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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Fluoride in tap water

Options
1…979899101103

Comments

  • Options
    #3002
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    An non-essential nutrient that improves dental health and has no known adverse effects at the optimal dose. The non-essential bit doesn't really bother me.


    You said fluoride was an essential nutrient ..clearly it bothered you enough to state that


  • Options
    #3003
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    You said fluoride was an essential nutrient ..clearly it bothered you enough to state that

    Not important considering how safe and effective it is at 0.7ppm.


  • Options
    #3004
    Bobking
    Registered Users Posts: 122 ✭✭Bobking


    jh79 wrote: »
    Fluoride seems to be compounding the effects of an iodine deficiency not causing it.

    If your diet is lacking in iodine how is reducing fluoride going to make up for that? Can you show that with a balanced diet that fluoride is preventing sufficient iodine uptake?

    Fluoride is also an essential mineral / micro nutrient.

    You appear more informed on how these chemicals function than me and I thank you for your contributions.

    However you say fluoride compounds the effects of iodine deficiency and then ask how reducing fluoride intake will help.

    It seems logical that the compounded effects will be reduced.
    I agree any deficiency should be addressed in its own right.

    How would a balanced dose of fluoride and iodine deficiency scale?
    If I drink 2 liters a day will I be OK? And someone who just drinks 2 cups of tea a day?

    And more importantly, will the tea taste different?


  • Options
    #3005
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Not important considering how safe and effective it is at 0.7ppm.


    What happened to the statement that no judgement could be made regarding safety. (Grand jean)?


  • Options
    #3006
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Bobking wrote: »
    You appear more informed on how these chemicals function than me and I thank you for your contributions.

    However you say fluoride compounds the effects of iodine deficiency and then ask how reducing fluoride intake will help.

    It seems logical that the compounded effects will be reduced.
    I agree any deficiency should be addressed in its own right.

    How would a balanced dose of fluoride and iodine deficiency scale?
    If I drink 2 liters a day will I be OK? And someone who just drinks 2 cups of tea a day?

    And more importantly, will the tea taste different?

    If the correlation in the Lin paper is correct , then yes reducing the fluoride level would theoretically reduce the compounding effects but you would still have a deficiency in iodine and the associated problems that go with this deficiency. By increasing intake you can counter the effects of the fluoride and at the same time solve the issue of iodine deficiency.

    Remember fluoride will be present whether we fluoridate or not so if we accept Lin's findings you still have to tailor your iodine intake to counter the fluoride present in the water.

    If your iodine intake is at the recommended levels does fluoride have any effect at less than 1ppm?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3007
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    What happened to the statement that no judgement could be made regarding safety. (Grand jean)?

    They still fluoridate in the US, he hasn't called for it to end as his review could not support the theory that adverse effects are seen at low levels.


  • Options
    #3008
    Bobking
    Registered Users Posts: 122 ✭✭Bobking


    jh79 wrote: »
    If your iodine intake is at the recommended levels does fluoride have any effect at less than 1ppm?

    I don't know but if it doesn't have any effect then why insist on putting it in.

    I am not interested enough to continue tit for tat in this derailed thread.


  • Options
    #3009
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Bobking wrote: »
    I don't know but if it doesn't have any effect then why insist on putting it in.

    I am not interested enough to continue tit for tat in this derailed thread.

    I meant adverse effect. The positive effects are well documented.


  • Options
    #3010
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    They still fluoridate in the US, he hasn't called for it to end as his review could not support the theory that adverse effects are seen at low levels.

    First : Him calling to end it in the US would mean he's making judgement, and as you pointed out earlier he couldn't make judgement

    And was his review aimed to support the theory that adverse effects where possible at low levels ? Don't think so

    1) He calls for the control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity (which includes fluoride

    2) He's proposing a global prevention strategy.

    3)He states that chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must be tested for developmental neurotoxicity (which also includes fluoride)

    4) To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, he proposes the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse

    So you cannot say its safe at 0'7 ppm because as you said earlier in this thread there is no sufficient testing done regarding developmental neurotoxicity at Irish levels


  • Options
    #3011
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    First : Him calling to end it in the US would mean he's making judgement, and as you pointed out earlier he couldn't make judgement

    And was his review aimed to support the theory that adverse effects where possible at low levels ? Don't think so

    1) He calls for the control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity (which includes fluoride

    2) He's proposing a global prevention strategy.

    3)He states that chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must be tested for developmental neurotoxicity (which also includes fluoride)

    4) To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, he proposes the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse

    So you cannot say its safe at 0'7 ppm because as you said earlier in this thread there is no sufficient testing done regarding developmental neurotoxicity at Irish levels


    Whatever his intentions his conclusion was that there maybe possible adverse effects at high levels.

    Point 3; Existing chemicals in use, are you suggested we stop using them like you think we should with fluoride?

    Point 1: Pandemic is not referring exclusively to fluoride but to all neurotoxin and a possible cumulative effect, he is not even confident that fluoride is having any effect at high levels.

    We have a strategy when it comes to fluoridation , we control it at 0.7ppm. There is no evidence of toxicity at this level just like there is no evidence the ppm it would be without fluoridation is any less toxic.

    While there has not been much research at sub 1ppm levels , the Harvard review does cover a range of up to 11ppm and wasn't conclusive .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3012
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    First : Him calling to end it in the US would mean he's making judgement, and as you pointed out earlier he couldn't make judgement

    So he wants this extra research to be carried out before making any judgement on fluoridation, right? But that is not what you are calling for.


  • Options
    #3013
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Point 3; Existing chemicals in use, are you suggested we stop using them like you think we should with fluoride?

    Depends on what their usage is .. We all agree fluoride works best when used topically, and i don't think society will collapse when we stop pouring fluoride in the water overnight.
    jh79 wrote: »
    Point 1: Pandemic is not referring exclusively to fluoride but to all neurotoxin and a possible cumulative effect, he is not even confident that fluoride is having any effect at high levels

    Look up the definition of pandemic
    jh79 wrote: »
    We have a strategy when it comes to fluoridation , we control it at 0.7ppm. There is no evidence of toxicity at this level just like there is no evidence the ppm it would be without fluoridation is any less toxic.

    There is no evidence at these levels regarding developmental neurotoxicity because there is no proper research done at these levels ... so ofcourse you can sit back and claim there is no evidence
    jh79 wrote: »
    While there has not been much research at sub 1ppm levels , the Harvard review does cover a range of up to 11ppm and wasn't conclusive .

    Nice spin "up to 11 ppm"

    Wasn't conclusive to me means don't put it willingly in the water until we have more conclusive evidence telling us its safe or unsafe


  • Options
    #3014
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Depends on what their usage is .. We all agree fluoride works best when used topically, and i don't think society will collapse when we stop pouring fluoride in the water overnight.

    Look up the definition of pandemic

    There is no evidence at these levels regarding developmental neurotoxicity because there is no proper research done at these levels ... so ofcourse you can sit back and claim there is no evidence

    Nice spin "up to 11 ppm"

    Wasn't conclusive to me means don't put it willingly in the water until we have more conclusive evidence telling us its safe or unsafe

    What spin ?

    The paper covers a range between 0.3 to 11ppm (approx). It concludes that there is a suggestion of possible adverse effects at high levels.

    0.3 to 11ppm (-10.7ppm), a possible effect of 7 IQ points (within the error associated with IQ test).

    We could possibly see a drop from 0.7ppm to 0.3ppm (-0.4ppm) by ending fluoridation.

    The evidence at levels higher than ours isn't very convincing. Only a possibility of adverse effects at high levels, so even less of a possibility (or none at all) at low levels.

    3 papers had levels below 1ppm, Ding and Wang suggested no loss in IQ at our levels while Lin had low iodine levels skewing the data.

    While the research is flawed and there isn't much of it what we do have doesn't suggest toxicity at less than 1ppm.


  • Options
    #3015
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    This is the only paper worth talking about since the last forum on fluoridation and it's author says no judgement can be made on fluoridation, you can't be very confident on getting the result you want?


  • Options
    #3016
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    This is the only paper worth talking about since the last forum on fluoridation and it's author says no judgement can be made on fluoridation, you can't be very confident on getting the result you want?


    hypotheticaly
    If a country would look to start mass fluoridation

    And if after research someone says no judgement can be made on fluoridation.

    Would you start fluoridation anyway or would you hold off until judgement can be made regarding fluoride


  • Options
    #3017
    garhjw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw


    weisses wrote: »
    hypotheticaly
    If a country would look to start mass fluoridation

    And if after research someone says no judgement can be made on fluoridation.

    Would you start fluoridation anyway or would you hold off until judgement can be made regarding fluoride

    hypothetically, if a country looks to start mass fluoridation and if after reasearch no judgement can be made.... what if they look at Ireland and can find no actual evidence of fluoridated water making people sick? (the no sick people is fact)

    would you start fluoridation if it doesnt make people sick?


  • Options
    #3018
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    garhjw wrote: »
    hypothetically, if a country looks to start mass fluoridation and if after reasearch no judgement can be made.... what if they look at Ireland and can find no actual evidence of fluoridated water making people sick? (the no sick people is fact)

    would you start fluoridation if it doesnt make people sick?

    I wish they would look at Ireland for a proper investigation

    So far there has been no proper research done regarding the developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride at low levels

    So you are correct that there is no evidence but that's only because there is no research done that produces that evidence ...

    No sick people is a fact ??? Show us here how you came to that conclusion, i mean if its fact you would be able to show it.

    Also you could at least try and answer the question i posted The answer the question with a question is a whole different thread


  • Options
    #3019
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    hypotheticaly
    If a country would look to start mass fluoridation

    And if after research someone says no judgement can be made on fluoridation.

    Would you start fluoridation anyway or would you hold off until judgement can be made regarding fluoride

    Based on what we know today definitely would go ahead. Aside from a remote possibility of neurotoxicity there are no known adverse effects bar mild fluorosis.

    While there isn't much data at low levels what we have at 1ppm up isn't very convincing. EPA label it as such due to animal studies.

    The proposed neurotoxicity of fluoride in humans is entirely based on this single Harvard review in itself based on flawed Chines studies (The Lancet paper references Grandjean, so it is just the Harvard review).

    For me this isn't enough to halt fluoridation, if they manage to show more concrete evidence of neurotoxicity at >1ppm but say less than 4-5ppm then maybe some questions can be asked.

    I read somewhere than one of the Chinese papers that was supposed to show a loss in IQ at low levels also showed higher IQ in adults in the high fluoride group!.

    And Grandjean also says that 80% of the parents IQ were not recorded and only 7% of income levels. Given that parent IQ and diet (directly linked to income) are major influencing factors on a child's IQ this is a major flaw.


  • Options
    #3020
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Basically you need to show strong evidence of neurotoxicity at greater than 1ppm or even as high as the EPA limit of 4ppm before you even think about 0.7ppm. We don't have that yet.


  • Options
    #3021
    Bridgeofsighs
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭Bridgeofsighs


    Hopefully there will be an injunction very soon preventing the Irish govt from adding what the Lancet classifies as a neurotoxin to our drinking water very soon.

    Those of you on this thread who enjoy consuming fluoride will still be able to put toothpaste on your toast, although I have to warn you, it's pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not the hydrofluorosilicic acid in the water. Sad for those of you that like hard drugs :(

    If/when the injunction comes, will the Rep. of Ireland policy of artificial fluoridation still be a 'conspiracy theory', mods?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3022
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Bridgeofsighs wrote: »
    Hopefully there will be an injunction very soon preventing the Irish govt from adding what the Lancet classifies as a neurotoxin to our drinking water very soon.

    Those of you on this thread who enjoy consuming fluoride will still be able to put toothpaste on your toast, although I have to warn you, it's pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not the hydrofluorosilicic acid in the water. Sad for those of you that like hard drugs :(

    If/when the injunction comes, will the Rep. of Ireland policy of artificial fluoridation still be a 'conspiracy theory', mods?

    The policy of artificial fluoridation is not a conspiracy, it is happening with full public knowledge .

    The conspiracy is that it is put there to make people docile or that it causes adverse effects. Neither is true.


  • Options
    #3023
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    The conspiracy is that it is put there to make people docile or that it causes adverse effects. Neither is true.

    Or to accommodate the sugar industry ... win win for them

    fluorosis is an adverse effect


  • Options
    #3024
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Or to accommodate the sugar industry ... win win for them

    fluorosis is an adverse effect

    Sorry, bar minor cosmetic fluorosis.


  • Options
    #3025
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Sorry, bar minor cosmetic fluorosis.

    That statement is not true and you know it .....

    A simple google will paint a different picture ..


  • Options
    #3026
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    That statement is not true and you know it .....

    A simple google will paint a different picture ..

    There are no known adverse effects bar cosmetic fluorosis at 0.7ppm.

    It is only a possible neurotoxin at high levels according to Grandjean

    What peer reviewed research bar those covered by Grandjean says otherwise at less than 1ppm?


  • Options
    #3027
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Ohh i agree there is no research stating its unsafe at our levels (at least i dont know of any)

    Problem in my view is however that they seem to find more evidence of adverse effects at lower levels each time

    I fully agree more research needs to be done urgently

    What has changed since this post?


  • Options
    #3028
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    What has changed since this post?

    Nothing .... Unfortunately


  • Options
    #3029
    garhjw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw


    Some clown from Sinn Fein was just on newstalk making all sorts of claims about fluoridation of water, again with no proof. Apparently, Ireland's bail out is partly down to the fluoridation of our water supply


  • Options
    #3030
    Torakx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    A well, politicians haven't a clue about anything scientific. That's why they are seen to be put in charge :D
    Blank slates for faster progress.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3031
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Some articles on the effectiveness of fluoridation.

    http://www.bfsweb.org/news/New%20Studies%202013/Fluoridation%20news%20-%20Analysis%20of%20post-1990%20studies.pdf

    http://www.bfsweb.org/news/New%20Studies%202013/Fluoridation%20News%20-%20Study%20of%2011%20to%2013-year%20olds%20in%20Newcastle%20and%20Manchester.pdf

    http://www.bfsweb.org/news/Aus%20and%20NZ/NZ%20survey%20on%20dent%20benefits%202012.pdf

    http://www.bfsweb.org/news/Aus%20and%20NZ/Fluoridation%20News%20-%20Australian%20study%20of%20adults.pdf


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement