Fluoridation of Our Water Supply

mw3guc · 02-07-2011 03:54AM

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

As far as I am aware, Ireland does not have a much higher percentage of a certain disease than other countries, so I doubt Fluoride is linked to another disease. I don't see why people are complaining, we get free, fluoridated water which no one is forcing you to drink.

:eek: No one is forcing us to drink it? Where is our choice? Not to mention that fluoride is absorbed through the skin in normal washing and bathing, not just drinking. And lets turn this empirical evidence question around a little and ask where the long term research is that proves fluoride additives in our water are safe? Hmmm, none that I can find.

I did my own research over several months and decided I did not want to drink this industrial byproduct so I paid/continue to pay for reverse osmosis filtering to get clean water. I then have to pay again to replace the trace minerals that unfortunately get filtered out of the water at the same time. The worst of it is that soon I'll be paying even more (directly on top of indirectly) to have this 'doctored' water sent to my taps

AnneElizabeth · 02-07-2011 04:01AM

mw3guc wrote: »

:eek: No one is forcing us to drink it? Where is our choice? Not to mention that fluoride is absorbed through the skin in normal washing and bathing, not just drinking. And lets turn this empirical evidence question around a little and ask where the long term research is that proves fluoride additives in our water are safe? Hmmm, none that I can find.

I did my own research over several months and decided I did not want to drink this industrial byproduct so I paid/continue to pay for reverse osmosis filtering to get clean water. I then have to pay again to replace the trace minerals that unfortunately get filtered out of the water at the same time. The worst of it is that soon I'll be paying even more (directly on top of indirectly) to have this 'doctored' water sent to my taps

Where is this evidence? I have yet to see any large-scale negative effects of fluoridated water. Stop moaning because the free water isn't how you like it.

AnneElizabeth · 02-07-2011 04:02AM

My name is URL wrote: »

There's not enough palm in all the world to cover the face demanded by that post.

What kind of reply is that? Did you give any evidence or try to deny anything I said? No.

mw3guc · 02-07-2011 04:11AM

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

Where is this evidence? I have yet to see any large-scale negative effects of fluoridated water. Stop moaning because the free water isn't how you like it.

Have you looked? Have you found any evidence to suggest it is safe long-term? Apart from what you've been told or assumed.
Also, my water is not free - I pay taxes and levies for the privilege. I don't NEED or WANT to have fluoride added to it, but this too costs money.

Jesus Wept · 02-07-2011 04:20AM

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

Where is this evidence? I have yet to see any large-scale negative effects of fluoridated water.

I'm relived that you are on the case Anne.

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

Stop moaning because the free water isn't how you like it.

It's not exactly free and it will be metered in time to come, not that it makes a blind bit of difference, what you said is very silly.

AnneElizabeth · 02-07-2011 04:20AM

mw3guc wrote: »

Have you looked? Have you found any evidence to suggest it is safe long-term? Apart from what you've been told or assumed.
Also, my water is not free - I pay taxes and levies for the privilege. I don't NEED or WANT to have fluoride added to it, but this too costs money.

You're the one saying that it's so bad, so you should provide the proof. We already know it's good for teeth. I'm just asking for proof and why you hate having it in the water supply. I am not an expert on water but from what I can see no one has given a good reason for why it should be removed. I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm interested in why you think it's so bad.

AnneElizabeth · 02-07-2011 04:23AM

The-Rigger wrote: »

I'm relived that you are on the case Anne.

I'm glad to see all this damning evidence you have given of how terrible fluoride is for water...

mw3guc · 02-07-2011 04:40AM

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

You're the one saying that it's so bad, so you should provide the proof. We already know it's good for teeth. I'm just asking for proof and why you hate having it in the water supply. I am not an expert on water but from what I can see no one has given a good reason for why it should be removed. I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm interested in why you think it's so bad.

To be rigorously fair (and scientific), the burden of proof for the addition of fluoride to water is on the proponents. After all, if you really want to ingest fluoride, you can take as much as you like without affecting me or my water. However I, on the other hand, have to go to considerable trouble and expense to remove this contaminant that has been deliberately added to my water.

It is up to everyone to do their own research on topics that interest or affect them - the internet (for all its faults) opens these doors for those who are savvy enough to use it effectively. You don't have to have a research degree or a Phd (although it helps

) to identify good and bad sources.
Even anecdotal eveidence has its place - this is often found on forums such as this - but everyone has to come to their own conclusions and do what they believe to be best for them and their families. I can only offer something which might start your research - and only if you're interested and prepared to be open-minded.

This approach is vital for a true scientific investigation and I acknowledge (in my turn) that there are alternative sides to this debate. They just do not stack up for me and I have decided to exercise my choice and remove this additive from my water, at MY expense and inconvenience. I have a right, however, to be aggrieved at this and to add my comments to this debate without being accused of moaning about free water.

This article would make a good start to your research if you are truly interested in the subject

I spent months over this about 6 years ago before coming down on the anti-fluoride side - I remain open to be convinced by any new or contradictory research that might emerge.

Nision · 02-07-2011 04:41AM

If nobody can link to some hard evidence this really should be in conspiracy theories.

bradlente · 02-07-2011 05:16AM

On one side its a case of "prove it does any damage.I don't mind drinking it,plus its free"(Won't be for much longer BTW).

The other side is saying that its a dangerous by-product that isn't needed in the water anymore especially as theres plenty of dental care available to society.This side is also backed up by the "no one else does it anymore" claim.

From what I've read here,I find it hard to side a certain way.

Its interesting that no one else in mainland Europe adds it to the supply.But as Guy incognito stated,Some of the people in those countries won't drink their water from the tap,And I've heard plenty of stories about people going away to certain countries and getting sick,Possibly due to the tap water.In Malta we were advised not to drink from the tap if I recall correctly.I'd like to see some numbers as regards to how many households in places like Spain or Italy consume water from the mains,And also how often.

Fair dues to URL as well,Who ACTUALLY DID SOME RESEARCH and posted it up.From the look of that PDF,Theres plenty of other traces of the ion in foods and drink..A very good point about how Cuba dealt with cutting it from the supply too.How easy would that be to implement!

It seems there really is a little amount of research out there about flouride and the effects it may have in drinking water for humans.At least from this thread I deduced that.Goldfish and Toothpaste

Solnskaya · 02-07-2011 12:13PM

If you are down a mine clutching a budgie in a cage, and it dies, its pretty safe to assume you should run as the air is contaminated. When I see my kids putting a goldfish into a bowl of tapwater and the feckin fish dies on its a.rse an hour later, I start to wonder wether that water is safe to drink. A fair question to ask. The fish dont die in clean rainwater if you use it, but tapwater kills em. Hmmmmm. And before some spanner comes on and tells me it's the chlorine not the flouride -WHO CARES, it still won't be doing us any good, I dont want to drink either of em. Jasus.

Capt'n Midnight · 02-07-2011 12:27PM

RichieC wrote: »

from what I've read it's an industrial byproduct of aluminum manufacturing. I'd rather not that it was in my water.

Non-fat milk solids is the discription given to what was once an industrial by product. You'll find it in confectionery, bisucits , cakes, puddings, soups and lots of processed food.

Capt'n Midnight · 02-07-2011 12:39PM

Solnskaya wrote: »

If you are down a mine clutching a budgie in a cage, and it dies, its pretty safe to assume you should run as the air is contaminated. When I see my kids putting a goldfish into a bowl of tapwater and the feckin fish dies on its a.rse an hour later, I start to wonder wether that water is safe to drink. A fair question to ask.

actually it's not a fair question to ask

Breathing through gills and drinking are very different. We can drink milk, beer, lemonade and lots of things that will kill fish. Lets ban all liquids that fish can't live in.

The fish dont die in clean rainwater if you use it, but tapwater kills em. Hmmmmm. And before some spanner comes on and tells me it's the chlorine not the flouride -WHO CARES, it still won't be doing us any good, I dont want to drink either of em. Jasus.

Rainwater collected off roofs will probably contain a lot of pigeon crap and is definetly not safe to use for drinking or washing

I like the idea of chlorine in the water to KILL nasty things in it. And as you well know boiling the water or letting it stand will make it safe for fish.

"I never drink water, fish fornicate in it."
W.C. Fields

Mucco · 02-07-2011 12:49PM

If anyone's interested, here's a link to a systemic review of water fluoridation:
Review

flahavaj · 02-07-2011 12:53PM

Solnskaya wrote: »

Naah, a conspiracy is a strange view held by a few against the opinion of the majority, flouridation of water is a strange practice done by a few(1) against the better judgement of everyone else. Sure it does the poor, dumb paddy kids good - their teeth would all fall out without it. And its not toothpaste we're talking about dummies, its the water, and you drink that, you tend not to spit it out. And your kids drink it, and so don't mine, cos I drilled a well so they wouldn't have to. But then I'm rich, and poison is really only for the lower orders:rolleyes:

Chances are your well water contains fluoride anyway. Its naturally present in almost all supplies of water, (though concentrtions vary with geographical location).

Also we are not the only country in Europe that fluoridates its water.

robman60 · 02-07-2011 01:15PM

flahavaj wrote: »

Chances are your well water contains fluoride anyway. Its naturally present in almost all supplies of water, (though concentrtions vary with geographical location).

Also we are not the only country in Europe that fluoridates its water.

Some countries have small scale fluoridation projects, but no country fluoridates on a scale that is comparable to Ireland. This information can be found on Google if you still doubt what I'm saying.

My name is URL · 02-07-2011 01:16PM

The arguments over the dangers of water fluoridation are usually what leads to these threads being closed down or drifting off into the realms of conspiracy theories.

Personally, I'm not the slightest bit convinced that it's a harmful practice. If it were, then its negative effects would be widespread and couldn't be ignored or hidden. Comparing fluoridation to chlorination is stupid.. if chlorine wasn't added to water then there would be a huge chance that many many people would become ill or worse. If fluoridation was discontinued then a tiny minority of people may develop slightly more cavities than they do now.

It's an ethical question more than anything. Is it right to medicate the entire population in order to reduce slightly the prevalence of a problem faced by a minority? Is it even effective in this day and age? Do you know anybody over the age of 20 that has never had a tooth filled?

There was some talk recently about adding trace amounts of lithium to water supplies as it's been shown to reduce suicide rates. How would people feel about that?.. It'll probably never happen, but the thinking behind the idea is similar to that of the proponents of fluoridation.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21538
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2009/05/lithium-for-water-supply.html

Here's another study which suggests that the cessation of water fluoridation has little overall effect on the rates of dental caries.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1998.tb01959.x/abstract

In spite of discontinued water fluoridation, no indication of an increasing trend of caries could be found in Kuopio.

In all of the places where it has been discontinued, no major increase in caries rates have been observed. That's why the places in question have not started to fluoridate water supplies again.

Interestingly, under Article 40 of the Irish Constitution, it is set down that you have the right not to have your body or person interfered with. (the right to bodily integrity)..

robman60 · 02-07-2011 01:24PM

My name is URL wrote: »

There was some talk recently about adding trace amounts of lithium to water supplies as it's been shown to reduce suicide rates. How would people feel about that?.. It'll probably never happen, but the thinking behind the idea is similar to that of the proponents of fluoridation.

I remember hearing that before. Isn't it done in some states in the USA? I think it's done in Louisiana and Alabama, and suicide rates did fall (slightly). Personally, I would be against adding this to water as medication can be given to certain people without medicating the whole population.

My name is URL · 02-07-2011 01:28PM

robman60 wrote: »

I remember hearing that before. Isn't it done in some states in the USA? I think it's done in Louisiana and Alabama, and suicide rates did fall (slightly). Personally, I would be against adding this to water as medication can be given to certain people without medicating the whole population.

I don't think it's added to any water supplies atm, but in some States, the naturally occurring levels are higher than average, and suicide rates in those places are lower. That's what they're basing the idea on.

Capt'n Midnight · 03-07-2011 06:01PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Comparing fluoridation to chlorination is stupid.. if chlorine wasn't added to water then there would be a huge chance that many many people would become ill or worse.

not a huge chance. It's a certainty. You only have to look at what happened in Galway not so long ago

Interestingly, under Article 40 of the Irish Constitution, it is set down that you have the right not to have your body or person interfered with. (the right to bodily integrity)..

No one is forcing anyone to drink water, and even people on the dole can buy bottled water or filters ( though don't buy Deep River Rock since they add stuff to it)

And there are a lot more harmful things out there that aren't banned, and when they are banned then you can mis-interprut article 40 again. For instance it's difficult to avoid radiation from transmitters.

As for forced medication, that is exactly the reason why cereals have added vitamins and minerals, it's why iodine is added to salt in parts of the world.

My name is URL · 03-07-2011 07:10PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

not a huge chance. It's a certainty. You only have to look at what happened in Galway not so long ago

No one is forcing anyone to drink water, and even people on the dole can buy bottled water or filters ( though don't buy Deep River Rock since they add stuff to it)

Nobody is forcing anybody to drink water? Right.. but it's pumped into your home, at a cost to you regardless of whether or not you want it.

And there are a lot more harmful things out there that aren't banned, and when they are banned then you can mis-interprut article 40 again. For instance it's difficult to avoid radiation from transmitters.

The thread is about fluoridation.. not any other strawman which you wish to build. Radiation may be unavoidable, but manually adding fluoride or any similar chemical to mains supplied water, is.

As for forced medication, that is exactly the reason why cereals have added vitamins and minerals, it's why iodine is added to salt in parts of the world.

I don't understand what you're getting at here.. forced medication is the reason why cereals and other foods are sometimes fortified? Those products aren't delivered directly into your home by the State, though. They're products available on the free market to people who wish to consume them. Exactly how fluoride supplements should be available to those that wish to consume them.

mw3guc · 03-07-2011 07:27PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No one is forcing anyone to drink water, and even people on the dole can buy bottled water or filters ( though don't buy Deep River Rock since they add stuff to it)

Only an expensive RO filtration system will remove fluoride. Water is the most basic human necessity and no one should have to buy bottled water to avoid what some 'experts' decide we must ingest. Buying and transporting bottled water is not cheap either. Also, fluoride is absorbed from washing - but then I suppose no one needs to wash either :rolleyes:

And there are a lot more harmful things out there that aren't banned, and when they are banned then you can mis-interprut article 40 again. For instance it's difficult to avoid radiation from transmitters.

Again, what is and isn't harmful is a matter of opinion - many people still believe that smoking/second-hand smoke is not harmful to anyone else. We don't need to delve much into the past to come up with a list of things which were once considered harmless and are now thought to be quite the opposite.

The crucial point here is choice - I have no problem with anyone else lacing themselves with fluoride if that's their thing. Put it into something else besides water so that I can choose not to buy it or use it.

My name is URL · 03-07-2011 07:36PM

The decision to continue the process of water fluoridation was made under the recommendation of a body set up by the government.. the 'Forum on Fluoridation'. The report, released in 2002, took over 2 years to complete and was lambasted by scientists around the world.

'the aim of the authors of the report was not to study the evidence, but to find ways to get around it'.

Turtwig · 03-07-2011 08:24PM

mw3guc wrote: »

Again, what is and isn't harmful is a matter of opinion - many people still believe that smoking/second-hand smoke is not harmful to anyone else.

There are levels of fail, then there are levels of epic fail, but to call this a fail would be an insult to those previously mentioned levels of fail and epic fail. In short, you can believe what you like about Arsenic, take enough of it though and you WILL die! (If it's any consolation though arsenic tastes sweet.) The amount of people that believe or disbelieve something has no bearing on whether that something is true or not.

mw3guc · 03-07-2011 09:07PM

Malty_T wrote: »

There are levels of fail, then there are levels of epic fail, but to call this a fail would be an insult to those previously mentioned levels of fail and epic fail. In short, you can believe what you like about Arsenic, take enough of it though and you WILL die! (If it's any consolation though arsenic tastes sweet.) The amount of people that believe or disbelieve something has no bearing on whether that something is true or not.

But when it comes to accepting what one small group of people believe and another, we STILL have fluoride in our drinking water. The point I was making is that a certain group of people (based on dodgy science IMO) have decided that fluoride is acceptable in drinking water. The beliefs of THAT small group of people have resulted in the addition of this toxin to everyone else's water and have influenced MY right not to be medicated against my will.
Ergo, you are quite right to say that the amount (sic) of people who believe or disbelieve something has absolutely no bearing on the truth, just the experience of same.

Sam Vimes · 03-07-2011 09:30PM

People keep pointing out that flouride is an industrial byproduct as if this automatically makes it bad. Well let me tell you about another industrial byproduct that we're forced to ingest that you probably haven't heard of: dihydrogren monoxide or DHMO.

DHMO:
-is also called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
-contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
-may cause severe burns.
-is fatal if inhaled.
-contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
-accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
-may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
-has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
-as an industrial solvent and coolant.
-in nuclear power plants.
-in the production of Styrofoam.
-as a fire retardant.
-in many forms of cruel animal research.
-in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
-as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

I'm sure we can all agree that a chemical as dangerous as this should be banned immediately so I want you all to join my campaign to ban DHMO, or water as it's more commonly known.

Solnskaya · 03-07-2011 09:46PM

Yeah, but if you use its more common moniker of H2O it sounds more normal. And we are all made up of 80% it. Its when it is adulterated by soluble additives that it becomes a bit more complex. Good post though, I reckon your campaign will have a few supporters.:) The "causes severe burns" took me a second or two, until boiling popped into me head. And its not an industrial by-product.

Sam Vimes · 03-07-2011 09:59PM

Solnskaya wrote: »

And its not an industrial by-product.

You don't think there's any industrial process in the world that produces water as a byproduct no?

mloc · 03-07-2011 10:14PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Do you know anybody over the age of 20 that has never had a tooth filled?

Me. I'm 26.

ronaneire · 21-07-2011 10:38AM

mw3guc wrote: »

Only an expensive RO filtration system will remove fluoride. Water is the most basic human necessity and no one should have to buy bottled water to avoid what some 'experts' decide we must ingest. Buying and transporting bottled water is not cheap either.

You can also remove Fluoride from water by activated alumina filters.

Also, fluoride is absorbed from washing - but then I suppose no one needs to wash either

Fluoride, unlike chlorine, is not released into the water and air as a gas. It travels through water as part of a metallic compound, and therefore doesn't release into the air like chlorine.

Fluoridation of Our Water Supply

Comments