Reverse fluoridation in our tap water petition

cooperguy · 19-04-2008 2:40pm

Wibbs wrote: »

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

If you read the previous few words of the very same sentence im sure you would have noticed that I said that it had no negative effects and not no effects at all. And yes it also effects bone in the same positive way when it gets at it. It strengthens both bone and enamel by incorporating itself into the crystalline structure. It is a good thing! I wont argue the point on it being an oral cleanser as Im not arsed looking for a link and im working from memory here. Who knows I might have been wrong on one of fluorides advantages!

Wibbs wrote: »

Well duh of course. I think most people understand that. Hardly needs spelling out. That's not at issue. What's at issue is the tooth protection mechanism a good pay off for the possible side effects. Of course, even water has a toxicity level. In any case I can decide to avoid almonds(cyanide/prussic acid IIRC) or alcohol or nicotine, all of which seem to have some positive effects, but clearly more negative effects(alcohol appears to have some protection against heart disease/nicotine seems to have some protective effect against parkinsons/hyperactivity etc).

I disagree and think that this is the centre of the issue. Of coarse it could have serious or fatal consequenses if taken in the right doses. The same as anything else. The point is that fluoride consumption is at least an order of magnitude smaller than what is needed to even have a possible side effect as proven by WoollyRedHat's link in the first page combined with my link to the WHO fluoride study. People dont seem to understand that so therefore it needs spelling out.

Wibbs wrote: »

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

There has been countless studies done on the levels of fluoride in water. And it has been in water for 40 years as pointed out by the poster above me. I dont see how much more investigation could possibly be needed.

kerash · 19-04-2008 4:47pm

Irish Halo wrote: »

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

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

You'd think allrite!!!

but just picking up on what you said there "instances of the conditions caused by this flouridation"

What conditions are proven to be caused by Flouridation?

Is this issue just based on finding of studies that "link" A to B. Or are there any hard FACTS

WoollyRedHat · 19-04-2008 7:31pm

kerash wrote: »

You'd think allrite!!!

but just picking up on what you said there "instances of the conditions caused by this flouridation"

What conditions are proven to be caused by Flouridation?

Is this issue just based on finding of studies that "link" A to B. Or are there any hard FACTS

As of present , just studies, which is why more research is needed.

And about levels of fluoride not being harmful, perhaps not in the short term. But there are 365 days in a year and the average life expectanvy rate is 75 and pretty much every day we use water.

Those levels which are said to be small eventually add up.

JC 2K3 · 19-04-2008 7:59pm

"You know when fluoridation first began?

Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works."

cooperguy · 19-04-2008 10:40pm

WoollyRedHat, Id be interested in hearing what you think of what I said in my previous posts?

WoollyRedHat · 19-04-2008 11:48pm

cooperguy wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

We don't know for absolutely sure that there are no health risks though.
It has been known to bring fluorosis, so while it can help your teeth, this intake in the water as well as having it in our toothpaste probably helps this. Fluorsis has been on the rise in recent years here.

You said people suffered negative effects at the time. Now that we are receiving lower levels of it what's to stop these negative effects arising in the future. 2mg may sound relatively small for a days intake but like I mentioned, you mulitply that by 365 and it gives you 730mg per year and the figure gets to be a lot bigger. It all adds up.

Why can't fluoride which can be gotten in toothpaste, be used, rather than water then?

You say enough studies have already been done, but it would be interesting to take a disease such as alzemiers and see how much it has increased in the last two decades and put it in comparsion to a country that has not had fluoride in their water for some time. I say this because since the 40's, that is 60 years of consumption of a chemical that has been banned in other countries such as China because they saw it to be a risk.

Studies that are trying to link fluoride to a number of health problems, show that while there isn't absolute certainity, there is doubht, where there is doubht there is risk. Negative effects haven't been scinetifically proven on a large scale but they haven't been disproven either.
I want to be absolutely convinced that this is safe for me, otherwise I would rather be without it.

I

JC 2K3 · 20-04-2008 12:12am

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Studies that are trying to link fluoride to a number of health problems, show that while there isn't absolute certainity, there is doubht, where there is doubht there is risk.

That's crazy extrapolation.

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Negative effects haven't been scinetifically proven on a large scale but they haven't been disproven either.

You don't have to disprove hypothetical negative effects of something to declare something safe.

Why I consider fluoridation safe:
-We haven't experienced any obvious health problems across the board due to it.
-There've been so many studies done on it, and there's been so much scepticism about it, and yet, no direct link with any negative health effect has been proven.

WoollyRedHat · 20-04-2008 12:24am

JC 2K3 wrote: »

That's crazy extrapolation.

You don't have to disprove hypothetical negative effects of something to declare something safe.

Why I consider fluoridation safe:
-We haven't experienced any obvious health problems across the board due to it.
-There've been so many studies done on it, and there's been so much scepticism about it, and yet, no direct link with any negative health effect has been proven.

Perhaps it is. But even studies which have deemed fluoride safe in the right doses, have admitted it isn't good in high doses. It also admits there is uncertainity over long-term health. There are many other things that contain it and water must be yet another one of them.

There mightn't be any obvious health problems across the board at the moment, but that doesn't mean there isn't still a chance there could be.

As Wibbs i think pointed out a bit back, Anti- Biotics was considered to be a great medical developement, yet years down the line there is now backlash on it.

Mucco · 20-04-2008 8:42pm

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

There mightn't be any obvious health problems across the board at the moment, but that doesn't mean there isn't still a chance there could be.

You can say that about anything. Maybe you should hide in a cave for the rest of your life just in case.

M

pprendeville · 14-06-2010 3:40pm

on a kinda seperate note, I want to use fluorine to clean my paving out the back. will this increase the resistance of wear on the bottom of my shoes as well if i walk on it?