Take your medicine.?.

nullzero

phantom_lord wrote: »

i also see nullzero can't back up any reason for his irrational fear of fluoridation as it's only been proved to be beneficial.

Is that a fact?
I never even attmepted to, you never asked me, but then your "work here is done".
What work is that exactly?

phantom_lord

nullzero wrote: »

Is that a fact?
I never even attmepted to, you never asked me, but then your "work here is done".
What work is that exactly?

i asked you several times and you never replied.

proving this ct is nonsense of course.

nullzero

phantom_lord wrote: »

i asked you several times and you never replied.

proving this ct is nonsense of course.

No you didn't.
Read your own posts.
:rolleyes:

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

I was wondering if the rest of you would agree that the best path to take would be to make water fluoridation an optional thing.
I've made the point a few times already but surely those who feel (rightly or wrongly depending on opinion) that fluoridation is detrimental to their health should be aloud to consume non fluoridated water whilst those who wish to continue with fluoridated water could pay for that themselves?

Any thoughts?

Fluoridation has certainly been useful in reducing tooth decay, and most dental experts are pretty happy with retaining it as a means of keeping tooth decay down. The actual potential downside (fluorosis) isn't proving to be an actual existant problem for the vast majority. I'm benign on it myself - I'm happy to drink lots of that water and know that it's doing me no harm and a bit of good. I'm opposed to those who make false claims as to the dangers of fluoridation, but have no problem with the argument that the benefits might have been made redundant by the widespread use of fluoride toothpastes. There's a pretty large leap between that position and the scaremongering of the anti-fluoridation crowd all the same. And banning something because someone 'feels' it's unsafe wouldn't really work for me.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Fluoridation has certainly been useful in reducing tooth decay, and most dental experts are pretty happy with retaining it as a means of keeping tooth decay down. The actual potential downside (fluorosis) isn't proving to be an actual existant problem for the vast majority. I'm benign on it myself - I'm happy to drink lots of that water and know that it's doing me no harm and a bit of good. I'm opposed to those who make false claims as to the dangers of fluoridation, but have no problem with the argument that the benefits might have been made redundant by the widespread use of fluoride toothpastes. There's a pretty large leap between that position and the scaremongering of the anti-fluoridation crowd all the same.

OK fair enough, but do you not believe that we should all be free to choose what additives are in something as inescapable as the water supply?
I was coming from the position of each person being free to choose what goes into their own body, regardless of the other arguments.

uprising2

yekahs wrote: »

Haha, the second link that shows up is this thread!

None of the results show that there is sodium fluoride in rat poison. Just CT's sites saying that there is.

Maybe you didn't look hard enough

WATER FLUORIDATION

By Dr. Lawrence Wilson

Revised © September 2007

I recently read over a hundred studies on both sides of the water fluoridation issue. Here is a summary of the findings.


Sodium fluoride, the chemical used in water fluoridation, is a cumulative toxin. It is sold as rat poison, used in pesticides, and is the active ingredient in Saran nerve gas.

http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/fluoridation.htm

phantom_lord

nullzero wrote: »

It's not conclusive that it is benificial.
There's evidence to suggest that it is anything but benificial.
So therefor if you want it, you can pay for it, I'm not going to bother myself thanks very much.

Well if you had read the case I had linked earlier; and I must note they undertook a far greater indepth study of the subject than you and they found:

The effect on the teeth is demonstrably beneficial. The purpose and effect of fluoridation is to improve children’s teeth and so, indirectly, their health. These benefits to a great extent are carried forward into adult life. Adults by ingesting fluoridated water obtain little or no advantage, but neither do they suffer any disadvantages.

It is beyond question that dental caries in children has become a national problem in this State. The fact that as a disease it is not infectious or contagious or, apparently, otherwise communicable to other persons is immaterial. It can result not merely in damage to the teeth themselves but, through the existence of decayed or decaying teeth, may be injurious to general health. The State is organised for the common welfare of all its citizens and is a society arising from man’s nature. Apart from particular expressed limitations contained in the Constitution, the Oireachtas may not enact legislation depriving citizens of their essential rights as human persons or as members of the family. The State has the duty of protecting the citizens from dangers to health in a manner not incompatible or inconsistent with the rights of those citizens as human persons.

Dental caries is no new thing. It has adversely affected generation after generation and will continue to do so if measures are not taken. This constitutes the type of danger from which the State has not merely the right but the duty to protect its citizens. To deal with the problem the Oireachtas has chosen a method, namely, the fluoridation of the public water supply. The plaintiff has failed to refute the evidence that this is not only the most effective method but is indeed the only effective method. The method undoubtedly does result in a minimal interference with the constitution of the body, but such interference is not one which in any way impairs the functions of the body or, to any extent discernible by the ordinary person, its appearance.

. The Court is left in no doubt that the fluoridation of water to the extent proposed in the Dublin Health Authority area where the plaintiff resides cannot be said to involve physical changes which affect in any way either the wholeness or the soundness of the body of the person concerned. The ingestion of the fluoridated water cannot, therefore, be said to constitute an infringement of or a failure to respect (gan cur isteach ar) the bodily integrity of the plaintiff or the bodily integrity of her children.

Now I've no interest in going in circles on this topic, I've proved my point with no retort. Now if you have evidence to trump this then I'm all ears. Otherwise you should just admit that you're being irrational in saying this is harmful and that it's not beneficial.

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

Maybe you didn't look hard enough
http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/fluoridation.htm

Maybe you didn't get the bit about Sodium Fluoride as an active ingredient in an actual rat poison? Claims without evidence can be found all over the place.

And the good doctor?:

This website is dedicated to deep healing and mental development. Development has to do with the unfolding of the potential of a human being, far beyond just removing symptoms of illness. In fact, reducing physical symptoms is the easiest part of the task for most people. The more difficult part is to focus on a larger goal or task of opening up brain centers that are rarely even tapped by most human beings.

The Center For Development is a non-profit, tax-exempt public foundation established in 2007 to help promote nutritional balancing science and mental development. It has some funds available to help those who cannot afford the nutritional supplements and other materials needed for healing the body, mind and spirit. I welcome contributions to it.

Forgive my cynicism.

Oh and 'Saran gas' (assuming he means Sarin gas and not saran wrap) doesn't contain sodium fluoride:

Sarin is a chiral molecule, with four substituents attached to the tetrahedral phosphorus center.[4] It is prepared from methylphosphonyl difluoride and a mixture of isopropyl alcohol.

CH3P(O)F2 + (CH3)2CHOH → [(CH3)2CHO]CH3P(O)F + HF
Isopropylamine is added to neutralize the hydrogen fluoride generated during this alcoholysis reaction. As a binary chemical weapon, it can be generated in situ by this same reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Yitzhak Rabin

uprising2 wrote: »

Maybe you didn't look hard enough



http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/fluoridation.htm

Given that his website has a "Spiritual Section" and he advocates "Sauna therapy" and "Coffee Enemas :eek:" I wouldn't place to much credibility in him.

Also he spells Sarin gas incorrectly in his opening statement.

I haven't checked, but I am doubtful that his M.D. is genuine. Doubt his papers are peer reviewed either.

Try again..

uprising2

alastair wrote: »

It's ass-saving to the degree that they can point to a safe limit for a pollutant if it's found. Quite how it would save anybody's ass beyond that is lost on me for one.

Yea thanks for that, so filtering your water would be a wise decision, would it not?

phantom_lord

uprising2 wrote: »

Maybe you didn't look hard enough



http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/fluoridation.htm

So you still can't find an actual product with that substance as the main active ingredient?

phantom_lord

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea thanks for that, so filtering your water would be a wise decision, would it not?

Only if you have an irrational fear of tap water. So in your case, yes.

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea thanks for that, so filtering your water would be a wise decision, would it not?

Only if you want to protect your precious bodily fluids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XhhTF7vRM

Yitzhak Rabin

Sodium fluoride, the chemical used in water fluoridation, is a cumulative toxin. It is sold as rat poison, used in pesticides, and is the active ingredient in Saran nerve gas.

I'm not an expert. But I have a rudimentary grasp of chemistry which leads me to believe this doctor is talking out his ar$e.

This is Sarin Gas, or 2-(Fluoro-methylphosphoryl)oxypropane



I don't see any sodium(Na) there....

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

OK fair enough, but do you not believe that we should all be free to choose what additives are in something as inescapable as the water supply?
I was coming from the position of each person being free to choose what goes into their own body, regardless of the other arguments.

Additives in the water supply are an unavoidable fact of life in this country - it needs to be treated given the pressures we place it under - or it will be unsafe. So you'd either have to forgo any group scheme and dig a personal well, or reassure yourself that the additives in the water aren't causing you any harm.

uprising2

Ok so flouride is added to our water for our dental health?, or maybe the health of the dental industry???

Tooth decay has been on the decline in BOTH flouridated and NON flouridated water supplies.

Hope these pubmed links help you guy's realise that we don't need flouride in our water.

The prevalence of dental fluorosis is higher amongst children and adolescents with fluoridated water supplies. Comparisons with 1984 data show an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis since that time.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15074871

CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of aesthetically important DF ('Mild' and 'Moderate') was low and similar in both communities and considerably lower than the expected level at water fluoridation concentrations of 1 ppm. However, the prevalence of 'Very Mild' fluorosis was twice as frequent in Dublin than in Freiburg.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17394893

Dental caries and enamel fluorosis among the fluoridated population in the Republic of Ireland and non fluoridated population in Northern Ireland in 2002.
The prevalence of enamel fluorosis has increased in RoI since 1984, 23% and 36% of 8- and 15-year olds respectively in fluoridated areas had Dean's Index scores at the questionable or greater level in 2002 compared with 6% and 5% respectively in 1984.

Caries(TOOTH DECAY) has declined in fluoridated and non fluoridated groups in both jurisdictions since the early 1960s. In RoI fluorosis levels were higher amongst lifetime residents of fluoridated communities and have increased since 1984.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16555718

Smile you got dental fluorosis

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

Tooth decay has been on the decline in BOTH flouridated and NON flouridated water supplies.

Hope these pubmed links help you guy's realise that we don't need flouride in our water.

Oh dear - you 'forgot' to quote this bit:

CONCLUSIONS: In 2002 apart from 8-year-olds, caries levels were lower amongst children resident in fluoridated communities in RoI than amongst corresponding age groups in non-fluoridated NI. Caries has declined in fluoridated and non fluoridated groups in both jurisdictions since the early 1960s

btw - do your teeth look anything like those above? Nope - me neither.

uprising2

alastair wrote: »

Oh dear - you 'forgot' to quote this bit:



btw - do your teeth look anything like those above? Nope - me neither.

Look at the bit you quoted that wasn't BOLD.........

"It is a philosophical matter", Dr Rynne said. "People are being medicated by the State without their approval. Being medicated means being given any substance with a view to diagnosis, treating or preventing a disease. No studies have been done in 40 years to ascertain the levels of fluoride in the Irish population. Everybody in Ireland is taking in unknown quantities and qualities of fluoride every day, depending on their level of consumption".

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=3071

I believe flouride must be taken out of the water in Ireland, then people can simply buy their flouride from some industrial waste unit.

Maybe people power can force the govt to remove it, a highly publicized online petition maybe, if that fails I have a little something up my sleeve.

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

No studies have been done in 40 years to ascertain the levels of fluoride in the Irish population. Everybody in Ireland is taking in unknown quantities and qualities of fluoride every day, depending on their level of consumption".

Regardless of the levels of fluoride in any crazy water drinkers, the question is the end effect of fluoridation. Is there a health risk? The evidence suggests not.

And your teeth - are they like the pic above?

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

if that fails I have a little something up my sleeve.

A reverse osmosis filter?

uprising2

alastair wrote: »

Regardless of the levels of fluoride in any crazy water drinkers, the question is the end effect of fluoridation. Is there a health risk? The evidence suggests not.

And your teeth - are they like the pic above?

alastair, having smoked for 26 years my teeth wouldn't get into an aquafresh ad, but I brush quite often, I think I have all the flouride I need in my toothpaste (that I don't swallow).
But honestly I don't think it should just be mandatory to add it to water, it's mass medication.
People should be given a choice, that's my only real point here, take it out of the water and tell people that it is no longer in it and if they'd like to re-floridate themselve's.

I'll bow out of this now, but honestly I can't see a valid reason to continue this mass medication which can lead to numerous illness's.

Possible Symptoms of Fluoride Poisoning

Please Note: Having one or more of these symptoms does not necessarily mean you are fluoride poisoned. This page is offered only as a guide, which can help you determine whether fluoride poisoning is a possibility. Only your doctor can diagnose and treat you.*

• Arthritis – stiff, painful joints with or without swelling; painful feet in morning
• Asthma – especially after showering in chlorine-filtered water
• Bony, painful lumps where tendons and ligaments attach to bones. Calcifications of connective tissue on X-ray, especially with pain and reduced range of motion
• Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) – especially if it lifts when you spend time in an unfluoridated city or switch to distilled water for drinking and cooking
• Cold – temperature below normal, feeling cold all the time, feeling cold soon after a hot bath or shower
• Colic in bottle-fed babies or colic developing when breast-fed babies start solids or are weaned
• Dental fluorosis (white or brown spots on teeth
• Diabetes – worsening symptoms
• Diabetes insipidus (a kidney ailment) – excessive thirst, increased water consumption that does not relieve thirst, dry throat and irritated eyes, and frequent, dilute urine, especially at night, with normal blood sugar findings
• Eyes – moving black spots (scotoma, or floaters)
• Fatigue, weakness and brain fog after bathing or showering in chlorine-filtered water
• Fibromyalgia (severe muscle weakness and/or pain with extremely sore spots on various bony areas)
• Food intolerances that seem to come and go
• Gastrointestinal problems – irritable bowel, nausea, diarrhea without apparent cause, heartburn and upper bowel pain especially after drinking a full glass of water
• Gum disease – irritated or bleeding gums despite good hygiene and diet; gums heal when you use unfluoridated toothpaste
• Heart palpitations and increased heart rate without exertion
• Kidney disease – worsening symptoms, kidney stones
• Skin – hives, blisters, rash on stomach or back within an hour of drinking fluoridated water or after bathing or showering in chlorine-filtered water
• Tea drinking – causes upset stomach, gastric pain, heart palpitations or “the jitters” similar to strong coffee
• Teeth – loosening or needing to be extracted despite good hygiene and diet
• Thyroid diseases – underactive (hypothyroid), overactive (hyperthyroid or Graves disease), goiter and nodules

http://www.slweb.org/ftrcpossiblesymptoms.html

As with other toxins, fluoride affects different individuals differently. Symptoms can vary widely and depend on many factors, such as one’s genetic predispositions, body burden (overall body accumulation from all sources), mode of exposure, and length of exposure time (whether acute, as in the workplace, or chronic, as with ingestion of fluoridated water and food).

http://www.slweb.org/ftrcsymptoms.html

Fluoridation Chemicals
The chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are derived from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer. Captured in the industry's wet scrubbing systems, these chemicals contain a number of contaminants (e.g. arsenic, lead) not found in pharmaceutical grade fluoride. Of greater interest is the fact that 2 recent peer-reviewed studies (Neurotoxicology, December 2000; International Journal of Environmental Studies, September 1999), have found an association between consumption of water containing hydrofluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride (the most commonly used fluoridation chemicals) and higher blood lead levels in children.
As of May 2007, approximately 67% of public water supplies in the United States are fluoridated. Of these water supplies, approximately 91% use hydrofluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride (together known as silicofluorides), while 9% use sodium fluoride. As with the silicofluorides, sodium fluoride is derived from the phosphate fertilizer industry.

http://www.slweb.org/chemicals.html

uprising2

alastair wrote: »

A reverse osmosis filter?

No some dirt on a high ranking member of Dail Eireann, involving young boy's and willies;).

nullzero

phantom_lord wrote: »

Well if you had read the case I had linked earlier; and I must note they undertook a far greater indepth study of the subject than you and they found:

Now I've no interest in going in circles on this topic, I've proved my point with no retort. Now if you have evidence to trump this then I'm all ears. Otherwise you should just admit that you're being irrational in saying this is harmful and that it's not beneficial.

How am I being irrational?

I repeatedly made the point that I and everyone else should be free to choose whether or not to ingest fluoride or anything else. Regardless of what other peoples feelings are on the subject.

If you're happy to ingest fluoride thats your business. I don't want to for my own reasons. Surely I should be free to not have it forced upon me.

I'd appreciate if you answered that point instead of being condescending as usual.

CiaranMT

uprising2 wrote: »

alastair, having smoked for 26 years my teeth wouldn't get into an aquafresh ad, but I brush quite often, I think I have all the flouride I need in my toothpaste (that I don't swallow).
But honestly I don't think it should just be mandatory to add it to water, it's mass medication.
People should be given a choice, that's my only real point here, take it out of the water and tell people that it is no longer in it and if they'd like to re-floridate themselve's.

I'll bow out of this now, but honestly I can't see a valid reason to continue this mass medication which can lead to numerous illness's.


http://www.slweb.org/ftrcpossiblesymptoms.html

I've been reading the debate here without contributing so far, but I feel I should say that the above link (to symptoms of fluoride poisoning) has nothing to do with the debate and is just scaremongering. The levels of sodium fluoride added to Irish drinking water (as has been stated earlier) are far below the maximum safe level. You'd have to (in relative terms) be shovelling the stuff down yer gob to produce serious symptoms.

uprising2 wrote: »

No some dirt on a high ranking member of Dail Eireann, involving young boy's and willies;).

Can't poor Mr. O' Dea ever catch a break? :pac:

nullzero

OK, so am I right in saying that the prevailing feelings from the "sceptic" side on this topic is that we should (in no particular order)...

• Accept that fluoride is fine and stop talking about the subject.
• Forget about our right to choose what goes into our own bodies.
• Not question the benifits in relation to the money spent on fluoridation.

If I've left anything out let me know.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

OK, so am I right in saying that the prevailing feelings from the "sceptic" side on this topic is that we should (in no perticular order)...

• Accept that fluoride is fine and stop talking about the subject.
• Forget about our right to choose what goes into our own bodies.
• Not question the benifits in relation to the money spent on fluoridation.

If I've left anything out let me know.

I'm skeptical about very little of this issue except for the rather overblown claims made for the health risks associated with fluoridation.

So maybe you should add to your list:

• Stop claiming sodium fluoride is rat poison.
• Stop claiming the Nazis/Commies (or anyone else) used fluoridated water for human pacification.
• Not equate massively toxic doses of sodium fluoride with the trace amounts used in water fluoridation

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

I'm skeptical about very little of this issue except for the rather overblown claims made for the health risks associated with fluoridation.

So maybe you should add to your list:

• Stop claiming sodium fluoride is rat poison.
• Stop claiming the Nazis/Commies (or anyone else) used fluoridated water for human pacification.
• Not equate massively toxic doses of sodium fluoride with the trace amounts used in water fluoridation

Ok, we've been over that already, we don't agree.
Care to address what I posted?...

• Accept that fluoride is fine and stop talking about the subject.
• Forget about our right to choose what goes into our own bodies.
• Not question the benifits in relation to the money spent on fluoridation.

CiaranMT

nullzero wrote: »

OK, so am I right in saying that the prevailing feelings from the "sceptic" side on this topic is that we should (in no particular order)...

Accept that fluoride is fine and stop talking about the subject.

By and large, yes. But no, it should continue to be discussed and monitored (as I'm sure it currently is). Scaremongering doesn't help though.

Forget about our right to choose what goes into our own bodies.

What right is this exactly?

Not question the benifits in relation to the money spent on fluoridation.

The numerous benefits to children's teeth and ensuing health benefits are more than enough to merit fluoridation.

I wonder how much it costs to fluoridate water in this country.. Must see if I can find something on that.

phantom_lord

nullzero wrote: »

[*]Accept that fluoride is fine and stop talking about the subject.

More realise that the weight of evidence says it's fine.

nullzero wrote: »

[*]Forget about our right to choose what goes into our own bodies.

Where was this discussed?

nullzero wrote: »

[*]Not question the benifits in relation to the money spent on fluoridation.
[/LIST]

you question it, but the cost to benefit ratio is pretty clear.

nullzero wrote: »

If I've left anything out let me know.

What about maybe the CT side should stop propagating propaganda and lies about this subject area?

nullzero

What right is this exactly?

I'm sure this is a pretty basic type of human right, to not be force medicated against your will.

The numerous benefits to children's teeth and ensuing health benefits are more than enough to merit fluoridation.

I wonder how much it costs to fluoridate water in this country.. Must see if I can find something on that.

Again you're into an area where there is no real evidence that water fluoridation is required.
Most toothpastes are chocked full of fluoride, so whatever is in the water isn't going to have any great benifit.
If you're drinking fluoridated water and you don't have even a rudimnetary dental hygiene routine, there's a good chance you're going to have very bad teeth.

I myself have had a lot of fillings over the years.
I've been drinking fluoridated water since childhood and using fluoridated toothpaste and always tooth very good care of my teeth. I still had a lot of cavities and required fillings.
I've been using fluoride free toothpaste for about two years now and cut down dramtically on my intake of tap water, haven't had any problems since I started doing that. My dentist has even remarked on the improved condition of my teeth, but that is just be my own experience it might not be the same for everyone.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Ok, we've been over that already, we don't agree.
Care to address what I posted?...

Sure. Just so you're clear that disagreeing with my list of points without evidence doesn't make for a particularly compelling case.

Accept that fluoride is fine and stop talking about the subject.

What about accepting that it's fine and talking about it as much as you like - just trying to acknowledge the facts relating to it?

Forget about our right to choose what goes into our own bodies.

You can always exercise your right to opt out of public water schemes and dig a well.

Not question the benifits in relation to the money spent on fluoridation.

Well the study linked about indicated a benefit in tooth decay stats here, so it would be up to someone who has reservations to show the cost-benefit concerns they had. I don't know the cost, and I'm betting you don't either.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Again you're into an area where there is no real evidence that water fluoridation is required.
Most toothpastes are chocked full of fluoride, so whatever is in the water isn't going to have any great benifit.

And yet the study into the difference between ourselves (fluoridated) and the North (unfluoridated) shows benefit in lower tooth decay stats with fluoridation. Is that not 'real' evidence?

nullzero

Where was this discussed?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67660220&postcount=81
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67660220&postcount=81
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67660745&postcount=101
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67660745&postcount=101

you question it, but the cost to benefit ratio is pretty clear.

No it's not, as I already said, the amount of fluoride already in tooth paste would suggest that we're probably wasting our time fluoridating water for the sake of dental health.

What about maybe the CT side should stop propagating propaganda and lies about this subject area?

Why should you care if you're so sure fluoridation is fine?
What do you care about "CTers" and their beliefs, surely by your logic we're only deluding ourselves and therefore you should pity us rather than demand we agree with you?

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

And yet the study into the difference between ourselves (fluoridated) and the North (unfluoridated) shows benefit in lower tooth decay stats with fluoridation. Is that not 'real' evidence?

I would assume that the people involved in that study all attend a dentist regularly and actual clean their teeth.
You couldn't expect water flouridation to help somebody who just wont clean their teeth.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

No it's not, as I already said, the amount of fluoride already in tooth paste would suggest that we're probably wasting our time fluoridating water for the sake of dental health.

If you ignore the (posted) evidence that it reduces tooth decay levels against non-fluoridated areas.

CiaranMT

nullzero wrote: »

I'm sure this is a pretty basic type of human right, to not be force medicated against your will.

That's being a bit extreme... At any rate, nobody's forcing you to drink the tap water :pac:

Again you're into an area where there is no real evidence that water fluoridation is required.
Most toothpastes are chocked full of fluoride, so whatever is in the water isn't going to have any great benifit.
If you're drinking fluoridated water and you don't have even a rudimnetary dental hygiene routine, there's a good chance you're going to have very bad teeth.

I myself have had a lot of fillings over the years.
I've been drinking fluoridated water since childhood and using fluoridated toothpaste and always tooth very good care of my teeth. I still had a lot of cavities and required fillings.
I've been using fluoride free toothpaste for about two years now and cut down dramtically on my intake of tap water, haven't had any problems since I started doing that. My dentist has even remarked on the improved condition of my teeth, but that is just be my own experience it might not be the same for everyone.

But the thing is, there was evidence given earlier in the thread to show that fluoridation of water does have benefits.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

I would assume that the people involved in that study all attend a dentist regularly and actual clean their teeth.

I'd assume the same - so what could possibly explain the difference. Hmmm?

nullzero wrote: »

You couldn't expect water flouridation to help somebody who just wont clean their teeth

Well, actually you would. It's the fluoride helps in either case. Remember to brush your teeth kids!

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

I'd assume the same - so what could possible explain the difference. Hmmm?

I myself found that my own teeth improved after I stopped using fluoride tooth paste and reduced my intake of tap water.

As my dentist said to me, some people will be prone to different dental problems and a one size fits all solution (such as fluoridation) won't work in every case.

Well, actually you would. It's the fluoride helps in either case. Remember to brush your teeth kids!

Thats just silly.
If you don't clean your teeth and allow dirt to build up they will start to rot.
Fluoridated water can't do anything to stop that I'm afraid.
A toothbrush is a far greater tool for healthy teeth than fluoridated water, surely thats self evident.

nullzero

CiaranMT wrote: »

But the thing is, there was evidence given earlier in the thread to show that fluoridation of water does have benefits.

Here's the crux of most matters in this forum. I don't trust your sources and you don't trust mine...

phantom_lord

nullzero wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67660220&postcount=81
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67660220&postcount=81
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67660745&postcount=101
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67660745&postcount=101

Can you explain to me how two post from you is a) a discussion and b) translates into what you posted below?

nullzero wrote: »

OK, so am I right in saying that the prevailing feelings from the "sceptic" side on this topic is that we should (in no particular order)...


[*]Forget about our right to choose what goes into our own bodies.

nullzero wrote: »

No it's not, as I already said, the amount of fluoride already in tooth paste would suggest that we're probably wasting our time fluoridating water for the sake of dental health.

That might be your opinion, but that wasn't the findings in the case about this.

nullzero wrote: »

Why should you care if you're so sure fluoridation is fine?
What do you care about "CTers" and their beliefs, surely by your logic we're only deluding ourselves and therefore you should pity us

I do.

uprising2

Ok definately going to leave it at this, just listen what this man has to say, if anybody has a higher qualification and can contradict what he says please do, if not then don't.

William Hirzy

http://www.american.edu/cas/faculty/whirzy.cfm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2m_LVHD0c8

EDIT:
http://epw.senate.gov/107th/hir_0629.htm

EDITEDIT:

Stop Fluoridation Now!
Sign the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/4001k/

CiaranMT

nullzero wrote: »

You couldn't expect water flouridation to help somebody who just wont clean their teeth.

What has that to do with anything? No-one has said that it stops tooth decay on it's own.

Further to the cost benefits of fluoridation, this is taken from the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Sciences [Link]

And a snippet from it:

... the economic analysis found that for larger communities of more than 20,000 people where it costs about 50 cents per person to fluoridate the water, every $1 invested in this preventive measure yields approximately $38 savings in dental treatment costs.

Now I know that it's not to do with Ireland, but that's still a good saving. Still searching for something related to Ireland.

nullzero

CiaranMT wrote: »

What has that to do with anything? No-one has said that it stops tooth decay on it's own.

Further to the cost benefits of fluoridation, this is taken from the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Sciences [Link]

And a snippet from it:



Now I know that it's not to do with Ireland, but that's still a good saving. Still searching for something related to Ireland.

Hang on, if we're slapping fluoride toothpaste into our gobs, how much benifit are we getting from the water being fluoridated?
It seems like a waste of time to be fair.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

I myself found that my own teeth improved after I stopped using fluoride tooth paste and reduced my intake of tap water.

As my dentist said to me, some people will be prone to different dental problems and a one size fits all solution (such as fluoridation) won't work in every case.

So, you're suggesting that northeners share some common dental problem that southeners don't? Interesting (if strange).

CiaranMT

nullzero wrote: »

Here's the crux of most matters in this forum. I don't trust your sources and you don't trust mine...

So you'd take your sources over a High (or Supreme, forgive my short memory) Court decision, where in-depth research is carried out?

uprising2

CiaranMT wrote: »

So you'd take your sources over a High (or Supreme, forgive my short memory) Court decision, where in-depth research is carried out?

TAKE A LOOK!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67664648&postcount=142

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

So, you're suggesting that northeners share some common dental problem that southeners don't? Interesting (if strange).

No, never said that.
I'd be sceptical about fluoride being good for teeth from my own experiences.
My own teeth are a lot better since I cut out the flouride, but as I said it could just be me.

Kidchameleon

Source wikipedia....

In Ryan v. Attorney General (1965), the Supreme Court of Ireland held that water fluoridation did not infringe the plaintiff's right to bodily integrity.[63] However, the court found that such a right to bodily integrity did exist, despite the fact that it was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of Ireland, thus establishing the doctrine of unenumerated rights in Irish constitutional law.

phantom_lord

CiaranMT wrote: »

So you'd take your sources over a High (or Supreme, forgive my short memory) Court decision, where in-depth research is carried out?

Of course, it's the CT forum, youtube videos trump all.

Brown Bomber

okay, here are some facts from the WHO website.
http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro/...relandcar.html

According to their figures on a sample of subjects who have either fluoridated water from birth and unfluoridated water from birth and it records the occurrence of DMFT and S
D= Decayed M = Missing F = Filling T = Teeth S = Surface

Fact: While the figures do suggest that fluoridated is apparently more effective vs unfluoridated water against tooth decay.

The figures of fluoridated water include the use of fluoridated mouthwash and supplements, likewise the unfluoridated figures exlude use of fluoridated mouthwash and supplements.

Only 1 positive potential impact. Improved oral health. This in itself is dubious as evidenced by the fact that only some EU countries fluoridate their water.

On the negatives, forced medication and potential health problems: (this is from fluoride contamination) .

"As a result, harmful health effects on dental and skeletal growth were observed in the 90's. These include dental and skeletal fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is characterized by yellow or white spots on teeth and pitting or mottled enamel, consequently causing the teeth to look unsightly. Skeletal fluorosis leads to changes in bone structure, making them extremely weak and brittle. The most severe form of this is known as ``crippling skeletal fluorosis,'' a condition that can cause immobility, muscle wasting, and neurological problems related to spinal cord compression."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.H23F1493M

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59045959&postcount=16

Perhaps someone could clear up for me if this includes toothpaste.

At each stage broken down into year and age group the number of sufferers of tooth decay (always hated that description) is less with fluoridated waterd compared to unfluoridated.

However,the sample is broken down into 3 age groups: 5years, 12years and 15 years and figures are given for each group for roughly the same year once in the 80's, once in the 90's and finally in this decade.

In each instance of all age groups from a maximum range of 1984 to 2002 (18years only) the DMFT figure for 2002 unfluoridated water drinkers is less than the fluoridated water drinkers of 1984 without exception.

This suggests to me that there are far more factors in place in the war on tooth decay than fluoride and that any potential toxic risk of fluoride/fluorine far outweighs its neglibel benefits.

Also from the WHO site this is graph of DMFT of Swedish 12 year olds from 1985-98. Swedens water has never been fluoridated but this graph will show the consecutive decline in DMFT.
http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro/...swedft12y.html
Which would make me believe that there are other concerns such as dietary, education, and social factors which all have equal or greater impact in fighting tooth decay than fluoride and all with a toxcity level of 0.00.

This guy was the main reason the water was never fluoridated in Sweden a Dr Carlsson, a Nobel Prize winning scientist.

He says nations The Nations "that are using it should feel ashamed of themselves. It's against science."
http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson-interview.html

The Irish Dental Health Foundation says "Fluoridation of the public piped water supplies is the safest, most effective and most efficient method of preventing tooth decay."
http://www.dentalhealth.ie/informati...20020828150540

So...one of three possibilities.

1. Science is open to interpretation
2. There are a lot of incompetent scientists
3. Someone is lying

If it is three then it has to be asked for what purpose

Here is another paper on the affects of fluoride
http://www.pauapress.com/fluoride/files/1418.pdf

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59029965&postcount=2

Dept of Health and Children Publication
Figure 18
http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/coral.pdf?direct=1

Dean's Index of Fluorosis, percentage of 8, 12 and 15-year-old children and
adolescents with a score of ‘Normal’, ‘Questionable’, ‘Very Mild’, ‘Mild’, ‘Moderate’ or ‘Severe’ fluorosis on their permanent dentition according to fluoridation status in RoI and NI

Figure 18c: 15-year-olds

Full Fluoridated ROI %

Severe 1
Moderate 1
Mild 5
Very Mild 10
Questionable 19
Normal 69

Non Fluoridated ROI %

Severe 0
Moderate 0
Mild 3
Very Mild 4
Questionable 10
Normal 81

While hardly surprising this clearly shows that incidences of fluorosis is greater in all its stages in areas of water fluoridation. Normal levels 81:69.

This begs the question for me at least is if these children's oral health is being negatively affectied where else in the body may this toxin be damaging.

Another point it highlights is the disparity in oral health between means tested medical card holder families and those who don't qualify which brings it back for me to socio-economic factors being more crucial to water fluoridation in good oral health. Evidence of this is the huge reduction in dental problems from the 1960's. Both fluoridated and non fluoridated figures dropped in a similar pattern.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59039413&postcount=4