Water Fluoridation

King Mob · 10-07-2010 2:34pm

N8 wrote: »

perhaps you should have read a little wider on wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

I have read that as a matter of fact.
None of the health concerns are supported by science.
Even the moral concerns are based on suspect reasoning.

N8 wrote: »

Have you read them? It's hard to imagine so given their depth and time spread across this thread.

I read the abstracts, specifically the conclusions.
These are illustrative of the body of evidence supporting both effectiveness and safety of fluoridation.

Remember how you asked me for the studies that show this?
Well there they are.

Are you just going to dismiss them out of hand then?
Or are you going to at least pretend to have a proper discussion?

N8 wrote: »

I love it when a skepdick returns to this...

Pretending to be a suppressed underdog to hide the lack of evidence is a fallacy...
So I'd imagine us skepdicks return to this alot with you...

N8 wrote: »

... and statement of position is described as such...

You give out to us for not being willing to discuss or consider new evidence, yet lynnsback was the one who said "Nothing can convince me".

Now are they words "Nothing can convince me" something an open-minded person would say?

N8 wrote: »

... and then we have the classic turn of discussion and invalid comparision.

If you think a letter to the editor is a valid source of information then you've a problem.

Can yo demonstrate why my comparisions are false exactly?
Both whole fat milk and 7-up aren't good for babies, should we discontinue them?

N8 wrote: »

And you have to love the mutual back clappings (thanks to posts) and ego masturbation...

Yup they're the only way I can judge my self worth.

I don't know where I'd be without my precious thanks.....
But you're clearly just jealous cause you only have 3.

N8 · 10-07-2010 4:24pm

King Mob wrote: »

I have read that as a matter of fact.
None of the health concerns are supported by science.
Even the moral concerns are based on suspect reasoning.

King Mob · 10-07-2010 4:29pm

N8 wrote: »

Well good to know all that crap about us not "wanting to discuss" was indeed hypocritical hot air.

Suppose it's easier than having a informed and supported opinion....

N8 · 10-07-2010 4:47pm

N8 wrote: »

If you were to state black is black, many on here would argue that it is white and that you must indeed prove it is black and until you have convinced 'them' the aforementioned black will continue to be white.

And of course 'they' will always know better than you.

King Mob wrote: »

I have read that as a matter of fact.
None of the health concerns are supported by science.
Even the moral concerns are based on suspect reasoning.

sorry King's mob you're right of course - its just hard for the cynicism not to rise to the top when you self illustrate the point I made early with the retort 'my evidence is better than your evidence...' type thing...

I wish we had some real skepticism in science today instead of ego blowing skepdicks...

King Mob · 10-07-2010 5:29pm

N8 wrote: »

sorry King's mob you're right of course - its just hard for the cynicism not to rise to the top when you self illustrate the point I made early with the retort 'my evidence is better than your evidence...' type thing...

My evidence are well researched scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals.
Your evidence is... what exactly?
Uninformed, unsupported conspiracy theories?

I've supplied several studies showing both the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation like you asked for. But your reply is a Lolcat?
So yea, my evidence is better than you evidence.
Can you show otherwise?

N8 wrote: »

I wish we had some real skepticism in science today instead of ego blowing skepdicks...

So then since you are a "real skeptic" and all, can you please explain what evidence or reasoning would convince that fluoridation is safe and effective.

N8 · 10-07-2010 6:17pm

King Mob wrote: »

My evidence are well researched scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals.

indeed and this is why many scandinavian countries stopped fluoridation and the mass medication of their citizens - sure they should have been listening to you and continued a practice introduced by the soviets and nazis.

King Mob wrote: »

So then since you are a "real skeptic" and all, can you please explain what evidence or reasoning would convince that fluoridation is safe and effective.

surely this is your job my skep-dick friend?

N8 wrote: »

you have to love the mutual back clappings (thanks to posts) and ego masturbation...

King Mob wrote: »

Yup they're the only way I can judge my self worth.

says alot about you bud...

Have a good one

King Mob · 10-07-2010 6:29pm

N8 wrote: »

indeed and this is why many scandinavian countries stopped fluoridation and the mass medication of their citizens

So then you should have no problem providing the evidence they used to determine it was harmful, right?
That was why they stopped, right?

N8 wrote: »

- sure they should have been listening to you and continued a practice introduced by the soviets and nazis.

Oh no if it was introduced by the Nazi's it must mean it was bad, no need for well supported evidence!
Like smoking bans and autobahns.....
We should get rid of these things as well right?

N8 wrote: »

surely this is your job my skep-dick friend?

Oh are we throwing random baseless accusations around now?
Great, in that case I will accuse you of being in the imploy of the dentist who want people to have more cavities so they have more trips to the dentist.

N8 wrote: »

says alot about you bud...

Have a good one

So you can't identify sarcasm then... Interesting...

I love it when folk harp on about "Open and fair discussions" but then totally ignore any points that are made against them.
Especially when they prove them to be a hypocrite.

So then since you are a "real skeptic" and all, can you please explain what evidence or reasoning would convince that fluoridation is safe and effective.

Dr Galen · 10-07-2010 6:38pm

Hey all

I'm going to say this once in this thread and once only

Either people take the debate seriously, and argue their case properly, or they can stop posting here. It is simply not sufficient for anyone, on any side of any argument to randomly post things, and expect others to see their view.

This is a discussion forum, the standards expected of those posting are high. If you want to post in a rambling and repetitive manner, without backing up assertions, simply to further an agenda, then as the old boards.ie saying goes "get a blog".

If your actually interested in debate, in changing others opinions and making your case, you are totally welcome here, no matter what side of the hypothetical fence you find yourself on.

This is all I will say on the matter. If anyone disagrees with this stance, then you can follow the dispute resolution procedure of boards.ie

Do not take matters into your own hands and question on thread, as per the chater. If you feel that you cannot continue to post here, while keeping the above in mind, then you can remove yourself from the debate, or you may find your access to the forum revoked.

Cheers

DrG

RDM_83 again · 12-07-2010 1:08pm

I know the debate is about the potential adverse health affects, and the published literature clearly supports the non-health risk view, however since it is a bioactive material it may be best to be catious in its use after all look at TRICLOSAN it was in use for 30 years before being recalled. The reaason I use this argument is that the removal of vast majority of dental cover from medical card holders illustrates that dental issues are not of importance in the states duty of care to its citizens.

King Mob · 12-07-2010 1:18pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I know the debate is about the potential adverse health affects, and the published literature clearly supports the non-health risk view, however since it is a bioactive material it may be best to be catious in its use after all look at TRICLOSAN it was in use for 30 years before being recalled. The reaason I use this argument is that the removal of vast majority of dental cover from medical card holders illustrates that dental issues are not of importance in the states duty of care to its citizens.

Again it has to be pointed out that fluoridation also involves the lowering of natural levels of fluoride in water supplies to a more beneficial level.

RDM_83 again · 12-07-2010 2:31pm

I'm confused by this post, it would make sense pointing it out if we didn't treat water and took it straight from the aquifer so whats your point?
You also didn't reply to the main point of my post which is with the removal of medical card entitlements for dental care with little of no controversy indicates that dental issues are not a "health issue" and so do not fall under the duty of care.

King Mob · 12-07-2010 2:46pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm confused by this post, it would make sense pointing it out if we didn't treat water and took it straight from the aquifer so whats your point?

So how can removing excess fluoride be dangerous exactly?

RDM_83 again wrote: »

You also didn't reply to the main point of my post which is with the removal of medical card entitlements for dental care with little of no controversy indicates that dental issues are not a "health issue" and so do not fall under the duty of care.

I fail to see you point.
They probably removed (if they actually did remove) the cover because we're is a recession.
But stuff like cavities are still covered by health cards, so using fluoridation ,which as some of the studies I posted earlier show is very cost effective, the government saves a lot of money.

N8 · 19-07-2010 4:55pm

King Mob wrote: »

But stuff like cavities are still covered by health cards, so using fluoridation ,which as some of the studies I posted earlier show is very cost effective, the government saves a lot of money.

what a load of twaddle

http://worldental.org/dental-news/health-ministry-finds-that-fluoridation-does-not-reduce-tooth-decay/1300/

King Mob · 19-07-2010 5:11pm

N8 wrote: »

what a load of twaddle

http://worldental.org/dental-news/health-ministry-finds-that-fluoridation-does-not-reduce-tooth-decay/1300/

You realise I posted several studies showing that not only does reduce tooth decay, but is very cost effective at doing so.

Did you actually read any of them before you responded with a lolcat?
Did you read the study quoted in this article?

Further more that article fails to mention that fluoridation also involves taking out excess fluoride in the water supply.
But hey they must have been busy with all that advertising for "dental tourism" for fact checking.

Prime Mover · 19-07-2010 5:30pm

N8 wrote: »

what a load of twaddle

http://worldental.org/dental-news/health-ministry-finds-that-fluoridation-does-not-reduce-tooth-decay/1300/

Where is the link to the original research? I would be very surprised if it exists.

negrita · 27-07-2010 6:27pm

Considering the Irish government are getting rather excited about the prospect of selling into private hands the one natural resource that we cannot live without, using science and technology to provide yourself with your own water supply is probably a sensible technology to investigate.

Grabbing water from the atmosphere and using filtration systems and uv lighting to remove any impurities and kill and bacteria is a well established technology. A number of companies ( using mostly fear tactics as a sales tool ) sell equipment that allows you to take on the responsibility of providing your own clean water supply.

On the Met website there are 30 year averages from 1962-1991 that list humidity levels of 70-90% all year round (http://www.met.ie/climate/corkairport.asp) for the Cork region. More recent data doesn't seem to be available or I dont have the brains to find it. If you live in other parts of the country then I would check the statistics in your region for the suitability of this technology.

If you are really concerned about flouridation of water then I would suggest that you take on the responsibility of providing water for yourself.

If you trust your government to establish good practices and supply clean water with nothing in it that will cause detrimental effects then I guess you have nothing to worry about.

If you dont have the money to take on the responsibility of providing yourself with a private water supply then I guess lobbying the government is your best option.

I would seriously suggest that all those that are really concerned about flouridation of water, request samples of the flouride that is being added to public water for independant laboratory tests that will show exactly what is being added. I have made a number of requests over the last year, all of which have been ignored or refused.

I would like to think my drinking water is safe but considering the level of corruption visible in Irish politics, I am sorry i just dont trust the government anymore.

If I was able to take samples of flouride to independant laboratories I would then at least know what is being put in the water and glady share the results of these tests with everyone. I can only assume that what is being put into our water is not safe else these requests would not have been repeatedly refused.

The independant laboratories have thier own people who can collect these samples in a safe and scientific manner ensuring there can no tampering with samples so what is the big problem ?

Warrior Monk · 27-07-2010 7:41pm

I've discovered a well near where I live so I am taking my drinking water from there now. Although I still make hot drink with regular tap water in the kettle so definitely some fluoride there.

Negrita,

Could you just provide the independent lab with a sample of your tap water? Perhaps they could ascertain how much fluoride is present?

From the research I have done over the last few weeks (including info generously provided by fellow boards.ie users) I have come to the conclusion that reducing fluoride intake is what's important. Not removing it completely. So I am using low fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash. These products tend to detail the ppm (parts per million) of fluoride contained.

I hope this is helpful.

Kind regards,
Warrior Monk

WildBoots · 01-08-2010 8:46pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HboWZlznAis

MEP Kathy Sinnott discussing the mass medication of Ireland without its citizens' permission.

bleg · 01-08-2010 9:32pm

ex mep

WildBoots · 01-08-2010 9:47pm

bleg wrote: »

ex mep

Six of one,half a dozen of the other.

King Mob · 01-08-2010 11:01pm

And politicians, as we all know, are immune to believing stupid unfounded nonsense.

WildBoots · 02-08-2010 6:15pm

King Mob wrote: »

And politicians, as we all know, are immune to believing stupid unfounded nonsense.

The Irish Medicines Board declared that fluoride is "not a medicine" and has "never been proven safe or effective for use on humans." Is this the unfounded nonsense you are talking about?

bleg · 02-08-2010 8:22pm

Source please.

King Mob · 02-08-2010 8:58pm

WildBoots wrote: »

The Irish Medicines Board declared that fluoride is "not a medicine" and has "never been proven safe or effective for use on humans."

Well a quick search of their site turns up nothing of the sort.

If such a quote existed, which I doubt, you're probably taking it out of context.

So as bleg said: source please.

WildBoots wrote: »

Is this the unfounded nonsense you are talking about?

Well considering that you provided no source for the above source I would consider that unfounded nonsense.

The unfounded nonsense I was referring to was the idea that fluoridation is anything but beneficial.

I've posted a ton of studies showing exactly this.
Have you any studies showing otherwise or just more youtube videos?

locum-motion · 02-08-2010 10:13pm

WildBoots wrote: »

The Irish Medicines Board declared that fluoride is "not a medicine" ...

King Mob wrote: »

...
If such a quote existed, which I doubt, you're probably taking it out of context.
...

To attempt to provide some context; The IMB is responsible for the regulation of "medicinal products".
So if they said anything about public water supply flouridation, it would be simply to point out that it's not a medicinal product, and therefore not part of their remit.

King Mob · 02-08-2010 10:35pm

locum-motion wrote: »

To attempt to provide some context; The IMB is responsible for the regulation of "medicinal products".
So if they said anything about public water supply flouridation, it would be simply to point out that it's not a medicinal product, and therefore not part of their remit.

A similar situation with the FDA is a common bit of misinformation spread around.

WildBoots · 02-08-2010 11:55pm

locum-motion wrote: »

To attempt to provide some context; The IMB is responsible for the regulation of "medicinal products".
So if they said anything about public water supply flouridation, it would be simply to point out that it's not a medicinal product, and therefore not part of their remit.

Please remind me why fluoride is added to the water supply

bleg · 03-08-2010 12:10am

WildBoots wrote: »

Please remind me why fluoride is added to the water supply

Please provide a source.

King Mob · 03-08-2010 12:19am

WildBoots wrote: »

Please remind me why fluoride is added to the water supply

And again it has to be pointed out to another ill-informed poster that fluoridation sometimes involves the removal of excess fluoride in areas where it is elevated.

Why is chlorine added to water?

locum-motion · 03-08-2010 12:27am

WildBoots wrote: »

Please remind me why fluoride is added to the water supply

Your request makes no sense in the context in which you made it, which was in response to my post. It's a non sequitur.

WildBoots · 03-08-2010 12:27am

Some more interesting reading about fluoride:

http://www.ukcaf.org/files/ecj_ruling_on_functional_foods.pdf

WildBoots · 03-08-2010 12:32am

locum-motion wrote: »

Your request makes no sense in the context in which you made it, which was in response to my post. It's a non sequitur.

So you don't know why it's added to the water?

King Mob · 03-08-2010 12:33am

WildBoots wrote: »

Some more interesting reading about fluoride:

http://www.ukcaf.org/files/ecj_ruling_on_functional_foods.pdf

Wow that's unbiased site alright.

Also that "interesting" reading is opinion from a biased writer who continually asks for research that has already been done and shown Fluoridation to be safe, effective and money saving.

Any chance you're going to back up your claim about the IMB, or are you just going to pretend we're not calling you on this?

bleg · 03-08-2010 12:35am

WildBoots wrote: »

The Irish Medicines Board declared that fluoride is "not a medicine" and has "never been proven safe or effective for use on humans." Is this the unfounded nonsense you are talking about?

Could I get a source for this please?

WildBoots · 03-08-2010 1:02am

King Mob wrote: »

Wow that's unbiased site alright.

Also that "interesting" reading is opinion from a biased writer who continually asks for research that has already been done and shown Fluoridation to be safe, effective and money saving.

Any chance you're going to back up your claim about the IMB, or are you just going to pretend we're not calling you on this?

Are you suggesting that Kathy Sinnott is making up lies about the IMB?

King Mob · 03-08-2010 1:04am

WildBoots wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Kathy Sinnott is making up lies about the IMB?

Who's Kathy Sinnott?

Where are you getting this information from?
It's a very simple question.

WildBoots · 03-08-2010 1:06am

Isn't water fluoridation illegal anyway, as it contravenes both EU directives and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine?

The use of unregistered substances for medicinal purposes is illegal under the Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive 2001/83/EEC

The intent to medicate renders any substance presented as having any beneficial effect on a medical condition a medicinal substance under Article 1 of this Directive, irrespective of its efficacy. All medicinal substances must be registered as such, and subjected to full clinical testing for safety. Fluorosilicates have not been so registered nor tested for safety. Manufacturing these chemicals under BS EN 12174/5 does not authorise their use as medicinal substances.

The use of fluoridation chemicals to medicate the public indiscriminately violates the code of medical ethics set out in the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine

This Convention establishes a valid Code of Medical Ethics and is widely accepted throughout Europe - the failure of the British Government to endorse it does not render its provisions invalid, as all such national codes should comply with the principles set out therein. States may not medicate any individual except under exceptional conditions of recognised public health emergencies. All medical interventions must be carried out under proper medical supervision, and in accordance with the patient's needs and fully informed wishes.

King Mob · 03-08-2010 1:09am

WildBoots wrote: »

Isn't water fluoridation illegal anyway, as it contravenes both EU directives and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine?

Opinion doesn't equal law.

Sources for these claims?

WildBoots · 03-08-2010 1:24am

Fluoridation is crude and ineffective treatment, declare top European scientists

"By describing fluoridation as ‘crude and ineffective systemic fluoride treatment without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage’ to prevent dental caries, Europe’s scientific committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) has confirmed the claim of European doctors in June 2009. They stated that fluoridation is medical treatment and therefore should be subject to medicinal risk assessment, as has been demanded of the European Commission by MEPs and European Parliament committees for years".

http://voiceireland.org/water/fluoridation/fluoridation-is-crude-and-ineffective-treatment-declare-top-european-scientists/#more-576

King Mob · 03-08-2010 1:28am

WildBoots wrote: »

Fluoridation is crude and ineffective treatment, declare top European scientists

"By describing fluoridation as ‘crude and ineffective systemic fluoride treatment without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage’ to prevent dental caries, Europe’s scientific committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) has confirmed the claim of European doctors in June 2009. They stated that fluoridation is medical treatment and therefore should be subject to medicinal risk assessment, as has been demanded of the European Commission by MEPs and European Parliament committees for years".

http://voiceireland.org/water/fluoridation/fluoridation-is-crude-and-ineffective-treatment-declare-top-european-scientists/#more-576

So wildboots are you just going to continue to post trash from biased websites.

Are we ever going to see any evidence for your original claim?

locum-motion · 03-08-2010 2:33am

WildBoots wrote: »

So you don't know why it's added to the water?

I didn't say that. I just opted not to respond to your request because it was a stupid request.

sam34 · 03-08-2010 8:42am

MOD NOTE:

wildboots, you are aware that this is a scientific forum, not CT

unless you provide a direct source for your IMB claims, your posts will be deleted as the unsubstantiated scare-mongering that they are. (oh, and by "direct" i mean from the IMB, not "so and so says they said it" or some heavily biased website)

King Mob · 03-08-2010 11:06am

Now the real reason Wildboots is ignoring a very very simple question in his quest to get the truth out about fluoridation is because there is no source for this quote.

A google search only throws up 5-6 results, this page included.
The nearest I can find to a reliable article is this one:

http://www.nofluoride.com/Irish_fury_over_fluoride.cfm

The button in the top corner indicating it appeared originally in the Irish Independent.
However a search of the Indo's site does not come up with this article.

And even ignoring this, looking at the context of the quote we find even less information.
The article makes no mention of who supplied the quote or when or in what context.
So even if someone at the IMB actually said those words, they have more than likely been taken out of call context.

So Wildboots, have you anything that you add to support this ridiculous claim of yours?

opinion guy · 04-08-2010 9:13pm

Jeesh this old chestnut.

Now first let me say. I am not well read enough on this to have a strong opinion myself.

But I do know of a guy who is quite expert on it and campaigns:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-statement.htm

I also know that he has collated tonnes of evidence on the subject and has complied a 50 reasons list that is heavily referenced:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

I actually would like to read up substantially on the subject but I haven't gotten the time. Anyhow I just thought I'd kick this into the melee here for you all to pick over.

Now since you more sciencey types have been crying out for references and data from the non-sciencey types I expect you all and read all these references by Dr Connett and objectively reassess your opinions before shouting down those who don't have the benefit of a science education.

Ok ?
Enjoy

King Mob · 04-08-2010 9:41pm

Well read the list.

It's pretty crap, uninformed and biased.

1) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.

Totally irrelevant.
No one is claiming that it is a nutrient. And no one is claiming that it's required to have healthy teeth, just that having it in the water increases dental health.

2) Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the US

Cause most fluoridate their salt.

3) Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. .

No it's not. I posted a ream of studies showing both the effectiveness and safety of fluoride.
And that was only from the first few pages of searching.

4) Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).

When I looked up one of these studies, imagine my surprise when I found them to be taken out of context.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780

A possible explanation for this unexpected finding and for the good oral health status of the children in La Salud is the effect of the school mouthrinsing programme, which has involved fortnightly mouthrinses with 0.2% NaF solutions (i.e. 15 times/year) since 1990.

5) There have been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US cities (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, New York City) which have been fluoridated for over 20 years. There appears to be a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and income level than with water fluoride levels.

No source for this one.

6) Modern research (e.g. Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997, and De Liefde, 1998) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized. Many other factors influence tooth decay. Some recent studies have found that tooth decay actually increases as the fluoride concentration in the water increases (Olsson 1979; Retief 1979; Mann 1987, 1990; Steelink 1992; Teotia 1994; Grobleri 2001; Awadia 2002 and Ekanayake 2002).

I wouldn't exactly call stuides from the 70's "modern" or "recent"

7) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged the findings of many leading dental researchers, that the mechanism of fluoride's benefits are mainly TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC.

Again irrelevant and dishonestly presented.

8) Despite being prescribed by doctors for over 50 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective. Fluoride supplements are designed to deliver the same amount of fluoride as ingested daily from fluoridated water (Kelly 2000).

Again shockingly no source for this.

9) The US fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e. to lower dental decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis (mottled and discolored enamel), a condition known to be caused by fluoride.

10) Dental fluorosis means that a child has been overdosed on fluoride.

And yet again it has to be pointed out for what must be the eighth time:
Fluoridation sometimes involves the removal of excess fluoride in the water supply.

And this is just the first ten nonsense claims. But they aren't the worse.

12) Fluoride is a cumulative poison. On average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm.

This is blatant unsupported scaremongering at it's worse.

opinion guy · 04-08-2010 9:58pm

Well like i said its not my issue I don't consider myself read enough to have an informed opinion. So most of what you said I'm not going to argue with.

But:

King Mob wrote: »

12) Fluoride is a cumulative poison. On average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm.

This is blatant unsupported scaremongering at it's worse.

Which bit is blatant unsupported scaremongering at it's worst ?
50% being retained ?
Accumulation in bones, pineal gland, other tissues
The bit about impairment of kidney functioning leading to more retention

King Mob · 04-08-2010 10:04pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Well like i said its not my issue I don't consider myself read enough to have an informed opinion. So most of what you said I'm not going to argue with.

To be honest you don't need to be well read to notice that the site is incredibly biased.

opinion guy wrote: »

Which bit is blatant unsupported scaremongering at it's worst ?
50% being retained ?
Accumulation in bones, pineal gland, other tissues
The bit about impairment of kidney functioning leading to more retention

The fact that none of it is backed up.
The fact that the number is seemingly made up.
The fact that it doesn't factor in the fluoride expelled after a day.

And if your kidney is impaired you have much more pressing problems.

It's pretty much the same as saying "if you swallow water while you lung is collapsed it'll cause harm. Therefore do not drink water."

opinion guy · 04-08-2010 10:24pm

King Mob wrote: »

The fact that none of it is backed up.
The fact that the number is seemingly made up.
The fact that it doesn't factor in the fluoride expelled after a day.

How do you know ? Have you checked ? How do you know it doens't factored in fluoride expelled after a day ? And I don't mean read some epidemiological studies. I mean read up on the basic science on the half-life of fluoride, its pharmacodynamics. You do know that if the rate of excretion, which is dependent on the halflife (usually), is lower than the rate of ingestion then fluoride will bio-accumulate? And you also realise that differences in genetic makeup will mean that these figures are different for different people, yes ?

You see - I don't know those things about fluoride either. I'd like to read up on them but as I said I havne't got the time. But until I do I wouldn't go making the wild assumptions of what these facts are as you have just done.

Oh and by the way - you can have kidney impairment without being symptomatic of kidney disease. Quite significantly so in fact. if memory serves you can remain asymptomatic until you've lust up to 70% of your nephrons. Trouble is people like that, who are numerous are more susceptible to micro-toxins than the 'average man' results of large scale epidemiology studies.

King Mob · 04-08-2010 10:47pm

opinion guy wrote: »

How do you know ? Have you checked ? How do you know it doens't factored in fluoride expelled after a day ? And I don't mean read some epidemiological studies. I mean read up on the basic science on the half-life of fluoride, its pharmacodynamics. You do know that if the rate of excretion, which is dependent on the halflife (usually), is lower than the rate of ingestion then fluoride will bio-accumulate? And you also realise that differences in genetic makeup will mean that these figures are different for different people, yes ?

I know he doesn't back up those claims because he doesn't provide any references for them.

opinion guy wrote: »

You see - I don't know those things about fluoride either. I'd like to read up on them but as I said I havne't got the time. But until I do I wouldn't go making the wild assumptions of what these facts are as you have just done.

Again what wild assumptions have I made? That he hasn't backed up those claims?
How can it be an assumption if it's patently true?

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh and by the way - you can have kidney impairment without being symptomatic of kidney disease. Quite significantly so in fact. if memory serves you can remain asymptomatic until you've lust up to 70% of your nephrons. Trouble is people like that, who are numerous are more susceptible to micro-toxins than the 'average man' results of large scale epidemiology studies.

And those with collapsed lungs are much more at risk from a lot more things.
But you can't honestly use the example of this person as illustrative of normal people.

But the guy who wrote this trashy article had no problems with making a dishonest argument.
This isn't the only one he makes.

opinion guy · 04-08-2010 10:57pm

King Mob wrote: »

I know he doesn't back up those claims because he doesn't provide any references for them.

Again what wild assumptions have I made? That he hasn't backed up those claims?
How can it be an assumption if it's patently true?

No no no. Hes I asked you about very specific points of fact. So he didn't reference them. Look them up and disprove them. You are the one casting everything out as biased - the onus is on you. You are making the assumptions that the figure of 50% is wrong. That it has a short half-life. The fluoride does not bioaccumulate. Apparently you don't even realise you made these assumptions.

Forget this guy and his argument. Here are some simple questions on fluoride that you surely must know the answers to given the strenght of your assertions. Simple answers here - yes, no, figures or I don't know will do.
1. Is fluoride a cumulative poison ?
2. What is its half life ?
3. Does it accumulate in bones, pineal gland and other tissues?
4. What are its half-lives in bones, pineal glands and other tissues ?
5. Is fluoride excreted by the kidneys?
6. Is the excretion rate via the kidneys 50% of the absorbed dose ?
7. how is this excretion impaired by reduced kidney function ?

So please answer simply.

Water Fluoridation

Comments