Fluoride in tap water

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Yet other respectable people are saying the opposite

Twenty five years beforehand, and prior to a raft of research which confirmed water fluoridation posed no such risks.

weisses wrote: »

To bad research pre 2000 was excluded

It wasn't. The study references research going back to the '50's

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Twenty five years beforehand, and prior to a raft of research which confirmed water fluoridation posed no such risks.

"From the chemical and biochemical point of view, a key finding came in 1981, when John Emsley showed that fluoride formed a strong hydrogen bond with the amide function. This certainly gives a very plausible explanation as to why this 'chemically inert' entity fluoride could cause biochemical harm. Indeed, interference with the H-bonding poses a threat to the very heart of biochemistry where so much of the structure and function of proteins and nucleic acids is dependent on hydrogen bond making and breaking. This potential disruption of H-bonds would explain fluoride's inhibition of certain enzymes and possibly its interference with DNA repair mechanisms." (See 23-2: letter by Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, May 26. 1999).

Another one ... Plenty of respectable knowledgeable people will tell you the same

alastair wrote: »

It wasn't. The study references research going back to the '50's

I was looking at exclusion of citations:

original study published pre-2000

there are a few of them ... why i don't know

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Another one ... Plenty of respectable knowledgeable people will tell you the same

Well - they won't tbh. Dr. Paul Connett, and his anti-fluoridation campaign (FAN) stands in opposition to a consensus across the scientific community that water fluoridation poses none of the problems theorised by Connett and his crew.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Well - they won't tbh. Dr. Paul Connett, and his anti-fluoridation campaign (FAN) stands in opposition to a consensus across the scientific community that water fluoridation poses none of the problems theorised by Connett and his crew.

Where does it state that specifically ?

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Where does it state that specifically ?

Specifically? It's evident across the gamut of scientific research - such as the Australian report I posted up - which reflects the scientific consensus.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Specifically? It's evident across the gamut of scientific research - such as the Australian report I posted up - which reflects the scientific consensus.

They are not mentioning the word enzyme once in that report

so again where specifically do they debunk Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry's findings ? as you stated they did in your reply below

consensus across the scientific community that water fluoridation poses none of the problems theorised by Connett and his crew

alastair

weisses wrote: »

They are not mentioning the word enzyme once in that report

so again where specifically do they debunk Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry findings ?

They have a section covering 'other' claims of toxic impact on health - including bone density.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

They have a section covering 'other' claims of toxic impact on health - including bone density.

And how is that debunking what Dr connett stated ?

weisses

AnonoBoy wrote: »

And I point out that the information is incorrect.

Point out with what and where ?

So far we have your "glitch in the matrix"

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Yup some do say that. More research is probably needed because the research that has been done hasn't shown anything that shows it to be harmful in the dosage that it's in water and definitely not anything that shows it to be some sort of 'population placater' despite the countless wild claims to the contrary.

No that is not how it is stated... which you should know considering the knowledge you apparently have regarding this subject

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So far the weight of evidence leans towards the claims that fluoride is being put in the water to make the general population docile being very very made up.

It's the theory that the people with knowledge of how chemistry works would believe. People who tend to believe the opposite tend not to understand even the basics of chemistry.

Well enlighten me please

alastair

weisses wrote: »

And how is that debunking what Dr connett stated ?

His theory relates entirely to enzymes impacting on bone density. If there is no scientific evidence to support his theory - it's debunked.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

His theory relates entirely to enzymes impacting on bone density. If there is no scientific evidence to support his theory - it's debunked.

How did you come to the conclusion his theory relates entirely to bone density? and not tissue/cells in general for example

And how can it be debunked when his theory/research is not even mentioned in the report by the aussies

You jump from one false assumption in to another ...

alastair

weisses wrote: »

How did you come to the conclusion his theory relates entirely to bone density? and not tissue/cells in general for example

And how can it be debunked when his theory/research is not even mentioned in the report by the aussies

You jump from one false assumption in to another ...

The Australian report dealt with all research into claims of ill effects on fluoridation - it's just one of a number of comprehensive reviews of claim and fact relating to suggested harm through fluoridation. It represents the scientific consensus - a consensus that Connett and his lobby group unarguably exists outside. Here's the EU state of the science report on the same:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf

SUMMARY
Fluoride, either naturally present or intentionally added to water, food and consumer
products, e.g. toothpaste, is generally considered beneficial to prevent dental caries.
Considering previous opinions from EFSA and SCCP, SCHER has reviewed the newest
information in the area on risk and benefit of using fluoridated drinking water and intake
of fluoride from all sources.

SCHER concludes:
Hydrolysis of hexafluorosilicates, used for drinking water fluoridation, to fluoride was
rapid and the release of fluoride ion was essentially complete. Therefore, the fluoride ion
is considered the only relevant substance with respect to this opinion.
There is a risk for dental fluorosis in children with systemic fluoride exposure, and a
threshold cannot be detected.
The occurrence of endemic skeletal fluorosis has not been reported in the EU general
population.
There is not sufficient evidence linking fluoride in the drinking water to the development
of osteosarcoma.
Fluoride intake from drinking water at the level occurring in the EU does not appear to
hamper children’s neurodevelopment and IQ levels.
Fluoride and fluoridating agents of drinking water
Human studies do not suggest adverse thyroid effects at realistic human exposures to
fluoride.
There is no new evidence from human studies indicating that fluoride in drinking water
influences male and female reproductive capacity.
The upper tolerable intake level (UL) is not exceeded for adults and children between 12
and 15 years living in areas with fluoridated drinking water where the concentration of
fluoride does not exceed 0.8 mg/L.
The UL was exceeded in children between 6 and 12 years living in areas with fluoridated
drinking water (with levels above 0.8 mg/L) when consuming more than 1 L water/day
and using adult toothpaste containing 0.15% fluoride.
The UL is exceeded in children between 1 and 6 years of age living in areas with
fluoridated drinking water (at fluoride concentration levels above 0.8 mg/L) when
consuming more than 0.5 L water and using adult toothpaste containing 0.15% fluoride.
For infants, when the fluoride concentration in drinking water is above 0.8 mg/L, the
exposure to fluoride is estimated to exceed 0.1 mg/kg/day.
Water fluoridation as well as topical fluoride applications, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste or
varnish, appears to prevent caries, primarily on permanent dentition, but topical
application is the more efficient measure.
In children, a very narrow margin exists between achieving the beneficial effects of
fluoride in caries prevention and the adverse effects of dental fluorosis.
Exposure of environmental organisms to the levels of fluoride used for fluoridation of
drinking water is not expected to lead to unacceptable risks to the environment.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

The Australian report dealt with all research into claims of ill effects on fluoridation - it's just one of a number of comprehensive reviews of claim and fact relating to suggested harm through fluoridation. It represents the scientific consensus - a consensus that Connett and his lobby group unarguably exists outside. Here's the EU state of the science report on the same:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf

Did i read this right ?

SCHER agrees that topical application of fluoride is most effective in preventing tooth
decay. Topical fluoride sustains the fluoride levels in the oral cavity and helps to prevent
caries, with reduced systemic availability. The efficacy of population-based policies, e.g.
drinking water, milk or salt fluoridation, as regards the reduction of oral-health social
disparities, remains insufficiently substantiated.

or this ?

Water fluoridation as well as topical fluoride applications (e.g. fluoridated toothpaste or
varnish) appears to prevent caries, primarily on permanent dentition. No obvious
advantage appears in favour of water fluoridation compared with topical prevention. The
effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride from whatever source is questionable
once the permanent teeth have erupted.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Did i read this right ?



or this ?

Use of toothpaste is the most effective use of fluoride - that's not in debate. The problem is that the instance of tooth decay demonstrably increases without water fluoridation.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Use of toothpaste is the most effective use of fluoride - that's not in debate. The problem is that the instance of tooth decay demonstrably increases without water fluoridation.

You can try to spin it any way you want but the report you quoted says this

The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride from whatever source is questionable
once the permanent teeth have erupted.

You stated

The Australian report dealt with all research into claims of ill effects on fluoridation - it's just one of a number of comprehensive reviews of claim and fact relating to suggested harm through fluoridation. It represents the scientific consensus - a consensus that Connett and his lobby group unarguably exists outside. Here's the EU state of the science report on the same:

They conclude that The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride from whatever source is questionable
once the permanent teeth have erupted

So why are the scientists that made this report say this

I agree with this statement ... do you ?

alastair

weisses wrote: »

They conclude that The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride from whatever source is questionable
once the permanent teeth have erupted

So why are the scientists that made this report say this

I agree with this statement ... do you ?

You clearly don't understand the point they're making.

The 'effect' they're referencing is a positive effect, not a negative effect.

To clarify:

Water fluoridation as well as topical fluoride applications, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste or
varnish, appears to prevent caries, primarily on permanent dentition, but topical application is the more efficient measure.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

You clearly don't understand the point they're making.

The 'effect' they're referencing is a positive effect, not a negative effect.

Below the conclusion of the chapter called

Critically review of information that is available in the public domain on the
hazard profile and epidemiological evidence of adverse and/or beneficial health
effects of fluoride.

4.3.3. Conclusion
Water fluoridation as well as topical fluoride applications (e.g. fluoridated toothpaste or
varnish) appears to prevent caries, primarily on permanent dentition. No obvious advantage appears in favor of water fluoridation compared with topical prevention. The
effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride from whatever source is questionable
once the permanent teeth have erupted.
SCHER agrees that topical application of fluoride is most effective in preventing tooth
decay. Topical fluoride sustains the fluoride levels in the oral cavity and helps to prevent
caries, with reduced systemic availability. The efficacy of population-based policies, e.g.
drinking water, milk or salt fluoridation, as regards the reduction of oral-health social
disparities, remains insufficiently substantiated.

Using fluoride once the permanent teeth have erupted is questionable!!

Why would they say that ?

I understand it pretty good i think

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Below the conclusion of the chapter called

Critically review of information that is available in the public domain on the
hazard profile and epidemiological evidence of adverse and/or beneficial health
effects of fluoride.



Using fluoride once the permanent teeth have erupted is questionable!!

Why would they say that ?

I understand it pretty good i think

Obviously you don't.

Water fluoridation as well as topical fluoride applications (e.g. fluoridated toothpaste or varnish) appears to prevent caries, primarily on permanent dentition. No obvious advantage appears in favour of water fluoridation compared with topical prevention. The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride from whatever source is questionable once the permanent teeth have erupted.

SCHER agrees that topical application of fluoride is most effective in preventing tooth decay. Topical fluoride sustains the fluoride levels in the oral cavity and helps to prevent caries, with reduced systemic availability. The efficacy of population-based policies, e.g. drinking water, milk or salt fluoridation, as regards the reduction of oral-health social disparities, remains insufficiently substantiated.

The effect of water fluoridation tends to be maximized among children from the lower socio-economic groups, so that this section of the population may be the prime beneficiary.

In a study of students (16-year olds) living on the border between the
Republic of Ireland (fluoridated water) and Northern Ireland (non-fluoridated
water) it was found that some of the variance in decay experience among the
adolescents was explained by parental employment status. The higher decay
experience in lower socio-economic groups was more evident within the nonfluoridated
group, suggesting that water fluoridation had reduced oral health
disparities (CAWT 2008). Similarly, Truman et al. (2002) and Parnell et al.
(2009) concluded that water fluoridation is effective in reducing the cumulative
experience of dental caries within communities, and that the effect of water
fluoridation tends to be maximized among children from the lower socioeconomic
groups. Furthermore water fluoridation offers additional benefits
over alternative topical methods because its effect does not depend on
individual compliance.

Let's break it down:
1. Fluoridation stops cavities
2. Topical (toothpaste) works better than other means of fluoridation
3. Water fluoridation, on it's own is less effective than toothpaste
3. It's most effective in kids, less so in the older population
4. It's most beneficial for the poorest in society
5. There's not a suggestion that water fluoridation carries any health risks

bozd

bumper234 wrote: »

Wow i am convinced


Any evidence to go along with that?

You want proof!!! ah hold on now. well lets see I'll just get my crack team of scientists onto it straight away and prove to you its true. Anything can be proven it just depends on how you go about it - sleight of hand stuff - like lets see - E Gilmour saying he is saving the Irish people from all this horrible mess - statistics can be used any which way people choose.

ultimately if people dont want flouride in their water then buy bottle water for cooking drinking and stuff only use tap water for loo and sh*t. Dont imagine Gov would ever admit such stuff and sure wouldnt it be just a 'side effect' of saving our teeth :D:D
see wordpress.com lobotomy of the masses the story of fluride. must learn how to do the link thingy:rolleyes:

alastair

bozd wrote: »

You want proof!!! ah hold on now. well lets see I'll just get my crack team of scientists onto it straight away and prove to you its true. Anything can be proven it just depends on how you go about it - sleight of hand stuff - like lets see - E Gilmour saying he is saving the Irish people from all this horrible mess - statistics can be used any which way people choose.

ultimately if people dont want flouride in their water then buy bottle water for cooking drinking and stuff only use tap water for loo and sh*t. Dont imagine Gov would ever admit such stuff and sure wouldnt it be just a 'side effect' of saving our teeth :D:D
see wordpress.com lobotomy of the masses the story of fluride. must learn how to do the link thingy:rolleyes:

Or, in other words - you've nothing to support your contention.

Hey! Fluoridated water increases penis size!

Just take my word for it!

Those who claim otherwise are all in on the cover-up!

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Let's break it down:
1. Fluoridation stops cavities
2. Topical (toothpaste) works better than other means of fluoridation
3. Water fluoridation, on it's own is less effective than toothpaste
3. It's most effective in kids, less so in the older population
4. It's most beneficial for the poorest in society
5. There's not a suggestion that water fluoridation carries any health risks

And point 6 is

The
effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride from whatever source is questionable
once the permanent teeth have erupted.

And point 7

Systemic exposure to fluoride through drinking water is associated with an increased risk of dental and bone fluorosis in a dose-response manner without a detectable threshold.
Limited evidence from epidemiological studies points towards other adverse health
effects following systemic fluoride exposure, e.g. carcinogenicity, developmental neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity; however the application of the general rules ofthe weight-of-evidence approach indica
tes that these observations cannot beunequivocally substantiated. Systemic exposure to fluoride through drinking water is associated with an increased riskof dental and bone fluorosis in a dose-response manner without a detectable threshold.
Limited evidence from epidemiological studies points towards other adverse health
effects following systemic fluoride exposure, e.g. carcinogenicity, develop mental neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity; however the application of the general rules of the weight-of-evidence approach indicates that these observations cannot be unequivocally substantiated.

They already covering themselves

point 8

scientific evidence for the protective effect of topical fluoride application is strong, while the respective data for systemic application via drinking water are less convincing. No obvious advantage appears in favour of water fluoridation as compared with topical application of fluoride.
However, an advantage in favour of water fluoridation is that caries prevention may reach disadvantaged children from
the lower socioeconomic groups

And that's on the first page of the report

alastair

weisses wrote: »

And point 6 is



And point 7



They already covering themselves

point 8



And that's on the first page of the report

And?

They say fluoridation is beneficial, and doesn't pose health risks.

weisses

Another one

Figures indicate.. independent of the fluoridation policies across the EU Member
States, there has been a consistent decline over time in tooth decay in 12 year old children from the mid-1970s, regardless of whether drinking water, milk or salt are fluoridated.

So its even pointless according to the report

weisses

alastair wrote: »

And?

They say fluoridation is beneficial, and doesn't pose health risks.

They also state

The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride from whatever source is questionable
once the permanent teeth have erupted.

allig8or

jh79 wrote: »

With a meter system we will only be paying for what we use so you could use the mains for the practical stuff and bottled for drinking.

There is presently no evidence to suggest any adverse effects of water fluoridation at concentrations present in Irish water. Ironically the papers often cited by anti-water fluoridation advocates only show toxicity at high concentrations thereby proving safety at lower concentrations.

Why filter it out it is good for your teeth.

Are you joking? fluoride is absolutely poisonous do your research look up Declan Waugh or infowars or something

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Another one



So its even pointless according to the report

How so? Fluoride in toothpaste accounts for the improved dental health over those years, where there wasn't other forms of fluoridation.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

The Australian report dealt with all research into claims of ill effects on fluoridation - it's just one of a number of comprehensive reviews of claim and fact relating to suggested harm through fluoridation. It represents the scientific consensus - a consensus that Connett and his lobby group unarguably exists outside. Here's the EU state of the science report on the same:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf

Your claim of the research from Dr. Paul Connett as being debunked is a false one

The adverse effects of fluoride on organisms seem to arise from the disruption of key metabolic pathways through the impairment of enzymes, including those involved in nucleic acid synthesis. However, the mechanistic details are as yet unclear.

That's what they say about the enzymes .... Not even close to debunking

alastair

allig8or wrote: »

Are you joking? fluoride is absolutely poisonous do your research look up Declan Waugh or infowars or something

If you want to be entertained by cranks.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

They also state

AND AGAIN:

Water fluoridation as well as topical fluoride applications (e.g. fluoridated toothpaste or varnish) appears to prevent caries, primarily on permanent dentition. No obvious advantage appears in favour of water fluoridation compared with topical prevention.

allig8or

http://www.infowarsshop.com/Propur-Big-With-ProOne-D-Filters_p_1065.html

Not promoting anything here, this is the way I chose to consume drinking water after I did my research, its an expensive option but once you make the initial outlay it soon pays for itself and your health depends on it