Fluoride in tap water

alastair

weisses wrote: »

I wont go into this case further ... its just to show you the flaws in your argumentation

There's no flaw in my argument. It's the reason why it wasn't included in the Australian report - it hadn't undergone scientific review.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

uhh you said



regarding that point you made

Im just waiting for you to show me where it was presented as i asked you already

Where what was presented? Spit it out.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I like to keep an open mind about it specially when its not the common tin foil hat community that shows concern

No you don't. You reject the opinions of the majority of scientists in the area in favour of the minority simply because they market themselves as anti-government.
If this is not the case, you should be able to explain why your preferred set of scientists are more trustworthy.
You cannot do this.

weisses wrote: »

Isn't that what peer reviewed means (supposed to be) by default .... well supported ??

And well supported can also mean support from both sides on a peer reviewed study ....

That isn't what peer reviewed means.
well supported means that the study is backed up by other similar and complimentary studies and observations in addition to peer review.

Even if a study passes peer review it is not enough to base a conclusion on alone, especially if there is a large amount of similar studies that conclude the opposite.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

I like to keep an open mind about it

You shouldn't trust anyone

You seem a little conflicted.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Where what was presented? Spit it out.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86633176&postcount=1144

You replied by saying it was presented... not me ... Or don't you remember what you supposedly presented ?

alastair

weisses wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86633176&postcount=1144

You replied by saying it was presented... not me ... Or don't you remember what you supposedly presented ?

I'll work on the assumption you're not just babbling - simply confused, and repeat my points as presented:

The overwhelming scientific consensus regarding fluoridation is in direct contradiction with the health claims made by the anti-fluoridation lobby.

weisses wrote:

Of course you wouldn't because claiming lack of credibility is different then actually presenting it

Just as an aid to comprehension - as stated - it's already been presented.

You've been repeatedly directed to the positions and reports of the most authoritive scientific bodies that validate the benefit and safety of fluoridation. You can stick your fingers in your ears all you like, but that's the reality of the situation. The scientific consensus doesn't support the claims made by the anti-fluoridation lobby.

weisses wrote:

And again,, I cannot find anything in that report that deals with The science behind the argument about the biochemists and their opposition against fluoridation. And the conclusion by the report about their credibility

Perhaps you might actually reference some specific claim? I've no idea what you're looking for.

I'm still waiting for you to spit it out.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No you don't. You reject the opinions of the majority of scientists in the area in favour of the minority simply because they market themselves as anti-government.
If this is not the case, you should be able to explain why your preferred set of scientists are more trustworthy.
You cannot do this.

I agree with parts of this report

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

Which of the scientists that oppose fluoridation are anti government when it comes to other issues then fluoridation?, because its governments who implement this ..... be specific please

King Mob wrote: »

That isn't what peer reviewed means.
well supported means that the study is backed up by other similar and complimentary studies and observations in addition to peer review.

Can you give me a proper link that gives a clear definition and criteria of your quote below

well supported peer reviewed research.

King Mob wrote: »

Even if a study passes peer review it is not enough to base a conclusion on alone, especially if there is a large amount of similar studies that conclude the opposite.

And what is the threshold or mechanism for a peer reviewed piece to get accepted, after its peer reviewed, where is that defined ? (Link to relevant documentation will do )

weisses

alastair wrote: »

I'll work on the assumption you're not just babbling - simply confused, and repeat my points as presented:


I'm still waiting for you to spit it out.

weisses wrote: »

Its funny though that some of the earliest opponents to fluoridation were biochemists.

what is wrong with the science the biochemists used to reach their conclusion?
Dr. James Sumner

jh79

Regarding the peer review process what exactly are you asking?

Could you summarise the biochemistry yoir refering to?

alastair

weisses wrote: »

what is wrong with the science the biochemists used to reach their conclusion?
Dr. James Sumner

What conclusion? Reference a specific claim.

Daithi 1

HEXAFLUOROSILICIC ACID BANNED AS A BIOCIDAL
PRODUCT IN THE EU.
Hexafluorosilicic acid is used for many industries including the textile,
ceraminc,steel industry and as a biocidal product.
The same active chemical substance used for water fluoridation was banned
as a biocidalsubstance by the EU in 2006 under Directive 98/8/EC.
Hexafluorosilicic acid can no longer be used due to a lack of environmental
and toxicological data to demonstrate that it is safe for humans or the
environment.
Detailed information was sought by the EU on the toxicology of the substance
to include toxicological and metabolic studies, ecotoxicological studies,
reproductive toxicity, medical data including medical surveillance data,
epidemiological studies on general population,skin sensitivity studies and
allergenicity studies, carcinogenicity studies, mutagenicity studies,sub
chronic toxicity studies and measures to protect humans and the
environment.
No information was provided to the EU. The substance was subsequently
removed as an authorized biocide within EU. The phase out date was set as
01/09/2006. The product remains in use in Ireland as the active substance for
water fluoridation of drinking water supplies.

http://www.enviro.ie/correspondence/Hexafluorosilicic%20Acid%20as%20an%20ingredident%20in%20Fluoridation%20of%20Drinking%20Water_WAUGH_2012.pdf


BANNED !!!!

jh79

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/mobile/PriceAvailAction

for sale on sigma aldrich, keep repeating yourself but your not convincing anyone freely available in the EU

weisses

alastair wrote: »

What conclusion? Reference a specific claim.

But you said

alastair wrote: »

Just as an aid to comprehension - as stated - it's already been presented.

Don't you know what you presented ?

jh79

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/anti-fluoride-lobby-can-t-get-its-teeth-into-the-truth-1.1520290

probably posted already but a good summary.

weisses

post deleted ... wrong poster

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/anti-fluoride-lobby-can-t-get-its-teeth-into-the-truth-1.1520290

probably posted already but a good summary.

From the piece

It could be argued that water fluoridation is unnecessary when fluoridated toothpaste is available

I chuckled

jh79

weisses wrote: »

From the piece



I chuckled

Why doesn't make fluoridation any less safe or effective.

jh79

Given that we are never going to agree on this, do you think this will become a mainstream issue? Hotpress is pretty niche , I think the sunday sun ran something on it but it was pretty poor. The broadsheets won't run with it given the current research.So what next for the campaign?

In my opinion if you want to be successful , ditch the lunatics such as the girl against fluoride, back the scientist who agree it is not harmful but ethically wrong.

old_aussie

Mrs Marsh...."See, it does get in"

http://www.sindesign.com.au/blog/colgates-mrs-marsh-and-a-phenomenal-brand-story

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

In my opinion if you want to be successful , ditch the lunatics such as the girl against fluoride, back the scientist who agree it is not harmful but ethically wrong.

If its a more ethical issue you need proper politics who are willing to make discussions based on ethics ... but i get your point though

jh79

old_aussie wrote: »

Mrs Marsh...."See, it does get in"

http://www.sindesign.com.au/blog

Isn't australia one of the most gullible nations when it come to alternative health mumbo jumbo supposedly the snake oil industry makes billions down under?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

If its a more ethical issue you need proper politics who are willing to make discussions based on ethics ... but i get your point though

Lets face it we are never going to agree but having fitzgibbions telling all and sundry that she cured her " depression" by switching to bottled water is only going to alienate people especially those who have family / friend with the illness.

alastair

Daithi 1 wrote: »

BANNED !!!!

Not a banned substance.
Banned use as a pesticide.
Perfectly legal and authorised for fluoridation purposes.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

If its a more ethical issue you need proper politics who are willing to make discussions based on ethics ... but i get your point though

Ethics is subjective so democracy is the fairest way

alastair

weisses wrote: »

But you said



Don't you know what you presented ?

What conclusion? Still waiting...

alastair

jh79 wrote: »

Given that we are never going to agree on this, do you think this will become a mainstream issue? Hotpress is pretty niche , I think the sunday sun ran something on it but it was pretty poor. The broadsheets won't run with it given the current research.So what next for the campaign?

In my opinion if you want to be successful , ditch the lunatics such as the girl against fluoride, back the scientist who agree it is not harmful but ethically wrong.

The ethical issue really carries no public traction, but having said that, the health scaremongering really only resonates with the tinfoil brigade. Until the general public could give a damn, it's not going anywhere - there's far too many (actual) important issues going to take precedence.

jh79

alastair wrote: »

The ethical issue really carries no public traction, but having said that, the health scaremongering really only resonates with the tinfoil brigade. Until the general public could give a damn, it's not going anywhere - there's far too many (actual) important issues going to take precedence.

Out of curiosity would you be ok with lithium being added, I read in the guardian one scientist advocating it? Part of me hoped it would gain some traction just to see the sh"t storm it would.cause on this forum.

King Mob

Daithi 1 wrote: »

HEXAFLUOROSILICIC ACID BANNED AS A BIOCIDAL
PRODUCT IN THE EU.
Hexafluorosilicic acid is used for many industries including the textile,
ceraminc,steel industry and as a biocidal product.
The same active chemical substance used for water fluoridation was banned
as a biocidalsubstance by the EU in 2006 under Directive 98/8/EC.
Hexafluorosilicic acid can no longer be used due to a lack of environmental
and toxicological data to demonstrate that it is safe for humans or the
environment.
Detailed information was sought by the EU on the toxicology of the substance
to include toxicological and metabolic studies, ecotoxicological studies,
reproductive toxicity, medical data including medical surveillance data,
epidemiological studies on general population,skin sensitivity studies and
allergenicity studies, carcinogenicity studies, mutagenicity studies,sub
chronic toxicity studies and measures to protect humans and the
environment.
No information was provided to the EU. The substance was subsequently
removed as an authorized biocide within EU. The phase out date was set as
01/09/2006. The product remains in use in Ireland as the active substance for
water fluoridation of drinking water supplies.

http://www.enviro.ie/correspondence/Hexafluorosilicic%20Acid%20as%20an%20ingredident%20in%20Fluoridation%20of%20Drinking%20Water_WAUGH_2012.pdf


BANNED !!!!

Banned as a pesticide. It is still legal to buy and sell.

Do you believe that it is illegal to buy and sell?

alastair

jh79 wrote: »

Out of curiosity would you be ok with lithium being added, I read in the guardian one scientist advocating it? Part of me hoped it would gain some traction just to see the sh"t storm it would.cause on this forum.

I wouldn't, aside from the ethical issues of genuine mass medication, lithium can cause birth defects if prescribed to pregnant women.

jh79

alastair wrote: »

I wouldn't, aside from the ethical issues of genuine mass medication, lithium can cause birth defects if prescribed to pregnant women.

What's your background if you don't mind me asking?