Fluoride in tap water

returnNull

Treora wrote: »

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

now that's a fallacious claim......

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Link to pg 240 doesn't work.

It does ....top right corner you can select chapters

returnNull

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

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.

at the levels of flouride in our water it causes no harm,as has been pointed out in this thread over and over and over again.

weisses

returnNull wrote: »

at the levels of flouride in our water it causes no harm,as has been pointed out in this thread over and over and over again.

there are doctors professors, dentists, even a nobel price winner in medicine who think its wrong ........ As is repeated over and over again in this thread ... So your point is ??

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

What about the children of these "crackpots"?

What about the children of the crackpots in country's where they don't put fluoride in the water and yet as is pointed out here, dental decay is on the decline there as well ....

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

returnNull wrote: »

at the levels of flouride in our water it causes no harm,as has been pointed out in this thread over and over and over again.

That's not my point though. They're adding something to these groups of peoples water that doesn't benefit them in anyway. They must consume it however.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

there are doctors professors, dentists, even a nobel price winner in medicine who think its wrong ........ As is repeated over and over again in this thread ... So your point is ??

A tiny minority that are vastly outnumbered by thier fellow colleagues in the scientific community.

jh79

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

That's not my point though. They're adding something to these groups of peoples water that doesn't benefit them in anyway. They must consume it however.

It benefits the majority and also the most vulnerable members of the community. It causes the rest no harm.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

What about the children of the crackpots in country's where they don't put fluoride in the water and yet as is pointed out here, dental decay is on the decline there as well ....

Again we have a different society to Sweden with a different health system and poorer economy.

Germany has fluoridated salt.

Italy has the same levels of fluoride as us.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Again we have a different society to Sweden with a different health system and poorer economy.

Germany has fluoridated salt.

Italy has the same levels of fluoride as us.

Will you quit using that salt comparison ... If i want to in Germany i can get salt with no added toxic in it .....

What choice do i have here ?

And according to doctors fluoride is dangerous for humans

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

A tiny minority that are vastly outnumbered by thier fellow colleagues in the scientific community.

Over 2000 professionals are opposing it (estimate) ... you wanna ignore em all ?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It benefits the majority and also the most vulnerable members of the community. It causes the rest no harm.

Mass medication ... how civilized

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Mass medication ... how civilized

Medication suggests a positive effect?

weisses

http://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf

Another interesting read

Analysis and Recommendations:
1. Dietary advice for patients with CKD should primarily focus on established
recommendations for sodium, potassium, calcium, phosphorus, energy/calorie,
protein, fat, and carbohydrate intake.21-25 Fluoride intake is a secondary concern.
2. Specific recommendations regarding fluoride intake in CKD patients are not
possible based on available limited data. The current evidence regarding fluoride
exposure and risks is comprised of case reports, case series, and extrapolations
that assume exposure is directly proportional to water fluoride levels. There are
no randomized trials of fluoride exposure for individuals with CKD. Additional
research on the risks and extent of fluoride exposure for the potentially
susceptible population of CKD patients with impaired kidney function is
recommended.
3. Although several position statements recommend monitoring intake in the
potentially susceptible CKD population,1,3 the absence of fluoride concentrations
on food and beverage labels and lack of data about fluoride intake from dental
products and other sources makes this difficult to implement. 4. Failure to adhere to AAMI hemodialysis water treatment standards has resulted
in several deaths in the US in 1979 and 1993. AAMI standards should continue to
be followed by all dialysis programs.4
5. Individuals with CKD should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride
exposure by providing information on the NKF website including a link to the
report in brief of the NRC2
and the Kidney Health Australia position paper.3
The risk is likely greatest in areas with naturally high water flouride levels.
6. The NKF has no position on the optimal fluoridation of water. The oral
health of people with CKD is of certainly of interest to the NKF, but balancing the
overall benefits and risks of fluoride exposure is the primary concern.
7. The 1981 NKF position paper on fluoridation is outdated. The paper is
withdrawn and will no longer be circulated, effective from the 10/06/07 NKF
Board of Director’s meeting.

Point 6 is also interesting because before they said it was beneficial to take it

Why all the worry ??

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Medication suggests a positive effect?

I am healthy ... I dont need it ... I look after my teeth

jh79

What brand of bottled water do you drink and how much fluoride does it contain?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

What brand of bottled water do you drink and how much fluoride does it contain?

Mineral water ... Its not on the label ... Can ask the girl in the lab though

weisses

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/fluoride_brief_final.pdf

From that paper

Recommended Research
As noted above, gaps in the information on
fluoride prevented the committee from making
some judgments about the safety or the risks of
fluoride at concentrations between 2 and 4 mg/L
and below. The report makes several recommendations for future research to fill those gaps, as well
as recommendations to pursue lines of evidence on
other potential health risk (e.g., endocrine effects
and brain function). Recommendations include
exposure assessment at the individual level rather
than the community level; population studies of
moderate and severe enamel fluorosis in relation
to tooth decay and to psychological, behavioral,
or social effects; studies designed to clarify the
relationship between fluoride ingestion, fluoride
concentration in bone, and clinical symptoms of
skeletal fluorosis; and more studies of bone fracture
rates in people exposed to high concentrations of
fluoride in drinking water.

jh79

If fluoride is so toxic why is it so difficult to find convincing research that shows a definitive correlation between adverse health effects and even high levels of fluoride?

There are lots of studies which show some poor correlation that could also be due to a number of other factors or are just not statistically sound. Are there any studies that show the same correlation in different areas / countries? If a correlation can't be shown at levels close to 10ppm how can you suggest that 0.7ppm would be a risk?

Remember the correlations that show decreased cavities in areas that fluoridate have been show in three different countries by different research groups. We also have a mode of action for how fluoride reduces cavities therefore it is only logical to associate the reduction in cavities to water fluoridation.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Mineral water ... Its not on the label ... Can ask the girl in the lab though

What ppm level would cause you to stop drinking it?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

If fluoride is so toxic why is it so difficult to find convincing research that shows a definitive correlation between adverse health effects and even high levels of fluoride?

There are lots of studies which show some poor correlation that could also be due to a number of other factors or are just not statistically sound. Are there any studies that show the same correlation in different areas / countries? If a correlation can't be shown at levels close to 10ppm how can you suggest that 0.7ppm would be a risk?

Remember the correlations that show decreased cavities in areas that fluoridate have been show in three different countries by different research groups. We also have a mode of action for how fluoride reduces cavities therefore it is only logical to associate the reduction in cavities to water fluoridation.

5. Individuals with CKD should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride
exposure by providing information on the NKF website including a link to the
report in brief of the NRC2
and the Kidney Health Australia position paper.3
The risk is likely greatest in areas with naturally high water flouride levels.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/fluoride_brief_final.pdf

From that paper

Recommended Research
As noted above, gaps in the information on
fluoride prevented the committee from making
some judgments about the safety or the risks of
fluoride at concentrations between 2 and 4 mg/L
and below. The report makes several recommendations for future research to fill those gaps, as well
as recommendations to pursue lines of evidence on
other potential health risk (e.g., endocrine effects
and brain function). Recommendations include
exposure assessment at the individual level rather
than the community level; population studies of
moderate and severe enamel fluorosis in relation
to tooth decay and to psychological, behavioral,
or social effects; studies designed to clarify the
relationship between fluoride ingestion, fluoride
concentration in bone, and clinical symptoms of
skeletal fluorosis; and more studies of bone fracture
rates in people exposed to high concentrations of
fluoride in drinking water.

Can you not see that the research that generally involved ppm levels closer to 10ppm didn't highlight much risk to warrant further research. Who is going to publish research that confirms what most people believe to be true anyways. Dr. Mullinex didn't follow up her animal study because she couldn't show any major toxicity the first time around

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

What ppm level would cause you to stop drinking it?

preferably 0

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Can you not see that the research that generally involved ppm levels closer to 10ppm didn't highlight much risk to warrant further research. Who is going to publish research that confirms what most people believe to be true anyways. Dr. Mullinex didn't follow up her animal study because she couldn't show any major toxicity the first time around

The report makes several recommendations for future research to fill those gaps, as well
as recommendations to pursue lines of evidence on
other potential health risk (e.g., endocrine effects
and brain function). Recommendations include
exposure assessment at the individual level rather
than the community level;

jh79

weisses wrote: »

5. Individuals with CKD should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride
exposure by providing information on the NKF website including a link to the
report in brief of the NRC2
and the Kidney Health Australia position paper.3
The risk is likely greatest in areas with naturally high water flouride levels.

Do they give a ppm? Remember the source isn't important, do they specifically mention 0.7ppm?

You still haven't answered my question, what concentration of fluoride in your bottled water are you willing to accept?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

The report makes several recommendations for future research to fill those gaps, as well
as recommendations to pursue lines of evidence on
other potential health risk (e.g., endocrine effects
and brain function). Recommendations include
exposure assessment at the individual level rather
than the community level;

Can you offer an explanation as to why exposure to 10-15ppm in China and India couldn't show definitive links to adverse effects but are still convinced that 0.7 ppm is an health risk. Would you not expect a substance that you claim to be toxic at 0.7ppm to show it toxicity to a much more noticable extent at 20-30 times that concentration?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

preferably 0

Unlikely in fairness.

Do you know where it is sourced from?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Do they give a ppm? Remember the source isn't important, do they specifically mention 0.7ppm?

You still haven't answered my question, what concentration of fluoride in your bottled water are you willing to accept?

I did

Not the point really I even use fluoride toothpaste sometimes

There is always trace amounts of fluoride in water

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Unlikely in fairness.

Do you know where it is sourced from?

Yes... a well 180 meters deep

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I did

Not the point really I even use fluoride toothpaste sometimes

There is always trace amounts of fluoride in water

So there is an acceptable ppm of fluoride. How did you come to the conclusion that what you define as trace was acceptable?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Can you offer an explanation as to why exposure to 10-15ppm in China and India couldn't show definitive links to adverse effects but are still convinced that 0.7 ppm is an health risk. Would you not expect a substance that you claim to be toxic at 0.7ppm to show it toxicity to a much more noticable extent at 20-30 times that concentration?

It is not what i claim .... i post what experts claim and recommend

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yes... a well 180 meters deep

What brand is it?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

It is not what i claim .... i post what experts claim and recommend

Experts whose opinions are discounted by the vast majority of their fellow professionals. How do you justify your siding with the minority ?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So there is an acceptable ppm of fluoride. How did you come to the conclusion that what you define as trace was acceptable?

I think topical use of fluoride can be beneficial ... the video i posted showed it

I thought there was (trace) fluoride in most of earths water ... Its not what i think is acceptable ... its there and i need water to live i think

What is the amount of fluoride in natural Irish mineral water ?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Experts whose opinions are discounted by the vast majority of their fellow professionals. How do you justify your siding with the minority ?

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/fluoride_brief_final.pdf

I was quoting from this paper ...Are they wrong ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/fluoride_brief_final.pdf

I was quoting from this paper ...Are they wrong ?

That paper is 6 years old and still the majority agree with fluoridation. Again are you suggesting they are not in the minority?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

What brand is it?

Kerry spring

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I think topical use of fluoride can be beneficial ... the video i posted showed it

I thought there was (trace) fluoride in most of earths water ... Its not what i think is acceptable ... its there and i need water to live i think

What is the amount of fluoride in natural Irish mineral water ?

Would you drink non-fluoridated water in Northern Ireland at 0.3ppm ?

Would you drink non-fluoridated water in Italy at 0.7ppm?

Does anyone know what the fluoride level in Ireland would be without fluoridation? I'm assuming it would similar to the North.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

That paper is 6 years old and still the majority agree with fluoridation. Again are you suggesting they are not in the minority?

Are they wrong ?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Would you drink non-fluoridated water in Northern Ireland at 0.3ppm ?

Would you drink non-fluoridated water in Italy at 0.7ppm?

Does anyone know what the fluoride level in Ireland would be without fluoridation? I'm assuming it would similar to the North.

I prefer not to drink tap water at all ... if it was only for the chlorine smell of it

tap water in ireland is not the same as mineral water from a well AFAIK

jh79

Is not more likely that the majority are right and minority wrong?

It seems from a quick google that Kerry Spring does contain fluoride. They don't have to label it below 1.5ppm.

Pellegreno has 0.5ppm.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I prefer not to drink tap water at all ... if it was only for the chlorine smell of it

tap water in ireland is not the same as mineral water from a well AFAIK

Mineral water surely has chlorine to remove bacteria?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I prefer not to drink tap water at all ... if it was only for the chlorine smell of it

tap water in ireland is not the same as mineral water from a well AFAIK

Why is the fluoride in mineral water more acceptable to you that the fluoride in tap water?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Mineral water surely has chlorine to remove bacteria?

Nope UV filter

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Why is the fluoride in mineral water more acceptable to you that the fluoride in tap water?

Can you show me what levels are in natural mineral water in ireland ? genuine question

Another one

Ireland reaches 73% of the population with fluoridated water ( far highest in europe)

So Ireland should be the best country ..dental wise ..... but they aren't, they rank 6

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Is not more likely that the majority are right and minority wrong?

It seems from a quick google that Kerry Spring does contain fluoride. They don't have to label it below 1.5ppm.

Pellegreno has 0.5ppm.

source ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

source ?

Girl against fluoride facebook from a google search. Friend of a friend kinda stuff as they don't have to report anything below 1.5ppm.

Pellegrino seems legit given Italy is known to have high levels of fluoride In its water.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Girl against fluoride facebook from a google search. Friend of a friend kinda stuff as they don't have to report anything below 1.5ppm.

Yeah saw that ... already send her an e-mail

jh79 wrote: »

Pellegrino seems legit given Italy is known to have high levels of fluoride In its water.

Yeah that's why i think Mineral water here is a good bit lower

Strange that they don't have to label it regardless how much is in it

Gone for a bit .... New av receiver is deliverd

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Can you show me what levels are in natural mineral water in ireland ? genuine question

Another one

Ireland reaches 73% of the population with fluoridated water ( far highest in europe)

So Ireland should be the best country ..dental wise ..... but they aren't, they rank 6

Fluoridation is to improve dental health in combination with some level of dental hygiene. The fact we come 6th doesn't prove that fluoridation is not effective, it shows our dental hygiene attitudes are wanting.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yeah saw that ... already send her an e-mail



Yeah that's why i think Mineral water here is a good bit lower

Strange that they don't have to label it regardless how much is in it

Gone for a bit .... New av receiver is delivered

They do label it if it goes above 1.5ppm.

On a side note , what type of AV?