Flouride to be added to Northern Ireland water

oldrnwisr

Daithi 1 wrote: »

However, what the CDC failed to mention is that similar declines in tooth decay have occurred in virtually every western country, most of which do not fluoridate water (see Figure 2).

Why would countries with naturally fluoridated water sources wish to waste money adding fluoride that's already there?

zenno

oldrnwisr..Ok, Then what is you're opinion on my comment #38 one page back ?. Do you not agree with that as well ?.

oldrnwisr

My name is URL wrote: »

I like how your first link there is to a site which vehemently opposes the fluoridation of water supplies. Did you do that on purpose, or was it just shoddy Googling? =p

The study was published in the BMJ which is a reputable journal. Its just that that quack site happened to have an online copy of the pdf which is why I linked to it.

Daithi 1

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Why would countries with naturally fluoridated water sources wish to waste money adding fluoride that's already there?

You tell me...

oldrnwisr

zenno wrote: »

oldrnwisr..Ok, Then what is you're opinion on my comment #38 one page back ?. Do you not agree with that as well ?.

To be honest I'm not inclined toward the libertarian view on this one. While I understand the objection to public fluoridation on the basis of a nanny state interference, when stacked up against the benefits, particularly the one you keep ignoring regarding the differential benefits of fluoridated water vs. other products, I think that it's a no-brainer. There are no well-substantiated significant health risks associated with public fluoridation while there are considerable benefits and savings to public health and the economy. As has been commented by several people there are a lot of lazy and stupid people out there. Their inaction in the absence of fluoridation would not only endanger their children's health but also place an increased strain on the economy.

oldrnwisr

zenno wrote: »

Yawn...Yeah, you just go on and believe everything you read from those sites.

You mean peer-reviewed academic journals?

Fromthetrees

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-country.htm

oldrnwisr

Daithi 1 wrote: »

You tell me...

A country with naturally fluoridated water doesn't need to add more fluoride to effect public health. Does it?

opinion guy

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, fluoride is perfectly safe to ingest. The LD50 (lethal dose that would kill 50% of the population) is 3-10g for an average adult. The amount of fluoride ingested per day by someone who drinks their 8 glasses of water is approx. 2mg. By comparison a cup of brewed coffee is about 1% of a lethal dose.

LD50 is a measure of acute toxicity. It is completely irrelevant and inappropriate to the current discussion. Comparison of chornic low dose daily doses to the LD50 is WRONG. LD50 DOES NOT relate to chronic exposure effects.

Quite apart from that you estimate of the lethal dose is at least 50 times over what it actually is. Your estimate of the amounts ingested in water is also wrong by a factor of 1000 - its more like 2 micrograms than milligrams. Edit: I'm wrong here it is milligrams

Seriously for one advising everyone else to get edcuated you've a bit of learning to do yourself. Suggest you start here:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp.asp?id=212&tid=38

zenno

oldrnwisr wrote: »

To be honest I'm not inclined toward the libertarian view on this one. While I understand the objection to public fluoridation on the basis of a nanny state interference, when stacked up against the benefits, particularly the one you keep ignoring regarding the differential benefits of fluoridated water vs. other products, I think that it's a no-brainer. There are no well-substantiated significant health risks associated with public fluoridation while there are considerable benefits and savings to public health and the economy. As has been commented by several people there are a lot of lazy and stupid people out there. Their inaction in the absence of fluoridation would not only endanger their children's health but also place an increased strain on the economy.

You are missing my whole point again. I and many other people out there don't want to drink fluoride so it is wrong to force it on the people that do not want it. The tap water does not need to be fluoridated as has been said many times already that there are enough products out there for people that want fluoride. At least in this case we all have a choice which is the correct way to have it.

Razleavy

zenno wrote: »

You are missing my whole point again. I and many other people out there don't want to drink fluoride so it is wrong to force it on the people that do not want it. The tap water does not need to be fluoridated as has been said many times already that there are enough products out there for people that want fluoride. At least in this case we all have a choice which is the correct way to have it.

You have a choice, don't drink it. Next people won't want chlorine in their water!

oldrnwisr

opinion guy wrote: »

LD50 is a measure of acute toxicity. It is completely irrelevant and inappropriate to the current discussion. Comparison of chornic low dose daily doses to the LD50 is WRONG. LD50 DOES NOT relate to chronic exposure effects.

Quite apart from that you estimate of the lethal dose is at least 50 times over what it actually is. Your estimate of the amounts ingested in water is also wrong by a factor of 1000 - its more like 2 micrograms than milligrams.

Seriously for one advising everyone else to get edcuated you've a bit of learning to do yourself. Suggest you start here:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp.asp?id=212&tid=38

First of all, thank you for the link you posted.

Now as for your other points, firstly I know that LD50 refers to acute toxicity. I was responding to zenno's comment about fluoride not being safe to ingest. Fluoride is not a poisonous chemical and the amount of fluoride in drinking water is not sufficient for a person to drink enough to induce acute toxicity.

Secondly, the amount of fluoride ingested which I posted is not wrong. The 8 glasses of water I was referring to is 2 litres which seems to be the average value for 8 glasses. Therefore 2 litres of water by weight is 2000g. The optimum fluoride level according to the data you provided is 1ppm which is 0.002g or 2mg. The actual measured concentration of fluoride was determined to be in the 0.7-1.2ppm range so the 1ppm level is valid.

Finally, I will have to check on the LD50 in humans but as I said I was responding to a particular point and not commenting on the health effects of chronic low dosage.

oldrnwisr

zenno wrote: »

You are missing my whole point again. I and many other people out there don't want to drink fluoride so it is wrong to force it on the people that do not want it. The tap water does not need to be fluoridated as has been said many times already that there are enough products out there for people that want fluoride. At least in this case we all have a choice which is the correct way to have it.

Yes and you're ignoring my point again. Fluoridated water and fluoridated dental products are not comparable. They do not function in the same way. Fluoridated water has benefits increased in degree, duration and number compared with products like fluoridated toothpaste.

zenno

Razleavy wrote: »

You have a choice, don't drink it. Next people won't want chlorine in their water!

LOL don't drink it. I give up trying to make sense to some of you people. :rolleyes:

Bandiam666

"Fluoride is not a poisonous chemical" What is it then...Many disagree with that ill hold off until i learn what it is...No doubt the one's that disagree have studied fluoride.Now i must go & study what they have to say. I don't want to be taking something i know little about.

zenno

zenno wrote: »

Also whatever way you look at it, it is forced medication of a population

No.

Flouride is not a drug or a medication, it is a mineral.

It is no more forced medication of the population than the fortification of breakfast cereals with folic acid and iron.

My name is URL

oldrnwisr wrote: »

A country with naturally fluoridated water doesn't need to add more fluoride to effect public health. Does it?

I'm pretty sure that all ground water is naturally fluoridated to some degree. Do you have any reference for the levels of naturally occurring fluoride by country?

Razleavy

zenno wrote: »

LOL don't drink it. I give up trying to make sense to some of you people. :rolleyes:

You said if it was in the water then people would be forced to drink it. I don't see anyone pointing a gun to their head?

opinion guy

oldrnwisr wrote: »

First of all, thank you for the link you posted.

No problem - you can find the LD50 stuff in there. I already checked before I said your estimate was wrong

Secondly, the amount of fluoride ingested which I posted is not wrong. The 8 glasses of water I was referring to is 2 litres which seems to be the average value for 8 glasses. Therefore 2 litres of water by weight is 2000g. The optimum fluoride level according to the data you provided is 1ppm which is 0.002g or 2mg. The actual measured concentration of fluoride was determined to be in the 0.7-1.2ppm range so the 1ppm level is valid.

Actually you are right on this point. Apologies. I had remembered it as micrograms. My mistake. Although this means the gap between background doses and toxic doses is smaller than I had realised.

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

No.

Flouride is not a drug or a medication, it is a mineral.

It is no more forced medication of the population than the fortification of breakfast cereals with folic acid and iron.

lol.. not a medication? Is it not used to alleviate and/or reduce the prevalence of a medical condition? How very disingenuous of you.

As for fortified foods etc, well people have the choice on whether or not they consume those things. They aren't pumped into your home through the mains, which you pay for through taxes. In every other country in Europe, fluoridated salt is available in lieu of fluoridated water, which is how it should be.

opinion guy

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that all ground water is naturally fluoridated to some degree. Do you have any reference for the levels of naturally occurring fluoride by country?

Talks about this in the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

oldrnwisr

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that all ground water is naturally fluoridated to some degree. Do you have any reference for the levels of naturally occurring fluoride by country?

Well here is one reference.

Fluoride in drinking water

I think I have a more updated one than that but I can't find it at the moment.

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

lol.. not a medication? Is it not used to alleviate and/or reduce the prevalence of a medical condition? How very disingenuous of you.

As for fortified foods etc, well people have the choice on whether or not they consume those things. They aren't pumped into your home through the mains, which you pay for through taxes. In every other country in Europe, fluoridated salt is available in lieu of fluoridated water, which is how it should be.

If fluoride is a drug why is it listed under minerals in the BNF?

Oh and good luck finding a breakfast cereal without folic acid and iron added to it.

Fluoride has been shown over, and over, and over, and over again to be beneficial in preventing dental caries and to be completley safe in the levels found in tap water.

opinion guy

Deleted User wrote: »

If fluoride is a drug why is it listed under minerals in the BNF?

It fluoride is a mineral why does it have a toxicology profile with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry I linked earlier and a chapter in the toxicology book sitting on my shelf ?

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

It fluoride is a mineral why does it have a toxicology profile with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry I linked earlier and a chapter in the toxicology book sitting on my shelf ?

Look up lead. Or iron. Or Copper.

They are also minerals, having a toxicology profile does not mean something is not a mineral.

charlemont

Fluoride has already helped stupidify the south as it is, The north would be well advised to stay away from it.

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

If fluoride is a drug why is it listed under minerals in the BNF?

Oh and good luck finding a breakfast cereal without folic acid and iron added to it.

Fluoride has been shown over, and over, and over, and over again to be beneficial in preventing dental caries and to be completley safe in the levels found in tap water.

You're shifting the goalposts now. I never said it was a drug, I said it was a medication. Not all medicines are in fact drugs, and vice versa.

Medication - A substance used for medical treatment, esp. a medicine or drug.

Your point about cereals is moot tbh. People still have the choice on whether or not to consume them. The same cannot be said for fluoridated mains supplied water. You can say 'well people do have a choice.. they don't have to drink water' but that's a silly argument really.

A better way of preventing dental caries is through a proper personal dental hygiene regimen. My point is simply that there are far better ways to directly tackle the issue of caries than by adding a substance to the water supply. It's lazy and it doesn't lend itself well to making people aware of the importance of looking after their own teeth.

opinion guy

Deleted User wrote: »

Look up lead. Or iron. Or Copper.

They are also minerals, having a toxicology profile does not mean something is not a mineral.

And having a listing in the BNF does not mean something is a mineral.

I'm glad we agree that listings in books do not define the actions of chemicals.

opinion guy

charlemont wrote: »

Fluoride has already helped stupidify the south as it is, The north would be well advised to stay away from it.

Keith ???? Is that you ?

earlyevening

charlemont wrote: »

Fluoride has already helped stupidify the south as it is, The north would be well advised to stay away from it.

Are you suggesting that people in towns and cities who have fluoridated water are stupified while country folk with wells are the intellectual elite?

Only 65% of the Irish water supply is fluoridated.

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

And having a listing in the BNF does not mean something is a mineral.

I'm glad we agree that listings in books do not define the actions of chemicals.

Ah Jesus Christ, fluoride is a mineral! Whatever you think of the risks/benifits of water flouridation, trying to say that flouride is not a mineral is like saying water is not a molecule!

It is a mineral, specifically of the halide class.

AeoNGriM

Ulster says No*slurp*........bollocks, there go me falsies

opinion guy

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah Jesus Christ, fluoride is a mineral! Whatever you think of the risks/benifits of water flouridation, trying to say that flouride is not a mineral is like saying water is not a molecule!

It is a mineral, specifically of the halide class.

Fluoride is not essential to human life. There is no fluoride deficiency state. It is highly toxic in relatively low doses. Therefore it is NOT a mineral. End of. Some vested interests may have gotten it listed as such in some books, but that doesn't make it true.

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

Fluoride is not essential to human life. There is no fluoride deficiency state. It is highly toxic in relatively low doses. Therefore it is NOT a mineral. End of. Some vested interests may have gotten it listed as such in some books, but that doesn't make it true.

Ehhh what in the name of God are you talking about. I think you may have gotten seriously confused as to what a mineral is.

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

"A mineral is a naturally occurring solid chemical substance formed through biogeochemical processes, having characteristic chemical composition, highly ordered atomic structure, and specific physical properties."

The definition of mineral has nothing to do with it being essential for human life.

Are you going to tell me next that diamond is not a mineral???

opinion guy

Deleted User wrote: »

Ehhh what in the name of God are you talking about. I think you may have gotten seriously confused as to what a mineral is.

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

"A mineral is a naturally occurring solid chemical substance formed through biogeochemical processes, having characteristic chemical composition, highly ordered atomic structure, and specific physical properties."

The definition of mineral has nothing to do with it being essential for human life.

Are you going to tell me next that diamond is not a mineral???

Oh I see what you did there. Fair enough. I hand you your semantic victory. Congratulations. You must feel very proud that you can only argue the topic through mocking about semantic points and distraction from the main issue.

Fluoride is a mineral then. Its NOT a nutrient however. It is a toxin.

Happy now ?

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh I see what you did there. Fair enough. I hand you your semantic victory. Congratulations. You must feel very proud that you can only argue the topic through mocking about semantic points and distraction from the main issue.

Fluoride is a mineral then. Its NOT a nutrient however. It is a toxin.

Happy now ?

I reckon the nature of what exactly flouride is is fairly central to the discussion as to whether or not it should be added to tap water.

You quite literally don't know the first thing about flouride yet you are convinced it is dangerous in tap water.

Also it's not toxic in the minute doses found in fortified tap water.

Pretty much anything is dangerous in high enough doses, including water itself.

John Doe1

At least its better than semtex:)

charlemont

opinion guy wrote: »

Keith ???? Is that you ?

Ha Ha, He will get a laugh out of that post.

earlyevening wrote: »

Are you suggesting that people in towns and cities who have fluoridated water are stupified while country folk with wells are the intellectual elite?

Only 65% of the Irish water supply is fluoridated.

You know what, I'd almost be inclined to go along with that. Just compare the average person here to the average person in Holland, Denmark etc, We are the runt of Europe's litter. Our inability to run our own affairs in a responsible manner helps to verify it.

earlyevening

charlemont wrote: »

Our inability to run our own affairs in a responsible manner helps to verify it.

Water fluoridation is responsible for our economic difficulties? :eek:

opinion guy

Deleted User wrote: »

I reckon the nature of what exactly flouride is is fairly central to the discussion as to whether or not it should be added to tap water.

Once again - congratulations on your semantic trick. Knowing that people commonly use the word mineral with the meaning of the word nutrient. Even introducing this semantic yourself by mentioning the BNF. Really congratulations. Your medal for misdirection and sleight of hand is in the post. Its almost like you've had this conversation before. Like you are skilled in misdirecting this particular debate. Tell me - are you a dentist perchance ?

You quite literally don't know the first thing about flouride yet you are convinced it is dangerous in tap water.

Oh yes of course because you conned me with semantics = I don't know anything about fluoride. Continue your attempt to argue by ridicule. Go ahead. Maybe you won't have to actually discuss the issues at all if you can keep it up.

Now if you were paying attention to what people are saying instead of trying to derail the debate, you may have noticed - I didn't say it was dangerous at doses in the water. So,wow, you know how to straw man an arugment as well. Gotta hand it to you - you really are skilled in avoiding an actual debate on a subject.
In fact, I am not convinced it is as dangerous as some make out. I don't know. I haven't read enough to come to a conclusion either way. I do however know some things about low dose toxicity. Enough to know the issue isn't as simple as the pro-fluoridation arguments make it out to be.

Also it's not toxic in the minute doses found in fortified tap water.

I believe thats what up for debate. A debate you seem to want to avoid. Well we know now you are skilled at arguing by derision, and you can straw man. What other tricks do you have up your sleeve before we can start discussing the actual issue here? Seriously I'm impressed. I've not seen such practiced skills in logical fallacy in a long time.

Pretty much anything is dangerous in high enough doses, including water itself.

Ooooooo. Wow. Shiney sparkly thing to distract us. A new trick. Oxygen is also toxic in high doses. So what. Off topic. Another attempt at misdirection.

Back on topic. The ACTUAL issue is thus: is fluoride toxic in chronic low dose exposure as experience by the general population on a daily basis.

Can we discuss that or do you have some more tricks to show us ?

charlemont

earlyevening wrote: »

Water fluoridation is responsible for our economic difficulties? :eek:

Yea, We weren't smart enough to hold our politicians etc to account and now look at the mess we are in, A higher collective intelligence would have sussed something was not right and asked questions, We didn't !!!;)

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

Once again - congratulations on your semantic trick. Knowing that people commonly use the word mineral with the meaning of the word nutrient. Even introducing this semantic yourself by mentioning the BNF. Really congratulations. Your medal for misdirection and sleight of hand is in the post. Its almost like you've had this conversation before. Like you are skilled in misdirecting this particular debate. Tell me - are you a dentist perchance ?

I said it was listed under minerals in the BNF, which it is, to demonstrate that it is not a drug. Then you started trying to refute that it was a mineral. I didn't misdirect you, you misdirected yourself. Also, I am not a dentist, if I was I would probably be anti-water fluoridation as it would hurt my business.

Back on topic. The ACTUAL issue is thus: is fluoride toxic in chronic low dose exposure as experience by the general population on a daily basis.

Can we discuss that or do you have some more tricks to show us ?

Here you go: large scale systematic review that shows that the only proven side effect of water flouridation is dental flourosis

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_1.pdf

opinion guy

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_1.pdf

Give me like, a year to read this.
Two initial comments however. Its from 2007 - alot of stuff come out in fluoridation and IQ + bone cancer since then so it may be out of date. Second - there it nothing on IQ effects in it.

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

there it nothing on IQ effects in it.

Probably because they don't exist. Honestly, I'm finding it hard to see a difference between the anti-flouridation crowd and the anti-vaccination crowd. Both like to make a big song and dance over a tiny minority of research published in scarcely known journals (or not published at all) while completley ignoring the towering mountain of evidence from reputable, peer reviewed publications that completley debunk their claims.

zenno

This is interesting... The widespread availability of refined sugars in the mid 19th century led to an epidemic of dental disease (which has only recently come under control). To reduce levels of dental decay, the Irish Government in the 1960s decided to fluoridate public water supplies.

Attached letter below proves that no testing on the effects of ingested fluoride occurred as this is stated in the letter the same time it was pumped into our water supply. No tests done whatsoever but they still put it in the water system.

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

No.

Flouride is not a drug or a medication, it is a mineral.

Deleted User wrote: »

I reckon the nature of what exactly flouride is is fairly central to the discussion as to whether or not it should be added to tap water.

Indeed.. do you now accept that fluoride, when added to water in order to treat or prevent dental caries, is in fact a form of medication?

DesperateDan

Deleted User wrote: »

I said it was listed under minerals in the BNF, which it is, to demonstrate that it is not a drug. Then you started trying to refute that it was a mineral. I didn't misdirect you, you misdirected yourself. Also, I am not a dentist, if I was I would probably be anti-water fluoridation as it would hurt my business.




Here you go: large scale systematic review that shows that the only proven side effect of water flouridation is dental flourosis

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_1.pdf

1-0 to James
I thought we'd established earlier there's no refutable dangers, and that the issue was the government adding it without people having the choice!? Otherwise I'd still like to see an actual side-effect with it being in your water, other than slightly better teeth and possible white lines/specks on teeth.

Also this thread needs a poll OP!

My name is URL

zenno wrote: »

This is interesting... The widespread availability of refined sugars in the mid 19th century led to an epidemic of dental disease (which has only recently come under control). To reduce levels of dental decay, the Irish Government in the 1960s decided to fluoridate public water supplies.

Attached letter below proves that no testing on the effects of ingested fluoride occurred as this is stated in the letter the same time it was pumped into our water supply. No tests done whatsoever but they still put it in the water system.

The ethical approval for adding it to Irish water came from the 'Guild of Saints Luke, Cosmas and Damian', a catholic group established, amongst others by John Charles McQuaid* which aimed to apply it's morals & teachings to how medical practices were applied here.

*and we all know that he was a man of very high morals, lol

Says it all really.. like everything else in this country, the church played a hand in something which to this day affects us.

Doc Ruby

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

*shakes head at falling AH standards, seven pages in for gods sake*

Rented Mule

starbelgrade wrote: »

Ulster says 'no' to Fenian flouride.

Well played Sir .....well played !!