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

Fluoride endgame approaches....

13567…13

Comments

  • #102
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    zenno wrote: »
    Like I said before, if you want to damage yourself then you can purchase all the fluoride you want personally without effecting anyone else.

    Oh hey, it's zenno, making shit up again.

    How fucking astounding.


  • #103
    kincsem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,013 ✭✭✭kincsem


    Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »
    .
    Your user name is a clue.


  • #104
    profitius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,976 ✭✭✭profitius


    Logical_Bear wrote: »
    that the radio station that is advertising it's gonna have david icke on?the one that was removed as spam when advertised in the CT forum?

    So what?


  • #105
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    Cienciano wrote: »
    This is the problem I have with anti flouride brigade. You honestly think companies throw the government a few quid to put their industrial waste into our drinking water because there's no other use for it or no other way of disposing of it? :rolleyes:
    ^This is the problem I have with people who have no idea what they are talking about muddying things that are important(you got any kids? I do) with naive comments. I spend my working day, amongst other things, sorting water for big companies, in all it's forms. Drinking, process and waste. I'm not "the anti flouride brigade", I'm just not thick.
    "Let's add a Toxin to the water so everyone has nice teeth" is not a compelling arguement to me, or to any other rational person without an agenda. Anyway, like I said, I don't use it, nor does anyone I care about, so knock yerselves out.


  • #106
    Dude111
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    Lefticus Loonaticus wrote:
    The problem with fluoride just got a whole lot bigger now that Harvard University has published a study in a peer-reviewed journal by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences demonstrating how fluoride in water can cause permanent neurological damage to children.
    THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS that they did this study!!!!

    GETTING THIS TO MAINSTREAM PEOPLE would be great!!!!!!! (Next should be ASPERTAME POISIONING!!)


  • #107
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Oh hey, it's zenno, making shit up again.

    How fucking astounding.

    I'm not making anything up, do your own research.

    I really don't see the big deal with this because when fluoride ceases to be in the water supply all people have to do is purchase it even though they can already so I don't know why some people are strongly against taking the fluoride out of the water. Theres something strange when you have some angry people demanding that fluoride stay in the main water supply. I wonder do some of you work or run a chemical company ?.


  • #108
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Pottler wrote: »
    I'm not "the anti flouride brigade"

    I think you'll find you, eh, are. And I'm guessing you brush your teeth with that same 'toxin' in your tootpaste - regardless of where your source your drinking water from?


  • #109
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    zenno wrote: »
    I'm not making anything up.

    Aside from claiming fluoridation schemes are causing harm - maybe not. It's a bit of a biggie though.


  • #110
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    fluoride is so far down my list of worries in life...


  • #111
    Smulkeysmulver
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Smulkeysmulver


    wendell borton wrote: »
    This whole flouride conspiracy is a smoke screen perpetrated to take attention away from the realy scary stuff found in the supply.
    Hydronium Hydroxide is also in the pipes, deadly stuff responsible for innumerable deaths. http://www.dhmo.org/.

    Mr. Wendell, Just read the link you posted to Hydronium Hydroxide, here is an excerpt of the "Uses of..." section:

    as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
    in so-called "family planning" or "reproductive health" clinics,
    as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
    as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
    in cult rituals,
    by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
    by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
    by members of Congress who are under investigation for financial corruption and inappropriate IM behavior,
    by kids who play Beyblades,
    by the clientele at a number of bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,

    If you had a point to make, you made it badly:)


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Canis Lupus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,893 ✭✭✭Canis Lupus


    Smulkeysmulver wrote: »
    Mr. Wendell, Just read the link you posted to Hydronium Hydroxide, here is an excerpt of the "Uses of..." section:

    as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
    in so-called "family planning" or "reproductive health" clinics,
    as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
    as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
    in cult rituals,
    by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
    by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
    by members of Congress who are under investigation for financial corruption and inappropriate IM behavior,
    by kids who play Beyblades,
    by the clientele at a number of bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,

    If you had a point to make, you made it badly:)

    DHMO is water. You new to the internet? :P


  • #113
    Smulkeysmulver
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Smulkeysmulver


    I was pointing out the ridiculous website another poster linked to, as their "evidence", by posting an extract from said website ...hence me quoting the original poster at the beginning of my own post.

    Yes, I am brand spanking new to the internet. You've been here since 2004 I see.

    P.S.. "DHMO is Water" ...care to explain, I was under the distinct impression it was H2O?

    *UPDATE: Figured it was some sort of thing like H30...a molecule in difference being poisonous, etc

    I just got it! hehe


  • #114
    Cienciano
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,312 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    Pottler wrote: »
    ^This is the problem I have with people who have no idea what they are talking about muddying things that are important(you got any kids? I do) with naive comments. I spend my working day, amongst other things, sorting water for big companies, in all it's forms. Drinking, process and waste. I'm not "the anti flouride brigade", I'm just not thick.
    "Let's add a Toxin to the water so everyone has nice teeth" is not a compelling arguement to me, or to any other rational person without an agenda. Anyway, like I said, I don't use it, nor does anyone I care about, so knock yerselves out.

    Tell us, who are these people with "an agenda" that are adding flouride to water, and what is their agenda? Very vague as usual.


  • #115
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    zenno wrote: »
    I'm not making anything up, do your own research.

    I have that's why i know you're talking shit.

    See how that works, knowledge trumping things you made up?
    No?

    Don't worry, we'll get you there eventually.


  • #116
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    hooradiation wrote: »
    I have that's why i know you're talking shit.

    See how that works, knowledge trumping things you made up?
    No?

    Don't worry, we'll get you there eventually.

    Looks like I hit a sore point within yourself, but not to worry, if all you can forward to me is the 'Sh1t department' then fair enough but your comment is null and void i'm afraid. Maybe I will get you there eventually, into the realm of self-thinking and out of the robotic thinking you are stuck in.


  • #117
    NegativeCreep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,351 ✭✭✭NegativeCreep


    Why do they put it in anyway? It must have/had some benefit? I've been drinking tap water all my life and I'm grand.. I think :L


  • #118
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    zenno wrote: »
    Looks like I hit a sore point within yourself,
    Not really, but one more delusion for the pile, I guess.
    zenno wrote: »
    but not to worry, if all you can forward to me is the 'Sh1t department' then fair enough but your comment is null and void i'm afraid. Maybe I will get you there eventually, into the realm of self-thinking and out of the robotic thinking you are stuck in.

    I do like the commonly held mantra of people like you where you're utterly convinced that you're a special, unique snowflakes and everyone else is simply just not as clued in as you are.

    Frankly, I'm surprised you've not used the phrase "sheeple" yet.


  • #119
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    NegativeCreep wrote: »
    Why do they put it in anyway? It must have/had some benefit? I've been drinking tap water all my life and I'm grand.. I think :L

    It was first added 50+ odd years ago (when it was of actual benefit), and since then; most countries have discontinued the practice because of potential ethical, efficacy & legal doubts about it.

    Of course, Ireland being Ireland.. we are always ahead of the curve in those things the last to accept that a curve exists.


  • #120
    NegativeCreep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,351 ✭✭✭NegativeCreep


    My name is URL wrote: »
    It was first added 50+ odd years ago (when it was of actual benefit), and since then; most countries have discontinued the practice because of potential ethical, efficacy & legal doubts about it.

    Of course, Ireland being Ireland.. we are always ahead of the curve in those things the last to accept that a curve exists.

    But what was that benefit 50 years ago? How is that no longer a benefit? :L


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    NegativeCreep wrote: »
    But what was that benefit 50 years ago? How is that no longer a benefit? :L

    I dunno, after over half a century, you'd be forgiven for believing that some things have changed...

    Awareness, ease of access to dentistry, and bloody common sense should have at least progressed somewhat since the 50's!


  • #122
    marshbaboon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭marshbaboon


    My name is URL wrote: »
    I dunno, after over half a century, you'd be forgiven for believing that some things have changed...

    Awareness, ease of access to dentistry, and bloody common sense should have at least progressed somewhat since the 50's!

    Not many people had triple stripe colgate in the 50's


  • #123
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    NegativeCreep wrote: »
    But what was that benefit 50 years ago? How is that no longer a benefit? :L

    Stops tooth decay. Still stops tooth decay, but not essential if you brush regularly w toothpaste containing fluoride. Bit of a sledgehammer approach, but still harmless regardless.


  • #124
    emschlem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭emschlem


    Tap water tastes utterly disgusting. If a cat won't drink it, that's a sure sign that it's rank, and it is rank. It tastes and smells toxic.

    I don't understand what people don't understand about fluoride in water. Water should be pure. Pure as possible. Ingesting fluoride is not good. Using fluoridated water to brush one's teeth seems ok, because your'e spitting it out again.

    Certainly, I wouldn't give tap-water to a child in the formative years.


  • #125
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    emschlem wrote: »
    Tap water tastes utterly disgusting. If a cat won't drink it, that's a sure sign that it's rank, and it is rank. It tastes and smells toxic.

    I don't understand what people don't understand about fluoride in water. Water should be pure. Pure as possible. Ingesting fluoride is not good. Using fluoridated water to brush one's teeth seems ok, because your'e spitting it out again.

    Certainly, I wouldn't give unfiltered tap-water to a child in the formative years.
    Fluoride is tasteless and isn't removed by most water filters.


  • #126
    DesperateDan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭DesperateDan


    emschlem wrote: »
    Tap water tastes utterly disgusting. If a cat won't drink it, that's a sure sign that it's rank, and it is rank. It tastes and smells toxic.

    Yup I would say if your cat won't drink it that's because it's learnt that a better alternative will come along if it doesn't. Does your cat recieve milk whenever it wants by any chance?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    NegativeCreep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,351 ✭✭✭NegativeCreep


    Am I the only one that's happy with the taste of their tap water? I'd choose my tap water over bottled water any day. I think it's lovely :L


  • #128
    emschlem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭emschlem


    DesperateDan wrote: »
    Yup I would say if your cat won't drink it that's because it's learnt that a better alternative will come along if it doesn't. Does your cat recieve milk whenever it wants by any chance?


    Nope, I was referring to another posters cat. Cat's shouldn't be fed milk either.


  • #129
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Not really, but one more delusion for the pile, I guess.



    I do like the commonly held mantra of people like you where you're utterly convinced that you're a special, unique snowflakes and everyone else is simply just not as clued in as you are.

    Frankly, I'm surprised you've not used the phrase "sheeple" yet.

    Common man, no need for us to get excited or angry about this fluoride debate.

    I would just feel better and happier if it was removed from the system that's all. I will never get angry about it as it is just my opinion on this.

    And, by the way I am not special or unique, i'm just your average joe. I just believe it should be removed thats all. Don't forget...if no-one questions or makes an effort to make their lives cleaner and better then we all may as well lay down and die.

    I have no disrespect for you in any way, but as you know, topics like this can get difficult.


  • #130
    up for anything
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭up for anything


    First world problem. We're spoiled. Potable water at the twist of tap and as much of it as we want. We use better water to flush the loo than most of the world have to drink.


  • #131
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    emschlem wrote: »
    Tap water tastes utterly disgusting. If a cat won't drink it, that's a sure sign that it's rank, and it is rank. It tastes and smells toxic.
    Cats actually have fewer taste receptors than humans (as do dogs).

    They do have a better sense of smell, but so do dogs and as any dog owner will tell you they have no problem lapping down tap-water - even from the toilet bowl. So smelling 'toxic' has nothing to do with it.
    Cats on the other hand are extremely fussy, even to the point of not drinking anything that isn't at room temperature, which water from the tap is usually a few degrees below.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,513 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »
    It also supports the observations in the recent Irish risk assessment of water fluoridation titled Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water fluoridation which was submitted to the Government in March 2012. – Yours, etc,


    DECLAN WAUGH,
    Doherty’s Road,
    Bandon,
    Co Cork.

    Quite amusing that the Declan Waugh whose letter was published in the Times is the same Declan Waugh who actually wrote the report 'Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water fluoridation' in the first place.

    He seems to have forgot to mention this surely pertinent fact in his letter.


  • #133
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    up for anything wrote: »
    We're spoiled. Potable water at the twist of tap and as much of it as we want.

    Not in NorthEast Dublin its not!!!!


    :pac:


  • #134
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    zenno wrote: »
    I would just feel better and happier if it was removed from the system that's all.

    Fine. Just don't try and peddle the lie that the levels we have in our water is harmful.
    zenno wrote: »
    And, by the way I am not special or unique, i'm just your average joe. I just believe it should be removed thats all. Don't forget...if no-one questions or makes an effort to make their lives cleaner and better then we all may as well lay down and die.

    The problem is people seem to think that the results of their "questioning" is the results everyone will get, so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. If your reading of the evidence does not produce the same result, you've clearly got some 'robotic thinking' going on.
    zenno wrote: »
    I have no disrespect for you in any way, but as you know, topics like this can get difficult.

    Not really, the science is simple.
    Anything beyond that is people grandstanding because they've worked backwards from the conclusion that fluoride in the water must be harmful and found 'evidence' to fit.

    I mean, how many people are stating with absolute sincerity that they cannot stand the taste of a tasteless chemical?


  • #135
    laoch na mona
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,966 ✭✭✭laoch na mona


    i drank some the other day by mistake and was sick the hole night our water is a solid white most the time


  • #136
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    laoch na mona wrote: »
    i drank some the other day by mistake and was sick the hole night our water is a solid white most the time
    Again, that's nothing to do with fluoride or even chlorine. Usually it is the result of air getting into the system and creating bubbles - let it settle a while and it should clear.

    It could also be precipitates of calcium, if you live in a hard water area. Again perfectly natural and nothing to do with fluoride. It can on occasion lead to mild tummy upsets if you're not used to drinking it.


  • #137
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,544 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    CBA reading the whole thread and didn't see any direct or even second hand links to the original paper. ( Hint if you feel it's important find the original rather than a quote of a letter to the paper quoting a random 'recent' unidentified article )

    It's a literature survey, of Chinese References and two Iranian ones.

    Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104912

    Download paper

    Download list of references not used


  • #138
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    CBA reading the whole thread and didn't see any direct or even second hand links to the original paper.

    It's already in the thread (the link to the paper).


  • #139
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    CBA reading the whole thread and didn't see any direct or even second hand links to the original paper. ( Hint if you feel it's important find the original rather than a quote of a letter to the paper quoting a random 'recent' unidentified article )

    It's a literature survey, of Chinese References and two Iranian ones.

    Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104912

    Download paper

    Download list of references not used


    You obviously weren't reading very closely:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80050762&postcount=25

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80053952&postcount=66


    Also its not a 'literature survey'

    Its a systematic review and meta-analysis - considered strong evidence in epidemiology


  • #140
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    laoch na mona wrote: »
    i drank some the other day by mistake and was sick the hole night our water is a solid white most the time

    Are you sure that's not milk?


  • #141
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Its a systematic review and meta-analysis

    ...of issues unrelated to fluoridation schemes.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    alastair wrote: »
    ...of issues unrelated to fluoridation schemes.

    The low dose neurotoxicity of fluoride isn't of relevance to fluoridation schemes then ???

    I'll ask you again - did you read the paper yet ?


  • #143
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    opinion guy wrote: »
    The low dose neurotoxicity of fluoride isn't of relevance to fluoridation schemes then ???

    I'll ask you again - did you read the paper yet ?

    I did of course. You've quite a different definition of 'low dose' than fluoridation regulations (or indeed the authors of the paper) require.


  • #144
    JCabot
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭JCabot


    Very difficult to get details on why exactly these chemicals are added to our water systems and banned in most other countries. Its is also difficult to discover exactly who is the supplier of these chemicals and who pays for them. I certaintly disaprove of any suspect chemicals added to my drinking water and would love to know the companies supplying it so I could picket them.


  • #145
    Lefticus Loonaticus
    Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭Lefticus Loonaticus


    seamus wrote: »
    I reckon that contrary to popular belief, the people who get caught up in this stuff are actually quite intelligent but have just missed something in their critical evaluation of the information, or lack the experience to critically evaluate the theories presented. They show a strong ability to thread together known information and apply it to new scenarios and new information.

    I have a good friend who has in recent years gotten a little caught up in this stuff. He's an intelligent guy but comes from a bad background and didn't exactly have a stunning education. He absorbs information like a sponge, but doesn't really know how to filter it properly. So when someone explains something to him (such as flouridation) from the anti-government slant, he sees no reason to doubt them (the arguments are compelling if you have no reason to doubt the speaker) and gets caught up in it.
    Like most conspiracy theories, they can then tend to feed off eachother. So if you take it for granted that governments are surreptitiously medicating populations with flouride, you will easily accept that they could also spray chemicals from the air.

    Unless you possess the knowledge or experience to realise that the logistics of the latter are far beyond the resources of any Government, then you could easily accept it as a plausible and strong theory. But it doesn't mean the believer is stupid.

    Your long drawn out assertion above is a spurious statement. Still playing the 'conspiracy theory' card when a letter in the Irishtimes is quoting two serious reports that are backed up by 26 previous reports. Your insinuation that people who disagree with fluoridation are somehow mentally challenged is merely a desperate tactic designed to take away from the mounting evidence which is becoming increasing difficult to explain away.

    Its just indicative of the pro-fluoride camp, most of whom would rather die of fluoride poisoning rather than loose face on an issue they have spent so long defending. The term 'believer' is more appropriately associated with them.

    One of those reports was pointed out by Ming Flanagan to Roisin Shorthall in the dail. This same report caused so much concern in Canada that several areas ceased fluoridation as a result. Minister Shorthall responded by saying that "the expert body has concluded that the report is not reliable". Reliable enough for Canada, but not for us? I think Minister Shorthall and the expert group are unreliable. I think they are knowingly putting at risk the health of Irish people with their policy of continuation and denial.


  • #146
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »
    quoting two serious reports that are backed up by 26 previous reports
    One his own. let's not forget - and neither that raise any issue that would actually apply in fluoridation schemes.

    Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »
    Its just indicative of the pro-fluoride camp, most of whom would rather die of fluoride poisoning
    Heh - that'll be something of a wait, if you're relying on the stuff in the water.


  • #147
    Axe Rake
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭Axe Rake


    Irish Medical Times - Letter wrote:

    Fluoride in water supply is exposing our citizens to unnecessary hazards
    August 8, 2012

    Dear Editor,

    After completing an exhaustive independent environment risk assessment and due diligence on water fluoridation in Ireland (http://www.enviro.ie/risk.html), I agree entirely with the views expressed by Dr Neville Wilson in his letter of June 15, 2012.

    All medicines must undergo medical trials before they can be given to patients. Legal precedence exists in Europe, establishing without any doubt that water fluoridation is defined as a medical product. In 1983, Lord Jauncey found that fluoridated water fell within the Medicines Act 1968; this legal finding has been supported in the British Medical Journal and Medical Law International.

    More recently in relation to medicinal products for human use, the European Court of Justice in 2005 determined that no ‘medicinal product’ — defined in their words as “any substance presented for treating or preventing disease in human beings” — may be given to consumers without appropriate scientific risk assessments taking into account the varying degrees of sensitivity of different consumer groups.

    In the case of water fluoridation, high-risk groups include infants, diabetics, individuals with nutrient deficiencies, the older population and people with thyroid disease and kidney failure.

    The aim of a toxicological trial is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product. It is also used to discover what side effects it may have and whether it may positively or negatively impact on the health of the patient. This involves toxicological and clinical medical trials, including laboratory tests using human cells grown in the laboratory, animal testing and tests for toxicity.

    The data generated from this are used to determine if the results are scientifically valid and that the research is properly conducted in accordance with best practice. The data from clinical trials is then evaluated in a risk benefit assessment to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks.

    The most comprehensive independent scientific examinations undertaken on water fluoridation by the US National Research Council, and most recently by the European Commissions Scientific Committee for Health and Environmental Risk (SCHER), both found that the toxicology of hexafluorosilicic acid used for water fluoridation in Ireland and its hexafluorosilicate compounds are unknown and incompletely investigated.

    By continuing with its mandatory policy of water fluoridation (Ireland is one of only two countries in the world with a mandatory national legislative policy on artificially fluoridating drinking water supplies, the other being Singapore, who incidentally dose their water with approximately half the level applied here), Ireland is not only in breach of EU law, but is exposing its citizens to unnecessary risk and violating its international legal obligations, which enshrine the ‘precautionary principle’ into the governance of this State.

    There is now an urgency in which the State must now act to end this harmful practice, given the published scientific findings by researchers at Harvard University in July, which found that fluoride in water causes permanent neurological damage to children, a finding that sadly supports the observations noted in my own report submitted to Government six months ago and which have been completely ignored.

    Declan Waugh,
    Environmental Auditor and Risk Management Consultant,
    Bandon, Co Cork.

    http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2012/08/fluoride-in-water-supply-is-exposing-our-citizens-to-unnecessary-hazards.html

    -When prompted to state if you are a medical professional, just say yes so you can view the article in its entirety.


  • #148
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Axe Rake wrote: »
    http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2012/08/fluoride-in-water-supply-is-exposing-our-citizens-to-unnecessary-hazards.html

    -When prompted to state if you are a medical professional, just say yes so you can view the article in its entirety.

    Ingenious security system they have there :rolleyes:


  • #149
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Also its not a 'literature survey'

    Its a systematic review and meta-analysis - considered strong evidence in epidemiology
    You are of course, I take it, aware of the major inherent weakness in reviews and meta-analysis.

    I'll give you a clue if it hasn't already been mentioned.....(P.B).

    By the way I have had a read of the paper, most likely in more depth than you appear to have. Totally agree with alistair on this - I'm bemused at how you draw conclusions on fluoridation schemes from this.

    Allow me to quote some of the paper;
    Choi et. al wrote:
    Opportunities for epidemiological studies depend on the existence of comparable population groups exposed to different levels of fluoride from drinking water. Such circumstances are difficult to find in many industrialized countries, as fluoride concentrations in community water are usually no higher than 1 mg/L, even when fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health measure to reduce tooth decay. Multiple epidemiological studies of developmental fluoride neurotoxicity were conducted in China due to the high fluoride concentrations that are substantially above 1 mg/L in well-water in many rural communities
    Choi et. al wrote:
    The exposed groups had access to drinking-water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang et al. 2007), thus in many cases concentrations were above the levels of 0.7-1.2 mg/L (HHS) and 4.0 mg/L (US EPA) considered acceptable in the US
    So hold on one minute, the authors have highlighted the difficulties in carrying out an epidemiology study where fluoride levels are similarly matched - even where it is added compared to not, and so have decided to use Chinese studies on areas where levels are far in excess (naturally) to anything observed in fluoridation schemes.

    One study is mentioned regarding dose-dependent effects at low levels. However it is not used in the meta-analysis (plus the study itself is rather limited IMO), and also absolutely nothing to do with water fluoridation.
    JCabot wrote: »
    Very difficult to get details on why exactly these chemicals are added to our water systems and banned in most other countries. Its is also difficult to discover exactly who is the supplier of these chemicals and who pays for them. I certaintly disaprove of any suspect chemicals added to my drinking water and would love to know the companies supplying it so I could picket them.
    Our taxes, water rates etc, pay for it. The compounds used to deliver fluoride to water supplies are rather inexpensive in bulk however, we're not talking about a novel phamaceutical drug here - rather a simple chemical available from several suppliers. None of whom deal directly with the public (so good luck with your picketing :rolleyes:), and also probably supply most food and manufacturing industries in the country
    Axe Rake wrote: »
    http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2012/08/fluoride-in-water-supply-is-exposing-our-citizens-to-unnecessary-hazards.html
    Not going to bother requoting the entire letter, but one word set alarm bells ringing.
    Declan Waugh,
    Environmental Auditor and Risk Management Consultant
    Generally when someone applies that title to themselves it is in the interests of self-promotion.

    I think people automatically see the words - Fluoride, Neurotoxicity, Harvard - and form their own conclusions without even bothering to read the paper.


  • #150
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Cats actually have fewer taste receptors than humans (as do dogs).

    They do have a better sense of smell, but so do dogs and as any dog owner will tell you they have no problem lapping down tap-water - even from the toilet bowl. So smelling 'toxic' has nothing to do with it.
    Cats on the other hand are extremely fussy, even to the point of not drinking anything that isn't at room temperature, which water from the tap is usually a few degrees below.

    Cats are just weird and trust nobody / nothing.

    They prefer running water, or water that they've seen someone else drinking first!

    The cat's just thinking : What's that f***er doing ? Drinking out of those fancy cups while expecting me to drink this stagnant water in a bowl thrown on the floor!

    Some of them also won't drink chlorinated water. It's the smell of bleach it gives off that they find disgusting.
    They also hate the smell of lemons / citrus fruit in the same way we hate the smell of say ammonia floor cleaner. So, any traces of washing-up liquid on the bowl can also put them off. (Let a cat sniff a lemon / orange and you'll see what I mean!)

    Run it through a brita filter (active charcoal in the filter removes the odours), or just catch rain water (they prefer it).

    Also, most cats have no issue with milk. Although some will scratch you if it's not organic! lol

    It's nothing to do with fluoride though. Probably just chlorine / cats being paranoid weirdos.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    You are of course, I take it, aware of the major inherent weakness in reviews and meta-analysis.

    I'll give you a clue if it hasn't already been mentioned.....(P.B).

    By the way I have had a read of the paper, most likely in more depth than you appear to have. Totally agree with alistair on this - I'm bemused at how you draw conclusions on fluoridation schemes from this.

    Read it again then. The issue of publication bias - didn't you see the funnel plot ?
    Choi et al wrote:
    Publication bias
    A Begg’s funnel plot with the SE of SMD from each study plotted against its corresponding
    SMD did not show clear evidence of asymmetry, though two studies with a large SE also
    reported relatively large effect estimates, which may be consistent with publication bias or
    heterogeneity (Figure 3). The plot appears symmetrical for studies with larger SE, but with
    substantial variation in SMD among the more precise studies, consistent with the heterogeneity
    observed among the studies included in the analysis. Begg (p = 0.22) and Egger (p = 0.11) tests
    did not indicate significant (p < 0.05) departures from symmetry.
    Allow me to quote some of the paper;
    Allow me to requote:
    The exposed groups had access to drinking-water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang et al. 2007), thus in many cases concentrations were above the levels of 0.7-1.2 mg/L (HHS) and 4.0 mg/L (US EPA) considered acceptable in the US
    Apparently you missed some important words. I've bolded them for you.
    Up to. Not mean, not median. Up to. As in maximum.
    Many. Not all. Not majority. Many.
    Read table 1 a column gives the levels involved - many are only just above fluoridation levels.

    And really you people seem to be ignoring this:
    The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults (Grandjean 1982). For neurotoxicants, such as lead and methylmercury, adverse effects are associated with blood
    concentrations as low as 10 nmol/L. Serum-fluoride concentrations associated with high intakes from drinking-water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 Smol/L, thus more than 1000-times the levels of
    some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage. Supporting the plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to 1 ppm (50 Smol/L) of water-fluoride for one year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared
    with controls (Varner et al. 1998). The estimated decrease in average IQ associated with fluoride exposure based on our analysis may seem small and may be within the measurement error of IQ testing. However, as research on other neurotoxicants has shown, a shift to the left of IQ distributions in a population will have substantial impacts, especially among those in the high and low ranges of the IQ distribution (Bellinger 2007).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement