|
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...
You mean, as long as the hundreds of millions of people from Australia, America, Great Britain, etc, who have been ingesting fluoride in small doses as part of their water supply for DECADES aren't dropping dead (HOT TIP: They aren't), then yes, we're ok. Indeed it is an interesting world we live in... what planet are you on?
|
They haven't tested enough. The retrospective studies themselves show that they don't care either. The fluoride-happy folks just put it there and say it's good and harmless. Long term studies like this should be done beforehand, not afterwards. It's unscientific, it's biased, and it's pushing an agenda.
You are fine with it because you're drinking it, that is what I feel.
|
United States43757 Posts
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...
Almost everyone can agree on this actually.
|
On May 11 2009 09:59 Yurebis wrote:
They haven't tested enough. The retrospective studies themselves show that they don't care either. The fluoride-happy folks just put it there and say it's good and harmless. Long term studies like this should be done beforehand, not afterwards. It's unscientific, it's biased, and it's pushing an agenda.
You are fine with it because you're drinking it, that is what I feel.
Wrong again.
I buy bottled water. Not because I'm afraid of fluoride but because my water tastes like shit. Again not because of fluroide but because the building I live in is old and as a result it has really really hard water.
So no I don't drink it.
|
United States43757 Posts
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.
I'll give you $10 to take 1mm³ of normal, unadultarated air by injection. That is unless you think it's poisonous.
|
On May 11 2009 09:59 Yurebis wrote:
They haven't tested enough. The retrospective studies themselves show that they don't care either. The fluoride-happy folks just put it there and say it's good and harmless. Long term studies like this should be done beforehand, not afterwards. It's unscientific, it's biased, and it's pushing an agenda.
You are fine with it because you're drinking it, that is what I feel.
If this were your argument about Asbestos use in early day construction, you'd actually have a point. Abestosis cases are numerous, and the harm is self-evident . Where are these cases of fluorosis that we should be worried about? You know...considering the exposure we all receive...
|
It doesn't matter if it's injected really, your body has no issues absorbing fluoride orally. It can even absorb it through the skin to an extent.
I'm sorry for being so presumptious TheFoReveRwaR. May I ask you then, why do you defend smearing a little taste of poison in the public water supply?
|
United States43757 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:09 Yurebis wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's injected really, your body has no issues absorbing fluoride orally. It can even absorb it through the skin to an extent.
I'm sorry for being so presumptious TheFoReveRwaR. May I ask you then, why do you defend smearing a little taste of poison in the public water supply?
FFS FOR THE LAST TIME IT'S NO MORE POISONOUS THAN CHOCOLATE!!!
|
On May 11 2009 10:08 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 09:59 Yurebis wrote:
They haven't tested enough. The retrospective studies themselves show that they don't care either. The fluoride-happy folks just put it there and say it's good and harmless. Long term studies like this should be done beforehand, not afterwards. It's unscientific, it's biased, and it's pushing an agenda.
You are fine with it because you're drinking it, that is what I feel. If this were your argument about Asbestos use in early day construction, you'd actually have a point. Abestosis cases are numerous, and the harm is self-evident . Where are these cases of fluorosis that we should be worried about? You know...considering the exposure we all receive...
It doesn't matter whether there are/were clear consequences or not, it's the attitude and the audacity of people to just say that it's ok to poison the water supplies for such allegorical reasons. I don't care if it's 1ppm or 10, the whole thing is unscientific and stinks of underlying agendas involved. Yet they say it's safe like they know for sure. They don't.
|
On May 11 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:09 Yurebis wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's injected really, your body has no issues absorbing fluoride orally. It can even absorb it through the skin to an extent.
I'm sorry for being so presumptious TheFoReveRwaR. May I ask you then, why do you defend smearing a little taste of poison in the public water supply? FFS FOR THE LAST TIME IT'S NO MORE POISONOUS THAN CHOCOLATE!!!
I missed the bit about chocolate, but I doubt it's as lethal as 5mg/kg
|
United States43757 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:13 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:08 Brett wrote:On May 11 2009 09:59 Yurebis wrote:
They haven't tested enough. The retrospective studies themselves show that they don't care either. The fluoride-happy folks just put it there and say it's good and harmless. Long term studies like this should be done beforehand, not afterwards. It's unscientific, it's biased, and it's pushing an agenda.
You are fine with it because you're drinking it, that is what I feel. If this were your argument about Asbestos use in early day construction, you'd actually have a point. Abestosis cases are numerous, and the harm is self-evident . Where are these cases of fluorosis that we should be worried about? You know...considering the exposure we all receive... It doesn't matter whether there are/were clear consequences or not, it's the attitude and the audacity of people to just say that it's ok to poison the water supplies for such allegorical reasons. I don't care if it's 1ppm or 10, the whole thing is unscientific and stinks of underlying agendas involved. Yet they say it's safe like they know for sure. They don't.
FFS FOR THE LAST TIME IT'S NO MORE POISONOUS THAN CHOCOLATE!!!
|
United States43757 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:16 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:On May 11 2009 10:09 Yurebis wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's injected really, your body has no issues absorbing fluoride orally. It can even absorb it through the skin to an extent.
I'm sorry for being so presumptious TheFoReveRwaR. May I ask you then, why do you defend smearing a little taste of poison in the public water supply? FFS FOR THE LAST TIME IT'S NO MORE POISONOUS THAN CHOCOLATE!!! I missed the bit about chocolate, but I doubt it's as lethal as 5mg/kg
Go eat 22lbs of chocolate. Get back to me.
|
On May 11 2009 10:17 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:16 Yurebis wrote:On May 11 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:On May 11 2009 10:09 Yurebis wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's injected really, your body has no issues absorbing fluoride orally. It can even absorb it through the skin to an extent.
I'm sorry for being so presumptious TheFoReveRwaR. May I ask you then, why do you defend smearing a little taste of poison in the public water supply? FFS FOR THE LAST TIME IT'S NO MORE POISONOUS THAN CHOCOLATE!!! I missed the bit about chocolate, but I doubt it's as lethal as 5mg/kg Go eat 22lbs of chocolate. Get back to me.
That's a lot of chocolate though. I don't think I can even eat it all.
|
United States43757 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:18 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:17 Kwark wrote:On May 11 2009 10:16 Yurebis wrote:On May 11 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:On May 11 2009 10:09 Yurebis wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's injected really, your body has no issues absorbing fluoride orally. It can even absorb it through the skin to an extent.
I'm sorry for being so presumptious TheFoReveRwaR. May I ask you then, why do you defend smearing a little taste of poison in the public water supply? FFS FOR THE LAST TIME IT'S NO MORE POISONOUS THAN CHOCOLATE!!! I missed the bit about chocolate, but I doubt it's as lethal as 5mg/kg Go eat 22lbs of chocolate. Get back to me. That's a lot of chocolate though. I don't think I can even eat it all.
Yeah, it's toxic but the dose is really low. Like something else I can think of.
|
On May 11 2009 10:13 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:08 Brett wrote:On May 11 2009 09:59 Yurebis wrote:
They haven't tested enough. The retrospective studies themselves show that they don't care either. The fluoride-happy folks just put it there and say it's good and harmless. Long term studies like this should be done beforehand, not afterwards. It's unscientific, it's biased, and it's pushing an agenda.
You are fine with it because you're drinking it, that is what I feel. If this were your argument about Asbestos use in early day construction, you'd actually have a point. Abestosis cases are numerous, and the harm is self-evident . Where are these cases of fluorosis that we should be worried about? You know...considering the exposure we all receive... It doesn't matter whether there are/were clear consequences or not, it's the attitude and the audacity of people to just say that it's ok to poison the water supplies for such allegorical reasons. I don't care if it's 1ppm or 10, the whole thing is unscientific and stinks of underlying agendas involved. Yet they say it's safe like they know for sure. They don't.
Oral health / dental hygiene is an allegorical reason? You make some outlandish claims there my friend: harm, underlying agendas... I'm almost lost for words. How does your tin foil hat fit you?
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:
FFS FOR THE LAST TIME IT'S NO MORE POISONOUS THAN CHOCOLATE!!!
- It actually is but u wouldn't know any better and no, caps and bold won't change a thing (it goes against mensera too)..
|
United States43757 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:32 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote:
FFS FOR THE LAST TIME IT'S NO MORE POISONOUS THAN CHOCOLATE!!! - It actually is but u wouldn't know any better and no, caps and bold won't change a thing (it goes against mensera too)..
I am well aware of the 10 Commandments. They say not to use all caps because it looks like you're shouting. In this situation that was what I was aiming for.
Please elaborate on exactly what the negative health consequences of a glass of fluoridized water (safe dose ofc) , compared to for example, the risk posed by a bar of chocolate.
|
On May 11 2009 10:09 Yurebis wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's injected really, your body has no issues absorbing fluoride orally. It can even absorb it through the skin to an extent.
I'm sorry for being so presumptious TheFoReveRwaR. May I ask you then, why do you defend smearing a little taste of poison in the public water supply?
Jesus christ, how the hell do people end up as stupid as you? Let me try to spell it out for you.
1) Fluoride is toxic at high doses. Yes it kills people if you inject a few grams of the stuff. No it is not poison. Almost every goddamn element out there would be "poison" given your logic. Every element has an LD50, calcium, iron, manganese. If it were goddamn "poison" we probably would have evolved to deal with it by now because there is natural fluoridation in pretty much all naturally occurring bodies of water.
2) Fluoride helps your teeth stay strong. This is uncontested. The reason why fluoride is in our water now is because a dentist named Frederick McKay was working in a town where the people had brown teeth but abnormally low amounts of cavities. After a bit of research he found that the brown color was due to the abnormally high amount of natural fluorine in the water in their area.
3) The most harm the fluoride in your water can do is cause a little browning of your teeth. This is the only conclusion that is not contested. Since the current understanding is that fluoridation is safe, the onus is ON YOU to prove that you are correct. If I say that magical invisible dragons are the reason your socks keep disappearing, I have to prove it, not tell other people they're fucking retards and tell them to prove that I'm wrong.
You want papers? here's (pdf) a goddamn paper. To save you the trouble of ignoring me and finding a snippet of stuff to act like you actually read it, I'll tell you what the found.
Effects of fluoridation:
Fractures: Fluoride does not increase chance of fracturing. Too much ( >> 1.5ppm) causes a small increase in fracturing as does having no fluoride.
Cancer: One study showed that naturally fluoridated water (>.28 ppm) does not increase chance of cancer vs unfluoridated water. Another showed a negative relationship between fluorine and cancer, i.e. less fluorine = more cancer.
So shut the fuck up or get me a paper that proves otherwise.
|
On May 11 2009 10:23 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:13 Yurebis wrote:On May 11 2009 10:08 Brett wrote:On May 11 2009 09:59 Yurebis wrote:
They haven't tested enough. The retrospective studies themselves show that they don't care either. The fluoride-happy folks just put it there and say it's good and harmless. Long term studies like this should be done beforehand, not afterwards. It's unscientific, it's biased, and it's pushing an agenda.
You are fine with it because you're drinking it, that is what I feel. If this were your argument about Asbestos use in early day construction, you'd actually have a point. Abestosis cases are numerous, and the harm is self-evident . Where are these cases of fluorosis that we should be worried about? You know...considering the exposure we all receive... It doesn't matter whether there are/were clear consequences or not, it's the attitude and the audacity of people to just say that it's ok to poison the water supplies for such allegorical reasons. I don't care if it's 1ppm or 10, the whole thing is unscientific and stinks of underlying agendas involved. Yet they say it's safe like they know for sure. They don't. Oral health / dental hygiene is an allegorical reason? You make some outlandish claims there my friend: harm, underlying agendas... I'm almost lost for words. How does your tin foil hat fit you?
Yes it is allegorical. If you want healthy teeth, you brush your teeth. Not even dentists say, "oh, and make sure to drink that tap water!". It's a joke. If you believe that, I'm sorry, I'm not going to argue. I don't believe in putting any amount of poison, any substance in fact, in the water for this excuse of a reason.
|
On May 11 2009 10:38 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2009 10:23 Brett wrote:On May 11 2009 10:13 Yurebis wrote:On May 11 2009 10:08 Brett wrote:On May 11 2009 09:59 Yurebis wrote:
They haven't tested enough. The retrospective studies themselves show that they don't care either. The fluoride-happy folks just put it there and say it's good and harmless. Long term studies like this should be done beforehand, not afterwards. It's unscientific, it's biased, and it's pushing an agenda.
You are fine with it because you're drinking it, that is what I feel. If this were your argument about Asbestos use in early day construction, you'd actually have a point. Abestosis cases are numerous, and the harm is self-evident . Where are these cases of fluorosis that we should be worried about? You know...considering the exposure we all receive... It doesn't matter whether there are/were clear consequences or not, it's the attitude and the audacity of people to just say that it's ok to poison the water supplies for such allegorical reasons. I don't care if it's 1ppm or 10, the whole thing is unscientific and stinks of underlying agendas involved. Yet they say it's safe like they know for sure. They don't. Oral health / dental hygiene is an allegorical reason? You make some outlandish claims there my friend: harm, underlying agendas... I'm almost lost for words. How does your tin foil hat fit you? Yes it is allegorical. If you want healthy teeth, you brush your teeth. Not even dentists say, "oh, and make sure to drink that tap water!". It's a joke. If you believe that, I'm sorry, I'm not going to argue. I don't believe in putting any amount of poison, any substance in fact, in the water for this excuse of a reason.
Do you object to the government putting chlorine in the water?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
