fluoride chemical in water supply

zenno

can someone explain to me why ireland is the only country in europe that carried out fluoridation of the water on such a huge scale when scientists know it is a very dangerous chemical. why is the government drugging people against their will. fluoride is banned from some european countries. it is imperative that the water is clean from any polutants and chemicals so why is this dangerous chemical allowed into the water supply. and 98% of europe does not drink fluoridated water apart from 10% of the uk and 3% of spain. virtually every european country has either stopped, rejected outright, or even banned water fluoridation as a health problem. I can't understand how a government would want to contaminate the water supply on a huge scale like this. people need to wake up to the reality that this chemical is affecting their childrens health. if you do not believe what i am saying then do the research yourself if you do nothing then you are putting yourself and your children at risk. this chemical has to be removed from the water supply.

Big_G

fitzgeme is probably rolling eyes to heaven as I answer this.
First of all, fluoride is a naturally occurring chemical in the water. It was decided by the Supreme Court I believe in 1961 that it should be considered a nutrient and that by adding fluoride to the water, its concentration was being optimised.

The reason why it was decided to add fluoride to the water is that H. Trendley Dean proved in the 1920s that optimal concentrations of fluoride in the water reduced the tooth decay rate in populations.

The Republic of Ireland still has half the tooth decay rate of Northern Ireland, which does not optimise the concentration of fluoride in its water, but is considering doing so. It would mean a considerable saving in public health expenditure.

I don't believe that any European country has banned it as an outright health risk, because it isn't one. Other European countries might not optimise the concentration of fluoride in water, but they add it to other products such as salt and I think milk.

I hope I have not fed a troll. Ah well...

vishal

I am not sure the DMF is half here than it is in NI anymore, I think the south is a little bit better than the north, but they attribute the north getting better because of foods being prepared in factories with water in the south being exported to NI (called halo effect).
I could be totally wrong however.

But defiantly, fluoride in water = good.
no fluoride in water = bad

zenno

well why are there constant reports that fluoride is highly toxic. health sciences institute...Well, in case you didn't know it, fluoride is highly toxic. In fact, before fluoride was deemed a "cavity fighter," it was used as insecticide and rat poison. Even more surprising is that when it comes to dental hygiene, fluoride actually does more harm than good. For decades the message that fluoride safely prevents tooth decay has been considered sacrosanct. This idea came from the same "chemicals for better living" era that also told us that smoking cigarettes soothed the throat. 39,000 school children in 84 areas around the U.S. were studied in the mid-80's, and the results showed no statistical difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities. In tests on laboratory animals, fluoride has been shown to enhance the brain's absorption of aluminum - the substance that's found in the brains of most Alzheimer's patients. Three different osteoporosis studies have associated hip fractures with fluoridation. And excessive fluoride has been shown to damage the musculoskeletal and nervous systems, leading to limited joint mobility, ligament calcification, muscular degeneration and neurological deficits. a number of different studies have linked fluoride to as many as 10,000 cancer deaths per year, with a high incidence of bone cancer among men exposed to fluoridated water. so are all these people wrong in what they are saying ? I have done a little bit of research on this and it seems that what they are saying here is true.

Paul Connett, PhD, Biochemistry

"Water fluoridation is the single largest case of scientific fraud, promoted by the government, supported by taxpayer dollars, aided and abetted by the ADA and the AMA, in the history of the planet.

David Kennedy, DDS President International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

"Sodium fluoride is a registered rat poison and roach poison. It has been a protected pollutant for a very long time

William Hirzy, PhD President of the Union of Professional Employees of the EPA

"sodium fluoride is a very toxic chemical, acting as an enzyme poison, direct irritant and calcium inactivator ... .It reacts with growing tooth enamel and with bones to produce irreversible damage

L. Alesen, MD, president of the California Medical Association
Robotry, p14

"Fluoridation is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has

Dean Burk, PhD National Cancer Institute -- Fluoridation:A Burning Controversy

"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time."
- EPA scientist, Dr. Robert Carton (Downey, 2 May 99)

zenno

Big_G wrote: »

fitzgeme is probably rolling eyes to heaven as I answer this.
First of all, fluoride is a naturally occurring chemical in the water. It was decided by the Supreme Court I believe in 1961 that it should be considered a nutrient and that by adding fluoride to the water, its concentration was being optimised.

The reason why it was decided to add fluoride to the water is that H. Trendley Dean proved in the 1920s that optimal concentrations of fluoride in the water reduced the tooth decay rate in populations.

The Republic of Ireland still has half the tooth decay rate of Northern Ireland, which does not optimise the concentration of fluoride in its water, but is considering doing so. It would mean a considerable saving in public health expenditure.

I don't believe that any European country has banned it as an outright health risk, because it isn't one. Other European countries might not optimise the concentration of fluoride in water, but they add it to other products such as salt and I think milk.

I hope I have not fed a troll. Ah well...

QUOTE: First of all, fluoride is a naturally occurring chemical in the water.

fluoride is not a naturally occuring chemical in the water....
The fluoride added to water is a toxic industrial byproduct in a form nature could never have come up with. Once you realize this simple fact, you will be able to see the Whitewash in its proper light.

vishal

i am not familiar with that U.S. study but perhaps one reason may be the halo effect. see my previous post for explanation.

For every study in medicine you can find something that contradicts another study. every study has it's own biases so it's up to you to decide what you believe to be true.

anything in high doses is bound to do harm. if you had a cold and you overdosed on lemsip and ended up in hospital as a result would be fair to say lemsip is bad and that nobody should be allowed to use it.

you have to use common sense approach to what you read and hear.
no, i don't have all the answers but everybody is allowed to make up their own mind.

FruitLover

zenno wrote: »

I have done a little bit of research on this

Evidently not enough. You seem to have concentrated only on reports of fluorides being harmful - in concentrations far higher than would ever be seen in drinking water.

Have you done any research at all into the benefits of fluoridating a water supply? It would be nice to see a balanced rant for a change...

zenno

FruitLover wrote: »

Evidently not enough. You seem to have concentrated only on reports of fluorides being harmful - in concentrations far higher than would ever be seen in drinking water.

Have you done any research at all into the benefits of fluoridating a water supply? It would be nice to see a balanced rant for a change...

no need to be bashing me about it. i already said at the beginning of my first post what do you people think of this. i haven't said that my findings are final i am asking on your opinion on this matter and it seems you have not done any research at all as you just bash me over this . anyway from what little study i have done on this seems to point to a problem even if it seems to you to be a non existant one. this is why i have written this post to ask on other peoples opinions on it that have some knowledge in these matters. what is written is what i have read about this and i have not come accross a reading from scientists that says fluoride is clean and safe.

vishal

if you want to read from studies published in recognised medical and dental journals google pubmed.

zenno

will do.
well this sums it up and keeps everyone happy with a choice and we should have a choice on weather we want to drink fluoridated water or not. people should not be forced to have to drink it.

In recent years the clamour against the mandatory fluoridation of water has become organised and significantly more vocal. Lobby groups like Fluoride Free Water have kept the issue in the public eye. In addition to ten local authorities, including Dublin, Kerry, Sligo, Donegal, Leitrim and Longford and seven urban district councils, the Consumers Association of Ireland (CAI) is the latest of a number of independent organisations that have voted against fluoridation of water supplies.
"We are of the opinion that Government policy should now change to allow every consumer choice in the matter of fluoridation of drinking water supplies", explained Michael Kilcoyne, the CAI's chairman. "It's a question of choice. If you buy a glass of beer, the chances are it contains fluoride. The consumer should have the choice on whether or not to have water that contains fluoride

Big_G

zenno wrote: »

will do.
well this sums it up and keeps everyone happy with a choice and we should have a choice on weather we want to drink fluoridated water or not. people should not be forced to have to drink it.

You do not have the choice, nor will you ever. Even if the government stops optimising the concentration of fluoride in the water, there still will be trace amounts of it in the water, which would be quite costly to remove.

You have a SEVERE lack of understanding of the issues surrounding water fluoridation and the history of it in Ireland.

The only reason to argue against optimisation of fluoride in the water is that systemic delivery of fluoride is not its most effective route of delivery.

Please enlighten yourself to the FACTS before coming on here to start a fight.

Also, we are not consumers of the water supply in the economic sense of the word, as we do not directly pay for it.

zenno

Big_G wrote: »

You do not have the choice, nor will you ever. Even if the government stops optimising the concentration of fluoride in the water, there still will be trace amounts of it in the water, which would be quite costly to remove.

You have a SEVERE lack of understanding of the issues surrounding water fluoridation and the history of it in Ireland.

The only reason to argue against optimisation of fluoride in the water is that systemic delivery of fluoride is not its most effective route of delivery.

Please enlighten yourself to the FACTS before coming on here to start a fight.

Also, we are not consumers of the water supply in the economic sense of the word, as we do not directly pay for it.

LOL now thats funny. a severe lack of understanding ? i must laugh. before coming on here to start a fight ? number 1, I never came on here to start a fight i am just curious as to why so many people are saying, and are worried about this issue and I tought i might get a mature response but it seems like your not one able to give one. it seems like you are disgusted in the tought that fluoride may be a cause for concern it is important to discuss issues like this if it frightens you you should look elsewere. this post has nothing to do with the history of the fluoridation in ireland it is about weather or not it poses a threat to health in this country. get your facts right. I believe a full study of the fluoridation issue in ireland should commence and if fluoride is safe then the government has nothing to worry about if it's not then it should be taken out permanantly from supply.

zenno

QUOTE: by BIG G. The reason why it was decided to add fluoride to the water is that H. Trendley Dean proved in the 1920s that optimal concentrations of fluoride in the water reduced the tooth decay rate in populations.

no I don't believe this, as that finding is almost 90 years old. years later were the days when doctors all over the world were saying that smoking was good for you. the science is old and contaminated. new tests should be put in place.

Big_G

It doesn't really matter what you believe unless you are on one of the government scientific advisory panels. Which you are not.

You don't seem to have a scientific background so let me explain this to you.
We know from a plethora of studies that fluoride makes teeth resistant to decay. We know the mechanism of this and it has been proven conclusively. It is beyond argument and doubt. It is merely then to decide what is the best way to deliver fluoride to the teeth, topically or systemically.

We know that topical delivery is the most effective, and that systemic delivery works best during the time in a persons life when teeth are developing. In a population where topical delivery is not possible or minimal, systemic delivery is desirable as a second best option.

During the time when fluoride optimisation was introduced in the 1960s large portions of the population did not have access to topical fluoride delivery systems such as toothpaste and mouthwash for various reasons, not least of which were the socioeconomic reasons.

Since that time, the optimisation level of fluoride in the public water supply has been reduced from 1 part per million (imagine how small of a concentration that is) to 0.6-0.7 ppm. This in response to the increase in access to the topical delivery systems.

Recent data suggests that 75% of 15 year olds in the Republic have decay in their teeth. If this is not an argument for continuing optimisation, I don't know what is. There has been no conclusive proof of systemic issues with this low level of fluoride delivery in the water system. I know of only one study that shows a slight increase in the rate of osteosarcoma (an exceedingly rare bone cancer) in teenage males in areas of water fluoridation. One study does not an evidence base make.

In terms of cost/benefit of fluoride, it is cheaper to optimise it in the water supply than to pay for an increase in the caries rate.

I actually think that fluoridation should end, but not because of the reasons you suggest. I think it should end because access to topical systems is easy now and cheap. The reason why the choice question does not come into it for me is because most people either don't have enough information, or don't have the correct information (such as yourself).

That is really a philosophical question, not a clinical or epidemiological question.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Hear we go again....

As a dentist I believe that optimally fluoridated water is a good thing. It lowers the decay rate in the population especially people who are not getting fluoride from other sources (lots of people don't brush with fluoride toothpaste or brush at all). This applies to all of the population regardless of social group and especially benefits children.

The high drop in decay rate has been proven many times over.

However there is a group who believe that the fluoride is a poison. Indeed just like most chemicals fit is dose dependant. Water if taken in high amounts will kill you. OPTIMLLY fluoridated water has been show to have no side effects.

Some water supplies have naturally very high levels of fluoride and this can be a problem causing tooth discolouration in children.

There is also a point about it being a mass medication of a population, on this point I am unsure of the law. If the water is not fluoridated then the decay rate will shoot back up again most likely. Leading to pain and oral disease mostly in children and young adults.

I for one a pro fluoride, even though it reduced the treatment need of our society and hence my work. Will it last, I think probably not but enjoy it while its here.

Big_G

Hannah Fit Screwdriver wrote: »

There is also a point about it being a mass medication of a population, on this point I am unsure of the law.

The Supreme Court found that it is a nutrient not a medication.

davo10

Fitzgeme, I am on the fence about flouridation in that i think it is very difficult to get an impartial study on it's effect. Pro will give one set of results, anti another. Also many recent stats have been provided by the HSE, some of their principals are strong advocates of flouridation and if stats were seen to rise then there would be questions on why HSE is not providing more conservative dental treatments for children if decay rate was rising. I regularly see the children of exasperated adult patients who bring their children in to our clinic in pain, having been recently told by school dentist that everything was ok.

As far as i am concerned the main issue is that people are not given the option of opting out of flouridated water scheme. Also people now get flouride delivary in nearly all toothpastes and mouthrinses.

I do not however subscribe in any way shape or form to flouridation being a health risk, this is drivel.

zenno

well obviously these countries don't agree with your opinion.

France:
"Fluoride chemcials are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000).

Luxembourg:
"Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by there own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their diary [sic] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000).

Denmark:
"We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies." (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999).


Norway:
"In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated." (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000

Sweden:
"Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000).

Germany:
"In the former Democratic Republic of Germany (DDR) in several districts the drinking water was fluoridated but after the unification of both German states in 1990 fluoridation was stopped. In the Federal Republic of Germany there was in about 1952 a drinking water fluoridation experiment. But it was stopped after one or two years." (Dr. K. Ewing (sp?), Geschaftszeichen (Bei allen Antworten bitte angeben), Bonn, Germany, February 11, 2000).


Finland:
"We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000).


Austria:
"Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria." (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000).

Belgium:

"This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000).

in regards to Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine it states The Irish government is currently ignoring a major European wide Human Rights Convention that insists that no state or government can force its population to take a medicine to which they have not given consent. Over 23 countries have signed this convention since 1997, HOWEVER THE IRISH GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO SIGN UP and fluoride is a medical issue

Big_G

zenno wrote: »

in regards to Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine it states The Irish government is currently ignoring a major European wide Human Rights Convention that insists that no state or government can force its population to take a medicine to which they have not given consent. Over 23 countries have signed this convention since 1997, HOWEVER THE IRISH GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO SIGN UP and fluoride is a medical issue
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

As previously stated, the Supreme Court in this country found in 1961 that fluoride is a nutrient, not a medicine and as such does not fall under the ethical consideration of mass medication.

This has to be stated again. In toxicology, the dose makes the poison. If you drink enough distilled water you can die. You still have yet to provide a valid argument against the optimisation of fluoride in the water.

zenno

Big_G wrote: »

As previously stated, the Supreme Court in this country found in 1961 that fluoride is a nutrient, not a medicine and as such does not fall under the ethical consideration of mass medication.

This has to be stated again. In toxicology, the dose makes the poison. If you drink enough distilled water you can die. You still have yet to provide a valid argument against the optimisation of fluoride in the water.

I already have it is you that has not shown anything at all (NOTHING) to back your statments up on the contrary you have repeated over and over that fluoride is a nutrient which i have clearly shown it is not it is a poison. i have done the research you have not done one thing at all which makes me believe you just couldn't be bothered to study this issue. small words is all you have nothing to back them up i have seen this before from other posts.

these people know what they are saying they work in the field. you don't

I would advise against fluoridation.. [SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Side-effects cannot be excluded[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] .. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]In [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean [/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=-1]as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances."
- Dr. Arvid Carlsson, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000)[/SIZE]

E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=-1]data, but on the [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=-1]evidence of bone fractures, arthritis,[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=-1]mutagenicity and other effects." - Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A.[/SIZE][/FONT]

i could go on but the evidence is out there if people bothered to look you must work for the fluoridation company.

zenno

well this problem is being looked at more carefully now.

1 April 2009

The EU Commission has reacted to appeals by VOICE of Irish Concern for the Environment to investigate the hazardous chemical, fluorosilicic acid added to most Irish drinking water.The Comission has now issued a ‘working mandate’ calling for information to be submitted on ‘the hazard profile, health effects and human exposure to fluoride and health risks associated with the most common fluoridation agents like fluorosilicic acid’. VOICE campaigner Robert Pocock said: “ We welcome this call because it reflects almost exactly the concerns we brought last year to senior officials of DG SANCO in a series of meetings involving international experts in toxicology."

This is a significant breakthrough for all those who have long opposed the addition to drinking water of the industrial waste, fluorosilicic acid. It is significant that the Commission’s working mandate has correctly listed in first place the hazard profile of fluorosilicic acid because the Irish Health Minister and her innumerable fluoridation advisers are still in complete denial of its toxic origins. For example her Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health continues to assert that it is simply a primary product. In reality it is listed as hazardous waste under the EU Waste Directive (689/91/EC) and originates from the waste scrubbers of phosphate production. This in turn accounts for the other highly neurotoxic and carcinogenic contaminants in its make-up --- beryllium, lead, arsenic, uranium and chromium of Erin Brokovich fame.

Big_G

zenno wrote: »

I already have it is you that has not shown anything at all (NOTHING) to back your statments up on the contrary you have repeated over and over that fluoride is a nutrient which i have clearly shown it is not it is a poison.

You have not. You merely keep quoting other peoples opinions on the issue. Fluoride is toxic if the dose is large enough. So is sugar, yet you eat that every day. Oxygen is toxic in high enough doses.

zenno wrote: »

i have done the research you have not done one thing at all which makes me believe you just couldn't be bothered to study this issue. small words is all you have nothing to back them up i have seen this before from other posts.

What research have you done apart from read other peoples opinions on the subject? You have yet to quote one peer reviewed study about this issue.

zenno wrote: »

these people know what they are saying they work in the field. you don't

I work in the field every day. I see the clinical outcomes of fluoridation on a daily basis. You do not.

zenno wrote: »

I would advise against fluoridation.. [SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Side-effects cannot be excluded[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] .. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]In [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean [/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=-1]as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances."
- Dr. Arvid Carlsson, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000)[/SIZE]

This is the most sensible quote I have heard so far on the subject. "Side-effects cannot be excluded." This is true. This does not also mean that side effects have been proven. There are dose dependent side effects to water fluoridation. He says that fluoride is pharmacologically active substance, and therefore is potentially toxic. Caffeine is pharmacologically active. Salt is pharmacologically active. Chlorine is toxic, yet nobody objects to it being used to kill bacteria in the water.

zenno wrote: »

i could go on but the evidence is out there if people bothered to look you must work for the fluoridation company.

Nope, actually business would be better for me if there was no fluoridation. If you bothered to understand what you were reading, you might not have so many objections. I understand how and why fluoride works and can make an educated decision as to whether I support its use in the water or not.

I think at the time it was introduced, it was the right thing. Nowadays, I think there may be need for it as people can get a better effect from topical application of fluoride. Water fluoridation is most effective at the ages where topical fluoride application is difficult, ie childhood.

And before you question my qualifications, I was taught about fluoride by one of the worlds leading authorities on the subject, a former president of the International Association of Dental Research and a professor.

Who taught you?

Capt'n Midnight

Big_G wrote:

Oxygen is toxic in high enough doses.

It's carcinogenic at normal doses, that's one of the reasons you hear about anti-oxidants , yet the government doesn't ban it

Chlorine is toxic, yet nobody objects to it being used to kill bacteria in the water.

TBH to kill bacteria you would probably need to use something toxic


I have no problem with a discussion on Fluoride
I have major problems with people parroting stuff they saw on a web site


Dr Strangelove was a film made in 1964 . Part of the plot makes fun of the fluoride fear. Fluoride has been argued over for half a century even though no one makes much money on it. IMHO it's just FUD a distraction to have the public to "don't look here , look over there"


Things like the patriot act , DRM , CCTV and Data Retention have been implemented with far less fuss.


The few people genuinely worried about fluoride can buy bottled water or get water filters. Me I'd rather have fluoride in my water than mercury in my teeth.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Zenno - thanks for the posts, interesting points. However try not to take digs at other posters or get personal with your posts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. The dentists here are not out to get anyone, they are just giving their opinion as are you. Cheers fitzgeme.

ironclaw

I have to say this is an interesting arguement. There was a big thing about this a few years ago. Personally, I feel its a stupid arguement. If Florine was such a dangerous chemical and was so utterly toxic, why are our life expectancy rates on par with every other nation in Europe? Humans need water to live, we have to drink it, so if we're drinking toxic water from day one and the other nations of europe arn't, then why arn't we dying younger? Or why don't we have some seriously notable increase in specific diseases?

Just to quote some facts (Figures in years):

Greece
Men 75.7
Women 80.7

Ireland
Men 74.9
Women 80.7

Italy
Men 77.3
Women 83.1

Portugal
Men 74.2
Women 80.8

Spain
Men 76.2
Women 83

In addition, Fluoride is used in the manufacteur of some plastics, so should we ban them too? And "Fresh water supplies generally contain between 0.01-0.3 ppm, while the ocean contains between 1.2 and 1.5 ppm of Fluoride" so I guess we shouldn't swim in the sea either..

zenno

Hannah Fit Screwdriver wrote: »

Zenno - thanks for the posts, interesting points. However try not to take digs at other posters or get personal with your posts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. The dentists here are not out to get anyone, they are just giving their opinion as are you. Cheers Hannah Fit Screwdriver.

well really i'm not taking digs at people don't get me wrong i have no anger towards any poster here on the contrary i am actually making it look that way to force people to research and debate on this issue for the facts. i did not know much about fluoride before i posted. this is the reason why i have put other comments from epa and toxicologists and other people in the field to ask why are these people saying that fluoride is bad or a health risk. you have half over here saying it's good for you and safe and you have some respected people saying it's bad for health. to be honest i am not sure weather fluoride poses a health risk or not but im curious enough to ask does it. i had to force the debate because a good few people that work in this field have serious concerns for fluoride. well until there is a proper scientific analysis taken of fluoridated water in ireland we will never really know. and there is no point in saying that it's perfectly safe as this is the same with people saying it's unsafe. well i think it's time to put everybodies mind at ease and wait for the european fluoride test to finish. the results will be up soon and then we will see whether or not it's compleatly safe. if it is then happy days if not thats another issue. i am sorry if i have upset anyone but these kinds of debates are usually this way.

danger man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCPeXdkQBy4&tracker=False

sodium fluoride is very bad for you only gob would say otherwise and
id lisen to Dr. Paul Connett before anyone on boards.ie.

there going to start charging us for our tap water soon.
is it in our water??
il be geting mine checked out.
dose anyone no where to get your tap water tested?

MASTER...of the bra

I didn't read all the above, I was talking to a guy a few weeks back who works in the water section of one of the councils, there's FIVE chemicals being put in the water now including fluoride ,can't remember names now:o.

He hasn't drank tap water since the day he started because of the way it boils up with foam and bubbles when there put in, can't be good for you. He can't see anyway around it now either because the water is so dirty and polluted to begin with.

I came across an article by chance the other night aswell about bottled water, the plastic apparently leeches into the water in the bottle. I'm sure that will be shot down pretty fast considering the money involved.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Seems flouride has the power to resurect old threads as well. Not getting into this again. Locked.