Lost Login Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Nobody can dimiss if there IS a proven risk. As I understand it there is no such proven evidence but you state there is. I do not require alot of proof just some that stacks up aginst peer review. As for thew long term effects of Fluoride exposure, well I will take a risk go out on a limb here but I expect exactly the same as for tjose who have been drinking Fluoridated water since the 40s. My biggest concern, that nobody can dismiss; is the worrying concern that taking a toxin over an extended period is dangerous.. The reason I'm Anti-Fluorination, is purely because there is a risk, it only comes down how much proof do some of you want. Proven or not, what will be the long term effects of Fluoride exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 I can not reply for Ballaugh Biker but for myself it would be if the IoM Govt is being put under pressure to fluoridate and presumably if we do either The IoM will either receive X as a benefit or that Y restriction will not be imposed as a consequence. Oh and a bit if proof would not go a miss either. I have to admit as posted before I am ambivalent with regard to the adding of Fluoride to the water. I get more wound up by spurious arguments, scaremongering and deliberate lying and invasion on the issue than about the issue itself etc. The anti fluoridation guys who were on Manx Radio did more harm for their case than good last week as far as I was concerned as I was appalled at what I was hearing. I actually came away thinking lets back fluoridation just to show that peddling basic falsehoods and misrepresenting reports etc does not work. Just as a matter of interest, what would (in your opinion) constitute a UK government plot to fluoridate the Manx water supply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staaue Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 We haven't any proof it's harmful, so lets go ahead and use it just to prove something; is that what you're saying Lost.. That's a bit spiteful on future generations don't you think. I don't see the point in proof with regards to this topic, like I said, it comes down to what you believe. When a patriot of the people says this..... Peter Karran, MHK, a former Chairman of the Water Authority warned the meeting that he was concerned that the new water treatment plants were capable of adding fluoride. He said there were questions over the new Customs agreement, and its impact on revenues, and that if cutbacks were needed in public services fluoridating the water could be seen as a cheaper option.http://www.manxherald.com/News/42.html I believe him as he has never given me reason to doubt him. The anti fluoridation guys who were on Manx Radio did more harm for their case than good last week as far as I was concerned as I was appalled at what I was hearing. I actually came away thinking lets back fluoridation just to show that peddling basic falsehoods and misrepresenting reports etc does not work. We will agree to disagree I think. I had exactly the same argument with people over BSE back in the early 90's, lack of evidence from all quarters was the biggest leverage they had for saying it was safe and not a problem. It isn't worth the risk is all I'm saying. I keep hearing the argument that other places have used it without incident or concern... How do we really know this, I personally am not that gullible myself; I have seen too many times the coverups that go on.... I think most people suffer from this idea that they are more important than they are, this is most prevalent in civil servants... Before I get flamed on this I have several civil servants in my family and I know what they think and it disgusts me. Staaue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 The anti fluoridation guys who were on Manx Radio did more harm for their case than good last week as far as I was concerned as I was appalled at what I was hearing. I actually came away thinking lets back fluoridation just to show that peddling basic falsehoods and misrepresenting reports etc does not work. What falsehoods do you believe were peddled last Sunday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Lets start with it all a big sinister UK government plot! What falsehoods do you believe were peddled last Sunday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Uh no. I am saying there is no proof it is harmful. You stated there is a risk. By that you mean there is a risk that it is harmful despite there being no proof that this is the case even after he has vbeing used for 60 years. So your argument appears to be there is no proof or evidence that it is harmful even after it being widely used for 60 years. However lets still assume there might be as you can not prove there is no risk. We are going round in circles as several pages ago others discussed with you that you can not prove a negative in science. But that appears to be what you want. I bet you would not let your kids have the MMR jab due to the same lack of understanding Fair enough you do not want Fluoridation in water. I accept that just do not accept me to continue to discuss a topic with you where you appear to accept that there is no proof or evidence it is harmful but then just because that is the case it does not mean it is not harmful. Strictly scientifically you are right but scientifically I can not prove that Chips will never be posionous. As for BSE, yes in what was basically a new disease they got some things wrong. But they got most right and what has come to pass is very close to what the majority scientific point said would happen. It is certainly a lot close to the opposite point of view which would have had a huge number of CJD cases in humans by now. fortunately there is no evidence of that but it is a seperate argument. We haven't any proof it's harmful, so lets go ahead and use it just to prove something; is that what you're saying Lost.. Staaue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Lets start with it all a big sinister UK government plot! What falsehoods do you believe were peddled last Sunday? Save your sarcasm. As with anything there needs to be tests. A finite area such as the Isle of Man is ideal. At times we really do believe the UK are nice anglo-saxon English speaking like minded people as us. Our friendly cousins. True to an extent. But by our very nature we are sticking two fingers up at the UK. That includes the UK people who come here to work and live. They come for the Manx Pound and to pay Manx Taxes. Fuck You UK, type of thing. And yet there is that 'special' relationship. The Isle of Man is a money grabbing little shit heap as far as some of the powers that be over there are concerned. So yeah, why not use us as a living simile of Winter Island, even better Porton Down. Yeah, far fetched I know. You decide how far fetched . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 The Isle of Man is a money grabbing little shit heap as far as some of the powers that be over there are concerned. So yeah, why not use us as a living simile of Winter Island, even better Porton Down. Yeah, far fetched I know. You decide how far fetched . . . . You're implying that they are looking to use us as a test bed - but they've had fluoridated water in the UK for decades already. Tinfoil hat ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Saveourwater - I should believe the conspiracy theory of the manx nation being used as guinea pigs bu the UK government if 1) Water had never been flouridated before and the IOM was going to be the first place it was going to be tried. 2) There was some hidden incentive ie money etc 3) It was being kept totally secret. As I don't believe any of the above apply, I don't believe the conspiracy theory but I do take my hat off to the pair of anti's on the radio. They certainly knew which buttons to press to get the locals going. What about that guy who phoned from Harrogate or somewhere. Do you think he was just listening on the net and thought he'd ring? He was first in and it sounded like his offering was virtually scripted. He did not state any interest of our island apart from this flouridation issue. Someone here must have rattled his cage methinks. I'm certainly no expert on this and despite being very much against messing with our water, I find it hard to listen to some of the unsubstantiated 'facts' being peddled by the antis. Much is heresay, scaremongering and lacking any scientific basis, just like the "cancer from phone masts" scare. Its the same scare tactics being used in both cases. Staaue - yes the very long term effects are not known of artificial flouridation. However after 50 years and millions of people trying it, I think something could be scientifically proved by now if there was a problem. However all good tyro scientists should keep an open mind in case something which can be proved ever appears. However I do not subscribe that artificial fluoride is different to naturally occuring. Of course its a different compound containing the fluoride ion but its the fluoride ion only that has the perceived beneficial effect on dental health. If it is accepted that natural and artificial are pharmacologically the same we are back to the 'tens of thousands of years drugs trial' scenario mentioned earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Just a thought - is fluoride something naturally occuring in the Manx water table? If so, why do we need to add extra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Good point mission. Does anyone know rather than guessing? If there is any, I doubt if its up to the widely accepted (as being safe and effective) 1 mg/litre level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staaue Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Just a thought - is fluoride something naturally occuring in the Manx water table? If so, why do we need to add extra? Nothing to write home about.. http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/water/5965water...ityreport21.pdf But it is interesting to look at the levels of some toxins that make their way into our drinking water. Read the document at the above link... I like the Trihalomethanes which indicate a possible cockup at the water board, read here for what Trihalomethanes are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trihalomethanes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 Senior doctors allege lack of evidence on fluoride safety - NEWS LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 That was not sarcasm it was a serious reply! I probably should have tried ridicule but I don't think I can yop your offering. Either way I think I'd like a pint of what ever you have been on tonight and I would not worry about drinking Fluoridated water as I think the paranoia might get you first. Lets start with it all a big sinister UK government plot! What falsehoods do you believe were peddled last Sunday? Save your sarcasm. As with anything there needs to be tests. A finite area such as the Isle of Man is ideal. At times we really do believe the UK are nice anglo-saxon English speaking like minded people as us. Our friendly cousins. True to an extent. But by our very nature we are sticking two fingers up at the UK. That includes the UK people who come here to work and live. They come for the Manx Pound and to pay Manx Taxes. Fuck You UK, type of thing. And yet there is that 'special' relationship. The Isle of Man is a money grabbing little shit heap as far as some of the powers that be over there are concerned. So yeah, why not use us as a living simile of Winter Island, even better Porton Down. Yeah, far fetched I know. You decide how far fetched . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Away from the headline I am not sure that the article says much that posters that Chinahand have notalready stated in this thread. That there is a lack of rigerous properly conducted experiments on the matter with all the random controls and blind test etc is acknolwledged. This is also acknowledged in the york report. There is plenty of back up data though which reinforces the view. e.g the areas where there is already fluoridation. Either way I am not sure the the report adds a lot to the current knowledge, because as an fierce opponent of fluoridation who has done his research I am sure that you have read Sir Iain Chalmers covering the same points for the last four or five years. That is not to say that his views and comments do not merit consideration. They do, but just as the comments of somebody supporting the York Report should not be taken as the be all and end all in accepting it is a brilliant idea, neither do Chalmers reports do the opposite. Ultimately though I was just disappointed that the article did not deliver what the headline had promised as I had hoped to read something new that had been brought to the debate. Unfortunately though there appears to be little that is new instead each side just repackage it arguments and presents as if new which does not add to the debate Senior doctors allege lack of evidence on fluoride safety - NEWS LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.