Fluoride in tap water

King Mob

zenno wrote: »

The whole point is...Give the people the choice on whether they want it or not.

You cannot force it on the population, do you not agree in freedom to choose ?.

Freedom of choice is great and a vote on fluordiation would be fine.
However there is a million more important issues I would prefer the government to address first.

And if there was a vote, do you think that you would be ok with people making very silly claims about fluoridation, like it lowers IQ or causes cancer or was used by the nazis, to scare people into voting against it?

StickyIcky

Exactly

Loving these rational minds in this forum

zenno

jh79 wrote: »

I do agree with freedom to choose as long as the correct information is supplied. The research out there doesn't support the theory that fluoridation is a health risk. The few animal experiments done could only show toxicity at high levels.

I really don't see the big deal if fluoride was removed from the water supply because it is so easy to purchase fluoride if a person or any one needs it, just brush your teeth and you have all the fluoride you want, or use fluoridated salt or whatever, people can have it if they so like.

My gripe with this is more of a moral thinking and i believe strongly that fluoride should not be mandatorily forced on our citizens especially when they are the one's that will be actually paying to be force-medicated, it's just wrong.

Right now i am thirsty and i have no bottled non-fluoridated water so i have no choice now but to drink this fluoride in my tap water, I want the choice to drink un-fluoridated water, but right now i can't. This is what i mean. Why there is such an uproar about the removal of fluoride is beyond me because as i said anyone can purchase it in most supermarkets or stores and the rest of us can enjoy drinking un-fluoridated water, i honestly cannot see why there is a huge problem with this method, and it works for both sides of people, it would be nice just to have the choice wouldn't it ?.

FREETV

King Mob wrote: »

Freedom of choice is great and a vote on fluordiation would be fine.
However there is a million more important issues I would prefer the government to address first.

And if there was a vote, do you think that you would be ok with people making very silly claims about fluoridation, like it lowers IQ or causes cancer or was used by the nazis, to scare people into voting against it?

Did you not watch the video of John Gormley and listen to what the experts told him?

The Government will keep making empty promises, tell lies and do the opposite of what they agreed to do and what would benefit the public the most.

How many of you were taken in and voted for Fine Gael and Labour?
They should all be arrested for treason, along with the previous Government.

zenno

endacl wrote: »

Like vaccination? Look how well that works out when parents make bad decisions based on misinformation and paranoia.

What has vaccinations got to do with the topic at hand

FREETV

zenno wrote: »

I really don't see the big deal if fluoride was removed from the water supply because it is so easy to purchase fluoride if a person or any one needs it, just brush your teeth and you have all the fluoride you want, or use fluoridated salt or whatever, people can have it if they so like.

My gripe with this is more of a moral thinking and i believe strongly that fluoride should not be mandatorily forced on our citizens especially when they are the one's that will be actually paying to be force-medicated, it's just wrong.

Right now i am thirsty and i have no bottled non-fluoridated water so i have no choice now but to drink this fluoride in my tap water, I want the choice to drink un-fluoridated water, but right now i can't. This is what i mean. Why there is such an uproar about the removal of fluoride is beyond me because as i said anyone can purchase it in most supermarkets or stores and the rest of us can enjoy drinking un-fluoridated water, i honestly cannot see why there is a huge problem with this method, and it works for both sides of people, it would be nice just to have the choice wouldn't it ?.

Yes it would, wouldn't it but we don't live in a democracy it is a forced so called democracy state.

FREETV

If we stay united anything will be possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdZlVlshnO4

lan

FREETV wrote: »

Jeez even the ex Health Minister admitted that it caused cancer.

I just watched the clip you posted, he said that a study showed a five times higher rate of bone cancer in children in fluoridated areas, that's not the same thing. While that, of course, sounds terrible, without reading the original study and knowing the detail, we can't draw any conclusions. As ever, correlation does not imply causation. We don't even know the sample size, statistical significance, fluoride concentration levels, etc.

You still haven't answered my other questions.

zenno

It's not a good thing to see some people of which have lost all ethics.

endacl

zenno wrote: »

What has vaccinations got to do with the topic at hand

Give the people the choice....

While I agree with the principle, when people rely on bullsh*t information, they make bullsh*t decisions. That doesn't work out well in large populations. Vaccination was presented as a case in point. Could just as easily been any Irish general election...

FREETV

I have shown you evidence of the toxicity for humans at even low levels, it is even used to make atomic/nuclear bombs.

endacl

FREETV wrote: »

I have shown you evidence of the toxicity for humans at even low levels, it is even used to make atomic/nuclear bombs.

So is water. Lots of stuff is used for lots of things.

King Mob

zenno wrote: »

Why there is such an uproar about the removal of fluoride is beyond me because as i said anyone can purchase it in most supermarkets or stores and the rest of us can enjoy drinking un-fluoridated water, i honestly cannot see why there is a huge problem with this method, and it works for both sides of people, it would be nice just to have the choice wouldn't it ?.

It's not so much the removal people are reacting to, but the anti-science conspiracy theories that are being used to argue that it should be removed. Most of them are laughable and no one believes that they are valid reasons for even bringing up the issue seriously.

If you presented the issue as just the moral and ethical one instead of entertaining nonsense and bad science, people might be more receptive.

But then, since the science shows there is no danger or concern noone would care enough to change the policy.

FREETV

I had fluorosis in my right top/front tooth and neck and shoulder pain which has improved since I stopped drinking tap water and it was the water that caused it which means that the Fluoride levels in Meath and Dublin fluctuate as when the people used to go on holidays in water treatment plants we were told that they increased the amount of fluoride in the water before they left, that happened in Meath.

endacl

FREETV wrote: »

I had fluoridosis in my right top tooth and neck and shoulder pain which has improved since I stopped drinking tap water and it was the water that caused it which means that the Fluoride levels in Meath and Dublin fluctuate as when the people used to go on holidays in water treatment plants we were told that they increased the amount of fluoride in the water before they left.

The whole plant went on holidays at the same time? Come off it.

lan

FREETV wrote: »

I have shown you evidence of the toxicity for humans at even low levels

No you haven't, you have linked to other people claiming that, but shown no evidence.

Can you please answer my question, is there any amount of evidence, articles, peer reviewed studies etc that we can show you that would possibly cause you to change your opinion?

endacl

lan wrote: »

No you haven't, you have linked to other people claiming that, but shown no evidence.

Can you please answer my question, is there any amount of evidence, articles, peer reviewed studies etc that we can show you that would possibly cause you to change your opinion?

Howya Ian. I presume you're the night shift? Best of luck. I'll check back in in the morning.

Take regular breaks.

FREETV

lan wrote: »

No you haven't, you have linked to other people claiming that, but shown no evidence.

Can you please answer my question, is there any amount of evidence, articles, peer reviewed studies etc that we can show you that would possibly cause you to change your opinion?

I doubt it but I am open to proof if there are any sources who aren't paid or follow the orders of tyrants to tell lies in order to stop lawsuits/stop mass panic/outrage.

FREETV

endacl wrote: »

The whole plant went on holidays at the same time? Come off it.

This was like twenty years or more ago in a small town, there was only one person in charge of the fluoridation at the time.
My Mum rang the people in charge to make a complaint about the smell and taste of the water and was told that by a person working there, outrageous I know but true. She also knew one of the workers there who also went on to work at the sewage treatment plant some years later.

lan

FREETV wrote: »

I doubt it but I am open to proof if there are any sources who aren't paid or follow the orders of tyrants to tell lies in order to stop lawsuits/stop mass panic/outrage.

Ok, good, then maybe we can at least have a reasonable discussion.

Firstly, how do you verify whether a source is trust worthy or not?

FREETV

lan wrote: »

Ok, good, then maybe we can at least have a reasonable discussion.

Firstly, how do you verify whether a source is trust worthy or not?

Well, if they have the same interests, compassion for other people in their heart they will tell the truth and seek it out without money being their primary goal.
They would have to be vetted and researched and have the proper qualifications in medicine or science to back up their claims.

lan

Ok, but if you don't know them personally?

This topic has been studied by scientists all over the world, whose works have been published in various different journals. You can't possibly hope to know each author, how do you decide whether you can trust the study or not?

* edit *

Ok, you've edited you're post to say they need to be vetted and have relavent qualifications. Good. That's what peer reviewed journals are for, the papers they publish are vetted by the best in their fields. The vast majority of material you've linked to is not peer reviewed and is not written by experts with academic qualifications, which is why we are so skeptical.

StickyIcky

FREETV wrote: »

Well, if they have the same interests, compassion for other people in their heart they will tell the truth and seek it out without money being their primary goal.
They would have to be vetted and researched and have the proper qualifications in medicine or science to back up their claims.

I have compassion and am truthful etc but I think you're a bit extreme in your beliefs and see what you want to see. You're polarised and can't be reasoned with.

I do believe agree with some of what you're saying but most of what you've said is dubious to say the least. That comment about it being in nuclear weapons. Come on man.

FREETV

http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/fluoridation.htm
I believe this guy. He studied 100 cases and was open minded about both sides of the argument.

zenno

King Mob wrote: »

It's not so much the removal people are reacting to, but the anti-science conspiracy theories that are being used to argue that it should be removed. Most of them are laughable and no one believes that they are valid reasons for even bringing up the issue seriously.

If you presented the issue as just the moral and ethical one instead of entertaining nonsense and bad science, people might be more receptive.

But then, since the science shows there is no danger or concern noone would care enough to change the policy.

With you're attitude i don't see much point in anyone taking you seriously at all, you seem to attack every poster here without providing solid scientific data as to the contrary.

Now you say I am entertaining nonsense, am I. I already left my moral comments on this issue, Have you, or do you even have any morals left with all of the attacks you have forwarded to a few posters.

Don't be assuming or making things up as you go along, instead of constantly attacking others, post relevant data to back yourself up for a change.

SeantheMan

The green party (when it was around) tried to have it banned

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/568?author_name=mike&userlanguage=ga&save_prefs=true

Also check out this site for information

http://www.fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/10-facts/

Green Party Press Office
7 February 2002

GREENS LAUNCH FLUORIDATION BILL TO HALT MASS MEDICATION OF IRISH POPULATION WITH FLUORIDE

The Greens Fluoridation Bill, which is published today, will repeal the current legislation of mass-medicating the Irish population without their consent with the chemical fluoride.

Green Party Dáil Health spokesperson, John Gormley T.D., launching the Bill said, “Today the Green Party is publishing the first ever Bill to repeal the Water Fluoridation Act of 1960. We are appealing to the Minister of Health to stop his prevarication on this issue and to accept the Green Party's Private Members Bill.”

“Water fluoridation is a very serious issue and will become a core issue for the Greens during the election campaign. In post election negotiations the question of water fluoridation is, in our view, a 'non-negotiable'. We would expect this simple piece of legislation to be enacted within the first month of a new government forming. As far we are concerned there is no room for further debate on this issue.”

“The Forum set up by the Minister to examine the issue is a disgraceful waste of tax payers money and is guaranteed to produce a 'white-wash'. It has undermined and delayed the work of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children, which is engaged in compiling its own report on this most important issue. “

“Our objections to water fluoridation are based on a number of factors:

a) We disagree with mass medication on ethical grounds. In our view freedom of choice ought to be an integral part of health care;

b) All studies show that we are not fluoride deficient. In fact, studies carried out in this country show that we have an excess of fluoride which is a toxic substance, in our bodies;

c) There is now a scientific consensus that fluoride does not work systemically, but rather topically and therefore does not need to be ingested;

d) The increase in fluorosis, which is a manifestation of fluoride toxicity, is a real cause of concern;

e) The many reports from all over the world which link fluoride with other health effects.”

Mr. Gormley said that “we believe that the Minister of Health should at all times rely on the precautionary principle, i.e., if there is any doubt, leave it out. And there is a real doubt about fluoride at this stage”.

FREETV

StickyIcky wrote: »

I have compassion and am truthful etc but I think you're a bit extreme in your beliefs and see what you want to see. You're polarised and can't be reasoned with.

I do believe agree with some of what you're saying but most of what you've said is dubious to say the least. That comment about it being in nuclear weapons. Come on man.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/esp_salud34.htm

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/fluoride.htm

Nuclear weapons proof.

FREETV

SeantheMan wrote: »

The green party (when it was around) tried to have it banned

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/568?author_name=mike&userlanguage=ga&save_prefs=true

Yes he was my contacts Boss at the time.

FREETV

Dr Wilson link posted a few posts above should be trustworthy and believable.

FREETV

An overwhelming proof and stance of the harmful toxicity of fluoride is the majority of scientific studies from just Googling the area.

lan

FREETV wrote: »

http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/fluoridation.htm
I believe this guy. He studied 100 cases and was open minded about both sides of the argument.

Also, just because someone else researches something doesn't mean they did a good job of it. Do you know which cases they studied? How were they presented, fairly or by a biased source? They might have read 100 articles by unbiased scientists, or 100 crack pot articles by vested interests trying to sell something.

Even if they have good intentions, it is still easy to draw the wrong conclusions or be misled.

King Mob

zenno wrote: »

With you're attitude i don't see much point in anyone taking you seriously at all, you seem to attack every poster here without providing solid scientific data as to the contrary.

There's little point in providing the scientific evidence for the safety of fluoridation when any study I can provide would be immediately dismissed as part of the conspiracy.

Any other points I have made are simply logical problems I see in the conspiracy theory.

I have not attacked anyone.

zenno wrote: »

Now you say I am entertaining nonsense, am I.

Yes you are. You seem to have no issue with the claims being made about fluoridation which are clearly ridiculous and thank these posts even when you know they contain misinformation.
This is what I call entertaining nonsense.

If I was concerned about the issue and objected to it on moral grounds I would try to tackle such misinformation to make sure that it was not undermining my position.
I don't understand why you have no problem with the conspiracy theories.

StickyIcky

Because something was used in nuclear weapons manufacturer doesn't mean it's deadly dangerous on its own does it? It just means you're throwing around scary words which is sensationalism. Typical tactics used by anti fluoride and conspiracy enthusiasts. Gets no respect from me. You lose my respect and I find it extremely difficult to believe any of your polarised beliefs. My advice, drop that tactic and you might actually have a chance of swaying some one over.

zenno

King Mob wrote: »

There's little point in providing the scientific evidence for the safety of fluoridation when any study I can provide would be immediately dismissed as part of the conspiracy.

Any other points I have made are simply logical problems I see in the conspiracy theory.

I have not attacked anyone.

Yes you are. You seem to have no issue with the claims being made about fluoridation which are clearly ridiculous and thank these posts even when you know they contain misinformation.
This is what I call entertaining nonsense.

If I was concerned about the issue and objected to it on moral grounds I would try to tackle such misinformation to make sure that it was not undermining my position.
I don't understand why you have no problem with the conspiracy theories.

So the post that I thanked regarding fluoride in the foods that were said are wrong ? lol give me a break, the food-stuffs that were commented on by a poster here is exactly correct as they do contain fluoride, this is factual. Do you want to make up some more assumptions ? or produce some scientific arguments and real data ?.


Actually, this is not the correct place for a discussion on fluoride anyway, I forgot i was even in the conspiracy forum there for a while. I'll leave you to it.

lan

FREETV wrote: »

An overwhelming proof and stance of the harmful toxicity of fluoride is the majority of scientific studies from just Googling the area.

No, just googling the area reveals lots of junk science sites all spouting the same misinformation and lies. That is not a majority of scientific studies.

If you want scientific studies, don't use google, use google scholar, and yes, you will find some papers that find links between fluoride and specific health problems, but even then, that's not a scientific consensus. You'll also find plenty of papers testing the same thing with no link.

antybots

lan wrote: »

Also, just because someone else researches something doesn't mean they did a good job of it. Do you know which cases they studied? How were they presented, fairly or by a biased source? They might have read 100 articles by unbiased scientists, or 100 crack pot articles by vested interests trying to sell something.

Even if they have good intentions, it is still easy to draw the wrong conclusions or be misled.

Thank you for finally saying it. That's the problem with the internet age. People develop an interest in a subject, google it, read whatever comes up and then call what they've done 'research'.

Let me tell you that doing that is very, very far from proper research.

Penn

Thread locked pending further mod review

Penn

Okay, even though I haven't been able to fully look over this thread, I'm going to re-open it. From what I've seen so far though, I'd like to point out the following forum rules:

This is not your personal blog. If you're not interested in discussing what it is that you post, then you probably shouldn't be posting it.

This isn't the Debating forum, but it's also not the Creative Writing forum. We're not looking for flights of fancy, but we also don't think that the minutest details of every claim should be held up to the tightest scrutiny. This forum is for the discussion of certain ideas and theories which may not have full supporting evidence behind it.

This isn't a competition. If you're here to win arguments, you're probably in the wrong place. If you're here to mock or antagonize others for what they believe, you're definitely in the wrong place. Using "point-scoring" phrases such as asking other posters to admit that they are wrong, admit you are right, bringing up past things where a poster was wrong, claiming they can't answer your question etc will be viewed as being antagonistic towards other posters and will be actionable by infractions or bans. This is a discussion forum, not a competition.

If you're here to discuss why you believe differently to others... Great. However, comments such as "Anyone who doesn't agree with this is an idiot and is blind to the obvious truth before them" etc are not acceptable. Likewise, posting comments such as "So what's the conspiracy?" or "This conspiracy is nonsense" etc are also not acceptable. If you strongly disagree with a theory or find it to be ridiculous, simply do not post in the thread, and allow others to discuss it if they wish.

jh79

An article that counters some the arguments against water fluoridation from a video produced by www.fluoridealert.org

http://skepticalsounds.blogspot.ie/2013/02/water-fluoridation-myths-conspiracies.html

Dr. Phyllis Mullinex is an known anti-fluoridation advocate. She carried out a study of fluoride toxicity on rats but had to resort to high concentrations to show any adverse effects. Don't believe she followed the study up, In my opinion because her animal model study didn't show the levels of toxicity she was probably hoping her. In reality she proved the safety of fluoride in terms of acute toxicity at low concentrations.

FREETV

She can argue as much as she likes but the fact is that the fluoride added to the water is not naturally occurring fluoride, it is an industrial waste product usually from the steel/Iron and aluminium industry and phosphate fertilisers, so therefore is highly toxic. They use scrubbers to collect this crap to try to stop pollution escaping from the massive chimney pots. http://mbm.net.au/health/antibiotics.htm

Enough said. :mad:

jh79

FREETV wrote: »

She can argue as much as she likes but the fact is that the fluoride added to the water is not naturally occurring fluoride, it is an industrial waste product usually from the steel/Iron and aluminium industry and phosphate fertilisers, so therefore is highly toxic. They use scrubbers to collect this crap to try to stop pollution escaping from the massive chimney pots. http://mbm.net.au/health/antibiotics.htm

Enough said. :mad:

If you are referring to Dr. Mullinex, she is on your side. I just find it amusing that her paper is routinely referred to as proof , on websites you have linked to, that water fluoridation should be stopped when in reality it proves the lack of acute toxicity at low concentrations.

Also there is no such thing as natural fluoride, fluoride is just fluoride any website / person that would use such a term either has a poor understanding of chemistry or is trying to mislead the ignorant.

whydave

whydave wrote: »

So I have one point and two questions :
Point: if we are now to pay for drinking water can we refuse if Fluoride is still added to it ?
Question 1: what is the long term effect of adding Fluoride to tap/ drinking water ?
Question 2 : can it be removed (home kit / filters) ?

Back to the point and questions ........

Sparticle

FREETV wrote: »

She can argue as much as she likes but the fact is that the fluoride added to the water is not naturally occurring fluoride, it is an industrial waste product usually from the steel/Iron and aluminium industry and phosphate fertilisers, so therefore is highly toxic. They use scrubbers to collect this crap to try to stop pollution escaping from the massive chimney pots. http://mbm.net.au/health/antibiotics.htm

Enough said. :mad:

Fluoride ions do not know if they're natural or not. There isn't a magical "natural" switch on every molecule and atom that can turn their chemical properties from healthy to harmful.

Dosage makes the poison.

jh79

whydave wrote: »

Back to the point and questions ........

Point 1: We can't have separate supplies so it would be a case of take it or leave it, unless public opinion causes it to be removed from the entire supply. I think this is unlikely, any decent journalists would see this is a non issue. HOTPRESS are running a campaign but the articles have been a joke no different to the nonsense you would see on fluoride alert and the like.

Question 1: There are no health issues associated with water fluoridation at the concentrations we use.

Question 2: I would be suspicious of anyone selling these given the websites that promote them. Also how do these work? Would they remove just fluorine? Pure water wouldn't be healthy.

Slugs

Right, so we have both sides of the fence here. I'd like to try a little project or research study, perhaps one of you fine gentlemen or ladies would be interested in helping me do this.

I want to compare a country that flouridates and one that doesn't. Preferably two that are equal in size, population and with an equal enough population density, GDP per capita, level of recession etc. Next, I would like to compare frequency of dental issues of which Fluoride is meant to contribute, i.e. cavities, etc. I would then like to compare historical data of the flouridated country and find out can we attribute the increase in dental health specifically to the fluoridation of the water supply or are other factors contributory? For example, and increase in dental hygiene among children, dietary changes etc.

I'm not a dental expert, I know next to nothing on the topic as most of you do. I'm also against the idea of water fluoridation, though I'm open on the topic if the evidence stands to light.

So, any takers?

whydave

jh79 wrote: »

Point 1: We can't have separate supplies so it would be a case of take it or leave it, unless public opinion causes it to be removed from the entire supply.

Please note I am a member of the 'public' and it is my 'opinion' that I don't want to pay to have a waste product add to my water supply and yes I have written to my local TD.

jh79 wrote: »

Question 1: There are no health issues associated with water fluoridation at the concentrations we use.

have you any research to back this up ?

jh79 wrote: »

Question 2: I would be suspicious of anyone selling these given the websites that promote them. Also how do these work? Would they remove just fluorine? Pure water wouldn't be healthy.

read that about the first car, TV, microwave smart phone sale 'person'.

tootsy70

IMO, the human body wasnt designed to put this sh1te through its system. The stuff is poison and the sooner we get rid of it, the better.

jh79

whydave wrote: »

Please note I am a member of the 'public' and it is my 'opinion' that I don't want to pay to have a waste product add to my water supply and yes I have written to my local TD.


have you any research to back this up ?


read that about the first car, TV, microwave smart phone sale 'person'.

But only a small but vocal minority want change, majority rules.

The research is freely available , not a single paper exists that shows acute toxicity at lower concentrations or any direct links to adverse effects over a longer period of time. The papers referenced by fluoride alert don't give a convincing argument against fluoridation that's why they resort to nonsense about "natural", "toxic waste" fluoride, Nazi stuff etc. It is a CT bourne out of cold war paranoia.

Based on the above you would have to question the integrity of people selling these filters to remove fluoride.

jh79

tootsy70 wrote: »

IMO, the human body wasnt designed to put this sh1te through its system. The stuff is poison and the sooner we get rid of it, the better.

Scientific studies say otherwise. Fluoride is present in water anyways how to you intend to counter this ?

tootsy70

jh79 wrote: »

Scientific studies say otherwise. Fluoride is present in water anyways how to you intend to counter this ?

Not its not