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.
i've been looking for a fluoride water purifier thats affordable for quite a while actually, do u have any suggestion? i'm only a student so i can't afford anything too expensive.....
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
... 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.
Unfortunately, modern "biological and elemental chemistry" doesn't know much about the effects of small quantities of fluoride taken internally. We can only teach you what we already know.
But yeah, you're right that Dentists generally have both undergraduate AND graduate level biochemistry courses under their belt before they finish their education. You need it to be able to understand new research as it comes out.
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.
Safe doses are as safe as their follow-up experiments measure them to be so. Show me an experiment which accurately discards the possibility of fluoride buildup at today's >1ppm over >10 years
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.
Safe doses are as safe as their follow-up experiments measure them to be so. Show me an experiment which accurately discards the possibility of fluoride buildup at today's >1ppm over >10 years
Show me an experiment which accurately shows the possibility of fluoride buildup at today's >1ppm over >10 years and that this level of fluoride is harmful.
Those 50 reasons were not evidence. Number 3 was highlighting the results of a study that showed that the benefits of fluoride were so small that fluoride is unnecessary. Number 2 says that western countries without fluoridation have the same decline in tooth decay as countries that have water fluoridation. So they are using studies that disagree to prove the same point.
Some of the reasons didn't have any sources and some are just scaremongering and don't actually have a point.
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.
Safe doses are as safe as their follow-up experiments measure them to be so. Show me an experiment which accurately discards the possibility of fluoride buildup at today's >1ppm over >10 years
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. That and it would seem very unlikely that it would be unnoticed if this was causing widespread health problems. After all, it's not like fluorosis is an unknown condition or that there aren't people who have been drinking tap water all their lives. You could have made a case when water fluoridisation was introduced it was inadequately researched and could have detrimental results if people drank it for fifty years. Now huge amounts people have been drinking it for fifty years and there are still no medical problems being blamed on it.
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.
Safe doses are as safe as their follow-up experiments measure them to be so. Show me an experiment which accurately discards the possibility of fluoride buildup at today's >1ppm over >10 years
Theres also no 10 year study that suggests living,eating, shitting, thinking, having sex, talking, or any other action a human person can take ISN'T bad for you. Or breathing(hell in some places it IS bad for you). OH SHIT WHAT SHOULD WE DO!? THE GOVERNMENT'S TRYING TO KILL US ALL US.
On May 10 2009 23:00 Physician wrote: fluoride is toxic shit, amazing how some people are still defending its use lol.. on top of it, no essential function for fluoride has been proven in humans.
ONce again...curious, where did you go to medical school?
Evidences do not have to prove anything. Evidences point to what may be the truth. If you want proof of something, you need to carry out experiment after experiment, at various scenarios, as many times as possible.
The ones who propose fluoridating the water are the ones with the burden of proof, to prove that there is no risk of putting this poisonous substance there.
So far they've been able to prove that you won't immediately die or suffer any consequences if you've daily ingested water that has a fluoride concentration of 1ppm~2ppm, that much is true, I can testify to that myself. I have drank fluoridated water since I can remember and have not died, as I post this.
However, can you prove that the fluoride won't build up inside me, in my bones, in my brain, as to perhaps do some damage to my health that way? Perhaps when I grow older, I'll be more inclined to develop arthritis due to it. What if my IQ has been slightly reduced because of it, yet it's so little that it can't be measured by any means? There hadn't been any tests to accurately measure such risks, yet there's evidence that they may be real. It's not proof, it's evidence. Again, the ones supposed to provide proof, are the ones saying "it's alright, just take it".
Bottom line is, it's poison. It's not something you want to swallow everyday, even if it's "just" 1ppm. Maybe 1ppb could be harmless, or some level which is naturally occuring. But why would you simply accept taking in poison because some experts say it's good for you, I do not know.
On May 11 2009 09:36 Yurebis wrote: Evidences do not have to prove anything Evidences point to what may be the truth. If you want proof of something, you need to carry out experiment after experiment, at various scenarios, as many times as possible.
The ones who propose fluoridating the water are the ones with the burden of proof, to prove that there is no risk of putting this poisonous substance there.
So far they've been able to prove that you won't immediately die or suffer any consequences if you daily ingested water has a fluoride concentration of 1ppm~2ppm, that much is true, I can testify to that myself. I have drank fluoridated water since I can remember and have not died, as I post this.
However, can you prove that the fluoride won't build up inside me, in my bones, in my brain, as to perhaps do some damage to my health that way? Perhaps when I grow older, I'll be more inclined to develop arthritis due to it. What if my IQ has been slightly reduced because of it, yet it's so little that it can't be measured by any means? There hadn't been any tests to accurately measure such risks, yet there's evidence that they may be real. It's not proof, it's evidence. Again, the ones supposed to provide proof, are the ones saying "it's alright, just take it".
Bottom line is, it's poison. It's not something you want to swallow everyday, even if it's "just" 1ppm. Maybe 1ppb could be harmless, or some level which is naturally occuring. But why would you simply accept taking in poison because some experts say it's good for you, I do not know.
Because its not "posion". It's an element that has toxic properities when too much is ingested. So does Iron for example. Yet it's necessary for life in humans in small amounts.
There is a difference between something being potentially toxic and being a posion. Look up the words if you need help.
On May 11 2009 09:36 Yurebis wrote: my IQ has been slightly reduced because of it,
First thing you've said that has actually been backed up by the rest of your post. It's as toxic as chocolate is and just as dangerous. Experts recommend it because there is no evidence that suggests that the safe dose will hurt you in any way and it is proven to protect your teeth.
Completely removing lead from the diets of rats causes growth deficiencies and anemia. Removing arsenic prevents the metabolism of the amino acid methionine (which is required to synthesize every single protein in your body).
Many "poisonous" elements are actually required as nutrients on some level, and most non-poisonous elements (iron, for instance). Are poisonous at higher levels.
The entire field of toxicology is essentially founded on the idea that virtually everything is poisonous, and what actually matters is the dosage.
I don't know what Hitler was doing with fluoride, but if he was intentionally trying to poison them you can be sure that he was using a whole lot more than we do. If he had poisoned them by making them eat too many vitamins, would you refuse to take those, too?
On May 11 2009 09:36 Yurebis wrote: Evidences do not have to prove anything. Evidences point to what may be the truth. If you want proof of something, you need to carry out experiment after experiment, at various scenarios, as many times as possible.
The ones who propose fluoridating the water are the ones with the burden of proof, to prove that there is no risk of putting this poisonous substance there.
So far they've been able to prove that you won't immediately die or suffer any consequences if you've daily ingested water that has a fluoride concentration of 1ppm~2ppm, that much is true, I can testify to that myself. I have drank fluoridated water since I can remember and have not died, as I post this.
However, can you prove that the fluoride won't build up inside me, in my bones, in my brain, as to perhaps do some damage to my health that way? Perhaps when I grow older, I'll be more inclined to develop arthritis due to it. What if my IQ has been slightly reduced because of it, yet it's so little that it can't be measured by any means? There hadn't been any tests to accurately measure such risks, yet there's evidence that they may be real. It's not proof, it's evidence. Again, the ones supposed to provide proof, are the ones saying "it's alright, just take it".
Bottom line is, it's poison. It's not something you want to swallow everyday, even if it's "just" 1ppm. Maybe 1ppb could be harmless, or some level which is naturally occuring. But why would you simply accept taking in poison because some experts say it's good for you, I do not know.
Edit: Horrible, horrible grammar.
But... seeing as no harm has been done in the long run that is observable, and as you say you won't suffer any immediate consequences, the burden of proof is on you.
Tell me, would you willingly take in 100 mg of sodium fluoride by injection if I gave you $10? Of course it's poison, there's a reason fluoride toothpaste have labels all over them.
On May 11 2009 09:46 Yurebis wrote: Tell me, would you willingly take in 100 mg of sodium fluoride by injection if I gave you $10? Of course it's poison, there's a reason fluoride toothpaste have labels all over them.
This has probably been stated enough, but you're an idiot.
On May 11 2009 09:46 Yurebis wrote: Tell me, would you willingly take in 100 mg of sodium fluoride by injection if I gave you $10? Of course it's poison, there's a reason fluoride toothpaste have labels all over them.
A very good reason! Because it can cause problems in high doses. But in low doses, it's been proven to be fine. I thought we put this discussion to bed about 5 pages ago. And no I wouldn't have your injection thanks, I don't know what it's supposed to prove. If you said here's a glass of fluoridated water, with what are generally accepted to be safe levels of fluoride in, then I'd drink it.
What world we live in, when we can't even agree on the hazardousness of substances anymore. No wonder this stuff is in the water, people don't care anymore, as long as they're not just instantly dropping dead, they're OK...
On May 11 2009 09:51 Yurebis wrote: What world we live in, when we can't even agree on the hazardousness of substances anymore. No wonder this stuff is in the water, people don't care anymore, as long as they're not just instantly dropping dead, they're OK...
After this post I'm going to stop (at least attempt to) replying because you aren't discussing the points being brought up you are just presenting extremely weak arguments.
Yes we can agree on what is hazardous. And we actually know the doses at which fluoride is toxic, so we know how much to put in the water to provide benefits without harming people. And that's not how they tested fluoride.
EPT
