Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

jh79

Treora wrote: »

Trying to reframe a debate by trivialising one's failure to provide proof shows you as flawed. Mass medication is under the precautionary principle and until there is a clinical, doubleblind, mass case, longitudinal, peer reviewed study published in nature or science then your credibility and arguement are in tatters.

NHS and ADA and WHO are financed by governments that do not want to be sued and are thus proponents for supporting their financers policies.

The ADA is the organisation part funded by a government that has a DMFT @ 12 of 2.85 where the EU has a comparison average 1.4 for a larger population.

Are you a shill, sock puppet or void of critical thinking. It is not easy to tell which. Return to school you have failed.

Couldn't care less about the mass medication / NWO angle. Belongs in the CT forum where you can blame the Lizard people or Zionists or whatever paranoia Jim Corr influenced stuff you like.

Scientific data to date shows no health risks and the majority of health practitioners support it.

jh79

zenno wrote: »

Look, it really boils down to a human rights issue at the end of the day because it is a medication forced into the water supply and should be removed. Why people have a problem with the removal of this fluoride i will never know because once it is out of the water supply people can purchase it if they so wish.

It is not the wish to remove fluoride from the water supply that I'm guessing some on here have a problem with but the miss-representing of the scientific data that is out there to further their aims.

jh79

Treora wrote: »

Trying to reframe a debate by trivialising one's failure to provide proof shows you as flawed. Mass medication is under the precautionary principle and until there is a clinical, doubleblind, mass case, longitudinal, peer reviewed study published in nature or science then your credibility and arguement are in tatters

Can you show me papers for every substance we ingest that fit this criteria? How would you even design a clinical trial like this considering we know it doesn't have any acute toxicity at less than 10ppm? Toxicity was not seen in animal models unless at high concentrations that is the best you're likely to get

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

Couldn't care less about the mass medication / NWO angle. Belongs in the CT forum where you can blame the Lizard people or Zionists or whatever paranoia Jim Corr influenced stuff you like.

Scientific data to date shows no health risks and the majority of health practitioners support it.

I don't know why you say such a thing as if it is a conspiracy ? but i'm looking at this in a way where both sides are happy in the way that i want clean water that i can drink without having to ingest fluoride so if the fluoride was taken out then people like myself can enjoy tap water with no fluoride and the people that want to ingest fluoride can purchase it in any format they like so both sides are happy. It's down to choice, but none of us have a choice as even bottled water you purchase has large amounts of fluoride.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

The study wasn't tailored to this topic and because of the variables doesn't provide us with anything meaningful

Rubbish. the two links I posted showed that all European countries have a trend of decreasing caries/DMFT. This includes Fluoridated Ireland and non fluoridated Europe.

It also showed that non Fluoridated countries are at the top of this table.

It showed that dental health is directly related to socio-economic issues and no the use of Fluoridated water.

JJayoo

jh79 If Ireland stops adding Fluroide will you start taking Fluoride in pill form?

zenno

Ingesting fluoride does nothing for human beings as it is not supposed to be ingested. Sure look at the toothpaste warning in the US, it states... 'If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately'. It's obviously there for a reason.

Seaneh

jh79 wrote: »

Depends on quickly it is absorbed into your teeth, do you walk around with toothpaste on your teeth for hours?

No, it doesn't.

There is ZERO benefit to ingesting fluoride, it does nothing for your teeth once it's passes them.

jh79

zenno wrote: »

Ingesting fluoride does nothing for human beings as it is not supposed to be ingested. Sure look at the toothpaste warning in the US, it states... 'If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately'. It's obviously there for a reason.

1000ppm or higher is the reason, again it is all about dose not a difficult concept, downing a pint of beer is not the same as downing a pint of spirit.

zenno

This is a letter from Germany in relation to the stopping of fluoridation, I wonder why they decided to stop it after the experimentation.

jh79

Seaneh wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

There is ZERO benefit to ingesting fluoride, it does nothing for your teeth once it's passes them.

The majority of the scientifc community disagrees with you. Are you saying the NHS, the Irish and US dentists are wrong?

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

1000ppm or higher is the reason, again it is all about dose not a difficult concept, downing a pint of beer is not the same as downing a pint of spirit.

Alcohol can not be compared. As was said...fluoride was never intended for ingestion. Well unless your teeth are inside your gut.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

The majority of the scientifc community disagrees with you. Are you saying the NHS, the Irish and US dentists are wrong?

Fluoride is only of use to the teeth through tropical application.

A 100 Irish Dentists disagree with you

http://homepage.eircom.net/~aud/home.htm#_edn2

"Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation (IDOF), a group of over 100 dentists, has published an article in The Irish Dentist slamming Minister Harney and the Department of Health for doing nothing to combat the near epidemic levels of dental fluorosis in Irish children. Here, dental fluorosis, fluoride damage to teeth, has sky-rocketed with a seven fold increase from 1984 to 2002 and the Republic of Ireland (artificially fluoridated since 1960s) now has three times more fluorosis than Northern Ireland which still rejects water fluoridation on health and safety grounds.[ii]"

This is the PDF of the report they mention

http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/coral.pdf

This report is a very detailed analysis of the dental health of children in the Republic and Northern Ireland. Very detailed and since the Republic of Ireland is fluoridated and Northern Ireland is non Fluoridated it will be very interesting to contrast the findings from each area.

Seaneh

jh79 wrote: »

The majority of the scientifc community disagrees with you. Are you saying the NHS, the Irish and US dentists are wrong?

No, they don't.

They all claim that fluoride is beneficial for healthy teeth, they all also agree that it's only beneficial as a topical application.

The benefit you get from fluoridated water, you get from the direct contact it makes with your teeth while drinking it, not from it being in your digestive system. That is an undisputed fact. To suggest otherwise is farcical.

jh79

zenno wrote: »

Alcohol can not be compared. As was said...fluoride was never intended for ingestion. Well unless your teeth are inside your gut.

Why can't it be compared, beer contains a know toxin at concentrations around 50ppm, it has no health benefits. Bit hypocritical if you ask me.

What about water that contains fluoride above 1ppm without human intervention? What then ?

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

Rubbish. the two links I posted showed that all European countries have a trend of decreasing caries/DMFT. This includes Fluoridated Ireland and non fluoridated Europe.

It also showed that non Fluoridated countries are at the top of this table.

It showed that dental health is directly related to socio-economic issues and no the use of Fluoridated water.

Was the basis of water fluoridation not that it would improve dental health in disadvantaged regions? If more places were the same as Ireland a better comparison could be made.

Seaneh

jh79 wrote: »

Why can't it be compared, beer contains a know toxin at concentrations around 50ppm, it has no health benefits. Bit hypocritical if you ask me.

What about water that contains fluoride above 1ppm without human intervention? What then ?

Because you can choose to drink beer or not.

If you live in an area with fluoridated water you are paying for water and have no choice in whether you are being medicated or not. It's not just stupid, it's unethical in the extreme.

zenno

Seaneh wrote: »

Because you can choose to drink beer or not.

If you live in an area with fluoridated water you are paying for water and have no choice in whether you are being medicated or not. It's not just stupid, it's unethical in the extreme.

Exactly.

jh79

Seaneh wrote: »

Because you can choose to drink beer or not.

If you live in an area with fluoridated water you are paying for water and have no choice in whether you are being medicated or not. It's not just stupid, it's unethical in the extreme.

I get the choice thing.

I just can't understand the mind-set that can happily drink beer and parks the established health risks that come with it to one side and then worries about a water supply with a fluoride concentration so low that in 50 years nobody has shown any health risks (any plenty have tried).

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

Was the basis of water fluoridation not that it would improve dental health in disadvantaged regions? If more places were the same as Ireland a better comparison could be made.

What are you talking about Ireland is being compared to France, Germany, Uk , Sweden etc all are modern countries all are comparable, and this from the man/woman who can't post without mentioning a varity of random substances which have zero relevance to the topic.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

What are you talking about Ireland is being compared to France, Germany, Uk , Sweden etc all are modern countries all are comparable, and this from the man/woman who can't post without mentioning a varity of random substances which have zero relevance to the topic.

You have two different sample sizes Ireland vs the rest of Europe essentially if you are looking to draw any conclusions regarding our water fluoridation programme. Statistically it would be questioned if referring to fluoridation.

Why not move it to the science forum and discuss one paper at time. Might make the debate a bit more focused.

AnonoBoy

My name is URL wrote: »

How in the holy hell does it not mean anything? Other countries decided to cease water fluoridation due to ethical questions about mass medicating their populations and unsurity about it's safety and benefits.

Is that the reason they decided to stop though?

I'm not being smart. I'm genuinely asking the question - are there statements from governments/health authorities saying the reasons fluoridation was ceased?

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

I get the choice thing.

I just can't understand the mind-set that can happily drink beer and parks the established health risks that come with it to one side and then worries about a water supply with a fluoride concentration so low that in 50 years nobody has shown any health risks (any plenty have tried).

I like the "freedom to choose" scenario, as this helps both sides. It's not like everyone is affected if the fluoride was removed from the main water supply as i have already stated that people can easily purchase fluoride in many different ways to use for their teeth if they so need to and can even purchase it for ingestion if needed. At least both sides are happy and i'm sure dentists would agree to this as well as no-one side of people will be left without fluoride no matter what way you look at it.

You just cannot force your so-called ideals onto every citizen, because it's wrong to do so.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

I get the choice thing.

I just can't understand the mind-set that can happily drink beer and parks the established health risks that come with it to one side and then worries about a water supply with a fluoride concentration so low that in 50 years nobody has shown any health risks (any plenty have tried).

You clearly don't get the choice thing.

Was the basis of water fluoridation not that it would improve dental health in disadvantaged regions

This is the one thing we agree on, but water fluoridation lost it's relevance in Europe once we established even the slightest amount of knowledge on dental health ie brushing your teeth.

Adding Fluoride to water might still be beneficial in the long term if we are talking about a country with zero dental health, a country in which dental problems are a major cause of death. The same way that adding a certain amount of bleach would be of benefit to countries which don't offer it's people clean drinking water.

Globally diarrhoea is the leading cause of illness and death with 88% due to a lack of clean water and at any one time more than half the hospital beds in sub-Saharan Africa are occupied by patients suffering from faecal related diseases.

With this in mind it would be correct to say that adding bleach to this drinking water would be a beneficial. Even if it has side effects it would still be beneficial and save lives BUT does this mean that in Ireland we should start adding bleach to our drinking water?. Every time you fill a glass of water we should add a teaspoon of bleach ? No of course not

jh79

zenno wrote: »

I like the "freedom to choose" scenario as this helps both sides. It's not like everyone is affected if the fluoride was removed from the main water supply as i have already stated that people can easily purchase fluoride in many different ways to use for their teeth if they so need to and can even purchase it for ingestion if needed. At least both sides are happy and i'm sure dentists would agree to this as well as no-one side of people will be left without fluoride no matter what way you look at it.

You just cannot force your so-called ideals onto every citizen because it's wrong to do so.

I agree about the freedom to choose, but you have to admit there is an inconsistency there if you drink and smoke or eat processed food if health is one of your concerns re fluoride.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

You clearly don't get the choice thing.



This is the one thing we agree on, but water fluoridation lost it's relevance in Europe once we established even the slightest amount of knowledge on dental health ie brushing your teeth.

Adding Fluoride to water might still be beneficial in the long term if we are talking about a country with zero dental health, a country in which dental problems are a major cause of death. The same way that adding a certain amount of bleach would be of benefit to countries which don't offer it's people clean drinking water.

Globally diarrhoea is the leading cause of illness and death with 88% due to a lack of clean water and at any one time more than half the hospital beds in sub-Saharan Africa are occupied by patients suffering from faecal related diseases.

With this in mind it would be correct to say that adding bleach to this drinking water would be a beneficial. Even if it has side effects it would still be beneficial and save lives BUT does this mean that in Ireland we should start adding bleach to our drinking water?. Every time you fill a glass of water we should add a teaspoon of bleach ? No of course not

Our water is chlorinated during treatment I believe, a close relative of fluorine.

hooradiation

zenno wrote: »

You just cannot force your so-called ideals onto every citizen, because it's wrong to do so.

Except - societies engage in collective action all the fucking time.
This is no different.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

You have two different sample sizes Ireland vs the rest of Europe essentially if you are looking to draw any conclusions regarding our water fluoridation programme. Statistically it would be questioned if referring to fluoridation.

Why not move it to the science forum and discuss one paper at time. Might make the debate a bit more focused.

Maybe you could try reading them?

I also posted a report comparing Children in the Republic to Children in Northern Ireland, any thoughts on this?

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

Our water is chlorinated during treatment I believe, a close relative of fluorine.

Sweet Jesus this is what you get from my post???

zenno

Maybe the government should stop paying the chemical companies for fluoride and the money saved from this could be used to fix the leaks in the water mains system.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

Maybe you could try reading them?

I also posted a report comparing Children in the Republic to Children in Northern Ireland, any thoughts on this?

What was the conclusion?

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

I agree about the freedom to choose, but you have to admit there is an inconsistency there if you drink and smoke or eat processed food if health is one of your concerns re fluoride.

You are off topic, as what you are saying has no relation to this topic. I choose to drink alcohol and eat whatever i eat and i can change this habit if needed but you cannot stop drinking water, well unless you want to die that is.

jh79

zenno wrote: »

You are off topic, as what you are saying has no relation to this topic. I choose to drink alcohol and eat whatever i eat and i can change this habit if needed but you cannot stop drinking water, well unless you want to die that is.

So you believe it infringes on your human rights and should be stopped. Fair enough.

It baffles me that something that the majority believe has benefits in terms of dental health without any adverse health implications would cause such consternation with some people. It all seems a bit extreme to me.

zenno

hooradiation wrote: »

Except - societies engage in collective action all the fucking time.
This is no different.

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

Ziphius

jh79 wrote: »

So you believe it infringes on your human rights and should be stopped. Fair enough.

It baffles me that something that the majority believe has benefits in terms of dental health without any adverse health implications would cause such consternation with some people. It all seems a bit extreme to me.

It's interesting that you don't see similar opposition to that other halogen added to water: chlorine.

jh79

Ziphius wrote: »

It's interesting that you don't see similar opposition to that other halogen water additive: chlorine.

Start up a website called chloride alert put some dodgy science on it, get a girl to claim she cured depression by avoiding it, it will be all over boards in weeks.

I blame the occupy movement, they were promoting this and homeopathy stuff all the time in Galway. The usual vague statements with little actual data supporting their claims.

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

So you believe it infringes on your human rights and should be stopped. Fair enough.

It baffles me that something that the majority believe has benefits in terms of dental health without any adverse health implications would cause such consternation with some people. It all seems a bit extreme to me.

I do indeed because i don't want to be ingesting this stuff every time i drink a pint of water. If i want to use fluoride for my teeth i will brush my teeth with fluoridated toothpaste. I do not like forced medication with no choice in the matter.

I have absolutely no problem with whatever people want to take or use as that is their choice and freedom to do so. I can see no problem with the removal of fluoride from the main water system because i am not infringing or forcing anyone to lack fluoride because they can find their own resources of fluoride in most stores very easily if they want to purchase it so everyone is happy.

I cannot understand why people get upset about this because when you give both sides a choice, it's a win win situation.

It all seems a bit extreme to me.

You think freedom to choose is extreme ?. It's not extreme, it's respect to both sides wishes.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

What was the conclusion?

It's a lot of info to get through, on the topic of Enamel Fluorosis

"Comparing the fluoridated groups in RoI with the non-fluoridated groups in NI the difference in the distribution of Dean’s Index scores was statistically significant for 8- and 15-year-olds (p=0.0001, p<0.0001 respectively). Again the
prevalence of fluorosis was higher in the fluoridated RoI"

"The
prevalence of fluorosis among 8- and 15-year-olds in RoI has increased since 1984 (p<0.0001 for both groups). Studies on the level at which the public perceive fluorosis to be a problem are currently being designed. The relative contribution of fluoride toothpastes and water fluoridation to enamel fluorosis in Ireland should be studied further"

"The statistically significant differences are indicated in Table 7. Based on the work of Dean26 a
higher prevalence of diffuse opacities is to be expected among children in fluoridated areas.
Diffuse opacities were generally more prevalent among children and adolescents with a
lifetime’s exposure to fluoridated water when compared with the non-fluoridated RoI and NI
groups (p <0.0001)"

Ziphius

jh79 wrote: »

Start up a website called chloride alert put some dodgy science on it, get a girl to claim she cured depression by avoiding it, it will be all over boards in weeks.

I blame the occupy movement, they were promoting this and homeopathy stuff all the time in Galway. The usual vague statements with little actual data supporting their claims.

Good advice, though I'll probably need a low circulation popular music magazine on board too.

jh79

Ziphius wrote: »

It's interesting that you don't see similar opposition to that other halogen added to water: chlorine.

I'm convinced that the main movers in this conspiracy believe in the more outlandish mind control stuff but only highlight the so called toxic effects to make it seem more legitimate. The cold war has a lot to answer for.

JJayoo

Ziphius wrote: »

It's interesting that you don't see similar opposition to that other halogen added to water: chlorine.

Chlorine does not accumulate in the brain, Fluoride does. Any witty reply to this fact ??

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

Chlorine does not accumulate in the brain, Fluoride does. Any witty reply to this fact ??

Oh the Pineal gland again, where nobody knows whether this build up has any implications good or bad, for all we know fluoride could be essential to its functioning.

By the way chlorine wouldn't exactly be the best thing to be ingesting at certain concentrations, it was used as a chemical weapon.

The point he is making is your fickle nature regarding what you ingest I'm assuming. Anti-water fluoridation is trendy at the moment sure wasn't it in hotpress!

So why not the toxin chloride?

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

I'm convinced that the main movers in this conspiracy believe in the more outlandish mind control stuff but only highlight the so called toxic effects to make it seem more legitimate. The cold war has a lot to answer for.

Says the guy who rambles on about every substance other than fluoride. Plus how could you ever call this a conspiracy? a conspiracy to stop something because it is of no benefit?

Plus you never answered the question I asked: If Ireland stops adding Fluoride will you be taking a Fluoride pill?

Ziphius

JJayoo wrote: »

Chlorine does not accumulate in the brain, Fluoride does. Any witty reply to this fact ??

You've missed my point. The argument was being made that fluorine should not be added to water because it is done without consent and this violates human rights. Surely, the exact same argument can be made for chlorine. Yet, I have never seen it.

Ziphius

News just in!

"Chlorinated water 'can DOUBLE the risk of heart and brain abnormalities"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1023696/Chlorinated-ater-DOUBLE-risk-heart-brain-abnormalities.html#ixzz2PbUOzvEs

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

Says the guy who rambles on about every substance other than fluoride. Plus how could you ever call this a conspiracy? a conspiracy to stop something because it is of no benefit?

Plus you never answered the question I asked: If Ireland stops adding Fluoride will you be taking a Fluoride pill?

Are you aware of the history of this topic? Look it up, interesting read. It also appears in the film Dr. Strangelove.


Soon I will be drinking pints containing 50ppm of the toxin alcohol, do you really think I would have a problem with a NaF pill.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

Oh the Pineal gland again, where nobody knows whether this build up has any implications good or bad, for all we know fluoride could be essential to its functioning.

By the way chlorine wouldn't exactly be the best thing to be ingesting at certain concentrations, it was used as a chemical weapon.

The point he is making is your fickle nature regarding what you ingest I'm assuming. Anti-water fluoridation is trendy at the moment sure wasn't it in hotpress!

So why not the toxin chloride?

Once again ramble on and on.

And yes the Pineal gland is important I mean we are talking about ingesting Fluoride and The pineal Gland is one of the most absorbent structures when it comes to Fluoride. The rest of the brain doesn't contain Fluoride as it is protected by the Blood brain barrier. So yes I would think the Pineal gland is an important part to consider

for all we know fluoride could be essential to its functioning.

Ah no this is just wrong.

jh79

Ziphius wrote: »

News just in!

"Chlorinated water 'can DOUBLE the risk of heart and brain abnormalities"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1023696/Chlorinated-ater-DOUBLE-risk-heart-brain-abnormalities.html#ixzz2PbUOzvEs

Pffff, if It was Hotpress then I might pay attention!

JJayoo

Ziphius wrote: »

You've missed my point. The argument was being made that fluorine should not be added to water because it is done without consent and this violates human rights. Surely, the exact same argument can be made for chlorine. Yet, I have never seen it.

But people don't care that chlorine is in water so what is your point? People don't want Fluoride in their water, no one gives a sh1t about Fluoride

JJayoo

Ziphius wrote: »

News just in!

"Chlorinated water 'can DOUBLE the risk of heart and brain abnormalities"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1023696/Chlorinated-ater-DOUBLE-risk-heart-brain-abnormalities.html#ixzz2PbUOzvEs

Great contribution It really adds to the topic of Fluoride by having zero relevance, keep up the good work.