Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

opinion guy

My name is URL wrote: »

So it's not a form of medication, even when used to treat or prevent an issue relating to health?

Lots of things are minerals, and still considered to be medications when used to either treat or prevent illness. Just because it's in the BNF as a mineral doesn't mean that it isn't a medication also. Many forms of sodium are also listed there, and some of those account as the main active ingredient in many medicines.

Seeing as BNF stands for British National Formulary and a formulary is at its most basic a list of medicines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulary_%28pharmacy%29) would we not all agree then that its inclusion in the BNF is, in fact, an acknowledgment that it is a medication ????

(We can all have fun with definitions )

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

It's no more a medication than the addition of folic acid and iron to breakfast cereals.

So is it..

A) a form of medication

or

not a form of medication

Don't compare it to any other substance, we're talking about a very specific issue here, and unless Corn Flakes are pumped into your home without you calling for it then your fortified food comparisons are moot.

opinion guy

Deleted User wrote: »

It's no more a medication than the addition of folic acid and iron to breakfast cereals.

You will find both of those in the BNF also. They are medications. Frequently prescribed ones at that!

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

Seeing as BNF stands for British National Formulary and a formulary is at its most basic a list of medicines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulary_%28pharmacy%29) would we not all agree then that its inclusion in the BNF is, in fact, an acknowledgment that it is a medication ????

(We can all have fun with definitions )

Sure, something can be a mineral and a medication, my problem is that the anti-fluoros are trying to make it sound like the government is force feeding the population with haloperidol.

Many foodstuffs are artificially fortified with vitamins and minerals in much the same way as fluoride is added to the water. (In countries without water fluoridation, fluoride is added to table salt).

Yet I don't see the tinfoil hats complaing about these things.

sunshiner

Interesting development that you might find relevant...

"Update on fluoride campaign: Kerry County Council have agreed they want to remove fluoride in light of the recent report by Declan Waugh (2012) Human Toxicity Environmental Implications and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation.
Kerry County Council are asking the government that they want to stop water fluoridation in Kerry until testing can be conducted to prove that the addition of hydrofluorisilic acid is safe for human health"

opinion guy

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure, something can be a mineral and a medication, my problem is that the anti-fluoros are trying to make it sound like the government is force feeding the population with haloperidol.

Many foodstuffs are artificially fortified with vitamins and minerals in much the same way as fluoride is added to the water. (In countries without water fluoridation, fluoride is added to table salt).

Yet I don't see the tinfoil hats complaing about these things.

Indeed. I have put some thought into this figuring someone would bring it up one day in a discussion such as this.

There is a fundamental difference between fluoride and things like folic acid. Folic acid has a very very wide therapeutic index. In other words its really hard to overdose on it and get toxicity. Fluoride has a very narrow therapeutic index - in other words its really really easy to overdose on it.

I would argue that therapeutic index should be a good discriminator between substances which could be safely used in mass medication such as food fortification or water doping.

No doubt you have heard some fools arguing for adding lithium to water to prevent depression ? Lithium has a very very low therapeutic index, making this a very VERY bad idea.

RichieC

You will be mocked relentlessly for bringing up this taboo topic, OP. The information police are watching.

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

Indeed. I have put some thought into this figuring someone would bring it up one day in a discussion such as this.

There is a fundamental difference between fluoride and things like folic acid. Folic acid has a very very wide therapeutic index. In other words its really hard to overdose on it and get toxicity. Fluoride has a very narrow therapeutic index - in other words its really really easy to overdose on it.
.

From what I can find the TI of fluoride is 2-50mg per day. That seems pretty wide to me. At 1mg/L it would be very hard to exceed the safe dose, even with other sources taken into account.

Parsley

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Drinking alcohol in moderation can improve your health.


Too little of most vitamins is not exactly good for your health , you die horribly.
Vitamins in excess though are dangerous. If you ate a polar bears liver you'd probably die from OD'ing on vitamins.

two arctic explorers died from vitamin A overdose after eating the livers of their huskies, that had earlier eaten the liver of a polar bear. pretty toxic alright.

Pushtrak

I posted this earlier, but in case people missed it...

Sources in video

A. General topic:
**1. "Ten Great Public Health Achievements --- United States, 1900-1999"
MMWR April 02, 1999 / 48(12);241-243

2. J Dent Res. 2011 May;90(5):573-9.
"Cochrane reviews on the benefits/risks of fluoride toothpastes."

3. Dent Update. 2010 Nov;37(9):595-8, 601-2.
"Why fluoride?"

**4. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007 Dec 9;4:25.
"When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature."

5. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001 Aug 17;50(RR-14):1-42.
"Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

6. Community Dent Health. 2008 Dec;25(4 Suppl 1):257-67.
"Effective use of fluorides in the People's Republic of China--a model for WHO Mega Country initiatives."

7. Community Dent Health. 1996 Sep;13 Suppl 2:56-62.
"Cancer and fluoridation."

**8. BMJ. 2000 Oct 7;321(7265):855-9.
"Systematic review of water fluoridation."

B. Economics of water fluoridation:
1. Prev Chronic Dis. 2005 Nov;2
"Costs and savings associated with community water fluoridation programs in Colorado."

2. Aust Dent J. 2010 Mar;55(1):37-44.
"The impact of changing dental needs on cost savings from fluoridation."

3. J Public Health Dent. 2001 Spring;61(2):78-86.
"An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation."

C. Fluorosis:
1. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2011;121(7-8):647-56.
"Prevalence of enamel fluorosis in 12-year-olds in two Swiss cantons."

2. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Apr;23(2):108-16.
"Associations between Intakes of fluoride from beverages during infancy and dental fluorosis of primary teeth."

3. J Can Dent Assoc. 2003 May;69(5):286-91.
"An update on fluorides and fluorosis."

4. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000 Jun;131(6):746-55.
"Risk of enamel fluorosis in nonfluoridated and optimally fluoridated populations: considerations for the dental professional."

D. Caries:
1. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011 Sep 23;60(37):1275-8.
"Dental caries in rural Alaska Native children--Alaska, 2008."

2. Public Health Rep. 2010 Sep-Oct;125(5):655-64.
"Community effectiveness of public water fluoridation in reducing children's dental disease."

3. Public Health Rep. 2010 Sep-Oct;125(5):647-54.
"Geographic variation in medicaid claims for dental procedures in New York State: role of fluoridation under contemporary conditions."

4. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008 Jan-Feb;16(1):70-4.
"Root caries in areas with and without fluoridated water at the Southeast region of São Paulo State, Brazil."

5. J Public Health Dent. 1995 Fall;55(4):218-28.
"Associations between exposure to fluoridated drinking water and dental caries experience among children in two Australian states."

6. J Public Health Dent. 2001 Summer;61(3):168-71.
"Community fluoridation status and caries experience in children."

**7. Public Health Rep. 2010 Sep-Oct;125(5):655-64.
"Community effectiveness of public water fluoridation in reducing children's dental disease."

8. Int J Epidemiol. 1999 Apr;28(2):300-5.
The effect of water fluoridation and social inequalities on dental caries in 5-year-old children.

E. Bone density:
1. Community Dent Health. 1996 Sep;13 Suppl 2:63-8.
"Water fluoridation and osteoporotic fracture."

2. BMJ. 2000 Oct 7;321(7265):860-4.
"Community water fluoridation, bone mineral density, and fractures: prospective study of effects in older women."

3. J Nutr. 2005 Sep;135(9):2247-52.
"Elevated serum fluoride concentrations in women are not related to fractures and bone mineral density."

F. Use in baby formula:
1. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Oct;140(10):1228-36.
"Assessing a potential risk factor for enamel fluorosis: a preliminary evaluation of fluoride content in infant formulas."

2. ASDC J Dent Child. 2001 Jan-Feb;68(1):37-41, 10.
"Fluoride content of infant formulas prepared with deionized, bottled mineral and fluoridated drinking water."

3. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Jul;140(7):841-54.
"Infant formula and enamel fluorosis: a systematic review."

G. Fluoride and Heavy Metal Absorption:

1. Environ Health Perspect. 2006 Jan;114(1):130-4.
"Blood lead concentrations in children and method of water fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994."

2. Neurotoxicology. 2000 Dec;21(6):1091-100.
"Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead."

Lefticus Loonaticus

I think the government wants to take it out, but they cant because they would then have to give a reason. The reason they would have to give, which is the reason most of us already know, is that its toxic waste from heavy industry and its damaging to peoples health.

Its all politics. No one wants to take the blame for this scandal while in office so they will deny and kick the can down the road.

Theres gonna be some amount of people lynched by the side of the road when this comes out, and it will do eventually.

Alot of pressure from the USA aswell for us not to step out of line.

partyatmygaff

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

I think the government wants to take it out, but they cant because they would then have to give a reason. The reason they would have to give, which is the reason most of us already know, is that its toxic waste from heavy industry and its damaging to peoples health.

Where's the evidence that Ireland uses "toxic waste from heavy industry" to fluoridate its water?

I can't wait to see what you've got.

Alot of pressure from the USA aswell for us not to step out of line.

Damn Americans and their obsession with teeth.

Lefticus Loonaticus

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Where's the evidence that Ireland uses "toxic waste from heavy industry" to fluoridate its water?

I can't wait to see what you've got.

Damn Americans and their obsession with teeth.

Read my post on the last page here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055939785&page=6

All the the links and info you need. Also has a bit about austrailian tap water.

About the USA. The more countries in europe that go against fluoride, the harder it is over there to maintain the program, go figure.

Capt'n Midnight

Regarding toxic waste.

Most food products that contain "milk solids" are made from whey, which until relatively recently was considered toxic waste.

Have I seen lagoons filled with whey waiting for some way to dispose of it ?
Yes actually.



Also note that most over the counter medicines are toxic waste, you can't throw them out in the bin. But you can eat them if you have a headache or a runny nose. You just can't throw them out in the bin.


Oh and Oxygen is mutagenic

Lefticus Loonaticus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Regarding toxic waste.

Most food products that contain "milk solids" are made from whey, which until relatively recently was considered toxic waste.

Have I seen lagoons filled with whey waiting for some way to dispose of it ?
Yes actually.



Also note that most over the counter medicines are toxic waste, you can't throw them out in the bin. But you can eat them if you have a headache or a runny nose. You just can't throw them out in the bin.


Oh and Oxygen is mutagenic

Taken from the link from the other thread that i linked. Which i also linked in the first place.

"The fluoride added to our drinking water is fertiliser waste imported from Holland. The importers are Albatros Fertilizers Ltd., New Ross, County Wexford. This is not a manufactured product, it is contaminated with considerable amounts of Arsenic, Lead and Antimony. These are all toxic heavy metals. Arsenic and lead are both proven carcinogens i.e. cancer causing. The document below was accessed under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 from the Eastern Health Board. The Dept. of Health is not only adding fluoride to our water but arsenic and lead also. These are all accumulative toxins i.e. they build up in our tissues and organs. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, fluoride is more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic but we are drinking unmeasured, uncontrolled levels of all three chemicals everyday! This toxic cocktail is forced upon us for the good of our teeth. We have no choice."

Capt'n Midnight

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

we are drinking unmeasured, uncontrolled levels of all three chemicals everyday!

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/si/0075.html

8. The fluorine content of each of the public water supplies mentioned in the First Schedule to these Regulations to which fluorine has been added shall be determined daily by a colorimetric method and, in addition, shall be determined by a distillation method at intervals not exceeding two weeks during the period of six months after the date on which fluorine shall have been first so added and thereafter at intervals not exceeding four weeks.

So by the 1962 law it must be measured daily
2007 law says the same.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/si/0042.html

Specification for Hydrofluosilicic acid of 10.9 per cent strength.

The acid as supplied shall contain 10.9 per cent by weight of fluosilicic acid (H2SiF6) subject to a tolerance of 0.3 per cent above or below that strength, and shall contain not more than the limits for “heavy metals” as specified in the appropriate European Standard (IS.EN 12175:2001) and no other soluble mineral or organic substance in quantities capable of a deleterious or injurious effect upon health.

Your 1997 reference is kinda outdated by the use of 2001 EU standards.

The EU std. is behind paywalls though but it's the same one as used by the Germans and others who'd be more picky than we are about such things.

partyatmygaff

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

Taken from the link from the other thread that i linked. Which i also linked in the first place.

"The fluoride added to our drinking water is fertiliser waste imported from Holland. The importers are Albatros Fertilizers Ltd., New Ross, County Wexford. This is not a manufactured product, it is contaminated with considerable amounts of Arsenic, Lead and Antimony. These are all toxic heavy metals. Arsenic and lead are both proven carcinogens i.e. cancer causing. The document below was accessed under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 from the Eastern Health Board. The Dept. of Health is not only adding fluoride to our water but arsenic and lead also. These are all accumulative toxins i.e. they build up in our tissues and organs. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, fluoride is more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic but we are drinking unmeasured, uncontrolled levels of all three chemicals everyday! This toxic cocktail is forced upon us for the good of our teeth. We have no choice."

Just because something is imported as a waste product does not mean it's used in its initial state. It's not hugely difficult to separate a particular compound from a mass of other compounds to a relatively high degree of purity.

As for heavy metals, there are very stringent standards and very robust testing methods used to ensure that drinking water meets those standards so the idea that we are "drinking unmeasured, uncontrolled levels of all three chemicals everyday" is to put it plainly BS. Mainly because we're not all dying from heavy metal poisoning but also because what I just mentioned about the testing that prevents excess heavy metals being present in water.

sheesh

but I thought Chemicals were our friends!

Capt'n Midnight

sheesh wrote: »

but I thought Chemicals were our friends!

Some of the known perils of DHMO are:
Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.


Some of the well-known uses of are:
as an industrial solvent and coolant,
in nuclear power plants,
by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
by elite athletes to improve performance,
in the production of Styrofoam,
in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals,
as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
in so-called "family planning" or "reproductive health" clinics,
as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
in cult rituals,
by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families
by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
by members of Congress who are under investigation for financial corruption and inappropriate IM behavior,
historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
during many recent religious and ethnic wars in the Middle East,
by many terrorist organizations including al Qaeda,
in community swimming pools to maintain chemical balance,
in day care centers, purportedly for sanitary purposes,
by the semi-divine King Bhumibol of Thailand and his many devoted young working girls in Bangkok,
by the British Chiropractic Association and the purveyors of the bogus treatments that the BCA promotes,
by commodities giant Trafigura in their well-publicized and widely-known toxic-waste dumping activities in Ivory Coast,
in animal research laboratories, and
in pesticide production and distribution

partyatmygaff

No more DHMO in our water supplies. This madness has to stop.

Genghiz Cohen

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No more DHMO in our water supplies. This madness has to stop.

It's the primary constituent of weed killer!! And it's in our water supplies!!

partyatmygaff

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

It's the primary constituent of weed killer!! And it's in our water supplies!!

It's also a waste byproduct of MDMA synthesis (And all sorts of drugs). If that's not evidence that the government's trying to make us docile and subservient through forced medication then I don't know what is.

dirtyden

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It's also a waste byproduct of MDMA synthesis (And all sorts of drugs). If that's not evidence that the government's trying to make us docile and subservient through forced medication then I don't know what is.

Can you describe this MDMA synthesis?

Lefticus Loonaticus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/si/0075.html

So by the 1962 law it must be measured daily
2007 law says the same.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/si/0042.html

Your 1997 reference is kinda outdated by the use of 2001 EU standards.

The EU std. is behind paywalls though but it's the same one as used by the Germans and others who'd be more picky than we are about such things.

I care not about measurement or complicated debates about chemical componds. I was pointing out that the toxic fluoride was coming from a fertilizer company in wexford.

As far as i know now, its currently coming from a company called Chemifloc.

Any official irish report or guidelines, no matter what year written in, is suspect to me and most other people who are against fluoride since their only aim is alway to deny, stonewall and keep the practice in place no matter what the opposition.

The 2001 EU standards are irrelevant because another EU directive from the same year cancels it out and makes the mass medication of fluoride through tap water illegal.

European Directive on Medicinal Products for Human Use -
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/single_market_for_goods/pharmaceutical_and_cosmetic_products/l21230_en.htm

(maybe we are talking about the same EU standards/directives?)

The germans dont put fluoride in their water. East Germany discontinued the practice after reunification.

partyatmygaff

dirtyden wrote: »

Can you describe this MDMA synthesis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Chemistry

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

I care not about measurement or complicated debates about chemical componds.

If you want to talk about chemical additions to water (And fluorine isn't the only chemical that's added incidentally...) it's pretty much central to the conversation.

I was pointing out that the toxic fluoride was coming from a fertilizer company in wexford.

"Toxic fluoride". Anything can be toxic. The dose is what determines what is toxic and what is not. As for where it came from, it doesn't matter so long as it's been processed correctly.

Any official irish report or guidelines, no matter what year written in, is suspect to me and most other people who are against fluoride since their only aim is alway to deny, stonewall and keep the practice in place no matter what the opposition.

Or perhaps it could be because fluoridated water is beneficial for teeth with the only opposition coming from people with dubious "evidence" and conspiracy theories.

The germans dont put fluoride in their water. East Germany discontinued the practice after reunification.

Obviously that's because the Soviet Union used to fluoridate their water for mind-control purposes.

Hoffmans

zee equilivant amount of flouride in a pea sized blob of toothpaste to water would be around 15 litres, so if there is no problem using toothpaste whats wrong with the water unless your drinking 3-4 gallons of it a day

Lefticus Loonaticus

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Or perhaps it could be because fluoridated water is beneficial for teeth with the only opposition coming from people with dubious "evidence" and conspiracy theories.

Obviously that's because the Soviet Union used to fluoridate their water for mind-control purposes.

The evidence shows that it dosent really help teeth at all and its more likely to cause dental fluorosis, which many people unknowing have.

It also helps heavy industry get rid of the stuff for a pitence, instead of spending a massive amount on trying to dispose of it, given that its a hazardous waste product.

Now thats what i call dubiously dubious!

And what exactly is this conspiracy theory you were talking about? Are you suggesting that the irish state is using fluoride as some sort of mind control? I wouldnt go that far, its much more likely to be an economic scam.

partyatmygaff

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

The evidence shows that it dosent really help teeth at all and its more likely to cause dental fluorosis, which many people unknowing have.

"The evidence" being? A Youtube video? An article on someone's blog?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

From the material on that site, there's far more evidence to suggest that controlled amounts of fluoride in water is beneficial for teeth.

It also helps heavy industry get rid of the stuff for a pitence, instead of spending a massive amount on trying to dispose of it, given that its a hazardous waste.

If the cheapest way to obtain and purify the required compound is through obtaining it from heavy industry what's the problem? Unless you believe that molecules can "remember" being used in heavy industry (And all the other things they've probably been involved with over time) I don't see why having something originate from heavy industry is an issue.

And what exactly is this conspiracy theory you were talking about? Are you suggesting that the irish state is using fluoride as some sort of mind control? I wouldnt go that far, its much more likely to be an economic scam.

An economic scam where the government pays money to foreign private companies to try and lower their recycling costs. Nice scam.

Hoffmans

whatever about the conspirists and other loons and their agendas the fact that it is costing round 3 - 4 million a year to just add the stuff unecessarily is a bad joke...........

partyatmygaff

Hoffmans wrote: »

whatever about the conspirists and other loons and their agendas the fact that it is costing round 3 - 4 million a year to just add the stuff unecessarily is a bad joke...........

3-4 million isn't a lot for a significant improvement in public dental health. Prevention is always better than the cure e.t.c.

If they could do the same with food to try and reduce salt and fat content they'd probably do the same. Chronic disease puts a huge strain on the public healthcare system.

dirtyden

partyatmygaff wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Chemistry


Thanks would not have thought that would be on Wikipedia.

Interesting article. I had no idea the readily available starting material for the synthesis was such a common essential oil. Pretty bog standard chemistry as well.

On the OP whilst fluorination cannot be linked to harm and anyone who suggests otherwise is really not following scientific fact based evidence, it is also probably of limited effect in the modern times.

partyatmygaff

dirtyden wrote: »

Thanks would not have thought that would be on Wikipedia.

Interesting article. I had no idea the readily available starting material for the synthesis was such a common essential oil. Pretty bog standard chemistry as well.

You'd be surprised. You could more or less find the synthesis mechanism for any drug if you had the inclination. That said, actually successfully making anything pure enough for use or sale is well out of reach for most.

Capt'n Midnight

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

I care not about measurement or complicated debates about chemical componds.
...
The 2001 EU standards are irrelevant because another EU directive from the same year cancels it out and makes the mass medication of fluoride through tap water illegal.

European Directive on Medicinal Products for Human Use -
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/single_market_for_goods/pharmaceutical_and_cosmetic_products/l21230_en.htm

That link clearly allows Fluoride as it's been in use in at least one EU country for at least 8 years as you'd have seen if you had bothered to read it and my post liking our 1962 legislation.

Notwithstanding the previous paragraph and without prejudice to the law relating to intellectual and commercial property, applicants are not obliged to provide the results of pre-clinical or clinical tests or clinical trials if they can show that:

the medicinal product is a generic of a reference medicinal product which has been authorised for not less than eight years in a Member State or in the Community;
the active substances of the medicinal product have had a well established medicinal use in the Community for at least ten years, with an acceptable level of safety.

I care not about measurement or complicated debates about chemical componds.
says it all really

opinion guy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

An economic scam where the government pays money to foreign private companies to try and lower their recycling costs. Nice scam.

You do recall our previous government agreeing to take on all the bank debts for like....no good reason at all don't you ???? .....and the current one giving them more money even thought they said the wouldn't ???

:pac:

heyjude

Hoffmans wrote: »

zee equilivant amount of flouride in a pea sized blob of toothpaste to water would be around 15 litres, so if there is no problem using toothpaste whats wrong with the water unless your drinking 3-4 gallons of it a day

What is wrong is that when you are finished washing your teeth with toothpaste you spit it out so any fluoride that you swallow is incidental and your exposure to fluoride is largely limited to where it produces a benefit to you(i.e. your mouth).

Fluoride in your drinking water only improves dental health as it passes through your mouth and provides no dental benefits once swallowed, which is pretty much what you do with drinking water, so you'd get the same benefits if you just used fluoridated tap water as mouthwash and spat it out afterwards.

In fact, if they wanted to retain the benefits of fluoridating drinking water supplies, why not bottle the fluoridated water and distribute it cheaply for use as mouthwash.

Besides if the government is so concerned about our dental health, why don't they make some effort towards providing free dental checkups for everyone at least once a year, instead of poisoning our water ? I also wonder why it is that every time the government wants to do something unpopular, we are told as a justification that almost every other country does it already, yet they are perfectly content to be in a very small minority of countries worldwide when it comes to fluoridating our public water supplies. What about copying other countries when it comes to water fluoridation ?

Capt'n Midnight

heyjude wrote: »

Besides if the government is so concerned about our dental health, why don't they make some effort towards providing free dental checkups for everyone at least once a year,

slippery slope

next thing we'll be getting an annual medical checkup and more screening for preventable disease :eek:

upandcumming

Worztron wrote: »

That is a straw man.
Passive smoking is harmful, I am in full agreement with that ban. We can live perfectly healthy without water fluoridation - ask the Germans.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75864615&postcount=38

Farmers For No

Water fluoridation is a highly controversial topic, with many individuals voicing massive concern over the practice. In contrast, some stick to the concept that there isn’t any association between fluoride and any real negative effects. Fluoride, however, is indeed a toxic substance, and has been tied with numerous health complications in well-established research. Fluoride can be found in many water supplies, toothpaste, and even food at alarming levels. While it may sound shocking to many, some research is even drawing a close connection between fluoride and an increased cancer risk.
One paper entitled Fluoride – A Modern Toxic Waste says the following:

Yiamouyiannis documents research showing that fluoride increases the tumor growth rate by 25% at only 1 ppm, produces melanotic tumors, transforms normal cells into cancer cells and increases the carcinogenesis of other chemicals. For the original references to these studies, refer to Yiamouyiannis’ pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation.

In 1997, it was shown that fluoridation caused about 10,000 cancer deaths in epidemiological studies by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute and Yiamouyiannis. Despite the findings occurring in 1997, they were not reluctantly released until 1989. After analyzing the study results in rats, it was found that animals who drank fluoridated water:

• Showed an increase in tumors and cancers in oral squamous cells.
• Developed a rare form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma.
• Showed an increased in thyroid follicular cell tumors.
• Developed a rare form of liver cancer known as hepatocholangiocarcinoma.

Other research resurfaced by Dr. Dean Burk, former chief of cytochemistry at the National Cancer Institute for 30 years, also shows that fluoride increases the cancer death rate. Dr Burk refers to a study conducted which compares the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation and the 10 largest without. What researchers found was that following fluoridation, deaths from cancer went up immediately- in as little as a year.
To reduce fluoride levels to a the greatest degree, activists must demand that the government stop fluoridating the water supplies. Water fluoridation has not only been linked to an increased cancer risk, but a decreased IQ in children. In fact, the findings forced the government to call for lower fluoridation levels nationwide. Until water fluoridation comes to a halt, the easiest way to reduce fluoride exposure is to invest in a reverse osmosis water filtration system. Drinking distilled water for 3-6 months may also reduce the soft tissue fluoride levels, but not bone levels. Soft tissue fluoride levels cause the greatest health problems.


http://info-wars.org/2012/04/15/top-scientist-fluoride-already-shown-to-cause-10000-cancer-deaths/

_AVALANCHE_

I'd be amazed if all the people in this Thread "for" Fluoridation were still for it if they actually seen it being added....along with the other chemicals, to water.

It's like a bath after you've thrown in a bottle of Radox, stinking foamy bubbiling toxic mess.

Razleavy

_AVALANCHE_ wrote: »

I'd be amazed if all the people in this Thread "for" Fluoridation were still for it if they actually seen it being added....along with the other chemicals, to water.

It's like a bath after you've thrown in a bottle of Radox, stinking foamy bubbiling toxic mess.

Civil Engineer here so have seen it all. I love drinking my clean, chlorinated and fluoridated water.

Dave!

_AVALANCHE_ wrote: »

I'd be amazed if all the people in this Thread "for" Fluoridation were still for it if they actually seen it being added....along with the other chemicals, to water.

It's like a bath after you've thrown in a bottle of Radox, stinking foamy bubbiling toxic mess.

Pretty silly appeal to emotion there... Heart surgery doesn't look great either, doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Genghiz Cohen

Dave! wrote: »

Pretty silly appeal to emotion there... Heart surgery doesn't look great either, doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Or the treatment for severe burns.

opinion guy

Razleavy wrote: »

Civil Engineer here so have seen it all. I love drinking my clean, chlorinated and fluoridated water.

Why do people always forget the aluminium ?

Capt'n Midnight

opinion guy wrote: »

Why do people always forget the aluminium ?

http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=99

A number of environmental factors have been put forward as possible contributory causes of Alzheimer's disease in some people. Among these is aluminium

opinion guy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=99

Touche Capn....touche

partyatmygaff

And there's the issue of water being contaminated with drug metabolites and hormones.

Drinking water: A cocktail of minerals, drugs and hormones. DHMO too.

opinion guy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

And there's the issue of water being contaminated with drug metabolites and hormones.

Drinking water: A cocktail of minerals, drugs and hormones. DHMO too.

You may think you are being smart, but your continued attempts at condescension merely make you look arrogant, take away from your arguments, and further betray the fact the you don't actually understand the issues of relevance.

As I've said before I'm in the middle of this particular discussion. You should listen to me. Because I'm the kind of person you need to persuade - yet you are singularly failing to do so.

Argument by derision is no argument and in fact an admission of inability to argue.

partyatmygaff

opinion guy wrote: »

You may think you are being smart, but your continued attempts at condescension merely make you look arrogant, take away from your arguments, and further betray the fact the you don't actually understand the issues of relevance.

I'm not being condescending. I'm just saying that fluoride is the least of your worries with tap water. As for not "understanding the issues of relevance" I don't know where you got that idea.

As I've said before I'm in the middle of this particular discussion. You should listen to me. Because I'm the kind of person you need to persuade - yet you are singularly failing to do so.

Why?

Argument by derision is no argument and in fact an admission of inability to argue.

I'm not arguing with anyone. I just find some of the reasons given like "It's a byproduct of heavy industry" and "It looks disgusting" to be a bit ridiculous. I don't really care if our water is fluoridated or not.

opinion guy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm not being condescending. I'm just saying that fluoride is the least of your worries with tap water. As for not "understanding the issues of relevance" I don't know where you got that idea.

If you are not condescending/taking the piss, why do you keep dropping in DHMO in the hope someone will not understand it is water ?

Why?

Not sure what your why is referring to exactly.

I'm not arguing with anyone. I just find some of the reasons given like "It's a byproduct of heavy industry" and "It looks disgusting" to be a bit ridiculous. I don't really care if our water is fluoridated or not.

If you don't care why are you here ridiculing peoples views ? Mere trolling ?

partyatmygaff

opinion guy wrote: »

If you are not condescending/taking the piss, why do you keep dropping in DHMO in the hope someone will not understand it is water ?

Taking the piss isn't the same as being condescending. I'm just saying that people's irrational fear of "chemicals" is ridiculous. Chemicals in trace quantities or at safe doses aren't overly dangerous.

Not sure what your why is referring to exactly.

Why should I want to convince you of anything? If water stopped being fluoridated tomorrow I wouldn't really care.

If you don't care why are you here ridiculing peoples views ? Mere trolling ?

I wouldn't call it trolling. I just find people's irrational fear of chemicals ridiculous and I want to demonstrate how minor of an issue fluoridation is in comparison to the other contaminants in water such as hormones.