 ✭✭✭mauzo


    When I was a child I went months without brushing my teeth, literally. I smoke, drink, eat sugary foods, lots of fruit and wine.

    My family have awful teeth. Both parents look awful, missing teeth, false teeth, rotten teeth etc. My sister's front tooth is completely black.

    I have great teeth, I think? They are really white, I brush 3 times a day, no fillings. Just one missing tooth at the back :(

    I always drink tap water, my son drinks tap water......

    Apparently over half of irish people aren't happy with their smile. I just heard that on tv3, maybe it was 30%?!


  • Options
    #45
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    Has anyone mentioned the household charge yet?




    *gets coat before they do


  • Options
    #46
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Cienciano wrote: »
    What a bizarre thing to get caught up in, against something like this. Just pick a random thing and pretend the government are somehow out to get us!
    Chemtrails is another one.
    I reckon that contrary to popular belief, the people who get caught up in this stuff are actually quite intelligent but have just missed something in their critical evaluation of the information, or lack the experience to critically evaluate the theories presented. They show a strong ability to thread together known information and apply it to new scenarios and new information.

    I have a good friend who has in recent years gotten a little caught up in this stuff. He's an intelligent guy but comes from a bad background and didn't exactly have a stunning education. He absorbs information like a sponge, but doesn't really know how to filter it properly. So when someone explains something to him (such as flouridation) from the anti-government slant, he sees no reason to doubt them (the arguments are compelling if you have no reason to doubt the speaker) and gets caught up in it.
    Like most conspiracy theories, they can then tend to feed off eachother. So if you take it for granted that governments are surreptitiously medicating populations with flouride, you will easily accept that they could also spray chemicals from the air.

    Unless you possess the knowledge or experience to realise that the logistics of the latter are far beyond the resources of any Government, then you could easily accept it as a plausible and strong theory. But it doesn't mean the believer is stupid.


  • Options
    #47
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    Ahh at last someone else takes the headwind in regards to water fluoridation here in Ireland and the dangers of it. I have been harping on about this toxic soup for years and the studies done finally show and prove the dangers, so all the dentists that attacked me in the past should now get on their knees and kiss the hand of zod.

    I know you don't want to but kiss my hand and say sorry.


  • Options
    #48
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Junior D wrote: »
    I know I'm probably going to sound harsh, but the stupidity of some people can just be mind-boggling at times. Do you really think the government, as bad as they are, would leave Fluoride in our water supplies if it was a neurotoxin and caused all those problems claimed?? Do you think the toothpaste companies would put Fluoride in toothpaste if it had all those problems claimed??

    At extremely high levels, Fluoride can be dangerous, but in Ireland its level in drinking water is only around 0.8p.p.m.. It cannot be proven that its involved in increasing the risk of bone fractures and if anything was disproven at the levels involved in drinking water, same with increasing the risk of cancer and all those other bs claims.

    OP if you're actually interested in finding out real info about Fluoride, read this:
    http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/background/fluoridation_forum_summary.pdf

    Those anti-Fluoride groups are actually some of the stupidest people I've ever seen. They just like to report the sensationalist, untrue claims. I've seen one website which claimed Fluoride was a method of brain control and it turns your brain to mush.


    I think its pretty stupid to try and convince people of something by first telling them they are stupid.


  • Options
    #49
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    zenno wrote: »
    Ahh at last someone else takes the headwind in regards to water fluoridation here in Ireland and the dangers of it. I have been harping on about this toxic soup for years and the studies done finally show and prove the dangers, so all the dentists that attacked me in the past should now get on their knees and kiss the hand of zod.

    I know you don't want to but kiss my hand and say sorry.

    Well, if you're right I'm certain they might consider it.
    Until then.....


  • Options
    #50
    wendell borton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭wendell borton


    This whole flouride conspiracy is a smoke screen perpetrated to take attention away from the realy scary stuff found in the supply.
    Hydronium Hydroxide is also in the pipes, deadly stuff responsible for innumerable deaths. http://www.dhmo.org/.


  • Options
    #51
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    I don't buy into the whole conspiracy aspect of it, or believe that it's overly dangerous... that stuff actually takes away from the arguments against fluoridation and is usually brought up by those on the pro-fluoridation side to discredit and belittle any and all opposing views.

    It's an outdated and regressive way to tackle the problem of dental caries. Fluoride is in basically every foodstuff that you eat and drink, so there's no reason to add it wholesale to water supplies these days. If people want to consume supplemental fluoride then they should purchase it in salt or tablet form. It shouldn't be pumped into everyone's home just because a few people are too stupid or too lazy to properly brush their teeth.

    Better education on dental hygiene, together with supervised school rinsing programs from an early age has been shown to massively decrease the levels of DMFT's in Cuba (over 50% reduction after just a few years). Surely a more directly targeted approach like that is a better idea.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    My name is URL wrote: »
    It's an outdated and regressive way to tackle the problem of dental caries. Fluoride is in basically every foodstuff that you eat and drink, so there's no reason to add it wholesale to water supplies these days. If people want to consume supplemental fluoride then they should purchase it in salt or tablet form. It shouldn't be pumped into everyone's home just because a few people are too stupid or too lazy to properly brush their teeth.

    On the other hand - if it does no harm - what harm in employing an outdated delivery mechanism - even if only for the benefit of those who don't brush properly?


  • Options
    #53
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    My name is URL wrote: »
    It's an outdated and regressive way to tackle the problem of dental caries. Fluoride is in basically every foodstuff that you eat and drink, so there's no reason to add it wholesale to water supplies these days.
    Isn't the reason it's in practically everything though, because it's added to the water supply? Manufacturers use the same water - if it's in their water, it'll be in their food. Remove it from their water and it will disappear from the food.

    "Just because a few people are too stupid or too lazy to brush their teeth" is the same argument that could be made for a lot of things that Governments do for the protection of populations as a whole. Why make seatbelts mandatory just because some people are too stupid or too lazy to wear them?

    The benefits of flouridation strongly outweigh the negatives. That alone is enough. If someone objects that strongly to it, they can source their own water.


  • Options
    #54
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    alastair wrote: »
    On the other hand - if it does no harm - what harm in employing an outdated delivery mechanism - even if only for the benefit of those who don't brush properly?

    But there is no proof that it does not harm.
    And this review says there is some evidence pointing to some harm (I still can't download the full paper for some reason so going by the abstract).

    So should the precautionary principle not kick in then ? If there is little benefit and possible harm then why do it ?


  • Options
    #55
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    After getting a dose of the crypto, I refuse to drink tap water in Galway anymore. The stuff is rank and yet we've to pay for it :D


  • Options
    #56
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    opinion guy wrote: »
    But there is no proof that it does not harm.
    And this review says there is some evidence pointing to some harm (I still can't download the full paper for some reason so going by the abstract).

    There's ample proof it does no harm.

    The paper says massive doses of fluoride are toxic in certain circumstances. That's got nothing to do with the low level dosing in public fluoridation programmes. Water itself is toxic in large doses.

    Why continue fluoridation? For the good that it does do.


  • Options
    #57
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    seamus wrote: »
    Isn't the reason it's in practically everything though, because it's added to the water supply? Manufacturers use the same water - if it's in their water, it'll be in their food. Remove it from their water and it will disappear from the food.

    "Just because a few people are too stupid or too lazy to brush their teeth" is the same argument that could be made for a lot of things that Governments do for the protection of populations as a whole. Why make seatbelts mandatory just because some people are too stupid or too lazy to wear them?

    The benefits of flouridation strongly outweigh the negatives. That alone is enough. If someone objects that strongly to it, they can source their own water.

    Give people a choice is what I say, If they stopped fluoridating the water supply then great, as for anyone that wants fluoride they can purchase it in many ways instead. Take it firstly out of the water supply and as above poster said it will be out of the food as well over time and if any narky person wants their feed of fluoride then they can purchase it. Everyone is happy then.


  • Options
    #58
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    seamus wrote: »
    The benefits of flouridation strongly outweigh the negatives. That alone is enough. If someone objects that strongly to it, they can source their own water.

    How far can that be taken though? Many things have benefits which for some people; will outweigh the negatives.

    I'm sure you've heard about the 'adding lithium to water supplies' story... it may never happen, but it is being considered by some quarters.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1202/1224308474582.html
    http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2009/05/lithium-for-water-supply.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8025454.stm
    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/15/lithium-water-suicide.html

    Doing that would undoubtedly be beneficial to some people (the tiny minority that are at risk of suicide)... but would you be okay with it? Wouldn't it undoubtedly have an undesirable effect on some people also?


  • Options
    #59
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    My name is URL wrote: »
    ....
    Doing that would undoubtedly be beneficial to some people (the tiny minority that are at risk of suicide)... but would you be okay with it? Wouldn't it undoubtedly have an undesirable effect on some people also?
    Apples and oranges, really; flouride doesn't affect mood.

    In principle if there was a large, controlled study showing that trace amounts of lithium added to the water would result in a lowering of the suicide rate without affecting the rest of the population as a whole, then no I wouldn't have any major issue with it.

    You weigh up the benefits. If the positives strongly outweigh the negatives (as they do with flouride), then why not?
    With lithium it's a lot less straightforward since while it may result in a reduction in suicides, you don't know if there are knock-on effects to the mental state of the rest of the population, such as causing sleep difficulties, interacting poorly with alcohol, and about a billion other possible mental side-effects.

    As it is, proper flouridation of the water has not been proven to have any negative effects except for some mild cases of dental flourosis, which on balance is more desirable than tooth decay and disease.

    The comparison with lithium is invalid, it's a strawman.

    Do you object to them adding chlorine to the water supply? If not, why not?


  • Options
    #60
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    seamus wrote: »
    Apples and oranges, really; flouride doesn't affect mood.

    In principle if there was a large, controlled study showing that trace amounts of lithium added to the water would result in a lowering of the suicide rate without affecting the rest of the population as a whole, then no I wouldn't have any major issue with it.

    You weigh up the benefits. If the positives strongly outweigh the negatives (as they do with flouride), then why not?
    With lithium it's a lot less straightforward since while it may result in a reduction in suicides, you don't know if there are knock-on effects to the mental state of the rest of the population, such as causing sleep difficulties, interacting poorly with alcohol, and about a billion other possible mental side-effects.

    As it is, proper flouridation of the water has not been proven to have any negative effects except for some mild cases of dental flourosis, which on balance is more desirable than tooth decay and disease.

    The comparison with lithium is invalid, it's a strawman.

    Do you object to them adding chlorine to the water supply? If not, why not?

    Mass medication of the population is not the answer, and I have a problem with it like many others. If a person is feeling suicidal it is up to them or family/friends to try and get the person help and the correct drugs to help them but putting lithium in the main water supply that babies will be drinking is just insane. Mass medication on a scale like this in the countrys main water system is going to bring up a human rights issue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    seamus wrote: »
    I reckon that contrary to popular belief, the people who get caught up in this stuff are actually quite intelligent but have just missed something in their critical evaluation of the information, or lack the experience to critically evaluate the theories presented. They show a strong ability to thread together known information and apply it to new scenarios and new information.

    I have a good friend who has in recent years gotten a little caught up in this stuff. He's an intelligent guy but comes from a bad background and didn't exactly have a stunning education. He absorbs information like a sponge, but doesn't really know how to filter it properly. So when someone explains something to him (such as flouridation) from the anti-government slant, he sees no reason to doubt them (the arguments are compelling if you have no reason to doubt the speaker) and gets caught up in it.
    Like most conspiracy theories, they can then tend to feed off eachother. So if you take it for granted that governments are surreptitiously medicating populations with flouride, you will easily accept that they could also spray chemicals from the air.

    Unless you possess the knowledge or experience to realise that the logistics of the latter are far beyond the resources of any Government, then you could easily accept it as a plausible and strong theory. But it doesn't mean the believer is stupid.


    The problem is though - all info must be judged with equal skepticism. Whilst you describe one bias in this argument, its abundently clear that those pro-fluoridation are also biased and cherry picking studies that back them up.

    The reality is more complex than either side allows.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement