Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

05-04-2013 02:36PM

Treora wrote: »

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.

Couldn't care less about the mass medication / NWO angle. Belongs in the CT forum where you can blame the Lizard people or Zionists or whatever paranoia Jim Corr influenced stuff you like.

Scientific data to date shows no health risks and the majority of health practitioners support it.

05-04-2013 02:38PM

zenno wrote: »

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.

It is not the wish to remove fluoride from the water supply that I'm guessing some on here have a problem with but the miss-representing of the scientific data that is out there to further their aims.

05-04-2013 02:43PM

Treora wrote: »

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

Can you show me papers for every substance we ingest that fit this criteria? How would you even design a clinical trial like this considering we know it doesn't have any acute toxicity at less than 10ppm? Toxicity was not seen in animal models unless at high concentrations that is the best you're likely to get

zenno · 05-04-2013 02:44PM

jh79 wrote: »

Couldn't care less about the mass medication / NWO angle. Belongs in the CT forum where you can blame the Lizard people or Zionists or whatever paranoia Jim Corr influenced stuff you like.

Scientific data to date shows no health risks and the majority of health practitioners support it.

I don't know why you say such a thing as if it is a conspiracy ? but i'm looking at this in a way where both sides are happy in the way that i want clean water that i can drink without having to ingest fluoride so if the fluoride was taken out then people like myself can enjoy tap water with no fluoride and the people that want to ingest fluoride can purchase it in any format they like so both sides are happy. It's down to choice, but none of us have a choice as even bottled water you purchase has large amounts of fluoride.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 02:46PM

jh79 wrote: »

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

Rubbish. the two links I posted showed that all European countries have a trend of decreasing caries/DMFT. This includes Fluoridated Ireland and non fluoridated Europe.

It also showed that non Fluoridated countries are at the top of this table.

It showed that dental health is directly related to socio-economic issues and no the use of Fluoridated water.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 02:50PM

jh79 If Ireland stops adding Fluroide will you start taking Fluoride in pill form?

zenno · 05-04-2013 02:56PM

Ingesting fluoride does nothing for human beings as it is not supposed to be ingested. Sure look at the toothpaste warning in the US, it states... 'If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately'. It's obviously there for a reason.

Seaneh · 05-04-2013 02:58PM

jh79 wrote: »

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

No, it doesn't.

There is ZERO benefit to ingesting fluoride, it does nothing for your teeth once it's passes them.

05-04-2013 03:11PM

zenno wrote: »

Ingesting fluoride does nothing for human beings as it is not supposed to be ingested. Sure look at the toothpaste warning in the US, it states... 'If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately'. It's obviously there for a reason.

1000ppm or higher is the reason, again it is all about dose not a difficult concept, downing a pint of beer is not the same as downing a pint of spirit.

zenno · 05-04-2013 03:13PM

This is a letter from Germany in relation to the stopping of fluoridation, I wonder why they decided to stop it after the experimentation.

05-04-2013 03:15PM

Seaneh wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

There is ZERO benefit to ingesting fluoride, it does nothing for your teeth once it's passes them.

The majority of the scientifc community disagrees with you. Are you saying the NHS, the Irish and US dentists are wrong?

zenno · 05-04-2013 03:17PM

jh79 wrote: »

1000ppm or higher is the reason, again it is all about dose not a difficult concept, downing a pint of beer is not the same as downing a pint of spirit.

Alcohol can not be compared. As was said...fluoride was never intended for ingestion. Well unless your teeth are inside your gut.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 03:33PM

jh79 wrote: »

The majority of the scientifc community disagrees with you. Are you saying the NHS, the Irish and US dentists are wrong?

Fluoride is only of use to the teeth through tropical application.

A 100 Irish Dentists disagree with you

http://homepage.eircom.net/~aud/home.htm#_edn2

"Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation (IDOF), a group of over 100 dentists, has published an article in The Irish Dentist slamming Minister Harney and the Department of Health for doing nothing to combat the near epidemic levels of dental fluorosis in Irish children. Here, dental fluorosis, fluoride damage to teeth, has sky-rocketed with a seven fold increase from 1984 to 2002 and the Republic of Ireland (artificially fluoridated since 1960s) now has three times more fluorosis than Northern Ireland which still rejects water fluoridation on health and safety grounds.[ii]"

This is the PDF of the report they mention

http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/coral.pdf

This report is a very detailed analysis of the dental health of children in the Republic and Northern Ireland. Very detailed and since the Republic of Ireland is fluoridated and Northern Ireland is non Fluoridated it will be very interesting to contrast the findings from each area.

Seaneh · 05-04-2013 03:34PM

jh79 wrote: »

The majority of the scientifc community disagrees with you. Are you saying the NHS, the Irish and US dentists are wrong?

No, they don't.

They all claim that fluoride is beneficial for healthy teeth, they all also agree that it's only beneficial as a topical application.

The benefit you get from fluoridated water, you get from the direct contact it makes with your teeth while drinking it, not from it being in your digestive system. That is an undisputed fact. To suggest otherwise is farcical.

05-04-2013 03:35PM

zenno wrote: »

Alcohol can not be compared. As was said...fluoride was never intended for ingestion. Well unless your teeth are inside your gut.

Why can't it be compared, beer contains a know toxin at concentrations around 50ppm, it has no health benefits. Bit hypocritical if you ask me.

What about water that contains fluoride above 1ppm without human intervention? What then ?

05-04-2013 03:36PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Rubbish. the two links I posted showed that all European countries have a trend of decreasing caries/DMFT. This includes Fluoridated Ireland and non fluoridated Europe.

It also showed that non Fluoridated countries are at the top of this table.

It showed that dental health is directly related to socio-economic issues and no the use of Fluoridated water.

Was the basis of water fluoridation not that it would improve dental health in disadvantaged regions? If more places were the same as Ireland a better comparison could be made.

Seaneh · 05-04-2013 03:37PM

jh79 wrote: »

Why can't it be compared, beer contains a know toxin at concentrations around 50ppm, it has no health benefits. Bit hypocritical if you ask me.

What about water that contains fluoride above 1ppm without human intervention? What then ?

Because you can choose to drink beer or not.

If you live in an area with fluoridated water you are paying for water and have no choice in whether you are being medicated or not. It's not just stupid, it's unethical in the extreme.

zenno · 05-04-2013 03:42PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Because you can choose to drink beer or not.

If you live in an area with fluoridated water you are paying for water and have no choice in whether you are being medicated or not. It's not just stupid, it's unethical in the extreme.

Exactly.

05-04-2013 03:43PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Because you can choose to drink beer or not.

If you live in an area with fluoridated water you are paying for water and have no choice in whether you are being medicated or not. It's not just stupid, it's unethical in the extreme.

I get the choice thing.

I just can't understand the mind-set that can happily drink beer and parks the established health risks that come with it to one side and then worries about a water supply with a fluoride concentration so low that in 50 years nobody has shown any health risks (any plenty have tried).

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 03:43PM

jh79 wrote: »

Was the basis of water fluoridation not that it would improve dental health in disadvantaged regions? If more places were the same as Ireland a better comparison could be made.

What are you talking about

Ireland is being compared to France, Germany, Uk , Sweden etc all are modern countries all are comparable, and this from the man/woman who can't post without mentioning a varity of random substances which have zero relevance to the topic.

05-04-2013 03:47PM

JJayoo wrote: »

What are you talking about Ireland is being compared to France, Germany, Uk , Sweden etc all are modern countries all are comparable, and this from the man/woman who can't post without mentioning a varity of random substances which have zero relevance to the topic.

You have two different sample sizes Ireland vs the rest of Europe essentially if you are looking to draw any conclusions regarding our water fluoridation programme. Statistically it would be questioned if referring to fluoridation.

Why not move it to the science forum and discuss one paper at time. Might make the debate a bit more focused.

AnonoBoy · 05-04-2013 03:53PM

My name is URL wrote: »

How in the holy hell does it not mean anything? Other countries decided to cease water fluoridation due to ethical questions about mass medicating their populations and unsurity about it's safety and benefits.

Is that the reason they decided to stop though?

I'm not being smart. I'm genuinely asking the question - are there statements from governments/health authorities saying the reasons fluoridation was ceased?

zenno · 05-04-2013 03:53PM

jh79 wrote: »

I get the choice thing.

I just can't understand the mind-set that can happily drink beer and parks the established health risks that come with it to one side and then worries about a water supply with a fluoride concentration so low that in 50 years nobody has shown any health risks (any plenty have tried).

I like the "freedom to choose" scenario, as this helps both sides. It's not like everyone is affected if the fluoride was removed from the main water supply as i have already stated that people can easily purchase fluoride in many different ways to use for their teeth if they so need to and can even purchase it for ingestion if needed. At least both sides are happy and i'm sure dentists would agree to this as well as no-one side of people will be left without fluoride no matter what way you look at it.

You just cannot force your so-called ideals onto every citizen, because it's wrong to do so.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 03:56PM

jh79 wrote: »

I get the choice thing.

I just can't understand the mind-set that can happily drink beer and parks the established health risks that come with it to one side and then worries about a water supply with a fluoride concentration so low that in 50 years nobody has shown any health risks (any plenty have tried).

You clearly don't get the choice thing.

Was the basis of water fluoridation not that it would improve dental health in disadvantaged regions

This is the one thing we agree on, but water fluoridation lost it's relevance in Europe once we established even the slightest amount of knowledge on dental health ie brushing your teeth.

Adding Fluoride to water might still be beneficial in the long term if we are talking about a country with zero dental health, a country in which dental problems are a major cause of death. The same way that adding a certain amount of bleach would be of benefit to countries which don't offer it's people clean drinking water.

Globally diarrhoea is the leading cause of illness and death with 88% due to a lack of clean water and at any one time more than half the hospital beds in sub-Saharan Africa are occupied by patients suffering from faecal related diseases.

With this in mind it would be correct to say that adding bleach to this drinking water would be a beneficial. Even if it has side effects it would still be beneficial and save lives BUT does this mean that in Ireland we should start adding bleach to our drinking water?. Every time you fill a glass of water we should add a teaspoon of bleach ? No of course not

05-04-2013 03:56PM

zenno wrote: »

I like the "freedom to choose" scenario as this helps both sides. It's not like everyone is affected if the fluoride was removed from the main water supply as i have already stated that people can easily purchase fluoride in many different ways to use for their teeth if they so need to and can even purchase it for ingestion if needed. At least both sides are happy and i'm sure dentists would agree to this as well as no-one side of people will be left without fluoride no matter what way you look at it.

You just cannot force your so-called ideals onto every citizen because it's wrong to do so.

I agree about the freedom to choose, but you have to admit there is an inconsistency there if you drink and smoke or eat processed food if health is one of your concerns re fluoride.

05-04-2013 03:58PM

JJayoo wrote: »

You clearly don't get the choice thing.

This is the one thing we agree on, but water fluoridation lost it's relevance in Europe once we established even the slightest amount of knowledge on dental health ie brushing your teeth.

Adding Fluoride to water might still be beneficial in the long term if we are talking about a country with zero dental health, a country in which dental problems are a major cause of death. The same way that adding a certain amount of bleach would be of benefit to countries which don't offer it's people clean drinking water.

Globally diarrhoea is the leading cause of illness and death with 88% due to a lack of clean water and at any one time more than half the hospital beds in sub-Saharan Africa are occupied by patients suffering from faecal related diseases.

With this in mind it would be correct to say that adding bleach to this drinking water would be a beneficial. Even if it has side effects it would still be beneficial and save lives BUT does this mean that in Ireland we should start adding bleach to our drinking water?. Every time you fill a glass of water we should add a teaspoon of bleach ? No of course not

Our water is chlorinated during treatment I believe, a close relative of fluorine.

hooradiation · 05-04-2013 03:58PM

zenno wrote: »

You just cannot force your so-called ideals onto every citizen, because it's wrong to do so.

Except - societies engage in collective action all the fucking time.
This is no different.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 03:59PM

jh79 wrote: »

You have two different sample sizes Ireland vs the rest of Europe essentially if you are looking to draw any conclusions regarding our water fluoridation programme. Statistically it would be questioned if referring to fluoridation.

Why not move it to the science forum and discuss one paper at time. Might make the debate a bit more focused.

Maybe you could try reading them?

I also posted a report comparing Children in the Republic to Children in Northern Ireland, any thoughts on this?

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 04:00PM

jh79 wrote: »

Our water is chlorinated during treatment I believe, a close relative of fluorine.

Sweet Jesus this is what you get from my post???

zenno · 05-04-2013 04:01PM

Maybe the government should stop paying the chemical companies for fluoride and the money saved from this could be used to fix the leaks in the water mains system.

Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

Comments