Israel Bans Fluoride on Health Grounds.

LivelineDipso

Irish Civil Servants soon the only group left on Earth who will be supporting this absurd policy.

GrumPy

Link OP?

keano_afc

Israel does something the majority of people on boards might support.

OP, I think you just killed the internet.

I Heart Internet

If Israel jumped off a cliff, would you do the same OP?

Christ the Redeemer

keano_afc wrote: »

Israel does something the majority of people on boards might support.

What? Every time fluoride is brought up here or anywhere for that matter on the internet, you are met with howls of derision.

SEPT 23 1989

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Irish Civil Servants soon the only group left on Earth who will be supporting this absurd policy.

keeps us all docile thats why

biko

I give this two pages before it's about occupied land.

humanji

biko wrote: »

I give this two pages before it's about occupied land.

Bit optimistic.

Sunglasses Ron

Anti fluoridation is a Jewish conspiracy to force us to visit their dentists on a more regular basis.

Christ the Redeemer

It's always made me suspicious why everyday folks have such an emotional reaction to anyone calling the use of mass medication in our water supply into question.

conorhal

Well, gone is your free annual cleaning and just try and find a dentist that takes on PRSI cases. At the rate this government is cutting health services the only think keeping peoples teeth in their heads will be the fluoride!

If they ban fizzy drinks, then they can get rid of the fluoride.

humanji

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

It's always made me suspicious why everyday folks have such an emotional reaction to anyone calling the use of mass medication in our water supply into question.

Or why so many oppose it on the grounds of hearsay?

Personally, I'd worry about whether or not it's cost effective.

Kylo Ren

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

It's always made me suspicious why everyday folks have such an emotional reaction to anyone calling the use of mass medication in our water supply into question.

Coming from a man who gets people to drink his blood and eat his body.

Christ the Redeemer

humanji wrote: »

Or why so many oppose it on the grounds of hearsay?

Personally, I'd worry about whether or not it's cost effective.

I oppose mass medication of any kind. There was talk in America of adding ****ing lithium to the water supply. Experts telling the Dáil Éireann they should consider it too. Complete with glowing media reports about how it would reduce crime and suicide.

Huxley is rolling in his ****ing grave. You're called a conspiracy nut for thinking people in power want powerless docile robots to control.

humanji

But you're opposing something on principle without questioning what it is, or whether or not it's worth it. Best to research things than jump to conclusions either for or against.

Christ the Redeemer

humanji wrote: »

But you're opposing something on principle without questioning what it is, or whether or not it's worth it. Best to research things that jump to conclusions either for or against.

I've read studies that call Fluoride's tooth protecting properties into question. As well as a Harvard meta study which raises the spectre of Neurotoxicity.

It has been my experience that any time this issue is raised, people get defensive and start calling the "conspiracy theorists" ill informed and 9 times out of 10 it's by some google warrior who simply has an ideological need to believe that whatever the government decides is for the best.

Once again you make an assumption about what I have read or not read on the subject.

humanji

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

I've read studies that call Fluoride's tooth protecting properties into question. As well as a Harvard meta study which raises the spectre of Neurotoxicity.

But that's not why you said you're against it.

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

It has been my experience that any time this issue is raised, people get defensive and start calling the "conspiracy theorists" ill informed and 9 times out of 10 it's by some google warrior who simply has an ideological need to believe that whatever the government decides is for the best.

This goes for the extremists on both sides of the argument.

Christ the Redeemer

I said I oppose mass medication of any kind.

humanji

And that's why it's better to know what you oppose instead of just assuming it's bad. Same goes for blindly supporting something. What if, for example, fluoride was saving millions of lives and you're opposing it could cause these people to die?

Seaneh

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Irish Civil Servants soon the only group left on Earth who will be supporting this absurd policy.

Do you have a link for this OP?

I'd rather like to see why they made the decision.

Christ the Redeemer

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-to-stop-mandatory-fluoridation-of-water-within-one-year.premium-1.515035

Robbo

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

I've read studies that call Fluoride's tooth protecting properties into question. As well as a Harvard meta study which raises the spectre of Neurotoxicity.

It has been my experience that any time this issue is raised, people get defensive and start calling the "conspiracy theorists" ill informed and 9 times out of 10 it's by some google warrior who simply has an ideological need to believe that whatever the government decides is for the best.

Once again you make an assumption about what I have read or not read on the subject.

Of course none of the anti-fluoride lobby could be described as google warriors. Oh no. A couple of Youtube videos, an "alternative health practitioner" with internet bought qualifications and linking to a study which reaches the exact opposite conclusion to them are far more reliable.

As an aside, telling a conspiracy nut that Israel's against fluoridation is like telling a Daily Mail reader that asylum seekers are the natural prey of paedophiles.

humanji

Seaneh wrote: »

Do you have a link for this OP?

I'd rather like to see why they made the decision.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Israel-Will-Stop-Fluoridat-by-Fluoride-Action-Ne-130811-827.html

Christ the Redeemer's link seems to be behind a pay wall.

darkhorse

humanji wrote: »

Or why so many oppose it on the grounds of hearsay?

Personally, I'd worry about whether or not it's cost effective.

I wonder how many countries in Europe have water fluoridation, apart from us.

Christ the Redeemer

darkhorse wrote: »

I wonder how many countries in Europe have water fluoridation, apart from us.

I think some put it in their table salt rather than the water.

revz

Robbo wrote: »

As an aside, telling a conspiracy nut that Israel's against fluoridation is like telling a Daily Mail reader that asylum seekers are the natural prey of paedophiles.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/9237a0c3d2944b9c985deb9ae288db3b/tumblr_ml9j9qhjPX1s9h0qro1_400.gif

humanji

darkhorse wrote: »

I wonder how many countries in Europe have water fluoridation, apart from us.

Not many. Mostly because it's been shown that it's not as beneficial as it was originally claimed. Not because it's a deadly poison/mind control drug.

darkhorse

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

I think some put it in their table salt rather than the water.

Given them a choice whether they want to ingest it.

wandatowell

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

It's always made me suspicious why everyday folks

Is that why you haven't shown up yet?

Splendour

With the introduction of water charges in Ireland in the near future I think we should be given a choice to have it fluoridated or not.

Christ the Redeemer

Robbo wrote: »

Of course none of the anti-fluoride lobby could be described as google warriors. Oh no. A couple of Youtube videos, an "alternative health practitioner" with internet bought qualifications and linking to a study which reaches the exact opposite conclusion to them are far more reliable.

As an aside, telling a conspiracy nut that Israel's against fluoridation is like telling a Daily Mail reader that asylum seekers are the natural prey of paedophiles.

I won't sugar coat it. a lot of times the anti flouride brigade online are basically neo John Birch types who think it's all a dastardly plan to mind control humans into accepting the UN led world government order. So yea, I don't doubt you run into a few nutters when this comes up.

It ruins my **** that literally any legitimate questions about it get tangled up with these lot. Question the US handling of 9/11? you must be one of those loose change fellows...

Conspiracy wrapped in intrigue here, but, if I was running the place I would make up outrageous conspiracies about every questionable decision I ever took. It's like plate armour.

Jimoslimos

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

I've read studies that call Fluoride's tooth protecting properties into question. As well as a Harvard meta study which raises the spectre of Neurotoxicity.

It has been my experience that any time this issue is raised, people get defensive and start calling the "conspiracy theorists" ill informed and 9 times out of 10 it's by some google warrior who simply has an ideological need to believe that whatever the government decides is for the best.

Once again you make an assumption about what I have read or not read on the subject.

Given that you decided to bring that Harvard paper into the discussion I am going to safely assume that you haven't read it (or if you have, then failed to understand it). Did you see the words "Harvard" "Fluoride" and "Neurotoxicity" and automatically believe it strengthened your argument?

humanji wrote: »

Personally, I'd worry about whether or not it's cost effective.

I am broadly pro-fluoridation, but if there is to be a case to made for it's removal from the water supply (or should I say non-addition) then cost-effectiveness in relation to other public health measures will be where it's made.

darkhorse

humanji wrote: »

Not many. Mostly because it's been shown that it's not as beneficial as it was originally claimed.

Maybe also because there were some ethical considerations, as in, most European may have decided it would be unjust to force their population's to pay a charge for a medicated water supply.

humanji

darkhorse wrote: »

Maybe also because there were some ethical considerations, as in, most European may have decided it would be unjust to force their population's to pay a charge for a medicated water supply.

Not a reason I've seen them use.

Jimoslimos

darkhorse wrote: »

Maybe also because there were some ethical considerations, as in, most European may have decided it would be unjust to force their population's to pay a charge for a medicated water supply.

I guess they should be allowed to choose whether it's chlorinated as well :rolleyes:

Christ the Redeemer

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Given that you decided to bring that Harvard paper into the discussion I am going to safely assume that you haven't read it (or if you have, then failed to understand it). Did you see the words "Harvard" "Fluoride" and "Neurotoxicity" and automatically believe it strengthened your argument?

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/

Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.


Jimoslimos

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/

*sigh*

We can all read abstracts. Have you read the paper in full?

Christ the Redeemer

Jimoslimos wrote: »

*sigh*

We can all read abstracts. Have you read the paper in full?

You can make your point by showing it says says "High exposure" in the abstract's conclusions. I'm sure everyone who cares knows you're a smarty pants.

HurtLocker

Noooo! Not this conspiracy thread again! Dodgy reports, links to reports that don't give quantitys. No reports which will tell us what 0.6ppm per litre actual does. Just propaganda and scaremongering.

Dihydrogen monoxide. That's the killer.

Jimoslimos

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

You can make your point by showing it says says "High exposure" in the abstracts conclusions. I'm sure everyone who cares knows you're a smarty pants.

Why thank you! I've never been called smart before (even as an insult!).

A few questions:
a) Is this study related to fluoridation?
b) How do the levels (control and high exposure) compare to those seen in Ireland?
c) Do you think a measure of intelligence as much maligned and discredited as an "IQ test" can be used as an accurate indicator of neurotoxicity?

JJayoo

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I guess they should be allowed to choose whether it's chlorinated as well :rolleyes:

Chlorine serves a beneficial function in water, once swallowed Fluoride does not provide a benefit.

The argument isn't against Fluoride, if it was then toothpaste/mouthwash would get bashed. The argument is that Fluoride serves so benefit once ingested into the bloodstream, and there have been zero studies into the affect(if any)that Fluoride has on the Pineal gland.

Luke 2001 showed for the first time that Fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland. Her paper was simply to show if it did accumulate there. Since then there has been no research on whether or not this has an inpact. The Pineal gland is one of the few parts of the brain which is located outside the blood brain barrier so it isn't protected. Her studies showed that inside the Pineal gland the concentration of Fluroide was almost equivalent to that found in teeth.

There was also a pretty recent study carried out comparing the teeth of children in the North and South. The study/report showed that incidences of fluorosis were much higher in the republic and that there was no evidence of children in the republic (fluoridated area) having better dental health. Though under the section of fluoridated water the report said that it was a positive thing even though it's findings suggested otherwise

My opinion is that we should simply follow the European model. Let manufactures put fluoride in some of their products and that way people have the choice. It would also save the tax payer 4 million ? a year.

danniemcq

http://theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=368

From 20 mins in.

It doesn't lower your IQ and it doesn't make you mindless drones, anytime i think of something like this i think who stands to gain? Big Fluoride?

Wouldn't EVERY dentist worldwide be coming out against this?

In the US alone it saves 3.8 billion on dental healthcare. A lot of the studies done on this are tests on overfluoridation where it is either found naturally or someone is poisoned. Water companies adjust the amount of fluoride by either adding or subtracting it from your supply.

It just doesn't make sense and i'm a HUGE fan of "the Man" theories, but this one... doesn't hold water

danniemcq

HurtLocker wrote: »

Noooo! Not this conspiracy thread again! Dodgy reports, links to reports that don't give quantitys. No reports which will tell us what 0.6ppm per litre actual does. Just propaganda and scaremongering.

Dihydrogen monoxide. That's the killer.

I remember when that started pouring out of my taps at home. My Ma freaked and thought we were all going to die.

Christ the Redeemer

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Why thank you! I've never been called smart before (even as an insult!).

A few questions:
a) Is this study related to fluoridation?
b) How do the levels (control and high exposure) compare to those seen in Ireland?
c) Do you think a measure of intelligence as much maligned and discredited as an "IQ test" can be used as an accurate indicator of neurotoxicity?

a) They used data from Chinese studies where fluoride is not added but a pollutant or naturally high levels exist. The study is looking into the safe amounts to use in water supplies.
b) Do we have data from Ireland? I'm not aware of it.
c) as far as I know IQ is still taken seriously.

danniemcq

JJayoo wrote: »

Chlorine serves a beneficial function in water, once swallowed Fluoride does not provide a benefit.

The argument isn't against Fluoride, if it was then toothpaste/mouthwash would get bashed. The argument is that Fluoride serves so benefit once ingested into the bloodstream, and there have been zero studies into the affect(if any)that Fluoride has on the Pineal gland.

Luke 2001 showed for the first time that Fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland. Her paper was simply to show if it did accumulate there. Since then there has been no research on whether or not this has an inpact. The Pineal gland is one of the few parts of the brain which is located outside the blood brain barrier so it isn't protected. Her studies showed that inside the Pineal gland the concentration of Fluroide was almost equivalent to that found in teeth.

There was also a pretty recent study carried out comparing the teeth of children in the North and South. The study/report showed that incidences of fluorosis were much higher in the republic and that there was no evidence of children in the republic (fluoridated area) having better dental health. Though under the section of fluoridated water the report said that it was a positive thing even though it's findings suggested otherwise

My opinion is that we should simply follow the European model. Let manufactures put fluoride in some of their products and that way people have the choice. It would also save the tax payer 4 million ? a year.

The podcast i linked to below (i know podcast but they are quite a reputible one discuss the cost and mention that 3.8 billion is saved in the US from fluoride being added

Rented Mule

I wonder what Mel Gibson thinks of all of this ??

Christ the Redeemer

danniemcq wrote: »

The podcast i linked to below (i know podcast but they are quite a reputible one discuss the cost and mention that 3.8 billion is saved in the US from fluoride being added

How much would it save Ireland? of about 5 million people?

danniemcq

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

How much would it save Ireland? of about 5 million people?

not as much no doubt but i'd assume the savings/cost would be propotional?

however it could be argued the cost of implimentaion would have been significantly high but this would then have decreased though the years as maintainence and infrastructure are not needed new every year. All that would matter would be the running cost

Some very exact figures would be needed and i doubt they'd be to easy to come across (Irish politics wooo)

Jimoslimos

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

a) They used data from Chinese studies where fluoride is not added but a pollutant or naturally high levels exist. The study is looking into the safe amounts to use in water supplies.

That'd be a no then

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

b) Do we have data from Ireland? I'm not aware of it.

We do. As of 2007, 0.6-0.8ppm.
http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Publications/HealthProtection/Public_Health_/Flouride_and_Public_Health.pdf

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

c) as far as I know IQ is still taken seriously.

They're not. At least not by most reputable researchers.

JJayoo

danniemcq wrote: »

The podcast i linked to below (i know podcast but they are quite a reputible one discuss the cost and mention that 3.8 billion is saved in the US from fluoride being added

The reason that I find that figure so hard to believe is simply if it was proven to save such huge amounts why wouldn't countries such as France, Germany Finland try and implement it?

And if these figures were backed up then why is America only partially Fluoridated?

Christ the Redeemer

danniemcq wrote: »

not as much no doubt but i'd assume the savings/cost would be propotional?

Wouldn't think so. the US spends far more per head of population on health care than the Irish. (8,233 PPP to Irelands 3,718).