Fluoride in tap water

BernardM

Toothsmith wrote: »

Oh sod off - can't you tell when the pi$$ is being taken??

Homeopathy is based on dilutions so infintessimally small that there would be NOTHING but water in a homeopathic mouthwash - if indeed they exist!

My questions on alternative science were to see what Bernard defines as 'alternative' Not what I define it as.

Lets say a vitamin or a herb, or any natural compounds found in nature that may be recommended as an alternative to a particular conventional patented medicine.
Huge numbers are taking these but do we see people dropping dead from taking them in the huge numbers reported for say people that are taking aspirin.
http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/virusfighters.html

tbs624

News update: new Secretary of State for Health is one Andy Burnham who was, until last Friday,Vice President of the BFS (British Fluoridation Society). Apparently this is to ward off any "perceived conflict of interests".

Mr Burnham was instrumental in proposing the inclusion of compulsory water fluoridation in the Water Act 2003. That membership of the BFS was not listed in the MPs register of interests and ...surprise...one of his first outings in his new role was -of course- to promote water fluoridation.

Meanwhile, in Southampton, legal aid has been granted for proceedings against the South Central SHA and the sham "consultation process".

Huge amounts of public money are being wasted on water fluoridation and glossy pro-F leafletting, and many object to our water supplies being used in this way. Dental decay is best treated by dietary improvements, better dental hygiene, and appropriately targeted NHS dental provision, including *topical* application of fluoride for those who may want or need it.

BernardM

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4462636.Daily_Echo_backs_calls_for_a_referendum_on_fluoride_issue/

anudeglory

BernardM wrote: »

Lets say a vitamin or a herb, or any natural compounds found in nature that may be recommended as an alternative to a particular conventional patented medicine.

Given that Aspirin is a natural compound found in nature (from the bark of Willow) I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Obviously it is manufactured on an industrial scale and probably not from Willow anymore but that doesn't change or have any effect on its chemical makeup. Let's not forget that the list you link to is nothing more than a list of chemicals and compounds made up of chemicals.

BernardM wrote: »

Huge numbers are taking these but do we see people dropping dead from taking them in the huge numbers reported for say people that are taking aspirin.
http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/virusfighters.html

Well nothing on that list is overly harmful and probably won't kill you unless you have a severe allergic reaction. Also the overdose amounts are pretty high on the majority of them, e.g. you would have to ingest well over 8000 oranges to get a lethal dose of Vitamin C. The only reason Aspirin may cause problems is because of the way it is absorbed through your stomach lining as it is an NSAID, still it is less likely to kill you than Paracetamol.

BernardM

Ben84 wrote: »

Here in the UK we drink some of the cleanest tap water in the world, and it brings with it huge benefits to human health. There are extensive restrictions and quality controls regarding tap water and the materials used to pipe it to our houses, and they have been getting tighter.

I realise there are issues with water quality around the world, very serious issues, but not here in the UK or most of Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3020954.stm

anudeglory

BernardM wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3020954.stm

That points to a slightly alarmist BBC article from 2003, that's six years of research ago, not overly useful.

It also makes no comment on the quote you have included.

Volcano

anudeglory wrote: »

That points to a slightly alarmist BBC article from 2003, that's six years of research ago, not overly useful.

It also makes no comment on the quote you have included.

Don't try and rationalise with Bernard. I'm not sure what he does with his time but he pops up on this thread occasionally with his outdated and irrelevant links (I think he's a member of the "it's all a conspiracy!" brigade).

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

jinnan_tonnix wrote: »

Consider this hypothetical dilemma:
Imagine that a drug has been invented that suppresses the appetite of people, but only in those that are obese. The manufacturers have assured everyone that it causes no known medical problems, and trials have borne this out.
Would you object to this harmless drug being introduced to the country's water supply? It would cut the obesity problem at a stroke.

I think this draws an interesting parallel to the fluoride-in-water plan.

Speaking as a fat bird (with perfect teeth), if it were real, I'd go for this one 100%!!!!!!!! However, I suspect that instead of being free, an innovation such this hypothetical would only be made available at vast cost. And I am sure that there would be someone somewhere crying out that it was their choice to be fat and they have the right to be able to make themselves ill through excessive food consumption.

Although exactly how much plain water (rather than cola or milkshake) the average obese person or the average child with a poor diet and non existent dental hygiene consumes, I am uncertain.

BernardM

anudeglory wrote: »

That points to a slightly alarmist BBC article from 2003, that's six years of research ago, not overly useful.

It also makes no comment on the quote you have included.

There must be some of the 30,000 chemicals that end up in our water supply, like the article says its all a gigantic experiment.

BernardM

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4501915.Health_chiefs__would_ignore_fluoride_referendum_result_/