ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Closed Thread
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 160
  1. #131
    Pegasus's Avatar
    Pegasus is offline and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,650
    Thanks
    1,738
    Thanked
    1,738
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimberleygal1 View Post
    Most people that have water tanks have them to collect rain water. Coming from a farming background I have never known anyone to have water trucked in to fill their tank, not here in WA anyway.
    I'm also in an area where not all houses have scheme water -a lot have tank rain water, however, we have huge tankers in all of our surrounding areas which regularly fill anyone's tanks to assist in times of low rain.

    I guess the difference is that while when I was living in Darwin (where you wouldn't have any rain for 6 months due to being in "dry season"), to where I live now which is a more southern area where there are water restrictions etc - treated as a "drought area"

    In the more northern areas, the monsoonal areas (sorry - not sure if that's a correct term) get huge rain falls during "wet season" whereas when you live more southerly, there are not the huge rain falls and water tankers are needed.

    I live in a water catchment area (very near a major dam) and on the cusp of metro v country. I am on scheme water (which is flurodised) but a lot of my neighbours are on rainwater tanks. The people on rainwater tanks in times of less rain have to get trucks in.

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    16
    Reviews
    0
    pegasus, considering that you had previously referred to the concentration of fluoride in water, but had said nothing about the concentration of fluoride in the body, no reasonable person would have thought you were talking about the latter. Confusing dose with the fluoride concentration of water is a common mistake made by those who advocate fluoridation. You wrote "I'm not talking about the concentration in the water I'm drinking (for instance) as this determines the dose that I intake into my body which, in turn determines the concentration of that chemical in my body." No, you still don't get it. A person's daily dose of fluoride is not determined just by the concentration of fluoride in the water they are drinking, it is also determined by the amount of water they drink from the tap and other sources (which varies greatly from one person to the next), the fluoride which is naturally present in food, the fluoride which is absorbed into food which is cooked or processed with water, the fluoride from toothpaste and dental treatments, the fluoride which comes from cigarette smoke and other sources of fluoride air pollution (such as car exhaust, alumina refineries, phosphate fertiliser factories, coal-fired power stations, steel refineries, zinc refineries, and brick kilns), and fluoride from other sources such as pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals (including general anaesthetics), and Teflon. The difficulty in accurately determining a person's daily fluoride dose is often mentioned in the literature. It is also not true that the dose determines the concentration of fluoride in someone's body. Two people of the same size can have the same daily dose of fluoride, yet have very different concentrations in their bodies. People with impaired kidney function excrete fluoride at a considerably slower rate than others, so they tend to have higher concentrations in their bodies. Also, fluoride can accumulate continuously in the body, and the concentration depends on the individual's history of exposure over their entire lifetime, not just their current exposure level.

    You wrote "the concentration of a chemical in your body determines the toxicity of that chemical to the individual". That is also incorrect. Two different people can have very different responses to the same concentration of a chemical in their bodies. For example, the NRC report points out that "bone fluoride concentrations and the levels at which skeletal fluorosis occurs vary widely".

    I wouldn't say that ingesting about 3.2 mg of fluoride per day is extremely high, though it isn't exactly healthy either. Your daily dose will actually be higher than that, because you haven't considered other fluoride sources. 2 mg, in addition to "background" fluoride exposure, lowers thyroid function in some people, but not everyone. Iodine deficiency, which is common in Australia, is a risk factor. Other nutrients and phytochemicals can also partially protect against fluoride toxicity, including calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D. Some people tend towards hyperthyroidism, so even if fluoride is lowering their thyroid function it will not necessarily show up as hypothyroidism. It's possible that you could continue with what you are doing for a long lifetime without major ill effect, just as some smokers do, but it's a big risk.

    http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/early...81190.abstract

    I found the abstract of the study which is almost certainly the one referred to in the newspaper article you linked to. It's not very impressive, to put it mildly, which is why I dismissed the newspaper article. It says "Socio-demographic and preventive dental behaviours were included in multivariable least-squares regression models adjusted for potential confounding. In fully adjusted models, > 75% of lifetime exposure to fluoridation relative to < 25% of lifetime exposure was associated with 11% and 10% fewer DMF-Teeth in the pre-1960 (p < .0001) and 1960-1990 cohorts (p = .018), respectively. Corresponding reductions in DF-Surfaces were 30% (p < .001) and 21% (p < .001)." It wasn't a randomised controlled trial, and it wasn't blinded, and even then they only found piddling 11% and 10% differences in DMFT. The usual statistic of comparison is DMFT, but apparently 11% and 10% don't sound impressive enough, so they decided to ignore missing teeth for their "DF-Surfaces" statistic in order to falsely claim "up to a 30 percent reduction in tooth decay" in the newspaper puff piece. Who needs teeth, anyway? She'll be right mate. There is no mention of minerals in water which may affect rates of cavities, such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and molybdenum, or of diet in general. The study was based on data from the 2004-2006 Australian National Survey of Adult Oral Health, which is clearly biased because it ignores dental fluorosis. It also lists Colgate Oral Care as one of its funding sources. It doesn't matter how many of these dodgy studies are churned out, it doesn't change the fact that when fluoridation has been discontinued rates of dental cavities have fall, or the fact that the countries with the lowest rates of dental cavities are mostly not fluoridated.

    You wrote "It's funny how I've tried to look further into some of the claims you've linked to, and not found scientific backup for them." It's funny how things which are very easy for some people are so difficult for others. If your standard for "scientific back up" is puff pieces from newspapers, I'm not surprised you couldn't find anything.

  3. #133
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    338
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    136
    Reviews
    0
    Steve, the fact remains that you STILL have failed to provide us links to any peer reviewed research to substantiate your claims that fluoride in water is not good for teeth.

    All you have done is criticise the peer reviewed research that others have provided as "propaganda" and a puff piece.

    You feel that a decrease in the rate of dental caries by 11 and 10% is piddling? Why so, especially when supported with a p value of <0.001. You also seem to feel that the study is invalid as it is not a RCT. The study is retrospective cohort, which is a completely valid study method and the most practical for the purpose of this investigation. Do you think it would be that simple to randomly and consistently expose a large study group to fluoridated and non-fluoridated water over a lifetime?

    The fact that the study was supported by Colgate means squat. I have published many research papers, most of which were funded by a pharma or medical device company. The funding is invaluable since most researchers run a tight budget. The potential conflict of interest is always declared, and in my experience and most others (bar Andrew Wakefield) this funding has never influenced results.

    You've said yourself you have no formal qualification to support your claims. I'm a medical scientist with a Masters in Epidemiology, though I'm more than happy to admit I'm not an expert on fluoridation. I do know the difference between good research and bull s***, however.

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to hollychops For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (10-03-2013),beebs  (11-03-2013),Busy-Bee  (11-03-2013),kezanazz  (10-03-2013),Mod-DJ Nette  (10-03-2013),Pegasus  (11-03-2013)

  5. #134
    Pegasus's Avatar
    Pegasus is offline and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,650
    Thanks
    1,738
    Thanked
    1,738
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    I'd also like to point out that studies performed by universities, which newspapers then take on and publish as news pieces, are still studies performed by universities.

    I looked into the idea re: thyroid function being affected by fluouride intake and pretty much came up with Joe Mercola - hmm...

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Pegasus For This Useful Post:

    hollychops  (11-03-2013)

  7. #135
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    16
    Reviews
    0
    pegasus, either you're playing dumb or you have no idea how to find and evaluate relevant information.

    Atropos, you wrote "you can't back up your statements, you admit to having no formal qualifications on the subject, but I'm the "zealot"… Sorry Steve, I'm just not arrogant enough to assume I know more than scientific authorities on the subject. I don't know why you find that hard to believe. You didn't answer the question about the nhmrc." It's your lucky day, because seeing that you are apparently such a fan of Carl Sagan, I have answered with the help of Carl Sagan quotes.

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
    Claiming that dumping toxic industrial silicofluoride waste contaminated with arsenic and other cumulative toxins is so good for teeth, and so safe, that it's necessary to force this mode of delivery onto millions of people is surely extraordinary. No other medicine is delivered in this way, or ever has been to my knowledge. It is inherently extremely wasteful and indiscriminate, and a violation of human rights. And fluoride itself is a cumulative toxin which is proven to have a negative effect on teeth, namely dental fluorosis. So where is the extraordinary evidence? The answer is that it simply does not exist. Fluoridation is not backed up by a single randomised controlled trial, which is the gold standard for medical research. The "research" which supposedly demonstrates its safety is extremely weak. It's not the evidence which is extraordinary, it's the lack of evidence.

    "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
    You made this rookie error when you tried to claim that the 2000 York review demonstrated the safety of fluoridation.

    "Arguments from authority carry little weight - authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."
    Your whole argument, if you can call it that, is "I trust the authorities, I trust the authorities, I trust the authorities". Sadly, Carl didn't hold that attitude in high regard. I think you'll find that not many people in the world have formal qualifications specifically on the subject of water fluoridation. Dentists are certainly not formally qualified to assess the non-dental adverse health effects. I didn't quite say that I don't have any formal qualifications, I said that my formal qualifications are not directly relevant. However, my qualifications are clearly not completely irrelevant in the assessment of fluoridation. I don't claim to be an authority on the subject, but compared to you I am an expert.

    "The best way to avoid abuses is for the populace in general to be scientifically literate, to understand the implications of such investigations. In exchange for freedom of inquiry, scientists are obliged to explain their work. If science is considered a closed priesthood, too difficult and arcane for the average person to understand, the dangers of abuse are greater."
    So Carl understood that there were dangers of abuse in the name of science. I haven't seen any evidence that you are scientifically literate. How scientifically literate do you think politicians and most Australians are?

    "Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."
    It looks like Carl Sagan and I really are on the same page. As I said before, I have two degrees in the physical sciences from one of Australia's better universities, and was given a mark in the low 90s for a philosophy essay on the principle of induction, which is the philosophical basis for science. As a result, I have a pretty good idea of how to think scientifically, which is clearly relevant to an assessment of the health implications of fluoridation. The scientific way of thinking involves continued questioning and reassessment of the evidence; it is definitely not blind faith in authority.

    "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."
    I don't know exactly why it's too painful for you to acknowledge that fluoridation isn't what you thought it was. Maybe it's just pride, or maybe there's more to it. The evidence and arguments against fluoridation are clear and strong, and fluoridationists invariably ignore the evidence and instead use bamboozlement. That can be seen in the way they constantly point to endorsements (i.e. authority) as if they somehow constitute scientific evidence, and try to pretend that their opponents are crazy. It can also be seen in their employment of Edward Bernays to sell fluoridation. Bernays was the nephew of Sigmund Freud and is considered the father of public relations, and he was also employed to convince women to take up smoking, among other things.

    "The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas."
    Fluoridationists don't have any good arguments, so they try to suppress ideas. George Waldbott was an early opponent of fluoridation based on his work on fluoride sensitivity, but American medical journals wouldn't publish his studies, so he had to found the journal Fluoride. That journal has always been excluded from the US-based PubMed/Medline, even though it's accepted elsewhere. William Marcus was the chief toxicologist at the US Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Drinking Water when he was unlawfully fired for blowing the whistle on the EPA's misrepresentation of evidence on the carcinogenicity of fluoride in rats. The toxicologist Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her job at the Forsyth Dental Institute when her study on the behavioural effects of fluoride on rats was published. Worst of all, governments refuse to fund the independent, large-scale, quality research which is required to finally reveal the full extent of harm from fluoridation.

    "You have to know the past to understand the present."
    I have already said that anyone who wants to understand why fluoridation is practised should read The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson, and find out what John Colquhoun has to say about it. Both of them give a historical perspective, but no doubt that is of no interest to those who are in denial.

    "We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster"
    Fluoridation was first introduced in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945. Around that time asbestos was thought to be safe, doctors were promoting cigarette smoking, children were being sprayed with DDT, and lead was being added to petrol. How much understanding do you think the American public had of the safety of those things?

    "Science is based on experiment, on a willingness to challenge old dogma, on an openness to see the universe as it really is. Accordingly, science sometimes requires courage - at the very least courage to question the conventional wisdom."
    There have been many dentists who were indoctrinated with fluoridationism, but later looked at the evidence and realised that their belief was wrong, and had the courage to say so. Prominent among these are John Colquhoun, who was the Principal Dental Officer for the Auckland Health District, Hardy Limeback, who is a biochemist and was Professor of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, and Andrew Harms, who was President of the South Australia Dental Association.

    "In college, in the early 1950s, I began to learn a little about how science works, the secrets of its great success, how rigourous the standards of evidence must be if we are really to know something is true, how many false starts and dead ends have plagued human thinking, how our biases can colour our interpretation of evidence, and how often belief systems widely held and supported by the political, religious and academic hierarchies turn out to be not just slightly in error, but grotesquely wrong."
    The standards of evidence applied to fluoridation have always been extremely flimsy, and fluoridation is grotesquely wrong, like so many other ideas from 1940s and 50s corporate America.

    "There are many hypotheses in science that are wrong. That's perfectly alright; it's the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigourous standards of evidence and scrutiny."
    The hypothesis that fluoride in drinking water reduced rates of dental cavities had already been proven wrong before fluoridation was first implemented in 1945. It was resurrected for political and economic, not scientific, reasons. Fluoridation was initially opposed by the American Medical Association and American Dental Association, and never accepted by many doctors and scientists. It has already been rejected by the vast majority of the world, and it's about time Australia stopped clinging to outdated dogma.

    "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe"
    You are obviously a believer in fluoridationism. You don't require any evidence, just the authority of the high priests of fluorodology. You accuse me of not being able to back up my statements, but you still haven't provided a single study which demonstrates the safety of fluoridation. The burden of proof is on you, because fluoridation is forced down people's throats against their will. Where is the evidence?

    Way back on 26 February I wrote "the NHMRC report… tries to give the impression that the reduction in the rate of dental cavities during the period of fluoridation in Australia proves the beneficial effect of fluoridation, which is a blatant non sequitur, and it claims that toxic waste is not used, which is a lie." If you can't understand that, it's not my fault.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Steve533 For This Useful Post:

    SJG  (14-03-2013)

  9. #136
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,800
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Sorry, I stopped reading at the bit where you told me it was my lucky day, I told you already, no one responds well to condescension.

    http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPr.../fluoride.html

    Good article for anyone interested, contains links to further reading.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (11-03-2013),hollychops  (11-03-2013),SJG  (14-03-2013)

  11. #137
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve533 View Post

    "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
    This sums you up completely. I however don't car either way, I don't know much about fluroide, which is why I have asked you to post some evidence up so I could have a look.

    Instead of posting evidence you have posted quotes, and implied that the reason there is no evidence is because people get fired if they go against the establishment.

    At the end of the day, I really don't think you can expect people to just believe anything you say with no evidence to back up your claims.

    So I am still on the fence, I don't care either way.

  12. #138
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,913
    Thanks
    482
    Thanked
    552
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Steve, that's a lot of words but not many useful ones....
    I dont think the condescension angle is working for you
    Everything you have said about pro fluoride people is exactly what you are doing.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to kezanazz For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (11-03-2013)

  14. #139
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,800
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    The funny part is that I am not a staunch "fluoridationist"- I just have a strong sense of logic and hate unfounded conspiracy theories and scaremongering done by people who have nothing better to do.
    I have read enough to be convinced its in our water for a reason, to know its a supplement (as opposed to a medication) and also to know a poison is generally determined by the dosage. I do not believe that the government would bother to do it if it caused health problems, I do not believe the government scientific bodies allow us to be poisoned and, much like vaccines, I don't believe the government would be happy to fund something which will eventually cost them more via the health system. They have no reason to do such a thing and I do not for a moment believe they are doing it unknowingly.

    "I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic and national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us—then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."
    Carl Sagan—The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, 1996

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (11-03-2013),hollychops  (11-03-2013)

  16. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,800
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts


 

Similar Threads

  1. when did u start using fluoride toothpaste?
    By SoThisIsLove in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30-11-2012, 10:29
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20-03-2012, 07:15
  3. Added Fluoride to water linked to infertility
    By posative in forum Conception & Fertility General Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-01-2012, 14:24

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

FEATURED SUPPORTER
GymbaROOGymbaROO offers activities for babies & toddlers in a fun learning centre, focussing on developmental education. ...
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›

ADVERTISEMENT