Fluoride in tap water

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

On a side note , what type of AV?

http://www.eu.onkyo.com/en/products/tx-nr515-76085.html

Hopefully without the HDMI issues

jh79

Impressive stuff. God help your neighbours!

Have an entry level Denon myself, neighbours must hate me.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Impressive stuff. God help your neighbours!

Have an entry level Denon myself, neighbours must hate me.

Yeah i knew you were looking at it a while back at RS ?

Luckily i live pretty remote :P

Will be in the AV section soon

Back to on topic i guess

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

It benefits the majority and also the most vulnerable members of the community.

This is entirely incorrect.

Ireland's DMFT for the vulnerable is twice that of Sweden, Varmland being an example of a non-fluoridated water community using education and targeted dental access.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8500132

Sweden is different to Ireland and better in dental hygiene, cheaper and simpler to commission. So Ireland needs to copy them and redirect money from water fluoridation to education and targeted assistance.

alastair

Treora wrote: »

This is entirely incorrect.

Ireland's DMFT for the vulnerable is twice that of Sweden, Varmland being an example of a non-fluoridated water community using education and targeted dental access.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8500132

Sweden is different to Ireland and better in dental hygiene, cheaper and simpler to commission. So Ireland needs to copy them and redirect money from water fluoridation to education and targeted assistance.

How exactly does that contradict the fluoridation benefits you dispute? A community in Sweden does better than our outcomes - does that remove the benefits of our system?

weisses

alastair wrote: »

How exactly does that contradict the fluoridation benefits you dispute? A community in Sweden does better than our outcomes - does that remove the benefits of our system?

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

to me that removes the benefits in this system yes

Decline in dental decay in NON fluoridated country's is the same as in country's that does fluoridate their water (europe)

Another example that shows its not beneficial

alastair

weisses wrote: »

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

to me that removes the benefits in this system yes

Interesting logic. What if we ranked No 2? Still no benefit evident there? :rolleyes:

jh79

weisses wrote: »

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

to me that removes the benefits in this system yes

Decline in dental decay in NON fluoridated country's is the same as in country's that does fluoridate their water (europe)

Another example that shows its not beneficial

Again all you are showing is that alternatives exist.

Explain how it has been show that fluoridation reduced cavities in Newcastle versus Cardiff, in the paper I linked to earlier? That constitutes an example of its effectiveness.

Without fluoridation Ireland would rank alot less is the obvious conclusion. The fact we are 6th shows how necessary fluoridation is as our attitude to dental health must be pretty poor.

jh79

@weisses

Have you a link to the list?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Again all you are showing is that alternatives exist.

Explain how it has been show that fluoridation reduced cavities in Newcastle versus Cardiff, in the paper I linked to earlier? That constitutes an example of its effectiveness.

Without fluoridation Ireland would rank alot less is the obvious conclusion. The fact we are 6th shows how necessary fluoridation is as our attitude to dental health must be pretty poor.

I said earlier that you have to look at it on a larger scale ... Educate the people, ....

How do you know that the Irish attitude towards is poor? or poorer compared to other European country's?

But let us leave it at that .. we keep arguing in circles.

All i want is a choice

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

@weisses

Have you a link to the list?

I had it before .. but cannot seem to find it (formatted pc a while back)

Will look into it ..

DMFT Status (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) for 12 year olds:

ZurichSwis 0.84 1998 unfluoridated
Netherlands 0.9 1992-93 unfluoridated
Sweden 0.9 1999 unfluoridated
Denmark 0.9 2001 unfluoridated
UK whole 1.1 1996-97 10% fluoridated
Ireland 1.1 1997 fluoridated
Finland 1.1 1997 unfluoridated
US 1.4 1988-91 fluoridated
Norway 1.5 1998 unfluoridated
Iceland 1.5 1996 unfluoridated
New zland 1.5 1999 fluoridated
Belgium 1.6 1998 unfluoridated
Germany 1.7 1997 unfluoridated
Austria 1.7 1997 unfluoridated
France 1.9 1998 unfluoridated

I thought it was this list ... But i think there were more on the list i saw before

jh79

Comparing countries makes it easier to hide the effectiveness of fluoridation due to all the variables.

Comparing two cities in the same country removes the variances of health systems, education and poverty but who differ in fluoridation policy carries more weight on whether fluoridation is effective. Wouldn't you agree?

The European Food Council recommends fluoridation in all its guises. It also says that for the DMFT table that in many cases 80% of cavities come from 20% of the population. So education only reaches so many whereas fluoridation reaches all. For me the only conclusion is that education improves in conjunction with fluoridation.

jh79

The list I found on fluoride alert doesn't mention actual fluoride levels so to ascertain from this that fluoride isn't effective is some leap of faith

Assuming lower is better. Can anyone explain why Ireland and Italy who have the same level s of fluoride ( of course the non biased people at fluoride alert fail to mention this) are higher (better) than Japan, France , Norway, Finland etc who don't fluoridate?

Treora

alastair wrote: »

How exactly does that contradict the fluoridation benefits you dispute? A community in Sweden does better than our outcomes - does that remove the benefits of our system?

Oops forgot to reference the OHSRC's lead researcher Dr. Carmel Parnell's report. Ireland's studies on identifying the cause of the benefit of fluoridated water in terms of quality and quantity rank as a D grade.

It is kind of funny as when Whelton was leading the tax payer funded dental health foundation she banned research into this even though it was their remit. She changed the remit to be promotion of fluoridated water.

Here is a clinical study on topical fluoridation. jh79 posted that it would be too difficult and expensive to do clinicial research on the benefits of fluoridated water. That is non-sensical.

Treora

Ireland fluoridates at .7ppm. We drink 2 ltrs and consume roughly another 4 via food per day. 40% is excreted, 50% absorbed into bones/organs, 10% is in our blood. So at most .05% gets into our saliva. That is ~ 0.00002g per day.

Brushing our teeth twice daily with the minimum .2ml of 1450ppm gives ~ .6g per day. This is the proven ideal minimum amount by the ada and so many other organisations.

The ratio of 1:30,000 is homeopathic.

The latest research shows how this works. 0.00002g in 24 hours is nowhere near enough. .7ppm is ineffectual and everyone knows this. It is money down the drain, money that should be spent on education. Education that Sweden has proven empirically works.

jh79

Treora wrote: »

Oops forgot to reference the OHSRC's lead researcher Dr. Carmel Parnell's report. Ireland's studies on identifying the cause of the benefit of fluoridated water in terms of quality and quantity rank as a D grade.

It is kind of funny as when Whelton was leading the tax payer funded dental health foundation she banned research into this even though it was their remit. She changed the remit to be promotion of fluoridated water.

Here is a clinical study on topical fluoridation. jh79 posted that it would be too difficult and expensive to do clinicial research on the benefits of fluoridated water. That is non-sensical.

How did she ban research into it? Complete nonsense. Endorsed her earlier so now are inventing a wild conspiracy to try to safe face.
Her role was to review the research already available.

The paper I listed earlier compared two cities in the UK. The research team showed strong correlation between better dental health and fluoridation. They said a more in depth study was beyond them.

A study to show causation would need to be huge (like the smokimg example of 40, 000) or carried out of a smaller number in a very controlled environment where food , dental hygiene, fluoride levels and genetics were controlled and over a long time frame.

How can you justify a huge undertaking like the above when we already have strong correlation evidence and no evidence of toxicity. A complete waste of resources when other area's of research need funding. I rarther fund studies into stem cells or biotech than waste it here.

We have strong correlation evidence for water fluoridation and a definitive mechanism of action on tooth enamel for topical fluoride. Logic dictates they are linked.

We have poor or no correlation between water fluoridation at close to 10ppm and serious illness and no mechanism s of action.

jh79

Swedens DMFT is 0.9 , Ireland 1.1 and majority of EU worse than Ireland.

Ireland may be 6th but the gap between first and sixth is quite small. All in all we are in good shape , can you show that fluoridation hasn't played a part in making us above average in the DMFT table.

MonkieSocks

I disagree with fluoride being added to our water.


People have all sorts of different allergies and even if a small amount of people are affected by fluoride in water, it’s still too much.


They may not even know the fluoride is the cause of their illness.


Education is the best way forward, not 100% saturation of the population.

jh79

@Treora

By comparing fluoridation to homeopathy you can't later claim it has adverse health effects.

Anyhow fluorosis is seen at 1.2ppm so the comparison doesn't make sense.

Daithi 1

Yummy Pesticide !!!




http://www.istas.net/risctox/en/dn_risctox_ficha_sustancia.asp?id_sustancia=954187

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Yummy Pesticide !!!




http://www.istas.net/risctox/en/dn_risctox_ficha_sustancia.asp?id_sustancia=954187

What happens when you add it to water?

You get F - ion the same F- ion you get from calcium flouride.

You need to start a new thread this is about fluoride not the above.

Daithi 1

Calcium Fluoride is organic, Sodium fluoride / hexafluorosilicic acid is not.

Here are the chemical make up of both .. One is toxic and the other is not. So, please stop repeating that they are the same.

Calcium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride

Sodium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride

Notice how much smaller the lethal dose is for rats the calcium is....

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Calcium Fluoride is organic, Sodium fluoracombinide / hexafluorosilicic acid is not.

Here are the chemical make up of both .. One is toxic and the other is not. So, please stop repeating that they are the same.

Calcium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride

Sodium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride

Calcium fluoride isn't organic. To be organic it would need to contain a combination of carbon , oxygen or nitrogen.

How can you be agaisnt something without actually knowing exactly what it is you are agaisnt?

Calcium fluoride is commercially available, are you ok with fluoridation to 0.7ppm with this instead?

The anti water fluoridation brigade prey on this sort of ignorance to spread their nonsense.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Calcium Fluoride is organic, Sodium fluoride / hexafluorosilicic acid is not.

Here are the chemical make up of both .. One is toxic and the other is not. So, please stop repeating that they are the same.

Calcium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride

Sodium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride

Notice how much smaller the lethal dose is for rats the calcium is....

Notice now little is actually added to our water supply and that it constitutes a safe dose.

Now that you have acknowledged that you understand dose will you admit that it is ridiculous to label something toxic without considering the dose?

hju6

jh79 wrote: »

Notice now little is actually added to our water supply and that it constitutes a safe dose.

Now that you have acknowledged that you understand dose will you admit that it is ridiculous to label something toxic without considering the dose?

Any size dose of industrial waste in the public water supply is not acceptable

jh79

hju6 wrote: »

Any size dose of industrial waste in the public water supply is not acceptable

You do realise that makes absolutely no sense scientifically?

Warfarin is a rat poison but it is also used in medicine.

Vit C causes cancer in high doses.

hju6

jh79 wrote: »

You do realise that makes absolutely no sense scientifically?

Warfarin is a rat poison but it is also used in medicine.

Vit C causes cancer in high doses.

Neither of the above are forced upon us,
and i would expect that the majority of sane people would choose water without industrial waste added, if they were given a choice,

jh79

hju6 wrote: »

Neither of the above are forced upon us,
and i would expect that the majority of sane people would choose water without industrial waste added, if they were given a choice,

If your argument is strong enough against fluoridation why resort to such nonsense?

Why does it matter where the fluoride comes from when it is at a safe dose?

How is it an industrial waste product when it is a commercially available product with a defined structure and composition?

hju6

jh79 wrote: »

If your argument is strong enough against fluoridation why resort to such nonsense?

Why does it matter where the fluoride comes from when it is at a safe dose?

How is it an industrial waste product when it is a commercially available product with a defined structure and composition?

Flouride was introduced into the water supply back in the 1950's, when smoking was good for you and nuclear bombs were detonated in the atmosphere,

Why add anything to the water supply? Is it too much to ask for ?

hju6

http://youtu.be/Z_Gp6QkUC54

Above is a video of the good stuff dissolving concrete,

@jh79 why isn't Warafin added to the water supply to prevent blood clots ?

jh79

hju6 wrote: »

Flouride was introduced into the water supply back in the 1950's, when smoking was good for you and nuclear bombs were detonated in the atmosphere,

Why add anything to the water supply? Is it too much to ask for ?

It is already in the supply, the concentration is slightly increaseD because of the benefits to dental health.

In Italy they don't fluoridate but have the same levels of fluoride as us.

And there is no such thing as "natural" fluoride. Whether it is sodium fluoride or calcium fluoride it is all the same.

jh79

hju6 wrote: »

http://youtu.be/Z_Gp6QkUC54

Above is a video of the good stuff dissolving concrete,

@jh79 why isn't Warafin added to the water supply to prevent blood clots ?

Some people have low blood pressure.


You do understand dose?

A pint of beer isn't the same as a pint of whiskey, a pint of poitin would kill you, you see? dose is important?

How come tap water doesn't dissolve concrete? Is it because the dose is too low?

hju6

jh79 wrote: »

Some people have low blood pressure.


You do understand dose?

A pint of beer isn't the same as a pint of whiskey, a pint of poitin would kill you, you see? dose is important?

How come tap water doesn't dissolve concrete? Is it because the dose is too low?

What do you not understand about the word choice, is it such an abstract concept to your over flouridated brain?

jh79

hju6 wrote: »

What do you not understand about the word choice, is it such an abstract concept to your over flouridated brain?

I understand completely about the ethics involved but it doesn't excuse the nonsense about toxic waste and videos of concrete dissolving.

jh79

Your brain is fluoridated too by the way.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Your brain is fluoridated too by the way.

I meant that sarcastically, the water you drink is fluoridated too.

hju6

jh79 wrote: »

I meant that sarcastically, the water you drink is fluoridated too.

No **** Sherlock , and who knows what else is in there

jh79

hju6 wrote: »

No **** Sherlock , and who knows what else is in there

Alot of other stuff that doesn't need worrying about

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

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

The majority of Irish don't want fluoridated water. Every poll proves this.

And the medical community is institutionalised and often wrong. Cause of ulsers or the cancerous affect of tobacco.

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

Mineral water surely has chlorine to remove bacteria?

Like most of your claims you make they are unsupported by any evidence, wild and ridiculus.

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

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.

There is no clinical evidence for this ridiculously inaccurate claim. Fluroidation of water is of no benefit to human oral hygiene. With only 0.00002g per day when the ADA says we need .3g twice daily how could it. It is mass expensive oral hygiene homeopathy in repelling bacterial. What it does to human organs is anyone's guess.

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

It benefits the majority and also the most vulnerable members of the community.

This is wrong as oral hygiene in the vulnerable in Ireland has moved from DMFT of 33 to 35+ where Sweden has moved from 29 to 27- using targeted dental intervention programmes on the vulnerable. Water fluoridation is used to distract government policy away for targeted help. And the vulnerable are suffering.

jh79 wrote: »

It causes the rest no harm.

Misdirectly taxes away for education, reduction in freedom of choice...

Treora

jh79 wrote: »

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

Poorer economy - more indebted yes, but we spend more per capita on health care than Sweden, we just have horrendus contracts with pharma and doctors.

We do have a different society to Sweden and we like copying them all the time. This is a case when it actually beneficial to copy them. Stop pouring money down the drain and replace water fluoridation with oral hygiene education.

Hear is more proof that if you do not educate the vulnerable then even in a country that is richer than Ireland the most vulnerable cannot even hold a toothbrush correctly. Education inplace of medication.

Sweden is 100% more effective a lowering cavities (DMFT) in children up to the age of 12 (the standard metric). Ireland went from a DMFT @ 12 of 1.3 to 1.6 and Sweden from .8 to .7 in the lase few years to They use education instead of fluoridation and spend less per capita than Ireland (The Council of European Dentists).

There is not a single peer reviewed published article in a scientific journal (nature/science/lancet...) on a clinical trial or empirical study supporting fluoride in saliva alone reduces cavities.

All "studies" reach a shameful fail grade of 37.5% or 3/-2 on UCC's Oral Health Services Research Centre scale, which is a D the OHSRC's grade of recommendations on the same report by Dr. Carmel Parnell - Prof Whelton's lead researcher

jh79

Treora wrote: »

There is no clinical evidence for this ridiculously inaccurate claim. Fluroidation of water is of no benefit to human oral hygiene. With only 0.00002g per day when the ADA says we need .3g twice daily how could it. It is mass expensive oral hygiene homeopathy in repelling bacterial. What it does to human organs is anyone's guess.

Numerous studies , as highlighted in Prof Whelton 's review, supporting fluoridation. Just because you chose to ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Claiming it is at homeopathic conc and then suggesting a toxic effect on organs makes no sense what so ever.

Can you explain how Ireland and Italy rank above average in the DMFT table?

jh79

A saline solution contains NaCl in water to give Na+ and Cl-.

Table salt in water gives Na+ and Cl-.

Sodium Fluoride in water gives Na+ and F-.

Calcium fluoride in water gives Ca2+ and F-.

@weisses, daithi
Can you explain why you both believe the Na+ ion from sodium fluoride is more toxic than that in saline and why the F- from sodium fluoride is more toxic than that from calcium fluoride?

Even better pose the question to the girl against fluoride on Facebook.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

@weisses, daithi
Can you explain why you both believe the Na+ ion from sodium fluoride is more toxic than that in saline and why the F- from sodium fluoride is more toxic than that from calcium fluoride?

I don't know ... I never discussed it here, Not knowledgeable on that subject. .. if i did please point out where

jh79 wrote: »

Even better pose the question to the girl against fluoride on Facebook.

What is keeping you from doing it yourself ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I don't know ... I never discussed it here, Not knowledgeable on that subject. .. if i did please point out where



What is keeping you from doing it yourself ?

You and daithi repeatedly call sodium fluoride a toxin and claim fluoride from calcium fluoride is ok because it is "natural".

I don't have Facebook, doubt she would give an honest answer anyway. Her campaign depends on pseudoscience like natural fluoride.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You and daithi repeatedly call sodium fluoride a toxin and claim fluoride from calcium fluoride is ok because it is "natural".

Fluoride is toxic yeah ??? You better point out to me where i make these other claims or else withdraw your point

jh79 wrote: »

I don't have Facebook, doubt she would give an honest answer anyway. Her campaign depends on pseudoscience like natural fluoride.

Me neither and i send her a message anyway ... yeah yeah and blaming everyone else for assuming

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Fluoride is toxic yeah ??? You better point out to me where i make these other claims or else withdraw your point



Me neither and i send her a message anyway ... yeah yeah and blaming everyone else for assuming

It is not toxic at 0.7ppm. You repeatedly claim it is toxic when it clearly isn't.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

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

You refer to it as toxic in this post.