Poison in our water supply.

by V for vendetta Mon Oct 18, 2010 17:22

Not sure I agree with everything the author says

But I do think this:

If we are going to mass medicate through the water supply then maybe aspirin is a better choice
Also, If anyone wants to use fluoride to help reduce caries then they are free to use toothpaste and toothbrush. Most probably do anyway!
This method of application (toothbrush) directly to the area concerned ( the teeth ) seems much more logical than drinking it in water and it ending up in the stomach.

Fluoridation makes little sense when you think about it. It's a waste of taxpayers money.

This is putting aside all discussions of toxicity, making us docile etc.

Although judging by our collective response to the bank bailouts and austerity measures, the give away of our gas, the dismantling of our public health service and rampant FF corruption, compared to the responses of Iceland, Greece and France, you might begin to wonder IS there something wrong somewhere?

Maybe it IS something in the water!!! ;-)

by Lex Mon Oct 18, 2010 18:54

Almost every statement in this article is baseless, especially the meandering hooey about Soviet gulags. I will take just one statement for now: "On June 5th 2005 European Court of Justice ruled "that artificially fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine and cannot be used in commercial food or beverage preparation"."

The judgement text is here - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=C...:HTML - how can anyone possibly take that interpretation? Obviously no Irish food, beverage or beer producer has modified their use of fluoridated water over the past five years since this judgement, because it is simply not relevant.

by robert long Mon Oct 18, 2010 21:11

"Lex" are you serious ?

When you go to a pub, resturant or venue and ask for a water or something with water is that not from the tap ?
Secondly what else about my article is wrong ?

How can is possibly be ethical for the government to medicate our water witout a license, without our informed consent and out our expense ?

Try and think and give me an answer to that ?

by Lex Mon Oct 18, 2010 22:21

Yes, Robert Long, Irish food and drink is made with fluoridated tap water to exactly the same extent as before this "landmark" judgement, because the judgement is not relevant - it makes no reference to fluoride or fluoridated water whatsoever. If I want to make biscuits using my plain old (fluoridated) tapwater and sell it to the public (as I do), then I will make it with my government-approved, Food Safety Authority tested tapwater.

So, can you find any evidence that this one statement of yours is true, that this one judgement is relevant to fluoridated water, and that it applies to any Irish food or drink producer? No. Because your statement is wrong.

by V for vendetta Tue Oct 19, 2010 07:16

"excerpt.....The pharmacological properties of a product are the factor on the basis of which the authorities of the Member States must ascertain, in the light of the potential capacities of the product, whether it may, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, be administered to human beings with a view to making a medical diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in human beings (medicinal product ‘by function’)."

Well, like I said I don't necessarily agree with some stuff that the article says but I do however think that the stated function of fluoridation is to reduce caries. Reading this excerpt from the linked text clearly suggests that if the purpose of a product is to be administered to a human with a view to modifying / correcting / restoring physiological functions in humans then it is a medicinal product. Fluoride is intended to correct the premature decay of teeth due to weakening of the enamel wall by acid attack. Ergo fluoride would seem to fit the definition.

In light of this, You cannot reasonably dismiss the post in the offhand manner you did

Nor did you even try to address the rather basic argument I offered against fluoridation which made no reference to gulags or anything else.

Try again Lex or else go back to making tasty fluoridated cookies

by V for vendetta Tue Oct 19, 2010 08:05

just to mention that "Prozac" is actually called fluoxetine, which has fluoride in it's chemical make up. Just pointing out that it IS a fluorine derivative. So logically at least one fluorine derivative apparently does have notable psycho active effects. Just saying is all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoxetine

I have read a bit about Prozac. Nasty drug it is too. Prozac does indeed help to make some troubled people more docile. There is also evidence that it has been instrumental in some younger kids killing themselves too if memory serves. It has some other nasty side effects too. The drug company was not initially very forthcoming about this research.data.

Also, too much fluoride over time causes nasty brown spots to appear on teeth. This is called fluoridosis
Guzzling fluorine salts along with our water should be optional as a sensible and democratic precaution.
Fluoridated Toothpaste is freely available if we choose to use it

by Lex Tue Oct 19, 2010 17:10

"just to mention that "Prozac" is actually called fluoxetine, which has fluoride in it's chemical make up. Just pointing out that it IS a fluorine derivative. So logically at least one fluorine derivative apparently does have notable psycho active effects. Just saying is all..."

That is even more bonkers than the reference to Soviet gulags. The chemical formula of Prozac / fluoxetine is C17H18F3NO - are we supposed to avoid anything with carbon, or breathing oxygen? The psychoactive properties of a chemical compound are not exhibited by each of its chemical elements, just as each brick is not a house.

by V for vendetta Wed Oct 20, 2010 00:05

throwing out a moleculeular formula you found in wikipedia and pooh poohing everything anyone says is not a convincing argument.

And you remain mute on the rather simple point I made about just using toothpaste as it's more targetted and democratic and saves the taxpayer money.

Regarding Carbon vs fluorine and the case of fluoxetine

It all depends on what the active parts of the molecule is.
The CF3 group on the molecule is not there just for cosmetic purposes!
It's there because it is more reactive (has a higher affinity for x) than the binding group of the other chemical produced by the body for the job (norepinephrine) with a particular other molecule (serotonin) and so it binds to serotonin more readily and in so doing it inhibits the re-uptake of that molecule by the body's normal means and does so more efficiently than norepinephrine, leaving more of the molecule serotonin sloshing around to cheer up our depressive / make him think about suicide more / go do it / whatever.

(thing is this nasty stuff also sloshes around lots of other parts of the brain too, that aren't actually causing any problems, having untold side effects such as a damaged sex life etc etc but I digress....)

Fluorine is a halogen and is one of the most reactive elements on the periodic table
It shares it's column with chlorine and bromine, both also highly reactive.

carbon on the other hand is a fairly quiet nonmetal, not anything like as strongly reactive as fluorine. It shares it's column on the periodic table with silicon, germanium and lead of all things, none of which are known to be terribly lively. probably one reason why we are made from the stuff. it's pretty stable and not too reactive.

Compare like with like.

If there is a fluorine group like that hanging off a molecule, it's likely to be fairly reactive.

the fact that fluoxetine is psycho active means that it's fair to say that a loose CF3 group can react in a perturbing manner with at least part of one molecule important in regulating cognitive function. and likely others too as the body tends to evolve its chemicals and processes stepwise from existing ones over time.

by V for vendetta Wed Oct 20, 2010 04:03

"are we supposed to avoid anything with carbon, or breathing oxygen? The psychoactive properties of a chemical compound are not exhibited by each of its chemical elements, just as each brick is not a house."

Never said you should. Kinda difficult to avoid oxygen and carbon. Easy enough to avoid fluorine for the most part though. Well it would be if they didn't insist on sticking it into our water supply and hence almost everything we eat / drink without our say so.


Well maybe, at some points in this exchange, I did think it a good idea for you to stop breathing oxygen and maybe try some nice fluorine gas instead, since you are so desperately keen on the rest of us ingesting the stuff.!! :-)


pointless unqualified amateur discussions about neurotransmitters aside

I'm still waiting on a decent answer as to why we need to have this stuff put in our water without our say so as opposed to just using a toothbrush and toothpaste

If you really just want to be silly talking about molecules being like houses etc then, In the same simplistic spirit,

Might I suggest you try the following experiment:

(1) eat one tablespoon of carbon (some overcooked toast perhaps? maybe causes indigestion)
(2) eat one tablespoon of oxygen. Hell, have three! (maybe causes indigestion or a fart perhaps?)
(3) drink a tablespoon of fluorine

now tell me, which of these experiences is not like the others?

if you survive (3) then please do come back and give me more of your thoughts on individual element reactivity not really being important

and maybe then ( finally!) you might also answer my one and only actual real question in this whole debate:
i.e: why can't we just use toothpaste instead.

by Lex Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:18

V for Vendetta / Robert Long, I am still waiting for a justification of your initial statement that On June 5th 2005 European Court of Justice ruled "that artificially fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine and cannot be used in commercial food or beverage preparation" (I'll leave out the Soviet gulags for now).

Your statement is not contained in the European Court of Justice judgement, which I linked to, nor in the extract that you quoted above - although the exact same wording appears on a lot of extravagantly unscientific, hysterical websites. The FSA has not issued any advisory notice on alternative water sources, no food or drink producer has changed their water source as a result of the judgement, and nobody has been prosecuted.

We are still eating and drinking foods and beverages containing artificially fluoridated water, none of which is marked as a medicine.

How could this state of affairs possibly continue unchecked if there really had been a judgement with the meaning that you claim?

by V for vendetta Wed Oct 20, 2010 14:36

Lex

I offered my opinion on that piece of text before but you ignored it. I quoted some of the wording and analysed it. On the basis of that analysis of the wording, it looked to me not unreasonable to consider fluoridation a medication. Please reread that post. I'm not doing it again just because you are being an ass.

As for ignoring EU directives, well we happily do that and quietly pay the fines whenever it suits the government or if it's friends stand to lose money.
Someone should analyse what THAT is costing us currently.

I also asked you a very simple question about fluoridation vs toothpaste which is really all I personally am interested in having answered but you continue to ignore that very simple question and now we're back talking about the gulags again

Unless you address my simple question about toothpaste, and maybe explain why caries are in decline in other european countries who don't use fluoridation, then I'm not discussing this further

by Lex Wed Oct 20, 2010 16:30

You said, in your first sentence "Artficialy Flouridating water a peoples supply was first propsed in the Soviet gulags as way to induce a docile state and eventually kill of the prisoners it was then usedin Nazi concentration camps."

If you introduce the topic by way of Soviet gulags, or Nazi concentration camps, then you will need to demonstrate how those are relevant. Just as you still need to demonstrate how the judgement that you quoted is relevant.

by Oswald Bastable Wed Oct 20, 2010 18:11

I don't believe all that stuff about flouride in the water poisoning us, making us more controllable. But, and its a big BUT, people should have a choice about whether or not they ingest the substance. Use the appropriate toothpaste if you want. Dont make it compulsary!

Prozac has a bad side and doesn't suit everyone but it and related drugs have really improved the lifestyles of millions of people who suffer from anxiety and depression. I know: I'm one of them (a related drug). They make life worth living and do not have the side effects of old style anti-depressants. Again, they don't suit everybody, no drug does. Some people will have bad reactions to them. That doesn't mean that they are bad. Some people will die if they eat peanuts. Peanut ban anyone?

Not everything manufactured by pharmacutical companies is evil. You just have to keep a constant watch on them. All tests of new drugs should be administered independently.

by V for vendetta Thu Oct 21, 2010 02:36

prozac, unlike peanuts, is prescribed by a figure of authority to counter nebulous, often carelessly diagnosed conditions such as depression. You are reliant on trust to make your assessment of whether you should ingest it. There is evidence that Known research on this drug has been supressed by drug companies and there are indications it is in most cases not fit for purpose. Especially in children / younger people. Some clinicians dispute the claimed mechanism by which it is supposed to achieve it's effect.

it is instructive to read the writings of dr david healy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Healy_%28psychiatrist%29
http://www.healyprozac.com/default.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/prozacsuicide.html

the information about peanut allergic reactions is freely in the public domain and presumably allergy sufferers know they can't touch them.
peanuts are not covered by lucrative patents

In any case, I'm not saying ban prozac. Just approach with great caution and only consider taking if the alternative is worse or more hazardous and unpleasant. i.e you are already seriously considering suicide or are immobilised by severe clinical depression

now back to discussing the compulsory and unnecessary mass medication of the water supply to prevent tooth decay and why we should stop

by V for vendetta Thu Oct 21, 2010 02:53

by the way, my excerpt which I analysed was taken directly from the file YOU linked to!! Is my analysis flawed? If so please point out exactly where. I'd appreciate it.thanks
while you're at it please answer my question about why we can't just use toothpaste.like other countries where tooth decay is currently in decline.

by Lex Thu Oct 21, 2010 09:18

In your original article, you make the claim that "Its effects are extremly damaging and it is considered a medince under EU law." and "On June 5th 2005 European Court of Justice ruled "that artificially fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine and cannot be used in commercial food or beverage preparation".

In your later comment you quote "excerpt.....The pharmacological properties of a product are the factor on the basis of which the authorities of the Member States must ascertain, in the light of the potential capacities of the product, whether it may, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, be administered to human beings with a view to making a medical diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in human beings (medicinal product ‘by function’)." and then state that "Well, like I said I don't necessarily agree with some stuff that the article says but I do however think that the stated function of fluoridation is to reduce caries. Reading this excerpt from the linked text clearly suggests that if the purpose of a product is to be administered to a human with a view to modifying / correcting / restoring physiological functions in humans then it is a medicinal product. Fluoride is intended to correct the premature decay of teeth due to weakening of the enamel wall by acid attack. Ergo fluoride would seem to fit the definition."

Where in your quotation, or elsewhere in the judgement, is it stated a) that fluoridated water is a medicine, or b) that it can not be used in commercial food or beverage preparation?

The problem with such an argument, and such unfounded hysteria, is that it stifles rational debate. Nobody has any interest in discussing toothpaste with a scaremongerer.

by Oswald Bastable Thu Oct 21, 2010 16:22

Many things are unsafe but the fact remains that many people have benefited from Prozac. It should never have been prescribed for children. But talk to people who have used it and related drugs before you dismiss it.

Even herbal teas are unsafe:

'Unsafe' drug found in herbal tea
herbal medicine Herbal medicine side-effects should be reported

Herbal medicines marketed as weight loss aids have been found to include a drug withdrawn in Europe and US on safety grounds.

Analysis of Payouji tea and Pai You Guo Slim capsules by the UK medicines watchdog revealed they contained diet drug sibutramine.

It was taken off the market in January 2010 over fears it increased the risk of heart attack and stroke.

More at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11589761

by V for vendetta Thu Oct 21, 2010 19:51

I didn't write the article. I just believe in civil liberties and that my government does not have the right to put substances in my drinking water without a VERY good reason and my express say so. In this case they do not have either.

You ignored my analysis of the text again. I quoted your article and gave my opinion of what the text was saying. I asked you what my specific error in my analysis of that text was. You just avoided answering and called me a name and refused to answer my question about toothpaste. I think that says a lot about your willingness to actually engage in a productive discussion. I won't waste my time further with you since it is evident that you are not interested in honest discussion, just trolling and mud slinging.

by V for vendetta Thu Oct 21, 2010 20:07

I HAVE talked A LOT to people who have been on it. Thats why I came to hold the opinion I do. 2 people I know are lucky to be alive after suicide attempts which followed going on a course of SSRI medication having had no previous history of suicidal behaviour. I was there around the time it happened in one case and the person was definitely not themselves exhibiting wild short cycle and severe mood swings etc. Not good. Thats why I took an interest and began reading about the subject. these things are dangerous and only suitable for people with a very specific and limited set of symptoms and the people taking them should be monitored by someone close IMHO. They are frequently over prescribed for all manner of inappropriate cases. Please read what doctor healy has to say on them. (see links in my previous post)

by OB Fri Oct 22, 2010 13:25

My experience is different from yours. All I can do is reiterate that SSRIs make life better for millions of people. They won't suit everybody. What one doctor says against them will not change my objective experience of these drugs. There are some people who have an ideological opposition to any chemical treatment of psychiatric problems.

I have the right even the duty to stand up for a type of treatment which I know to be beneficial, maybe not to your friends, but to me and to many others.

by V for vendetta Fri Oct 22, 2010 18:58

"There are some people who have an ideological opposition to any chemical treatment of psychiatric problems."

Now that smear is not fair. I did not say that chemical treatment should be abolished. Neither did Dr healy (read it!). In fact he and I are in favour of their PROPER use as opposed to their dispensation like sweets by careless GP's. which is often the case in Ireland (from discussions with people who were dispensed to) with little objection from pharmaceutical companies. I will point out that Dr Healy is a highly respected researcher and clinican in the field. Much more credible IMHO than your average GP

SSRI's have a place in treatment of severe clear cut cases of clinical depression where the alternative is worse than the medecine. SSRI's are medications suitable for the very specific condition of clinical depression. If prescribed in other cases they run a risk, amongst other things, of causing bouts of mania which is dangerous

And if you are under the influence of strong psycho active medication or suffering from clinical depression, the last thing you can be described as is objective. The fact is, when you are taking psycho active medication which alters your levels of serotonin, or if you are suffering from a low level of same then by definition it affects/distorts the very tool you are using to assess your reality.

My "objective" knowledge and my discussions with the person in question (amongst others) after their experiences has shown me that they were experiencing a drug induced distortion of their reality. A fact that they would be the first to admit now that they have some distance from the events and are drug free.

If you have you a consistent history of being down for long periods and you are attending a responsible GP who is conscientious and does not just want to prescribe something to shut you up and shuffle you out to so they can get the next paying patient in, and they strongly believe you have clinical depression and they explain carefully about the pitfalls of SSRI's, then perhaps you should consider taking them. We all have normal ups and downs and upsetting stuff happens sometimes. Thats normal life. If it's just a bad hair day or a bad patch or there is a specific reason you are down then SSRI's may only make things worse for you. Possibly a LOT worse!

This is interesting but can we get back to the water please?

I am still waiting for Lex to answer the simple question I asked : why not just optional use of toothpaste instead of compulsory fluoridation of our water? And he has yet to comment on the decline of tooth decay in european countries which don't use water / salt fluoridation, and he still has to point out precisely where my logical error was in my assessment of the excerpt from the text he linked to.

by Lex Fri Oct 22, 2010 22:05

I am still waiting for Lex to answer the simple question I asked : why not just optional use of toothpaste instead of compulsory fluoridation of our water? And he has yet to comment on the decline of tooth decay in european countries which don't use water / salt fluoridation, and he still has to point out precisely where my logical error was in my assessment of the excerpt from the text he linked to.

I pointed out that the interpretation of a European Court of Justice judgement was erroneous, and I can say with certainty that it is not the interpretation of the Irish government, the Food Safety Authority, the Irish Medical Council, the Irish Medicines Board, the HSE or food and beverage producers (see, for instance, www.fsai.ie/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=802). The interpretation in the article above can not be supported by the text of the judgement or by the (non)response to that judgement over the past five years. Stating and restating that your assessment is the correct interpretation does not change the fact that nobody else agrees with your assessment.

If you wish to write a reasoned article on the benefits of fluoridated toothpaste, without reference to the Soviet gulags or the Nazi death camps, then by all means do so, but this article is not about toothpaste.

by V for vendetta Fri Oct 22, 2010 23:37

I didn't ask for "proof by authority".

Just because our government didn't act on it does not necessarily imply the interpretation is invalid.

They have been known to selectively ignore european judgements before.

I asked YOU to show me precisely what my logical error was in my interpretation of the excerpt I quoted from the text you linked to in my previous post.

If my interpretation is incorrect then it should be a trivial matter for you to show me exactly why.

The gulags stuff is just a stupid straw man and you know that. please stop going on about that in your responses to me. I didn't mention that at all.

by Blankety Bank Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:12

Additional water additives ............ please note that there was never an Aluminium sulphate act ..... ! !

by OB Sat Oct 23, 2010 15:50

I wasn't the one who brought Prozac into this debate. The esteemed author of the article above did.

Where do you get your expertise to say when SSRIs should be prescribed? You have no first hand knowledge of the issue. People who suffer from psychiatric problems act in odd ways. Often it has nothing to do with their medication. I also made a suicie attempt but I do not believe it had anything to do with medication.

I dont think I am going to gain anything by demonising psychiatrists or SSRIs

As someone who has suffered from depression and who is quite aware of the benefits of SSRIs I have to differ with you. You should not wait until you are seriously depressed before you take SSRIs. Not every SSRI will work for everyone. The first one you try may not suit you. Thats not a reason to give up on them.

I have 20 years experience of dealing with psychiatrists and medication. I don't believe that there is an evil conspiracy to control and poison patients. I speak from a perspective of defending patients rights where people have a right to refuse medication and/or other treatments.

But you are not helping anyone by publishing scare stories abut SSRIs.

by Mr T Sat Oct 23, 2010 15:57

Not just Herbal but ordinary tea is no longer safe for you! Why risk poison, mind control, loss of libido? Drink coffee instead!

Fluoride content in tea has risen dramatically over the last 20 years due to industry contamination. Recent analyses have revealed a fluoride content of 17.25 mg per teabag or cup in black tea, and a whopping 22 mg of soluble fluoride ions per teabag or cup in green tea. Aluminum content was also high--over 8 mg. Normal steeping time is five minutes. The longer a tea bag steeped, the more fluoride and aluminum were released. After ten minutes, the measurable amounts of fluoride and aluminum almost doubled.

by Mr T Sat Oct 23, 2010 16:04

Look at who used Flouride to control people. Only those in the pay of the chemical companies deny the truth.

'The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany's Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin. )'

Yes the Irish State is putting Flouride in the water to control us. See what this honest scientist says about flouride in the water.

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine - any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically." - CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October 1954.

Communists also use this trick to dominate humanity.

"I, Oliver Kenneth Goff, was a member of the Communist Party and the Young Communist League, from May 2, 1936, to October 9, 1939. During this period of time, I operated under the alias of John Keats with number 18-B-2.

While a member of the Communist Party, I attended Communist training schools in New York and Wisconsin ... and we were trained in the revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. Government. "... We discussed quite thoroughly the fluoridation of water supplies and how we were using it in Russia as a tranquilizer in the prison camps. The leaders of our school felt that if it could be induced into the American water supply, it would bring about a spirit of lethargy in the nation, where it could keep the general public docile during a steady encroachment of Communism."

by V for vendetta Sun Oct 24, 2010 14:40

I think we should agree to differ here Bastable. Evidently SSRI's have been helpful to you. But by the sounds of it you were probably a proper case of clinical depression as opposed to the people I was referring to. I wish you all the best in your continuing battle with same. It's a daily silent battle with an insidious illness which is rarely understood or allowed for by those around you.

by OB Sun Oct 24, 2010 14:47

Agreed.

BTW. I didnt intend to suggest that you had an ideological opposition to SSRIs. Just that some of those that you quote or link to have (imho).

SSRIs should not be given out like smarties and I accept that they can be given to the wriong people.

Its just that there is a campaign out there which sees any chemical intervention as evil.

by Me Sun Oct 24, 2010 23:32

For years ministers have wanted to see fluoridation expanded beyond the areas currently covered by natural and artificial schemes. But water companies were reluctant to fluoridate for fear of being sued and did not want responsibility for public health decisions. So the government brought in new legislation in 2003 to give the 28 strategic health authorities, rather than the water companies, the final say over whether fluoride should be added to the supply.

The health authorities now have the power to compel water companies – which will be indemnified against any legal liabilities – to put fluoride in the mains supply, though they are required to consult the local community before they do so. A consultation exercise found that around 75 per cent of the 200,000 residents were opposed to the plan -but they were overruled http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/philipjohnston/872763...racy/

In this video, award-winning journalist Christopher Bryson examines one of the great secret narratives of the industrial era; how a grim workplace poison and the most damaging environmental pollutant of the cold war was added to our drinking water and toothpaste.

Caption: Video Id: Q3y8uwtxrHo Type: Youtube Video
Fluoride Deception Part 1

by Lex Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:17

V said "I didn't ask for "proof by authority". ... I asked YOU to show me precisely what my logical error was in my interpretation of the excerpt I quoted from the text you linked to in my previous post."

I have answered this, and you add no weight by repeating your assertion over and over - you quoted a judgement (correctly) and provided your unsubstantiated opinion. There is no analysis and no evidence that your opinion has merit. If you wish to test it, then take it to the European Court and it will be subjected to the proof by authority that is accepted as our legal process.

My comment was that the (incorrect) quotation in the article is a falsehood, viz On June 5th 2005 European Court of Justice ruled "that artificially fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine and cannot be used in commercial food or beverage preparation". No such ruling was made, whatever interpretation or opinion you may have formed.

Soviet gulags, Nazi concentration camps and hysteria are the primary subject of the article, titled "Poison in our water" and containing the words and phrases "Soviet gulags - induce a docile - kill of the prisoners - Nazi concentration camps - extremly damaging - poisoning of the public - poisoning - toxic waste product - second most toxic ionic molecule known to man - primary ingredient in insecticides and pesticides - chemical weapons - nerve gas - rejected it on safety and ethical grounds - totally unethical - cumulative toxic substance - grave infringement of personal bodily integrity - such a dangerous toxin - insecticides and pesticides - found in some drugs such as "prozac" - induce a docile state - “protoplasmic poison”".

by V for vendetta Tue Oct 26, 2010 14:48

"There is no analysis and no evidence that your opinion has merit."

only that it is in english and we both speak english and should be able to say what a piece of english means. We don't need to defer to the government for that do we?
I asked your opinion about the meaning of a piece of english. And how my analysis of the meaning of that piece of english was logically flawed in your opinion. I did not ask for more proof by authority. You can read can't you?

by OB Tue Oct 26, 2010 15:03

Lex is correct in so far as there is no such EU ruling. Flouridated water is not a medicene and is not treated as a medicene by the relevant EU authorities.

by V for vendetta Tue Oct 26, 2010 20:02

I quoted from the text lex linked to and gave my opinion as to what that piece of english meant. Nobody seems willing to read my interpretation and point out exactly what is logically wrong with my interpretation. Read my post again OB and perhaps you can. I don't care how the EU are acting for the moment. I just want to talk about the actual text I quoted and it's meaning in english. We can get to talking about the EU behaviour after that. Meanwhile we can both read and understand a plain piece of english and discuss it can't we?

by OB Wed Oct 27, 2010 13:56

Different people have different interpetations of different things. Some people who post on Indy think that how they define the Constitution supercedes any ruling of the Supreme Court.

Now you believe that the ruling you refer to means a certain thing. Now how was that transposed into Irish Law? If it wasn't then it has no effect.

If your understanding of the Ruling is correct then the EC would be taking action against Ireland to have it implemented. Thats what the EC does. Can you point to any action taken or warnings issued by the EC that would support your assertions?

by V for vendetta Wed Oct 27, 2010 17:16

sigh...I give up. Lets defer our interpretation of plain english to the government. We can't even discuss the meaning of a sentence any more it seems. Proof by government inaction, thats a new one :-)

by Lex Wed Oct 27, 2010 21:47

There is little point in complaining "sigh...I give up. Lets defer our interpretation of plain english to the government. We can't even discuss the meaning of a sentence any more it seems. Proof by government inaction, thats a new one :-) " because there is nothing to discuss - you quote from the judgement, and make a statement, with no linkage, no analysis and no justification. If you provided anything worth discussing, it might be discussed - perhaps you could write an article about toothpaste (without mentioning the Soviet gulags, the Nazi concentration camps, Prozac, pesticides and so forth).

But this is typical of hysterical scaremongers. The article that we are discussing states, entirely falsely, that "On June 5th 2005 European Court of Justice ruled "that artificially fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine and cannot be used in commercial food or beverage preparation"." Rather than acknowledging this falsehood, you mutate your claim.

by OB Wed Oct 27, 2010 23:09

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, I just don't take the same meaning as you do from the judgement. I accept that you genuinely think an EU ruling is being ignored. But an EU Ruling is meaningless unless its transposed into Irish Law.

Why not complain to the EU Commission about this? The EC have taken action against the Irish Govt regarding this kind of thing. There are ongoing cases with threats of fines.

Its odd that the EC are not acting on this if you are correct. At least contact them.

by V for vendetta Wed Oct 27, 2010 23:51

OB, I just think, judging purely from the meaning of the excerpt I quoted by any reasonable interpretation of the english language, it seems to imply that adding fluoride for the purposes of altering the physiology of teeth comes under the definition of a medication, as per my previous post.

I never said anything about how the EU / Irish govt decided to or not to interpret it. That's their business. I just wanted to know whether I was reading it wrong and if so could someone tell me exactly in what way I was reading it wrong. It's a question about language. Thus far no joy. everyone just keeps telling me that "EU didn't seem to interpret it that way therefore you are wrong" which is not an answer to what I asked. Just proof by authority. nothing more. I asked a simple question about the meaning of a sentence in english without deference to The EU or anyone else. As an english speaker you are qualified to answer this. I want your opinion not the EU's

Lex, I didn't write the article. stop quoting it at me. Some other guy wrote that.Take it up with him. I told you I did not necessarily agree with most of the content of the article. ( but IMHO we don't need fluoridation. toothpaste is fine. ) I am just curious as to the wording and precise meaning of the text you quoted. Answer my actual question if you can or stop annoying me.

by OB Wed Oct 27, 2010 23:57

It should be obvious at this stage that your understanding of the ruling is not the only possible one. Yes people here disagree with you.

by V for vendetta Thu Oct 28, 2010 00:30

yes, I can see that but exactly why?. read the excerpt and tell me why. what is the logical flaw in my interpretation of that bit of english? It's a straightforward question. If you can just answer that precisely for me then we are done. Shouldn't take more than a few sentences. thx.

by OB Thu Oct 28, 2010 13:50

What part of I disagree with you do you not understand?

Different people read different meanings into the same texts.

I still have to go back to the EU: your understanding of the text would carry more weight if the EC had moved against the Irish govt for not implementing the ruling. They have not done so. Yet in many other cases they have.

Now that might suggest that your beliefs are mistaken Only might mind you. Maybe the Euro Commission are unaware of the situation. Why not bring it to their attention?

In the meantime though I disagree with you. Ok?

by V for vendetta Thu Oct 28, 2010 20:00

I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with my understanding of a piece of english at all.
I do have a problem when they refuse to analyse the specific sentence from which they drew their conclusion.
It's only a few lines long after all. Instead it's back to exactly what I said I didn't want. Proof by authority.

This is going nowhere. I surrender to your superior OB-stinacy. ;-) we'll agree to disagree ok?

My last words on the topic.

IMHO People should reject mandatory fluoridation on civil liberties grounds and the evidence that dental decay is falling in fluoride free countries. If you wish, use toothpaste sensibly instead as a more targeted and democratic delivery method with the potential for some taxpayer savings.(most people already brush once / twice a day)

And if you have a minute read the excerpt from the EU text and make your own mind up whether this statement means fluoride qualifies as a medication or not. I'll quote the relevant bit again for convenience:

"excerpt.....The pharmacological properties of a product are the factor on the basis of which the authorities of the Member States must ascertain, in the light of the potential capacities of the product, whether it may, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, be administered to human beings with a view to making a medical diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in human beings (medicinal product ‘by function’)."

Fluoride is being administered to human beings in our water supply ostensibly with a view to altering the structure of the enamel of our teeth which counts as "modifying physiological functions of human beings". And if this is indeed the case then it really should qualify as a medication

I dunno, maybe I just don't understand plain english? What do others think?

anyway ...bored now. drink the fluoride if you like. Judging by our response to recent events, we're all pretty apathetic and brain dead already so even if the fluoride DID have the effect the author robert long claims ( which I'm not personally endorsing here ) , it would just be lost in the noise of existing docility, apathy and stupidity and our pre-existing tendency to doff our cap to corporate and government authority.

For those who disagree with fluoridation, I suggest you buy a good water filter. It's clear to me that that will be the only way to avoid drinking this shit in your water in Ireland for the foreseeable future. Water and tea tastes a lot better too!

by OB Thu Oct 28, 2010 21:18

Agree to disagree but I really think you should contact the EC let them know about the Irish Govt committing crimes against humanity.

I also agree that water shouldn't be flouridated. Not because i think its dangerous but it would shut up the conspiraloons (not u V) if water was left flouride free. Well I'm sure they'd find something else like nitrogen in the air to complain about.

But maybe they are right...

Think of all those missing people...

Could have dissolved in flouridated water...

by V for vendetta Thu Oct 28, 2010 23:16

I dunno OB
That nitrogen is nasty stuff when you breathe it under pressures > 4 atmospheres!!
Can turn your bloodstream into a fizzy drink if you aren't careful about sudden large pressure changes
Interesting way to get drunk though. They call it getting "Narced"
It's led to the deaths of lots of people diving
In very deep dives they have to remove the nitrogen altogether and replace it with helium

Hydrofluoric acid is rather good at dissolving people I believe

by OB Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:21

Nitrogen can make you die laughing as well.

Helium will just give you a squeaky voice.

by Lex Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:23

V for Vendetta, the whole point of this thread of messages (and the Soviet gulags, Nazi concentration camps and so on) is to discuss the article on "Poison in our water supply", not to discuss your version of the English language. The falsehood within the article is demonstrably proven, with respect to its complete misinterpretation of the European Court of Justice ruling.

As I stated in my first message, the rest of the article is equally bogus.

by V for vendetta Sun Oct 31, 2010 17:57

You've not proven anything lex. Just tried to ridicule people's opinions.When I tried to encourage you to be precise as to how a piece of english you linked to could mean what YOU said it did, you evaded that opportunity for clarity and just attempted to ridicule me as well. You proved nothing to me, except that you are an asshole.

and leaving that aside, just because an article is flawed does not mean people cannot use the article as a springboard from which to discuss that topic. That was what I attempted to do and I think some of the points made along the way were valid, even if some of the original article may not have been. But you consistently refused to acknowledge even the simple fact that using toothpaste was a better more targetted and more democratic way to treat dental decay than mandatory water fluoridation as shown by statistics in non fluoridating european countries.

In short you did not enter into the discussion constructively and you actually PROVED nothing, merely tried to ridicule everyone.

by OB Sun Oct 31, 2010 18:06

Calling someone an asshole proves nothing. Its not generally reqarded as good debating style. Using UPPER CASE thus is often the sign of a nutjob which I dont think you are. It certainly doesn't enhance your argument.

Having said that, I think Lex could have left things lie.

by V for vendetta Sun Oct 31, 2010 18:19

perhaps not OB but his arrogant assertions about having demonstrably proven stuff having spouted nothing but ad hominem and proof by authority fallacies, whilst evading more precise analysis of the key sentences he linked to made me feel that polite discussion was a waste of time with this person. I let my frustration at him get the better of me. Thats what people like him want of course. To derail otherwise productive discussions and reduce them to crap. I guess he succeeded. well done lex.

by Lex Sun Oct 31, 2010 21:37

V said "You've not proven anything lex. Just tried to ridicule people's opinions.When I tried to encourage you to be precise as to how a piece of english you linked to could mean what YOU said it did, you evaded that opportunity for clarity and just attempted to ridicule me as well." and "having spouted nothing but ad hominem and proof by authority fallacies, whilst evading more precise analysis of the key sentences he linked to".

Three points of clarification:

1) The "text that I linked to" is the European Court of Justice judgement, on the European court website, and would have been a useful link in the original article;
2) I have proven, by linking to and quoting the official text, that the article above deliberately misquotes the judgement;
3) I have not made any interpretation of the judgement, so I can hardly have evaded the opportunity for precision.

I have not ridiculed anyone or engaged in any ad hominem attacks - unless pointing out an obvious fallacy is what passes for ad hominem ridicule in your version of the English language. As OB has said, you are as welcome as every citizen to prove the authority of your interpretation in the courts, and that proof by authority is how our system of democratic law operates.

You are also welcome to write an article about toothpaste, untainted by references to poison, Soviet gulags, Nazi concentration camps and psychiatric medicine. The author of this article described water fluoridation in those terms and is entitled to have them discussed in those terms, rather than your re-interpretation.

by V for vendetta Mon Nov 01, 2010 00:05

Lex. I directly quote one of your responses to me:

"Nobody has any interest in discussing toothpaste with a scaremongerer."

Seems like ad hominem ridicule to me. (and by the way it's actually "scaremonger". You should at least try to deliver your ridicule correctly!)

It seems you are quite happy to deny the existence and obvious meaning of, text you yourself wrote further down the exact same thread so I reckon I have little chance of getting a straight opinion on any EU text from you.

Suggesting that people use toothpaste instead of mandatory fluoridation via the water supply is NOT scaremongering. It's merely respecting civil liberties, acknowledging falling statistics on tooth decay across other non fluoridating European countries and suggesting a more targeted method of medicating for tooth decay is sufficient (and one which we already engage in). It's just common sense really.

Also I don't see a problem with trying to discuss the exact meaning of an EU judgement. Do you always accept judgements from authorities without your own analysis? That's not a very healthy approach if you ask me!

I guess trying to talk about the wording of EU judgements that directly affect the composition of what we eat and drink should be discouraged and such judgements as interpreted by our dear leaders should be accepted blindly without question and suggesting anything else such as actually reading and analysing the text itself is just scaremongering and should be subjected to ridicule?

Wouldn't want anyone discussing EU wording in a healthy democratic fashion would we?. After all we know what little good that does us 2 referenda later don't we!!

Lex, lets both not waste our time any further ok?