Primetime Report on Fluoride in Water - bad for formula feed babies?

M007

I don't want to scare anyone but I was watching Prime Time on RTE last night and they had a feature on Fluoride in the irish water system and protential issues with the use of such water for formula feed babies?

Did anyone else have concerns watching it?

I think I will look into getting a fluoride filter for the house - it appears that the jug filters aren't able to combat flouride but you need to treat it by reverse osmosis - has anyone else installed such a filter or is thinking about doing same as a result of the feature on prime time last night?

pwurple

Flouride is a mineral. Breastmilk also contains it.

Might be cheaper to just buy some water for the few months if you are worried about it rather than buying the latest reverse osmosis gizmo.

liliq

pwurple wrote: »

Flouride is a mineral. Breastmilk also contains it.

Might be cheaper to just buy some water for the few months if you are worried about it rather than buying the latest reverse osmosis gizmo.

The amount of flouride in tap water and breast milk is so vastly different- breast milk has around 0.0006ppm and tap water has 0.6ppm at the lower end of the scale. That 1,000 times more!
As far as I can remember, something like 0.2ppm and above is considered toxic!

There is an issue with salt in bottled water (I'm assuming that what you mean when you suggest buying water), it is quite dangerous for babies formula to be made with bottled water in Ireland.

gctest50

pwurple wrote: »

rather than buying the latest reverse osmosis gizmo.

RO is around for years ffs

Hannibal Smith

liliq wrote: »

The amount of flouride in tap water and breast milk is so vastly different- breast milk has around 0.0006ppm and tap water has 0.6ppm at the lower end of the scale. That 1,000 times more!
As far as I can remember, something like 0.2ppm and above is considered toxic!

There is an issue with salt in bottled water (I'm assuming that what you mean when you suggest buying water), it is quite dangerous for babies formula to be made with bottled water in Ireland.

Sodium content varies depending on the brand of bottled water...Ballygowan used to be the lowest of them all not sure if it still is.

pwurple

liliq wrote: »

The amount of flouride in tap water and breast milk is so vastly different- breast milk has around 0.0006ppm and tap water has 0.6ppm at the lower end of the scale. That 1,000 times more!
As far as I can remember, something like 0.2ppm and above is considered toxic!

There is an issue with salt in bottled water (I'm assuming that what you mean when you suggest buying water), it is quite dangerous for babies formula to be made with bottled water in Ireland.

The amount of flouride in breastmilk varies from person to person.

I'd be more worried about fecal contamination or the levels of chlorine in my water to be honest, than something which has decades of research showing it to be beneficial. Toothpaste has far far higher levels of flouride minerals and I don't see anyone jumping up and down trying to avoid that.

You can buy water suitable for babies bottles.

Conspiracy forum has a very long thread on flouride already.
That's over that way ->
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056973983

iguana

The American Dental Association has released a number of very clear statements that fluoridated water should not be used for making formula as when young babies are exposed to it, it causes tooth damage in the form of dental fluorosis. Their guidelines are also to never use fluoridated toothpaste in children under 2.

The ADA are otherwise in favour of water fluoridation, so their statement has as much to do with conspiracy theories as peaches.

sari

pwurple wrote: »

Flouride is a mineral. Breastmilk also contains it.

Might be cheaper to just buy some water for the few months if you are worried about it rather than buying the latest reverse osmosis gizmo.

Fluoride which accurs naturally is vastly different to the fluoride which is added to out water supply.
What is added to the water is called fluorosilic acid, this is not the same as naturally occurring fluoride. http://hazmap.nlm.nih.gov/category-details?id=1408&table=copytblagents
Fluorosilic acid is a by product of the chemical and more specifically the chemical fertiliser industry.
Guidelines on safe levels of consumption are based on adults, we do not have a safe level for babies. There is also no way to know exactly how much 1 person or baby is absorbing every day as fluoride is in water, food, toothpaste etc. It is also absorbed through the skin while washing.
http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-acid-origins/

M007

pwurple wrote: »

The amount of flouride in breastmilk varies from person to person.

I'd be more worried about fecal contamination or the levels of chlorine in my water to be honest, than something which has decades of research showing it to be beneficial. Toothpaste has far far higher levels of flouride minerals and I don't see anyone jumping up and down trying to avoid that.

You can buy water suitable for babies bottles.

Conspiracy forum has a very long thread on flouride already.
That's over that way ->
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056973983

What water is suitable for babies bottles - have ready conflicting info on most!

pwurple

M007 wrote: »

What water is suitable for babies bottles - have ready conflicting info on most!

There's a little image on the water bottle label on whether it's ok for babies or not. You see it more abroad where they don't drink the tap water at all (and the flouride is put in their food instead). Those big gallon drums of it would be the ones to go for. Just make sure you still boil it etc. It's still not sterile.

Just don't get a mineral water (too salty) or a fizzy one.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I had formula milk made with Irish tap water and had my teeth brushed with fluorodated tooth paste, as did most people on here I'd say. I still have all my teeth and they don't glow in the dark. This anti fluoride malark is very tiresome.

pwurple

sari wrote: »

Fluoride which accurs naturally is vastly different to the fluoride which is added to out water supply.

Flouride salts break into their respective ions in water. Source makes no difference when it ionizes. Good olde chemistry.

Water has been flouridated here since 1957, and the population's life expectancy has increased over that time, not decreased.

Anyway, I'll say no more. Flouride now is like what candida was in the 70's. Knickers in twists all over the shop. Bandwagon ahoy.

Hannibal Smith

M007 wrote: »

What water is suitable for babies bottles - have ready conflicting info on most!

If you look at the label on the bottle you'll see it gives a sodium content. To be safe for babies the sodium content has to be below a certain level. I think its 20 or something. ..but Google it and you'll find the exact number. We had to use to when we were abroad.

Akrasia

Mild dental fluorosis actually makes teeth stronger but there is some slight discolouration that is usually un-noticable (mostly invisible to the naked eye)

The main risk of fluorosis is through children swallowing toothpaste or mouth wash.

The biggest danger is if your 2 year old child gets a hold of a tube of toothpaste and starts eating it.

If you want to avoid fluorosis in your children, keep your toothpaste high and out of reach of children.

The risk of fluorosis disappears entirely once your teeth are formed and have 'erupted' so by the time all your adult teeth are in, you can eat as much toothpaste as you like (not really, you probably shouldn't eat toothpaste)

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Surely nobody knows the exact safe levels of sodium, flouride etc. for babies and children as this would imply that someone somewhere is testing babies with increasing doses of sodium and flouride. I'd have my doubts about that getting ethical approval.

Das Kitty

Another watch out of bottled water and sodium is that we boil the water making the sodium content marginally higher. I think it's advised that you only boil water once, regardless of its origin.

As far as I'm concerned, I know of two cases of babies in hospital from high salt levels in bottled water (happened during a crypto outbreak) and none of cases of flourosis.

Akrasia

I just googled sodium toxicity in babies and I came across the horrible story about the little 3 month old baby who died after his parents gave him adult food which contained too much salt.

The story blamed ready brek but ready brek list's its ingredients as less than .1g of salt per 30g serving, and the baby apparently had 9 grams of salt in his body.
I don't know how they could have fed a 3 month old 2700 grams of ready brek...

The story also mentioned that they had given the baby mashed potato and gravy. I think this was probably the real culprit.

We gave our babies ready brek when they were about 6 months old at the recommendation of the public health nurse (but we didn't start weaning our children until they were 5 months old and we made our own baby food out of steamed veg without any added salt (a bazillion times cheaper than those jars)

sari

Akrasia wrote: »

The main risk of fluorosis is through children swallowing toothpaste or mouth wash.

The biggest danger is if your 2 year old child gets a hold of a tube of toothpaste and starts eating it.

If you want to avoid fluorosis in your children, keep your toothpaste high and out of reach of children.

Fluorosis is not the only risk of ingesting toothpaste. There is a reason you are told to contact poison control if a child swallows to much, because it is very dangerous http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002745.htm

jma

Fact of the matter is that water fluoridation is unethical, takes away our freedom of choice, and it's obviously very controversial. So, we're all better off without it, and those that are concerned about their teeth have lots of other options (fluoride tablets, flouride concentrated toothpaste, fluoridated mouthwash, to name a few). Apart from the health and ethical concerns, water flouridation costs the state (i.e. the tax payer) €4.8m per year.

My own view is that it's very difficult to say whether it's toxic or not. Toxicity is all about dose and solubility. Once flouride is added to public drinking water, it becomes impossible to control the dose that an individual is subjected to. If anything, I wouldn't be at all concerned about acute toxicity, but rather chronic toxicity.

iguana

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

I had formula milk made with Irish tap water and had my teeth brushed with fluorodated tooth paste, as did most people on here I'd say. I still have all my teeth and they don't glow in the dark. This anti fluoride malark is very tiresome.

Well I was breastfed and thanks to a fluoride allergy can't use fluoridated toothpastes or mouthwashes (and need to use a ro filter) yet I've teeth so perfect I'm 34 and still have a milk tooth. I've been to the dentist once since I was 12 yet I've no signs of gum disease and never had toothache nor cavities. The only teeth I ever had pulled were 3 milk teeth when I was 12 as they were too healthy to fall out and the dentist wanted to leave the space free for the new teeth to come up. Obviously fluoride doesn't help your teeth at all.

Or maybe there is a HUGE difference between science and anecdote. :cool:

pwurple

Iguana, your deciduous teeth not falling out hasn't much to do with them being healthy or not. They don't rot out of the heads of children normally! It is healthy deciduous teeth that the tooth fairy takes away from under pillows.

Genetics do play a huge role, so of course you get anacdotes both ways. I know my own parents and my husbands parents all have their own teeth now at their age, which would have unusual enough to see a few generations ago.

I wonder are denture makers dwindling?

On the ethics if it, I think it is ethical to provide something which improves the health of the general population. There is a broader argument about the finances if it, and whether it is worth the cost to provide millions of gallons of drinking quality water to houses for people to flush down the toilet, wash their car with, etc. maybe not.

sari

"pwurple wrote:

On the ethics if it, I think it is ethical to provide something which improves the health of the general population. There is a broader argument about the finances if it, and whether it is worth the cost to provide millions of gallons of drinking quality water to houses for people to flush down the toilet, wash their car with, etc. maybe not.

What?? You really think its ethical to medicate people without consent? That's crazy. Most people in Ireland probably don't even know that it's been added to the water.
There are many other ways to get fluoride if that's what you want.

seamus

Das Kitty wrote: »

Another watch out of bottled water and sodium is that we boil the water making the sodium content marginally higher. I think it's advised that you only boil water once, regardless of its origin.

Thank you! This is totally unrelated to fluorosis, but my wife has been insistent from the start that the water used for bottles is only boiled once, but couldn't say why except that's what she was told
Now it makes sense.

sari

Boiling water also increases the fluoride concentration.

pwurple

sari wrote: »

What?? You really think its ethical to medicate people without consent? That's crazy.

Crazy is a little strong wouldn't you say? I would also enforce compulsary vaccination, having spent a lot of time seeing what immuno-suppressed kids go through when others don't bother with it.

sari

Sorry yes was a little bit harsh, I apologise.
I guess I just think it is morally wrong to force any kind of medication onto anybody.

MrCreosote

sari wrote: »

Sorry yes was a little bit harsh, I apologise.
I guess I just think it is morally wrong to force any kind of medication onto anybody.

Nothing is being "forced" on anyone. All that is done is making it an opt out rather than an opt in choice. If you don't want fluoridated water, then there are easy ways of avoiding it.

sari

Ok so I want to opt out. How do I easily avoid fluoride in Ireland?

jma

MrCreosote wrote: »

Nothing is being "forced" on anyone. All that is done is making it an opt out rather than an opt in choice. If you don't want fluoridated water, then there are easy ways of avoiding it.

That's just completely false. For starters, we all need water to survive. Secondly, bottled water is not very well regulated, unfortunately - so we can never be too sure what's in it. Least of all, fluoride, since there doesn't seem to be any regulations that require companies to inform consumers about fluoride concentrations. Thirdly, fluoride is not just in the tapwater; it's also in the food we eat, the beverages we drink, and it's absorbed by our skin when we take a shower or have a bath.

It should be the other way around - if you want fluoride, and if you actually want to ingest it, you take a fluoride tablet.

Another thing you might be forgetting is that a lot of people are not informed about flouride and certainly wouldn't be aware that it is added to their drinking water. There is a bit more awareness of it now, but it's only recent enough that the issue has been getting more coverage.

pwurple

To opt out, get your water off the mains water grid. Bottled, your own well or rainwater gathering system, drink milk or something else, etc. etc etc. It's not rocket science here guys.

Drinking quality water provided to wash our hair in and flush our poop with is a pure first world luxury. One they don't have all over the world. If it's still not good enough for you, you can do what all those other billions of people do, and source it for yourself. You'll be delighted to hear that those of us who do still want it will be paying for it shortly, so it won't be money for nothing when you start paying for your custom solution.

sari

Get our water off the mains?? So if I want to opt out of consuming fluoride I need to totally change my life. We live in a small housing estate so it would not be possible to have our own well.
We rent, so it is neither practical or affordable for us to fit a filter, we would have to fit a whole new system to filter the water which comes from every tap and shower in the house. I don't even know if that's possible but if it is the process would not be easy and I imagine very expensive. Not something you would do living in a rented house.
At the moment we have a gravity fed filter which we need to fill and wait for it to filter, we use this water for all drinking and cooking. We have to buy new filters usually once a year. It is not possible for us to easily filter the water in our bathroom, shower and bath, fluoride is also absorbed through the skin, so although we filter out drinking and cooking water it is impossible to to eliminate fluoride totally.

My family, like everyone else, enjoys to go out for a meal, coffee or a drink and we are again exposed to fluoride. Should we stay indoors, never eat at a restaurant or go for a drink with friends, so we can 'easily' opt out of fluoride, a medication we don't want to take?

Is it tough luck to us who don't own our own homes with acess to a well, or who cannot afford to totally rework their plumbing to remove fluoride? We pay to remove as much as we can and soon we will being paying for the water too.

I understand that some people believe that fluoride is beneficial to them and its handy to have it in the water, they are perfectly entitled to this opinion and to ingest fluoride if that's their choice. But what about the people who don't want to ingest it? Are we not also entitled to our opinion and choice as to whether we medicate ourselves with it?

You see if it really was easy to opt out of this medication there wouldn't be a problem but the truth is it is not easy and actually almost impossible to avoid.

Why should people who do not want to medicate with fluoride be forced to go through great expense and work to remove fluoride from the water coming into their homes? And yet after doing all this are still exposed anytime they eat, drink or wash themselves while outside home.

We could remove fluoride from the public water supply and save the country hundreds of thousands of € a year and anyone who wants fluoride can use toothpaste and take a fluoride tablet which costs about €7 for 3 months supply.
Does this not make more sense and is also more ethical?

jma

I'm not sure if this was mentionedon Prime Time, but Hot Press have published John Gormley's report on water fluoridation, along with his statements on why the report was suppressed by the Government. Here are the links:

http://www.hotpress.com/Water-Fluoridation-in-Ireland/politics/frontlines/Fluoride-The-Dil-Report-That-Was-Suppressed/10198737.html
http://www.hotpress.com/politics/frontlines/Gormley-says-Fluoride-Report-was-Suppressed/10176043.html

The document itself, can be downloaded as a PDF:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/167323404/The-Oireachtas-Joint-Irish-Houses-of-Parliament-Draft-report-on-Water-Fluoridation-in-Ireland?secret_password=syvmvagq062jpi6lc6f

pwurple

sari wrote: »

We could remove fluoride from the public water supply and save the country hundreds of thousands of € a year

Keeping people healthy saves the state far more than 100,000 euro a year.

sari

You don't seem to get it. Water fluoridation whether it is good for health or not is forced medication and that is completely unethical.
It is not easy to opt out of water fluoridation as you orgianally stated yet it is easy to opt in by taking fluoride toothpaste and a very cheap fluoride tablet.

More women breastfeeding would improve health and in the long run save the state millions on health care but we can't force women to breastfed because it not right, it's not ethical.

pwurple

Is someone holding you down and pouring tap-water down your neck or something?

There's no "forcing" about it. My husband doesn't drink water at all. He doesn't like water. He drinks milk (and booze!). I drink it, and after living in places where we couldn't, I'm very appreciative of it.

Does the bleach not bother people for some particular reason? Flouride isn't the only thing in the water you know. Not sure why there is a bandwagon going on taking out the helpful minerals, and not on the chlorine? People get so fixated on conspiracies.

sari

Do you agree that water is essential to life? That it is a basic human right?

If you believe these things then it's very hard to understand how you think that fluoride is not being forced on people.

We must have water to live, yet we can not get it easily without being medicated.

It is such simple logic

pwurple

Drinking quality water piped directly to your flushable modern toilet is not a "basic human right" by any stretch. That is a sense of entitlement gone completely bananas. Next you'll be telling me trampolines are a human right.

I'll leave you to your meaningless hyperbole about people being "forced" under their kitchen taps screaming in blind terror. The horror!

Hannibal Smith

sari wrote: »

Do you agree that water is essential to life? That it is a basic human right?

If you believe these things then it's very hard to understand how you think that fluoride is not being forced on people.

We must have water to live, yet we can not get it easily without being medicated.

It is such simple logic

You are right in everything you say Sari. At the moment we have to grin and bare it because the government are apparently doing us a favour by providing us with water...I wonder when we start paying taxes on it will we have more of a say in it...but then again it doesn't work that way with any other tax.

MrCreosote

Everyone knows the anti-fluoride hysteria is stirred up and funded by Big Dental and right-wing Think-tanks who want to keep the poor occupied and downtrodden.

Seriously, if you're that worried get a rainwater collecting system. Cheap and effective and used extensively overseas.

sari

Let's get something straight here, I'm not fixated on conspiracy theories as pwurple has implied. I have not mentioned or referenced any conspiracy theories, yet I am being falsely branded as a conspiracy theorist and I don't appreciate it, what are the chances of pwurple apologising for falsely accusing me even though I have not once mentioned any consiracy theories?

I do believe that fluoride is, in the right dose, beneficial to the health of ones teeth, which is why people should be able I access fluoride if they wish.

What I am concerned about is that there is no way to regulate or control how much any individual absorbs, which can lead to overdose and cause health problems. Overdose from fluoride and health problems occuring from this is not a conspiracy theory, it is the truth, and that is why we have daily limits on how much we should absorb safely. There is warnings on our toothpaste about swallowing to much, the advice given is to call poison control and seek medical help.

There is no way to control how much an individual absorbs, no way to limit how much we take and this is very dangerous.

If you want to mediate with fluoride then use fluoridated toothpaste and take a fluoride supplement, then we won't have any worries about overdose, health concerns or ethical issues

iguana

pwurple wrote: »

Iguana, your deciduous teeth not falling out hasn't much to do with them being healthy or not. They don't rot out of the heads of children normally! It is healthy deciduous teeth that the tooth fairy takes away from under pillows.

It most certainly does when the tooth has lasted 34 years (and counting) with no dental intervention or problems.

Akrasia

sari wrote: »

Let's get something straight here, I'm not fixated on conspiracy theories as pwurple has implied. I have not mentioned or referenced any conspiracy theories, yet I am being falsely branded as a conspiracy theorist and I don't appreciate it, what are the chances of pwurple apologising for falsely accusing me even though I have not once mentioned any consiracy theories?

I do believe that fluoride is, in the right dose, beneficial to the health of ones teeth, which is why people should be able I access fluoride if they wish.

What I am concerned about is that there is no way to regulate or control how much any individual absorbs, which can lead to overdose and cause health problems. Overdose from fluoride and health problems occuring from this is not a conspiracy theory, it is the truth, and that is why we have daily limits on how much we should absorb safely. There is warnings on our toothpaste about swallowing to much, the advice given is to call poison control and seek medical help.

There is no way to control how much an individual absorbs, no way to limit how much we take and this is very dangerous.

If you want to mediate with fluoride then use fluoridated toothpaste and take a fluoride supplement, then we won't have any worries about overdose, health concerns or ethical issues

There are a lot of public health measures out there that we could all benefit from.

Without doubt, the vaccination program has saved countless lives and prevented countless lives from being destroyed by some of those awful diseases like smallpox, polio, measles etc
The Smallpox vaccine was given as a mandatory medication in many places and aren't we all incredibly lucky that this disease has been wiped out?

2 billion people are iodine deficient around the world. This is a condition that can cause mental retardation in developing babies. Some places put Iodine into table salt to reduce this deficiency in the public. I would support this.

The levels of fluoride added to irish water has been extensively studied and tested and it has been found to be safe. The public health benefits outweigh the risks (which are extremely low)

sari

Akrasia wrote: »

The levels of fluoride added to irish water has been extensively studied and tested and it has been found to be safe. The public health benefits outweigh the risks (which are extremely low)

Please explain how it is possible to control how much fluoride each individual is absorbing?

jma

pwurple wrote: »

Keeping people healthy saves the state far more than 100,000 euro a year.

Fluoridation does not keep us healthy. Studies show that fluoridation has little to no impact on oral health. Ireland is one of just a small number of countries that fluoridate their water. Most EU countries have stopped water fluoridation, and there has been no significant rise in caries in those countries; the opposite in fact.

Also, water flouridation does not cost 100k per year; it costs over 4m.

pwurple wrote: »

Is someone holding you down and pouring tap-water down your neck or something?

There's no "forcing" about it. My husband doesn't drink water at all. He doesn't like water. He drinks milk (and booze!). I drink it, and after living in places where we couldn't, I'm very appreciative of it.

Does the bleach not bother people for some particular reason? Flouride isn't the only thing in the water you know. Not sure why there is a bandwagon going on taking out the helpful minerals, and not on the chlorine? People get so fixated on conspiracies.

With all due respect, it seems like you're being naive. Please see my previous post. Everyone drinks water in some form. It is necessary for life. What do you think is the main ingredient in "booze"? Beer contains as much as 95% water. If it's bottled in Ireland, there will be fluoride in it. It's in the food, tea, coffee, infant formula, fizzy drinks, and it's also absorbed through the skin.

pwurple wrote: »

Drinking quality water piped directly to your flushable modern toilet is not a "basic human right" by any stretch. That is a sense of entitlement gone completely bananas. Next you'll be telling me trampolines are a human right.

I'll leave you to your meaningless hyperbole about people being "forced" under their kitchen taps screaming in blind terror. The horror!

Formal international human rights law acknowledges that water and sanitation is a human right. If you don't trust this as a fact, you may read the following document.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga10967.doc.htm

MrCreosote wrote: »

Everyone knows the anti-fluoride hysteria is stirred up and funded by Big Dental and right-wing Think-tanks who want to keep the poor occupied and downtrodden.

Seriously, if you're that worried get a rainwater collecting system. Cheap and effective and used extensively overseas.

This, by definition, is a conspiracy theory, which is something, I think, no one wants to discuss here.

A rainwater collecting system may be a good idea, but it's not the answer to the water fluoridation issue.

MrCreosote

sari wrote: »

Let's get something straight here, I'm not fixated on conspiracy theories as pwurple has implied. I have not mentioned or referenced any conspiracy theories, yet I am being falsely branded as a conspiracy theorist and I don't appreciate it, what are the chances of pwurple apologising for falsely accusing me even though I have not once mentioned any consiracy theories?

I do believe that fluoride is, in the right dose, beneficial to the health of ones teeth, which is why people should be able I access fluoride if they wish.

What I am concerned about is that there is no way to regulate or control how much any individual absorbs, which can lead to overdose and cause health problems. Overdose from fluoride and health problems occuring from this is not a conspiracy theory, it is the truth, and that is why we have daily limits on how much we should absorb safely. There is warnings on our toothpaste about swallowing to much, the advice given is to call poison control and seek medical help.

There is no way to control how much an individual absorbs, no way to limit how much we take and this is very dangerous.

If you want to mediate with fluoride then use fluoridated toothpaste and take a fluoride supplement, then we won't have any worries about overdose, health concerns or ethical issues

Maybe you haven't directly mentioned conspiracy theories, but you've deliberately fudged the issues. Suggesting that fluoride overdose is possible in Ireland through drinking water is rubbish (it is possible of course if you swallow enough toothpaste). Suggesting that you absorb any meaningful amount of fluoride though your skin when having a shower in fluoridated water is crossing the line to wacky theories IMO.

There is a way to control what you take - yes it's annoying and expensive, but if it's that important to you (and it isn't to most people) then it can easily be done. It's not the government's responsibility to bend over to every crackpot theory.

Seems to me that the worst claim that can be levelled at fluoridation is that it is not much use for most people. This isn't the case for poorer/marginalised members in society, but you know, who gives a sh*t about them, eh?

iguana

MrCreosote wrote: »

This isn't the case for poorer/marginalised members in society, but you know, who gives a sh*t about them, eh?

Are you actually claiming that there are people in this country who can't afford €3 a year on toothpaste? Seriously?

MrCreosote

iguana wrote: »

Are you actually claiming that there are people in this country who can't afford €3 a year on toothpaste? Seriously?

No. I'm claiming that there are people in this country who don't brush their teeth twice a day with €3 toothpaste. Affording it and using it are two different things.

January

This thread, while interesting, is just turning into a mud slinging match between certain posters, so lets get back onto the discussion of fluoride and formula fed babies or I'll be forced to lock it.

Orion

pwurple wrote: »

I'll leave you to your meaningless hyperbole about people being "forced" under their kitchen taps screaming in blind terror. The horror!

That's quite enough of that. Sarcasm is unnecessary as is your strawman argument from earlier in the thread - "Water has been flouridated here since 1957, and the population's life expectancy has increased over that time, not decreased."

Be nice or be elsewhere.

Treora

MrCreosote wrote: »

No. I'm claiming that there are people in this country who don't brush their teeth twice a day with €3 toothpaste. Affording it and using it are two different things.

So you didn't read any of the other threads on fluoride. In simple terms the UCC showed in 2002 that DMFT in 15 year olds was 2.6. The national average at the time was 1.1+. Sweden had .85. Sweden now has .7 and no one dare tests Ireland because once you have DMFT of 2.6 in a population that is now 26 years old there is no way to spin the stats.

We could save millions (the figure is closer to €40M than €4M) by copying the Swedes as they have habitualised early childhood oral hygiene education. One school year when children are 5, no toothpaste as it is for parental supervision only, where the teacher puts on a video and the class brushes their teeth together with water after eating. Getting the technique right and normalising the frequency is important. The teenagers get refresher courses and the adults get a national oral hygiene week (this is done in many, many other countries).

Going from 2.6 to .7 in a generation would be amazing. There is link after link to the latest research like Dr Karin Jacob's on the other threads.

And water fluoridation arrived in 1964 in Dublin and the rest of the country by 1967, which was the exact same time that fluoridated toothpaste became widely available. The two are often conflated, the brushing did 98% of the work and the surface hardening by fluoride that reduced some of the harm caused by acidic drinks. The ADA say we need .185ml of toothpaste with 1450ppm of a fluoride compound. Water fluoridation provides 2 litres a day at .7ppm with 5% ending up in saliva. All the stuff on the inside is just that inside the dentine. It does not affect the surface layer. The difference is a 100:1 ratio of the amount the ADA says we need and the amount that water fluoridation can provide. It is homeopathic, or pointless on a benefit level. We excrete 50% and 45% is absorbed into our body, what its affects are differ from person to person and interest group to interest group.

The big thing is that should a foetus be subject to that amount of fluoride! People always say that it did me no harm, well show me the health statistics across Europe and then talk. The only thing I know that we are the best in the world at the moment is debt at a per capita level, be it personal or organisational or state.

Human teeth are made of calcium and phosphate and never evolved to handle fluoride. There is plenty in the environment, but we never evolved to have it naturally in our teeth. Does that no strike people as odd. We did evolve to cope with virii and did develop an immune system, but no fluoride.

Well if you don't want it you can tell your councillors when they call for your vote next year. It will have no effect as they have no authority and will not be listened to by their parliamentry party for at least two election cycles. Or you can seek out your MEP candidates and ask them to reduce the amount of added fluoride allowed in the EU drinking water directive. Or get an EU petition going, this is the best shot. Don't waste your time with an Irish petition.

Fluoride has existed in water long before there were people on this planet. This fluoride is no different than that present in our water.

The question is whether this level is safe it is not important where it comes from. Northern Ireland has 0.3ppm without fluoridation and we have 0.7ppm with fluoridation there is absolutely no evidence that either concentrations are anything other than completely safe.