Fluoride in tap water

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Fluoridation in all its guises is endorsed by the EU. They would hardly do that if it was banned.

The UK and US have water fluoridation. Italy already has enough fluoride in the water, Germany has salt, don't how you can claim we are in a minority.

The lie that it is banned in Europe is only used by fluoride alert et al because the argument against fluoridation is lacking. They wouldn't need to resort to this lie if they had decent scientific research to back up their claims.

There is a reason why Hotpress are the only ones badly reporting on this. Any decent reporter who got a professional to look over the research would realise what an non event this is. Hotpress knows its demographic and is pandering to the ill informed beliefs of its readership.

one minute they want to ban "toxic"fluoride the next week lets legalise weed never it is an neurotoxin.

Europe in itself has (yet) nothing to do with it ... every country can decide to fluoridate ... and despite europe saying its safe and fine many country's don't do it for good reason

And stop pretending it has not been banned by some countries ... I have showed you here on thread it was the case

And stop using salt as comparison a reason ... that is not forced upon people by mass distribution without an option for alternatives

What is the percentage of mass fluoridation in the UK ?

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Most countries have opted not to fluoridate water because of the ethical concerns about mass medication. Chlorination is another form of mass medication, but people tend to die if you don't chlorinate the water supply, so the ethical question has a clearer answer. No-one will die if you don't fluoridate. But that ethical question has nothing to do with any health risks of water fluoridation, or because it doesn't work. It does work, and it is safe - as proven by research going back generations. The anti-fluoridation crowd would be better employed making the ethical case than false claims about it's danger, or lack of benefit. Problem is that it's not a very compelling issue then.

If you don't have any concern with mass medication when better suited individual options are available then i think I'm done arguing with you ....

alastair

weisses wrote: »

If you don't have any concern with mass medication when better suited individual options are available then i think I'm done arguing with you ....

buh bye then!

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Europe in itself has (yet) nothing to do with it ... every country can decide to fluoridate ... and despite europe saying its safe and fine many country's don't do it for good reason

And stop pretending it has not been banned by some countries ... I have showed you here on thread it was the case

And stop using salt as comparison a reason ... that is not forced upon people by mass distribution without an option for alternatives

What is the percentage of mass fluoridation in the UK ?

You purposely mislead people by saying it is banned in Europe when you know otherwise and have just admitted so because saying something is banned suggests it is dangerous.

You gave one example of a banning I can't remember if it was verified but I do recall the health minister involved was a member of the green party rather than a professional in an appropriate field.

From now on why not post the truth that some EU countries do and some don't rather than pretending it is banned europe wide.

The % fluoridation in the UK is not important, the government , based on the advice of their scientific and medical advisors, allow it because it is proven to be safe and effective. It is up to the respective councils to decide if they want it.

jh79

What exactly is the conspiracy here?

I mean we have plenty of research on the subject, mostly of bad quality, and it is safe to say that fluoridation at Irish levels is completely safe and is effective in areas where dental health awareness might not be the best. It also provides a constant benefit rather than the education option which will vary with public habits and attitudes.

There maybe an ethical side to it but I don't see how. Nobody minds Chlorine so those people who disagree with fluoridation from an ethical standpoint must have an irrational fear of fluoridation probably due to the crap they read on the internet.

Nobody really believes the whole Nazi mind control stuff, do they?

So where is the conspiracy?

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

You purposely mislead people by saying it is banned in Europe when you know otherwise and have just admitted so because saying something is banned suggests it is dangerous.

Here is a list of banned/dangerous biocides. You'll find hexafluorosilicic acid down the bottom.


http://www.istas.net/risctox/en/dn_risctox_lista.asp?f=biocidas_prohibidas

Routes of exposure
The substance can be absorbed into the body by inhalation of its aerosol and by ingestion.
Inhalation risk
No indication can be given about the rate at which a harmful concentration of this substance in the air is reached on evaporation at 20°C.

Effects of short-term exposure
The substance is corrosive to the eyes, skin and respiratory tract. Corrosive on ingestion. Inhalation of the vapour may cause lung oedema. The effects may be delayed. Medical observation is indicated. See Notes.

Effects of long-term or repeated exposure
The substance may have effects on the bones and teeth. This may result in fluorosis.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Here is a list of banned/dangerous biocides. You'll find hexafluorosilicic acid down the bottom.


http://www.istas.net/risctox/en/dn_risctox_lista.asp?f=biocidas_prohibidas

That's a nice list but has nothing to do with this issue.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

That's a nice list but has nothing to do with this issue.

How not ?

It's being added to our water.

alastair

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Here is a list of banned/dangerous biocides. You'll find hexafluorosilicic acid down the bottom.

Yeah, I wouldn't go sniffing it or taking a few mouthfuls of the raw stuff, but I happily drink it diluted at 0.7 mg/L. I also wouldn't recommend drinking undiluted chlorine.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

How not ?

It's being added to our water.

Which leads to a chemical reaction between it and the water and it then ceases to exist.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

Which leads to a chemical reaction between it and the water and it then ceases to exist.

It vanishes into thin air ?

alastair

Daithi 1 wrote: »

It vanishes into thin air ?

It turns into fluoride.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

It vanishes into thin air ?

It is converted into other substances , surely you did some chemistry for the junior or leaving?

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

It is converted into other substances , surely you did some chemistry for the junior or leaving?

Yeah, I refer to it as soluble. Not "it seizes to exist." It's still there, it still damages teeth and bones over prolonged exposure.

If it can damage a childs teeth over a few short years through prolonged exposure, one can only imagine what it does to bones in the body over many years.

alastair

H 2 SiF6 ( aq ) + 6OH − ( aq ) ⇔ 6 F − ( aq ) + Si( OH )4 ( aq ) + 2 H 2 O( l )

jh79

Sorry Daithi if that sounded harsh but it is a basic concept which would of been covered in second level, I'm assuming your " into thin air" comment was attempt to be smart rather than bourne out of ignorance.

alastair

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Yeah, I refer to it as soluble. Not "it seizes to exist." It's still there, it still damages teeth and bones over prolonged exposure.

Nope - the hexafluorosilicic acid does indeed cease to exist.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Yeah, I refer to it as soluble. Not "it seizes to exist." It's still there, it still damages teeth and bones over prolonged exposure.

At the concentration of 0.7ppm the equilibrium of the reaction is only going in one direction.

alastair

Daithi 1 wrote: »

If it can damage a childs teeth over a few short years through prolonged exposure, one can only imagine what it does to bones in the body over many years.

No need to imagine. Just look at anyone born here post-1963 (or pre '63 for that matter - they've been drinking the same stuff).

Spot any concerns?

Daithi 1

alastair wrote: »

No need to imagine. Just look at anyone born here post-1963 (or pre '63 for that matter - they've been drinking the same stuff).

Spot any concerns?

Yes, we have the highest incidence of arthritis and other bone diseases in Europe.

alastair

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Yes, we have the highest incidence of arthritis and other bone diseases in Europe.

No we don't.

http://www.eumusc.net/myUploadData/files/Musculoskeletal%20Health%20in%20Europe%20Report%20v5.pdf

Daithi 1

I can't read that at my resolution, I'm splitting my screen. Back after Iv'e had a look.

alastair

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I can't read that at my resolution, I'm splitting my screen. Back after Iv'e had a look.

No problem, you can also look here:
http://www.welovelmc.com/diseases/ra/1.htm

or here:
http://www.lif.se/default.aspx?id=44400

Daithi 1

Ok, fair enough, but us Irish have the highest rates of neurological and cardiovascular illnesses and the highest in diabetes in Europe.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Ok, fair enough, but us Irish have the highest rates of neurological and cardiovascular illnesses and the highest in diabetes in Europe.

Big assumption to attribute, if true, to fluoride.
What about diet, alcohol smoking all of which we have problems with. We also have a very small genetic pool.

A bit silly to lay the above at the door of fluoridation.

Daithi 1

Kinda tired with the whole fluoride debate tbh. It is a banned substance in Europe, yet it's dumped in our water. Doesn't sound like a good combination. Home produced foods and stout (Guinness) and any other beers, ciders are all gonna be produced using fluoridated water. We know that over exposure causes damage to teeth so it may do the same to all bones in the body. While 0.7pps might be a low dose, when you add up foods, toothpastes, beverages and anything else that contains it, maybe it's not such a low dose. Maybe some people are more or less tolerable than others. Then there are ethical grounds.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Kinda tired with the whole fluoride debate tbh. It is a banned substance in Europe, yet it's dumped in our water. Doesn't sound like a good combination. Home produced foods and stout (Guinness) and any other beers, ciders are all gonna be produced using fluoridated water. We know that over exposure causes damage to teeth so it may do the same to all bones in the body. While 0.7pps might be a low dose, when you add up foods, toothpastes, beverages and anything else that contains it, maybe it's not such a low dose. Maybe some people are more or less tolerable than others. Then there are ethical grounds.

Again not banned in Europe, we import the appropriate fluoridated chemicals from Europe ffs. They sell fluoridated irish bottled water in Europe.

The research that failed to show toxicity at low levels, did those people not drink and eat fluoridated food, use toothpaste etc along with drinking fluoridated water? So not an issue either.

Daithi 1

I thought we were in agreement that "hexafluorisilic" was a banned biocide ? And it's added to our water.
.. I linked to it in my first post today.. It's down the bottom there...

http://www.istas.net/risctox/en/dn_risctox_lista.asp?f=biocidas_prohibidas

Treora

alastair wrote: »

The fact that Swedish kids are better at looking after their teeth is besides the point.

Wow, what on earth do you want to achieve from water flouridation if not better quality teeth in children and teenagers. The shifting of money €60 million (including insurance costs) from importing fluoride and the misuse of technicians and council workers to teachers having an oral hygiene daily routine for children is the only thing that has proven that Sweden has moved from DMFT @ 15 of 2.8+ to .7 at a time when Ireland moved from 2.6 (your 1984 report reference) to 2.6 (Cork research referenced over four times in this thread) ! This can be done while making a 97% saving.



Fluoridation is an expensive failure.

alastair wrote: »

The fact that Swedish kids are better at looking after their teeth is besides the point.

How do you have such a distorted way of thinking? Who do you want to help and why? I bet that you cannot think of the last time you have changed your opinion on anything. Try and think back to see if you have done it within the last decade. I doubt that you can, pity. That is all that one can feel for someone that cannot change.

cerastes

endacl wrote: »

If they have a problem with it, they'd better stay as far as possible from the sea...

they chlorinate sea water? isnt that expensive and wasteful? you cant even drink it.