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 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3376

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:48 pm    Post subject: Fluoride - attempts by govt to have UK wide contamination Reply with quote

There have been several attempts by the government to add fluoride to the water in the UK. The likely attempts will be in England first. The EU passed a law in 2014 prohibiting the addition of hexaflurosilicic acid to water supplies. The claims by the lobbies pushing this move has been that it reduces tooth decay. This hasn't been proved by scientific study. The dose rate is widely quoted as 1g/litre or something. The figure is difficult to be certain of as it is also quoted as 1ppm. If it is 1g/l what is the supposed dose rate? Some people drink more than others, and doses are always in terms of weight of the user, and people have different weights. By comparison the amount in a tube of toothpaste is enough to last 2 years at that rate. Quoted on a tube I have here as 0.31% w/w or 1400ppm in the form of sodium fluloride. There is sufficient in a tube to kill a child. There's plenty of information about the effects of fluoride online, but if it is to go nationwide it cannot be for tooth protection as different areas should show marked differences in tooth decay, since some are treated and some are not, which they don't. So it has to be for something else, and the two main options are for population control in terms of fertility or behaviour.

Here is a video/interview

There is a government censor bot on this site as it changed "sodium fluoride" to "sodium chloride", but I spotted it. Twisted Evil
_________________
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 Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1969

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am pretty certain that the water I drink from the tap in Birmingham already has fluoride added and I personally am happy with this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3376

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps you should to look into how flouride preferentially replaces iodine (thyroid) and calcium (bones) and it's effects are cumulative. You could also look into fluoride's toxic properties. Why would any intelligent person would want a toxic substance with no medical benefits in their water? There is no reliable information that the addition of fluoride in the water reduces tooth decay. This is a red herring put forward by commercial interests.

You have no idea what dose you might be safe at, but small children will not be safe at the same dose.
_________________
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 Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1969

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3376

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunately wickipedia's credibility, when it comes to fields have a strong commercial interest is not going to cut it.

Perhaps you should look here

It's good to see the UK is, once again, the only one marching in step, while the rest of Europe is well out of step.

We don't do that here.
_________________
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
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13970
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My dentist's current information is that fluoride in the quantities found in toothpaste is beneficial to the teeth but none must ever be swallowed.

It makes no sense - and is a violation of bodily rights - to add it to water. Pushing it means there is obviously someone trying to make money.
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not sure who stands to make money tbh. Dentists seem to be the main ones pushing it and they stand to lose money. I doubt the costs of adding it are that great so I can't imagine there's a major win for industry there.

In terms of evidence for benefit / harm it's always worth checking to see if Cochrane have done a meta analysis and they have:

http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay

There's also an older NHS report:

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/fluoride/documents/crdreport18.pdf

And some other reviews here:

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Fluoride/Pages/Introduction.aspx

The upshot appears to be that there is some evidence for benefits but the studies that do exist weren't very good quality so there isn't a great deal of confidence in the results. Equally the evidence for negative effects beyond fluorosis also seems to be weak.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13970
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aidan Killian on fluoride

(Turn the sound up, it's not great quality). He has a few home truths about subjects close to this forum later in the video.
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1969

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The cochrane reports seems pretty good. My view is that I don't want to spend any time looking at campaign websites on the issue.

Personally I don't mind fluoridation and am supportive of vaccination programmes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3376

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you wish to have fluoride, and if you wish to be vaccinated that's fine, but do not support forced medication on others who can see the problems that are misrepresented by the commercial interests.
_________________
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
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3376

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pepperman wrote:
Not sure who stands to make money tbh. Dentists seem to be the main ones pushing it and they stand to lose money. I doubt the costs of adding it are that great so I can't imagine there's a major win for industry there.

In terms of evidence for benefit / harm it's always worth checking to see if Cochrane have done a meta analysis and they have:

http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay

There's also an older NHS report:

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/fluoride/documents/crdreport18.pdf

And some other reviews here:

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Fluoride/Pages/Introduction.aspx

The upshot appears to be that there is some evidence for benefits but the studies that do exist weren't very good quality so there isn't a great deal of confidence in the results. Equally the evidence for negative effects beyond fluorosis also seems to be weak.


Among the beneficiaries will be the manufacturers whose processes produce the fluoride compounds which otherwise will need an expensive disposal process. There will an indirect benefit for producers of medications and services used to treat people who suffer adverse reactions.

The benefits of fluoride have not been demonstrated

Graph
_________________
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: 1969

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodburner wrote:
If you wish to have fluoride, and if you wish to be vaccinated that's fine, but do not support forced medication on others who can see the problems that are misrepresented by the commercial interests.

I do believe that as a rule vaccination should be optional. There could be circumstances (ebola for example) where the dangers of not having the appropriate medication affect others. However, as it currently stands is is optional.

When it comes to fluoride in the water this happens naturally in some areas of the world.

There is clearly evidence that it reduces dental problems (as has been indicated on this forum) by people who were not under a financial or other motivation to try to come to conclusions other than those which would be seen as truthful.

If people wish to avoid fluoridated water then they can find out which water supplies are fluoridated and drink and cook with non-fluoridated water.

I would not compel people to drink fluoride. However, from the issue of the interests of the population as a whole particularly children of families with less money fluoridation is a good thing.

The graph quotes the UK as non-fluoridated. It clearly is fluoridated in some places.

Here is a recent list:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11430233/The-extent-of-water-fluoridation-in-the-UK.html

Birmingham is at the top of the list.

This is the quote from Wikipedia sourced from Cochrane.
Quote:
A Cochrane review estimates a reduction in cavities when water fluoridation was used by children who had no access to other sources of fluoride to be 35% in baby teeth and 26% in permanent teeth.


That's good enough for me.

(note in the wikipedia quote: who had no access to other sources of fluoride)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3376

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Natural fluoride is not caused by hexafluorosilicic acid, which a waste product from the phosphate fertiliser industry, and which is used in UK fluoridation plants. There is a EU regulation which prohibits the addition of hexafluorosilicic acid to municipal water supplies, but somehow this does not apply in the UK.

Topical application of fluoride may have beneficial effects on teeth, swallowing it has no known benefit for teeth

In the US which has a long history of fluoridation, around 30% of children have fluorosis of teeth. Why is this not seen in places which do not have fluoride added to water, or not added to foodstuffs?

Since fluoride has effects on changing one of the body tissues, teeth, why is it not expected to have effects on other tissues?

Why, with a tissue changing substance, is a one-size-fits-all dose going to give the correct dose in all cases? This dose is being given without informed consent.

In supposedly saving the teeth of impoverished children, what measures have been taken to protect people who are at risk of the effects of fluoride? Those with impaired thyroid function, amongst others?

To avoid ingesting a toxic substance, why should I have to purchase water from a fluoride free source? We live in a fluoridated area, and it was added without anyones consent, by a dictat from some local "health" authority.

Ingestion via drinking water or cooking water is not the only method, it is absorbed through the skin in baths and showers and particularly in showers breathed in in aerosols. What size does this make the dose now?
_________________
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: 1969

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodburner wrote:
We live in a fluoridated area, and it was added without anyones consent, by by a dictat from some local "health" authority.

Given your concerns about fluoridation what actions do you personally take to avoid it. Do you, for example, make hot drinks with nonfluoridated water?


In Birmingham the democratically elected city council decided to fluoridate the water in 1964.

This is another look at the history:
http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v199/n7s/full/4812863a.html

Which has an interesting quote:
Quote:
However, like any preventive measure, it only makes sense where there exists a significant disease risk. The time may come in a particular society where the decay risk is too small to continue fluoridating or to consider starting. Such has been the case in Finland, where one town, Kuiopo, had been fluoridated for decades and has now terminated the scheme. In that situation, the caries risk was very low and the school dental service provided significant school-based fluoride programmes. Such was also the case in Basle, Switzerland, where water fluoridation was no longer deemed necessary due to the new availability of fluoridated salt.

Such will certainly be the case in the most of the South of England, where decay risk is now too low to gain any significant benefit from fluoridation.


I accept entirely the thesis that the cost benefits of fluoridation may now be lower and potentially such schemes could be withdrawn. However, not for the reasons that you suggest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3376

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The fluroide added to the water supply does not occur in nature. It is hydrofluosilicic acid (some spellings may term it hexa-, or stick an extra "r" in. This is a chemical which will dissolve almost any substance.

Democracy in this case is used as a get-out for not bothering to tell the people what effects fluoride has, and I ask again, what was done about the dangers of fluoride to people with thyroid problems? The incidsence of thyroid problems is twice that found in non-fluoridated areas.
_________________
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
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 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