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 in tap water

Options
1…3536384041…103

Comments

  • Options
    #1112
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    I thought we were in agreement that "hexafluorisilic" was a banned biocide ? And it's added to our water.
    .. I linked to it in my first post today.. It's down the bottom there...

    http://www.istas.net/risctox/en/dn_risctox_lista.asp?f=biocidas_prohibidas

    We also agreed it wasn't relevant because if thr chemistry involved.


  • Options
    #1113
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Treora wrote: »
    Wow, what on earth do you want to achieve from water flouridation if not better quality teeth in children and teenagers. The shifting of money €60 million (including insurance costs) from importing fluoride and the misuse of technicians and council workers to teachers having an oral hygiene daily routine for children is the only thing that has proven that Sweden has moved from DMFT @ 15 of 2.8+ to .7 at a time when Ireland moved from 2.6 (your 1984 report reference) to 2.6 (Cork research referenced over four times in this thread) ! This can be done while making a 97% saving.



    Fluoridation is an expensive failure.




    How do you have such a distorted way of thinking? Who do you want to help and why? I bet that you cannot think of the last time you have changed your opinion on anything. Try and think back to see if you have done it within the last decade. I doubt that you can, pity. That is all that one can feel for someone that cannot change.

    Why do accept the findings of the Swedish but not the opinions of Prof Whelton that fluoridation is effective and safe and in Irelands case still needed? It was Wheltons report that highlighted the Swedish study. She weighed up all the evidence before coming to her conclusion.

    It seems to me from your earlier u turn on Prof Whelton that you decided on your stance before looking at the evidence and are now trying to find research backing your stance other wise you would have read her report fully and realised she agreed with fluoridation. That is a truly distorted way of thinking.


  • Options
    #1114
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Do any of the regulars on this thread sell water filters by any chance?

    The girl against fluoride is some sort of nonsense alternative health bull practitioner so this is definitely good for business from her point of view. I suspect the conspiracy her is to drum up business for alt health scammers.


  • Options
    #1115
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Ok, fair enough, but us Irish have the highest rates of neurological and cardiovascular illnesses and the highest in diabetes in Europe.

    None of the above have any relationship with fluoridation. I love the way these terrible sounding claims are just thrown out there without a care in the world (or an ounce of evidence).


  • Options
    #1116
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    I thought we were in agreement that "hexafluorisilic" was a banned biocide ? And it's added to our water.
    .. I linked to it in my first post today.. It's down the bottom there...

    http://www.istas.net/risctox/en/dn_risctox_lista.asp?f=biocidas_prohibidas

    It's clearly not a banned substance. It's sold commercially within the EU.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1117
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Treora wrote: »
    Wow, what on earth do you want to achieve from water flouridation if not better quality teeth in children and teenagers.

    That's what it provides. The fact that there's better outcomes elsewhere doesn't mean that fluoridation doesn't provide a benefit here. Given that we have a better outcomes than in NI, it demonstrates we'd just be that much worse than the Swedes without fluoridation. As your Professor Whelton demonstrated.


  • Options
    #1118
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    alastair wrote: »
    It's clearly not a banned substance. It's sold commercially within the EU.

    It clearly is banned.. I even provided a link..


  • Options
    #1119
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    It clearly is banned.. I even provided a link..
    It's banned from use as a pesticide, not for other uses.


  • Options
    #1120
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    It clearly is banned.. I even provided a link..

    Did you actually check on the entry for the chemical?
    http://www.istas.net/risctox/en/dn_risctox_ficha_sustancia.asp?id_sustancia=954187

    It's got an EINECS classification - as a commercial chemical within the EU.
    http://www.istas.net/risctox/en/ver_definicion.asp?id=85

    Any mention of a ban here on the chemical info page?
    http://www.ilo.org/dyn/icsc/showcard.display?p_lang=en&p_card_id=1233


  • Options
    #1121
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's banned from use as a pesticide, not for other uses.

    This.

    A banned biocide is not a banned chemical. It's commercially marketed and sold quite legally as a fluoridation chemical.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1122
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    alastair wrote: »
    This.

    A banned biocide is not a banned chemical. It's commercially marketed and sold quite legally as a fluoridation chemical.

    As well as for many other uses:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid#Uses

    Using the word banned implies that it is legal to sell and own it. This is not the case.
    However if anti fluordationists were to describe it's status accurately: that it is banned from use as a pesticide, then the irrelevance is plainly visible.


  • Options
    #1123
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    However if anti fluordationists were to describe it's status accurately: that it is banned from use as a pesticide, then the irrelevance is plainly visible.

    Its funny though that some of the earliest opponents to fluoridation were biochemists.


  • Options
    #1124
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    Its funny though that some of the earliest opponents to fluoridation were biochemists.

    Just as some of the earliest advocates were. Given that it's their field, it's not particularly surprising they would take an interest, is it?

    http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/yiamouyiannis.html


  • Options
    #1125
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    You purposely mislead people by saying it is banned in Europe when you know otherwise and have just admitted so because saying something is banned suggests it is dangerous.

    You are misleading in responding to my minority point by saying the UK have fluoridation

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86612280&postcount=1080

    But you fail to mention that its only 10% in the UK (a minority)
    jh79 wrote: »
    You gave one example of a banning I can't remember if it was verified but I do recall the health minister involved was a member of the green party rather than a professional in an appropriate field.

    That answer makes no sense at all
    jh79 wrote: »
    From now on why not post the truth that some EU countries do and some don't rather than pretending it is banned europe wide.

    i refer to my first answer in this post ... i asked you the percentage of population that has fluoridated water in the UK regarding it being a minority .... your answer that "it was not important" is misleading
    jh79 wrote: »
    The % fluoridation in the UK is not important, the government , based on the advice of their scientific and medical advisors, allow it because it is proven to be safe and effective. It is up to the respective councils to decide if they want it.

    And yet not even 10% of the councils decide to use this biggest achievement of the 20th century ....... why not ?


  • Options
    #1126
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    Just as some of the earliest advocates were. Given that it's their field, it's not particularly surprising they would take an interest, is it?

    http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/yiamouyiannis.html

    Not at all ..... but their interest grew to a genuine concern, and made them decide to oppose it


  • Options
    #1127
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    And yet not even 10% of the councils decide to use this biggest achievement of the 20th century ....... why not ?

    Any of those UK councils claiming that it's
    1. banned
    2. dangerous to health
    3. of no benefit?

    And who made the claim that it was the "biggest achievement of the 20th century "? Straw man arguments are kinda juvenile, wouldn't you say?


  • Options
    #1128
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Don't know if it was posted earlier




    Interesting in what could be the reasoning

    Maybe we can try to focus on what they say instead of who says it ...


  • Options
    #1129
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    Not at all ..... but their interest grew to a genuine concern, and made them decide to oppose it

    You'll find the same for immunisation, x-rays, chemotherapy, and any other area of medical progressions. There are minority contrarians in every field - it doesn't make their position any more credible.


  • Options
    #1130
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    Any of those UK councils claiming that it's
    1. banned
    2. dangerous to health
    3. of no benefit?

    And who made the claim that it was the "biggest achievement of the 20th century "? Straw man arguments are kinda juvenile, wouldn't you say?

    sorry one of the biggest
    One of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

    Is that still a straw-man thingy ?


  • Options
    #1131
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    You'll find the same for immunisation, x-rays, chemotherapy, and any other area of medical progressions. There are minority contrarians in every field - it doesn't make their position any more credible.

    Who are you to decide what is credible ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1132
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    Any of those UK councils claiming that it's
    1. banned
    2. dangerous to health
    3. of no benefit?

    Strange that they are not using this magnificent, perfectly safe one fits all solution for our dental health then.

    Like you said
    There are minority contrarians in every field - it doesn't make their position any more credible.


  • Options
    #1133
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    Interesting in what could be the reasoning

    The reasoning for what? Six minutes of disgruntled anti-fluoridation advocates presenting no facts whatsoever?


  • Options
    #1134
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    Strange that they are not using this magnificent, perfectly safe one fits all solution for our dental health then.

    Not really. There's no obligation to fluoridate.

    Remind me again who claimed it as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century?


  • Options
    #1135
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    Who are you to decide what is credible ?

    The science behind the argument is what determines credibility. Can't speak for what mechanisms you apply.


  • Options
    #1136
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    The reasoning for what? Six minutes of disgruntled anti-fluoridation advocates presenting no facts whatsoever?


    I didn't know you needed facts to have a debate


  • Options
    #1137
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    Not really. There's no obligation to fluoridate.

    Remind me again who claimed it as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century?

    http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/


  • Options
    #1138
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    The science behind the argument is what determines credibility. Can't speak for what mechanisms you apply.


    Then what is wrong with the science the biochemists used to reach their conclusion? be specific


  • Options
    #1139
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/

    I guess the CDC might be a little blinkered to health advancements outside their particular field.


  • Options
    #1140
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    Then what is wrong with the science the biochemists used to reach their conclusion? be specific

    I'm not going to revisit the reports and references already presented in this thread. The overwhelming scientific consensus regarding fluoridation is in direct contradiction with the health claims made by the anti-fluoridation lobby.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1141
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    I'm not going to revisit the reports and references already presented in this thread. The overwhelming scientific consensus regarding fluoridation is in direct contradiction with the health claims made by the anti-fluoridation lobby.

    Of course you wouldn't because claiming lack of credibility is different then actually presenting it


    And again

    you said
    Any of those UK councils claiming that it's
    1. banned
    2. dangerous to health
    3. of no benefit?

    Does the position of these councils being a minority in the UK make their position any less credible ?. using your criteria i say they are


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement