No more fluoridation in the county

bumper234

corkonion wrote: »

By that logic it would be ok for companies to add whatever chemicals they wanted to products, and if the consumer couldnt prove that they were toxic then that would be fine!!

if you look back a few posts you will find the links to the research that have been conducted on the dangers of fluoride, or else just google it. theres plenty of research there and none of it endorses the use of fluoride.

And for every link you post saying it's bad for you there is a link to a research stating that it's good for you.

the beer revolu

bumper234 wrote: »

If you make claims that the chemical is dangerous and can lead to autism and down syndrome then surely the onus would be on you to back up these claims that it is unsafe.

Eh, I made no such claims.
I'd just like a choice in the matter.

Knasher

corkonion wrote: »

Perhaps you are, nobody said Brain Damage, it is Brain Development that has been proven to be effected by fluoride, a very different thing.

Effected at doses well beyond anything that anybody is receiving. As with anything, dose matters, a small amount of penicillin will cure a headache, a large amount will kill you. Even water, if you drink enough of it, will cause your liver to shut down and kill you. Anything in a large enough does will generally have negative consequences, even if it has positive consequences at lower doses.

bumper234

the beer revolu wrote: »

Eh, I made no such claims.
I'd just like a choice in the matter.

Not "YOU" personally, i meant the anti-fluoride brigade

the beer revolu

bumper234 wrote: »

Not "YOU" personally, i meant the anti-fluoride brigade

but either way your argument is ridiculous as has been pointed

Originally Posted by corkonion

By that logic it would be ok for companies to add whatever chemicals they wanted to products, and if the consumer couldnt prove that they were toxic then that would be fine!!

evilivor

SamAK wrote: »

Is it too much to ask to just have water in my water?

Never mind the argument about whether or not flouride causes brain damage, Downs or Autism.....I'd prefer to CHOOSE what I consume. Is that too much to ask?

Public drinking water has a load of chemicals used in its treatment that's what makes it safe after people bathing, pooing and peeing into it. Activated Carbon for taste and odour control, Soda Ash, Lime, Caustic Soda and Sulphuric Acid to control the pH, a whole host of chemical agents to remove colour and cloudiness and prevent settlement Sodium Chlorite to sterilise it.

bumper234

the beer revolu wrote: »

but either way your argument is ridiculous as has been pointed

Originally Posted by corkonion

But companies DO add chemicals to everything your food is full of chemicals and preservatives.

Amirani

bumper234 wrote: »

But companies DO add chemicals to everything your food is full of chemicals and preservatives.

And you have a choice whether or not to purchase and consume those products.

bumper234

NiallSparky wrote: »

And you have a choice whether or not to purchase and consume those products.

Where does it state that you have to drink the tap water?

imitation

My parents think fluoride was a good thing, as it came in during there lifetime they can see clearly the difference before and after. Plenty of people had nasty teeth before it came in and plenty of misery, I know dental hygiene wasn't exactly a thing back then either. On the other hand now people basically drink acid on a regular basis with most soft drinks. People also snack regularly on sugar treats, so the risks are lot higher with no dental treatment.

Its also been in use for the last 70 years and been subject to much scrutiny, I really don't think its going to be the next cigarette or absestos, but people are so paranoid about mass treatments.

To me removing it is a mistake, people who do not brush (a large enough section of society I'm willing to bet) will almost certainly have painful dental issues because of this. Compare that with uncertain risks that nobody seems to have concrete evidence on.

I also think the less well off will be hit by this, dental care gets very expensive fast and is one of the first things to go off peoples lists, and cheaper diets are often more sugary.

Cork boy 55

No more votes for the far-left in cork

j8wk2feszrnpao

corkonion wrote: »

Perhaps you are, nobody said Brain Damage, it is Brain Development that has been proven to be effected by fluoride

Excessive levels may have proven cases, but there is no data for Cork/Ireland.
The language been used by you and others suggest that the country is in grave danger.
How has Ireland's Brain Development been damaged since the introduction of fluoride? I'm looking for stats/figures that show/prove that fluoride has been the sole factor.

corkonion wrote: »

Why would anyone want a chemical added to their fresh water that can cause damage?

Then sick a barrel out the front and use that fresh water.
Otherwise you are going to be drinking water that will have had chemicals in it, and I'm not talking about just fluoride.

corkonion wrote: »

the risks now certainly outweigh any benefits.

The link between our levels of fluoride and any of the cases you state are not proven.

This should be a national decision, not a local one. Either the fluoride is dangerous or it's not. A team of specialists, rather than a concerned group, should be advising the councils/state and a collective decision should be made on their expect analysis.

Bacchus

bumper234, care to answer the question I posed earlier? Why do you WANT flouride in your water? Forget the reasons against having it in our public water system (which we will shortly be paying for, thus negating ANY argument of choice in the matter), what is your reason to keep adding it? Is it a case of "ah we're fecked anyway, what harm's a bit of flouride" or do you have some specific reason that you want to have flouride added?

bumper234

Bacchus wrote: »

bumper234, care to answer the question I posed earlier? Why do you WANT flouride in your water? Forget the reasons against having it in our public water system (which we will shortly be paying for, thus negating ANY argument of choice in the matter), what is your reason to keep adding it? Is it a case of "ah we're fecked anyway, what harm's a bit of flouride" or do you have some specific reason that you want to have flouride added?

Nowhere did i say i WANTED it in the water but i would like to see solid evidence for it's removal instead of sensationalist scaremongering claims about autism and downs syndrome!

Bacchus

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Excessive levels may have proven cases, but there is no data for Cork/Ireland.
The language been used by you and others suggest that the country is in grave danger.
How has Ireland's Brain Development been damaged since the introduction of fluoride? I'm looking for stats/figures that show/prove that fluoride has been the sole factor.

I think it is worth noting that brain development is just one area of health that there are concerns about. Another big issue is thyroid disorders (http://ffwireland.blogspot.ie/2013/11/how-water-fluoridation-increases.html). The crux of the issue here is this.
Flouride no longer provides a necessary service to the population thanks to the availability of dental hygiene products. If someone can't brush their own teeth, that's not the states responsibility to resolve beyond better education in schools on the issue. Flouride however, has many health implications, some with stronger evidence than others. So, why if it is no longer needed should we be putting people's health at risk if there is even a chance that is causing a fraction of what is claimed it is?

munstermagic11 wrote: »

This should be a national decision, not a local one. Either the fluoride is dangerous or it's not. A team of specialists, rather than a concerned group, should be advising the councils/state and a collective decision should be made on their expect analysis.

I agree. It will be a slow process but hopefully we'll start to see change and no longer have flouride in our public water supply.

Bacchus

bumper234 wrote: »

Nowhere did i say i WANTED it in the water but i would like to see solid evidence for it's removal instead of sensationalist scaremongering claims about autism and downs syndrome!

There is no sensationalism here and you repeatedly use autism and downs syndrome to make your case when noone is really pushing an argument that it flouride definitively causes either (Downs Syndrome in particular).

Basically, you're sh*t stirring, you've no "pro-flouride" argument at all. And it's not the removal we want. It's not in the water to begin with. We want to put a stop to ADDING it to the water.

pwurple

Jeez, scare-mongering beatjng common sense as usual in CCC.

The line about european countries not adding it to their water, is not because there is anything wrong with flouride, it's that the population don't drink the tap water that much. That's why they add it to the salt instead.

I couldn't give a toss whether it is added or not for myself, i look after my dental care. But I do think it's saving the country a boatload in healthcare costs. Remember tax-payers, you pay for all those medical card fillings and extractions for those not as tooth-conscious as yourselves. Feeling like you want to pay for more of those? Open the wallet.

A mouth full of rotten teeth isn't just rotten teeth either. It's an avenue for disease to get into the body. Our health system is already a shambles, do we really need to add more pressure to it?

bumper234

Bacchus wrote: »

There is no sensationalism here and you repeatedly use autism and downs syndrome to make your case when noone is really pushing an argument that it flouride definitively causes either (Downs Syndrome in particular).

Basically, you're sh*t stirring, you've no "pro-flouride" argument at all. And it's not the removal we want. It's not in the water to begin with. We want to put a stop to ADDING it to the water.

Yet you felt the need to bring it up and say that there could be a link :rolleyes:

BetterThanThou

I don't think fluoride is going to cause any health problems, I just seem to get a taste I don't like from fluoridated water, so I'd rather it wasn't fluoridated. No biggie though, bottled water is cheap enough.

evilivor

BetterThanThou wrote: »

I don't think fluoride is going to cause any health problems, I just seem to get a taste I don't like from fluoridated water, so I'd rather it wasn't fluoridated. No biggie though, bottled water is cheap enough.

That's more likely to be the chlorine added as a disinfectant.

Bacchus

bumper234 wrote: »

Yet you felt the need to bring it up and say that there could be a link :rolleyes:

Yeah. There could be a link. Are you saying there couldn't be? I already ceded that I personally thought the Downs Syndrome link was a stretch. Also, many have pointed out there are other potential health issues, but you ignore these posts.

TBH, if you're just going to keep throwing roll eyes about the place and ignore the 90% of posts that don't fit your "show me where it causes Down Syndrome and Autism" argument (if you could even call it an argument) I'm done entertaining you with responses.

pwurple

BetterThanThou wrote: »

I don't think fluoride is going to cause any health problems, I just seem to get a taste I don't like from fluoridated water, so I'd rather it wasn't fluoridated. No biggie though, bottled water is cheap enough.

The taste is more than likely the chlorine, not the flouride.

Bottled mineral water can often be fairly high in minerals like flouride.

bumper234

Bacchus wrote: »

Yeah. There could be a link. Are you saying there couldn't be? I already ceded that I personally thought the Downs Syndrome link was a stretch. Also, many have pointed out there are other potential health issues, but you ignore these posts.

TBH, if you're just going to keep throwing roll eyes about the place and ignore the 90% of posts that don't fit your "show me where it causes Down Syndrome and Autism" argument (if you could even call it an argument) I'm done entertaining you with responses.

Am not asking you to entertain me with responses i'm asking you to provide solid factual proof of your claims that fluoride causes these and other health issues.

Bacchus

bumper234 wrote: »

Am not asking you to entertain me with responses i'm asking you to provide solid factual proof of your claims that fluoride causes these and other health issues.

In the vain hope that you'll stop with the roll eyes.

I linked one already regarding the thyroid disorder link.

Here's a study done in China on the brain development link...
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
The article itself is linked on the page I linked there.

This is just after a bit of googling. Again, my point is, if there is even a risk of flouride being harmful to health and it serves no benefit to the population (other than saving them from brushing their teeth), why keep adding it? What is the argument FOR it.

Can I put this another way to you. Suppose flouride was currently NOT added and there were proposals to start adding it. How would you feel about it?

bumper234

Bacchus wrote: »

In the vain hope that you'll stop with the roll eyes.

I linked one already regarding the thyroid disorder link.

Here's a study done in China on the brain development link...
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
The article itself is linked on the page I linked there.

This is just after a bit of googling. Again, my point is, if there is even a risk of flouride being harmful to health and it serves no benefit to the population (other than saving them from brushing their teeth), why keep adding it? What is the argument FOR it.

Can I put this another way to you. Suppose flouride was currently NOT added and there were proposals to start adding it. How would you feel about it?

You realise salt and sugar are added to most foods these days, these 2 things alone are PROVEN killers yet never a word about them,fluoride is suspected in maybe being the cause of an illness and people are all over it. Salt and sugar serve no benefit to people but companies keep adding it. Can we expect to see you campaigning for the removal of these from food products?

j8wk2feszrnpao

Bacchus wrote: »

I think it is worth noting that brain development is just one area of health that there are concerns about.

Concerns, ok fine.
But then produce the strong evidence that the fluoride in Cork/Irish water is causing negative effects to the population, has many health implications to it's users in Ireland, and has direct links to the diseases it's supposed to cause here.

Bacchus wrote: »

Flouride no longer provides a necessary service to the population.

Link to proof please, because if true then it would end the debate right there.

Bacchus wrote: »

If someone can't brush their own teeth, that's not the states responsibility

It is if the taxpayer has to pay for the dental care then required.

Bacchus wrote: »

Flouride however, has many health implications

Excessive levels of fluoride may be true.
I'm looking for expect analysis on the levels in Ireland and proof that it has caused the damage you state it has.
I've read through the articles that have been quoted, and there's a lot of theories with no data to back it up, i.e. linking fluoride to obesity in Ireland (while ignoring the amount of McD's and the fast food lifestyle we now exist in).
I mean, one of the articles states that diabetes affects 8.9% population of ROI and just 3.8% in NI. They link this to the fluoride levels in ROI. But have no evidence it's the fluoride, and then contradict themselves by stating that "not one health risk study has ever been undertaken in Ireland to examine the relationship between artificial fluoridation and disease burdens in the population".
If the tests haven't been carried out, then why are they jumping to such definite assumptions.

Bacchus wrote: »

So, why if it is no longer needed should we be putting people's health at risk if there is even a chance that is causing a fraction of what is claimed it is?

Firstly, we don't know that it's no longer needed as no evidence has been produced to show that it's no longer required.
Secondly, if it does have negative affects, then we need to be shown the diseases it causes and the likelihood of those diseases occurring.

Bacchus wrote: »

It will be a slow process but hopefully we'll start to see change and no longer have flouride in our public water supply.

If we no longer need it, then I'm happy to see it ceased, and I'm imagine that would be true of all of us.
And if the proof is produced that directly links our levels of fluoride to any cases of disease/harm to the Irish population then it should be ceased immediately.

Bacchus

bumper234 wrote: »

You realise salt and sugar are added to most foods these days, these 2 things alone are PROVEN killers yet never a word about them,fluoride is suspected in maybe being the cause of an illness and people are all over it. Salt and sugar serve no benefit to people but companies keep adding it. Can we expect to see you campaigning for the removal of these from food products?

LOL, ok now I'm sure you're trolling. You ignore most of what posters say to suit your "argument", you can't back up your point of view with ANYTHING yet you insist on showing some evidence supported the case to get rid of flouride. I provide two and you start banging on about salt and sugar. FFS.

And yes I know about salt and sugar. I try to avoid processed foods as much as I can. Thankfully I have that choice.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Bacchus wrote: »

Here's a study done in China on the brain development link...
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

Yes, a Chinese study. Not an Irish study.
That article

• studies on children in China differed in many ways or were incomplete
• states may affect or seems to affect
• appears to be dealing with areas of high levels of fluoride

No valid data whatsoever in that. Just a lot of conjunction and comes across as a concerned group rather than an expect group.

I'm all for full investigation on this issue, and I'm very much open to being convinced. But the data been offered is extremely poor.

Bacchus

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Concerns, ok fine.
But then produce the strong evidence that the fluoride in Cork/Irish water is causing negative effects to the population, has many health implications to it's users in Ireland, and has direct links to the diseases it's supposed to cause here.

I provided two links and made my stance already that it's risk vs gain that I base my opinion on.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Link to proof please, because if true then it would end the debate right there.

Where's your proof that it does have any health benefits? I reiterate at this point that dental hygiene products are widely available.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

It is if the taxpayer has to pay for the dental care then required.

Well it's the taxpayer paying to have the flouride added.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Excessive levels of fluoride may be true.
I'm looking for expect analysis on the levels in Ireland and proof that it has caused the damage you state it has.
I've read through the articles that have been quoted, and there's a lot of theories with no data to back it up, i.e. linking fluoride to obesity in Ireland (while ignoring the amount of McD's and the fast food lifestyle we now exist in).
I mean, one of the articles states that diabetes affects 8.9% population of ROI and just 3.8% in NI. They link this to the fluoride levels in ROI. But have no evidence it's the fluoride, and then contradict themselves by stating that "not one health risk study has ever been undertaken in Ireland to examine the relationship between artificial fluoridation and disease burdens in the population".
If the tests haven't been carried out, then why are they jumping to such definite assumptions.

As I've said, it's the risk vs the gain. Show me an argument FOR keeping flouride in the water and you have my attention.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Firstly, we don't know that it's no longer needed as no evidence has been produced to show that it's no longer required.
Secondly, if it does have negative affects, then we need to be shown the diseases it causes and the likelihood of those diseases occurring.

If we no longer need it, then I'm happy to see it ceased, and I'm imagine that would be true of all of us.
And if the proof is produced that directly links our levels of fluoride to any cases of disease/harm to the Irish population then it should be ceased immediately.

We seem to be in agreement on this

bumper234

Bacchus wrote: »

LOL, ok now I'm sure you're trolling. You ignore most of what posters say to suit your "argument", you can't back up your point of view with ANYTHING yet you insist on showing some evidence supported the case to get rid of flouride. I provide two and you start banging on about salt and sugar. FFS.

And yes I know about salt and sugar. I try to avoid processed foods as much as I can. Thankfully I have that choice.

You provided a study that says.

The researchers conducted a systematic review of studies, almost all of which are from China where risks from fluoride are well-established. Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in groundwater, and exposures to the chemical are increased in some parts of China. 

You see you posted a link about a study done in China about the affects of fluoride in the water but China does not add fluoride to it's water! Some areas of China have very high concentrations of fluoride and that's why there is a level of toxicity in some of the population. Ireland has a low level of fluoride in it's water and that's why the fluoride levels are safe.