Water fluoridation's goal is to prevent a chronic disease whose burdens particularly fall on children and on the poor.[16] Its use presents a conflict between the common good and individual rights.[17] It is controversial,[18] and opposition to it has been based on ethical, legal, safety, and efficacy grounds. Almost all major public health and dental organizations support water fluoridation, or consider it safe.
On May 11 2009 05:35 Kwark wrote: Holy shit those were some bad posts. Thanks IdrA for defending rationality but he's beyond help. There has been fluoride in the water supply in this country for decades with the only long term effect being an improvement in the teeth. I find it amazing that when the debate is (from like page 2 of the topic at least) how there is fluoride in drinking water and has been for decades you insist you don't trust it because it's untested on a large group of people for 10-20 years. Are you serious? We're talking about a sample size of hundreds of millions of people over several generations and you're saying the sample size isn't big enough to satisfy you that it's safe? Water will kill you if you drink too much. Chocolate is known to be toxic (everyone knows not to feed dogs chocolate because it's poisonous), it's just the lethal dose is more than any human generally consumes. The fact that an unsafe dose exists doesn't make the safe dose any less safe. Jeez.
There has been no such experiments. An experiment has to be made in a controlled environment where you know all the variables involved. Just dumping fluoride in the water supply and waiting to see what happens is not an experiment.
The reason why you are OK with it is because you are invested in this lie, as many others are. I'm not. I can safely say fluoride is highly toxic.
Can you prove that fluoride can't build up and do harm in your system, with a scientific experiment? You can't, because no such experiment exists. All you can do is perpetuate the lie that it's harmless.
It has been studied extensively though. They have done controlled experiments, not on hundreds of millions but definitely on a statistically relevant number of subjects and with reletively large sample size.
Certainly if such studies were done so extensively you should have no problem presenting me one. I'm not going anywhere, you can take your time.
Hint: No, it hasn't. You'd expect so, when people are up for putting poison in your water for arbitrary reasons, but no, there hasn't. But please do go ahead and try to find one. Edit: Ugly typos
On May 11 2009 05:35 Kwark wrote: Holy shit those were some bad posts. Thanks IdrA for defending rationality but he's beyond help. There has been fluoride in the water supply in this country for decades with the only long term effect being an improvement in the teeth. I find it amazing that when the debate is (from like page 2 of the topic at least) how there is fluoride in drinking water and has been for decades you insist you don't trust it because it's untested on a large group of people for 10-20 years. Are you serious? We're talking about a sample size of hundreds of millions of people over several generations and you're saying the sample size isn't big enough to satisfy you that it's safe? Water will kill you if you drink too much. Chocolate is known to be toxic (everyone knows not to feed dogs chocolate because it's poisonous), it's just the lethal dose is more than any human generally consumes. The fact that an unsafe dose exists doesn't make the safe dose any less safe. Jeez.
There has been no such experiments. An experiment has to be made in a controlled environment where you know all the variables involved. Just dumping fluoride in the water supply and waiting to see what happens is not an experiment.
The reason why you are OK with it is because you are invested in this lie, as many others are. I'm not. I can safely say fluoride is highly toxic.
Can you prove that fluoride can't build up and do harm in your system, with a scientific experiment? You can't, because no such experiment exists. All you can do is perpetuate the lie that it's harmless.
It has been studied extensively though. They have done controlled experiments, not on hundreds of millions but definitely on a statistically relevant number of subjects and with reletively large sample size.
Certainly if such studies were done so extensively you should have no problem presenting me one. I'm not going anywhere, you can take your time.
Hint: No, it hasn't. You'd expect so, when people are up for putting poison in your water for arbitrary reasons, but no, there hasn't. But please do go ahead and try to find one. Edit: Ugly typos
On May 11 2009 05:35 Kwark wrote: Holy shit those were some bad posts. Thanks IdrA for defending rationality but he's beyond help. There has been fluoride in the water supply in this country for decades with the only long term effect being an improvement in the teeth. I find it amazing that when the debate is (from like page 2 of the topic at least) how there is fluoride in drinking water and has been for decades you insist you don't trust it because it's untested on a large group of people for 10-20 years. Are you serious? We're talking about a sample size of hundreds of millions of people over several generations and you're saying the sample size isn't big enough to satisfy you that it's safe? Water will kill you if you drink too much. Chocolate is known to be toxic (everyone knows not to feed dogs chocolate because it's poisonous), it's just the lethal dose is more than any human generally consumes. The fact that an unsafe dose exists doesn't make the safe dose any less safe. Jeez.
There has been no such experiments. An experiment has to be made in a controlled environment where you know all the variables involved. Just dumping fluoride in the water supply and waiting to see what happens is not an experiment.
The reason why you are OK with it is because you are invested in this lie, as many others are. I'm not. I can safely say fluoride is highly toxic.
Can you prove that fluoride can't build up and do harm in your system, with a scientific experiment? You can't, because no such experiment exists. All you can do is perpetuate the lie that it's harmless.
It has been studied extensively though. They have done controlled experiments, not on hundreds of millions but definitely on a statistically relevant number of subjects and with reletively large sample size.
and can u cite ur source or what bases do u have to make that statement? truth is, dentist aren't chemist, we have neither have the expertise or knowledge to truly understand the effects of fluoride, however, from the information i gathered, i'm convinced that there are alternatives way of taking care of my own dental health instead of gambling it on fluoride water, which has been sadly forced upon us. have ur own stance on issues, argue with others to learn new stuff, not to proof ur better than everyone else is.
everyone has the right to demand what they want, its call personal liberty, u want fluoride in ur water, thats fine, but i sure as hell don't want that shit in my water supply... or that flu shot that i have no idea what the hell is in it, if i want a vaccine shot, i want to make sure it is safe with minimal side effects for me... peace
and an interesting video to note: believe what u want
On May 11 2009 05:35 Kwark wrote: Holy shit those were some bad posts. Thanks IdrA for defending rationality but he's beyond help. There has been fluoride in the water supply in this country for decades with the only long term effect being an improvement in the teeth. I find it amazing that when the debate is (from like page 2 of the topic at least) how there is fluoride in drinking water and has been for decades you insist you don't trust it because it's untested on a large group of people for 10-20 years. Are you serious? We're talking about a sample size of hundreds of millions of people over several generations and you're saying the sample size isn't big enough to satisfy you that it's safe? Water will kill you if you drink too much. Chocolate is known to be toxic (everyone knows not to feed dogs chocolate because it's poisonous), it's just the lethal dose is more than any human generally consumes. The fact that an unsafe dose exists doesn't make the safe dose any less safe. Jeez.
There has been no such experiments. An experiment has to be made in a controlled environment where you know all the variables involved. Just dumping fluoride in the water supply and waiting to see what happens is not an experiment.
The reason why you are OK with it is because you are invested in this lie, as many others are. I'm not. I can safely say fluoride is highly toxic.
Can you prove that fluoride can't build up and do harm in your system, with a scientific experiment? You can't, because no such experiment exists. All you can do is perpetuate the lie that it's harmless.
It has been studied extensively though. They have done controlled experiments, not on hundreds of millions but definitely on a statistically relevant number of subjects and with reletively large sample size.
Certainly if such studies were done so extensively you should have no problem presenting me one. I'm not going anywhere, you can take your time.
Hint: No, it hasn't. You'd expect so, when people are up for putting poison in your water for arbitrary reasons, but no, there hasn't. But please do go ahead and try to find one. Edit: Ugly typos
On May 11 2009 05:35 Kwark wrote: Holy shit those were some bad posts. Thanks IdrA for defending rationality but he's beyond help. There has been fluoride in the water supply in this country for decades with the only long term effect being an improvement in the teeth. I find it amazing that when the debate is (from like page 2 of the topic at least) how there is fluoride in drinking water and has been for decades you insist you don't trust it because it's untested on a large group of people for 10-20 years. Are you serious? We're talking about a sample size of hundreds of millions of people over several generations and you're saying the sample size isn't big enough to satisfy you that it's safe? Water will kill you if you drink too much. Chocolate is known to be toxic (everyone knows not to feed dogs chocolate because it's poisonous), it's just the lethal dose is more than any human generally consumes. The fact that an unsafe dose exists doesn't make the safe dose any less safe. Jeez.
There has been no such experiments. An experiment has to be made in a controlled environment where you know all the variables involved. Just dumping fluoride in the water supply and waiting to see what happens is not an experiment.
The reason why you are OK with it is because you are invested in this lie, as many others are. I'm not. I can safely say fluoride is highly toxic.
Can you prove that fluoride can't build up and do harm in your system, with a scientific experiment? You can't, because no such experiment exists. All you can do is perpetuate the lie that it's harmless.
It has been studied extensively though. They have done controlled experiments, not on hundreds of millions but definitely on a statistically relevant number of subjects and with reletively large sample size.
and can u cite ur source or what bases do u have to make that statement? truth is, dentist aren't chemist, we have neither have the expertise or knowledge to truly understand the effects of fluoride, however, from the information i gathered, i'm convinced that there are alternatives way of taking care of my own dental health instead of gambling it on fluoride water, which has been sadly forced upon us. have ur own stance on issues, argue with others to learn new stuff, not to proof ur better than everyone else is.
everyone has the right to demand what they want, its call personal liberty, u want fluoride in ur water, thats fine, but i sure as hell don't want that shit in my water supply... or that flu shot that i have no idea what the hell is in it, if i want a vaccine shot, i want to make sure it is safe with minimal side effects for me... peace
Do you a ctually read my responses or just spew whatever random bullshit comes into your head and post an inane you tube video after you notice I've posted ?...It's hard to argue with idiots=/
Sense you're too stubborn or stupid to read my other responses I'll say it again. I don't really care if fluoride is in my water or not, I can afford toothpaste just fine. However the general consensus of people who DO have the expertise and knowledge say fluroided water is good for overall dental health. Sense they have no reason to lie I'll go with that. Specially sense theres a lot of evidence to support it.
Lol dentists arent chemists. I dont know about britian but in the US to be a dentist you need a MEDICAL DEGREE. Do you know what that is?
Do you honestly think people with post graduate education in a extensively scientific field dont have a complete understanding of modern biological and elemental chemistry? I'm done with you.
On May 09 2009 19:58 Shizuru~ wrote: fluoride works when apllied directly onto the teeth's surface, there is no need to ingest it, they put it in our water, saying its for the health for our teeth? its like saying putting some parts of shampoo in our water supply and saying it'll help our hair's look/health while people are gonna drink that water?
Hitler put fluoride into the water the Jewish drank in the concentration camp during the holocaust as a poison...
Guess what!? When you drink water with small amounts of floride in it; it touches your teeth! Yes I know what a concept..things you drink touch your teeth, no fucking way!? Guess what? It works too, studies have clearly shown better tooth health in communities exposed to florided water. Think. Things. Through.
And in case you missed it, that was idras point. *shakes head* You're really dense.
uhm... let me repeat my points.... currently, they put fluoride into our water, so that when we drink it, it would touches our teeth and benefits our oral heatlh... my points is, since u don have to ingest(IE:DRINK) the fluoride for it to have it benefits, why put that thing into our drinking water when there's known side effects.... most of european countires doesn't have fluoride in their water supplies... and yet they don't have as much of an oral health issues as people who had fluoride in their water did.
To increase the topical exposure.
Site your sources about european countries not having as much oral health issues as people who had fluoride? I call bullshit. Not only that, there is no way you can prove that the two have anything to do with fluoride at all.
Talk to a dentist. The dentists I've had say there is nothing wrong with it. Now some professionals apparently disagree but this happens in almost all fields of study.
PS. British people are reknowned for having very very bad teeth. This could be/is a sterotype and is probably the result of bad dentral professionals in the country, genetics, or its completely fabricated. But most stereotypes come from somewhere
This brings me back to my point about the video in the op. People are making a big deal out of something that is most likely a non issue.
apparently, u have no problem with fluoride in ur water supply at all... and thats fine, u should have it if u wanted it, but what about the people who doesn't want it? what about the people who would rather take care of their own dental health without the need of the government to put stuff into the water supply and force it on us? ever thought of it that way?
I have thought of it that way actually. Instead of trying to be a pompous smart ass why dont you read the response I made to travis on the subject. I clearly state my position that it IS silly and unnessary to add fluoride to water when so many products are available. Not only that but people have the option of buying very affordable bottled water.
i looked at all the bottled waters available in the UK, they all have fluoride in them... yeh its that fucked up, and btw personal attacks does not help u to get ur points across, if u had any points to get across at all. so far what u have been doing is providing 0 contributions to any arguments, u've been talking down on everyone who doesn't go along with u in an aggressive and rude manner...
You're an idiot. ...funny shit though, both of you are pretty entertaining.
That's a retrospective study, hardly controlled, very prone to bias and data manipulation. This is the tpye os study you'd do before attempting to do a real, scientific one. Give me an experiment. Edit: Added quote for clarity.
On May 09 2009 19:58 Shizuru~ wrote: fluoride works when apllied directly onto the teeth's surface, there is no need to ingest it, they put it in our water, saying its for the health for our teeth? its like saying putting some parts of shampoo in our water supply and saying it'll help our hair's look/health while people are gonna drink that water?
Hitler put fluoride into the water the Jewish drank in the concentration camp during the holocaust as a poison...
Guess what!? When you drink water with small amounts of floride in it; it touches your teeth! Yes I know what a concept..things you drink touch your teeth, no fucking way!? Guess what? It works too, studies have clearly shown better tooth health in communities exposed to florided water. Think. Things. Through.
And in case you missed it, that was idras point. *shakes head* You're really dense.
uhm... let me repeat my points.... currently, they put fluoride into our water, so that when we drink it, it would touches our teeth and benefits our oral heatlh... my points is, since u don have to ingest(IE:DRINK) the fluoride for it to have it benefits, why put that thing into our drinking water when there's known side effects.... most of european countires doesn't have fluoride in their water supplies... and yet they don't have as much of an oral health issues as people who had fluoride in their water did.
To increase the topical exposure.
Site your sources about european countries not having as much oral health issues as people who had fluoride? I call bullshit. Not only that, there is no way you can prove that the two have anything to do with fluoride at all.
Talk to a dentist. The dentists I've had say there is nothing wrong with it. Now some professionals apparently disagree but this happens in almost all fields of study.
PS. British people are reknowned for having very very bad teeth. This could be/is a sterotype and is probably the result of bad dentral professionals in the country, genetics, or its completely fabricated. But most stereotypes come from somewhere
This brings me back to my point about the video in the op. People are making a big deal out of something that is most likely a non issue.
apparently, u have no problem with fluoride in ur water supply at all... and thats fine, u should have it if u wanted it, but what about the people who doesn't want it? what about the people who would rather take care of their own dental health without the need of the government to put stuff into the water supply and force it on us? ever thought of it that way?
I have thought of it that way actually. Instead of trying to be a pompous smart ass why dont you read the response I made to travis on the subject. I clearly state my position that it IS silly and unnessary to add fluoride to water when so many products are available. Not only that but people have the option of buying very affordable bottled water.
i looked at all the bottled waters available in the UK, they all have fluoride in them... yeh its that fucked up, and btw personal attacks does not help u to get ur points across...
On May 09 2009 19:58 Shizuru~ wrote: fluoride works when apllied directly onto the teeth's surface, there is no need to ingest it, they put it in our water, saying its for the health for our teeth? its like saying putting some parts of shampoo in our water supply and saying it'll help our hair's look/health while people are gonna drink that water?
Hitler put fluoride into the water the Jewish drank in the concentration camp during the holocaust as a poison...
Guess what!? When you drink water with small amounts of floride in it; it touches your teeth! Yes I know what a concept..things you drink touch your teeth, no fucking way!? Guess what? It works too, studies have clearly shown better tooth health in communities exposed to florided water. Think. Things. Through.
And in case you missed it, that was idras point. *shakes head* You're really dense.
uhm... let me repeat my points.... currently, they put fluoride into our water, so that when we drink it, it would touches our teeth and benefits our oral heatlh... my points is, since u don have to ingest(IE:DRINK) the fluoride for it to have it benefits, why put that thing into our drinking water when there's known side effects.... most of european countires doesn't have fluoride in their water supplies... and yet they don't have as much of an oral health issues as people who had fluoride in their water did.
To increase the topical exposure.
Site your sources about european countries not having as much oral health issues as people who had fluoride? I call bullshit. Not only that, there is no way you can prove that the two have anything to do with fluoride at all.
Talk to a dentist. The dentists I've had say there is nothing wrong with it. Now some professionals apparently disagree but this happens in almost all fields of study.
PS. British people are reknowned for having very very bad teeth. This could be/is a sterotype and is probably the result of bad dentral professionals in the country, genetics, or its completely fabricated. But most stereotypes come from somewhere
This brings me back to my point about the video in the op. People are making a big deal out of something that is most likely a non issue.
apparently, u have no problem with fluoride in ur water supply at all... and thats fine, u should have it if u wanted it, but what about the people who doesn't want it? what about the people who would rather take care of their own dental health without the need of the government to put stuff into the water supply and force it on us? ever thought of it that way?
I have thought of it that way actually. Instead of trying to be a pompous smart ass why dont you read the response I made to travis on the subject. I clearly state my position that it IS silly and unnessary to add fluoride to water when so many products are available. Not only that but people have the option of buying very affordable bottled water.
i looked at all the bottled waters available in the UK, they all have fluoride in them... yeh its that fucked up, and btw personal attacks does not help u to get ur points across...
Bullshit.
trust me, i'm not shitting u, wan me to go take a photos of all the bottled water labels here in the uk?
You're an idiot. ...funny shit though, both of you are pretty entertaining.
That's a retrospective study, hardly controlled, very prone to bias and data manipulation. This is the tpye os study you'd do before attempting to do a real, scientific one. Give me an experiment. Edit: Added quote for clarity.
What you're asking for isn't going to be found then, because it's a waste of time and money doing a controlled study for 10 years. The data, as you can see, is already out there and of course it isn't controlled but it's the only practical way of finding out how toxic fluoride is in the long term.
What evidence do you have of fluoride being harmful in the long term at the doses that are currently in the water? Or even the harms of short term consumption?
You're an idiot. ...funny shit though, both of you are pretty entertaining.
That's a retrospective study, hardly controlled, very prone to bias and data manipulation. This is the tpye os study you'd do before attempting to do a real, scientific one. Give me an experiment. Edit: Added quote for clarity.
The article itself points the flaws in such type of study:
As noted by the authors, the use of insurance data presented several limitations, since the study population was predominantly white (over 90%) and the data analysis did not address a range of unobserved variables (e.g., socioeconomic status and actual time spent living in specific water districts). Based on these and other methodological considerations, the authors indicated that their “findings may not be directly generalizable to the overall US population.”
There's far too many uncontrolled variables. You'd need thousands of people randomly selected from everywhere around the country for it to be any reliable. Another reason for why such a study cannot or will not be done. 'Just put the poison in, people won't complain anyway.
You're an idiot. ...funny shit though, both of you are pretty entertaining.
That's a retrospective study, hardly controlled, very prone to bias and data manipulation. This is the tpye os study you'd do before attempting to do a real, scientific one. Give me an experiment. Edit: Added quote for clarity.
What you're asking for isn't going to be found then, because it's a waste of time and money doing a controlled study for 10 years. The data, as you can see, is already out there and of course it isn't controlled but it's the only practical way of finding out how toxic fluoride is in the long term.
What evidence do you have of fluoride being harmful in the long term at the doses that are currently in the water? Or even the harms of short term consumption?
Very much so. but you see, I'm not the one who's supposed to prove anything. You pro-fluoride people are the ones introducing poison to the water supply. You should carry out all the studies to justify your cause. But guess what, all the studies are half-assed and flawed. Yet it's enough to push this agenda, because people don't care enough, and people simply accept the authority's word.
You're an idiot. ...funny shit though, both of you are pretty entertaining.
That's a retrospective study, hardly controlled, very prone to bias and data manipulation. This is the tpye os study you'd do before attempting to do a real, scientific one. Give me an experiment. Edit: Added quote for clarity.
What you're asking for isn't going to be found then, because it's a waste of time and money doing a controlled study for 10 years. The data, as you can see, is already out there and of course it isn't controlled but it's the only practical way of finding out how toxic fluoride is in the long term.
What evidence do you have of fluoride being harmful in the long term at the doses that are currently in the water? Or even the harms of short term consumption?
Very much so. but you see, I'm not the one who's supposed to prove anything. You pro-fluoride people are the ones introducing poison to the water supply. You should carry out all the studies to justify your cause. But guess what, all the studies are half-assed and flawed. Yet it's enough to push this agenda, because people don't care enough, and people simply accept the authority's word.
What evidence do you have of fluoride being harmful in the long term at the doses that are currently in the water? Or even the harms of short term consumption?
This is for you Yurebis. You probably won't read it though, youre too much of a nutcase.
THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO KILL AND POSION ME FOR NO REASON OHHH NOOO.
Are you a troll or something?
I like your logic there though despite a mountain of studies that contradict you, you point out one thing: That an expierment(to your rediculous standards) isn't possible. And apparently to you thats enough evidence for you to be convinced that the government is trying to posion the american people by puting fluoride in their water.
You're an idiot. ...funny shit though, both of you are pretty entertaining.
That's a retrospective study, hardly controlled, very prone to bias and data manipulation. This is the tpye os study you'd do before attempting to do a real, scientific one. Give me an experiment. Edit: Added quote for clarity.
The article itself points the flaws in such type of study:
As noted by the authors, the use of insurance data presented several limitations, since the study population was predominantly white (over 90%) and the data analysis did not address a range of unobserved variables (e.g., socioeconomic status and actual time spent living in specific water districts). Based on these and other methodological considerations, the authors indicated that their “findings may not be directly generalizable to the overall US population.”
There's far too many uncontrolled variables. You'd need thousands of people randomly selected from everywhere around the country for it to be any reliable. Another reason for why such a study cannot or will not be done. 'Just put the poison in, people won't complain anyway.
Yes you idiot, a good study always points out potential flaws in the study.
Its the scientific method. Something you are most likely not framiliar with....
On May 09 2009 19:58 Shizuru~ wrote: fluoride works when apllied directly onto the teeth's surface, there is no need to ingest it, they put it in our water, saying its for the health for our teeth? its like saying putting some parts of shampoo in our water supply and saying it'll help our hair's look/health while people are gonna drink that water?
Hitler put fluoride into the water the Jewish drank in the concentration camp during the holocaust as a poison...
Guess what!? When you drink water with small amounts of floride in it; it touches your teeth! Yes I know what a concept..things you drink touch your teeth, no fucking way!? Guess what? It works too, studies have clearly shown better tooth health in communities exposed to florided water. Think. Things. Through.
And in case you missed it, that was idras point. *shakes head* You're really dense.
uhm... let me repeat my points.... currently, they put fluoride into our water, so that when we drink it, it would touches our teeth and benefits our oral heatlh... my points is, since u don have to ingest(IE:DRINK) the fluoride for it to have it benefits, why put that thing into our drinking water when there's known side effects.... most of european countires doesn't have fluoride in their water supplies... and yet they don't have as much of an oral health issues as people who had fluoride in their water did.
To increase the topical exposure.
Site your sources about european countries not having as much oral health issues as people who had fluoride? I call bullshit. Not only that, there is no way you can prove that the two have anything to do with fluoride at all.
Talk to a dentist. The dentists I've had say there is nothing wrong with it. Now some professionals apparently disagree but this happens in almost all fields of study.
PS. British people are reknowned for having very very bad teeth. This could be/is a sterotype and is probably the result of bad dentral professionals in the country, genetics, or its completely fabricated. But most stereotypes come from somewhere
This brings me back to my point about the video in the op. People are making a big deal out of something that is most likely a non issue.
apparently, u have no problem with fluoride in ur water supply at all... and thats fine, u should have it if u wanted it, but what about the people who doesn't want it? what about the people who would rather take care of their own dental health without the need of the government to put stuff into the water supply and force it on us? ever thought of it that way?
I have thought of it that way actually. Instead of trying to be a pompous smart ass why dont you read the response I made to travis on the subject. I clearly state my position that it IS silly and unnessary to add fluoride to water when so many products are available. Not only that but people have the option of buying very affordable bottled water.
i looked at all the bottled waters available in the UK, they all have fluoride in them... yeh its that fucked up, and btw personal attacks does not help u to get ur points across, if u had any points to get across at all. so far what u have been doing is providing 0 contributions to any arguments, u've been talking down on everyone who doesn't go along with u in an aggressive and rude manner...
You're an idiot. ...funny shit though, both of you are pretty entertaining.
That's a retrospective study, hardly controlled, very prone to bias and data manipulation. This is the tpye os study you'd do before attempting to do a real, scientific one. Give me an experiment. Edit: Added quote for clarity.
What you're asking for isn't going to be found then, because it's a waste of time and money doing a controlled study for 10 years. The data, as you can see, is already out there and of course it isn't controlled but it's the only practical way of finding out how toxic fluoride is in the long term.
What evidence do you have of fluoride being harmful in the long term at the doses that are currently in the water? Or even the harms of short term consumption?
Very much so. but you see, I'm not the one who's supposed to prove anything. You pro-fluoride people are the ones introducing poison to the water supply. You should carry out all the studies to justify your cause. But guess what, all the studies are half-assed and flawed. Yet it's enough to push this agenda, because people don't care enough, and people simply accept the authority's word.
What evidence do you have of fluoride being harmful in the long term at the doses that are currently in the water? Or even the harms of short term consumption?
I should not need to answer your question. As I've said before, the ones to challenge common accepted knowledge are the ones who should prove their claims.
On May 09 2009 19:58 Shizuru~ wrote: fluoride works when apllied directly onto the teeth's surface, there is no need to ingest it, they put it in our water, saying its for the health for our teeth? its like saying putting some parts of shampoo in our water supply and saying it'll help our hair's look/health while people are gonna drink that water?
Hitler put fluoride into the water the Jewish drank in the concentration camp during the holocaust as a poison...
Guess what!? When you drink water with small amounts of floride in it; it touches your teeth! Yes I know what a concept..things you drink touch your teeth, no fucking way!? Guess what? It works too, studies have clearly shown better tooth health in communities exposed to florided water. Think. Things. Through.
And in case you missed it, that was idras point. *shakes head* You're really dense.
uhm... let me repeat my points.... currently, they put fluoride into our water, so that when we drink it, it would touches our teeth and benefits our oral heatlh... my points is, since u don have to ingest(IE:DRINK) the fluoride for it to have it benefits, why put that thing into our drinking water when there's known side effects.... most of european countires doesn't have fluoride in their water supplies... and yet they don't have as much of an oral health issues as people who had fluoride in their water did.
To increase the topical exposure.
Site your sources about european countries not having as much oral health issues as people who had fluoride? I call bullshit. Not only that, there is no way you can prove that the two have anything to do with fluoride at all.
Talk to a dentist. The dentists I've had say there is nothing wrong with it. Now some professionals apparently disagree but this happens in almost all fields of study.
PS. British people are reknowned for having very very bad teeth. This could be/is a sterotype and is probably the result of bad dentral professionals in the country, genetics, or its completely fabricated. But most stereotypes come from somewhere
This brings me back to my point about the video in the op. People are making a big deal out of something that is most likely a non issue.
apparently, u have no problem with fluoride in ur water supply at all... and thats fine, u should have it if u wanted it, but what about the people who doesn't want it? what about the people who would rather take care of their own dental health without the need of the government to put stuff into the water supply and force it on us? ever thought of it that way?
I have thought of it that way actually. Instead of trying to be a pompous smart ass why dont you read the response I made to travis on the subject. I clearly state my position that it IS silly and unnessary to add fluoride to water when so many products are available. Not only that but people have the option of buying very affordable bottled water.
i looked at all the bottled waters available in the UK, they all have fluoride in them... yeh its that fucked up, and btw personal attacks does not help u to get ur points across...
Bullshit.
He's correct, it's bullshit. There are dozens of brands of mineral water available, half of them not even from springs in this country, all natural water as it bubbles from the ground. And if it really bothers you that much you can get a water purifier from any supermarket.
You're an idiot. ...funny shit though, both of you are pretty entertaining.
That's a retrospective study, hardly controlled, very prone to bias and data manipulation. This is the tpye os study you'd do before attempting to do a real, scientific one. Give me an experiment. Edit: Added quote for clarity.
What you're asking for isn't going to be found then, because it's a waste of time and money doing a controlled study for 10 years. The data, as you can see, is already out there and of course it isn't controlled but it's the only practical way of finding out how toxic fluoride is in the long term.
What evidence do you have of fluoride being harmful in the long term at the doses that are currently in the water? Or even the harms of short term consumption?
Very much so. but you see, I'm not the one who's supposed to prove anything. You pro-fluoride people are the ones introducing poison to the water supply. You should carry out all the studies to justify your cause. But guess what, all the studies are half-assed and flawed. Yet it's enough to push this agenda, because people don't care enough, and people simply accept the authority's word.
What evidence do you have of fluoride being harmful in the long term at the doses that are currently in the water? Or even the harms of short term consumption?
I should not need to answer your question. As I've said before, the ones to challenge common accepted knowledge are the ones who should prove their claims.
You're obviously very confused. Accepted knowledge is that fluoride in safe doses is safe. You're challenging accepted knowledge and therefore according to you you are the one who has to prove your claims. And there for you should need to answer his question, according to you at least.
EPT
