Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

No one has never said there is proof of health risks, not one single person. if there was proof then adding Fluoride to water would never even be considered. You seem to be inventing statements so that you can argue against them.

It was allowed in the 10% because The people in these areas wanted it and they voted for it to be added

So why do you want to stop it considering the majority of dentist approve?

By the way the sites you link to and the girl against fluoride claim there is a health risk, she even claims it caused her depression! She does your cause more harm than good.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

So why do you want to stop it considering the majority of dentist approve?

Can I please have proof that the majority of dentists approve of it.

JJayoo

RGDATA! wrote: »

.



as already pointed out to you this is not true. You're entitled to your opinion but please check your facts before posting.

Once again wrong. We are the only Country in Europe that has it's water supply fluoridated by the government. The 10% in Spain and the UK has it's water Fluoridated because the people in these areas wanted it and voted for it. If you can't see the difference then there's not much hope for you.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

Can I please have proof that the majority of dentists approve of it.

Ziphius provided a link to the US and Dr Mullen made the same claim and was not challenged on it by the "girl v fluoride".

What is your opinion on her, deceitful or misguided given her proclamations on the "health risks" involved?

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

Once again wrong. We are the only Country in Europe that has it's water supply fluoridated by the government. The 10% in Spain and the UK has it's water Fluoridated because the people in these areas wanted it and voted for it. If you can't see the difference then there's not much hope for you.

Given there are no health risks, which you agree with, who cares.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

So why do you want to stop it

Because there is no evidence that it is beneficial. The Republic of Ireland is the only country in Europe whose entire water supply is fluoridated.

The people should have a choice to medicate, putting it in the water means people have no other option.

It costs 4 million every single year.

I would have no problem if we went the European route and left it up to manufacturers to put Fluoride in salt and milk. This way people would have a choice.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

Ziphius provided a link to the US and Dr Mullen made the same claim and was not challenged on it by the "girl v fluoride".

What is your opinion on her, deceitful or misguided given her proclamations on the "health risks" involved?

Why are you talking about the US We are speaking about Ireland and Europe. To be honest if you want to know about the standards set in the US when it comes to food safety just look up their milk industry.

I have no interest in the Fluoride girl.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

Because there is no evidence that it is beneficial. The Republic of Ireland is the only country in Europe whose entire water supply is fluoridated.

The people should have a choice to medicate, putting it in the water means people have no other option.

It costs 4 million every single year.

I would have no problem if we went the European route and left it up to manufacturers to put Fluoride in salt and milk. This way people would have a choice.

Medicate is such a strong word, more of a health supplement in my eyes.

To use the term medicate it would have to produce a medically define response. If there are presently no known health risks and as you believe no beneficial response then really it is just wasting fluoride.

Would you avoid fluoride containing milk and salt?

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

Given there are no health risks, which you agree with, who cares.

Who cares?? well apparently more than half the people who have voted and I have said that there is no proof of health risks not that there is no risk of health risks. Until further studies have been done on the Pineal gland then we won't really no. But i do agree that there is no hard proof of a risk.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

Medicate is such a strong word, more of a health supplement in my eyes.

To use the term medicate it would have to produce a medically define response. If there are presently no know health risks and as you believe no beneficial response then really it just wasting fluoride.

Would you avoid fluoride containing milk and salt?

IMO medicate is the correct term.

Well if you wanted to go down that line you could say that yes it is wasting 4 million every year, and pumping huge amounts of fluoride into our waterways.


Yes I would avoid fluoridated milk and butter if I had the choice. If I want Fluoride for my teeth then I will use a toothpaste containing it. Once you swallow a mouth full of water the fluoride's "usefulness" to your teeth has gone. I have no problem in using Fluoridated toothpaste i would just not want to ingest it all day every day for the rest of my life.

Capt'n Midnight

JJayoo wrote: »

Untraceable can you see the all those letters at the end of each statement well they join together to show you excatly where the quotes come from, amazing isn't it

When I tried looking them up the only hits I got were from a whole rash of anti-fluoride sites that quoted them like scripture


People who take up martial arts may eventually get a black belt. At that stage you are no longer a beginner. It doesn't mean you know everything , it just means you are starting to get serious.

Same with peer reviews of articles. Getting one published doesn't mean you are right or wrong. It just means that you've been able to present your case in a way that can be examined objectively.

To give you an idea of how science works

The Nazis enlisted other physicists, including Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, to denounce Einstein. One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in 1931. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.

You just need one repeatable survey that shows conclusively beyond experimental error that fluoride levels of 0.7mg or lower are injurious to health to get the scientific community to sit up and pay attention.

If this survey can be repeated and the levels of harm outweigh the benefit then it's a slam dunk.


Inferring from levels known to be toxic means nothing as most substances including oxygen, water and most nutrients are toxic in excess.

JJayoo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

When I tried looking them up the only hits I got were from a whole rash of anti-fluoride sites that quoted them like scripture

Your inability is not my concern, and remember these quotes are translations from the original languages so unless you are searching using the correct language you will get nothing. as for the rest of your post I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

If this survey can be repeated and the levels of harm outweigh the benefit then it's a slam dunk

What are the actual benefits of ingesting Fluoride? not the use of Fluoride for your actual teeth as it's use in toothpaste but what is the benefit of ingesting it into the blood stream?

AnonoBoy

Yawnz wrote: »

Judging by your arguments made it appears as if you're not simply sitting the fence on this issue.

I think the Fluoride issue should be looked into but I don't stand in the "it should definitely be removed" camp and I'm not in the "it has no harmful effects on humans" camp therefore I am on the fence. I don't however presume to understand all the research and I think a lot of people who say they do are merely regurgitating what they've heard without any actual knowledge of what it means.

So for that reason, when I make reasonable arguments in a respectful way I tend to come across better.

I tend to poke fun at the silliness of what people do. It's After Hours, it's boards.ie - it's not a court so therefore nobody is really reading through this thread going, "oh look how respectfully he puts across his argument, let's side with him on this issue." This isn't your employment law court or whatever you're used to normally.

Sheila O'Fluoride? Can't say I have ever heard of her, so I guess whatever claims she makes are her own, unless she can reference her arguments etc. If you do get a chance to speak to this person again with the scientific

They didn't teach you humour/jokes in law school did they?

hooradiation

JJayoo wrote: »

The Republic of Ireland is the only country in Europe whose entire water supply is fluoridated.

Which doesn't mean a fucking thing.
Implying that it does is an Argumentum ad populum.
Stop doing that, it's stupid.

JJayoo

hooradiation wrote: »

Which doesn't mean a fucking thing.
Implying that it does is an Argumentum ad populum.
Stop doing that, it's stupid.

I am just stating a fact, how can you possibly have a problem with that

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

I am just stating a fact, how can you possibly have a problem with that

What significance does this have to a debate on whether water fluoridation should be stopped?

My name is URL

hooradiation wrote: »

Which doesn't mean a fucking thing.
Implying that it does is an Argumentum ad populum.
Stop doing that, it's stupid.

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

Stating that isn't fallacious. It's a fair point and begs the question as to why no new study has been conducted here for over 40 years, not to mention why the ethical side of it has not been given proper renewed consideration.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

What significance does this have to a debate on whether water fluoridation should be stopped?

Well I would have thought that was fairly simple. If there were benefits in adding Fluoride to drinking water, then surely the most advanced/developed countries in Europe would also do it.

It would also help to indicate that Ireland as the country that adds Fluoride should in theory lead the European table in Dental health, but this is not true. All European countries have demonstrated a consistent improvement in DMFT over the last 30 years. The biggest factor in DMFT score comes down to socio-economic reasons.

In fact the % improvement in DMFT in Irish 12 year olds from the 1980's - 2000 is actually one of the poorest in Europe.

http://www.oralhealthplatform.eu/sites/default/files/field/document/Report%20-%20the%20State%20of%20Oral%20Health%20in%20Europe.pdf

Page 20, won't allow me to copy and paste.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

Well I would have thought that was fairly simple. If there were benefits in adding Fluoride to drinking water, then surely the most advanced/developed countries in Europe would also do it.

It would also help to indicate that Ireland as the country that adds Fluoride should in theory lead the European table in Dental health, but this is not true. All European countries have demonstrated a consistent improvement in DMFT over the last 30 years. The biggest factor in DMFT score comes down to socio-economic reasons.

In fact the % improvement in DMFT in Irish 12 year olds from the 1980's - 2000 is actually one of the poorest in Europe.

http://www.oralhealthplatform.eu/sites/default/files/field/document/Report%20-%20the%20State%20of%20Oral%20Health%20in%20Europe.pdf

Page 20, won't allow me to copy and paste.

Valium is available over the counter in some European countries, it doesn't change the chemical properties of the drug does it? It just different countries having different policies.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

Valium is available over the counter in some European countries, it doesn't change the chemical properties of the drug does it? It just different countries having different policies.

Are you sure you're posting in the correct thread? Why are you talking about Valium? Did you read the link I posted that shows the addition of Fluoride has not pushed Irish teeth to the top of the European league?

Fluoride is fine in my toothpaste, it's fine on my actual teeth but ingesting it with every mouthful of water has no benefit to our teeth, it doesn't magically protect out teeth once in the blood stream.

"Data on the current dental health of 5- and 12-year-old children from eight European countries has been collected by calibrated examiners. In each country a random sample of 200 children in each age group was drawn from urban primary and secondary state schools, a total of 3200 subjects. The children were examined under standardized conditions by one or two examiners in each country, all of whom had been trained and calibrated to the Swedish reference examiner and had achieved good inter- and intra-examiner consistency. Mean dmft DMFT were 1.38/1.93 in Gent (Belgium), 2.99/2.58 in Berlin (Germany), 1.62/2.35 in Athens (Greece), 2.09/1.85 in Cork (Ireland), 2.81/2.24 in Sassari (Italy), 3.06/1-82 in Dundee (Scotland), 0.85/1.75 in Valencia (Spain), and 0.80/1.94 in Stockholm (Sweden). The major components in the dmft/DMFT indices varied. Among the 5-year-old children the m component predominated in the Scottish sample, the d and f components in Berlin and the d component in Sassari. Among the 12-year-olds, a high F component influenced the index in Berlin and Stockholm, whereas in Athens and Sassari the D component was relatively high. The frequency of fissure sealants was most frequent in the Scottish. Irish and Belgian samples of 12-year-olds." Bolin AK, Bolin A, Koch G, 1996

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

I'm sure you won't bother reading this but it shows that Ireland is not at the top of the table in Dental health and in fact the top positions are held by countries that don't add Fluoride to their water.....but how can that be...

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

Are you sure you're posting in the correct thread? Why are you talking about Valium? Did you read the link I posted that shows the addition of Fluoride has not pushed Irish teeth to the top of the European league?

Fluoride is fine in my toothpaste, it's fine on my actual teeth but ingesting it with every mouthful of water has no benefit to our teeth, it doesn't magically protect out teeth once in the blood stream.

"Data on the current dental health of 5- and 12-year-old children from eight European countries has been collected by calibrated examiners. In each country a random sample of 200 children in each age group was drawn from urban primary and secondary state schools, a total of 3200 subjects. The children were examined under standardized conditions by one or two examiners in each country, all of whom had been trained and calibrated to the Swedish reference examiner and had achieved good inter- and intra-examiner consistency. Mean dmft DMFT were 1.38/1.93 in Gent (Belgium), 2.99/2.58 in Berlin (Germany), 1.62/2.35 in Athens (Greece), 2.09/1.85 in Cork (Ireland), 2.81/2.24 in Sassari (Italy), 3.06/1-82 in Dundee (Scotland), 0.85/1.75 in Valencia (Spain), and 0.80/1.94 in Stockholm (Sweden). The major components in the dmft/DMFT indices varied. Among the 5-year-old children the m component predominated in the Scottish sample, the d and f components in Berlin and the d component in Sassari. Among the 12-year-olds, a high F component influenced the index in Berlin and Stockholm, whereas in Athens and Sassari the D component was relatively high. The frequency of fissure sealants was most frequent in the Scottish. Irish and Belgian samples of 12-year-olds." Bolin AK, Bolin A, Koch G, 1996

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

I'm sure you won't bother reading this but it shows that Ireland is not at the top of the table in Dental health and in fact the top positions are held by countries that don't add Fluoride to their water.....but how can that be...

There is one flaw in your argument the dental practices of the children and their parents cannot be accounted for and is therefore a variable, the Irish score could have been worse if we didn't add fluoride to our water.

The point with valium is that policies differ between countries even when the same data is available to all. Whether Europe approves of water fluoridation doesn't change the facts regarding its safety or benefits.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

There is one flaw in your argument the dental practices of the children and their parents cannot be accounted for and is therefore a variable, the Irish score could have been worse if we didn't add fluoride to our water.

The point with valium is that policies differ between countries even when the same data is available to all. Whether Europe approves of water fluoridation doesn't change the facts regarding its safety or benefits.

In my argument? or do you mean the first link I posted which takes it's data from WHO and the second link with is a published scientific paper ? I will be sure to tell the people involved that you have a problem with their argument. You have to be trolling at this stage.

Ziphius

JJayoo wrote: »

In my argument? or do you mean the first link I posted which takes it's data from WHO and the second link with is a published scientific paper ? I will be sure to tell the people involved that you have a problem with their argument. You have to be trolling at this stage.

Were these data statistically significant? And if so what were the conclusions of the researchers?

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

In my argument? or do you mean the first link I posted which takes it's data from WHO and the second link with is a published scientific paper ? I will be sure to tell the people involved that you have a problem with their argument. You have to be trolling at this stage.

You do realise that scientific papers are suppose to be questioned, it is what science is all about.

Me trolling?

No proven health risks, only cost 4 million a year and the use of fluoride in some form is accepted by the majority of dentists as beneficial and I'm the troll!

JJayoo

Ziphius wrote: »

Were these data statistically significant? And if so what were the conclusions of the researchers?

I gave the links to both I'm sure you can click on them and see for yourself, but the general conclusion of both links I mentioned was that DMFT/Caries in 12 year olds is decreasing within Europe, except for poorer places.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

the use of fluoride in some form is accepted by the majority of dentists as beneficial

When dentist speak of Fluoride they are talking about it in the context of tooth paste ie applying Fluoride directly to your teeth. No one is arguing against it. But no dentists are supporting the ingestion of Fluoride as a means of improving dental health. If the ingestion of Fluoride was somehow beneficial to teeth we would be taking it in pill form.

No proven health risks, only cost 4 million a year

No proven health benefits to ingest Fluoride, costs 4 million every year, ya see how that works.

Ziphius

JJayoo wrote: »

When dentist speak of Fluoride they are talking about it in the context of tooth paste ie applying Fluoride directly to your teeth. No one is arguing against it. But no dentists are supporting the ingestion of Fluoride as a means of improving dental health. If the ingestion of Fluoride was somehow beneficial to teeth we would be taking it in pill form.

Did you forget about the American Dental Association already!

http://www.ada.org/4045.aspx

"The American Dental Association unreservedly endorses the fluoridation of community water supplies as safe, effective and necessary in preventing tooth decay. This support has been the Association's position since policy was first adopted in 1950."

JJayoo

You do realise that scientific papers are suppose to be questioned, it is what science is all about

You do realise they are questioned before they are published, in fact the authors have to defend their work before a panel before it is published. You do get this?

JJayoo

Ziphius wrote: »

Did you forget about the American Dental Association already!

http://www.ada.org/4045.aspx

"The American Dental Association unreservedly endorses the fluoridation of community water supplies as safe, effective and necessary in preventing tooth decay. This support has been the Association's position since policy was first adopted in 1950."

We are talking about Europe not America. As I have said before please take a look at the standards they practice in milk production before you endorse American consumption standards.

and necessary in preventing tooth decay

and the links I have posted show that this is incorrect.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

You do realise they are questioned before they are published, in fact the authors have to defend their work before a panel before it is published. You do get this?

So all scientific papers should be taken as factual? The data is open to interpretation, papers come out all the time with opposing views.

The papers are sent to a panel of PhD educated scientists in a similar field to be reviewed. They then decide if the paper offers anything new and if the interpretation of the data is reasonable. Depending on the prestige of the journal the actual quality of the experimental designs are questioned and additional data requested to fill any gaps. You don't go before a panel like a job interview.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

We are talking about Europe not America. As I have said before please take a look at the standards they practice in milk production before you endorse American consumption standards.

and the links I have posted show that this is incorrect.

So I can't question the validity of the data presented in your links but you can denounce the US dentistry in its whole.

Ziphius

JJayoo wrote: »

We are talking about Europe not America. As I have said before please take a look at the standards they practice in milk production before you endorse American consumption standards.

Er what? No. We are discussing the pros and cons of water fluoridation. Just because something goes against your dogma does not mean you can dismiss it.

I posted a link to the NHS earlier which also supported water fluoridation.

hooradiation

My name is URL wrote: »

How in the holy hell does it not mean anything?

The argument is thus:

Every/some <X> has done/believes <Y>
Therefore doing/believing in <Y> is a good thing.

It's a simple argument to make, which is why JJayoo keeps making it, and it seems right, but it's not.
Simply because other European countries do not have fluoridated water, it does not follow that Ireland should not have fluoridated water.

It's a simple concept, very widely understood.
Why you want to feign that you don't grasp it is beyond me.

Seaneh

Ziphius wrote: »

Did you forget about the American Dental Association already!

http://www.ada.org/4045.aspx

"The American Dental Association unreservedly endorses the fluoridation of community water supplies as safe, effective and necessary in preventing tooth decay. This support has been the Association's position since policy was first adopted in 1950."

Fluoride is only beneficial as a topical application, there is no benefit to ingesting it.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

So I can't question the validity of the data presented in your links but you can denounce the US dentistry in its whole.

You didn't question it, I doubt you even read it. The data I presented has nothing to do with Fluoride. It wasn't pro fluoride or anti Fluoride they were just figures from WHO, there is nothing to question. The data is valid.

And the data was about Europe which is the topic we are discussing. You seem to like going off topic with random input. This topic is about Fluoride in Ireland and in a broader sense Ireland with Europe.

jh79

Seaneh wrote: »

Fluoride is only beneficial as a topical application, there is no benefit to ingesting it.

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

JJayoo

hooradiation wrote: »

The argument is thus:

Every/some <X> has done/believes <Y>
Therefore doing/believing in <Y> is a good thing.

It's a simple argument to make, which is why JJayoo keeps making it, and it seems right, but it's not.
Simply because other European countries do not have fluoridated water, it does not follow that Ireland should not have fluoridated water.

It's a simple concept, very widely understood.
Why you want to feign that you don't grasp it is beyond me.

Do you actually read the posts in this thread? Did you look at the links I posted about Dental statistics within Europe?

zenno

The main problem is mass medication of the population in Ireland, fluoride needs to be removed because of this, and it will be removed eventually in the near future, i'm sure of this.

People that want fluoride can just purchase it, while the rest can relax in the knowing and freedom from being medicated on a large scale.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

Do you actually read the posts in this thread? Did you look at the links I posted about Dental statistics within Europe?

As you said in your reply to me , they have no bearing on this issue.

Ziphius

I've a feeling this thread will descend into reptoid conspiracy theories soon :pac:

hooradiation

JJayoo wrote: »

Do you actually read the posts in this thread? Did you look at the links I posted about Dental statistics within Europe?

You keep making this argument

If there were benefits in adding Fluoride to drinking water, then surely the most advanced/developed countries in Europe would also do it.

It's a bad argument, I've shown why.
Stop making it.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

As you said in your reply to me , they have no bearing on this issue.

Ah now you have to be joking. This is the complete opposite of what I said. I said that the statistics were not biased in anyway and thus are valid, and since you have no intention in actually reading anything you don't agree with then what's the point of your participation in this thread?

jh79

Ziphius wrote: »

I've a feeling this thread will descend into reptoid conspiracy theories soon :pac:

Well the toxic angle is gone, the Irish & US dentist association support it and so do the NHS so it must have some benefits.

So all that is left is mass medication, not long before suggestions about who is behind it....it used to be the Russians when this conspiracy first appeared wonder who they blame now?

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

Valium is available over the counter in some European countries, it doesn't change the chemical properties of the drug does it? It just different countries having different policies.

This shows the flaws in discrepancy of regulatory overreach by the IMB (hopefully to be overtaken by the European Medicines Agency) with institutional status infracting on personal liberty.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

Ah now you have to be joking. This is the complete opposite of what I said. I said that the statistics were not biased in anyway and thus are valid, and since you have no intention in actually reading anything you don't agree with then what's the point of your participation in this thread?

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

zenno

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that fluoride is only meant for your teeth, it was never meant for ingestion in any quantity.

jh79

Treora wrote: »

This shows the flaws in discrepancy of regulatory overreach by the IMB (hopefully to be overtaken by the European Medicines Agency) with institutional status infracting on personal liberty.

Are you saying it should be an OTC?

jh79

zenno wrote: »

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that fluoride is only meant for your teeth, it was never meant for ingestion in any quantity.

NaF is used to treat osteoporosis , over simplistic view. Again at a dose of 1ppm , which even occurs in places without water fluoridation, it doesn't really matter.

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

Well the toxic angle is gone, the Irish & US dentist association support it and so do the NHS so it must have some benefits.

So all that is left is mass medication, not long before suggestions about who is behind it....it used to be the Russians when this conspiracy first appeared wonder who they blame now?

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

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

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

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

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

NaF is used to treat osteoporosis , over simplistic view. Again at a dose of 1ppm , which even occurs in places without water fluoridation, it doesn't really matter.

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