Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

Ziphius · 05-04-2013 06:36PM

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

Perhaps these alternatives cost more than the 3-4 million euro water fluoridation scheme? And it is certainly cheaper than regular dental checks.

Why not do both. It's cheap, effective, and provided to everyone. So even those "few scummy dumb fcukers (sic)" and there children can benefit.

Do really begrudge spending less than a €1 a year to help stop dental cavities

My name is URL · 05-04-2013 06:40PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Perhaps these alternatives cost more than the 3-4 million euro water fluoridation scheme? And it is certainly cheaper than regular dental checks.

Why not do both. It's cheap, effective, and provided to everyone. So even those "few scummy dumb fcukers (sic)" and there children can benefit.

Do really begrudge spending less than a €1 a year to help stop dental cavities

I'd rather pay €10 per year on tackling the problem, if it meant taking a more direct approach to doing so, and targeting those who are actually suffering from caries due to their own neglect.

It's completely illogical and regressive to deal with it in a way such as water fluoridation, where intakes cannot be monitored and effectiveness can not be measured.

Ziphius · 05-04-2013 06:44PM

My name is URL wrote: »

I'd rather pay €10 per year on tackling the problem, if it meant taking a more direct approach to doing so, and targeting those who are actually suffering from caries due to their own neglect.

It's completely illogical and regressive to deal with it in a way such as water fluoridation, where intakes cannot be monitored and effectiveness can not be measured.

Fair enough. What would your approach be?

My name is URL · 05-04-2013 06:48PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Fair enough. What would your approach be?

Well a thorough study to start with. Cease fluoridation in a few counties and see what effect there is on rates of caries in those areas.

Try to identify those groups most at risk, and work with them to alleviate the problem.

When they discontinued fluoridating water supplies in a Cuban city, they simultaneously introduced rinsing programs in schools. It had a massively positive effect.. the rate of caries in children decreased from 61.6% to 26.3%.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780

And that's Cuba.. a nation far less well off than Ireland. Of course there are other variables at play, but does such a change in numbers not warrant some scepticism in how effective the practice is?

Why not attempt to do what they did? Pro-actively tackle the problem rather than trying to make it go away while ignoring the cause.

hooradiation · 05-04-2013 07:07PM

zenno wrote: »

Yes, but societies of all kinds are full of idiots though, forcing their crap onto others without thinking sensibly.

Thankfully, this time we don't seem to be in danger of listening to them

Ziphius · 05-04-2013 07:08PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Well a thorough study to start with. Cease fluoridation in a few counties and see what effect there is on rates of caries in those areas.

A sensible suggestion. Although I think comparing areas within a city or town might make a fairer comparison than between county councils.

hooradiation · 05-04-2013 07:12PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Well a thorough study to start with. Cease fluoridation in a few counties and see what effect there is on rates of caries in those areas.

Try to identify those groups most at risk, and work with them to alleviate the problem.

When they discontinued fluoridating water supplies in a Cuban city, they simultaneously introduced rinsing programs in schools. It had a massively positive effect.. the rate of caries in children decreased from 61.6% to 26.3%.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780

And that's Cuba.. a nation far less well off than Ireland. Of course there are other variables at play, but does such a change in numbers not warrant some scepticism in how effective the practice is?

Why not attempt to do what they did? Pro-actively tackle the problem rather than trying to make it go away while ignoring the cause.

Or - we could do both and put paid to this silly false dichotomy.

My name is URL · 05-04-2013 08:41PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Or - we could do both and put paid to this silly false dichotomy.

How is it a false dichotomy? It's an issue of personal liberty and bodily integrity.

Why should a person have to ingest medicines that they do not want or require?

05-04-2013 08:45PM

My name is URL wrote: »

How is it a false dichotomy? It's an issue of personal liberty and bodily integrity.

Why should a person have to ingest medicines that they do not want or require?

Yet you are suggesting that we have government paid enforcers to inspect children's mouths every day.

See, anything can be made to sound like a scary invasion of personal liberty...

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 08:47PM

[QUOTE=Ziphius;84004380

Do really begrudge spending less than a €1 a year to help stop dental cavities[/QUOTE]

So you believe that Fluoride is responsible/plays a big part in stopping dental cavities?

I ask this because there has been an evenly distributed improvmentl in dental health across all European countries. This includes Ireland the the rest of Europe which do not use Fluoridated water.

How can you possibly say that Fluoridated water is this important without any actual proof?

From everything I have read Fluoride is beneficial when applied tropically like when we brush our teeth.

I'm 27, I have never had a filling or any dental problem and the last time I was at the dentist was when I was 17. IMO this is because I brush my teeth twice a day not because I drink fluoridated water.

My name is URL · 05-04-2013 08:48PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yet you are suggesting that we have government paid enforcers to inspect children's mouths every day.

See, anything can be made to sound like a scary invasion of personal liberty...

Well sure it can, when you make massive leaps of logic and twist what others are saying.

Ziphius · 05-04-2013 09:01PM

JJayoo wrote: »

So you believe that Fluoride is responsible/plays a big part in stopping dental cavities?

If you allow me to rephrase the question as "If Ireland were to stop public water fluoridation overnight yet maintain everything else (e.g. number of dental visits, cost of visits, school programmes) would cavities increase?" than my answer would be yes. I think it would. I'm not saying we would have a mass epidemic but I think the rate would increase.

JJayoo wrote: »

I ask this because there has been an evenly distributed improvmentl in dental health across all European countries. This includes Ireland the the rest of Europe which do not use Fluoridated water.

That dental health has improved across Europe does not indicate that fluoridation is ineffective or harmful. It has been mentioned already that other European countries have fluoride in salt. My Name Is URL provided a link that suggests that mouth washes provided to school children in Cuba may be beneficial and equally as effective (or better) than fluoridation.

JJayoo wrote: »

I'm 27, I have never had a filling or any dental problem and the last time I was at the dentist was when I was 17. IMO this is because I brush my teeth twice a day not because I drink fluoridated water.

I can't say I'm as lucky as you. Numerous factors contribute to an individuals risk of cavities such as genetics, diet, or dental hygiene. Did fluoride protect me or you?, maybe not. But did it provide benefits at a population level?, almost certainly.

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 09:09PM

Ziphius wrote: »

If you allow me to rephrase the question as "If Ireland were to stop public water fluoridation overnight yet maintain everything else (e.g. number of dental visits, cost of visits, school programmes) would cavities increase?" than my answer would be yes. I think it would. I'm not saying we would have a mass epidemic but I think the rate would increase.

What is this belief based on?

What would you think about going down the European route which would consist off. Stop adding Fluoride to water but allow manufactures to add it to milk/salt. This would put the cost on the manufacturer saving the government 4 million per year. It would also allow the consumer to chose. It could be phased in and the Fluoridation of water wouldn't be stopped until the manufacturers had made the changes.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-04-2013 09:25PM

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

How many add fluoride to salt ?
How many have free dental care ?

JJayoo · 05-04-2013 09:27PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

How many add fluoride to salt ?
How many have free dental care ?

Let us know when you have found out.

Ziphius · 05-04-2013 09:34PM

JJayoo wrote: »

What is this belief based on?

What would you think about going down the European route which would consist off. Stop adding Fluoride to water but allow manufactures to add it to milk/salt. This would put the cost on the manufacturer saving the government 4 million per year. It would also allow the consumer to chose. It could be phased in and the Fluoridation of water wouldn't be stopped until the manufacturers had made the changes.

Would this save money? Would it decrease cavities? These aren't the arguments that the anti-fluoride movement use, however. I'd be happy to see them though.

05-04-2013 09:39PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Well sure it can, when you make massive leaps of logic and twist what others are saying.

My point exactly.

Dude111 · 07-04-2013 06:58PM

Starfox · 09-04-2013 04:35PM

Some facts for you!

Oh and the suggestion on here from the pro fluoride folk that say anything on a youtube video should be discredited is just about the dumbest thing i have read on this thread... but maybe it's because your drinking to much fluoride

JJayoo · 09-04-2013 09:18PM

Starfox wrote: »

Some facts for you!

Oh and the suggestion on here from the pro fluoride folk that say anything on a youtube video should be discredited is just about the dumbest thing i have read on this thread... but maybe it's because your drinking to much fluoride

There is a lot of sh1t on youtube but this is a very informative video.

hooradiation · 09-04-2013 10:41PM

Starfox wrote: »

Some facts for you!

Oh and the suggestion on here from the pro fluoride folk that say anything on a youtube video should be discredited is just about the dumbest thing i have read on this thread... but maybe it's because your drinking to much fluoride

#1 - Appeal to the majority. The argument of cretins
#2 - Ignore other methods of fluoridation, Ignores naturally present fluoride in water
#3 - Fails to define the effects, fails to mention dosage, fails to give nay meaningful data
#4 - Appeal to nature, also a lie.
#5 - Vague numbers, dishonestly conflates mild fluorosis with severe flourisis.
#6 - The flouride levels that are cited for IQ loss are five times the level here in Ireland, has no relevance.
#7 - the FDA have no authority here. Also Flouride supplements are at a much higher concentration than in our drinking water, dishonest conflation of two separate things.
#8 - And. Therefore. so? Though this does earn the dubious distinction of being the only true thing so far, round of applause.
#9 - blatantly untrue.
#10 - American centric, and if it wasn't it's nothing to do with fluoridation anyway, as it proposes that removing fluoridation to alleviate outlying effects for people with poor health as opposed to tacking their poor health.

Thank you for wasting my time with this stupid bullshit, it was a pleasure. No. really.

JJayoo · 09-04-2013 11:46PM

hooradiation wrote: »

#1 - Appeal to the majority. The argument of cretins
#2 - Ignore other methods of fluoridation, Ignores naturally present fluoride in water
#3 - Fails to define the effects, fails to mention dosage, fails to give nay meaningful data
#4 - Appeal to nature, also a lie.
#5 - Vague numbers, dishonestly conflates mild fluorosis with severe flourisis.
#6 - The flouride levels that are cited for IQ loss are five times the level here in Ireland, has no relevance.
#7 - the FDA have no authority here. Also Flouride supplements are at a much higher concentration than in our drinking water, dishonest conflation of two separate things.
#8 - And. Therefore. so? Though this does earn the dubious distinction of being the only true thing so far, round of applause.
#9 - blatantly untrue.
#10 - American centric, and if it wasn't it's nothing to do with fluoridation anyway, as it proposes that removing fluoridation to alleviate outlying effects for people with poor health as opposed to tacking their poor health.

Thank you for wasting my time with this stupid bullshit, it was a pleasure. No. really.

Did you actually watch it? I get the impression that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, I mean

Thank you for wasting my time with this stupid bullshit, it was a pleasure. No. really.

Talk about dramatic.

But ya I would 100% take your word over that of the FDA I mean your one sentence has swung me on that one

the FDA have no authority here.

10-04-2013 09:08AM

JJayoo wrote: »

There is a lot of sh1t on youtube but this is a very informative video.

You earlier in the thread agreed that toxicity at levels seen in irish water has not been shown so what exactly is "informative" in that video.

hooradiation · 10-04-2013 09:17AM

JJayoo wrote: »

Did you actually watch it? I get the impression that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, I mean Talk about dramatic.

I'm sorry i didn't fall head over heels in love with the dull man in his shitty suit and terrible arguments.
I guess i'm just not as ready to commit to the first vaguely authoritative sounding person that confirms my biases as you are.
Some say it's because all that flouride has hardened my heart.....

JJayoo wrote: »

But ya I would 100% take your word over that of the FDA I mean your one sentence has swung me on that one

It's funny you don't seem to remember what you lauded as being "a very informative video".
Anyway, to show deference to your temporary memory loss, the "Fact" was that fluoride supplements have "never been approved by the FDA" now, given that the FDA don't have any authority outside of the US (the name ought to have given you a clue) and that fluoride supplements aren't the same as fluoridated water - this "fact" is the best kind of dishonest nonsense.
technically true and wholly irrelevant.

Also, how do you manage to settle the cognitive dissonance that has on one hand people saying "ohh, remove fluoride from the water, and people who want it can take supplements!" and then on the other laud a video that shrieks about how dangerous fluoride supplements are?

JJayoo · 10-04-2013 09:28AM

jh79 wrote: »

You earlier in the thread agreed that toxicity at levels seen in irish water has not been shown so what exactly is "informative" in that video.

Are you actually making a point here? This video has nothing to do with Fluoride in an Irish context, so what are you talking about? and yes it is an "informative" video as it contains a lot of information. Lots of information = informative it's not really that hard. Plus it's funny that you take issue with my comment instead of the OP of the video, almost as if you just enjoy arguing with me, I'm flattered.

I'm sorry i didn't fall head over heels in love with the dull man in his ****ty suit and terrible arguments.
I guess i'm just not as ready to commit to the first vaguely authoritative sounding person that confirms my biases as you are.
Some say it's because all that flouride has hardened my heart....

Random rambling = point proven?

It's funny you don't seem to remember what you lauded as being "a very informative video".
Anyway, to show deference to your temporary memory loss, the "Fact" was that fluoride supplements have "never been approved by the FDA" now, given that the FDA don't have any authority outside of the US (the name ought to have given you a clue) and that fluoride supplements aren't the same as fluoridated water - this "fact" is the best kind of dishonest nonsense.
technically true and wholly irrelevant.

Once again this video has nothing to do with Ireland. It is a video based on America so what are you talking about??

I understand that this thread is about Fluoride in the Irish context but this one video is about America so saying

this "fact" is the best kind of dishonest nonsense.
technically true and wholly irrelevant

Doesn't make any sense. Based on the american Model this fact is true and relevant.

10-04-2013 09:58AM

Informative implies useful information, in relation to ireland it is not imformative and generally is dishonest as pointed out in point form by hooridation in another post.

The only real issue here is whether it is ethical and cost efficient to fluoridate water. Toxicity has only been proven at very high concentrations as you know.

hooradiation · 10-04-2013 10:39AM

JJayoo wrote: »

Once again this video has nothing to do with Ireland.

And it's inaccurate, fallacy ridden and dishonest.

So in light of all that, why was it you gave it your approval as being "very informative"?

It's almost like you saw something that seemed to conform to your existing biases and wedged yourself firmly on it's dick without really thinking it through.

But i'm sure there's a more reasonable answer...

JJayoo · 10-04-2013 11:38AM

hooradiation wrote: »

And it's inaccurate, fallacy ridden and dishonest.

Please show where it's inaccurate, fallacy ridden and dishonest within the American context. I will await your evidence to contradict all the points made.

o in light of all that, why was it you gave it your approval as being "very informative"?

It's almost like you saw something that seemed to conform to your existing biases andwedged yourself firmly on it's dick without really thinking it through.

But i'm sure there's a more reasonable answer...

Once again more rambling. So I am assuming your next message will be to prove all the inaccuracies with links to studies that the other posters can check out for themselves.

JJayoo · 10-04-2013 11:41AM

jh79 wrote: »

Informative implies useful information, in relation to ireland it is not imformative and generally is dishonest as pointed out in point form by hooridation in another post.

.

It was never in relation to Ireland, The clue was in the fact that it never mentions Ireland, how you don't understand this is beyond and Hooridation's point consists of "I'm right you're wrong", but I am sure he will provide all the facts to back up his statement.

You earlier in the thread agreed that toxicity at levels seen in irish water has not been shown

My point is and always has been that there has never been adequate tests carried out on whether or not Fluoride has long term effects when ingested. The fact that it is stored in the brain and this has never been looked into alone shows inadequate research as the brain is kinda important. Do I think it has negative effects within the Irish context? Long term I have no idea, short term I don't know and to be honest within the irish/diet/health context I think there are many other things which are far more important.

But a few facts do remain "The anti-caries effects of fluoride are primarily topical for children and for adults......If used, fluoride supplements should be employed as a topical delivery system by chewing or sucking tablets or lozenges for a maximum possible time before swallowing"
http://soudni.lf1.cuni.cz/Data/files/PragueMedicalReport/2007_4/pmr_04-2007_oganessian-otistena.pdf

Fluoride only provides a benefit if applied topically

hooradiation · 10-04-2013 01:18PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Please show where it's inaccurate, fallacy ridden and dishonest within the American context.

Already done.
I see this kind of dishonesty is contagious.

Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

Comments