Public Meeting - Water Fluoridation

[staaue]

The simple side to this is as follows.

 

Paul Emerson appears to refute claims that Fluoride is dangerous to out health.

 

Really Dr Emerson, how about you and me get together with a small supply of this harmless substance; oooh and don't forget to invite the rest of the team, lets get the PHC Committee together and give them a dose of this food as well

Oooh, I recon about 130mg per kilo of body mass should suffice. It's food though isn't it Dr Nik (Simpsons pun) not toxic.

 

Then Dr Nik starts to TELL us Fluoride is safe straight after a toxicologist tells us how dangerous this stuff is.

Hmmm. what's that four letter word that starts with 'T' and ends With A 'T'.???

 

 

This is how this manksie see's the situation.

 

Manks Gov't always happy to suck up to the Whitehall lot says yes sir, please sir, kiss kiss, we'll do it mas-sa... blink blink licky licky.... Ok, you get the idea.

Manks Gov't has to be seen to be making the right noises or risks the Manks mob. In comes the PHCC (PHCC PUBLIC HEALTH COVERUP COMMITTEE) These guys are the Gov't sales team. We the public believe what these Dr's/consultants have to say because we pay these tossers to be trustworthy and have our best interests in mind. Unfortunately, they don't; they have the Gov't agenda on their interests list. (As a matter of interest, who pays this committee anyway.)

 

SERIOUSLY GUYS, READ THE FOLLOWING LINKS. WE ARE THE GOVERNORS OF OUR COUNTRY; THOSE LOT IN THE IVORY TOWERS WORK FOR US, DON'T LET THEM FORGET.

 

You'll like this. http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride

 

At first I was thinking, are we really this stupid to allow this to happen? Then I realised the question should be turned around to 'Are they?'.

 

Staaue.

[Lost Login]

What a complete load of scaremongering rubbish.

 

I listened to Manx Radio on Sunday which had two hours on this and was decidely unimpresed with the arguments put forward by anti fluoridation lobby. I can understand that there is an argument against adding anything to our water supply which you could argue on moral grounds but we already have other substances added to our drinking water for the good of our heallthe.g. aluminium, chluoride. Or you could argue to provide the Fluoride in another way e.g. in milk as in some Euopean countries

 

The argument that it is being done at the request of the british government to provided a prescedent seemed the biggest balloney that I have heard in a long time. Nothing like a good old dreamt up conspiracy theory with not an once of evidence to back it up. After all it is not as if in many parts of the UK they already add Fluoride to water and have done for many years.

 

So Fluoride is dangerous if taken in too large a quanity, What else is dangerous if it is taken in to large a quanity. Well many things that we eat and our body requires if it to be healthy but equally our bodies our limited to how much they can process and if we surpass that then they are poisions. Things like salt, iron, etc. Even water is a poison to our body if you overdose on it to much. In fact on your figures you would get water poisioning long before you got any effects from Fluoride as you suggest trying 130mg per Kg of body pass. For a healthy man this is likely to be anything bettween 10 and 15 grammes. At less than 1ppm in water we are going to have to drink one hell of a lot of water, which by then will be a poision to your body, before we get anywhere near a dangerous level if it is added to our water.

 

On a personal basis I am happy to have Fluoride to water or to milk, Salt etc if that is seen as viable alternative. I do not believe it is a danger if it is added and having lived in places where it is added as a matter of course I have not seen all these people with brown mottled teeth that the anti lobby go on about. From what I have heard it appears safe and to have a benefit to the health of our childrens teeth both as children and as adults. I think it is very selfish of me to decline them that benefit and if I do not want to partake then I will drink bottled water.

 

I am happy to go with the experts on this but it always amuses me that the more expert and qualified a person is in a subject the more some who want to deride an argument distrust them. To misquote a Yes Minister sketch it is almost the more inexpert you are the more some people believe they are right

 

Finally to suggest that our health committee or Doctor Emmerson is because he is a civil servent being paid by the government is dancing to their tune is almost beneath contempt. I presume you expect these guys should live off fresh air. Or are you suggesting that they are being paid by Fluoridation loobyists which is almost laughable.

 

To be honest even if they were it should mainly be irrelevent as research done for by a paid for group which finds infavour of that group does not invalidate that research if it is done correctly with controls. Yes it will be scutinied intently but ultimately what matters is the quality of the research and evidence and wether it stands up not who paid for it.

 

Finally I like the last line of your post. "Are we really stupid to allow this to happen". Well judging from your post I think the answer to the first part of that unfortuntaely appears to be yes.

 

The simple side to this is as follows.

 

Paul Emerson appears to refute claims that Fluoride is dangerous to out health.

 

Really Dr Emerson, how about you and me get together with a small supply of this harmless substance; oooh and don't forget to invite the rest of the team, lets get the PHC Committee together and give them a dose of this food as well

Oooh, I recon about 130mg per kilo of body mass should suffice. It's food though isn't it Dr Nik (Simpsons pun) not toxic.

 

Then Dr Nik starts to TELL us Fluoride is safe straight after a toxicologist tells us how dangerous this stuff is.

Hmmm. what's that four letter word that starts with 'T' and ends With A 'T'.???

 

 

This is how this manksie see's the situation.

 

Manks Gov't always happy to suck up to the Whitehall lot says yes sir, please sir, kiss kiss, we'll do it mas-sa... blink blink licky licky.... Ok, you get the idea.

Manks Gov't has to be seen to be making the right noises or risks the Manks mob. In comes the PHCC (PHCC PUBLIC HEALTH COVERUP COMMITTEE) These guys are the Gov't sales team. We the public believe what these Dr's/consultants have to say because we pay these tossers to be trustworthy and have our best interests in mind. Unfortunately, they don't; they have the Gov't agenda on their interests list. (As a matter of interest, who pays this committee anyway.)

 

SERIOUSLY GUYS, READ THE FOLLOWING LINKS. WE ARE THE GOVERNORS OF OUR COUNTRY; THOSE LOT IN THE IVORY TOWERS WORK FOR US, DON'T LET THEM FORGET.

 

You'll like this. http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride

 

At first I was thinking, are we really this stupid to allow this to happen? Then I realised the question should be turned around to 'Are they?'.

 

Staaue.

[*daniel*]

As someone said before, if we want fluoride then we can get it in toothpaste/tablets. There's no need to add it into water.

 

Some people will drink no tap water, some people will drink lots.

[staaue]

Lost Login, are you related to Dr Nik.... Or do you work for the SS (Social Security)

 

Who said anything about getting poisoned by drinking the water from a Fluorinated source. I don't think you get the point; so I think you should come along to the party. I'll have the Aluminium & Chlorine pies (that equates to 15gm); you and your mates can eat 15gms Fluoride hotdogs, good luck.

 

Where do you get the 1ppm from, funnily enough 1ppm = 1mm3 which is 1/1000000 of a litre. Thats 0.001gram in a litre of water, I'd leave the maths to the people smarter than us.

 

Isn't it just typical that some tit would come along and be of the opinion that 'we add other chemicals to our water'. Go away, read, learn and understand.

 

Chlorine was first used in drinking water in the late 19th century to control the spread of water-borne diseases such as typhoid, cholera, dysentery and gastro-enteritis, which have killed more people than all the wars in history. Fighting these diseases remains vital today. Chlorine isn't as volitile as Fluorine; and I'm not saying Chlorine isn't dangerous in specific situations, but we need it so we don't die. To add a substance that is even remotely dangerous for the vanity of good teeth is 'ludicrous'.

 

You're correct about the conspiracy, I have no proof, nor do you have proof that it isn't true. All we have to go on is probability & conjecture.

 

What is the chance of PHCC being bias, why would they be bias etc. I can see clearly that Dr Nik is a good salesman, he evaded the issues very well; unfortunatly for him, the smarter members of society see right through this.

 

Lost Login - did you actually read the links I provided. I can't believe anyone with a triple digit IQ would read this and not be moved. You obviously know more than me on this subject, maybe you could post some links to assist me in my conversion.

 

Staaue

[keyboarder]

Hmmm. what's that four letter word that starts with 'T' and ends With A 'T'.???

 

You seem to have pre-empted with the answer to that. (twice) (oh, there's another, lol.....)

[ans]

You're correct about the conspiracy, I have no proof, nor do you have proof that it isn't true.

 

It's impossible to prove that something does not exist. On the other hand, it's entirely possible to prove that it does.

 

The burden of proof is on you.

 

Quite frankly, it sounds like you've already been on the fluoride hotdogs. Either calm your tone or get off the internet.

[Chinahand]

You're correct about the conspiracy, I have no proof, nor do you have proof that it isn't true. All we have to go on is probability & conjecture.

 

The simple fact is that artificial fluoride has been used by hundreds of millions of people for well over 60 years and naturally fluorinated water has been drunk by multiple hundreds of millions of people for centuries.

 

The medical risks of this huge experiment have been shown to be probabilistically so close to zero that conjecture that fluoride is a pressing medical risk is dismissable as a scientific hypothesis. Far more people die as a result of medical complications due to dental surgery than due to any tenuous medical link identified with flouride.

 

There is a clear statistically valid probabilistic result - not conjecture - that flourinating tap water will result in fewer fillings/cavities (there is no reason to say that Manx drinking habits are so different from those of the Midlands or the North East of England, or multiple areas of the US - if it helps them why not us). There is NOT a clear statistically valid probabilistic result that it will increase the number of people with no cavities or with fluorosis.

 

There is a very genuine problem nowadays that people tend to ignore the patient detailed work of scientists who have to work with peer review, statistically valid results, double blind experiments etc and latch on to scare mongers on the internet.

 

There is only one York report on the internet, and only a couple of World Health Organization papers - the fact that these examines hundreds of scientific studies use complex mathematics and truly huge samples is ignored by the thousands of web pages of scare mongering anti-science that exists on the web etc.

 

Science nowadays is too often linked with conspirators foisting their money making schemes upon the innocent - that is the way to the Endarkenment and a vast distortion. Especially when compared to the methods of the scaremongerers.

 

Staaue goes on about using conjecture and probability - and then ignores vast amounts of evidence that shows his position is probabilistically and conecturally untenable - what a world we live in.

[Lost Login]

Lost Login, are you related to Dr Nik.... Or do you work for the SS (Social Security)

 

No to both and unless I have stood next to "DR NIK" in a supermarket que I have never met him/her nor do I work for government or any body or organisation who receives funding, work etc etc from the Govt

 

)

 

Who said anything about getting poisoned by drinking the water from a Fluorinated source. I don't think you get the point; so I think you should come along to the party. I'll have the Aluminium & Chlorine pies (that equates to 15gm); you and your mates can eat 15gms Fluoride hotdogs, good luck.

 

Where do you get the 1ppm from, funnily enough 1ppm = 1mm3 which is 1/1000000 of a litre. Thats 0.001gram in a litre of water, I'd leave the maths to the people smarter than us.

 

Staaue

 

I may not have got your point which I thought was that Fluoride was dangerous and toxic and therefore should not be added to water. I merely point out that virtually anything toxic if taken in excessive amounts or concentrations is toxic. Per your figures I would have to drink inexcess of 10,000 litres of water in a day to take a toxic dose. Thhat is presuming that in such volumes it would be absorbed

 

 

)

 

Isn't it just typical that some tit would come along and be of the opinion that 'we add other chemicals to our water'. Go away, read, learn and understand.

 

Chlorine was first used in drinking water in the late 19th century to control the spread of water-borne diseases such as typhoid, cholera, dysentery and gastro-enteritis, which have killed more people than all the wars in history. Fighting these diseases remains vital today. Chlorine isn't as volitile as Fluorine; and I'm not saying Chlorine isn't dangerous in specific situations, but we need it so we don't die. Staaue

 

Yes Chlorine helps make water safe to drink, but it is not the sole method. We accept as it prevents disease although there are other means of making our tap water safe to drink. Boiling works pretty well. We would also build up a tolerance to the causes of gastro-enteritis if we routinely absorbed the odd bug. I speak from experience because as a very young child we relied on a well in the back garden for water. This was safe for us to drink as we had develped immunity to anything in it but we boiled water for visitors. For those that are wondering the water was pumbed up from the well to a tank in the roof once or twice a day. We did not have to haul it out of a hole in the ground via buckets.

 

)

 

Chlorine isn't as volitile as Fluorine; and I'm not saying Chlorine isn't dangerous in specific situations, but we need it so we don't die. To add a substance that is even remotely dangerous for the vanity of good teeth is 'ludicrous'.

 

I agree but nobody is intending to add Fluorine to water. It is the Fluoride which is a Fluorine salt. My chemisty is pretty dodgy as it is twenty years since I went to university sat a combined degree in Chemistry and Biochemistry but I still am aware of the difference

 

)

 

Isn't it just typical that some tit would come along and be of the opinion that 'we add other chemicals to our water'. Go away, read, learn and understand.

 

Staaue

 

Yes I may be that but I believe just as we add other chemicals to water the benefits in my opinion of adding Fluoride to water outweigh the risks, just as they are deemed to do in respect of other chemicals added to water. We accept those and I see no big demands for those to be removed. Equally I see no big demand to see the Fluoridation of water being stopped where it is currently done in the UK

[Albert Tatlock]

So if Statins do appear to reduce heart attacks - do we add those to the water? What about bromide for population control? ...and what about niccitinel H20 to stop smokers, vitamins for the malnourished, a cocktail of vaccines for mass-immunisation (to save all those trips to the doctors), lucozade-sports to improve drivers reactions and generate athletes for 2012, and even EFA's to improve IQ's?

 

If we are all contracted in to the NHS and Health Committees - does that mean we lose the choice for what we put into our bodies? If they are going to put it in, they should also give people the opportunity to opt-out i.e. free flouride filter if you want one.

[Chinahand]

I agree that there is a genuine debate needed about this - but it is the blantant scare mongering and outright lies of the lobbiests that really gets my goat.

 

Most of us eat our fortified breakfast cereal or whatever without comment - iodine, iron, prebiotics. All mass medications! All undertaken by unscrupulous commercial companies out to make a profit. Where's the state protecting us from this intrusion - I've a right to eat Shreddies unadulterated with Chemical muck.

 

Because we call them vitamins nobody complains - but fluoride - my God its poisonous - its social control - we have a right to control what is put into our bodies.

 

Talk about getting things out of proportion.

[Albert Tatlock]

I've a right to eat Shreddies unadulterated with Chemical muck.

Whatever rows your boat! - have you tried Ann Summers?

[Lost Login]

I basically agree in that it is a fine line in deciding what and why you add to water or food stuffs for the "general good". Foliate is added to bread I believe in the Isle of Man

 

I believe there is a strong argument on this basis not to add Fluoride to water, unfortunately most of the arguments against adding Fluoride to water are on the basis that it does not work, it is dangerous and there are side affects none of which basically stack up against the evidence. You then get some arguing it is all at the request of the UK government. As china hand says most is blatent lies and scaremongering and hearing such baloney makes me want to see Fluoride added to water just to ensure that such rubbish is not seen as being "allowed to win the day"

 

The argument to me is not does it work and is it save, as the evidence is yes in both cases, but whether we should be adding anything to the public water supply other than that which is required to make it safe to drink? That includes adding aluminium etc. That to me is a difficult discussion but the ethics of this get lost behind those presently pandering to the its not safe, UK govt baloney

 

So if Statins do appear to reduce heart attacks - do we add those to the water? What about bromide for population control? ...and what about niccitinel H20 to stop smokers, vitamins for the malnourished, a cocktail of vaccines for mass-immunisation (to save all those trips to the doctors), lucozade-sports to improve drivers reactions and generate athletes for 2012, and even EFA's to improve IQ's?

 

If we are all contracted in to the NHS and Health Committees - does that mean we lose the choice for what we put into our bodies? If they are going to put it in, they should also give people the opportunity to opt-out i.e. free flouride filter if you want one.

[spock]

The planets population is increasing at an unsustainable rate and it will be a requirement that a supplement is added to the water for health reasons but a side-effect of which is that the population becomes sterile with only certain members of society being able to have access to the planetary governing body's child procreation serum. It seems like one of your previous forum members alluded to this in a previous post.

 

Space - the final frontier

 

Live long and prosper.

[staaue]

You're correct about the conspiracy, I have no proof, nor do you have proof that it isn't true.

 

It's impossible to prove that something does not exist. On the other hand, it's entirely possible to prove that it does.

 

The burden of proof is on you.

 

Quite frankly, it sounds like you've already been on the fluoride hotdogs. Either calm your tone or get off the internet.

Ah... an unrestrictive negative.

 

Lost Login, what do you mean when you say nobody is proposing to add Fluorine to our water. exqueez-me???

[Lost Login]

Lost Login, what do you mean when you say nobody is proposing to add Fluorine to our water. exqueez-me???

 

You stated that "Chlorine isn't as volitile as Fluorine" and indeed it is not, Fluorine is a rather unpleasent gas which reacts quire nastely with many things. There is no intention to put Flourine in the water as far as I understand it, Fluoride yes, Fluorine no.

 

Now I am not sure why you brought Flourine into the argument but I presume either it is because you are not aware of the difference or alternatively you are aware but were deliberately trying to mislead by refering to Fluorine which is a volatile reactive gas. Fluorides are not.