Dublin City Council votes against water fluoridation

Cianmcliam

sin_city wrote: »

So why doesn't every country force it's citizens to drink fluoride like Ireland then?

Several reasons, some countries have lots of small scale water distribution schemes or use a large number of wells. This makes it impractical to distribute and monitor added fluoride. In Ireland we have smaller numbers of relatively large schemes for our comparably small population.

They may not be able to implement a national policy if each district has autonomy over their water supply and budget.

Some countries have populations who hardly ever use tap water for drinking. Many of these use fluoride in table salt or have programmes where fluoride varnishes are applied to children's teeth once or twice a year.

Lots of countries don't have such a culture of sweet and fizzy drinks consumption and tooth decay is not as rampant as here, so fluoridation would not be as effective given the costs involved. We are among the very worst in Europe for sugary snack eating so fluoridation is very effective and economically rational.

Godge

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Several reasons, some countries have lots of small scale water distribution schemes or use a large number of wells. This makes it impractical to distribute and monitor added fluoride. In Ireland we have smaller numbers of relatively large schemes for our comparably small population.

They may not be able to implement a national policy if each district has autonomy over their water supply and budget.

Some countries have populations who hardly ever use tap water for drinking. Many of these use fluoride in table salt or have programmes where fluoride varnishes are applied to children's teeth once or twice a year.

Lots of countries don't have such a culture of sweet and fizzy drinks consumption and tooth decay is not as rampant as here, so fluoridation would not be as effective given the costs involved. We are among the very worst in Europe for sugary snack eating so fluoridation is very effective and economically rational.

A very rational post, don't expect it to be welcomed by the conspiracy theorists on this issue.

sin_city

Godge wrote: »

A very rational post, don't expect it to be welcomed by the conspiracy theorists on this issue.

Only 11 countries in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%).

Please stop trolling by bring conspiracy theory stuff to a good debate.

Troll somewhere else mate.

Godge

sin_city wrote: »

Only 11 countries in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%).

Please stop trolling by bring conspiracy theory stuff to a good debate.

Troll somewhere else mate.

Have a read of this.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Here's the only relevant comparison for Ireland:


You will see differences in effects depending on the dental health system, culture and eating habits of different countries.
Ireland has one of the highest rates of children snacking on sweets, chocolate and fizzy drinks in the EU. In some countries on that chart it is a lot more rare. That means other countries will not see the large benefit Ireland enjoys because their diet is far less challenging to dental health.

The_Captain

Lockstep wrote: »

Because it's a low-cost and extremely effective method of improving dental health without any proven consequences. Why would you remove this?



In the previous links and posts, it's been shown that it's effective in addition to general oral hygiene. Poorer people have worse dental health. Sad but true. They're the ones who stand to benefit the most from water fluoridation. Hell, the WHO lists it as "the most effective public health measure for the prevention of dental decay.”"

It's great at reducing tooth decay in poorer countries, but in Ireland it seems to be largely unnecessary.

It doesn't have any negative effects but it seems to be done now largely because that's the way we've always done it

oscarBravo

The_Captain wrote: »

It's great at reducing tooth decay in poorer countries, but in Ireland it seems to be largely unnecessary.

How do you work that out? All the evidence is to the contrary.

It doesn't have any negative effects but it seems to be done now largely because that's the way we've always done it

It's being done now for the same reason it's always been done: it's a cost-effective public health measure with no negative effects.

Bongalongherb

Can we not all just get along ?. You folk purchase your fluoridated water and tablets, while the rest of us can finally drink our tap-water fluoride free. This is the perfect balance instead of mass-medicating the populations water supply.

There is nothing conspiratorial about this debate here. It just boils down to fairness and choice that will make both sides happy, as it should.

Godge

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Can we not all just get along ?. You folk purchase your fluoridated water and tablets, while the rest of us can finally drink our tap-water fluoride free. This is the perfect balance instead of mass-medicating the populations water supply.

There is nothing conspiratorial about this debate here. It just boils down to fairness and choice that will make both sides happy, as it should.

Purchasing flouridated water and tablets is more expensive than flouridating the water. Why can't you purchase water to drink as is the norm in other countries?

What the opponents of flouridation forget is that in countries where you have to buy water to drink or there is a culture of doing so, there is no point in flouridating the water.

oscarBravo

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Can we not all just get along ?. You folk purchase your fluoridated water and tablets, while the rest of us can finally drink our tap-water fluoride free.

If there was a rational basis for objecting to flouride in the water supply, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to this view. As it is, some people are demanding that we terminate a valuable public health program without actually making a rational case for doing so.

Sorry, but if you want to reduce the overall levels of dental health in the country, you'd better have a seriously compelling argument for doing so.

Bongalongherb

Godge wrote: »

Purchasing flouridated water and tablets is more expensive than flouridating the water. Why can't you purchase water to drink as is the norm in other countries?

What the opponents of flouridation forget is that in countries where you have to buy water to drink or there is a culture of doing so, there is no point in flouridating the water.

Why should I when I will be paying a lot for my tap-water already?. I don't care what other countries do, this is Ireland, we make our own adult rules.


If I'm paying a few hundred euro for my tap water then I want my tap water free of fluoride, end of story.

Bongalongherb

oscarBravo wrote: »

If there was a rational basis for objecting to flouride in the water supply, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to this view. As it is, some people are demanding that we terminate a valuable public health program without actually making a rational case for doing so.

Sorry, but if you want to reduce the overall levels of dental health in the country, you'd better have a seriously compelling argument for doing so.

It is unethical to force-medicate the populations main drinking water supply. Is this not a compelling enough argument alone. With the high cost imposed on Irish citizens regarding IW, why should folk have to purchase bottled water. They shouldn't.

Godge

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Why should I when I will be paying a lot for my tap-water already?. I don't care what other countries do, this is Ireland, we make our own adult rules.


If I'm paying a few hundred euro for my tap water then I want my tap water free of fluoride, end of story.

Well, I want my water coming from my tap flouridated. Guess we will have to leave it up to the politicians.

oscarBravo

Bongalongherb wrote: »

It is unethical to force-medicate the populations main drinking water supply. Is this not a compelling enough argument alone.

I don't believe so.

If there's literally nothing whatsoever more important to you than the principle that medication should never under any circumstances ever be given to someone who hasn't expressly consented to it, fair enough, but it seems more pragmatic to me to take a more nuanced view: if this measure has measurable benefits (it does); if the cost of doing it is outweighed by the savings it yields (it is); if there are no negative effects whatsoever (there aren't); then it's hard to make a rational case against it.

With the high cost imposed on Irish citizens regarding IW, why should folk have to purchase bottled water. They shouldn't.

Why should the state reduce its population's overall dental health in order to satisfy people who can't make a rational case for doing so? It shouldn't.

Bongalongherb

Well as it stands at this moment in time, the european court on human rights are discussing this now, and they will come to their conclusion soon. Regarding on whether fluoride added to our water is a medicine, or a nutrient. Fluoride is obviously a medicine.

Lockstep

The_Captain wrote: »

It's great at reducing tooth decay in poorer countries, but in Ireland it seems to be largely unnecessary.

It doesn't have any negative effects but it seems to be done now largely because that's the way we've always done it

Source?

Godge wrote: »

Purchasing flouridated water and tablets is more expensive than flouridating the water. Why can't you purchase water to drink as is the norm in other countries?

What the opponents of flouridation forget is that in countries where you have to buy water to drink or there is a culture of doing so, there is no point in flouridating the water.

Given that there is no evidence of any negative effects of fluoride, I'm not sure why the government should refrain from fluoridating the water which would require people to do it themselves which would be more expensive.
If there was proven side effects or risks, then sound but there aren't.

If you want fluoride-less water, buy bottled water.

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Well as it stands at this moment in time, the european court on human rights are discussing this now, and they will come to their conclusion soon. Regarding on whether fluoride added to our water is a medicine, or a nutrient. Fluoride is obviously a medicine.

I doubt they'll find any problems. Even the Irish Constitution (a conservative one) holds that there is no conflict between the right of bodily integrity and water fluoridation (Ryan v A.G)

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Why should I when I will be paying a lot for my tap-water already?. I don't care what other countries do, this is Ireland, we make our own adult rules.


If I'm paying a few hundred euro for my tap water then I want my tap water free of fluoride, end of story.

So despite fluoride being widely accepted as beneficial, you think Irish dental health should suffer because you have baseless fears?

Lockstep

Bongalongherb wrote: »

It is unethical to force-medicate the populations main drinking water supply. Is this not a compelling enough argument alone. With the high cost imposed on Irish citizens regarding IW, why should folk have to purchase bottled water. They shouldn't.

Adding a natural element to improve dental health isn't "medicating" any more than adding vitamins to milk is.

If you don't like a public service don't use it. If you don't like your local secondary school, go private. If you don't like your local cops, hire private security.

But ultimately, it's what's in the best interests of the community. And with the WHO, CDC, ADA and NHS all agreeing on the benefits of fluoridated water it's a fairly compelling argument.

Can you name a single dental or medical organisation that opposes fluoridation of water?

Bongalongherb

Lockstep wrote: »

Adding a natural element to improve dental health isn't "medicating" any more than adding vitamins to milk is.

If you don't like a public service don't use it. If you don't like your local secondary school, go private. If you don't like your local cops, hire private security.

But ultimately, it's what's in the best interests of the community. And with the WHO, CDC, ADA and NHS all agreeing on the benefits of fluoridated water it's a fairly compelling argument.

Can you name a single dental or medical organisation that opposes fluoridation of water?

You are not taking into account the level of fluoride in tap-water and also the levels of fluoride in Irish produced foodstuffs that use our fluoridated water for these foodstuffs, as this would be a higher ingestion level, and it is a one-fits-all approach regarding children taking the same dose as adults or anyone else for that matter.

The ingestion of both water and food containing fluoride is a lot higher than just the measurement alone in water for the so-called recommended levels of consumption of children and adults. Why hasn't this been recognised or commented on ?.

We are not just talking about the so-called safe limits of the ingestion of fluoridated water itself, we also have to add food-based fluoride levels into the equation.

Godge

Bongalongherb wrote: »

You are not taking into account the level of fluoride in tap-water and also the levels of fluoride in Irish produced foodstuffs that use our fluoridated water for these foodstuffs, as this would be a higher ingestion level, and it is a one-fits-all approach regarding children taking the same dose as adults or anyone else for that matter.

The ingestion of both water and food containing fluoride is a lot higher than just the measurement alone in water for the so-called recommended levels of consumption of children and adults. Why hasn't this been recognised or commented on ?.

We are not just talking about the so-called safe limits of the ingestion of water itself, we also have to add food-based fluoride levels into the equation.

Lockstep wrote: »

Can you name a single dental or medical organisation that opposes fluoridation of water?

At the risk of repeating Lockstep, in responding to his post, could you at least answer his question. If the answer is no, you cannot name one, at least man up and admit that.

Cianmcliam

Bongalongherb wrote: »

You are not taking into account the level of fluoride in tap-water and also the levels of fluoride in Irish produced foodstuffs that use our fluoridated water for these foodstuffs, as this would be a higher ingestion level, and it is a one-fits-all approach regarding children taking the same dose as adults or anyone else for that matter.

The ingestion of both water and food containing fluoride is a lot higher than just the measurement alone in water for the so-called recommended levels of consumption of children and adults. Why hasn't this been recognised or commented on ?.

We are not just talking about the so-called safe limits of the ingestion of water itself, we also have to add food-based fluoride levels into the equation.

We have an excellent monitoring system in place. If infants, children or adults were ingesting too much fluoride from all the available sources then it would show up as an increase in moderate dental fluorosis cases or the appearance of skeletal fluorosis. These are the first signs of too much fluoride intake and as yet the cases of moderate dental fluorosis are very, very small and there hasn't been a single case of skeletal fluorosis. So no, infants, children or adults in Ireland are not ingesting 'too much' fluoride.

Lockstep

Bongalongherb wrote: »

You are not taking into account the level of fluoride in tap-water and also the levels of fluoride in Irish produced foodstuffs that use our fluoridated water for these foodstuffs, as this would be a higher ingestion level, and it is a one-fits-all approach regarding children taking the same dose as adults or anyone else for that matter.

The ingestion of both water and food containing fluoride is a lot higher than just the measurement alone in water for the so-called recommended levels of consumption of children and adults. Why hasn't this been recognised or commented on ?.

We are not just talking about the so-called safe limits of the ingestion of water itself, we also have to add food-based fluoride levels into the equation.

Have you any evidence that this is raising fluoride levels to unsafe levels?

Irish fluoride is around 0.7 parts per million. Well within the WHO guidelines (0.5-1ppm) with the variable due to different diet, natural fluoridation etc.

Bongalongherb

Lockstep wrote: »

Have you any evidence that this is raising fluoride levels to unsafe levels?

Irish fluoride is around 0.7 parts per million. Well within the WHO guidelines (0.5-1ppm) with the variable due to different diet, natural fluoridation etc.

Have you any evidence it is not, regarding all ingestion of fluoride from water and the amount of water a person will drink, and fluoridated food intake ?. I don't have all the varied data regarding each individuals consumption of fluoridated water and food consumption, do you ? Does any-one for that matter, seeing that it would be a difficult task to calculate. has this question I put been measured on an individual basis regarding consumption of fluoride in all water and food intake including milk and such ? I gather not, so how would you know the amount of fluoride each age-group of the population consumes weekly ?.

This can only be tested by experts regarding individual calculations of babies/young children and adults regarding the intake of their fluoridated water consumption and fluoridated food consumption on an individual basis. What would the all-told amount be with each individual.

Fluoride is in every water-based made food we eat, so the amount of ingestion would be higher. Would you give the same dosage of medicine that an adult would take to a baby or child ? of course not because that would be crazy. But this fluoride scenario of one dose for all is crazy.

fly_agaric

The_Captain wrote: »

It's great at reducing tooth decay in poorer countries, but in Ireland it seems to be largely unnecessary.

Ireland may as well be one of these "poorer" countries when it comes to providing low cost (or perish the thought, free) dental care to its citizens.

Bongalongherb wrote:

Can we not all just get along ?.You folk purchase your fluoridated water and tablets, while the rest of us can finally drink our tap-water fluoride free.

Not really...It has overtones of the debates on vaccinations IMO. Those who want to do away with water fluoridation will damage the health of those who cannot pay for good dental care for reasons which are not fully rational.
As suggested why don't you just drink bottled water instead? Or use energy on trying to get public health system improved so fluoride really becomes unnecessary!

Bongalongherb

fly_agaric wrote: »

Ireland may as well be one of these "poorer" countries when it comes to providing low cost (or perish the thought, free) dental care to its citizens.



Not really...It has overtones of the debates on vaccinations IMO. Those who want to do away with water fluoridation will damage the health of those who cannot pay for good dental care for reasons which are not fully rational.
As suggested why don't you just drink bottled water instead? Or use energy on trying to get public health system improved so fluoride really becomes unnecessary!

Good point I'll admit.

This debate has always been a very touchy subject, but I really don't see a problem regarding the removal of fluoride from the main system. And this excuse that Irish folk cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste or fluoride tablets is just ridiculous.

Every Irish home purchases toothpaste for themselves and their kids to brush their teeth daily I'd like to hope, but the real problem I will say is with parents allowing their kids to constantly indulge in these high sugar drinks and sweets of which will either-way damage their teeth permanently in the long term even if they brush daily or drink a gallon of fluoridated water a day.

I would say that a few educational adverts on the TV a day for children and adults might help, also with more education in schools forwarding the message to children how bad sugary drinks and sweets are might help also I'm sure.

But the parents will need their own education regarding this as well, as they are the ones purchasing this junk for them and not realising how bad it is for their teeth. Education is always the key if targeted correctly for a specific effect to folk.

What good is fluoride or brushing if they are constantly eating and drinking sugar-rich garbage so-called food products. They will just rot the teeth anyway.

The_Captain

Bongalongherb wrote: »

You are not taking into account the level of fluoride in tap-water and also the levels of fluoride in Irish produced foodstuffs that use our fluoridated water for these foodstuffs, as this would be a higher ingestion level, and it is a one-fits-all approach regarding children taking the same dose as adults or anyone else for that matter.

The ingestion of both water and food containing fluoride is a lot higher than just the measurement alone in water for the so-called recommended levels of consumption of children and adults. Why hasn't this been recognised or commented on ?.

We are not just talking about the so-called safe limits of the ingestion of fluoridated water itself, we also have to add food-based fluoride levels into the equation.

Fluoride isn't a bioaccumulator so it doesn't really matter if sheep or cows are given fluoridated water, it won't affect the lamb and beef on your plate. There's also a lot of constant monitoring schemes to ensure the levels of fluoride in your tap never exceed the values laid out in SI 278/2007

BlutendeRabe

Godge wrote: »

When is the vote to introduce Creationism into science classes?

Next week up in Mid and East Antrim District Council once they get rid of the cameras in the loo*.

Why the hell are SF entertaining this anti-scientific nosense? Speaking as a supporter its downright embarrassing. It seems to have started with one of their TDs being hoodwinked by that awful Fluoride woman.

*That was an actual scandal involving the head of the Caleb Foundation, the main lobby group advocating for the teaching of creationism in the 6 counties.

I assume the people against fluoridation are also against the adding of chlorine?

Bongalongherb

The_Captain wrote: »

Fluoride isn't a bioaccumulator so it doesn't really matter if sheep or cows are given fluoridated water, it won't affect the lamb and beef on your plate. There's also a lot of constant monitoring schemes to ensure the levels of fluoride in your tap never exceed the values laid out in SI 278/2007

I agree with your comment, but I was more in the lines of bread of which is mostly eaten, and other products made with Irish fluoridated water.

Just think of any Irish produced foods that are made with our water and in this case the intake/ingestion of fluoride goes up.

Cianmcliam

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I agree with your comment, but I was more in the lines of bread of which is mostly eaten, and other products made with Irish fluoridated water.

Just think of any Irish produced foods that are made with our water and in this case the intake/ingestion of fluoride goes up.

I already gave an answer for this concern a few posts back:

"We have an excellent monitoring system in place. If infants, children or adults were ingesting too much fluoride from all the available sources then it would show up as an increase in moderate dental fluorosis cases or the appearance of skeletal fluorosis. These are the first signs of too much fluoride intake and as yet the cases of moderate dental fluorosis are very, very small and there hasn't been a single case of skeletal fluorosis. So no, infants, children or adults in Ireland are not ingesting 'too much' fluoride. "

sin_city

I think the debate is not whether or not fluoride is good or bad.

Smoking is not good for you but the government can’t make a law saying you can’t smoke in your own home.
It’s a personal choice.

Many people don’t want fluoride in their water but they don’t have the choice.

oscarBravo

sin_city wrote: »

I think the debate is not whether or not fluoride is good or bad.

Yes, it is. The only rational reason to oppose fluoridation is if it's bad. It isn't.

Smoking is not good for you but the government can’t make a law saying you can’t smoke in your own home.
It’s a personal choice.

Smoking and fluoride are hardly comparable.

Many people don’t want fluoride in their water but they don’t have the choice.

Sure they do. They can drink bottled water.

If they're going to demand that everyone else be deprived of fluorination, they'd better have a pretty good reason for it, and that reason is notable by its absence so far.

Godge

sin_city wrote: »

I think the debate is not whether or not fluoride is good or bad.

Smoking is not good for you but the government can’t make a law saying you can’t smoke in your own home.
It’s a personal choice.

Many people don’t want fluoride in their water but they don’t have the choice.

They do, they can buy non-flouridated water in the shops.

The scientific evidence supports flouridation.

sin_city

Godge wrote: »

They do, they can buy non-flouridated water in the shops.

The scientific evidence supports flouridation.

Well lots of people aren't convinced and as one of the few countries in the world that forces its people to drink this stuff I feel that this is a loss of personal liberty.

A person should not be forced to drink this stuff if they don’t want to.

I mean, there are other studies...Am I supposed to only listen to you (who can't even seem to spell fluoridation) and opinions like yours?

oscarBravo wrote: »

If they're going to demand that everyone else be deprived of fluorination, they'd better have a pretty good reason for it, and that reason is notable by its absence so far.

What percentage of people want or do not want this?

You seem to have all the answers so I eagerly wait your response.

If only 10% want fluoride in their water...would you still force it on the people?


This is the politics forum, not the chemistry forum

oscarBravo

sin_city wrote: »

Well lots of people aren't convinced and as one of the few countries in the world that forces its people to drink this stuff I feel that this is a loss of personal liberty.

A person should not be forced to drink this stuff if they don’t want to.

Nobody's forcing you to drink tap water.

I mean, there are other studies...

Can you list them?

This is the politics forum, not the chemistry forum

That doesn't make it the "I don't need your stupid facts, I have an uninformed opinion!" forum.

Godge

sin_city wrote: »

Well lots of people aren't convinced and as one of the few countries in the world that forces its people to drink this stuff I feel that this is a loss of personal liberty.

A person should not be forced to drink this stuff if they don’t want to.

I mean, there are other studies...Am I supposed to only listen to you (who can't even seem to spell fluoridation) and opinions like yours?

What percentage of people want or do not want this? You seem to have all the answers so I eagerly wait your response. If only 10% want fluoride in their water...would you still force it on the people?

This is the politics forum, not the chemistry forum

Lockstep asked the question below a few pages ago and not one anti-fluoridation poster has answered it. Plenty of links to scientific evidence supporting fluoridation have already been provided. Since when do my typing skills have anything to do with the issue?

As for the percentage of people who want this, what percentage of students want to go to school and should we abolish school because the majority of children don't want to go. I know the answer and the answer is they don't understand the benefit of school, well the same answer with fluoridation. The opponents don't or won't understand the benefits. It is a scientific question, not a popularity contest.

Lockstep wrote: »

Can you name a single dental or medical organisation that opposes fluoridation of water?

sin_city

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”

A U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study found no significant relationship between tooth decay and fluoride intake among children. (Warren 2009)

The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989)

Large surveys from three Australian states have found even less of a benefit, with decay reductions ranging from 0 to 0.3 of one permanent tooth surface (Spencer 1996; Armfield & Spencer 2004)

Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has generally continued to decrease (Maupomé 2001; Kunzel & Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel 2000; Seppa 2000).

Fluoride may lower IQ according to 41 out of 48 studies
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/

Godge

sin_city wrote: »

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”

A U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study found no significant relationship between tooth decay and fluoride intake among children. (Warren 2009)

The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989)

Large surveys from three Australian states have found even less of a benefit, with decay reductions ranging from 0 to 0.3 of one permanent tooth surface (Spencer 1996; Armfield & Spencer 2004)

Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has generally continued to decrease (Maupomé 2001; Kunzel & Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel 2000; Seppa 2000).

Fluoride may lower IQ according to 41 out of 48 studies
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/

The 41 studies were conducted in China, Iran, India and Mexico. Seriously, is that all? There are hundreds of uncontrolled reasons in those studies for why flouride would not be the cause.

sin_city

Godge wrote: »

The 41 studies were conducted in China, Iran, India and Mexico. Seriously, is that all? There are hundreds of uncontrolled reasons in those studies for why flouride would not be the cause.

So? I also provided many US studies....what's the use...Maybe its affecting your IQ, you still can't seem to even spell fluoride.

5.7% of the world's population are exposed to this....Do you feel sorry for the other 94.3%?

Here's a study from Finland that show's no evidence of fluoride being beneficial
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12399690



It's not even about all of the above, it's above governments infringing on our liberties. Most countries get this...Ireland is not one of them.

Mod:

Poster banned.

Ziphius

sin_city wrote: »

Here's a study from Finland that show's no evidence of fluoride being beneficial
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12399690

No it doesn't. It shows that in Finland alternative preventative measures mask the beneficial effects of fluoride.
The authors mention this in the abstract.

"The children have been exposed to such intense efforts to increase tooth resistance that the effect of water fluoridation does not show up any more. The results must not be extrapolated to countries with less intensive preventive dental care"

Godge

Ziphius wrote: »

No it doesn't. It shows that in Finland alternative preventative measures mask the beneficial effects of fluoride.
The authors mention this in the abstract.

"The children have been exposed to such intense efforts to increase tooth resistance that the effect of water fluoridation does not show up any more. The results must not be extrapolated to countries with less intensive preventive dental care"

Given that none of my children were seen more than once by a free dentist before they left primary school (thankfully we could afford to bring them ourselves), Ireland can definitely be considered a country with less intensive preventive dental care.

The_Captain

Godge wrote: »

Given that none of my children were seen more than once by a free dentist before they left primary school (thankfully we could afford to bring them ourselves), Ireland can definitely be considered a country with less intensive preventive dental care.

That's some leap of logic to make

Godge

The_Captain wrote: »

That's some leap of logic to make

At least it is a leap of logic unlike the opposition to fluoridation:)

Zubeneschamali

sin_city wrote: »

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”

Perhaps you can point out where precisely on the FDA's own website.

what I find there is the the FDA allows fluoride to be added to bottled water, and the maker to add the health claim:

"Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay]."

This is based on :

The following three statements are considered authoritative for purposes of this notification.Recommendation for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the U.S. (Centers for Disease Control, 2001):

"Widespread use of fluoride has been a major factor in the decline in the prevalence and severity of dental caries (i.e., tooth decay) in the United States and other economically developed countries. When used appropriately, fluoride is both safe and effective in preventing and controlling dental caries. All U.S. residents are likely exposed to some degree of fluoride, which is available from multiple sources." (Summary section, page 1)

"Continue and extend fluoridation of community drinking water: Community water fluoridation is a safe, effective, and inexpensive way to prevent dental caries. This modality benefits persons in all age groups and of all SES, ...." (Recommendation section, page 24)

Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General (2000):

"Community water fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing dental caries in both children and adults. Water fluoridation benefits all residents served by community water supplies regardless of their social or economic status. Professional and individual measures, including the use of fluoride mouth rinses, gels, dentifrices, and dietary supplements and the application of dental sealants, are additional means of preventing dental caries." (Executive summary)

Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks (Public Health Service, 1991):

"Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a reduction in dental caries. Although the comparative degree of measurable benefit has been reduced recently as other fluoride sources have become available in non-fluoride areas, the benefits of water fluoridation are still clearly evident." (Conclusions section, page 87)

Bob24

Option 1: providing high quality and affordable dental care to the population and working on improving eating habits

Option 2: adding some cheap drug to the water people are drinking


No-brainer for the good people of Ireland !!! ;-)

Godge

Bob24 wrote: »

Option 1: providing high quality and affordable dental care to the population and working on improving eating habits

Option 2: adding some cheap drug harmless additive to the water people are drinking


No-brainer for the good people of Ireland !!! ;-)

There you go.

Bongalongherb

Well, whether you fluoride lovers like it or not, fluoride will be removed from the main water system soon. If you want to look after your teeth... purchase the necessary products including fluoride when you need to. It will be removed whether you like it or not, I can guarantee you that.

Godge

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Well, whether you fluoride lovers like it or not, fluoride will be removed from the main water system soon. If you want to look after your teeth... purchase the necessary products including fluoride when you need to. It will be removed whether you like it or not, I can guarantee you that.

Are you pinning your hopes on a SF overall majority? Do you know something the Chief Medical Officer in the Department of Health doesn't?

alastair

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Well, whether you fluoride lovers like it or not, fluoride will be removed from the main water system soon.

No it won't. There's nothing changing with regard to water fluoridation here.

Bongalongherb

You would have to question as to why it was stopped in Germany if it is soo good for you.

alastair

Bongalongherb wrote: »

You would have to question as to why it was stopped in Germany if it is soo good for you.

Germans, in the main, fluoridate their salt. Presumably they also don't feel it's doing them harm to ingest it then. The state recommends that they do so, btw, so they didn't stop water fluoridation on account of any fears for ingested fluoride.

oscarBravo

Bongalongherb wrote: »

It will be removed whether you like it or not, I can guarantee you that.

"Guarantee" is a strong word. What do you know that we don't?