Fluoride endgame approaches....

Jimoslimos

jma wrote: »

Excellent point! And remember, it's the government that passed the legislation on this, but the responsibility to dose the water is left up to the local authorities; in many areas, it's a single person, locally, who actually doses the water - e.g. a FÁS worker. It's not exactly a controlled process, and where I live, there have been numerous occasions where the water supply was overdosed. In one instance, a few years ago, a double dosage was purposely added because the person responsible with the task went on a 2 week holiday. Sometimes, you can actually see and smell it (at least in the case of Chlorine).

Flouridated water has no noticeable taste, smell or appearance, so stop talking bullsh1t.

Also the 'cloudy' appearance that many like yourself no doubt attribute to flouride or chlorine in the water is caused by air bubbles.

jma

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Flouridated water has no noticeable taste, smell or appearance, so stop talking bullsh1t.

Also the 'cloudy' appearance that many like yourself no doubt attribute to flouride or chlorine in the water is caused by air bubbles.

Read the full sentence, you fool!

Sometimes, you can actually see and smell it (AT LEAST IN THE CASE OF CHLORINE).

Also, you are wrong. Fluoridated water is not necessarily colourless, odourless or tasteless. Fluoride is. The appearance, odour and taste of the water itself depends on many factors.

There's no point in discussing things like this with people like you. I doubt you have much interest in the topic or discussion at all. I don't know why you bother adding these ignorant and pointless comments....

jma

ALSO - hydrofluosilicic acid, which is what is being used, according to the Irish Statue Book, is grey and cloudy in colour, and has an unpleasant, sour odour. You'll see this on any Material Safety Data Sheet.

IM0

its ok just make sure you wear your tinfoil hat while drinking it and youll be immune to it

Fromthetrees

I'm totally against adding anything to the public water system that doesn't make the water safer, it's a disgrace and you have to be a pig ignorant fool to defend it.

On the other hand, I like the idea of drinking water with drugs in it, maybe a bit of Codeine and Xanax in it would be absolutely lovely, oh it's dark and rainy outside, hmm, a nice glass of water will cheer me right up.

Jimoslimos

jma wrote: »

Read the full sentence, you fool!

Sometimes, you can actually see and smell it (AT LEAST IN THE CASE OF CHLORINE).

Also, you are wrong. Fluoridated water is not necessarily colourless, odourless or tasteless. Fluoride is. The appearance, odour and taste of the water itself depends on many factors.

So why did you feel the need to conflate the two, unless you were purposely trying to mislead?

Give me proof that humans can detect fluoridated water, by taste, smell or appearance, even at several times the recommended limits.

Otherwise keep quiet and give the name-calling a rest.

Aquarius34

IM0 wrote: »

its ok just make sure you wear your tinfoil hat while drinking it and youll be immune to it

I'll happily wear my tin foil hat rather than been forced to drink the rat poison floating around in my drinking water. People who are making fun of this issue actually need a tin foil ball in their gob.

Aquarius34

Jimoslimos wrote: »

So why did you feel the need to conflate the two, unless you were purposely trying to mislead?

Give me proof that humans can detect fluoridated water, by taste, smell or appearance, even at several times the recommended limits.

Otherwise keep quiet and give the name-calling a rest.

Water shouldn't smell. It does smell. Dublin water not only smells bad it's tastes disgusting. The heavy metals and chlorine alone reeks in it. No to mention all the other **** they dump in it.

Aquarius34

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I'm totally against adding anything to the public water system that doesn't make the water safer, it's a disgrace and you have to be a pig ignorant fool to defend it.

On the other hand, I like the idea of drinking water with drugs in it, maybe a bit of Codeine and Xanax in it would be absolutely lovely, oh it's dark and rainy outside, hmm, a nice glass of water will cheer me right up.

It's about choice, if you want to poison yourself, that's your choice, no one will stop you. Unless someone is trying to save you but that's another matter.

But If I don't want poison in my water, I would like to know why state officials think they have the god given right to dump toxic waste in our water supply.I clearly don't want toxic waste in my water supply. Especially dangerous chemicals such as flouride. I am sure many others would have the same sentiments and concerns as I have.

Jimoslimos

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Water shouldn't smell. It does smell. Dublin water not only smells bad it's tastes disgusting. The heavy metals and chlorine alone reeks in it. No to mention all the other **** they dump in it.

Stop talking tripe. All that is needed to remove any chlorine taste from water is to let it stand in the fridge for a few hours.

1st world problems.

Aquarius34

Roadtrippin wrote: »

I definitely wouldn't consider myself accepting of the authorities as if it is Gospel. But thanks for making assumptions about me.

What I do pay attention to is scientific facts.

The trace amounts of 0.8 mg/l fluoride in Irish water are well below the EU Drinking Water Directive Standard of 1.5 mg/l. Above 1.5 mg/l is where fluoride can have an effect on human health. Have a look at page 8 here:

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

The Irish government and water boards are required (e.g. by the EU) to release a yearly water quality report and those aren't written by dentists.

Also, this may be interesting to those that think wells have much better drinking water quality than tap water: The ground water that wells source can contain much higher amounts of fluoride than tap water:
'In groundwaters, however, low or high concentrations of fluoride can occur, depending on the nature of the rocks and the occurrence of fluoride-bearing minerals.'

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43514/1/9241563192_eng.pdf

If I were you, I would be much more worried about the antiquated pipework still in use in Ireland. A lot of lead pipes are still in operation and lead pollution has much worse effects on health. Also, leakage from septic tanks can contaminate drinking water which is a much bigger threat to Irish drinking water quality than fluoride.

No. You're missing the point. Fluoride is poison. Why is there need to pump it into our drinking water. It's not below the standard. There should be no set standard for dumping toxic waste in drinking water, period. There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour whatsoever. They put enough of other chemicals alone in it that isn't exactly good for us without having to throw in fluoride on top of it.

It's been mentioned that fluoride is added to toothpaste and many food items as well. This nation is drunk and positioned on this stuff and it needs to be stopped immediately.

Aquarius34

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Stop talking tripe. All that is needed to remove any chlorine taste from water is to let it stand in the fridge for a few hours.

1st world problems.

It's not just chlorine, its lead also. Dublin water is disgusting. It taste disgusting. It smells disgusting. you have to be brain dead to not know this. You're the one talking through your ass. Dublin city council don't have a standard on anything. So let's not go into that argument.

zenno

Fluoride will be removed from the Irish water supply system soon i'm sure, so the whingers that complain about this poison being removed can get off their arse and go purchase their poison from your local store. I'll be happy when it is permanently removed from of our water supply.

jma

Jimoslimos wrote: »

So why did you feel the need to conflate the two, unless you were purposely trying to mislead?

Give me proof that humans can detect fluoridated water, by taste, smell or appearance, even at several times the recommended limits.

Otherwise keep quiet and give the name-calling a rest.

No, I wasn't trying to mislead. You obviously didn't get the point of my post, so I'll try and break it down for you. My point was that the treatment of the water supply is done locally, and the addition of chemicals is uncontrolled, or at least not adequately controlled. If the prescribed levels of Chlorine are exceeded, or if the amounts added are inconsistent, why would it be any different with Fluoride?

The Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act, 1960 states that the amount of Fluorine shall not exceed one part by weight of fluorine per million parts of water.

But if it's not adequately controlled or monitored, and if the water is "overdosed" with Chlorine, how are we to know exactly how much Fluoride our water contains?

I hope this makes a bit more sense to you. If not, you'll just have to educate yourself some other way. I neither have the time nor the interest to further simply things for you.

As for proof that humans can detect fluoridated water, you'll have to get your own. I don't know at what concentration Hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is detectable by human senses, I'm just saying that H2SiF6 has, in fact, a sour odour and a cloudy grey colour. This may or may not be relevant, depending on the concentration required to make it odourless, colourless, and tasteless. If you're interested in this aspect of water fluoridation, I suggest you do your own research into it.

Otherwise, keep quiet and annoy someone else.

Aquarius34

zenno wrote: »

Fluoride will be removed from the Irish water supply system soon i'm sure, so the whingers that complain about this poison being removed can get off their arse and go purchase their poison from your local store. I'll be happy when it is permanently removed from of our water supply.

I really don't care how people react to other's whinging about this. That is not the point here. If anything you should be concerned just as much on this issue if you had any care for your own health. It is simply not acceptable. It's not even in reason to dump toxic into our water supply. How is this acceptable. I don't think whinging is even enough to this. This is a serious crime against the people of this country.

jma

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I really don't care how people react to other's whinging about this. That is not the point here. If anything you should be concerned just as much on this issue if you had any care for your own health. It is simply not acceptable. It's not even in reason to dump toxic into our water supply. How is this acceptable. I don't think whinging is even enough to this. This is a serious crime against the people of this country.

I think zenno was referring to the people that are apparently proponents of water fluoridation, or who are arguing that it's safe.

zenno

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I really don't care how people react to other's whinging about this. That is not the point here. If anything you should be concerned just as much on this issue if you had any care for your own health. It is simply not acceptable. It's not even in reason to dump toxic into our water supply. How is this acceptable. I don't think whinging is even enough to this. This is a serious crime against the people of this country.

I have been involved in many other threads here on boards about this issue and I do know perfectly well of the concern. My comment here was just in relation to people complaining about the removal of fluoride in relation to all the other threads on boards about fluoride and i'm not going to go through all the information i have already produced from previous threads.

I am very well aware of the main issues.

dj jarvis

jma wrote: »

No, I wasn't trying to mislead. You obviously didn't get the point of my post, so I'll try and break it down for you. My point was that the treatment of the water supply is done locally, and the addition of chemicals is uncontrolled, or at least not adequately controlled. If the prescribed levels of Chlorine are exceeded, or if the amounts added are inconsistent, why would it be any different with Fluoride?

The Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act, 1960 states that the amount of Fluorine shall not exceed one part by weight of fluorine per million parts of water.

But if it's not adequately controlled or monitored, and if the water is "overdosed" with Chlorine, how are we to know exactly how much Fluoride our water contains?

I hope this makes a bit more sense to you. If not, you'll just have to educate yourself some other way. I neither have the time nor the interest to further simply things for you.

As for proof that humans can detect fluoridated water, you'll have to get your own. I don't know at what concentration Hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is detectable by human senses, I'm just saying that H2SiF6 has, in fact, a sour odour and a cloudy grey colour. This may or may not be relevant, depending on the concentration required to make it odourless, colourless, and tasteless. If you're interested in this aspect of water fluoridation, I suggest you do your own research into it.

Otherwise, keep quiet and annoy someone else.

first highlight point : do you have proof that it is not controlled ? are are you making a assumption

second highlighted point : as above

Third highlighted point : it is grey and sour BEFORE it is added to the water , the amount per million dilutes it to the point it is colorless and odorless

im not for or against putting fluoride into water as i cant wade through all the CRAP from both sides - but if you are going to try press your point , lets make it more believable by not misrepresenting by assumption and lack of facts

as for dublin water being rotten, i take it you have not drank the water in london , new york , madrid ect ect , ours is famous for being SO clear and clean

as some one said , first world problems

zenno

jma wrote: »

I think zenno was referring to the people that are apparently proponents of water fluoridation, or who are arguing that it's safe.

This is correct.

zenno

Also don't forget the fact that all food made and sold here in Ireland is contaminated with fluoride from the fluoridated water they all use so in reality not only are people ingesting fluoridated water they are ingesting it from any Irish made food produce and that's a fair bit of fluoride to be ingesting over any length of time.

The so-called restricted amount of fluoride that they put into the water for a so-called safety margin falls down when you add food to the equation as you are ingesting a lot more this way.

Also fluoride was never meant to be used for ingestion, it was supposed to be spit out and never ingested so just look at how much people are actually putting inside their bodies.

dj jarvis

zenno wrote: »

Also don't forget the fact that all food made and sold here in Ireland is contaminated with fluoride from the fluoridated water they all use so in reality not only are people ingesting fluoridated water they are ingesting it from any Irish made food produce and that's a fair bit of fluoride to be ingesting over any length of time.

The so-called restricted amount of fluoride that they put into the water for a so-called safety margin falls down when you add food to the equation as you are ingesting a lot more this way.

Also fluoride was never meant to be used for ingestion, it was supposed to be spit out and never ingested so just look at how much people are actually putting inside their bodies.

can you supply data for it in food , after its produced ?
if this really was the case , how come irish produce is seen world wide as top notch ?
if we were adding poison would the WHO not alert other nations to this fact
sounds very strange to me

Aquarius34

zenno wrote: »

I have been involved in many other threads here on boards about this issue and I do know perfectly well of the concern. My comment here was just in relation to people complaining about the removal of fluoride in relation to all the other threads on boards about fluoride and i'm not going to go through all the information i have already produced from previous threads.

I am very well aware of the main issues.

Oh I am very sorry, I picked you up wrong on that end then. It seems a lot of people are attacking others for sticking up to this issue. That's great then you are fighting the same battle.

Aquarius34

dj jarvis wrote: »

can you supply data for it in food , after its produced ?
if this really was the case , how come irish produce is seen world wide as top notch ?
if we were adding poison would the WHO not alert other nations to this fact
sounds very strange to me

Why can't you?
Why do people demand other's to find things out for them. Does your mother buy your food shopping? For **** sake. Get real and be responsible for your own damn mind and health. This is exactly the problem. The state officials dump toxic waste in our water supply and people just sit back and not take any responsibility or action to it. Just when others are, people slam them down and demand them to not only take action but come up with evidence and research on everything for them to prove to them what is happening right in front of their very eyes.

Find out yourself. if you care about your own health, you would do it. Don't expect anyone else to care about your health, especially when you obviously don't show that you make an effort yourself.

Aquarius34

zenno wrote: »

Also don't forget the fact that all food made and sold here in Ireland is contaminated with fluoride from the fluoridated water they all use so in reality not only are people ingesting fluoridated water they are ingesting it from any Irish made food produce and that's a fair bit of fluoride to be ingesting over any length of time.

The so-called restricted amount of fluoride that they put into the water for a so-called safety margin falls down when you add food to the equation as you are ingesting a lot more this way.

Also fluoride was never meant to be used for ingestion, it was supposed to be spit out and never ingested so just look at how much people are actually putting inside their bodies.

fluoride kills rats too.
Main ingredient in rat poison.

The test results show that rats die from it.

zenno

dj jarvis wrote: »

can you supply data for it in food , after its produced ?
if this really was the case , how come irish produce is seen world wide as top notch ?
if we were adding poison would the WHO not alert other nations to this fact
sounds very strange to me

Well it's quite obvious that when a food manufacturer here in Ireland uses water to produce most food-stuffs, then the fluoride will be in the food and this is a well known fact.

Food manufacturers in Ireland do not go through the process of trying to remove the fluoride from the water before they produce food, they will all use the same water we drink to make their food of which is fluoridated.

dj jarvis

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Why can't you?
Why do people demand other's to find things out for them. Does your mother buy your food shopping? For **** sake. Get real and be responsible for your own damn mind and health. This is exactly the problem. The state officials dump toxic waste in our water supply and people just sit back and not take any responsibility or action to it. Just when others are, people slam them down and demand them to not only take action but come up with evidence and research on everything for them to prove to them what is happening right in front of their very eyes.

Find out yourself. if you care about your own health, you would do it. Don't expect anyone else to care about your health, especially when you obviously don't show that you make an effort yourself.

listen you angry little person , im asking for data some one said they have , im asking where can i get it from , so i can go and check , i want to know more

now get off you stupid little soap box and pontificate at some one that gives a flying ****

YOU and your waffle post's are exactly why no one gives a crap , becasue they come across one trick pony's like you and just get tired of listening to the SH1T - and anyway i was not asking you anything

so go and ask my .................


and im still waiting for you to back up your points as i asked earlier , you are aware this how it works , you make a point and to further the discussion you BACK UP your points with PROOF and DATA , otherwise its just hot air you are producing , its not me that has to go looking for proof for your statements , that's up to you , and having a hissy fit when asked does your position no good at all

dj jarvis

zenno wrote: »

Well it's quite obvious that when a food manufacturer here in Ireland uses water to produce most food-stuffs, then the fluoride will be in the food and this is a well known fact.

Food manufacturers in Ireland do not go through the process of trying to remove the fluoride from the water before they produce food, they will all use the same water we drink to make their food of which is fluoridated.

so if its so well known , can you supply some of your well know data? or point me in the direction so i can have a read ?

and im still not understanding if its such a poison , why don't they remove it? how come other country's that have banned it , allow our food to be sold ?

im really not trying to get at you or catch you out , i would like to see this data if you can point me in the right direction

as you are projecting you know what you are talking about, so share the info please

jma

dj jarvis wrote: »

first highlight point : do you have proof that it is not controlled ? are are you making a assumption

second highlighted point : as above

I personally know the person that adds the chemicals here. I also knew the person that was responsible for it where I grew up, or more specifically, my father knew him. There was also an incident, fairly recently, 25 km away where 1 or 2 local council workers accidentally added too much of something (not sure if Chlorine, Fluoride or something else), and there was not much they could do about it except warn people locally (i.e. in passing or whatever). This might not be the "proof" you're looking for, but isn't the absence of proper control proof enough? I mean, the EPA document that was linked to only had information about a percentage of the WSZs, and 34 of those tested exceeded the legal limits of Fluoride.

dj jarvis wrote: »

Third highlighted point : it is grey and sour BEFORE it is added to the water , the amount per million dilutes it to the point it is colorless and odorless

I'm not arguing that. As I said, it may or may not be relevant. In other words, I don't know how diluted it needs to be in order to make it odourless and colourless. At the concentration that it's SUPPOSED to be, yes, it is (AFAIK) colour- and odourless.

dj jarvis wrote: »

im not for or against putting fluoride into water as i cant wade through all the CRAP from both sides - but if you are going to try press your point , lets make it more believable by not misrepresenting by assumption and lack of facts

Sounds like you don't care either way, which is fine, but then why are you here? If you're not willing to "wade through all the crap", then you're probably missing some relevant facts and points that some of us have posted.

dj jarvis wrote: »

as for dublin water being rotten, i take it you have not drank the water in london , new york , madrid ect ect , ours is famous for being SO clear and clean

as some one said , first world problems

Have you tried Madrid drinking water? Madrid is reported to have very good drinking water, actually, and I've read that people in Madrid are very proud of their water, which supposedly comes from deep underground reserves. As for London and New York, I'm pretty sure they fluoridate their water also.

Jimminy Mc Fukhead

zenno wrote: »

all food made and sold here in Ireland is contaminated with fluoride

dj jarvis wrote: »

can you supply data for it in food

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Why can't you?

Fluoride must be eroding some peoples brains alright.

Aquarius34

dj jarvis wrote: »

listen you angry little person , im asking for data some one said they have , im asking where can i get it from , so i can go and check , i want to know more

now get off you stupid little soap box and pontificate at some one that gives a flying ****

YOU and your waffle post's are exactly why no one gives a crap , becasue they come across one trick pony's like you and just get tired of listening to the SH1T - and anyway i was not asking you anything

so go and ask my .................


and im still waiting for you to back up your points as i asked earlier , you are aware this how it works , you make a point and to further the discussion you BACK UP your points with PROOF and DATA , otherwise its just hot air you are producing , its not me that has to go looking for proof for your statements , that's up to you , and having a hissy fit when asked does your position no good at all

How about, grow a back bone!

dj jarvis

jma wrote: »

I personally know the person that adds the chemicals here. I also knew the person that was responsible for it where I grew up, or more specifically, my father knew him. There was also an incident, fairly recently, 25 km away where 1 or 2 local council workers accidentally added too much of something (not sure if Chlorine, Fluoride or something else), and there was not much they could do about it except warn people locally (i.e. in passing or whatever). This might not be the "proof" you're looking for, but isn't the absence of proper control proof enough? I mean, the EPA document that was linked to only had information about a percentage of the WSZs, and 34 of those tested exceeded the legal limits of Fluoride.


so a once off incident has colored your view , and you cant really say that this happens all the time around the country , you made a statement saying there was no control , i asked you to prove it , this is how a fact based discussion works


I'm not arguing that. As I said, it may or may not be relevant. In other words, I don't know how diluted it needs to be in order to make it odourless and colourless. At the concentration that it's SUPPOSED to be, yes, it is (AFAIK) colour- and odourless.

but you worded it in such a way as to make it look like a fact , this weakens your argument when you do this



Sounds like you don't care either way, which is fine, but then why are you here? If you're not willing to "wade through all the crap", then you're probably missing some relevant facts and points that some of us have posted.


so i cant join a thread looking for more info? , in fairness you are the one putting this stuff out here , i want to know more , again , this is how a discussion works



Have you tried Madrid drinking water? Madrid is reported to have very good drinking water, actually, and I've read that people in Madrid are very proud of their water, which supposedly comes from deep underground reserves. As for London and New York, I'm pretty sure they fluoridate their water also.

i have , and it does not have a patch on dublins IMO , as for london and newyork , the water quality or lack of has nothing to do with fluoride
and again your post was not without bias , so again i will question the statement and motive


if you and other posters are putting out statements as "fact" then you have to understand , as its a public forum i can and will ask for you to back these up , if you cant then it does not help you stand point at all , me , i have no bias here, i dont know enough either way , this is why im asking

why are the anti fluoride camp SO SO touchy about being asked for facts and figures ?
just makes you all look bad when feet are stamped like children

Aquarius34

Jimminy Mc Fukhead wrote: »

Fluoride must be eroding some peoples brains alright.

hahahahahahahahahaha You made me laugh out loud! To get around the stupidity at times, god you have to laugh. This thread is becoming a joke.


Prove to me rat poison kills you.

Hold on.... I will come back with test results later.

dj jarvis

Aquarius34 wrote: »

How about, grow a back bone!

LOL , really , thats your come back LOL :eek:
still waiting for your "proof" for your verbal diarrhea in your earlier post

and you are aware , others can see that you are un able to back up your stance , so come on , dont look like a complete numpty , cough up the stats and proof like a good lad

Aquarius34

Jimminy Mc Fukhead wrote: »

:

why are the anti fluoride camp SO SO touchy about being asked for facts and figures ?
just makes you all look bad when feet are stamped like children

One would have to ask why on earth would you defend it?

Aquarius34

dj jarvis wrote: »

LOL , really , thats your come back LOL :eek:
still waiting for your "proof" for your verbal diarrhea in your earlier post

and you are aware , others can see that you are un able to back up your stance , so come on , dont look like a complete numpty , cough up the stats and proof like a good lad

Well you obviously don't have a back bone, you lean on others for fluoride research. Did you know that it's poison yet? I am sure someone has mentioned it above.

opinion guy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Well you obviously don't have a back bone, you lean on others for fluoride research. Did you know that it's poison yet? I am sure someone has mentioned it above.

Do you think you are persuading people ??

I'm on the middle on this arugment. I don't think I know enough either way to make a clear decision. You coming on here spouting opinions with providing evidence dont' convince me one bit to join your side. Quite the opposite.

Seriously - go and take some science courses before trying to argue this debate

Tiddlypeeps

I don't know why I let myself get dragged into this argument again and again.
The ignorance and scar mongering going on here is insane.

First things first, for those stating that we are on our own in fluoridation and that the rest of the EU don't, you are wrong. A lot of the EU choose to fluoridate table salt instead of water. The does is still the same.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

fluoride kills rats too.
Main ingredient in rat poison.

The test results show that rats die from it.

It is this kind of ridiculous statement that dragged me in here.

The key to toxicity is dose. It is defined as "the degree to which something is poisonous". So you cannot say fluoride is toxic, that sentence doesn't make any sense because it doesn't infer any dose. The level of drinking water an Irish person can consume in a day is not toxic. If our water had fluoride levels higher than 1 parts per million then it would start to become toxic, increasing in toxicity with higher levels of fluoride. No legitimate study has ever concluded that fluoridating water between 0.5 and 1.0 parts per million is anything other than beneficial to human health. Here is a report published on the subject which you probably won't read but I'll supply it anyway.

What is commonly misunderstood about water fluoridation is that it is not just adding fluoride to water, it's making sure that water contains the optimal level of fluoride. Water is naturally fluoridated in lots of places. In places where the fluoride concentration is higher than 1.5 parts per million the water even needs to be defluoridated.

Here is a map showing the parts of the world that have such high levels of naturally occuring fluoride in the water that defluoridation is needed.

The only argument I've ever heard against fluoridating water that I feel is semi-reasonable is the argument against medicating people without their consent. That argument can be countered by the fact that fluoride is naturally occurring in so many places and without it you could be consuming toxic levels of fluoride, but that doesn't dismiss the argument completely. It's not like there are no alternatives tho so I don't know why they get such a bee in their bonnet. You can buy filters to remove it from tap water, you can dig a well or you can do it the old fashioned way and go to the nearest stream (can't get more natural than that) to name just a few.

zenno wrote: »

Well it's quite obvious that when a food manufacturer here in Ireland uses water to produce most food-stuffs, then the fluoride will be in the food and this is a well known fact.

Food manufacturers in Ireland do not go through the process of trying to remove the fluoride from the water before they produce food, they will all use the same water we drink to make their food of which is fluoridated.

You are being silly, if it's safe to drink then the amount of any absorbed by a plant watered by it (if any) is going to be the same or less, therefore safe. Also most crops in Ireland don't require any sort of artificial irrigation systems because it rains and awful lot here. So I'd be surprised if any vegetables produced on a comercial level ever see a drop of tap water except maybe for cleaning. But don't let common sense get in the way of your scare mongering.

If you have any actual evidence that proves that water fluoridation of below 1 parts per million is harmful then I would love to see it. If not then stop trying to fill peoples heads with garbage until you have the evidence to support your claims. Spouting that people should research it for themselves is only damaging your credibility.


Another myth I'll attempt to put to rest is that fluoridating water is just for people too lazy to brush their teeth so why bother. This is not true. Source1, Source2.

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

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

Jimoslimos

Aquarius34 wrote: »

fluoride kills rats too.
Main ingredient in rat poison.

The test results show that rats die from it.

Toxicity is a matter of dose. Name me any chemical and in large enough quantities it will be toxic.

dj jarvis

opinion guy wrote: »

Do you think you are persuading people ??

I'm on the middle on this arugment. I don't think I know enough either way to make a clear decision. You coming on here spouting opinions with providing evidence dont' convince me one bit to join your side. Quite the opposite.

Seriously - go and take some science courses before trying to argue this debate

+1
thank you , could not have put it any better

he cant back anything up , and when challenged turns into a smart arse
that is one sure fire way of spotting a numpty
im the same as you , in that i dont have a side, but this lad is sure pushing me far far away from "his side "

Aquarius34

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Toxicity is a matter of dose. Name me any chemical and in large enough quantities it will be toxic.

Stop with the bull****.

It's toxic and has no beneficent or requirement to be added to our drinking supply. If it's toxic then why add it to our water supply. What is the logic in that? It's been already discussed here and people are not falling for this argument on the dosage and the bull**** for people to focus on as a way negate the reality that this kind of wrong doing should go unnoticed.

Capt'n Midnight

dj jarvis wrote: »

as for dublin water being rotten, i take it you have not drank the water in london , new york , madrid ect ect , ours is famous for being SO clear and clean

as some one said , first world problems

more like Northsider problems

Water quality varies around the city.

dj jarvis

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Stop with the bull****.

It's toxic and has no beneficent or requirement to be added to our drinking supply. If it's toxic then why add it to our water supply. What is the logic in that? It's been already discussed here and people are not falling for this argument on the dosage and the bull**** for people to focus on as a way negate the reality that this kind of wrong doing should go unnoticed.

jesus h christ , you know that in a large enough dose , salt is toxic
but in small doses it makes my chips taste num num ,
but wait , why would i put a toxin on my chips ????

its all about dosage
i have seen enough , you really dont know what you are ****ing on about
i feel embarrassed for you

dj jarvis

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

more like Northsider problems

Water quality varies around the city.

it sure does , but the point i was making , compared to lots and lots of capital citys , Dublin and indeed irelands water is seen as very good indeed

( unless you count the nasty toxic poison we put in our food and water to kill the children )

Heroditas

I see the guy who wrote the original letter to the Times is on the board of SEAI and was also heavily involved with the Greens at one stage.
I remember meeting him once. Had a bee in his bonnet too about mobile phones and masts.
I was tempted to get the tinfoil hat.

Jimoslimos

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Stop with the bull****.

It's toxic and has no beneficent or requirement to be added to our drinking supply. If it's toxic then why add it to our water supply. What is the logic in that? It's been already discussed here and people are not falling for this argument on the dosage and the bull**** for people to focus on as a way negate the reality that this kind of wrong doing should go unnoticed.

Eat salt with your dinner? Wash it down with a glass of wine?

Tiddlypeeps

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Stop with the bull****.

It's toxic and has no beneficent or requirement to be added to our drinking supply. If it's toxic then why add it to our water supply. What is the logic in that? It's been already discussed here and people are not falling for this argument on the dosage and the bull**** for people to focus on as a way negate the reality that this kind of wrong doing should go unnoticed.

Ok I'll have to break this right down for you because you don't seem to be able to comprehend whatsoever.

Toxicity is a matter of does. As Jimoslimos stated almost any chemical you can name is at some does toxic.

So with that in mind we will take a look at bananas. If you weight about 75kg and eat 487 bananas it will likely be fatal.

Do you consider bananas to be inherently poisonous?

Of course not so apply the same logic to water fluoride and it's the exact same situation.

jma

dj jarvis wrote: »

so a once off incident has colored your view , and you cant really say that this happens all the time around the country , you made a statement saying there was no control , i asked you to prove it , this is how a fact based discussion works

This is getting really annoying. I'm not talking about a once-off incident. I just gave you an example of one incident. I know of several incidents, some of them recent, and some of them dating back a few years. I KNOW about this, and I'm passing this on. It could be that others have similar experiences. What do you expect me to post here that would "proove" that these incidents actually occurred? You are also ignoring the second part of my answer to you, which suggests to me that you're just trolling. I have no issue with a fact based discussion, that is why I'm making the attempt to clarify. I use as much facts as I can. Some of it is obviously opinion as well. Chemical treatment of water supplies is not adequately controlled - this is my OPINION. Can you prove to me that it IS adequately controlled?

dj jarvis wrote: »

but you worded it in such a way as to make it look like a fact , this weakens your argument when you do this

It IS a fact. I never stated that the Fluoride in fluoridated water was detectable by human senses, nor was it my intent to mislead. I clearly referred to Chlorine in my original post.

dj jarvis wrote: »

so i cant join a thread looking for more info? , in fairness you are the one putting this stuff out here , i want to know more , again , this is how a discussion works

Of course you can. But you're the one who said you're not willing to "wade through all the crap" from both sides. If you're not willing to review all of the information and to read through ALL of the posts, instead of just "nitpicking" through parts of posts and parts of the discussion, then, again, it suggests trolling to me. If you ARE actually interested, and if you're ACTUALLY looking for more information, then you should stop "nitpicking" and join the discussion in a constructive manner.

dj jarvis wrote: »

i have , and it does not have a patch on dublins IMO , as for london and newyork , the water quality or lack of has nothing to do with fluoride and again your post was not without bias , so again i will question the statement and motive

That's fair enough. I'm just saying that Madrid's water is supposed to be very good. But taste is a matter of opinion. It could also be that some parts of Dublin have better water than others. I don't know. I also don't know what the factors are for London's and New York's water quality. Maybe you can enlighten us...

dj jarvis wrote: »

if you and other posters are putting out statements as "fact" then you have to understand , as its a public forum i can and will ask for you to back these up , if you cant then it does not help you stand point at all , me , i have no bias here, i dont know enough either way , this is why im asking

why are the anti fluoride camp SO SO touchy about being asked for facts and figures ?
just makes you all look bad when feet are stamped like children

Personally, I do try to back up my statements as much as I can, where appropriate, relevant and possible. But as you stated, you're not willing to examine all of the facts or statements. Again, I have absolutely no problem at all with you or anyone else asking. If you ask me, people from the pro "camp" are equally as touchy. I mean, one of my previous posts was misunderstood, and straight away dismissed as "bullsh1t". How can that lead to a constructive discussion?

Capt'n Midnight

dj jarvis wrote: »

it sure does , but the point i was making , compared to lots and lots of capital citys , Dublin and indeed irelands water is seen as very good indeed

( unless you count the nasty toxic poison we put in our food and water to kill the children )

Like I said Northsider problem :pac:

Yes you could smell the water in other places in Ireland, but that was because of silage runoff. When the chlorine was added it turned some of the organics into disinfectant. But that was a very long time ago in a far away land.

opinion guy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But that was a very long time ago in a far away land.

Narnia ? :pac:

dj jarvis

jma wrote: »

This is getting really annoying. I'm not talking about a once-off incident. I just gave you an example of one incident. I know of several incidents, some of them recent, and some of them dating back a few years. I KNOW about this, and I'm passing this on. It could be that others have similar experiences. What do you expect me to post here that would "proove" that these incidents actually occurred? You are also ignoring the second part of my answer to you, which suggests to me that you're just trolling. I have no issue with a fact based discussion, that is why I'm making the attempt to clarify. I use as much facts as I can. Some of it is obviously opinion as well. Chemical treatment of water supplies is not adequately controlled - this is my OPINION. Can you prove to me that it IS adequately controlled?


It IS a fact. I never stated that the Fluoride in fluoridated water was detectable by human senses, nor was it my intent to mislead. I clearly referred to Chlorine in my original post.


Of course you can. But you're the one who said you're not willing to "wade through all the crap" from both sides. If you're not willing to review all of the information and to read through ALL of the posts, instead of just "nitpicking" through parts of posts and parts of the discussion, then, again, it suggests trolling to me. If you ARE actually interested, and if you're ACTUALLY looking for more information, then you should stop "nitpicking" and join the discussion in a constructive manner.


That's fair enough. I'm just saying that Madrid's water is supposed to be very good. But taste is a matter of opinion. It could also be that some parts of Dublin have better water than others. I don't know. I also don't know what the factors are for London's and New York's water quality. Maybe you can enlighten us...


Personally, I do try to back up my statements as much as I can, where appropriate, relevant and possible. But as you stated, you're not willing to examine all of the facts or statements. Again, I have absolutely no problem at all with you or anyone else asking. If you ask me, people from the pro "camp" are equally as touchy. I mean, one of my previous posts was misunderstood, and straight away dismissed as "bullsh1t". How can that lead to a constructive discussion?

sorry , but you stating i know , in bold does not mean im going to take it as proof , sorry

as for posting proof , not just you but others , and in fairness NONE have come up with the goods

i think you picked the wrong forum , either food and health or conspiracy thread

either way , no sense is being made here , and even less proof has been shown

its not up to us to get proof , its up to you to provide it

as for you calling me a troll , well im sorry i disagree with you , so that makes me a troll ?
go back to my first few posts , i was asking for info , nothing else and got jumped on by tin foil hat brigade
and you call me a troll