Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

JohnnyChimpo

opinion guy wrote: »

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

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

The BMJ article he links to doesn't dispute the positive effects of fluoridation, rather the degree of the observable effect, and the poor controls used in many of the studies. I would agree with this from what I've read.

opinion guy

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

The BMJ article he links to doesn't dispute the positive effects of fluoridation, rather the degree of the observable effect, and the poor controls used in many of the studies. I would agree with this from what I've read.

You don't think the degree of observable effect and poor choice of controls are related to the positive effects ?

JohnnyChimpo

Without devolving into a semantic argument, I can't address that question as it is poorly worded. What do you mean by "related" for example? A causal relationship? If so, then no.

Meta-reviews are useful for greatly increasing the statistical robustness of a group of studies which may independently be unimpressive. The BMJ article links to this study :
McDonagh, Marian S., et al. "Systematic review of water fluoridation." Bmj 321.7265 (2000): 855-859.

214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was −5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth.

So yeah, a meta-review of 214 studies sits pretty well with me. And it's not exactly an outlier either. This study does go on to talk about the levels of fluorosis seen at 1ppm, which as far as I understand is in the range of Irish fluoridation. There is probably some scope for titrating the optimal dose with regards to this, but it's not something I see as a pressing social issue.

RoundBox11

Worztron wrote: »

Fluoride, or Hydrofluorosilic acid that is put into tap water is a waste by-product derived from the industrial manufacture of aerosols, aluminium, fertilizers, insecticides, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, plastics, uranium and zinc.
American toothpastes containing fluoride are by law obliged to state, '"WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately."
It is also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972 ranking in toxicity above lead and just below arsenic.
Hitler used fluoride in the water to induce docility.

10 Facts about Fluoride: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation: http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm
Adverse health effects of fluoride: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health

Please. Go and get a basic chemistry book. Leaving cert level should do, and educate yourself on the matter. Flouride is only dangerous in high level. Hence, why its in really, really low levels in our water. It's there for a reason.
If you look up any decent pharmacology website you'll see that everything has side effects and risks. These lists have to be made using anyone who's reported even slight symptoms, during the time of using the chemical. Say you've got 1000 people testing something and one of them gets stomach cramps one day. That has to go down as a side effect.

opinion guy

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

Without devolving into a semantic argument, I can't address that question as it is poorly worded. What do you mean by "related" for example? A causal relationship? If so, then no.

Oh I think its quite clear. I didn't say anything about causal relationships and neither would that make any sense in the context of discussion between you and I. Stop trying to weasle the semantics. You seem to think that the conclusions of the studies and the fact that they used poor controls and are unrelated quantities. They are connected. Specifically a poor choice of controls undermines the results of any study - regardless of the conclusions (unless the conclusion is 'our controls were **** - therefore we are not sure')

Meta-reviews are useful for greatly increasing the statistical robustness of a group of studies which may independently be unimpressive. The BMJ article links to this study :
McDonagh, Marian S., et al. "Systematic review of water fluoridation." Bmj 321.7265 (2000): 855-859.


So yeah, a meta-review of 214 studies sits pretty well with me. And it's not exactly an outlier either. This study does go on to talk about the levels of fluorosis seen at 1ppm, which as far as I understand is in the range of Irish fluoridation. There is probably some scope for titrating the optimal dose with regards to this, but it's not something I see as a pressing social issue.

Meta reviews are great. But if all of the 214 studies were of **** design then the conclusion of the meta-review must also be held in suspicion (again unless the conclusion is 'we are not sure the data was ****'. Meta review is not a magic method for turning coal into gold.

Starfox

Ziphius

And yet:

"[t]he American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and others have endorsed fluoridation as a safe, effective way to reduce decay".

http://www.healthychildren.org/english/healthy-living/oral-health/pages/Water-Fluoridation.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

Tiddlypeeps

Ziphius wrote: »

And yet:

"[t]he American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and others have endorsed fluoridation as a safe, effective way to reduce decay".

http://www.healthychildren.org/english/healthy-living/oral-health/pages/Water-Fluoridation.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

But she is wearing a white coat! And speaking in a soft tone! How can I not take everything she says as fact!

OCorcrainn

Fluoride causes apathy in people, seeing as how so many Irish people are unwilling to stand up for the rights as they are being trampled on by the government than it might explain a few things.

Dude111

RoundBox11 wrote:

It's there for a reason.

Yes WHAT REASON??

Why is a POISON in something that people consume??

WHY DO TOOTHPASTE BOTTLES SAY TO CALL A POISON CENTER IF ITS SWALLOWED?? (Theres NO MORE in toothpaste than there is in water)

I think THERE IS an agenda.......

Ziphius

Dude111 wrote: »

Yes WHAT REASON??

Why is a POISON in something that people consume??

WHY DO TOOTHPASTE BOTTLES SAY TO CALL A POISON CENTER IF ITS SWALLOWED?? (Theres NO MORE in toothpaste than there is in water)

I think THERE IS an agenda.......

So let me get this straight. The same government which is poisoning our water supply with fluoride is also forcing toothpaste manufacturers to warn customers of the dangers of this very same poison? Some agenda alright.

Capt'n Midnight

Dude111 wrote: »

Yes WHAT REASON??

Why is a POISON in something that people consume??

WHY DO TOOTHPASTE BOTTLES SAY TO CALL A POISON CENTER IF ITS SWALLOWED?? (Theres NO MORE in toothpaste than there is in water)

I think THERE IS an agenda.......

My toothpaste doesn't say call a poison centre.

It's 1450ppm which is 2,000 times higher than allowed in tap water.


When people PARROT stuff that is blatantly wrong then they probably have an agenda

starlings

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Fluoride causes apathy in people, seeing as how so many Irish people are unwilling to stand up for the rights as they are being trampled on by the government than it might explain a few things.

Hmmm, so many Irish people are unwilling to stand up for the right to defy debt and to be trampled on by the government they chose until the next election.

Yes, must be something in the water.

Seaneh

In the last few years there have been more and more studies in the US and europe linking Fluoridation of drinking water with thyroid disease.

Basically, fluoride inhibits thyroid function. In the past it was used by doctors for that very reason, to slow down over active thyroids (its not used anymore for that reason).

The effects of this (inhibited thyroid function) can be as wide ranging as fatigue, depression, anxiety, infertility, and being overweight/obese (slowed metabolism).

More and more doctors and scientists around the world are coming to the conclusion that water fluoridation has a very small benefit to humans but that is outweighed by a host of potential harmful side effects.

This article is a good place to start if you don't believe me.

http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoridechange.htm

starlings

Seaneh wrote: »

In the last few years there have been more and more studies in the US and europe linking Fluoridation of drinking water with thyroid disease.

Basically, fluoride inhibits thyroid function. In the past it was used by doctors for that very reason, to slow down over active thyroids (its not used anymore for that reason).

The effects of this (inhibited thyroid function) can be as wide ranging as fatigue, depression, anxiety, infertility, and being overweight/obese (slowed metabolism).

More and more doctors and scientists around the world are coming to the conclusion that water fluoridation has a very small benefit to humans but that is outweighed by a host of potential harmful side effects.

This article is a good place to start if you don't believe me.

http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoridechange.htm

I'd have to do a lot of reading and double-checking and comparisons before I can tackle you on that, Seaneh; all I meant is that I don't accept that
1.) flouride is put in the water to cause harm - including political apathy - deliberately,
2.) that most Irish people are apathetic, as opposed to just getting on with things, and
3.) apathy, where it exists, has a purely physiological cause, as opposed to circumstantial.

Seaneh

My post wasn't directed at you to be honest, just giving my €0.02

Worztron

While I disagree with many of the other things that this guy approves, this video is worth a watch.

Ando's Saggy Bottom

^^^

Looked at title of video.

Didn't bother my hole.

jh79

I still can't get my head around why this is an issue for some people.

To be so militant about water fluoridation in spite of the fact that no evidence exists that the Irish levels are a health risk is just bizarre.

Capt'n Midnight

What can a youtube video say in 14:35 that will change the lack of hard evidence ?


Dr. Strangelove was released in 1964. Part of the plot is a crazy general trying to start WWIII because of fluoridation.

This means that some people were making lots of noise about fluoridation 50 years ago and that most people knew about it.

In the meantime epidemiology and health & safety have taken leaps and bounds. If there were a statistically observable health problem it would have been found by now.



Let's play the Devils Advocate for a moment,
suppose we ban fluoride on the preventative principle ?

then we'd have to ban things that are more dangerous too
stuff like stairs, kitchens, planes, trains and automobiles, alcohol, tobacco , smoked meat and toast, sunbathing, swimming ,trawlers, mining and about a quarter of the stuff on the Daily Mail's cancer list

Jester252

Do you mean this?

Capt'n Midnight

Jester252 wrote: »

Do you mean this?

No

I mean the original which has links back to the DM articles.

http://www.facebook.com/TheDailyMailListOfThingsThatGiveYouCancer/info

Just go down through the list slowly, and remember that most (if not all) of those scares have more hard evidence to support them than the anti-flouride campaign.

Jester252

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No

I mean the original which has links back to the DM articles.

http://www.facebook.com/TheDailyMailListOfThingsThatGiveYouCancer/info

Just go down through the list slowly, and remember that most (if not all) of those scares have more hard evidence to support them than the anti-flouride campaign.

I should be dead my now if that the case

Starfox

Tune in to Last Word on Today FM today at 5:10pm where Aisling (The Girl Against Fluoride) will be chatting with Matt Cooper and debating with Dr Joe Mullins of the Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health.


If you do not have access to a radio, you can catch the show online at www.todayfm.com

jh79

Starfox wrote: »

Tune in to Last Word on Today FM today at 5:10pm where Aisling (The Girl Against Fluoride) will be chatting with Matt Cooper and debating with Dr Joe Mullins of the Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health.


If you do not have access to a radio, you can catch the show online at www.todayfm.com

That was pretty poor from both sides.

She mentioned the mullinex? Paper in which a rat is given water with 100ppm if she thinks that is comparable to an adult getting 1ppm water she is either deluded or willfully misleading people

Yawnz

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What can a youtube video say in 14:35 that will change the lack of hard evidence ?


Dr. Strangelove was released in 1964. Part of the plot is a crazy general trying to start WWIII because of fluoridation.

This means that some people were making lots of noise about fluoridation 50 years ago and that most people knew about it.

In the meantime epidemiology and health & safety have taken leaps and bounds. If there were a statistically observable health problem it would have been found by now.



Let's play the Devils Advocate for a moment,
suppose we ban fluoride on the preventative principle ?

then we'd have to ban things that are more dangerous too
stuff like stairs, kitchens, planes, trains and automobiles, alcohol, tobacco , smoked meat and toast, sunbathing, swimming ,trawlers, mining and about a quarter of the stuff on the Daily Mail's cancer list

There has been toxicological data to show that fluoride is harmful. But I think it might be prudent to point out here that fluoride is added to our public water supplies without informed consent. If I smoke a cigarette, I know the risks that are involved with it and I guess it is my choice to smoke. But those out there who do not want to ingest fluoride simply have that right taken from them. I read an interesting comment by the Germans on this - "The consumer cannot avoid fluoridated water made available by public water supply. This mandatory intake of fluoride violates the basic right to bodily freedom from injury...provided by the Basic Laws of The Federal Republic of Germany"

I guess it is easy to perpetually argue the science of fluoridation, but it is harder to deny that people's right to informed consent has been denied.

Dave!

Yawnz wrote: »

There has been toxicological data to show that fluoride is harmful. But I think it might be prudent to point out here that fluoride is added to our public water supplies without informed consent. If I smoke a cigarette, I know the risks that are involved with it and I guess it is my choice to smoke. But those out there who do not want to ingest fluoride simply have that right taken from them. I read an interesting comment by the Germans on this - "The consumer cannot avoid fluoridated water made available by public water supply. This mandatory intake of fluoride violates the basic right to bodily freedom from injury...provided by the Basic Laws of The Federal Republic of Germany"

I guess it is easy to perpetually argue the science of fluoridation, but it is harder to deny that people's right to informed consent has been denied.

It is, which is why it boggles my mind that anti-fluoride proponents keep pushing the health risk angle, as you just tried again in your first line. Of course flouride is toxic. Just not at the level present in drinking water.

Fromthetrees

British troops. Out of Ireland!

Fluoridated water. Out of Ireland! :mad:

Yawnz

Dave! wrote: »

It is, which is why it boggles my mind that anti-fluoride proponents keep pushing the health risk angle, as you just tried again in your first line. Of course flouride is toxic. Just not at the level present in drinking water.

I know, I guess I always go down that route myself even without realising it. The science that I have read is what made up my mind on this very issue, so I guess it naturally features in my argument. I understand the argument that you make, that at the levels of 0.6ppm-0.8ppm it may not have an adverse affect if you're only ever drinking water, but I think that it is very important to bear in mind that we're not just ingesting fluoride in our water. Everyday we may swallow a portion of fluoridated toothpaste. The Irish are one of the worlds largest tea drinkers - tea has high levels of naturally occurring fluoride. Products made with fluoridated water will also contain fluoride - for example Guinness that is produced in ROI (this was confirmed by Diageo), Dubliner cheese was tested and contains 29ppm fluoride. I guess the list is almost never ending. Another thing that is important to bear in mind I guess is that fluoride is bio-accumulative.

Gordon Gecko

As a dental student I can say that it is absolute BOLLOCKS. Fluoride presents no danger to human health in doses less than 1ppm in water.

opinion guy

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

As a dental student I can say that it is absolute BOLLOCKS. Fluoride presents no danger to human health in doses less than 1ppm in water.

Tell me, as a dental student, how many hours of toxicology do you study ?

Gordon Gecko

opinion guy wrote: »

Tell me, as a dental student, how many hours of toxicology do you study ?

I've spent more hours reading scientific, i.e. stuff you don't read, literature and studies on fluoride and its effects than you ever will so I think I'll take a pass on your toxicology preaching. Show me long term clinical trials which prove the dangers of water fluoridation to health? Crank.

opinion guy

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

I've spent more hours reading scientific, i.e. stuff you don't read, literature and studies on fluoride and its effects than you ever will so I think I'll take a pass on your toxicology preaching. Show me long term clinical trials which prove the dangers of water fluoridation to health? Crank.

Hold up buddy - I didn't give offer you a viewpoint.

You made a claim to authority - I asked you to quantify that authority. If you are going to argue by authority you should expect to be asked to justfiy that authority. Don't assume to know what I do or do not read.

Now would you mind answering the question you were asked instead of strawmanning

Magnetics

I think that if there is even a one in a million chance that fluoride poses any sort of health risk to humans at all, it should be scrapped altogether

Dental hygiene has come a long long way since fluoride was introduced to Irish water supplies, it is no longer necessary to leave a chemical like it in what is the most basic requirement for life

We already get plenty of it in our toothpaste and mouth washes, we don't need any more and for that reason it should be scrapped

Gordon Gecko

opinion guy wrote: »

Hold up buddy - I didn't give offer you a viewpoint.

You made a claim to authority - I asked you to quantify that authority. If you are going to argue by authority you should expect to be asked to justfiy that authority. Don't assume to know what I do or do not read.

Now would you mind answering the question you were asked instead of strawmanning

1) I'm not your buddy, I don't make friends with cranks

2) I have read extensively on scientific literature pertaining to water fluoridation, of which toxicology is an intrinsic part. I would say that in the last 4 years I've spent easily upwards of 50 hours reading scientific literature on water fluoridation (which doesn't include the time I've spent sitting in lectures listening to competent and qualified authorities discussing it.)

3) Can you answer my question now crank. Where are your long term clinical studies which prove water fluoridation is a danger to human health?

Gordon Gecko

Magnetics wrote: »

I think that if there is even a one in a million chance that fluoride poses any sort of health risk to humans at all, it should be scrapped altogether

Dental hygiene has come a long long way since fluoride was introduced to Irish water supplies, it is no longer necessary to leave a chemical like it in what is the most basic requirement for life

We already get plenty of it in our toothpaste and mouth washes, we don't need any more and for that reason it should be scrapped

http://www.dohc.ie/publications/fluoridation_forum.html

Read that and cure your own ignorance

opinion guy

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

1) I'm not your buddy, I don't make friends with cranks

2) I have read extensively on scientific literature pertaining to water fluoridation, of which toxicology is an intrinsic part. I would say that in the last 4 years I've spent easily upwards of 50 hours reading scientific literature on water fluoridation (which doesn't include the time I've spent sitting in lectures listening to competent and qualified authorities discussing it.)

3) Can you answer my question now crank. Where are your long term clinical studies which prove water fluoridation is a danger to human health?

I didn't say fluoride is a danger. If you must know I'm on the fence on the issue.

I did ask you how much toxicology you studied - as in how much is on the dental student curriculum. I genuinely want to know. Now for some reason you've decided I'm a crank and are jumping down my throat. I only asked you a simple question. Because I'm interested to know. Thats all.

Seaneh

Harvard Medical School Professor, Dan Merfeld PhD, wrote the following:

“While I keep an open mind regarding the latest research, at least three facts are indisputable.

“1) Fluoridation provides an uncontrolled fluoride dose.

“2) Fluoridation began before research showed that fluoride’s benefits were due to topical application not ingestion.

“3) Fluoridation began before all its side effects were known.”

Add this to the fact that fluoride is an endocrine-inhibitor which blocks the thyroid from absorbing iodine, which it needs to produce thyroid hormone, which is essential to every cell in your body and thus essential for proper function of every part of your body, and potentially causes or compounds problems like Hashimoto's disease and Graves' disease and other forms of hypo-thyroidism in thousands and thousands of people, most of whom are most likely undiagnosed. For those reasons, fluoridation of public drinking water should not continue.

Magnetics

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

http://www.dohc.ie/publications/fluoridation_forum.html

Read that and cure your own ignorance

I will do just that

Maybe you should read up on this aswel, we can both learn together

Gordon Gecko

opinion guy wrote: »

I didn't say fluoride is a danger. If you must know I'm on the fence on the issue.

I did ask you how much toxicology you studied - as in how much is on the dental student curriculum. I genuinely want to know. Now for some reason you've decided I'm a crank and are jumping down my throat. I only asked you a simple question. Because I'm interested to know. Thats all.

As a dental student I am required to know the potential for chronic and acute toxicity of all dental related chemicals (i.e. components of toothpaste, of which fluoride is one), any antibiotics or painkillers I will prescribe and a host of other common medications which my patient may be taking (e.g. antihypertensives, warfarin etc.). This is studied as we are introduced to each chemical and class of chemicals and reinforced as part of a year long pharmacology course.

Gordon Gecko

Seaneh wrote: »

Harvard Medical School Professor, Dan Merfeld PhD, wrote the following:




Add this to the fact that fluoride is an endocrine-inhibitor which blocks the thyroid from absorbing iodine, which it needs to produce thyroid hormone, which is essential to every cell in your body and thus essential for proper function of every part of your body, and potentially causes or compounds problems like Hashimoto's disease and Graves' disease and other forms of hypo-thyroidism in thousands and thousands of people, most of whom are most likely undiagnosed. For those reasons, fluoridation of public drinking water should not continue.

Evidence?

Trhiggy83

I find it hard to believe nearly half the posters who voted in the poll reckon that fluoridation shouldnt be scrapped. Have i missed something here

Seaneh

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

Evidence?

Well ok.

Fluoride is, without any doubt in the scientific of medical communities, a endocrine disruptor[1].

In fact, it was used until the 50's in Europe to treat Hyperthyroidism because it's such an effective iodine blocker.[2]

Your thyroid gland made of the most sensitive tissue in your body to fluoride with more fluoride accumulating in your thyroid than many other soft tissues [3]

Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations" with "similar effects on T4 and T3…reported in experimental animals[1]

Altered thyroid function is associated with fluoride intakes as low as 0.05-0.1 mg fluoride per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day), or 0.03 mg/kg/day with iodine deficiency. Increased prevalence of goiter (>20 percent) is associated with fluoride intakes of 0.07-0.13 mg/kg/day, or 0.01 mg/kg/day with iodine deficiency[1]

[1] National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

[2] Maumené E. 1854. Compt Rend Acad Sci 39:538. & May W. 1935. Antagonismus Zwischen Jod und Fluor im Organismus. Klinische Wochenschrift 14:790-92.

[3] Shashi A. 1988. Biochemical effects of Fluoride on thyroid gland duringexperimental fluorosis. Fluoride 21:127–130. & Monsour PA, Kruger BJ. 1985. Effect of fluoride on soft tissue in vertebrates. Fluoride 18:53-61. / Call RA, Greenwood DA, LeCheminant H, et al. 1965. Histological and chemical studies in man on effects of fluoride. Pub Health Reports 80(6):529-38.



And that is citing just 6 of hundreds of studies which back what I've said up.

And you can read this, if you want, as well.


http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=224

opinion guy

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

As a dental student I am required to know the potential for chronic and acute toxicity of all dental related chemicals (i.e. components of toothpaste, of which fluoride is one), any antibiotics or painkillers I will prescribe and a host of other common medications which my patient may be taking (e.g. antihypertensives, warfarin etc.). This is studied as we are introduced to each chemical and class of chemicals and reinforced as part of a year long pharmacology course.

Ok gotcha.
So how many hours are specifically dedicated to toxicology and its principles then ? Again - I just want to know

Seaneh

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

As a dental student I am required to know the potential for chronic and acute toxicity of all dental related chemicals (i.e. components of toothpaste, of which fluoride is one), any antibiotics or painkillers I will prescribe and a host of other common medications which my patient may be taking (e.g. antihypertensives, warfarin etc.). This is studied as we are introduced to each chemical and class of chemicals and reinforced as part of a year long pharmacology course.

You're talking poop.

You're a dental student, but your knowledge of the toxicology effects of fluoride on the body are and always will be limited to what you are told in your coursework. You don't research it in any depth, you don't even really have to understand it in any depth, you're just told about interactions and potential allergies and complications and how to avoid and circumnavigate them


I assume you are also told that people will present to you who have various thyroid and other endocrine diseases and disorders who will be advised, by their endocrinologists, to avoid fluoride intake and those people will ask for non-fluoridated products to be used in their treatments? Have you never wondered why an endocrinologist would tell their patients to avoid fluoride?

Yawnz

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

As a dental student I am required to know the potential for chronic and acute toxicity of all dental related chemicals (i.e. components of toothpaste, of which fluoride is one), any antibiotics or painkillers I will prescribe and a host of other common medications which my patient may be taking (e.g. antihypertensives, warfarin etc.). This is studied as we are introduced to each chemical and class of chemicals and reinforced as part of a year long pharmacology course.

Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Pharmacologist and Nobel laureate, said the notion of using the water supply as a vehicle of delivering medication goes against all modern principles of pharmacology. This is in reference to fluoridated water.

blatantrereg

http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/drinking/Drinking%20Water_web.pdf

Naturally elevated levels of fluoride are quite rare in Ireland and thus any exceedances reported are
almost entirely due to public water supplies being dosed with fluoride at levels in excess of the legally
permitted dose. There has been an improvement on the previous year for the number of public water
supplies, 31 in 2011, down from 51 in 2010 failing to meet the fluoride parametric value. The number
of public group water schemes failing to meet the fluoride parametric value also improved, 3 in 2011,
down from 11 in 2010. There was no fluoride exceedances reported for private group water schemes
and small private supplies in 2011. It is important to note that the Irish standard of 0.8 mg/l is more
stringent than the EU Drinking Water Directive Standard of 1.5 mg/l. One public water supply
exceeded the 1.5 mg/l standard in 2011.

>25% of Irish water supplies needed remedial action in Q4 2010. Around 15% in 2012 Q4. It might be supposed that they don't underreport issues with the water supply then I guess:

http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/drinking/Q4%202012%20RAL.pdf

http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/drinking/Q4%202010%20RAL.pdf

Legal limits for mineral water are greater than 6 times the legal limits of tap water in Ireland. There is a second lesser limit above which the fluoride level must be labelled, though I seem to have lost the page I found that on...

I disagree with water fluoridation. It's mass medication. It should be up to the individual whether they want to consume it or not. Personally I would rather not, as the risks and negative effects outweigh the benefits easily in my mind.

Capt'n Midnight

Yawnz wrote: »

There has been toxicological data to show that fluoride is harmful.

Evidence has accumulated implicating that atmospheric oxygen can be considered as an important environmental mutagen,

Large amounts of fluoride are harmful to your health.

But since it mottles your teeth at levels well below any toxic levels it's easy to avoid. And our max levels are about a tenth of the mottling level. And even at the levels where your teeth are visibly affected the evidence of any harm is unclear.

To get to levels where harm is statistically significant you need to up the concentration even more and keep drinking despite the physical warnings.

Large amounts of most fat soluble vitamins are harmful to your health.

I guess it is easy to perpetually argue the science of fluoridation, but it is harder to deny that people's right to informed consent has been denied.

We have a political system. Laws are passed in public. Without the public consent it would be a dictatorship.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1960/en/act/pub/0046/print.html

Capt'n Midnight

Yawnz wrote: »

Another thing that is important to bear in mind I guess is that fluoride is bio-accumulative.

when you say accumulative do you mean the soluble forms or the inert insoluble Calcium Fluoride ?

Yawnz

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Evidence has accumulated implicating that atmospheric oxygen can be considered as an important environmental mutagen,

Large amounts of fluoride are harmful to your health.

But since it mottles your teeth at levels well below any toxic levels it's easy to avoid. And our max levels are about a tenth of the mottling level. And even at the levels where your teeth are visibly affected the evidence of any harm is unclear.

To get to levels where harm is statistically significant you need to up the concentration even more and keep drinking despite the physical warnings.

Large amounts of most fat soluble vitamins are harmful to your health.



We have a political system. Laws are passed in public. Without the public consent it would be a dictatorship.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1960/en/act/pub/0046/print.html

That's a little off topic I must say, I'm referring to hydrofluorosilicic acid in our water not oxygen or vitamins. Sorry, I'm not in the least qualified to discuss the science here, however, this Act of 1960 was introduced without the consent of the people. It is also unethical to medicate an entire population in the way one doctor cannot medicate one patient.