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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Fluoride and drinking water

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    jh79 wrote: »
    Why does it matter? It''s harmless at our levels

    Not the point if it doesn't need to be there then it shouldn't be there


  • Options
    #123
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Not the point if it doesn't need to be there then it shouldn't be there

    Why? It's good for your teeth and is harmless so there is no reason why it shouldn't be added.


  • Options
    #124
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    jh79 wrote: »
    Why? It's good for your teeth and is harmless so there is no reason why it shouldn't be added.

    I'm responsible for my own health not the government. Could very well be the reason why the quality of our water is shyte compared to other countries in terms of quality. Probably dates back to a time before most people brushed their teeth.


  • Options
    #125
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,134 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I'm responsible for my own health not the government. Could very well be the reason why the quality of our water is shyte compared to other countries in terms of quality. Probably dates back to a time before most people brushed their teeth.

    adding flouride has no effect on the quality of the water.


  • Options
    #126
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,695 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    jh79 wrote: »
    Fluoride is an element so there is only one type.

    In it's 60+ year history there is no convincing evidence that it causes any problems bar cosmetic staining of teeth.
    The staining of teeth is associated with natural fluoride levels way above EU safety limits.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,695 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I'm responsible for my own health not the government. Could very well be the reason why the quality of our water is shyte compared to other countries in terms of quality. Probably dates back to a time before most people brushed their teeth.
    Farm run off is a major issue here. Nitrates and organics.

    BTW you live in the EU, where there's safety standards everywhere.


  • Options
    #128
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    The staining of teeth is associated with natural fluoride levels way above EU safety limits.

    Yeah at our levels it shouldn't be a problem. Do you mean natural sources of fluoride? The whole two types of flouride thing really bugs me.

    Have we Gemma to blame for this nonsense rearing its head again?


  • Options
    #129
    Quickpip
    Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭Quickpip


    donaghs wrote: »
    This is NOT a good comparison and excuse to keep fluoride in the water.

    A few years back I remember reading a quote from Coca Cola that the NI sales were higher per person than in the RoI. Can't find the quote now, but Northern Ireland does seems to have some particularly specific (perhaps cultural) dental issues:

    https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/poor-diet-and-dental-hygiene-the-root-cause-of-tooth-decay-1-1863691
    "Donncha O’Carolan, acting chief dental officer for Northern Ireland, says the problem will only be overcome when people reduce the level of sugar in their diets and regularly brush their teeth with fluoride toothpaste.

    Read more at: https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/poor-diet-and-dental-hygiene-the-root-cause-of-tooth-decay-1-1863691"

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-16024428 (Northern Ireland teenagers' tooth decay levels among worst in Europe)

    The lazy solution of flouridated water is suggested in the articles - but the key point is still that, in general, NI people are consuming too much sugar and not brushing their teeth as much as other Europeans!

    Sorry for the delay in responding to you.

    The links you provided demonstrated my exact point about NI having significantly higher decay rates, thank you.

    Please provide the exact study that shows the NI population are not brushing their teeth as well or consuming more sugar than their neighbours in the south.

    Of course cutting the levels of sugar in their diets is the prime objective to lower dental decay rates.
    My point is that comparing the 2 populations(NI vs ROI) show that ROI has significantly lower decay rates. Now you can draw your own conclusions. But given that water fluoridation has been proven to significantly lower decay rates in numerous quality studies then i think its a worthwhile observation.

    Anyway as talked about previously the real question is Autonomy. And actually i'm not in favour of public water fluoridation for this reason.
    However you have to realise there will definitely be increased decay rates with its removal. This will have obvious health issues for the population and put more significant extra pressure on the health service to deal with.
    Those in lower socio-economic groups will see disproportionate increases in decay rates.


  • Options
    #130
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,695 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    jh79 wrote: »
    Yeah at our levels it shouldn't be a problem. Do you mean natural sources of fluoride? The whole two types of flouride thing really bugs me.

    Have we Gemma to blame for this nonsense rearing its head again?

    natural fluoride levels as in natural levels of fluoride


    There's only one stable isotope, fluorine-19
    None of the others have a half-life of more than two hours.


  • Options
    #131
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,695 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Quickpip wrote: »
    The links you provided demonstrated my exact point about NI having significantly higher decay rates, thank you.
    Isn't dental care free in NI ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Quickpip
    Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭Quickpip


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Isn't dental care free in NI ?

    Free up until the age of 18, i think. After which it is
    subsidised either wholly or in apart by the NHS(means tested). Of course people can also avail of private treatment.


  • Options
    #133
    ppn
    Registered Users Posts: 175 ✭✭ppn


    The crux of the issue is topical application versus ingestion of fluoride; the latter being unnecessary and arguably, non-quantifiable. It is an outdated practise and Ireland lags behind as per usual.

    Anti-fluoride groups are typically brushed off as "conspiracy nuts" with mention of Dr. Strangelove, Nazi era, etc.

    While those questioning quality of studies from the past or pro-fluoridation papers have a different view:

    "Dr. William Hirzy, former Environmental Protection Agency risk assessment specialist, says, "Damage at a concentration of 1.5 ppm in water offers no meaningful margin of safety to protect the brains of a whole population of infants drinking fluoridated water at 0.7 ppm. Without going into detailed calculations of total dose, a safety factor of ten (to account for the expected range of sensitivity in a large populations), would reduce the allowed level in water to less than 0.1 ppm in water."

    "Fluoride may diminish kidney and liver function in adolescents, study suggests" (THE MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL / MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE)

    ttps://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-08/tmsh-fmd080219.php

    https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/fluoride-s-brain-research-is-alarming-and-growing/

    "Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries"
    ttps://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract

    JAMA Study: "Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada"

    Not just "conspiracy nuts"!

    "Scientists, public health officials and medical professionals have been leaders in the anti-fluoridation movement. Robert Carton and William Hirzy, scientists and former presidents of EPA unions, opposed fluoridation for decades. Former International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology President David Kennedy has denounced the policy as well; the most notable person is the late Nobel Prize-winning pharmacologist Arvid Carlsson who said fluoridation was “obsolete.” There are also dentists who challenge the validity of the research supporting water fluoridation. Dr. Hardy Limeback, the former Head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, explained that none of the studies in favor of fluoridated water have been double-blinded randomized clinical control trials. This method of evidence collection tends to neutralize bias and is usually necessary for the approval of medications. Some scientists refer to this approach as “the gold standard” of research. Because of these voices, it’s become more difficult for pro-fluoride parties to frame the debate as a minority of quacks versus the rational majority."

    Opinions and rebuttals welcome....


  • Options
    #134
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    ppn wrote: »
    The crux of the issue is topical application versus ingestion of fluoride; the latter being unnecessary and arguably, non-quantifiable. It is an outdated practise and Ireland lags behind as per usual.

    Anti-fluoride groups are typically brushed off as "conspiracy nuts" with mention of Dr. Strangelove, Nazi era, etc.

    While those questioning quality of studies from the past or pro-fluoridation papers have a different view:

    "Dr. William Hirzy, former Environmental Protection Agency risk assessment specialist, says, "Damage at a concentration of 1.5 ppm in water offers no meaningful margin of safety to protect the brains of a whole population of infants drinking fluoridated water at 0.7 ppm. Without going into detailed calculations of total dose, a safety factor of ten (to account for the expected range of sensitivity in a large populations), would reduce the allowed level in water to less than 0.1 ppm in water."

    "Fluoride may diminish kidney and liver function in adolescents, study suggests" (THE MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL / MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE)

    ttps://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-08/tmsh-fmd080219.php

    https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/fluoride-s-brain-research-is-alarming-and-growing/

    "Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries"
    ttps://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract

    JAMA Study: "Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada"

    Not just "conspiracy nuts"!

    "Scientists, public health officials and medical professionals have been leaders in the anti-fluoridation movement. Robert Carton and William Hirzy, scientists and former presidents of EPA unions, opposed fluoridation for decades. Former International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology President David Kennedy has denounced the policy as well; the most notable person is the late Nobel Prize-winning pharmacologist Arvid Carlsson who said fluoridation was “obsolete.” There are also dentists who challenge the validity of the research supporting water fluoridation. Dr. Hardy Limeback, the former Head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, explained that none of the studies in favor of fluoridated water have been double-blinded randomized clinical control trials. This method of evidence collection tends to neutralize bias and is usually necessary for the approval of medications. Some scientists refer to this approach as “the gold standard” of research. Because of these voices, it’s become more difficult for pro-fluoride parties to frame the debate as a minority of quacks versus the rational majority."

    Opinions and rebuttals welcome....

    It's not a case of topical vs ingestion. Water flouridation is a systemic delivery system that provides topical exposure to flouride at a small but regular intervals.

    They are descirbed as conspiracy nuts because of the actions of those who oppose it.

    Take Hirzy for example.

    "Deniers will typically claim 1,500+ EPA scientists are opposed to fluoridation.[21] Upon closer inspection, however, this "study" is actually just a grievance letter written in 1999 by J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. on the letterhead of his local National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280. The letter — far from representing the views of 1,500 scientists (the union represents all employees, which includes non-scientists like lawyers[22]) — is really the result of a poorly attended meeting of one local union chapter. With only 20 of said union chapter members in attendance, Hirzy and his followers were able to adopt a resolution opposing fluoridation. When it became obvious to the wider union that Hirzy and his local chapter were falsely presenting their fringe position as representing the view of the entire union, the chapter officers who actually represented the majority of the members rapidly disowned Hirzy's position.[23] "

    How would you do a double blind randomised trials with water flouridation?

    Also its not medication, it's a public health intervention and no different to fortified food.


Advertisement