Fluoride in tap water

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I don't drink tap water at all

And healthy teeth

What is the fluoride ppm in the bottled water you drink?

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

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

Obviously it's not working as Irish levels are "near epidemic".
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=7322

Also, nice little article from the Independant here..

In 1975, Germany rejected it as ``foreign to nature, unnecessary, inefficient, irresponsible and harmful to the environment.''

One year later, the Dutch rewrote their constitution to ensure that the practice would never be allowed in that country again.

In 1977, Denmark rejected fluoridation because ``no adequate studies had been carried out on the long-term effect on human beings.''

In 1980, the Chief of Public Health in France declared it ``too dangerous''.

More recently, in 1996, 25 out of 26 councils in Northern Ireland voted against fluoridation of their drinking water.

In the UK, 10% of drinking water is fluoridated. Recent plans to extend the programme have been postponed following new research presented to the Ministry of Health on the medical side effects.

Today, just one country in Europe continues to endorse mandatory medication of the public water supply with fluoride. In fact, Ireland is the only democracy in the world which demands it by law.

As the Government continues to promote and expand the fluoridation programme throughout the country, it insists that the practice is perfectly safe and essential to the dental health of the nation. But as well as the many countries who refute this theory, opposition is growing from local authorities at home.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fluoride-in-our-water-are-we-brushing-with-danger-26123011.html

jh79

They recently started fluoridation in Southampton.

The Germans use fluoridated salt.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

They recently started fluoridation in Southampton.

The Germans use fluoridated salt.

But it was banned as a forced medication stating it is foreign to nature, unnecessary, inefficient, irresponsible and harmful to the environment. So, your point if I could call it that, it redundant. Fluoridating some salt and fluoridating a whole nations water supply are two very different things, obviously.

dallimore247

Scientific evidence shows that fluoride is not safe to ingest and areas that fluoridate their drinking water supplies have higher rates of cavities, cancer, dental fluorosis, osteoporosis and other health problems. Resent study's in the US surprisingly showed lower IQ levels in those states that add fluoride to there water supply. It's first use in drinking water was in the Nazi Auschwitz concentration camp. They thought by adding fluoride, it would take the fight out of them. From what I understand it's a byproduct/waste from the aluminum industry.
We don't need it, we have a choice, we need to say NO like adults, not protest like children and make it happen.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

But it was banned as a forced medication stating it is foreign to nature, unnecessary, inefficient, irresponsible and harmful to the environment. So, your point if I could call it that, it redundant.

So they ban it in water but allow it to be sold in supermarkets as salt? Doesn't make sense does it?

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

They recently started fluoridation in Southampton.

No they didnt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-23244003

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

So they ban it in water but allow it to be sold in supermarkets as salt? Doesn't make sense does it?

There is a lot of sh!t they sell that is harmfull to health.

No it doesnt make sense but corporations will do what corporations will do to make money.

Still, again, it's a far cry from the government adding to to a nations water supply.

You keep skipping around my points.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

No they didnt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-23244003

I read article on the guardian that an high court objection agaisnt fluoridation in Southhampton was rejected. Assumed it already started.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

I read article on the guardian that an high court objection agaisnt fluoridation in Southhampton was rejected. Assumed it already started.

Assumption is the mother of all fNuck-ups.

You assumed hexafluoisilic acid was safe too..

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

There is a lot of sh!t they sell that is harmfull to health.

No it doesnt make sense but corporations will do what corporations will do to make money.

Still, again, it's a far cry from the government adding to to a nations water supply.

You keep skipping around my points.

What is your point?

We have no evidence of toxicity at less than 1ppm.

We have evidence that fluoridation improved dental health in Ireland, Newcastle and Birmingham and in the US.

Whether or not some EU countries approve of fluoridation doesn't change the above.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

What is your point?



We have evidence that fluoridation improved dental health in Ireland, Newcastle and Birmingham and in the US.

We have evidence that dental health improved with advances in dentistry and scientific advancement which coincidentally coincide with the addition of fluoride.. same dental health improvements we had with Countries who opted not to fluoridate.

Daithi 1

Portland, Oregon, Says No To Fluoridation .. << Random fact.

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

What is your point?

We have no evidence of toxicity at less than 1ppm.

We have evidence that fluoridation improved dental health in Ireland, Newcastle and Birmingham and in the US.

Whether or not some EU countries approve of fluoridation doesn't change the above.

Where's the evidence ? show me the evidence.

celtickiwi1

Something wrong with you mate, your a sarcastic individual.

"We" don't need or want it by choice but if you do, you can always add more salt to your diet that's your choice.

jh79

zenno wrote: »

Where's the evidence ? show me the evidence.

Earlier in the thread I linked to studies showing the benefits in the UK.

Google prof helen whelton she endorsed fluoridation to the hse.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

Earlier in the thread I linked to studies showing the benefits in the UK.

Google prof helen whelton she endorsed fluoridation to the hse.

Well, youve been well and truly battered tonight. What now ?

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

Earlier in the thread I linked to studies showing the benefits in the UK.

Google prof helen whelton she endorsed fluoridation to the hse.

That's not evidence, i could pull that out of my you-hoo and say the same, that is just 1 persons opinion on it, it's not evidence. There actually is no evidence "proof" as most fluoridated areas have a higher dental fluorosis problem.

jh79

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).

There you go.

The fact the fluoridation still occurs in Ireland is in part due to Prof Whelton input and her research is easily found. The HSE pdf on fluoridation explains why fluoridation still is considered beneficial to the irish public.

jh79

zenno wrote: »

That's not evidence, i could pull that out of my you-hoo and say the same, that is just 1 persons opinion on it, it's not evidence. There actually is no evidence "proof" as most fluoridated areas have a higher dental fluorosis problem.

It is a fact that dental carriers are less in Newcastle and Southern Ireland . Whether this is due to fluoridation is an opinion unless you can provide an alternative hypothesis it is the most logical explanation.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

There you go.

The fact the fluoridation still occurs in Ireland is in part due to Prof Whelton input and her research is easily found. The HSE pdf on fluoridation explains why fluoridation still is considered beneficial to the irish public.

We have the edge on all the other European Countries, were smarter.

We continue to fluoridate while those idiots think it's unethical, unsafe, foreign to nature, unnecessary, inefficient, irresponsible and harmful to the environment and/or rejected fluoridation because no adequate studies had been carried out on the long-term effect on human beings and it's to dangerous.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

It is a fact that dental carriers are less in Newcastle and Southern Ireland . Whether this is due to fluoridation is an opinion unless you can provide an alternative hypothesis it is the most logical explanation.

Maybe fluoridation does help with dental caries, no-one is saying otherwise. But, what if it is doing other damage in the meantime ?

AGAIN, we know it does damage through dental fluorisis. Is it worth you and I being adversely affected by fluoride because the mother somewhere else wont brush her childs teeth ?

Daithi 1

Maybe we should add anti depressants to the water supply to reduce some suicides....

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Maybe fluoridation does help with dental caries, no-one is saying otherwise. But, what if it is doing other damage in the meantime ?

AGAIN, we know it does damage through dental fluorisis. Is it worth you and I being adversely affected by fluoride because the mother somewhere else wont brush her childs teeth ?

Has fluorosis been shown at 0.7ppm?

What is the concentration of fluoride in the water you drink?

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

Has fluorosis been shown at 0.7ppm?

What is the concentration of fluoride in the water you drink?

You dodged about 100 of my points and question and you reply with another silly nonsensical question and a half. No thanks.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

You dodged about 100 of my points and question and you reply with another silly nonsensical question and a half. No thanks.

What points? You highlighted the fact that some countries don't fluoridate. That doesn't change the fact that research to date shows it is both effective and safe.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

What points? You highlighted the fact that some countries don't fluoridate. That doesn't change the fact that research to date shows it is both effective and safe.

Research and observation show us that it's nor ethical or safe , it's foreign to nature, unnecessary, inefficient, irresponsible and harmful to the environment.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Research and observation show us that it's nor ethical or safe , it's foreign to nature, unnecessary, inefficient, irresponsible and harmful to the environment.

So how do the Italians deal with the fact they drink water with 0.7ppm fluoride?

Any links to research to show it is not safe at 0.7ppm? Rhetorical question in fairness we both know it doesn't exist.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

So how do the Italians deal with the fact they drink water with 0.7ppm fluoride?

Any links to research to show it is not safe at 0.7ppm? Rhetorical question in fairness we both know it doesn't exist.

Italians handle it because they consume Earths naturally fluoridated water which we have been consuming since the beginning. The Irish don't handle our fluoride so well because we consume hexafluorisilic acid which is artificially add to our water supply. It's different to natural fluoride, it's banned in Europe as a boicide., remember ? I'm getting some deja vous..

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

What points? You highlighted the fact that some countries don't fluoridate. That doesn't change the fact that research to date shows it is both effective and safe.

It's not safe, why do you think so many of us want it out of the main water supply system. I'm sick of being medicated. I ran out of bottled water last week and had no choice but to drink that crap. I will never stop pissing off the government until this crap is removed from the supply, i will continue until it is removed.

Purchase your own fluoride in a store and let me drink un-fluoridated water.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Italians handle it because they consume Earths naturally fluoridated water which we have been consuming since the beginning. The Irish don't handle our fluoride so well because we consume hexafluorisilic acid which is artificially add to our water supply. It's different to natural fluoride, it's banned in Europe as a boicide., remember ? I'm getting some deja vous..

What is the difference between the chemical structure of fluoride in Ireland versus Italy?

jh79

zenno wrote: »

It's not safe, why do you think so many of us want it out of the main water supply system. I'm sick of being medicated. I ran out of bottled water last week and had no choice but to drink that crap. I will never stop pissing off the government until this crap is removed from the supply, i will continue until it is removed.

Purchase your own fluoride in a store and let me drink un-fluoridated water.

What water do you drink and at what level is the fluoride?

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

What water do you drink and at what level is the fluoride?

I don't see the connection regarding my previous comment, but I may as well be drinking water from the moon of Europa than trying to get this junk out of the system. Our pain is paying off though with the European court on human rights at this moment so i hope we see progress in the coming months.

jh79

zenno wrote: »

I don't see the connection regarding my previous comment, but I may as well be drinking water from the moon of Europa than trying to get this junk out of the system. Our pain is paying off though with the European court on human rights at this moment so i hope we see progress in the coming months.

If you lived in Italy would you drink tap water?

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

What is the difference between the chemical structure of fluoride in Ireland versus Italy?

How does it vary from natural calcium fluoride?

Calcium fluoride occurs naturally in many placesin groundwater. In trace
amounts thisis harmless. Many people, however, are getting high levels of
fluoride from many sources beyond the trace amounts of calcium fluoride that
are considered "safe".
Calcium fluoride is sparingly soluble under standard conditionsin the stomach
of the human body, in natural water it isinsoluble. Calcium fluoride is excreted
mainly through the bowel with up to 80% of that ingested being excreted.
In contrast soft watersthat contain little appreciable polyvalent cations
(calcium, magnesium, rare earth elements, iron, etc.) do not allow for the
removal of fluorosilicicates and therefore expose an individual to more HF in
the gut because the solution lacks"F buffering capacity.
Sodium fluorosilicate is excreted mainly through the bladder with up to 50% of
that ingested in healthy adults being excreted. There is further concern
regarding exposure to fluorosilicatesin humansthat may re-associate in the
stomach or bladder in low pH environments. One such concern isthey may
be associated with increased cancer disease..

http://www.enviro.ie/correspondence/Hexafluorosilicic%20Acid%20as%20an%20ingredident%20in%20Fluoridation%20of%20Drinking%20Water_WAUGH_2012.pdf

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

If you lived in Italy would you drink tap water?

With full respect to you jh79 I am looking at this on a more ethical note.

jh79

The reported fluoride levels are based on what actually dissociates. Therefore when we say a specific concentration it doesn't matter what the source is.

The methods that determine flouride conc only measure for the F- ion

Geomy

Is it true, fluoride damages the pineal gland in the brain ?

jh79

Geomy wrote: »

Is it true, fluoride damages the pineal gland in the brain ?

No nobody knows what is the purpose or effect of calcification of the pineal grand. To suggest negative conetations is misleading.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

No nobody knows what is the purpose or effect of calcification of the pineal grand. To suggest negative conetations is misleading.

Another way of saying , not enough testing done ?

:rolleyes:

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

No nobody knows what is the purpose or effect of calcification of the pineal grand. To suggest negative conetations is misleading.

I just want to ask you a question... You and any person in Ireland can purchase toothpaste and salts of which contain fluoride, so would you be annoyed if fluoride was removed from the main water supply system ? even though you can purchase fluoride very easily.

Wouldn't that be better for the population in as having a Choice of what they ingest ?.

Daithi 1

zenno wrote: »

I just want to ask you a question... You and any person in Ireland can purchase toothpaste and salts of which contain fluoride, so would you be annoyed if fluoride was removed from the main water supply system ? even though you can purchase fluoride very easily.

Wouldn't that be better for the population in as having a Choice of what they ingest ?.

He's concerned about people the few cant afford toothpaste. So, he thinks it's best to medicate all of us, to help the the few. A good argument, if you are the few, or the hexafluorisilic miner..

jh79

I honestly don't care whether water is fluoridated or not, it is the crap that is spouted as reasons it should be stopped I'm against.

zenno

Well the rights of many are more important than the very few, but they all have rights regardless.

Ireland is, and has been, a backward country for far too long, it needs to catch up, and not only that, it's government is employed by the citizens of Ireland, and as such should obey the laws & rights of it's citizens and not illegally force medicate it's populous.


EDIT:

it is the crap that is spouted as reasons it should be stopped I'm against.

But why would you be against it when you and all others can purchase it like you already do ? you have toothpaste there in you're obode like most people but fluoride was never meant to be ingested, it is for topical use only, it's in all foods in Ireland that use water as well.

Human rights are just that, we need a Choice instead of having no choice but to drink it, just like the problem i had last week late in the night parching with no bottled water and having to drink it.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

I honestly don't care whether water is fluoridated or not, it is the crap that is spouted as reasons it should be stopped I'm against.

You just don't like a certain type of person then .. are you sure this is the debate for you ??

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

I honestly don't care whether water is fluoridated or not, it is the crap that is spouted as reasons it should be stopped I'm against.

What was the crap you were spouting as reasons for it to be continued, again ?

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

What was the crap you were spouting as reasons for it to be continued, again ?

It has been show to improve dental health in the US, UK and Ireland. Can you offer an alternative explanation as to why cavities decrease in area's that fluoridate their water supply

jh79

zenno wrote: »

Well the rights of many are more important than the very few, but they all have rights regardless.

Ireland is, and has been, a backward country for far too long, it needs to catch up, and not only that, it's government is employed by the citizens of Ireland, and as such should obey the laws & rights of it's citizens and not illegally force medicate it's populous.


EDIT:

But why would you be against it when you and all others can purchase it like you already do ? you have toothpaste there in you're obode like most people but fluoride was never meant to be ingested, it is for topical use only, it's in all foods in Ireland that use water as well.

Human rights are just that, we need a Choice instead of having no choice but to drink it, just like the problem i had last week late in the night parching with no bottled water and having to drink it.

Do you not see how irrational it is to be agaisnt fluoridation irrespective of the final concentration. The North do not fluoridate and still have 0.3ppm , the Italian's don't fluoridate and have similar to us around the 0.7ppm mark.

Would you drink tap water in the North or Italy?

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

You just don't like a certain type of person then .. are you sure this is the debate for you ??

Well the lobby agaisnt fluoridation is mainly made up with homeopaths and their ilk and it takes a certain type of person to pass off sugar water as a cure for serious illnesses.

The girl agaisnt fluoride has a made up qualification in some sort of natural nonsense doesn't she? Her campaign shows some clever business acumen.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Well the lobby agaisnt fluoridation is mainly made up with homeopaths and their ilk and it takes a certain type of person to pass off sugar water as a cure for serious illnesses.

There are Doctors, dentists, professors, and a Nobel price winner in medicine, against water fluoridation.

Get your facts right

And again why are you dodging the fact that in western country's where they put no fluoride in the water the decline in dental decay is as high as in Country's that does put that toxic in their water.