Dublin City Council votes against water fluoridation

Lockstep

DCC takes an anti-science stance, pandering to the fluoride hysteria.
Luckily, they can't actually implement anything but all the same, depressing that the majority of elected Dublin councillors take such a ridiculous position.

source

Godge

When is the vote to introduce Creationism into science classes?

K.Flyer

Lockstep wrote: »

DCC takes an anti-science stance, pandering to the fluoride hysteria.

Next we will hear that they want to ban dihydrogen monoxide from the water supply, now where would that leave us?

alastair

The councillor admitted the issue is a “quagmire” but said that he has been reading up on it over the past few years. He said that the council is “calling on the Government to do something here – the onus is on the Government to do something”.

He added that Ireland is only one of eight countries in the world that fluoridates its water.

“There’s a lot of questions to be answered,” he said. “My argument is it’s universal medication, it’s one size fits all, but even the World Health Organisation, which recommends fluoride, recommends it – but only where intake of fluoride is known.”

He argued it would be impossible to know exactly how much fluoride each individual in Ireland uses.

What nonsense. The intake (not use) of fluoride in Ireland is well known - the WHO's concern is excessive ingestion of fluoride - there's no naturally high-fluoride water sources in Ireland, and local authorities (and Irish Water when they take over) constantly measure fluoride levels in public water. Unless the councillor believes there's been an outbreak of toothpaste eating, there's no mystery on fluoride intake nationally.

BoJack Horseman

K.Flyer wrote: »

Next we will hear that they want to ban dihydrogen monoxide from the water supply, now where would that leave us?

Low fat water.

Its a tokenistic vote.
However I wouldn't weep if fluoride was indeed removed.

Almost all of Europe seem to be surviving.
I reckon we would to.

alastair

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Low fat water.

Its a tokenistic vote.
However I wouldn't weep if fluoride was indeed removed.

Almost all of Europe seem to be surviving.
I reckon we would to.

We'd probably do as well as they do in the North. Which is to say; slightly higher levels of tooth decay.

It's the misinformed faux 'dangers' that annoy me about the anti-fluoridation debate.

Bongalongherb

Fluoride is only supposed to be used topically, it was never meant to be ingested. The amounts of Fluoride intake from tap water and food of which would be made using fluoridated Irish water are too much. This is the problem, as well as being force-medicated.

A persons teeth are not in their stomach.

Worple

Excellent move by the council, will save millions of Euro each year

alastair

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Fluoride is only supposed to be used topically, it was never meant to be ingested.

Says who?

Bongalongherb wrote: »

The amounts of Fluoride intake from tap water and food of which would be made using fluoridated Irish water are too much.

No they're not - they're well within international safe levels.

Bongalongherb wrote: »

This is the problem, .

It's not really.

Bongalongherb wrote: »

as well as being force-medicated.

There you go - the only real justified argument against water fluoridation.

Bongalongherb wrote: »

A persons teeth are not in their stomach.

Correct. Fluoride does nothing to anyone's stomach.

Bongalongherb

The main debate about fluoride is that folk want to be given a choice. For folk that want fluoride, they can purchase it in toothpaste as we all know and also tablet-form. If fluoride is removed from the water mains system then folk have the choice whether to purchase it or not.

Both sides on the debate will be happy then.

alastair

Worple wrote: »

Excellent move by the council, will save millions of Euro each year

It won't save a cent. It won't actually impact on anything.

Fr Tod Umptious

Aren't DCC under the control of SF now ?

It's their agenda to call on the Govt. to do all sorts of stuff that the Govt. are not likely to do.

Bongalongherb

I don't see what the fuss is about. All a person has to do is brush their teeth and there ye go, problem solved. There's no need for it in the main water system, and spread to foodstuffs.

Cianmcliam

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Fluoride is only supposed to be used topically, it was never meant to be ingested. The amounts of Fluoride intake from tap water and food of which would be made using fluoridated Irish water are too much. This is the problem, as well as being force-medicated.

A persons teeth are not in their stomach.

Fluoride works systemically as well as topically, when it is ingested it becomes available in the saliva in the mouth and it has also been shown to make teeth that have not even erupted yet more resistant to decay in infants.

The fact is that toothpaste does not fully replace the action of fluoride that is ingested, people that have access to both have significantly better dental health than people who have only access to one or none.

Bongalongherb

In your opinion.

You are missing the point. A large amount of Irish citizens do not want their water treated/medicated with fluoride. They want to have a choice to be able to drink water without the fluoride. And also want to be able to eat Irish produced foodstuffs without fluoride in this food.

Folk will be paying a lot to IW soon, and if they want fluoride out of the water-system they should remove it. folk that want it in the water-system can purchase fluoride tablets and drop them into your water and drink it. So why is this fair scenario a problem I ask you ?.

BoJack Horseman

"Bongalongherb wrote:

A large amount of Irish citizens do not want their water treated/medicated with fluoride. They want to have a choice to be able to drink water without the flouride.

Seems reasonable.

Leave the water unflouridated & issue packs of delicious sodium fluorosilicate to those who want it.

The nanny-staters get their fluoride, the tinfoil hatters live without the governments mind control chemical.

Everybody wins!

alastair

Bongalongherb wrote: »

In your opinion.

The objective measurements of tooth decay difference between here and NI are a bit more than just opinion. Belt and braces produces better outcomes than belt or brace alone.

Godge

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Seems reasonable.

Leave the water unflouridated & issue packs of delicious sodium fluorosilicate to those who want it.

The nanny-staters get their fluoride, the tinfoil hatters live without the governments mind control chemical.

Everybody wins!

Too high a cost to that.

Cheapest way is to keep everything as it is and tell the tinhatters to buy extra water for teeth and drinking.

Unless they are suggesting that bathing in flouridated water is injurious to health?

AndyBoBandy

Bongalongherb wrote: »

A persons teeth are not in their stomach.

Exactly.

Grudaire

alastair wrote: »

The objective measurements of tooth decay difference between here and NI are a bit more than just opinion. Belt and braces produces better outcomes than belt or brace alone.

And link to which councillors voted which way? Might make an interesting read

Lockstep

Grudaire wrote: »

And link to which councillors voted which way? Might make an interesting read

FF, FG and Labour voted No, Greens abstained, SF and the far left voted yes apparently.

Lockstep

The argument that people should just brush their teeth better argument is bogus because people are bad at doing it. Fluoridation in the UK is done on a per region basis. A recent study found that regions with fluoridated water showed "a 28% reduction in the prevalence of dental caries in primary teeth at age five years and a 21% reduction in permanent teeth at age 12 years" with fluoridation. This had a larger effect on deprived areas where buying fluoridated toothpaste is probably low on your priorities when you're struggling to live.
Source

Plus, fluoride is highly cost effective and helps poorer people who have less cash to buying toothpaste when there is a link between poverty and poor dental health

nice_guy80

no need for poison in the water

alastair

nice_guy80 wrote: »

no need for poison in the water

Other than protecting against tooth decay.

titan18

alastair wrote: »

Other than protecting against tooth decay.

So, protect it yourself with something you buy yourself. Don't force fluoride on to people who don't want it in their water.

oscarBravo

titan18 wrote: »

Don't force fluoride on to people who don't want it in their water.

If there was a compelling argument for not wanting flouride in your water, I'd be much more sympathetic to this approach.

BoJack Horseman

oscarBravo wrote: »

If there was a compelling argument for not wanting flouride in your water, I'd be much more sympathetic to this approach.

Similarly, if there is a reason why we don't add benelin to water I'd love to know.

Imagine, chesty coughs, a thing of the past!

oscarBravo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Similarly, if there is a reason why we don't add benelin to water I'd love to know.

I'm not familiar with the body of scientific evidence showing that that would be beneficial. Maybe you could post a few links.

K.Flyer

Why exactly are some people so freaked out about Flouride in the water. What actual harm has it done to the population of Ireland.
What about all the other chemicals that are used to clean and treat water to make it fit for drinking (technically medicating the water) that no-one seems to give out about?

oscarBravo

K.Flyer wrote: »

Why exactly are some people so freaked out about Flouride in the water. What actual harm has it done to the population of Ireland.

None. But then, we're talking about basically the same mentality that believes there's a link between vaccination and autism.

K.Flyer

oscarBravo wrote: »

None. But then, we're talking about basically the same mentality that believes there's a link between vaccination and autism.

Not wanting to go O.T. but wasn't that report later proven false and the author later published a full retraction with an apology?

Edit:
Another "dose" of scaremongering. .

 MMR vaccine controversy centered on the 1998 publication of a fraudulent research paper in the medical journal The Lancet that lent support to the subsequently discredited claim that colitis and autism spectrum disorders could be caused by the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The media has been heavily criticized for its naïve reporting and for lending undue credibility to the architect of the fraud, Andrew Wakefield.