Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Israel Bans Fluoride on Health Grounds.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Christ the Redeemer wrote: »
    I've read studies that call Fluoride's tooth protecting properties into question. As well as a Harvard meta study which raises the spectre of Neurotoxicity.

    It has been my experience that any time this issue is raised, people get defensive and start calling the "conspiracy theorists" ill informed and 9 times out of 10 it's by some google warrior who simply has an ideological need to believe that whatever the government decides is for the best.

    Once again you make an assumption about what I have read or not read on the subject.
    Given that you decided to bring that Harvard paper into the discussion I am going to safely assume that you haven't read it (or if you have, then failed to understand it). Did you see the words "Harvard" "Fluoride" and "Neurotoxicity" and automatically believe it strengthened your argument?
    humanji wrote: »
    Personally, I'd worry about whether or not it's cost effective.
    I am broadly pro-fluoridation, but if there is to be a case to made for it's removal from the water supply (or should I say non-addition) then cost-effectiveness in relation to other public health measures will be where it's made.


  • Options
    #33
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    humanji wrote: »
    Not many. Mostly because it's been shown that it's not as beneficial as it was originally claimed.

    Maybe also because there were some ethical considerations, as in, most European may have decided it would be unjust to force their population's to pay a charge for a medicated water supply.


  • Options
    #34
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    darkhorse wrote: »
    Maybe also because there were some ethical considerations, as in, most European may have decided it would be unjust to force their population's to pay a charge for a medicated water supply.
    Not a reason I've seen them use.


  • Options
    #35
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    darkhorse wrote: »
    Maybe also because there were some ethical considerations, as in, most European may have decided it would be unjust to force their population's to pay a charge for a medicated water supply.
    I guess they should be allowed to choose whether it's chlorinated as well :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #36
    Christ the Redeemer
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭Christ the Redeemer


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Given that you decided to bring that Harvard paper into the discussion I am going to safely assume that you haven't read it (or if you have, then failed to understand it). Did you see the words "Harvard" "Fluoride" and "Neurotoxicity" and automatically believe it strengthened your argument?

    http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/
    Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Christ the Redeemer wrote: »
    http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/
    *sigh*

    We can all read abstracts. Have you read the paper in full?


  • Options
    #38
    Christ the Redeemer
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭Christ the Redeemer


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    *sigh*

    We can all read abstracts. Have you read the paper in full?

    You can make your point by showing it says says "High exposure" in the abstract's conclusions. I'm sure everyone who cares knows you're a smarty pants.


  • Options
    #39
    HurtLocker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭HurtLocker


    Noooo! Not this conspiracy thread again! Dodgy reports, links to reports that don't give quantitys. No reports which will tell us what 0.6ppm per litre actual does. Just propaganda and scaremongering.

    Dihydrogen monoxide. That's the killer.


  • Options
    #40
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Christ the Redeemer wrote: »
    You can make your point by showing it says says "High exposure" in the abstracts conclusions. I'm sure everyone who cares knows you're a smarty pants.
    Why thank you! I've never been called smart before (even as an insult!).

    A few questions:
    a) Is this study related to fluoridation?
    b) How do the levels (control and high exposure) compare to those seen in Ireland?
    c) Do you think a measure of intelligence as much maligned and discredited as an "IQ test" can be used as an accurate indicator of neurotoxicity?


  • Options
    #41
    JJayoo
    Registered Users Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭JJayoo


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    I guess they should be allowed to choose whether it's chlorinated as well :rolleyes:

    Chlorine serves a beneficial function in water, once swallowed Fluoride does not provide a benefit.

    The argument isn't against Fluoride, if it was then toothpaste/mouthwash would get bashed. The argument is that Fluoride serves so benefit once ingested into the bloodstream, and there have been zero studies into the affect(if any)that Fluoride has on the Pineal gland.

    Luke 2001 showed for the first time that Fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland. Her paper was simply to show if it did accumulate there. Since then there has been no research on whether or not this has an inpact. The Pineal gland is one of the few parts of the brain which is located outside the blood brain barrier so it isn't protected. Her studies showed that inside the Pineal gland the concentration of Fluroide was almost equivalent to that found in teeth.

    There was also a pretty recent study carried out comparing the teeth of children in the North and South. The study/report showed that incidences of fluorosis were much higher in the republic and that there was no evidence of children in the republic (fluoridated area) having better dental health. Though under the section of fluoridated water the report said that it was a positive thing even though it's findings suggested otherwise :confused:

    My opinion is that we should simply follow the European model. Let manufactures put fluoride in some of their products and that way people have the choice. It would also save the tax payer 4 million ? a year.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    danniemcq
    Registered Users Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    http://theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=368

    From 20 mins in.

    It doesn't lower your IQ and it doesn't make you mindless drones, anytime i think of something like this i think who stands to gain? Big Fluoride?

    Wouldn't EVERY dentist worldwide be coming out against this?

    In the US alone it saves 3.8 billion on dental healthcare. A lot of the studies done on this are tests on overfluoridation where it is either found naturally or someone is poisoned. Water companies adjust the amount of fluoride by either adding or subtracting it from your supply.

    It just doesn't make sense and i'm a HUGE fan of "the Man" theories, but this one... doesn't hold water


  • Options
    #43
    danniemcq
    Registered Users Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    HurtLocker wrote: »
    Noooo! Not this conspiracy thread again! Dodgy reports, links to reports that don't give quantitys. No reports which will tell us what 0.6ppm per litre actual does. Just propaganda and scaremongering.

    Dihydrogen monoxide. That's the killer.

    I remember when that started pouring out of my taps at home. My Ma freaked and thought we were all going to die.


  • Options
    #44
    Christ the Redeemer
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭Christ the Redeemer


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Why thank you! I've never been called smart before (even as an insult!).

    A few questions:
    a) Is this study related to fluoridation?
    b) How do the levels (control and high exposure) compare to those seen in Ireland?
    c) Do you think a measure of intelligence as much maligned and discredited as an "IQ test" can be used as an accurate indicator of neurotoxicity?

    a) They used data from Chinese studies where fluoride is not added but a pollutant or naturally high levels exist. The study is looking into the safe amounts to use in water supplies.
    b) Do we have data from Ireland? I'm not aware of it.
    c) as far as I know IQ is still taken seriously.


  • Options
    #45
    danniemcq
    Registered Users Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    JJayoo wrote: »
    Chlorine serves a beneficial function in water, once swallowed Fluoride does not provide a benefit.

    The argument isn't against Fluoride, if it was then toothpaste/mouthwash would get bashed. The argument is that Fluoride serves so benefit once ingested into the bloodstream, and there have been zero studies into the affect(if any)that Fluoride has on the Pineal gland.

    Luke 2001 showed for the first time that Fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland. Her paper was simply to show if it did accumulate there. Since then there has been no research on whether or not this has an inpact. The Pineal gland is one of the few parts of the brain which is located outside the blood brain barrier so it isn't protected. Her studies showed that inside the Pineal gland the concentration of Fluroide was almost equivalent to that found in teeth.

    There was also a pretty recent study carried out comparing the teeth of children in the North and South. The study/report showed that incidences of fluorosis were much higher in the republic and that there was no evidence of children in the republic (fluoridated area) having better dental health. Though under the section of fluoridated water the report said that it was a positive thing even though it's findings suggested otherwise :confused:

    My opinion is that we should simply follow the European model. Let manufactures put fluoride in some of their products and that way people have the choice. It would also save the tax payer 4 million ? a year.

    The podcast i linked to below (i know podcast but they are quite a reputible one discuss the cost and mention that 3.8 billion is saved in the US from fluoride being added


  • Options
    #46
    Rented Mule
    Registered Users Posts: 5,153 ✭✭✭Rented Mule


    I wonder what Mel Gibson thinks of all of this ??


  • Options
    #47
    Christ the Redeemer
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭Christ the Redeemer


    danniemcq wrote: »
    The podcast i linked to below (i know podcast but they are quite a reputible one discuss the cost and mention that 3.8 billion is saved in the US from fluoride being added

    How much would it save Ireland? of about 5 million people?


  • Options
    #48
    danniemcq
    Registered Users Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    Christ the Redeemer wrote: »
    How much would it save Ireland? of about 5 million people?

    not as much no doubt but i'd assume the savings/cost would be propotional?

    however it could be argued the cost of implimentaion would have been significantly high but this would then have decreased though the years as maintainence and infrastructure are not needed new every year. All that would matter would be the running cost

    Some very exact figures would be needed and i doubt they'd be to easy to come across (Irish politics wooo)


  • Options
    #49
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Christ the Redeemer wrote: »
    a) They used data from Chinese studies where fluoride is not added but a pollutant or naturally high levels exist. The study is looking into the safe amounts to use in water supplies.
    That'd be a no then
    Christ the Redeemer wrote: »
    b) Do we have data from Ireland? I'm not aware of it.
    We do. As of 2007, 0.6-0.8ppm.
    http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Publications/HealthProtection/Public_Health_/Flouride_and_Public_Health.pdf
    Christ the Redeemer wrote: »
    c) as far as I know IQ is still taken seriously.
    They're not. At least not by most reputable researchers.


  • Options
    #50
    JJayoo
    Registered Users Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭JJayoo


    danniemcq wrote: »
    The podcast i linked to below (i know podcast but they are quite a reputible one discuss the cost and mention that 3.8 billion is saved in the US from fluoride being added

    The reason that I find that figure so hard to believe is simply if it was proven to save such huge amounts why wouldn't countries such as France, Germany Finland try and implement it?

    And if these figures were backed up then why is America only partially Fluoridated?


  • Options
    #51
    Christ the Redeemer
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭Christ the Redeemer


    danniemcq wrote: »
    not as much no doubt but i'd assume the savings/cost would be propotional?

    Wouldn't think so. the US spends far more per head of population on health care than the Irish. (8,233 PPP to Irelands 3,718).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Christ the Redeemer wrote: »
    I said I oppose mass medication of any kind.

    Including vaccination? Because I don't think the world is pining for the days when smallpox was something that existed outside a couple of vials in a highly secure disease control lab.


  • Options
    #53
    Christ the Redeemer
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭Christ the Redeemer


    Sarky wrote: »
    Including vaccination? Because I don't think the world is pining for the days when smallpox was something that existed outside a couple of vials in a highly secure disease control lab.

    Vaccines require the consent of the parent. and we do not need 100% coverage to achieve herd immunity.

    I should add that I'm 100% pro vaccine.


  • Options
    #54
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    humanji wrote: »
    Not a reason I've seen them use.

    France:
    "Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/france.jpeg


  • Options
    #55
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    The elephant in the room here is the rumours that they've been dumping their leftover flouride in Palestine reservoir. Bunch of animals.


  • Options
    #56
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    I guess they should be allowed to choose whether it's chlorinated as well :rolleyes:

    Arsenic in my Fluoride? The CDC says Yes! | Fragments of Memories

    That's probably for another thread, if you want to discuss chlorine, but we are talking about fluoride.;)


  • Options
    #57
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    darkhorse wrote: »
    France:
    "Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/france.jpeg
    First I seen of that. Have a link? I don't doubt it, I just haven't seen a government say that as opposed to financial considerations before. And any other countries feel the same?


  • Options
    #58
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    humanji wrote: »
    First I seen of that. Have a link? I don't doubt it, I just haven't seen a government say that as opposed to financial considerations before. And any other countries feel the same?

    Statements from European Health & Environment Authorities on ...


    Sorry, I tried to post it earlier. Hope that's it.
    SSsView shared post


Advertisement