Fluoride in tap water

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

An ion elecrode measures it. As the name infers it only measures the F - ion.

Because those two chemicals are readily soluble in water it is easy to calculate the mg per litre need to produce 0.7ppm.

Does anyone know how much is added in Ireland? From that it would be easy to calculate what the fluoride ppm would be without fluoridation.

Reread weisses post, to clarify

Hexa...acid and sodium fluoride dissolve readily in water.

Calcium flouride dissolves slowly.

We could fluoridate with clacium fluoride and mimc nature but it is extremely inefficient.

King Mob

alphamule wrote: »

You never replied to the post regarding the Netherlands issue.

Could you clear that up please. Please provide me with the facts.

Folks like yourself are guilty of believing everything you are told.

Could you please post a link to something showing that it was banned by the Netherlands? If you can't, then there's no issue.

Or should I just believe that is the case because you told me?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Could you please post a link to something showing that it was banned by the Netherlands? If you can't, then there's no issue.

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm

You also claimed

King Mob wrote: »

Because this claim has been made and debunked several times, yet anti fluordiationists still keep using it.

Where is this claim debunked ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm

You also claimed

Where is this claim debunked ?

Nowhere in that document does it ever say that fluoridation is banned.
Even the site you link to does not say that it is banned.

(And note, even if it did, that's one of a list of several countries where it is not banned, making the claim still a lie.)

This point had come up before among the other false claims. Finding and pointing out the exact posts would be a waste of time as it's needless pedantry and because once again you aren't actually interested in the answer to your question.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Nowhere in that document does it ever say that fluoridation is banned.
Even the site you link to does not say that it is banned.
(And note, even if it did, that's one of a list of several countries where it is not banned, making the claim still a lie.)

If the high court in The Netherlands says that there is no legal basis for the fluoridation of the water... what would you call it ?

Another one on your debunked list

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

King Mob wrote: »

This point had come up before among the other false claims. Finding and pointing out the exact posts would be a waste of time as it's needless pedantry and because once again you aren't actually interested in the answer to your question.

You starting to sound like a broken record
Provide evidence for your claim or stop making false assumptions

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

If the high court in The Netherlands says that there is no legal basis for the fluoridation of the water... what would you call it ?

"There is no legal basis for fluoridation of water".
You know, what the thing actually says, not a deceptive paraphrase.

However if you are now arguing that it is in fact the same thing as banning, why not just use the actual wording instead of putting words in people's mouths?

Could it be that "Banned" sounds snappier and more forceful? Scarier perhaps?

weisses wrote: »

Another one on your debunked list

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

Again nowhere does it say anything about a ban.

And still even if we accept that these to are examples of it being banned, which they aren't, the others still aren't. 2 out of 8 is not a good score.

weisses wrote: »

You starting to sound like a broken record
Provide evidence for your claim or stop making false assumptions

Here's what will happen. I waste the time and effort to go back and find the posts where I point out all the exact same stuff. You ignore this and ask yet more questions and more demands for proof of pedantic points. Rinse and repeat.

Be honest weisses we both know it would be pointless.

For reference the points have been made here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85182183&postcount=233
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85183246&postcount=239
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85184303&postcount=249

You will now either ignore them or move the goalpost and then demand answers to your questions while ignoring mine.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

"There is no legal basis for fluoridation of water".
You know, what the thing actually says, not a deceptive paraphrase.

However if you are now arguing that it is in fact the same thing as banning, why not just use the actual wording instead of putting words in people's mouths?

Could it be that "Banned" sounds snappier and more forceful? Scarier perhaps?

Again nowhere does it say anything about a ban.

And still even if we accept that these to are examples of it being banned, which they aren't, the others still aren't. 2 out of 8 is not a good score.


Here's what will happen. I waste the time and effort to go back and find the posts where I point out all the exact same stuff. You ignore this and ask yet more questions and more demands for proof of pedantic points. Rinse and repeat.

Be honest weisses we both know it would be pointless.

For reference the points have been made here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85182183&postcount=233
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85183246&postcount=239
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85184303&postcount=249

You will now either ignore them or move the goalpost and then demand answers to your questions while ignoring mine.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ban

verb (bans, banning, banned)
[with object]

officially or legally prohibit (something):

Does that apply to the 2 examples i have given ?

If not why not

All the links you posted you go on about your definition of the word "banned"

Not much to go on Im affraid

You said

King Mob wrote: »

Because this claim has been made and debunked several times, yet anti fluordiationists still keep using it.

Where is it debunked ?
What is false about the claim that water fluoridation in Sweden and the Netherlands is officially or legally prohibited

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ban

verb (bans, banning, banned)
[with object]

officially or legally prohibit (something):

Does that apply to the 2 examples i have given ?

If not why not

No.
Because neither of the two letters you point to say anything about it being legally or officially prohibited. One states that there is no basis for the government doing it and another says that it is "not allowed" but makes no reference to what this actually entails.
If these things meant the same as "banned" then you would have no issue with using the exact phrasing used in the documents. However you believe that "banned" sounds more impressive and scary, hence why you are twisting what is actually said. If this is not the case, then please explain why you have an issue using the exact phrasing as it is written.

If you wish to show unequivically that it is banned you're going to have to show the legislation from these countries that specifically officially or legally prohibits fluoridation.

This would be easy to do. But then since fluoridation isn't actually banned anywhere, you're not going to find it. Hence why anti fluoridation cranks need to rely on twisting the words of people.

weisses wrote: »

All the links you posted you go on about your definition of the word "banned"

Not much to go on Im affraid

You said


Where is it debunked ?

See, you're just ignoring it. Effort wasted to the surprise of noone.

weisses wrote: »

What is false about the claim that water fluoridation in Sweden and the Netherlands is officially or legally prohibited

The fact that it is not officially or legal prohibited. There is no laws in those countries stating that it is prohibited or banned or illegal.

And then, that's 2 out of 8 countries.
Do you agree that fluoridation is in fact not banned in the other 6? (I ask knowing full well you aren't going to give a straight answer.)

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No.
Because neither of the two letters you point to say anything about it being legally or officially prohibited. One states that there is no basis for the government doing it

No it says "supreme court ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation" ...
How would you describe something there is no legal base for ?

King Mob wrote: »

and another says that it is "not allowed" but makes no reference to what this actually entails.

Fluoridation of drinking water in Sweden is not allowed due to repeal in 1971 of the drinking water fluoridation act of issued in1962

What does "not allowed" mean to you ?

King Mob wrote: »

If you wish to show that it is banned you're going to have to show the legislation from these countries that specifically officially or legally prohibits fluoridation.

It is not allowed ... references to official documents are presented as well

King Mob wrote: »

This would be easy to do. But then since fluoridation isn't actually banned anywhere, you're not going to find it. Hence why anti fluoridation cranks need to rely on twisting the words of people.

So its not banned or officially or legally prohibited in these 2 examples. anyone can ad fluoride to the water there without consequences ??

King Mob wrote: »

See, you're just ignoring it. Effort wasted to the surprise of noone.w

What am i ignoring ... I asked where it was debunked ... you come up with links giving your opinion .... Thats not even close to debunking something

King Mob wrote: »

And then, that's 2 out of 8 countries.
Do you agree that fluoridation is in fact not banned in the other 6? (I ask knowing full well you aren't going to give a straight answer.)

I already busted 2 ... at least your covering yourself already

Im sure there are more countries that officially or legally prohibit the use of fluoridated water

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No it says "supreme court ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation" ...
How would you describe something there is no legal base for ?

Fluoridation of drinking water in Sweden is not allowed due to repeal in 1971 of the drinking water fluoridation act of issued in1962

What does "not allowed" mean to you ?

It is not allowed ... references to official documents are presented as well

So its not banned or officially or legally prohibited in these 2 examples. anyone can ad fluoride to the water there without consequences ??

I have already explained the word games people are playing on you it's pointless repeating points you are unwilling and incapable to responding to.

Please provide the specific laws and legislation from those countries that officially or legally prohibit fluoridation.

weisses wrote: »

What am i ignoring ... I asked where it was debunked ... you come up with links giving your opinion .... Thats not even close to debunking something

You are ignoring the points I made. They were not addressed and repeatedly ignored. You're failing to address the points now.

The points stand, the points refute the claims, thus the claims are debunked.

weisses wrote: »

I already busted 2 ... at least your covering yourself already

Im sure there are more countries that officially or legally prohibit the use of fluoridated water

See, it was a yes or no question but you couldn't give a straight answer.

So can you then provide the laws and legislation from those countries that officially or legally prohibit fluoridation as well as for the two that you think you've "busted"?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Because this claim has been made and debunked several times, yet anti fluordiationists still keep using it.

But just to get it clear

Where is this debunked? other then your view on it

Links, reports whatever .. show them here and i would be more then willing to look into it

Because if those claims are debunked there must be references to law etc

Same thing you asking me to provide

would save us both a lot of time

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

But just to get it clear

Where is this debunked? other then your view on it

Links, reports whatever .. show them here and i would be more then willing to look into it

Because if those claims are debunked there must be references to law etc

Same thing you asking me to provide

would save us both a lot of time

First and foremost the claim that it is banned in Europe is unsupported as no one has posted the legislation from any country that states it's banned.

The only thing that is provided that even nears supporting this claim are letters from 2 out of 8+ countries from the original claim.

I posted links to my posts pointing out this lack of support and where I show that the wording of these letters are being twisted and distorted.
That is where it is debunked.
Just calling it opinion while ignoring the points does not make it go away. No one has addressed the points.

But you know what would save us even more time? You just posting the legislation that specifically prohibits fluoridation from all 8 of those countries claimed.

Unless you post that, there's nothing more to discuss because the claim will be unsupported, shown to be unsupported and therefore shown to be a lie.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I have already explained the word games people are playing on you it's pointless repeating points you are unwilling and incapable to responding to.

The only one playing word games is you.. You have Letters with names of government officials referring to acts/laws in their countrys you can verify it yourself

King Mob wrote: »

Please provide the specific laws and legislation from those countries that officially or legally prohibit fluoridation.

When a supreme court ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. Thats enough for me

King Mob wrote: »

You are ignoring the points I made. They were not addressed and repeatedly ignored. You're failing to address the points now.

I am not but they are just your points .. nothing more then your own opinion on it

King Mob wrote: »

The points stand, the points refute the claims, thus the claims are debunked.

No its just your view on it ... nothing more ..

King Mob wrote: »

See, it was a yes or no question but you couldn't give a straight answer.

Where was the yes or no question ... must have missed that one where is it?

King Mob wrote: »

So can you then provide the laws and legislation from those countries that officially or legally prohibit fluoridation as well as for the two that you think you've "busted"?

You claim they are debunked so you must posses more information to make that claim ... If you show them to me it would save us a lot of time

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

First and foremost the claim that it is banned in Europe is unsupported as no one has posted the legislation from any country that states it's banned.

The only thing that is provided that even nears supporting this claim are letters from 2 out of 8+ countries from the original claim.

I posted links to my posts pointing this out and were I show that the wording of these letters are being twisted and distorted.
That is were it is debunked.
Just calling it opinion while ignoring the points does not make it go away.

But you know what would save us even more time? You just posting the legislation that specifically prohibits fluoridation from all 8 of those countries claimed.

Unless you post that, there's nothing more to discuss because the claim will be unsupported, shown to be unsupported and therefore shown to be a lie.

No
You said

King Mob wrote: »

Because this claim has been made and debunked several times, yet anti fluordiationists still keep using it.

Where is the information leading to the debunking of that claim ( other then your own view on it)

You said it not me

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No
You said

Where is the information leading to the debunking of that claim ( other then your own view on it)

You said it not me

Weisses I again refer you to the post you just ignored. I explain how my posts or "my views" debunk the claim and propose a way to get the discussion on track and for you prove your point easily.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Weisses I again refer you to the post you just ignored. I explain how my posts or "my views" debunk the claim and propose a way to get the discussion on track and for you prove your point easily.

No

spouting an ill informed opinion is different then claiming to have debunked something

I provided letters from government officials referring to acts and legislation also stating that fluoridation is not allowed and a supreme court telling that there is no legal basis for fluoridation ... All backed up by verifiable references

You come up with 3 posts earlier in the thread where you supposedly debunk the in your view false claim that countries officially or legally prohibit the use of fluoridated water

When asked how you debunked it you provide nothing, other then your opinion (which you are entitled of of course)

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No

spouting an ill informed opinion is different then claiming to have debunked something

I provided letters from government officials referring to acts and legislation also stating that fluoridation is not allowed and a supreme court telling that there is no legal basis for fluoridation ... All backed up by verifiable references

You come up with 3 posts earlier in the thread where you supposedly debunk the in your view false claim that countries officially or legally prohibit the use of fluoridated water

When asked how you debunked it you provide nothing, other then your opinion (which you are entitled of of course)

It's not opinion weisess, it's an explanation of how the words are being twisted to cover the fact that you and other anti science campaigners can't actually provide what you need to provide: Legislation specifically banning fluoridation.
The letters don't contain it and the legislation does not exist in any of the countries listed.

The only way you can counter this point is to produce this exact legislation for each of the 8 countries listed.
Please do so, otherwise the discussion simply cannot continue.

If you can't do so, then my point stands.

alphamule

At the end of the day the majority of European countries STOPPED the process of water fluoridation.

Debating the word banned etc is just being petty and show a lack of argument!

What do you want, a conference call to hear it from the horses mouth.

I am completely pro science to an extent. What I am against is mass medication using a chemical which we are not entirely sure is safe or effective.

Whats wrong with that?

King mobs keeps saying the word debunk but he actually debunked nothing. When questioned about it he simply insists that he has already debunked the statement.

But he hasnt!

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

It's not opinion weisess, it's an explanation of how the words are being twisted to cover the fact that you and other anti science campaigners can't actually provide what you need to provide: Legislation specifically banning fluoridation.
The letters don't contain it and the legislation does not exist in any of the countries listed.

The only way you can counter this point is to produce this exact legislation for each of the 8 countries listed.
Please do so, otherwise the discussion simply cannot continue.

If you can't do so, then my point stands.

No sorry

In order to debunk something you need to come up with more then your opinion ... as in how he got it wrong ... present more then just what you think, otherwise its just your opinion on what someone else posted

example

22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation.

Did you research the case and found evidence to debunk the fact fluoridated water in The Netherlands is banned

If there is no legal basis for water fluoridation ... what does that mean to you ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

No sorry

In order to debunk something you need to come up with more then your opinion ... as in how he got it wrong ... present more then just what you think, otherwise its just your opinion on what someone else posted

example

22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation.

Did you research the case and found evidence to debunk the fact fluoridated water in The Netherlands is banned

If there is no legal basis for water fluoridation ... what does that mean to you ?

It could mean each municipal council gets to decide itself rather than having fluoridation mandatory.

Anyways what was the basis for this decision given research since the 70's has established the safety and efficacy of fluoridation.

jh79

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/11/flouride-tap-water-southampton

Recent UK ruling.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It could mean each municipal council gets to decide itself rather than having fluoridation mandatory.

That is something we can only speculate on

jh79 wrote: »

Anyways what was the basis for this decision given research since the 70's has established the safety and efficacy of fluoridation.

I don't know ..one should find out how to access that case ... i don't even know its online

alphamule

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/11/flouride-tap-water-southampton

Recent UK ruling.

http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990817225011

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/11/flouride-tap-water-southampton

Recent UK ruling.

Yup every country has its own view (legal stance) on it

alphamule

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/pineal/

Another interesting article.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yup every country has its own view (legal stance) on it

But the more recent ruling is based on a larger body of research and is therefore more relevant.
The judge couldn't find any legal reason to stop fluoridation.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But the more recent ruling is based on a larger body of research and is therefore more relevant.
The judge couldn't find any legal reason to stop fluoridation.

In that particular ruling yeah

More relevant to what ?

jh79

You claimed it is banned in holland due to a ruling in 1970's.

I can't check at the mo if you said this but some people like to ask "why is it banned in Europe if it is not toxic".

The UK ruling deemed fluoridation legal based on research up to 2011. I'd imagine toxicity would be a legal reason to stop fluoridation. The judge didn't see any risk I assume.

Seems relevant to the overall debate to me.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

The only way you can counter this point is to produce this exact legislation for each of the 8 countries listed.
Please do so, otherwise the discussion simply cannot continue.

If you can't do so, then my point stands.

The Judge of the supreme court in the case i mentioned must have ruled within legislation to say that there was no legal basis for water fluoridation and if you don't believe it there is even a number referring to the case

So ... there goes your point

And stop with demanding stuff ... you can apparently claim to debunk things just because you said so ....but everyone else must provide links/evidence ...etc

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You claimed it is banned in holland due to a ruling in 1970's.

Its fact ... not my claim

jh79 wrote: »

The UK ruling deemed fluoridation legal based on research up to 2011. I'd imagine toxicity would be a legal reason to stop fluoridation. The judge didn't see any risk I assume.

Seems relevant to the overall debate to me.

Refusing the claim for judicial review, the judge expressed sympathy for people like Milner who disagreed with fluoridation but said he had not been able to conclude that there had been any illegality in the decision-making process. Parliament has decided that water can be flouridated in certain circumstances and the approval of a majority of the local population was not needed for that, he said. "This SHA have not acted unlawfully and no court can interfere with their decision."

Its based on existing law not some new research

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Its fact ... not my claim



Refusing the claim for judicial review, the judge expressed sympathy for people like Milner who disagreed with fluoridation but said he had not been able to conclude that there had been any illegality in the decision-making process. Parliament has decided that water can be flouridated in certain circumstances and the approval of a majority of the local population was not needed for that, he said. "This SHA have not acted unlawfully and no court can interfere with their decision."

Its based on existing law not some new research

I'm assuming that the women who brought the injunction believed it contravened that law because she believed it was a form of mass medication and a health risk.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I'm assuming that the women who brought the injunction believed it contravened that law because she believed it was a form of mass medication and a health risk.

Why don't you find out the points brought to the case and the exact reasons why the judge didn't rule in her favor

But you cannot compare this case with the situation in other country's

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Why don't you find out the points brought to the case and the exact reasons why the judge didn't rule in her favor

But you cannot compare this case with the situation in other country's

You use the word "banned" to imply that fluoridation isn't safe. This is a recent example where a judge couldn't find a legal reason to stop fluoridation. Granted I'm assuming the issue of legality was based around health and safety and mass medication.

jh79

Anyways whether a country fluoridates or not has no bearing on whether it is a safe and effective option.

Hypothetical question,

Your granted a meeting with the minister for health and his scientific advisor , what would be your main argument agaisnt fluoridation?

How would you try to convince them that Prof Whelton et al were wrong to recommend the continuation of fluoridation?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

The Judge of the supreme court in the case i mentioned must have ruled within legislation to say that there was no legal basis for water fluoridation and if you don't believe it there is even a number referring to the case

So ... there goes your point

And stop with demanding stuff ... you can apparently claim to debunk things just because you said so ....but everyone else must provide links/evidence ...etc

Ok, lets ignore for a moment that I have explained several times how "no legal basis" is not the same as a ban. I'd only be repeating myself and you aren't going to accept this point.

That's one of 8 claimed countries.
Are you going to post the legislation for the other 7?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, lets ignore for a moment that I have explained several times how "no legal basis" is not the same as a ban. I'd only be repeating myself and you aren't going to accept this point.

That's one of 8 claimed countries.
Are you going to post the legislation for the other 7?

I already with little effort showed that your debunking claim is based on nothing

Why don't you show me the research done in how you debunked the rest

Its quicker and safes me lots of time and needless postings.

And again .. please explain what it means to you when a supreme court judge rules there is no legal basis for something

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You use the word "banned" to imply that fluoridation isn't safe.

Different country's use different reason not to allow (ban) fluoride

jh79 wrote: »

This is a recent example where a judge couldn't find a legal reason to stop fluoridation. Granted I'm assuming the issue of legality was based around health and safety and mass medication.

You do to much assuming on verifiable cases

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I already with little effort showed that your debunking claim is based on nothing

Why don't you show me the research done in how you debunked the rest

Its quicker and safes me lots of time and needless postings.

And again .. please explain what it means to you when a supreme court judge rules there is no legal basis for something

I have answered these questions several times.

You however are clearly unable to provide what I ask for because no such legislation exists.
Fluoride is not banned anywhere, you are unable to to show it is.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I have answered these questions several times.

No you have not

You claimed to have debunked it yet its only your opinion
I presented facts making your opinion just your opinion

King Mob wrote: »

You however are clearly unable to provide what I ask for because no such legislation exists.
Fluoride is not banned anywhere, you are unable to to show it is.

I did

A supreme court judge cannot say there is no legal basis for water fluoridation without the legislation in place to warrant that verdict

With that ruling in mind i can safely say that the body responsible for the water supply in The Netherlands is legally prohibited to add fluoride to the water.

If you disagree state why and produce relevant documentation that support your reason why you would disagree

So if you could please stop wasting everybody's time and present facts to support your opinion ... Just as i did, otherwise just say its an opinion based only on what you believe

Thanks

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No you have not

You claimed to have debunked it yet its only your opinion
I presented facts making your opinion just your opinion

I did

A supreme court judge cannot say there is no legal basis for water fluoridation without the legislation in place to warrant that verdict

With that ruling in mind i can safely say that the body responsible for the water supply in The Netherlands is legally prohibited to add fluoride to the water.

If you disagree state why and produce relevant documentation that support your reason why you would disagree

So if you could please stop wasting everybody's time and present facts to support your opinion ... Just as i did, otherwise just say its an opinion based only on what you believe

Thanks

Can you please post the legislation for the other seven countries claimed?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Can you please post the legislation for the other seven countries claimed?

No

why don't you present the facts in how you debunked the claim

I already debunked the debunker once and i am not gonna waste my time on someone who is claiming his opinion as being fact

You surely must have looked into the legislation yourself ... otherwise you couldn't claim to have debunked it in the first place

So you actually agree that water fluoridation in the Netherlands is banned? yes or no would do

Again share your research in how you debunked the banning claim (that would save us all a lot of time)

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No

why don't you present the facts in how you debunked the claim

I already debunked the debunker once and i am not gonna waste my time on someone who is claiming his opinion as being fact

You surely must have looked into the legislation yourself ... otherwise you couldn't claim to have debunked it in the first place

So again share your research(that would save us all a lot of time)

I did. None exists.
If it did, that's what all the anti fluoridation sites would be posting, and what you'd be parroting uncritically instead of two examples of twisted wording.

Surely if you are claiming that it is banned in 8 countries (or agreeing with that claim since you aren't giving it any scrutiny at all) then you must have found this legislation for all 8 countries. Yet you are wasting time with pedantry and word games instead of just posting something that would show beyond all doubt that fluoride is banned.

So why not stop playing games and post the legislation form all 8 countries?

Cause posting anything besides this is a dead giveaway that you can do no such thing, illustrating 1. that there is no such legislation, debunking the claim. 2. showing your hypocrisy because of your demands to me and others while ignoring the failures of your camp.

weisses wrote: »

So you actually agree that water fluoridation in the Netherlands is banned? yes or no would do

Lol, the irony of you demanding I answer a yes or no question.
No, I do not believe it is banned in the Netherlands because there is no legislation prohibiting it. It is not done in the Netherlands because the courts found there is no legal basis for requiring that the government do it. This is different from banning it.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I did. None exists.
If it did, that's what all the anti fluoridation sites would be posting, and what you'd be parroting uncritically instead of two examples of twisted wording.

What twisted wording is used in the 2 examples

King Mob wrote: »

Surely if you are claiming that it is banned in 8 countries (or agreeing with that claim since you aren't giving it any scrutiny at all) then you must have found this legislation for all 8 countries. Yet you are wasting time with pedantry and word games instead of just posting something that would show beyond all doubt that fluoride is banned.

I thought it was you who was bragging about it being debunked ... without actually presenting anything to support it

King Mob wrote: »

So why not stop playing games and post the legislation form all 8 countries?

No again my problem lies with your claim that you debunked it without anything to back up what you stated

I already debunked the debunker once with actual facts

You are playing games by turning the matter around

King Mob wrote: »

Cause posting anything besides this is a dead giveaway that you can do no such thing, illustrating 1. that there is no such legislation, debunking the claim. 2. showing your hypocrisy because of your demands to me and others while ignoring the failures of your camp.

Again ... I have to proof nothing All i want is your "scientific" approach into your claim you debunked the banning issue

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, the irony of you demanding I answer a yes or no question.

You are the one saying i don't answer them but when i asked you where you asked me you cannot point it out ... that's Irony
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85823627&postcount=764

King Mob wrote: »

No, I do not believe it is banned in the Netherlands because there is no legislation prohibiting it.

How do you reach that conclusion when a supreme court rules that there is no legal basis for fluoridation ... and please present more then only your opinion this time

King Mob wrote: »

It is not done in the Netherlands because the courts found there is no legal basis for requiring that the government do it. This is different from banning it.

How did you reach that conclusion (also using facts)

Giving your opinion is miles away from actually debunking something

You presented nothing then your own view on the matter I have seen no links to official sources supporting your so called debunking

King Mob

So that's a no on posting the legislation for the 8 countries then?

Because it doesn't exist. Therefore he claim is debunked. Again.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So that's a no on posting the legislation for the 8 countries then?

You are 100 % correct in that

King Mob wrote: »

Because it doesn't exist. Therefore he claim is debunked. Again.

How do you know it doesn't exist ? Do you really need the CT community to do the Homework you should have done yourself before you claimed to have debunked it

Again in my last post i asked you valid questions regarding your own claims in your postings ... you couldn't even answer them


It started with asking a simple question here regarding your claim of debunking it
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85821257&postcount=729

You have not answered it .. But what happened is that you turned around the question and asking proof for legislation ... something you must have done yourself to make your claim about debunking it a valid one

I on the other hand could actually show you that the body responsible for the water supply in The Netherlands is legally prohibited to add fluoride to the water in other words Banned from using it

So no more games please

And again don't turn your opinion into facts without the evidence to back it up

jh79

@weisses,

In fairness King Mob is right if a law existed the anti-fluoride brigade would post evidence of that rather that the open to interpretation high court ruling.

alphamule

jh79 wrote: »

@weisses,

In fairness King Mob is right if a law existed the anti-fluoride brigade would post evidence of that rather that the open to interpretation high court ruling.

Well can you explain why so many countries discontinued the process?

jh79

@weisses,

No legal basis for fluoridation could mean unlike chlorination , they may not have the right to fluoridate without consultation.

That ruling was made in then 70's when feck all was known about fluoridation. Since then (admittedly poor in general) studies have fail to highlight any specifc risks even at much higher ppm's and there is some pretty strong correlation evidence that support it's effectiveness.

How does a ruling made in the 70's help your argument that fluoridation should end? 

jh79

alphamule wrote: »

Well can you explain why so many countries discontinued the process?

Fluoridation is approved by the European food council in all its guises. Fluoridated salt and milk is available.

Italy has fluoride levels the same as ours so it is not necessary.

The fluoride from these different sources is the same with the same benefits.

Ireland and Italy are above average in the DMFT tables posted by weisses.

alphamule

jh79 wrote: »

Fluoridation is approved by the European food council in all its guises. Fluoridated salt and milk is available.

Italy has fluoride levels the same as ours so it is not necessary.

The fluoride from these different sources is the same with the same benefits.

Ireland and Italy are above average in the DMFT tables posted by weisses.

It seems they did not agree with mass medication by offering an alternative.

Could you put up some research links that say it is safe.

Another concern I would have is what it is doing to the environment!

Any thoughts?