Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fluoride in tap water

Options
13132343637103

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    Your claim of the research from Dr. Paul Connett as being debunked is a false one



    That's what they say about the enzymes .... Not even close to debunking

    ehh - they're talking about the impact of enzymes in aquatic life, and their summary?:
    Based on three lines of evidence, a simplistic risk assessment, mass balance modelling and a modified EUSES analysis, SCHER is of the opinion that adding fluoride to drinking water at concentrations between 0.8 mg F-/L and the reference dose level of WHO (1.5 mg F-/L) does not result in unacceptable risk to water organisms.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    allig8or wrote: »
    http://www.infowarsshop.com/Propur-Big-With-ProOne-D-Filters_p_1065.html

    Not promoting anything here, this is the way I chose to consume drinking water after I did my research, its an expensive option but once you make the initial outlay it soon pays for itself and your health depends on it

    Best of luck with your Alex Jones water filter. I'll save my money for something a little less shouty and tinfoily.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    allig8or wrote: »
    http://www.infowarsshop.com/Propur-Big-With-ProOne-D-Filters_p_1065.html

    Not promoting anything here, this is the way I chose to consume drinking water after I did my research, its an expensive option but once you make the initial outlay it soon pays for itself and your health depends on it

    Whatever about whether it's needed or not, how does it pay for itself?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22 allig8or


    whydave wrote: »
    So I have one point and two questions :
    Point: if we are now to pay for drinking water can we refuse if Fluoride is still added to it ?
    Question 1: what is the long term effect of adding Fluoride to tap/ drinking water ?
    Question 2 : can it be removed (home kit / filters) ?

    MODs if this is in the wrong place please move or delete
    Thanks David

    Dont pay for poison I use one of these, and there is fluoride in some of the bottled water available so don't think its a healthier option try one of these
    http://www.infowarsshop.com/Propur-Traveler-With-ProOne-D-Filter_p_1059.html


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22 allig8or


    BTW of course you can refuse to pay for something you don't want, just don't pay


  • Registered Users Posts: 22 allig8or


    long term effects of fluoride....??? look up Declan Waugh there is a lot of places on the net you can do your research and make your own mind up? just Don't believe the Irish media speil on it


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭hju6




  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    allig8or wrote: »
    long term effects of fluoride....??? look up Declan Waugh there is a lot of places on the net you can do your research and make your own mind up? just Don't believe the Irish media speil on it

    I've made my mind up on Declan Waugh. He's most definitely not to be listened to, and something of an embarrassment to legitimate anti-fluoridation advocates.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    hju6 wrote: »

    An actual stop to water fluoridation this time, unlike their claims about Israel. Woodland has about the same population as Westport btw - 5,500. I suppose every journey starts with a single step though.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,516 ✭✭✭Maudi


    alastair wrote: »
    An actual stop to water fluoridation this time, unlike their claims about Israel. Woodland has about the same population as Westport btw - 5,500. I suppose every journey starts with a single step though.

    Hi in ireland ..where does the fluoride come from and who adds it to the water supply.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Maudi wrote: »
    Hi in ireland ..where does the fluoride come from and who adds it to the water supply.

    It's purchased from Spain (Derivados del Fluor), and added by local authorities.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭hju6


    Maudi wrote: »
    Hi in ireland ..where does the fluoride come from and who adds it to the water supply.

    In 2000, a Spanish company took over the sourcing of the supply of the fluoride chemical from Albatros Fertilizers, in what could be construed as an attempt to hide from public view any information that would potentially provide evidence of harm to the Irish public, or negatively impact on the findings of the Forum for Fluoridation review which was undertaken in 2002. The Forum for Fluoridation, in their clearly biased and flawed report never mentioned that Albatros Fertilisers sourced their product from Holland, nor that it was a by product of the fertilizer industry, one that was contaminated with dangerous heavy metals including arsenic, a listed carcinogenic substance even in trace amounts. Yet despite the change in source of fluoride chemicals in 2000 arsenic continues to remain a known and quantifiable contaminant in water fluoridation chemicals.

    From http://www.oneworldchronicle.com/?p=7209


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    hju6 wrote: »
    In 2000, a Spanish company took over the sourcing of the supply of the fluoride chemical from Albatros Fertilizers, in what could be construed as an attempt to hide from public view any information that would potentially provide evidence of harm to the Irish public, or negatively impact on the findings of the Forum for Fluoridation review which was undertaken in 2002.

    You could construe that, if you were so inclined, but you could also construe that a better contract deal became available to the government. They (Albatros) regained the contract again (after 2000), but subsequently lost it when it came up for renewal. None of which really tally's with a cover-up theory.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    allig8or wrote: »

    Why did you link to an article that basically goes against what your main points are? :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    alastair wrote:
    Or, to save time; No - there's no evidence to support this theory.
    Of course not...... If there was any REAL PROOF,they couldnt do it! (And they know this)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭hju6


    Dude111 wrote: »
    Of course not...... If there was any REAL PROOF,they couldnt do it! (And they know this)

    Statement on the fluoridation of public drinking supplies by Professor C V Howard. MB. ChB. PhD. FSB. FRMS. FRCPath. 14/2/2013

    1) I am a medically qualified toxico-pathologist and expert on effects of toxic substances on the fetus and infant during the developmental period of life. I am a Past President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, which is a World Health Organisation and United Nations recognised NGO representing some 30,000 medical doctors around the world. I have served on UK Government regulatory committees and am currently Professor of Bioimaging at the University of Ulster. I served as an Expert Witness on fetal toxicology causation in the case of Castillo vs Dupont in Miami, Florida.

    2) Pre-industrial levels of fluoride in the environment were very low. There are now many different sources of both therapeutic and pollutant sources of fluoride. The former can be taken, under informed consent, for dental health purposes.

    3) It is generally accepted that the predominant action of fluoride on dental enamel is a topical one and that there is little additional benefit from systemic administration (CDC, 1999).

    4) The ‘one dose fits all’ method of administration to whole populations via the public drinking water supply is known to be deeply flawed. This particularly applies to the neonatal infant being fed formula milk, which is reconstituted using fluoridated tap water. In the latter case it is acknowledged overdosing is occurring. A baby drinking formula made up with fluoridated tap water at 1 ppm will get 250 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby.

    5) Breast milk contains very low levels of fluoride (0.004 ppm, NRC, 2006, p.40), even when the lactating mother has been administered fluoride. Though the serum level of fluoride increased, the breast milk level remained very low (Ekstrand, 1981, 1984)). It is my opinion that this is the result of a specific exclusion process that has evolved to protect the neonate from exposure to anything other than very low levels of fluoride during critical windows of development of a number of organs.

    6) There is evidence of developmental neurotoxicity from exposure to fluoride, expressed as reduced IQ distributions in populations, when compared epidemiologically with populations with lower exposures. There now have been 36 studies (see the complete listing at www.FluorideAlert.org/health/brain) that have found a lowered IQ associated with even modest exposure to fluoride. For example Xiang et al. (2003) found a threshold for IQ lowering at 1.9 ppm. Ding et al. (2010) have found a lowering of IQ in the range of 0.3 to 3 ppm. Moreover, they and other researchers, have reported a correlation between the extent of the IQ lowered and the level of fluoride exposure as measured in the urine.

    7) Recently a team from Harvard University (Choi et al, 2012) reviewed 27 of these IQ studies using a meta-analysis. They found a remarkable consistency in the results even though they were derived from four different countries (China, India, Iran and Mexico). Of the 27 studies comparing villages with low levels of fluoride and with villages with modest to high levels of fluoride (0.88- 11.5 ppm), 26 revealed a lower IQ in the children from the “high” fluoride village. The mean difference was 7 IQ points, which from a population perspective is highly significant. Such a shift would reduce the number of geniuses in a large population by at least 50%, and approximately double the number of mentally handicapped.

    8) The mechanism by which this IQ lowering could occur is not fully understood. However, direct toxicological action by fluoride on the developing nervous system is a biologically feasible likelihood. There have now been well over one hundred animal studies indicating that fluoride can cross the blood brain barrier and cause changes in the brain (see appendix 1 in the book “The Case Against Fluoride” by Connett, Beck and Micklem). Another mechanism is an indirect one, via disturbance of thyroid hormone metabolism, which should be considered (See chapter 8 of the National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA’s standards, NRC, 2006, for a comprehensive review of fluoride’s interactions with the endocrine system). The finding that even variations in thyroxin levels within the maternal euthyroid (normal) range can subtly affect the IQ of offspring (Pop et al 1995, 1999) highlights the very critical role of the hormone in controlling normal neural development. The prior therapeutic use of F to reduce thyroid hormone levels in cases of thyrotoxicosis is well documented (Goldemberg, (1926, 1930, 1932); May (1935, 1937); Orlowski (1932) and Galletti and G. Joyet, (1958)).

    9) There is evidence that the incidence of osteosarcoma, a frequently lethal bone cancer, increased in teenage boys in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated areas (Hoover et al., 1991); Cohn, 1992). These findings were greatly strengthened by a case-control study conducted at Harvard by Elise Bassin (Bassin et al., 2006). Bassin found that young boys exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th, 7th and 8th years had a 5-7 fold risk of succumbing to osteosarcoma by the age of 20. At the time that this study was published Bassin’s thesis adviser, Chester Douglass promised in a letter (Douglass and Joshipura, 2006) that his larger study would refute her findings. However, Douglass’s study was finally published (Kim et al., 2011) failed to refute Bassin’s thesis. In other words we have a high quality – unrefuted - study, which indicates that fluoridation may actually be killing a few young men each year.

    10) Given the above uncertainties concerning the causation of harm to human health through mandatory fluoridation of the public drinking water of whole populations, allied to the very dubious advantage for dental health of the practice, it is my considered opinion that on the balance of medical probabilities that there is a strong case for not considering the fluoridation of public drinking water. This statement is made also in the light of ethical issues concerning a) the incidence of avoidable dental fluorosis in young people and b) the mass medication of a whole population without prior informed consent.

    11) Statement on conflicts of interest. I have no commercial interests or research grants, current or past, concerning the fluoridation of drinking water. I hold no shares in any companies involved in water fluoridation. I have never received a fee for speaking on the topic of fluoridation.

    References
    Bassin, EB, Wypij, D, Davis, DB, and Mittleman, MA. (2006). “Age-specific Fluoride
    Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States),” Cancer Causes and
    Control 17, no. 4 (May): 421–28.

    CDC (1999). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Achievements in Public Health,
    1900–1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries,” Mortality and
    Morbidity Weekly Review 48, no. 41 (October 22, 1999): 933–40, http://www.cdc.gov/
    mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm.

    CDC (2010). Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Barker L and Dye BA. Nov 2010, Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 199–2004 National Center for Health Satistics. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf
    Choi, A.L., et al., Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environ Health Perspect, 2012

    Cohn, PD (1992). An Epidemiologic Report on Drinking Water and Fluoridation, New Jersey Department of Health, Environmental Health Service, November 8, 1992. Note:
    The original title of this report was A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water
    Fluoridation and the Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. The word “osteosar-
    coma” was deleted from the title soon after the report was released; http://fluoridealert
    .org/cohn-1992.pdf.

    Connett, P., Beck, J. Micklem, H.S. The Case Against Fluoride. Chelsea Green, Vermont, 2006.
    Douglass, CW and Joshipura, K (2006). “Caution Needed in Fluoride and Osteosarcoma Study” (letter), Cancer Causes & Control 17, no. 4 (May 2006): 481–82.

    Ekstrand, J., Boreus, LO and P. de Chateau, P. (1981). No Evidence of Transfer of Fluoride from
    Plasma to Breast Milk. British Medical Journal 283, no. 6294: 761–62.

    Ekstrand, J., Spak,CJ, Falch, J. et al. (1984). Distribution of Fluoride to Human Breast
    Milk Following Intake of High Doses of Fluoride. Caries Research 18 (1):
    93–95.

    Galletti P, and Joyet, G. (1958). Effect of Fluorine on Thyroidal Iodine Metabolism in
    Hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology 18, no. 10: 1102–10.

    Goldemberg, L. (1930). Traitement de la Maladie de Basedow et de l’Hyperthyroidisme par le Fluor. La Presse Médicale 102: 1751.

    Goldemberg, L. (1932). Comment Agiraient-ils Therapeutiquement les Fluoers dans le Goitre Exopthalmique et dans L’Hyperthyroidisme. La Semana Médica 39: 1659.

    Hoover, et al. (1991). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks,
    Public Health Service, Washington, DC, February 1991, http://health.gov/environment/
    ReviewofFluoride/ appendix E.

    Kim FM, Hayes C, Williams PL, et al. (2011). An assessment of bone fluoride and osteosarcoma. J Dent Res. 2011. doi: 10.1177/002203451141882

    May, W. (1935). Antagonismus Zwischen Jod und Fluor im Organismus. Klinische
    Wochenschrift 14: 790–92.

    May, W. (1937). Behandlung the Hyperthyreosen Einschliesslich des Schweren Genuinen
    Morbus Basedow mit Fluor. Klinische Wochenschrift 16: 562–64.

    NRC (2006). National Research Council of the National Academies, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006),
    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571.

    Orlowski, W. (1932). Sur la Valeur Therapeutique du Sang Animal du Bore et du Fluor dans la Maladie de Basedow. La Presse Medicale 42: 836–37.

    Pop VJ, Kuijpens JL, van Baar AL, Verkerk G, van Son MM, de Vijlder JJ, et al. Low maternal free thyroxine concentrations during early pregnancy are associated with impaired psychomotor development in infancy. Clinical Endocrinology 1999;50:149-55.
    Pop V.J., de Vries E., van Baar A., Waelkens J.J., de Rooy H.A., Horsten M., et al. Maternal Thyroid Peroxidase Antibodies during Pregnancy: A marker of impaired Child development? Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and
    References to the 25 IQ studies:
    (links to the references cited here can be accessed at http://fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride.refs.html. )

    Y. Chen, F. Han, Z. Zhou, et al., “Research on the Intellectual Development of Children in
    High Fluoride Areas,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 120–24, (originally published in 1991 in
    Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/
    FJ2008_v41_n2_p120-124.pdf.

    Ding Y, Gao Y, Sun H, Han H, Wang W, Ji X, Liu X, Sun D. (2010). The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children's intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Hazardous Materials doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.097.

    X. Guo, R. Wang, C. Cheng, et al., “A Preliminary Investigation of the IQs of 7–13 Year Old
    Children from an Area with Coal Burning-Related Fluoride Poisoning,” Fluoride 41, no. 2
    (2008): 125–28 (originally published in 1991 in Chinese Journal of Endemiology), http://www.
    fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p125-128.pdf.

    F. Hong, Y. Cao, D. Yang, and H. Wang, “Research on the Effects of Fluoride on Child
    Intellectual Development Under Different Environmental Conditions,” Fluoride 41, no. 2
    (2008): 156–60 (originally published in 2001 in Chinese Primary Health Care), http://www
    .fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p156-160.pdf.

    X. S. Li, J. L. Zhi, and R.O. Gao, “Effect of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence in Children,”
    Fluoride 28, no. 4 (1995): 189–92, http://fluoridealert.org/scher/li-1995.pdf.

    Y. Li, X. Jing, D. Chen, L. Lin, and Z. Wang, “Effects of Endemic Fluoride Poisoning on the
    Intellectual Development of Children in Baotou,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 161–64 (origi-
    nally published in 2003 in Chinese Journal of Public Health Management), http://www
    .fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p161-164.pdf.

    F. F. Lin, Aihaiti, H. X. Zhao, et al., “The Relationship of a Low-Iodine and High-Fluoride
    Environment to Subclinical Cretinism in Xinjiang,” Xinjiang Institute for Endemic
    Disease Control and Research; Office of Leading Group for Endemic Disease Control
    of Hetian Prefectural Committee of the Communist Party of China; and County Health
    and Epidemic Prevention Station, Yutian, Xinjiang, Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter 7,
    (1991): 3, http://fluoridealert.org/scher/lin-1991.pdf; also see http://www.fluoridealert.org/
    IDD.htm.

    S. Liu, Y. Lu, Z. Sun, et al., “Report on the Intellectual Ability of Children Living in High-
    Fluoride Water Areas,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 144–47 (originally published in 2000 in
    Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/
    FJ2008_v41_n2_p144-147.pdf.

    Y. Lu, Z. R. Sun, L. N. Wu, et al., “Effect of High-Fluoride Water on Intelligence in
    Children,” Fluoride 33, no. 2 (2000): 74–78, http://www.fluorideresearch.org/332/files/
    FJ2000_v33_n2_p74-78.pdf.

    Poureslami HR, et al. (2011). International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 21(Suppl s1):47.

    L. Qin, S. Huo, R. Chen, et al., “Using the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices to
    Determine the Effects of the Level of Fluoride in Drinking Water on the Intellectual
    Ability of School-Age Children,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 115–19 (originally published in
    1990 in Chinese Journal of the Control of Endemic Disease), http://www.fluorideresearch
    .org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p115-119.pdf.

    D. Ren, K. Li, and D. Liu, “A Study of the Intellectual Ability of 8–14 Year-Old Children in
    High Fluoride, Low Iodine Areas,” Fluoride 41, no. 4 (2008): 319–20 (originally published
    in 1989 in Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases), http://www.fluorideresearch
    .org/414/files/FJ2008_v41_n4_p319-320.pdf.

    D. Rocha-Amador, M. E. Navarro, L. Carrizales, et al., “Decreased Intelligence in Children
    and Exposure to Fluoride and Arsenic in Drinking Water,” Cadernos de Saúde Pública 23,
    suppl. 4 (2007): S579–87.

    B. Seraj, M. Shahrabi, M. Falahzade, et al., “Effect of High Fluoride Concentration in
    Drinking Water on Children’s Intelligence,” Journal of Dental Medicine 19, no. 2 (2007):
    80–86. Note: English translation forwarded by lead author (B. Seraj, department of pediatric
    dentistry, faculty of dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences), http://fluoridealert
    .org/scher/seraj-2007.trans.pdf.

    M. H. Trivedi, R. J. Verma, N. J. Chinoy, et al., “Effect of High Fluoride Water on Intelligence
    of School Children in India,” Fluoride 40, no. 3 (2007): 178–83, http://www.fluoride
    research.org/403/files/FJ2007_v40_n3_p178-183.pdf.

    G. Wang, D. Yang, F. Jia, and H. Wang, “A Study of the IQ Levels of Four- to Seven-Year-Old
    Children in High Fluoride Areas,” Fluoride 41, no. 4 (2008): 340–43 (originally published
    in 1996 in Endemic Diseases Bulletin [China]), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/414/files/
    FJ2008_v41_n4_p340-343.pdf.

    S. Wang, H. Zhang, W. Fan, et al., “The Effects of Endemic Fluoride Poisoning Caused by
    Coal Burning on the Physical Development and Intelligence of Children,” Fluoride 41,
    no. 4 (2008): 344–48 (originally published in 2005 in Journal of Applied Clinical Pediatrics
    [China]), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/414/files/FJ2008_v41_n4_p344-348.pdf.

    S. X. Wang, Z. H. Wang, X. T. Cheng, et al., “Arsenic and Fluoride Exposure in Drinking
    Water: Children’s IQ and Growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi Province, China,”
    Environmental Health Perspectives 115, no. 4 (2007): 643–47, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
    pmc/articles/PMC1852689/.

    Q. Xiang, Y. Liang, L. Chen, et al., “Effect of Fluoride in Drinking Water on Children’s
    Intelligence,” Fluoride 36, no. 2 (2003): 84–94, http://www.fluorideresearch.org/362/files/
    FJ2003_v36_n2_p84-94.pdf. Also see Q. Xiang, Y. Liang, M. Zhou, and H. Zang, “Blood
    Lead of Children in Wamiao-Xinhuai Intelligence Study” (letter), Fluoride 36, no. 3 (2003):
    198–99, http://www.fluorideresearch.org/363/files/FJ2003_v36_n3_p198-199.pdf.

    L. B. Zhao, G. H. Liang, D. N. Zhang, and X. R. Wu, “Effect of High-Fluoride Water Supply
    on Children’s Intelligence,” Fluoride 29, no. 4 (1996): 190–92, http://fluoridealert.org/scher/
    zhao-1996.pdf.

    The following five Chinese I.Q. studies have not yet been translated:

    J. A. An, S. Z. Mei, A. P. Liu, et al., “Effect of High Level of Fluoride on Children’s Intelligence”
    (article in Chinese), Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Fang Zhi Za Zhi 7, no. 2 (1992): 93–94.

    Z. X. Fan, H. X. Dai, A. M. Bai, et al., “Effect of High Fluoride Exposure on Children’s
    In Intelligence” (article in Chinese), Huan Jing Yu Jian Kang Za Zhi 24, no. 10 (2007): 802–3.
    Y. L. Xu, C. S. Lu, and X. N. Zhang, “Effect of Fluoride on Children’s Intelligence” (article in
    Chinese), Di Fang Bing Tong Bao 9 (1994): 83–84.

    L. M. Yao, Y. Deng, S. Y. Yang, et al., “Comparison of Children’s Health and Intelligence
    Between the Fluorosis Area with Altering Water Source and Those without Altering Water
    Source” (article in Chinese), Yu Fang Yi Xue Wen Xian Xin Xi 3, no. 1 (1997): 42–43.

    J. W. Zhang, H. Yao, and Y. Chen, “Effect of High Level of Fluoride and Arsenium on
    Children’s Intelligence” (article in Chinese), Zhong Guo Gong Gong Wei Sheng Xue Bao 17,
    no. 2 (1998): 119.


  • Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭VNP


    Seeing as the government are cutting some of the cancer treatment benefits and closing mental health hospitals such as Ballinasloe, Why are they still so concerned with cavities in peoples teeth seems like a very small concern vs general mental health hospitals, It seems logical to me that someone is being paid to keep buying these chemicals and distributing them at the expense of the tax paying public.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    VNP wrote: »
    Seeing as the government are cutting some of the cancer treatment benefits and closing mental health hospitals such as Ballinasloe, Why are they still so concerned with cavities in peoples teeth seems like a very small concern vs general mental health hospitals, It seems logical to me that someone is being paid to keep buying these chemicals and distributing them at the expense of the tax paying public.

    Water fluoridation is cheap. It costs €1.3 million a year to buy the hydrofluorosilicic acid to fluoridate across the country. Not much room in there for paying 'someone' off. Dental health is no 'small concern' either - it becomes pretty costly if you eliminate preventative measures.


  • Registered Users Posts: 376 ✭✭Treora


    Wow Fianna Fail church mad TDs supressed the government report to end fluoridation.

    I suspect that fluoridations have a touch of the eye twitching zealotry of de catholic church to them. Suppress, control, hate - the crazed and fanatical fluoridationists. If they like fluoride so much and hate democracy by equal measure (80% of the nation disagrees with them) then they can swallow everyone elses share. No one would mind.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Treora wrote: »
    Wow Fianna Fail church mad TDs supressed the government report to end fluoridation.

    Worth pointing out that this is not a goverment report, indeed it's not even an agreed joint committee report. The committee didn't approve it's publishing, it probably does reflect John Gormley's views alright, but clearly didn't get committee approval.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    Worth pointing out that this is not a goverment report, indeed it's not even an agreed joint committee report. The committee didn't approve it's publishing, it probably does reflect John Gormley's views alright, but clearly didn't get committee approval.

    Its a thoroughly investigated report though. full with common sense.

    Any idea why they didn't approve it ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    Its a thoroughly investigated report though. full with common sense.

    Any idea why they didn't approve it ?

    Because better researched studies (the Fluoridation Forum's for instance) came to completely different conclusions. This report wasn't approved because the committee didn't agree with Gormley's opinions.

    Gormley himself didn't follow through when he was in government, so you have to wonder how seriously he took some of the claims in the report.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    Because better researched studies (the Fluoridation Forum's for instance) came to completely different conclusions. This report wasn't approved because the committee didn't agree with Gormley's opinions.

    Gormley himself didn't follow through when he was in government, so you have to wonder how seriously he took some of the claims in the report.

    What in the report is unfounded and conflicting ?

    And its not Gormley's opinions


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    What in the report is unfounded and conflicting ?

    And its not Gormley's opinions

    It conflicts pretty much entirely with the Fluoridation Forum report - which used peer-reviewed science to form a judgement.
    And yes - it's Gormley's opinions. He's made them clear over the years, and he drafted this report individually - before bringing it to the joint committee - who then rejected it's publication.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    It conflicts pretty much entirely with the Fluoridation Forum report - which used peer-reviewed science to form a judgement.
    And yes - it's Gormley's opinions. He's made them clear over the years, and he drafted this report individually - before bringing it to the joint committee - who then rejected it's publication.

    That's a No then to my question

    So we throw this

    A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards (2006)
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571


    And about 350 other points made in the Bibliography out with the garbage ?
    The committee notes that the vast of majority of those on the Forum for fluorida-tion had records of being strongly in favor of water fluoridation]

    Is that the same forum?

    And what is wrong with the executive Summary ? Seems to me they have a well balanced approach


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    That's a No then to my question

    So we throw this

    A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards (2006)
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571


    And about 350 other points made in the Bibliography out with the garbage ?


    Well - let's see. The review you reference related to the maximum EPA standard for fluoridation in the US - which is four times the legal limit in the EU. Their findings were as follows-
    The committee’s conclusions regarding the potential for adverse effects from fluoride at 2 to 4 mg/L in drinking water do not address the lower exposures commonly experienced by most U.S. citizens. Fluoridation is widely practiced in the United States to protect against the development of dental caries; fluoride is added to public water supplies at 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L. The charge to the committee did not include an examination of the benefits and risks that might occur at these lower concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.

    So, the actual degree of fluoridation practised in the US is well below the levels researched - and any findings they made would not actually relate to the Irish situation. All they end up recommending is that the EPA safe limit should reflect the actual degree of fluoridation practised in the US. And that's ignoring the various findings in this review that contradict claims made within Gormley's document.

    weisses wrote: »
    Is that the same forum?

    And what is wrong with the executive Summary ? Seems to me they have a well balanced approach

    Yes - it's the same forum that the man with a long history of opposing fluoridation says was biased towards supporting fluoridation. Their report was still based on peer-reviewed studies of the subject - unlike this one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    Yes - it's the same forum that the man with a long history of opposing fluoridation says was biased towards supporting fluoridation. Their report was still based on peer-reviewed studies of the subject - unlike this one.

    So because you say he is biased the other way his view on the forum is also a biased one. ???

    Even the European report you posted here has contradictions in it as i showed earlier in the thread

    Fact remains that mass fluoridation of the water supply has no positive effect on dental health ... as is stated in different reports


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    weisses wrote: »
    So because you say he is biased the other way his view on the forum is also a biased one. ???

    Given that he has an agenda (a self-confessed one), I'm likely to doubt his perspective on the panel working on the the Dept of Health report. He's not exactly impartial, is he?
    weisses wrote: »
    Even the European report you posted here has contradictions in it as i showed earlier in the thread

    Fact remains that mass fluoridation of the water supply has no positive effect on dental health ... as is stated in different reports

    The Euro report didn't take a biased route into the subject, so it's clear enough about the pros and cons before settling on summary recommendations. If you think that mass fluoridation has no effect on dental health, you haven't been paying attention to their findings.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    alastair wrote: »
    Given that he has an agenda (a self-confessed one), I'm likely to doubt his perspective on the panel working on the the Dept of Health report. He's not exactly impartial, is he?

    I don't see any conflicting findings in the report not even from him personally ... I think when you research on who is on that forum you could reach the same conclusion

    alastair wrote: »
    The Euro report didn't take a biased route into the subject, so it's clear enough about the pros and cons before settling on summary recommendations. If you think that mass fluoridation has no effect on dental health, you haven't been paying attention to their findings.

    I quote the report again
    Figures indicate.. independent of the fluoridation policies across the EU Member
    States, there has been a consistent decline over time in tooth decay in 12 year old children from the mid-1970s, regardless of whether drinking water, milk or salt are fluoridated.

    So when i say fluoridation of the water supply has no positive effect on dental health


    I actually state something from the report


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement