Fluoride in tap water

jh79

weisses wrote: »

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.

The scientists who are against fluoridation are a tiny minority.

Fluoride is not toxic at 0.7ppm.

Why do cities in the uk that have fluoridation have better dental health than those that don't?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The scientists who are against fluoridation are a tiny minority.

Naming them homeopaths and their ilk doesn't reflect the authority and knowledge these people have ... These condescending remarks don't really help you make your point

jh79 wrote: »

Fluoride is not toxic at 0.7ppm.

Fluoride is a toxic

jh79 wrote: »

Why do cities in the uk that have fluoridation have better dental health than those that don't?

I look at a bigger scale (European) and it shows fluoridation doesn't have any effect compare to country's where there is no fluoridation

Why is that so hard to accept ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Naming them homeopaths and their ilk doesn't reflect the authority and knowledge these people have ... These condescending remarks don't really help you make your point



Fluoride is a toxic



I look at a bigger scale (European) and it shows fluoridation doesn't have any effect compare to country's where there is no fluoridation

Why is that so hard to accept ?

Flouride is a toxin but does not show toxicity at 0
.7ppm.

Water is also toxic if over consumed. Vit C is carcinogen at high doses.

Fluoridation occurs in Germany they just use salt.

Italy doesn't need to fluoridate their water already contains the appropriate dose.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

Flouride is a toxin but does not show toxicity at 0
.7ppm.

Water is also toxic if over consumed. Vit C is carcinogen at high doses.

Fluoridation occurs in Germany they just use salt.

Italy doesn't need to fluoridate their water already contains the appropriate dose.

Of natural fluoride, not the EU banned substance we consume.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Of natural fluoride, not the EU banned substance we consume.

No such thing as natural fluoride.

If it exists you should be able to explain how it differs in its chemical structure to the other types of fluoride you claim exist?

Would you accept fluoridation if the government used Calcium Fluoride to elevate our fluoride levels to 0.7ppm?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Flouride is a toxin but does not show toxicity at 0
.7ppm.

Water is also toxic if over consumed. Vit C is carcinogen at high doses.

Fluoridation occurs in Germany they just use salt.

Italy doesn't need to fluoridate their water already contains the appropriate dose.

Your just grasping at straws atm

Facts about dental decay in non fluoridised country's are there... You want to ignore them, fine by me

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).

Evidence of the effectiveness of fluoridation in the Uk.

Germany Switzerland has fluoridation in the form of salt.

Italy has a water supply the same as our fluoridated supply.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

Evidence of the effectiveness of fluoridation in the Uk.

Germany Switzerland has fluoridation in the form of salt.

Italy has a water supply the same as our fluoridated supply.

But they seize to fluoridate the water supply on ethical grounds. You fail to acknowledge that time after time..

Say it..

Say "they seize to fluoridate the water supply on ethical grounds"..

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

But they seize to fluoridate the water supply on ethical grounds. You fail to acknowledge that time after time..

Say it..

Say "they seize to fluoridate the water supply on ethical grounds"..

Is it ethical to spread lies that water fluoridation is a health risk, that there is a magic substance known as "natural" fluoride etc?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Evidence of the effectiveness of fluoridation in the Uk.

Germany Switzerland has fluoridation in the form of salt.

Italy has a water supply the same as our fluoridated supply.

“Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.”
SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702.

bumper234

FREETV wrote: »

He has his own office in the Dept, he is a top Civil Servant. He has access to the paperwork.
It accumulates over time and the damage is irreversible, I am sorry to say that it is true, we even bathe, shower and wash food with tap water so that is absorbed along with chlorine which damages cells when we are washing ourselves without expensive filters. Watering plants during fine weather and the food that we grow in our gardens is another example of absorption/chemicals being absorbed through the skin.

There is big money in the sale of the bags of that crap from industry that is put in the water in waterworks and I will never pay for chlorinated and fluoridated tap water.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/pineal-gland/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/01/20/fluoride-denialism.aspx

But no money in holistic alternative medicine mumbo jumbo right

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

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." - Prof. Helen Whelton et al


From the same paper , care to comment?

From earlier

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

From earlier

Yeah just ignore the facts that are presented to you over and over

jh79

Why is this research more significant than the research of Prof Whelton and the paper I linked to earlier that showed that fluoridation was effective in Newcastle?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Why is this research more significant than the research of Prof Whelton and the paper I linked to earlier that showed that fluoridation was effective in Newcastle?

Wow .... Newcastle

Im talking about comparing country's

And dismissing Wheltons research could be as stupid as dismissing research that has different outcomes

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Wow .... Newcastle

Im talking about comparing country's

And dismissing Wheltons research could be as stupid as dismissing research that has different outcomes

The vast majority of dental health practitioners approve of fluoridation, are you saying they are unaware of this paper ? Or maybe having considered all the evidence that they came to the conclusion that the evidence suggests fluoridation is effective.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The vast majority of dental health practitioners approve of fluoridation, are you saying they are unaware of this paper ? Or maybe having considered all the evidence that they came to the conclusion that the evidence suggests fluoridation is effective.

I am saying that the opposition of mass fluoridation or using fluoride at all are more then some homeopathic hippies ... they are doctors dentists and even a Nobel price winner in medicine ... dismissing their views and opinions is as stupid as dismissing Wheltons research imo

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I am saying that the opposition of mass fluoridation or using fluoride at all are more then some homeopathic hippies ... they are doctors dentists and even a Nobel price winner in medicine ... dismissing their views and opinions is as stupid as dismissing Wheltons research imo

But the majority of their colleagues disagree with their opinions on the subject. Your dismissing the opinions of the vast majority of doctors, dentists etc that believe fluoridation to be safe and effective. Would the logical conclusion not be that the majority are right given they all have access to the same research?

The figure head of Irish opposition Is the girl against fluoride. She falls into the homeopathic hippy camp or possibly is just using this issue to sell some alternative remedy crap. Her website features endorsements form z-list celebrities and second rate singers and the usual lies / miss-representation of research seen on fluoride alert and the like.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But the majority of their colleagues disagree with their opinions on the subject. Your dismissing the opinions of the vast majority of doctors, dentists etc that believe fluoridation to be safe and effective. Would the logical conclusion not be that the majority are right given they all have access to the same research?

Statistics show mass fluoridation has no effect

jh79 wrote: »

The figure head of Irish opposition Is the girl against fluoride. She falls into the homeopathic hippy camp or possibly is just using this issue to sell some alternative remedy crap. Her website features endorsements form z-list celebrities and second rate singers and the usual lies / miss-representation of research seen on fluoride alert and the like.

I gave you credible names who are opposing fluoridation ... the fact you need to bring her up to make your point is ridiculous

jh79

Studies in the US , Ireland and the UK have all shown the effectiveness of mass fluoridation. A report, commisioned for the HS,E by Prof Helen Whelton stated this. Her opinion was that fluoridation should continue with a target concentration of 0.7ppm.

The vast majority of dentists in the UK, USA and Ireland agree with her. Either the research you linked to she isn't aware of or it wasn't enough to change her stance.

weisses

Quote//However, where caries risk is high (or increasing) the effects of a decision to remove
fluoride from the public drinking water are more complex. 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 dinking water would be of no consequence.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientsindw.pdf

Add the research done that shows the decline in dental decay is as high in country's that don't put that toxic in the water as in country's that do .... you do the math

In other words If i look after my teeth and use proper toothpaste i should be fine ...... as goes for the majority of western country's

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Quote//However, where caries risk is high (or increasing) the effects of a decision to remove
fluoride from the public drinking water are more complex. 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 dinking water would be of no consequence.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientsindw.pdf

Add the research done that shows the decline in dental decay is as high in country's that don't put that toxic in the water as in country's that do .... you do the math

In other words If i look after my teeth and use proper toothpaste i should be fine ...... as goes for the majority of western country's

Why do people keep leaving out the rest of that passage:

However, where caries risk is high (or increasing) the effects of a decision to remove fluoride from the public drinking water are more complex. 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 dinking water would be of no consequence.
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.

Leaving these sections out is misrepresenting what the report says.
So you are either being deliberately editing it to misrepresent it or did not actually read the entire passage.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Why do people keep leaving out the rest of that passage:

We are talking about western country's (europe)

Do you think Ireland is a developing country ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

We are talking about western country's (europe)

Do you think Ireland is a developing country ?

The report was covering western countries. The UK is a western country yet they state that it is still necessary in some places.

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.

Further the authors of the quote you misrepresented stated in another paper that fluoridation is effective. And in yet another report stated that fluoridation was a viable and effective method in Ireland.

Your post does not address why you misquoted the passage in the first place.

Did you read the rest of the passage and deliberately leave it out because it did not support what you said it supported or did you leave it out because you did not read it?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

The report was covering western countries. The UK is a western country yet they state that it is still necessary in some places.

No it covers other regions as well chapter 5 ... Are you deliberately misrepresenting the report ?

..... is Ireland a developing country .... if yes why ... if not my highlighted part could apply

King Mob wrote: »

Further the authors of the quote you misrepresented stated in another paper that fluoridation is effective. And in yet another report stated that fluoridation was a viable and effective method in Ireland.

Good for them .... And in this report they said what i highlighted

Can you point to research that clearly states that Awareness in Ireland low

King Mob wrote: »

Your post does not address why you misquoted the passage in the first place.

Did you read the rest of the passage and deliberately leave it out because it did not support what you said it supported or did you leave it out because you did not read it?

I misquoted nothing and included the link

As said What interests me is the part i highlighted out ... Is that misrepresenting what they said if so why

However, where caries risk is high (or increasing) the effects of a decision to remove
fluoride from the public drinking water are more complex. 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 dinking water would be of no consequence. 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.


Happy ??

Point still stands

jh79

But nobody is disputing that there are alternatives to fluoridation.

But the fact remains that water fluoridation is a safe and effective means of improving dental health.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But nobody is disputing that there are alternatives to fluoridation.

But the fact remains that water fluoridation is a safe and effective means of improving dental health.

You are perfectly entitled to believe that

Fact is also that when you are aware of how to take care of your teeth there is no need for fluoride in the water

jh79

weisses wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to believe that

Fact is also that when you are aware of how to take care of your teeth there is no need for fluoride in the water

It is also a fact that fluoridation has proved to be effective in the US, UK and Ireland.

Your perfectly entitled to ignore this fact.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It is also a fact that fluoridation has proved to be effective in the US, UK and Ireland.

Your perfectly entitled to ignore this fact.

I didn't ignore it ... as i said earlier in the thread .... so your point is ?????

Fact also is that with the increase in dental awareness mass fluoridation is of no use in many countries and I'm happy that there are country's who acknowledge this fact

Its even in the WHO report

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I didn't ignore it ... as i said earlier in the thread .... so your point is ?????

Fact also is that with the increase in dental awareness mass fluoridation is of no use in many countries and I'm happy that there are country's who acknowledge this fact

Its even in the WHO report

But your suggesting that it is not effective rather than the more accurate statement that alternatives exist.

Do you agree that it has been shown to be effective in areas where education / economic factors are poor?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But your suggesting that it is not effective rather than the more accurate statement that alternatives exist.

It is not effective when you have dental awareness no (as said in the WHO report)a decision not to replace fluoride removed from
the dinking water would be of no consequence

jh79 wrote: »

Do you agree that it has been shown to be effective in areas where education / economic factors are poor?

There are mixed reports regarding that

But even for example .. a part of a city falls into these economic factors ... should you then use fluoride for the whole city ? I believe that is ethically wrong

jh79

weisses wrote: »

It is not effective when you have dental awareness no (as said in the WHO report)a decision not to replace fluoride removed from
the dinking water would be of no consequence



There are mixed reports regarding that

But even for example .. a part of a city falls into these economic factors ... should you then use fluoride for the whole city ? I believe that is ethically wrong

It is effective in certain circumstances. Those being poorer areas where dental awareness is generally lower.

Is it not in a modern society our duty to protect those that are weakest? So wouldn't the most ethical thing be to fluoridate? You are basically saying tough luck to those born into impoverished areas. Remember there are no proven health risks so how can you justify this attitude?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No it covers other regions as well chapter 5 ... Are you deliberately misrepresenting the report ?

I clearly am not saying that they only cover the UK or only developed countries :rolleyes:

weisses wrote: »

..... is Ireland a developing country .... if yes why ... if not my highlighted part could apply

No it's not. But this is irrelevant as they are not making the distinction between developing and developed countries, but instead between countries (and and regions within countries) where public dental awareness might be much lower and those where it might not be.
They state that fluoridation is necessary in some parts of the UK. The UK is a developed western country. So it does not follow that simply because a country is developed they have adequate dental health awareness or do not need fluoridation.

weisses wrote: »

Good for them .... And in this report they said what i highlighted

And providing what you highlight without the context of what else they say is dishonest or the result of not reading the report for yourself.

weisses wrote: »

Can you point to research that clearly states that Awareness in Ireland low

The link were they endorse fluoridation for Ireland has been posted on this thread. But I have no interest in looking for it as you have no interest in reading it.

weisses wrote: »

I misquoted nothing and included the link

As said What interests me is the part i highlighted out ... Is that misrepresenting what they said if so why

Happy ??

Point still stands

Your point was that they say that fluoridation was unnecessary in a developed country.
This is not what they say in the rest of the passage.

You left out the section of the text that refutes the point you claim they make.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

The link were they endorse fluoridation for Ireland has been posted on this thread. But I have no interest in looking for it as you have no interest in reading it.

Bye bye then

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It is effective in certain circumstances. Those being poorer areas where dental awareness is generally lower.

Is it not in a modern society our duty to protect those that are weakest? So wouldn't the most ethical thing be to fluoridate? You are basically saying tough luck to those born into impoverished areas. Remember there are no proven health risks so how can you justify this attitude?

Sorry i didn't know that in western society one cannot afford to buy a toothbrush and toothpaste

Wouldn't it be better to use the money allocated for mass fluoridation in those specific areas to promote dental awareness ?

weisses

Another interesting read

http://books.google.ie/books?id=q3v_JgjZ6fsC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

page 240

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Another interesting read

http://books.google.ie/books?id=q3v_JgjZ6fsC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Fluoride Deception?? Seriously expect that to be anything else but a piece of one-sided propaganda?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Sorry i didn't know that in western society one cannot afford to buy a toothbrush and toothpaste

Wouldn't it be better to use the money allocated for mass fluoridation in those specific areas to promote dental awareness ?

So poverty doesn't exist in Ireland ? What about families where substance abuse is an issue? Again what is ethical about ignoring the benefits for these people just because of your unfounded misgivings on water fluoridation?

Why would education be better, fluoridation has no proven health risks?

Porf Helen Whleton, whose research you were happy to highlight earlier, presented her findings that fluoridation was effective in parts of the UK where poverty and education maybe an issue. Why are you ignoring her findings on this but championing her findings in Sweden where socio-economic factors are better?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The Fluoride Deception?? Seriously expect that to be anything else but a piece of one-sided propaganda?

Aahh again you didn't read it ...:o And blaming others for being one sided ... the Irony


What about Dr. William Marcus

No left wing hippy either

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So poverty doesn't exist in Ireland ? What about families where substance abuse is an issue? Again what is ethical about ignoring the benefits for these people just because of your unfounded misgivings on water fluoridation?

So i should be drinking fluoridated water because of some crack pots who cannot look after themselves ... terrific

jh79 wrote: »

Why would education be better, fluoridation has no proven health risks?

Education in dental health .. could be thought from early age on

jh79 wrote: »

Porf Helen Whleton, whose research you were happy to highlight earlier, presented her findings that fluoridation was effective in parts of the UK where poverty and education maybe an issue. Why are you ignoring her findings on this but championing her findings in Sweden where socio-economic factors are better?

Target the affected areas with education in dental care

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Aahh again you didn't read it ...:o And blaming others for being one sided ... the Irony


What about Dr. William Marcus

No left wing hippy either

Link to pg 240 doesn't work.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

So i should be drinking fluoridated water because of some crack pots who cannot look after themselves ... terrific



Education in dental health .. could be thought from early age on



Target the affected areas with education in dental care

What about the children of these "crackpots"?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

What about the children of these "crackpots"?

That was not the point i was making

jh79

Anyways, again all you have shown is that alternatives to fluoridation exist.

We know fluoridation is effective , we can't be sure that the alternatives would be effective in Ireland as we have a totally different society to the Swedish , so what is the justification for ceasing fluoridation?

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

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

It took a study involving more than 40,000 doctors in the UK to show conclusively that smoking causes cancer

Bias in "expert" medical opinion appears to be repeating/continuing itself.

jh79 wrote: »

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???

There is that correlation is causation fallacy you trot out repeatedly. That you yourself have proven is wrong. You are just embarrassing yourself (your quote) in your ignorance and failure of argument.

Also an ability of an Irish behavioural dentist to carry out clinical trials to prove that fluoridate offers any benefit. Perhaps some schooling from an expert would help. A course, a specialist course, Whelton's teachers and their references.

@jh79 you cannot show a single poll of Irish citizens wanting flouridation. You never show evidence nor move the discussion, but do attack all other posters without any supporting evidence, but plenty of hearsay. You keep on repeating the same spiel with little or no difference on your single source, which since Penn allows that angle I'll copy you.

"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"
Prof. Helen Whelton
WHO report pg 183

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

We know fluoridation is effective

100% wrong as there zero clinical evidence to support the fallacious claim that fluoridating water is of any benefit to anyone's teeth.

jh79 wrote: »

so what is the justification for ceasing fluoridation?

Saving money that can be spent on a proven cavity reducer - education.

Freedom of choice. People can freely add fluoride to their diet once you lobby Lidl and Aldi to offer the option of fluoridated salt as they do in Germany.

jh79

Correlation is a useful tool , to dismiss it without offering any valid reason as why the correlation evidence should be ignored is ridiculous. Everyone knows that correlation doesn't always mean causation.

Given that we know the topical effects of fluoride and that flouridation leads to a decrease in cavities can you give a reasonable theory of what could be responsible for the noted correlation?

Remember this correlation was sufficient for your favourite researcher Prof Whelton to recommend fluoridation continue in Ireland.

Who do yo think is going to fund such an extremely costly study to prove causation given there are no proven negative aspects to fluoridation?

jh79

Treora wrote: »

100% wrong as there zero clinical evidence to support the fallacious claim that fluoridating water is of any benefit to anyone's teeth.



Saving money that can be spent on a proven cavity reducer - education.

Freedom of choice. People can freely add fluoride to their diet once you lobby Lidl and Aldi to offer the option of fluoridated salt as they do in Germany.

How did Prof Whelton form the opinion that fluoridation should continue? Your happy to accept her findings on Sweden but not on Ireland or the UK? Why?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

This should be about choice, people should be free to add fluoride to whatever they want as it should be their choice.

Old people who have no teeth don't need their water to be fluoridated, same goes for small babies who have no teeth either. It is morally wrong to subject these two groups of people to fluoridated water.

The problem with adding fluoride to water is that it is so intrusive and so hard to avoid. We drink it, wash ourselves, brush our teeth, wash our clothes ect. ect.

Adding anything to water that doesn't improve it's safety sets a strange precedent about what the government can do in the 'interest of public health'.

I say this as a person who drinks water straight from the tap without a bother, I know very little about any conspiracies surrounding the issue, I just think it is morally and ethically wrong to add fluoride to the public water supply when it clearly doesn't benefit most people.

jh79

But fluoride is in our water anyways. Why is this level of fluoride acceptable?