Stick That In Your Pipes

at

clrrconnaghan

Sinn Féin Dublin City Councillor Anthony Connaghton outside City Hall discussing his motion to end fluoridation in Dublin Water ahead of the council’s monthly meeting last night.

The motion was carried.

Cllr Connaghton sez:

“My motion seeking to end water fluoridation in Ireland was approved at Dublin City Council last night. 98% of Europe has rejected the practice of water fluoridation and it was banned in Holland in 1976. Numerous studies worldwide have indicated potential harm to human health from adding fluoride to our drinking water. Why are we taking this risk when dental health can be dealt with by conventional methods?”

FIGHT!

Cllr Anthony Connaghton (Facebook)

Thanks Ann

148 thoughts on “Stick That In Your Pipes

  1. Gdo

    “Numerous studies worldwide have indicated potential harm to human health from adding fluoride to our drinking water”

    Really? From what I’ve read it’s plain that water flouridation is a very good thing.

    1. munkifisht

      True. No real scientific evidence against it, seems to mostly be anecdotal tosh and week causal studies. I’d file this along with the vaccination causes autism loons and homoeopathic dingbats.

    2. Gers

      Back in 2000 maybe it was. There are studies conducted since that add a number of risks linked to water fluoridation and its consumption. An example of this is a study published in January 2012 in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine (Vol 33 – Issue 1 Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery disease) demonstrating that fluoride is a major contributor factor to coronary heart disease.

      http://journals.lww.com/nuclearmedicinecomm/Abstract/2012/01000/Association_of_vascular_fluoride_uptake_with.3.aspx

      It pays to read a little before basing ideas on 15+ years old studies.

      1. Mark Dennehy

        Speaking of things that help, you might actually read the study. It was saying that if you inject a patient directly with sodium fluoride in their veins and study their blood vessels with a PET scan to see how much fluoride their blood vessels have absorbed from that injection, you can diagnose some heart problems.

        In other words, the study was nothing to do with fluoridation of tap water (which uses hydrofluosilicic acid not the radioactive sodium fluoride from the study – totally different compounds); it wasn’t measuring how much fluoride the body had absorbed before the study; and it was looking at diagnosing future heart problems using fluoride as a tool, not saying that fluoride causes heart problems.

        Seriously, was *READING* just too damn much to do there?

      2. RCH

        Could you please highlight where in this study it says it’s a major contributor? I’m only seeing that says it may be associated –

        “An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.”

        The study says that it correlates well with cardiovascular risk. Correlation does not imply causation.

        There are only 61 patients who are included in this study. There’s no way you could conclude from this study that flouridation is linked to any risk. It may highlight an issue that should be further explored with greater numbers and more data, but if you’re basing your ideas on flouridation around studies like this then you’ve done so with little or no evidence.

        You can link as many studies as you like but if you interpret the findings incorrectly, it’s completely pointless.

  2. phil

    Ive been wondering, who adds the flouride to the water? Private company or state owned? Is the owner lobbying the government ?

      1. Mani

        There is a many-tentacled beast that’s sexual organs are tethered to our water supply. It ejaculates daily, providing us with the fluoride our teeth need and also flooding us with it’s seed. The success rate is 1 in 1000, but when a host is impregnated, the young nest in the brain, engorging themselves on the grey matter. The host has some knowledge of it’s fate and will spend it’s final days decrying fluoridation and watching Love/Hate. In the end they expire, excreting their liquefied brains through their anus. Unlucky witnesses have described it as being akin to ‘watching Mark Cagney on Ireland AM’.

    1. Funk

      The HSE funds it

      The water authorities add it at the treatment plants

      It’s is bought from Asia I believe. Fluoride additives (actually a few different fluorine compounds) is an industrial byproduct from the production of fertilisers.

      1. Mark Dennehy

        No, it’s not. Hydrofluosilicic acid (which is what we use) is not a byproduct, it’s a primary product. See questions 10 and 11 here: http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/faq/

        10. What additives are used to fluoridate Irish drinking water?
        Fluoride may be added to public water supplies either in the form of hydrofluosilicic acid complying with the specification for that substance in Schedule 1 to the Fluoridation of Water Supplies Regulations 2007 (SI 42 OF 2007), or in such other form as may be approved by the Minister of Health.

        The fluoride currently used is sourced as a primary product; it is mined directly from a raw material source, the mineral fluorospar as calcium fluoride (CaF2). It then goes through a purification process to conform to tightly controlled specifications under the requirements of CEN Standard I.S.EN 12175:2001 to produce Hydrofluosilicic Acid (HFSA), specifically used as the mineral additive, fluoride, to water.

        11. Is hydrofluosilicic acid a waste product from the fertilizer industry?
        No. The consumer is frequently misinformed on this matter. It is sourced as a primary product as described in Question 10 above.

        Representatives of The Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health conducted a site visit to Derivados del Fluor in Spain to see and assess the process of hydrofluosilicic acid extraction and its production processes, and the systems and controls in place to ensure the consistency, purity and safety of the product as supplied for use in fluoridation of drinking water in Ireland. The Expert Body was satisfied that production is in compliance with quality, environmental and safety systems and procedures in place and that Derivados del Fluor strives to ensure that these systems and procedures are maintained and continuously reviewed.

        1. Funk

          Cool. Fair enough.

          I’ve no problem with it being an industrial byproduct if it was anyway. I mean table salt is basically an industrial product.

          1. Steph

            All processed food is an industrial product. Hell so are most vegetables. Perceiving industry as some Dickensian, smoke spewing chimney riddled disaster is a bit silly.

          2. Mark Dennehy

            The problem is that industrial byproducts don’t generally have as much regulation as the primary products so you’d get more contamination and the like. Which is why they use a primary product rather than a byproduct…

  3. Mr. T.

    It’s certainly not needed for dental health anymore. It is considered a toxin in most countries.

    Maybe some obscure company owned by some political hack is making millions providing the fluoride to councils?

    1. Tom Stewart

      If that’s the case, I would draw a parallel with Direct Provision. The only conceivable reason I can imagine to drag asylum cases out for a decade is that the private companies making mulah from providing accommodation lobbied (or untraceably bribed) the government to do so…

    2. DoM

      My understanding (I believe this was discussed on the Right Hook friday panel some months ago – anyone else remember this?) is that there is a direct link between fluoridation of water and decreases in cavities. I think the Doctor they have on explained the data, and everyone went “huh – really? Fair enough so…”. Would be interesting to see the actual research one way or the other though.

      1. Jess

        From what I read its relatively controversial. Some studies say its the beneficial, some say it has adverse effects. Neither say its massively dramatic because competing or complimentary factors cant be fully accommodated for. Which study you want to believe is up to you.

        Personally I’d rather it was taken out as I feed the same water to my pets and all studies are done on humans, so theres nothing to say its good or bad. Best to err on the side of countion IMHO

        1. Mark Dennehy

          It’s relatively controversial in the same way that the MMR vaccine and man-made climate change is controversial – ie. it’s very controversial if you’re earning money from pretending the science doesn’t exist, and it’s about as obvious as gravity otherwise.

          1. Jess

            No it isn’t. Its nothing at all like MMR or climate change. There are valid reasons why people don’t want it and calling them stupid, calling them conspiracy theorists, does nothing to convince people otherwise. I mean are you actually saying people who don’t want fluoride are payed shills?

          2. Steph

            What valid reasons are there? Because I’ve yet to meet a rational well informed person who is against it.

          3. Mark Dennehy

            There aren’t any valid reasons Jess. Ignorance and being conned by people trying to profit off people being scared senseless are not valid reasons. And they are conspiracy theorists – your Stripper Against Fluoride, for example, happily believes that the pill makes you gay and castor oil gives you cancer as well as believing that fluoride’s bad for you (all the while happily saying she’s taking funding from a water filtration company). That’s pretty much the direct opposite of a valid concern from a reasonable person.

          4. Jess

            Simply not wanting it is a valid reason mark, thinking the cost is ill spent is valid, peoples concerns about pets are valid. Just because you don’t agree with them, doesn’t mean they’re not valid

          5. Mark Dennehy

            It’s simply not valid Jess. Just because you don’t want something isn’t grounds to deny a proven public healthcare program to other people.

            Thinking it is is a sign of a fairly dodgy personality.

        2. big_g

          It’s not controversial in the scientific community. The effect of community water fluoridation is reduced decay particularly in populations who can least afford dental care. It is probably one of the most cost effective public health measures ever put in to place. Ireland is the ideal case study as there is no community water fluoridation in the North and so we have excellent data sets comparing Northern Irish decay rates vs the Republic which shows the effect.

          1. Jess

            Thats a perfect example as you cannot rule out the effect the NHS has had or the effect the social upheaval of the troubles had on peoples diets, dental care routines. You may be comparing similar water quality at source but your dealing with a very different level of personal and state intervention.

          2. Kill The Poor

            Research into the mindsets of anti-vaccination campaigners suggests that they tend to exhibit traits such as conspiratorial thinking, reasoning flaws, a reliance on anecdote over data and low cognitive complexity in thinking patterns. Similar traits are seen in the anti–fluoride movement, with similar mistrust of health interventions. It may not be a coincidence that the current drive against fluoride in Ireland emanates from West Cork, a region of the country with an extremely low vaccine uptake that has been the epicentre of recent measles outbreaks.

          3. Jess

            As i said the other time this was posted, leave the ad hominems at the door, they don’t do anything for the argument

          4. big_g

            Actually you can rule out those effects because we have a very similar socio-economic, age and gender makeup to our population. If anything, you would think the more comprehensive public dental care available on the NHS would have had a positive effect on caries rates, this is not the case.

          5. Jess

            You can’t just rule out because it doesn’t fit. Age and gender have nothing to do the social upheaval I mentioned. Correlation does not imply
            causation

          6. Big_G

            Now you’re just saying words that amount to gibberish. What effect did the troubles in the north have on dental health? Are there any studies quantifying the effect? All of the predictors of caries status in the North and South are the same except they have a better dental healthcare system and we have fluoridated water. Guess who has lower dmft/DMFT (decayed/missing/filled teeth) rates?

    3. Bobby

      I think only biological products can be toxins. Fluoride would be considered poisonous. But so is everything in high quantities. The quantities in our water is completely safe. Nearly all the countries who stopped fluoridating their water still put fluoride in other products, such as salt. So they aren’t against fluoride, they’ve simply got a different delivery system.

    4. Randy Ewing

      Research into the mindsets of anti-vaccination campaigners suggests that they tend to exhibit traits such as conspiratorial thinking, reasoning flaws, a reliance on anecdote over data and low cognitive complexity in thinking patterns. Similar traits are seen in the anti–fluoride movement, with similar mistrust of health interventions. It may not be a coincidence that the current drive against fluoride in Ireland emanates from West Cork, a region of the country with an extremely low vaccine uptake that has been the epicentre of recent measles outbreaks.

        1. Steph

          It has everything to do with their credibility as a testifier in a scientific debate. If you think vaccines are bad it’s a strong indicator that your scientific credibility is very VERY poor.

          1. Jess

            Its nothing but a lazy way of labeling people with a different viewpoint as stupid or crazy and its rule 1 when it comes to debating. I’m sure many people for it are religious or think golf is fun. It does nothing for the argument you’re trying to make

          2. Steph

            It’s not “a different viewpoint” – they’re objectively wrong and refuse to believe otherwise despite overwhelming objective evidence. This is a strong indicator of very poor scientific understanding which means they have no place in a scientific debate. That’s simple fact.

          3. Jess

            They’re not ‘objectively wrong’ steph. People hold different views and there are arguments other than simple safety concerns. Dismiss if you want but insulting people does harm to your argument

    5. ReproBertie

      Chlorine is extremely dangerous and poisonous for all living organisms. I can only presume the anti flouride people never swim in a public pool.

      1. Paps

        There’s also chlorine in the drinking water.
        The concentrations of these things are safe for consumption , Very strict guidelines .6-.8 parts per million. Which , from the studies that I’ve read , and according to my dentist is a good way to strengthen teeth against decay.

    6. munkifisht

      Considered a toxin. Are you f***in mad? Why is it still put in toothpaste if it’s a f***in toxin.

  4. shitferbrains

    Let’s put affordable dental health and treatment procedures into place first, and then maybe ban fluoride.

    1. Jess

      You get one free check up a year paid for with PRSI and tootlpaste is cheap. Looking after your teeth is not expensive or difficult

      1. Paps

        You can still be prone to decay no matter how well or often you brush.
        The dental system on the medical card is a joke , unlimited extractions but only 2 fillings a year? and the same tooth can’t be filled again for 3 or 4 years or something? It makes no sense.

    2. big_g

      Affordable dental care and the use of fluoride are unfortunately not mutually exclusive. Why would we ban something that is so effective at making teeth resistant to decay?

  5. edalicious

    This is another one of those situations where people will bend over backwards to disagree with the general scientific consensus to hold a stance which confirms their pre-existing beliefs. If the vast majority of scientists disagree with your point of view, it might be time to have a serious think about WHY you hold that point of view.

    1. scottser

      that’s all the more reason to provide flouride-free water and if you want flouride in yours then add it yourself. surely there’s enough flouride in toothpaste and mouthwash to make flouridation redundant these days?

      1. edalicious

        Topical and ingested fluoride work differently though so that’s not really a viable alternative. Most European countries that have removed fluoride from their water have added it to other things like salt for exactly that reason.

      2. Mark Dennehy

        >that’s all the more reason to provide flouride-free water

        What? That’s not all the more reason to stop fluoridation. In what universe does “crackpots disagree with physical evidence” a good reason to do anything but ignore the crackpots until they actually go read and understand the evidence?

        1. scottser

          there’s enough flouride in dental products and salt so there’s no need for flouride in the water. i simply made the point that if you want it in your water as well, then go ahead but pay for it yourself. surely we can accommodate both sides of the debate by providing some choice?

          1. Mark Dennehy

            We don’t have fluoride in salt; other countries do because it’s easier for them to fluoridate their salt (or milk or whatever) than to fluoridate their water (usually because they don’t have a few sources, but thousands of sources on thousands of individual networks).

            And the point is that fluoridation in water has no harmful side effects and benefits everybody’s dental health. Why would some conspiracy theory which has no scientific evidence supporting it be grounds to ban one of the best public health programs from the last fifty years?

            And *choice*? What choice are we being given here? Do we get a vote on this? No. So if you have the kind of job that lets you strip off in the street and dance about calling for something to be banned regardless of scientific evidence, you get to set policy that the rest of us then have to pay for and suffer the consequences of?

            Is that the choice you’re asking for?

            And what debate? There’s no debate on this! You do not debate to obtain scientific evidence – you experiment, you study, you repeat the studies and experiments to verify, but debate never comes into it, this isn’t medieval europe where we sit about all day in our own shite debating how many angels dance on the head of a pin while Yersinia pestis kills off 30% of the population because nobody’s studying germ theory…

          2. Cian

            There’s f’all choice for children who’s parents don’t teach them proper dental hygine. Which is a non-trivial number – who are protected by the fluoride in the water supply.

            The point of population level interventions like this is :
            1) Some people aren’t in a position to make a choice
            2) Some people make stupid choices
            3) Some people want to make decent choices, but then never get around to actioning them

            Protecting those who make sensible choices is easy. This is about protecting those unable to make those choices.

          3. big_g

            Precisely Cian. You’ve nailed it. Being anti-water fluoridation is essentially a selfish position.

  6. Martin

    Potential harm?

    Oh, well then.

    Fumes off cars, trucks etc also have potential harm and actually are far far far more likely to cause harm then fluoride in the water. I don’t see him calling for all of them to be banned.

    he has no interest in whats good or bad for people, he only has interest in what might get him votes

    1. Mark Dennehy

      Does anyone else have their head spin when hearing a Sinn Fein member talk about potential harm, or is it just those of us who grew up before 1998 who get that?

      1. Domestos

        I’ve never voted Sinn Fein before, and might never, who knows, but I’m getting pretty tired of people banging on about the Provos whenever the Shinners say anything. Read the 25 reports from the Independent Monitoring Commission and decide yourself, rather than mindlessly talking up an outdated and different political and social reality.

  7. Tom Stewart

    As we are all aware, there are conflicting reports about fluoride. If the debate is open, then it should be removed until the debate is settled. The approach should not be “show me the people it has harmed, then we’ll remove it” / “shure it’ll be grand”.

    1. Drogg

      Tom shut the f*pp up. Reports are not conflicting only tinfoil hat numptys like yourself think they are, so go back to who shot JFK conspiracies.

      1. Atlas

        +1

        It’s a bit like the creationists who insist that there’s a ‘debate’ between evolution and creationism, and along that reasoning, advocate ‘teaching the controversy’. There is no debate – evolution is fact and fluoridated water is not dangerous.

        It annoys me that Broadsheet will spit in the face of facts and scientific consensus just to be insufferably left wing and contrarian, never mind act as a soapbox for shinners with clear anti-intellectual streaks.

    2. Rob_G

      These ‘conflicting reports’ consist of the scientific and medical community saying that it is good for dental health with no medical side-effects, backed by several decades of peer-reviewed, longitudinal studies, versus a disparate group of uninformed people and inveterate conspiracy theorists on the other saying that it is bad, without explaining how they arrived at this conclusion.

    3. Randy Ewing

      The Irish government’s response is appeasement, and a waste of time and public money. Not only is there already an Irish body that routinely reviews the safety of fluoridation, this is a Sisyphean task because anti-fluoride groups have already reached their conclusion, and will trust no expert body unless it agrees with their assertions. Almost certainly fluoride will get yet another clean bill of health, campaigners will reject the findings and the same tedious cycle will repeat again, in much the same way parents who oppose vaccination are impervious to the scientific literature undermining their position.

    4. Ahjayzis

      I postulate that antibiotics cause autism and gay.

      Kindly ban their use until you can prove I’m a fupping idiot.

      Regards,

      The Boy Against Antibiotics.

  8. donal

    The arguments against fluoridation have consistently been shown to be scientific nonsense. The people who spout the anti-fluoridation stuff are clearly very good at propagandising, but that is all they’re good at.

    1. Martin

      Notice how we don’t hear about the girl against fluoride anymore?

      She was caught out when people involved in her cause believed gayness was caused by chemicals

  9. Drogg

    WTF? Prepairing for massive dental bills. How the f**k to these muppets have political jobs, seriously. Ok show us some real evidence of the harms of water fluoridation and then we can talk. Also does that mean he is going to have fluoride removed from everything else that contains it?

    1. Jess

      You get 1 free check up a year with PRSI and free dental of kids to the age of 12. Plus toothpaste is cheap. If they removed fluoride tomorrow and your dental bills skyrocketed its not because of fluoride, its because you’re manky

        1. Jess

          To a different person, thought it was worth reiterating considering some people think the only things standing between us and a nation of gummy mouths is a few glasses of water

      1. edalicious

        Well yeah, but that’s because we’ve had the benefit of growing up with fluoride-strengthened teeth. It’s new generations of young children who would start having the problems.

          1. Drogg

            Jess thats cause other countries put flu ride in other products to make up for it not being in their water system. Salt in a big product for it.

          2. Jess

            And wouldn’t that be a better solution? Then those who don’t mind having fluoride can continue to exercise that choice, whereas those who don’t won’t have the choice thrust upon them

          3. Drogg

            Jess fluoride is harmless only morons want to avoid it, there is no need to avoid it. It is there for national health.

          4. Jess

            Just because you don’t agree with their reasons doesn’t make them morons and doesn’t mean they should not have a choice. We don’t decide other people right to consumer choice based on intelligence or their agreement with you so I don’t see why we should do the same here.

          5. Mark Dennehy

            Not agreeing with their choices isn’t what makes them morons.

            What makes them morons is that they make bad choices and then continue to stand by bad choices in the face of overwhelming evidence and expert advice against those choices and despite a total lack of evidence for those choices.

            And the reason they shouldn’t have this choice is that they’re not choosing for themselves; they’re choosing for everyone else and screaming blue murder when we object to losing a proven beneficial public health program.

          6. Drogg

            I have to say today Mark has become a personal hero of mine. You just can’t beat intelligent, fact based arguments.

      2. Drogg

        Oh really? Jess, thats interesting cause i had to pay 4 grand this year to fix a problem with my childs teeth. The Public dentist said they’d leave it and see how it progressed, so thats your free dental care for you.

        1. Jess

          So what you’re telling me is that it wasn’t prevented by water fluoridation? How does that support your argument?

          1. Mark Dennehy

            His counter-argument (it’s not an argument) is that public dental healthcare isn’t all you’re making it out to be Jess; he’s not talking about fluoridation.
            Is it that you can’t keep it straight or that you don’t want to?

          2. Jess

            Mark it would be nice if you kept it polite and also if you let him answer the question i asked him, just saying.

            But what i would say to that is that without knowing the specifics of the condition it is clearly irrelevant to the discussion so why bring it up directly after talking about ‘preparing for massive dental bills’ if fluoridation is stopped

          3. Mark Dennehy

            Jess, if you make the argument that we have great free dental healthcare and someone else makes the counterargument that we don’t and you then twist their answer and present it as an argument for something it’s not, then you should expect people to say you’re being dishonest because you are being dishonest.

          4. Jess

            Mark I was never once dishonest Ffs. I literally repeated what he said back.

            Now I’ve been very respectful to both you and everyone else I’ve spoken with, but if your going to insult me then is done with you. See ya

        2. Drogg

          Not that its any of your business, but he teeth problems came from a lip tie nothing that could be prevented by using fluoridated products.

  10. bisted

    …is this Sinn Fein policy? They were the last crowd I expected to get involved in this nonsense.

    1. Just sayin'

      After decades of knocking people’s teeth out, Sinn Féin want to do it a sneakier way, by removing fluoride from the water. How devious.

  11. furious.baz

    This is completely false, numerous studies have shown that there is no link between Fluoride and poor health (including the common claims like lower IQ, hip fractures, cancer, Downs syndrome, genetic defects, etc), but that there are huge benefits for combatting tooth decay:
    Check out this video from Healthcare Triage (which includes their references to real scientific papers analysing hundreds of studies on this topic)

  12. Mick Flavin

    I have no particular grá for leaving fluoride in the water.
    I do, however, have a problem with it being removed based on lies, misinformation, ignoring of scientific evidence and cherrypicking of questionable data.
    Almost everything is a toxin if the dose is large enough.

  13. Bobby

    That video was posted in July. Do their monthly meetings go by a different planetary timescale?

    1. Mick Flavin

      I could be wrong on this, but I think the motion was submitted just before the Summer break, was scheduled for last month’s meeting (first one back), but they ran out of time and it spilled over until now.

  14. Clampers Outside!

    http://www.irelandsdentalmag.ie/index.php/articles/pm_article/a_fluoridation_revolution/

    ” Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and the Green Party have all at some time passed motions against fluoridation yet, last time I looked, most dentists favoured it, and no medical authorities opposed it.

    This debate is largely being driven by belief, not biology. Its gurus are often to be found on the fringes of the alternative lifestyle movement where homeopathic remedies are favoured over a trip to the doctor, or the dentist for that matter. I have even unearthed anti-vaccination campaigners lurking in the deeper recesses of this campaign.

    But the real shock is that scientifically illiterate Irish politicians are swallowing hook, line and sinker the false, easily disprovable health claims of people who, in a heartbeat, might send us spinning back to the medical dark ages.

    Bantry woman Aisling Fitzgibbon, a.k.a. The Girl against Fluoride, is a poster girl for anti-fluoridationists in more senses of the word than one: she has been known to strip off to her undies for photographers to boost her campaign. She is a qualified ‘Angel Therapist’ in addition to offering some other unusual alternative health therapies which I cannot even attempt to explain. ”

    Yeah, the anti-fluride crowd are right up there with the spaghetti monster believers….

  15. Mark Dennehy

    Sinn Fein seem terribly proud of voting to call for a ban on this, despite every piece of scientific evidence from the last fifty years saying it’s one of the greatest success stories in public health, has no significant side effects, and despite the Supreme Court in Ireland having already ruled against a case decades ago from the nutters asking for it be banned.

    I’d console myself with the thought that DCC don’t actually have the power to follow through on this, but they only voted this way because a group of loud nutjobs (some of whom do a nice line in expensive and unnecessary water filtration systems, oddly enough) started screaming conspiracy at the top of their lungs while in their pants on Grafton Street. (Is this what public health debates have come to? The girl against fluoride posing in her underwear to protest one of the best public health programs in decades?)

    Worse yet, does anyone think the Dail are somehow smarter than the Council? If so, I refer you to Mick Wallace’s taxes, Michael Lowry’s casino, and the entire Healy-Rae clan, before we ever get to Bertie’s economics degree or Fine Gael’s political appointment process.

    Today, DCC embarrasses itself voting against a public health program – tomorrow, do we see an anti-vaccination vote in the Dail? (Don’t forget, the Green Party *already has* an anti-vaccination, anti-fluoride, pro-homeopathy policy and they were in Government already. Does anyone really think FG, FF or any of the other non-ideological parties will actually care enough to not take a populist position if it’d cost them one vote in an election?)

    Honestly, this country. It never seems to stop getting worse by the day…

    1. ReproBertie

      We need a bunch of people in underwear to stand outside the DCC offices waving banenrs and shouting at them to stop listening to nutters.

  16. TomRed

    Science; all the stuff that’s properly researched, peer-reviewed and researched again over years and years.
    And then there’s the other stuff.

  17. Ahjayzis

    Datz gr8 n all bt wen r we gna ban de MMR n de survykl vakseen? I herd it cn giv ur child handicaps n all n newayz. xxx wb

  18. Troy McClure

    (Troy McClure hosts an infomercial for a new type of candy that cleans and straightens teeth.)

  19. Gers

    Best laugh in ages. WHO the h*ll drinks water in Ireland? And from the tap?! I’m being serious now and demand an answer.

    Else just continue your childish debate over this non issue.

    1. Mark Dennehy

      > WHO the h*ll drinks water in Ireland?

      Lets see:
      – Infants who drink formula made up with tap water
      – Kids who drink any kind of fruit juice made up from concentrate with tap water
      – Anyone who drinks any kind of beverage made in Ireland, whether it be tea, coffee, beer or anything else which uses tap water either in the home (tea) or at the factory (guinness).

      In other words, pretty much everyone. You might not drink it neat; you still get the benefit of the fluoride.

        1. Steph

          As well as anyone who isn’t stupid enough to buy something that costs more per litre than petrol but is so essential that you’ll die in 3-5 days if you don’t have it.

          Especially true pre water charges btw.

    1. Mark Dennehy

      Isn’t that the same column where he mentions a study in Taiwan that linked fluoride to bladder cancer…. except that the study only linked high arsenic levels in the drinking water to those cancers; both it and its seven-year followup said the fluoride (and the half-dozen other things in the water that it was measuring) were not correlated with the cancers.

      I get what Goldacre’s saying – but the preponderance of evidence says that in this case, he’s not correct. If there were harmful side effects from fluoride, we’d have seen them by now; and if it didn’t work, we’d have proof of that as well. But neither of those things is what we’ve actually seen.

    2. big_g

      Goldacre disappointingly makes a misinterpretation of the York Report when he makes this statement. I wouldn’t say that people are speaking WAY beyond the evidence. The report simply states that there is not sufficient quantity of evidence of a sufficient quality to make solid conclusions. However it does state that fluoride has a beneficial effect. And it states that the only apparent drawback is fluorosis.

Comments are closed.