Ireland has the sickest population in Europe

My name is URL

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Good question.

I've only recently started to think that to be honest and I'm not sure even know if he's just trolling or actually unwell.

I think I find him fascinating more than anything else. Is it just me that thinks so?

I just think it's fcuking annoying that s/he is dragging so many threads off topic and into a discussion on their own beliefs.

Literally every thread they post in goes the same way!

AnonoBoy

My name is URL wrote: »

I just think it's fcuking annoying that s/he is dragging so many threads off topic and into a discussion on their own beliefs.

Literally every thread they post in goes the same way!

That is true I suppose. People can't help but respond when people so off-the-wall start spouting their incredible nonsense.

Daithi 1

the_syco wrote: »

From wiki;



=-=

It still isn't clear what cancer it cures.

Thanks.

Aquarius34

Nodin wrote: »

Wheres the proof of your claim?

Proof is a term used by people who are blinded to what they cannot see or won't see what's in front of them.

People who ask for proof, just sit back waiting for someone else to prove the obvious to them. It's one of the worst habits the mind set's itself on. It's complete laziness and it's also a trait of someone not been able to use their own brains. It's all to do with conditioning they received in schools. Instead of researching yourself, you are told what is true from your text book or teacher. That's how humans learn here growing up and that is why you respond in the way that you do. "where's your proof"

It's your own pitfall not mine.
It's your own set back not mine.
It's your own inadequacy not mine.
It's your own unsightliness not mine .

It is your problem if you can't see what is the truth or what is there in front of you It's your problem if you can't accept the truth.

Jimoslimos

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Pigs must have lesions!!!! You can get sunburned on your head just as you can get sunburned through your T shirt..

Pigs do and require shade in hot weather, muck makes a good sunscreen however since you like all things natural. I've also seen horses with skin cancer - tends to be greys/whites.

Nodin wrote: »

Lets be very specific. This -



...is shite. It's not possible. There is no argument, no debate, nada.

Unless of course you've a few peer reviewed papers that back up your claim?

TBH, I wouldn't waste too much energy on him. Surprised an obvious troll contrarian has lasted this long.

AnonoBoy

As he's back to his 'what is proof' nonsense again I'm out of here.

Laterz.

Aquarius34

My name is URL wrote: »

I just think it's fcuking annoying that s/he is dragging so many threads off topic and into a discussion on their own beliefs.

Literally every thread they post in goes the same way!

I'm happy to stick to the topic and I don't drag every topic off line. Nearly most topics on this forum go off topic at some point or another and drift back on topic We are not robots here and I have been very on topic on this thread. If you can look at this thread objectively there is a lot of posters posting off topic and trying to turn it into a attack type of thread on people who do not submit to BS. I don't submit to BS and I don't submit to what others tell me is real. So many people are freaking brainwashed and I won't fall in line or become part of the program. If you don't like my posts put me on ignore If you can't do that, at least man up and stop following me on threads whinging like a baby crying over spilled milk.

So move on dude. You don't seem to be contributing to the topic, so take your own advice

Duggys Housemate

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Proof is a term used by people who are blinded to what they cannot see or won't see what's in front of them.

People who ask for proof, just sit back waiting for someone else to prove the obvious to them. It's one of the worst habits the mind set's itself on. It's complete laziness and it's also a trait of someone not been able to use their own brains. It's all to do with conditioning they received in schools. Instead of researching yourself, you are told what is true from your text book or teacher. That's how humans learn here growing up and that is why you respond in the way that you do. "where's your proof"

Nope. People are asking for proof because thats how the intelligent critical thinker thinks. Lets say that a group of scientists say the sun causes cancer. And they run all kind of peer reviewed studies which are compatiable with the facts and what we "see before our eyes". That Australians get more skin cancer than anywhere else in the world. That the incidence of skin cancer increases in northern countries where the incidence of sun beds increase etc.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

It's
your own pitfall not mine.
It's your own set back not mine.
It's your own inadequacy not mine.
It's your own unsightliness not mine .

It is your problem if you can't see what is the truth or what is there in front of you It's your problem if you can't accept the truth.

Shucks, we are doing fine. But why don't you stare at the sun for hours and stay 20 hours a day in the sunbeds. Report back. It should be ok according the foremost world export on the subject of Sun, according to you, you.

Aquarius34

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Pigs do and require shade in hot weather, muck makes a good sunscreen however since you like all things natural. I've also seen horses with skin cancer - tends to be greys/whites.


TBH, I wouldn't waste too much energy on him. Surprised an obvious troll contrarian has lasted this long.

You have been called out a few times on your lies and false arguments on fluoride, that is something you should take note of before you try point fingers at others.

You've done so on many other fluoride threads and you are actively trying to repeat the lies so people will believe it I won't and because of that, you feel the need to attack me personally. This comes back to you, not me at all.

Nodin

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Proof is a term (.........)the truth.

You stated

Sungazers in Indian live off water and sunlight

Where is the peer reviewed reasearch that proves this?

Aquarius34

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Nope. People are asking for proof because thats how the intelligent critical thinker thinks.

No, that is not how an intelligent person thinks. That is not been intelligent at all, that is been lazy to the highest degree. Been intelligent is finding out yourself, by yourself. Then you can bring your facts and views to the table and share with others to see if all the facts and views add up on the table with what should be only the truth

You do not come on to a forum and sit and demand proof. That is school conditioning. You are not in school You are an adult, and you have your own brain to use. Use it. If you don't use it you lose it.

If you can't understand that, then you obviously have issues with been responsible for the mind you have been given.

Shucks, we are doing fine. But why don't you stare at the sun for hours and stay 20 hours a day in the sunbeds. Report back. It should be ok according the foremost world export on the subject of Sun, according to you, you.

I don't stare at the sun hours a day.
I build it up over time. When I first started I did only 10 seconds each time. I built it up to 2 or 3 mins at a time for 30 minutes. I am getting better at it over time. I am adapting myself to it. It's quite an amazing thing.

Sungazers in India can do it longer and they have darker skins so they are going to find it easier than me. But like I said before our bodies are capable of doing amazing things and we are great adapters if we put ourselves to the test. That of course is something we don't do.

I am sure you don't because you're quite happily to sit back and rely on everyone else.

My name is URL

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I'm happy to stick to the topic and I don't drag every topic off line. Nearly most topics on this forum go off topic at some point or another and drift back on topic We are not robots here and I have been very on topic on this thread. If you can look at this thread objectively there is a lot of posters posting off topic and trying to turn it into a attack type of thread on people who do not submit to BS. I don't submit to BS and I don't submit to what others tell me is real. So many people are freaking brainwashed and I won't fall in line or become part of the program. If you don't like my posts put me on ignore If you can't do that, at least man up and stop following me on threads whinging like a baby crying over spilled milk.

So move on dude. You don't seem to be contributing to the topic, so take your own advice

I'm not following you onto threads. By posting here and attempting to actually discuss the topics at hand, I am subscribed to the thread. Every time there's a new post I'm alerted to it, and 9 times out of 10 today the 'new post' has either been from you or from someone arguing with you over an unrelated topic.

For someone that says they aren't easily led, you sure allow yourself to be led into circular and seemingly endless arguments.

I could put you on ignore, but the little pop-up box that would replace your posts is even more annoying than you

Aquarius34

Nodin wrote: »

You stated



Where is the peer reviewed reasearch that proves this?

Research it yourself. Go find out. If you don't have the enthusiasm to do this, then to me that explains everything. I don't need to prove it to you. Prove it to yourself. If you're adamant on proving me wrong, go for it Again you can't because you know you can't.:)

Solair

Aquarius34 wrote: »

No, the chemicals we ingest and the toxins we have in our bodies reacts to the radiation and light from the sun. This triggers the cancer in our skin. The sun is actually trying to flush the toxins out of our bodies. Light skin people are more sensitive the sun but the sun does not in itself cause skin cancer. To much sun is not good for you obviously, but the sun also gives off vitamin D, which is a cancer killer and immune booster. Vitamin D has huge benefits and we are deprived of this vitamin. If you drink plenty of water, stay away from processed food. sunscreams and get an 30 to hour of sunlight day your skin will not only be fine but you will be glowing.

It's well documented that a lot of sun creams actually do more harm than good aswell with all the chemicals that is in them.

Sunlight is not out to kill us. This is all media brainwashing at it's finest. Stop believing everything you read or see on T.V.

I'm sorry but what you're posting about skin cancer has absolutely no basis in science whatsoever.

The sun's just a giant ball of extremely hot plasma and it throws out all sorts of radiation. The earth's atmosphere filters a lot of it before it reaches us and the ozone layer in particular filters the ultraviolet bands of of light.

The mechanism by which ultraviolet light (radiation) from the sun causes skin cancer is very well understood. Take a look at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_DNA_damage if you want more information. It's quite a well-written article by Wikipedia standards with plenty of illustrations.

UV-B (315 – 280 nm) light in particular can damage DNA in skin cells directly. It's nothing to do with toxins.

UV isn't ionizing radiation, but it's still capable of altering bonds in molecules and that's where the damage to cells happens.

A very large % of Irish people are not adapted to be capable of dealing with exposure to the sun's rays for even short periods of time as we seem to have evolved to live in the cloudy northern hemisphere.

When we try to tan our skin / get too much exposure, our skin simply burns as it does not have the pigments necessary to protect it from UV damage and burning.

The result of that is very high levels of skin cancers amongst people who have been exposed to a lot of sun. Countries like Australia have large populations of Irish/British and other very fair skinned people and have climates that are very sunny. Add to that the fact that the ozone layer has thinned / is missing and more UV is getting through, and you've a major skin cancer problem!

As for the discussion about sun screen chemicals, so far, the science still shows they work.
However, people with very fair skin should basically stay out of the direct sun and protect their skin by sheltering it with hats / clothes and not exclusively rely on smearing on chemicals.

Aquarius34 wrote:

Sunlight is not out to kill us. This is all media brainwashing at it's finest. Stop believing everything you read or see on T.V.

Sunlight's not 'out to' do anything. It's just sun light. Our bodies are just not adapted to deal with overexposure to it.

Volcanos aren't out to kill us either, but you probably shouldn't stick your hand in one or inhale deeply while gazing into a pool of molten magma.
Lots of natural phenomena and naturally occurring chemicals e.g. in certain plants, radon gas released by rocks etc can kill you, cause you cancer, do you serious damage.

Natural does not always mean good for you.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Then why don't other animals not get skin cancer? Why don't plants get skin cancer?

Other animals certainly do get skin cancer. Humans are more at risk because we do not have fur all over, where as most animals do. But, it's quite common for animals to get skin cancer on exposed areas like their noses, tips of ears etc etc. Most of them don't have a life-span long enough for it to make much difference, and they probably die naturally long before they have any serious symptoms. Others, do develop serious symptoms and struggle on regardless.

Plants suffer from severe photo-damage when they're over-exposed to sun light e.g. moved to an inappropriate climate / growing without adequate shelter.

Aquarius34

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm not following you onto threads.

you are though

I could put you on ignore, but the little pop-up box that would replace your posts is even more annoying than you

Then you'll just have to man up, and get over it. Problems solved then.

Duggys Housemate

Aquarius34 wrote: »

No, that is not how an intelligent person thinks.

Yes it is

Aquarius34 wrote: »

That is not been intelligent at all, that is been lazy to the highest degree. Been intelligent is finding out yourself, by yourself. Then you can bring your facts and views to the table and share with others to see if all the facts and views add up on the table with what should be only the truth

We are bring facts. I mentioned two. Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world, and the incidence of skin cancer in the north of the Northern hemisphere is increasing with the use of sun beds.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

You do not come on to a forum and sit and demand proof. That is school conditioning. You are not in school You are an adult, and you have your own brain to use. Use it. If you don't use it you lose it.

We are all - to a man - on this thread more intelligent than you, so dont patronise our "brains".

Of course we ask for proof. If I said i could fly - as someone else pointed out already - you would presumably demand proof. Asking for proof is the start of the intellectual debate. Your inability to provide any, or to understand why intelligent people would need proof - rather than take the word of somebody on the internet is typical of your inability to understand basic intellectual norms.

Aquarius34

Solair wrote: »

I'm sorry but what you're posting about skin cancer has absolutely no basis in science whatsoever.

The sun's just a giant ball of extremely hot plasma and it throws out all sorts of radiation. The earth's atmosphere filters a lot of it before it reaches us and the ozone layer in particular filters the ultraviolet bands of of light.

The mechanism by why ultraviolet light (radiation) from the sun causes skin cancer is very well understood. Take a look at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_DNA_damage if you want more information. It's quite a well-written article by Wikipedia standards with plenty of illustrations.

UV-B (315 – 280 nm) light in particular can damage DNA in skin cells directly. It's nothing to do with toxins.

It has everything to do with toxins. Sunlight reacts to toxins in your body. That's why people can get lesions and blisters. The sun is a purifier and wil force the toxins out through your skin. You should already know this.

A very large % of Irish people are not adapted to be capable of dealing with exposure to the sun's rays for even short periods of time as we seem to have evolved to live in the cloudy northern hemisphere.

You'll never adapt to the sun by caking yourself with chemically enhanced sun cream. ]

When we try to tan our skin / get too much exposure, our skin simply burns as it does not have the pigments necessary to protect it from UV damage and burning.

Dehrdration plays a huge role in that also. If we ate organic and healthy food too, our skin would be able to repair itself and thus adapt to the sun the same way muscles adapt and repair itself from working out. If the muscles don't get the food, it won't repair itself and become stronger after a post workout.

The result of that is very high levels of skin cancers amongst people who have been exposed to a lot of sun. Countries like Australia have large populations of Irish/British and other very fair skinned people and have climates that are very sunny. Add to that the fact that the ozone layer has thinned / is missing and more UV is getting through, and you've a major skin cancer problem!

90percent of the population live in NSW and SE where the climate is much cooler than tropical regions. Melbourne for example has a similar climate to Britain. There are many other factors to the cause of skin cancer. The sun lotions don't help either and many researchers and yes even scientists are saying now that sun lotions are causing skin cancer too.

As for the discussion about sun screen chemicals, so far, the science still shows they work.
However, people with very fair skin should basically stay out of the direct sun and protect their skin by sheltering it with hats / clothes and not exclusively rely on smearing on chemicals.

Many scientists are now dissagreeing with that. So there is a mass contradiction there. I don't believe they work as most are full of cancer ridden chemicals. In fact most skin creams are cancer ridden. Face wipes for examples are made with cancer ridden chemicals.

But hey we love to blame the sun don't we.
Yep blame someone else for the cancer we caused in our own bodies!. It's the way to go!

dr.bollocko

Aquarius34 banned.

Solair

Aquarius34 wrote: »

It has everything to do with toxins. Sunlight reacts to toxins in your body. That's why people can get lesions and blisters. The sun is a purifier and wil force the toxins out through your skin. You should already know this.

Well, exposure to the sun is certainly a purifier alright. It will quite litterally just erase all life if it's over-exposed to it!

You realise that you can sterilise surfaces with UV light because it's so disruptive to life that it actually kills. It will even bleach organic dyes.

Galway's water supply is partially sterilised by passing it through high power UV lights which kill all life in the water (to kill Cryptosporidium without resorting to adding more chlorine)

UV (from the sun or from an artificial source) is very damaging if it's not filtered / the organism exposed to it cannot deal with it by having adapted some kind of defence mechanism.

Knasher

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I don't stare at the sun hours a day.
I build it up over time. When I first started I did only 10 seconds each time. I built it up to 2 or 3 mins at a time for 30 minutes. I am getting better at it over time. I am adapting myself to it. It's quite an amazing thing.

Just so we are clear, you aren't adapting to the sun, you are desensitizing your ability to feel pain when you expose your eyes to intense light. That pain response is there to protect your retina from damage. If you continue this, you will eventually suffer from permanent blindness.

Your eye contains a lens, which focuses light onto a spot at the back of your eye. If you ever used a magnifying lens to focus the sunlight and start a fire, well that is approximately what the lens in your eye is doing to your retina. You are literally cooking your retinas.

Solair

Knasher wrote: »

Just so we are clear, you aren't adapting to the sun, you are desensitizing your ability to feel pain when you expose your eyes to intense light. That pain response is there to protect your retina from damage. If you continue this, you will eventually suffer from permanent blindness.

& most definitely cataracts.

the_syco

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Thanks.

Still isn't clear.

Knasher wrote: »

You are literally cooking your retinas.

An image of a crazy blind man walking around Dublin shouting that they are coming for us and have poisoned our water, etc, etc, popped into my mind. And his name shall be Aquarius34...

Daithi 1

the_syco wrote: »

Still isn't clear.

k

Malpaisian

Boards.ie a one-stop-shop for little wannabe hitlers, smart-arse gob****es, unthinking fools, cowards, brainwashed slaves and the Thought-Gardai. All of whom deserve the future which they are playing they're own poxy little part in creating. Good luck folks. You'll need it.

Mod: Banned

JJayoo

Malpaisian wrote: »

Boards.ie a one-stop-shop for little wannabe hitlers, smart-arse gob****es, unthinking fools, cowards, brainwashed slaves and the Thought-Gardai.

That's a very honest self assessment.

Malpaisian

JJayoo wrote: »

That's a very honest self assessment.

Ha di ****in ha! keep it up idiot. I'm sure all the other ****in sheep on this ****heap of a site will be very amused and impressed!

--Kaiser--

Malpaisian wrote: »

Ha di ****in ha! keep it up idiot. I'm sure all the other ****in sheep on this ****heap of a site will be very amused and impressed!

There's the door, how about you fuck off? Or else try to put some actual arguments together rather than call everyone who doesn't subscribe to your doolally theories 'sheep'

tdv123

Malpaisian wrote: »

Ha di ****in ha! keep it up idiot. I'm sure all the other ****in sheep on this ****heap of a site will be very amused and impressed!

Your ma is a really, really nice person.

K-9

Mod

Can we cut out the smart replies and keep it civil as well please.

Daithi 1

Hello again folks. Here is a very recent interview including Declan Waugh, on the fluoride issue. Well worth a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SqcKCyucKE

Daithi 1

Sworn Affidavit of Dr. A.K. Susheela,Professor of Anatomy (Histocytochemistry) and Chief of the Fluoride and Fluorosis Research Laboratories, at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. This scientist is one of the worlds leading authorities if the leading authority on fluoride and health.

60. I am absolutely certain that large numbers of persons all around the
world are suffering from Fluoride Toxicity, to one degree or other.

61. The various and frequent health complaints, caused by fluoride
ingestion, are often (or invariably) over-looked due to unawareness
at all levels, which include the health professionals or, perhaps, due
to the prevailing ill conceived, unscientific notion that "fluoride is
good for teeth."

62. Fluoride is potentially a dangerous chemical and a poisonous
substance, which does no good to the human body.

63. With a high degree of scientific accuracy and certainty, I conclude
that artificial fluoridation of drinking water is an ineffective means of
improving dental health, and is in fact quite dangerous to those
forced to consume it.

64. I make this Affidavit in support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment.



http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-of-dr-a-k-susheela-professor-of-anatomy-histocytochemistry-and-chief-of-the-fluoride-and-fluorosis-research-laboratories-at-the-all-india.pdf

Capt'n Midnight

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Sworn Affidavit of Dr. A.K. Susheela

Reversal of fluoride induced cell injury through elimination of fluoride and consumption of diet rich in essential nutrients and antioxidants

A.K. Susheela

Confirmed cases of fluorosis were introduced to an intervention protocol consisting of (1) provision of safe drinking water with fluoride levels less than 1 mg/L and (2) counselling on nutritional supplementation with focus on adequate intake of calcium, vitamins C, E and antioxidants.

so the solution is drink water with fluoride levels with up to 40% higher than our legal limit. :cool:

Daithi 1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Reversal of fluoride induced cell injury through elimination of fluoride and consumption of diet rich in essential nutrients and antioxidants

A.K. Susheela



so the solution is drink water with fluoride levels with up to 40% higher than our legal limit. :cool:

No, your link is 11 years old. Mine is 2013, obviously Dr Susheela has been made aware or discovered more recent factual data regarding the dangers of water fluoridation.

Nice try though...

And did you take a 'look inside' what you were quoting from ??? It's right under the bit you quoted, I cant believe you missed it..

Although dental and skeletal fluorosis have been recognized in India as early as 1937 [4], the non-skeletal entity of fluorosis, affecting the soft tissues and organs of the body, is relatively a new condition, confirmed through different studies
carried out in India during the last two decades. It is now an established fact that fluoride ingestion over a period of time can affect the structure and function of cells, tissues,organs and systems resulting in a variety of clinical manifes-tations [5–7]. The following manifestations may be due to fluoride toxicity: (1) aches and pain in the joints, i.e. neck,back, hip, shoulder and knee without visible signs of fluid accumulation [8], (2) non-ulcer dyspepsia such as nausea,vomiting, pain in the stomach, bloated feeling or gas formation in the stomach, constipation followed by diarrhea [9–14],3) polyurea (tendency to urinate more frequently) and polydipsia
(excessive thirst), (4) muscle weakness, fatigue, anemia with low hemoglobin level, (5) complaints of repeated abortions/still birth, (6) complaints of male infertility with abnormality in sperm morphology, oligospermia (deficiency of spermatozoa in the semen), azoospermia (absence of spermatozoa in the semen) and low testosterone levels [15–17]"

Daithi 1

"In this week's Hot Press Adrienne Murphy continues to expose the fluoride scandal in Ireland. She poses some hard hitting questions to Alex White, the Minister in charge of fluoridation policy. Adrienne looks at international perspectives that are in contrast to the Irish Expert Body's stance that fluoride's a safe and effective public health measure. I am delighted that Adrienne has also published my interview outlining my personal story and the reasons why fluoridation needs to stop. Thank you Hot Press for another top class article and for alerting the public to the risks of water fluoridation. Please pick up a copy tomorrow and educate your family and your friends. Remember that those who have the privilege to know have a duty to act." The Girl Against Fluoride

http://www.hotpress.com/news/9632971.html

Capt'n Midnight

Daithi 1 wrote:

No, your link is 11 years old. Mine is 2013, obviously Dr Susheela has been made aware or discovered more recent factual data regarding the dangers of water fluoridation.

or he's in it for the money like Wakefield was

Daithi 1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

or he's in it for the money like Wakefield was

Or you don't have a clue what you are talking about. :rolleyes:


It's a she, by the way.

Daithi 1

Have a listen to what T.D Jimmy Deenihan had to say about tap water..

(skip to the end if you dont want to read)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wsC-amEd6ac

Daithi 1

Ok then.. I take it that everyone, apart from Capt'n Midnight agrees that we should stop fluoridating our public water supplies until we have proof that it is safe..

Not until we have proof that it is unsafe...

All who agree, just say nothing....

DEFTLEFTHAND

Sick corrupt and polluted in so many ways, we can't run ourselves. As Brendan Behan once said lets hand back the keys to the Queen with an apology note..

Capt'n Midnight

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Ok then.. I take it that everyone, apart from Capt'n Midnight agrees that we should stop fluoridating our public water supplies until we have proof that it is safe..

Not until we have proof that it is unsafe...

All who agree, just say nothing....

was wondering when the moral "majority" argument would appear.


If we had an opt-out organ donor scheme we'd probably save 300 lives a year and save a fortune on dialysis and other keep-alive treatments.

I'm always amazed at the way a small but extremely vocal minority latch onto a fashionable issue. It's almost as if someone is creating FUD to distract us from important stuff.


Can you give an estimate of the number of people who have died or suffered serious injury from flouride in this country ?

And then explain why it hasn't showed up on epidemiology studies ?



Since calcium flouride is so insoluble , how much fluoride actually gets to the consumer in the midlands ?

JJayoo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Since calcium flouride is so insoluble , how much fluoride actually gets to the consumer in the midlands ?

What do you mean?

Canis Lupus

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Ok then.. I take it that everyone, apart from Capt'n Midnight agrees that we should stop fluoridating our public water supplies until we have proof that it is safe..

Not until we have proof that it is unsafe...

All who agree, just say nothing....

I have things like my terrible diet, alcohol consumption and recently acquired avoidance of exercise to be worried about. A bit of fluoride in the water making my teeth stronger is not really something that would bother me.

Tomk1

Before I give my opinion, I am a rational thinker, scientific practical and respect/expect hard fact over assumption. ie I am a skeptic.

I have read quite a lot on this & seriously can't see any evidence or hard fact reasoning for the policy of what I now consider quite "orwellian".

Now most acticles were non-Irish so posting them would get the "that's other countries, genitics, polution etc" but reading Declan Waugh current report which mostly compares fluoridated ROI to non-fluoridated NI

Current Report February 2013
http://www.enviro.ie/Feb2013.pdf
166 pages if you don't at least brief-read it I will consider replies as pointless as I will quote as "Feb2013.pdf" from that doc.

Feb2013.pdf wrote:

"With so much at stake and when the evidence of harm is so overwhelming, public health authorities simply have no choice but to act in the public interest and discontinue artificial fluoridation as a matter of urgency.-Page1"

Ziphius wrote: »

I'll just post the conclusion:

"Based on its review of available data on the toxicity of fluoride, the subcommittee concludes that EPA's current MCL of 4mg/L for fluoride in drinking water is appropriate as an interim standard."

Page 11

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Blotches on teeth aren't likely at our levels of fluoride

it's normally associated with very excessive levels of natural fluoride

Feb2013.pdf wrote:

"Boiling fluoridated tap water increases the concentrations of fluoride in water and food. The concentration of fluoride in tea beverages is significantly increased by using boiled fluoridated water to make tea"
.."for example in the ROI many individual consume 6-8 cups of tea daily
made with boiled fluoridated water. This would increase the daily dietary intake for many individuals to 8mg from beverages and to >10mg for all sources"
Page 37

"Figure 5 provides the total fluoride content in popular tea products sold in Ireland.
As is evident from this graph the contribution of fluoridated water to certain food products such as tea results in dietary fluoride levels that would significantly exceed the recommended fluoride intake of 3mg per day for an adult (0.05mg/Kg/day for a 60kg person) which has previously been deemed to be acceptable186,187 where an individual were to consume three cups of tea or more a day."
Page 38

I just want to add boiling water or leaving water in the fridge for 24hrs removes the cloride but does not remove fluoride therefore reboiling water due to evaporation of H2O increases the concentration of floride in your boiled water.

Also these recomendations for "Safe levels" are for adults which taking for example say 4 glasses a day as limit that would imply a child would have to drink less mybe 2 glasses never mind baby bottles would be lower. Also when there are guidelines for safe levels doesn't that automatically imply there is an unsafe level.

LordSutch wrote: »

I agree with Declan Waugh that its worth considering "the possibility" that too much fluoride may be a health issue? but we need proof.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Only the Chinese that have drinking water with many times our maximum limits.

(and Indians and other people who live in areas with very high natural fluoride levels that are far in excess of anything that has been added to water)

I really don't want to link to fluoridealert but they mention india alot in a daily-mail way which I won't post. SO maybe the USA gov website National Library of Medicine
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0003229/
note CC this is in the public domain

Fluoride overdose
Last reviewed: February 6, 2012.

Fluoride is a chemical commonly used to prevent tooth decay. Fluoride overdose occurs when someone accidentally or intentionally takes more than the normal or recommended amount of this substance.
Poisonous Ingredient
•Fluoride

Where Found
Fluoride is found in many over-the-counter and prescription products, including:

•Certain mouthwashes and toothpastes

•Certain vitamins (Tri-Vi-Flor, Poly-Vi-Flor, Vi-Daylin F)

•Fluoridated water

•Sodium fluoride liquid and tablets

Fluoride may also be found in other household items, including

•Etching cream

•Roach powders

Note: This list may not be all-inclusive.

Symptoms
•Abdominal pain

•Abnormal taste (salty or soapy taste)

•Convulsions

•Diarrhea

•Drooling

•Headache

•Heart attack

•Irregular heartbeat

•Nausea

•Shallow breathing

•Slow heartbeart

•Tremors

•Vomiting

•Weakness

From wiki
OverdoseMain article: Fluoride toxicity
Consumption of large amounts of fluoride can lead to fluoride poisoning and death, the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight).[16][17][18] Ingestion of fluoride can produce gastrointestinal discomfort at doses at least 15 to 20 times lower (0.2–0.3 mg/kg) than lethal doses.[19] Chronic intake and topical exposure may cause dental fluorosis, and excess systematic exposure can lead to systemic effects such as skeletal fluorosis. Young children are at risk for receiving excess fluoride, and the ADA has recently issued an interim guidance on their fluoride consumption.[20]

In 1974 a 3-year old child swallowed 45 milliliters of 2% fluoride solution, estimated to be triple the fatal amount, and then died. The fluoride was administered during his first visit to the dentist, and the dental office was later found liable for the death.
----
How about reading the warning on your toothpaste pack? From reading my Colgate toothpaste:
"Contains: Sodium Floride
-Children under 6 years & younger: uses a pea-sized amount..to minimise swallowing. In case of intake of fluoride from other sources consult a dentist or doctor"

Obviously as dentists are medical professionals trained about flouride aren't they but I read a document from a retired dentist, know he does finish off with conspiracy but apart from that he researched the effects of flouride pros & cons on teeth also talks about what he as a professional dentist was taught about flouride before qualifed btw he started out pro-Fluoride.
Note its called something like "Understanding the Flouride Fraud" res ipsa loquitur (common law negligence Latin "the thing itself speaks")

In dental school we never had a course called Fluoride 101. Durning my second year of dental school there was a brief ten minute class discussion one day about the benefits of fluoridated drinking water on reducing tooth decay. There was someone in my class who said something to the professor about having heard that fluoride was somehow bad and should not be in the drinking water. the instructor quickly responded that fluoridated drinking water reduced tooth decay and fluoride was safe, beneficial and of value. This professor also declared that there were some people out there who were misinformed and anti-science and they did not know what they were talking about and he reassured us that as a dentist we are the "fluoride experts" and we know that fluoridated water is a good thing and we should just ignore anyone who disagreed.
....
When a dental student graduates from Dental School we get a diploma as well as a badge to wear that certifies us as an official "Fluoride Expert"

I can't find link and had to type this out apart from being taught mixing & application of sodium floride after cleaning thats the training, I find that unscientific for someone to be classed as an expert. He did mention that "if it was accidentally swallowed, nausea and vomiting was immediate"

It is easy to dismiss something because everyone knows "it's good for you" well isn't that what you where told as a child. But where is the science? I want the science, now for a rollie at least there's a warning on the pack.

Capt'n Midnight

Tomk1 wrote: »

reboiling water due to evaporation of H2O increases the concentration of floride in your boiled water.

Srlsy ?

Fill your kettle and boil it.

Wait an hour and boil it again.

Repeat hourly until the kettle is half empty.


See, it's not really a problem

And besides everyone knows you should only use freshly aerated water when making tea.