Fluoride endgame approaches....

JCabot · 12-11-2012 8:43am

The medication of our water supply should be an individual choice not something that is done to everyone. This is banned in most counteries and our export foods contain it so thats a potential time bomb on its own. But also in this time of penny pinching why are we spending millions on this pratice buying the toxin in and adminestering it to everyone. Let alone this so called expert group who are supposed to meet voluntary yet never publish anything from there meeting and cost a fortune in secretarial services and I believe contain commercial interest including undertakers.

The newspapers and expert group keep refering to studies but never produce.

LivelineDipso · 12-11-2012 3:55pm

In Holland it is banned in law. There was a TV documentary shown on Dutch TV on the pros and cons and people literally marched on the government and told them not to dare even think of putting it in their water.

The best way to deal with this issue is to encourage foreigners not to purchase Irish food and drink made with our water. I have hundreds of people in Europe I know no longer drinking Guinness, Bailieys or eating Irish foods because of the industrial waste put into our water supply.

Eventually the food and drink producers will tell the government to get it out, and it'll be quietly stopped with no hype.

Lilly O'Brien will wonder why her chocs are not selling and that'll will be how the flouride endgame happens in Ireland.

zef · 12-11-2012 4:11pm

Even the Government and the Gardai dont drink the water.
EW Technologies (http://www.ewtechnologies.ie/our-water-filter-range.php) count among their many satisfied customers the HSE , Gardai Siochana , DCU , the National Museum of Ireland and many more.
They do reverse osmosis, which does remove fluoride from the water.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-11-2012 5:13pm

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

That's a frankly absurd comparision to be fair.

A better comparison would perhaps be the teaching of evolution.

Evidence based and all that

LivelineDipso · 12-11-2012 5:19pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A better comparison would perhaps be the teaching of evolution.

Evidence based and all that

People's concerns about Floruide - all over the Europe and other educated societies is based on on rational thought and not religion.

Robbo · 12-11-2012 6:22pm

JCabot wrote: »

This action of adding fluoride to our drinking water which is compulsory medication by a substance regarded within europe and many other parts of the world as a biocide and a posion is unconstutional. But it also has the potential of destroying our food export industry.

Fluoridation was never found unconstitutional.

There's a popular misconception that it was found so in Ryan -v- AG; it wasn't. An unenumerated right to bodily integrity was founded but it was held that fluoridation did not impinge upon this.

hooradiation · 12-11-2012 6:40pm

LivelineDipso wrote: »

People's concerns about Floruide - all over the Europe and other educated societies is based on on rational thought and not religion.

Actually, the only issues with fluoridation that withstand any scrutiny are the ethical implications of what is essentially mass medication, but that's for each society to decide for itself whether it wants to engage in that or not.
In which case going "everyone else is/isn't doing this" carries no weight and never did.

The scientific concerns, such as they are, don't have the same standing.

Don't Chute! · 12-11-2012 6:50pm

JCabot wrote: »

This action of adding fluoride to our drinking water which is compulsory medication by a substance regarded within europe and many other parts of the world as a biocide and a posion is unconstutional. But it also has the potential of destroying our food export industry.

If it becomes common knowledge within many counteries where fluoride is rightly regarded as a toxin and is banned that our food products are manufacture with water containing fluoride they may also be banned.

I asked Diaego recently if beer brewed in St. James gate was done so using water which was medically treated with fluoride. As most of this product is exported to counteries which ban fluoride, I am still waiting for an answer.

One of the worlds biggest companies doesn't answer letter from lone nutjob shocker!

JCabot · 12-11-2012 10:18pm

black and amber wrote: »

One of the worlds biggest companies doesn't answer letter from lone nutjob shocker!

Maybe your the nutjob shocker by accepting fluoride poison because they did answer my letter.

JCabot · 12-11-2012 10:29pm

Robbo wrote: »

Fluoridation was never found unconstitutional.

There's a popular misconception that it was found so in Ryan -v- AG; it wasn't. An unenumerated right to bodily integrity was founded but it was held that fluoridation did not impinge upon this.

Why bother quoting some case and a play with words , wheather it is found unconstitional or not doesn't matter, what fluoride is is mass medication and that is removing my free choice to consume it. That is against fundamental principles or established precedents according to the Irish state.

And you say dont drink the water which I dont but it is also in all our home produced foodstuff aswell.

And how can a foreign country which does not allow this pratice and classes this as a biotoxin justify allowing it citizens to consume food produced in a country which uses it.

Jimoslimos · 12-11-2012 10:47pm

zef wrote: »

Even the Government and the Gardai dont drink the water.
EW Technologies (http://www.ewtechnologies.ie/our-water-filter-range.php) count among their many satisfied customers the HSE , Gardai Siochana , DCU , the National Museum of Ireland and many more.
They do reverse osmosis, which does remove fluoride from the water.

Might want to change that to only count because I don't see any other companies listed, especially not from Kent where they seem to be based (or Lithuania). Something doesn't smell right, and it's not the water.

Not to mention the bullshít being spouted on the website

Greatly reduces the risk of cancers
Our water filters greatly reduces the risk of rectal cancer, colon cancer, and bladder cancer by removing chlorine by products from drinking water.

:rolleyes: Indeed, I'm sure they have the evidence to back this up

Removes dangerous contaminants
Our water filter can selectivively remove dangerous contaminants from drinking water while retaining healthy mineral depsoits that balance the pH of drinking watre

Would love to see how they explain a RO system being able to do that

Jimoslimos · 12-11-2012 10:50pm

JCabot wrote: »

And how can a foreign country which does not allow this pratice and classes this as a biotoxin justify allowing it citizens to consume food produced in a country which uses it.

Are you just throwing in words that sound scary? If not please explain what a "biotoxin" is to the less educated including myself.

fasttalkerchat · 12-11-2012 11:14pm

I always drink tap water... even if you use bottled water, you're still going to get tap water in your food and tea anyway. I like the taste, only stopped drinking it when I lived in Dublin... its tasted funny.

fasttalkerchat · 12-11-2012 11:17pm

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Are you just throwing in words that sound scary? If not please explain what a "biotoxin" is to the less educated including myself.

Biotoxin is a toxic substance coming from a living thing.
Potentially toxic would be more accurate.

Don't Chute! · 12-11-2012 11:44pm

Christ Almighty! If Jim Corr believes it, it must be true!! http://www.jimcorr.com/

JCabot · 13-11-2012 2:49pm

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Are you just throwing in words that sound scary? If not please explain what a "biotoxin" is to the less educated including myself.

Your just picking at words and there meanings to take away from the real issue which is the fluoride. The word I meant to use is Biocide

A Biocides is a preparation containing one or more active substances that are intended to control harmful organisms by either chemical or biological, but not physical means.

Hexafluoorosilicic acid EC number: 241-034-8: CAS number16961-83-4 is a biocide. NAS and SCHER found that the toxicological profile of Hexafluorisilicic Acid used for water fluoridation was incomplete.In the absence of any toxicological or health risk data the Health Authorities in Ireland continue to advise that the chemical is safe for consumers and the environment.

This product is a posion to living organisms and I dont want to consume it or have my children drinking it.

Sarky · 13-11-2012 3:02pm

Better cut out oxygen while you're at it. That sh*t is seriously toxic if you inhale enough of it.

Jimoslimos · 14-11-2012 12:00am

JCabot wrote: »

A Biocides is a preparation containing one or more active substances that are intended to control harmful organisms by either chemical or biological, but not physical means.

I'm guessing you had no problem knocking back copious volumes of another "biocide" at the weekend. I'm also presuming you'll be petitioning the government to stop disinfecting your water.

JCabot wrote: »

Your just picking at words and there meanings to take away from the real issue which is the fluoride. The word I meant to use is Biocide

Yeah man, words, they don't really mean anything important like...

...except when I want them to and can use them to further an agenda.

Robbo · 14-11-2012 2:02pm

JCabot wrote: »

Why bother quoting some case and a play with words , wheather it is found unconstitional or not doesn't matter, what fluoride is is mass medication and that is removing my free choice to consume it. That is against fundamental principles or established precedents according to the Irish state.

Whether it is found unconstitutional or not is relevant when in the interests of muddying the waters, you've falsely declared it constitutional. There is no splitting of hairs here, you're spouting effluent to further your agenda.

Full judgment here (but that's what they want you to read).

Ando's Saggy Bottom · 14-11-2012 2:31pm

Everytime a thread like this comes up it never fails to amuse me that people can't grasp that toxicity is dose dependent and that every substance is toxic in sufficient quantities.

Robbo · 14-11-2012 2:38pm

Pete Campbell wrote: »

Everytime a thread like this comes up it never fails to amuse me that people can't grasp that toxicity is dose dependent and that every substance is toxic in sufficient quantities.

You'll often find the same people have no difficulty with homeopathy though.

opinion guy · 14-11-2012 2:40pm

Pete Campbell wrote: »

Everytime a thread like this comes up it never fails to amuse me that people can't grasp that toxicity is dose dependent and that every substance is toxic in sufficient quantities.

You're smugness is based on a 500 year old viewpoint of toxicology you realise ?

Ando's Saggy Bottom · 14-11-2012 2:42pm

opinion guy wrote: »

You're smugness is based on a 500 year old viewpoint of toxicology you realise ?

This After Hours. Smug generalisations are where its at, yo.

JCabot · 14-11-2012 2:47pm

Pete Campbell wrote: »

Everytime a thread like this comes up it never fails to amuse me that people can't grasp that toxicity is dose dependent and that every substance is toxic in sufficient quantities.

Why on earth would you consume something that is toxic and then continue to consume it and defend the pratice of being forced to consume it.

Why don't you read the proven facts on fluoride and what exactly is being put into our mains water and our food stuff. Start with this recent report http://www.enviro.ie/Human%20Toxicity,%20Environmental%20Impact%20and%20Legal%20Implications%20of%20Water%20Fluoridation_February%202012_EnviroManagement%20Services.pdf

Harvard University has just 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.

There is no defence is mass medication of us with this chemical.

opinion guy · 14-11-2012 2:48pm

Pete Campbell wrote: »

This After Hours. Smug generalisations are where its at, yo.

Fair point

jh79 · 14-11-2012 2:58pm

Pete Campbell wrote: »

Everytime a thread like this comes up it never fails to amuse me that people can't grasp that toxicity is dose dependent and that every substance is toxic in sufficient quantities.

For the same reason that certain people insist that "organic" veg is better for you..it is a trendy cause that suits a certain image so logic and facts don't matter

Capt'n Midnight · 14-11-2012 4:11pm

Pete Campbell wrote: »

Everytime a thread like this comes up it never fails to amuse me that people can't grasp that toxicity is dose dependent and that every substance is toxic in sufficient quantities.

Deuterium Oxide is toxic. Deuterium Hydroxide is nearly as bad, the only difference is that it takes longer to accumulate in the body.

Nothing is being done to remove these substances from tap water.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-11-2012 4:45pm

JCabot wrote: »

Harvard University has just 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.

No they did not.

Since you didn't link to it I have to assume you are just parroting.

They list 27 surveys comparing High Fluoride areas with Low Fluoride areas. In only 8 of these do they list a "Low" fluoride level that is below our maximum legal limit, not the level we use, but the maximum permissible amount. So it's crazy levels of Fluoride they are talking about. In a some of the "High Fluoride" areas there were visible signs of Fluoridosis on teeth. In three of the areas the fluoride came from burning coal ( did they rule out the other negative effects of air pollution ?? )

You'd also have to rule out poverty too and other factors more applicable to rural China than urban Ireland.

And all that's if you take all the individual references at face value.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/2012/10/developmental-fluoride-neurotoxicity-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/

The exposed
groups had access to drinking water with fluo-ride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang
SX et al. 2007); thus, in many cases concen-trations were above the levels recommended
(0.7–1.2 mg/L; DHHS) or allowed in pub-lic drinking water (4.0 mg/L; U.S. EPA) in
the United States (U.S. EPA 2011).

JCabot · 15-11-2012 10:06am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No they did not.

Since you didn't link to it I have to assume you are just parroting.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/ There read it, long john

I did not question what it does or does not do to teeth even if this opinion that it is healthy for teeth not based on any scientific facts. Unless you can dig up some obscure report from the 50s.

The WHO recommend to determine when it is appropriate to fluoridate is a matter that requires the prior determination of prevailing fluoride intake from all sources . No such study was ever undertaken by the Irish Authorities. And a percentage of this population is intolerant to fluoride in drinking water.

I can not understand how any sane person can justify the continuation of this dangerous pratice unless they have alternative interest.

http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.ie/2008/07/dentists-admit-fluoride-risk-to-kidney.html

Jimoslimos · 15-11-2012 10:48am

JCabot wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/ There read it, long john

Eh? That was the report Capt'n was referring to. Did you even read the paper (and understand it - be honest now) other than seeing the words "fluoride" and "neurotoxicity" in the title?

Zer0 · 15-11-2012 11:48am

It's all a plan made by the nwo I tells ya! They're trying to make us stupid what with their fluoride water and flu vaccines, so they can control us.... run to the hills.. ahhh... 1984 is coming to life!

JCabot · 15-11-2012 3:07pm

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Eh? That was the report Capt'n was referring to. Did you even read the paper (and understand it - be honest now) other than seeing the words "fluoride" and "neurotoxicity" in the title?

You really don't understand or even want to understand that we are being poisoned do you, its pointless discussing this with a faceless entity who supports this regime.

From the report

"The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment."

The Irish goverment never undertook research to establish fluoride intake from all sources so maximum permissible amount obviously can be exceeded.

Do some research into what you are defending instead of just being argumentative for the sake of it.

JCabot · 15-11-2012 3:14pm

Zer0 wrote: »

It's all a plan made by the nwo I tells ya! They're trying to make us stupid what with their fluoride water and flu vaccines, so they can control us.... run to the hills.. ahhh... 1984 is coming to life!

I think its working, look out for the gullible ones with great big teeth and rotting brains....

Aquarius34 · 04-01-2013 4:58pm

People defending flouride, comical and yet barbaric and horrific.

Flouride makes people docile, brain damaged and stupid, and the only way to realise this is to stop putting it into your own body so you can not only just see it on yourself but on everyone around you. It calcifies the pineal gland in the brain, it causes so many forms of cancers, it actually damages teeth and bones once ingested into the body and it causes so many more types of illnesses.

It is added to ciggerette's, alcohol, (occurs naturally in tea which is not as harmful as the chemically added flouride), cereals, canned/processed food etc. Just think about how much flouride that goes into the body just as you start your actual day besides brushing your own teeth.

Their is a reason why it says on a packet of toothpaste, "don't swallow it"

People who are defending flouride, should seriously quit playing this stupid game.

jh79 · 04-01-2013 5:03pm

Aquarius34 wrote: »

It is added to ciggerette's, alcohol, (occurs naturally in tea which is not as harmful as the chemically added flouride), cereals, canned/processed food etc. Just think about how much flouride that goes into the body just as you start your actual day besides brushing your own teeth.

Their is a reason why it says on a packet of toothpaste, "don't swallow it"

People who are defending flouride, should seriously quit playing this stupid game.

What's the difference seeing as it is an element!

Aquarius34 · 04-01-2013 5:08pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No they did not.

Since you didn't link to it I have to assume you are just parroting.

They list 27 surveys comparing High Fluoride areas with Low Fluoride areas. In only 8 of these do they list a "Low" fluoride level that is below our maximum legal limit, not the level we use, but the maximum permissible amount. So it's crazy levels of Fluoride they are talking about. In a some of the "High Fluoride" areas there were visible signs of Fluoridosis on teeth. In three of the areas the fluoride came from burning coal ( did they rule out the other negative effects of air pollution ?? )

You'd also have to rule out poverty too and other factors more applicable to rural China than urban Ireland.

And all that's if you take all the individual references at face value.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/2012/10/developmental-fluoride-neurotoxicity-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/

It's more apparent that you are parroting.

We don't need flouride at all in our bodies. That's the point most want to seem to ignore. So one would have to ask why such a need to defend even the thought of putting it into our water supply? Ulterior motive, hmm.?

If you say we do need "flouridation", then you could say we should drink poison too, because that's exactly what you're trying to say above. People are not falling for these stupid argument's anymore. There is just simply no beneficial reason for fluoridation whatsoever. In fact many dentists are now campaigning against fluoridation. So that should really turn this thread around on what is really going on.

It should seriously alarm anyone to see and witness anyone defending flouride.

Aquarius34 · 04-01-2013 5:15pm

jh79 wrote: »

What's the difference seeing as it is an element!

Natural flouride vs added sodium flouride by chemical means. Flouride is harmful, and adding more would suggest what? Tea has naturally occurring calcium flouride, and the flouride added to our water supply is sodium flouride.

Ireland is one of the most flouridated counties in the world that drink the most tea and alcohol per capita. That should tell us something about the state of the nation.

.

RossFixxxed · 04-01-2013 5:27pm

I heard the illuminati in association with reverse vampires started the whole thing! (Scientific fact and common sense)

And there's mercury in fillings. (It's mercury amalgam, but caused quite the hysteria)

And spider ghosts in crisps. (This one is a joke)

And if you open the bottom of a packet of popcorn you will die six days later. (Undeniable fact of life, don't mess with popcorn).

I'm envious of anyone who has such a good life they actively need to go out and find demons to bother them.

jh79 · 04-01-2013 5:28pm

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Natural flouride vs added sodium flouride by chemical means. Flouride is harmful, and adding more would suggest what? Tea has naturally occurring calcium flouride, and the flouride added to our water supply is sodium flouride.

Ireland is one of the most flouridated counties in the world that drink the most tea and alcohol per capita. That should tell us something about the state of the nation.

.

So why dodn't we add flourine to our water supply using calcium flouride and both sides could be happy?

RossFixxxed · 04-01-2013 5:29pm

jh79 wrote: »

So why dodn't we add flourine to our water supply using calcium flouride and both sides could be happy?

Because our Lizard Overlords will not allow it. Didn't you get the memo?

Aquarius34 · 04-01-2013 5:33pm

jh79 wrote: »

So why dodn't we add flourine to our water supply using calcium flouride and both sides could be happy?

I am happy without swallowing poison.

I ask the question, why is our society so hellbent on putting flouride into our bodies? People have been campaigning for decades to get it out of our water supply and yet we still have cooperate state government bodies advocating it. Where are the morals here? Where is free will? Where is justice for these crimes on our people.

RossFixxxed · 04-01-2013 5:41pm

I'd be happy if you could show me a few proper medical papers, that you have read and understood (which I'm dobuting at the minute, hence my replies).

Maybe 3 - 5 papers, independent, double blind studies, controlled, peer reviewed etc. Scientific basically. Don't post a huffpo link as most of AH does. I want the actual medical documents, not something off wiki.

This all seems like a psychological issue of your own. Remember the 'apples give you cancer' thing for years back? They can, if you eat about 500 daily.

I want proof, not melodrama please and I'll stop posting 'tinfoil hat' stuff. Thanks.

Can you show me all the people who have illnesses/died due to this. Directly as a result of this, on the death certificate.

Or we can continue being hysterical. I'm NOT educated on this, I'm not saying flouride is amazing, let's all have it. You could convince me. You won't with no evicence though.

Ah, you believe in psychics etc. Never mind, forget what I said.

I will leave you with this: there are people on boards FAR more educated and far smarter than most of us, and they will research this, and they will demand proper facts. They will tear you apart if you keep posting such OTT stuff with no backup. Good luck!

Aquarius34 · 04-01-2013 5:47pm

RossFixxxed wrote: »

I'd be happy if you could show me a few proper medical papers, that you have read and understood (which I'm dobuting at the minute, hence my replies).

Maybe 3 - 5 papers, independent, double blind studies, controlled, peer reviewed etc. Scientific basically. Don't post a huffpo link as most of AH does. I want the actual medical documents, not something off wiki.

This all seems like a psychological issue of your own. Remember the 'apples give you cancer' thing for years back? They can, if you eat about 500 daily.

I want proof, not melodrama please and I'll stop posting 'tinfoil hat' stuff. Thanks.

Can you show me all the people who have illnesses/died due to this. Directly as a result of this, on the death certificate.

Or we can continue being hysterical. I'm NOT educated on this, I'm not saying flouride is amazing, let's all have it. You could convince me. You won't with no evicence though.

Ah, you believe in psychics etc. Never mind, forget what I said.

I will leave you with this: there are people on boards FAR more educated and far smarter than most of us, and they will research this, and they will demand proper facts. They will tear you apart if you keep posting such OTT stuff with no backup. Good luck!

Will do that.;)

Capt'n Midnight · 04-01-2013 5:54pm

jh79 wrote: »

So why dodn't we add flourine to our water supply using calcium flouride and both sides could be happy?

Haven't you been paying attention

You're just asking for your pineal gland to be calcified :eek:

RossFixxxed · 04-01-2013 5:59pm

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Will do that.;)

Cool, will be away from computer for a bit now but I'll check in. I'll pass them on to a few doctors etc I know and we will have a read. (How sad is that?)

Oops: Now I know you're commenting on the bolded bit, since I reread your post in a browser that isn't showing this in plain text, so I will say this: SHOW SOME PROOF. Otherwise you are another crackpot raving away about the governement etc.

If you can't address the actual point in what I said you are dead in the water. (See what I did there.)

Anyway I'll leave the rest of the logical world to tear you to shreds. Perhaps you don't get the scientific method, but big claims on an Internet forum are not the way to go.

Aquarius34 · 04-01-2013 6:10pm

RossFixxxed wrote: »

Cool, will be away from computer for a bit now but I'll check in. I'll pass them on to a few doctors etc I know and we will have a read. (How sad is that?)

Oops: Now I know you're commenting on the bolded bit, since I reread your post in a browser that isn't showing this in plain text, so I will say this: SHOW SOME PROOF. Otherwise you are another crackpot raving away about the governement etc.

If you can't address the actual point in what I said you are dead in the water. (See what I did there.)

Anyway I'll leave the rest of the logical world to tear you to shreds. Perhaps you don't get the scientific method, but big claims on an Internet forum are not the way to go.

Proof is a used term, for someone, who can't see the truth right in front of him or who refuses to use's his/her own mind to find results themselves. You have a brain, use it. If you don't want to face or wake up to what is going on around you, fine, that is ultimately your choice. The burden of proof is on you, not me or anyone else.

If it's logical to poison us with toxic chemical waste, then you'll need to explain the logic in that, because it doesn't make any logical sense. Nor does it make logical sense to continue to put it into our water supply when it has no benefit to us at all.

opinion guy · 04-01-2013 6:31pm

Aquarius why are you trolling your own cause ?

Go back to school and learn some science. You are not helping the debate.

Capt'n Midnight · 04-01-2013 6:37pm

Toxicity data Sodium Fluoride is ~100 times as lethal as Sodium Chloride
http://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/21105.htm
http://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/21230.htm

Average daily intake of salt in by UK males is 11g.

To take in 1/100th of that (110mg) of Fluoride you'd have to drink ~150 litres of water a day ( assuming you'd accumulate instead of flushing it out )

Seriously we should ban salt or tax sachets of it massively. It's easily available in food. And there is hard evidence that an excess is bad for you. (There is no hard evidence that legally allowed levels of fluoride here have any harmful effect)
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0907355

Reducing dietary salt by 3 g per day is projected to reduce the annual number of new cases of CHD by 60,000 to 120,000, stroke by 32,000 to 66,000, and myocardial infarction by 54,000 to 99,000 and to reduce the annual number of deaths from any cause by 44,000 to 92,000. All segments of the population would benefit, with blacks benefiting proportionately more, women benefiting particularly from stroke reduction, older adults from reductions in CHD events, and younger adults from lower mortality rates. The cardiovascular benefits of reduced salt intake are on par with the benefits of population-wide reductions in tobacco use, obesity, and cholesterol levels. A regulatory intervention designed to achieve a reduction in salt intake of 3 g per day would save 194,000 to 392,000 quality-adjusted life-years and $10 billion to $24 billion in health care costs annually.

lucernarian · 04-01-2013 6:38pm

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Natural flouride vs added sodium flouride by chemical means. Flouride is harmful, and adding more would suggest what? Tea has naturally occurring calcium flouride, and the flouride added to our water supply is sodium flouride.

Ireland is one of the most flouridated counties in the world that drink the most tea and alcohol per capita. That should tell us something about the state of the nation.

.

Please explain why calcium fluoride should be any more or less harmful than sodium fluoride at the levels commonly seen in irish tap water?! IT's not like the added sodium ions in tapwater are much more harmful. Bottled water naturally has far more sodium in the water than would be added by using sodium fluoride.

I was thinking about how the govt never looked at the prevailing levels of fluoride intake from alternative sources, but we could make a crude deduction from NI data at least? If background levels were high throughout the island and fluoridation of water took place only in the republic, there would be more signs of fluoridosis and different kinds of dental problems resulting from high F levels than would exist in NI. But that appears not to be the case.

Aquarius34 · 04-01-2013 7:11pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Please explain why calcium fluoride should be any more or less harmful than sodium fluoride at the levels commonly seen in irish tap water?! IT's not like the added sodium ions in tapwater are much more harmful. Bottled water naturally has far more sodium in the water than would be added by using sodium fluoride.

I was thinking about how the govt never looked at the prevailing levels of fluoride intake from alternative sources, but we could make a crude deduction from NI data at least? If background levels were high throughout the island and fluoridation of water took place only in the republic, there would be more signs of fluoridosis and different kinds of dental problems resulting from high F levels than would exist in NI. But that appears not to be the case.

Bottled water has sodium, but it's not sodium flouride.:rolleyes:

You can buy bottled water that has low sodium content in which I do has no sodium flouride in it. Why on earth would I want to put poison in me. It's hard enough in this day and age to try avoid all these chemicals in our foods let alone having it in our water supply.

Fluoride endgame approaches....

Comments