Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The Health Service Executive Says You Must Drink Fluoridated Tapwater

  • 02-10-2016 06:06PM
    #1
    FourAM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 ✭


    Ìn point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death and it causes it faster than any other chemical. It only takes 1 gram of fluoride to kill a child, the same amount of fluoride in a tube of toothpaste. Fluoride has been linked to lower IQ in children, learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, rapid aging, decrease in bone density and strength, metabolic dysfunction, autoimmune disease, cognitive decline and cancer. Why was fluoride in Nazi prison camp water? Why is fluoride a main ingredient in Prozac and Sarin Nerve Gas? Why is it added to tap water? Fluoride is a cumulative toxin, which can lead to more serious health concerns than Dental Fluorosis. It is a toxic industrial waste product that is poison to your body and in no way a nutrient to your body, offering no benefits at all to the human body. Fluoridation of drinking water is mass intoxication of a population equivalent to low level poisoning. Preliminary data from recent health studies in a memo by the Environmental Protection Agency indicate that fluoride may be a carcinogen. Doctor Yiamouylannis concluded that it poisons over 100 enzymes, depletes calcium and magnesium, essential for many bodily functions and increases the risk of cancer and osteoporosis. Who controls each individual dose that a person consumes? Nobody. Who knows their average daily fluoride intake? Nobody. Many countries have banned fluoridation of public drinking water. Have you ever thought to question why that is? Even Guinness beer is heavily fluoridated.

    According to the fluoridesandhealth Ireland website, the Health Service Executive says that you must consume fluoride with your tap water because "Ireland is amongst the worst countries in Europe for high frequency consumption of sweets and confectionery by children and adolescents, therefore the use of fluoridated toothpastes alone is insufficient to prevent tooth decay."

    I don't know your opinion on this, but this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
    Fluoride is linked to so many health problems. We don't need to be told by daddy government what we have to consume. Fluoride is more harmful than cannabis, which, stupidly, is illegal because it helps people. Fluoridating the water is done in total disregard for the public. Fluoride is poison. Not to mention I get a massive headache that will not go away if I drink too much of it. There's a petition to stop the fluoridation, I wish more people would sign it.

    I'm not alone in my thinking and anyone who disagrees is blindly disagreeing with no evidence to even disagree with and they are most likely a troll as well. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a health nut and I don't like consuming things that I'm unsure of. Aren't you concerned with what you put in your body?
    Tagged:


«13456

Comments

  • #2
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    FourAM wrote: »
    I'm not alone in my thinking and anyone who disagrees is blindly disagreeing with no evidence to even disagree with and they are most likely a troll as well. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a health nut and I don't like consuming things that I'm unsure of. Aren't you concerned with what you put in your body?
    People have lots of good reasons for not buying into the conspiracy theory.
    Like for instance how pretty much everything you claimed in your first paragraph is a massive exaggeration, a half truth or an out and out lie.

    The claim about " fluoride in Nazi prison camp water" for example is entirely fictional. It was made up from whole cloth by anti-fluoridation campaigners with no basis in reality at all.
    http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/06/critics-water-fluoridation/truth-about-fluoride-doesnt-include-nazi-myth/

    Why do you believe that this completely made up fact is true?


  • #3
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47,418 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    FourAM wrote: »
    Ìn point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death and it causes it faster than any other chemical. It only takes 1 gram of fluoride to kill a child, the same amount of fluoride in a tube of toothpaste. Fluoride has been linked to lower IQ in children

    And yet a recent report by presumably smarter people than you or I and based on 60 years worth of studies says that your statements are factually incorrect. It even explicitly refutes your claims that I've quoted above in the article's headline. No offence, but I know who I'm going to believe.


  • #4
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    FourAM wrote: »
    Ìn point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death and it causes it faster than any other chemical. It only takes 1 gram of fluoride to kill a child, the same amount of fluoride in a tube of toothpaste. Fluoride has been linked to lower IQ in children, learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, rapid aging, decrease in bone density and strength, metabolic dysfunction, autoimmune disease, cognitive decline and cancer. Why was fluoride in Nazi prison camp water? Why is fluoride a main ingredient in Prozac and Sarin Nerve Gas? Why is it added to tap water? Fluoride is a cumulative toxin, which can lead to more serious health concerns than Dental Fluorosis. It is a toxic industrial waste product that is poison to your body and in no way a nutrient to your body, offering no benefits at all to the human body. Fluoridation of drinking water is mass intoxication of a population equivalent to low level poisoning. Preliminary data from recent health studies in a memo by the Environmental Protection Agency indicate that fluoride may be a carcinogen. Doctor Yiamouylannis concluded that it poisons over 100 enzymes, depletes calcium and magnesium, essential for many bodily functions and increases the risk of cancer and osteoporosis. Who controls each individual dose that a person consumes? Nobody. Who knows their average daily fluoride intake? Nobody. Many countries have banned fluoridation of public drinking water. Have you ever thought to question why that is? Even Guinness beer is heavily fluoridated.

    According to the fluoridesandhealth Ireland website, the Health Service Executive says that you must consume fluoride with your tap water because "Ireland is amongst the worst countries in Europe for high frequency consumption of sweets and confectionery by children and adolescents, therefore the use of fluoridated toothpastes alone is insufficient to prevent tooth decay."

    I don't know your opinion on this, but this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
    Fluoride is linked to so many health problems. We don't need to be told by daddy government what we have to consume. Fluoride is more harmful than cannabis, which, stupidly, is illegal because it helps people. Fluoridating the water is done in total disregard for the public. Fluoride is poison. Not to mention I get a massive headache that will not go away if I drink too much of it. There's a petition to stop the fluoridation, I wish more people would sign it.

    I'm not alone in my thinking and anyone who disagrees is blindly disagreeing with no evidence to even disagree with and they are most likely a troll as well. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a health nut and I don't like consuming things that I'm unsure of. Aren't you concerned with what you put in your body?
    Fluoride (AKA Sodium Fluoride, or Sodium Fluorosilicate, or even Hydrofluorosilic Acid) doesn't even make the list of known/probable carcinogens on cancer.org

    http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/generalinformationaboutcarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens

    So you're already starting from a false basis.


  • #5
    jenny smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 716 ✭✭✭jenny smith


    Asfar as i kow it is true a small amount of toothpaste has enough to kill a child. OP mentions Nazis. Here is a page from Mind Control World Control

    i do not say it is true and that is a conspiracy book. I just wondered what people thought about the claimed brain effect

    The book if any one wants it http://hisheavenlyarmies.com/documents/Keith-MindControlWorldControl-TheEncyclopediaOfMindControl1998.pdf


  • #6
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    jenny smith wrote: »
    Asfar as i know it is true a small amount of toothpaste has enough to kill a child.

    For sodium fluoride

    minimum LD50 in rats/mice is 52mg/kg

    European toothpaste can han have up to 1400ppm or 1400mg/kg

    which in laymans terms means that a 16kg, 4 year old child would have to ingest - assuming they are as vulnerable as a mouse - a bit less than an entire kilogram of toothpaste (in excess of 4 whole tubes) before they were at risk of those effects.

    An adult human of 70kg would have to ingest 3kg of toothpaste at that concentration, about 17 tubes of toothpaste.

    All of which would have to occur in about an 8 hour period, as the body would metabolize a lot of that.

    An that's on the low end: the LD50 range in mice is 52mg-200mg. So a child might be just as fine ingesting a full 2kg of the stuff, an adult a gallon of it. This is before you adopt the fact that children's tubes are generally smaller, and nobody is ingesting this stuff in volumes, or storing it in bulk.

    In water in Ireland, fluoridation is regulated at 0.6 - 0.8 parts per million. You would be more likely to drown yourself from drinking too much water than you would from chronic fluoridation at those levels.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,855 ✭✭✭weisses


    Suicide by Colgate . . . . :cool:


  • #8
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    That's before you figure that you'd vomit most of that out.


  • #9
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,855 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    That's before you figure that you'd vomit most of that out.

    Or you figured out you got the non fluoride tubes by mistake


  • #10
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Overheal wrote: »
    In water in Ireland, fluoridation is regulated at 0.6 - 0.8 parts per million. You would be more likely to drown yourself from drinking too much water than you would from chronic fluoridation at those levels.
    http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/07/27/lethaldoses/
    The LD50 for water is about 6 litres for a 75kg person.
    To get the same of fluoride you'd have to drink around 4000-5000 litres of water...


  • #11
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    FourAM wrote: »
    I'm not alone in my thinking and anyone who disagrees is blindly disagreeing with no evidence to even disagree with and they are most likely a troll as well. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a health nut
    So basically, here's a crazy theory I heard, trust me I'm nuts. :pac:

    The fluoridation myth is really at the end of it's rope now, it's a surprise to see this pop up right after the fluoridation scandal got dealt it's worst blow by the Australians.

    As a health nut you're probably susceptible to many of these conspiracy theories. Health nuts follow trends and fads a lot. The whole health nut scene needs a constant flow of wild stories to keep people interested past exercise and eat right, which is basically the whole story if you're not taking part in some athletics. So take everything you hear from health nuts with a pinch of salt, it's more than likely something another health nut made up to sell something or get likes.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,855 ✭✭✭weisses


    ScumLord wrote: »
    So basically, here's a crazy theory I heard, trust me I'm nuts. :pac:

    The fluoridation myth is really at the end of it's rope now,


    Correct .. The Cochrane study last year did just show that.... You can Hardly label them Conspiracy theorists ....

    put it where it works by applying it directly to the teeth... Don't drink it ... Its so easy


    http://europe.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-329505?rm=eu


  • #13
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    weisses wrote: »
    Correct .. The Cochrane study last year did just show that.... You can Hardly label them Conspiracy theorists ....

    put it where it works by applying it directly to the teeth... Don't drink it ... Its so easy


    http://europe.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-329505?rm=eu
    There's certainly a big problem with scientific publishing and how the rest of the community swallows that data without a second thought. It's come up a few times in AH now. It wouldn't surprise me if people at the time were looking for a quick fix and fluoridation was presented as a solution which was cheap and easy.

    To find out it's completely ineffective wouldn't surprise me.


  • #14
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Correct .. The Cochrane study last year did just show that.... You can Hardly label them Conspiracy theorists ....

    put it where it works by applying it directly to the teeth... Don't drink it ... Its so easy


    http://europe.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-329505?rm=eu

    You know that's not true. We discussed it in the other thread. From what I remember;

    The Cochrane Review states it is perfectly safe and that older studies show without doubt its effectiveness.

    Newer studies also show its effectiveness but did not have a no fluoridation control. It is impossible to have a zero control for comparison and in hindsight Cochrane states the criteria set was probably not appropriate.

    In other words its safe and effective.


  • #15
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,855 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    You know that's not true. We discussed it in the other thread. From what I remember.

    Nope ... Just read it back ... It might be effective with young children pre eruptive is what you said... After that it's highly inefficient ... That's is what we discussed


  • #16
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Nope ... Just read it back ... It might be effective with young children pre eruptive is what you said... After that it's highly inefficient ... That's is what we discussed

    This is what i stuck up from the Cochrane review;

    Basically the best available research showed a significant effect just not as significant as the earlier studies..

    “In the past 20 years, the majority of research evaluating the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries has been undertaken using cross-sectional studies with concurrent control, with improved statistical handling of confounding factors (Rugg-Gunn 2012). We acknowledge that there may be concerns regarding the exclusion of these studies from the current review. A previous review of these cross-sectional studies has shown a smaller measured effect in studies post-1990 than was seen in earlier studies, although the effect remains significant. It is suggested that this reduction in size of effect may be due to the diffusion effect (Rugg-Gunn 2012); this is likely to only occur in areas where a high proportion of the population already receive fluoridated water.”

    “However, there has been much debate around the appropriateness of GRADE when applied to public health interventions, particularly for research questions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area.”

    And:

    “we accept that the terminology of ’low quality’ for evidence may appear too judgmental. We acknowledge that studies on water fluoridation, as for many public health interventions, are complex to undertake and that researchers are often constrained in their study design by practical considerations. For many public health interventions, the GRADE framework will always result in a rating of low or very low quality. Decision makers need to recognise that for some areas of research, the quality of the evidence will never be ’high’ and that, as for any intervention, the recommendation for its use depends not just upon the quality of the evidence but also on factors such as acceptability and cost-effectiveness (Burford 2012).”


  • #17
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,855 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    This is what i stuck up from the Cochrane review;

    Basically the best available research showed a significant effect just not as significant as the earlier studies..

    “In the past 20 years, the majority of research evaluating the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries has been undertaken using cross-sectional studies with concurrent control, with improved statistical handling of confounding factors (Rugg-Gunn 2012). We acknowledge that there may be concerns regarding the exclusion of these studies from the current review. A previous review of these cross-sectional studies has shown a smaller measured effect in studies post-1990 than was seen in earlier studies, although the effect remains significant. It is suggested that this reduction in size of effect may be due to the diffusion effect (Rugg-Gunn 2012); this is likely to only occur in areas where a high proportion of the population already receive fluoridated water.”

    “However, there has been much debate around the appropriateness of GRADE when applied to public health interventions, particularly for research questions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area.”

    And:

    “we accept that the terminology of ’low quality’ for evidence may appear too judgmental. We acknowledge that studies on water fluoridation, as for many public health interventions, are complex to undertake and that researchers are often constrained in their study design by practical considerations. For many public health interventions, the GRADE framework will always result in a rating of low or very low quality. Decision makers need to recognise that for some areas of research, the quality of the evidence will never be ’high’ and that, as for any intervention, the recommendation for its use depends not just upon the quality of the evidence but also on factors such as acceptability and cost-effectiveness (Burford 2012).”

    That's just great now isn't it


  • #18
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So 'high' quality research showed it to effective in the past, the best possibe research since has shown it to still be effective and all reveiws to date agree it is safe too.


  • #19
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Yes: Fluoride is still the same chemical and human physiology has not changed dramatically in the last couple centuries - at least not in any way that impacts the bodies reaction to fluoride levels that have been introduced.


  • #20
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,855 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So 'high' quality research showed it to effective in the past, the best possibe research since has shown it to still be effective and all reveiws to date agree it is safe too.

    Why are you contradicting yourself ?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97459335&postcount=527

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96311152&postcount=499


  • #21
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Why are you contradicting yourself ?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97459335&postcount=527

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96311152&postcount=499

    Because at the time I was lazy and only read the plain English summary.

    Having read the extract from the more detailed summary how would you summarise it in your own words?


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,855 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Because at the time I was lazy and only read the plain English summary.

    That is not true your remark saying

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97459335&postcount=527

    Comes three months after you already went past the summary here

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96315295&postcount=510
    jh79 wrote: »
    Having read the extract from the more detailed summary how would you summarise it in your own words?

    I stick with this

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96322673&postcount=515


  • #23
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    That is not true your remark saying

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97459335&postcount=527

    Comes three months after you already went past the summary here

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96315295&postcount=510



    I stick with this

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96322673&postcount=515

    The bit your "sticking" with is from the plain english summary what is your interpretation of the more detailed summary, the devils in the detail as they say?


  • #24
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,855 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    The bit your "sticking" with is from the plain english summary what is your interpretation of the more detailed summary, the devils in the detail as they say?

    I don't think you can have different summaries from 1 report

    What you are aiming at are interpretations ...


  • #25
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    That is not true your remark saying

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97459335&postcount=527

    Comes three months after you already went past the summary here

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96315295&postcount=510



    I stick with this

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96322673&postcount=515

    Ah I see now, this was about systemic / topical delivery systems so no contradictions at all.

    Flouridaton is a systemic delivery system with a topical mode of action. The ingested is wasted but through eating and drinking there is enough delivered topically to reduce cariers.


  • #26
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    I don't think you can have different summaries from 1 report

    What you are aiming at are interpretations ...

    They are from the same group and are not different summaries, the scientific summary just goes into more detail.

    They acknowledged that they excluded research that showed significant positive effects of fluoridation even though the research was to a standard normally seen for public health interventions.


  • #27
    Atomicjuicer0
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32 ✭Atomicjuicer0


    There needs to be a system to remove fluoride or whatever is to be used to treat water on the user side.

    It's obvious that capitalism manipulates science negatively with issues like this. Look at how long it took to scientifically prove cigarettes were unhealthy when anyone with a brain knew full well.

    Go to a pet advice forum and read how people take care of their fish with regards to water. Or how farmers pay close attention to the health of their animals and you'll realise how political anything to do with humans is when it comes to science and money.

    Anyone who disagrees, PLEASE, continue to drink the bleach pouring from our taps. I know it's required to keep the water free from contamination, but it needs to be removed on the user side. Just no one wants to pay for it. Simple as that.

    Anyone who agrees, get yourself a decent filter.


  • #28
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,855 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    They are from the same group and are not different summaries, the scientific summary just goes into more detail.

    They acknowledged that they excluded research that showed significant positive effects of fluoridation even though the research was to a standard normally seen for public health interventions.

    Can you link the detailed summary provided by Cochrane ?


  • #29
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Atomicjuicer0 wrote: »
    Anyone who agrees, get yourself a decent filter.
    But if everything that earns money is political and can be manipulated, why are you not suspicious of the people who promote fears about fluoride who also happen to carry ads for filters to remove said fluoride?

    How do you know that these people are not doing what you are accusing others of?


  • #30
    Atomicjuicer0
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32 ✭Atomicjuicer0


    King Mob wrote: »
    But if everything that earns money is political and can be manipulated, why are you not suspicious of the people who promote fears about fluoride who also happen to carry ads for filters to remove said fluoride?

    How do you know that these people are not doing what you are accusing others of?

    Because my tap water smells like chlorine.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,350 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Can you link the detailed summary provided by Cochrane ?

    There is no detailed summary just the actual full report.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/full


    Here is a critique of the Cochrane Review with our own Prof H Whelton as co-author, published in Nature.

    http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v220/n7/full/sj.bdj.2016.257.html


Advertisement
Advertisement