Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

13-12-2012 12:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Stellar response! I'm sure you have convinced many with your strong arguments!!!

Are you really interested in the science?

Ziphius · 13-12-2012 12:11PM

jh79 wrote: »

No it is not as simple as that, cellulose and vitamins contains carbon and so does Fluoxetine, do they have the same properties?

I'll admit I was a sceptic at first but after I did a little research I changed my mind.

Did you know one of the main ingredients in table salt is Chlorine!-- a toxic gas used by the Germans in the first world war.

AnonoBoy · 13-12-2012 12:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Interestingly a Fluoride (Fluoxetine) is the main ingredient in Prozac. And people wonder why Irish people are listed as one of the happiest in the world!
Add that to high levels of Fluoride in Tea(Irish being one of the biggest tea drinkers on the planet) and we are being completely doped out of it.

Fluoride is not the same as Fluoxetine. And referring to Fluoxetine as 'a Flouride' is just incorrect I'm afraid.

I know people like to point this out in the hope that they'll convince others that flouride is put in the water supply to make people docile (I've heard one 'comedian' in Dublin ranting on about this) but the truth is that they have no understanding of chemistry. Just because they sound the same doesn't mean they are the same.

AnonoBoy · 13-12-2012 12:19PM

I robbed this from another forum but it explains why the whole 'fluoride' is used to pacify the masses thing is crap:

Time for a chemistry lesson. Fluoride is the ionic form of fluorine. Don't know what an ion is? Wiki. This is basic stuff. Prozac doesn't contain fluoride and to be pedantic about it it doesn't contain fluorine either. That would be like saying carbon monoxide contains oxygen. Yes oxygen forms part of the carbon monoxide molecule but carbon monoxide does not have the properties of oxygen. Try breathing only carbon monoxide. Now apply this logic to the fluoxetine molecule. It is mainly carbon and hydrogen but, unsurprisingly, has none of the properties of either. It also has fluorine(not fluoride) in it's molecular structure but that doesn't mean it has any of the properties of fluorine(let alone fluoride).

I was told about the mind numbing effects of fluoride by my conspiracy nut gradfather along time ago and his source of this informtion also mentioned the addition of fluorine to Prozac as well as rohipnol suggesting that it gave the drugs more mind controling properties or something of that nature. In short it was pseudoscientific BS. The authors of the article couldn't even tell the difference between fluorine and fluoride despite this being stuff we all learn about in high school.

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f30/do-all-ssris-contain-fluoride-77728/#post1059831756

opinion guy · 13-12-2012 12:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Stellar response! I'm sure you have convinced many with your strong arguments!!!

He's convinced more than you. Listen I'm largely in the middle of this arugment leaning towards the side fluoridation should be stopped - i.e. I'm closer to your side than the other side. So listen to me when I tell you this - you have no idea what you are talking about. Do yourself and us a favour and go educate yourself on science before attempting to argue these points. You are not doing anything to convince anyone against fluoride when you demonstrate failure to grasp basic chemistry - quite the opposite in fact.

JohnnyChimpo · 13-12-2012 12:21PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So a compound of Fluoride cannot have similar effects?

No, not really. If you had a rasher about chemistry, you'd be aware that single-atom substitutions in chemical structures are enough to radically alter their bioactivity and efficacy. And yet you're comparing Fluoxetine, a psychoactive complex organic compound with happens to have a trifluormethyl sidechain group, with simple fluoride salts which are not psychoactive and have proven positive health effects. So basically, you're regurgitating some horse**** which sounded convincing to you, sorry.

I know I'm just some lad on the internet and all, but I do happen to have a PhD in molecular biology, and for what little it's worth I am not remotely concerned about the supposed negative effects of fluoridation.

13-12-2012 12:25PM

opinion guy wrote: »

He's convinced more than you. Listen I'm largely in the middle of this arugment leaning towards the side fluoridation should be stopped - i.e. I'm closer to your side than the other side. So listen to me when I tell you this - you have no idea what you are talking about. Do yourself and us a favour and go educate yourself on science before attempting to argue these points. You are not doing anything to convince anyone against fluoride when you demonstrate failure to grasp basic chemistry - quite the opposite in fact.

In fairness to the nixmix my original response was just a plain no, I edited it a few seconds later

Zombienosh · 13-12-2012 12:30PM

What are the reasons for keeping it in the water?

If we are going to charged for water surely we should a choice in the matter also?

I don't think we need it anymore.

opinion guy · 13-12-2012 12:32PM

jh79 wrote: »

In fairness to the nixmix my original response was just a plain no, I edited it a few seconds later

Oh I saw that. However I grow weary of posts like his diluting the argument and giving the other side a chance to mock. There is far too much sneering going on by the pro fluoride side to actually be inviting them to do so

opinion guy · 13-12-2012 12:38PM

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

with simple fluoride salts which are not psychoactive and have proven positive health effects. So basically, you're regurgitating some horse**** which sounded convincing to you, sorry.

I know I'm just some lad on the internet and all, but I do happen to have a PhD in molecular biology, and for what little it's worth I am not remotely concerned about the supposed negative effects of fluoridation.

To quote Ben Goldacre on this (4yrs ago admittedly):

The reality is that anybody making any confident statement about fluoride – positive or negative – is speaking way beyond the evidence.

source:http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/foreign-substances-in-your-precious-bodily-fluids/

JohnnyChimpo · 13-12-2012 12:49PM

opinion guy wrote: »

To quote Ben Goldacre on this (4yrs ago admittedly):

source:http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/foreign-substances-in-your-precious-bodily-fluids/

The BMJ article he links to doesn't dispute the positive effects of fluoridation, rather the degree of the observable effect, and the poor controls used in many of the studies. I would agree with this from what I've read.

opinion guy · 13-12-2012 12:52PM

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

The BMJ article he links to doesn't dispute the positive effects of fluoridation, rather the degree of the observable effect, and the poor controls used in many of the studies. I would agree with this from what I've read.

You don't think the degree of observable effect and poor choice of controls are related to the positive effects ?

JohnnyChimpo · 13-12-2012 01:13PM

Without devolving into a semantic argument, I can't address that question as it is poorly worded. What do you mean by "related" for example? A causal relationship? If so, then no.

Meta-reviews are useful for greatly increasing the statistical robustness of a group of studies which may independently be unimpressive. The BMJ article links to this study :
McDonagh, Marian S., et al. "Systematic review of water fluoridation." Bmj 321.7265 (2000): 855-859.

214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was −5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth.

So yeah, a meta-review of 214 studies sits pretty well with me. And it's not exactly an outlier either. This study does go on to talk about the levels of fluorosis seen at 1ppm, which as far as I understand is in the range of Irish fluoridation. There is probably some scope for titrating the optimal dose with regards to this, but it's not something I see as a pressing social issue.

RoundBox11 · 13-12-2012 02:00PM

Worztron wrote: »

Fluoride, or Hydrofluorosilic acid that is put into tap water is a waste by-product derived from the industrial manufacture of aerosols, aluminium, fertilizers, insecticides, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, plastics, uranium and zinc.
American toothpastes containing fluoride are by law obliged to state, '"WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately."
It is also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972 ranking in toxicity above lead and just below arsenic.
Hitler used fluoride in the water to induce docility.

10 Facts about Fluoride: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation: http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm
Adverse health effects of fluoride: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health

Please. Go and get a basic chemistry book. Leaving cert level should do, and educate yourself on the matter. Flouride is only dangerous in high level. Hence, why its in really, really low levels in our water. It's there for a reason.
If you look up any decent pharmacology website you'll see that everything has side effects and risks. These lists have to be made using anyone who's reported even slight symptoms, during the time of using the chemical. Say you've got 1000 people testing something and one of them gets stomach cramps one day. That has to go down as a side effect.

opinion guy · 13-12-2012 04:58PM

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

Without devolving into a semantic argument, I can't address that question as it is poorly worded. What do you mean by "related" for example? A causal relationship? If so, then no.

Oh I think its quite clear. I didn't say anything about causal relationships and neither would that make any sense in the context of discussion between you and I. Stop trying to weasle the semantics. You seem to think that the conclusions of the studies and the fact that they used poor controls and are unrelated quantities. They are connected. Specifically a poor choice of controls undermines the results of any study - regardless of the conclusions (unless the conclusion is 'our controls were **** - therefore we are not sure')

Meta-reviews are useful for greatly increasing the statistical robustness of a group of studies which may independently be unimpressive. The BMJ article links to this study :
McDonagh, Marian S., et al. "Systematic review of water fluoridation." Bmj 321.7265 (2000): 855-859.

So yeah, a meta-review of 214 studies sits pretty well with me. And it's not exactly an outlier either. This study does go on to talk about the levels of fluorosis seen at 1ppm, which as far as I understand is in the range of Irish fluoridation. There is probably some scope for titrating the optimal dose with regards to this, but it's not something I see as a pressing social issue.

Meta reviews are great. But if all of the 214 studies were of **** design then the conclusion of the meta-review must also be held in suspicion (again unless the conclusion is 'we are not sure the data was ****'. Meta review is not a magic method for turning coal into gold.

Starfox · 25-01-2013 02:32PM

Ziphius · 25-01-2013 03:19PM

And yet:

"[t]he American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and others have endorsed fluoridation as a safe, effective way to reduce decay".

http://www.healthychildren.org/english/healthy-living/oral-health/pages/Water-Fluoridation.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

Tiddlypeeps · 25-01-2013 03:27PM

Ziphius wrote: »

And yet:

"[t]he American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and others have endorsed fluoridation as a safe, effective way to reduce decay".

http://www.healthychildren.org/english/healthy-living/oral-health/pages/Water-Fluoridation.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

But she is wearing a white coat! And speaking in a soft tone! How can I not take everything she says as fact!

OCorcrainn · 25-01-2013 04:02PM

Fluoride causes apathy in people, seeing as how so many Irish people are unwilling to stand up for the rights as they are being trampled on by the government than it might explain a few things.

Dude111 · 26-01-2013 04:01AM

RoundBox11 wrote:

It's there for a reason.

Yes WHAT REASON??

Why is a POISON in something that people consume??

WHY DO TOOTHPASTE BOTTLES SAY TO CALL A POISON CENTER IF ITS SWALLOWED?? (Theres NO MORE in toothpaste than there is in water)

I think THERE IS an agenda.......

Ziphius · 26-01-2013 12:40PM

Dude111 wrote: »

Yes WHAT REASON??

Why is a POISON in something that people consume??

WHY DO TOOTHPASTE BOTTLES SAY TO CALL A POISON CENTER IF ITS SWALLOWED?? (Theres NO MORE in toothpaste than there is in water)

I think THERE IS an agenda.......

So let me get this straight. The same government which is poisoning our water supply with fluoride is also forcing toothpaste manufacturers to warn customers of the dangers of this very same poison? Some agenda alright.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-01-2013 02:09PM

Dude111 wrote: »

Yes WHAT REASON??

Why is a POISON in something that people consume??

WHY DO TOOTHPASTE BOTTLES SAY TO CALL A POISON CENTER IF ITS SWALLOWED?? (Theres NO MORE in toothpaste than there is in water)

I think THERE IS an agenda.......

My toothpaste doesn't say call a poison centre.

It's 1450ppm which is 2,000 times higher than allowed in tap water.

When people PARROT stuff that is blatantly wrong then they probably have an agenda

starlings · 26-01-2013 02:29PM

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Fluoride causes apathy in people, seeing as how so many Irish people are unwilling to stand up for the rights as they are being trampled on by the government than it might explain a few things.

Hmmm, so many Irish people are unwilling to stand up for the right to defy debt and to be trampled on by the government they chose until the next election.

Yes, must be something in the water.

Seaneh · 26-01-2013 02:48PM

In the last few years there have been more and more studies in the US and europe linking Fluoridation of drinking water with thyroid disease.

Basically, fluoride inhibits thyroid function. In the past it was used by doctors for that very reason, to slow down over active thyroids (its not used anymore for that reason).

The effects of this (inhibited thyroid function) can be as wide ranging as fatigue, depression, anxiety, infertility, and being overweight/obese (slowed metabolism).

More and more doctors and scientists around the world are coming to the conclusion that water fluoridation has a very small benefit to humans but that is outweighed by a host of potential harmful side effects.

This article is a good place to start if you don't believe me.

http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoridechange.htm

starlings · 26-01-2013 03:18PM

Seaneh wrote: »

In the last few years there have been more and more studies in the US and europe linking Fluoridation of drinking water with thyroid disease.

Basically, fluoride inhibits thyroid function. In the past it was used by doctors for that very reason, to slow down over active thyroids (its not used anymore for that reason).

The effects of this (inhibited thyroid function) can be as wide ranging as fatigue, depression, anxiety, infertility, and being overweight/obese (slowed metabolism).

More and more doctors and scientists around the world are coming to the conclusion that water fluoridation has a very small benefit to humans but that is outweighed by a host of potential harmful side effects.

This article is a good place to start if you don't believe me.

http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoridechange.htm

I'd have to do a lot of reading and double-checking and comparisons before I can tackle you on that, Seaneh; all I meant is that I don't accept that
1.) flouride is put in the water to cause harm - including political apathy - deliberately,
2.) that most Irish people are apathetic, as opposed to just getting on with things, and
3.) apathy, where it exists, has a purely physiological cause, as opposed to circumstantial.

Seaneh · 26-01-2013 03:30PM

My post wasn't directed at you to be honest, just giving my €0.02

Worztron · 22-03-2013 11:16AM

While I disagree with many of the other things that this guy approves, this video is worth a watch.

Ando's Saggy Bottom · 22-03-2013 11:19AM

^^^

Looked at title of video.

Didn't bother my hole.

22-03-2013 11:58AM

I still can't get my head around why this is an issue for some people.

To be so militant about water fluoridation in spite of the fact that no evidence exists that the Irish levels are a health risk is just bizarre.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-03-2013 02:03PM

What can a youtube video say in 14:35 that will change the lack of hard evidence ?

Dr. Strangelove was released in 1964. Part of the plot is a crazy general trying to start WWIII because of fluoridation.

This means that some people were making lots of noise about fluoridation 50 years ago and that most people knew about it.

In the meantime epidemiology and health & safety have taken leaps and bounds. If there were a statistically observable health problem it would have been found by now.

Let's play the Devils Advocate for a moment,
suppose we ban fluoride on the preventative principle ?

then we'd have to ban things that are more dangerous too
stuff like stairs, kitchens, planes, trains and automobiles, alcohol, tobacco , smoked meat and toast, sunbathing, swimming ,trawlers, mining and about a quarter of the stuff on the Daily Mail's cancer list

Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

Comments