Fluoride in tap water

alastair

jh79 wrote: »

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

I'm just a punter. Design background.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

What conclusion? Still waiting...

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

alastair

weisses wrote: »

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

You've not produced any specific claim, despite repeated requests. Speaks volumes.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

You've not produced any specific claim, despite repeated requests. Speaks volumes.

Yes i did earlier on thread about the same issue

You must know because your response to my question where you addressed that issue was

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

So how is it possible you presented your answer earlier on thread and at the same time you are saying i produced no specific claim you can anwser

weisses

Lets see how this plays out

http://www.ukcaf.org/files/letter_to_brian_stanley_re_bill_to_abolish_fluorid.pdf

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Yes i did earlier on thread about the same issue

It should be no bother to you then, to repost that specific claim? Put up, or shut up.

I said the evidence of a scientific consensus on the safety and benefit of fluoridation had been presented multiple times in this thread - as it has.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Lets see how this plays out

http://www.ukcaf.org/files/letter_to_brian_stanley_re_bill_to_abolish_fluorid.pdf

It failed in the uk, high court found no legal reason that fluoridation should stop, don't no much about law but can't see why here would be any different, would we be similar to the uk from a legal perspective?

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Lets see how this plays out

http://www.ukcaf.org/files/letter_to_brian_stanley_re_bill_to_abolish_fluorid.pdf

The EU Commission has already made the legal position with regard to this clear, back in 2008 (last time this tactic was attempted).

“The Commission has scrutinised the practice of adding hexafluorosilicic acid to drinking water whilst adhering to the maximum permissible fluoride concentration values under the Drinking Water Directive. It confirms that it does not see any evidence of infringements of the Drinking Water Directive, the Dangerous Waste Directive and the Medicinal Products Directive.”

jh79

They probably will just keep trying different countries in the hope of finding one eccentric judge.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

It should be no bother to you then, to repost that specific claim? Put up, or shut up.

I said the evidence of a scientific consensus on the safety and benefit of fluoridation had been presented multiple times in this thread - as it has.

Excuse me .... this is how it went

weisses wrote: »

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

alastair wrote: »

Just as some of the earliest advocates were. Given that it's their field, it's not particularly surprising they would take an interest, is it?

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/yiamouyiannis.html

I say

weisses wrote: »

Not at all ..... but their interest grew to a genuine concern, and made them decide to oppose it

then you say

alastair wrote: »

You'll find the same for immunisation, x-rays, chemotherapy, and any other area of medical progressions. There are minority contrarians in every field - it doesn't make their position any more credible.

i replied

weisses wrote: »

Who are you to decide what is credible ?

then you

alastair wrote: »

The science behind the argument is what determines credibility. Can't speak for what mechanisms you apply.

I replied

weisses wrote: »

Then what is wrong with the science the biochemists used to reach their conclusion? be specific

then you come back claiming

alastair wrote: »

I'm not going to revisit the reports and references already presented in this thread. The overwhelming scientific consensus regarding fluoridation is in direct contradiction with the health claims made by the anti-fluoridation lobby.

Me responding

weisses wrote: »

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

Then your famous reply

alastair wrote: »

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

So see i showed you here post by post you knew exactly what i was referring to ...

You create confusion and then turn it around ... The onus is on you to provide what you claim is on thread ... I looked back but cannot find a reply regarding the biochemists in my first post, yet you say its there

So where is it ?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

They probably will just keep trying different countries in the hope of finding one eccentric judge.

That would be easy .. only a few countries left that fluoridate their water in Europe

A minority

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Excuse me .... this is how it went...

Is it ever going to arrive at you articulating a specific claim? This evasion got boring long ago.

jh79

Weiss,

The opinions of these biochemists are less valid because the rest of the biochemistry profession disagree with them, unless you are a biochemist and have a theory on this I can't see any logical reason why you would believe the opinions of a handful of biochemists over thousands.

What was their research anyways any links to save be trawling back through the thread?

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Is it ever going to arrive at you articulating a specific claim? This evasion got boring long ago.

No i posted our complete conversation regarding this

The only evasion/confusing is done by you by claiming twice that you addressed it in your discussion with me

If I cannot articulate a specific claim as you say now, How is it possible for you to say it was addressed twice on thread.

Here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86632992&postcount=1140

and here

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

jh79

Do the biochemists provide some sort of theory towards the mechanism of action of fluoride toxicity?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Weiss,

The opinions of these biochemists are less valid because the rest of the biochemistry profession disagree with them, unless you are a biochemist and have a theory on this I can't see any logical reason why you would believe the opinions of a handful of biochemists over thousands.

jh79 wrote: »

What was their research anyways any links to save be trawling back through the thread?

Do you have any idea how conflicting your post is

First part you are discrediting the biochemists, to do that you clearly know what I am referring to

and in the second part you are asking me what it was they were actually doing

They where referring to the poisoning of enzymes

alastair

jh79 wrote: »

What was their research anyways any links to save be trawling back through the thread?

It's proving hard to nail down specifics.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

If I cannot articulate a specific claim as you say now, How is it possible for you to say it was addressed twice on thread.

The gamut of claims of health risk with water fluoridation have been put to bed with the research and reports presented in this thread. Now, if you feel you've some specific claim to prove otherwise - roll it out. You've been asked often enough.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

They where referring to the poisoning of enzymes

Could this be the mysterious claim that's so hard to spit out? Come on - you're nearly there...

jh79

Even if true what number of fluoride molecules are needed for this to have an actual clinical effect?

weisses

alastair wrote: »

The gamut of claims of health risk with water fluoridation have been put to bed with the research and reports presented in this thread. Now, if you feel you've some specific claim to prove otherwise - roll it out. You've been asked often enough.

I don't need to prove any claim because i did not made any claim that needs to be proven

If i did so regarding the biochemists then please show me where

I'm just curious where on thread my post about the biochemists was addressed as you said was done, ....Twice

alastair

weisses wrote: »

I don't need to prove any claim because i did not made any claim that needs to be proven

If i did so regarding the biochemists then please show me where

I'm just curious where on thread my post about the biochemists was addressed as you said was done, ....Twice

So we get to the crunch - you've nothing of substance here at all.

I can repeat myself in relation to the reports presented laying all claims of health risk from fluoridation to rest, but you simply keep ignoring that, so why bother?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Even if true what number of fluoride molecules are needed for this to have an actual clinical effect?

Don't know that, If you know please share

Interesting piece on it

http://real-agenda.com/2011/01/28/fluoride-impact-on-enzymes-endocrine-system-and-brain/#sthash.nJfNY4qY.dpbs

hju6

alastair wrote: »

I can repeat myself in relation to the reports presented laying all claims of health risk from fluoridation to rest, but you simply keep ignoring that, so why bother?

Yes you can, but so could Santa Claus, cherry picking stuff and backtracking on ridiculous arguments ,
Flouride is bad, not good,

If the authorities you favour, started to add arsenic to the water supply, you would lie there dying ,but supportive of their actions.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Don't know that, If you know please share

Interesting piece on it

http://real-agenda.com/2011/01/28/fluoride-impact-on-enzymes-endocrine-system-and-brain/#sthash.nJfNY4qY.dpbs

York Systematic Review of 2002 - flouridation risks:

“Exposure in vitro (laboratory studies) is very different to those in vivo (real life situations). In cell culture experiments cells are exposed directly to a fluoride solution containing highly reactive unbound anions. This is very different to exposure in the body where fluoride anions have to first be absorbed through a selective barrier in the gut. Once in the body it is unlikely that many of the anions will be in a free state, their reactive nature means that they bind very readily to other molecules rendering them inactive. It is the binding of fluoride to these molecules, the ratio of free to bound anions and the way in which these agents interact with other sites in the body that should be investigated, this can only be done in vivo systems. Similarly exposure in animals may be very different from exposure in humans. Effects seen in animals may not be seen in humans, and where these effects may occur in humans it is very difficult to know at what level such effects will occur – it is usually not possible to directly correlate the dosages used in animal studies to those used in humans.”

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluofaq.htm

alastair

hju6 wrote: »

Yes you can, but so could Santa Claus, cherry picking stuff and backtracking on ridiculous arguments ,
Flouride is bad, not good,

If the authorities you favour, started to add arsenic to the water supply, you would lie there dying ,but supportive of their actions.

Thanks for that input. :rolleyes:

King Mob

hju6 wrote: »

Yes you can, but so could Santa Claus, cherry picking stuff and backtracking on ridiculous arguments ,
Flouride is bad, not good,

If the authorities you favour, started to add arsenic to the water supply, you would lie there dying ,but supportive of their actions.

I bet he even would support the government adding a chemical to water which, in it's gaseous form is capable of melting skin and was used as a chemical weapon in WW1 and by terrorists.

Chlorine is bad, not good.

weisses

“Exposure in vitro (laboratory studies) is very different to those in vivo (real life situations). In cell culture experiments cells are exposed directly to a fluoride solution containing highly reactive unbound anions. This is very different to exposure in the body where fluoride anions have to first be absorbed through a selective barrier in the gut. Once in the body it is unlikely that many of the anions will be in a free state, their reactive nature means that they bind very readily to other molecules rendering them inactive. It is the binding of fluoride to these molecules, the ratio of free to bound anions and the way in which these agents interact with other sites in the body that should be investigated, this can only be done in vivo systems. Similarly exposure in animals may be very different from exposure in humans. Effects seen in animals may not be seen in humans, and where these effects may occur in humans it is very difficult to know at what level such effects will occur – it is usually not possible to directly correlate the dosages used in animal studies to those used in humans.”

Nice .. All the Unlikely's, maybe's and maybe not remarks ohh and the usually not is brilliant

Is this peer reviewed ?

It is the binding of fluoride to these molecules, the ratio of free to bound anions and the way in which these agents interact with other sites in the body that should be investigated

Was that investigated ?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I bet he even would support the government adding a chemical to water which, in it's gaseous form is capable of melting skin and was used as a chemical weapon in WW1 and by terrorists.

Chlorine is bad, not good.

Would this be considered a straw man argument ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Would this be considered a straw man argument ?

No, because it's the exact argument he, and others are making here.

Asserting that fluoridation is bad because fluoride's in rat poison or because it "comes from industrial waste" or because it's banned as a pesticide etc is just as silly as arguing that chlorination is bad because it's a poisonous gas.
I was highlighting this silliness.