Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 04:50PM

jh79 wrote: »

Bring to the science forum, no nonsense about "well the rest of Europe don't do it", one paper at a time. I'm game.

You would be banned in about 3 posts for trolling

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 04:51PM

Ziphius wrote: »

If you are really looking for a serious debate take jh79's advice and start a thread in one of the Science or Politics forums.

Why don't you? you have mentioned it 3 times now. Go for it and be sure to ramble on about everything.

05-04-2013 04:52PM

JJayoo wrote: »

You would be banned in about 3 posts for trolling

Asking for facts and figures instead of vague proclamations on the water treatments habits of our friends in Europe would not be considered trolling.

What have you to lose if I get banned, you could claim a moral victory of sorts!

05-04-2013 04:53PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Why don't you? you have mentioned it 3 times now. Go for it and be sure to ramble on about everything.

A debate needs someone on the opposing side, considering the websites you get your info from I 'm not surprised you have forgotten this.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 04:58PM

jh79 wrote: »

Asking for facts and figures instead of vague proclamations on the water treatments habits of our friends in Europe would not be considered trolling.

Mr troll the only thing I have done in this thread is provide facts and figures, I have quoted and posted the links to the studies. All you have done is ramble on about valium, beer,chlorine, Einstein etc all things which have zero relation to this thread. You're either painfull stubborn or a good troll, the only problem is that posting back and forth doesn't bother me in the slightest.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 05:00PM

jh79 wrote: »

A debate needs someone on the opposing side, considering the websites you get your info from I 'm not surprised you have forgotten this.

Mr troll I have posted maybe 7 links to published scientific studies. I think you get most of your info from the back of the coco pops box

05-04-2013 05:03PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Mr troll the only thing I have done in this thread is provide facts and figures, I have quoted and posted the links to the studies. All you have done is ramble on about valium, beer,chlorine, Einstein etc all things which have zero relation to this thread. You're either painfull stubborn or a good troll, the only problem is that posting back and forth doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Facts and figures that you interpreted incorrectly or suggested meant something they did not. Re valium and beer etc I was highlighting the inconsistences in your claims with some examples.

Like most in the anti-water fluoridation movement this is just a "trendy" cause for you, highlighted by the repeated vague statements about Europe , rather than an opinion you came too based on scientific data you read.

Again the science forum is always an option where vague statements about the fluoride would require some proof.

05-04-2013 05:04PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Mr troll I have posted maybe 7 links to published scientific studies. I think you get most of your info from the back of the coco pops box

Posting links and understanding them are two different things.

05-04-2013 05:06PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Mr troll I have posted maybe 7 links to published scientific studies. I think you get most of your info from the back of the coco pops box

Which forum would be more suitable? Chemistry or health science to properly discuss these 7 links?

It is as if you don't believe you have the science to back up your claims!

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 05:08PM

jh79 wrote: »

Facts and figures that you interpreted incorrectly or suggested meant something they did not.

I posted them up, that's all I did. If you don't have the brain power to read something and interpret it for yourself then it's not my fault

Re valium and beer etc I was highlighting the inconsistences in your claims with some examples.

No you had zero relevant info to add so you talk rubbish

Like most in the anti-water fluoridation movement this is just a "trendy" cause for you, highlighted by the repeated vague statements about Europe , rather than an opinion you came too based on scientific data you read.

Trendy? this has to be the least trendy cause ever, and once again you mention vague statements, I will repeat again because you seem to be a bit slow on this, I quoted and linked to studies how is a scientific study that you can simply click on vague???

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 05:11PM

jh79 wrote: »

Which forum would be more suitable? Chemistry or health science to properly discuss these 7 links?

It is as if you don't believe you have the science to back up your claims!

LOL mr troll maybe chemistry or biology. You do realise that the links I posted weren't actually written by me? do you get that? I didn't hop in a time machine and publish them for the benefit of this thread. Do you understand real life?

humanji · 05-04-2013 05:12PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Mr troll I have posted maybe 7 links to published scientific studies. I think you get most of your info from the back of the coco pops box

You'll soon be "Mr Banned" if you keep calling other posters "Mr Troll". Give it a rest. If you've a genuine problem with another user, then report their posts and explain how they've broken the charter. Don't just insult people because they disagree with you.

05-04-2013 05:30PM

JJayoo wrote: »

LOL mr troll maybe chemistry or biology. You do realise that the links I posted weren't actually written by me? do you get that? I didn't hop in a time machine and publish them for the benefit of this thread. Do you understand real life?

So in the science forum they only discuss papers they have written themselves?
You are the one claiming they support your stance but you refuse to discuss how.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 05:39PM

jh79 wrote: »

So in the science forum they only discuss papers they have written themselves?
You are the one claiming they support your stance but you refuse to discuss how.

You said this

It is as if you don't believe you have the science to back up your claims

All my claims were based on the papers I posted, so it has nothing to do with my science credentials, if you have an issue with any of the links/papers then you must report them to the relevant bodies asap because you clearly know more than these people.

It would be interesting to see what the Chemistry/Biology section thinks about Luke 2001. Personally I find it odd that they never continued the research.Although I do get the restrictions involved ie if you wanted to fully examine the Pineal glands of people you would need to chop up their brains.

05-04-2013 05:45PM

JJayoo wrote: »

You said this

All my claims were based on the papers I posted, so it has nothing to do with my science credentials, if you have an issue with any of the links/papers then you must report them to the relevant bodies asap because you clearly know more than these people.

It would be interesting to see what the Chemistry/Biology section thinks about Luke 2001. Personally I find it odd that they never continued the research.Although I do get the restrictions involved ie if you wanted to fully examine the Pineal glands of people you would need to chop up their brains.

But you are promoting and defending these papers I'm asking why you believe they are worthy of this. You can't link to a paper then if questioned on it say wel I didn't write it.

Could an animal model not be done with gerbils again. The results didn't reveal much with the gerbils I suspect it was deemed not worth pursuing.

Ziphius · 05-04-2013 05:51PM

It isn't the papers that are the issue but your interpretation of their results.
Take the Bolin et al paper you mentioned in post 421 as an example. Here you imply that countries without water fluoridation have better dental health among children than countries that do (i.e. Ireland). This may be true but it does not ,necessarily, mean that fluoride is ineffective. Perhaps countries with low levels of cavities spend a lot of money of dental check ups, perhaps they provide fluorine in other forms (e.g. salt), perhaps they have a better diet.

We cannot compare two countries and reach the assumption that fluoride is ineffective, indeed, according to Borlin's data Italy (non-fluoridated) has much, much , higher cavity rate than Ireland ( fluoridated).

The data merely show that there is a difference between countries and does not explain why this is. Hence why I asked earlier about the statistical significance of the data and the authors' conclusion.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 05:59PM

jh79 wrote: »

But you are promoting and defending these papers I'm asking why you believe they are worthy of this. You can't link to a paper then if questioned on it say wel I didn't write it.

Could an animal model not be done with gerbils again. The results didn't reveal much with the gerbils I suspect it was deemed not worth pursuing.

I really doubt WHO needs me to defend it's statistics. If I am linking a peer reviewed paper then I am trusting the science/figures in it. I don't post other people's opinions. I state my opinion and then I post the reason(some study or reliable link) why I have come to that conclusion. You can do the exact same by stating your opinion and then posting a something which shows how you came to that conclusion

To be honest I am surprised that they haven't done more animal testing and I wonder is there a reason why they used Gerbils as white mice have a more similar brain chemistry to us.

Actually from a strictly financial point of view it is a bit surprising that the government hasn't decided to cut out Fluoride when you consider all the cuts they are imposing. They could always go down the same route as the other European countries by allowing manufacturers to add fluoride to milk/salt. This way they would save 4 million a year and the individual manufactures would pick up the cost of adding it. I would have no problem with this solution.

05-04-2013 06:05PM

JJayoo wrote: »

I really doubt WHO needs me to defend it's statistics. If I am linking a peer reviewed paper then I am trusting the science/figures in it. I don't post other people's opinions. I state my opinion and then I post the reason(some study or reliable link) why I have come to that conclusion. You can do the exact same by stating your opinion and then posting a something which shows how you came to that conclusion

To be honest I am surprised that they haven't done more animal testing and I wonder is there a reason why they used Gerbils as white mice have a more similar brain chemistry to us.

Actually from a strictly financial point of view it is a bit surprising that the government hasn't decided to cut out Fluoride when you consider all the cuts they are imposing. They could always go down the same route as the other European countries by allowing manufacturers to add fluoride to milk/salt. This way they would save 4 million a year and the individual manufactures would pick up the cost of adding it. I would have no problem with this solution.

The data in peer review papers are there to be critically judged otherwise research wouldn't progress. Ziphius highlighted above where you intrepretated some data wrong, I made a similar point and you got very defensive. Because you have a paper that you believe supports your point doesn't mean I can't question it along as it is done in a respectful manner

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 06:07PM

Ziphius wrote: »

It isn't the papers that are the issue but your interpretation of their results.
Take the Bolin et al paper you mentioned in post 421 as an example. Here you imply that countries without water fluoridation have better dental health among children than countries that do (i.e. Ireland).

No I don't. I posted a quote and supplied a link so that anyone could look at the info for themselves. I also listed the countries out clearly showing that Ireland is in the middle of the group meaning that it has better dental health than some non fluoridated countries. I am allowed to have an opinion but at least I supply some links allowing you or anyone else to read the link and formulate your own opinion

"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...

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 06:09PM

jh79 wrote: »

The data in peer review papers are there to be critically judged otherwise research wouldn't progress. Ziphius highlighted above where you intrepretated some data wrong, I made a similar point and you got very defensive. Because you have a paper that you believe supports your point doesn't mean I can't question it along as it is done in a respectful manner

Defensive? I doubt it and as for Ziphius's point I think he/she may be the one who intrepretated some data wrong.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 06:11PM

jh79 +Ziphus

What are the benefits of ingesting Fluoride?

05-04-2013 06:13PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Defensive? I doubt it and as for Ziphius's point I think he/she may be the one who intrepretated some data wrong.

How is his - her last point wrong so?

Ziphius · 05-04-2013 06:13PM

JJayoo wrote: »

No I don't. I posted a quote and supplied a link so that anyone could look at the info for themselves. I also listed the countries out clearly showing that Ireland is in the middle of the group meaning that it has better dental health than some non fluoridated countries. I am allowed to have an opinion but at least I supply some links allowing you or anyone else to read the link and formulate your own opinion

Perhaps you didn't mean to but the impression I got was that this was what you were implying.

The data shows Ireland in the middle. Does this mean fluoride is ineffective? No. Why? Because there are so many other factors (some of which I mentioned above) that have not been considered.

Ziphius · 05-04-2013 06:17PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Defensive? I doubt it and as for Ziphius's point I think he/she may be the one who intrepretated some data wrong.

Can you explain?

JJayoo wrote: »

jh79 +Ziphus

What are the benefits of ingesting Fluoride?

Protection against dental cavities. As pointed out earlier numerous health bodies promote and encourage the use of fluoride in water as a preventative measure.

If you are referring to, specifically, to ingestion rather than surface/topical use than my understanding is that fluoride is present in the saliva which furthers its effectiveness.

05-04-2013 06:18PM

JJayoo wrote: »

jh79 +Ziphus

What are the benefits of ingesting Fluoride?

Seriously not this again it is approved by the dental associations previously mentioned and the NHS. The consensus is it has dental health benefits like it or not majority rules

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 06:19PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Perhaps you didn't mean to but the impression I got was that this was what you were implying.

well you are entitled to your opinion but it wasn't my intention.

The data shows Ireland in the middle. Does this mean fluoride is ineffective? No. Why? Because there are so many other factors (some of which I mentioned above) that have not been considered.

The point I was trying to make was that some European countries which don't use Fluoride have very good dental health and in turn some have much poorer dental health. What I was implying is that Dental health is determined by socio-economic factors and not whether or not Fluoride is added to the water.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 06:22PM

jh79 wrote: »

Seriously not this again it is approved by the dental associations previously mentioned and the NHS. The consensus is it has dental health benefits like it or not majority rules

No I want to know the actual benefits of ingesting Fluoride. Once we swallow the water what benefits does it provide? You spend the entire thread trying to pick apart any comment I make. Instead it might be good if you could show me the actual tangible benefits.

05-04-2013 06:25PM

JJayoo wrote: »

well you are entitled to your opinion but it wasn't my intention.

The point I was trying to make was that some European countries which don't use Fluoride have very good dental health and in turn some have much poorer dental health. What I was implying is that Dental health is determined by socio-economic factors and not whether or not Fluoride is added to the water.

But because of the variables it is impossible to ascertain the influence of fluoride in this data.

05-04-2013 06:27PM

JJayoo wrote: »

No I want to know the actual benefits of ingesting Fluoride. Once we swallow the water what benefits does it provide? You spend the entire thread trying to pick apart any comment I make. Instead it might be good if you could show me the actual tangible benefits.

The dental benefits as you expsoe your teeth throughout the day to water.

Most is then excreted the rest has no health implications which you agreed with earlier

My name is URL · 05-04-2013 06:29PM

Ziphius wrote: »

it does not ,necessarily, mean that fluoride is ineffective. Perhaps countries with low levels of cavities spend a lot of money of dental check ups, perhaps they provide fluorine in other forms (e.g. salt), perhaps they have a better diet.

We cannot compare two countries and reach the assumption that fluoride is ineffective

Well we can certainly conclude that it may not be as effective as other methods of preventing dental caries. Why continue to throw money into a hole in the ground when it could be spent to better effect on things such as school rinsing programs, regular dental checks for kids and education for their parents?

I don't need fluoride in my water.. the water I pay for through taxes, and will soon be paying for directly. I look after my own dental health because I'm a responsible adult, I don't require the state to do it for me. Why should I have to consume medicated water for my entire life just because a few scummy dumb fcukers refuse to take care of themselves properly?

The entire population should not be treated for a problem only faced by a tiny minority of people.

Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

Comments