Do you support fluoride being added to the water supply?

# 50

Posted: 25/10/2011 10:45

The use of Hitler as in, “hitlers involvement” (sic), always makes me laugh. Hitler was a Vegetarian; does that mean there’s something wrong with Vegetarianism? He also liked dogs, as I do.

There have been lots of studies and studies of studies which show the benefits. Google it and you will see. About the only argument against it is that most children today in Ireland now have good dental treatment BUT that does exclude the poor.

Have you seen any UFOs recently? :)

# 49

Posted: 24/10/2011 17:09

I hate conspiracy theorists  

What possibel motive could the government have for intentionally harming us with fluoride in our water?

# 48

Posted: 24/10/2011 11:45

a bizarre conspiracy theroy website and an anti-flouroide website. Not exactly balanaced or appealing to logic

# 47

Posted: 22/10/2011 19:00

finegael promised to remove flouride from the water in the previous election but have since dropped the idea, her are some interesting links to the history of water flouridation, vested interests,hitlers involvement etc, worth a read you may stop giving it to your precious children after reading this. also as far as i'm aware the aluminium/chemical manufacture company Chemifloc supply us with our flouride.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=14949

http://www.fluoridealert.org/about-fan.aspx

# 46

Posted: 30/03/2007 21:41

Interesting link to Thyroid complaints due to Fluoridation:
http://thyroid.about.com/cs/toxicchemicalsan/a/flouride.htm

Bill - what is your PROOF that fluoride added in the doses used for fluoridation are safe? I have asked you this before and you still have not answered. If you are a member of the dental fraternity, then you will answer by rote : 40, 50 60 years of fluoridation have shown, blah blah. Sorry! Will not do! Show me the proof through a long term public health survey of a fluoridated population. The Expert Body on Fluoridation admitted only last month that they couldn't find a toxicologist for their investigation (probably the most important branch of science in the study of a poison - hydrofluorosilicic acid - steadily fed on a long-term basis to a population)!!! Neither are dentists doctors, although some like to think they are. Dentists preserve of expertise is in the mouth, they do not look at the whole body. It seems to me that WE are the long term toxicological experiment right now. And with the increase in various conditions which have been linked to the fluoride, arsenic and lead in hydrofluorosilicic acid - at MUCH HIGHER LEVELS than normally occuring in the body, in the general run down of iodine in the population (fluoride fights iodine and calcium), in the growth of hyperthyroidism, etc etc - it seems to me that the experiment on us is showing that fluoridation is a damn stupid idea in the long run!

# 45

Posted: 24/03/2007 12:30

Homer, everything is a poison in the right dose. The quantity of Fluoride added to water is not poisonous in the slightest. Did you know that your body is full of chemicals and elements that most people would think would kill them? Uranium, Radon, Arsenic, Lead. DDT etc.

Oaklands, your statement that there is a link between your health and stopping drinking fluoridated water is total nonsense and without any evidence or logic.

I think this position of the Greens opposing Fluoridation will show the voters that they are a bunch of tree hugging, anti-progress, anti-human, illogical cranks and hopefully cost them votes in the next election.

PS One dentist in Ireland opposes fluoridation and not 100 as claimed. There is almost 100% consensus among professionals that Fluoride is safe.

# 44

Posted: 23/03/2007 21:08

I was speaking to an expert in the Uk
on sarcoma and I gave him the figures on cases in the republic of ireland and
he said they are way out of line with
western europe . the least chemicals we have going into our bodies the better
and sarcomas go right accross the board in ages they affect from birth - old age.
growing children are very mcuh in danger from this deadly cancer and their
is never any awareness in this country
why are we way off the norm for western europe why should we be medicated and take any chance with our health. we are too soft.

# 43

Posted: 23/03/2007 13:40

Hello
No, floride is a poison , & is safe to use in small quantities only where needed & by a specialist such as a Dentist.

---

Warm Christian Love & Good health.

# 42

Posted: 23/03/2007 09:49

I do not want fluoride in my water supply
I get my water now from a local soccor club that
drilled their own well, my health has improved
since I started doing this.
on one serious aspect from 1993-2004 we in ireland
had approx 490 cases yearly of the arrgessive
cancer sarcoma, in the UK they have 2,400 cases
of sarcoma yearly, now if you take the population
of the UK 62,000,000 and our very small population
of 3-4 million we have 4 times more sarcoma
than the UK, only 11% of UK has fluoride so why
if there is any risk at all do we still have it in our
water supply and flouride does not go when you boil your water. I for one will not use tap water for anything.

# 41

Posted: 23/03/2007 09:42

Mum of 2 boys: your low thyroid, as diagnosed by your GP may have nothing whatever to do with lack of iodine, In fact if the changes in your TSH (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone) is due to TPA (thyroid producing antibodies) it is an auto-immune problem and your GP or endocrinologist will perscribe thryroxine not iodine. Iodine can be bought over the counter but may in fact aggravate a thyroid problem in some instances.
Underactive thyroid is on the increase as are other auto-immune disorders but should always be medically diagnosed. A GP is first port of call with referral onto the a specialist (endo in your case perhaps) as needed.

As regards flouride, Anonymous Posted: 29/06/2004 10:08 makes great sense. It protects against dental caries and is fully supported by both my dentist and maxio-facial specialist.
I have no problem with it. For those who are somehow sensitive to fouride, they can have a water filter installed. It would probably pay for itself over a year.
Be care ful tho', your soft drinks, beer, spiritis, any tea or coffee drunk in a restaurant is made with flouridated water so you may have to give up those too.
But the cranks seem to love a good conspiracy theory

# 40

Posted: 19/03/2007 02:55

Bill wrote (19/01/2007): "There is a lot of con artists out there trying to convince people that they have Thyroid problems when they do not."

Bill and everyone else should look at the latest statistics on prescribed drugs in the GMS. The third most prescribed drug in Ireland is Levothyroxine -- the treatment for hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid). In other words, there is now an epidemic of hypothyroidism, very surprising in a maritime nation.

# 39

Posted: 19/03/2007 02:45

EUES asked "Would anyone like to give me an alternative source for hydrofluorosilicic acid other than the phosphate fertiliser industry?"

Well, it seems that the supplier at the moment is Chemifloc in Shannon. I don't know if they import the stuff from foreign fertilizer factories or if they produce the hydrofluorosilicic acid using a chemical process that apes what happens in the fertilizer factories. It's one or the other. It hardly matters; there's no evidence that Chemifloc's product is any less toxic than the toxic waste that was used for most of the 43 years of Irish fluoridation.

But do look at this astonishing letter that Chemifloc wrote ten years ago, when they had lost the supply contract: www.fluoridealert.org/fluosilicic.htm

# 38

Posted: 20/02/2007 23:19

Ooops, In my last posting of 19/2/07 I said there was a consensus amongst dentists, when in fact I meant to say there is NO consensus amongst dentists on the fluoride issue.

EUES Ireland Yep, well, our friend comes out with the same arguments in every discussion group.
Just prepare yourself for the torrent of quacksite postings that will come next which are supposed to \'prove his point\'.

# 37

Posted: 20/02/2007 17:56

I have no particular interest whatsoever in the Fluoridation of water. I just like debunking quackery.

Now you still haven’t answered my questions.

1/ Were you aware that your body contains lots of “poison” and “toxic” chemicals in small traces, some examples of which I gave, and does that bother you?

2/ You referred to a student’s PhD study of 91 people that was never published that you claimed was suppressed. Evidence please?

3/ You claimed an expertise on these matters, I didn’t, what are your qualifications?

4/ Do you agree that the sentence, “The only guaranteed safe dose is zero”, is absurd or was that a typo? You don’t specify which of your many erroneous statements were “typos”.

Barry Groves whom you quote as an expert on dental and medical matters appears to be a retired RAF Electronics Technician. Can you confirm this?

PS I’m not a Marketing Executive as you wrongly claimed, I’m a Systems Analyst & Programmer, not that it’s relevant.

# 36

Posted: 20/02/2007 17:18

Would anyone like to give me an alternative source for hydrofluorosilicic acid other than the phosphate fertiliser industry?

# 35

Posted: 20/02/2007 16:39

Oh Dear, This Bill chap is just too much. He does not tell us who he is. He does not answer my questions as to his interest. He does not answer and evades my technical questions. He proposes no scientific research, as I have. He claims others are abusing him when he is the one denigrating people on the basis of typos and he offers nothing new to convince anyone of his argument. Let's have some verifiable facts from you for a change, Bill, instead of picking on misprints and typos and vague generalisations to make your argument. Otherwise , just give up and admit that you are just a marketing executive!

# 34

Posted: 20/02/2007 15:27

EUES opens with a torrent of abuse, typical of the fanatical mind. I’m amazed that Brian is an “Environmental Consultant” and didn’t realise until recently that water contained Fluoride? That’s like a computer programmer not realising that computers run on electricity.

By claiming to be “environmental consultant” Brian is claiming expertise. Please tell us what your training is Brian?

“The only guaranteed safe dose is zero”, is an absurd, inaccurate and nonsensical statement. It could not be made by anyone who has any scientific knowledge of chemicals and biology. You ignored my question, do you worry about the chemicals and elements that I mentioned that are in your body, or did you not know that either?

Like all conspiracy theorists Brian claims that the unpublished work of a student has been suppressed. Can you give us any evidence of this?

# 33

Posted: 20/02/2007 14:17

Well, there is our old friend, Bill, the caped (and masked) Crusader of Fluoride! He pops up wherever there is discussion of fluoride and does his best to spread mis-information, insinuation and confusion on the topic. I am an environmental consultant working on a number of recycling projects and have studied the fluoride debate for 6 years, like many people never even realising this stuff was in the water previously. I am now convinced that this is one of the most disgusting and cynical \"health\" initiatives ever. What is your true identity, Bill? Please name the \"number of incorrect statements and misleading comments \" in my above statements - so that I can give you the references and shoot your generalised accusations down!
Yes, dosage is important. The only guaranteed safe dose is zero! In 1992, top toxicologist Dr.Helen Mullenix discovered changes in animal behaviour given fluoride at 1ppm (the same as in our water). What research have YOU made that counters that, Bill? To quote you:\"Why then worry about tiny traces of fluoride?\" Well, courtesy of Barry Groves, here\'s just one reason , of the many : Five years ago Dr Elise Bassin earned her PhD from Harvard University for her finding that water fluoridation increased the risk of a bone cancer, osteosarcoma, in boys.
Although Dr Bassin received her doctorate for this work, her dissertation was suppressed for four years.
But Dr Bassin\'s work also confirmed other similar findings.
Because of a large study on rodents and epidemiologic evidence of an increase in osteosarcoma in boys and young men, especially in fluoridated areas, in 1992 Dr Perry Cohn of the New Jersey Department of Health surveyed its incidence in seven counties of New Jersey relative to water fluoridation.
He found that in the fluoridated areas, the numbers of this cancer in boys was up to 4.6 times higher than in the unfluoridated areas. In a similar study of three New Jersey municipalities, the figures were up to nearly seven times as high in the fluoridated areas (the figure that Dr Bassin found).
Cohn also found that the general population in those areas was also five times as likely to suffer a cancer.
Osteosarcoma is rare but it is the leading cancer in childhood.
The question those who would fluoridate us against our wishes is, \"How do they justify an increased cancer risk?\"
There are many other arguments against this tyrannical practice.
Barry Groves PhD http://www.second-opinions.co.uk Chipping Norton Oxfordshire.

# 32

Posted: 20/02/2007 12:36

There are a number of incorrect statements and misleading comments in the EUES posting of the 19/2/07

The Fluoride used in Ireland is not a by product of the fertilizer industry. So there goes the “vested interests” conspiracy theory.

It has been repeated ad nauseam on this subject that the DOSE is vital when talking about poison and toxicity. What is about this very simple concept that the anti-fluoride brigade cannot grasp? In my last posting of 22/1/07 I asked about three very dangerous chemicals and whether people were worried about them and there was no response. Well we have all these chemicals in out bodies. Does anyone worry about them? No. Why then worry about tiny traces of fluoride? If the dose is low enough then there is no problem. Incidentally we also have DDT & Dioxins in out bodies.

This seemingly contradictory sentence does not make sense, “As for the old chestnut about fluoride preventing dental caries, well, there is consensus on this in the dental profession.”

Yes there is consensus. ALL professional medical and scientific bodies that have studied Water Fluoridation approve of it.

# 31

Posted: 19/02/2007 21:19

Re: EUES Ireland Posted: 19/02/2007 18:27

That is the best argument I have read yet against fluoridisation of our water, and explains the rise in thyroid problems also.

As for the old chestnut about fluoride preventing dental caries, well, there is consensus on this in the dental profession.
Also, there is fluoride-based toothpaste, but no need for us all to be poisoned via our water supply.
Indeed, I would prefer if this wonderful country would insist our water supply was bacteria free rather than concentrate on additives that we don\'t need.

# 30

Posted: 19/02/2007 18:27

Re.Thyroid & Fluoride:the thyroid gland requires iodine to produce the hormone,thyroxine, which controls the rate of metabolism in the body. But when fluoride is present,iodine is displaced,which will cause a thyroid to stop working properly(K.Roholm,Handbuch Experimenteller Pharmakologie,Ergaenzungwerk,Vol7,Berlin:
Springer, 1938:20) The parathyroid gland, which regulates distribution of calcium and phosporus in the body, is also extremely sensitive to fluoride. So, it displaces iodine and accumulates calcium in soft tissue, also being linked to heart disease. Research from India has shown red blood cells die prematurely when exposed to fluoride lowering haemoglobin and causing anemia. And the list goes on...Who in their right mind would believe that dumping a toxic by-product (and fluoride has been described in the Physicians Handbook as more toxic than lead and only slightly less toxic than arsenic) from the fertiliser industry into the public drinking water without any health check whatsoever anywhere in the world, and no regulation for individual intakes, could be beneficial?! Lobbyists for vested interests excepted. Get it out of Irish water now.

# 29

Posted: 22/01/2007 13:06

Lillith, would you agree that Polonium 210, which recently killed the Russian ex-spy, was dangerous for your body? Or say Uranium? Or Arsenic?

# 28

Posted: 21/01/2007 19:34

No.
In my opinion, fluoride is a dangerous chemical for the body.

# 27

Posted: 19/01/2007 12:49

No, I could not find any evidence of a WHO directive either that's why I rang the Central Water Lab. The GP suspects maybe low thyroide. I'm 42, never sick in my life, !0 days ago presented with palpitations, aching musles, head also, deep breathing. ECG etc normal so far. They suspect I may have also been stressed without realising it.

# 26

Posted: 19/01/2007 11:30

Mum of 2, from Dad of 3: I cannot see any evidence that the EU issued such a directive. Can you find some evidence of this? Your friend may be wrong. There is a lot of con artists out there trying to convince people that they have Thyroid problems when they do not.

# 25

Posted: 18/01/2007 17:54

I have to wait for a further antibody test on the blood results for the thyroid. If then low thyroid is confirmed I presume the GP will be prescribing iodine tablets. Do not think they can be bought over the counter as one's thyroid has to be monitored as too high or too low are potentially dangerours.

# 24

Posted: 18/01/2007 13:51

Mum of 2 boys, you say that "I borderline low thyroide ". Where was this diagnosed? Why not just take Iodine tablets?

# 23

Posted: 17/01/2007 18:46

I myself have borderline low thyroide and seemingly it is on the increase for women especially over 40. I checked with the Central Water Lab recommended by South Dublin Co Co and they said flouride and chlorine are only used on our water. A learned friend told me that the World Health Organisation had issued a directive to the EU as thyrodie problems are on the increase.

# 22

Posted: 17/01/2007 10:54

Mum of 2 boys. Iodine is in nearly everything we eat. If your children have a reasonably healthy diet with at least some meat then they will get enough Iodine. Fish also contains Iodine.

As an aside, the only measurable long term health effect from Chernobyl was Thyroid Cancer in children caused by their low Iodine diet. They were very poor people. The radioactive Iodine spewed from the reactor was then taken up by their Thyroid. The communist authorities had Iodine tablets but didn’t distribute them in time because they were trying to hide the accident.

Where have you read that Ireland has been recommended to put extra Iodine in anything?

Anon: Fluoride protects against dental diseases.

# 21

Posted: 16/01/2007 19:50

WHY DO WE NEED FLUORIDE ADDED TO OUR WATER SUPPLY?

# 20

Posted: 15/01/2007 23:47

A different question. Is there iodine added to our water supply? Thyroid problems are on the increase and I'm told an WHO directive recommended iodine be added. Is this true and if so are Dublin Co Co's complying.

# 19

Posted: 08/02/2006 23:25

Bill refers us to a paper from Sense About Science (SAS). The first question you have to ask about an organization like that is: Where does their money come from? The website doesn't go into details but we know this much at least:

"Sense About Science raises funds through invited donations, ... from professional and learned societies, companies, trusts, research bodies and individuals."

You have to wonder how much of their money comes from companies, and are they the big chemical and pharmaceutical corporations. They have the biggest vested interest in giving chemicals a benign image.

It seems obvious that Sense About Science is a front for big industry -- just like, for example, GreenFacts (www.greenfacts.org). GreenFacts is more open about its origin and its funding: it was set up by and funded for some years by Solvay, the pharmachem giant.

Of course there are several respected scientists involved in SAS and GreenFacts, but, whether they admit it or not, their participation in SAS or GreenFacts greatly increases the chances of their universities receiving generous funding from those industries to whom SAS and GreenFacts give an enhanced image. In fact, since a website like SAS doesn't require a vast amount of money, the grants, donations and sponsorship given to university departments are probably the most important financial consideration.

The only surprise about the SAS paper is that it doesn't mention fluoride specifically, because fluoride is ubiquitous in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries.

Does Bill have no scepticism in relation to outfits like SAS?

Fortunately, it looks as though more and more people are becoming sceptical about fluoridation. See these recent articles in the Irish Medical News:
www.irishmedicalnews.ie/articles.asp?Category=news&ArticleID=15336
www.irishmedicalnews.ie/articles.asp?Category=PView&ArticleID=15312

Rather than give credence to the SAS paper, you would do better to read this report in the Guardian: www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1703909,00.html

# 18

Posted: 05/02/2006 13:53

Here is a link to a new paper designed to inform the public about the realities of "chemicals". Well written and worth reading all the way through.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/chemicals/

If you understand this document it will help explain why Fluoride is not dangerous in the doses that we take it.

# 17

Posted: 13/07/2004 22:44

To Anonymous poster 29/06: Why are you trying to make people think that fluoride is good for them? All fluorides (compounds of the element fluorine, which itself doesn't occur in nature) are very poisonous. Fluoride is not a nutrient of any sort. You don't want to take ANY of it into your body. If it could be proven that fluoride is an essential trace element (and there is NO evidence that it is), it would make no difference since everyone is already ingesting much more than the trace element amount. It is lunacy to have it forced on you, morning, noon and night -- by the "guardians of public health"! Human breast milk contains fluoride at ONE HUNDREDTH (one per cent) of the level of fluoridated water. Yes, we need to base this on the evidence. And the evidence on fluoride is so clear that nobody in their right mind, in possession of the facts, would want to swallow any additional fluoride. So the handful of highly placed doctors and dentists behind fluoridation (including Anonymous poster 29/06?) are constantly distorting the facts in order to keep fluoridation going and protect their reputations. After all, who wants to be seen to be guilty of poisoning the whole Irish population? Those medical people are also setting aside the Hippocratic oath (First, do no harm!) as well as fundamental medical ethics.

# 16

Posted: 29/06/2004 10:08

What is pure water? It only exists in the laboratory. All ground water has a range of minerals and salts in it, such as chlorides and fluorides, from the rocks and soil it passes through and is stored in. Rain water picks up atmospheric components. The making of wines beer and whiskey depends on these "impurities" to give regional character.

Fluorine is poisonous, as is chlorine. However, neither are put in our water. What goes in are fluorides and chlorides, which any first year secondary student can tell you are entirely different substances. For example, sodium chloride, common salt, is in all our body fluids, and the oceans wouldn't be the same without it. Fluorides and chlorides are among many naturally occuring components of our drinking water. The question is not whether to use fluorides in our water, but how much is a safe level, given it is already in ground water across Europe. Too much of anything, including water, is bad for you. We need to base this very important public health debate on evidence.

# 15

Posted: 04/01/2003 03:09

No! 'The Geology of Florida', 1997, University Press of Florida page 143; 'In addition to uranium, fluorine is an economic byproduct of phosphoric-acid production. The fluorine from the rock reacts with silica to form fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) in wet scrubbers that are part of the environmental-protection equipment. Fluorosilicic acid is widely used in the preparation of chemical compounds and in the treatment of public drinking water.'
Fluoridation makes the public part of the 'environmental-protection equipment'!

# 14

Posted: 20/11/2002 23:36

No

# 13

Posted: 06/11/2002 21:14

Absolutely not - of course it has side effects. I buy bottled water all the time.

# 12

Posted: 04/11/2002 14:13

Remove fluoride now. I grew up near the factory where the stuff comes from (bu product of other chemical manufacturing). It is not used in the Netherlands as Dutch water is not fluoridated. So why use it here? Buying bottled water for my children costs the earth and even with recycling it causes more harm than good for the environment.

# 11

Posted: 03/11/2002 18:36

From the results of this survey so
far - no is clearly the answer
- are we going to forward this
response to Minister for Health??