This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Fluoride

Jump to new
Billyb said:
You haven't provided one credible piece of evidence to show fluoridation (at the concentrations done in Australia)
Click to expand...

You mean odd doses about 31 mg/l as happened in Bris and numerous places in the US where they decided to terminate fluoridation because of undisclosed overdosing.

...cause side effects such as bone disease or cancer.
Click to expand...

The point here is from about 1986 in the US it was presumed that 100% of fluoride ingestion came from water supplies (fluoridation). This 2010 report starts to break down some of the vested interest research and reporting parameters that has historically skewed reported results.

But given the unethical history of the introduction of fluoridation and the repeated nondisclosure of overdosing, bone disease from fluoridation will become more prevalent with further research especially (as mentioned earlier) since the American Dental Association (ADA) has been demoted (just this year) from it's previously powerful position in the US health system, and not able to direct research and findings anywhere to the extent it has in the past.


Yes, the correct concentration... for who? Children under two, nil.

Where concentrations routinely exceed 2 mg/l the US EPA advises children under under 9 yo not to routinely drink fluoridated water.

Then there is the race/gene factor. US research (or at least the EPA) recognises research that shows black Americans have about twice the tendency to absorb fluoride, resulting in double the incidence of fluorosis.

But, while the ADA had a significant control over research and how it was reported in mainstream US, there was never any mention of that in final reports to authorities.

So, in summary... as the biased influences on how data is collected and reported is stripped away, the evidence of more bone, organ and other damage will obviously increase.
 
Whiskers said:
You mean odd doses about 31 mg/l as happened in Bris and numerous places in the US where they decided to terminate fluoridation because of undisclosed overdosing.
Click to expand...

Clearly there is an element of trust involved in any policy where any service is provided.

You trust that your electrician created the circuits in your house so they are safe for you and your children, you trust that the roads the government builds are safe, you trust that government flood maps are accurate when they say the house you are about to purchase wont ever be flooded, . [/Clearly/] this is all a part of life, there is always a risk with anything and isolating a possible error to just water fluoridation is pulling at straws
By the way, 31mg/L for a very short period of time will NOT cause long-term side effects. You need it over long periods of time, so again your argument is clutching at straws. There are procedures in place to ensure the dosing in QLD is correct. If you believe they are overdosing long-term without letting the public know, then that is just conspiracy until proven correct.



Sorry, but I can find plenty of evidence from non American Dental Association sources to support the safety of fluoridation (some i posted already). Are you going to tell me the ADA has control over all these organisations too?? Do you seriously believe no one out there has been fair with their scientific methods in coming up with the results they have? If that is your belief, then clearly nothing will convince you.
 

Electricians and Civil Engineers (road builders) are high on the trust barometer.

I would put government declarations about flooding and fluoridation in the same low basket because there are so many variables affecting individuals that they cannot possible control.

Electrical and civil engineering work is substantially 'static' once it has been installed, whereas flood prediction and fluoride intake is always 'fluid', dependant on so many variables.


As we have already seen, they only revealed the overdose after a lot of people became ill and then they did not penalise the fluoridation operators.

So, what are the procedures to ensure the dosing is correct and we are notified of any overdosing?


Oh yes I believe there is 'fair' science out there.

But I have been focusing on science that has been presented to (and largely ignored) by the main stream US health and policy making authorities to avoid your perpetual conspiracy theory line.

BUT, until a couple of months ago, the corrupted and biased American Dental Association had been in a position since the advent of fluoridation mid 1900's to substantially influence 'official' policy and science about fluoridation. Even the WHO drew it's data and recommendations from the US tainted data.

You just have to look at the race/gene factor for fluorosis (double) for black americans and the unacceptably high risk of damage to children that the US EPA sees fit to advise children under nine not to consistently drink fluoridated water that is over 2mg/l... and children under two NOT to drink fluoridated water at all.

Expect much more damning 'official' research to come in the future now the ADA is gone as a domineering power in US Public Health System.
 
Whiskers said:
So, what are the procedures to ensure the dosing is correct and we are notified of any overdosing?
Click to expand...

You reallyneed to read the legislation if you feel so strongly about this.

I just quickly read over it then and found that:

1. Water suppliers need to do daily checks, clearly it is not possible to be overdosed (long term) when the concentrations are being checked daily. Unless they are being deliberately dodgy, and only a paranoid or conspiracy theorist would think that. But like many things in life, there is always an element of trust required. When you go a public hospital and get surgery done, an element of trust in the government and doctor is also required, this is no different.

2. The concentrations of fluoride prescribed are 0.6mg - 0.8mg/L (+/-0.1mgL) WITHIN THE LIMITS YOU SAID YOURSELF IS OPTIMAL for dental caries prevention/reducing risk of fluorosis. 1.5mg/L is the limit in a different legislation as being the 'maximum safe dose' but the enforcable limit is 0.8+0.1mg/L = 0.9mg/L.
SO I dunno what you have been going on about this whole time, the concentration prescribed in QLD is exactly what you said yourself is optimal to reduce the risk of fluorosis.
 
Whiskers said:
As we have already seen, they only revealed the overdose after a lot of people became ill and then they did not penalise the fluoridation operators.
Click to expand...

The water fluoride concentrations are public information, that's why the newspapers are always reporting all the underdosing that was going on when the system was still ironing out the creases. You will know about any overdosing but if you think we have a corrupt QLD government and they wont tell us, then you are better off changing states then worrying about water fluoridation.
 
Billyb said:
You reallyneed to read the legislation if you feel so strongly about this.
Click to expand...

I have, I nearly know it by heart now.


Gees mate, if you are a dentist and the dental research is as good as your research and referencing then pity help us.

There is no 0.6mg - 0.8mg/L or (+/-0.1mgL).

For most of the Qld population especially where the previous over exposure was, Pine Rivers, (Schedule 2 Part 3) now part of Moreton Bay Regional Council (post amalgamation) the prescribed (minimum) rate is .8 mg/l. The regulation says;

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]6 Fluoride concentration””Act, s 12(b)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif](1) For the Act, section 12(b), a public potable water supplier for a public potable water supply that adds fluoride to the water supply must maintain the prescribed fluoride concentration, for the water supply, mentioned in subsection (2). [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif](2) The prescribed fluoride concentration for the water supply is- [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif](a) if the water supply is located in the local government area of a local government listed in schedule 2, part 1””0.6mg/L; or [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif](b) if the water supply is located in the local government area of a local government listed in schedule 2, part 2””0.7mg/L; or[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif](c) if the water supply is located in the local government area of a local government listed in schedule 2, part 3””0.8mg/L.[/FONT]
​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif](3) The public potable water supplier complies with subsection (1) if the measured fluoride concentration for the water supply for each day averaged over a quarter is within 0.1mg/L of the prescribed fluoride concentration for the water supply.[/FONT]
​
So, in simple language the minimum fluoridation daily rate average over a quarter must be maintained within .1mg of .8mg/l , ie the average must be higher than .7 mg/l for the quarter.

So if the fluoride injector broke down for a few days or the operator made a mistake and under fluoridated for a few days, they can pump it up to 1.5mg/l for as long as it takes to get their average for the quarter up to .8mg/l.
 
Whiskers said:
So if the fluoride injector broke down for a few days or the operator made a mistake and under fluoridated for a few days, they can pump it up to 1.5mg/l for as long as it takes to get their average for the quarter up to .8mg/l.
Click to expand...

lmao

What a drama queen

why not say that one day a quarter they run it at 72mg/L
 
Billyb said:
When you go a public hospital and get surgery done, an element of trust in the government and doctor is also required,
Click to expand...
Hence why so many people maintain their private health cover, i.e. because they are totally unable to put their trust in the public health system.
So your comparison is hardly a recommendation imo.
 

Under section:
11 Reporting requirements​

(1) A public potable water supplier for a public potable water
​
supply that adds fluoride to the water supply must prepare a
​
report for each quarter stating—
​
....

(3) The report must be given to the chief executive within ​

30 business days after the end of each quarter.​

​
So assuming the chief executive decides to make it public it could be four months old.

I may have missed something, but you show me where the chief executive is compelled to make the records public.
 
medicowallet said:
lmao

What a drama queen

why not say that one day a quarter they run it at 72mg/L
Click to expand...


Good to see you're still paying attention mate.

What I described is the law. That is exactly what they can do under the law.

So strictly legally under sub section;

(b) the amount of fluoride it has added, including an amount
of zero; and

​
it could, pump in multiple days up to 1.5 mg/l/day but I suspect that turning a blind eye to one day at 72mg/l would be stretching their luck a bit even for hard nosed Qld bureaucrats.
 
Julia said:
Hence why so many people maintain their private health cover, i.e. because they are totally unable to put their trust in the public health system.
So your comparison is hardly a recommendation imo.
Click to expand...

Considering often the doctor is the same, it kind of reflects people who filter their water of fluoride doesn't it?
 

And I am actually worried too.

Worried that you actually think things like this are a possibility.

Roll on conspiracy theorist.

Oh, better be careful, the internet makes you a slave to the government.
 
You are arguing for the sake of arguing. For fluoride to have any negative effect it needs to be above ideal concentration for long periods of time. 0.8mg/L averaged over one quarter is safe safe safe and you are just being paranoid buddy. If you don't like it you need to work out your own way of getting unfluoridated water, in the meantime the other 99.9% of us will take advantage of the health benefits it provides

Whiskers said:
Under section:I may have missed something, but you show me where the chief executive is compelled to make the records public
Click to expand...
Please look into the freedom of information Act. Why do you think the underdosing accidents that have occurred has been publicly available?

I ask you for about the 5th time – can you find any evidence to support your claim that water fluoridation (at QLD concentrations) causes diseases such as bone disease or cancer? I presume that after this many requests that I’ve made, you obviously can’t find any.

You also misinterpreted the legislation, section 6.3 means that the maximum average concentration over a quarter is 0.8mg/L +0.1mg/L = 0.9mg/L. Water suppliers who exceed this over one quarter are in breach of the legislation. If you still debate this, then please refer to section 4A(c) and this should convince you IT IS (in laymans's terms) 0.8mg/L +/- 0.1mg/L.

Julia said:
Hence why so many people maintain their private health cover, i.e. because they are totally unable to put their trust in the public health system.
So your comparison is hardly a recommendation imo.
Click to expand...
Yes well many people have no choice but to deal with public care, you should know that if you work in welfare.
 

I demonstrate again that you are WRONG about your interpretation of current Law and science. Read below.


Please look into the freedom of information Act. Why do you think the underdosing accidents that have occurred has been publicly available?
Click to expand...

What underdosing accidents? Certainly not by FOI!

The recent Pine Rivers overdosing was forced out in the open I understand by a lot of people reporting sick for no apparent reason.




If you read the official report into the overdosing accident by "LinkWater" you will see;
  1. there was poor record keeping kept as perscribed under the legistlation,
  2. the overdose occurred shortly before midnight on the 27th up to 12.35am on the 29th April 2009,
  3. the water authority took a water sample on the 29th and the result was recieved on the 12th May.
  4. Qld health was advised of the overdose on the 13th May.
So, how I or anyone else could have got the overdose information via FOI when the authorities didn't even know they had overdosed the community untill two weeks after the event is beyound me.



Excuse me for shouting, but you need to get this!

Just have a bit of a think about how badly you are interpreting the Law and the facts about the accident report for a clue about your objectivity.


Wrong!

Section "4A" relates to "Naturally occurring fluoride concentration— Act, s 8(1)(a)", nothing to do with the 'accident' or the majority of the Qld population.

Section 6 as quoted above, relates to "that adds fluoride to the water supply" ie fluoridation.​

 
Whiskers said:
What underdosing accidents? Certainly not by FOI!
Click to expand...
You do realise there have been underdosing incidents as well right?? Many, in fact, and the reason we know about them is because the information was made public by the government.
I’m sure you will find some conspiracy argument against this, but that’s why freedom of information laws exists buddy.

Conspiracy theorists have a habit of twisting the meanings of things around to suit their argument. This is exactly what you are doing this with the legislation. I interpret the legislation as meaning it can legally be between 0.7mg/L and 0.9mg/L. Get a lawyer and they will tell you the same thing buddy, I am sure of it. But then again, being a conspiracy theorist you might not trust the lawyer either hey…
 
I will summarise my position here (for other readers) because arguing with a conspiracy theorist is pointless, as I have just learned, and I do not want other people to be swayed by the incorrect information he keeps posting here.

1. Whiskers is of the belief that water fluoridation in QLD will cause bone disease and cancer (and other diseases) in Queenslanders.
2. We have repeatedly asked Whiskers to provide some sort of evidence to support this claim – he still can’t find any. In contrast, I have provided lots of high-quality evidence to show that water fluoridation in QLD is SAFE.
3. He claims that any evidence that supports water fluoridation has been manipulated by dental organizations and governments (conspiracy).
4. In summary, Whiskers really doesn’t have a case until he provides some evidence to support his claims.
 
To Medicowallet and Billyb,

Please go to page 18 of this thread and watch the videos in post number #350. I have posted a video called "FIRE WATER: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace" (which is broken up into 9 parts)

There are Professors, Doctors, people who have Masters degrees and so forth in human anatomy that appear in this video. Are they all "brain washed" or "conspiracy theorists" or "crackpots"? I guess you can only try to show people so much and they must decide for themselves.
Look, if you want to drink a industrial waste product (Incitec Pivot - Geelong plant, fertilizer waste product) that is "beneficial for your teeth", go for it. I don't and l don't have that choice without spending something in the order of around $1000. If countries like Norway, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, France, Austria, Netherlands, Japan DO NOT fluoridate their water and have the same rates of tooth decay, can you please explain to me what the benefit of drinking fluoridated water is??

Medicowallet and Billyb, can you please show me evidence that Fluoridated water has actually helped prevent tooth decay?? It's time for YOU to provide ME with evidence!


 
DB008 said:
To Medicowallet and Billyb,
Medicowallet and Billyb, can you please show me evidence that Fluoridated water has actually helped prevent tooth decay?? It's time for YOU to provide ME with evidence![/U][/B][/I]
Click to expand...
Certainly, I have provided many links earlier. Even whiskers himself has produced this link (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html) which supports the evidence that says water fluoridation reduces dental caries.
Dannyboy, there is absolutely no doubt, based on the literature, that water fluoridation is effective at reducing dental caries. The graph you have posted is misleading, caries rates will always differ between countries due to so many variables that differ between the countries**, you have to look at results from studies completed within a single country to form any accurate conclusions.

**For example, Dehydration is a major reason for dental decay. Clearly, more people are dehydrated in Australia than in the European countries due to the much hotter climate here.
 
There will always be a few doctors and professionals against fluoridation just like there will always be a few doctors out there who believe high salt intake has no effect on blood pressure.

Don't be swayed by them - be intelligent - look at all of the literature and form your own opinion. Do not be overly swayed by individual people (no matter what their qualifications) or any videos.

I will go with whatever the research and literature says. I am not biased! I do not give a damn what the government or ADA or some youtube video tells me, I only care at what the research has found out over the years. If the literature and research done over the years says water fluoridation is unsafe, then I will believe that!! However, in reality, the research is saying the opposite - that it is safe!! So I will stick with that until proven otherwise by better research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Deception: use + abuse of information by governments + terrorists
Replies
2
Views
5K
reichstag911
R
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
R
New York Times GOLD article
Replies
3
Views
9K
Mofra
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...