Fluoride endgame approaches....

alastair

My name is URL wrote: »

It's an outdated and regressive way to tackle the problem of dental caries. Fluoride is in basically every foodstuff that you eat and drink, so there's no reason to add it wholesale to water supplies these days. If people want to consume supplemental fluoride then they should purchase it in salt or tablet form. It shouldn't be pumped into everyone's home just because a few people are too stupid or too lazy to properly brush their teeth.

On the other hand - if it does no harm - what harm in employing an outdated delivery mechanism - even if only for the benefit of those who don't brush properly?

seamus

My name is URL wrote: »

It's an outdated and regressive way to tackle the problem of dental caries. Fluoride is in basically every foodstuff that you eat and drink, so there's no reason to add it wholesale to water supplies these days.

Isn't the reason it's in practically everything though, because it's added to the water supply? Manufacturers use the same water - if it's in their water, it'll be in their food. Remove it from their water and it will disappear from the food.

"Just because a few people are too stupid or too lazy to brush their teeth" is the same argument that could be made for a lot of things that Governments do for the protection of populations as a whole. Why make seatbelts mandatory just because some people are too stupid or too lazy to wear them?

The benefits of flouridation strongly outweigh the negatives. That alone is enough. If someone objects that strongly to it, they can source their own water.

opinion guy

alastair wrote: »

On the other hand - if it does no harm - what harm in employing an outdated delivery mechanism - even if only for the benefit of those who don't brush properly?

But there is no proof that it does not harm.
And this review says there is some evidence pointing to some harm (I still can't download the full paper for some reason so going by the abstract).

So should the precautionary principle not kick in then ? If there is little benefit and possible harm then why do it ?

c_man

After getting a dose of the crypto, I refuse to drink tap water in Galway anymore. The stuff is rank and yet we've to pay for it

alastair

opinion guy wrote: »

But there is no proof that it does not harm.
And this review says there is some evidence pointing to some harm (I still can't download the full paper for some reason so going by the abstract).

There's ample proof it does no harm.

The paper says massive doses of fluoride are toxic in certain circumstances. That's got nothing to do with the low level dosing in public fluoridation programmes. Water itself is toxic in large doses.

Why continue fluoridation? For the good that it does do.

zenno

seamus wrote: »

Isn't the reason it's in practically everything though, because it's added to the water supply? Manufacturers use the same water - if it's in their water, it'll be in their food. Remove it from their water and it will disappear from the food.

"Just because a few people are too stupid or too lazy to brush their teeth" is the same argument that could be made for a lot of things that Governments do for the protection of populations as a whole. Why make seatbelts mandatory just because some people are too stupid or too lazy to wear them?

The benefits of flouridation strongly outweigh the negatives. That alone is enough. If someone objects that strongly to it, they can source their own water.

Give people a choice is what I say, If they stopped fluoridating the water supply then great, as for anyone that wants fluoride they can purchase it in many ways instead. Take it firstly out of the water supply and as above poster said it will be out of the food as well over time and if any narky person wants their feed of fluoride then they can purchase it. Everyone is happy then.

My name is URL

seamus wrote: »

The benefits of flouridation strongly outweigh the negatives. That alone is enough. If someone objects that strongly to it, they can source their own water.

How far can that be taken though? Many things have benefits which for some people; will outweigh the negatives.

I'm sure you've heard about the 'adding lithium to water supplies' story... it may never happen, but it is being considered by some quarters.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1202/1224308474582.html
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2009/05/lithium-for-water-supply.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8025454.stm
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/15/lithium-water-suicide.html

Doing that would undoubtedly be beneficial to some people (the tiny minority that are at risk of suicide)... but would you be okay with it? Wouldn't it undoubtedly have an undesirable effect on some people also?

seamus

My name is URL wrote: »

....
Doing that would undoubtedly be beneficial to some people (the tiny minority that are at risk of suicide)... but would you be okay with it? Wouldn't it undoubtedly have an undesirable effect on some people also?

Apples and oranges, really; flouride doesn't affect mood.

In principle if there was a large, controlled study showing that trace amounts of lithium added to the water would result in a lowering of the suicide rate without affecting the rest of the population as a whole, then no I wouldn't have any major issue with it.

You weigh up the benefits. If the positives strongly outweigh the negatives (as they do with flouride), then why not?
With lithium it's a lot less straightforward since while it may result in a reduction in suicides, you don't know if there are knock-on effects to the mental state of the rest of the population, such as causing sleep difficulties, interacting poorly with alcohol, and about a billion other possible mental side-effects.

As it is, proper flouridation of the water has not been proven to have any negative effects except for some mild cases of dental flourosis, which on balance is more desirable than tooth decay and disease.

The comparison with lithium is invalid, it's a strawman.

Do you object to them adding chlorine to the water supply? If not, why not?

zenno

seamus wrote: »

Apples and oranges, really; flouride doesn't affect mood.

In principle if there was a large, controlled study showing that trace amounts of lithium added to the water would result in a lowering of the suicide rate without affecting the rest of the population as a whole, then no I wouldn't have any major issue with it.

You weigh up the benefits. If the positives strongly outweigh the negatives (as they do with flouride), then why not?
With lithium it's a lot less straightforward since while it may result in a reduction in suicides, you don't know if there are knock-on effects to the mental state of the rest of the population, such as causing sleep difficulties, interacting poorly with alcohol, and about a billion other possible mental side-effects.

As it is, proper flouridation of the water has not been proven to have any negative effects except for some mild cases of dental flourosis, which on balance is more desirable than tooth decay and disease.

The comparison with lithium is invalid, it's a strawman.

Do you object to them adding chlorine to the water supply? If not, why not?

Mass medication of the population is not the answer, and I have a problem with it like many others. If a person is feeling suicidal it is up to them or family/friends to try and get the person help and the correct drugs to help them but putting lithium in the main water supply that babies will be drinking is just insane. Mass medication on a scale like this in the countrys main water system is going to bring up a human rights issue.

opinion guy

seamus wrote: »

I reckon that contrary to popular belief, the people who get caught up in this stuff are actually quite intelligent but have just missed something in their critical evaluation of the information, or lack the experience to critically evaluate the theories presented. They show a strong ability to thread together known information and apply it to new scenarios and new information.

I have a good friend who has in recent years gotten a little caught up in this stuff. He's an intelligent guy but comes from a bad background and didn't exactly have a stunning education. He absorbs information like a sponge, but doesn't really know how to filter it properly. So when someone explains something to him (such as flouridation) from the anti-government slant, he sees no reason to doubt them (the arguments are compelling if you have no reason to doubt the speaker) and gets caught up in it.
Like most conspiracy theories, they can then tend to feed off eachother. So if you take it for granted that governments are surreptitiously medicating populations with flouride, you will easily accept that they could also spray chemicals from the air.

Unless you possess the knowledge or experience to realise that the logistics of the latter are far beyond the resources of any Government, then you could easily accept it as a plausible and strong theory. But it doesn't mean the believer is stupid.

The problem is though - all info must be judged with equal skepticism. Whilst you describe one bias in this argument, its abundently clear that those pro-fluoridation are also biased and cherry picking studies that back them up.

The reality is more complex than either side allows.

Nodin

My name is URL wrote: »

How far can that be taken though? Many things have benefits which for some people; will outweigh the negatives.

I'm sure you've heard about the 'adding lithium to water supplies' story... it may never happen, but it is being considered by some quarters.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1202/1224308474582.html
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2009/05/lithium-for-water-supply.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8025454.stm
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/15/lithium-water-suicide.html

Doing that would undoubtedly be beneficial to some people (the tiny minority that are at risk of suicide)... but would you be okay with it? Wouldn't it undoubtedly have an undesirable effect on some people also?

Its unlikely to happen. Too much damages the thyroid, too little does feck all good. Plus its not well understood why it does what it does in the right dose anyway.

Where To

Poitin made with fluoridated water can cause blindness.

My name is URL

Water would be undrinkable without the addition of chlorine.. the same can't be said for fluoride.

My point was about medicating* entire water supplies in order to minutely alleviate a problem likely to be faced by a minority of people. The majority already brush their teeth with fluoride toothpaste, and rinse with fluoride mouthwash. Water fluoridation really only is of benefit to those who do not follow a proper and thorough oral hygiene regimen.


*and it is by definition a medication

alastair

opinion guy wrote: »

The problem is though - all info must be judged with equal skepticism. Whilst you describe one bias in this argument, its abundently clear that those pro-fluoridation are also biased and cherry picking studies that back them up.

The reality is more complex than either side allows.

Any basis on which this assertion is made? Or is it just a gut feeling?

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

The actual article is here for anyone who wants to read it for themselves:

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action;jsessionid=5C98A897B69464FD44D98698EE9FC4A1?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104912

Edit: there is some problem with the pdf link at the moment but try later I'm sure they will fix it

Link is working now

--Kaiser--

seamus wrote: »

I reckon that contrary to popular belief, the people who get caught up in this stuff are actually quite intelligent but have just missed something in their critical evaluation of the information, or lack the experience to critically evaluate the theories presented. They show a strong ability to thread together known information and apply it to new scenarios and new information.

Utter rubbish. Someone intelligent knows not to believe in ideas which not only have no evidence for them but have plenty of evidence to the contrary. Contrails, faked moon landing, lizard illuminati.....if someone believes in any of these CTs there's no way I would class them in as intelligent. Deluded, paranoid and gullible, yes. Intelligent, no

alastair

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Utter rubbish. Someone intelligent knows not to believe in ideas which not only have no evidence for them but have plenty of evidence to the contrary. Contrails, faked moon landing, lizard illuminati.....if someone believes in any of these CTs there's no way I would class them in as intelligent

Otherwise intelligent people buy into faith-based concepts all the time.

CT's are just the latest religion substitute. It seems to be part of the human condition.

seamus

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Utter rubbish. Someone intelligent knows not to believe in ideas which not only have no evidence for them but have plenty of evidence to the contrary. Contrails, faked moon landing, lizard illuminati.....if someone believes in any of these CTs there's no way I would class them in as intelligent. Deluded, paranoid and gullible, yes. Intelligent, no

So basically what you're saying then is that intelligence includes an innate ability to critically analyse information from a subjective point of view?

Eh, no. Critical analysis is very much something that people have to be taught to do, since our own brains actually work against us in this regard, automatically favouring information which appears to conform to information that we have previously learned.

Otherwise what you're basically saying is that anyone who believes in anything without having first evaluated the evidence and fact-checked it, is an idiot. In which case, everyone is an idiot because you can be sure everybody believes in something which is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Stupidity really only starts to become apparent when someone posesses evidence which shows the exact opposite of what they believe, but they continue to believe regardless. Even then you're fighting against natural cognitive biases, so it can be hard to tell if someone is really incapable of understanding or deliberately misunderstanding.

--Kaiser--

seamus wrote: »

Stupidity really only starts to become apparent when someone posesses evidence which shows the exact opposite of what they believe, but they continue to believe regardless. Even then you're fighting against natural cognitive biases, so it can be hard to tell if someone is really incapable of understanding or deliberately misunderstanding.

Believing what you want to believe for no good reason and ignoring evidence to the contrary, yes that's stupid. Obviosuly this doesn't apply to all CTs, but it applies to a whole pile of the,

opinion guy

alastair wrote: »

Any basis on which this assertion is made? Or is it just a gut feeling?

I'm reading what you are writing.

Now let me ask you something - did you even read this new article ?

alastair

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm reading what you are writing.

Now let me ask you something - did you even read this new article ?

It's not new, and yes.

It's as I stated earlier - a study of the effects of massive doses of fluoride on an ongoing basis - unlike fluoridation schemes.

Joshua J

Cool, a game of scientific paper top trump. So which expert are we following now?.

hardCopy

Jake1 wrote: »

What do the Rothschilds family have to do with flouride? never heard them mentioned in same sentence as flouride before

That's because the NWO control the media.

You only hear what they want you to hear.

blatantrereg

Does the paper indicate what levels of fluoride were shown to cause the problems?

I'm aware of papers that showed serious impact on IQ and other problems in African tribes where fluoride ingestion was very high. The levels of fluoride in their water were several times the level in Irish tap water though.

I dont drink glasses of tapwater, though I use it for tea and coffee more often than not. While fluoride at the levels in Irish water may or may not be actually harmful (beyond yellowing of teeth which is obvious), I think they should stop putting it in the water. The possible dangers of fluoride really outweigh the benefits of it.

opinion guy

alastair wrote: »

It's not new, and yes.

It's as I stated earlier - a study of the effects of massive doses of fluoride on an ongoing basis - unlike fluoridation schemes.

It is new. It is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Modalities that are well recognised as the strongest evidence. No the individual papers included are not new, but the systematic review and meta-analysis is an original piece of work and new science in its own right.

See this is what I'm talking about. You are just deciding that its not important on an arbitrary basis, when you yourself don't even understand how and why it is an important new analysis.

Go educate yourself before spouting more uninformed opinions would you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html

And whilst I'm at it - here is what Ben Goldacre - a recognised expert on what scientific evidence is - has to say about fluoridation:
http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/foreign-substances-in-your-precious-bodily-fluids/

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

hatrickpatrick

Individuals should remove fluoride from their tap water if fluoridation cannot be stopped.

Eh... How?

alastair

blatantrereg wrote: »

Does the paper indicate what levels of fluoride were shown to cause the problems?

I'm aware of papers that showed serious impact on IQ and other problems in African tribes where fluoride ingestion was very high. The levels of fluoride in their water were several times the level in Irish tap water though

Levels in the report: "concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L"

EU Drinking Water Directive Standard: 1.5 mg/l.

alastair

opinion guy wrote: »

It is new. It is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Modalities that are well recognised as the strongest evidence. No the individual papers included are not new, but the systematic review and meta-analysis is an original piece of work and new science in its own right.

Thank you. And as with any report - it's only as good as the raw data it's built around. This was a study of conditions that don't pertain to fluoridation schemes - nothing 'arbitary' about dismissing it on that basis.

opinion guy

alastair wrote: »

Thank you. And as with any report - it's only as good as the raw data it's built around. This was a study of conditions that don't pertain to fluoridation schemes.

Did you read it ?

Also again you demonstrate your misunderstanding. As a systematic review - there are criteria for what it includes and doens't include. It isn't arbitrary.

Don't thank me I'm not backing you up. you simply fail to understand my point.

alastair

opinion guy wrote: »

Did you read it ?

Also again you demonstrate your misunderstanding. As a systematic review - there are criteria for what it includes and doens't include. It isn't arbitrary.

A systematic review of papers dealing with the ingestion of levels of fluoride that don't have any bearing on fluoridation schemes. Pretty arbitrary if you're interested in the effects of fluoridation schemes and public health.


And thank you again - but it's you who seems to be 'missing the point'.

Dave!

opinion guy wrote: »

Did you read it ?

Also again you demonstrate your misunderstanding. As a systematic review - there are criteria for what it includes and doens't include. It isn't arbitrary.

Don't thank me I'm not backing you up. you simply fail to understand my point.

Isn't the point that the systematic review looks at studies related to very high fluoride intake? Nothing wrong with the study, but it's not necessarily applicable to the 0.8ppm concentration in the Irish water supply. Toxicity is all about dosage.

opinion guy

alastair wrote: »

Levels in the report: "concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L"

EU Drinking Water Directive Standard: 1.5 mg/l.

alastair wrote: »

A systematic review of papers dealing with the ingestion of levels of fluoride that don't have any bearing on fluoridation schemes. Pretty arbitrary if you're interested in the effects of fluoridation schemes and public health.


And thank you again - but it's you who seems to be 'missing the point'.

This is extraordinarily misleading alastair.

For those interested - the actual levels included in the report are shown in Table 1 of the report.
18 of the 27 studies are based on drinking water studies and many of those have their highest fluoride concentration levels of 5mg/L or less.

Its all in table 1.

alastair you are being incredibly disingenuous.
You either don't have a clue what you are talking about - or you are biased.

Dave! wrote: »

Isn't the point that the systematic review looks at studies related to very high fluoride intake? Nothing wrong with the study, but it's not necessarily applicable to the 0.8ppm concentration in the Irish water supply. Toxicity is all about dosage.

See my above points. Why not read if for yourself Dave?

Solair

hoodwinked wrote: »

in saying that my grand parents lived on the north side of Cork but id NEVER drink water there, they used have to leave their tap run for a few seconds to leave the water go from brown to clear it was awful, and more often than not they would get boil water notices.

That's caused by old, rusty pipes in their own house / on the way in from the mains in the street. It's mostly likely iron-oxide. The water on the North-side of Cork is as good as the water in any other part of Cork, i.e. clean, drinkable, and generally excellent quality.

I don't agree with the idea of flouridating it because it's mass-medication without consent. It's also totally out of step with almost EVERY other EU country.

The practice will probably get outlawed by some EU directive. They already classify it as a medicine so it's going to be hard to use as a food ingredient.

hooradiation

alastair wrote: »

Levels in the report: "concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L"

EU Drinking Water Directive Standard: 1.5 mg/l.

And the Irish standard is between 0.6 and 0.8 ppm (or mg/L)

Which is usually in and around the reference level for these studies, not the "high" ones.

Y'know, the levels that are the ones that might actually be harmful.

Fluoride

The Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 5th Edition (1984) gives lead a toxicity rating of 3 to 4 (3 = moderately toxic, 4 = very toxic) and the U.S. EPA has set 0.015 ppm as the MCL for lead in drinking water--with a goal of 0.0ppm.

The toxicity rating for fluoride is 4, yet the maximum level for fluoride in drinking water is currently set at 0.8ppm, over 50 times the permissible level for lead.

Camargo in his peer reviewed study of Fluoride toxicity (the only study examined by the EU SCHER scientific committee on environmental risks of fluoride emissions from waste water treatement facilities arising from water fluoridation) demonstrated that fluoride at concentrations of 0.2ppm may have lethal effects of sensitive freshwater fisheries, especially in soft water rivers, similar to many salmonid river systems found in Ireland.

The WHO has stated that effluents from wastewater treatment plants that treat fluoridated water will impact on surface water quality.

Warrington in a study (Ref: Warrington, PD, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Fluoride. Technical Appendix 1990, British Columbia Ministry of Environment) for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment also identified 0.2 mg/ L fluoride as a “critical level” for fresh water species. While the Government of Canada Environmental Protection Act (Ref: Government of Canada 1993, Inorganic Fluorides, Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Priority Substances List Assessment Report)). - estimated adverse effect thresholds (lethal, growth impairment and egg production) are 0.28 mg/L fluoride for fresh water species.

The impact of Fluoride on surface water was also accepted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry when they found that fluorides from water fluoridation will contribute to surface water directly and will deposit into
sediment, where they are strongly attached to sediment particles. The Agency reported how Fluoride forms stable complexes with calcium and magnesium in natural waters and how Fluorine cannot be destroyed in the environment it can only change its form.

According to Professor Paul Engelking, chemistry professor at the University of Oregon, studies undertaken at their University have found that small amounts of fluoride at 0.1 - 0.2ppm can negatively impact on salmon populations.National Marine Fisheries Service ecotoxicologist, Dr. John Stein who heads the environmental conservation division at the NMFS's Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, Canada has stated that the hazards for inland fisheries would be much greater in soft water, as low calcium water increases the amount of fluoride absorbed by the fish that swim in it. According to Dr. Stein "Fluoride is pretty toxic, and the softer the water, the more toxic it is". The same principle applies to humans.

The toxic action of fluoride on the health resides in the fact that fluoride ions act as enzymatic poisons, inhibiting enzyme activity and, ultimately, interrupting metabolic processes such as glycolysis and synthesis of proteins. The actual mechanism at molecular level by which inorganic fluoride inhibits enzyme activity and interrupts metabolic processes remains unknown but it is the combination of fluoride with calcium and magnesium ions, which in many instances are needed as cofactors by different enzymes, that is believed to be a primary mechanism. People living in areas with very soft waters with low ionic content may be more adversely affected by fluoride pollution than those living in areas with hardwater because the bioavailability of fluoride ions is reduced with increasing water content of calcium and chloride. Therefore you cannot compare 0.8mg/l fluoride in water with a calcium level of >300mg/l with that of <20mg/l. All of the cancer incidence maps for ireland show that the areas with the softest water have the highest prevalence of cancer, as well as neurological illness and cardiovascular disease.

As for tooth decay it is not caused by a lack fluoride, it is caused by a lack of common sense dental hygiene and typically poor sugar saturated diet. If fluoride has any value in preventative dental health, it needs to be applied directly to the teeth. It is extremely inefficient, dangerous and unnecessary to consume fluoride into our bodies where it is transformed into hydrofluoric acid in our stomachs, releases fluoride ions into out blood supply where it acts as a potent enzyme inhibitor and ultimately accumulates in our bones, brain and tissues; the entire population is subsequently affected regardless of their individual health conditions or dietary fluoride intake because a small percentage of children eat too much sugary food and don’t wash their teeth.

You do not drink shampoo to clean your hair or drink hydrogen peroxide to clean a wound so why should every individual be ingesting fluoride in water so that a small percentage of the population may get a little on their teeth. Both the NHS York Review and the EU SCHER review of water fluoridation found that fluoride in water had little is any effect for adults or children under 5 years of age. The Canadian Paediatric Society, representing more than 3,000 paediatricians, state that ingesting fluoride has no medical health benefit and only significantly increases the risk of chronic fluoride overexposure.

Such a policy clearly violates the requirements of informed consent, does not allow for the individual to stop their exposure and gives dentists who advocate this policy absolute power over our health choices, more power bizarrely than your doctor who is the only person qualified to monitor your health. In addition, given the existence of accessible and safe alternatives for preventing cavities, it does not pass the test of the precautionary principle.

Apart from the human health issues we also need to ask why are we treating the entire water supply with this chemical when 99% of the water is not used for the purpose it was intended. A child could see the total lack of practical common sense here and what a waste of resources this is, especially as fluoride is listed as a dangerous substance under EU law that requires prior authorisation before it can be discharged into the environment. Why therefore are we so indiscriminately dumping fluoride into our environment where is accumulates with time. Such a policy is not just unsustainable but futile in the long run as it only degrades our environment for future generations.

Pottler

Flouride is an industrial waste that's dumped into the water system. End of. I drilled a well and put in a pump. Stuff your water Mr Man. If you disagree, bite me, I've been through all the Irish water treatment plants as a contractor in the past. I'll give it a miss, thanks.:)

Cienciano

Pottler wrote: »

Flouride is an industrial waste that's dumped into the water system. End of. I drilled a well and put in a pump. Stuff your water Mr Man. If you disagree, bite me, I've been through all the Irish water treatment plants as a contractor in the past. I'll give it a miss, thanks.:)

This is the problem I have with anti flouride brigade. You honestly think companies throw the government a few quid to put their industrial waste into our drinking water because there's no other use for it or no other way of disposing of it? :rolleyes:

profitius

Theres an interview about this on alchemy radio. Aisling Fitzgibbon is taking the government to court.

http://alchemyradio.podomatic.com/ (Interview number 003)

alastair

profitius wrote: »

Theres an interview about this on alchemy radio. Aisling Fitzgibbon is taking the government to court.

http://alchemyradio.podomatic.com/ (Interview number 003)

Aisling Fitzgibbon's alma mater (the source of her 'expertise' and qualification on the subject) and guru on matters fluoride exposed here: http://www.dcscience.net/?p=384

My name is URL

alastair wrote: »

Aisling Fitzgibbon's alma mater (the source of her 'expertise' and qualification on the subject) and guru on matters fluoride exposed here: http://www.dcscience.net/?p=384

At least she's lobbying for change in a transparent way.

It has already been established in Irish courts that people have a right to bodily integrity.. that was clarified sufficiently in the 60's... when it was noted in a case.. that “you have the right not to have your body or personhood interfered with" funnily enough that came as a byproduct of a case raised against fluoridation. -- http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1965/1.html

I think we've come to a point where those particular notions can be further tested.

Point no. 22 in the above document asks a presently pertinent question imo... "Are these minute changes, almost imperceptible, usually beneficial, and at worst harmless, a violation of “bodily integrity”? "

Is that question not one that should be reconsidered? Let alone reconsidering the answer...

guitarzero

Just usual conspiracy nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!!I drank flouride water and sure it did me no harm, still have me two front teeth wah!!!!? Never mind!!!!!

Ole ole ole ole ole ole!!!!!!!!

Logical_Bear

profitius wrote: »

Theres an interview about this on alchemy radio. Aisling Fitzgibbon is taking the government to court.

that the radio station that is advertising it's gonna have david icke on?the one that was removed as spam when advertised in the CT forum?

zenno

Whether you like it or not, fluoride will be removed from the nations water supply in the next few years and that will be a good thing. It is a huge human rights issue and it just cannot continue to go on so it's just a matter of time when fluoride will be banned from entering our main water supply.

Like I said before, if you want to damage yourself then you can purchase all the fluoride you want personally without effecting anyone else.

Also dentists are going to get a right bashing soon for promoting such chemicals and forced mass medication.

Jimoslimos

zenno wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, fluoride will be removed from the nations water supply in the next few years and that will be a good thing. It is a huge human rights issue and it just cannot continue to go on so it's just a matter of time when fluoride will be banned from entering our main water supply.

Like I said before, if you want to damage yourself then you can purchase all the fluoride you want personally without effecting anyone else.

Also dentists are going to get a right bashing soon for promoting such chemicals and forced mass medication.

Really now? A huge human rights issue? Hyperbole much.

My 2c on fluoridation of water supplies:
Most of the claims arising from the anti side are at best pure unfounded speculation combined with a misunderstanding of science (I'm referring to the meta-analysis paper quoted earlier) and at worst downright lies and scaremongering.

Fluoride may well have a beneficial effect on dental health when added to drinking water - however I'm not 100% convinced it is significant. The anti-fluoride lobby groups would be better served by questioning this instead of engaging in Daily Mail style scare stories.

I'm happy to continue to drink tap water, fluoride or not. I've been in plenty of countries where that is a privilege.

zenno

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Really now? A huge human rights issue? Hyperbole much.

My 2c on fluoridation of water supplies:
Most of the claims arising from the anti side are at best pure unfounded speculation combined with a misunderstanding of science (I'm referring to the meta-analysis paper quoted earlier) and at worst downright lies and scaremongering.

Fluoride may well have a beneficial effect on dental health when added to drinking water - however I'm not 100% convinced it is significant. The anti-fluoride lobby groups would be better served by questioning this instead of engaging in Daily Mail style scare stories.

I'm happy to continue to drink tap water, fluoride or not. I've been in plenty of countries where that is a privilege.

Well you and the rest of the people that love their fluoride will have to purchase it in future if you want it, at least then it won't be forced in damaging other peoples health.

OK, so are you saying that the Irish population are not mass medicated ? It is plain as day that The citizens of Ireland are being force medicated, this is the main issue and problem. Your science does not do any justice to the fact at hand. Either way it will be out of the main system soon so it makes no difference now what you say.

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2012/02/29/mep-harkin-challenges-ireland-over-mass-fluoridation-of-water/

These scientific findings need to be seriously considered by the Minister for Health, particularly when Ireland is the only remaining EU country with a legislative policy for fluoridation of drinking water,” Harkin stated.

alastair

zenno wrote: »

Well you and the rest of the people that love their fluoride will have to purchase it in future if you want it, at least then it won't be forced in damaging other peoples health.

... like it isn't at the moment.

Splendour

zenno wrote: »

Also dentists are going to get a right bashing soon for promoting such chemicals and forced mass medication.

I had a conversation with a dentist who disagrees with fluoride being added and I can't imagine he's the exception.

southcentralts

Fluoridation of water is the single greatest communist plot ever conceived!

alastair

Splendour wrote: »

I had a conversation with a dentist who disagrees with fluoride being added and I can't imagine he's the exception.

It's not he'd benefit financially from an end to fluoridation or anything...

oh, wait.

alastair

My name is URL wrote: »

At least she's lobbying for change in a transparent way.

It has already been established in Irish courts that people have a right to bodily integrity.. that was clarified sufficiently in the 60's... when it was noted in a case.. that “you have the right not to have your body or personhood interfered with" funnily enough that came as a byproduct of a case raised against fluoridation. -- http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1965/1.html

And from the judgement in the same case -

I am convinced that the amount of the fluoride ion ingested at a concentration of 1 p.p.m. in the water together with the amount of the ion in the food, in drink, in the air and in drugs (in so far as we know it) does not involve any element of danger or risk to health.

“Having heard the evidence and read the literature which it was agreed I should read, I am satisfied that the fluoridation of the public water supplies at the concentration of 1 p.p.m. will not, in our temperate climate, be dangerous to anybody, old, young, healthy or sick. I am also satisfied that there is no reasonable possibility that it may involve an element of danger or risk to life or health to any of the citizens of this country.”

“It would, I think, be sufficient for the purposes of this case to say that the plaintiff has not proved that the fluoridation of the, public water supply is dangerous but I do not think that I should so confine myself. The evidence given on behalf of the plaintiff at the earlier stages in this case received wide publicity while the far more compelling evidence for the defendant received little public notice. It is possible that the evidence for the plaintiff, some of which was of a sensational character, may have created public uneasiness. Let me say then that I am satisfied beyond the slightest doubt that the fluoridation of the public water supplies in this country at a concentration of 1 p.p.m. will not cause any damage or injury to the health of anybody, young, old, healthy or sick who is living in this country and that there is no risk or prospect whatever that it will. The evidence on which I base this view consists of a number of separate items each of which is conclusive; when taken together, they are overwhelming.”

Being transparent is all well and good - but it would be nice if the argument had some solid underpinnings - which it doesn't.