Auditor #9 wrote:

What is fluoride meant to do to us, Soubresauts ?

I think you know this, but anyway... it's meant to strengthen our teeth against tooth decay and improve general health.

What it actually does to us is explained here.

Those of you who use non-organic teas and don't avoid fluoridated water might want to pay attention to research like this, and this.

I've split this post out from the Tea thread. Treehugger have a survey today on whether or not you trust the scientists on it or not. 41% as opposed to 19% out of 219 so far believe that it is worth trusting the scientists that flouride has more benefits than not.

Treehugger

Auditor #9 wrote:

... 41% as opposed to 19% out of 219 so far believe that it is worth trusting the scientists that flouride has more benefits than not.

Audi, that's a bit misleading. It's obvious from the responses so far that most people are against fluoridation.

Anyway, it's a stupid survey. Offering four disparate options is not going to cast much light on the subject, or tell you much about how people feel about it. There should have been more, and more balanced options, or else just the straight question: "Do you want to be fluoridated?"

I never heard of Treehugger before. My initial impression is not good.

Treehugger would tend to be green or at least some greenies would read it. It seems to be a North American site mainly.

There are two other options which I didn't mention in fairness - 38% responded to the question "It's up to the individual what they put in their mouths". And then there's an "Other" option with 2%.

Is it possible that the debate isn't as strong over there as it might have been here?

Whether most scientists are pro-fluoridation or not is hardly the issue here. The fact is that only a small number of scientists have looked carefully at or studied the issue. The scientists that have done so are gathered here.

There is not one medical doctor in Ireland who is willing to defend fluoridation in public debate.

The most highly qualified toxicologist in Ireland, Prof Vyvyan Howard of the University of Ulster in Coleraine, has done a short but very instructive video about the issue; see here.

Some other very interesting videos have been released recently, all accessible via the Fluoride Action Network; see link below.

Meanwhile, it's all happening in Toronto this week: there are two big conferences about fluoride. See details at:
www.fluoridealert.org

Burning question: Why is the whole Irish population being dosed with unmeasured amounts of a deadly poison?

soubresauts wrote:

Whether most scientists are pro-fluoridation or not is hardly the issue here. The fact is that only a small number of scientists have looked carefully at or studied the issue. The scientists that have done so are gathered here.

Of the 10 Facts about Flouride, #1 says

Quote :

1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water . This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm

How long these countries are without flouride in comparison to us administering it through our water system is not stated but if there are adverse health issues arising from flouridation shouldn't Ireland have higher incidences of suspected conditions related to flouride compared to the 97% of Europe listed above?

Auditor #9 wrote:

How long these countries are without flouride in comparison to us administering it through our water system is not stated but if there are adverse health issues arising from flouridation shouldn't Ireland have higher incidences of suspected conditions related to flouride compared to the 97% of Europe listed above?

The short answer is Yes.

Is anybody investigating it? No.

The Republic of Ireland has had mandatory fluoridation for 44 years, uniquely among democracies. How many scientific studies have been carried out looking for health effects other than on teeth? Zero. The DoHC and the Health Research Board will not fund such studies.

Comparisons with other European countries are not as simple as they might seem. 10% of Britain has water fluoridation (Birmingham, Newcastle and a few other areas). Water fluoridation has been implemented in a clandestine way in many parts of Spain; see here.

Perhaps the biggest confounding issue is salt fluoridation; see here. While Switzerland and Germany are the centres of salt fluoridation, the effects may be very widespread. For example, fluoridated salt from Germany is on sale in Lidl stores in Ireland. It's illegal, because Irish people are already fluoridated through their water, but it goes on because public health policy is controlled by a coterie of people who want to dose everyone with as much fluoride as they can get away with.

That coterie consists of the key members of the Irish Expert Body on Fluorides & Health (An Comhlacht Saineolaithe Éireannach um Fhluairídí agus Sláinte) whose latest achievement is to present some of their lying, deceiving gobbledygook in the first official language (see here), at taxpayers' expense of course.

The Irish people badly need to stop fluoridation immediately, kick those "experts" out (into the gutter, where they belong), and tell other nations about this scientific fraud.

General health and diet and not smoking seem to be the main factors in having healthy teeth and gums. People should get regular dental check ups as dentists also are supposed to check for early signs of oral cancer.

Perhaps spending the money spent on fluoridisation on anti-smoking measures would give more healthiness per euro spent?

soubresauts wrote:

public health policy is controlled by a coterie of people who want to dose everyone with as much fluoride as they can get away with.

Why?
What do Irish politicians get out of fluoridation?

eoinmn wrote:

soubresauts wrote:

public health policy is controlled by a coterie of people who want to dose everyone with as much fluoride as they can get away with.

Why?
What do Irish politicians get out of fluoridation?

The feeling they are doing something? They give us an extra few buckets full here for luck. The Area Overseer is generous.

eoinmn wrote:

Why?
What do Irish politicians get out of fluoridation?

It's not so much what they "get out" of fluoridation. The "coterie" I referred to contains only one politician, Micheál Martin, and he knows next to nothing about fluoridation.

Also, bear in mind:

* Washington would be very upset if Irish fluoridation were stopped.

* Many big industries have a vested interest in laundering the image of fluoride.

* A handful of very influential people with big reputations control Irish fluoridation, and they are anxious to preserve those reputations. Those people include Martin, O'Mullane, Whelton, Clarkson and O'Herlihy.

soubresauts wrote:

Washington would be very upset if Irish fluoridation were stopped.

We buy our fluoride from the US?

soubresauts wrote:

Many big industries have a vested interest in laundering the image of fluoride.

Companies who sell fluoride? Or companies who use fluoride?

soubresauts wrote:

preserve those reputations.

This I understand. Since all the main parties have been involved in fluoridation, nobody wants to turn around and say "Oooops, we've been poisoning you all for the last 40 years!".

eoinmn wrote:

We buy our fluoride from the US?

No, though they rarely tell us where the fluoride is coming from, and have deliberately concealed the fact that, for most of the 44 years of Irish fluoridation, the fluoride used was untreated toxic waste from phosphate fertilizer factories. Cf. this.

Quote :

Companies who sell fluoride? Or companies who use fluoride?

It's more the companies who cause fluoride pollution: Intel, coal (Moneypoint), steel (Haulbowline, etc.), cement, brick, aluminium (Aughinish, etc.), Big Pharma, chemical, and so on. Most agri-chemicals and most prescription drugs contain significant amounts of fluoride.

Just noticed the Irish Times today: see here. The IT has become the fluoridators' most reliable cheerleader, so this eulogizing of Prof Helen Whelton doesn't surprise me in the least.

Some years ago, when the fluoridation controversy was starting to generate publicity, Whelton declared:
"There is no cause for concern at the levels of fluoride people are getting. There is no reason to remove fluoride from the water."
(Irish Times, May 17th, 1999)

Barefaced lies.

I can relate it maybe to the x-ray issue. There are statistics published for the numbers of deaths likely to occur as a result of dental x-rays per 100,000 population (UK). There is a risk. Radiation and its effects are cumulative so it is clearly unwise for one person to have a lot of x-rays. For various reasons I have - but if I try to tell a dentist that I don't want one for a minor procedure it is dismissed casually. I have read the literature and I that the advice in fact is not to over-use x-rays.

Overall dentists are very good for our health but they may find it difficult to consider that any aspect of what they do might cause harm.

I stopped trusting 'experts', 'scientists', 'consultants', politicians, priests, doctors or any anyone else who tells me stuff a long time ago.

So no, I don't trust them.

Does anyone know what the original rationale was for adding the flouride in 1964 ?

soubresauts wrote:

Just noticed the Irish Times today: see here. The IT has become the fluoridators' most reliable cheerleader, so this eulogizing of Prof Helen Whelton doesn't surprise me in the least.

Some years ago, when the fluoridation controversy was starting to generate publicity, Whelton declared:
"There is no cause for concern at the levels of fluoride people are getting. There is no reason to remove fluoride from the water."
(Irish Times, May 17th, 1999)

Barefaced lies.

The link is very interesting. Would you know who the current suppliers are, and the costs of fluoridisation annually?

cactus flower wrote:

soubresauts wrote:

Just noticed the Irish Times today: see here. The IT has become the fluoridators' most reliable cheerleader, so this eulogizing of Prof Helen Whelton doesn't surprise me in the least.

Some years ago, when the fluoridation controversy was starting to generate publicity, Whelton declared:
"There is no cause for concern at the levels of fluoride people are getting. There is no reason to remove fluoride from the water."
(Irish Times, May 17th, 1999)

Barefaced lies.

The link is very interesting. Would you know who the current suppliers are, and the costs of fluoridisation annually?

It is interesting. It goes against evolution, which would possibly say that our teeth look after themselves naturally (subject to diet) and not be relying upon an artificial chemical addition.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

soubresauts wrote:

Just noticed the Irish Times today: see here. The IT has become the fluoridators' most reliable cheerleader, so this eulogizing of Prof Helen Whelton doesn't surprise me in the least.

Some years ago, when the fluoridation controversy was starting to generate publicity, Whelton declared:
"There is no cause for concern at the levels of fluoride people are getting. There is no reason to remove fluoride from the water."
(Irish Times, May 17th, 1999)

Barefaced lies.

The link is very interesting. Would you know who the current suppliers are, and the costs of fluoridisation annually?

It is interesting. It goes against evolution, which would possibly say that our teeth look after themselves naturally (subject to diet) and not be relying upon an artificial chemical addition.

Good point, EVM. Giving up the coca cola would be more to the point. Perhaps fluoridisation is designed to encourage us to fill ourselves with junk with impunity.

I dunno - in a country where even getting fresh potable water free of human and agricultural waste and the corresponding bacteria cultures seems to becoming more and more of a major challenge everyday - the whole flouridation or not arguement seems to be small potatoes at the moment.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

soubresauts wrote:

Just noticed the Irish Times today: see here. The IT has become the fluoridators' most reliable cheerleader, so this eulogizing of Prof Helen Whelton doesn't surprise me in the least.

Some years ago, when the fluoridation controversy was starting to generate publicity, Whelton declared:
"There is no cause for concern at the levels of fluoride people are getting. There is no reason to remove fluoride from the water."
(Irish Times, May 17th, 1999)

Barefaced lies.

The link is very interesting. Would you know who the current suppliers are, and the costs of fluoridisation annually?

It is interesting. It goes against evolution, which would possibly say that our teeth look after themselves naturally (subject to diet) and not be relying upon an artificial chemical addition.

Hmm. Perhaps we should also allow our evolved immune systems to fight off diseases, and not be relying on artificial chemical antibiotics?

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

soubresauts wrote:

Just noticed the Irish Times today: see here. The IT has become the fluoridators' most reliable cheerleader, so this eulogizing of Prof Helen Whelton doesn't surprise me in the least.

Some years ago, when the fluoridation controversy was starting to generate publicity, Whelton declared:
"There is no cause for concern at the levels of fluoride people are getting. There is no reason to remove fluoride from the water."
(Irish Times, May 17th, 1999)

Barefaced lies.

The link is very interesting. Would you know who the current suppliers are, and the costs of fluoridisation annually?

It is interesting. It goes against evolution, which would possibly say that our teeth look after themselves naturally (subject to diet) and not be relying upon an artificial chemical addition.

Hmm. Perhaps we should also allow our evolved immune systems to fight off diseases, and not be relying on artificial chemical antibiotics?

In general yes, Ibis. I'm sure you wouldn't suggest putting antibiotics into the water supply. They are vastly overused, to the detriment of health.
Antibiotics should not be prescribed for minor infections that aren't life threatening.

The addition of flouride to watr has a long and murky past. It was never ordered defacto across the board (rather came in piece meal) and much of the research was carried out by parties that were not impartial (eg Aluminum Company of America who had toones of F waste).

Flouride was added to water but its benifits have never been proven. The most anyone can say is may. It seems that much research targets the 'its not dangerous' approach rather than the 'there are the benifits' approach. This is not unusual considering that many drug studies in the pharma industry do the same (and have had gold standard since the 50s).

On that point (benifits never proven) I do not think it should be in the water.

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

soubresauts wrote:

Just noticed the Irish Times today: see here. The IT has become the fluoridators' most reliable cheerleader, so this eulogizing of Prof Helen Whelton doesn't surprise me in the least.

Some years ago, when the fluoridation controversy was starting to generate publicity, Whelton declared:
"There is no cause for concern at the levels of fluoride people are getting. There is no reason to remove fluoride from the water."
(Irish Times, May 17th, 1999)

Barefaced lies.

The link is very interesting. Would you know who the current suppliers are, and the costs of fluoridisation annually?

It is interesting. It goes against evolution, which would possibly say that our teeth look after themselves naturally (subject to diet) and not be relying upon an artificial chemical addition.

Hmm. Perhaps we should also allow our evolved immune systems to fight off diseases, and not be relying on artificial chemical antibiotics?

Hardly the same thing and not really comparable. We cannot avoid consuming water, it is necessary for life, whereas we can take or leave drugs, which may or may not prolong life.