Flouride In Water

Corncrake2

penguingirl wrote: »

Take the MMR/ autism coverage as a good example. People listened to it and stopped giving their children MMR, and it resulted in an increase in mumps and measles.

Well not quite -
the resulting increase in mumps and measles resulted from 'the system' stubornly not offering an alternative to the combined MMR for those who did not wish to use it whilst the debate raged.
Until the introduction of combined MMR measles and mumps had been well controlled by individual inocculations. This was discontinued when the more efficient, ie. cost effective, MMR was introduced. The ministers were impervious to suggestions that an alternative rout be offered to the small minority dissenting population ( well it would have been a small minority if the papers had not got a hold of it ! )

Ooopps this prob needs a new thread!

ed110220

BTW it's fluoride not "flouride". Given that the World Health Organisation, innumerable national science academies and medical studies have found no harmful effects from the amounts found in drinking water (and significant benefits), there is no reason to worry about it. Though some people have been ever since the days when there were scare stories that fluoridation was a Soviet plot to poison the Western World ;-)


At the risk of appearing rude, asking readers to do an internet search on why you would want to remove fluoride from drinking water is an extremely poor justification - if you want to find it, there's all sorts of nonsense on the internet that contradicts mainstream medicine and science. You'll find people who believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that random ingredients diluted in water to the equivalent of one molecule of the supposed active ingredient in a volume of water bigger than the Earth cures disease (what's the likelihood your dose happens to contain that molecule?!) etc.

You need to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of information. If you were told you needed heart surgery would you take the advice of a heart surgeon or old Mrs Jones at the end of the street who once read an article about heart treatments but now feels she's an expert? Anyone can have an opinion, but some opinions are more valuable than others...

To get back to your question, no I don't think there is a cheap or easy way of removing fluoride from drinking water as it's a salt dissolved in it, so it's not doing to evaporate out like chlorine.

Edwardia

Our tap water is spring water with added chlorine. No fluoride added but no idea whether it contains it naturally. I don't like the chlorine, I drink Evian. Doesn't mention fluoride on the bottle.

Leif

Edwardia wrote: »

Our tap water is spring water with added chlorine. No fluoride added but no idea whether it contains it naturally. I don't like the chlorine, I drink Evian. Doesn't mention fluoride on the bottle.

I think someone else mentioned this, but get a plastic bottle, fill from the tap, and place in fridge. You'll have nice cold water available, no chlorine taste. And it is cleaner than bottled water, according to official tests of bottled waters. Oh, and cheaper. And uses less food miles.

Leif

Corncrake2 wrote: »

Well not quite -
the resulting increase in mumps and measles resulted from 'the system' stubornly not offering an alternative to the combined MMR for those who did not wish to use it whilst the debate raged.
Until the introduction of combined MMR measles and mumps had been well controlled by individual inocculations. This was discontinued when the more efficient, ie. cost effective, MMR was introduced. The ministers were impervious to suggestions that an alternative rout be offered to the small minority dissenting population ( well it would have been a small minority if the papers had not got a hold of it ! )

Ooopps this prob needs a new thread!

The only reason people wanted individual injections was because of the scare created by, if I recall correctly, a doctor who faked his results. You could make the same criticism of other NHS treatments. In general you cannot choose. You cannot say "No, I don't want the drug approved by NICE, I want drug X".

Regarding cost effective treatments, people sometimes get very angry when something is reorganised to be more efficient, saying that "People matter more than efficiency". Well, yes, but if you save money in one area, with something just as effective, then you have more money to spend in other areas. Unfortunately NHS care is limited by budget. That is why they are excluding medicines that are not cost effective, and looking at cheaper treatments such as key-hole surgery.

G_Model101

Edwardia wrote: »

Our tap water is spring water with added chlorine. No fluoride added but no idea whether it contains it naturally. I don't like the chlorine, I drink Evian. Doesn't mention fluoride on the bottle.

What is "Evian" backwards?

thegirlintheattic

You do realise OP that water itself is toxic. Anything is toxic in the right dose.

brook2jack

Evian contains 0.07 to 0.05mg F/L fluoride content. It is impossible to eat a diet that is fluoride free as it is omnipresent in virtually every food/drink.http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v195/n9/fig_tab/4810668a_T1.html

Hence the impossibility of being sensitive/allergic to fluoride.

tbs624

brook2jack wrote: »

I'm sorry to tell you but according to the world health organisation, the royal college of physicians, the American academy of sciences, numerous immunologists , multiple studies there is no evidence to say that there is such a thing as allergy (sensitivity) to fluoride.

Whilst seeking to dismiss Torry Quine's views, you fail to take into consideration that som epeople will have pre-exisitng health issues of their own which will mean that they will be adversely affected by taking in excess fluoride. Do please be more specific when listing your research studies too

brook2jack wrote: »

In fact it is impossible to eat a diet free of fluoride as virtually all food stuffs contain it.

The fact that the stuff is present in food etc has already been highlighted in my previous post above. Hence the idiocy in yet more of it being added to everyone's drinking water supplies.

tbs624

ed110220 wrote: »

BTW it's fluoride not "flouride". Given that the World Health Organisation, innumerable national science academies and medical studies have found no harmful effects from the amounts found in drinking water (and significant benefits), there is no reason to worry about it.

See the orignal fluoride thread for much discussion on the reality of such studies.

if you want to find it, there's all sorts of nonsense on the internet that contradicts mainstream medicine and science.

Whilst acknowledging that there is nonsense littered across the internet generally, let's remember that "mainstream medicine and science" often gets it wrong. There is far too much dishonesty about vested interests and the funding links behind studies which seek to "prove" x, y or z.

Look back at the long list of drugs studied (peer reviewed), heavily promoted & marketed as the best answer to x,y or z, only to be withdrawn later when the damage has been done. "Mainstream science and medicine" gets it wrong again.....

You need to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of information.

Indeed you do.

If you want to medicate, "patients" should have the ability to opt out of being dosed up.

Statins in the water supply anyone?