Fluoride in tap water

Slugs

Re-read what I wrote. I am not dismissing the effectiveness of Fluoridation. I am dismissing the effectiveness of FLUORIDATION OF THE WATER SUPPLY, which are the statistics I am providing to you.

Now please re-evaluate what I have written.

Slugs

Slugs wrote: »

Re-read what I wrote. I am not dismissing the effectiveness of Fluoridation. I am dismissing the effectiveness of FLUORIDATION OF THE WATER SUPPLY, which are the statistics I am providing to you.

Now please re-evaluate what I have written.

My point stands as I was referring to fluoridation of water.

Unless the WHO report specifically states it's statistics show that fluoridation of water is not effective, you cannot make that conclusion for it.

And there has been papers posted about the fluoridation of water that do state that it's effective. You've not given a valid reason to reject these.

Slugs

King Mob wrote: »

My point stands as I was referring to fluoridation of water.

Unless the WHO report specifically states it's statistics show that fluoridation of water is not effective, you cannot make that conclusion for it.

And there has been papers posted about the fluoridation of water that do state that it's effective. You've not given a valid reason to reject these.

Hold up a ****ing second.

Firstly, can you clarify in your future posts and discussion with me on the topic whether you're referring to fluoridation or fluoridation of the water supply.

Secondly, if they don't reach that conclusion because it wasn't a part of the report, what prevents me making that conclusion exactly?

And thirdly, what papers? I've went through the thread, I've found 1. That 256 page York report which I intend to read. If there're others, I'd like to see them.

stevejazzx

King Mob wrote: »

No, it's not even effectively banned anywhere.
Nowhere is there laws forbidding fluoridation of water. That is what banned means and that is what you imply when you use the word. But it is not true.

Using the word banned implies that these countries are opposed more to fluoridation than they actually are. Hence why it is used by anti science
propaganda sites.

No that's not entirely accurate KingMob
It was effectively banned in Holland in 1973 (the government said its use is not authorised - see wiki text below)
Many countries have rejected it and issued statements explaining why - mainly citing potential long term side effects / harm.

The fact that in many countries there no laws regulating it and that these countries have also officially rejected it is close enough to calling it an effective ban.

I appreciate your efforts in preventing scaremongering with the overuse of explicit and simply untrue phrases that are known to be associated with conspiracy nuts who like to overstate and simply lie about certain things - however in this instance the phrase

"certain countries have banned water floridation" hardly qualifies.

Saying they haven't banned it and not representing the fact that they are specifically against it is just as confusing and inaccurate as the nut who says it is brainwashing everyone.

wiki wrote:

Water was fluoridated in large parts of the Netherlands from 1960 to 1973, at which point the Supreme Court of the Netherlands declared fluoridation of drinking water unauthorized.[61] The Dutch Court decided that authorities had no legal basis for adding chemicals to drinking water if they also did not improve safety. It was also stated as support that consumers cannot choose a different tap water provider.[62] Drinking water has not been fluoridated in any part of the Netherlands since 1973.

---

km wrote:

These countries do practice fluoridation, just with other methods such as fluoridating milk and salt.

The best way to determine the effectiveness of fluoridation is not to engage in amateur statistics, but to look at the studies done specifically on the effectiveness of fluoridation.
These have been posted and these show that it is effective.

Effective at reducing cavities?
Is that needed in comparison to countries not floridating water?
I cant find anything to support that (that water floridation is necessary to control dental issues) - seems like a massive cost and possible burden (through poor regulation or corruption of supply) - and also carries a risk, albeit unsubstantiated, of some form of potential public harm.

km wrote:

Why not just present the evidence you your guys feel shows that fluoridation is less effective and use that to argue for it's discontinuation?

Why add something to our most precious resource unless it's an absolute necessity? If there is doubt (and clearly with large areas of the world deciding not to floridate the water supply, there is) why do it?

km wrote:

But now if we are just debating the relative effectiveness of fluoridation vs other methods, why do so on the conspiracy theories forum?

Well the thread started on the conspiracy forum - I don't care where its debated.
I think people in this forum should have enough discipline and respect for each other to be able to debate this rationally. I don't imagine that's a problem - if it attracts a larger forum, great.

Penn

Final warning to all:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85154592&postcount=189

Discuss the topic civilly or not at all.

Maudi

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.

Hi concentrations cited by flouride antis prove lower concentrations are safe? Do you drink much tapwater yourself?

Slugs

Slugs wrote: »

Hold up a ****ing second.

Firstly, can you clarify in your future posts and discussion with me on the topic whether you're referring to fluoridation or fluoridation of the water supply.

The topic of the thread is Fluoride in Tap water. That's what I was referring to. I thought it was very clear from the context of the post.

Slugs wrote: »

Secondly, if they don't reach that conclusion because it wasn't a part of the report, what prevents me making that conclusion exactly?

Because there are other factors that the report you are taking the figures from that may or may not have been factored in.
If the report was not covering the topic specifically, then the figures might not be appropriate to use in a different topic.
Secondly, neither of us are statisticians and even if we had access to that information, we would not know how to properly analyse the data.

Slugs wrote: »

And thirdly, what papers? I've went through the thread, I've found 1. That 256 page York report which I intend to read. If there're others, I'd like to see them.

You are correct, that is the only one that has been posted on this thread. I mistakenly believed there were others.

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote: »

No that's not entirely accurate KingMob
It was effectively banned in Holland in 1973 (the government said its use is not authorised - see wiki text below)

But that's not a ban, effective or otherwise.
Even still that's one, contrary to what the original claim is.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Many countries have rejected it and issued statements explaining why - mainly citing potential long term side effects / harm.

And it seems that many of these countries who issue these states are being misled by wrong or outdated information.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Saying they haven't banned it and not representing the fact that they are specifically against it is just as confusing and inaccurate as the nut who says it is brainwashing everyone.

So why not say that some countries have come out with statements saying that they have opted against fluoridation for X and Y reasons?

For many propaganda sources, this is not sensational enough, and the myth is spread uncritically.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Effective at reducing cavities?
Is that needed in comparison to countries not floridating water?
I cant find anything to support that (that water floridation is necessary to control dental issues) - seems like a massive cost and possible burden (through poor regulation or corruption of supply) - and also carries a risk, albeit unsubstantiated, of some form of potential public harm.

No one is arguing this.
I am arguing that water fluoridation is effective in reducing dental caries in populations.
Other methods are also effective.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Why add something to our most precious resource unless it's an absolute necessity? If there is doubt (and clearly with large areas of the world deciding not to floridate the water supply, there is) why do it?

But there isn't any valid doubt. There's no evidence that there is any adverse side effects.
The issue I have and the reason I oppose it's removal is purely because of the amount of anti science propaganda being used to support it's removal.

Stopping the practice because of unfounded fears, ignorance of science and conspiracy theories will just encourage the same opposition to stuff like vaccines and wifi.

Slugs

King Mob wrote: »

The topic of the thread is Fluoride in Tap water. That's what I was referring to. I thought it was very clear from the context of the post.


Because there are other factors that the report you are taking the figures from that may or may not have been factored in.
If the report was not covering the topic specifically, then the figures might not be appropriate to use in a different topic.

But I'm not taking those statistics from the report. I'm taking them from the databank that the WHO uses. They cite two, however the other leads me back to the initial source, so I need to look into that. Therefore, the findings of the report have no bearing on my conclusions as they're not being taken out of context.

Secondly, neither of us are statisticians and even if we had access to that information, we would not know how to properly analyse the data.

Being a statistician would only matter if we were conducting the calculations. We're not. We're comparing the results.

You are correct, that is the only one that has been posted on this thread. I mistakenly believed there were others.

If you find others, kindly throw them my way.

stevejazzx

King Mob wrote: »

But that's not a ban, effective or otherwise.
Even still that's one, contrary to what the original claim is.

Ok, lets be fair. Lets say no ban and but represent correctly the countries that don't allow it by including that information too?

km wrote:

And it seems that many of these countries who issue these states are being misled by wrong or outdated information.

Yeah, you may have a pont but we'd need many links to support this claim surely?

km wrote:

So why not say that some countries have come out with statements saying that they have opted against fluoridation for X and Y reasons?

Thats what I asked you?
I would be happy if they did that and if we could discuss that information (i.e their reasons).

km wrote:

For many propaganda sources, this is not sensational enough, and the myth is spread uncritically.

Propaganda?
The anti-floride propaganda? Who benefits?

km wrote:

No one is arguing this.
I am arguing that water fluoridation is effective in reducing dental caries in populations.
Other methods are also effective.

But we should be discussing this (the reason for floridation and if it is really needed) in fact I'm pretty sure this idea is bound to the thread.

BTW you are correct I imagine regarding other methods.

km wrote:

But there isn't any valid doubt. There's no evidence that there is any adverse side effects.
The issue I have and the reason I oppose it's removal is purely because of the amount of anti science propaganda being used to support it's removal.

Ok, let look at the unscientific part

The York report which is the only one I believe linked admits in its own conclusion that the report is not of required quality to make any real claims.
In fact it partly acknowledges possible harm to children.

Scientists in the last 30 years have decided there is enough doubt about long term exposure to advise governments to reject floridation. That is valid doubt unfortunately.

km wrote:

Stopping the practice because of unfounded fears, ignorance of science and conspiracy theories will just encourage the same opposition to stuff like vaccines and wifi.

Continuing the practice without higher quality studies as recommended by the York study is surely not advisable either?

I see what you mean but little point in comparing vaccines and wifi here as each area needs it own study. Besides if we decide that all the people in the anti-floride group are conspiracy nuts and anti-science then we are liable to dismiss a great number of people in well....an unscientific manner.
People opinions need to be broken down individually and people must account for their opinions. Indeed there are anti-science idiots everywhere but it is also apparent that a great deal of what is 'called' conspiracy is valid opposition.
Simply think about the number of international and corporate conspiracies that come to light daily (PRISM is one example) - people have a right to be concerned.
And people like you, someone who is clearly science minded and literate should absolutely keep on doing what you're doing i.e dismantling poor reason and mistruth where you see it on these forums - however I believe you should aim that well honed criticism at corporate and political bodies too. I don't see skeptics or scientists doing enough of that.

bumper234

FREETV wrote: »

The EU is known to be part of a plan for a New World Order.
Ireland is like a dog on a short leash/lead and cannot do anything important without permission from Brussels. :P

Stopped reading after he mentioned the good old NWO. Man there is one of these on every forum i read, seriously if you think this gov or that gov is doing all these things to you then why not move somewhere that is not doing them? Find a tropical island somewhere and drink fresh spring water and eat coconuts and fish you catch. Imagine that you could be in paradise right now why are you still here having that nasty flouride contaminated water forced upon you?

Oh thats right....no dole in paradise:D

Maudi

Maudi wrote: »

Hi concentrations cited by flouride antis prove lower concentrations are safe? Do you drink much tapwater yourself?

Ignorance is bliss.

There is no such thing as a test for safety. Only silly websites such as fluoride alert keeping bringing up this nonsense that the safety of water fluoridation has not been determined. To determine if something is safe you first determine at what concentration it causes adverse effects and work backwards from that.

I'll give you an example to make it easier for you. Alcoholic drinks at an concetration above 95% would kill you. Beer contains on average 5%, spirits 40% which are perfectly safe in moderation.

Water fluoridation is perfectly safe at low concentrations because studies have only shown toxic effects at high concentrations.

If you believe a test exist that proves safety please provide a link to the assay kit on the sigma aldrich website where it can be purchased?

FREETV

bumper234 wrote: »

Stopped reading after he mentioned the good old NWO. Man there is one of these on every forum i read, seriously if you think this gov or that gov is doing all these things to you then why not move somewhere that is not doing them? Find a tropical island somewhere and drink fresh spring water and eat coconuts and fish you catch. Imagine that you could be in paradise right now why are you still here having that nasty flouride contaminated water forced upon you?

Oh thats right....no dole in paradise:D

I cannot believe that you thought that I was being serious about the NWO. I said that for a laugh in order to see what replies would come to the thread just for the craic. A boss in Environment agreed about the toxicity level as the information was made available to his department. I am not on the dole.
The system has failed the people.

FREETV

FREETV wrote: »

I cannot believe that you thought that I was being serious about the NWO. I said that for a laugh in order to see what replies would come to the thread just for the craic. A boss in Environment agreed about the toxicity level as the information was made available to his department. I am not on the dole.
The system has failed the people.

I think your friend is only humouring you. What info was made available to him that wasn't made available to the scientific advisors to the minister who agree with water fluoridation. What qualifications has your friend in the department?

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote: »

Ok, lets be fair. Lets say no ban and but represent correctly the countries that don't allow it by including that information too?

Thats what I asked you?
I would be happy if they did that and if we could discuss that information (i.e their reasons).

Again, this would be fine and honest. But it's not what the anti-fluoridation sites are doing. It's not what anti-fluoridation people here are doing. They are lying and twisting the truth to make it sound more sensational.
I would imagine that if people wanted to get the truth out they would oppose such things. But instead of these people being corrected by you and other people who are trying to be reasonable, you're arguing semantics with me.
Would you have called out the people who were distorting the truth had I not done so or would you have let it slide?

stevejazzx wrote: »

Propaganda?
The anti-floride propaganda? Who benefits?

People who oppose fluoridation and people who make money off anti fluoridation products.

stevejazzx wrote: »

But we should be discussing this (the reason for floridation and if it is really needed) in fact I'm pretty sure this idea is bound to the thread.

BTW you are correct I imagine regarding other methods.

You misunderstand. You said that people are arguing that water fluoridation is necessary to control dental issues. But this is not true. We all agree that there are other ways, but that water fluoridation is still an effective one.
If Ireland had never been fluoridating and it was being proposed now, I wouldn't be pushed about bringing it in and would probably favour other methods.
However it is already in place, but I feel that the government replacing it would be a waste of time.
It's not harmful, it's effective so there's no decent reason to change it. And as I said, there's many more things I would prefer the government deal with first.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Ok, let look at the unscientific part

The York report which is the only one I believe linked admits in its own conclusion that the report is not of required quality to make any real claims.
In fact it partly acknowledges possible harm to children.

Scientists in the last 30 years have decided there is enough doubt about long term exposure to advise governments to reject floridation. That is valid doubt unfortunately.

Continuing the practice without higher quality studies as recommended by the York study is surely not advisable either?

But the York report isn't the only study. And many scientists in the last 30 years also advise for it.
There's no evidence for any harm at current levels despite it's long history, so any talk about possible harm is being pointlessly cautious.

stevejazzx wrote: »

I see what you mean but little point in comparing vaccines and wifi here as each area needs it own study. Besides if we decide that all the people in the anti-floride group are conspiracy nuts and anti-science then we are liable to dismiss a great number of people in well....an unscientific manner.
People opinions need to be broken down individually and people must account for their opinions.

You might not like the comparison, but many people oppose wifi and vaccines for the same shaky reasons you do for fluoridation.
Opponents frequently warn of the possible dangers (without providing any evidence to show these dangers) and argue about choice and bodily integrity.
Personally I don't see the difference between being forced to drink stuff in water and having your body bombarded with electromagnetic waves against your will. Isn't that enough for you to oppose the proliferation of wifi signals?

stevejazzx wrote: »

Indeed there are anti-science idiots everywhere but it is also apparent that a great deal of what is 'called' conspiracy is valid opposition.

Which parts of the conspiracy theory are valid?

stevejazzx

King Mob wrote: »

Again, this would be fine and honest. But it's not what the anti-fluoridation sites are doing. It's not what anti-fluoridation people here are doing. They are lying and twisting the truth to make it sound more sensational.
I would imagine that if people wanted to get the truth out they would oppose such things. But instead of these people being corrected by you and other people who are trying to be reasonable, you're arguing semantics with me.
Would you have called out the people who were distorting the truth had I not done so or would you have let it slide?

Yes I would - and I know and agree that the anti-fluoridation agenda can be sensationalist but I suppose they imagine that they are using the same strategies as the groups who oppose them. These groups often call them an anti-science, propaganda fueled organisations full of sensationalist idiots so, you know....

km wrote:

People who oppose fluoridation and people who make money off anti fluoridation products.

Are there two groups represented in your reply? It sounds mildly conspiratorial?
I've never heard of (I think) anti-fluoride products so there can't be that a big a market? Perhaps I'm naive?

km wrote:

You misunderstand. You said that people are arguing that water fluoridation is necessary to control dental issues. But this is not true. We all agree that there are other ways, but that water fluoridation is still an effective one.
If Ireland had never been fluoridating and it was being proposed now, I wouldn't be pushed about bringing it in and would probably favour other methods.
However it is already in place, but I feel that the government replacing it would be a waste of time.
It's not harmful, it's effective so there's no decent reason to change it. And as I said, there's many more things I would prefer the government deal with first.

Yep that's very reasonable. Accepting this however (that Fluoride is not necessary) for me it's very hard just to leave it there even if its the case that we're just dealing with an outside chance of harm. I would assume the logistics of removing it would not cost us anything?

km wrote:

But the York report isn't the only study. And many scientists in the last 30 years also advise for it.

But its the only one here that I have seen offered.
Otherwise we're down to independent dentist or scientist testimony.
I am aware there must other reports though.

km wrote:

There's no evidence for any harm at current levels despite it's long history, so any talk about possible harm is being pointlessly cautious.
You might not like the comparison, but many people oppose wifi and vaccines for the same shaky reasons you do for fluoridation.
Opponents frequently warn of the possible dangers (without providing any evidence to show these dangers) and argue about choice and bodily integrity.
Personally I don't see the difference between being forced to drink stuff in water and having your body bombarded with electromagnetic waves against your will. Isn't that enough for you to oppose the proliferation of wifi signals?

Yeah you've touched upon a really important facet of the debate and I know it was mentioned earlier - i.e choice. As per my understanding you can opt out of an xray at airports etc. You can buy routers without wifi bult in (if you're crazy enough to fear wifi and think that having a non wifi home will save you).
You can chose to use a headphone set with your mobile to avoid radiation etc. but currently no real choice on fluoridation apart from filtering it out retrospectively.

km wrote:

Which parts of the conspiracy theory are valid?

Which part of which conspiracy? I was making a general comment in that text?

@stevejazzx

@stevejazzx

But you do have a choice, you can drink bottled water, once metering comes in you will only pay for what you use.

Do anti-water fluoridation advocates apply the same standards when appraising the health risks of other parts of life?

For example BBQing food increase your chance of developing cancer. Will you campaign against the sale of BBQ's or stop eating BBQ food?

Anti-oxidants use increase mortality rates, will you campaign against their sale ? Some vitamins are carcinogens, where the campaign against multi-vitamins?

I read in the Guardian that, on average, water contains 0.3ppm fluoride in the uk without adulteration. If water fluoridation was stopped how would you deal with the fluoride that is there anyways? If our soil etc is similar to the UK and our natural level is 0.3pppm, do you really think increasing it to 1ppm would make much of a difference considering toxic effects aren't seen until levels of 10ppm or more?

It is funny that, in my experience, the same people that complain about water fluoridation, complain about the fact the sale of St John's Wort is now controlled given it's toxicity and want to legalise the neurotoxins present in marijuana.

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

@stevejazzx

But you do have a choice, you can drink bottled water, once metering comes in you will only pay for what you use.

Do anti-water fluoridation advocates apply the same standards when appraising the health risks of other parts of life?

For example BBQing food increase your chance of developing cancer. Will you campaign against the sale of BBQ's or stop eating BBQ food?

Anti-oxidants use increase mortality rates, will you campaign against their sale ? Some vitamins are carcinogens, where the campaign against multi-vitamins?

I read in the Guardian that, on average, water contains 0.3ppm fluoride in the uk without adulteration. If water fluoridation was stopped how would you deal with the fluoride that is there anyways? If our soil etc is similar to the UK and our natural level is 0.3pppm, do you really think increasing it to 1ppm would make much of a difference considering toxic effects aren't seen until levels of 10ppm or more?

It is funny that, in my experience, the same people that complain about water fluoridation, complain about the fact the sale of St John's Wort is now controlled given it's toxicity and want to legalise the neurotoxins present in marijuana.

And I will re-issue my previous point on #154... regarding your comment...

But you do have a choice, you can drink bottled water.

From my previous post on #154 > Right now i am thirsty and i have no bottled non-fluoridated water so i have no choice now but to drink this fluoride in my tap water, I want the choice to drink un-fluoridated water, but right now i can't.

Why can't people like you purchase fluoride yourselves and let the rest of us drink tap water without fluoride ? seems reasonable to me.

zenno

zenno wrote: »

And I will re-issue my previous point on #154... regarding your comment...



From my previous post on #154 > Right now i am thirsty and i have no bottled non-fluoridated water so i have no choice now but to drink this fluoride in my tap water, I want the choice to drink un-fluoridated water, but right now i can't.

Why can't people like you purchase fluoride yourselves and let the rest of us drink tap water without fluoride ? seems reasonable to me.

Why should I be refused the easiest way of improving my dental health because of the unfounded and irrational fears of others. Majority rules and at the moment you are in the minority.

@zenno

@zenno, if your wish comes through how will you deal with the fluoride that is going to be present either way?

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

Why should I be refused the easiest way of improving my dental health because of the unfounded and irrational fears of others. Majority rules and at the moment you are in the minority.

You will not be refused the easiest way of improving you're dental health because you will find it very easy to purchase said chemical in most stores as I previously said, of which you are entitled.

All i want is choice, that's all, i have no anger towards anyone on this topic but i believe, as i have said previously, that it would be a perfect solution for both sides as i and many others can just pour a glass of tap-water with the knowledge that i'm not constantly ingesting this chemical while you are safe as well with your health as you can purchase it.

Saying that all we have to do is purchase bottled water is nut's in my opinion.

@zenno, if your wish comes through how will you deal with the fluoride that is going to be present either way?

The less of this chemical in the main water supply the better. Even if there are nano trace amounts, it is better than having to drink the amount that is in the system now including fluoride in food.

It will clear out over time.

Apologies for the re-edits.

zenno

zenno wrote: »

You will not be refused the easiest way of improving you're dental health because you will find it very easy to purchase said chemical in most stores as I previously said, of which you are entitled.

All i want is choice, that's all, i have no anger towards anyone on this topic but i believe, as i have said previously, that it would be a perfect solution for both sides as i and many others can just pour a glass of tap-water with the knowledge that i'm not constantly ingesting this chemical while you are safe as well with your health as you can purchase it.

Saying that all we have to do is purchase bottled water is nut's in my opinion.

What about the fluoride that would be present even if fluoridation was stopped? What will you do then?

So you realise that the concentration determines the toxicity but still want water fluoridation stopped? Strange viewpoint to have.

Assuming our tap water contains 0.3ppm without any additions just like the UK, increasing it to 1ppm hardly is going to make much of a difference considering 10ppm is the proven risk concentration.

Why should the public be refused this service because of some peoples extremely irrational beliefs. If you could live with 0.3ppm you really shouldn't have a problem with 1ppm.

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

So you realise that the concentration determines the toxicity but still want water fluoridation stopped? Strange viewpoint to have.

Assuming our tap water contains 0.3ppm without any additions just like the UK, increasing it to 1ppm hardly is going to make much of a difference considering 10ppm is the proven risk concentration.

Why should the public be refused this service because of some peoples extremely irrational believes. If you could live with 0.3ppm you really shouldn't have a problem with 1ppm.

Beliefs.

Look, this is on ethical grounds i'm dealing with, and my main point in all of this is the illegal force medication of the people, this is my main concern.

zenno

zenno wrote: »

Beliefs.

Look, this is on ethical grounds i'm dealing with, and my main point in all of this is the illegal force medication of the people, this is my main concern.

You said previously that the less of it in the water the better, your arbitrary line in the sand seems to be whatever the conc is before human intervention which hints at a fear of what you believe to be " unnatural" rather than any logical reason. If water fluoridation is to be stopped I'd like there to be a good reason for it rather than fear bourne out of ignorance.

I don't see how it is illegal and I see
It more as a supplement rather than medication.

stevejazzx

jh79 wrote: »

@stevejazzx

But you do have a choice, you can drink bottled water, once metering comes in you will only pay for what you use.

Yeah but you pay extra for bottled water so thats essentially another stealth tax.
If its already in the water then the choice has been removed for the vast majority.

JH wrote:

Do anti-water fluoridation advocates apply the same standards when appraising the health risks of other parts of life?

I don't know - perhaps they should?

jh wrote:

For example BBQing food increase your chance of developing cancer. Will you campaign against the sale of BBQ's or stop eating BBQ food?

No...I mean this is opt in completely. Noone needs BBQ in order to live. Water on the other hand....

jh wrote:

Anti-oxidants use increase mortality rates, will you campaign against their sale ? Some vitamins are carcinogens, where the campaign against multi-vitamins?

Which antioxidants? Vitamin E? I haven't heard about this and quite frankly it confuses me how thats possible

Edit:

I think i found the ludicrous study you refer to
Here is just one debunking of it


"What these authors have done is combine studies that are incredibly
dissimilar in all sorts of ways," he says. "These studies looked at
different nutrients at different doses at different durations with different
lengths of follow-up — and in different populations, ranging from folks who
were incredibly healthy to people with cancer and other diseases."

Moreover, Shao says, the researchers looked only at studies in which people
died. That left out 405 clinical trials, which he says skews the results in
favor of death risk. And he points out that the researchers original 68 studies did not show any harm from supplements.

"These questions cause one to step back and wonder if the findings are
relevant to the healthy population that uses these supplements to maintain
healtand avoid chronic disease," Shao says. "That is a point they
don't make: that antioxidants are not used to treat cancer or heart disease.
They are used for disease prevention."

Bare in mind that vitamins and minerals are the building blocks of life.
Vitamin C is the known cure for many illnesses (famously scurvy). Vitamins are good things IMO they are used extensively throughout medicine. Without them we'd die.

Read about Linus Pauling
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/12154.php

Sometimes called a qauck yet quack enough to win a nobel prize in chemistry and also lived into his 90's I believe.

jh wrote:

I read in the Guardian that, on average, water contains 0.3ppm fluoride in the uk without adulteration. If water fluoridation was stopped how would you deal with the fluoride that is there anyways? If our soil etc is similar to the UK and our natural level is 0.3pppm, do you really think increasing it to 1ppm would make much of a difference considering toxic effects aren't seen until levels of 10ppm or more?

It is funny that, in my experience, the same people that complain about water fluoridation, complain about the fact the sale of St John's Wort is now controlled given it's toxicity and want to legalise the neurotoxins present in marijuana.

Fair enough - these reports seem very accurate in relation to the part per million - have you ever looked into how these things aere measured across different regions?

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yes I would - and I know and agree that the anti-fluoridation agenda can be sensationalist but I suppose they imagine that they are using the same strategies as the groups who oppose them. These groups often call them an anti-science, propaganda fueled organisations full of sensationalist idiots so, you know....

I never called anyone an idiot. However I can point to dozens of examples of anti science propaganda and dishonest sensationalism used to argue against fluoridation on this thread.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Are there two groups represented in your reply? It sounds mildly conspiratorial?
I've never heard of (I think) anti-fluoride products so there can't be that a big a market? Perhaps I'm naive?

Not strictly two groups. There are some people who genuinely oppose fluoridation who gain more support from their propaganda and there are others who profit from misinformation about it by offering goods or dubious effectiveness.
For example: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/01/20/fluoride-denialism.aspx
http://shop.mercola.com/catalog/categoryinfo.aspx?filter=&search=fluoride&type=q&keywordoption=ANY&cid=2&fltrdesc=

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yep that's very reasonable. Accepting this however (that Fluoride is not necessary) for me it's very hard just to leave it there even if its the case that we're just dealing with an outside chance of harm. I would assume the logistics of removing it would not cost us anything?

It wouldn't cost that much to stop, but then it doesn't cost that much to continue either.
The necessary effort to convince politicians to do so is not worth it. And doing so for the anti-science reasons would have undesirable consequences.

And then, without replacing it with education or other methods of fluoridation it's possible that it would end up costing more in dental problems.

stevejazzx wrote: »

But its the only one here that I have seen offered.
Otherwise we're down to independent dentist or scientist testimony.
I am aware there must other reports though.

They are easy to find with a quick google.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yeah you've touched upon a really important facet of the debate and I know it was mentioned earlier - i.e choice. As per my understanding you can opt out of an xray at airports etc. You can buy routers without wifi bult in (if you're crazy enough to fear wifi and think that having a non wifi home will save you).
You can chose to use a headphone set with your mobile to avoid radiation etc. but currently no real choice on fluoridation apart from filtering it out retrospectively.

But even if you refuse to own a wifi router, there's nothing stopping your neighbour from getting one or from public spaces and businesses from installing one. The only way you can avoid wifi signals entirely is living in a faraday cage.
People have no more choice about whether or not they are bathed in radiation than you say they do with drinking fluoridated water. Similarly while you can provide the choice by leaving public water alone and selling fluoridated water to those who want it, people who want internet can use a cable.
This alone would be cause enough for banning wifi if we follow your logic, never mind the concerns some express about it's effects.

So why is fluoridation different? Why ban that but not wifi?

@stevejazzxx

@stevejazzxx
Like vitamins, fluoride is essential too and like vitamins are toxic at certain concentrations.

maringo

Example of a ban on flouride in Belgium in the year 2002 - its actually referred to as a ban
extract follows:
"The ministry took its decision after the results of a study commissioned by an advisory board to the ministry, Mr Ruts said.
The study found that excessive use of fluoride products could cause fluoride poisoning, damage the nervous system and foster the brittle bone condition osteoporosis.
Although medicines containing fluoride would escape the ban, the ministry will examine their application to determine whether they also posed a health risk." end of extract

"In a move thought absurd by the Belgian Dentists Federation, the Belgium government will ban the sale of all products containing fluoride except for toothpaste. While this ban is the first of its kind for the EU, Belgian Health Minister Magda Aelvoet, a member of the Flemish Green Party, plans to discuss this move with other members of the union. The reason for the proposed ban is that a study commissioned by the Belgium government showed that fluoride, known to fight cavities, causes fluoride poisoning, damage to the nervous system, and osteoporosis. The study based its results on excessive use of fluoride. Companies that manufacture fluoride products have not commented. The health minister of the European Commission said that he was not informed of the Belgium government’s plan. – YaleGlobal Belgium Bans Gum, Tablets and Drops with Fluoride


Anon.
The Straits Times, 31 July 2002
BRUSSELS - Belgium said yesterday it would ban the sale of chewing gum, tablets and drops that contain fluoride because officials fear they could cause health problems in people who use them to excess.

The ban, the first of its kind in the European Union (EU), will stop short of removing toothpaste with fluoride from store shelves, Health Ministry adviser Frans Gosselinckx said.

However, a ministry spokesman said that Health Minister Magda Aelvoet wants to discuss with her EU counterparts the possibility of banning the use of fluoride in toothpaste for children.

Belgium's move might prompt renewed debate about the safety of fluoride, which some countries add to public drinking water supplies as a means of improving dental health. Fluoride helps protect teeth from decay.

The ban on fluoride supplements would probably come into force by late August, according to health ministry spokesman Tom Ruts.

''Those products are used excessively and often abused,'' he said.

Fluoride supplement products such as tablets and chewing gum are promoted by dentists to fight tooth decay and are sold in Belgium over the counter without prescription.

The ministry took its decision after the results of a study commissioned by an advisory board to the ministry, Mr Ruts said.

The study found that excessive use of fluoride products could cause fluoride poisoning, damage the nervous system and foster the brittle bone condition osteoporosis.

Although medicines containing fluoride would escape the ban, the ministry will examine their application to determine whether they also posed a health risk.

There was no immediate comment from companies that manufacture fluoride supplement products.

But the secretary-general of the Belgian Dentists Federation said she was surprised by the government's plan.

''This seems absurd,'' Ms Marie-Christine Uzee said. ''It is undeniable that fluoride at reasonable dosages helps fight cavities.''

Ms Aelvoet, a member of the Flemish Green Party, told Humo magazine she hoped her EU partners would follow her example.

''In these cases, a harmonisation within the EU is of course desirable but I can't always wait until the EU is ready,'' she was quoted as saying.

''We will, however, communicate our official decision to the other European member states in the hope that they will follow us swiftly.''

The European Commission spokesman for health and consumer protection, Mr Thorsten Muench, said yesterday that the commission had yet to receive notice of Ms Aelvoet's move.





Source:The Straits Times
Rights:Copyright © 2002 Singapore Press Holdings

The minster in charge is a member of the green party, if they share the same ideology as our own then I wouldn't have too much faith in his ability to make a judgement on anything scientific.

It does say excessive use of fluoride is a health risk, 1ppm isn't excessive. Why doesn't he ban alcohol given its toxicity in excessive amounts?