Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

Tiddlypeeps

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

.....him assuming that correlation implies causation.

What? You mean in the same way that the more you and I buy ice cream, the more people drown? :eek:

tiger55

Ziphius wrote: »

Again, any evidence other than YouTube videos?

Maybe you think our governments have our best interests at heart?

Ziphius

tiger55 wrote: »

Maybe you think our governments have our best interests at heart?

So... you don't trust the government ergo any wacky conspiracy theory you see on YouTube must be true.

Ziphius

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Everything else he mentions in his video is a case of him assuming that correlation implies causation. It does not. He provides no evidience linking the various illnesses he mentions their being a high rate of in Ireland to water fluoridation.

They seem to do this a lot. The girl against fluoride, for example, likes to show how cancer rates are so much higher in the Republic (fluoridated) than in Northern Ireland (non-fluoridated) but then omits all the cancers which are more prevalent in Northern Ireland.

The All Ireland Cancer Registry actually have actually addressed this misuse of data: http://www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/nicr/nicr/MisinterpretationofAll-IrelandCancerAtlas1995-2007/

Ziphius

Ziphius wrote: »

So... you don't trust the government ergo any wacky conspiracy theory you see on YouTube must be true.

Did you know, by the way, that it's the government who made laws to force free Irish men and women to drive on the left? Oh, and also not kill each other or rob stuff from each other.

Bad government. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Ziphius

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you know, by the way, that it's the government who made laws to force free Irish men and women to drive on the left? Oh, and also not kill each other or rob stuff from each other.

Bad government. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

The fiends! I wouldn't be surprised if they are pay doctors' and nurses' salaries either.

enfant terrible

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/antifluoridation-bad-science/#more-22052

Starfox

Deleted User wrote: »

What exactly do you have against poor people? :rolleyes:

ok, why has 98% of Europe banned fluoride in drinking water... for a laugh?

Canis Lupus

Starfox wrote: »

ok, why has 98% of Europe banned fluoride in drinking water... for a laugh?

Probably politicians, they rarely let science get in the way of potential votes.

Maximus Alexander

OP, do you realise that water fluoridation does not necessarily mean adding fluoride, but can also mean removing it? Essentially the goal of fluoridation is to optimise the amount of fluoride in drinking water, since natural fresh water supplies (including bottled water) can contain higher than safe levels.

The goal is to keep it between 0.5 and 1.3 parts per million. Sea water has, on average, between 1.2 and 1.5 parts per million and some natural fresh water has levels of up to 12 ppm. Anything above 4 ppm can have negative heath effects.

Now, I can't find information on what Ireland's natural fresh water fluoride levels are, but it's safe to say that if you stop water fluoridation there will still be fluoride in your drinking water, the levels just won't be optimised.

If you're that worried about it, buy yourself a water filter. They're not expensive and if you buy the right ones they will take the fluoride out of the water. Be prepared to have your teeth degrade dramatically over the next decade though.

And no, brushing and flossing is not enough. Fluoridation improves dental health by up to 35%, even for those who brush twice daily.

Ziphius

Starfox wrote: »

ok, why has 98% of Europe banned fluoride in drinking water... for a laugh?

Many European countries provide fluoride in table salt.

Such as Germany (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156167), France (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156166), and Switzerland (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156165).

Logical_Bear

christ I thought I'd staggered into the CT forum,sh1te youtube videos and all:D

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Tooth decay is not generally life-threatening, though on occasion it can be.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2131825/Gum-disease-does-cause-heart-trouble-Any-link-coincidental-say-scientists.html

A panel of 13 U.S. scientists insisted there was no evidence for a causal link between bad gums and cardiovascular disease.

They reviewed 500 articles in scientific journals and concluded that while people with gum disease may be at greater risk of heart and artery problems, the association is probably coincidental.

Then again it is the Daily Mail :pac:

Ziphius

Ziphius wrote: »

Many European countries provide fluoride in table salt.

Such as Germany (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156167), France (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156166), and Switzerland (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156165).

They have a choice to use salt or not. We do not have a choice of water from our tap!

Ziphius

Deleted User wrote: »

They have a choice to use salt or not. We do not have a choice of water from our tap!

Bottled water? Dig a well? Ion exchange? We have plenty of options some people just like the idea that the government is poisoning them.

Ziphius

Ziphius wrote: »

Bottled water? Dig a well? Ion exchange? We have plenty of options some people just like the idea that the government is poisoning them.

All very expensive options and I would love to see my landlords reaction when I dig a well in a Dublin city house!

I personally don't think the Govt is malicious in adding fluoride to water, just very ignorant.

AnonoBoy

Starfox wrote: »

ok, why has 98% of Europe banned fluoride in drinking water... for a laugh?

What's 98% of Europe?

46 countries out of 50? Or are you basing it on landmass or population density?

beans

The thing about fluoridation is that ingesting does nothing for your teeth. It's effective at hardening enamel when used topically on teeth. Why else don't they tell you to swallow toothpaste once you're done? (They do specifically tell you to contact poison control if you swallow toothpaste, but that may or may not be down to the levels of fluoride in it, I don't know.)

So, this initiative to save our teeth is only going to benefit people who don't already use a fluoridated toothpaste. That must be a small percentage of the population. So, think of the money spent annually putting a medicine into drinking water, into old pipes that leak a massive % of that water into the environment, in order to improve the dental condition of a tiny % of the population. That's wasteful, if nothing else. And I know this sounds alarmist, but it's also effectively forced medication of everyone else who drinks tap-water in the country.

Tooth-paste vouchers for at-risk families would be just one off-the-top-of-my-head idea that would get all the benefits of the current wasteful setup.

The whole idea is just wrong for lots of valid reasons, and you don't need your tinfoil hat to see that.

jh79

But there are no proven negative effects so why be so militantly agaisnt it?

beans

jh79 wrote: »

But there are no proven negative effects so why be so militantly agaisnt it?

I'm not going down the negative health-effects route, I'm just pointing out that the fluoridation scheme's very reason for being is massively questionable, and I think everyone can agree that saving money is in the country's best interests right now; I think you can also argue that forced medication of a population is unethical in and of itself, regardless of proven negative effects.

jh79

beans wrote: »

I'm not going down the negative health-effects route, I'm just pointing out that the fluoridation scheme's very reason for being is massively questionable, and I think everyone can agree that saving money is in the country's best interests right now; I think you can also argue that forced medication of a population is unethical in and of itself, regardless of proven negative effects.

Scaremongering by the no side can get a bit grating and is unethical too as I believe they know themselves there are no health risks involved.

Maximus Alexander

beans wrote: »

The thing about fluoridation is that ingesting does nothing for your teeth. It's effective at hardening enamel when used topically on teeth. Why else don't they tell you to swallow toothpaste once you're done? (They do specifically tell you to contact poison control if you swallow toothpaste, but that may or may not be down to the levels of fluoride in it, I don't know.)

So, this initiative to save our teeth is only going to benefit people who don't already use a fluoridated toothpaste. That must be a small percentage of the population. So, think of the money spent annually putting a medicine into drinking water, into old pipes that leak a massive % of that water into the environment, in order to improve the dental condition of a tiny % of the population. That's wasteful, if nothing else. And I know this sounds alarmist, but it's also effectively forced medication of everyone else who drinks tap-water in the country.

Tooth-paste vouchers for at-risk families would be just one off-the-top-of-my-head idea that would get all the benefits of the current wasteful setup.

The whole idea is just wrong for lots of valid reasons, and you don't need your tinfoil hat to see that.

This post is just wrong for a lot of valid reasons, and you just need to do some actual research to see that.


Ingesting it does nothing for your teeth?

Fluoride can strengthen teeth in two ways — from the outside or the inside.

Fluoride also strengthens teeth from within. Swallowed fluoride enters the bloodstream and becomes part of the permanent teeth as they develop. This is called systemic fluoride. The teeth become stronger, so it is harder for acids to destroy the enamel.

It is only going to benefit people who don't already use a fluoridated toothpaste?

The work group recommends that all persons drink water with an optimal fluoride concentration and brush their teeth twice daily with fluoride toothpaste.

It is effectively forced medication?

Again, the vast majority of water on Earth already contains fluoride. Sometimes at dangerously high levels.

AnonoBoy

jh79 wrote: »

But there are no proven negative effects so why be so militantly agaisnt it?

Why do you need proof when you have hearsay and rumor?

beans

Swallowed fluoride enters the bloodstream and becomes part of the permanent teeth as they develop

The CDC report was interesting, as it seemed to contradict what I had previously read re: swallowing fluoride. Still, you're only talking about kids up to the age of permanent teeth. After that, levels of fluoride in saliva having a topical affect during the day seem to be the main positive.

I do stand by my comments about wastefulness, and yes forced medication too. The target group to whom this is most beneficial is still small comparatively.

Thanks for pointing me to that report, and the error about swallowed fluoride - I'll not be bringing that one up again

beans

beans wrote: »

I'm not going down the negative health-effects route, I'm just pointing out that the fluoridation scheme's very reason for being is massively questionable, and I think everyone can agree that saving money is in the country's best interests right now; I think you can also argue that forced medication of a population is unethical in and of itself, regardless of proven negative effects.

Fluoridation of water supplies isn't massively questionable. It confers benefits, and ultimately saves the community money.

The main - the only - objection to fluoridation of water supplies comes from the lunatic fringe right. Since they are the same people who gave us Waco, TX and the Oklahoma City bombing, they really don't have a lot of credibility when it comes to health promotion.

Starfox

Starfox wrote: »

ok, why has 98% of Europe banned fluoride in drinking water... for a laugh?

I actually asked someone else the question, but now that you're here......





....what exactly do you have against poor people?

Rented Mule

AnonoBoy wrote: »

What's 98% of Europe?

46 countries out of 50? Or are you basing it on landmass or population density?

46 out of 50 would be 92%

49 out of 50 would be 98%

What are ya....mathematically dysfunctional or something ?

If Fintan has four donkeys, three duck, two turkeys, and a partridge in a pear tree, why does the red Nissan in the car park have a half tank of petrol ?

Solve for red.

AnonoBoy

Rented Mule wrote: »

46 out of 50 would be 92%

49 out of 50 would be 98%

What are ya....mathematically dysfunctional or something ?

If Fintan has four donkeys, three duck, two turkeys, and a partridge in a pear tree, why does the red Nissan in the car park have a half tank of petrol ?

Solve for red.

Flouride actually contracts countries so they count for more or less. I can remember. There's a Youtube video about it around here somewhere.....

Rented Mule

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Flouride actually contracts countries so they count for more or less. I can remember. There's a Youtube video about it around here somewhere.....

LIES !!! LIES I TELL YOU !!!

Wait ...on YouTube ?

Must be true.

Capt'n Midnight

Starfox wrote: »

ok, why has 98% of Europe banned fluoride in drinking water... for a laugh?

Because in many places they have added it to table salt instead.

http://fluorideinfo.org/fluoride_claims-vs-facts.html

Because their public water systems are both older and of smaller scale than those in the U.S., many European countries (e.g. Germany, France, Spain and Switzerland) find it more cost-effective to provide the cavity-fighting benefits of fluoridation by adding it to table salt (much the way iodine is added to salt in the U.S. to prevent goiter).

And yes too much table salt is bad for you and high doses of it will kill you. Same is true of the iodine added to salt / flour in other parts of the world. Not enough salt or iodine is bad for you too.


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm Note the recommended limits at the bottom


also note table 3, you are allowed sell bottled water in the US that has natural flouride of up to 2.4 mg/L - Completely illegal levels if it came from a public water supply in Ireland


So can anyone show evidence for this 98% figure ?

or even post evidence that several European countries have banned water fluoridation AND don't have alternatives such as fluoridated table salt on sale.

Dave!

And electing not to do something is not the same as banning it. Countries can make their own decisions in relation to fluoride. Some might prefer other means of administering it, others might have different dental treatment policies which make it unnecessary, and others might decide that as a principle it should be left up to the individual. Furthermore government policy does not always accurately reflect the science of the time, there may be political or other factors at play.

Dude111

I dont see Dave why it should be administered AT ALL!!!!!

Its a poision (At least SODIUM FLOURIDE IS) and meant to control people! (Amoung other things)

conzy

I was going to post a constructive reply but I'm so docile I'm not arsed.. Must be all the fluoride..

There are more people in the UK drinking fluoridated water than there are here, its widespread in oz too. There is usually a higher concentration of chlorine in the water by the time it reaches your tap..

Scary chemicals like Sulphuric acid and lime are added to the water too to adjust PH.. We're all going to die tbh

Ziphius

Dude111 wrote: »

I dont see Dave why it should be administered AT ALL!!!!!

Its a poision (At least SODIUM FLOURIDE IS) and meant to control people! (Amoung other things)

:eek: You know something we don't? What else does it control? I'm certain the Reptoids must be resistant as water inside the hollow earth has a terribly high level of fluoride.

Interestingly a Fluoride (Fluoxetine) is the main ingredient in Prozac. And people wonder why Irish people are listed as one of the happiest in the world!
Add that to high levels of Fluoride in Tea(Irish being one of the biggest tea drinkers on the planet) and we are being completely doped out of it.

jh79

Deleted User wrote: »

Interestingly a Fluoride (Fluoxetine) is the main ingredient in Prozac. And people wonder why Irish people are listed as one of the happiest in the world!
Add that to high levels of Fluoride in Tea(Irish being one of the biggest tea drinkers on the planet) and we are being completely doped out of it.

that's not interesting it just shows ignorance to how chemistry works

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

that's not interesting it just shows ignorance to how chemistry works

So a compound of Fluoride cannot have similar effects?
And Fluoride in Tea is not Fluoride?!

jh79

Deleted User wrote: »

So a compound of Fluoride cannot have similar effects?
And Fluoride in Tea is not Fluoride?!

No it is not as simple as that, cellulose and vitamins contains carbon and so does Fluoxetine, do they have the same properties?

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

No

Stellar response! I'm sure you have convinced many with your strong arguments!!!

Mycroft H

Did anyone else's primary school have a fluoride rinse, where you were made wash this manky stuff round your mouth by the county dental nurse. Probably in the areas where there is no piped water supply

jh79

Deleted User wrote: »

Stellar response! I'm sure you have convinced many with your strong arguments!!!

Are you really interested in the science?

Ziphius

jh79 wrote: »

No it is not as simple as that, cellulose and vitamins contains carbon and so does Fluoxetine, do they have the same properties?

I'll admit I was a sceptic at first but after I did a little research I changed my mind.

Did you know one of the main ingredients in table salt is Chlorine!-- a toxic gas used by the Germans in the first world war.

AnonoBoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Interestingly a Fluoride (Fluoxetine) is the main ingredient in Prozac. And people wonder why Irish people are listed as one of the happiest in the world!
Add that to high levels of Fluoride in Tea(Irish being one of the biggest tea drinkers on the planet) and we are being completely doped out of it.

Fluoride is not the same as Fluoxetine. And referring to Fluoxetine as 'a Flouride' is just incorrect I'm afraid.

I know people like to point this out in the hope that they'll convince others that flouride is put in the water supply to make people docile (I've heard one 'comedian' in Dublin ranting on about this) but the truth is that they have no understanding of chemistry. Just because they sound the same doesn't mean they are the same.

AnonoBoy

I robbed this from another forum but it explains why the whole 'fluoride' is used to pacify the masses thing is crap:

Time for a chemistry lesson. Fluoride is the ionic form of fluorine. Don't know what an ion is? Wiki. This is basic stuff. Prozac doesn't contain fluoride and to be pedantic about it it doesn't contain fluorine either. That would be like saying carbon monoxide contains oxygen. Yes oxygen forms part of the carbon monoxide molecule but carbon monoxide does not have the properties of oxygen. Try breathing only carbon monoxide. Now apply this logic to the fluoxetine molecule. It is mainly carbon and hydrogen but, unsurprisingly, has none of the properties of either. It also has fluorine(not fluoride) in it's molecular structure but that doesn't mean it has any of the properties of fluorine(let alone fluoride).

I was told about the mind numbing effects of fluoride by my conspiracy nut gradfather along time ago and his source of this informtion also mentioned the addition of fluorine to Prozac as well as rohipnol suggesting that it gave the drugs more mind controling properties or something of that nature. In short it was pseudoscientific BS. The authors of the article couldn't even tell the difference between fluorine and fluoride despite this being stuff we all learn about in high school.

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f30/do-all-ssris-contain-fluoride-77728/#post1059831756

opinion guy

Deleted User wrote: »

Stellar response! I'm sure you have convinced many with your strong arguments!!!

He's convinced more than you. Listen I'm largely in the middle of this arugment leaning towards the side fluoridation should be stopped - i.e. I'm closer to your side than the other side. So listen to me when I tell you this - you have no idea what you are talking about. Do yourself and us a favour and go educate yourself on science before attempting to argue these points. You are not doing anything to convince anyone against fluoride when you demonstrate failure to grasp basic chemistry - quite the opposite in fact.

JohnnyChimpo

Deleted User wrote: »

So a compound of Fluoride cannot have similar effects?

No, not really. If you had a rasher about chemistry, you'd be aware that single-atom substitutions in chemical structures are enough to radically alter their bioactivity and efficacy. And yet you're comparing Fluoxetine, a psychoactive complex organic compound with happens to have a trifluormethyl sidechain group, with simple fluoride salts which are not psychoactive and have proven positive health effects. So basically, you're regurgitating some horse**** which sounded convincing to you, sorry.

I know I'm just some lad on the internet and all, but I do happen to have a PhD in molecular biology, and for what little it's worth I am not remotely concerned about the supposed negative effects of fluoridation.

jh79

opinion guy wrote: »

He's convinced more than you. Listen I'm largely in the middle of this arugment leaning towards the side fluoridation should be stopped - i.e. I'm closer to your side than the other side. So listen to me when I tell you this - you have no idea what you are talking about. Do yourself and us a favour and go educate yourself on science before attempting to argue these points. You are not doing anything to convince anyone against fluoride when you demonstrate failure to grasp basic chemistry - quite the opposite in fact.

In fairness to the nixmix my original response was just a plain no, I edited it a few seconds later

Zombienosh

What are the reasons for keeping it in the water?

If we are going to charged for water surely we should a choice in the matter also?

I don't think we need it anymore.

opinion guy

jh79 wrote: »

In fairness to the nixmix my original response was just a plain no, I edited it a few seconds later

Oh I saw that. However I grow weary of posts like his diluting the argument and giving the other side a chance to mock. There is far too much sneering going on by the pro fluoride side to actually be inviting them to do so

opinion guy

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

with simple fluoride salts which are not psychoactive and have proven positive health effects. So basically, you're regurgitating some horse**** which sounded convincing to you, sorry.

I know I'm just some lad on the internet and all, but I do happen to have a PhD in molecular biology, and for what little it's worth I am not remotely concerned about the supposed negative effects of fluoridation.

To quote Ben Goldacre on this (4yrs ago admittedly):

The reality is that anybody making any confident statement about fluoride – positive or negative – is speaking way beyond the evidence.

source:http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/foreign-substances-in-your-precious-bodily-fluids/