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

Fluoride update re IQ

Options
1…89111314…18

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    But we are discussing it .. The only thing I disagree with is that you use two skeptic websites to discredit the peer reviewed papers ...

    You can talk about and disagree with the merits but at least use a source dealing specifically with that paper and show some proof as to why the research is flawed

    Ok so if that's the way you want it can you show some peer reviewed research showing that iodine deficiency isn't responsible for the observed correlations? Or that fluoride interferes withe thyroid at ppm levels?

    If not then the research is inconclusive as there is no proven mechanism for fluoride interaction with the thyroid . Otherwise all we have is a n interesting but ultimately unrelated geographical based correlation.

    We already know this of course as the author states it himself.


  • Options
    #303
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Ok so if that's the way you want it can you show some peer reviewed research showing that iodine deficiency isn't responsible for the observed correlations? Or that fluoride interferes withe thyroid at ppm levels?

    If not then the research is inconclusive as there is no proven mechanism for fluoride interaction with the thyroid . Otherwise all we have is a n interesting but ultimately unrelated geographical based correlation.

    We already know this of course as the author states it himself.

    First try and tackle research mentioned in post 152, 154, 155, 162 and this time use valid research instead of some skeptic blog that presents nothing. Thyroid was only one of them


  • Options
    #304
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    First try and tackle research mentioned in post 152, 154, 155, 162 and this time use valid research instead of some skeptic blog that presents nothing. Thyroid was only one of them

    So we can move on from the thyroid as it is only an interesting correlation?

    I know iodine can mess with the thyroid but can fluoride ? A leap of faith is required to connect the observed correlation would not be right to end fluoridation based on such.


  • Options
    #305
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So we can move on from the thyroid as it is only an interesting correlation?

    I know iodine can mess with the thyroid but can fluoride ? A leap of faith is required to connect the observed correlation would not be right to end fluoridation based on such.

    No we cannot. I asked you to tackle that research using the same kind of research you hold so dear, and not move on just because you have an opinion on the thyroid issue

    Going from empirical evidence to interesting correlations is quite a big leap


  • Options
    #306
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    No we cannot. I asked you to tackle that research using the same kind of research you hold so dear, and not move on just because you have an opinion on the thyroid issue

    Going from empirical evidence to interesting correlations is quite a big leap

    Define empirical evidence?

    "Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation".

    So we have empirical evidence of a correlation for the ADHD study and this study. (Post 152, 154, 155 and 162).

    Pure speculation beyond that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Define empirical evidence?

    "Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation".

    So we have empirical evidence of a correlation for the ADHD study and this study. (Post 152, 154, 155 and 162).

    Pure speculation beyond that.

    I'll will refrain from replying further on this until you can post something substantial debunking or disproving the research posted ...I already know your opinion


  • Options
    #308
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    So back full circle, no known adverse effects at sub 1ppm levels bar cosmetic flecking.


  • Options
    #309
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I'll will refrain from replying further on this until you can post something substantial debunking or disproving the research posted ...I already know your opinion

    What you quoted isn't an opinion it is a fact.


  • Options
    #310
    Simon2015
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Simon2015


    Is any easy way to measure flouride in tap water ?


  • Options
    #311
    miss tickle
    Registered Users Posts: 242 ✭✭miss tickle


    jh79 wrote: »
    So back full circle, no known adverse effects at sub 1ppm levels bar cosmetic flecking.

    It's already in toothpaste, which is a staple in every household. It is in our foodstuffs due to it's introduction into our water supply. If is in the air due to the burning of coal. How much more do we need. The measuring of levels of fluoride in the water supply are irrelevant unless the environmental levels are measured as well. If people want additional fluoride offer it in an optional form.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    miss tickle wrote: »
    It's already in toothpaste, which is a staple in every household. It is in our foodstuffs due to it's introduction into our water supply. If is in the air due to the burning of coal. How much more do we need. The measuring of levels of fluoride in the water supply are irrelevant unless the environmental levels are measured as well. If people want additional fluoride offer it in an optional form.

    It is offered in an optional form, water fluoridation is supported by all the mainstream parties bar Sinn Fein. Vote Sinn Feinn if you do not want it.


  • Options
    #313
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    Simon2015 wrote: »
    Is any easy way to measure flouride in tap water ?

    Not outside of a lab, results are freely available on county council websites i think .


  • Options
    #314
    SpaceSasqwatch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 768 ✭✭✭SpaceSasqwatch


    miss tickle wrote: »
    How much more do we need.
    None.We've hit the sweet spot with <1ppm. And that includes intake from other sources.


  • Options
    #315
    SpaceSasqwatch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 768 ✭✭✭SpaceSasqwatch


    jh79 wrote: »
    It is offered in an optional form, water fluoridation is supported by all the mainstream parties bar Sinn Fein. Vote Sinn Feinn if you do not want it.

    and its a vote for bad science.

    As usual that scam artist aishling fitzgibbon is all over it like a rash on a over--flouridated baby.

    http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2014/11/sinn-fein-takes-health-policy-advice.html


  • Options
    #316
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »
    None.We've hit the sweet spot with <1ppm. And that includes intake from other sources.

    Linkie please to the article/research that state 1 ppm is the sweet spot and include intake from other sources


  • Options
    #317
    SpaceSasqwatch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 768 ✭✭✭SpaceSasqwatch


    weisses wrote: »
    Linkie please to the article/research that state 1 ppm is the sweet spot and include intake from other sources

    you live in a country that has hit the sweet spot weisses.No linkie needed.


  • Options
    #318
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »
    you live in a country that has hit the sweet spot weisses.No linkie needed.


    Sooo you come in here complaining about bad science but at the same time you feel the need to make up claims regarding fluoride levels ....... Great


  • Options
    #319
    Cianmcliam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Cianmcliam


    In fairness it's been pointed out several times already that monitoring the number of cases of dental fluorosis captures the exposure of the population to fluoride from all sources. So we do know whether the intake of fluoride from all sources is likely to be causing unwanted health effects since dental fluorosis is the canary in the coal mine. There hasn't been a single case of severe dental fluorosis or skeletal fluorosis in Ireland so we can be confident that no section of society is taking in too much fluoride for whatever reason.


  • Options
    #320
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Cianmcliam wrote: »
    In fairness it's been pointed out several times already that monitoring the number of cases of dental fluorosis captures the exposure of the population to fluoride from all sources. So we do know whether the intake of fluoride from all sources is likely to be causing unwanted health effects since dental fluorosis is the canary in the coal mine. There hasn't been a single case of severe dental fluorosis or skeletal fluorosis in Ireland so we can be confident that no section of society is taking in too much fluoride for whatever reason.

    Getting fluorosis in any severity by default means over exposure to fluoride


  • Options
    #321
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Getting fluorosis in any severity by default means over exposure to fluoride

    True but there is also a correlation between mild cosmetic fluorosis and reduced cariers so it not an adverse effect per se.

    The presence of some mild fluorosis in the community would be the main indicator that exposure is sufficient to reduce carriers.

    It would be better to be slightly above than slightly below.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    Cianmcliam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Cianmcliam


    weisses wrote: »
    Getting fluorosis in any severity by default means over exposure to fluoride

    Unless you remove the fluoride from toothpaste, produce fluoride free tea and other consumables, filter all of the water/air etc. then fluorosis will always be present in part of the population whether water is fluoridated or not. Fluorosis is not absent in countries that do not fluoridate, Northern Ireland for example.

    The question is whether the small excess cases of cosmetic fluorosis is worth the significant benefits of fewer cavities and extractions. From Irish statistics it's easy to see it's worth it.


  • Options
    #323
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    True but there is also a correlation between mild cosmetic fluorosis and reduced cariers so it not an adverse effect per se.

    The presence of some mild fluorosis in the community would be the main indicator that exposure is sufficient to reduce carriers.

    It would be better to be slightly above than slightly below.

    fluorosis is an over exposure to fluoride ... Fluoride is a developmental neuro toxin ... You can believe whatever you want regarding safety


  • Options
    #324
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Cianmcliam wrote: »
    Unless you remove the fluoride from toothpaste, produce fluoride free tea and other consumables, filter all of the water/air etc. then fluorosis will always be present in part of the population whether water is fluoridated or not. Fluorosis is not absent in countries that do not fluoridate, Northern Ireland for example.

    The question is whether the small excess cases of cosmetic fluorosis is worth the significant benefits of fewer cavities and extractions. From Irish statistics it's easy to see it's worth it.

    Then why do countries that don't fluoridate have equal or even better results when it comes to managing tooth decay? Ireland is the only country in the world where fluoridation is dictated by law ... They should be number one in the world regarding dental health ....... They are not even close


  • Options
    #325
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Then why do countries that don't fluoridate have equal or even better results when it comes to managing tooth decay? Ireland is the only country in the world where fluoridation is dictated by law ... They should be number one in the world regarding dental health ....... They are not even close

    Because they get their fluoride from salt and milk and other sources or they could have better diet or dental hygiene . Nobody can say for sure. The data you are looking at doesn't allow a conclusion on the effectiveness of fluoridation to be made.

    By the way are we not about in the middle ?


  • Options
    #326
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    fluorosis is an over exposure to fluoride ... Fluoride is a developmental neuro toxin ... You can believe whatever you want regarding safety

    According to one research group based on a study in rats


  • Options
    #327
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    According to one research group based on a study in rats

    So now you have an issue with the EPA as well ?


  • Options
    #328
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    So now you have an issue with the EPA as well ?

    Not at all , do they label it as an neurotoxin? My bad, luckily it is not a concern at sub 1ppm levels.


  • Options
    #329
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Not at all , do they label it as an neurotoxin? My bad, luckily it is not a concern at sub 1ppm levels.

    Yes they do ...I thought 1ppm was the sweet spot


  • Options
    #330
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes they do ...I thought 1ppm was the sweet spot

    It depends on the influence of the other sources of fluoride , in ireland 0.7ppm is considered optimal.

    Could be lower or higher in other countries and as pointed out previously the prevalence of mild fluorosis is a good measure of this optimal dose.

    Was it not a paper you linked to that showed mild fluorosis was linked to lower carier incidences ? Pretty sure it came up before.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭jh79


    jh79 wrote: »
    To be honest I haven't really read up on fluorosis as I didn't think it was much of a concern as an adverse effect . The following is from the report I linked to earlier;

    Dental fluorosis is caused by excessive fluoride incorporation into dental enamel before eruption of teeth. Susceptibility to dental fluorosis ends around the age of eight years, when enamel maturation of permanent teeth is completed except for the third molars (see Annex 1 for timetable of dentition)

    Dental fluorosis can be difficult to discriminate from other conditions in which amelogenesis in humans can be disturbed, such as calcium deficiency and generalised malnutrition.

    This is the most important point;

    Milder forms of dental fluorosis, characterised by white spots and opaque striations on the surface of teeth are a cosmetic effect and do not impair function. On the contrary, it is associated with increased resistance against caries.[/I]

    So the increase in fluorosis (assuming it is only mild) is a positive.

    This is what came up earlier in the thread.


Advertisement