Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

03-04-2013 03:54PM

I don't think the effects of low levels of fluoride is considered much of an issue by the majority of scientists and has been historically seen as belonging to the CT world. This would make funding a study quite difficult. I also believe that the anti-water fluoridation side could fund a study but are afraid of the possible outcome. Previous studies posted here have shown that toxicity is confined to levels well above those seen in fluoridated water. The build up of fluoride in the pineal gland is all they have left. A study showing the effects of fluoride in the pineal gland to be minor would be a massive blow to the movement and leave only an ethical argument for fluoridation to be stopped.

What concentration of fluoridated water were the gerbils exposed? It is meaningless if the concentration is not within levels that humans are likely to be exposed to.

JJayoo · 03-04-2013 04:00PM

jh79 wrote: »

I don't think the effects of low levels of fluoride is considered much of an issue by the majority of scientists and has been historically seen as belonging to the CT world. This would make funding a study quite difficult. I also believe that the anti-water fluoridation side could fund a study but are afraid of the possible outcome. Previous studies posted here have shown that toxicity is confined to levels well above those seen in fluoridated water. The build up of fluoride in the pineal gland is all they have left. A study showing the effects of fluoride in the pineal gland to be minor would be a massive blow to the movement and leave only an ethical argument for fluoridation to be stopped.

What concentration of fluoridated water were the gerbils exposed? It is meaningless if the concentration is not within levels that humans are likely to be exposed to.

You really are clutching at straws here. I have mentioned two studies numerous times why don't you read them for yourself and find out.

How about I ask you a question in regards to your statement.

I don't think the effects of low levels of fluoride is considered much of an issue by the majority of scientists and has been historically seen as belonging to the CT world

Why did the rest of Europe stop adding Fluoride to their drinking water? Why is the Republic of Ireland, yes the North has stopped, the only part of Europe that still adds Fluoride to our drinking water?

03-04-2013 04:10PM

I couldn't get the paper for free. Also why are these threads always in after hours or the CT forum but never the science forum?

As mentioned numerous times on this thread toxicity is dose dependent. To be relevant to the Irish situation you need to show toxicity at Irish levels.

Do you believe the papers you have linked show fluoride to be toxic at 1ppm?

I have no idea why the Rest of Europe stopped water fluoridation. Could be for financial or ethical reasons.

JJayoo · 03-04-2013 04:20PM

jh79 wrote: »

I couldn't get the paper for free. Also why are these threads always in after hours or the CT forum but never the science forum?

As mentioned numerous times on this thread toxicity is dose dependent. To be relevant to the Irish situation you need to show toxicity at Irish levels.

Do you believe the papers you have linked show fluoride to be toxic at 1ppm?

I have no idea why the Rest of Europe stopped water fluoridation. Could be for financial or ethical reasons.

The papers I have linked have nothing to do with toxicity of Fluoride. I have never once mentioned the toxicity of Fluoride. The only thing I brought forward was the worryingly lack of evidence on the impact of Fluoride on the Pineal Gland.

The most obvious reason to stop the Fluoridation of our drinking water is because the rest of Europe has done so. Fluoride is added to water to protect out teeth but so far I have heard nothing about the epidemics of tooth decay across Europe

How are the people of France/Germany/Sweden surviving

Or maybe Ireland has the most advanced health system in Europe and our guys are just smarter than those silly Germans/rest of Europe

Plus it costs 4 million a year to add it to our water.

03-04-2013 04:30PM

You mentioned the toxic effects re melatonin it was having on gerbils, I asked how this relates to humans?

There is no evidence to suggest a negative effect on the pineal gland and coupled with the fact that toxicity in rats has only been shown at levels far exceeding 1ppm then there is no evidence of a health risk involved in water fluoridation yet the anti-fluoride movement still insists otherwise.

The rest of Europe gets its fluoride from other sources ie toothpaste.

JJayoo · 03-04-2013 04:40PM

jh79 wrote: »

The rest of Europe gets its fluoride from other sources ie toothpaste.

If only we had toothpaste in Ireland then our water wouldn't be medicated :rolleyes:

03-04-2013 04:42PM

JJayoo wrote: »

If only we had toothpaste in Ireland then our water wouldn't be medicated :rolleyes:

Why is it such an issue given the lack of scientifically proven health risks?

JJayoo · 03-04-2013 04:50PM

jh79 wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest a negative effect on the pineal gland

There is no evidence to suggest that Fluoride accumulation doesn't have a negative effect on the Pineal gland. No study has been done. I don't get why this factor is so hard for you to understand.

Your logic was widely used by the pro tobacco camp in the 60's. Tobacco was seen as having health benefits, even bugs bunny was puffing away in cartoons and the pro tobacco lobbyists said exactly what you are saying that there is no evidence that tobacco is bad for you and yes at that moment in time they were 100% correct because there was no scientific evidence available.

If our government is going to medicate our water then the burden of proof should be on them to prove that it is safe.

JJayoo · 03-04-2013 04:54PM

jh79 wrote: »

Why is it such an issue given the lack of scientifically proven health risks?

Well IMO if the government is going to spend 4 million every year from here to eternity to put something in our water and if I have no choice but to drink it, then I feel that the burden of proof should lie with them to prove that it is safe. Especially when you consider that the rest of Europe has abandoned this process in the 70's/80's.

hooradiation · 03-04-2013 04:55PM

JJayoo wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest that Fluoride accumulation doesn't have a negative effect on the Pineal gland.

Proving a negative, eh?

Good lad, you'll go far.

JJayoo · 03-04-2013 05:02PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Proving a negative, eh?

Good lad, you'll go far.

Great contribution unfortunately you have missed the point entirely

Jh79 said

There is no evidence to suggest a negative effect on the pineal gland

By stating

There is no evidence to suggest that Fluoride accumulation doesn't have a negative effect on the Pineal gland

I was not proving a negative I was pointing out that there are actually no studies on the effect of Fluoride in the Pineal Gland. So perhaps it is perfectly safe or perhaps it is bad no one knows.

It might help if you read through the posts before posting. I await your witty reply with bated breath.

03-04-2013 05:03PM

JJayoo wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest that Fluoride accumulation doesn't have a negative effect on the Pineal gland. No study has been done. I don't get why this factor is so hard for you to understand.

Your logic was widely used by the pro tobacco camp in the 60's. Tobacco was seen as having health benefits, even bugs bunny was puffing away in cartoons and the pro tobacco lobbyists said exactly what you are saying that there is no evidence that tobacco is bad for you and yes at that moment in time they were 100% correct because there was no scientific evidence available.

If our government is going to medicate our water then the burden of proof should be on them to prove that it is safe.

Our exposure to fluoride is quite small coupled with the fact that toxicity in rats is only seen at high levels suggest that risks regarding the pineal gland are small. Water fluoridation has being carried out for 60+ years without any noticeable change in the functioning of our pineal glands. Science involves a certain element of risk as decisions are based on what we currently know.

03-04-2013 05:09PM

The other halogen ions ie Cl- and Br- would be chemically similar to F-. Has the effects of these on the pineal gland been tested, do these accumulate also? Should we stop using table salt in the mean time? NaCl like NaF is toxic.

JJayoo · 03-04-2013 05:12PM

jh79 wrote: »

Water fluoridation has being carried out for 60+ years without any noticeable change in the functioning of our pineal glands.

Luke 2001 was the first study to show that Fluoride accumulated in the Pineal gland and NO/ZERO/NADA further research has been done on the impact (if any) of Fluoride on the Pineal Gland.

I'm not having a go at you or your opinion. I just haven't seen a single valid argument on why Ireland continues to add it to all our drinking water. In some other European countries manufacturers are allowed to add it to milk and butter. This choice is completely up to the manufacturer and this gives the consumer the choice of buying butter/milk with Fluoride if they want. I would have zero problem with the government doing this as people would have a choice.

Sarky · 03-04-2013 05:18PM

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Research showing it's harmful or it's not harmful aside...should we be medicated without our consent?

Thank you. I was beginning to give up all hope of an argument against fluoridation that wasn't full of bad science, lies or cries about it being a masterplan of the Elite to keep us [buying things/dumb/docile/unable to see lizard people].

You have single-handedly renewed my faith in humanity for at least the next hour. It'd be nice if the other opponents to fluoridation could stick to this topic, as it's really the only one they can competently argue without looking silly.

03-04-2013 05:18PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Luke 2001 was the first study to show that Fluoride accumulated in the Pineal gland and NO/ZERO/NADA further research has been done on the impact (if any) of Fluoride on the Pineal Gland.

I'm not having a go at you or your opinion. I just haven't seen a single valid argument on why Ireland continues to add it to all our drinking water. In some other European countries manufacturers are allowed to add it to milk and butter. This choice is completely up to the manufacturer and this gives the consumer the choice of buying butter/milk with Fluoride if they want. I would have zero problem with the government doing this as people would have a choice.

My problem is not the idea of ceasing water fluoridation but the misrepresentation of the scientific data out there to suggest that this is a serious health issue, I also suspect that this in some cases is purposely done as a means to an end.

JJayoo · 03-04-2013 05:20PM

jh79 wrote: »

The other halogen ions ie Cl- and Br- would be chemically similar to F-. Has the effects of these on the pineal gland been tested, do these accumulate also? .

Not sure. The Pineal gland is made from calcifying tissue and it has been found that there is a direct correlation between Calcium and Fluoride in the Pineal Gland. So perhaps the Fluoride bonds to the calcium ? The tricky thing about Fluoride in the Pineal gland is that the only way to study it is to cut open a brain :eek:

Calcium deposits inside the Pineal gland can be detected with certain types of xrays.

Should we stop using table salt in the mean time?

I wouldn't use table salt as it contains a lot of anti caking crap. Sea salt or ground salt are better options.

03-04-2013 05:31PM

Calcium would form a salt with any of the halogens, the point is we can't test for everything but there is nothing to suggest from what we know that this should be investigated further.

You mentioned earlier that fluoride build up in gerbils led to an early on set of puberty. Do Irish kids reach puberty quicker than European kids given their exposure to fluoridated water?

JJayoo · 03-04-2013 05:44PM

jh79 wrote: »

You mentioned earlier that fluoride build up in gerbils led to an early on set of puberty. Do Irish kids reach puberty quicker than European kids given their exposure to fluoridated water?

If studies such as this existed then we wouldn't be having this conversation. As far as I can recall there was one study done in the 50's/60's that spanned a 10 year time span. The children in the fluoridated areas hit puberty 6 months earlier than the kids from the non fluoridated areas but I think this entire study was canned as there were too many inconsistencies in it as the towns were only 35 kms apart and both sets of children were drinking fluoridated water up until the age of 3.

Final post on what must be the most exciting AH thread of all time :pac:

I mentioned before that IMO the burden of proof should lie with the government if they decide to medicate us. I don't think this is a crazy thing to ask.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/thurnau-2000.pdf

This is a letter from the Unite States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Professor Roger Masters.

"We have received your letter dated September 27, 2000, requesting empirical scientific data we may have on the health effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride and manganese neurotoxicity.

To answer your first question on whether we have in our possession empirical scientific data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior, our answer is no. Health effects research is primarily conducted by our National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL). We have contacted our colleagues at NHEERL and
they report that with the exception of some acute toxicity data, they were unable to find any information on the effects of silicofluorides on health and behavior."

Fluosilicic acid and Sodium Silicofluoride are two substances used to add Fluoride to water and yet the EPA had zero scientific data on the health effects of it and remember that America started adding Fluoride to water during the 40's so I would imagine they have had enough time to do a few studies.

Dude111 · 04-04-2013 06:58AM

Anyone who wants to help stop flouridation can goto this site/join this group!

http://freemanireland.ning.com/group/remove-the-fluoride

Take a gander at this site of girl who is suing the government over flouride.. www.thegirlagainstfluoride.com

04-04-2013 09:42AM

Dude111 wrote: »

Anyone who wants to help stop flouridation can goto this site/join this group!

http://freemanireland.ning.com/group/remove-the-fluoride

Take a gander at this site of girl who is suing the government over flouride.. www.thegirlagainstfluoride.com

Associating with that freeman nonsense is not going to help your cause.

The "girl against fluoride" was on the radio recently, I can't decide whether she knows that the papers she mentioned as proof of fluoride toxicity in the Irish context say no such thing and is misleading people or she just doesn't understand the relationship between concentration and toxicity.

She also mentioned a petition signed by "health professionals" but failed to mentioned it was mostly alternative types ie homeopaths and other con artists. Her credibility is suspect.

Tomk1 · 04-04-2013 12:03PM

http://www.enviro.ie/Feb2013.pdf

In June 2003 the EU prepared a list of Notified substances, including hexafluorosilicic acid, that were subject to new regulation that required detailed supporting information to be provided to the EU, for the protection of human health and the environment by March 2004.523 Hexafluoorosilicic acid is listed on page 24 of this document. EC number: 241-034-8: CAS number16961-83-4524

Spain as a manufacturer of this biocide was requested to provide a dossier of information to the EU on the toxicology of the substance to include toxicological and metabolic studies, ecotoxicological studies, reproductive toxicity, medical data including medical surveillance data, epidemiological studies on general population, skin sensitivity studies and allergenicity studies, carcinogenicity studies, mutagenicity studies, sub chronic toxicity studies and measures to protect humans, animals and the environment. A full list of the assessment procedures are provided in pages 33 to 179 of the risk assessment for biocidal products published by the EU.525 Where information was not provided the substance could no longer be used as active substance to be sold or marketed as a biocidal product within the EU market. No information was provided and the substance was subsequently removed as an authorised biocide within EU. The phase out date was set as 01/09/2006.

Despite this, the Health Authority in Ireland continues to source Hexafluorosilicic acid from Spain for injection into public drinking water supplies to be consumed by the public at large. Using a "Dangerous Poison" WITHOUT TESTING for human, animal or environmental safety is clearly illegal and an endangerment to public health.

In Australia, Hexafluorosilicic acid is explicitly listed in the Australian classification of toxins as a "DANGEROUS POISON" using the criteria in the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons (SUSDP). The "Material Safety Data Sheet" (MSDS11) published in Australia for the compound H2SiF6 specifically lists this chemical as a poison.526

Any drug brought onto the market has to be tested for side effects, many anti-cancer drugs have failed due to side effects, saying a chemical is good for your teeth without a full health impact study is negligence.

Given that most of the fluoridated-water is used for toilets, washing machince, shower..etc it doesn't give a good aurgument for it's use as an efficient mass-public-medication device.

04-04-2013 12:14PM

Tomk1 wrote: »

http://www.enviro.ie/Feb2013.pdf

Any drug brought onto the market has to be tested for side effects, many anti-cancer drugs have failed due to side effects, saying a chemical is good for your teeth without a full health impact study is negligence.

Given that most of the fluoridated-water is used for toilets, washing machince, shower..etc it doesn't give a good aurgument for it's use as an efficient mass-public-medication device.

Saying that a chemical is toxic without considering concentration is ignorant.
A pint of beer probably has more health implications that a pint of Irish tap water.

Tomk1 · 04-04-2013 12:35PM

jh79 wrote: »

Saying that a chemical is toxic without considering concentration is ignorant.
A pint of beer probably has more health implications that a pint of Irish tap water.

I'm not sure on the definition of the word toxic, and I didn't use that word.
What I am saying is that a substance added to the public water supply without an impact study on health effects beforehand is using your word "ignorant"

Untill Hexafluorosilicic acid is validfied as safe for human consumption, it should be suspended from use.

Aaah I might have a pint of beer next week at least I have that choice, & I can drinkaware but that's another topic.

04-04-2013 01:17PM

You quoted an article that labelled the compound a dangerous poison, therefore you are saying it is toxic.

We have being fluoridating water since the 50's without any noticeable health implications.

And do you check that every compound you ingest has been verified as safe for human consumption? What exactly would that involve? How stringent would this be? What substance would this apply to ie what is your criteria for this?

Is it the fluoride that you believe to be the toxin or the hexafluorosilicic acid? We could still fluoridate water with a different compound.

philiy · 04-04-2013 01:32PM

So no one seems to be able to say with 100% confidence that fluoride is either a good thing or bad thing to have in the water.

What about the cost of putting it in the water, how much are we spending on a product that may or may not cause adverse effects? Is it worth the cost? Could we be spending the money on something else that we know for sure is beneficial to us?

Haven’t gone through the entire thread so not sure if cost has been brought up yet.

Ziphius · 04-04-2013 01:39PM

philiy wrote: »

So no one seems to be able to say with 100% confidence that fluoride is either a good thing or bad thing to have in the water.

What about the cost of putting it in the water, how much are we spending on a product that may or may not cause adverse effects? Is it worth the cost? Could we be spending the money on something else that we know for sure is beneficial to us?

Haven’t gone through the entire thread so not sure if cost has been brought up yet.

I don't have the data to hand but most papers I have seen from the US estimate water fluoridation costs less than 1 US$ per person per year.

Similarly, I've seen estimates for Ireland of about €4 million per year which works out to less than €1 per person per year.

04-04-2013 01:43PM

philiy wrote: »

So no one seems to be able to say with 100% confidence that fluoride is either a good thing or bad thing to have in the water.

What about the cost of putting it in the water, how much are we spending on a product that may or may not cause adverse effects? Is it worth the cost? Could we be spending the money on something else that we know for sure is beneficial to us?

Haven’t gone through the entire thread so not sure if cost has been brought up yet.

Someone mentioned 4 million a year, so it is quite small and the government would claim it is offset by the dental benefits.

It seems the unsubstantiated health risks and the ethical aspect of forced medication are the main issues. I think scaremongering and misrepresenting scientific data is the chosen weapon of the anti-water fluoridation side.

Yawnz · 04-04-2013 01:51PM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Well to be honest I'm not on one side or the other so explain to me how me using foul language (oh boo-f*cking-hoo!) does more 'justice' for you?

And where did I say that anyone did? Although interestingly enough anyone I have talked to who has science qualifications and actively work in the field have yet to see any real data that proves all the claims being made by the Sheila O'Fluoride.

But in reality you're just pissy because I mocked the online petition you posted. And let's face it, that online petition is going to do f*ck all good for anyone.

Realistically,

AnonoBoy.

Absolutely not, that would be a bit childish of me to be pissy over such a trivial thing like a petition. On the grand scale of things the petition may have do some good. I agree with you that it more than likely will never be looked at by a judge, but it spreads awareness of the growing issue at hand. There is increased national media coverage of the topic, so hopefully in turn there will be increased awareness.

Judging by your arguments made it appears as if you're not simply sitting the fence on this issue. So for that reason, when I make reasonable arguments in a respectful way I tend to come across better.

I never said that you said one needs a science qualification etc.,I was merely pointing out that one does not.

Sheila O'Fluoride? Can't say I have ever heard of her, so I guess whatever claims she makes are her own, unless she can reference her arguments etc. If you do get a chance to speak to this person again with the scientific qualifications, ask if he/she can tell you about any of the studies that shows that hydrofluorosilicic has been tested on humans for safety, on a systemic level.

Of course my argument here mainly is the ethical side of this mass-medication of a population.

JJayoo · 04-04-2013 01:54PM

jh79 wrote: »

Someone mentioned 4 million a year, so it is quite small and the government would claim it is offset by the dental benefits.

There are zero dental benefits ZERO. We are the only nation in the whole of Europe that continues to add Fluoride to our water. The other countries stopped in the 70's/80's. If there was even the slightest benefit why wouldn't the other 934 million people of Europe partake> Please answer this jh79 because you keep stating the benefits.

Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

Comments