Charlatan "girl against flouride" finally exposed

Capt'n Midnight

weisses wrote: »

Problem with that comparison is that you have a choice in the kind of cereal you want.

Pray do tell , which cereals don't have added vitamins ???

Folic Acid intake has gone up 30% in recent years. now food manufacturers are adding folic acid to a large range of foodstuffs including dairy spreads, fruit juices, milk, yogurts, soups and cereal bars


http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-03-224_en.htm

Dietary needs have also changed. For example, the UK National Food Survey of 1998 showed a 30% decline in the average energy intakes of British adults, from 2,700 calories in 1960 to 1,800 in 1998. As people eat less they may also receive less of the vitamins and minerals they need to stay healthy.

Blame this on central heating , heating in cars , less exercise and more cars and more people doing desk jobs.

Satriale

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Great,

Now let's stop Kellogs & Co. adding vitamins and minerals to our cereals because we can all drink more milk instead :rolleyes:

This doesnt make a lot of sense in relation to my quoted post.:( (and dare i say not everyone is a fan of highly processed food, Capt, if you change to a healthier more balanced diet you may not need those vitamins, but whatever floats your boat!)

Satriale

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Pray do tell , which cereals don't have added vitamins ???

Folic Acid intake has gone up 30% in recent years. now food manufacturers are adding folic acid to a large range of foodstuffs including dairy spreads, fruit juices, milk, yogurts, soups and cereal bars


http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-03-224_en.htmBlame this on central heating , heating in cars , less exercise and more cars and more people doing desk jobs.

Oats?

Jawgap

TBH, I can see there is a strong ethical argument against fluoridating water supplies - or to put it another way, introducing something into water to deal with a chronic lifestyle issue as opposed to an acute public health risk (which Chlorine is intended to tackle).

The main problem I have with the anti-fluoridation campaigns is the bad pseudo 'science' they base many of their arguments on - to paraphrase Walter White........the science should be respected.

Counter it with evidence, new data or different forms of statistical analyses but leave the out-of-context selective quackery for the ducks!

ClovenHoof

I am still waiting on this proof that the removal lobby are going to replace fluoridation of water supplies with Angel Card readings and homophobia which currently represents the main (and rather hysterical) propaganda objective of the pro-fluoridation lobby, as from were I am standing, the scientific argument on both side is more or less stalemate with good arguments for both.

Chancer3001

If they got rid of flouride it wouldn't have any effect on our teeth and we'd save money. We get so much flouride from other sources.

On that basis I think we should get rid of it.

Capt'n Midnight

Chancer3001 wrote: »

If they got rid of flouride it wouldn't have any effect on our teeth and we'd save money. We get so much flouride from other sources.

On that basis I think we should get rid of it.

Based what evidence ?

Show that it wouldn't have any effect on teeth

Show that it would save money , remembering to include dental costs and dietary costs for fluoride too

Show where we get fluoride from now, and don't say toothpaste because everyone knows the last 20% of the tube has to last 80% of the time

ClovenHoof

Having given my own Fallen Angel Cards a good read over, I am siding with the removal of fluoride pending further information on the matter.

Considering that it is an ARTIFICIAL ADDITIVE - regardless of natural occurrence - I am throwing my lot in with Dublin City Council as a precautionary choice to remove the fluoride.

and no, I am not a queer-bashing, New Ager. I actually consider myself an agnostic and a progressive. I am just no more subject to the mandates of someone who starts a sentence with 'I am a scientist..." any more than I would have been in 1950's Ireland if someone began with "I am a priest.." I will make my own mind up on the issue without moral superiority or guidance from either self-appointed vanguards of the prevailing orthodoxy for the sake of it, or for that matter some woman from Kerry in a silly pink outfit. I am an individual and I have made an individual choice. I also resisted the mandates of the 'Vote Yes to Lisbon or you are a racist idiot' mantra from the same boards.ie civil servants and other conformists who also led us into that disaster. Based on 'logic and reason'. They were still wrong.

The scientific and other factors are there for anyone who wishes to examine them objectively, and pulling the 'I made me mammy proud so I did by doing what they told me in university when I questioned nothing so I could get my degree and begin every statement with 'I am a Scientist'..." card can be dismissed as a determining decisive factor regarding the fluoridation issue. This is a discussion surrounding public health policy and not personalities.

Well not for me anyway.

Doctor Jimbob

ClovenHoof wrote: »

I am still waiting on this proof that the removal lobby are going to replace fluoridation of water supplies with Angel Card readings and homophobia which currently represents the main (and rather hysterical) propaganda objective of the pro-fluoridation lobby, as from were I am standing, the scientific argument on both side is more or less stalemate with good arguments for both.

Yes, that's definitely the argument that's being made. You're right. It has nothing to do with scientific evidence or anything, we all just hate homophobic hippies.

Doctor Jimbob

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Having given my own Fallen Angel Cards a good read over, I am siding with the removal of fluoride pending further information on the matter.

Considering that it is an ARTIFICIAL ADDITIVE - regardless of natural occurrence - I am throwing my lot in with Dublin City Council as a precautionary choice to remove the fluoride.

Artificial =/= bad.
Natural =/= good.

and no, I am not a queer-bashing, New Ager. I actually consider myself an agnostic and a progressive. I am just no more subject to the mandates of someone who starts a sentence with 'I am a scientist..." any more than I would have been in 1950's Ireland if someone began with "I am a priest.." I will make my own mind up on the issue without moral superiority or guidance from either self-appointed vanguards of the prevailing orthodoxy for the sake of it, or for that matter some woman from Kerry in a silly pink outfit. I am an individual and I have made an individual choice. I also resisted the mandates of the 'Vote Yes to Lisbon or you are a racist idiot' mantra from the same boards.ie civil servants and other conformists who also led us into that disaster. Based on 'logic and reason'. They were still wrong.

You start your sentence by saying you're agnostic and progressive, then criticise people for starting sentences with 'I am a scientist' (which I'm not even sure is actually a thing that happens). Ok then. You also can't equate science and cold hard facts with politics. Nice try though.

The scientific and other factors are there for anyone who wishes to examine them objectively, and pulling the 'I made me mammy proud so I did by doing what they told me in university when I questioned nothing so I could get my degree and begin every statement with 'I am a Scientist'..." card can be dismissed as a determining decisive factor regarding the fluoridation issue. This is a discussion surrounding public health policy and not personalities.

Well not for me anyway.

The scientific evidence is certainly out there. I suggest you take a look at it.

ClovenHoof

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Artificial =/= bad.
Natural =/= good.


You start your sentence by saying you're agnostic and progressive, then criticise people for starting sentences with 'I am a scientist' (which I'm not even sure is actually a thing that happens). Ok then. You also can't equate science and cold hard facts with politics. Nice try though.


The scientific evidence is certainly out there. I suggest you take a look at it.

Congratulations for getting through your spectacular dissertation without calling me a 'troll' for having an opinion not of your approval. I can well appreciate what a horrific endurance it was for you to hold that option back.

I have carefully examined the science and made my decisions. There is absolutely no hard evidence to demand the mandatory application of fluoride in drinking water. It also sets a disturbing precedent that governments - in our case Publicans, Bookies and Tweed-Encrusted Criminals - can medicate the citizens through the drinking water supplies.

At the same time, there is good evidence that Fluoride does help against tooth decay so assuming that the toothbrush is now widely utilised in Irish homes, then topical is good enough. It is not like fluoride is being banned. All brands of popular toothpaste now contain it.

Everyone, except those with a bizarre need to turn Irish drinking water into a medication delivery system should be contented with a toothbrush and a tube of Colgate.

Easy.

Doctor Jimbob

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Congratulations for getting through your spectacular dissertation without calling me a 'troll' for having an opinion not of your approval. I can well appreciate what a horrific endurance it was for you to hold that option back.

I have carefully examined the science and made my decisions. There is absolutely no hard evidence to demand the mandatory application of fluoride in drinking water. It also sets a disturbing precedent that governments - in our case Publicans, Bookies and Tweed-Encrusted Criminals - can medicate the citizens through the drinking water supplies.

At the same time, there is good evidence that Fluoride does help against tooth decay so assuming that the toothbrush is now widely utilised in Irish homes, then topical is good enough. It is not like fluoride is being banned. All brands of popular toothpaste now contain it.

Everyone, except those with a bizarre need to turn Irish drinking water into a medication delivery system should be contented with a toothbrush and a tube of Colgate.

Easy.

You seem determined to set yourself up as some kind of victim here. Implying I wanted to call you a troll when I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Your tirade against scientists is also baffling. Maybe you know your own argument is weak and that's why you're resorting to such tactics?

Assuming you're right, is there any hard evidence to suggest water should not be treated with fluoride? Suggesting that it's setting a precedent is nonsense, you have no evidence to support it, and you're just making wild claims.

Jawgap

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Having given my own Fallen Angel Cards a good read over, I am siding with the removal of fluoride pending further information on the matter.

Considering that it is an ARTIFICIAL ADDITIVE - regardless of natural occurrence - I am throwing my lot in with Dublin City Council as a precautionary choice to remove the fluoride.

I would question that it is artificial given its an ion. It's certainly a lot less artificial than some of the colourants, preservatives, 'processing aids' and stabilisers which go into our food - or the residues of pesticides and veterinary medicines that might also be present.

Are you also in favour of taking the chlorine out? It's as 'artificial' as the fluoride and, imo, more dangerous because of its breakdown products that are present in the water.

ClovenHoof wrote: »

and no, I am not a queer-bashing, New Ager. I actually consider myself an agnostic and a progressive. I am just no more subject to the mandates of someone who starts a sentence with 'I am a scientist..." any more than I would have been in 1950's Ireland if someone began with "I am a priest.." I will make my own mind up on the issue without moral superiority or guidance from either self-appointed vanguards of the prevailing orthodoxy for the sake of it, or for that matter some woman from Kerry in a silly pink outfit. I am an individual and I have made an individual choice. I also resisted the mandates of the 'Vote Yes to Lisbon or you are a racist idiot' mantra from the same boards.ie civil servants and other conformists who also led us into that disaster. Based on 'logic and reason'. They were still wrong.

The scientific and other factors are there for anyone who wishes to examine them objectively, and pulling the 'I made me mammy proud so I did by doing what they told me in university when I questioned nothing so I could get my degree and begin every statement with 'I am a Scientist'..." card can be dismissed as a determining decisive factor regarding the fluoridation issue. This is a discussion surrounding public health policy and not personalities.

Well not for me anyway.

certainly at undergrad level, your science degree is about accepting and assimilating scientific orthodoxy, but once you move past that you are expected to practice 'skeptical inquiry.' In most cases (certainly mine) a course in the philosophy of science was a requirement before being allowed to progress to a research degree........and one of the first things you learn is the fundamental difference between verification and falsification - just because something (eg Fluoride CAUSES neurological damage at usage levels typical in Ireland) cannot be falsified (as in proven to be untrue) it does not follow the claim has been verified.

The difference between association and causation is undergrad level stuff.....as is the difference between meta and empirical studies.

btw - if the scientific factors are there to be examined would you mind posting a link to one or two that demonstrate a causal link between Fluoride and neural / neurological damage at dosages of about 1 to 2 mg/l?

Capt'n Midnight

Jawgap wrote: »

btw - if the scientific factors are there to be examined would you mind posting a link to one or two that demonstrate a causal link between Fluoride and neural / neurological damage at dosages of about 1 to 2 mg/l?

WTF ?? 2mg/l is two and a half times the maximum amount of fluoride allowed to be added to water here.

The upper limit here for fluoridated water is 0.8mg/l
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/si/0278.html

You'd be at risk of water poisoning if you tried to drink enough Irish water to match the fluoride content quoted in the anti-fluoride stories.

Jawgap

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

WTF ?? 2mg/l is two and a half times the maximum amount of fluoride allowed to be added to water here.

The upper limit here for fluoridated water is 0.8mg/l
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/si/0278.html

You'd be at risk of water poisoning if you tried to drink enough Irish water to match the fluoride content quoted in the anti-fluoride stories.

I know - I wasn't looking to see if there is a demonstrable effect at the Maximum Limit - I was making it easy for someone to demonstrate there is an effect between the No Observable Adverse Effect Level (1ppm or approximately 1mg/l) and the Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (2ppm or approximately 2 mg/l).

Obviously there were no takers!

Capt'n Midnight

Jawgap wrote: »

Obviously there were no takers!

you won't see an effect because levels that are above our limits are used as the controls in most of the fluoride studies.

UCDVet

Honest question - has there been a single studying proving that plastics does not cause homosexuality? I'm just sayin....

dirtyden

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Based what evidence ?

Show that it wouldn't have any effect on teeth

Show that it would save money , remembering to include dental costs and dietary costs for fluoride too

Show where we get fluoride from now, and don't say toothpaste because everyone knows the last 20% of the tube has to last 80% of the time

Why would you not say toothpaste? The simple fact is that people who brush twice a day get their fluoride that way. The amount of fluoride you get from teeth brushing means fluoridation of drinking water has little impact.

The definitive evidence is that most countries do not fluoridate now and there are is no evidence to suggest that there is worse dental health in developed countries that don't fluoridate. Do you think Germany or france have major dental health issues?

Cianmcliam

dirtyden wrote: »

Why would you not say toothpaste? The simple fact is that people who brush twice a day get their fluoride that way. The amount of fluoride you get from teeth brushing means fluoridation of drinking water has little impact.

The definitive evidence is that most countries do not fluoridate now and there are is no evidence to suggest that there is worse dental health in developed countries that don't fluoridate. Do you think Germany or france have major dental health issues?

That's simply not the case for Ireland. Despite Northern Ireland having a better public dental system for children, who are seen much more regularly, they have worse rates of cavities or missing teeth. The culture of eating sugary treats and drinks is pretty much the same, only children here benefit from fluoridated water.

Jawgap

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

you won't see an effect because levels that are above our limits are used as the controls in most of the fluoride studies.

Except that data is used to calculate NOAELs and LOAELs - the levels at which effects - as in physiological disturbances - should be seen.

There are some studies that show 'disturbances' at about 1.8 mg/l but the whether they're adverse or not is open to interpretation.

Capt'n Midnight

dirtyden wrote: »

Why would you not say toothpaste?

how to I explain when you even quoted this bit

don't say toothpaste because everyone knows the last 20% of the tube has to last 80% of the time

there are clear correlations between socio-economic groups and dental health.

A lot of people don't buy toothpaste until the tube is really , really empty. It's not a universal solution and given that up north they've had fluoridated toothpaste I'm inclined to believe you don't understand the reality of the situation.

Capt'n Midnight

UCDVet wrote: »

Honest question - has there been a single studying proving that plastics does not cause homosexuality? I'm just sayin....

We don't have any peer reviewed research in yet

But some people suspect a correlation between homosexuality and prolonged exposure to the polyurethane-polyurea copolymer known as spandex / lycra

weisses

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Based what evidence ?

Show that it wouldn't have any effect on teeth

Show that it would save money , remembering to include dental costs and dietary costs for fluoride too

Show where we get fluoride from now, and don't say toothpaste because everyone knows the last 20% of the tube has to last 80% of the time

There is a Big European report comparing non fluoridating countries with countries that do fluoridate ... Conclusion non fluoridating countries are performing equally or even better compared to Ireland regarding tooth decay.

Jawgap

weisses wrote: »

There is a Big European report comparing non fluoridating countries with countries that do fluoridate ... Conclusion non fluoridating countries are performing equally or even better compared to Ireland regarding tooth decay.

No doubt because many of those countries have better and cheaper dental care as part of their health care systems.

Got a link to the report, btw?

weisses

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Pray do tell , which cereals don't have added vitamins ???

Folic Acid intake has gone up 30% in recent years. now food manufacturers are adding folic acid to a large range of foodstuffs including dairy spreads, fruit juices, milk, yogurts, soups and cereal bars


http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-03-224_en.htmBlame this on central heating , heating in cars , less exercise and more cars and more people doing desk jobs.

So avoid cereals if you want ... Can you avoid water ?

dirtyden

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

how to I explain when you even quoted this bitthere are clear correlations between socio-economic groups and dental health.

A lot of people don't buy toothpaste until the tube is really , really empty. It's not a universal solution and given that up north they've had fluoridated toothpaste I'm inclined to believe you don't understand the reality of the situation.

Well that can be explained by the bold highlighting rather than by fluoridated water.

Poorer people tend to have worse dental health than richer people fluoridated water or not.

It is fact that brushing ones teeth and visiting the dentist negates any real effect of water fluoridation. Would the money spent on fluoridation not be better spent on education on dental health which more likely would have a much more real impact?

Jawgap

weisses wrote: »

So avoid cereals if you want ... Can you avoid water ?

Yes.

My water is not fluoridated - I'm on a Group Scheme. Aside from the odd problem with nitrates and high E. coli counts it's grand.

weisses

Jawgap wrote: »

No doubt because many of those countries have better and cheaper dental care as part of their health care systems.

Got a link to the report, btw?

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

Jawgap

weisses wrote: »

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

The SCHER Report is not an inquiry into dental health - it's an inquiry into the environmental risks presented by fluoride arising from fluoridated supplies and dental products.

Notwithstanding this even the second-to-last para in the abstract says


"The cariostatic effect of topical fluoride application, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste, is to maintain a continuous level of fluoride in the oral cavity. Scientific evidence for the protective effect of topical fluoride application is strong, while the respective data for systemic application via drinking water are less convincing. No obvious advantage appears in favour of water fluoridation as compared with topical application of fluoride.

*****However, an advantage in favour of water fluoridation is that caries prevention may reach disadvantaged children from the lower socioeconomic groups.******"

Capt'n Midnight

dirtyden wrote: »

Would the money spent on fluoridation not be better spent on education on dental health which more likely would have a much more real impact?

Fluoridation is costing €4m a year tops.

Back in 2009 the Dental Treatment Benefit Scheme despite costing the Exchequer €68 million, it provides a ‘societal benefit’ of €195 million.



http://www.thejournal.ie/dental-check-up-876002-Apr2013/

A survey for the Irish Dental Association, carried out by Behaviour and Attitudes, finds that 46 per cent of Irish people are spending less on dental health than they did three years ago – and 41 per cent of people surveyed rarely, if ever, think of visiting the dentist.

Even more worryingly, 58 per cent of people will not visit the dentist until they have a dental crisis and need emergency treatment.

http://www.thejournal.ie/dental-check-up-876002-Apr2013/

The IDA pointed out that a study on perceptions of dental health in seven European countries found that Ireland had the lowest number of adults attending the dentist for routine examinations. Ireland also had the highest number of patients citing cost as a factor preventing attendance at the dentist.

Then again
http://www.thejournal.ie/dental-check-1467204-May2014/

The Irish Dental Association has proposed that the Revenue Commissioners should include a dental voucher with the P60 form which is given to every tax payer by their employer at the start of each year.

Gannon said that the idea would be cheap and worthwhile. “No expensive ad campaigns are involved,” he said.

“In one fell swoop every tax payer – including over 1 million who aren’t even aware of the benefit – will have a tangible voucher in their hand and this, we feel, will encourage much greater take up of the scheme”.

The reality of the situation is that adults are cutting back on dental spending. €1 worth of advertising isn't going to fix that, especially when the new water charges will take even more money out of peoples pockets. :rolleyes: