Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

05-04-2013 01:36PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Are you sure you're posting in the correct thread? Why are you talking about Valium? Did you read the link I posted that shows the addition of Fluoride has not pushed Irish teeth to the top of the European league?

Fluoride is fine in my toothpaste, it's fine on my actual teeth but ingesting it with every mouthful of water has no benefit to our teeth, it doesn't magically protect out teeth once in the blood stream.

"Data on the current dental health of 5- and 12-year-old children from eight European countries has been collected by calibrated examiners. In each country a random sample of 200 children in each age group was drawn from urban primary and secondary state schools, a total of 3200 subjects. The children were examined under standardized conditions by one or two examiners in each country, all of whom had been trained and calibrated to the Swedish reference examiner and had achieved good inter- and intra-examiner consistency. Mean dmft DMFT were 1.38/1.93 in Gent (Belgium), 2.99/2.58 in Berlin (Germany), 1.62/2.35 in Athens (Greece), 2.09/1.85 in Cork (Ireland), 2.81/2.24 in Sassari (Italy), 3.06/1-82 in Dundee (Scotland), 0.85/1.75 in Valencia (Spain), and 0.80/1.94 in Stockholm (Sweden). The major components in the dmft/DMFT indices varied. Among the 5-year-old children the m component predominated in the Scottish sample, the d and f components in Berlin and the d component in Sassari. Among the 12-year-olds, a high F component influenced the index in Berlin and Stockholm, whereas in Athens and Sassari the D component was relatively high. The frequency of fissure sealants was most frequent in the Scottish. Irish and Belgian samples of 12-year-olds." Bolin AK, Bolin A, Koch G, 1996

Belgium 1.38/1.93
Germany 2.99/2.58
Greece 1.65/2.35
Ireland 2.09/1.85
Italy 2.81/2.24
Scotland 3.06/1.82
Spain 0.80/1.75
Sweden 0.80/1.94

I'm sure you won't bother reading this but it shows that Ireland is not at the top of the table in Dental health and in fact the top positions are held by countries that don't add Fluoride to their water.....but how can that be...

There is one flaw in your argument the dental practices of the children and their parents cannot be accounted for and is therefore a variable, the Irish score could have been worse if we didn't add fluoride to our water.

The point with valium is that policies differ between countries even when the same data is available to all. Whether Europe approves of water fluoridation doesn't change the facts regarding its safety or benefits.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 01:42PM

jh79 wrote: »

There is one flaw in your argument the dental practices of the children and their parents cannot be accounted for and is therefore a variable, the Irish score could have been worse if we didn't add fluoride to our water.

The point with valium is that policies differ between countries even when the same data is available to all. Whether Europe approves of water fluoridation doesn't change the facts regarding its safety or benefits.

In my argument? or do you mean the first link I posted which takes it's data from WHO and the second link with is a published scientific paper ? I will be sure to tell the people involved that you have a problem with their argument. You have to be trolling at this stage.

Ziphius · 05-04-2013 01:45PM

JJayoo wrote: »

In my argument? or do you mean the first link I posted which takes it's data from WHO and the second link with is a published scientific paper ? I will be sure to tell the people involved that you have a problem with their argument. You have to be trolling at this stage.

Were these data statistically significant? And if so what were the conclusions of the researchers?

05-04-2013 01:47PM

JJayoo wrote: »

In my argument? or do you mean the first link I posted which takes it's data from WHO and the second link with is a published scientific paper ? I will be sure to tell the people involved that you have a problem with their argument. You have to be trolling at this stage.

You do realise that scientific papers are suppose to be questioned, it is what science is all about.

Me trolling?

No proven health risks, only cost 4 million a year and the use of fluoride in some form is accepted by the majority of dentists as beneficial and I'm the troll!

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 01:50PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Were these data statistically significant? And if so what were the conclusions of the researchers?

I gave the links to both I'm sure you can click on them and see for yourself, but the general conclusion of both links I mentioned was that DMFT/Caries in 12 year olds is decreasing within Europe, except for poorer places.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 01:56PM

jh79 wrote: »

the use of fluoride in some form is accepted by the majority of dentists as beneficial

When dentist speak of Fluoride they are talking about it in the context of tooth paste ie applying Fluoride directly to your teeth. No one is arguing against it. But no dentists are supporting the ingestion of Fluoride as a means of improving dental health. If the ingestion of Fluoride was somehow beneficial to teeth we would be taking it in pill form.

No proven health risks, only cost 4 million a year

No proven health benefits to ingest Fluoride, costs 4 million every year, ya see how that works.

Ziphius · 05-04-2013 01:59PM

JJayoo wrote: »

When dentist speak of Fluoride they are talking about it in the context of tooth paste ie applying Fluoride directly to your teeth. No one is arguing against it. But no dentists are supporting the ingestion of Fluoride as a means of improving dental health. If the ingestion of Fluoride was somehow beneficial to teeth we would be taking it in pill form.

Did you forget about the American Dental Association already!

http://www.ada.org/4045.aspx

"The American Dental Association unreservedly endorses the fluoridation of community water supplies as safe, effective and necessary in preventing tooth decay. This support has been the Association's position since policy was first adopted in 1950."

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 02:00PM

You do realise that scientific papers are suppose to be questioned, it is what science is all about

You do realise they are questioned before they are published, in fact the authors have to defend their work before a panel before it is published. You do get this?

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 02:03PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Did you forget about the American Dental Association already!

http://www.ada.org/4045.aspx

"The American Dental Association unreservedly endorses the fluoridation of community water supplies as safe, effective and necessary in preventing tooth decay. This support has been the Association's position since policy was first adopted in 1950."

We are talking about Europe not America. As I have said before please take a look at the standards they practice in milk production before you endorse American consumption standards.

and necessary in preventing tooth decay

and the links I have posted show that this is incorrect.

05-04-2013 02:07PM

JJayoo wrote: »

You do realise they are questioned before they are published, in fact the authors have to defend their work before a panel before it is published. You do get this?

So all scientific papers should be taken as factual? The data is open to interpretation, papers come out all the time with opposing views.

The papers are sent to a panel of PhD educated scientists in a similar field to be reviewed. They then decide if the paper offers anything new and if the interpretation of the data is reasonable. Depending on the prestige of the journal the actual quality of the experimental designs are questioned and additional data requested to fill any gaps. You don't go before a panel like a job interview.

05-04-2013 02:08PM

JJayoo wrote: »

We are talking about Europe not America. As I have said before please take a look at the standards they practice in milk production before you endorse American consumption standards.

and the links I have posted show that this is incorrect.

So I can't question the validity of the data presented in your links but you can denounce the US dentistry in its whole.

Ziphius · 05-04-2013 02:09PM

JJayoo wrote: »

We are talking about Europe not America. As I have said before please take a look at the standards they practice in milk production before you endorse American consumption standards.

Er what? No. We are discussing the pros and cons of water fluoridation. Just because something goes against your dogma does not mean you can dismiss it.

I posted a link to the NHS earlier which also supported water fluoridation.

hooradiation · 05-04-2013 02:10PM

My name is URL wrote: »

How in the holy hell does it not mean anything?

The argument is thus:

Every/some <X> has done/believes <Y>
Therefore doing/believing in <Y> is a good thing.

It's a simple argument to make, which is why JJayoo keeps making it, and it seems right, but it's not.
Simply because other European countries do not have fluoridated water, it does not follow that Ireland should not have fluoridated water.

It's a simple concept, very widely understood.
Why you want to feign that you don't grasp it is beyond me.

Seaneh · 05-04-2013 02:11PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Did you forget about the American Dental Association already!

http://www.ada.org/4045.aspx

"The American Dental Association unreservedly endorses the fluoridation of community water supplies as safe, effective and necessary in preventing tooth decay. This support has been the Association's position since policy was first adopted in 1950."

Fluoride is only beneficial as a topical application, there is no benefit to ingesting it.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 02:13PM

jh79 wrote: »

So I can't question the validity of the data presented in your links but you can denounce the US dentistry in its whole.

You didn't question it, I doubt you even read it. The data I presented has nothing to do with Fluoride. It wasn't pro fluoride or anti Fluoride they were just figures from WHO, there is nothing to question. The data is valid.

And the data was about Europe which is the topic we are discussing. You seem to like going off topic with random input. This topic is about Fluoride in Ireland and in a broader sense Ireland with Europe.

05-04-2013 02:14PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Fluoride is only beneficial as a topical application, there is no benefit to ingesting it.

Depends on quickly it is absorbed into your teeth, do you walk around with toothpaste on your teeth for hours?

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 02:15PM

hooradiation wrote: »

The argument is thus:

Every/some <X> has done/believes <Y>
Therefore doing/believing in <Y> is a good thing.

It's a simple argument to make, which is why JJayoo keeps making it, and it seems right, but it's not.
Simply because other European countries do not have fluoridated water, it does not follow that Ireland should not have fluoridated water.

It's a simple concept, very widely understood.
Why you want to feign that you don't grasp it is beyond me.

Do you actually read the posts in this thread? Did you look at the links I posted about Dental statistics within Europe?

zenno · 05-04-2013 02:16PM

The main problem is mass medication of the population in Ireland, fluoride needs to be removed because of this, and it will be removed eventually in the near future, i'm sure of this.

People that want fluoride can just purchase it, while the rest can relax in the knowing and freedom from being medicated on a large scale.

05-04-2013 02:17PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Do you actually read the posts in this thread? Did you look at the links I posted about Dental statistics within Europe?

As you said in your reply to me , they have no bearing on this issue.

Ziphius · 05-04-2013 02:17PM

I've a feeling this thread will descend into reptoid conspiracy theories soon :pac:

hooradiation · 05-04-2013 02:20PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Do you actually read the posts in this thread? Did you look at the links I posted about Dental statistics within Europe?

You keep making this argument

If there were benefits in adding Fluoride to drinking water, then surely the most advanced/developed countries in Europe would also do it.

It's a bad argument, I've shown why.
Stop making it.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 02:20PM

jh79 wrote: »

As you said in your reply to me , they have no bearing on this issue.

Ah now you have to be joking. This is the complete opposite of what I said. I said that the statistics were not biased in anyway and thus are valid, and since you have no intention in actually reading anything you don't agree with then what's the point of your participation in this thread?

05-04-2013 02:21PM

Ziphius wrote: »

I've a feeling this thread will descend into reptoid conspiracy theories soon :pac:

Well the toxic angle is gone, the Irish & US dentist association support it and so do the NHS so it must have some benefits.

So all that is left is mass medication, not long before suggestions about who is behind it....it used to be the Russians when this conspiracy first appeared wonder who they blame now?

Treora · 05-04-2013 02:22PM

jh79 wrote: »

Valium is available over the counter in some European countries, it doesn't change the chemical properties of the drug does it? It just different countries having different policies.

This shows the flaws in discrepancy of regulatory overreach by the IMB (hopefully to be overtaken by the European Medicines Agency) with institutional status infracting on personal liberty.

05-04-2013 02:23PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Ah now you have to be joking. This is the complete opposite of what I said. I said that the statistics were not biased in anyway and thus are valid, and since you have no intention in actually reading anything you don't agree with then what's the point of your participation in this thread?

The study wasn't tailored to this topic and because of the variables doesn't provide us with anything meaningful

zenno · 05-04-2013 02:23PM

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that fluoride is only meant for your teeth, it was never meant for ingestion in any quantity.

05-04-2013 02:24PM

Treora wrote: »

This shows the flaws in discrepancy of regulatory overreach by the IMB (hopefully to be overtaken by the European Medicines Agency) with institutional status infracting on personal liberty.

Are you saying it should be an OTC?

05-04-2013 02:27PM

zenno wrote: »

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that fluoride is only meant for your teeth, it was never meant for ingestion in any quantity.

NaF is used to treat osteoporosis , over simplistic view. Again at a dose of 1ppm , which even occurs in places without water fluoridation, it doesn't really matter.

Treora · 05-04-2013 02:30PM

jh79 wrote: »

Well the toxic angle is gone, the Irish & US dentist association support it and so do the NHS so it must have some benefits.

So all that is left is mass medication, not long before suggestions about who is behind it....it used to be the Russians when this conspiracy first appeared wonder who they blame now?

Trying to reframe a debate by trivialising one's failure to provide proof shows you as flawed. Mass medication is under the precautionary principle and until there is a clinical, doubleblind, mass case, longitudinal, peer reviewed study published in nature or science then your credibility and arguement are in tatters.

NHS and ADA and WHO are financed by governments that do not want to be sued and are thus proponents for supporting their financers policies.

The ADA is the organisation part funded by a government that has a DMFT @ 12 of 2.85 where the EU has a comparison average 1.4 for a larger population.

Are you a shill, sock puppet or void of critical thinking. It is not easy to tell which. Return to school you have failed.

zenno · 05-04-2013 02:33PM

jh79 wrote: »

NaF is used to treat osteoporosis , over simplistic view. Again at a dose of 1ppm , which even occurs in places without water fluoridation, it doesn't really matter.

Look, it really boils down to a human rights issue at the end of the day because it is a medication forced into the water supply and should be removed. Why people have a problem with the removal of this fluoride i will never know because once it is out of the water supply people can purchase it if they so wish.

Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

Comments