Flouride In Water

Millie_Millsters

Leif wrote: »

And you would die of water poisoning. The conclusion is that they should not have added water to our water as it is toxic.

Your post reminded me of this website

ed110220

tbs624 wrote: »

See the orignal fluoride thread for much discussion on the reality of such studies.
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the long list of drugs studied (peer reviewed), heavily promoted & marketed as the best answer to x,y or z, only to be withdrawn later when the damage has been done.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.....

I think this reveals how wrong your way of thinking is. Science isn't perfect and improves all the time, improving on its failures and deficiencies as new research is done and new information comes to light. That is its strength. Just think about how just medicine has improved in the last 50 years.

Just because science can be wrong is no reason to dismiss it - it is by far the best way of understanding and dealing with practical matters like health, engineering etc. It can be wrong, but it's much more likely to be right than the woo and quackery that is the alternative.

I'm reminded of Churchill's famous quote on democracy: No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

You could say that science was the worst way of understanding the world except for all the other ways that have been tried.

all_change

Millie_Millsters wrote: »

Your post reminded me of this website

Thank you so much for posting that, haven't looked at it in ages.
One of the best examples I've ever seen of how all these phrases get used by the press and by advertisers.
For those of you who have not seen it, please do go and have a look. The FAQ page is excellent.

Torry_Quine

tbs624 wrote: »

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

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.

Thank you for your comments. :A

Leif

tbs624 wrote: »

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

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?

Your message appears to be "science has made mistakes, therefore you cannot trust science, therefore trust alternatives".

When you say science and medicine "often gets it wrong", that is not the case. The number of mistakes is tiny when compared to the successes. Actually if you understood how science works, you would realise that the truth is that knowledge improves with time. 30 years ago anti-biotics were over-used, today we acknowledge the benefits, but see the wisdom of more limited use. When you refer to medicines withdrawn, which certainly happens, you refer to studies performed by companies, with commercial considerations i.e. a propensity to bias. You are confusing independent academic research with corporate research.

I wonder if the person who said they have an allergy to fluoride learnt of their allergy from a recognised medical source, or self diagnosis, or from an 'alternative medicine practitioner' some of whom are total quacks.

Edwardia

Leif wrote: »

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, I drink Evian because I like it. It doesn't taste of chlorine.

I grew up drinking Evian - having lived, worked and travelled abroad it's complete habit to drink bottled water.

British water isn't always as wonderful as you assume. As a kid in Wales my parents, brother, grandmother and I were all very sick after drinking Welsh spring water.

I'm not going to pfaff around filling unsterilised bottles with tap water. Twelve 50cl bottles of Evian costs £4, hardly expensive. I don't smoke or drink in any case. Any half-drunk bottles get boiled and cooled and end up in the dog's water bowl or used for watering houseplants.

As for food miles I live closer to France than I do to Buxton.

Leif

Edwardia wrote: »

British water isn't always as wonderful as you assume. As a kid in Wales my parents, brother, grandmother and I were all very sick after drinking Welsh spring water.

I'm not going to pfaff around filling unsterilised bottles with tap water. Twelve 50cl bottles of Evian costs £4, hardly expensive. I don't smoke or drink in any case. Any half-drunk bottles get boiled and cooled and end up in the dog's water bowl or used for watering houseplants.

As for food miles I live closer to France than I do to Buxton.

There have been scares with 'foreign' spring water too. I happen to think buying bottled drinking water is daft, but I am sure you can criticise some things I do, so I won't get sanctimonious. Anyway, I like English tap water as not only is it clean, and no trips to the supermarket carrying heavy bottles, but I get extra pleasure from knowing that to create the reservoir they had to drown a Welsh village (1). Deep joy.

(1) I'm kidding, no need to phone the Meibion Glyndwr hotline.

Edwardia

I thought there was a ruined village under a reservoir somewhere in UK ???

tbs624

ed110220 wrote: »

I think this reveals how wrong your way of thinking is.Science isn't perfect and improves all the time, improving on its failures and deficiencies as new research is done and new information comes to light. That is its strength. Just think about how just medicine has improved in the last 50 years.

.....and just look at those whose health has suffered as a result of those failures and deficiencies. Still, I guess they'll be reassured by the "strength"

ed110220 wrote: »

Just because science can be wrong is no reason to dismiss it - it is by far the best way of understanding and dealing with practical matters like health, engineering etc. It can be wrong, but it's much more likely to be right than the woo and quackery that is the alternative.

It is not a question of "dismissing science" - you have applied your own special interpretation there: the point was about balance but don't let that stop you pretending that you know what my "way of thinking" is.

In response to your assertion:

"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." and your reference to the " need to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of information. "

..do please share the "innumerable" medical studies with us, via specific references. "Significant benefits" you say? Again, do please share.

Leif

tbs624 wrote: »

.....and just look at those whose health has suffered as a result of those failures and deficiencies. Still, I guess they'll be reassured by the "strength"

It is not a question of "dismissing science" - you have applied your own special interpretation there: the point was about balance but don't let that stop you pretending that you know what my "way of thinking" is.

In response to your assertion:

"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." and your reference to the " need to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of information. "

..do please share the "innumerable" medical studies with us, via specific references. "Significant benefits" you say? Again, do please share.

And why don't you give examples, in context, with figures, rather than simply using rhetoric such as "and just look at those whose health has suffered as a result of those failures and deficiencies. Still". And why not while you are at it give the figure for the numbers whose health has been improved by the successes of science, medicine, and technology.