Fluoride - why has every country in Europe banned it? And we are drinking it?

mute101

If you are one of the thousands of people who want some media coverage on the dangers of fluoride in our drinking water, join us.

There is a mountain of evidence supporting the European stance on fluoride - so why is Ireland still drinking this chemical waste?

At the very least this should be getting extensive coverage in the mainstream media.

If you want some answers, lend us your voice...

Sign up here:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Call-Joe-Duffy-Every-Day-to-Highlight-Dangers-of-Fluoride/204135912955874


If you want to do some research on the dangers, check these sites...

http://irishfluoridescandal.org/videos/
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
http://www.thenhfireland.com/

coylemj

Why didn't you post this on the Dental forum? Maybe you'd get some scientific rebuttals that you don't want to hear.

autonomy

Hexa-fluoro acidic acid (toxic), more commonly known as sodium fluoride!

ballsymchugh

better still, read some of the old threads in dental issues. the question has been brought up and answered enough times.
what's with all the fluoride threads in the past few days, everywhere apart from dental issues?

opinion guy

coylemj wrote: »

Why didn't you post this on the Dental forum? Maybe you'd get some scientific rebuttals that you don't want to hear.

ballsymchugh wrote: »

better still, read some of the old threads in dental issues. the question has been brought up and answered enough times.
what's with all the fluoride threads in the past few days, everywhere apart from dental issues?

There is a moratorium on discussing fluoride or mercury on the dental forum. You won't get scientific rebuttals there you will get abuse.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

opinion guy wrote: »

There is a moratorium on discussing fluoride or mercury on the dental forum. You won't get scientific rebuttals there you will get abuse.

No it the nonsense rebuttals of the science that get abuse.

mcmoustache

As much as I dislike authorities putting stuff in my drinking water on principle, I think that flouridation is a good idea if it works. Also, and apologies for the ad-hominem, but some of the anti-flouride gang come across as ill-informed and deluded.

I have a question for the dentists though:

Have there been any comparitive studies done which show the levels of tooth decay with and without flouridation in countries of similar wealth?
The only thing that would turn me off the idea would be if it didn't work.

RGDATA!

mute101 wrote: »

If you are one of the thousands of people who want some media coverage on the dangers of fluoride in our drinking water, join us.

There is a mountain of evidence supporting the European stance on fluoride - so why is Ireland still drinking this chemical waste?

At the very least this should be getting extensive coverage in the mainstream media.

If you want some answers, lend us your voice...

Sign up here:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Call-Joe-Duffy-Every-Day-to-Highlight-Dangers-of-Fluoride/204135912955874


If you want to do some research on the dangers, check these sites...

http://irishfluoridescandal.org/videos/
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
http://www.thenhfireland.com/

every country in europe has banned flouride? is that correct?

opinion guy

Raphael Bumpy Ash wrote: »

No it the nonsense rebuttals of the science that get abuse.

Is dentistry a science degree ?
How much toxicology does a dentist study ?

peggie

mcmoustache wrote: »

I have a question for the dentists though:

Have there been any comparitive studies done which show the levels of tooth decay with and without flouridation in countries of similar wealth?
The only thing that would turn me off the idea would be if it didn't work.

yes many years of research has shown the benefits of fluoride in the battle against tooth decay,

research has been done here in Ireland comparing non-fluoridated areas and fluoridated areas. it found that fluoridated areas show lower decay levels at all ages (not everyone in ireland has the luxury of fluoridated water)

the 2002 north-south survey of children compared fluoridated areas in the republic of ireland to the non-fluoridated north and the children in fluoridated areas had lower caries levels.

the forum on fluoridation reported in 2002 and i would urge anyone who really wants to debate this topic to read it and all its references before highlighting one study or another, (also look at the list of people who were involved in its development- not all dentists by a long shot.)
http://www.dohc.ie/publications/fluoridation_forum.html
published by the dept of health if you can't click on the link here


also check out the expert body on fluorides website- i'm sure they would be happy to assess any research you find on the web you feel they may have overlooked- but i caution that they have very high scientific standards
http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/

flahavaj

mcmoustache wrote: »

As much as I dislike authorities putting stuff in my drinking water on principle, I think that flouridation is a good idea if it works. Also, and apologies for the ad-hominem, but some of the anti-flouride gang come across as ill-informed and deluded.

I have a question for the dentists though:

Have there been any comparitive studies done which show the levels of tooth decay with and without flouridation in countries of similar wealth?
The only thing that would turn me off the idea would be if it didn't work.

There are too many other confounding factors to make such a comparison between countries scientifically valid. Anyway you don't need to compare between countries when you have reams of evidence within countries such as Ireland that compare area with and without fluoride in their drinking water, and which control for other factors that may be influential.

whiteonion

peggie wrote: »

the 2002 north-south survey of children compared fluoridated areas in the republic of ireland to the non-fluoridated north and the children in fluoridated areas had lower caries levels.

Correlation does not imply causation.

David Matthew

Is is not sufficient to just look after one's teeth oneself, i.e. wash your teeth with toothpaste?? Personally I'd be much more comfortable with a water supply free of fluoride. I'd side with the positions outlined by Finland and Belgium below:

• “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).
• “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000).

Source

flahavaj

whiteonion wrote: »

Correlation does not imply causation.

What type of scirntific research would you suggest that could prove causation in this case?

The huge body evidence that exists from several different surveys, which has taken into account other known confounding factors, shows that people living in fluoridated areas experience a less dental decay.

flahavaj

David Matthew wrote: »

Is is not sufficient to just look after one's teeth oneself, i.e. wash your teeth with toothpaste?? Personally I'd be much more comfortable with a water supply free of fluoride. I'd side with the positions outlined by Finland and Belgium below:

• “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).
• “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000).

Source

Comparisons between countries that don't take into account other factors such as the way dental services are delivered or the amount of GDP spent on oral health in different countries are flawed.

Big_G

opinion guy wrote: »

Is dentistry a science degree ?
How much toxicology does a dentist study ?

First question: Yes. I was awarded both a bachelor of arts in science and a bachelor of dental science for my undergraduate studies.

Second question: enough to know that the dose makes the poison, the primary and foundation principle of toxicology.

Pretty much an ad hominem attack on the dentists posting here, such a strong argument against fluoride is to question what dentists do and don't know, not to bother showing insight into the existing scientific evidence, which is strongly in favour of water fluoridation.

With regard to correlative studies, it does show evidence of causation when allied with other studies that show the mode of action of fluoride in teeth and also in the absence of a theory which disproves that fluoride works, which is how all science works. A theory is accepted until disproven either by repeatable experimentation or a better theory.

opinion guy

Big_G wrote: »

First question: Yes. I was awarded both a bachelor of arts in science and a bachelor of dental science for my undergraduate studies.

Fair enough.

Second question: enough to know that the dose makes the poison, the primary and foundation principle of toxicology.

Anyone could google toxicology and learn that in 5 seconds. I want to know - how many hours of lectures in toxicology did you do. I know that doctors in one of the med schools here to 1 hour of toxicology in 6 years so really I want to know how much denstists do. Genuinely I'd like to know how many hours you guys do in dental uni - I think its really telling that anytime I ask this question you guys won't answer it and just dismiss it as an ad hominem. You guys have set yourselfs up as authrotiy on the toxicology of dental materials. I think its a fair question that deserves an answer
As regards dose makes the poison. Well if you did know much toxicology you'd realise the paracephalus was incomplete. Fact is its not just the dose that makes the poison. Nowadays its know that its the dose, moderator by gene-environment interaction, that makes the poison.

Pretty much an ad hominem attack on the dentists posting here, such a strong argument against fluoride is to question what dentists do and don't know, not to bother showing insight into the existing scientific evidence, which is strongly in favour of water fluoridation.

What do you expect ? I've posted up proper scientific studies on mercury before and you guys just disregard it with abuse refusing to even read it. So I'll fight fire with fire. For crying out loud you ban discussion of the issues on your forum. Thats just plain censorship.

Big_G

We don't ban it. We close discussions when the ad hominems start and everything descends into a non-scientific slanging match/flame war. You've asked this question before about our toxicology training and the fact is we don't get a huge amount of toxicology training. But you haven't answered the same question posed to you. What is your background in toxicology training that gives you the right to critique the medical profession and the dental profession? You won't answer that I would hazard, due to the fact that you're not 'setting yourself up as an expert on the toxicology of dental materials'. I still think its hypocritical.

We are not talking about amalgam here either, we are talking about fluoride. Fluoride has well studied LD50 numbers in terms of toxicity from water fluoridation, in order to hit the lethal dose in humans, an adult male would have to consume 600 gallons of water in one sitting. In terms of cumulative toxicity, there has been no good quality evidence of any adverse effects at optimised levels of water fluoridation.

Big_G

Why is this even being posted in this forum? Conspiracy Theories

---

>

charlemont

Supposedly fluoride affects a reactionary part of the brain, So maybe thats why we Irish collectively were as useless as a flock of sheep against the Big Bad Wolf (Brian Lenihan).

opinion guy

Big_G wrote: »

We don't ban it. We close discussions when the ad hominems start and everything descends into a non-scientific slanging match/flame war. You've asked this question before about our toxicology training and the fact is we don't get a huge amount of toxicology training. But you haven't answered the same question posed to you. What is your background in toxicology training that gives you the right to critique the medical profession and the dental profession? You won't answer that I would hazard, due to the fact that you're not 'setting yourself up as an expert on the toxicology of dental materials'. I still think its hypocritical.

I won't answer cause I value my privacy. But you are right I'm not claiming to be an expert I'm merely arguing the point - something that you've proven yourself incapable to do over and over without resortign to abuse or derision - case in point:

Big_G wrote: »

Why is this even being posted in this forum? Conspiracy Theories

---

>

Whether you like it or not Big-G there is a scientific debate on these issues. It doesn't get consigned to conspiracy forum because you say so (well it would on the dental forum because you have the power). As this is a topic which is effectively banned from discussion on other fora, that makes it a free speech issue - so I think News and Media is a good place for it.

We are not talking about amalgam here either, we are talking about fluoride. Fluoride has well studied LD50 numbers in terms of toxicity from water fluoridation, in order to hit the lethal dose in humans, an adult male would have to consume 600 gallons of water in one sitting. In terms of cumulative toxicity, there has been no good quality evidence of any adverse effects at optimised levels of water fluoridation.

Lol - you've got a point there. I mean personally I don't know enough about fluoride to strongly object, although I do know some bona fide experts who do object. However on a ethical basis I have a problem with fluoride because there is no control of what dose anyone receives - its entirely dependent on how much water you drink. This I have a big problem with. Its against good practice. If you went to an ethics committee with a proposal to put drug 'X' into the water and you told them it was most likely safe but you would have no control over the dose - they would laugh at you and tell you to sling your hook

opinion guy

Tell you what big G I'm calling your bluff. I am reading at the moment a very substantial article rebutting the claims of amalgam safety written by a leading mercury expert. I'll post it in the dental forum - I mean you are telling me scientific discussion is allowed right ?
The good folks of the News and Media forum can watch and decide for themselves:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72504968#post72504968

GerardKeating

RGDATA! wrote: »

every country in europe has banned flouride? is that correct?

Sweden did actually ban it, and the Courts in the Netherlands stopped it, since there was no specific legal provision for it, which is not the same as banning it.

Other states (Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany etc) permit it under law, but stopped doing it, others never bothered in the first place.

Parts of the UK, Spain do fluoridated the water supply, others (Switerland) add it to Salt instead.

Source.

Big_G

opinion guy wrote: »

I won't answer cause I value my privacy. But you are right I'm not claiming to be an expert I'm merely arguing the point - something that you've proven yourself incapable to do over and over without resortign to abuse or derision - case in point:

Whether you like it or not Big-G there is a scientific debate on these issues. It doesn't get consigned to conspiracy forum because you say so (well it would on the dental forum because you have the power). As this is a topic which is effectively banned from discussion on other fora, that makes it a free speech issue - so I think News and Media is a good place for it.



Lol - you've got a point there. I mean personally I don't know enough about fluoride to strongly object, although I do know some bona fide experts who do object. However on a ethical basis I have a problem with fluoride because there is no control of what dose anyone receives - its entirely dependent on how much water you drink. This I have a big problem with. Its against good practice. If you went to an ethics committee with a proposal to put drug 'X' into the water and you told them it was most likely safe but you would have no control over the dose - they would laugh at you and tell you to sling your hook

I wasn't being abusive, I was merely suggesting that news and media is not an appropriate forum for discussion of this issue. It is not a free speech issue, you know as well as I do that the vast majority of people are ill informed to enter into debate on this issue yet do so anyway which results in rows. The mods are not here as thought police, merely as civility police.

Fluoride is not a drug, it is a nutrient that exists in all water supplies naturally. Adding fluoride is merely optimising the level to which beneficial effects are experienced.

So you value your privacy, but you call everyone else into question. Double standard, no?

There is scientific debate on this issue, currently unresolved and unresolvable on boards.ie in my opinion and experience. Therefore, why bother when it just results in trouble. You are not going to change anyones minds with quotes from personalities in the scientific world. In fairness, most of what passes for debate in dental issues and science forum in general is endless rehash of anecdote and posting of quack websites. That just ends in disaster.
I'm not saying that that is what you do, but I am saying there are other people out there with an agenda. I like to take a pragmatic approach to these complex issues, because they are complex issues. Acknowledge that there are valid arguments and evidence for and against and let that be that. Endless argument on the internet changes nothing.

flogen

Big_G is right - this isn't a news/media issue and would be better suited elsewhere.

I'm happy to move it to Dental Issues (though I wanted to contact a mod from that forum before I moved it to get the OK and am still waiting on a reply so haven't done anything), or another forum if someone suggests.

Ideally I'd not like to lock this thread but if it can't find a suitable home I'll have to eventually.

David Matthew

flogen wrote:

Ideally I'd not like to lock this thread but if it can't find a suitable home I'll have to eventually.

How about the Conspiracy Theories forum? I don't mean that to denigrate the discussion, or the CT forum for that matter, but it would be a pity to lock the thread.