PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Fluoride - attempts by govt to have UK wide contamination
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12422
Location: York

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here in York our wastewater doesn't go (straight) into the river or sea. Yorkshire being quite a dry place and with crops growing, the wastewater gets treated. Solids (with fluoride in, if we had it in the water) are separated and given away as fertiliser. Fluoride accumulates, so if we were to have it in our water it would in short order pile up in anti-social levels in our food (via crops or via grazing animals).

Any produce thus grown could not be sold as Organic, which would detract from the economy here, and from people's choice.

And heaven help anyone whose kidneys aren't 100%.

All this just so a few people can have shinier teeth: the game's not worth the candle.

Which brings me back to all those poor s*ds in Glasgow (I used to live there).

There's now a proper, co-ordinated programme to get children into the habit of brushing their teeth, and eating better food, while still at nursery. It's not expensive, and it's working. You can still buy Organic, and if you want to wreck your kidneys there's always Irn Bru...
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1902

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
All this just so a few people can have shinier teeth: the game's not worth the candle.

It is not about shinier teeth. Some areas where there are natural levels of fluoride in water at a much higher level than those areas which have fluoridation (such as where I live) actually have mottled teeth as a result.

It is about avoiding caries. A more cost effective mechanism may simply be to get children to use fluoridated toothpaste.

However, although over time I would expect to see a reduction in fluoridation of drinking water the arguments against it normally used don't stand up. Most areas have sewage treatment (I would assume all actually). The fluoride one would expect to remain overwhelmingly in the water.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3322

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fluoride is added to toothpaste in the form of sodium flouride, and to water in the form of hexaflurosilicic acid, a waste product from the fertiliser industry which it is illegal to discharge in watercourses, and it is illegal to discharge the parent gases to atmosphere, but the government permits in its infinite wisdom to add to drinking water. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Fluoride is Poison
The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry.

A large study was conducted in New Zealand. There, the New Zealand National Health Service plan examined the teeth of every child in key age groups, and found that the teeth of children in non-fluoridated cities were slightly better than those in the fluoridated cities. (Colquhoun, J. "Child Dental Health Differences in New Zealand", Community Healthy Services, XI 85-90, 1987).



No doubt johnhemming2 will have reasons to dismiss this too

Then I suppose some people will always believe what TPTB tell them. Perhaps they should look at the damaging effects of refined carbohydrates. Caries anybody?
_________________
If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money.


Last edited by woodburner on Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12422
Location: York

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here in York (she says again) Professor Trevor Sheldon headed-up a systemic review of all the research on fluorides and teeth (he wasn't allowed to include other medical effects). The conclusion was that none of the research was of good enough quality to pass muster as basis for such a drastic public health policy.

Many reported 'improvements' observed in the quality of children's teeth in fluoridated areas were matched, or exceeded, by improvements in non-fluoridated areas simply because at that time (1950s - 1990s) public health generally, and dental care in particular, was improving.

People (and particularly on the Labour benches, which makes me sad) think of fluoridation as some kind of great leveller of health differences between rich and poor. But Trevor Sheldon's report busted that one, too.

We don't need fluoride in water: the type that's added to toothpaste will do.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1902

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
We don't need fluoride in water: the type that's added to toothpaste will do.

That may be true. However, I would rather that people tried looking at the evidence with an open mind rather than simply trying to argue from a viewpoint that they have decided to support.

I don't personally care whether or not fluoride is added to water or not in isolation. However, the scientific evidence I have personally reviewed justifies doing this. Those people arguing against this have used arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny.

In the end I have lost confidence in those arguing against this from grounds other than cost effectiveness as their arguments don't stand up to proper scrutiny.

I spend personally some time investigating the evidence to substantiate my own viewpoints on issues to decide whether I am right or not. If the evidence does not substantiate my viewpoint I change my mind.

On this thread we have had argued that most fluoride ingested remains in the body - that is obviously not true.

It really is worth being concerned about what the truth is or what the possible truths may be. There are issues where there are uncertainty, but this issue is not one of those apart from the question of cost effectiveness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3322

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Scientific evidence" to support some controversial action, such as forcing ingestion of a toxic waste product would never have industry funding, or associated political support of course.
_________________
If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1902

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What evidence do you have to substantiate
a) That there is industry funding for fluoridation
b) That this has affected the decision making.

As far as I can tell Fluoride is only added to a minority of the water supplies in the UK. It happens to be that I live in one of those areas and I do support fluoridation because I have children who it benefits.

There are also a small amount of water supplies that have natural fluoridation and I don't think anyone is suggesting trying to stop that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3322

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well you allow your children to ingest toxic products if you like. Let's hope they don't have a conversion on the road to Damascus moment and see your actions as thoughtless, or even reckless.

If the number of treated water supplies are small, and the dental decay rate is going down across the country, why are some ill informed authorities making people drink water with toxins added? Now I suppose you will come up with one of your silly suggestions that they do not have to consume the water from the tap but could go and buy bottled water. So what do the wash in? since fluoride is also absorbed through the skin, and injested through breathing in areosols.

But that wouldn't fit your evidence free beliefs.

You will no doubt reply to this post, but I will not post further on this matter.
_________________
If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1902

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In other words you don't have any evidence to substantiate your claims that there is industry funding and that that influences the decision making.

Much like most of your arguments really in respect of this issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12422
Location: York

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's only fair to reiterate at this stage that Professor Sheldon's systemic review of all the relevant research found NO WORK of high-enough quality to prove the case that adding fluoride to the water supply either improves dental health in general or decreases health inequality. He actually had to write, quite a forcefully-worded leter iirc, to the BDA telling them not to use his results in their pro-fluoridation arguments.

Also, he was told specifically NOT to look into papers on health effects other than fluorosis.

Plenty of surveys show improvements in dental health, but further inspection shows these improvements can be put down to increases in living standards, including nutrition, smoking reduction and the regular use of toothpaste.

And finally, to reiterate: the fluoride salt that occurs naturally in water is not the same as the compound HMG are proposing to add. And since you ask, Chateau Renewable now has 3 (three) water barrels. Just in case Smile
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group