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 endgame approaches....

13468922

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    The following isn't 'ignored' - it's self-explanatory:
    The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults (Grandjean 1982).
    Toxins work more easily on small people than big people. Shocking news!
    For neurotoxicants, such as lead and methylmercury, adverse effects are associated with blood concentrations as low as 10 nmol/L.
    There are other toxins that are far more destructive in smaller doses.
    Serum-fluoride concentrations associated with high intakes from drinking-water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 Smol/L, thus more than 1000-times the levels of some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage.
    Fluoride is less toxic, requiring higher volumes for similar outcomes.
    Supporting the plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to 1 ppm (50 Smol/L) of water-fluoride for one year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared with controls (Varner et al. 1998).
    Rats exposed to high levels of fluoride show signs of toxicity damage.
    The estimated decrease in average IQ associated with fluoride exposure based on our analysis may seem small and may be within the measurement error of IQ testing. ]
    We're not certain if we measured any impact at all.
    However, as research on other neurotoxicants has shown, a shift to the left of IQ distributions in a population will have substantial impacts, especially among those in the high and low ranges of the IQ distribution (Bellinger 2007).
    If there were an impact it wouldn't be a good thing.

    So - not much new there.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Apparently you missed some important words. I've bolded them for you.
    Up to. Not mean, not median. Up to. As in maximum.
    Many. Not all. Not majority. Many.
    Read table 1 a column gives the levels involved - many are only just above fluoridation levels.you.
    you've missed something too

    Only 11 of those 26 listed a LOW reference Fluoride value below our maximum 0.8 mg/L limit. The effects of HIGH Fluoride were then compared to the LOW values (most of which would be illegal here)

    The lowest listed control value of 0.34mg/L is still 42.5% of our maximum permitted level.


    The paper is not saying that our levels of fluoride are bad. It's saying that if you take levels that are in or above our maximum permitted levels to be LOW and then compare them with ones that are way above any EU legal limits then there may be a problem.

    It should be noted that all the HIGH levels listed are at or above the levels that cause visible fluoridosis in teeth.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 133 ✭✭Bane


    Flouride Tax FTW!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Read it again then. The issue of publication bias - didn't you see the funnel plot ?
    A funnel plot (symmetric) doesn't fully discount the possibility of bias.
    Apparently you missed some important words. I've bolded them for you.
    Up to. Not mean, not median. Up to. As in maximum.
    Many. Not all. Not majority. Many.
    Read table 1 a column gives the levels involved - many are only just above fluoridation levels.
    Where did I say anything about all or majority?
    I'd also advise you to have a read of table 1 yourself, many of the reference levels are within current fluoridated water levels.

    You really seem to be missing the point here. Try looking up toxicity and dose sometime. Pretty much everything you ingest, whether good for you of not, has a toxic dose. There is absolutely nothing in this paper which suggests the levels of fluoride in artificially-fluoridated water is at a level responsible for toxic effects.
    And really you people seem to be ignoring this:
    The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults (Grandjean 1982). For neurotoxicants, such as lead and methylmercury, adverse effects are associated with blood
    concentrations as low as 10 nmol/L. Serum-fluoride concentrations associated with high intakes from drinking-water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 Smol/L, thus more than 1000-times the levels of
    some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage. Supporting the plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to 1 ppm (50 Smol/L) of water-fluoride for one year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared
    with controls (Varner et al. 1998). The estimated decrease in average IQ associated with fluoride exposure based on our analysis may seem small and may be within the measurement error of IQ testing. However, as research on other neurotoxicants has shown, a shift to the left of IQ distributions in a population will have substantial impacts, especially among those in the high and low ranges of the IQ distribution (Bellinger 2007).
    Ignoring what? A completely irrelevant comment on the toxicity of two unrelated and extremely bioaccumulative heavy metals.

    Or perhaps a 14 year old animal model study? How this relates to IQ levels in children? And following on from this.....
    Choi et al wrote:
    The estimated decrease in average IQ associated with fluoride exposure based on our analysis may seem small and may be within the measurement error of IQ testing
    Hold on one minute! We're talking about IQ tests.......yes, probably one of the least reliable and easily biased measurement systems to determine neurotoxicity. Even the authors concede this.
    Choi et al wrote:
    Future research should formally evaluate dose-response relations based on individual-level measures of exposure over time, including more precise prenatal exposure assessment and more extensive standardized measures of neurobehavioral performance,


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    There is absolutely nothing in this paper which suggests the levels of fluoride in artificially-fluoridated water is at a level responsible for toxic effects..
    they are using levels at or above our legal limit as the baseline to compare to higher levels.

    for this study to have any relevance to our levels of fluoride they would need to compare much lower levels against their baseline


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 836 ✭✭✭uberalles


    Yup I would say if your cat won't drink it that's because it's learnt that a better alternative will come along if it doesn't. Does your cat recieve milk whenever it wants by any chance?

    Our cat is the same, It wont drink the water from the tap and we dont give it milk. Animals know something is wrong with the water.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 305 ✭✭Jimminy Mc Fukhead


    uberalles wrote: »
    Animals know something is wrong with the water.

    The Animals told me the water is just fine.
    The Animals love a good wind up.
    You've been scamed uberalles


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    uberalles wrote: »
    Our cat is the same, It wont drink the water from the tap and we dont give it milk. Animals know something is wrong with the water.
    My dog drinks tap water, so it must be grand


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Dave! wrote: »
    My dog drinks tap water, so it must be grand

    And cats are complete dicks so it being fussy is a sign of nothing more than cats are complete dicks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,140 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    uberalles wrote: »
    Our cat is the same, It wont drink the water from the tap and we dont give it milk. Animals know something is wrong with the water.
    My dog hates getting into the car. So I stopped driving.
    He also hates having a bath. I now stink. My balls taste great though.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 15,824 ✭✭✭✭paddy147


    Filtered and Uv treated rainwater might be way to go in this country very soon.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,461 ✭✭✭--Kaiser--


    paddy147 wrote: »
    Filtered and Uv treated rainwater might be way to go in this country very soon.

    Along with a tinfoil hat


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    uberalles wrote: »
    Our cat is the same, It wont drink the water from the tap and we dont give it milk. Animals know something is wrong with the water.
    Have you tried letting the water stand for 24hrs first to get rid of chlorine ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 136 ✭✭barry711


    I dont drink tap much because of this stuff and I've since switched toothpaste as a lot brands use it. I actually saw a advert for a children's mouthwash and the ad was saying it contains fluoride to help maintain and strengthen teeth and gums! Shocking.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    My dog eats the faeces of other animals if I don't catch her in time. This must mean that I should start eating it too.

    I mean really, "My cat won't drink tap water, therefore there must be something wrong with it"?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,058 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    barry711 wrote: »
    I dont drink tap much because of this stuff and I've since switched toothpaste as a lot brands use it. I actually saw a advert for a children's mouthwash and the ad was saying it contains fluoride to help maintain and strengthen teeth and gums! Shocking.
    I know, it's unbelievable. It's almost like they have mountains of scientific research backing up the fact that fluoride helps maintain and strengthen teeth and gums.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 15,824 ✭✭✭✭paddy147


    --Kaiser-- wrote: »
    Along with a tinfoil hat


    Ive drank harvested/UV treated rainwater,and I must say that the taste is like night and day compared to what Dublin City Council send me down the pipe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    A chara, – For clarification, the terms of reference of Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health (IEBFH) remain as those given to it by the Minister for Health (Letters, July 31st-August 8th). These are to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the Forum on Fluoridation, to advise the Minister and evaluate ongoing research – including new emerging issues – on all aspects of fluoride, its delivery methods as an established health technology and as required, and to report to the Minister on matters of concern at his/her request or on own initiative.

    In your Letters pages, reference has been made to a review carried out by a team led by Dr Choi from Harvard University of a number of studies, mainly from China, which claim to show a very small effect of very high and possibly very low levels of naturally occurring fluoride on children’s intelligence. The Expert Body assessed these studies in 2011 and found that they were of no relevance to the national Irish water fluoridation schemes. The data from these studies, if taken at face value, would indicate that the highest IQ levels were associated with water fluoride ranges similar to those used in water fluoridation schemes in Ireland. However, the overall design of these studies is poor and they do not provide evidence of any effect on intelligence from either high or low fluoride levels. This view was also shared by the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Health (SCHER) in late 2011 which was similarly critical of the quality of the studies involved.

    The Choi paper expressed a view that the potential effects of very high fluoride levels should be further investigated. This might be a more relevant question in countries with high naturally occurring fluoride, including the United States, which has an upper legal limit for naturally occurring fluoride in water of 4mg/L, which is five times higher than the maximum Irish legal limit for water fluoridation schemes. The Choi paper did not claim to have found any evidence of harm associated with water fluoridation.

    Studies in Ireland and worldwide have found that water fluoridation has a significant benefit for dental health among both children and adults which is additional to the benefits of using fluoridated toothpastes and other products. People residing in fluoridated areas have better teeth with less disease than those residing in non-fluoridated areas. For example, in the last all-Ireland survey, there was in the order of 40 per cent fewer cavities in children living in fluoridated areas. Better dental health means better overall health, with fewer oral infections. The impact of poor dental health can be significant, particularly in the case of young children, where treatment might involve the use of hospital general anaesthetic services.

    Fluoridated toothpastes became available in Ireland in the early 1970s and the proportion of toothpastes sold containing fluoride gradually increased over that decade. Today, over 90 per cent of toothpastes sold contain fluoride. Prior to the widespread availability of fluoride toothpaste, studies conducted in Dublin city (fluoridated 1964) and Cork city (fluoridated 1965) indicated that fluoridated water was having a major impact in reducing dental decay levels in children. Studies conducted elsewhere including in the United States and Britain showed similar results.

    The safety and benefits of fluoridation have been endorsed by major international organisations such as the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (US), the United States Public Health Service, the United States Surgeon General, the Federation Dentaire Internationale/World Dental Federation, the International Association for Dental Research and the Royal College of Physicians of England. One of the principal findings of the Forum on Fluoridation report in Ireland (2002) was that the best available and most reliable scientific evidence indicates that at the maximum permitted level of fluoride in drinking water at 1 part per million, human health is not adversely affected. To date, no new studies have emerged which change this finding.

    The Expert Body continues to monitor all aspects of fluoridation in Ireland. A more comprehensive up-to-date statement on fluoridation is on the Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health website fluoridesandhealth.ie– Is mise,

    Dr SEAMUS O’HICKEY,
    Chairman,
    Irish Expert Body on Fluorides
    and Health,
    Fenian Street, Dublin 2.

    .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,000 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Dave - where did you cut and paste that from ?
    Do you have a link ?

    Edit: Never mind. Found it.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0817/1224322325354.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,140 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    Seamus O'Hickey has just confirmed what a lot of people on here were saying. Nice to see it official though.
    Any anti-flouride people care to make another argument?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,364 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Fluoridated toothpastes became available in Ireland in the early 1970s and the proportion of toothpastes sold containing fluoride gradually increased over that decade. Today, over 90 per cent of toothpastes sold contain fluoride. Prior to the widespread availability of fluoride toothpaste, studies conducted in Dublin city (fluoridated 1964) and Cork city (fluoridated 1965) indicated that fluoridated water was having a major impact in reducing dental decay levels in children.

    That has always been my only argument against fluoridation. There was a time when I'm sure it was necessary to add it wholesale to water supplies, but with the modern availability of fluoridated toothpastes, access to dentistry and a more educated population etc, imo; the number of people it benefits has dropped significantly. It's been almost half a century since a proper study has been conducted in Ireland.. which in itself is bloody worrying really.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15 kickerr


    Cienciano wrote: »
    Seamus O'Hickey has just confirmed what a lot of people on here were saying. Nice to see it official though.
    Any anti-flouride people care to make another argument?

    http://enviro.ie/Rebuttal_June_2012.pdf

    RESPONSE TO APPRAISAL BY
    IRISH EXPERT BODY ON FLUORIDE AND HEALTH
    ON THE REPORT
    TITLED
    HUMAN TOXICITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND
    LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF WATER FLUORIDATION
    THOROUGHLY REFUTING THEIR CLAIMS
    AND
    PROVIDING FACTUAL EVIDENCE
    DEMONSTRATING
    THEIR
    MISREPRESENTATION OF SCIENTIFIC FACTS
    June 2012


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15 kickerr


    This is just what the campaign needed.... :)
    https://www.facebook.com/TheGirlAgainstFluoride


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,364 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    kickerr wrote: »
    This is just what the campaign needed.... :)
    https://www.facebook.com/TheGirlAgainstFluoride

    It really, really isn't :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 386 ✭✭Some Yoke


    Yeah, screw you Fluoride!!! *kicks fluoride in the babymaker*


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,000 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    kickerr wrote: »
    This is just what the campaign needed.... :)
    https://www.facebook.com/TheGirlAgainstFluoride

    Oh dear. Was she an actual Rose of Tralee entrant or just a publicity thief ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 176 ✭✭AlarmBelle


    Originally Posted by Junior D viewpost.gif
    Those anti-Fluoride groups are actually some of the stupidest people I've ever seen. They just like to report the sensationalist, untrue claims. I've seen one website which claimed Fluoride was a method of brain control and it turns your brain to mush.

    alastair wrote: »
    Yep - and that's why the Nazis just loved it for the oul concentration camps. Won't someone think of the children!?

    I have to admit. Conspiracy guff just winds me up.
    I would not be surprised but would the people in the concentration camps not be docile enough given the sparse food and bad conditions?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 176 ✭✭AlarmBelle




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 176 ✭✭AlarmBelle


    Cienciano wrote: »
    Seamus O'Hickey has just confirmed what a lot of people on here were saying. Nice to see it official though.
    Any anti-flouride people care to make another argument?
    I am not on any side but see this peer reviewed book. i would like to see scientifis debat about the contents
    http://drpaulconnett.webs.com/books.htm


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Tordelback


    AlarmBelle wrote: »
    I am not on any side but see this peer reviewed book. i would like to see scientifis debat about the contents
    http://drpaulconnett.webs.com/books.htm

    An interesting interpretation of the term 'peer reviewed', which is a very specific academic process. The only 'peers' that I can see mentioned are his co-authors, the rest of the commentary is book reviews (not the same thing at all) by the usual suspects, including Tim Case, whose qualification is given as follows: ".., a slight case of arthritis led him to discover that nutrition makes a difference and nutrition became a serious hobby".

    I think 'vanity press' is the more appropriate term.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement