Fluoride in tap water

Treora

@jh79 The discussion is that water fluoridation has no clinical evidence of benefit. Please address this. And fluoridating water based on 1950's correlation to benefits is junk science.

@King Mob You are repeating, over ten times, the same relevant point. Profs Helen Whelton & Dennis O'Mullane have stated that it fluoridation is unnecessary with education and Sweden's experience has proven this. Please progress the discussion.

The cause of Ireland's failure is an institutionalised dafault bias, proven in this thread.

King Mob

Treora wrote: »

@King Mob You are repeating, over ten times, the same relevant point. Profs Helen Whelton & Dennis O'Mullane have stated that it fluoridation is unnecessary with education and Sweden's experience has proven this. Please progress the discussion.

I am repeating it because you are ignoring it.

First the quote you are usin is misrepresenting them as in the exact same paragraph (just in the parts you left out) they state clearly that while in some areas fluoridation can be stopped in some areas, it is still necessary in other areas.
Do you disagree with this?

Second, they published a scientific paper (which you say doesn't exist) and conclude clearly that fluoridation is effective.
Do you disagree with this?

jh79

http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v215/n1/full/sj.bdj.2013.626.html

Summary of fluoridation across the UK.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/1122

Comparison between Newcastle (Fluoridated) and Manchester (Non-fluoridated).

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v215/n1/full/sj.bdj.2013.626.html

Summary of fluoridation across the UK.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/1122

Comparison between Newcastle (Fluoridated) and Manchester (Non-fluoridated).

No clinical trials. Stayed in the field, but ignored the question. This would be thrown back if handed in as a 5th year secondary school project.

Treora

King Mob wrote: »

misrepresenting them

You appear to be under the illusion that this is not a direct quote

"In countries such as the Scandinavian countries, where public dental awareness is very high and alternative vehicles for fluoride (e.g. tooth paste) are widely available and widely used, a decision not to replace fluoride removed from the d(r)inking water would be of no consequence" - Profs Helen Whelton & Dennis O'Mullane (WHO report 2005 page 183)

The question is why did Sweden/Jan Ekstrand not want water fluoridation? junk science is the answer. Irish tax payers give massively so Whelton can pedel her wares for unliever. She is moderately good, but very loyal sales rep. With all that money spent on so many Irish organisations to support the ADA/CDCs wishes why did Sweden insist that it be written in academic stone that fluoridation is authoritatively unnecessary?

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

Fluoridation began in the 50's because [of] correlations

Never gets old.

The bad science remains: Ben says it best. The facts remain and the reason why those in place will not change is bias

jh79

Wow, that is some turnaround on Prof Whelton. A bit premature in your cutting and pasting. At least you still got Tulio!

Could you out of interest describe the type of study you believe is necessary? How many people? How you would control the variables ie diet, genetics etc? What level of fluoride etc time scale ?

All well and good cutting and pasting a soundbite about "double blind blaah blaah" in "nature" but who is going to fund it or even consider it necessary given that it is perfectly safe and there is plenty of compelling correlation data to back its effectiveness and we already know it is effective topically.

Seems to me that comparing two cities of similar size and culture and economic make up but who differ im fluoridation is the most reasonable and practical method of determining the effectiveness of fluoridation.

jh79

What I said about fluoridation beginning in the 50'S is a fact. Correlation data from both the UK and Ireland as compiled by Prof Whelton and in the paper linked earlier re Newcastle shows that same correlation in three different countries! Care to explain how this correlation is not valid evidence of the effectiveness of fluoridation? The same correlation between cavaties and fluoride happens again and again???

King Mob

Treora wrote: »

You appear to be under the illusion that this is not a direct quote

"In countries such as the Scandinavian countries, where public dental awareness is very high and alternative vehicles for fluoride (e.g. tooth paste) are widely available and widely used, a decision not to replace fluoride removed from the d(r)inking water would be of no consequence" - Profs Helen Whelton & Dennis O'Mullane (WHO report 2005 page 183)

It's not a direct quote. It's a partial quote. The rest of that section of the paper directly after what you post says:

On the other hand in some developing countries, where public dental awareness might be much lower, water fluoridation at concentrations of 0.5-1.0 mg/litre would remain an important public health objective. In yet other countries (e.g. the UK) the situation is mixed. In parts, such as the South East of England, dental caries is mainly under control without water fluoridation; in other regions, such as the North West of England, the prevalence of dental caries is
substantially higher and water fluoridation remains an important
public health objective.

How can fluoridation be both authoritatively unnecessary and also an important public health objective.
Why do you leave that following section out when you quote that report?

And can you clarify whether or not you believe these scientists to be trustworthy. On one hand you're brandying about accusations of them being on the take (with no evidence of course) and are using this to dismiss their paper (which you said didn't exist and have yet to explain why it is wrong) while on the other you are stating that they are completely right and authoritative in the case were you falsely believe that they say that fluoridation is unnecessary.

Why, if she is in the pocket of the shadowy fluoridation conspiracy, would she say that fluoridation is unnecessary?

jh79

Treora wrote: »

No clinical trials. Stayed in the field, but ignored the question. This would be thrown back if handed in as a 5th year secondary school project.

The eminent Prof Helen Whelton ( rather embarrassingly endorsed by yourself as Ireland's first behavioural dentist and current Present of the International Association of Dental Research http://www.iadr.org/files/public/13IADR_Whelton.pdf ) believes it to be effective and endorsed fluoridation to the HSE.

Paulo Tulio / Christy Moore / Hot Press etc may be on your side but I'd imagine Prof Whelton would have more of an influence on Government policy.

jh79

Treora wrote: »

Never gets old.

The bad science remains: Ben says it best. The facts remain and the reason why those in place will not change is bias

Taken for the Guardian ;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/jan/06/correlation-causation

"Arguably the most well known and important example of a correlation being clear but causation being in doubt concerned smoking and lung cancer in the 1950s. There had been a sixfold increase in the rate of lung cancer in the preceding two decades. Nobody disputed that there was a correlation between lung cancer and smoking, but to prove that one caused the other would be no mean feat.
There might be a confounder that was responsible for the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. The increased rate could have been the result of better diagnosis, more industrial pollution or more cars on the roads belching noxious fumes. Perhaps people who were more genetically predisposed to want to smoke were also more susceptible to getting cancer?
It took a study involving more than 40,000 doctors in the UK to show conclusively that smoking really does cause cancer."


With regards to fluoridation we already have studies form numerous countries showing a correlation between increased dental health and fluoridation of the water supply.

Taken from McGrady et al I posted earlier;

"However, the cost implications for a study design that would include prospective monitoring of birth cohorts, serial cross sectional surveys that include analysis of diet and total fluoride intake with anthropometric measurements would be cost prohibitive and beyond the scope of this project"

So causation is a problem as no one has the appetite for this type of study given the cost. Who is going to fund a study like this when there are no negative aspects to fluoridation in terms of health risks and numerous studies showing correlations between improved dental health and water fluoridation?

weisses

Are these people all CT nutters ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pfVo3bZLY

jh79

They are in the minority.

If that is Dr. Mullinex, I think she lost her job at Harvard for her bizarre stance on fluoridation. She basically ignores her own research that could only show toxicity in rats at high ppms.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

They are in the minority.

If that is Dr. Mullinex, I think she lost her job at Harvard for her bizarre stance on fluoridation. She basically ignores her own research that could only show toxicity in rats at high ppms.

They are qualified/respectable people who have a concern with water fluoridation ...


I think you should watch it first before jumping in here dismissing it

weisses

Dr Bill Osmunson, DDS

Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, Pharmacologist and Toxicologist

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, Fetal Patho-Toxicologist

Dr. Paul Connett, Environmental Chemist

Dr. William Hirzy, Vice President of the EPA Union

Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, Risk Assessment

Scientist Sir Iain Chalmers,

Health Services Researcher Dr. Tim Kropp,

Environmental Working Group Brent Foster,

Oregon Sierra Club Earl Baldwin,

Dr. Hardy Limeback, President of the Canadian Association of Dental Research & Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto

They all last the plot ?

And these are only a few

jh79

Have the vast majority of scientists who agree with fluoridation lost the plot?

Has Prof Helen Whelton lost the plot?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Have the vast majority of scientists who agree with fluoridation lost the plot?

Has Prof Helen Whelton lost the plot?

You are not answering my very simple question !

And you didn't even watch the video provided .... terrific start for a discussion.

jh79

They haven't lost the plot, the ones who have lost the plot are the girl against fluoride types who spout crap about "natural" fluoride etc.

I don't agree with their interpretation of the research out there and neither do the vast majority of scientists. Does that not ring alarm bells with you that they are in such a small minority?

Does the video you link contain any scientists that approve of fluoridation or is it just another biased propaganda piece?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

They haven't lost the plot, the ones who have lost the plot are the girl against fluoride types who spout crap about "natural" fluoride etc.

I don't agree with their interpretation of the research out there and neither do the vast majority of scientists. Does that not ring alarm bells with you that they are in such a small minority?

Does the video you link contain any scientists that approve of fluoridation or is it just another biased propaganda piece?

Just watch it ... and yes they are saying use of fluoride is okay

And minority or not ... They are knowledgeable people

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Just watch it ... and yes they are saying use of fluoride is okay

And minority or not ... They are knowledgeable people

Why do their opinions hold more sway with you?

If you have a group of people with similar qualifications etc then isn't the logical thing to do is go with the majority? The minority are more likely to be wrong.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Why do their opinions hold more sway with you?

If you have a group of people with similar qualifications etc then isn't the logical thing to do is go with the majority? The minority are more likely to be wrong.

Did you watch it ?

jh79

Skipped the bit on ethics as I don't care whether people think it is a form of mass medications. Too subjective to discuss.

Gave up when they started talking about toxicity. Not a single criticism of what are wildly regarded as very flawed pieces of research. Completely biased. Can you suggest a point in the doc where a criticism of this research is made?

The research mentioned in the doc was taken into consideration by Prof Whelton et al who still endorsed fluoridation to the HSE. It is the same research that has been dismissed by the majority of scientists the world over.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Skipped the bit on ethics as I don't care whether people think it is a form of mass medications. Too subjective to discuss.

jh79 wrote: »

Gave up when they started talking about toxicity.

Then there is not much to discuss

As was said next time when you use sunburn lotion ... drink it

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Then there is not much to discuss

As was said next time when you use sunburn lotion ... drink it

A discussion involves opinions form both sides generally, not a single criticism of the flawed research they were quoting. At what time point is a dissenting voice heard?

Why are they so afraid to discuss the subject honestly? Surely if the research is so damning they will be able to counter any criticisms presented to them?

A lot of opinions with very little facts to back them up in the video.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

A discussion involves opinions form both sides generally, not a single criticism of the flawed research they were quoting. At what time point is a dissenting voice heard?

Why are they so afraid to discuss the subject honestly? Surely if the research is so damning they will be able to counter any criticisms presented to them?

A lot of opinions with very little facts to back them up in the video.

And all these country's below putting their children at risk ?

http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/countries.pdf

They have it all wrong?

They are not using fluoride because a minority says so ?

And children there are having more tooth decay? if so show me

jh79

What bearing has that on whether fluoride is effective or safe?

Any research that shows toxicity at less than 1ppm?

Any research that doesn't show a correlation between increased dental health and water fluoridation?

A correlation between increased dental health and water fluoridation has been shown in the US , UK and Ireland.

No research is available that shows toxicity at a level relevant to water fluoridation.

A list of countries that don't fluoridate doesn't change the above does it?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Any research that doesn't show a correlation between increased dental health and water fluoridation?

jh79 wrote: »

A list of countries that don't fluoridate doesn't change the above does it?

It does .. it should show an increase in dental issues with kids in ( European)country's that don't use fluoridation

And it doesn't AFAIK

jh79

weisses wrote: »

It does .. it should show an increase in dental issues with kids in ( European)country's that don't use fluoridation

And it doesn't AFAIK

But that doesn't make fluoridation any less effective it just shows that alternatives to fluoridation exist. Whether they maintain a similar effectiveness to fluoridation over 50 years is another issue.

A lot of variables to consider , education, health system and socio-economic factors. Are the alternates suitable in an Irish context? Fluoridation is an easy / efficient (lazy) / cheaper option IMO.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But that doesn't make fluoridation any less effective it just shows that alternatives to fluoridation exist. Whether they maintain a similar effectiveness to fluoridation over 50 years is another issue.

A lot of variables to consider , education, health system and socio-economic factors. Are the alternates suitable in an Irish context? Fluoridation is an easy / efficient (lazy) / cheaper option IMO.

Mass fluoridation is useless as is shown in similar western country's who don't put fluoride in their water, they show the same decline in cases of tooth decay compared to country's who use fluoride

Brushing your teeth properly is one alternative, what alternatives where you thinking off ?

Specially with the discussions research going on now, going for the lazy option is irresponsible

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Mass fluoridation is useless as is shown in similar western country's who don't put fluoride in their water, they show the same decline in cases of tooth decay compared to country's who use fluoride

Brushing your teeth properly is one alternative, what alternatives where you thinking off ?

Specially with the discussions research going on now, going for the lazy option is irresponsible

Fluoridation helps poorer communities. You would need to educate people about looking after their teeth, increase trips to the dentist etc all cost money and would be difficult to maintain. Studies in three seperate countries show fluoridation to be an effective option.

What research is going on? A small minority attributing too much significance to some poor quality research. Very few follow up studies on toxicity because the first studies failed to highlight anything significant.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Fluoridation helps poorer communities.

So why not identify those poorer communities and only use it there ? ... That makes it even more cheaper.

Why are other European country's not using mass fluoridation? ... It is as you say a cheap and safe way to prevent dental issues, look into their objections, or are they all buying the CT nonsense?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6075/pdf/322125a0.pdf

source
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6075/abs/322125a0.html

Good reading !

jh79

What difference does it make whether France for example fluoridates. Does that have any bearing on the research that show its effectiveness in Ireland, the UK and the USA?

Also what are the fluoride levels across Europe? It is the fluoride concentration that is important not whether fluoridation takes place.

North Ireland has a fluoride concentration of 0.3ppm without fluoridation. We have 0.7ppm with fluoridation. There is no evidence that 0.7 ppm is toxic. The average anti-fluoridation advocate seems not to care what the concentration is as long as fluoridation is stopped which makes no sense.

What in your opinion is a safe concentration?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

What difference does it make whether France for example fluoridates. Does that have any bearing on the research that show its effectiveness in Ireland, the UK and the USA?

Also what are the fluoride levels across Europe? It is the fluoride concentration that is important not whether fluoridation takes place.

North Ireland has a fluoride concentration of 0.3ppm without fluoridation. We have 0.7ppm with fluoridation. There is no evidence that 0.7 ppm is toxic. The average anti-fluoridation advocate seems not to care what the concentration is as long as fluoridation is stopped which makes no sense.

What makes no sense is that in European country's that don't fluoridate the decline in dental decay is the same as in European country's that does put fluoride in the water ...

jh79 wrote: »

What in your opinion is a safe concentration?

None ... because you want to put it on your teeth directly and not drink it

And how is monitored how much fluoride average Joe gets per day through drinking, brushing, eating, etc

dallimore247

Approved chemicals for safe use: Asbestos, Agent Orange, Glyphosate(used in Roundup) oooohh don't forget Smoking is safe, no bad chemical in cigs.

But guess what......in hindsight (great way to test chemicals) they have been FORCED to admit they are poisons.

They where approved for use by our Government !!!

So WAKE UP, i know its against you religious belief to question a higher power. STOP being a sheep!

"A joke" is a half truth about the subject, it has elements of the truth in it but is not meant to be hurtful or mean.(most of the time)
"A conspiracy theory" is a half truth also..... you need to find out how much of it is basest on truth.

TIME TO TAKE BACK GOVERNMENT PEOPLE before it's to late for your grandchild's!!!

jh79

weisses wrote: »

What makes no sense is that in European country's that don't fluoridate the decline in dental decay is the same as in European country's that does put fluoride in the water ...



None ... because you want to put it on your teeth directly and not drink it

And how is monitored how much fluoride average Joe gets per day through drinking, brushing, eating, etc

So if fluoridation ceased would you expect the government to remove whatever concentration remained. If our supply is similar to the North and we have 0.3ppm without fluoridation, what then?

Fluoride is present in our water with or without state fluoridation. Therefore it is necessary to define what a safe concentration is.

In all the studies that failed to show with any great certainty that fluoride is toxic at levels higher than 1ppm, did those people not drink water , eat food, brush etc ??

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So if fluoridation ceased would you expect the government to remove whatever concentration remained. If our supply is similar to the North and we have 0.3ppm without fluoridation, what then?

Fluoride is present in our water with or without state fluoridation. Therefore it is necessary to define what a safe concentration is.

In all the studies that failed to show with any great certainty that fluoride is toxic at levels higher than 1ppm, did those people not drink water , eat food, brush etc ??

Your steering away from the point of governments putting fluoride in tap water when is showed that in places they don't put it in the dental decay is decreasing in the same speed

So there is no need to put this toxic in our water

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Your steering away from the point of governments putting fluoride in tap water when is showed that in places they don't put it in the dental decay is decreasing in the same speed

So there is no need to put this toxic in our water

It's not toxic at 0.7ppm.

It has been shown to be effective in the US , UK and Ireland.

Why does it matter what the source of the fluoride is as long as it is at a safe concentration?

Given that fluoride is present in water anyways, at what concentration are you happy to drink it at? Would you drink tap water in Northern Ireland even-though it contains 0.3ppm fluoride?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

What makes no sense is that in European country's that don't fluoridate the decline in dental decay is the same as in European country's that does put fluoride in the water ...



None ... because you want to put it on your teeth directly and not drink it

And how is monitored how much fluoride average Joe gets per day through drinking, brushing, eating, etc

They use fluoridated salt in Germany and Switzerland, so they do fluoridate in these countries they just use a different delivery system.

They also fluoridate milk in Europe.

Italy has a similar fluoride level to us so they don't need to fluoridate.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

They use fluoridated salt in Germany and Switzerland, so they do fluoridate in these countries they just use a different delivery system.

They also fluoridate milk in Europe.

Italy has a similar fluoride level to us so they don't need to fluoridate.

Yes but they also have unfluoridated salt/milk, so they have the option to choose.
Italy is naturally fluoridated, they don't use hydrofluorosilic acid, which we are exposed to.

Does bathing and showering in fluoride help your teeth ? In fact, does consuming it help ? it is said that fluoride only works topically, like in toothpaste, which is why there is no difference in the before and after of Countries which have discontinued fluoridating.

Does adding fluoride to baby bottles help a new born babys teeth ?

In the u.s, they warn that babies should not be fed tap (fluoridated) water. No such warning in Ireland though.

If to much fluoride can cause fluorisis to the teeth (and it's a very common problem), cant it do the same to other bones in our body ?

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Yes but they also have unfluoridated salt/milk, so they have the option to choose.
Italy is naturally fluoridated, they don't use hydrofluorosilic acid, which we are exposed to.

The water in Italy has the same effects as the water in Ireland.

The source of fluoride is not important. The F- anion doesn't behave differently just because it came from fluorosilic acid as opposed to calcium flouride.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

The water in Italy has the same effects as the water in Ireland.

The source of fluoride is not important. The F- anion doesn't behave differently just because it came from fluorosilic acid as opposed to calcium flouride.

But hydrofluorosilic acid is a banned biocide in Europe due to lack of evidence to show that it is safe.. Yet, we add it to our water.

Daithi 1

Hydrofluorosilicic acid, which is used in Irish drinking water, is a highly unstable and very toxic pollutant that is unsuitable for ingestion by either humans, animals or aquatic life forms. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is not a permitted foodstuff, food supplement or food additive. Neither is it an authorised medicinal product. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is widespread in food and beverages in Ireland, since they are made from fluoridated town water. None of these products is labelled showing it contains fluorosilicic acid.

Fluoride is a cumulative poison, and the health implications of chronic exposure to fluorosilicic acid in the population have not been investigated either by the Commission or by the Irish Government, despite the alarming increase in fluoride poisoning in Ireland. Some 3 million people in Ireland are exposed daily to this untested and illegal pollutant and yet have no means of establishing how much of it they are exposed to because food and drink labels are not obliged to state how much fluoride is present or what form it is delivered in, as required. What are usually studied in research on fluoride are stabler and less toxic forms of the substance, like sodium fluoride, which can be found in toothpaste. However, this toxic form of fluoride is not studied in fluoride research.

EFSA (The European Food Safety Authority) has confirmed to me, on 24 November 2006, that it has not looked at the issue of hydrofluorosilicic acid to date because EFSA is not responsible for assessing the effects of treatments of drinking water, as water in the water supply system does not come under its remit.

I am alarmed that hydrofluorosilicic acid, which my constituents are drinking, is not included in any EFSA study or that even a basic safety study is not being conducted. The information on fluoride from the EFSA panels does not address any of the troubling matters which arise from hydrofluorosilicic acid.

EFSA must take responsibility for scrutinising any safety issues arising from the ingestion of water additives as a food ingredient within the EU, one of which — the ingestion of hydrofluorosilicic acid in drinking water in Ireland — is cause for widespread concern.

Does the Commission agree that a study on hydrofluorosilicic acid in drinking water should be carried out? Does the Commission agree that hydrofluorosilicic acid should be banned from Irish drinking water?
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2007-0089&language=EN

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

They use fluoridated salt in Germany and Switzerland, so they do fluoridate in these countries they just use a different delivery system.

They also fluoridate milk in Europe.

Italy has a similar fluoride level to us so they don't need to fluoridate.

That leaves people with a choice ..

Fact remains that there are no more cases of dental decay in other european country's where they don't put the toxic into the water supply so mass fluoridation is not necessary

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

But hydrofluorosilic acid is a banned biocide in Europe due to lack of evidence to show that it is safe.. Yet, we add it to our water.

We add a tiny concentration which readily dissociates to give the fluoride ion at a levels of 0.7ppm. This has the same effects as the 0.7ppm present in Italy due to calcium fluoride. This is another example of the scaremongering seen on fluoride alert et al. Does this not make yoi suspicious of the other so called "facts" on these websites?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

That leaves people with a choice ..

Fact remains that there are no more cases of dental decay in other european country's where they don't put the toxic into the water supply so mass fluoridation is not necessary

Would you drink tap water in Italy?

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

We add a tiny concentration which readily dissociates to give the fluoride ion at a levels of 0.7ppm. This has the same effects as the 0.7ppm present in Italy due to calcium fluoride. This is another example of the scaremongering seen on fluoride alert et al. Does this not make yoi suspicious of the other so called "facts" on these websites?

Not really, I believe they have a point. There have been no studies done to show that it is safe. So, until there have, I would rather it out of the water supply. That's common sense, goes without saying really.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Not really, I believe they have a point. There have been no studies done to show that it is safe. So, until there have, I would rather it out of the water supply. That's common sense, goes without saying really.

You can't show something is safe, another lie by these websites.

You show at what level toxic effects are seen and then determine what is a likely safe concentration.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

You can't show something is safe, another lie by these websites.

You show at what level toxic effects are seen and then determine what is a likely safe concentration.

I think the level of dental fluorisis here and in the U.S is enough to show that it is not safe, certainly at current levels. As I said before it can weaken teeth, it can weaken other bones.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Would you drink tap water in Italy?

I don't drink tap water at all

And healthy teeth

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I think the level of dental fluorisis here and in the U.S is enough to show that it is not safe, certainly at current levels. As I said before it can weaken teeth, it can weaken other bones.

The level of 0.7ppm is maintained in Ireland to counter the incidents of fluorosis.