Fluoride update re IQ

jh79

New study shows no adverse effect on IQ from fluoride exposure.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/new-study-shows-fluoride-safe/

Torakx

Did you happen to see any links to the study itself?
I was looking on that site http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857 for pdf so I can go through the results and study. But can't seem to find it.

My concern with flouride was never about IQ, so I am searching for health information that I might find in that study. It seems a nice opportunity to check for so many possible health issues and physical effects, it would be a shame if it was only done for IQ.

It's certainly a good start in the right direction. Those studies with high doses in a short amount of time are flawed in my view. I can't consider any of them seriously. This one though, has lots of potential.
I want to know if they checked cancer rates, immune system, brain development regarding personality (aspergers for one example) and all sorts of stuff.
Basically if someone is fiddling with one of the essential things I need to exist, I want to know they have done absolutely everything possible to be sure of all positive and negative effects.

jh79

Torakx wrote: »

Did you happen to see any links to the study itself?
I was looking on that site http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857 for pdf so I can go through the results and study. But can't seem to find it.

My concern with flouride was never about IQ, so I am searching for health information that I might find in that study. It seems a nice opportunity to check for so many possible health issues and physical effects, it would be a shame if it was only done for IQ.

It's certainly a good start in the right direction. Those studies with high doses in a short amount of time are flawed in my view. I can't consider any of them seriously. This one though, has lots of potential.
I want to know if they checked cancer rates, immune system, brain development regarding personality (aspergers for one example) and all sorts of stuff.
Basically if someone is fiddling with one of the essential things I need to exist, I want to know they have done absolutely everything possible to be sure of all positive and negative effects.

Other studies have failed to show any links with the disease s mentioned , there was a doubt about IQ for some due to the Harvard paper.

Unfortunately I can't access the full paper.

Torakx

Back to square one for me. Nothing has changed until I can at the very least see a study that is well done, to check a near life time of flouridated water and health issues, similar to the ones I mentioned. Thyroid maybe too, all sorts really. I want as much as possible covered, which is ideal and obviously exponentially more difficult.

Maybe later that report will pop up in full somewhere and I will get a chance to go through the process of collecting data.

Also other studies as far as I know, have not been carried out as an accurate simulation. Instead choosing to up the dosage to compensate for the damage of reducing the testing time. That's a flawed test in my view and why I foind this study to possibly hold information that could allow me to let go of a majority of issues I have with water flouridation.

weisses

http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/

Was that NZ study peer reviewed ? I looked for that but couldn't find anything.

So basically The Harvard professors are wrong ?

All the scientists doing those 39 studies got it wrong ?

EPA has labelled it wrong ?

But a study done on 1000 people got it right

Not convinced at all TBH

jh79

weisses wrote: »

http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/

Was that NZ study peer reviewed ? I looked for that but couldn't find anything.

So basically The Harvard professors are wrong ?

All the scientists doing those 39 studies got it wrong ?

EPA has labelled it wrong ?

But a study done on 1000 people got it right

Not convinced at all TBH

It was peer reviewed

Harvard professor acknowledged the flaws in the chinese papers they based the review on . That is why they say it was only a possible neurotoxin at high levels.

EPA labels flouride a toxin not fluoridated water at 0.7ppm.

jh79

Can you give a logical reason why there is no difference in IQ?

Are you saying something reversed the effects of the fluoride they were exposed to?

In the Chinese studies the Harvard paper was based on a number of other substances or factors could have caused the observed drop in IQ

weisses

I can see nothing New other then what was discussef at lenght in the other thread

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I can see nothing New other then what was discussef at lenght in the other thread

Except for no drop in IQ yet there was fluoride exposure. Obvious conclusion is the the drop in IQ in China was due to other substances than fluoride.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Except for no drop in IQ yet there was fluoride exposure. Obvious conclusion is the the drop in IQ in China was due to other substances than fluoride.

Only because of the 992 people study in NZ ?

Where did you find it was presented for peer review ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Only because of the 992 people study in NZ ?

Where did you find it was presented for peer review ?

Quality not quantity, the Chinese studies all had major flaws as pointed out by Grandjean.

As it was published in a journal I'm assuming it was peer reviewed, generally how it is done.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Quality not quantity, the Chinese studies all had major flaws as pointed out by Grandjean.

As both the NRC and Harvard reviews have correctly pointed out, many of the fluoride/IQ studies have used relatively simple designs and have failed to adequately control for all of the factors that can impact a child’s intelligence (e.g., parental education, socioeconomic status, lead and arsenic exposure). For several reasons, however, it is extremely unlikely that these limitations can explain the association between fluoride and IQ.

I agree with this

jh79 wrote: »

As it was published in a journal I'm assuming it was peer reviewed, generally how it is done.

So you are not even sure its peer reviewed ? Not everything that is published is peer reviewed you surely must know this.

jh79

It is peer reviewed according to wiki.

The Harvard study is based on flawed research as pointed out by the author's themselves. The loss in IQ could be statistical noise ( error associated with IQ test), diet, genetics or water contamination. Too many ifs.

As the blog points out the NZ study is as good as an observational study gets, can't say the same for the Chinese papers.

Can you explain why no loss in IQ was observed even though they were exposed to fluoride?

On a side note, did you see that the government have done a u-turn on the promised review?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It is peer reviewed according to wiki.

The Harvard study is based on flawed research as pointed out by the author's themselves. The loss in IQ could be statistical noise ( error associated with IQ test), diet, genetics or water contamination. Too many ifs.

As the blog points out the NZ study is as good as an observational study gets, can't say the same for the Chinese papers.

Can you explain why no loss in IQ was observed even though they were exposed to fluoride?

On a side note, did you see that the government have done a u-turn on the promised review?

Blog is as impartial as GAF

Can you link me to that wiki article ?

I did not see the U - turn ...would be handy if you have relevant information you ad a link to it

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Blog is as impartial as GAF

Can you link me to that wiki article ?

I did not see the U - turn ...would be handy if you have relevant information you ad a link to it

I just googled the journal title , wiki came up and said it was peer reviewed.

There was an article about it on the Irish examiner , GAF also mentioned the u-turn. Just the normal yearly review is happening seeing as the Harvard paper is a few years old nothing is likely to changes.

As being as impartial as the GAF, well her and Waugh blatant fabrications are well documented can you point out any misleading claims in the blog?

Brown Bomber

jh79 wrote: »

New study shows no adverse effect on IQ from fluoride exposure.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/new-study-shows-fluoride-safe/

Stopped reading here:

Some anti-fluoridation activists will latch onto any claim they feel supports their opposition (common behavior in any context), and this leads to a great deal of nonsensical conspiracy-mongering. My favorite is the claim that public water fluoridation is all a plot to allow companies to cheaply dump industrial waste into the public water supply.
These sorts of claims distract from the real issues, and in my opinion does a disservice to the anti-fluoridation movement. I don’t mind the existence of opposition movements, even if I disagree with their position. They can serve a useful function in driving public debate and keeping the powers that be honest and transparent.


When they utilize highly emotional but irrational arguments, however, they relegate their own movement to the crank fringe, they marginalize what might be legitimate issues, and they can lead segments of the public into making fear-based and ultimately harmful decisions. They also miss their opportunity to run an effective and ethical opposition which focuses on legitimate scientific issues, and to effectively advocate for the rights of individuals. (Again, I am not saying I agree with any particular such campaign – but at least focus on the real issues.)

The author is either highly ignorant or a shill as Mann vs Ford proves. http://www.examiner.com/article/mann-vs-ford-a-tale-of-how-ford-motor-allegedly-poisoned-an-entire-community

Between 1967 and 1971 executives that oversaw toxic waste management at Ford Motor Company's Mahway assembly plant in New Jersey - at the time the country's largest automobile factory - allowed the dumping of hundreds of thousands of cubic tons of toxic chemical sludge (lead and a variety of other dioxins) into the soil located at the Ringwood Landfill which is within close proximity to the Ramapough Community.
As a result of the dumping and the release of poisonous "cocktails" in the soil and the air, the underprivileged Ramapough Tribe suffered staggering rates of premature deaths, rare cancers and autoimmune diseases believed to be linked directly to the toxic waste.


When the dumping began in 1967 the Ramapough children who lived within the midst of the landfill would in child's play, cover their body with the colorful lead filled paint that insidiously seeped from out of the ground.
Acting with a child's curiosity and innocence, some of the children even made rainbow-colored "pies" from the sweet tasting but highly poisonous dioxins. Almost immediately the children began suffering severe headaches, nose, eye, and throat irritation / bleeding. What made a horrible situation even worse is they developed large rashes that almost entirely covered their little body.



It wasn't until the children began attending school with other children from outside the community that adults within the school system began noticing the health differences between the children that lived within the Ramapough Community and the children that lived beyond the hazardous boundaries of the Ringwood Landfill.



Today in 2011, there isn't a single family that lives within the Ramapough Indian Community that hasn't escaped the plague of an astronomically disproportionate amount of cancers, tumors, diabetes, miscarriages, respiratory illnesses and birth defects. The community's suffering - which includea wide variety of other abnormal maladies - has been linked by independent studies to Ford Motor Company's dumping of deadly dioxins in the landfill from 1967 to 1971. From the very beginning, the poisons have saturated the community's soil that grows their food and contaminated both the water they drink and the air that they breathe.
Mann vs. Ford chronicles the legal struggles of community leaders Wayne Mann and Vivian Milligan as they and their lawyers do battle against a corporate icon and their legion of high powered lawyers.



Although Ford admits to having dumped the poisons into the community's soil, their lawyers contend that at the time of the dumping, it was a legal act and perhaps other factors that were connected to the area's iron mining could have been the invisible culprit that contributed to the community's sickness.

jh79

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Stopped reading here:



The author is either highly ignorant or a shill as Mann vs Ford proves. http://www.examiner.com/article/mann-vs-ford-a-tale-of-how-ford-motor-allegedly-poisoned-an-entire-community

Between 1967 and 1971 executives that oversaw toxic waste management at Ford Motor Company's Mahway assembly plant in New Jersey - at the time the country's largest automobile factory - allowed the dumping of hundreds of thousands of cubic tons of toxic chemical sludge (lead and a variety of other dioxins) into the soil located at the Ringwood Landfill which is within close proximity to the Ramapough Community.
As a result of the dumping and the release of poisonous "cocktails" in the soil and the air, the underprivileged Ramapough Tribe suffered staggering rates of premature deaths, rare cancers and autoimmune diseases believed to be linked directly to the toxic waste.


When the dumping began in 1967 the Ramapough children who lived within the midst of the landfill would in child's play, cover their body with the colorful lead filled paint that insidiously seeped from out of the ground.
Acting with a child's curiosity and innocence, some of the children even made rainbow-colored "pies" from the sweet tasting but highly poisonous dioxins. Almost immediately the children began suffering severe headaches, nose, eye, and throat irritation / bleeding. What made a horrible situation even worse is they developed large rashes that almost entirely covered their little body.



It wasn't until the children began attending school with other children from outside the community that adults within the school system began noticing the health differences between the children that lived within the Ramapough Community and the children that lived beyond the hazardous boundaries of the Ringwood Landfill.



Today in 2011, there isn't a single family that lives within the Ramapough Indian Community that hasn't escaped the plague of an astronomically disproportionate amount of cancers, tumors, diabetes, miscarriages, respiratory illnesses and birth defects. The community's suffering - which includea wide variety of other abnormal maladies - has been linked by independent studies to Ford Motor Company's dumping of deadly dioxins in the landfill from 1967 to 1971. From the very beginning, the poisons have saturated the community's soil that grows their food and contaminated both the water they drink and the air that they breathe.
Mann vs. Ford chronicles the legal struggles of community leaders Wayne Mann and Vivian Milligan as they and their lawyers do battle against a corporate icon and their legion of high powered lawyers.



Although Ford admits to having dumped the poisons into the community's soil, their lawyers contend that at the time of the dumping, it was a legal act and perhaps other factors that were connected to the area's iron mining could have been the invisible culprit that contributed to the community's sickness.

What has that to do with water fluoridation? The suppliers of the chemicals would provide a cert of analysis showing purity and levels of various heavy metals etc, also the water is routinely tested by independent labs and the results are available online. So not an issue here.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I just googled the journal title , wiki came up and said it was peer reviewed.

There was an article about it on the Irish examiner , GAF also mentioned the u-turn. Just the normal yearly review is happening seeing as the Harvard paper is a few years old nothing is likely to changes.

As being as impartial as the GAF, well her and Waugh blatant fabrications are well documented can you point out any misleading claims in the blog?

Can you post a direct to the wiki .... Doesn't show up when I'm searching for it .... Think brown bomber showed the biased view used in the blog

Brown Bomber

jh79 wrote: »

What has that to do with water fluoridation?

I was responding to the claim made in the link that you provided.

Specifically: That "the claim that public water fluoridation is all a plot to allow companies to cheaply dump industrial waste into the public water supply." is " nonsensical conspiracy-mongering" and a "highly emotional but irrational argument" coming from the "the crank fringe".

And all the time implying that for an individual to be opposed to water fluoridation is part of a "movement" - This same "irrational", "conspiracy mongering", "crank fringe".The reality, as I've demonstrated, is that your source is full of ****. Corps. being permitted to dump their toxic waste on the cheap at the expense of people is the reality. I can spot these bullshine merchants a mile off.

++++++

Not sure if the link will work outside Sweden but here is a link to the documentary I watched on this during the week. It was really good.
http://www.svtplay.se/video/2137720/mann-v-ford?tab=helaprogram

jh79

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I was responding to the claim made in the link that you provided.

Specifically: That "the claim that public water fluoridation is all a plot to allow companies to cheaply dump industrial waste into the public water supply." is " nonsensical conspiracy-mongering" and a "highly emotional but irrational argument" coming from the "the crank fringe".

And all the time implying that for an individual to be opposed to water fluoridation is part of a "movement" - This same "irrational", "conspiracy mongering", "crank fringe".The reality, as I've demonstrated, is that your source is full of ****. Corps. being permitted to dump their toxic waste on the cheap at the expense of people is the reality. I can spot these bullshine merchants a mile off.

++++++

Not sure if the link will work outside Sweden but here is a link to the documentary I watched on this during the week. It was really good.
http://www.svtplay.se/video/2137720/mann-v-ford?tab=helaprogram

It would show up in the analysis by the independent labs who are strictly monitored. No relevance to this discussion.

Surely this research is good news?

Torakx

I guess I saw that (mention of Ford and other stuff BB brought up) and thought. Meh, people do/say silly things all the time, I sought to just check his theory/ information instead.
Which wasn't enough to convince me of much.
These days I tend to gloss over any judgements, because I see it so much, it's easier to ignore that irrational behaviour. But I will still listen to an irrational person. They still might have some good info somewhere in there.

jh79

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Public_Health_Policy


http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/no-plans-to-examine-fluoride-in-public-water-despite-promise-272173.html

jh79

Here is a link to the full paper.

http://www.moffittcaspi.com/sites/moffittcaspi.com/files/field/publication_uploads/Broadbent_AJPH_2014.pdf

jimeryan22

jh79 wrote: »

New study shows no adverse effect on IQ from fluoride exposure.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/new-study-shows-fluoride-safe/

Who paid for this so called study..? Seeing as there's no link, in this Blog
I'd put as much faith in it as an ashtray in a motorbike.. It's listed as toxic and a carcinogen so yeah it's definately poisoning ya..

jh79

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Who paid for this so called study..? Seeing as there's no link, in this Blog
I'd put as much faith in it as an ashtray in a motorbike.. It's listed as toxic and a carcinogen so yeah it's definately poisoning ya..

The post above yours is a link to the full paper.

jimeryan22

jh79 wrote: »

The post above yours is a link to the full paper.

The American journal of health.. Nuff said...

Wanna really know about this stuff.. Look up "Eco science" water fluoridation is just one of the "tools" mentioned to be used on the public.. So.. This is pure disinformation... Harvards peer reviewed study into the area found quite the opposite.. Highest flouridated areas = kids with lowest IQ's..
As for the nazis using it is a non disputed fact, sure what would they know, they were only 30 years ahead of the rest of the world...

King Mob

jimeryan22 wrote: »

As for the nazis using it is a non disputed fact, sure what would they know, they were only 30 years ahead of the rest of the world...

It's a complete fabrication.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/06/critics-water-fluoridation/truth-about-fluoride-doesnt-include-nazi-myth/

Our Holocaust historian knew of no such project. Two book authors who researched the topic, one a journalist, the other a hydrologist, found no credible evidence of such a connection. A leading anti-fluoridation activist repudiates the story. The most commonly cited Web source for the story was a 16-year-old extract in a fringe Australian publication. So we can confidently declare this claim Pants on Fire!

Don't you think it's unfair to reject a paper from a peer reviewed journal in good standing then repeat a known piece of propaganda in the same post?

jimeryan22

King Mob wrote: »

It's a complete fabrication.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/06/critics-water-fluoridation/truth-about-fluoride-doesnt-include-nazi-myth/



Don't you think it's unfair to reject a paper from a peer reviewed journal in good standing then repeat a known piece of propaganda in the same post?

I hear ya mate... But in the article rejecting the nazi theory, the experts just say not to their knowledge or research with amounts to jack, as, Fact most of paperwork regarding the third reich and it's activities were "mostly" destroyed... And that's not a deniable fact...
I mean at the Nuremberg trials they used what was left of the government archives to piece together the atrocities that they commited... So I'm still on the fence with the nazis using it..

King Mob

jimeryan22 wrote: »

I hear ya mate... But in the article rejecting the nazi theory, the experts just say not to their knowledge or research with amounts to jack, as, Fact most of paperwork regarding the third reich and it's activities were "mostly" destroyed... And that's not a deniable fact...
I mean at the Nuremberg trials they used what was left of the government archives to piece together the atrocities that they commited... So I'm still on the fence with the nazis using it..

But you said it was:

As for the nazis using it is a non disputed fact,

Yet now you are saying that all of the evidence that they used it was destroyed?

What makes you to thing the Nazis might have used it in the first place?

Why are you rejecting a paper from a well reputed journal, but then accept a total fabrication from fringe publication?

What information do you have that experts who've researched the topic don't?

jimeryan22

King Mob wrote: »

But you said it was:


Yet now you are saying that all of the evidence that they used it was destroyed?

What makes you to thing the Nazis might have used it in the first place?

Why are you rejecting a paper from a well reputed journal, but then accept a total fabrication from fringe publication?

What information do you have that experts who've researched the topic don't?

Your right I shouldn't have said non disputed.. But I still don't think it can be said 100% it wasn't done that's all

As for info disputing the other study saying fluoride is harmless Here's the Harvard study..

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/


As for any American association I'm dubious. Whether FDA. AMA CDC etc etc...

King Mob

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Your right I shouldn't have said non disputed.. But I still don't think it can be said 100% it wasn't done that's all

I still don't understand why you think they might have done it at all.
You can't say 100% they didn't use space laser beams to kill people during the holocaust either...

There needs to be a reason to think it's a possibility but so far you've said there's no evidence for it.

jimeryan22 wrote: »

As for any American association I'm dubious. Whether FDA. AMA CDC etc etc...

So what specifically is flawed or manipulated in the paper?

Why is the Harvard study trustworthy when it too comes from an American association?

jimeryan22

King Mob wrote: »

I still don't understand why you think they might have done it at all.
You can't say 100% they didn't use space laser beams to kill people during the holocaust either...

There needs to be a reason to think it's a possibility but so far you've said there's no evidence for it.

So what specifically is flawed or manipulated in the paper?

Why is the Harvard study trustworthy when it too comes from an American association?

To be honest there's so much bull in this field it's hard to know.. But here's the first 2 articles that came up with regards to CDC and AMA... We'd be here all day If we're to discuss their efficacy..
I don't trust none of them and that's it...

http://www.sntp.net/fda/ama_lynes.htm

http://anticorruptionsociety.com/tag/cdc/

King Mob

jimeryan22 wrote: »

To be honest there's so much bull in this field it's hard to know.. But here's the first 2 articles that came up with regards to CDC and AMA... We'd be here all day If we're to discuss their efficacy..
I don't trust none of them and that's it...

You have actually explained why you don't trust them beyond that conspiracy sites told you not to trust them.
You trusted a conspiracy site enough to declare a total fabrication a "undisputed fact".
You seem to trust a Harvard study because you think it shows that fluoridation is dangerous (it doesn't).

So don't you think it's unfair to reject studies out of hand for no reason other than you don't agree with them?
Don't you think it's a little silly to reject studies because they are untrustworthy while then accepting total lies from other sources?

jh79

Here is a link to some background on GAF's mentor, scary stuff

http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.ie/2008/11/be-aware-of-who-you-believe-and-what.html?m=1

Some accusations on twitter that she receives a commission on water filters also.

Personally don't think she is in it for the money given the company she keeps. Think she genuinely believes in this sort of nonsense.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Here is a link to some background on GAF's mentor, scary stuff

http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.ie/2008/11/be-aware-of-who-you-believe-and-what.html?m=1

Some accusations on twitter that she receives a commission on water filters also.

Personally don't think she is in it for the money given the company she keeps. Think she genuinely believes in this sort of nonsense.

Asked it earlier on the other thread.

What is it with your obsession with GAF ?

jh79

It is a thread about fluoridation in Ireland and she is the most vocal opponent of fluoridation.

She is the source, in conjunction with Waugh, for all the nonsense spouted about fluoride by the anti-fluoridation campaigners.

If GAF and Waugh didn't start this campaign would there even be an anti-fluoridation movement in Ireland? Personally doubt it.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It is a thread about fluoridation in Ireland and she is the most vocal opponent of fluoridation.

She is the source, in conjunction with Waugh, for all the nonsense spouted about fluoride by the anti-fluoridation campaigners.

If GAF and Waugh didn't start this campaign would there even be an anti-fluoridation movement in Ireland? Personally doubt it.

No this thread about "fluoride update re IQ"

I know about your issues/obsession with both Waugh and GAF

There was plenty of talk about Waugh and GAF in the other thread

All you did here in the new thread is posting links to skeptic waffle with reference to a study done in a small town in NZ.

I made my case without the use of both

Bringing up Waugh and GAF is getting boring tbh and adds nothing to the debate imo

jh79

Fair enough, i'll leave them out of it.

To bring it back on topic so,

Harvard paper shows a small loss in IQ across various poor quality studies from China. Critics of this study point out that a number of other factors are just of as likely to have contributed to this loss in IQ given pollution issues in China. The lack of any background on diet, socio-economic factors, parental IQ etc are other glaring holes in the Chinese studies.

Grandjean recognises these flaws but choses to ignore their impact without any rational. Probably bearing these flaws in mind , he only says fluoride may be a neurotoxin at high levels and later adds that no judgement can be made on water fluoridation with his research.

The New Zealand study doesn't suffer from the flaws above and shows no loss in IQ.

It would be a fair assumption to make that the IQ loss seen in China was not due to fluoride but other contaminants or poor experimental design regarding sampling.

Grandjean has some criticism of the NZ paper on his website, but unfortunately does not address any of the criticisms, made by the authour of the NZ paper, of his meta-analysis paper.

jh79

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/water-fluoridation-1.1951487

Letter today in the Irish Times for a change it is pro-fluoridation.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/water-fluoridation-1.1951487

Letter today in the Irish Times for a change it is pro-fluoridation.

Still strange that Ireland is the only country in Europe that mass fluoridate.

And Tooth decay in other non mass fluoridating western European countries are equal or less as research shows.

Anyway its a Nice pro mass fluoridation piece ... Wonder if they had to pay for this ... Its almost an advertisement

Time for the considerable advantages in terms of improvements in oral health to be demonstrated and, in parallel, time during which there has been no documented medical side-effects of water fluoridation.

Would be nice if the would have mentioned the equal improvements in non mass fluoridating countries ... Wouldn't suit them probably, would expose their own shortcomings in properly promoting dental health in the past 50 years.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Still strange that Ireland is the only country in Europe that mass fluoridate.

And Tooth decay in other non mass fluoridating western European countries are equal or less as research shows.

Anyway its a Nice pro mass fluoridation piece ... Wonder if they had to pay for this ... Its almost an advertisement



Would be nice if the would have mentioned the equal improvements in non mass fluoridating countries ... Wouldn't suit them probably, would expose their own shortcomings in properly promoting dental health in the past 50 years.

Fluoride levels are not uniform across Europe (San Pellingrino bottled water has practically the same fluoride as us), some countries don't drink tap water , other have different fluoridation programs eg salt and politicians don't always make the right decisions considering what the scientific consensus is.

And in some countries decay is worse. No reflection on its effectiveness.

Who would pay for the piece, all civil servants in protected posts , no reason for them to support anything they didn't believe in.

Broadly in agreement with your last point except again this has no bearing on whether fluoridation is effective. It only questions its necessity.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Broadly in agreement with your last point except again this has no bearing on whether fluoridation is effective. It only questions its necessity.

I don't think we where ever in disagreement about the benefits of fluoride

Its more the delivery system I still have major issues with and the failure of politics to address this issue ...

If you drink your Tea, Brush your teeth with fluoride toothpaste, drink fluoridated water Its easy to get a overexposure to fluoride.

Safe levels are being brought down over the years and not up

Its not a one size fits all solution ... (something most European counties recognized and acted upon accordingly)

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/now-were-paying-for-water-let-us-choose-if-it-has-fluoride-30628453.html

She raises some valid point in Fairness

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I don't think we where ever in disagreement about the benefits of fluoride

Its more the delivery system I still have major issues with and the failure of politics to address this issue ...

If you drink your Tea, Brush your teeth with fluoride toothpaste, drink fluoridated water Its easy to get a overexposure to fluoride.

Safe levels are being brought down over the years and not up

Its not a one size fits all solution ... (something most European counties recognized and acted upon accordingly)

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/now-were-paying-for-water-let-us-choose-if-it-has-fluoride-30628453.html

She raises some valid point in Fairness

Not interested in the delivery system myself just the lie that there is evidence of fluoride toxicity at low levels (Harvard study isn't evidence , the author says so himself).

That article is terrible , just a regurgitation of Declan Waugh's lies when it comes to toxicity.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Not interested in the delivery system myself just the lie that there is evidence of fluoride toxicity at low levels (Harvard study isn't evidence , the author says so himself).

That article is terrible , just a regurgitation of Declan Waugh's lies when it comes to toxicity.

So why is the EPA recommending lower levels when there is according to you no adverse effect at current levels

jh79

weisses wrote: »

So why is the EPA recommending lower levels when there is according to you no adverse effect at current levels

Why ask such a question when the obvious response would be to show research that shows toxicity at less than 1ppm?

EPA in the US? They recommend <4ppm and a lower non enforceable <2.0ppm (to prevent cosmetic damage)

If it is the EPA in Ireland thy are following the recommendations of the Forum for Fluoridation who say cosmetic fluorosis is a possibility at > 1.2ppm.

You are aware of this already??
Did the EPA recommend a lowering of the 0.7ppm limit recently?

weisses

My point is that what was considered a safe level years ago is lowered every time

If we would have had this discussion in the seventies you would have argued that 4 ppm is perfectly safe as there are no studies saying otherwise

jh79

weisses wrote: »

My point is that what was considered a safe level years ago is lowered every time

If we would have had this discussion in the seventies you would have argued that 4 ppm is perfectly safe as there are no studies saying otherwise

True but we can only go on the research available to us.

But the levels we have are relatively low and can be found in nature at even higher rates. Do we take all the fluoride out at great expense?

If you believe 0.7 ppm to be toxic then what should we do about mineral water like San Pellegrino (0.6ppm) or tea (up to 3ppm), should they be classed as "medicine" or removed from sale or restricted like alcohol ?

cdoherty86

I would just like to say that Fluride is helthy and nutritios and I know because I'm consumd alot of water.
fluride is what you need to increse your IQ and debunk all those conspircy therists who are just out there and dont know about the reel world.

i'm tyred of all the feer monguring going on about fluride.

weisses

cdoherty86 wrote: »

I would just like to say that Fluride is helthy and nutritios and I know because I'm consumd alot of water.
fluride is what you need to increse your IQ and debunk all those conspircy therists who are just out there and dont know about the reel world.

i'm tyred of all the feer monguring going on about fluride.

Or ........ Your keyboard is fecked :P

cdoherty86

I drank Irish tap water my whole life which may or may not have been low in fluoride, you be the judge of that . I'm no intellectual but I disbelieve in the arguments made by some people that fluoridation is necessary...that's bull**** to me.

I really don't see any logical justification for fluoridation of water.

There are people in parts of South America who have full set of teeth into their 40s/50s yet never seen a dentist or had a tooth decay in their lives. They don't use toothpaste or mouthwash yet still manage to have teeth.

Why? Because of their diet. They don't eat crap that rots their teeth so they don't need dentistry or toothpaste, mouthwash. There's no conspiracy really, I think it's just down to diet mostly.

There are acidic foods which will rot your teeth, even if you brush 2 times a day.

In any case, Fluoridation of water is nonsense..what did humans do for millions of years prior to it? We need to stop being bamboozled by misinformed people.

jh79

Fluoride has always been present in water.