So Fluoride is a neurotoxicant?

Freefaller said:
I don't see why they should add chemicals to our drinking water - people should be able to make up their own mind/choice.

However, it's more over dramatisation, just like they told us eggs are bad, fats are bad, and other myths surrounding diet.
Click to expand...

What I find really ironic about this is that the people who moan about chemicals in tap water are often the same people who buy mineral water... :p
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Because there is a public health benefit?
Click to expand...

So is eating more fruit, and less processed and refine foods, and cutting out sugar - yet it still laced in many cheap foods.

I'd prefer water to just be water, and if I want to take supplements I'd prefer to be in control of what I decide to eat. :)

Education is more important that forcing things on people that do make their choices for their decisions.
 
Rossi~ said:
hrB7uGx.jpg
Click to expand...

+1 :D
 
Here's a counter:

First, the report ignores the fundamental principles of exposure and potency. In other words, the authors disregard important factors like how chemicals are used, whether children are actually exposed to them, at what level they are exposed and for how long. Through extensive scientific research we already know a great deal about specific chemicals and how they interact with the body. In spite of the authors’ omissions about actual exposures, they call for all chemicals to go through extensive testing specifically to screen for neuro effects.

Second, the authors’ two reports focus largely on 12 chemicals and heavy metals that are well understood to pose potential risks to children when exposures exceed established thresholds; that are highly regulated and/or are restricted; or that are being phased out. They then extrapolate that similar conclusions should be applied to other chemicals that are more widely used in consumer products without providing any evidence to support their claims. Such assertions do nothing to advance true scientific understanding and only create confusion and alarm. The authors’ efforts to instill fear, not based on scientific evidence, are akin to closing schools in Southern California because New York City is getting 10 inches of snow. Where is the evidence of harm or concern? A perfect example is the authors’ inflammatory media comments about phthalates, a data-rich family of chemicals with a 50-year track record of safe use that regulators have reviewed for many important applications.

The authors’ exaggerated claims were called out, “in comments prepared by the Science Media Centre, epidemiologist Jean Golding of the University of Bristol accused the pair of issuing ‘scare’ statements.”
Click to expand...

http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2...-of-science-in-lancet-paper-opt-for-alarmism/
 
Freefaller said:
Education is more important that forcing things on people that do make their choices for their decisions.
Click to expand...

That is one the fundamental debates in public health, should we make a policy and enforce it or leave it to choice. My opinion is that reducing a bit of choice is necessary to ensure that people who would otherwise be ignorant and be unable to make an informed choice. That eventually benefits all of us. It's the same with vaccination, just look at the whole MMR issue.
 
Freefaller said:
So is eating more fruit, and less processed and refine foods, and cutting out sugar - yet it still laced in many cheap foods.

I'd prefer water to just be water, and if I want to take supplements I'd prefer to be in control of what I decide to eat. :)

Education is more important that forcing things on people that do make their choices for their decisions.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised at you thinking this.

The general public can't be trusted to be sensible. Look at all the kids that go unimmunised. If there is a proven benefit what is to there to be lost?

Tap water is full of all kinds of crap, it's not "just water", why not add something beneficial to it?
 
Burnsy2023 said:
That is one the fundamental debates in public health, should we make a policy and enforce it or leave it to choice. My opinion is that reducing a bit of choice is necessary to ensure that people who would otherwise be ignorant and be unable to make an informed choice. That eventually benefits all of us. It's the same with vaccination, just look at the whole MMR issue.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and the controversy surrounding MMR. Similar with statins and so on.

A one-fit-all strategy doesn't work. However, we do not have the resources for a case-by-case evaluation of everyone.

However, it's also unfair to force people to take supplementation that they're not interested in.
 
Minstadave said:
I'm surprised at you thinking this.

The general public can't be trusted to be sensible. Look at all the kids that go unimmunised. If there is a proven benefit what is to there to be lost?

Tap water is full of all kinds of crap, it's not "just water", why not add something beneficial to it?
Click to expand...

I guess I'm sceptical - I accept that a lot of the general public cannot be trusted to be sensible, heck, look at the amount of binge drinkers we have!

I think people should be able to opt out or have a choice - i.e. like the MMR, a lot of people I know have opted for individual injections rather than the MMR etc... they have a choice, putting supplements in the water doesn't give people the same choice.

Though I guess you could buy filters to filter it out if you didn't want it.

Or people can go to buying mineral water instead. I just find it a little dangerous... Like willy nilly prescribing drugs like statins etc...
 
Minstadave said:
I'm surprised at you thinking this.

The general public can't be trusted to be sensible. Look at all the kids that go unimmunised. If there is a proven benefit what is to there to be lost?

Tap water is full of all kinds of crap, it's not "just water", why not add something beneficial to it?
Click to expand...

All the other "crap" is there as a result of making the water safe i.e. killing potentially harmful bacteria. Adding something purely because it's shown to have an unrelated health benefit just seems odd.

If people want fluoride in their water then they can do it themselves. I'd rather have a choice.
 
Sunbed said:
All the other "crap" is there as a result of making the water safe i.e. killing potentially harmful bacteria. Adding something purely because it's shown to have an unrelated health benefit just seems odd.

If people want fluoride in their water then they can do it themselves. I'd rather have a choice.
Click to expand...

your suggestion is completely impractical. if individual members of the public had to decide which of the countless interventions they wanted to uptake and which to decline, then we'd spend our entire lives trying to make informed decisions about stuff

one small example is childhood immunisations, you're happy to sift through RCT metadata just to pick which one you'd like your kid to have?
 
Freefaller said:
II think people should be able to opt out or have a choice - i.e. like the MMR, a lot of people I know have opted for individual injections rather than the MMR etc... they have a choice, putting supplements in the water doesn't give people the same choice.
Click to expand...

The problem with the whole MMR thing, is that it directly affects other people when children don't have immunity and recent mumps outbreaks demonstrate the harm from giving this choice.

Freefaller said:
Though I guess you could buy filters to filter it out if you didn't want it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's actually possible.

Freefaller said:
Like willy nilly prescribing drugs like statins etc...
Click to expand...

If they have measurable benefits and low side effects, why not?
 
Freefaller said:
I think people should be able to opt out or have a choice - i.e. like the MMR, a lot of people I know have opted for individual injections rather than the MMR etc... they have a choice, putting supplements in the water doesn't give people the same choice.
Click to expand...

MMR is an awful example. There was nothing wrong with the vaccine, just some terrible research that the press used to sell some scare stories. The public didn't get their kids immunised, measles outbreaks occured. Good result all round.

People are generally stupid/lazy/paranoid.
 
Last edited:
bazaarboy said:
your suggestion is completely impractical. if individual members of the public had to decide which of the countless interventions they wanted to uptake and which to decline, then we'd spend our entire lives trying to make informed decisions about stuff

one small example is childhood immunisations, you're happy to sift through RCT metadata just to pick which one you'd like your kid to have?
Click to expand...

A vaccination is not comparable to a blanket chemical dosing of something I drink litres of every day.

I'm not particularly concered about the potential negative effects but I would still prefer to be not forced to drink water with an added chemical which isn't fully understood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom