Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

My name is URL

King Mob wrote: »

Yet you are suggesting that we have government paid enforcers to inspect children's mouths every day.

See, anything can be made to sound like a scary invasion of personal liberty...

Well sure it can, when you make massive leaps of logic and twist what others are saying.

Ziphius

JJayoo wrote: »

So you believe that Fluoride is responsible/plays a big part in stopping dental cavities?

If you allow me to rephrase the question as "If Ireland were to stop public water fluoridation overnight yet maintain everything else (e.g. number of dental visits, cost of visits, school programmes) would cavities increase?" than my answer would be yes. I think it would. I'm not saying we would have a mass epidemic but I think the rate would increase.

JJayoo wrote: »

I ask this because there has been an evenly distributed improvmentl in dental health across all European countries. This includes Ireland the the rest of Europe which do not use Fluoridated water.

That dental health has improved across Europe does not indicate that fluoridation is ineffective or harmful. It has been mentioned already that other European countries have fluoride in salt. My Name Is URL provided a link that suggests that mouth washes provided to school children in Cuba may be beneficial and equally as effective (or better) than fluoridation.

JJayoo wrote: »

I'm 27, I have never had a filling or any dental problem and the last time I was at the dentist was when I was 17. IMO this is because I brush my teeth twice a day not because I drink fluoridated water.

I can't say I'm as lucky as you. Numerous factors contribute to an individuals risk of cavities such as genetics, diet, or dental hygiene. Did fluoride protect me or you?, maybe not. But did it provide benefits at a population level?, almost certainly.

JJayoo

Ziphius wrote: »

If you allow me to rephrase the question as "If Ireland were to stop public water fluoridation overnight yet maintain everything else (e.g. number of dental visits, cost of visits, school programmes) would cavities increase?" than my answer would be yes. I think it would. I'm not saying we would have a mass epidemic but I think the rate would increase.

What is this belief based on?

What would you think about going down the European route which would consist off. Stop adding Fluoride to water but allow manufactures to add it to milk/salt. This would put the cost on the manufacturer saving the government 4 million per year. It would also allow the consumer to chose. It could be phased in and the Fluoridation of water wouldn't be stopped until the manufacturers had made the changes.

Capt'n Midnight

Belgium 1.38/1.93
Germany 2.99/2.58
Greece 1.65/2.35
Ireland 2.09/1.85
Italy 2.81/2.24
Scotland 3.06/1.82
Spain 0.80/1.75
Sweden 0.80/1.94

How many add fluoride to salt ?
How many have free dental care ?

JJayoo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Belgium 1.38/1.93
Germany 2.99/2.58
Greece 1.65/2.35
Ireland 2.09/1.85
Italy 2.81/2.24
Scotland 3.06/1.82
Spain 0.80/1.75
Sweden 0.80/1.94

How many add fluoride to salt ?
How many have free dental care ?

Let us know when you have found out.

Ziphius

JJayoo wrote: »

What is this belief based on?

What would you think about going down the European route which would consist off. Stop adding Fluoride to water but allow manufactures to add it to milk/salt. This would put the cost on the manufacturer saving the government 4 million per year. It would also allow the consumer to chose. It could be phased in and the Fluoridation of water wouldn't be stopped until the manufacturers had made the changes.

Would this save money? Would it decrease cavities? These aren't the arguments that the anti-fluoride movement use, however. I'd be happy to see them though.

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

Well sure it can, when you make massive leaps of logic and twist what others are saying.

My point exactly.

Dude111

Starfox

Some facts for you!

Oh and the suggestion on here from the pro fluoride folk that say anything on a youtube video should be discredited is just about the dumbest thing i have read on this thread... but maybe it's because your drinking to much fluoride

JJayoo

Starfox wrote: »

Some facts for you!


Oh and the suggestion on here from the pro fluoride folk that say anything on a youtube video should be discredited is just about the dumbest thing i have read on this thread... but maybe it's because your drinking to much fluoride

There is a lot of sh1t on youtube but this is a very informative video.

hooradiation

Starfox wrote: »

Some facts for you!

Oh and the suggestion on here from the pro fluoride folk that say anything on a youtube video should be discredited is just about the dumbest thing i have read on this thread... but maybe it's because your drinking to much fluoride

#1 - Appeal to the majority. The argument of cretins
#2 - Ignore other methods of fluoridation, Ignores naturally present fluoride in water
#3 - Fails to define the effects, fails to mention dosage, fails to give nay meaningful data
#4 - Appeal to nature, also a lie.
#5 - Vague numbers, dishonestly conflates mild fluorosis with severe flourisis.
#6 - The flouride levels that are cited for IQ loss are five times the level here in Ireland, has no relevance.
#7 - the FDA have no authority here. Also Flouride supplements are at a much higher concentration than in our drinking water, dishonest conflation of two separate things.
#8 - And. Therefore. so? Though this does earn the dubious distinction of being the only true thing so far, round of applause.
#9 - blatantly untrue.
#10 - American centric, and if it wasn't it's nothing to do with fluoridation anyway, as it proposes that removing fluoridation to alleviate outlying effects for people with poor health as opposed to tacking their poor health.


Thank you for wasting my time with this stupid bullshit, it was a pleasure. No. really.

JJayoo

hooradiation wrote: »

#1 - Appeal to the majority. The argument of cretins
#2 - Ignore other methods of fluoridation, Ignores naturally present fluoride in water
#3 - Fails to define the effects, fails to mention dosage, fails to give nay meaningful data
#4 - Appeal to nature, also a lie.
#5 - Vague numbers, dishonestly conflates mild fluorosis with severe flourisis.
#6 - The flouride levels that are cited for IQ loss are five times the level here in Ireland, has no relevance.
#7 - the FDA have no authority here. Also Flouride supplements are at a much higher concentration than in our drinking water, dishonest conflation of two separate things.
#8 - And. Therefore. so? Though this does earn the dubious distinction of being the only true thing so far, round of applause.
#9 - blatantly untrue.
#10 - American centric, and if it wasn't it's nothing to do with fluoridation anyway, as it proposes that removing fluoridation to alleviate outlying effects for people with poor health as opposed to tacking their poor health.


Thank you for wasting my time with this stupid bullshit, it was a pleasure. No. really.

Did you actually watch it? I get the impression that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, I mean

Thank you for wasting my time with this stupid bullshit, it was a pleasure. No. really.

Talk about dramatic.

But ya I would 100% take your word over that of the FDA I mean your one sentence has swung me on that one

the FDA have no authority here.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

There is a lot of sh1t on youtube but this is a very informative video.

You earlier in the thread agreed that toxicity at levels seen in irish water has not been shown so what exactly is "informative" in that video.

hooradiation

JJayoo wrote: »

Did you actually watch it? I get the impression that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, I mean Talk about dramatic.

I'm sorry i didn't fall head over heels in love with the dull man in his shitty suit and terrible arguments.
I guess i'm just not as ready to commit to the first vaguely authoritative sounding person that confirms my biases as you are.
Some say it's because all that flouride has hardened my heart.....

JJayoo wrote: »

But ya I would 100% take your word over that of the FDA I mean your one sentence has swung me on that one

It's funny you don't seem to remember what you lauded as being "a very informative video".
Anyway, to show deference to your temporary memory loss, the "Fact" was that fluoride supplements have "never been approved by the FDA" now, given that the FDA don't have any authority outside of the US (the name ought to have given you a clue) and that fluoride supplements aren't the same as fluoridated water - this "fact" is the best kind of dishonest nonsense.
technically true and wholly irrelevant.

Also, how do you manage to settle the cognitive dissonance that has on one hand people saying "ohh, remove fluoride from the water, and people who want it can take supplements!" and then on the other laud a video that shrieks about how dangerous fluoride supplements are?

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

You earlier in the thread agreed that toxicity at levels seen in irish water has not been shown so what exactly is "informative" in that video.

Are you actually making a point here? This video has nothing to do with Fluoride in an Irish context, so what are you talking about? and yes it is an "informative" video as it contains a lot of information. Lots of information = informative it's not really that hard. Plus it's funny that you take issue with my comment instead of the OP of the video, almost as if you just enjoy arguing with me, I'm flattered.

I'm sorry i didn't fall head over heels in love with the dull man in his ****ty suit and terrible arguments.
I guess i'm just not as ready to commit to the first vaguely authoritative sounding person that confirms my biases as you are.
Some say it's because all that flouride has hardened my heart....

Random rambling = point proven?

It's funny you don't seem to remember what you lauded as being "a very informative video".
Anyway, to show deference to your temporary memory loss, the "Fact" was that fluoride supplements have "never been approved by the FDA" now, given that the FDA don't have any authority outside of the US (the name ought to have given you a clue) and that fluoride supplements aren't the same as fluoridated water - this "fact" is the best kind of dishonest nonsense.
technically true and wholly irrelevant.

Once again this video has nothing to do with Ireland. It is a video based on America so what are you talking about??

I understand that this thread is about Fluoride in the Irish context but this one video is about America so saying

this "fact" is the best kind of dishonest nonsense.
technically true and wholly irrelevant

Doesn't make any sense. Based on the american Model this fact is true and relevant.

jh79

Informative implies useful information, in relation to ireland it is not imformative and generally is dishonest as pointed out in point form by hooridation in another post.

The only real issue here is whether it is ethical and cost efficient to fluoridate water. Toxicity has only been proven at very high concentrations as you know.

hooradiation

JJayoo wrote: »

Once again this video has nothing to do with Ireland.

And it's inaccurate, fallacy ridden and dishonest.

So in light of all that, why was it you gave it your approval as being "very informative"?

It's almost like you saw something that seemed to conform to your existing biases and wedged yourself firmly on it's dick without really thinking it through.

But i'm sure there's a more reasonable answer...

JJayoo

hooradiation wrote: »

And it's inaccurate, fallacy ridden and dishonest.

Please show where it's inaccurate, fallacy ridden and dishonest within the American context. I will await your evidence to contradict all the points made.

o in light of all that, why was it you gave it your approval as being "very informative"?

It's almost like you saw something that seemed to conform to your existing biases andwedged yourself firmly on it's dick without really thinking it through.

But i'm sure there's a more reasonable answer...

Once again more rambling. So I am assuming your next message will be to prove all the inaccuracies with links to studies that the other posters can check out for themselves.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

Informative implies useful information, in relation to ireland it is not imformative and generally is dishonest as pointed out in point form by hooridation in another post.

.

It was never in relation to Ireland, The clue was in the fact that it never mentions Ireland, how you don't understand this is beyond and Hooridation's point consists of "I'm right you're wrong", but I am sure he will provide all the facts to back up his statement.

You earlier in the thread agreed that toxicity at levels seen in irish water has not been shown

My point is and always has been that there has never been adequate tests carried out on whether or not Fluoride has long term effects when ingested. The fact that it is stored in the brain and this has never been looked into alone shows inadequate research as the brain is kinda important. Do I think it has negative effects within the Irish context? Long term I have no idea, short term I don't know and to be honest within the irish/diet/health context I think there are many other things which are far more important.

But a few facts do remain "The anti-caries effects of fluoride are primarily topical for children and for adults......If used, fluoride supplements should be employed as a topical delivery system by chewing or sucking tablets or lozenges for a maximum possible time before swallowing"
http://soudni.lf1.cuni.cz/Data/files/PragueMedicalReport/2007_4/pmr_04-2007_oganessian-otistena.pdf


Fluoride only provides a benefit if applied topically

hooradiation

JJayoo wrote: »

Please show where it's inaccurate, fallacy ridden and dishonest within the American context.

Already done.
I see this kind of dishonesty is contagious.

JJayoo

hooradiation wrote: »

Already done.
I see this kind of dishonesty is contagious.

Do you mean this

#1 - Appeal to the majority. The argument of cretins
#2 - Ignore other methods of fluoridation, Ignores naturally present fluoride in water
#3 - Fails to define the effects, fails to mention dosage, fails to give nay meaningful data
#4 - Appeal to nature, also a lie.
#5 - Vague numbers, dishonestly conflates mild fluorosis with severe flourisis.
#6 - The flouride levels that are cited for IQ loss are five times the level here in Ireland, has no relevance.
#7 - the FDA have no authority here. Also Flouride supplements are at a much higher concentration than in our drinking water, dishonest conflation of two separate things.
#8 - And. Therefore. so? Though this does earn the dubious distinction of being the only true thing so far, round of applause.
#9 - blatantly untrue.
#10 - American centric, and if it wasn't it's nothing to do with fluoridation anyway, as it proposes that removing fluoridation to alleviate outlying effects for people with poor health as opposed to tacking their poor health.


Thank you for wasting my time with this stupid bull****, it was a pleasure. No. really.

This is your proof ....? Talking out your arse, So when asked for proof of your statement you just give your initial statement again with zero proof to back anything up? and you expect people to listen to you? when in reality all you do is make throw-away comments backed up by insults. Your comments are pretty much the incoherent dribble I would expect to see under a youtube video.

Capt'n Midnight

If it doesn't work and it's expensive then why has it survived all the budget cuts in all the recessions since the 1960's ?

JJayoo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If it doesn't work and it's expensive then why has it survived all the budget cuts in all the recessions since the 1960's ?

Well I think this will be a valid/interesting question over the next few years as the Irish government implements more and more cuts and starts to bring in water charges. I think in general people,including myself, thought that ingesting Fluoride was good for your teeth and that it was important to have some in the bloodstream, but I think more and more people are beginning to realise that it's positive effects are when used tropically like toothpaste or mouthwash. 4 million per year could do a lot if properly funneled back into the health system.

I don't think it will ever be eliminated from the current American water supply, just too much money involved. According to wiki it costs 313 million per year to add Fluoride to the american supply and then you have to consider that if it was to stop the fertiliser industry would have to find another way to dispose of it.

hooradiation

JJayoo wrote: »

Do you mean this

Of course I mean that. Every one of those "facts" has a problem with it.
They're either flat out fallacies, using weasel words or at best irrelevant.

Let's take them one at a time, then. For your benefit, given your fixation with having people supply you with endless information you can simply ignore.

"fact" #1 - Most developed countries do not use fluoride in their water.

Argumentum ad populum - Also known as an appeal to the majority.
We've covered this before, as you'll recall.
Any problems here?

When you're done wasting time trying to argue around this point, I'll proceed to the second "fact" and so on.

JJayoo wrote: »

This is your proof ....? Talking out your arse, So when asked for proof of your statement you just give your initial statement again with zero proof to back anything up? and you expect people to listen to you? when in reality all you do is make throw-away comments backed up by insults. Your comments are pretty much the incoherent dribble I would expect to see under a youtube video.

Don't blame others for your inability to engage.

JJayoo

hooradiation wrote: »

Of course I mean that. Every one of those "facts" has a problem with it.
They're either flat out fallacies, using weasel words or at best irrelevant.

Let's take them one at a time, then. For your benefit, given your fixation with having people supply you with endless information you can simply ignore.

"fact" #1 - Most developed countries do not use fluoride in their water.

Argumentum ad populum - Also known as an appeal to the majority.
We've covered this before, as you'll recall.
Any problems here?

When you're done wasting time trying to argue around this point, I'll proceed to the second "fact" and so on.




Don't blame others for your inability to engage.

Has to be a joke at this stage. The Pro Fluoride side has not provided a single study showing that the ingestion of Fluoride through drinking water is beneficial to teeth, not one. The anti-Fluoride side has posted many studies that shows Fluoride is only beneficial when added tropically.

And your proof of all the errors in the video is woeful, actually it's non existent you have not provided one piece of proof that all the things in the video are false, you claim they are but you provide zero proof. So once again can you provide us with the studies that everything in the video is false like you state. Not your opinion actually studies that will contribute to this thread.

And this

Don't blame others for your inability to engage

I presume you are talking about yourself with this one.

Capt'n Midnight

JJayoo wrote: »

If it was to stop the fertiliser industry would have to find another way to dispose of it.

Let's kill this myth forever.

When lime reacts with fluorosilicic acid, calcium fluoride and sand are formed. These materials can be sent to most landfills as non-hazardous materials.

It can be neutrialised with calcium carbonate. €20/tonne is an OK end user price if they deliver it and spread it around your fields. The fertilizer industry would get limestone / chalk etc. for a fraction of that price.

JJayoo

Good info Capt n Midnight. I just assumed it would be hard to get rid off.

JJayoo

Poll closed results in

Starfox

Its quiet simple really, there are too many people who don't want to be force fed Fluoridation through our water supply, so take the fluoride out of the water and let the people who really want to keep taking this 'medicine' to go get some fluoride pills or other means of acquiring it, and Im sure the money that would become available from ending the fluoridation of water could be used to supply fluoride in other ways to the people who still want to put this stuff in their body

Nobody should be forced to drink this stuff. People should be able to choose, choose to acquire fluoride and ingest it if they wish to but not forced upon them, and not everybody can just avoid it by getting bottled water and so on. The only way it can be done to satisfy both pro and anti fluoride people is how i suggested.

People here can argue all day long, give opinions, examples, and medical studies, promote them or disregard them on the matter but at the end of the day its all about choice and basic human rights.

Worztron

Jimoslimos

Worztron wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yW-Y5Bxz6E

Even for SF that is some serious amount of misinformed populist claptrap.

"Fluoride is an acid based substance..."

Wish I stopped watching after that:(

hooradiation

JJayoo wrote: »

Has to be a joke at this stage. The Pro Fluoride side has not provided a single study showing that the ingestion of Fluoride through drinking water is beneficial to teeth, not one. The anti-Fluoride side has posted many studies that shows Fluoride is only beneficial when added tropically.

And your proof of all the errors in the video is woeful, actually it's non existent you have not provided one piece of proof that all the things in the video are false, you claim they are but you provide zero proof. So once again can you provide us with the studies that everything in the video is false like you state. Not your opinion actually studies that will contribute to this thread.

And this I presume you are talking about yourself with this one.

Man, how did i miss this shitty response and cowardly refusal to engage.
It's so wretched it's kind of beautiful.

JJayoo

hooradiation wrote: »

Man, how did i miss this shitty response and cowardly refusal to engage.
It's so wretched it's kind of beautiful.

Has to be a joke at this stage. The Pro Fluoride side has not provided a single study showing that the ingestion of Fluoride through drinking water is beneficial to teeth, not one.

I'm assuming you will share the relevant studies then

And your proof of all the errors in the video is woeful, actually it's non existent you have not provided one piece of proof that all the things in the video are false, you claim they are but you provide zero proof. So once again can you provide us with the studies that everything in the video is false like you state. Not your opinion actually studies that will contribute to this thread.

Pop up the info so people can go through it for themselves plus I find this funny

cowardly refusal to engage

as you are the person who made one sweeping statement based on your opinion and zero facts. So if you could supply all the info it would be great good lad

Your original statement still waiting for you to pick apart each point with the relevant studies like you said you would.

hooradiation wrote: »

#1 - Appeal to the majority. The argument of cretins
#2 - Ignore other methods of fluoridation, Ignores naturally present fluoride in water
#3 - Fails to define the effects, fails to mention dosage, fails to give nay meaningful data
#4 - Appeal to nature, also a lie.
#5 - Vague numbers, dishonestly conflates mild fluorosis with severe flourisis.
#6 - The flouride levels that are cited for IQ loss are five times the level here in Ireland, has no relevance.
#7 - the FDA have no authority here. Also Flouride supplements are at a much higher concentration than in our drinking water, dishonest conflation of two separate things.
#8 - And. Therefore. so? Though this does earn the dubious distinction of being the only true thing so far, round of applause.
#9 - blatantly untrue.
#10 - American centric, and if it wasn't it's nothing to do with fluoridation anyway, as it proposes that removing fluoridation to alleviate outlying effects for people with poor health as opposed to tacking their poor health.


Thank you for wasting my time with this stupid bullshit, it was a pleasure. No. really.

Reindeer

opinion guy wrote: »

Ban teeth!!!!!:eek:

I can't speak for you city dwellers, but I'm out in the country here, and it appears they've already banned teeth.