Charlatan "girl against flouride" finally exposed

Capt'n Midnight

Skylinehead wrote: »

You wouldn't find Hitler putting flouride in peoples water at 3 in the morning.

But the Nazi's did prove that tobacco was a cause of lung cancer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany


And Hitler drank water :eek:

ClovenHoof

Be really fantastic if you lot could channel the same histrionic hatred you have for some bird running a go nowhere fluoride campaign instead towards the genuine scandal of Irish politicians not having to pay water meter charges on their second homes.

Capt'n Midnight

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Be really fantastic if you lot could channel the same histrionic hatred you have for some bird running a go nowhere fluoride campaign instead towards the genuine scandal of Irish politicians not having to pay water meter charges on their second homes.

Ah you finally understand.

The fuss over Pylons, mobile phone masts, fluoride , incinerators , vaccines etc. distracts attention from real issues.

Beano

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Be really fantastic if you lot could channel the same histrionic hatred you have for some bird running a go nowhere fluoride campaign instead towards the genuine scandal of Irish politicians not having to pay water meter charges on their second homes.

I've got enough histrionic hatred for both

Doctor Jimbob

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Sure is! It is obvious that Geoff Shorts wants to ride The Girl Against Fluoride and is projecting his sexual frustrations via his internalised Freudian rage?

He comes across a bit of dick to be honest, you wouldn't have a beer with him in a million years, and I am neutral on this Fluoride issue, nasty Dawkins fanboy type.

Someone tell him it's no long 'cool' to be an atheist warrior. He needs to find a new self-impressed fad.

dirtyden

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Slow day at the Civil Service?

You would think this woman was Hitler by the histrionics on this thread.

Do you see the irony in that comment?

zenbuffy

Unbelievably, Dublin City Council voted to remove fluoride from the water last night, by one vote. http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-vote-fluoride-1710194-Oct2014/

You may also be interested in the comments on this article (disclosure: I wrote it) as they delve pretty deeply into some of the more ridiculous arguments against fluoridation, and some of the arguments are direct quotes from the likes of GAF. http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/water-fluoridation-in-ireland-1704755-Oct2014/ Every councillor was contacted repeatedly in the past few days, and sent all sorts of information about fluoride (I sent them a version of this article in a letter format), but chose instead to pander to scaremongering and lies.

Thank goodness they don't actually have the power to remove fluoride from the water, though I think this, as a symbolic victory for quackery, is something the DCC should be ashamed of.

Ziphius

zenbuffy wrote: »

Unbelievably, Dublin City Council voted to remove fluoride from the water last night, by one vote. http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-vote-fluoride-1710194-Oct2014/

You may also be interested in the comments on this article (disclosure: I wrote it) as they delve pretty deeply into some of the more ridiculous arguments against fluoridation, and some of the arguments are direct quotes from the likes of GAF. http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/water-fluoridation-in-ireland-1704755-Oct2014/ Every councillor was contacted repeatedly in the past few days, and sent all sorts of information about fluoride (I sent them a version of this article in a letter format), but chose instead to pander to scaremongering and lies.

Thank goodness they don't actually have the power to remove fluoride from the water, though I think this, as a symbolic victory for quackery, is something the DCC should be ashamed of.

Sigh. Any list of how the councillors voted?

zenbuffy

It wasn't a roll call vote, so no official list. However, the general breakdown is: SF, People before Profit (barring one or two members) and some Independents voted to remove it. FG, FF, Labour voted to keep it. Green Party abstained.

Plates

zenbuffy wrote: »

It wasn't a roll call vote, so no official list. However, the general breakdown is: SF, People before Profit (barring one or two members) and some Independents voted to remove it. FG, FF, Labour voted to keep it. Green Party abstained.

So the politicians who claim to be representing the less well off in society vote for something which will have a significant effect (i.e. - rise in tooth decay) on the children of those they claim to be representing. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.


Surely it's enough of a sign when Luke Ming Flanagan throws his weight behind something to run far away in the opposite direction?

Satriale

Great news, nice to see that someone recognises that mass medication (without choice) of the populace is wrong, no matter how alturistic the motives.
Put the flouride in salt or milk and label it. Everyone will be happy.

Plates

Satriale wrote: »

Great news, nice to see that someone recognises that mass medication (without choice) of the populace is wrong, no matter how alturistic the motives.
Put the flouride in salt or milk and label it. Everyone will be happy.

"without choice". Really? Care to elaborate?

Satriale

Plates wrote: »

"without choice". Really? Care to elaborate?

Yes. And no, i dont.
I put in those specific words for the inevitable nitpickers, they are fairly self explanatory.

Plates

Satriale wrote: »

Yes. And no, i dont.
I put in those specific words for the inevitable nitpickers, they are fairly self explanatory.

Sorry - you've lost me. Are you saying that you have no choice as to whether or not you drink water from the public supply?

Satriale

Plates wrote: »

Sorry - you've lost me. Are you saying that you have no choice as to whether or not you drink water from the public supply?

I have that choice, many people dont, especially people from those lower socio economic groups that all those pro-flouridation reports seem to be championing.

Why not flouridate the milk and/or salt? Then, a family that cant afford to spend E10 a day on bottled water could probably afford E1 every few weeks for flouridated salt if they want healthy teeth. Yet not be forced to drink medicated water if they dont wish.

The pros get their way, the antis get their way, everybodys happy.

Plates

Satriale wrote: »

Then, a family that cant afford to spend E10 a day on bottled water could probably afford E1 every few weeks for flouridated salt if they want healthy teeth. Yet not be forced to drink medicated water if they dont wish.

So now you think people will make a choice about whether or not they want healthy teeth?


It's also (another) exaggeration that bottled water will cost 10 Euro a day. 2 litres in Tesco costs 49c. A family with 2 kids that drink a litre a day each will pay less than 2 Euro a day if (it's a big if) that same family has such strong views about fluoridated water that they make the choice not to drink it.


Don't get me started on your use of the phrase "medicated water" - it's one of the many favoured by the fervent anti fluoride campaigners.

Cianmcliam

Satriale wrote: »

I have that choice, many people dont, especially people from those lower socio economic groups that all those pro-flouridation reports seem to be championing.

Why not flouridate the milk and/or salt? Then, a family that cant afford to spend E10 a day on bottled water could probably afford E1 every few weeks for flouridated salt if they want healthy teeth. Yet not be forced to drink medicated water if they dont wish.

The pros get their way, the antis get their way, everybodys happy.

Everybody is happy except the children who have no vote on this and who may not have parents who are motivated enough to seek out fluoride supplementation.

As we know, the children in most need of it are also the ones who are allowed to consume too much sugary sweets and foods and/or are not sufficiently supervised when brushing their teeth, if they brush them at all. Are their parents really likely to be the ones seeking out products fortified with fluoride? That just doesn't add up.

Satriale

Plates wrote: »

So now you think people will make a choice about whether or not they want healthy teeth?

So that makes it ok to medicate them then? Would it be ok to lock alcoholics up to protect them from themselves? Put fat people on a forced diet for their own good?

Shaky ground there, Plates, but i do see your point.

It's also (another) exaggeration that bottled water will cost 10 Euro a day. 2 litres in Tesco costs 49c. A family with 2 kids that drink a litre a day each will pay less than 2 Euro a day if (it's a big if) that same family has such strong views about fluoridated water that they make the choice not to drink it.

E10 a day or E14 a week, makes no difference, somebody that doesnt have a lot of money will prioritise and chance the flouridated water. it simply means they have no choice.

Don't get me started on your use of the phrase "medicated water" - it's one of the many favoured by the fervent anti fluoride campaigners.

If it is added to prevent dental disease, it is medicated water.

I'm not an antiflouride campaigner, both sides make my eyes glaze over (present company excepted. )
I just think mass medication is a slippery slope.


I've just suggested a compromise for both sides that seems to me to be fair, tell me how i am wrong, i am sure the suggestion can be improved upon! Free flouridated salt for everyone? Cant cost any more than the 4 million to flouridate the water!

Satriale

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Everybody is happy except the children who have no vote on this and who may not have parents who are motivated enough to seek out fluoride supplementation.

As we know, the children in most need of it are also the ones who are allowed to consume too much sugary sweets and foods and/or are not sufficiently supervised when brushing their teeth, if they brush them at all. Are their parents really likely to be the ones seeking out products fortified with fluoride? That just doesn't add up.

So because of a few parents the entire country should be medicated?

What about mass advertising campaigns to inform those parents and more importantly hygiene education for children. It doesnt take a lot for an educator to teach a child how to brush its teeth properly, and it may be a lot more use than Bran Agus Pol/Jesus agus Allah.

Simple solution to your question, make the fortified product the more common and make the unfortified one sought.

Mass medication makes a lot less sense.

Cianmcliam

Satriale wrote: »

So because of a few parents the entire country should be medicated?

What about mass advertising campaigns to inform those parents and more importantly hygiene education for children. It doesnt take a lot for an educator to teach a child how to brush its teeth properly, and it may be a lot more use than Bran Agus Pol/Jesus agus Allah.

Simple solution to your question, make the fortified product the more common and make the unfortified one sought.

Mass medication makes a lot less sense.

But ingested fluoride has benefits for everyone regardless of any other factors, it is just the case that some sectors have nothing else to fall back on.

dorito92

what brand of bottled water doesn't have flouride in it? or do they all not contain it?

Jawgap

Satriale wrote: »

Great news, nice to see that someone recognises that mass medication (without choice) of the populace is wrong, no matter how alturistic the motives.
Put the flouride in salt or milk and label it. Everyone will be happy.

So take out the Fluoride but leave in the chlorine (and all it's 'nasty' by-products)?

Yep, they definitely have their priorities right.......

EDIT: By the way, it's not 'medication' as there is no pharmacological effect because you are not treating a condition. I know the certain lobbies like to use references to 'medication' to bulk up their argument, but it's really just a form of fortification.

EDIT 2: Anyone who thinks fluoride is the worst of our problems with water in Ireland hasn't read the EPA Annual Drinking Water Quality Reports

Satriale

Cianmcliam wrote: »

But ingested fluoride has benefits for everyone regardless of any other factors, it is just the case that some sectors have nothing else to fall back on.

Salt is a good fallback, ingested, and is almost as essential as water.
Like i said, make the fortified the more common, let those who dont want flouride seek out the other. That way nobody is being forced into anything due to economic circumstance.

Satriale

Jawgap wrote: »

So take out the Fluoride but leave in the chlorine (and all it's 'nasty' by-products)?

Yep, they definitely have their priorities right.......

I dont know, i'm talking about treating dental disease with flouride. afaik chlorine is used to treat the water itself.

Maybe start another thread if it exercises you so!

Jawgap

Satriale wrote: »

Salt is a good fallback, ingested, and is almost as essential as water.
Like i said, make the fortified the more common, let those who dont want flouride seek out the other. That way nobody is being forced into anything due to economic circumstance.

We already ingest waaaaaay too much salt in this country - average daily adult intake is 10g/day - so is it really a good idea to do anything that encourages people to up their salt intake?

BTW - how stand you on the mandatory fortification of flour with folate to prevent NTDs?

daveyeh

Are people still moaning about this crap. STFU. If you don't want water with flouride, don't drink it you moron.

Satriale

Jawgap wrote: »

.

EDIT: By the way, it's not 'medication' as there is no pharmacological effect because you are not treating a condition. I know the certain lobbies like to use references to 'medication' to bulk up their argument, but it's really just a form of fortification.

Preventing a condition ? tomato tomato, potato potato

EDIT 2: Anyone who thinks fluoride is the worst of our problems with water in Ireland hasn't read the EPA Annual Drinking Water Quality Reports

I never said it was the worst, but thats what this thread is about.

Jawgap

Satriale wrote: »

I dont know, i'm talking about treating dental disease with flouride. afaik chlorine is used to treat the water itself.

Maybe start another thread if it exercises you so!

Yes and the breakdown products are carcinogenic.

One meta-study (meta-studies are so beloved of the anti-fluoride brigade) concluded

The results of this meta-analysis suggest a positive association between consumption of chlorination by-products in drinking water and bladder and rectal cancer in humans.

Jawgap

Satriale wrote: »

Preventing a condition ? tomato tomato, potato potato

I never said it was the worst, but thats what this thread is about.

It's an important distinction - I'd rather an illness was 'prevented' rather than 'treated' - especially if I'm going to be the ill person!

You object to fluoride being added to prevent caries, but are ok with Chlorine being added to kill off the bugs?

What about treatments that are added purely to improve the organoleptic qualities of the water - flocculating agents for example? Are they ok? They don't do anything except make the water look nice by taking out suspended solids (they also help the Chlorine do it's job).

Satriale

Jawgap wrote: »

It's an important distinction - I'd rather an illness was 'prevented' rather than 'treated' - especially if I'm going to be the ill person!

You object to fluoride being added to prevent caries, but are ok with Chlorine being added to kill off the bugs?

What about treatments that are added purely to improve the organoleptic qualities of the water - flocculating agents for example? Are they ok? They don't do anything except make the water look nice by taking out suspended solids (they also help the Chlorine do it's job).

Sorry Jawgap i dont know what you want me to say. Chlorine is bad? M'kay if you say so! This is the flouride thread!

Read back my posts, i dont object to flouride being added to prevent caries, ive even suggested a few products we can add it to!
I hate tooth decay! I want it banned now!

Satriale

daveyeh wrote: »

Are people still moaning about this crap. STFU. If you don't want water with flouride, don't drink it you moron.

this is why we cant have nice things...:rolleyes:

Jawgap

Satriale wrote: »

Sorry Jawgap i dont know what you want me to say. Chlorine is bad? M'kay if you say so! This is the flouride thread!

Read back my posts, i dont object to flouride being added to prevent caries, ive even suggested a few products we can add it to!
I hate tooth decay! I want it banned now!

Just pointing out that if people want to improve the quality of our water there are much better things they could target than fluoride - and even if they don't want to address the 'big ticket' items and continue to campaign against the addition of the substance at least base the campaign on something better than pseudo-science and some kind of Phillip K Dick idea that we are being 'mass medicated.'

Some of the anti-fluoride campaigners make homeopaths look rational and learned

Satriale

Jawgap wrote: »

Just pointing out that if people want to improve the quality of our water there are much better things they could target than fluoride - and even if they don't want to address the 'big ticket' items and continue to campaign against the addition of the substance at least base the campaign on something better than pseudo-science and some kind of Phillip K Dick idea that we are being 'mass medicated.'

Some of the anti-fluoride campaigners make homeopaths look rational and learned

tbf both extremes of this argument look a little nutz.

Jester252

Satriale wrote: »

E10 a day or E14 a week, makes no difference, somebody that doesnt have a lot of money will prioritise and chance the flouridated water. it simply means they have no choice.

Really I can think of 56 differences.

Satriale

Jester252 wrote: »

Really I can think of 56 differences.

I'm sure you wipe your @rse with E50s, but thats not much good to somebody on a low wage.

Stark

Satriale wrote: »

If it is added to prevent dental disease, it is medicated water.

I'm not an antiflouride campaigner, both sides make my eyes glaze over (present company excepted. )
I just think mass medication is a slippery slope.

I used to think this was a legitimate concern. But given the actual amount of fluoride in the public water supply is less than natural occurring sources in a lot of cases, I don't think it makes sense to care about. It's like complaining that someone added trace amounts of calcium and magnesium to your water.

Knasher

Satriale wrote: »

tbf both extremes of this argument look a little nutz.

Considering that one side of this argument subscribe to nonsense like angel healing and homeopathy, I'd be curious to know what the other extreme believes to make them look equally as nuts?

Satriale

Knasher wrote: »

Considering that one side of this argument subscribe to nonsense like angel healing and homeopathy, I'd be curious to know what the other extreme believes to make them look equally as nuts?

I'm only going by the rabid fervency of both sides, to my shame i rarely read either:o .

Satriale

Stark wrote: »

I used to think this was a legitimate concern. But given the actual amount of fluoride in the public water supply is less than natural occurring sources in a lot of cases, I don't think it makes sense to care about. It's like complaining that someone added trace amounts of calcium and magnesium to your water.

That's a fair enough stance, but its still a slippery slope imho.

Jester252

Satriale wrote: »

I'm sure you wipe your @rse with E50s, but thats not much good to somebody on a low wage.

Are you really trying to say that €56 a week is not much use to people on low wages

Satriale

Jester252 wrote: »

Are you really trying to say that €56 a week is not much use to people on low wages

No.

ClovenHoof

Can anyone provide a link showing that the anti-fluoride campaign is saying it should be replaced with 'Angel Healing'?

Plates

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Can anyone provide a link showing that the anti-fluoride campaign is saying it should be replaced with 'Angel Healing'?

The most high profile (and self promoting / narcissistic) anti fluoride campaigner Aisling Fitzgibbon who is the subject of this thread is a qualified Angel Healer who also happens to think that vaccination of children is wrong.

You may think that qualifies her to run her campaign of scaremongering and ill information (pardon the pun) but my money is on scientific proof.

Capt'n Midnight

Satriale wrote: »

Great news, nice to see that someone recognises that mass medication (without choice) of the populace is wrong, no matter how alturistic the motives.
Put the flouride in salt or milk and label it. Everyone will be happy.

Great,

Now let's stop Kellogs & Co. adding vitamins and minerals to our cereals because we can all drink more milk instead :rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight

Stark wrote: »

I used to think this was a legitimate concern. But given the actual amount of fluoride in the public water supply is less than natural occurring sources in a lot of cases, I don't think it makes sense to care about. It's like complaining that someone added trace amounts of calcium and magnesium to your water.

Just a reminder that the water in parts of China even if you diluted it ten time would be way above our limits.

most of the research papers that the anti-fluoride groups selectively choose compare a ridiculously high level of fluoride (visible mottling of teeth) to a "low" one which is still likely to be above the levels allowed here.

Jussnot Fairmann

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just a reminder that the water in parts of China even if you diluted it ten time would be way above our limits.

Dilute it with what? Moar water!

Capt'n Midnight

Jussnot Fairmann wrote: »

Dilute it with what? Moar water!

Lidl/Aldi/Tesco extra value lemonade is cheaper than water.

Jester252

Satriale wrote: »

No.

Care to explain?

Satriale wrote: »

E10 a day or E14 a week, makes no difference, somebody that doesnt have a lot of money will prioritise and chance the flouridated water. it simply means they have no choice.

Like I said I can think of 56 differences

weisses

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Great,

Now let's stop Kellogs & Co. adding vitamins and minerals to our cereals because we can all drink more milk instead :rolleyes:

Problem with that comparison is that you have a choice in the kind of cereal you want.

ClovenHoof

Plates wrote: »

The most high profile (and self promoting / narcissistic) anti fluoride campaigner Aisling Fitzgibbon who is the subject of this thread is a qualified Angel Healer who also happens to think that vaccination of children is wrong.

You may think that qualifies her to run her campaign of scaremongering and ill information (pardon the pun) but my money is on scientific proof.

You make it sound as if this bird is the only person who ever questioned fluoride being added to drinking water.

Angel Healing is pretty funny mind.