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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dublin City Council votes against water fluoridation

  • 07-10-2014 12:50pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭


    DCC takes an anti-science stance, pandering to the fluoride hysteria.
    Luckily, they can't actually implement anything but all the same, depressing that the majority of elected Dublin councillors take such a ridiculous position.

    source


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    When is the vote to introduce Creationism into science classes?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    Lockstep wrote: »
    DCC takes an anti-science stance, pandering to the fluoride hysteria.

    Next we will hear that they want to ban dihydrogen monoxide from the water supply, now where would that leave us?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    The councillor admitted the issue is a “quagmire” but said that he has been reading up on it over the past few years. He said that the council is “calling on the Government to do something here – the onus is on the Government to do something”.

    He added that Ireland is only one of eight countries in the world that fluoridates its water.

    “There’s a lot of questions to be answered,” he said. “My argument is it’s universal medication, it’s one size fits all, but even the World Health Organisation, which recommends fluoride, recommends it – but only where intake of fluoride is known.”

    He argued it would be impossible to know exactly how much fluoride each individual in Ireland uses.

    What nonsense. The intake (not use) of fluoride in Ireland is well known - the WHO's concern is excessive ingestion of fluoride - there's no naturally high-fluoride water sources in Ireland, and local authorities (and Irish Water when they take over) constantly measure fluoride levels in public water. Unless the councillor believes there's been an outbreak of toothpaste eating, there's no mystery on fluoride intake nationally.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    K.Flyer wrote: »
    Next we will hear that they want to ban dihydrogen monoxide from the water supply, now where would that leave us?

    Low fat water.

    Its a tokenistic vote.
    However I wouldn't weep if fluoride was indeed removed.

    Almost all of Europe seem to be surviving.
    I reckon we would to.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Low fat water.

    Its a tokenistic vote.
    However I wouldn't weep if fluoride was indeed removed.

    Almost all of Europe seem to be surviving.
    I reckon we would to.

    We'd probably do as well as they do in the North. Which is to say; slightly higher levels of tooth decay.

    It's the misinformed faux 'dangers' that annoy me about the anti-fluoridation debate.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    Fluoride is only supposed to be used topically, it was never meant to be ingested. The amounts of Fluoride intake from tap water and food of which would be made using fluoridated Irish water are too much. This is the problem, as well as being force-medicated.

    A persons teeth are not in their stomach.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25 Worple


    Excellent move by the council, will save millions of Euro each year


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Fluoride is only supposed to be used topically, it was never meant to be ingested.
    Says who?
    The amounts of Fluoride intake from tap water and food of which would be made using fluoridated Irish water are too much.
    No they're not - they're well within international safe levels.
    This is the problem, .
    It's not really.
    as well as being force-medicated.
    There you go - the only real justified argument against water fluoridation.
    A persons teeth are not in their stomach.
    Correct. Fluoride does nothing to anyone's stomach.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    The main debate about fluoride is that folk want to be given a choice. For folk that want fluoride, they can purchase it in toothpaste as we all know and also tablet-form. If fluoride is removed from the water mains system then folk have the choice whether to purchase it or not.

    Both sides on the debate will be happy then.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Worple wrote: »
    Excellent move by the council, will save millions of Euro each year

    It won't save a cent. It won't actually impact on anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,399 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Aren't DCC under the control of SF now ?

    It's their agenda to call on the Govt. to do all sorts of stuff that the Govt. are not likely to do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    I don't see what the fuss is about. All a person has to do is brush their teeth and there ye go, problem solved. There's no need for it in the main water system, and spread to foodstuffs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Cianmcliam


    Fluoride is only supposed to be used topically, it was never meant to be ingested. The amounts of Fluoride intake from tap water and food of which would be made using fluoridated Irish water are too much. This is the problem, as well as being force-medicated.

    A persons teeth are not in their stomach.

    Fluoride works systemically as well as topically, when it is ingested it becomes available in the saliva in the mouth and it has also been shown to make teeth that have not even erupted yet more resistant to decay in infants.

    The fact is that toothpaste does not fully replace the action of fluoride that is ingested, people that have access to both have significantly better dental health than people who have only access to one or none.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    In your opinion.

    You are missing the point. A large amount of Irish citizens do not want their water treated/medicated with fluoride. They want to have a choice to be able to drink water without the fluoride. And also want to be able to eat Irish produced foodstuffs without fluoride in this food.

    Folk will be paying a lot to IW soon, and if they want fluoride out of the water-system they should remove it. folk that want it in the water-system can purchase fluoride tablets and drop them into your water and drink it. So why is this fair scenario a problem I ask you ?.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    A large amount of Irish citizens do not want their water treated/medicated with fluoride. They want to have a choice to be able to drink water without the flouride.

    Seems reasonable.

    Leave the water unflouridated & issue packs of delicious sodium fluorosilicate to those who want it.

    The nanny-staters get their fluoride, the tinfoil hatters live without the governments mind control chemical.

    Everybody wins!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    In your opinion.

    The objective measurements of tooth decay difference between here and NI are a bit more than just opinion. Belt and braces produces better outcomes than belt or brace alone.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Seems reasonable.

    Leave the water unflouridated & issue packs of delicious sodium fluorosilicate to those who want it.

    The nanny-staters get their fluoride, the tinfoil hatters live without the governments mind control chemical.

    Everybody wins!


    Too high a cost to that.

    Cheapest way is to keep everything as it is and tell the tinhatters to buy extra water for teeth and drinking.

    Unless they are suggesting that bathing in flouridated water is injurious to health?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,721 ✭✭✭✭AndyBoBandy


    A persons teeth are not in their stomach.
    Exactly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    alastair wrote: »
    The objective measurements of tooth decay difference between here and NI are a bit more than just opinion. Belt and braces produces better outcomes than belt or brace alone.

    And link to which councillors voted which way? Might make an interesting read


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Grudaire wrote: »
    And link to which councillors voted which way? Might make an interesting read

    FF, FG and Labour voted No, Greens abstained, SF and the far left voted yes apparently.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    The argument that people should just brush their teeth better argument is bogus because people are bad at doing it. Fluoridation in the UK is done on a per region basis. A recent study found that regions with fluoridated water showed "a 28% reduction in the prevalence of dental caries in primary teeth at age five years and a 21% reduction in permanent teeth at age 12 years" with fluoridation. This had a larger effect on deprived areas where buying fluoridated toothpaste is probably low on your priorities when you're struggling to live.
    Source

    Plus, fluoride is highly cost effective and helps poorer people who have less cash to buying toothpaste when there is a link between poverty and poor dental health


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,722 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    no need for poison in the water


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    nice_guy80 wrote: »
    no need for poison in the water

    Other than protecting against tooth decay.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,009 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    alastair wrote: »
    Other than protecting against tooth decay.

    So, protect it yourself with something you buy yourself. Don't force fluoride on to people who don't want it in their water.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    titan18 wrote: »
    Don't force fluoride on to people who don't want it in their water.
    If there was a compelling argument for not wanting flouride in your water, I'd be much more sympathetic to this approach.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If there was a compelling argument for not wanting flouride in your water, I'd be much more sympathetic to this approach.

    Similarly, if there is a reason why we don't add benelin to water I'd love to know.

    Imagine, chesty coughs, a thing of the past!


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Similarly, if there is a reason why we don't add benelin to water I'd love to know.
    I'm not familiar with the body of scientific evidence showing that that would be beneficial. Maybe you could post a few links.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    Why exactly are some people so freaked out about Flouride in the water. What actual harm has it done to the population of Ireland.
    What about all the other chemicals that are used to clean and treat water to make it fit for drinking (technically medicating the water) that no-one seems to give out about?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    K.Flyer wrote: »
    Why exactly are some people so freaked out about Flouride in the water. What actual harm has it done to the population of Ireland.

    None. But then, we're talking about basically the same mentality that believes there's a link between vaccination and autism.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    None. But then, we're talking about basically the same mentality that believes there's a link between vaccination and autism.

    Not wanting to go O.T. but wasn't that report later proven false and the author later published a full retraction with an apology?

    Edit:
    Another "dose" of scaremongering. .
     MMR vaccine controversy centered on the 1998 publication of a fraudulent research paper in the medical journal The Lancet that lent support to the subsequently discredited claim that colitis and autism spectrum disorders could be caused by the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The media has been heavily criticized for its naïve reporting and for lending undue credibility to the architect of the fraud, Andrew Wakefield.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    titan18 wrote: »
    So, protect it yourself with something you buy yourself. Don't force fluoride on to people who don't want it in their water.

    If there's a reason for not wanting it that isn't rooted in junk science, I'm all ears. I'm not willing to entertain the idea that we should stop doing something that has an unambiguously positive public health effect purely to assauge utterly unfounded fears.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Cianmcliam


    K.Flyer wrote: »
    Not wanting to go O.T. but wasn't that report later proven false and the author later published a full retraction with an apology?

    Yes and no. Yes it was proved false and yes the author was later shown to have a conflict of interest as he was funded by lawyers hoping to file a law suit on behalf of parents who believed the MMR had caused their children's autism.

    But no, the author never retracted the study and to this day speaks around the world to conspiracy groups and is held up as some kind of saint for 'speaking out'.

    The Lancet did apologise and retract the paper themselves.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    K.Flyer wrote: »
    Why exactly are some people so freaked out about Flouride in the water. What actual harm has it done to the population of Ireland.
    What about all the other chemicals that are used to clean and treat water to make it fit for drinking (technically medicating the water) that no-one seems to give out about?

    The latest vote on Dublin City Council is just a cynical attempt by Sinn Fein to hoover up the votes of the tinfoil hat members of the general public. SF knew quite well that nothing would happen as a result and they also know they will never implement it if they ever get into power. Silly populism.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,367 ✭✭✭micosoft


    I have to say I'm getting increasingly concerned at how effective certain groups are at driving their agenda at City Council level. Whether it was the naming of the "Rosie Hackett" (Who?) bridge, votes like this, Christy Buuuurke pandering to water protesters against the Gardai. Most people don't take local council elections seriously, hence small and extreme groups are getting air time that they don't deserve given the proportion of the electorate that support them. It's a significant failure of the main parties that they don't campaign effectively at this level, not that most councillors aren't pretty poor in any case. The result is that the council chamber becomes a circus...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 899 ✭✭✭sin_city


    If there's a reason for not wanting it that isn't rooted in junk science, I'm all ears.

    In that case lets ban all religion. I'm an atheist but I don't think we should FORCE everyone to become one based on science.

    So the research is that it is good for your teeth?

    I think it should be left up to the individual whether they want the government's help on this one:

    who_data01.jpg

    I go out of my way to buy non fluoridated water. My choice.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Cianmcliam


    sin_city wrote: »
    In that case lets ban all religion. I'm an atheist but I don't think we should FORCE everyone to become one based on science.

    So the research is that it is good for your teeth?

    I think it should be left up to the individual whether they want the government's help on this one:



    I go out of my way to buy non fluoridated water. My choice.

    Here's the only relevant comparison for Ireland:
    ireland-who.jpg

    You will see differences in effects depending on the dental health system, culture and eating habits of different countries.
    Ireland has one of the highest rates of children snacking on sweets, chocolate and fizzy drinks in the EU. In some countries on that chart it is a lot more rare. That means other countries will not see the large benefit Ireland enjoys because their diet is far less challenging to dental health.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    None. But then, we're talking about basically the same mentality that believes there's a link between vaccination and autism.

    No, we are not talking about that.

    That's an odd comment to upload on this thread I must say, as no-one said anything about vaccinations or autism.

    You just seem to blow dust-particles of unrelated nonsensical's to the thread regarding water fluoridation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Cianmcliam


    No, we are not talking about that.

    That's an odd comment to upload on this thread I must say, as no-one said anything about vaccinations or autism.

    You just seem to blow dust-particles of unrelated nonsensical's to the thread regarding water fluoridation.

    The Girl Against Science and a bit of cop-on Fluoride who is the self appointed PR spokesperson for the Irish anti-fluoridation movement is anti-vaccine and no one opposing fluoridation seems to be publicly criticising her for these views (or her dingbat theory about wifi preventing our cells from cleansing themselves at night for that matter). That makes it relevant in my book.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 899 ✭✭✭sin_city


    Cianmcliam wrote: »
    Here's the only relevant comparison for Ireland:
    ireland-who.jpg

    You will see differences in effects depending on the dental health system, culture and eating habits of different countries.
    Ireland has one of the highest rates of children snacking on sweets, chocolate and fizzy drinks in the EU. In some countries on that chart it is a lot more rare. That means other countries will not see the large benefit Ireland enjoys because their diet is far less challenging to dental health.

    There are numerous studies that suggest that there are many negatives on the use of fluoride in water.

    You appear to be fully satisfied that it is ok and only beneficial.

    I think you are entitled to this belief but why should I have to avoid drinking tap water because of my belief?

    Should we ban fizzy sweets also? Maybe we should get everyone drinking diet coke instead...I mean that has been approved as safe and has no sugar.

    I think the issue is the fact that we don't have the option of not having fluoride in the water other than purchasing in a supermarket.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    None. But then, we're talking about basically the same mentality that believes there's a link between vaccination and autism.

    Which vaccination do you mean?

    How well did the Greeks do with the Spanish Flu vaccination compared to the rest of the world after WW1?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    sin_city wrote: »
    There are numerous studies that suggest that there are many negatives on the use of fluoride in water.

    Which is fine, except for the fact that none of them stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    micosoft wrote: »
    I have to say I'm getting increasingly concerned at how effective certain groups are at driving their agenda at City Council level. Whether it was the naming of the "Rosie Hackett" (Who?) bridge, votes like this, Christy Buuuurke pandering to water protesters against the Gardai. Most people don't take local council elections seriously, hence small and extreme groups are getting air time that they don't deserve given the proportion of the electorate that support them. It's a significant failure of the main parties that they don't campaign effectively at this level, not that most councillors aren't pretty poor in any case. The result is that the council chamber becomes a circus...

    I wouldn't lump the Rosie Hackett bridge in with those other head-the-balls.

    She was a fairly impressive trade unionist and republican who fought in the Easter Rising but remains fairly obscure. IIRC that was one of the reasons they wanted the bridge named after her as she was an impressive woman who often gets overlooked.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,376 ✭✭✭The_Captain


    Lockstep wrote: »
    DCC takes an anti-science stance, pandering to the fluoride hysteria.
    Luckily, they can't actually implement anything but all the same, depressing that the majority of elected Dublin councillors take such a ridiculous position.

    source


    Why is removing fluoride anti-science? It's largely unnecessary in modern society and already several Private Water Schemes in Ireland operate without fluoridation.

    The only real benefit for it is the reduction of tooth decay in people who don't brush their teeth. I've seen people floating the idea that "the poor" can't afford toothbrushes or toothpaste, but if you're that hard up for money, I think tooth decay would be the least of your concerns.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Cianmcliam


    Why is removing fluoride anti-science? It's largely unnecessary in modern society and already several Private Water Schemes in Ireland operate without fluoridation.

    The only real benefit for it is the reduction of tooth decay in people who don't brush their teeth. I've seen people floating the idea that "the poor" can't afford toothbrushes or toothpaste, but if you're that hard up for money, I think tooth decay would be the least of your concerns.

    See the chart above for Ireland's dental health in fluoridated vs non-fluoridated areas. Treating teeth after they have decayed is much more expensive and can have lots of negative effects beyond the economic one.

    Fluoridation saves money and reduces suffering and pain associated with cavities and extractions. The arguments against it are based on atrociously bad 'science' and plain faced scaremongering.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,627 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Surely in the 21st century pretty much anyone who has access to water in a home also has toothpaste and a toothbrush? Is oral hygiene that difficult that we need fluoride in the water? And really, how beneficial is this added fluoride?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,367 ✭✭✭micosoft


    Lockstep wrote: »
    I wouldn't lump the Rosie Hackett bridge in with those other head-the-balls.

    She was a fairly impressive trade unionist and republican who fought in the Easter Rising but remains fairly obscure. IIRC that was one of the reasons they wanted the bridge named after her as she was an impressive woman who often gets overlooked.

    Sure, and I would not disparage her and I get why it's important to better representation of Women in nameplaces. What I am talking to is how a very small minority view got traction to put her in as opposed to whether it was a good idea or not. If the proposed names had gone to the public in Dublin City or indeed the TD's you would have gotten a very different nomination. It's a series of actions which show a very small minority are controlling or have disproportionate influence in the chamber. TBH most voters think the city manager runs the show (partly true) so don't bother, letting small numbers of activist get in based on tiny numbers of votes and single issues. This will lead to issues for the bigger parties down the road if they don't address it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,367 ✭✭✭micosoft


    walshb wrote: »
    Surely in the 21st century pretty much anyone who has access to water in a home also has toothpaste and a toothbrush? Is oral hygiene that difficult that we need fluoride in the water?

    There is a real and genuine argument about the state intervening at a water supply level for a social responsibility issue. At some point you have to draw a line between state responsibility and personal responsibility and this should be a point for discussion. Unfortunately that is entirely overshadowed by the loons with their fluoride conspiracy theory. There are no negative health implications from Fluoride in water.

    To that point - there is a significant section of out society where, believe it or not, they don't. And it disproportionately affects children. The state has an obligation to protect children and that would be the justification I understand for this. Which seems fair given how cost effective and safe the solution is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,376 ✭✭✭The_Captain


    Cianmcliam wrote: »
    See the chart above for Ireland's dental health in fluoridated vs non-fluoridated areas. Treating teeth after they have decayed is much more expensive and can have lots of negative effects beyond the economic one.

    Fluoridation saves money and reduces suffering and pain associated with cavities and extractions. The arguments against it are based on atrociously bad 'science' and plain faced scaremongering.


    I'm not quite sure what that chart is supposed to represent, where did you find the data for it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Why is removing fluoride anti-science? It's largely unnecessary in modern society and already several Private Water Schemes in Ireland operate without fluoridation.
    Because it's a low-cost and extremely effective method of improving dental health without any proven consequences. Why would you remove this?
    The only real benefit for it is the reduction of tooth decay in people who don't brush their teeth. I've seen people floating the idea that "the poor" can't afford toothbrushes or toothpaste, but if you're that hard up for money, I think tooth decay would be the least of your concerns.

    In the previous links and posts, it's been shown that it's effective in addition to general oral hygiene. Poorer people have worse dental health. Sad but true. They're the ones who stand to benefit the most from water fluoridation. Hell, the WHO lists it as "the most effective public health measure for the prevention of dental decay.”"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    At the end of the day the state had to cover dental care costs for the less well off in society.

    assuming the chart posted is correct then I'd imagine the measure pays for itself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 899 ✭✭✭sin_city


    Which is fine, except for the fact that none of them stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

    So why doesn't every country force it's citizens to drink fluoride like Ireland then?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement