discuss
U.S. soldiers being injected with WHAT?
Forum Index > General Forum |
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
discuss | ||
DoX.)
Singapore6164 Posts
| ||
TopGear
United Kingdom796 Posts
| ||
![]()
keit
1584 Posts
| ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Thats why I don't take any vaccines, and recommend everyone close to me not to. | ||
Sanity.
United States704 Posts
| ||
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
On May 09 2009 09:40 Yurebis wrote: It's not a reaction, it's all the crap thats in these things. Thats why I don't take any vaccines, and recommend everyone close to me not to. LDASKFJDSALFKJWEASLDFKASJFAS | ||
pinenamu
United States770 Posts
| ||
DoX.)
Singapore6164 Posts
| ||
fanatacist
10319 Posts
| ||
bdams19
United States1316 Posts
| ||
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On May 09 2009 09:40 Yurebis wrote: It's not a reaction, it's all the crap thats in these things. Thats why I don't take any vaccines, and recommend everyone close to me not to. You're an idiot. I hope you enjoy the threat of mumps and other assorted dangerous diseases because you're a little bit ignorant on the subject. A typical vaccine is NOTHING like what was just described. I would never allow someone to give me a shot if they didn't explicitly tell me what the hell it was. Commercial vaccines are so heavily tested that it would be just stupid not to get them. | ||
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
| ||
Equinox_kr
United States7395 Posts
| ||
Pepsicolaone
United States967 Posts
| ||
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
Fuck this. | ||
inkblot
United States1250 Posts
| ||
Frits
11782 Posts
On May 09 2009 09:40 Yurebis wrote: It's not a reaction, it's all the crap thats in these things. Thats why I don't take any vaccines, and recommend everyone close to me not to. What crap, please elaborate. You are advising people to risk getting life threatening illnesses because vaccines contain 'crap', even though they have been proven to protect against the things they are supposed to perfectly without any side effects. Besides, it's not even relevant to this story, as it's yet unclear what has been injected. They just used the vaccine story as a coverup. This is not the case in civilian life. I am actually pretty shocked at this story, how the fuck do they inject people with stuff without even properly taking care of them afterwards and monitoring their conditions. How exactly did they expect this not to leak out? This is pretty much the most unethical thing I have ever seen, amazing. | ||
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:15 inkblot wrote: The story didn't mention any of the other soldiers who received the shot (assuming they all got the same shot) having negative effects. Unusual reactions happen, even with common medications (quite a few people are allergic to penicillin). Obviously the soldiers should have been told, but immunizing soldiers is very common I believe. My half brother who was military is/was vaccinated against anthrax for example. yeah it did, it was mentioned that the other people who were injected had a wide range of effects. edit: it's at ~4:30 | ||
Raithed
China7078 Posts
On May 09 2009 09:39 keit wrote: stimpacks? yes, one day that too. | ||
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
On May 09 2009 09:40 Yurebis wrote: It's not a reaction, it's all the crap thats in these things. Thats why I don't take any vaccines, and recommend everyone close to me not to. You are so dumb. | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
i pity this guy though. not sympathetic, but pity, he's so brainwashed that he still wants to go back to the military. | ||
nujabes
United States286 Posts
| ||
HehawHehaw
Angola79 Posts
watch befor you make judges. | ||
sYz-Adrenaline
United States1850 Posts
| ||
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:26 Shizuru~ wrote: they've been doing this for decades now, people just lived so blissfully ignorant to see what is actually going on around them, check all the shots u received when u were born, most of them contained high concentration of thimerosol(ie:a compound of mercury), most of your drinking water contains fluoride (there's a reason why Hitler put fluoride into the drinking water of the concentration camps,) i pity this guy though. not sympathetic, but pity, he's so brainwashed that he still wants to go back to the military. AHHHHH big pharma is out to make a profit, doctors don't actually want to help you, they are evil and hate you, and the real nice people are those alternative practitioners who are totally not in it for the money or anything like that, and don't act like the poor repressed underdog so the press portrays them in a positive light. | ||
Xenixx
United States499 Posts
| ||
PH
United States6173 Posts
On May 09 2009 09:40 Yurebis wrote: It's not a reaction, it's all the crap thats in these things. Thats why I don't take any vaccines, and recommend everyone close to me not to. Are you retarded? lol. There was a small outbreak in the last five or ten years or so of Polio in children. The reason was because since Polio was considered a dead disease, many parents in that generation neglected to get immunization shots for their children. See what happened? Being cautious is one thing. Being outright stupid and paranoid is another. | ||
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
Chef
10810 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:34 Kerotan wrote: AHHHHH big pharma is out to make a profit, doctors don't actually want to help you, they are evil and hate you, and the real nice people are those alternative practitioners who are totally not in it for the money or anything like that, and don't act like the poor repressed underdog so the press portrays them in a positive light. Hahaha... I read the first part of his post and was like 'yeah that's what I was thinking' then I read the rest and he's a huge conspiracy nut... Jeez. I don't know about decades, but this isn't news to me. Military has been giving shots like these for a long time now, at least since the first war U.S. invasion of Iraq. War is a dirty game of numbers and people who join up have to realise that they're tools of their government, not citizens to be protected anymore. Not news at all. | ||
DoX.)
Singapore6164 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:39 Servolisk wrote: Can someone explain the vid quickly plz? (I can't watch youtube atm, no sound) Basically its how an army guy was given an unspecified infection which later lead to him getting sick and swollen all over, bedridden for months and has failed kidneys and such. Later the army claims it was just a 'flu shot' but everyone who saw the vid knows better. At the end the guy is like 'even though the army fucked me over i still want to go back' | ||
Mykill
Canada3402 Posts
thats why joining the army isn't the best idea | ||
Chef
10810 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:39 Servolisk wrote: Can someone explain the vid quickly plz? (I can't watch youtube atm, no sound) U.S. soldiers get shots (that is, from syringe tubes) that they don't know what's in them. Some (at least) of the soldiers later experience adverse side effects that destroy their lives later. Military is very unwilling to allow freedom of information on the topic. | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:26 Shizuru~ wrote: they've been doing this for decades now, people just lived so blissfully ignorant to see what is actually going on around them, check all the shots u received when u were born, most of them contained high concentration of thimerosol(ie:a compound of mercury), most of your drinking water contains fluoride (there's a reason why Hitler put fluoride into the drinking water of the concentration camps,) i pity this guy though. not sympathetic, but pity, he's so brainwashed that he still wants to go back to the military. The benefits of thimerosol were a breakthrough when they were put to use while the hazards were relatively unknown. Obviously our childhood shots contained thimerosol since they only stopped putting them in vaccines around the late 90's. This is not controversial or some government plot. There's a difference between high and low doses of fluoride which you don't seem to understand, low doses of fluoride has beneficial effects, high doses have negative effects. Again, this is not some coverup or anything of the likes, this is just an indicator of how far our scientific knowledge has advanced concerning these things. Hitler is not comparable to western democratic governments. What is a completely different story however is this one, they are injecting unknown substances into people who have not given written consent (afaik), they are not told what it is, they are not presented with a choice. It goes against all the rules of pretty much any scientific field of knowledge. Whoever is involved in this project needs to be fired straight away and whoever authorised this is an idiot for thinking this would not see the light of day or thinking this would be acceptable. This is a huge violation of human rights. On May 09 2009 10:27 HehawHehaw wrote: they are being injected with flue vaccine!!! The video itself says so! watch befor you make judges. Okay I can't tell if you are being serious but in case you you are: This man's life was in serious danger while they refused to elaborate on the details of the vaccine he was given. If it was a standard flu shot they would have no problem mentioning it next to the other ones. Whoever is responsible for not immediately giving out the details of the procedure deserves to be sued, and the soldier in question should be compensated. The only reason he hasn't so far seems because he thinks he can become a marine again for some reason, what a sad case. | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
On May 09 2009 09:40 Sanity. wrote: why the FUCK can the us military give you a shot without telling you what it is? it's in the small print | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:47 Frits wrote: This is not controversial or some government plot. never mind, not in the humor to be called stupid or hear the word straw man argument.. : )- | ||
aRod
United States758 Posts
If the vaccines were handled improperly or stored at suboptimal temperatures, unknown adverse reactions can appear. Poor documentation is not uncommon in the medical field, it's not surprising a flu shot was missed in his file. Sucks | ||
Railz
United States1449 Posts
| ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
again... educate urself, research on facts before u refutes others blindly... really there are alot of things people would call me a nut job for if i posted them, its better for people to find it out for themselfs... like the video in the op... | ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
| ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
HOWEVER Fluoride helps protect your teeth against cavities, by making them more resistant to acid. It actually changes the chemical composition of your tooth enamel slightly. Since they've started adding it to drinking water, the rate of cavities in children has gone down tremendously. Like most other things in life, there's a balance. The amount of fluoride they put in the public water isn't going to hurt anyone. | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
have a look... on fluoride, once again, have a research on ur facts then refutes me with solid arguments back by evidence... | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:55 Shizuru~ wrote: yeah well, kinda saw the reaction to my post coming, but then again, do urself a favor and educate urself, i'm not saying don't get shots at all, don't drink water at all, just saying be aware of what goes into your body. it only take less than 5 minute to google stuff like thimerosal, fluoride, flu shots.. again... educate urself, research on facts before u refutes others blindly... really there are alot of things people would call me a nut job for if i posted them, its better for people to find it out for themselfs... like the video in the op... My point was that the things aren't in the least comparable. We are aware of the fluoride in our water. You keep telling people to educate themselves but instead of providing a single credible source you're telling people to google stuff which seriously makes me doubt your knowledge on the matter instead of mine. Stop pretending to know what others know and presenting yourself as some expert on the matter and then telling people to educate themselves by googling a bunch of stuff, you're not exactly convincing me here. | ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
However if you look at the large body of research that's been conducted on both sides of the debate, it's pretty clear that on the anti-vaccine side we have a whole bunch of anecdotal emotionally charged evidence, and on the pro-vaccine side we have millions of happy, healthy children. | ||
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:55 Shizuru~ wrote: yeah well, kinda saw the reaction to my post coming, but then again, do urself a favor and educate urself, i'm not saying don't get shots at all, don't drink water at all, just saying be aware of what goes into your body. it only take less than 5 minute to google stuff like thimerosal, fluoride, flu shots.. again... educate urself, research on facts before u refutes others blindly... really there are alot of things people would call me a nut job for if i posted them, its better for people to find it out for themselfs... like the video in the op... Because established science saying that the benefits of the MMR vaccine out way the risks, are quite clearly wrong, and we should listen to this guy who (usually) has limited qualifications and anecdotal evidence. My point is, the idea of scientists is someone who is solely employed to research and test these sorts of things, warning lights start flashing wildly in my head when someone urges me to look at what fluoride is; Fluoride is the reduced form of fluorine. Both organic and inorganic compounds containing the element fluorine are considered fluorides, amazing. Your call for me to educate myself seems to be a call for me to find claims that support your view. Its not my position to "inform" myself from people who are equally uninformed, that's why the system of peer reviewed medical journals exists, so that the people who are actually on the business end of my health know what they are doing. Yes it may sound scary, a group of people not you looking after your health, but in the same way you employ a mechanic to fix your car, in this society it is a necessity. | ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
| ||
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
You keep telling people to educate themselves but instead of providing a single credible source you're telling people to google stuff which seriously makes me doubt your knowledge on the matter instead of mine. Stop pretending to know what others know and presenting yourself as some expert on the matter and then telling people to educate themselves by googling a bunch of stuff, you're not exactly convincing me here." -Frits from your tone, your just letting your ego get the best of u, even if i provide u with a credibe sources u'd just refute me cause u think ur right... think of me what ever u want, i'm just doing u a favor thats all, i'm looking back to my internet history to find all the credible sources i looked in the last few months. google is a good way to get ur research on a subject to get started btw, not everything on the internet is fake... | ||
Chef
10810 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:14 Frits wrote: You disagree with me? Here are some more youtube video's, I have no idea how to debate so I'm just gonna link a bunch of youtubes, cya. The Internet :D | ||
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
can someone summarize that i don't want to go through all of that sappy junk to get to what actually happened. | ||
NeverTheEndlessWiz
Singapore827 Posts
| ||
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
| ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
| ||
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:06 Biochemist wrote: In regards to thimerosol, it's probably not the best stuff we could be using. However if you look at the large body of research that's been conducted on both sides of the debate, it's pretty clear that on the anti-vaccine side we have a whole bunch of anecdotal emotionally charged evidence, and on the pro-vaccine side we have millions of happy, healthy children. hey this sounds like the debate between socialism and capitalism | ||
Archaic
United States4024 Posts
| ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
its better to present an argument with nothing right? if u have any informative insights please go ahead and say, i'm all ears and open to what people have to say | ||
Chuiu
3470 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:20 Shizuru~ wrote: its better to present an argument with nothing right? if u have any informative insights please go ahead and say, i'm all ears and open to what people have to say If you're going to argue something present actual information from reputable sources. Not some guy who claims to have spoken to some scientists somewhere and is telling us what he was told. | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:18 Kerotan wrote: Youtube isn't a peer reviewed journal. Kthxbye. o....k.... do u have any suggestion on where to look up on these peer assesed journal u mention? i'll have to say though i'm not quite sure what that meant though, would u mind explaining to me what it is and where i can have a look at it? | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:16 Shizuru~ wrote: "My point was that the things aren't in the least comparable. We are aware of the fluoride in our water. You keep telling people to educate themselves but instead of providing a single credible source you're telling people to google stuff which seriously makes me doubt your knowledge on the matter instead of mine. Stop pretending to know what others know and presenting yourself as some expert on the matter and then telling people to educate themselves by googling a bunch of stuff, you're not exactly convincing me here." -Frits from your tone, your just letting your ego get the best of u, even if i provide u with a credibe sources u'd just refute me cause u think ur right... think of me what ever u want, i'm just doing u a favor thats all, i'm looking back to my internet history to find all the credible sources i looked in the last few months. google is a good way to get ur research on a subject to get started btw, not everything on the internet is fake... This is the second time you're dodging the argument and attack me personally. First it's my lack of knowledge now it's my ego preventing me from accepting reasonable argument. You and physician are just being a bunch of douchebags so far. "Hey I'm not going to argue this subject with you because you're just gonna be unreasonable." The irony of that is incredible. | ||
HooHa!
United States688 Posts
On May 09 2009 09:40 Yurebis wrote: It's not a reaction, it's all the crap thats in these things. Thats why I don't take any vaccines, and recommend everyone close to me not to. Here, you might want to take a recommendation from me. I know a great service that can aid you in probably the next few years or so. Tell your loved ones too. A great referal for you, its a well trusted company | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:24 Frits wrote: This is the second time you're dodging the argument and attack me personally. First it's my lack of knowledge now it's my ego preventing me from accepting reasonable argument. You and physician are just being a bunch of douchebags so far. "Hey I'm not going to argue this subject with you because you're just gonna be unreasonable." The irony of that is incredible. let me re-iterate myself, i'm all ears to listening to any new arguments presented with solid facts. i don't know everything, i'd like to know more about this subject really, but u've been refuting my arguments without any concrete facts, but by just spewing out baseless arguments... i would like to be proven wrong. which means i'm learning new things... | ||
Tyrant
Korea (South)234 Posts
On May 09 2009 09:54 BalliSLife wrote: You must thank dick cheney obama's in charge. | ||
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
I've searched the length and breath of cochrane to find some evidence of fluoride being this big and evil beast, and now I'm only waiting for you to call it a conspiracy. | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
simple google search really... looking for much more credible sources | ||
JJH
Canada42 Posts
mann my brother's an army sergeant i hope canadian soldiers dont get this messed up treatment.. >.< | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:31 Shizuru~ wrote: let me re-iterate myself, i'm all ears to listening to any new arguments presented with solid facts. i don't know everything, i'd like to know more about this subject really, but u've been refuting my arguments without any concrete facts, but by just spewing out baseless arguments... i would like to be proven wrong. which means i'm learning new things... Now my argument are suddenly wrong, even though you have not adressed a single one so far, if they are so easy to refute please go ahead. You can't say I'm wrong without explaining why however, that's not fair. And plenty of credible info can be found if you would just take a look into your university library. Mine even gives online access to an endless amount of peer reviewed articles online for free. And maybe this is just me but please don't bold/italic/underline/capslock words you think are important when you write something, it looks so stupid. | ||
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:32 Kerotan wrote: Peer reviewed papers by David Ayoub, one of the doctors in the first video I've searched the length and breath of cochrane to find some evidence of fluoride being this big and evil beast, and now I'm only waiting for you to call it a conspiracy. This man like Andrew Wakefield, like every other anti-vac supporter, has never had anything published which was properly peer reviewed, since when the papers come, which they do they do, they are flawed and/or biased and scientists at large have rejected them, otherwise the situation would be very different. But for some reason, people seem to think that the minority must be right, because they are the underdog, fighting for the rights of those mal-treated by the evil doctor overloads. And you know what, I dare people not vaccinate, and run the risk as they watch their children and themselves horribly die of easily preventable and then their statistics to be used by the anti-vac to show an increase in deaths. Of course there are dangerous things in medicine in syringes, but there are dangerous things in football, you can turn anything into bad thing if you only look at the negatives, hell what disease kills 100% of its victims eventually and we all have it? Its life, clearly we should just nuke the planet to put an end to birth. | ||
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1903 Posts
| ||
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:40 Shizuru~ wrote: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm simple google search really... looking for much more credible sources Case in point, a website that pretty much looks at the negatives, does have some seemingly credible sources which I have yet to look up, but for the most part, the website is out of date, links to itself, newspapers, other non-reputable websites. | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:17 mahnini wrote: tl;dw can someone summarize that i don't want to go through all of that sappy junk to get to what actually happened. They injected soldiers with unknown stuff and even when the dude was on the brink of death they did not release any info whatsoever. And suddenly they wrote "flu vaccine" on his sheet which was the supposed shot he received. An officer inside the army claims this is part of a coverup they are pretty much doing all the time and admits they are using soldiers as guinea pigs iirc. Like I said, some of the most unethical things I've ever heard of. I can't believe any doctor is agreeing to any of these methods. The sad part is the dude and his family are so stupid that they have no idea what to do or what their rights are. The guy looks like he has an iq of about 90, and just wants to become a marine again, as if that's ever going to happen after a kidney transplant, poor guy. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:47 Frits wrote: There's a difference between high and low doses of fluoride which you don't seem to understand, low doses of fluoride has beneficial effects, high doses have negative effects. Again, this is not some coverup or anything of the likes, this is just an indicator of how far our scientific knowledge has advanced concerning these things. Hitler is not comparable to western democratic governments. just to quickly throw this out there, hypersensitivity to heavy metals isn't all that uncommon. and more than that, you cannot accurate test the effects of small amounts of heavy metals on the brain. it is completely reasonable to think that even very low levels could mess with cognition. and shizuru, ty for posting the video on fluoride | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:54 Kerotan wrote: Case in point, a website that pretty much looks at the negatives, does have some seemingly credible sources which I have yet to look up, but for the most part, the website is out of date, links to itself, newspapers, other non-reputable websites. well, the only benefits i've read about is that it helps protect the teeth enamel, ie: only does the teeth good, i haven't read any other benefits it provides though, so far what i gather is, u can just apply the fluoride to your enamel for it to have its beneficial effects, you don't have to ingest it, where it gives u all sorts of problems... | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:17 mahnini wrote: tl;dw can someone summarize that i don't want to go through all of that sappy junk to get to what actually happened. where do i even begin 1.) u could try just reading the thread 2.) u could skip past the bullshit, 2 minutes in, like i said to do in my post 3.) u could read posts in the thread that have been posted specifically to sum up the video | ||
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
On May 09 2009 12:01 Shizuru~ wrote: well, the only benefits i've read about is that it helps protect the teeth enamel, ie: only does the teeth good, i haven't read any other benefits it provides though, so far what i gather is, u can just apply the fluoride to your enamel for it to have its beneficial effects, you don't have to ingest it, where it gives u all sorts of problems... not really all sorts of problems, the only side effect that has really been found is if the concentration is too high in your water it decays your tooth enamel i believe. as long as it's like less than 3 ppm (i think... might be 2 or 4, i can't be certain) it's very safe to drink and will prevent cavities. | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
So you're asking for evidence, but the evidence is so massive it's hard to even know where to start. Every single vaccine has individually gone through this process, each likely producing dozens of papers encompassing years of research. It's an act of brazen arrogance to disrespect this process without rock solid evidence on your hands. And anecdotes are *not* evidence. You need facts, and those facts can only come from really rational analysis and experimentation. Now, you can go look for peer-reviewed published papers that rationally analyze the safety of vaccines and support your points, but I don't think you'll find any. The reason is that only trained scientists really have the patience to produce experiments like this, and the views you are parroting are manufactured by people who are *not scientists*. They're mostly parents scared for their kids. I respect that they're scared, but that does not make them qualified to make this kind of decision. They are effectively guessing, based on data that they do not understand. They are not analyzing. Vaccines are one of the most important things to happen in the history of modern health. Instead of losing many human lives across generations to crap like smallpox, we can eliminate these diseases over time through herd immunity. Smallpox is dead, but we may still see the reemergence of other killer diseases that we thought we had under control, all because of pointless fear-mongering by confused and ignorant people like yourself. The fluoride conspiracy I just find ridiculous and don't give a shit about, but in the vaccine discussion there are potentially millions of lives at stake, and this is not an exaggeration. If you knew a damn thing about science you wouldn't distrust it so much. Frits is absolutely right when he says that you should be at a university library rather than on Google if you're actually interested in learning about vaccine research, but you're clearly more interested in playing my-link-is-better-than-your-link. Peer-reviewed journals, find out what they are, go read some if you want, but you'll probably need to take a detour to acquire a biology degree so you might want to wait a few years before responding to this thread. | ||
Juicyfruit
Canada5484 Posts
@Shizuru~, it's not as simple as you think. You actually do need to ingest the fluoride to derive its full benefit. When you brush your teeth with fluoride, how long do you think the fluoride stays in contact with your teeth, really? The effect is minimal if you don't ingest it, although I have not seen a definitive evidence. To my current knowledge, the general consensus of the scientific community is that there is an "optimum" quantity of fluoride that one should take in order to derive the maximum benefit while minimizing the harm. I still don't understand why people keep thinking random websites are the best source of scientific information. People can twist experiments and results to fit whatever agenda they have in mind when they paraphrase (or even make up) results. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
Frits
11782 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:57 travis wrote: just to quickly throw this out there, hypersensitivity to heavy metals isn't all that uncommon. and more than that, you cannot accurate test the effects of small amounts of heavy metals on the brain. it is completely reasonable to think that even very low levels could mess with cognition. and shizuru, ty for posting the video on fluoride I'm not sure how fluoride is a heavy metal, you should take another look at the periodic table because that statement makes no sense to me. That and it is only toxic in high doses, even to people who are hypersensitive to it. It's not defined as a toxic metal though anywhere. And it sounds completely unreasonable that it could affect cognition in low doses. I don't even know if fluoride can pass the blood brain barrier, left my neuropsychology book at home so I can't really look anything up right now lol. But even then, how would it affect cognition, what receptors would it work on? I really really really don't think this is possible. The effects of (heavy) metals poisoning occurs through accumulation in the kidney in any case don't they? So it would simply not affect cognition. | ||
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On May 09 2009 09:40 Yurebis wrote: It's not a reaction, it's all the crap thats in these things. Thats why I don't take any vaccines, and recommend everyone close to me not to. enjoy your polio. | ||
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
Juicyfruit
Canada5484 Posts
On May 09 2009 12:21 Frits wrote: I'm not sure how fluoride is a heavy metal, you should take another look at the periodic table because that statement makes no sense to me. That and it is only toxic in high doses, even to people who are hypersensitive to it. It's not defined as a toxic metal though anywhere. And it sounds completely unreasonable that it could affect cognition in low doses. I don't even know if fluoride can pass the blood brain barrier, left my neuropsychology book at home so I can't really look anything up right now lol. But even then, how would it affect cognition, what receptors would it work on? I really really really don't think this is possible. The effects of (heavy) metals poisoning occurs through accumulation in the kidney in any case don't they? So it would simply not affect cognition. I agree with you in general. However, I should point out that one of the issues with fluoride is that, while by itself it's more or less your benign anion, the compounds it forms with other chemical species is what makes it "potentially" harmful. Still, there hasn't been any research demonstrating that those toxic compounds are produced in your body when you ingest fluoride. In any case, comparing fluoride to a heavy metal like magnesium isn't correct, because magnesium has deep physiological impact on its own, due to its multivalence allowing it to significantly affect enzyme functions by itself. My point of view on this is: if fluoride was actually a major issue, it would have become a serious problem by now. People have been drinking fluoride water for how many years now? Still, as I said before, it would be nice to have more proper studies studying that quantify the effects of drinking fluoride in water, because at this point it's obvious that there are both pro's and con's, it's just a matter of weighing them out. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
but yes fluoride is toxic at certain levels. and beyond that, it's effect on human physiology is cumulative. And how would it effect cognition? I do not know, I am not a neuroscientist. But there have been studies: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/#human just look | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
Juicyfruit
Canada5484 Posts
Interesting O_O I am highly curious as to what parameters they used to conduct their studies, how they controlled their experiments, and what sampling size they used. Still, very interesting. Inb4 this is why Americans are stupid. Btw, how did we come to discuss fluoride in drinking water? I thought this was a thread about vaccines wtf. | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
On May 09 2009 12:33 travis wrote: heavy metal wasn't what i wanted to say at all heh but yes fluoride is toxic at certain levels. and beyond that, it's effect on human physiology is cumulative. And how would it effect cognition? I do not know, I am not a neuroscientist. But there have been studies: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/#human just look Those studies are mostly from China as far as I can tell, I'm not so sure if those would hold up to the standards of modern western science so I would take it with a grain of salt. Even then those studies mostly concern large doses, at least way larger than we're ever exposed to as far as I can tell and they concern the development, not cognition directly. From a developmental perspective you can be at ease though that our children are not at risk from the effects of fluoride on their development in the western world. On May 09 2009 12:38 Juicyfruit wrote: Interesting O_O I am highly curious as to what parameters they used to conduct their studies, how they controlled their experiments, and what sampling size they used. Still, very interesting. Inb4 this is why Americans are stupid. Btw, how did we come to discuss fluoride in drinking water? I thought this was a thread about vaccines wtf. It's actually a thread about the ethics of the american army but a few conspiracy theorists kinda hijacked the thread when they generalized that these things are an every day occurrence in civilian life. | ||
Weaponx3
Canada232 Posts
| ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
On May 09 2009 12:38 Juicyfruit wrote: Btw, how did we come to discuss fluoride in drinking water? I thought this was a thread about vaccines wtf. - answer to that one is easy = Fritz lol + Show Spoiler + one more opinion in the sea of opinions: - topical fluoride is good idea, systemic treatment on the other hand i.e. ingestion of fluoride and water fluoridation = outright outdated & retarded policy proof? if u want it, find it urself, tired of arguing with anyone about it - at home everyone gets fluoride topical treatment at the dentist & we all drink filtered water and that's that : ) - | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
i didnt bring it up why are you being a passive aggressive douche against me anyway, arent you like 40 years old or something, grow the fuck up | ||
PadrinO
Canada103 Posts
Heck, even in Canada you sign a contract before joining the military that specifically says they can force you to take any drugs they want you to without being forced to tell you what it is. Nothing new here. | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
On May 09 2009 13:13 Frits wrote: why are you being a passive aggressive douche against me anyway, arent you like 40 years old or something, grow the fuck up there go the insults lol.. + Show Spoiler + and the psychobabble which on top of u can't even apply properly t (-.-) u2 bud On May 09 2009 13:13 Frits wrote: i didnt bring it up lol, nope u didn't, just 1-2 replies, each (default) page of this thread, arguing about it ; ) | ||
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
On May 09 2009 13:15 PadrinO wrote: What's the issue? Either he received a flu shot and he had a one-in-a-million reaction or the military shot him with something undisclosed, which is something you agree on when you join the military. Heck, even in Canada you sign a contract before joining the military that specifically says they can force you to take any drugs they want you to without being forced to tell you what it is. Nothing new here. The issue I suppose was the pretty big mistake of not putting the shot onto the guy's medical record and also denying telling his own mother what the shot was when he was dying from the after-effects. What was more interesting to me more though in this interview was the guy from inside the medical department who was providing us with what was happening behind the scenes. It's just one random guy who we don't know about but still, it's something. | ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
| ||
PadrinO
Canada103 Posts
On May 09 2009 13:27 fight_or_flight wrote: I hope everyone agrees that whether a person chooses to take a vaccine or not is their own personal choice. No one should have the right to inject you with anything without your consent. That is the problem. He consented to take any drugs the army see fits injecting him with when he signed his military contract. It's part of the document you sign when you join the army in Canada, somehow I doubt the U.S. has lower standard. It is likely the same deal. | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
http://www.amvets-ca.org/pdfs/RECA/History Of Sometimes Fatal Secret Experimentation On US Citi.pdf (read with a grain of salt) | ||
J.P_Randall
United States1 Post
To those who want fluoride in their water, great, you can add it yourself but the rest of us should have choice to decide what goes into our bodies, to think otherwise is fascist. I can't even see why this should be made an argument. "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." http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Price-of-Too-Much-Fluoride&id=1134567 “We found that exposure to fluoride (F) in urine was associated with reduced Performance, Verbal, and Full IQ scores before and after adjusting for confounder's. The same pattern was observed for models with F in water as the exposure variable.... The individual effect of F in urine indicated that for each mg increase of F in urine a decrease of 1.7 points in Full IQ might be expected.” http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/ “It is hard to believe that any “weight of evidence” analysis could possibly dismiss fluoride’s neurological impacts. There have now been over 40 animal studies which show that fluoride can damage the brain, and no less than 18 studies which show that fluoride lowers IQ in children, and only 2 that don’t. I look forward to reading the full report when it is made available,” says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director." http://www.infowars.com/fluorides-impact-on-the-brain/ "An animal study links low levels of fluoride in water to brain damage ... The researchers speculate that fluoride in water may complex with the aluminum in food and enable it to cross the blood-brain barrier. Both treated groups also suffered neural injury and showed increased deposits of ß-amyloid protein in the brain, similar to those seen in humans with Alzheimer's disease." http://www.fluoridealert.org/wsj-isaacson.htm | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 09 2009 12:32 Juicyfruit wrote: My point of view on this is: if fluoride was actually a major issue, it would have become a serious problem by now. People have been drinking fluoride water for how many years now? Still, as I said before, it would be nice to have more proper studies studying that quantify the effects of drinking fluoride in water, because at this point it's obvious that there are both pro's and con's, it's just a matter of weighing them out. When they started putting fluoride in the water, they assured everyone it was safe. And after we've been forced to consume it for years, it now seems sufficient to point to the fact that we're all not dead, as the sole proof that it is indeed safe. Retroactive premise? People have a right to abstain from participating in drug research. In my crazy opinion. On May 09 2009 13:13 Frits wrote: why are you being a passive aggressive douche against me anyway, arent you like 40 years old or something, grow the fuck up It actually frightens me to know that he supposedly practices medicine. | ||
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
News at eleven. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:04 Shizuru~ wrote: "The benefits of thimerosol were a breakthrough when they were put to use while the hazards were relatively unknown. Obviously our childhood shots contained thimerosol since they only stopped putting them in vaccines around the late 90's. This is not controversial or some government plot." -Fritz have a look... on fluoride, once again, have a research on ur facts then refutes me with solid arguments back by evidence... Take note, young students in college or those wishing to attend. Research does not mean reading articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association or scouring through JSTOR/Project Muse/ICPSR/etc. It means watching videos on Youtube. Make sure your professors know that! | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 09 2009 13:57 HeadBangaa wrote: When they started putting fluoride in the water, they assured everyone it was safe. And after we've been forced to consume it for years, it now seems sufficient to point to the fact that we're all not dead, as the sole proof that it is indeed safe. so if only a few people died (obv no one knowing why), would it still be ok? and why do you act like death could be the only negative consequence. there could be a myriad of negative symptoms. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 09 2009 11:22 Chuiu wrote: Everything this guy went through sounds like a severe allergic reaction to penicillin. Maybe there's less to this than everyone thinks, I certainly doubt the US is out to experiment on its own soldiers. If you're going to argue something present actual information from reputable sources. Not some guy who claims to have spoken to some scientists somewhere and is telling us what he was told. They do experiment on their own soldiers, but they're aware of it and it's usually for different forms of speed. It really could've been a vaccine for any number of things (anthrax/smallpox/etc.) or something new, or it was just a bureaucratic mistake and the kid had a bad reaction. The idea of the evil government/big pharma is equally as absurd as the idea of evil terrorists. Grow up and stop thinking in black/white. | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 09 2009 12:57 Weaponx3 wrote: just a couple things , peer review journals.. they arent all what they are made to believe and many people in the medicine field have left because of how corrupt and greedy the system is. names of people are put on peer review journals that didnt participate at all in the studies. if u wish to be deceived and not investigate both sides you will never see the big picture. dont blindly follow and make educated decisions. You mention investigating "both sides". What, in your mind, is the other side of peer-reviewed journals? Journals not reviewed by peers? YouTube channels? What? | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:17 Jibba wrote: The idea of the evil government/big pharma is equally as absurd as the idea of evil terrorists. Grow up and stop thinking in black/white. I don't think these kind of people care about views like good or evil. They just follow goals. (you're the one that's thinking in black and white imo) | ||
zeuS~
United States193 Posts
| ||
Trezeguet
United States2656 Posts
On May 09 2009 09:51 Jayme wrote: You're an idiot. I hope you enjoy the threat of mumps and other assorted dangerous diseases because you're a little bit ignorant on the subject. A typical vaccine is NOTHING like what was just described. I would never allow someone to give me a shot if they didn't explicitly tell me what the hell it was. Commercial vaccines are so heavily tested that it would be just stupid not to get them. pretty much sums it up | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:17 travis wrote: so if only a few people died (obv no one knowing why), would it still be ok? and why do you act like death could be the only negative consequence. there could be a myriad of negative symptoms. Who has died from fluoride in drinking water? You're on the verge of setting up a runaway trolley scenario and you'll lose that argument. Yes, if you have a choice between administering vaccines which will save the vast majority of people and will definitely harm a few outliers, you generally take that risk or allow citizens to take it. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:21 travis wrote: I don't think these kind of people care about views like good or evil. They just follow goals. (you're the one that's thinking in black and white imo) You think scientists engage in projects to get a paycheck or just to find new information, without any care for the real world application of their work? These vaccines are being administered, sometimes on the bleeding edge of research, in order to save lives. | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
Read the quotes for yourself. They refer to "children living in high fluoride areas", "An excess of fluoride", "children suffering from dental fluorosis", and so on. Basically NONE of these studies back up any claims about fluoride in drinking water being bad for us, because Nazi germany aside (LOL @ the idiots who brought that up as if it's relevant at all), we are not consuming excessive amounts of fluoride in our drinking water. I went on to read some other sections on that page and noticed that all of the quotes refer to either HIGH fluoride intake or DO NOT SPECIFY what amount of fluroine intake was being tested. Long story short, anyone with critical thinking skills can see that that website is irrelevant to our discussion. We are talking about small amounts in drinking water: the quotes on that website are not. | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:17 travis wrote: so if only a few people died (obv no one knowing why), would it still be ok? and why do you act like death could be the only negative consequence. there could be a myriad of negative symptoms. how dare you nitpick me! replace "dead" with "measured, adverse effects" for a slightly less exaggerated flavor of the same idea. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:26 Jibba wrote: You think scientists engage in projects to get a paycheck or just to find new information, without any care for the real world application of their work? These vaccines are being administered, sometimes on the bleeding edge of research, in order to save lives. my bad i thought we were still talking about fluoride. what I said doesn't apply as much to the vaccines(if thats what they were. not that it doesn't seem perfectly reasonable to me that they were vaccines. but this video makes it sound like there was way too high of rates of adverse reactions. it means they just gave it to tons of people without knowing what would really happen. that's terrible. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:32 Bill307 wrote: Okay, to all you guys arguing aganist fluoride in drinking water: I checked out that website and basically, it shows that exposure to HIGH amounts of fluoride is bad, HOWEVER it says NOTHING about exposure to LOW amounts of fluoride. Read the quotes for yourself. They refer to "children living in high fluoride areas", "An excess of fluoride", "children suffering from dental fluorosis", and so on. Basically NONE of these studies back up any claims about fluoride in drinking water being bad for us, because Nazi germany aside (LOL @ the idiots who brought that up as if it's relevant at all), we are not consuming excessive amounts of fluoride in our drinking water. I went on to read some other sections on that page and noticed that all of the quotes refer to either HIGH fluoride intake or DO NOT SPECIFY what amount of fluroine intake was being tested. Long story short, anyone with critical thinking skills can see that that website is irrelevant to our discussion. We are talking about small amounts in drinking water: that website is not. you think that fluoride is very bad for you at high levels, but at lower levels there are no negative consequences to anyone, even though fluoride can potentially build up over time in a person's system? | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:33 travis wrote: my bad i thought we were still talking about fluoride. what I said doesn't apply as much to the vaccines(if thats what they were. not that it doesn't seem perfectly reasonable to me that they were vaccines. but this video makes it sound like there was way too high of rates of adverse reactions. it means they just gave it to tons of people without knowing what would really happen. that's terrible. Well, look at it this way. We're fighting three different wars at the moment. Does it make more sense to experiment on our own soldiers or do it on the thousands of detainees in secret prisons? I don't really know the history behind introducing fluoride, but I do think it has worked out alright. | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
Well, I'd add that people like this are endangering everybody. Already we've seen a number of infants (as many as 200 in the past 2 years by some counts, though obviously I don't have time to verify every single one) die from vaccine-preventable diseases. These were people too young to be vaccinated. They died by contracting dangerous diseases (measles, rubella, etc.) from kids whose parents decided not to vaccinate them. As we lose herd immunity, these numbers could skyrocket as these diseases run rampant in sub-populations. Again, I'll sort of buy the libertarian argument for letting people choose whether to consume fluoride, but those who forgo vaccines are irresponsibly endangering other human lives. | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
We have become non-consenting participants in a drug experiment. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:33 HeadBangaa wrote: how dare you nitpick me! replace "dead" with "measured, adverse effects" for a slightly less exaggerated flavor of the same idea. my point was that your entire argument hinged on "it now seems sufficient to point to the fact that we're all not dead, as the sole proof that it is indeed safe.". yes, we are not all dead. but as we agree that is not the only possible negative consequence. it's not like johnny fluoride would know that his lethargy(or whatever symptom u want to put in) is caused by a fluoride buildup or hypersensitivity. On May 09 2009 14:25 Jibba wrote: Who has died from fluoride in drinking water? You're on the verge of setting up a runaway trolley scenario and you'll lose that argument. Yes, if you have a choice between administering vaccines which will save the vast majority of people and will definitely harm a few outliers, you generally take that risk or allow citizens to take it. I didn't say that anyone died, it was a hypothetical. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:40 HeadBangaa wrote: The fluoridists can say, at best, that at low levels, we do not know the consequence. We have become non-consenting participants in a drug experiment. Get your water elsewhere. There's plenty of things we don't directly consent to. EDIT: If your history is right (I'm too lazy and indifferent to check) then it certainly does raise alarms for future policies, but the point I'm making is that at some point, usually at the city/county level, we did become consenting participants even if you didn't give direct consent, probably because you were just a sperm back then. There are some policies choices that have never been presented to us, but I don't think this is one of them. Through representative democracy, we did give our consent. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:40 Jibba wrote: Well, look at it this way. We're fighting three different wars at the moment. Does it make more sense to experiment on our own soldiers or do it on the thousands of detainees in secret prisons? I don't really know the history behind introducing fluoride, but I do think it has worked out alright. The most profitable war is the war on cancer and other diseases. here is a video (2.5 hours long) with some stuff about bio terrorism, conspiracy, etc. for those already intersted in the subject. (mainly for people interested in the source of some people's differing viewpoints) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8674401787208020885&ei=LJnzSbj0K5v6rAL0xrT_CA&q=in lies we trust&hl=en this is the guy that produced it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Horowitz | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:47 fight_or_flight wrote: The most profitable war is the war on cancer and other diseases. here is a video (2.5 hours long) with some stuff about bio terrorism, conspiracy, etc. for those already intersted in the subject. (mainly for people interested in the source of some people's differing viewpoints) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8674401787208020885&ei=LJnzSbj0K5v6rAL0xrT_CA&q=in lies we trust&hl=en this is the guy that produced it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Horowitz Sigh. I think it's time to flee. Leonard George Horowitz DMD, MA, MPH (b. 1952- ) is a former dentist, a health industry entrepreneur, and the author of a number of books, pamphlets, DVDs, CDs and articles on public health issues; the books and pamphlets have been published under his own Tetrahedron imprint. ... Dr. Horowitz works closely with some Web-based vendors of Holistic Health remedies of various kinds, occasionally setting up their websites for them. In the immediate wake of the 2003 SARS outbreak, he and some associates promoted what they claimed was "effective treatment" for the disease, a spectrum of naturopathic products all using the name "Urbani" | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:37 travis wrote: you think that fluoride is very bad for you at high levels, but at lower levels there are no negative consequences to anyone, even though fluoride can potentially build up over time in a person's system? Why not? Water is like that, for example. So are many nutrients (e.g. where greatly exceeding the daily recommended intake = very bad for you). | ||
kaleidoscope
Singapore2887 Posts
| ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:40 HeadBangaa wrote: The fluoridists can say, at best, that at low levels, we do not know the consequence. Worst argument ever? Essentially everything we are exposed to that we deem safe is "safe" because there are no problems as far as we've seen. E.g. does anyone know the negative consequences of eating a small amount of apples? | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:26 Shizuru~ wrote: they've been doing this for decades now, people just lived so blissfully ignorant to see what is actually going on around them, check all the shots u received when u were born, most of them contained high concentration of thimerosol(ie:a compound of mercury), most of your drinking water contains fluoride (there's a reason why Hitler put fluoride into the drinking water of the concentration camps,) i pity this guy though. not sympathetic, but pity, he's so brainwashed that he still wants to go back to the military. Erm, dentists are constantly recommending that we put more fluoride in the drinking water because it stops your teeth from rotting. Saying it was bad because apparently Hitler used it is like saying toothpaste is bad because Hitler used it. Fluoride in the water supply is far below the safe dose. Jeez. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:40 HeadBangaa wrote: The fluoridists can say, at best, that at low levels, we do not know the consequence. We have become non-consenting participants in a drug experiment. No, we do know the consequencess. It protects your teeth. That's why they put it in water. Jeez, this isn't difficult guys. Please try to keep up. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
The Times is the most reputable paper in Britain, everything it writes is fully sourced and considered balanced. The author of this article is a guest commentator, Dr Nigel Carter. Dr Nigel Carter is a registered dentist and chief executive of the British Dental Health Foundation, in short, he knows his shit. And then there are a load of people on the comments going "itz eval!!!!" | ||
Mania[K]al
United States359 Posts
| ||
Mikeho
Canada1 Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program Start reading part 7...and If you think its fake then check out the sources at the bottom | ||
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On May 09 2009 16:12 Mikeho wrote: Heres some more food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiUS_Biological_Weapon_Testing#Entomological_testing Start reading part 7...and If you think its fake then check out the sources at the bottom scratch that | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
On May 09 2009 16:22 seppolevne wrote: uhh I get 404, the sources must have been good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Biological_Weapon_Testing | ||
Railz
United States1449 Posts
Also for you paranoid folks, look up chem-trails. | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:43 Jibba wrote: Get your water elsewhere. There's plenty of things we don't directly consent to. EDIT: If your history is right (I'm too lazy and indifferent to check) then it certainly does raise alarms for future policies, but the point I'm making is that at some point, usually at the city/county level, we did become consenting participants even if you didn't give direct consent, probably because you were just a sperm back then. There are some policies choices that have never been presented to us, but I don't think this is one of them. Through representative democracy, we did give our consent. Representative democracy as a euphemism for special interest lobbying? Come now, don't be so naive. And "Get your water elsewhere?" That's your answer to contamination concerns? Why not just stop polluting our existing supplies? The government should rather provide fluoride to citizens individually. Then you can drink all the fluoride you want, and I get clean tap water. Why do you liberals so despise self-determination? Stop imposing on me, Man. | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 09 2009 15:46 Kwark wrote: No, we do know the consequencess. It protects your teeth. That's why they put it in water. Jeez, this isn't difficult guys. Please try to keep up. As if British people know anything about that, shhh. OK, sorry. That was my answer to your condescending tone. To answer your content, the claim you make is questionable: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-22-fluoride-water_x.htm + Show Spoiler + Report raises flag on fluoride By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY Government limits on fluoride in drinking water aren't protecting the public from possible tooth and bone damage, a prestigious advisory panel says. The Environmental Protection Agency allows so much fluoride that some children in areas with unusually high natural fluoride levels are developing discolored teeth and weakened tooth enamel, according to the report from the National Academies' National Research Council. The council notes that municipalities in areas with low or no fluoride in their water add low levels of the compound to drinking water to help prevent tooth decay, but water supplies in some areas have much higher amounts of naturally occurring fluoride. Industrial pollution also can increase the levels. The EPA's ceiling on fluoride in drinking water is 4 milligrams per liter, or 4 parts per million. That's four times the concentration recommended to fight cavities, which is 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million, the American Dental Association says. "Fluoride is nature's cavity fighter," the ADA said in a prepared statement. "Fluoride makes the entire tooth structure more resistant to decay." Drinking water presents the greatest exposure to fluoride, says John Doull, chairman of the panel and emeritus professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City. States that have regions with levels of natural fluoride at or above the EPA's maximum containment level include Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. About 200,000 Americans live in areas where drinking water contains fluoride levels over the EPA standard, the report says. At those levels, 10% of children younger than 8, whose adult teeth are still developing, get severe enamel fluorosis. The condition is characterized by discoloration and pitting of the teeth and loss of enamel, the panel says. The report notes that infants and young children are exposed to three to four times as much fluoride as adults because of their low body weight. But adults are vulnerable because of fluoride accumulation in bones. People exposed to water at or above the EPA's upper limit over a lifetime are at increased risk for bone fractures and a rare, crippling bone-and-joint condition called skeletal fluorosis, the panel finds. Though a few studies appear to show a connection between fluoride and bone cancer, the National Academies committee called the results "tentative and mixed." A large study at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine is expected to shed some light on the subject this summer. Tim Kropp of the Environmental Working Group, a research organization based in Washington, D.C., says fluoride should be limited to toothpaste. "It really only makes sense to put it where it works and don't put it where it can cause harm," he says. The study was sponsored by the EPA. The council is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, advising the government on science and technology. Secondly, even if the benefits are reaped, we do not know what kind of collateral damage we are doing. It's a large-scale drug experiment, plain and simple. There is no fathomable reason to not simply provide fluoride to individuals to use at their own discretion. Water, as a fundamental resource, shouldn't be tainted. | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 09 2009 15:08 Bill307 wrote: Worst argument ever? Essentially everything we are exposed to that we deem safe is "safe" because there are no problems as far as we've seen. E.g. does anyone know the negative consequences of eating a small amount of apples? Worst counterargument ever. People have been consuming apples throughout history. That was a really poor example. We already know fluoride is detrimental when consumed. | ||
yobifox
Korea (South)4 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 09 2009 18:17 HeadBangaa wrote: As if British people know anything about that, shhh. OK, sorry. That was my answer to your condescending tone. To answer your content, the claim you make is questionable: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-22-fluoride-water_x.htm + Show Spoiler + Report raises flag on fluoride By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY Government limits on fluoride in drinking water aren't protecting the public from possible tooth and bone damage, a prestigious advisory panel says. The Environmental Protection Agency allows so much fluoride that some children in areas with unusually high natural fluoride levels are developing discolored teeth and weakened tooth enamel, according to the report from the National Academies' National Research Council. The council notes that municipalities in areas with low or no fluoride in their water add low levels of the compound to drinking water to help prevent tooth decay, but water supplies in some areas have much higher amounts of naturally occurring fluoride. Industrial pollution also can increase the levels. The EPA's ceiling on fluoride in drinking water is 4 milligrams per liter, or 4 parts per million. That's four times the concentration recommended to fight cavities, which is 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million, the American Dental Association says. "Fluoride is nature's cavity fighter," the ADA said in a prepared statement. "Fluoride makes the entire tooth structure more resistant to decay." Drinking water presents the greatest exposure to fluoride, says John Doull, chairman of the panel and emeritus professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City. States that have regions with levels of natural fluoride at or above the EPA's maximum containment level include Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. About 200,000 Americans live in areas where drinking water contains fluoride levels over the EPA standard, the report says. At those levels, 10% of children younger than 8, whose adult teeth are still developing, get severe enamel fluorosis. The condition is characterized by discoloration and pitting of the teeth and loss of enamel, the panel says. The report notes that infants and young children are exposed to three to four times as much fluoride as adults because of their low body weight. But adults are vulnerable because of fluoride accumulation in bones. People exposed to water at or above the EPA's upper limit over a lifetime are at increased risk for bone fractures and a rare, crippling bone-and-joint condition called skeletal fluorosis, the panel finds. Though a few studies appear to show a connection between fluoride and bone cancer, the National Academies committee called the results "tentative and mixed." A large study at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine is expected to shed some light on the subject this summer. Tim Kropp of the Environmental Working Group, a research organization based in Washington, D.C., says fluoride should be limited to toothpaste. "It really only makes sense to put it where it works and don't put it where it can cause harm," he says. The study was sponsored by the EPA. The council is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, advising the government on science and technology. Secondly, even if the benefits are reaped, we do not know what kind of collateral damage we are doing. It's a large-scale drug experiment, plain and simple. There is no fathomable reason to not simply provide fluoride to individuals to use at their own discretion. Water, as a fundamental resource, shouldn't be tainted. That article says it's very good for the teeth and recommended but in areas where it occurs in doses far higher than normal due to polution it isn't so good. Basically you're agreeing with me that the recommended amounts of fluoride are good and the excessive amounts are bad. Thank you. | ||
deathgod6
United States5064 Posts
![]() This is the result of Operation Walrus, a military project using soldiers as test sublects. | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
Still tastes pretty good. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
The safe dose of fluoride is safe. We should consume that. It's safe and is good for you. I don't understand how anyone can get confused here. | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7889 Posts
I don't like US marines or any kind of soldiers anyway. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
My argument is that water should have the safe amount in it, not the unsafe amount. Where your water already contains too much you should clean it up, down to the safe amount. When it doesn't contain enough you should up it to the safe amount. The fact that your water is poisonous, or that the unsafe amount is unsafe, is utterly beside the point. The point is the safe amount is good for you and you should have that. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
| ||
QuoC
United States724 Posts
there is DEFINITELY something wrong with this picture.. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 09 2009 09:40 Yurebis wrote: It's not a reaction, it's all the crap thats in these things. Thats why I don't take any vaccines, and recommend everyone close to me not to. Lol holy shit youre an idiot. | ||
![]()
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
| ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
Hitler put fluoride into the water the Jewish drank in the concentration camp during the holocaust as a poison... | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
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? that would be an excellent analogy if your hair were in your mouth | ||
eStoniaNBoY
Switzerland439 Posts
Soil is naturally radioactive. The level of radioactive depends where you live. And it causes serious health damages all the way to cancer. You can run, but you cant hide anyway. Water, soil, air. Life sucks no matter where you live or what you do :D Get used to it. | ||
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
| ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On May 09 2009 20:14 IdrA wrote: that would be an excellent analogy if your hair were in your mouth the water supply u used for shower is the same as the tap water u drink no? unless u got a water filter system for ur tap water... | ||
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On May 09 2009 19:29 alffla wrote: thats fucked up man why wuold the us military do that to their own soldiers -_- Experiments like that have always been made in the military, in every country, and i don't believe they will stop. I think there's no need to explain you why they do it, being pretty obvious. Same as they test all sort of experimental drugs/medicines on people in psychiatric hospitals, sanatoriums, homeless shelters...etc. I remember reading somewhere (multiple sources) about how they do that kind of stuff over "humanitarian missions" in poor countries (like some of africa). I'll see if i can find it. | ||
pyrogenetix
China5094 Posts
governments have been testing how their soldiers react to different drugs for ages. there's that video on youtube where soldiers were given LSD to see if that made them stronger, faster soldiers. the vikings would eat small amounts of poisonous mushrooms to give them hallucinations and alter their mind so they can fight better. morphine and caffeine amongst other drugs have a history of being used in combat to give your troops an advantage. anyway that's my guess. | ||
DarkYoDA
United States1347 Posts
| ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 09 2009 18:12 HeadBangaa wrote: Special interest lobbying is built into the American system. If you act as an individual, you will get less accomplished than if you form a coalition with like-minded people. The entire population is represented by different interest groups, not just big companies. Representative democracy as a euphemism for special interest lobbying? Come now, don't be so naive. And "Get your water elsewhere?" That's your answer to contamination concerns? Why not just stop polluting our existing supplies? The government should rather provide fluoride to citizens individually. Then you can drink all the fluoride you want, and I get clean tap water. Why do you liberals so despise self-determination? Stop imposing on me, Man. Again, where ever you live chose, probably through vote, to start putting fluoride in the water. Just because you didn't condone it doesn't mean the general population didn't. If you want to live in a place where only your consent is followed, I suggest you take over North Korea. Don't you live in San Diego? If so, then what are you complaining about then? San Diego County has never approved fluoridating their water (I guess San Diegoans are genetically resistant to special interest lobbying!) and they're still not doing it until the state pays for everything. It's funny that you're trying to parlay this into a liberal vs. conservative issue, because the whole process falls very much in line with conservative values. Historically, water control takes place at the county level in municipal hearings and only just recently has it begun to enter the realm of state legislatures. This has nothing to do with the federal government, and it probably never will as a public health issue. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/services/DPOPP/regs/Documents/DPH-17-04FinalRegText2008-27-08.doc | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 09 2009 16:12 Mikeho wrote: Heres some more food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program Start reading part 7...and If you think its fake then check out the sources at the bottom Yep, those are pretty terrible. In the 60s, the British government tested the spread of small pox by infecting one sheep on a small off-shore island and seeing how it would spread given the wind conditions. All the sheep died, but one of them fell into the water and made it to the mainland or something, and ended up kiling a few people. | ||
Reno(TE)
United Kingdom434 Posts
| ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
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. | ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
But being the scientist I am, I had to discover the answers for myself, and upon reading all of the available research I could find, I just can't agree with the paranoid sides of these arguments. It's true that some cities/counties have overdone the fluoride treatment leading to problems like fluorosis, but by and large the amount added to our water is well within safe limits. As far as its benefits from being ingested in small quantities, there is a strong correlation between fluoride in drinking water and cavity decrease in the population. Whether this is due to the fact that fluoride is in the system while teeth are developing or because its in your mouth while you're drinking it (and hence touching your teeth) is still up for debate. There really isn't any conclusive data on this, because we simply don't know how the stuff is metabolized and how it may or may not end up in your tooth enamel. There are plenty of dentists, doctors, and assorted PhDs on both sides of that debate. But seriously, unless it is at toxic levels in your water supply, there's no evidence that it'll cause problems. Regardless of the actual mechanism by which it acts, there is plenty of evidence that it helps prevent cavities. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
Yes its unfortunate and extremely unfair how the military handled the administration and documented it but the fact is people (very rarely) have adverse reactions to vaccines. It's entirely possible(and probable) that the vaccine really was a flu shot. No need to make into some huge conspiracy bullshit just to get people to watch your news program. Remember, news stations are constantly trying to make things sound more important more dangerous , more profound or simply more interesting than they really are. Keep in mind, theres also a lot of idiots in the military(just like everywhere). It's entirely possible that they were told what the vaccine was and just weren't paying attention, or it was in writing and they didnt read the whole thing. And its also entirely possible that it wasnt documented because of a clerical error. The news station is going to be looking for EVERY POSSIBLE CASE for instances like this to use in their program. They are going to ignore the thousands and thousands of cases where everything goes right. For example, the broadcast claims that a "frightening number" are having adverse reactions to vaccinations. Apparently a frightening number is Two. OMG TWO PEOPLE HOLY SHIT!? Actually thats completely within the statistical normality for allergic reactions to vaccinations. It's EXTREMELY rare. For the record, I'm not a fan of our military at all. Especially the marines, but I call bullshit when I see it. I'm not saying what happened to mr david isn't fucked up. But things should be kept in perspective. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 09 2009 18:43 Biff The Understudy wrote: Stim pack is bad for you, everybody knows that. I don't like US marines or any kind of soldiers anyway. *looks at your country*Oh you're from France... what a suprise... Why have soldiers when you can just surrender! Ya know? oooohhh ![]() | ||
skindzer
Chile5114 Posts
| ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 09 2009 23:38 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Remember, news stations are constantly trying to make things sound more important more dangerous , more profound or simply more interesting than they really are. It's true. Swine flu anyone? | ||
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
how is a worldwide flu epidemic unimportant | ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 10 2009 00:30 floor exercise wrote: how is a worldwide flu epidemic unimportant Because it's not virulent at all. Ask any doctor, the whole thing was invented by the media. | ||
![]()
AltaiR_
Korea (South)922 Posts
On May 10 2009 00:30 floor exercise wrote: how is a worldwide flu epidemic unimportant cuz the number of infections is going down highly? | ||
APurpleCow
United States1372 Posts
Remember, news stations are constantly trying to make things sound more important more dangerous , more profound or simply more interesting than they really are. Agreed 100%. As gamers, we should all know this. Need an example? Or two? | ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 09 2009 23:38 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: ...not a fan of our military at all. Especially the marines.... Could you clarify some of the issues you have? I'm just curious. | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
| ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On May 09 2009 23:24 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: 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. | ||
inkblot
United States1250 Posts
Soldiers (especially ones going out of the country) are going to get many immunization shots. After the third or fourth needle stick, do you think they care what the next shot is? They aren't going to ask, and the nurses or whoever gives the shots aren't going to bother telling each of the hundreds of soldiers either. It's not surprising or alarming to me that the soldiers didn't know what the shot was. Not showing up in the medical records is not good though. Even if the delay was just due to government sloth, medical records need to be kept up to date so doctors can treat patients as well as possible. | ||
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
| ||
Juicyfruit
Canada5484 Posts
On May 10 2009 01:46 Shizuru~ wrote: 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. Show me an actual study somewhere that says fluoride doesn't benefit your teeth if you ingest it, because as far as I know, by ingesting the fluoride, your body incorporates that into your teeth. I mean, seriously, how often do you think the fluoride would stay in contact with your teeth if all you do is brush with fluoride. It'll barely do anything. | ||
Erik91
Sweden2 Posts
And fluoride in the water is a very good thing. For the fluoride to be dangerous you need to drink insane quantities of water and fluoride is one of the very few compounds that is proven to be good for the teeth. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 09 2009 23:24 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: 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. The point is that it's recommended to ingest(swallow) the fluoride to help keep teeth healthy. You don't have to swallow something for it to touch your teeth. I mean fuck, toothpaste has fluoride - isn't optional shit with fluoride in it enough? No, it isn't - instead it's mandatory for fucking everyone like it or not. How can people not see there is something shady going on there? Absolutely ridiculous. Again, the entire point here is that it ISNT OPTIONAL And finally - I am not saying they are trying to poison people. Really that doesn't seem impossible but I don't know. What I am saying is that the system is corrupt and people in power pretty much never give the tiniest fuck about the general populous. | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
On May 09 2009 18:37 Kwark wrote: The unsafe dose of fluoride is unsafe. We shouldn't consume that. It's unsafe. The safe dose of fluoride is safe. We should consume that. It's safe and is good for you. I don't understand how anyone can get confused here. - problem is the "low" doses used in current fluoridation are harmful for a myriad of reasons, even the current types of fluoride used are more harmful than the original, it's all bad though; water should not be fluoridated, learn, I understand government bureaucrats still being stuck in the 1940's but no google savy tl.neter should.. - http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/federal-report-reveals-fluorides-health-risks-14249.html - many nations are stopping this practice including Japan, Germany, China, The Netherlands, Sweden - all countries with "poor" scientific background.. (sarcasm intended) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm | ||
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
| ||
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On May 10 2009 02:28 Physician wrote: - problem is the "low" doses used in current fluoridation are harmful for a myriad of reasons, even the current types of fluoride used are more harmful than the original, it's all bad though; water should not be fluoridated, learn, I understand government bureaucrats still being stuck in the 1940's but no google savy tl.neter should.. - http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/federal-report-reveals-fluorides-health-risks-14249.html - many nations are stopping this practice including Japan, Germany, China, The Netherlands, Sweden - all countries with "poor" scientific background.. (sarcasm intended) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm Interesting, i have a couple of questions. Romania does not introduce fluoride in either water or salt or other aliments. However, there is fluoride in the water, small and natural amounts (as they say) ~0.5mg/l - 0.8mg/l. Is that fluoride toxic also? Did some googling and found upon answers that fluoride does exist naturally in stuff and that the small amounts aren't bad but good as the human body has a small daily need of fluoride. How do you feel about that? Second question, i know that all the toothpaste we use is high in fluoride. Should we be worried about using it or does it actually help and it's good (since i guess a part of it still ends in your stomach)? | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 10 2009 02:28 Physician wrote: - many nations are stopping this practice including Japan, Germany, China, The Netherlands, Sweden - all countries with "poor" scientific background.. (sarcasm intended) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm Have you seen the teeth of Japanese and Chinese people? Neither country sets an example for dental hygiene. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 10 2009 03:00 Jibba wrote: Have you seen the teeth of Japanese and Chinese people? Neither country sets an example for dental hygiene. But they do for all of the sciences and arts. (my point is - taking care of your teeth is a personal responsibility. and it is certainly less important than potentially risking any harmful effects on the population) | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 10 2009 02:52 Pika Chu wrote: Interesting, i have a couple of questions. Romania does not introduce fluoride in either water or salt or other aliments. However, there is fluoride in the water, small and natural amounts (as they say) ~0.5mg/l - 0.8mg/l. Is that fluoride toxic also? Did some googling and found upon answers that fluoride does exist naturally in stuff and that the small amounts aren't bad but good as the human body has a small daily need of fluoride. How do you feel about that? Second question, i know that all the toothpaste we use is high in fluoride. Should we be worried about using it or does it actually help and it's good (since i guess a part of it still ends in your stomach)? Dihydrogen monoxide is put into the water supply at a much greater concentration than fluoride and it's been scientifically proven that an overdose is lethal. You should google to find an alternative water source to avoid that too. | ||
QuanticHawk
United States32054 Posts
On May 10 2009 02:20 travis wrote: The point is that it's recommended to ingest(swallow) the fluoride to help keep teeth healthy. You don't have to swallow something for it to touch your teeth. I mean fuck, toothpaste has fluoride - isn't optional shit with fluoride in it enough? No, it isn't - instead it's mandatory for fucking everyone like it or not. How can people not see there is something shady going on there? Absolutely ridiculous. Again, the entire point here is that it ISNT OPTIONAL And finally - I am not saying they are trying to poison people. Really that doesn't seem impossible but I don't know. What I am saying is that the system is corrupt and people in power pretty much never give the tiniest fuck about the general populous. Actually, if they're putting it in the water under the assumption that it's good for you, it would seem they do give a fuck | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 10 2009 03:01 travis wrote: But they do for all of the sciences and arts. (my point is - taking care of your teeth is a personal responsibility. and it is certainly less important than potentially risking any harmful effects on the population) I get your point. My point is that no one makes you drink public water and it's just like any other public ordinance. You might not like the way it's done, but there's nothing mandatory about it and the protocol has been set by your area's constituency in some way or another. Most people are willing to take the risk with fluoride, you are not. Part of your freedom entails the freedom to change locations, and also the ability to become a part of the policy making process. | ||
Zurles
United Kingdom1659 Posts
| ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 10 2009 02:20 travis wrote: What I am saying is that the system is corrupt and people in power pretty much never give the tiniest fuck about the general populous. I want you to go and meet your local city council people or whoever is in charge of the water treatment facilities. If you think the various board members and comptrollers are out to simply fuck over people and make a quick buck (wooooooo, $45,000/year salary!), you either live in Detroit or you've got a warped understanding of society. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17257 Posts
Seriously, do you believe that if army guys would test some new stuff on the soldiers, and they would get sick or something, they would let them out instead of keeping the thing secret in their own medical facilities? Please... | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 10 2009 03:19 Jibba wrote: I want you to go and meet your local city council people or whoever is in charge of the water treatment facilities. If you think the various board members and comptrollers are out to simply fuck over people and make a quick buck (wooooooo, $45,000/year salary!), you either live in Detroit or you've got a warped understanding of society. This reasoning is flawed. 1.) those people weren't involved with the process that got fluoride in the water in the first place. 2.) those people are just doing their job, they aren't people who decide whether or not it is right for water to be fluoridated. In short: those aren't the people I am talking about. | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
On May 10 2009 03:00 Jibba wrote: Have you seen the teeth of Japanese and Chinese people? Neither country sets an example for dental hygiene. nope I've see the teeth of US people, everyday, sad sad story I tell u.. | ||
afg-warrior
Afghanistan328 Posts
| ||
L
Canada4732 Posts
Dihydrogen monoxide is put into the water supply at a much greater concentration than fluoride and it's been scientifically proven that an overdose is lethal. You should google to find an alternative water source to avoid that too. I was hoping someone would bite, but no dice T_T. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 10 2009 03:29 travis wrote: This reasoning is flawed. 1.) those people weren't involved with the process that got fluoride in the water in the first place. 2.) those people are just doing their job, they aren't people who decide whether or not it is right for water to be fluoridated. In short: those aren't the people I am talking about. Those ARE the people who decided to put fluoride in the water. Every single county in the goddamn country decides how to treat their own water. The federal government is completely irrelevant in this discussion, except when the EPA and CDC make suggestions (which, again, has nothing to do with "corrupt politicians.") Search Congress for a bill on fluoride and let me know what you come up with. | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
The idea of fluoridation is appalling to most of us, but when I look at the big picture I can only conclude that it is definately for the greater good. Besides, I feel that a large reason for this fear is based on the fact that most of us have a decent knowledge about chemistry these days thanks to our schools, making the idea of adding chemicals to our water supplies extra appalling simply be being aware of some of the dangers, just like a med student is extra aware to all symptoms of disease at the beginning of his studies. I feel that things need to be relativated a little on this subject, if you look at how our bodies handle tons of chemicals each day, it's not as frightening and well within acceptable limits even if you feel it is unnecessary, you will never notice the consequences while you are arguing against something that can have noticable effects against the less fortunate people of your community. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 09 2009 19:58 Shizuru~ wrote: Hitler put fluoride into the water the Jewish drank in the concentration camp during the holocaust as a poison... Hitler put the lethal dose of fluoride into water because it was lethal. The government puts the safe dose of fluoride into water because it's good for you. Schools sell kids candy bars. If Hitler poisoned Jews with chocolate (about 22lb per person is the lethal dose) would you insist that chocolate is dangerous? | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 10 2009 03:01 travis wrote: But they do for all of the sciences and arts. (my point is - taking care of your teeth is a personal responsibility. and it is certainly less important than potentially risking any harmful effects on the population) For an American, maybe. Over here healthcare is a national responsibility and if you fuck your teeth up the bill hits the taxpayer. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 10 2009 05:29 Jibba wrote: Those ARE the people who decided to put fluoride in the water. Every single county in the goddamn country decides how to treat their own water. The federal government is completely irrelevant in this discussion, except when the EPA and CDC make suggestions (which, again, has nothing to do with "corrupt politicians.") Search Congress for a bill on fluoride and let me know what you come up with. That's not what I am saying. Government, both state and federal, make TONS of decisions where they themselves are completely ignorant of the topic. When the department of health (formerly USPHS) and the ADA both endorse fluoridation, why would state officials possibly argue? It isn't their responsibility to look into this stuff. And so we go back to why the department of health and ADA endorse fluoridation. Which is pretty simple. The ADA endorsed fluoridation because they are dentists. They are interested in keeping teeth healthy, which fluoridation helps do. They are not, however, interested in researching the potential hazards of long term fluoride ingestion. The department of health is a government body. It is political. Just like all the other government bodies, it's primary concern often gets swayed by lobbyists. Ask yourself who stood to profit from fluoridation? There certainly were groups who did. Where do you think fluoride comes from? It was originally a waste product. Fluoridation of water supplies allows big business to not only get rid of their waste, but to make MASSIVE profit doing so. Why do you think some people are so vehement about this topic? WTF do they have to gain? | ||
Faronel
United States658 Posts
On May 10 2009 02:10 Juicyfruit wrote: + Show Spoiler + On May 10 2009 01:46 Shizuru~ wrote: 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. Show me an actual study somewhere that says fluoride doesn't benefit your teeth if you ingest it, because as far as I know, by ingesting the fluoride, your body incorporates that into your teeth. I mean, seriously, how often do you think the fluoride would stay in contact with your teeth if all you do is brush with fluoride. It'll barely do anything. Juciyfruit that's completely wrong, by ingesting flouride you aren't doing shit for your teeth, your body just shits it out (so long as it's in small amounts). You know how teeth is made from a calcium compound, well acids break down calcium bound to chlorine atoms somewhat easily. However, acids have a harder time breaking down a harder compound made from flouride and calcium. Essentially a chemical reaction takes place very slowly when flouride is present that replaces the chloride in your teeth molecules to flouride which makes the teeth less prone to decay. Chemistry FTW. However I don't know of any long term studies concerning flouride over the long term... however... I haven't done any search at all on the topic so all i know is that 1) It helps teeth 2) i don't feel any adverse affects... so i kinda don't care it helps my teeth. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That was strange talking about teeth stuff in this topic but on topic: I think the new video has 2 consequences 1) True - possible - experimentation oh well there's obviously a goal at the end of the tunnel and I hope that it's for the betterment of mankind. 2) Not True - likely - media is stupid shit... medical records are very slowly updated (i once had a shot that wasn't updated for years until I had a large argument with a nurse that I did in fact receive the shot). | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 10 2009 06:50 travis wrote: Why do you think some people are so vehement about this topic? WTF do they have to gain? I for one am on the payroll of big business in order to defend their dumping of toxic waste into the water supply on this particular forum. There's at least one of us for every forum, it's the only way to keep the masses quiet. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 10 2009 07:36 Kwark wrote: I for one am on the payroll of big business in order to defend their dumping of toxic waste into the water supply on this particular forum. There's at least one of us for every forum, it's the only way to keep the masses quiet. Are you aware that you are trolling? | ||
LeperKahn
Romania1839 Posts
On May 10 2009 05:29 Jibba wrote: Those ARE the people who decided to put fluoride in the water. Every single county in the goddamn country decides how to treat their own water. The federal government is completely irrelevant in this discussion, except when the EPA and CDC make suggestions (which, again, has nothing to do with "corrupt politicians.") Search Congress for a bill on fluoride and let me know what you come up with. You act as if these politicians work in a vacuum. There are lots of outside factors that may even have more control than politicians themselves. Big business is just one. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
Are you aware that simply alluding that there is some kind of conspiracy involving big business and lobbyists isn't the same as making a reasonable case? Either make a point or don't make one, don't go "big business... lobbyists... massive profits... corruption..." and hope that people will fill in the blanks and think like you. If you think you can make a real, structured, backed up argument about a conspiracy here then go ahead. Just saying "big business" and "everyone who disagrees with me must have something to gain" doesn't cut it. The reason I don't respond to you with anything above ridicule is because you don't deserve it. I can't force you to make a real argument but when you just bash your head against the keyboard and then hit post I'm going to knock you down. | ||
QuanticHawk
United States32054 Posts
On May 10 2009 06:50 travis wrote: That's not what I am saying. Government, both state and federal, make TONS of decisions where they themselves are completely ignorant of the topic. When the department of health (formerly USPHS) and the ADA both endorse fluoridation, why would state officials possibly argue? It isn't their responsibility to look into this stuff. And so we go back to why the department of health and ADA endorse fluoridation. Which is pretty simple. The ADA endorsed fluoridation because they are dentists. They are interested in keeping teeth healthy, which fluoridation helps do. They are not, however, interested in researching the potential hazards of long term fluoride ingestion. The department of health is a government body. It is political. Just like all the other government bodies, it's primary concern often gets swayed by lobbyists. Ask yourself who stood to profit from fluoridation? There certainly were groups who did. Where do you think fluoride comes from? It was originally a waste product. Fluoridation of water supplies allows big business to not only get rid of their waste, but to make MASSIVE profit doing so. Why do you think some people are so vehement about this topic? WTF do they have to gain? Actually, it would make more sense for dentists to be against it, since they'd have those people coming in and paying for flouride, if we're going with this whole 'EVERYONE IS OUT FOR THE GREEN' concept. But don't let a little logic stop ya now! | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 10 2009 07:49 LeperKahn wrote: You act as if these politicians work in a vacuum. There are lots of outside factors that may even have more control than politicians themselves. Big business is just one. No, that's a built in assumption to how our political system works. Interest group pluralism/liberalism- it's got problems (especially with campaign financing) but the good parts outweigh the bad. You are probably part of multiple interest groups, whether you know it or not. And there is no Big Fluoride lobby paying off the 15,000+ city council people in the US and if you really felt it was an important issue, you have the opportunity to become one of them yourself and change the public policy. Also, Hawk just crushed it. But I bet the AADA (Anti-American Dentist Association) is behind the fluoridation push. | ||
ktp
United States797 Posts
| ||
Kashll
United States1117 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:55 Shizuru~ wrote: again... educate urself, research on facts before u refutes others blindly... really there are alot of things people would call me a nut job for if i posted them, Hmm if people would call you a nut job for sharing a ton of the views that you hold, maybe you should re-examine or rethink some of your views. | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
*watches anime all day* | ||
Juicyfruit
Canada5484 Posts
On May 10 2009 08:44 travis wrote: k u guyz win While I don't agree with you that fluoride is as terrifying as some make it out to be, I do agree that the government should either: 1) educate people with veritable facts about fluoride because obviously if you leave people in the dark about certain facts, some paranoid folks will start doing their own research and come to unreasonable conclusions. After some amount of research (via google, because this is what most people would use to find information), I come to the conclusion that at the very least, the government is doing a pretty shitty job of REASSURING people that fluoride is safe. 2) Give the no-fluoride option to people who don't want it. Yes, in the big picture fluoride benefits society as a whole, but come on, what if I was an old lady who didn't care about my teeth? What if I didn't have any teeth in the first place? What if I was just some paranoid guy who really REALLY didn't want those chemicals in me because it psychologically unsettles me? | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
Juicyfruit
Canada5484 Posts
| ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
What else should we add to the water? Shouldn't we add some vitamins, too? | ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 10 2009 07:29 Faronel wrote: Juciyfruit that's completely wrong, by ingesting flouride you aren't doing shit for your teeth, your body just shits it out (so long as it's in small amounts). You know how teeth is made from a calcium compound, well acids break down calcium bound to chlorine atoms somewhat easily. However, acids have a harder time breaking down a harder compound made from flouride and calcium. Essentially a chemical reaction takes place very slowly when flouride is present that replaces the chloride in your teeth molecules to flouride which makes the teeth less prone to decay. Chemistry FTW. Close, but not quite. The fluoride ion actually replaces a hydroxide group, not a chlorine atom. But you have the general idea. Ingesting fluoride does appear to make a difference, but only in children whose permanent teeth are in the process of being formed. Once you have your adult teeth, ingesting it appears to be pretty pointless by all accounts. | ||
Juicyfruit
Canada5484 Posts
On May 10 2009 12:13 Biochemist wrote: Close, but not quite. The fluoride ion actually replaces a hydroxide group, not a chlorine atom. But you have the general idea. Ingesting fluoride does appear to make a difference, but only in children whose permanent teeth are in the process of being formed. Once you have your adult teeth, ingesting it appears to be pretty pointless by all accounts. Yes but I do believe that most of the "negative" effects are also predominant in children as well. I was actually thinking about the process of tooth buildup when I was talking about the benefits of ingesting fluoride, so thanks for the addition. It seems pretty obvious to me that if the only time fluoride helps you is when it's in direct contact with your teeth, then the overall effect would've been utterly negligible because, again, how many minutes a day do you keep fluoride on your teeth anyways? In any case, my opinion is that it's definitely not POINTLESS to put the fluoride in drinking water. All those theories that the government is only putting fluoride in the water to help dispose of industrial waste..... seriously, come on now. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 10 2009 12:41 Juicyfruit wrote: All those theories that the government is only putting fluoride in the water to help dispose of industrial waste..... seriously, come on now. This isn't even a question, it's a fact. hydrofluorosilicic acid - waste from fertilizer. sodium fluoride - neutralized hydrofluoric acid(waste from fertilizer) these are what is used in fluoridation of water. there aren't my opinions, this is just easily verifiable fact. | ||
Juicyfruit
Canada5484 Posts
I can buy that 50 years ago it would have been easier to fool the decision makers simply because of the lack of information, and the government might just have been trying to outsource the situation by killing two birds with one stone - getting rid of the fluoride waste (which wasn't shown to have any harm when ingested at the level they were introducing it to the water supply) and even deriving benefits from it. I am not a conformist by any way. I like to question things that are told, but even from a pure monetary-analysis, it doesn't seem logical to just dump a bunch of chemicals into the water if they thought it would risk deteriorating the health of the public, which would invariably come back and bite them in the ass. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
73 references, written by an accredited dentist. If you disagree with what I am saying, then actually bother reading that. But I wonder how many actually will? (I don't care about arguing with any of you anymore. Respond to me all you want but don't be surprised if I don't reply) | ||
Juicyfruit
Canada5484 Posts
On May 10 2009 13:11 travis wrote: http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm 73 references, written by an accredited dentist. If you disagree with what I am saying, then actually bother reading that. But I wonder how many actually will? (I don't care about arguing with any of you anymore. Respond to me all you want but don't be surprised if I don't reply) Interesting. Was this easy to find? Because I was looking for something like this for a while now, since what really bugged me and made me unsure about fluoride was the lack of information from a credible source. I will actually give this a good read because unlike most anti-fluoride propaganda, this actually looks legit. I will reserve my judgment after I actually look at the whole thing, though. | ||
SilverSkyLark
Philippines8437 Posts
| ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
I don't give a shit if fluoride is good for your teeth, if its under the "safe dosage" or not, I'm not drinking it. I want to minimize my daily POISON intake, alright? No matter how "low" it may be. You don't have to be a NUTJOB CONSPIRACY THEORIST OOO LOOK AT HIM, DOUBTING THE GOVERNMENT AND 364634 SCIENTISTS, just have to think for yourself. | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On May 10 2009 13:38 Yurebis wrote: Things like these are self fulfilling lies.. people won't stop believing a lie they were told because that would mean other things they also believe in were lies too. I don't give a shit if fluoride is good for your teeth, if its under the "safe dosage" or not, I'm not drinking it. I want to minimize my daily POISON intake, alright? No matter how "low" it may be. You don't have to be a NUTJOB CONSPIRACY THEORIST OOO LOOK AT HIM, DOUBTING THE GOVERNMENT AND 364634 SCIENTISTS, just have to think for yourself. thinking for yourself isnt a good idea when you think that poorly | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 10 2009 13:40 IdrA wrote: thinking for yourself isnt a good idea when you think that poorly Just going along can be just as dangerous. And I'm not debating this. If people want to drink fluoride and take mercury shots I don't care, as long as it isn't mandatory (just yet). | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On May 10 2009 14:12 Yurebis wrote: Just going along can be just as dangerous. And I'm not debating this. If people want to drink fluoride and take mercury shots I don't care, as long as it isn't mandatory (just yet). no, going along with scientists is not as dangerous as being an idiot | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
No, thank you. | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On May 10 2009 14:29 Yurebis wrote: Because scientists are always right and we should do whatever they say? No, thank you. you just said that a safe dose of something is poisonous think about that really hard they may not always be right, but they are never that wrong | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
All they know is based on tests, but a test is only as accurate as the tester wants it to be. Everything is prone to corruption, falsification, and massive lies sustaining themselves. You have to be the decider on what is good for you or not, do not ever go by what others say. I have looked into it and from what I've seen, it's bad. Really bad. I'm not going to reiterate, cite sources, or anything. I don't care. I'm not taking something knowing that it is poison, safe levels or not. Even with all the testing in the world, with the best of intentions, even in that case, there just can't be an extensive experiment which considers the long term effects of fluoride build-up. Say 10 years, 20 years. Do their tests even last that long? There's not enough research, and there never will be. Because people are put up with their minds that it's ok, it's harmless. Is it really? No one can tell. All I know is that it's poison, and that, is admitted. | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
a safe dose is, by definition, not poisonous. you question the quality of their experiments, but you have done no tests at all. in fact you base your opinion on absolutely nothing. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Everything can be lethal in high enough doses, it is no comparison. A safe dose is as safe as the determination made by the tests done beforehand. If a control group does not die or suffer any collateral effects in X months after taking X amount, it's safe by those means. You base your opinion on those who believe in such tests. I don't believe in such tests, because they do not ever consider the long term effects. Fair enough? | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
| ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 10 2009 13:38 Yurebis wrote: Things like these are self fulfilling lies.. people won't stop believing a lie they were told because that would mean other things they also believe in were lies too. I don't give a shit if fluoride is good for your teeth, if its under the "safe dosage" or not, I'm not drinking it. I want to minimize my daily POISON intake, alright? No matter how "low" it may be. You don't have to be a NUTJOB CONSPIRACY THEORIST OOO LOOK AT HIM, DOUBTING THE GOVERNMENT AND 364634 SCIENTISTS, just have to think for yourself. Absolute stupidity stupidifies absolutely. | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 10 2009 14:40 Yurebis wrote:I have looked into it On May 10 2009 14:40 Yurebis wrote:Say 10 years, 20 years. Do their tests even last that long? I love it when people claim to have done research and then turn around and say that they don't even know the basic facts of the studies... While you guys are worried about an approved water treatment that's been around for decades, many companies are literally dumping toxic waste into water supplies around the globe. They can get away with that shit because the people in developed nations are too distracted by tabloid conspiracy theories and just generally jerking each other off. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
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. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
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. Chocolate is toxic shit. It is high in theobromine which will kill you if you ingest a large amount. Doesn't make the safe dose any less safe. Aren't you meant to be some kind of doctor? | ||
mrgerry
United States1508 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 11 2009 05:43 mrgerry wrote: I think Physician was more defending it as fluoride has NO use. Chocolate has a use. People would be sad without chocolate =( He said no essential function. In terms of health fluoride is proved to improve dental health. While that may not be essential to survival (although as Frits mentioned earlier it used to be standard to get all your teeth removed and replaced age 21) it's certainly valuable in improving quality of life. Fluoride is definitely more useful than chocolate from a health perspective, while being about as dangerous. | ||
mrgerry
United States1508 Posts
| ||
zizou21
United States3683 Posts
| ||
QuoC
United States724 Posts
On May 10 2009 14:50 IdrA wrote: water itself is lethal in high enough doses... why do you keep drinking it? a safe dose is, by definition, not poisonous. you question the quality of their experiments, but you have done no tests at all. in fact you base your opinion on absolutely nothing. and what right do you have to say that we have nothing to base our opinions on? are you really trying to go on threads and try to put people down because they're voicing their opinions? OPINIONS ARE OPINIONS, they don't have to be based on anything, so what were your intentions in this thread? To put your 2 cents in while making your post valuable by putting down a "noob poster"? maybe he based his opinions on RECALLS? | ||
inlagdsil
Canada957 Posts
On May 11 2009 06:57 QuoC wrote: idra, i've noticed you butting into threads like this and arguing against someone who has only double-digit posts.. what are you doing with your time in korea? and do you even have a bachelors degree in any kind of science to broadly say that you utterly trust the government 100%? and what right do you have to say that we have nothing to base our opinions on? are you really trying to go on threads and try to put people down because they're voicing their opinions? OPINIONS ARE OPINIONS, they don't have to be based on anything, so what were your intentions in this thread? To put your 2 cents in while making your post valuable by putting down a "noob poster"? maybe he based his opinions on RECALLS? Please don't vear off topic. I found Idra's posts to be a breath of fresh air. The point of posting opinions is to submit them to criticism. Criticize the opinions, not the poster. EDIT: @Physician I'd like a clarification on what you mean. Are you saying that the teeth benefits have not been proven, or that other than that fluorine has no benefits? Are you saying that the quantities to which we are exposed are too great? | ||
Zurles
United Kingdom1659 Posts
Threads that turn into a random maniac trolling idra are always fun reads though | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 10 2009 01:29 Biochemist wrote: Could you clarify some of the issues you have? I'm just curious. Mainly the air of self righteousness a lot of people associated with it have. And the marines part is probably a more limited view based on people I knew /know who joined the marines(they're assholes and completely lacking anything that could be considered an intellect.) I know that all military people and marines are not like this, I'm sure many are excellent people(I even know some). But I have noticed a patern. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 10 2009 02:20 travis wrote: The point is that it's recommended to ingest(swallow) the fluoride to help keep teeth healthy. You don't have to swallow something for it to touch your teeth. I mean fuck, toothpaste has fluoride - isn't optional shit with fluoride in it enough? No, it isn't - instead it's mandatory for fucking everyone like it or not. How can people not see there is something shady going on there? Absolutely ridiculous. Again, the entire point here is that it ISNT OPTIONAL And finally - I am not saying they are trying to poison people. Really that doesn't seem impossible but I don't know. What I am saying is that the system is corrupt and people in power pretty much never give the tiniest fuck about the general populous. It is optional..buy bottled water. However I agree with you about the other part of your argument. There really is no reason to put it in water when so many easily affordable flouride products exist. I wouldn't call it "shady" though, at worse, misinformed. They mean well, its not like they are out to get you or make you "a little less healthy". | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 10 2009 01:46 Shizuru~ wrote: 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. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 10 2009 10:41 Kashll wrote: Hmm if people would call you a nut job for sharing a ton of the views that you hold, maybe you should re-examine or rethink some of your views. Lol..ya, have you considered the possible fact that you really are a nut job? ![]() | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
| ||
CombatV
United States4 Posts
Also, just a quick mention to everyone, please don't use the term "soldier" to describe anyone except the US Army. I didn't get it before I became a Marine, but trust me. We have a title, use it correctly please. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
http://www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION/ Even you Doc. Because your post earlier in this thread is extremely misleading and biased. Something a good scientist wouldn't do. http://www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION/safety/nrc_report.htm | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 10 2009 12:52 travis wrote: This isn't even a question, it's a fact. hydrofluorosilicic acid - waste from fertilizer. sodium fluoride - neutralized hydrofluoric acid(waste from fertilizer) these are what is used in fluoridation of water. there aren't my opinions, this is just easily verifiable fact. http://www.solvaychemicals.us/static/wma/pdf/5/1/4/9/HFS.pdf Travis..sorry to say this but sometimes you come dangerously close to being a conspiracy nut. Granted a much more intelligent one, but the irrational fear and distrust is still apparent. Read through that site. Its a scientic analysis of the compounds you listed. Yes they are used in fluroidizing water but none of them are toxic(other than the fluroide itself in very high levels, or extremely high levels in general...just like many other readily available substances) and none of them help dispose of industrial waste. In fact they are manufactured, a reference for you...with additional information: "It is manufactured in modern rubberlined equipment producingan acid of high commercial purity. Commercial water solutions of the acid are available, having concentration of between 20% and 25% H2SiF6. Fluorosilicic acid is generally believed not to exist in the vapor phase, but only in solution. Upon vaporizing, it decomposes into hydrofluoric acid (HF) and silicon tetrafluoride. This equilibrium exists at the surface of strong solutions of fluorosilicic acid and if stored in glass containers, the small concentration of hydrofluoric acid may very slowly attack the glass above the solution level. For this reason, it is generally shipped in polyethylene containers rather than glass carboys. A 23% fluorosilicic acidwater solution weighs 10.2 pounds per gallon at 60ºF, and has a fluoride (F) content of 17.41%.". It's really easy to be sure of yourself when you don't bother to ever check if you're wrong. Waste from fertilizer lol...good stuff. | ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 11 2009 07:26 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Mainly the air of self righteousness a lot of people associated with it have. And the marines part is probably a more limited view based on people I knew /know who joined the marines(they're assholes and completely lacking anything that could be considered an intellect.) I know that all military people and marines are not like this, I'm sure many are excellent people(I even know some). But I have noticed a patern. I was just curious, having been a Marine for 5 years. It's true that the military and the Marines in particular tends to attract a certain type of personality, but for every "stupid asshole" in the Marines, I can show you five who aren't. Most of them grow out of it after a couple years. You find those personalities there because it's a military... they're all like that to a degree. Don't take it out on the service, everyone is still an individual and responsible for their own personality. CombatV, what unit are you with? | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:04 CombatV wrote: Marines stationed in 29 Palms? Oh shit... That's me... Also, just a quick mention to everyone, please don't use the term "soldier" to describe anyone except the US Army. I didn't get it before I became a Marine, but trust me. We have a title, use it correctly please. See what I mean biochemist? lmao. I INSIST YOU CALL ME SIR! ...get over yourself. If I work at a labortory I don't insist everyone call me Scientist Zach. Jesus.. If you fight for an army, any branch...you're a soldier. It's not disrespectful, it's the english language. A soldier is someone trained to kill. Simple as that. He's probably just trolling but I have no way of knowing for sure ![]() | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:18 Biochemist wrote: I was just curious, having been a Marine for 5 years. It's true that the military and the Marines in particular tends to attract a certain type of personality, but for every "stupid asshole" in the Marines, I can show you five who aren't. Most of them grow out of it after a couple years. You find those personalities there because it's a military... they're all like that to a degree. Don't take it out on the service, everyone is still an individual and responsible for their own personality. CombatV, what unit are you with? I know..I even said the exact same thing in my post. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
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. | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On May 11 2009 07:39 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: 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. http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm government statements on their stance on fluoride... http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_report03_en.pdf WHO report on dental health worldwide, page11 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? | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:28 Yurebis wrote: 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. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:29 Shizuru~ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQFWUYJKt8w http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm government statements on their stance on fluoride... http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_report03_en.pdf WHO report on dental health worldwide, page11 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? Ya nice video...cable news stations reposted on youtube are not exactly strong evidence for a case. For example, the news anchor talks about a crown he had done that was once 30 pounds now costing 300 pounds and how "rediculous" it is. Crowns in the US can be close to a thousand dollars. I would know, I had a genetic fracture in my tooth and had to pay for one out of pocket. Luckily my parents were nice enough to help(maybe they felt responsible ![]() The bottom line is , all dental care is extremely expensive because of the extreme amount of education necessary to be a competent dentist. Ya a website called fluoridealert...that shouldn't be biased at all right?...please. If you want the governments own stance officially. Visit the cdc or NRC website and read it yourself. I just did after viewing this thread. Theres a lot of conflicting information between the too. | ||
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:29 Shizuru~ wrote: 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? That's the only valid argument you've made so far. But seeing as the levels of fluoride in the water supply are not toxic, there would be no reason not to force it on people. Just like there would be no reason NOT to enforce seatbelt wearing. It's sensible, even though it infringes on your freedom. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:29 Shizuru~ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQFWUYJKt8w http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm government statements on their stance on fluoride... http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_report03_en.pdf WHO report on dental health worldwide, page11 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. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 07:33 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: It is optional..buy bottled water. However I agree with you about the other part of your argument. There really is no reason to put it in water when so many easily affordable flouride products exist. I wouldn't call it "shady" though, at worse, misinformed. They mean well, its not like they are out to get you or make you "a little less healthy". Here I'll help you find it. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:36 Wohmfg wrote: That's the only valid argument you've made so far. But seeing as the levels of fluoride in the water supply are not toxic, there would be no reason not to force it on people. Just like there would be no reason NOT to enforce seatbelt wearing. It's sensible, even though it infringes on your freedom. Except not even that is a valid argument because no one is arguing about that fact. Merely the safety/severity of the practice. | ||
opsayo
591 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation 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. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:30 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: 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 | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:44 Yurebis wrote: 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 Fine I will. | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:30 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
Done. http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/science_fluoridation_adults.asp You're an idiot. ...funny shit though, both of you are pretty entertaining. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:46 Shizuru~ wrote: 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo 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. | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:37 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: 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... | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:47 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Done. http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/science_fluoridation_adults.asp 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. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:49 Shizuru~ wrote: 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. | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
trust me, i'm not shitting u, wan me to go take a photos of all the bottled water labels here in the uk? | ||
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:51 Yurebis wrote: 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? | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:51 Yurebis wrote: 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. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:56 Wohmfg wrote: 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. | ||
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On May 11 2009 09:00 Yurebis wrote: 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? | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
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. HILARIOUS. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:58 Yurebis wrote: The article itself points the flaws in such type of study: 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.... | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:49 Shizuru~ wrote: 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... Whatever you say. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 11 2009 09:01 Wohmfg wrote: 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. I found this website to be packed with information I've read elsewhere http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
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. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 11 2009 09:06 Yurebis wrote: 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. I found this website to be packed with information I've read elsewhere http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html 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. | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On May 11 2009 09:06 Kwark wrote: 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..... | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
For Shizuru. Note the company in england that distributes bottled distilled water. That is as close to zero as physically possible. Please tell me you know what distilled water is? Also note that NONE of these companies add any fluoride to their water. The only fluoride in the water is from what occurs naturally. | ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:49 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: ... 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. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 11 2009 09:11 Kwark wrote: 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 | ||
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On May 11 2009 09:15 Yurebis wrote: 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. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 11 2009 09:15 Yurebis wrote: 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. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 09:15 Yurebis wrote: 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 ![]() *shakes head* | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
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? http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/274/53/37717 Here's one for example. Sure its not pure fluoride but its a molecular compound containing it. http://books.google.com/books?id=8ldsXzd9QQAC&pg=PA583&lpg=PA583&dq=biological functions of fluoride&source=bl&ots=ltINXpP3xl&sig=xlsYmG9U0_ZaaZ5QksY_F3iwUdg&hl=en&ei=e3UHSuvKF5u0tgOonc3XAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PPA590,M1 Lots of nicely organized information here. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
| ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 09:32 Kwark wrote: I heard Hitler was adding fluoride to mineral water to make sure we get poisoned. You mean hitlers ghost. Yes ghosts are real..after all there aren't any 10 year studies that prove they aren't. Hold on my magic quartz crystal is giving me energy feedback, I'll be back, I must focus my positive energies. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
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. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
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. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
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. | ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
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? | ||
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
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. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Of course it's poison, there's a reason fluoride toothpaste have labels all over them. | ||
armed_
Canada443 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. This has probably been stated enough, but you're an idiot. | ||
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 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. 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. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 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... 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. | ||
Brett
Australia3820 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... 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? | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
You are fine with it because you're drinking it, that is what I feel. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 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. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
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. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 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. | ||
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
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... | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
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? | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 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!!! | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:08 Brett wrote: 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. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:12 Kwark wrote: 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 | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:13 Yurebis wrote: 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!!! | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:16 Yurebis wrote: 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. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
That's a lot of chocolate though. I don't think I can even eat it all. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:18 Yurebis wrote: 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. | ||
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:13 Yurebis wrote: 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).. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:32 Physician wrote: - 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. | ||
ZeaL.
United States5955 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? 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. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:23 Brett wrote: 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. | ||
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:38 Yurebis wrote: 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? | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:38 Yurebis wrote: 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. It's not poisonous in the amount they use. I feel we've been very clear on this. | ||
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:38 Yurebis wrote: 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. Of course I brush my teeth for oral health. Some people don't and they're a strain on public health. Fluoride improves their oral health and it doesn't harm me. Win/Win for everybody. Dentists don't say "... make sure to drink that tap water!", but they do say: " Water fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure for reducing dental caries across the population," http://www.ada.org.au/oralhealth/fln/flinaust.aspx So we're basically back to your tin foil hat position that we're being poisoned for an underlying agenda and practically every large health organisation in the world is in on it! DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNN | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:37 Kwark wrote: 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. If you can't be bothered to look it up urself, even after the plethora of links given in this thread, that would have raised in the very least some hesitation in anyone with a little curiosity, then I ain't wasting my time trying to convince you of anything. Keep drinking water with added fluoride. Sheep will be sheep. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
I'm still reading it, but apparently it's yet another retrospective study. From Australia. I could just ignore it but I'll read it a bit and try to explain again. Retrospective studies don't prove anything, they can be evidence so you can carry out experiments with, but they prove nothing at all. You need controllable experiments where there isn't a plethora of external factors that can screw up your data. To prove any theory. This one especially can be shaky since they're able to pick and choose from the regions they get the people from, for the "randomized controlled trials". The people may very well be random, but the regions aren't... so.. why call it random, lol. It's not that random if you're picking where they're from... inevitably so, too. Such a half assed effort. Is there even a prospective study somewhere? They're 10x better than this. Have 50 random people drink fluoride water for 5 years, another 50 without. Check differences. Jesus, is it that hard? No. Perhaps some scientists already got this kind of study together but didn't get any cheese because it didn't give the results they wanted. It's a semi-experiment in the sense that you got more control over the subjects but can still be screwed up since it takes so long.. At one point this thing says: In the case of measuring the harms associated with fluoride use, a wider range of studies will be included. Many potential harms of fluoride occur over a longer time-frame and as such, it is not feasible or ethical to assess these outcomes using RCTs. Therefore, other comparative study types, including cross-sectional and ecological studies, will be included in this review. So yeah they already say they aren't going to randomize anything when it comes to long term effects, they're just charting cavities vs. fluorosis cases. The (really) really non-random studies are worthless to see, if I can even find them...cuz I'm not sure where they are here. Can't find it... At the end of the cavities result table there's this little snippet of truth: The results suggest that introduction of water fluoridation is strongly associated with an improvement in dmft/DMFT scores. However, it should be noted that the analyses did not take into account the use of other sources of fluoride, including topical agents. Basically, yeah there's an association, but we simply chose to ignore any outside variables... I need a break from reading this. Sorry, I'm not going to read it all... To put it in simple terms for you. Retrospective study -> zzz. Prospective study -> not that good, but better than the above. yet there ain't any... Experiment (of any type) -> good. please find one. Just because it's a "paper" doesn't mean it answers crap. It's a start, but not enough to prove a theory... There are TONS of papers like this about anything you can imagine. If you read through, you start recognizing the charlatan tactics employed by these pseudo-scientists with an agenda. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:52 Brett wrote: So we're basically back to your tin foil hat position that we're being poisoned for an underlying agenda and practically every large health organisation in the world is in on it! DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNN I haven't said anything of the sort. I said there IS an underlying agenda, which I do not know nor pretend to know what it exactly is. To be honest I haven't even looked too deep into the subject until I read this thread. I just gave it for granted that fluoride is toxic (it is) and it's purpose in the water is useless. The second assumption may be wrong, but I really don't care, even if it does help with cavities, even if we've got concerned people in government with our best interest at heart (which we do not), it's not enough of a reason to put it in the water. I wouldn't care evem if everyone in the world gets cavities because they don't brush their teeth. Don't put toxins in the water supply, period. That was and still is my reasoning on this subject. People who push it certainly have an agenda besides the well-care of children's teeth, because not enough research (ACTUAL EXPERIMENTS OH PLEASE GOD STOP WITH THE RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES) has been made on the long term side effects. They just put it there and assured it was fine, when they didn't know, still don't know, and maybe won't EVER know how bad it is. Because, again, people accept it, and enthusiastically pass on the baton defending this lie. People who push this sort of thing profit over the well-meaning folks that think it's for their own good, and just go along. Thank you, cognitive dissonance, you. | ||
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On May 11 2009 11:31 Physician wrote: If you can't be bothered to look it up urself, even after the plethora of links given in this thread, that would have raised in the very least some hesitation in anyone with a little curiosity, then I ain't wasting my time trying to convince you of anything. Keep drinking fluoridated water. Sheep will be sheep. It's pretty clear that scientific studies are inconclusive, as general consensus within the peer-reviewed medical community shifts towards ambivalence to favor of fluordiated water. Does this mean it couldn't be bad for you? No, of course it could. But it would be just as safe as taking the next over-the-counter drug (effects of fluoridation are far more well-documented than the effects of most over-the-counter medications). Also, what links do you refer to? I went through maybe 6 pages of the thread, and it only refers to one non-peer-reviewed-website (fluoride-alert.com or whatever), which has already been refuted multiple times (as the site itself mentions that it applies mostly for only high-end fluoride exposure) The fluoride compounds placed in water are water soluble (they have to be to make it travel through water effectively), not lipid soluble, which should indicate that they don't accumulate and build up in the body like heavy metals do. Unlike most neurotoxins, fluorine can't mimic any enzymatic cofactors in biochemical reaction pathways (fluoride as a non-metal can pretty much only have a -1 charge on i), and the effects on the rest of your far more observable body haven't been well documented. Unlike its chemical-brother chlorine, water fluoride is locked inside a covalently bonded compound that precludes the formation of fluoric acid. The notable effects that have been well tested of fluorides are via fluorosis (affecting the skeletal systems), and it's well-known that this only occurs under high doses of fluoride. And fluorosis is about as endemic in the United States as Ebola. Could it be bad for you? Yes. Would you probably not want to drink lots of fluoridated water? Better safe than sorry. But its effects would be mild at worst. Fluoride has been in toothepaste for as They just put it there and assured it was fine, when they didn't know, still don't know, and maybe won't EVER know how bad it is. Because, again, people accept it, and enthusiastically pass on the baton defending this lie. People who push this sort of thing profit over the well-meaning folks that think it's for their own good, and just go along. Thank you, cognitive dissonance, you. Surprise surprise, fluoride toothepastes have been out there for years, and testing has been done on them. There could still be reason to doubt fluoride yes, but much less reason than to doubt glue or lightbulbs or sofas (which contain petroleum distillates, mercury, and known neurotoxins respectively) | ||
unknown.sam
Philippines2701 Posts
i can't believe they would do this fuck that | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 11 2009 12:07 SerpentFlame wrote: Could it be bad for you? Yes. Would you probably not want to drink lots of fluoridated water? Better safe than sorry. But its effects would be mild at worst. That's one honest post I have no problems with. Certainly they would be mild effects. No one has died directly due to water fluoridation as of yet. However that's not the reasoning we should go about when debating what should be put int the water or not. It's something you drink throughout your lifetime. I'd want it to be as free of artificial substances as possible. I don't care if it's just a little, we get so much crap from elsewhere. I just want to minimize my intake of dangerous chemicals, get it? No matter how little. That's what I think. | ||
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
To put it in simple terms for you. Retrospective study -> zzz. Prospective study -> not that good, but better than the above. yet there ain't any... Experiment (of any type) -> good. please find one. Just because it's a "paper" doesn't mean it answers crap. It's a start, but not enough to prove a theory... There are TONS of papers like this about anything you can imagine. If you read through, you start recognizing the charlatan tactics employed by these pseudo-scientists with an agenda. 1) As I already said, the onus is ON YOU to prove that fluoridation is bad for you. You keep complaining because we show you these studies that don't agree with your hypothesis, but you still haven't given any proof on the damaging effects of fluoridation. Complain all you want about the methodology, but there still aren't any conclusive results linking fluoridation with any major health issues. Unlike Physician, who has actually linked to studies showing possible links between fluoridation and health issues, all you have done is come in here with this preconceived notion that fluoridation is unhealthy and some unknown force with unknown goals is pushing this on us. 2) Retrospective studies are not stupid. No, they don't show a direct causation due to their nature but they are pretty good at picking out correlations and it is safe to say that without a correlation you can assume that the two are unrelated. If you actually want to prove something then you would want an actual experiment, but since these studies are just testing whether or not there is a correlation, it is fine. As for your qualms with the paper I linked to it is important to note that the publishers of the paper did not actually do any data collection of their own, it is a review. It is not a single result but a review of the current published data on the issue, so its great for people who aren't well versed on the issue or need a general overview. So its not just a few people doing one study but a few people writing a writeup of the current published knowledge on a subject. Regarding randomization, you can claim that covariates messed up the data, but when you have a large enough sample you marginalize the covariates. Still, it is possible that a study can be rendered useless by an unintended variable. To decrease the probability of this, the authors of the review excluded multiple papers because of various reasons such as bad control groups or old data. In addition, they use the results of multiple studies to further reduce the probability that one variable affects the results. I can buy that one study could be messed up because of flawed methodology but when you get 3 or 4 studies all saying there is no correlation, well maybe there just isn't a correlation. I didn't link to that review to show that fluoridation is good for your teeth, I did it to show that given the current research there is no link between fluoridation and cancer or bone fracturing. Given that its multiple studies across multiple locations, I feel pretty safe in saying that fluoridated water isn't going to give me cancer or make my bones weak and brittle. Granted, fluoridation could have other health effects but you still haven't provided anything. We all know that fluorine is toxic at a high enough dosage. Now show us that fluorine at the levels we drink in water is toxic or shut the fuck up. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
This thread got exponentially worse after page 13, and it was already a shit hole before then. EDIT: Yes, this is not an argument for or against fluoride. This post is purely an ad hominem attack, because you are a dumb motherfucker. SerpentFlame just completely took apart your claim that there's fluoride build up in our bodies and you ignored all of it except for one sentence that was agnostic towards whether it's good or bad. Your entire argument is proving that something is bad by showing that the proof that it's good isn't adequate. At the very least you could make a case for liberty or something else, but you're sticking to a health argument that includes zero logic. How many long term controlled studies are there that prove breathing oxygen is good? Because it seems like those are the only conditions under which you consider something admissible, and even then you consider the results invalid unless they agree with your preconceived notion from what a Youtube video or a .us website taught you. Seriously, just crawl back into the internet hole from whence you came. | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
| ||
yukotaga
Albania1 Post
| ||
heejun
1 Post
| ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
| ||
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
- Dogbert ^^ | ||
randyothe
1 Post
| ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Fluoride can be lethal at dosages of 5milligrams per kilogram of body mass. 5mg/kg Meaning if an adult weighting 170lb ~ 80kg takes a dose of 400mg, he may die. Not just get sick of feel a little something in his tummy, you get detoxified right now or you will drop dead. Fluoride in the water is being introduced at about 1ppm, or 1mg/liter. A liter of water is almost exactly 1kg save for other substances in it. I know the body gets rid of it over time, but potentially, an adult would only have to drink 400 liters of water to die. I can drink that in a year no problem. It's even worse for children. Question is, how much can you build up in a lifetime drinking this? Obviously, people do not get to build up that much because no one has dropped dead from it. This isn't fear mongering. What I'm saying is that the people who put up this crap in the water did not know the answer either, not even now, not when they first put it. They don't give a fuck about your health, much less your teeth. Fine, no one died, there's vague and unscientific evidence of any harm being done, but it's the attitude, the ATTITUDE of these people to just poison the population with a bullshit reason of helping the children's dental health when it could very well be harming them. Can still be harming them. I don't have to prove it's bad because we know it's bad. This isn't OXYGEN. This is a poison which is lethal at 5mg/kg. Quit hammering that relativist garbage and admit this thing is BAD, and there's no reason to give everyone a daily "safe dosage" of POISON for the rest of their lives. Now I'll shut up and you can go about how you don't give a shit either because you're not dropping dead and you trust all the stupid retrospective studies. | ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
On May 11 2009 11:39 Yurebis wrote: If you read through, you start recognizing the charlatan tactics employed by these pseudo-scientists with an agenda. Indeed, I have. | ||
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
Hell I have read studies in nature linking the slightly elevated manganese levels in the soil of Slovenia (I think it was) to the fact that CJD is slightly more common there. Everybody stop taking your vitamins!!! OMG!!!. (Poisoning due to excess vitamin intake is actually a fairly real problem though as opposed to flouride poisoning =p ) And seriously, if you drink 400 liters of water just like that you will have much, much larger problems than flouride poisoning on your hands. (Hint: you will be dead from water poisoning =p) Flouride doesn't "build up" in your body, and the people who recomended that it be administrated to the entire population knew this. The chemistry is pretty straight forward, flouride forms HF in your stomach and is then distributed throughout your blood system. At high doses it will dissolve you from the inside, at low doses it will simply insert flouride into the crystal lattice of your teeth/bones. (mostly teeth for whatever reason.) If you have read an article (published somewhere that matters) where it has been shown to do something else then feel free to link it, I would be interested. | ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 11 2009 12:07 SerpentFlame wrote: It's pretty clear that scientific studies are inconclusive, as general consensus within the peer-reviewed medical community shifts towards ambivalence to favor of fluordiated water. Does this mean it couldn't be bad for you? No, of course it could. But it would be just as safe as taking the next over-the-counter drug (effects of fluoridation are far more well-documented than the effects of most over-the-counter medications). Also, what links do you refer to? I went through maybe 6 pages of the thread, and it only refers to one non-peer-reviewed-website (fluoride-alert.com or whatever), which has already been refuted multiple times (as the site itself mentions that it applies mostly for only high-end fluoride exposure) The fluoride compounds placed in water are water soluble (they have to be to make it travel through water effectively), not lipid soluble, which should indicate that they don't accumulate and build up in the body like heavy metals do. Unlike most neurotoxins, fluorine can't mimic any enzymatic cofactors in biochemical reaction pathways (fluoride as a non-metal can pretty much only have a -1 charge on i), and the effects on the rest of your far more observable body haven't been well documented. Unlike its chemical-brother chlorine, water fluoride is locked inside a covalently bonded compound that precludes the formation of fluoric acid. The notable effects that have been well tested of fluorides are via fluorosis (affecting the skeletal systems), and it's well-known that this only occurs under high doses of fluoride. And fluorosis is about as endemic in the United States as Ebola. Could it be bad for you? Yes. Would you probably not want to drink lots of fluoridated water? Better safe than sorry. But its effects would be mild at worst. Fluoride has been in toothepaste for as Surprise surprise, fluoride toothepastes have been out there for years, and testing has been done on them. There could still be reason to doubt fluoride yes, but much less reason than to doubt glue or lightbulbs or sofas (which contain petroleum distillates, mercury, and known neurotoxins respectively) Why do good posts like this get ignored? | ||
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
![]() | ||
Shivaz
Canada1783 Posts
Cause its right and people argueing against this don't want to address it. | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
It turns out, just like Yurebis's fluoride-could-build-up-in-your-body claim, to be not only wrong but impossible for really basic reasons. Your body is constantly recycling water, therefore *any* water-soluble compound will be completely gone in a few days. You only need the most elementary facts to understand what's going on here: fluoride is an ion, i.e. a charged particle, which will remain in solution with water, because water is a polar substance. If it doesn't react with anything, it will get cleaned out naturally as you pee, and consume more water. If it *does* react with something, that will get rid of it even faster. Aside: While reading about possible precipitates of fluoride ion in the bloodstream, I came across the hilarious claim made my fluoride alarmists that fluoride causes osteoporosis. The way it's supposed to work is that fluoride precipitates calcium out of solution, preventing calcium in your bloodstream from ending up in your bones. Who can spot the flaw in this logic? ...SPOILER... The problem is that the RDA for calcium is 1000mg, calcium is 20/9 times as heavy as fluorine, calcium has a valence of +2, and fluorine has a valence of -1. That means that to eliminate this 1000mg of calcium from your bloodstream, you would need to consume 900mg of fluoride, many times a fatal dose. If the 1mg/L figure is right, you would need to consume 9 liters of water in a day to eliminate 1% of your calcium intake. It's beyond ridiculous. I bring this up to illustrate the basic problem with the anti-fluoride claims: they invariably lack any concept of logic whatsoever. They count on you to not look closely at the facts, while pretending that somehow dozens of Ph.Ds who have dedicated their lives to questions like these have somehow overlooked something so basic. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 12 2009 04:20 KlaCkoN wrote: Yurebris, have you any idea of how many things which are essential for your survival that will you in doses of 5 mg/kg? It's a horrible argument and no grounds for calling something a poison. Hell I have read studies in nature linking the slightly elevated manganese levels in the soil of Slovenia (I think it was) to the fact that CJD is slightly more common there. Everybody stop taking your vitamins!!! OMG!!!. (Poisoning due to excess vitamin intake is actually a fairly real problem though as opposed to flouride poisoning =p ) And seriously, if you drink 400 liters of water just like that you will have much, much larger problems than flouride poisoning on your hands. (Hint: you will be dead from water poisoning =p) Flouride doesn't "build up" in your body, and the people who recomended that it be administrated to the entire population knew this. The chemistry is pretty straight forward, flouride forms HF in your stomach and is then distributed throughout your blood system. At high doses it will dissolve you from the inside, at low doses it will simply insert flouride into the crystal lattice of your teeth/bones. (mostly teeth for whatever reason.) If you have read an article (published somewhere that matters) where it has been shown to do something else then feel free to link it, I would be interested. Why keep comparing fluoride with vitamins? You don't need fluoride to live at all, it's not required by any inner system in the body. Please stop making these comparisons. There's no relativist reasoning to why put this stuff in the water. "It's not as bad as" or "You haven't proved there's any consequences" are cop-outs. I don't have to prove there are consequences. The fluoride introducers have to prove it's safe. I don't have the answers, but neither do them. Yet they say they do. - Fluoride is useless for the body. Not used at all. Lethal at 5mg/kg. There are tons of half-assed studies but very few experiments saying it's good for your teeth. But putting in the water is the most stupid way to go about it. That way we just put the entire country's health at risk for something we have studied only the short-term side effects of. That makes sense. - Again, there are zero long term experiments looking for side effects. They only look for immediate side effects, and ignore fluoride buildup in the bones and elsewhere. Not all fluoride gets expelled. Some stay in. Or else it would be completely useless, even for your teeth. I'm not the one introducing a useless, artificial chemical, which is lethal at 5mg/kg, they are. They should assure it's safe. - But they have not. They put it in, lied that it's safe, and make mocking, non-random retrospective studies, AFTER it's in already, to convince us that it's safe. Rinse, repeat, all over the world. Just because you don't feel any effects or aren't dying of it, doesn't mean there are no consequences. We don't know, they don't know. They don't care. You don't care. You make it look like I'm against something that's naturally occurring, that we consume every day. We don't need fluoride. Fluoride is very low in naturally occurring levels, except in places where they get water from a fluoride rich artesian aquifer or something. Point is, it's useless, you don't need it, yet they put it everywhere. With taxpayer's money, saying it's for your own good. What the hell. How can you stand for something that is useless, may harm you in the long run, and you're paying for it? One of the consequences could be arthritis (21.6% in adults today) , could be IQ reduction (hurr), thyroid problems (7.35%), bone cancer, I don't know. No tests were done. No one cares. Let's just put random stuff in the water and say it's good for you. Yeah. Because you see, starting with fluoride, they can just make up a bunch of retrospective studies numbers, and add whatever the fuck they want to whatever they need. You won't complain, you won't doubt. They'll just say "It's good for your.. uh eyes!" and then add more shit. Some get to make more money, some get to be more sick. It's incremental so you won't even notice. It may be useless, but who cares, we're not dying. Let them add more stuff. I hate incrementalism, I hate moral relativism, and the saying that the "end justify the means". And that's exactly what this is. A swindle. I'm sorry I said I wouldn't post anymore. It's just that this pisses me off. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On May 12 2009 06:01 Yurebis wrote: One of the consequences could be arthritis (21.6% in adults today) , could be IQ reduction (hurr), thyroid problems (7.35%), bone cancer, I don't know. No tests were done. One of the consequences could be penis enlargement. I don't know, no tests were done but it seems a fucking good reason to keep it in the water supply. | ||
Disintegrate
United States182 Posts
| ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 12 2009 06:01 Yurebis wrote:- Fluoride is useless for the body. On May 12 2009 06:01 Yurebis wrote:There are tons of half-assed studies but very few experiments saying it's good for your teeth. Seriously, how can you be this dumb? | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
AKA what public policy taught you is wrong. just pointing out that you shouldn't be calling others stupid when your initial point is completely counter-productive. P.S: I didn't even read the rest of that big post after reading the first paragraph. For that reason. | ||
Clasic
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
| ||
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On May 12 2009 08:40 travis wrote: threepool, you call him dumb, then you compare our "conspiracy theorizing" to the teachings of dare. you say that what dare taught you was wrong. AKA what public policy taught you is wrong. just pointing out that you shouldn't be calling others stupid when your initial point is completely counter-productive. P.S: I didn't even read the rest of that big post after reading the first paragraph. For that reason. But it's by logic that he knows that what dare taught was wrong. And it's by logic that he knows that fluoride has benefits and probably doesn't do any long term damage. What's the problem? Are you saying that just because a government run program warning of possible dangers of drugs is spreading misinformation, then the government can't tell the truth about other things such as fluoride? edit: missed some words lawl | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 12 2009 08:40 travis wrote: threepool, you call him dumb, then you compare our "conspiracy theorizing" to the teachings of dare. you say that what dare taught you was wrong. Actually, I did it in the reverse order. And my insult above had nothing to do with the dangers of fluoride, it has to do with the fact that Yurebis suddenly changed his tone to criticize the *effectiveness* of fluoride, which is a completely different point from the *safety* of fluoride. The fact that he can't tell the difference makes me think he's dumb, as well as referring to studies that he clearly hasn't even attempted to read as "half-assed". In other words, he's obviously just making shit up at this point. On May 12 2009 08:40 travis wrote:AKA what public policy taught you is wrong. That's a really silly generalization. Sometimes public policy is correct, other times it's as insane and paranoid as fluoride/vaccine alarmist conspiracy theory. The only way to tell the difference is critical thinking, blanket rules like "never trust authority" just make you look like you can't think for yourself. Put another way: there are idiots everywhere, in public policy as well as on message boards. The key is to identify the people who know what they're talking about (hint: they usually have Ph.Ds, or at the very least a basic grasp of science) and ignore the people who talk out of their ass. If you don't trust "policy", then maybe you should stop flossing and brushing your teeth--exactly the same people recommend those things as recommend fluoridation of the water supply. Exactly the same people. On May 12 2009 08:40 travis wrote:P.S: I didn't even read the rest of that big post after reading the first paragraph. For that reason. Don't brag about the desire to remain ignorant, but there's nothing in there you wouldn't get from a basic chemistry class at a decent university. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
Neo7
United States922 Posts
What irks me is the fact that they tried to cover up their "oops we fucked up better not tell our CoA." To me, if you're damaging someone from a beta vaccine, you better report it now so it doesn't happen again down the road. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
We don't know if it's safe because no experiments have had the focus of long-term side effects, ever. With inconclusive proof of safety, you'd expect people would refrain from defending this stupid practice, yet it has been pushed and applied everywhere. | ||
QuoC
United States724 Posts
| ||
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On May 12 2009 09:29 Yurebis wrote: I've called the studies half-assed because every single one of them that I've seen are non-randomized retrospective studies. If it's not random, you can pick and choose the results easily. We don't know if it's safe because no experiments have had the focus of long-term side effects, ever. With inconclusive proof of safety, you'd expect people would refrain from defending this stupid practice, yet it has been pushed and applied everywhere. It is not useless. Stop cherry picking your arguments. It's basically common knowledge that it is the single most effective measure that a nation can take to reduce dental caries across the population. You've already been shown many sources stating as much. Is it necessary for life or function? No, of course it's not, and nobody here is arguing that it is. Stop bloody straw manning in every post ![]() Everyone knows that you can simply brush your teeth, floss etc and your oral health will generally be just fine. But the simple fact is that not everyone does this; they're either too poor, too stupid or too ignorant. The fact is that people like that are very likely to place a strain on the public health system and fluoridation helps alleviate this problem. You're right, there don't appear to be any long term studies conducted to test long term effects. But the process of fluoridation has been used for decades. Many generations have used it for many years and there is no correlation between the process and any health problems being suffered by people around the world. You're arguing that fluoridation is an experiment by multiple nation states, across multiple generations...That this massive secret has been kept from everyone and anyone... Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? The respective governments, as those responsible for fluoridation, make that decision based upon public health benefits. They do so in the knowledge that there are no observable downsides to doing so. We're talking since the fucking 1930's buddy.. You don't think they'd have noticed problems? If you don't think that reducing strain on the public health system is a good enough reason to infringe upon your liberty to choose not to intake fluoride, fine. That's an argument grounded in reality. Similarly, don't get vaccinated...But stop acting like you have something to hang your hat on when you exclaim that fluoridation is: a) poisonous b) a multinational, multi-generational experiment being kept secret for some ulterior purpose because you have no proof of either and sound completely off your tree. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
It's not secret. It's hidden in plain sight. Fluoride is poison and bad for you *BUT* it's good for your teeth, the children's teeth. That's it. I pay for a few garbage studies, and people themselves get the bandwagon moving. If the government cares so much for your health, and if this was indeed such a scientifically and health motivated move, why don't they listen to the anti-fluoride doctors and concerned people? Because they've made their minds, just like you did. They are certain that 1ppm isn't harmful, period. Because if it is harmful, in any way, at any rate or time frame, they'd be screwed. If they listen to the opposition, they'll have realized they lied to themselves, their clients, their children. So they're not going to admit anything. Even if they know it's not safe anymore. They'll never say there may be this or that risk. What's done is done, and they're not backing off. Neither is you. Fluoride in the water is useless. Toothpaste needs high concentrations of fluoride to be effective against cavities, yet the minuscules amounts of 1mg/Liter is supposed to help? I don't buy it. I don't give a fuck about how many papers you give me, I'm sorry. I could datamine just as many bullshit papers trying to prove my point, but I'm not going to. Retrospective studies don't prove jack. I want to see experiments, yet there are none. There's just as much junk from your side of the aisle as there is on mine. So I have to go back to the basic premises to argue my case. I hope you understand. -Ingested fluoride is useless in every shape or form inside your body. -Fluoride is "minimally" lethal at 5mg/kg of body mass -Only use is in topical form, when it touches the teeth. -Fluoridated water everywhere have always been at about 1ppm concentrations -Fluoride toothpaste varies from 400ppm~5000ppm -No experiments have ever been done on the long-term side effects of ingesting fluoridated water. Most studies focus on cavities/fluorosis. I have two major disagreements based on the above: Why should I believe the government and fluoride-selling companies when they say that the 1ppm fluoride in the tap water is going to help me anywhere NEAR as much as brushing my teeth with 1000x more concentrated fluoride toothpaste? I don't brush my teeth whilst I drink water. I don't think my teeth even have that much contact with the water when I drink it. Maybe the lower teeth, but that's it. Why should I believe the government cares about my health when they haven't even looked into the long-term health effects this substance could have on me, before introducing fluoride in the water supply? My belief to the above questions is that: No, it doesn't help even a hundredth percent, it's all hype, myth, just to sell us toxic waste in a forcible and massive way. I'm not sure, I have no evidence, or proof. I don't care. I believe I should not believe my government, and should doubt it in every way, at every step. And there's a lot of ground to doubt their intentions here. Unless you've invested yourself in their lies, which I never did. | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 12 2009 13:40 Yurebis wrote:why don't they listen to the anti-fluoride doctors and concerned people? Because those doctors are in a fringe minority, and "concerned people" generally have no qualifications for informing such decisions. Have you ever done a single scientific study, or published a single paper? If not, please just stop trying to tell everybody that you know what's involved, what it takes, what the standards of rigor are, or anything at all for that matter--you're just making a fool of yourself. On May 12 2009 11:37 Brett wrote:But stop acting like you have something to hang your hat on when you exclaim that fluoridation is: a) poisonous b) a multinational, multi-generational experiment being kept secret for some ulterior purpose because you have no proof of either and sound completely off your tree. QFE | ||
food
United States1951 Posts
my dentist trying to poison me | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
You've got to be fucking kidding me. I hate the FDA and wikipedia but here goes a stupid quote: As of April 7th, 1997, the United States FDA (Food & Drug Administration) required that all fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. carry the following poison warning: WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately. Potentially fatal dose = 5 mg of fluoride per kg of bodyweight. It doesn't fucking matter to you if the FDA labels it with a POISON WARNING? And I can't call it a POISON? You guys are out of your fucking minds. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 12 2009 14:14 food wrote: lmfao fluoride conspiracy my dentist trying to poison me Your dentist tells you to spit. | ||
Zerg Zergling
United States24 Posts
| ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/index.html#animal1 | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 12 2009 14:15 Yurebis wrote: How does it not matter how much of a substance you have to ingest to die? You've got to be fucking kidding me. I hate the FDA and wikipedia but here goes a stupid quote: It doesn't fucking matter to you if the FDA labels it with a POISON WARNING? And I can't call it a POISON? You guys are out of your fucking minds. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. And here we have a perfect example of being unable to think rationally. You panic because you don't understand the numbers you're typing, and you try to get us to share in your panic by swearing and capitalizing a lot of shit. "Poison" is a really loaded term, you shouldn't be talking about establish firm scientific evidence and then suddenly expect us to be swung to your viewpoint because you have a small tantrum. I bet you'd have a hard time finding one product in your bathroom that's not poisonous if you want to use that term. But the absolute, literal measurement of the lethal dose is *always* irrelevant. Why? For starters, there are chemicals essential for life that are toxic at significantly smaller doses than 5mg/kg. (to find some, look at the ingredients in your multivitamins--selenium for example) You *always* need to compare the amount consumed to the safe dosage. A substance with 1/10th the LD50 can be 10 times as dangerous if you are exposed to 100 times as much of it. The reason toothpaste has poison warnings is because 1) toothpaste has a thousand times as much fluoride as drinking water, and 2) small children might decide toothpaste tastes good and eat an entire tube. It's not because if they somehow touch it then OMG FUCK IT'S POISON EVERYBODY CLEAR THE FUCKING ROOM. | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 12 2009 14:28 Yurebis wrote: Also since I'm at it I might as well post some OOO CONSPIRACY THEORY links on animal experiments with fluoride in the brain. Haven't seen them before. Apparently if you want a copy of the actual papers you have to send them an email, and pay for it. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/index.html#animal1 lol I picked the first study that wasn't from an Indian or Chinese research team that I've obviously never heard of and can't verify the credentials of. It was from the American Journal of Public Health, but it was on sulfuryl fluoride. Since you obviously don't know anything about chemistry, I'll explain to you that sulfuryl fluoride is covalently bonded, hence has as much to do with fluoride ion as chlorine gas has to do with sodium chloride, table salt. Simple logic and chemistry, my friend. Do you have some particular study on that list that you think is both a) relevant, and b) not bullshit? | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
It is dangerous because it can build up. The danger was unforeseen in the past, but they put it anyway. Without sufficient research, without giving a damn, like you. You don't give a damn and you just accept the saying that it's a safe dosage, and won't consider it can build up. Alright I'm not going to repeat myself. Go take a look at the brain stuff and see if you fancy something. If not, whatever. i can't make you doubt authority, you got to do it yourself. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 12 2009 14:55 threepool wrote: lol I picked the first study that wasn't from an Indian or Chinese research team that I've obviously never heard of and can't verify the credentials of. It was from the American Journal of Public Health, but it was on sulfuryl fluoride. Since you obviously don't know anything about chemistry, I'll explain to you that sulfuryl fluoride is covalently bonded, hence has as much to do with fluoride ion as chlorine gas has to do with sodium chloride, table salt. Simple logic and chemistry, my friend. Do you have some particular study on that list that you think is both a) relevant, and b) not bullshit? I'm still looking into it. | ||
food
United States1951 Posts
On May 12 2009 14:28 Yurebis wrote: Also since I'm at it I might as well post some OOO CONSPIRACY THEORY links on animal experiments with fluoride in the brain. Haven't seen them before. Apparently if you want a copy of the actual papers you have to send them an email, and pay for it. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/index.html#animal1 i heard your part starting at 2:45 | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Rofl :D | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
National Academy of Science recommends: · infants up to 6 months old - less than 0.01 mg · babies from 6 - 12 months less than 0.5 mg · children from 1 to 3 years old - 0.7 mg · children from 4 to 8 years old - less than 1 mg · children from 9 - 15 years old - less than 2 mg Remember, a litter of water has 1mg worth of fluoride ion. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/infant/ | ||
SwedishHero
Sweden869 Posts
![]() Ps I will come back on this subject after having a talk with Dr house hehe | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
The doses are too high though. You gotta start somewhere... http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p148-151.pdf "Fluoride is a neurotoxicant." Something to do with "ChE activation", didn't get it yet. | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
It was apparently published only in the Chinese Journal of Endemiology. http://www.scimagojr.com gives a ranking of journal credibility based on citations, and this journal gets 36 on their index. (there are over 200 journals that score over 1,000 on this index) In other words, who the fuck are these guys? As for the content of the article, which seems decently written enough, the *smallest* concentration of fluoride given to any group of mice was about ten times that in drinking water, which we already agreed was unhealthy. See, I actually read the thing. Care to try again? | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 12 2009 15:58 SwedishHero wrote: Even though I think its quite harmless to drink some water with fluoride in it, I also think its quite overkill to add it to all the water supply. How hard can it be to just buy some mouthwash with flouride in it and spit it out ![]() Ps I will come back on this subject after having a talk with Dr house hehe The problem isn't with us, the problem is mostly with poor people. Tooth decay can be devastating when someone can't afford treatment--imagine you're already having trouble getting a job, then suddenly you're missing a couple of teeth and have revolting bad breath. In addition, oral infections can easily spread, causing a lot of other health problems including heart disease. It's really a huge problem that can be an economic drain on society, and nobody has come up with a better treatment for the problem than fluoridation, not that I've seen anyway. I don't want to find myself rabidly defending fluoride at all costs here, but I did want to respond to your point, and say that it's not quite as simple as buying mouthwash for everyone on the planet. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Ill look for more later. In the meanwhile, consider this. How save can 1ppm be when the EPA says 4ppm is dangerous aleady? huh? huh? Isn't it weird that the official safe standards and the official unsafe standards are so close together? It's not like that with other stuff, the margins are spread apart exponentially in most cases. http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/hfacts.html Fluoride. Many communities add fluoride to their drinking water to promote dental health. Each community makes its own decision about whether or not to add fluoride. EPA has set an enforceable drinking water standard for fluoride of 4 mg/L (some people who drink water containing fluoride in excess of this level over many years could get bone disease, including pain and tenderness of the bones). EPA has also set a secondary fluoride standard of 2 mg/L to protect against dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis, in its moderate or severe forms, may result in a brown staining and/or pitting of the permanent teeth. This problem occurs only in developing teeth, before they erupt from the gums. Children under nine should not drink water that has more than 2 mg/L of fluoride. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 12 2009 17:19 threepool wrote: The problem isn't with us, the problem is mostly with poor people. Tooth decay can be devastating when someone can't afford treatment--imagine you're already having trouble getting a job, then suddenly you're missing a couple of teeth and have revolting bad breath. In addition, oral infections can easily spread, causing a lot of other health problems including heart disease. It's really a huge problem that can be an economic drain on society, and nobody has come up with a better treatment for the problem than fluoridation, not that I've seen anyway. I don't want to find myself rabidly defending fluoride at all costs here, but I did want to respond to your point, and say that it's not quite as simple as buying mouthwash for everyone on the planet. Please, I admire your concern but the government doesn't care about your health. It cares about looking good and getting money out of our pockets thats all. Sorry I gotta sleep a little. | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
As for my response to SwedishHero, whether there exist global health concerns or not is a completely different discussion from whether these global health concerns are being addressed reliably, and I wish you'd figure out how to distinguish points like this. As for the idea that the government doesn't care about major health crises, that's absurd--the whole economy suffers from major health issues like these. And I assure you, the government does care about the GDP. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 12 2009 15:48 Yurebis wrote: http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/infant-foods-and-fluoride.html National Academy of Science recommends: Remember, a litter of water has 1mg worth of fluoride ion. Again, this is an example of you being dumb as shit. A liter of water weighs over two pounds. If you fill a 15-20lbs baby with over 500mL (<.5mg of fluoride) of water, or about 1 lbs of water, you're going to run into far more problems than fluoride poisoning. Right.. the government doesn't care about your health. That's why the CDC was working 20 hours a day to identify the swine flu, or why they subsidize the costs for low-profit making drugs that would otherwise not be produced or why social security even exists to support people of lower economic class when they can't work and aren't paying much in taxes anymore. Stop educating yourself on blogspots and go find out about the real world. Even the "chlorinated water is dangerous for showering" people have a better case than you do against fluoridation. | ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
On May 12 2009 14:15 Yurebis wrote: I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Okay I'm going to hold you to that. | ||
SwedishHero
Sweden869 Posts
On May 12 2009 17:19 threepool wrote: The problem isn't with us, the problem is mostly with poor people. Tooth decay can be devastating when someone can't afford treatment--imagine you're already having trouble getting a job, then suddenly you're missing a couple of teeth and have revolting bad breath. In addition, oral infections can easily spread, causing a lot of other health problems including heart disease. It's really a huge problem that can be an economic drain on society, and nobody has come up with a better treatment for the problem than fluoridation, not that I've seen anyway. I don't want to find myself rabidly defending fluoride at all costs here, but I did want to respond to your point, and say that it's not quite as simple as buying mouthwash for everyone on the planet. Good point, I actually agree. I wonder though if people cant afford something like mouthwash, what to they eat that makes their teeth suck, a whole lot of sugar i suppose ), and if they are so poor can they even afford having to pay for water bills hehe. And how would the water taste | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
The government doesn't care about you, lol. It only cares about its public image and electability. Being a Patriot means questioning your government, not trusting it blindly. Many, many times before in history have state governments been wrong, poisoned millions, killed millions, while affirming self righteousness. The Nazi had their own scientists proclaiming their race was indeed superior to all, and therefore they had a right to do what they did. Look up Democide (it's a term, not a movie or anything..) for other historical examples. Think about lead, think about tobacco... man, it's not that hard. Point is, don't trust government. What they teach in school is that you should obey authority and not question them, but they're wrong. You should. Or else things like those happen. I'm gonna reiterate my instance on fluoride now just because. Fluoridated water is ridiculously inefficient in fighting cavities because: -Fluoride is only in use when it comes in contact with the surface of your teeth -Toothpaste generally have concentrations of 1000ppm and you brush it hard -yet water has 1ppm, a thousandth concentration that of toothpaste, and it barely even rubs against your teeth when you drink it. Therefore, fluoridated water would most certainly have an efficacy of <1% that of toothpaste. I don't have to do a God damned retrospective study with 341421 confounding variables, or even ask a bunch of PhDs to figure that one out, thanks. Fluoridated water still bears unknown long term risks to which government has purposely ignored for decades. -They have made no experiments on the subject (long term effects). None now, then, ever. That alone says a lot. -Still don't know the dangers of fluoride buildup in the bones and perhaps elsewhere (no tests on that either, let's just assume you pee it all.) -No word that it's harmful for babies until 1994. Very concerned, yes yes.. -They've made all those stupid retrospective studies looking out for fluorosis cases AFTER they've put it in. Yeah they really care about you. Not like they're using whole regions as guinea pigs or anything. Nuh-uh. They poison you because they love you <3 -They say 1ppm is good but 4ppm is dangerous (EPA). Such a short range is unknown of in other common toxic substances which are usually hundreds of times apart between safe and unsafe doses. Also consider this, you don't get fluoride only from the water. Food processing companies use tap water, and you inevitably swallow some from your toothpaste too. It can easily buildup to that in the end of the day. Four times is nothing. -They said at the beginning of this madness that it would halve the cavities in children. Now it's <20% less cavities. <10% for adults. Research it rite be4 poizoning us, pls. Therefore, the government doesn't care about your health and has other agendas instead. The above conclusions are enough for me. however, it's not for people who insist that 1ppm is safe. They need evidence to the contrary. No you don't. You're just stubborn. You can't admit you've been fooled. The government and fluoride pushers are supposed to access the risk. It's a completely useless substance outside of combating cavities so don't go comparing it with vitamins. And now even it's main function is outdated, and being officially declared inefficient. Their intentions are fake, the stated efficiency is wrong. Why do you insist on trusting a liar when he's lied this much is beyond my dumbed down intelligence to investigate. Some risks of fluoride that may exist but need more research: -Effects on the thyroid gland -Effects on the pineal gland (really needs more research, there's only this chick scientist on it) -Neurotoxin potential (IQ reduction yadda yadda) -Brittle bones, bone diseases in general (cancer zomg) -Fluorosis, but that has been documented at least | ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
On May 13 2009 02:50 Yurebis wrote: *massive argument post* On May 12 2009 14:15 Yurebis wrote: I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Now now. | ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
On May 13 2009 02:50 Yurebis wrote: Some risks of fluoride that may exist but need more research: -Effects on the thyroid gland -Effects on the pineal gland (really needs more research, there's only this chick scientist on it) -Neurotoxin potential (IQ reduction yadda yadda) -Brittle bones, bone diseases in general (cancer zomg) -Fluorosis, but that has been documented at least Some other risks of fluoride that may exist but need more research: -Increased sexual pleasure -Increased general intelligence -Increased physical stamina and strength -Increased flexibility and elderly mobility -Increased hand-eye coordination -Increased general driving ability -Reduced susceptibility to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, flu, HIV, HPV, scoliosis, black plague, mad cow disease, leprocy, heterosexuality, sexuality, asexuality, homosexuality, lockjaw, cauliflower ear, rabies, dementia. | ||
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On May 12 2009 14:56 Yurebis wrote: It's the same compound. Sodium fluoride. That's why it's relevant. We're choosing to put it in the water for the most inefficient of reasons: to protect your teeth from cavities. It is a stupid reason, it is a compound which can buildup in the brain and bones (EVIDENCE IN THE STUPID STUDIES IN THE STUPID COOK WEBSITE ABOVE). It's poison. I call it poison. You call it whatever you like I don't care. It is dangerous because it can build up. The danger was unforeseen in the past, but they put it anyway. Without sufficient research, without giving a damn, like you. You don't give a damn and you just accept the saying that it's a safe dosage, and won't consider it can build up. Alright I'm not going to repeat myself. Go take a look at the brain stuff and see if you fancy something. If not, whatever. i can't make you doubt authority, you got to do it yourself. Are you really saying that Sodium fluoride and Sulfuryl fluoride are the same? | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 13 2009 02:50 Yurebis wrote:Fluoridated water is ridiculously inefficient in fighting cavities because: -Fluoride is only in use when it comes in contact with the surface of your teeth -Toothpaste generally have concentrations of 1000ppm and you brush it hard -yet water has 1ppm, a thousandth concentration that of toothpaste, and it barely even rubs against your teeth when you drink it. Therefore, fluoridated water would most certainly have an efficacy of <1% that of toothpaste. I don't have to do a God damned retrospective study with 341421 confounding variables, or even ask a bunch of PhDs to figure that one out, thanks. You have a very strange style of argumentation. I feel like you try to make seven or so points at a time, all completely different, in the vain hope that one of them will turn out to be correct and you can feel smug. Like your list of bogus articles, you are attempting to use volume to hide lack of substance. Unfortunately, your capacity for logical reasoning is so flawed that you would be very lucky to say seven things and have even one of them make any sense at all. (you don't think the government cares about the GDP--what the fuck?) I'll just deal with this one, them I'm done trying to give you basic chemistry and biology lessons. (note to Chill: I actually mean it) Fluoridated water has two mechanisms of action, topical and systemic. Because it is water soluble, it will spread throughout your body (as does natural fluoride in every drinking supply ever) in a regular concentration, affecting, among other things, the roots of your teeth, which cannot be accessed by brushing, and, particularly in children, the formation of teeth. It will also increase the concentration of fluoride in your saliva, which is of course in constant contact with your teeth. If you were unable to think of this before typing your sorry excuse for a logical argument that you think makes you smarter than 41236128 Ph.Ds, then you are either a moron, or simply do not know when to pause and think. | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 13 2009 03:17 seppolevne wrote: Are you really saying that Sodium fluoride and Sulfuryl fluoride are the same? In his defense, I think he was responding to my previous post. At least I hope so, if he's going to claim that a covalently bonded molecule is the same as a salt with different atoms in it, then I think I've been trolled pretty hard. | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 13 2009 02:50 Yurebis wrote:Fluoridated water is ridiculously inefficient in fighting cavities because: -Fluoride is only in use when it comes in contact with the surface of your teeth In case anyone still takes this idiot seriously: fluoride in drinking water isn't intended to bond with your teeth on-contact like the fluoride in toothpaste. It's intended to be digested and it will make its way into newly-forming enamel from the inside. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 03:30 Bill307 wrote: In case anyone still takes this idiot seriously: fluoride in drinking water isn't intended to bond with your teeth on-contact like the fluoride in toothpaste. It's intended to be digested and it will make its way into newly-forming enamel from the inside. Thats not true anymore, they've admitted it's only useful when it's applied to the surface. Topical use. Let me dig some stuff out. I thought you knew that already. Also of course not all fluoride compounds are the same. Some are less active. But the ones used in water fluoridation and toothpaste are active enough that it doesn't make that much of a difference. It's the Fluoride Ion that matters. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119936928/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 Dental caries is a bacterially based disease that progresses when acid produced by bacterial action on dietary fermentable carbohydrates diffuses into the tooth and dissolves the mineral, that is, demineralization. Pathological factors including acidogenic bacteria (mutans streptococci and lactobacilli), salivary dysfunction, and dietary carbohydrates are related to caries progression. Protective factors which include salivary calcium, phosphate and proteins, salivary flow, and fluoride in saliva can balance, prevent or reverse dental caries. Fluoride works primarily via topical mechanisms which include (1) inhibition of demineralization at the crystal surfaces inside the tooth, (2) enhancement of remineralization at the crystal surfaces (the resulting remineralized layer is very resistant to acid attack), and (3) inhibition of bacterial enzymes. Fluoride in drinking water and in fluoride-containing products reduces tooth decay via these mechanisms. Low but slightly elevated levels of fluoride in saliva and plaque provided from these sources help prevent and reverse caries by inhibiting demineralization and enhancing remineralization. The level of fluoride incorporated into dental mineral by systemic ingestion is insufficient to play a significant role in caries prevention. The effect of systemically ingested fluoride on caries is minimal. Fluoride "supplements" can be best used as a topical delivery system by sucking or chewing tablets or lozenges prior to ingestion. | ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ministry_reports/fluoridation/fluor.pdf You can read the full thing if you like or just the summary. | ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 03:23 threepool wrote: Unfortunately, your capacity for logical reasoning is so flawed that you would be very lucky to say seven things and have even one of them make any sense at all. (you don't think the government cares about the GDP--what the fuck?) I'd like to see the studies which show negative correlation of cavities to the GDP of a country, rofl. And tbh, they don't care that much about GDP either. Politicians just want to get elected, and reelected. They'll say whatever you want to hear, and do their job with the least effort possible. As long as they're still seated, who cares. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 03:55 Chill wrote: Your own argument is defeated by your evidence. "Only useful" and "Primarily" are not the same thing. I'm still looking for more, it's obvious no study is going to affirm certainty in anything, certainty is only obtained after a series of experiments. Of course, government needs no certainty to affirm something is true or not. They're the exception. So if they say it's safe, they're right. If i say it may not be safe, I'm wrong. | ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Some quotes and offline sources http://www.keepers-of-the-well.org/effectiveness_pdfs/Topical_vs_Systemic.pdf Yes I was wrong for affirming certainty too. At any rate, it's another lie, systemic use of fluoride is not certain to even work. Fluoride pushers are no better than me affirming it works. I'm sorry again. Allow me to update my list -Fluoride is primarily in use when it comes in contact with the surface of your teeth -Toothpaste generally have concentrations of 1000ppm and you brush it hard -yet water has 1ppm, a thousandth concentration that of toothpaste, and it barely even rubs against your teeth when you drink it. Therefore, fluoridated water would most certainly have an efficacy of <1% that of toothpaste. -They have made no experiments on the subject (long term effects). None now, then, ever. That alone says a lot. -Still don't know the dangers of fluoride buildup in the bones and perhaps elsewhere (no tests on that either, let's just assume you pee it all.) -No word that it's harmful for babies until 1994. Very concerned, yes yes.. -They've made all those stupid retrospective studies looking out for fluorosis cases AFTER they've put it in. Yeah they really care about you. Not like they're using whole regions as guinea pigs or anything. Nuh-uh. They poison you because they love you <3 -They say 1ppm is good but 4ppm is dangerous (EPA). Such a short range is unknown of in other common toxic substances which are usually hundreds of times apart between safe and unsafe doses. Also consider this, you don't get fluoride only from the water. Food processing companies use tap water, and you inevitably swallow some from your toothpaste too. It can easily buildup to that in the end of the day. Four times is nothing. -They lied about the efficacy and mechanism of fluoride therapy when they weren't sure themselves. Since 1940 ofc. -They said at the beginning of this madness that it would halve the cavities in children. Now it's <20% less cavities. <10% for adults. -They said the primary mechanism of fluoride was that it would go through your system and reach into your tooth enamel as it was forming and make it more resistant. That's why they pushed it to children so much. But that's a lie, they didn't know for sure, it was yet another theory based on them retrospectiev studiez. The best way to use it is topical as we now know. Therefore, the government doesn't care about your health and has other agendas instead. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
Secondly, it's not forced on you - the exposure is fully disclosed and you can choose to get water elsewhere. You can choose to use products using non-fluronated water. If you are concerned with the associated costs, there are innumerable better places to fight that than with water fluoronation. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Not proof at any rate (many lurking variables involved in this type of statistic), but it's another piece of evidence that systemic use of fluoride is nearly or completely useless. We all brush our teeth and it's just fine, no need to drink that crap. ![]() | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 04:46 Chill wrote: We don't know a lot of things now, even if these things have become mainstream in society. Expecting certainty is unrealistic. We don't know the full affects of sugar-replacements, radiation from many sources, or caffeine ingestion to name a few. We know enough to say it's likely there won't be longterm effects. There likely won't be any longterm effects from water fluorination. What more than that can you ask for? Secondly, it's not forced on you - the exposure is fully disclosed and you can choose to get water elsewhere. You can choose to use products using non-fluronated water. If you are concerned with the associated costs, there are innumerable better places to fight that than with water fluoronation. You're absolutely right! I'm just stating my point of view on the issue. In fact I just continued posting because people were so aggressively defending it. I defend transparency above all things, and present my case! In my opinion, again, we should minimize the things we know are "bad". Fluoride is useless! And it could be bad! Why not avoid it? Why pay to have it in the water? Makes no sense! The whole thing smells of underlying agendas. And we shouldn't accept it, much less defend it. That's all. | ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
![]() | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 13 2009 03:56 Yurebis wrote: I'd like to see the studies which show negative correlation of cavities to the GDP of a country, rofl. And tbh, they don't care that much about GDP either. Politicians just want to get elected, and reelected. They'll say whatever you want to hear, and do their job with the least effort possible. As long as they're still seated, who cares. What is your basis for believing any of this? I know you don't have qualitative research to back up your claims about politicians. All you've got is contrarian intuition, which in this case is at odds with logic and evidence. Believing in evil agendas is infantile. At least when HeadBangaa makes this argument, he has the good sense to know that people are misguided but not evil. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00016840.htm The association between fluoride in drinking water and reduction of dental caries was first documented in the 1930s in communities with naturally occurring fluoride (2). However, it became necessary to validate and quantify efficacy when alternate systemic and topical methods to deliver fluoride were proposed. In 1945 and 1946, independently conducted community trials to assess the effectiveness of water fluoridation were initiated in four communities in Canada and the United States (Brantford, Ontario; Evanston, Illinois; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Newburgh, New York) (Table 1). Four nearby and demographically similar communities were selected for comparison. Following fluoridation for 13-15 years, the prevalence of caries decreased 48%-70% among 12-14-year-olds in the four communities (2). Studies in other communities indicated that, following fluoridation for 10 years, the prevalence of caries decreased 45%-94% (median: 58%) among children (3). Oh, I guess that means you should shut up about effectiveness. The direct cost of fluoridating public water supplies is related to a variety of factors, including size of the community, number of wells and treatment plants, amount and type of equipment, amount and type of fluoride chemical, and personnel costs (9). Annual costs of water fluoridation per capita varied inversely with community size, ranging from 12 cents to 21 cents for water systems serving populations greater than 200,000 persons, 18 cents to 75 cents for systems serving 10,000-200,000 persons, and 60 cents to $5.41 for systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons; the mean national weighted estimate is 51 cents (10). Of all persons receiving optimally fluoridated community drinking water, approximately 85% are served by water systems for which the annual per capita cost of fluoridation is 12 cents-75 cents (11). On average in a 75 year lifetime, fluoridation costs $38.25 per person and saves upwards of 80 times its cost for the general population. To repeat, fluoridation saves more money than it costs. For 1990, the Health Care Financing Administration estimated that $34 billion (5% of all U.S. expenditures for health care) was spent for dental services (12), of which $4.5 billion (13.2%) may have been spent on dental amalgam restorations (American Dental Association, personal communication, 1992). Based on a national average cost per restoration of $40 (13) and a mean national weighted cost of 51 cents per person per year to fluoridate drinking water (10), each $1 expenditure for water fluoridation could result in a savings of $80 in dental treatment costs. Estimated nondiscounted per capita expenditures for water fluoridation during a lifetime ($38.25 at 51 cents per year for 75 years) are approximately equal to the average nondiscounted cost of one dental restoration. So the next step in your argument is going to have to be that the CDC is just a pawn of Big Fluoride and has no concern for the health of the public. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
On May 12 2009 17:21 Yurebis wrote: Please, I admire your concern but the government doesn't care about your health. It cares about looking good and getting money out of our pockets thats all. Sorry I gotta sleep a little. what the hell? it does not care about your health, okay, I can understand you thinking this. I don't believe it for a second myself, but more power to you. it's good to not accept everything you're told. it cares about looking good and getting money out of our pockets thats all. okay, so you believe this. now why do you believe that the best way the government can think of to accomplish this goal, looking good and getting our money, is through _poisoning the population_ ? seriously? | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On May 13 2009 04:47 Yurebis wrote: Something to consider, non-fluoridated countries having just as low caries as fluoridated countries. Not proof at any rate (many lurking variables involved in this type of statistic), but it's another piece of evidence that systemic use of fluoride is nearly or completely useless. We all brush our teeth and it's just fine, no need to drink that crap. ![]() And this, somehow, is proof for your cause. ![]() | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 13 2009 04:28 Yurebis wrote: Some quotes and offline sources http://www.keepers-of-the-well.org/effectiveness_pdfs/Topical_vs_Systemic.pdf Well, apparently not everything you say is bullshit. I honestly thought that the fluoride you ingested would prevent cavities by strengthening the enamel as it was built, a misconception which I picked up somewhere. Clearly that was wrong. However, you are still a long way from illustrating that fluoridated drinking water has no sigificant effect. Not only is there plenty of evidence showing that fluoridated drinking water prevents cavities (such as this study, or all the citations on Wikipedia's article), but more specficially, it may be possible for ingested fluoride to have topical effects on both erupted and non-erupted teeth, due to its presence in your body fluids. The quote below explains how. Use of fluoride (I'm retyping the quote below since I can't copy and paste from Google books, so excuse any typos that I might introduce.) To add further complications to the issue of systemic versus topical effects, it may be an oversimplification to designate fluoride as simply "systemic" or "topical" because fluoride that is swallowed may contribute to a topical effect on erupted teeth, and conversely swallowed fluoride may exert a topical effect on unerupted teeth. Perhaps, it is easier to understand the mechanisms of systemic and topical fluoride in the context of preeruptive and posteruptive effects of fluoride (Figure 4.1). The preeruptive effects, are based not only on deposition of fluoride in teeth during the mineralization of enamel, but also on fully formed teeth that remain unerupted for a considerable time acquiring significant amounts of fluoride on the surface enamel from the crypt fluid. Thus, fully formed unerupted teeth are topically exposed to fluoride in plasma for several years, producing a fluoride-rich zone on the enamel surface before eruption (Weatherell et al., 1977). In contrast, fluoride that is swallowed increases the plasma fluoride levels, and subsequently the salivary and gingival crevicular fluoride levels, to produce a topical effect on erupted teeth via a systemic route (Rolla and Ekstrand, 1996). Early studies by Bowen showed that primates given doses of fluoride by gastric intubation were found to have elevated levels of plaque fluoride derived from salivary secretions and gingival crevicular fluids. This clearly demonstrated a topical effect from the systemic route (Bowen, 1973). | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 08:12 Jibba wrote: What is your basis for believing any of this? I know you don't have qualitative research to back up your claims about politicians. All you've got is contrarian intuition, which in this case is at odds with logic and evidence. Believing in evil agendas is infantile. At least when HeadBangaa makes this argument, he has the good sense to know that people are misguided but not evil. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00016840.htm Oh, I guess that means you should shut up about effectiveness. On average in a 75 year lifetime, fluoridation costs $38.25 per person and saves upwards of 80 times its cost for the general population. To repeat, fluoridation saves more money than it costs. So the next step in your argument is going to have to be that the CDC is just a pawn of Big Fluoride and has no concern for the health of the public. We live in a world of deep, deep corruption. You have got to prepare for the worst and wish for the best, not the opposite, if you don't want to be fooled. I don't care if it's on purpose or not, but there certainly is something wrong here. People wanting to save face at all costs, pretending its all good and dandy. It's not OK. Government and corporations lies to us constantly, I have every right do doubt their every word. I'm not going to act on it if I'm not sure, but I'm not going to defend their actions when it's obvious they're not sure either. They've introduced fluoride in 1940 when they didn't know, still don't know, and perhaps won't ever know nor look for long term side effects. You seriously think that's the attitude of a group that cares for you? They don't care, just dump it in the water supply and say it's good. Hell, give it to your babies too. Everyone should take it. It goes through the bloodstream and shit, gets to your teeth, and gets as hard as fucking lead! Fuck cavities, we got em with this shit! Then years go by and they got to admit it's not that good. The mechanism doesn't work. It builds up in your bones, yah. Oh by the way, don't give it to your babies, my bad lols. That's not being competent at all. I don't know if it was on purpose or not, but I'm not going to pretend this didn't happen. Or other things similar to this didn't happen. Lead, asbestos, tobacco... there's a strong historical precedent of this government and bought-off scientists fucking up in health issues. Just because this one isn't that BAD, doesn't mean it's not just as WRONG. Also may I direct you to the more updated reports, say from 30 years in the future, that say those 1950's and 1940 are all non-random retrospective garbage? It's when people started using fluoride toothpaste, it's when cavities started ceasing. They took that and made it correlate with their fluoridation trials. No shit people aren't getting cavities, they're brushing their teeth. The small amount of fluoride in their BONES and BRAIN ain't got much to do with it. Anyway, please stick with the fake 10% they say today, it's better to save face than to go back in time when we were all ignorant. I didn't know it was that cheap tho. Indeed it should be, most sources aren't even pharmaceutical grade fluoride (sodium or calcium fluoride), they just take the toxic waste trucks full of silicofluoride or some other compound and dump it in the water... | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
Seems like Yurebis is good at citing articles, but terrible at deriving conclusions from what he cites. In this case, he ignores people who do not brush their teeth enough or at all, such as poor people. His graph does not distinguish between the countries' rich and poor populations. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 08:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: what the hell? it does not care about your health, okay, I can understand you thinking this. I don't believe it for a second myself, but more power to you. it's good to not accept everything you're told. it cares about looking good and getting money out of our pockets thats all. okay, so you believe this. now why do you believe that the best way the government can think of to accomplish this goal, looking good and getting our money, is through _poisoning the population_ ? seriously? They didn't know if it would come up to the surface because all the studies showed was fluorosis. Indeed fluorosis is the only imminent health hazard that happens from fluoride overdosis. What's at hand is the long term effects of drinking 1ppm fluoridated water every day for years. Also Misinformed + political pressure + lobbying, take a pick. Or a combo. I don't care. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
What the fuck, I said it's not proof. It's evidence that topical fluoride use >>>>>>>>>>> systemic use topical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systemic It makes sense though, why would the fluoride compounds accumulate in the teeth first and the bones later. It doesn't, it goes a little bit everywhere, in your bones throughout the body, not just the teeth. If you only drink 1mg (2 liters, -50% pee'd away, lol scientific terminology rulz) per day it's not going to do much to your teeth ever, maybe in 10 years, I don't know. Point is, it's 1000x times better to put a concentrated solution directly on the tissue where it matters, i.e.. some sort of toothpaste-brush schematic. I wonder if it's been patented, hmm. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
it's so dumb. really. think about it on a basic level. it's a waste product. the nazis used it to subdue people. and we are put it into our water supply. it's just so stupid. the amounts don't even matter. putting any of it in our water is clearly stupid. I think it's all about money, I'm not convinced of any more than that. I think there are too many greedy fucks that run things and who's decisions are ran by dollars rather than concern for the general welfare. Do you think it was coincidence that as all of this fluorine waste is building up in the U.S., Suddenly experiments are done and it's a good idea to dispose of it through our water supplies. This not only saves companies the hassle of disposing of it, but makes them tremendous profit at the expense of the taxpayer. Oh, and the first tests for water fluoridation? Apparently they were done on cities, entire cities. not test groups. I wonder if they were even told. That's fucking crazy. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
or were they just trying to make some money by allowing companies to dump toxic waste in our drinking water supplies? or what? | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 13 2009 09:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: or were they just trying to make some money by allowing companies to dump toxic waste in our drinking water supplies? This is what drives tons of government actions. I don't see why that would be unreasonable. Imagine how much money certain big manufacturers, like aluminum, stood to make by doing this. Incredible amounts. Well then if he is saying poisoning it is a colorful choice of words. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
| ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 09:33 Bill307 wrote: Well, apparently not everything you say is bullshit. I honestly thought that the fluoride you ingested would prevent cavities by strengthening the enamel as it was built, a misconception which I picked up somewhere. Clearly that was wrong. However, you are still a long way from illustrating that fluoridated drinking water has no sigificant effect. Not only is there plenty of evidence showing that fluoridated drinking water prevents cavities (such as this study, or all the citations on Wikipedia's article), but more specficially, it may be possible for ingested fluoride to have topical effects on both erupted and non-erupted teeth, due to its presence in your body fluids. The quote below explains how. Use of fluoride (I'm retyping the quote below since I can't copy and paste from Google books, so excuse any typos that I might introduce.) I don't know about that study but I seriously doubt that. You'd need insane concentrations of fluoride injected in those monkeys for it to have enough of it in their saliva. Wouldn't they die, lols. Remember that the minimal lethal dosage of fluoride is 5mg/kg, so how can you ever get more than the 1000mg+/kg from toothpaste in your saliva when you can't even have like 400mg in your bloodstream without potentially dying? edit: To be clear, I mean that, even if you could, it would still be less effective than brushing your teeth. How much fluoride was in that chink's saliva anyways... | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
| ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
When all you know how to do is cry wolf, everything starts to look like one. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 09:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: but why would they start adding fluoride in the first place? did they initially think it would help, only to find out that it was a bad idea, but they then couldnt backtrack because it would make them look bad? or were they just trying to make some money by allowing companies to dump toxic waste in our drinking water supplies? or what? IMO they were looking for a cheap way to get rid of toxic waste, found out an use for it (controls cavity growth), and went ahead with that. I think the tests could of been very legit but shortsighted, only looking for immediate effects of fluoride poisoning like fluorosis. It's not that much of a conspiracy theory unless there's some eugenic idea of lowering IQs if fluoride turns out to be a neurotoxin. I don't even know if the story about nazis and soviets using it is true, I mean there's some second hand testimonies and situational evidence but nothing really solid on that. At least thats what I read. So I don't think that was the purpose back then at least. The way things go today, with fluoride being added to children's food and baby supplements, I don't even know anymore, I wouldn't doubt anything... But really you don't have to go that far to accept that it's a bad idea, should be taken out, and more research (particularly experiments, enough with the retrospective studies) is necessary before re-introducing this | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 13 2009 09:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: to me, it's very unreasonable to accuse your government of gambling with the health and safety of a couple hundred million inhabitants just to make a little more money. there are far easier and less risky ways for people with wealth and power to maintain or increase their wealth and power.. drinking water is one of the most essential supplies of any nation.. But Big Fluoride has it out to rape tax payers of money, to the tune of 4 MILLION DOLLARS annually in New York City (pop: 19mill.) Or maybe travis is right and the dentists are behind it, even though it's preventing hundreds of millions of dollars in dental bills on an individual state basis. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 13 2009 09:49 Liquid`Drone wrote: and travis, how much money does the government make from allowing companies to dump waste products into your drinking water? Do you think the bush administration was corrupt? And often made terribly corrupt decisions driven by corrupt intentions? If so, isn't it possible that such a corrupt administration existed back then? If not, then I think you are naive :/ | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 09:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: to me, it's very unreasonable to accuse your government of gambling with the health and safety of a couple hundred million inhabitants just to make a little more money. there are far easier and less risky ways for people with wealth and power to maintain or increase their wealth and power.. drinking water is one of the most essential supplies of any nation.. On May 13 2009 09:56 Jibba wrote: Nothing in this thread, even among the terrible evidence you've presented, has indicated corruption (which is as meaningless as terms like 'natural' ) as the source of the imaginary problem. When all you know how to do is cry wolf, everything starts to look like one. But there certainly is a level of corruption to adopt this kind of thing when you transit toxic waste -> medical agent. Someone had to be paid to make the initial research and get the ball rolling. May not even be that expensive either. Don't even need a lobbyist when you got some scientific establishments accepting your idea. It's not just corruption of course I've been saying all along, it's a conjunction of both ignorance and conspiracy: some people getting trapped in their own lies, self sustaining lies; and others profiting even the slightest bit from it. | ||
threepool
United States150 Posts
Am I the only one who wonders why he keeps bringing up the idea that fluoride is still prevalent because people are too embarrassed to admit their mistakes? Is it because he thinks everybody is vain like him, stubbornly sticking to an idea long after it has been thoroughly discredited, refusing to ever admit fault? Sorry, don't mind me, I'm not part of this argument anymore... | ||
aRod
United States758 Posts
I will summarize some of the main points. The current maximum level of flouride allowed in US water is 4mg/L. Most drinking water artificially flourinated is at a range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L Levels of flouride around 4mg/L are associated with an increased risk of dental flourosis (ugly brown teeth). These risks are not seen in groups who drink flourinated water in the range of .7-1.2ml/L. Fluoride increases bone density and appears to exacerbate the growth of osteophytes present in the bone and joints, resulting in joint stiffness and pain. Models estimated that bone fluoride concentrations resulting from lifetime exposure to fluoride in drinking water at 2 mg/L (4,000 to 5,000 mg/kg ash) or 4 mg/L (10,000 to 12,000 mg/kg ash) fall within or exceed the ranges historically associated with stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis (4,300 to 9,200 mg/kg ash and 4,200 to 12,700 mg/kg ash, respectively) The weight of evidence indicates that, although fluoride might increase bone volume, there is less strength per unit volume. Studies of rats indicate that bone strength begins to decline when fluoride in bone ash reaches 6,000 to 7,000 mg/kg. Overall, there was consensus among the committee that there is scientific evidence that under certain conditions fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures. The majority of the committee concluded that lifetime exposure to fluoride at drinking-water concentrations of 4 mg/L or higher is likely to increase fracture rates in the population, compared with exposure to 1 mg/L. Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence. The chief endocrine effects of fluoride exposures in experimental animals and in humans include decreased thyroid function, increased calcitonin activity, increased parathyroid hormone activity, secondary hyperparathyroidism, impaired glucose tolerance, and possible effects on timing of sexual maturity. Some of these effects are associated with fluoride intake that is achievable at fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 4 mg/L or less In light of the collective evidence on various health end points and total exposure to fluoride, the committee concludes that EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L should be lowered. Lowering the MCLG will prevent children from developing severe enamel fluorosis and will reduce the lifetime accumulation of fluoride into bone that the majority of the committee concludes is likely to put individuals at increased risk of bone fracture and possibly skeletal fluorosis, which are particular concerns for subpopulations that are prone to accumulating fluoride in their bones. Fluoridation is widely practiced in the United States to protect against the development of dental caries; fluoride is added to public water supplies at 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L. The charge to the committee did not include an examination of the benefits and risks that might occur at these lower concentrations of fluoride in drinking water. In other words, there is consensus among experts that we should lower the level of flouride in the drinking water currently allowed. Questioning the optimal range is legitimate, but I have seen ZERO evidence that suggests the range should be below what is currently recomended. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:04 Yurebis wrote: But there certainly is a level of corruption to adopt this kind of thing when you transit toxic waste -> medical agent. Someone had to be paid to make the initial research and get the ball rolling. May not even be that expensive either. Don't even need a lobbyist when you got some scientific establishments accepting your idea. It's not just corruption of course I've been saying all along, it's a conjunction of both ignorance and conspiracy: some people getting trapped in their own lies, self sustaining lies; and others profiting even the slightest bit from it. There are naturally fluoridated streams in Colorado. In the early 20th century, someone noticed that the people living around those water supplies had much lower rates of tooth decay than everyone else in the country. They ran tests to figure out why, and then chose 5 sample cities to run 15 year tests on. All cities had dramatic reductions in tooth decay. What do you think happened next? | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:05 threepool wrote: I love how Yurebis didn't even know the word systemic until I mentioned it and all of sudden it's a cornerstone of his arguments... Am I the only one who wonders why he keeps bringing up the idea that fluoride is still prevalent because people are too embarrassed to admit their mistakes? Is it because he thinks everybody is vain like him, stubbornly sticking to an idea long after it has been thoroughly discredited, refusing to ever admit fault? Sorry, don't mind me, I'm not part of this argument anymore... No you certainly are part, everyone is, everyone learns a little. I didn't know fluoride actually helped tooth decay, I thought at first it was all a lie but it does indeed help, no studies deny that. It's just the way it's used thats not ideal, plus could be dangerous over time. There's no shame in being mistaken but its a fact people don't like to be wrong. You may not think that psychological trait was a contributer to this fluoridated water movement but at least I do, I see it clear as day. If I'm wrong then I would apologize heavily but I haven't been proved to be yet at least. I don't think it's shameful to doubt authority no matter what, even if you're wrong and stupid, it takes courage, and if everyone did, then certainly less mistakes would occur, be them conspiracies or not. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:02 Jibba wrote: But Big Fluoride has it out to rape tax payers of money, to the tune of 4 MILLION DOLLARS annually in New York City (pop: 19mill.) fluoridation started like 50-60 years ago genius Or maybe travis is right and the dentists are behind it, even though it's preventing hundreds of millions of dollars in dental bills on an individual state basis. How many dentists actually have done their own studies on the effects of long term fluoridation at low levels. NONE And how many dentists have personally done experimentation regarding the results of fluoride in drinking water's effects on teeth, anyways? Really, I would be interested in knowing. It's not like there aren't dentists out there that are anti-fluoridation. And I dont give a fuck if it's helpful for my teeth or not anyways. My teeth are plenty healthy and whiter than they've ever been, and I use non-fluoride toothpaste. | ||
AlwaysGG
Taiwan952 Posts
| ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:11 Jibba wrote: There are naturally fluoridated streams in Colorado. In the early 20th century, someone noticed that the people living around those water supplies had much lower rates of tooth decay than everyone else in the country. They ran tests to figure out why, and then chose 5 sample cities to run 15 year tests on. All cities had dramatic reductions in tooth decay. What do you think happened next? Thats evidence for the safety of fluoride (calcium fluoride in that case Id think, which is a little less active), but doesn't mean you can straight away introduce a chemical in the water supply without experimenting further (experimenting at all really), you never know what other things can happen. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
gl thread | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:08 aRod wrote: This is an excellent post, and we can have a discussion about whether the policy recommendations are reasonable and whether the EPA limit should be brought to a more conservative level.I just read a summary of "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards." It was published in 2006, so it's rather recent. I will summarize some of the main points. The current maximum level of flouride allowed in US water is 4mg/L. Most drinking water artificially flourinated is at a range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L Levels of flouride around 4mg/L are associated with an increased risk of dental flourosis (ugly brown teeth). These risks are not seen in groups who drink flourinated water in the range of .7-1.2ml/L. Fluoride increases bone density and appears to exacerbate the growth of osteophytes present in the bone and joints, resulting in joint stiffness and pain. Models estimated that bone fluoride concentrations resulting from lifetime exposure to fluoride in drinking water at 2 mg/L (4,000 to 5,000 mg/kg ash) or 4 mg/L (10,000 to 12,000 mg/kg ash) fall within or exceed the ranges historically associated with stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis (4,300 to 9,200 mg/kg ash and 4,200 to 12,700 mg/kg ash, respectively) The weight of evidence indicates that, although fluoride might increase bone volume, there is less strength per unit volume. Studies of rats indicate that bone strength begins to decline when fluoride in bone ash reaches 6,000 to 7,000 mg/kg. Overall, there was consensus among the committee that there is scientific evidence that under certain conditions fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures. The majority of the committee concluded that lifetime exposure to fluoride at drinking-water concentrations of 4 mg/L or higher is likely to increase fracture rates in the population, compared with exposure to 1 mg/L. Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence. The chief endocrine effects of fluoride exposures in experimental animals and in humans include decreased thyroid function, increased calcitonin activity, increased parathyroid hormone activity, secondary hyperparathyroidism, impaired glucose tolerance, and possible effects on timing of sexual maturity. Some of these effects are associated with fluoride intake that is achievable at fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 4 mg/L or less In light of the collective evidence on various health end points and total exposure to fluoride, the committee concludes that EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L should be lowered. Lowering the MCLG will prevent children from developing severe enamel fluorosis and will reduce the lifetime accumulation of fluoride into bone that the majority of the committee concludes is likely to put individuals at increased risk of bone fracture and possibly skeletal fluorosis, which are particular concerns for subpopulations that are prone to accumulating fluoride in their bones. Fluoridation is widely practiced in the United States to protect against the development of dental caries; fluoride is added to public water supplies at 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L. The charge to the committee did not include an examination of the benefits and risks that might occur at these lower concentrations of fluoride in drinking water. In other words, there is consensus among experts that we should lower the level of flouride in the drinking water currently allowed. Questioning the optimal range is legitimate, but I have seen ZERO evidence that suggests the range should be below what is currently recomended. According to the ADA, it's not needed and the report is often taken out of context. Chicago, March 22, 2006—The American Dental Association (ADA) emphasizes that the just-released report on fluoride by the National Academies' National Research Council only addresses the levels of naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water that exceed the EPA's current recommendations. The report in no way examines or calls into question the safety of community water fluoridation, which is the process of adding fluoride to public water supplies to reach an optimal level of 0.7 – 1.2 ppm in order to protect people against tooth decay. One part per million is the equivalent to about one cent in $10,000. The ADA continues to endorse community water fluoridation as a vital public health measure. The report, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standard, concludes that the Environmental Protection Agency's maximum fluoride goal of 4 ppm should be lowered to protect the public's health . Just over 200,000 Americans live in communities where fluoride levels in drinking water are 4 ppm or higher. It is crucial to note that the 4 ppm concentration of fluoride is nearly four times the optimum amount recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and ADA to prevent tooth decay. The ADA is a strong supporter of community water fluoridation, cited by the CDC as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, as a safe, beneficial and cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay in children and adults. | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
The real question is, should we be supplementing tap water at all? The "why not" question is answered in bold in this post, and really puts the burden of proof on the proponents of supplementation. But then, such a proof is impossible. You can't prove a negative. But what I'm seeing by and large in this thread, are people saying, "Yes you can't prove the negative, and so it doesn't need proving." But then I see the same people arguing over humanity's current body of information. Stop playing both sides against the middle. Either throw out the facts along with your dismissal or proving a negative, or provide an exhaustive (and impossible) explanation as to why supplementation is safe. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:08 aRod wrote:In other words, there is consensus among experts that we should lower the level of flouride in the drinking water currently allowed. Questioning the optimal range is legitimate, but I have seen ZERO evidence that suggests the range should be below what is currently recomended. There's little evidence regarding exactly 1ppm, but I see many problems with having even 1ppm. They're disregarding that not only do people get fluoride from the water but from secondary sources too. Like toothpaste, processed foods, really any food that had fluoride come in contact with it. So people aren't always limited to the 1ppm. Once that it has been proven that ingested fluoride doesn't help much or at all compared to toothpaste, we should simply stop putting it in. There's no point to it anymore. Why stay in borderline levels of toxicity when you can avoid it taking these basics steps back and reconsidering what we do with our food and water. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:22 HeadBangaa wrote: The entire discussion avoids the real matter. The knowledge we have of the effects of substances is always progressing and changing. Before 1970, we were literally bathing in DDT. The real question is, should we be supplementing tap water at all? The "why not" question is answered in bold in this post, and really puts the burden of proof on the proponents of supplementation. But then, such a proof is impossible. You can't prove a negative. But what I'm seeing by and large in this thread, are people saying, "Yes you can't prove the negative, and so it doesn't need proving." But then I see the same people arguing over humanity's current body of information. Stop playing both sides against the middle. Either throw out the facts along with your dismissal or proving a negative, or provide an exhaustive (and impossible) explanation as to why supplementation is safe. I can prove it's nearly useless therefore it's not worth taking a risk. That's good enough for me to leave it out! | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:15 Yurebis wrote: Thats evidence for the safety of fluoride (calcium fluoride in that case Id think, which is a little less active), but doesn't mean you can straight away introduce a chemical in the water supply without experimenting further (experimenting at all really), you never know what other things can happen. The fact that there was inadequate testing for long term negative consequences when it was first implemented in most cities is not unique to fluoridation, nor is it particularly rare to see today. In terms of safety, they fucked up just like they did for cigarettes and asbestos and many other things. It turned out, unlike those other things, that people weren't dropping dead and there were no widespread problems occurring that could be attributed to the fluoride in water. Were they short sighted? Yes. Were they malicious? No. Did they "luck out?" Maybe. You're criticizing the practices from 60 years ago, when there were far greater concerns than long term bone density and many more injustices taking place than "forced fluoridating." In fact, fluoride in the drinking water went a long way in alleviating health problems for the poor. This is like the debate over genetically modified foods. Don't eat it if you're suspicious, but they've gone a long way in helping the world, especially those in living in poverty. | ||
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
aRod
United States758 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:22 HeadBangaa wrote: The entire discussion avoids the real matter. The knowledge we have of the effects of substances is always progressing and changing. Before 1970, we were literally bathing in DDT. The real question is, should we be supplementing tap water at all? The "why not" question is answered in bold in this post, and really puts the burden of proof on the proponents of supplementation. But then, such a proof is impossible. You can't prove a negative. But what I'm seeing by and large in this thread, are people saying, "Yes you can't prove the negative, and so it doesn't need proving." But then I see the same people arguing over humanity's current body of information. Stop playing both sides against the middle. Either throw out the facts along with your dismissal or proving a negative, or provide an exhaustive (and impossible) explanation as to why supplementation is safe. Proving a negative is often difficult. But certain positives should be easy to prove. If flouride has negative health effects, some simple population studies of the incidence of the so called "flouride diseases" would be proof enough to convince me. The populations exists for these studies. We have groups in the United States who recieve the recommended levels of flouride in their water and those that don't. Only 65.8% of the population in the United states has flouride added to their water, and there are plenty of regions where no flouride is added and the population drinks water with less than the recommended levels of .7-1.2 mg/L. All that the flouride opponents need to do is a population study that documents and increased rate of fractures, lower IQs, an increased incidence of endocrine defects, or any of the "flouride diseases" amongst these population groups. I haven't seen any of these claims documented or any studies supporting these arguements. I'm always open to evidence, find one and convince me. As always we have to compare costs and benefits. The main benefit of flouride in drinking water is the prevention of dental carries. It is well established that flouride does the following. (1) inhibition of demineralization at the crystal surfaces inside the tooth, (2) enhancement of remineralization at the crystal surfaces (the resulting remineralized layer is very resistant to acid attack), and (3) inhibition of bacterial enzymes. Fluoride in drinking water and in fluoride-containing products reduces tooth decay via these mechanisms. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119936928/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 The costs are unclear at recommended levels. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
Zerg Zergling
United States24 Posts
yurebis, you bring up lots of good points, but teaching people is more than just presenting the truth. HOW you present your points is just as important as WHAT you present. still lolling though at the naivety of people to actually think that government is benevolent. i suppose if you haven't graduate college you haven't really been out in the real world enough to know how the world really works (even then, people are generally idiots, hence why america actually believed george bush when he said that iraq had weapons of mass destruction). yurebis, i'm actually intrigued to hear more about fluoride, but i think the "debate" has reached an impasse without actually comparing the legitimacy of each side's studies. this is the general nature of scientific debates - it tends to lean more on verifying studies than on "philosophy." i agree though - people who don't realize that government is self-serving and that much of science these days is biased aren't fit for this kind of debate. | ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On May 13 2009 14:44 Zerg Zergling wrote: lots of naive people here. yurebis, you bring up lots of good points, but teaching people is more than just presenting the truth. HOW you present your points is just as important as WHAT you present. still lolling though at the naivety of people to actually think that government is benevolent. i suppose if you haven't graduate college you haven't really been out in the real world enough to know how the world really works (even then, people are generally idiots, hence why america actually believed george bush when he said that iraq had weapons of mass destruction). yurebis, i'm actually intrigued to hear more about fluoride, but i think the "debate" has reached an impasse without actually comparing the legitimacy of each side's studies. this is the general nature of scientific debates - it tends to lean more on verifying studies than on "philosophy." i agree though - people who don't realize that government is self-serving and that much of science these days is biased aren't fit for this kind of debate. You make a post like that, and you're the one to question the education, intelligence and 'fitness to debate the issue' of people in this thread? .... It's not even worth rebutting. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:03 travis wrote: Do you think the bush administration was corrupt? And often made terribly corrupt decisions driven by corrupt intentions? If so, isn't it possible that such a corrupt administration existed back then? If not, then I think you are naive :/ but dude, this goes far beyond mere corruption.. deliberately tainting your water supply on a nearly nationwide level just to make some money? I certainly believe the bush administration was involved in some illegal activities, corruption being one of them, and I don't believe many governments of the world are free of this.. but not every single thing a government does is done for malicious reasons.. and further what about the government of ireland, australia and new zealand? are they involved for the same reasons? | ||
Vex
Ireland454 Posts
tssssssp ahhhh yeah | ||
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 13 2009 14:44 Zerg Zergling wrote: lots of naive people here. yurebis, you bring up lots of good points, but teaching people is more than just presenting the truth. HOW you present your points is just as important as WHAT you present. still lolling though at the naivety of people to actually think that government is benevolent. i suppose if you haven't graduate college you haven't really been out in the real world enough to know how the world really works (even then, people are generally idiots, hence why america actually believed george bush when he said that iraq had weapons of mass destruction). yurebis, i'm actually intrigued to hear more about fluoride, but i think the "debate" has reached an impasse without actually comparing the legitimacy of each side's studies. this is the general nature of scientific debates - it tends to lean more on verifying studies than on "philosophy." i agree though - people who don't realize that government is self-serving and that much of science these days is biased aren't fit for this kind of debate. I just don't know where to start. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 13 2009 18:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: but dude, this goes far beyond mere corruption.. deliberately tainting your water supply on a nearly nationwide level just to make some money? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos asbestos, heard of it? how many people has that hurt or killed? 1930s In 1930, the major asbestos company Johns-Manville produced a report, for internal company use only, about medical reports of asbestos worker fatalities.[36] In 1932, A letter from U.S. Bureau of Mines to asbestos manufacturer Eagle-Picher stated, in relevant part, "It is now known that asbestos dust is one of the most dangerous dusts to which man is exposed".[37] In 1933, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. doctors found that 29% of workers in a Johns-Manville plant had asbestosis.[36] Likewise, in 1933, Johns-Manville officials settled lawsuits by 11 employees with asbestosis on the condition that the employees' lawyer agree to never again "directly or indirectly participate in the bringing of new actions against the Corporation."[37] In 1934, officials of two large asbestos companies, Johns-Manville and Raybestos-Manhattan, edited an article about the diseases of asbestos workers written by a Metropolitan Life Insurance Company doctor. The changes downplayed the danger of asbestos dust.[37] In 1935, officials of Johns-Manville and Raybestos-Manhattan instructed the editor of Asbestos magazine to publish nothing about asbestosis.[37] In 1936, a group of asbestos companies agreed to sponsor research on the health effects of asbestos dust, but required that the companies maintain complete control over the disclosure of the results. 1940s The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. In 1942, an internal Owens-Corning corporate memo referred to "medical literature on asbestosis . . . . scores of publications in which the lung and skin hazards of asbestos are discussed."[36] Either in 1942 or 1943, the president of Johns-Manville, Lewis H. Brown, said that the managers of another asbestos company were "a bunch of fools for notifying employees who had asbestosis." When one of the managers asked, "do you mean to tell me you would let them work until they dropped dead?" the response is reported to have been, "Yes. We save a lot of money that way."[38] In 1944, a Metropolitan Life Insurance Company report found 42 cases of asbestosis among 195 asbestos miners.[36] 1950s In 1951, asbestos companies removed all references to cancer before allowing publication of research they sponsored.[39] In 1952, Dr. Kenneth Smith, Johns-Manville medical director, recommended (unsuccessfully) that warning labels be attached to products containing asbestos. Later, Smith testified: "It was a business decision as far as I could understand . . . the corporation is in business to provide jobs for people and make money for stockholders and they had to take into consideration the effects of everything they did and if the application of a caution label identifying a product as hazardous would cut into sales, there would be serious financial implications."[40] In 1953, National Gypsum's safety director wrote to the Indiana Division of Industrial Hygiene, recommending that acoustic plaster mixers wear respirators "because of the asbestos used in the product." Another company official noted that the letter was "full of dynamite" and urged that it be retrieved before reaching its destination. A memo in the files noted that the company "succeeded in stopping" the letter, which "will be modified."[41] this example is pretty much the same. most corporations don't give a shit about us. they just want their dollar. the government doesn't incite change on it's own. it has to come from somewhere. if at the time all the studies that had surfaced said fluoride was a good idea, why wouldn't government officials go with it? I certainly believe the bush administration was involved in some illegal activities, corruption being one of them, and I don't believe many governments of the world are free of this.. but not every single thing a government does is done for malicious reasons.. I didn't say anything was done for malicious reasons. You are looking at it in black and white. Most Big Businessmen aren't evil, just selfish. It just happens that most of them don't give a shit about the average person because their priorities are massively skewed towards attaining power and money. How do you think it is that these companies rise to the top of a fiercely competitive market? and further what about the government of ireland, australia and new zealand? are they involved for the same reasons? In this link I posted earlier it explains exactly why new zealand had water fluoridation. Which I would imgine is similar to the reason why other countries have/had it. an excerpt: To explain how I came to change my opinion about water fluoridation, I must go back to when I was an ardent advocate of the procedure. I now realize that I had learned, in my training in dentistry, only one side of the scientific controversy over fluoridation. I had been taught, and believed, that there was really no scientific case against fluoridation, and that only misinformed lay people and a few crackpot professionals were foolish enough to oppose it. I recall how, after I had been elected to a local government in Auckland (New Zealand's largest city, where I practised dentistry for many years and where I eventually became the Principal Dental Officer) I had fiercely — and, I now regret, rather arrogantly — poured scorn on another Council member (a lay person who had heard and accepted the case against fluoridation) and persuaded the Mayor and majority of my fellow councillors to agree to fluoridation of our water supply. A few years later, when I had become the city's Principal Dental Officer, I published a paper in the New Zealand Dental Journal that reported how children's tooth decay had declined in the city following fluoridation of its water, to which I attributed the decline, pointing out that the greatest benefit appeared to be in low-income areas [1]. My duties as a public servant included supervision of the city's school dental clinics, which were part of a national School Dental Service which provided regular six-monthly dental treatment, with strictly enforced uniform diagnostic standards, to almost all (98 percent) school children up to the age of 12 or 13 years. I thus had access to treatment records, and therefore tooth decay rates, of virtually all the city's children. In the study I claimed that such treatment statistics "provide a valid measure of the dental health of our child population" [1]. That claim was accepted by my professional colleagues, and the study is cited in the official history of the New Zealand Dental Association [2]. please go to this link and actually read it. http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm | ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
Anyways, my point was to display that corporations are rarely interested in the truth, but rather in what nets them more money. And that they will go as far as to repeatedly cover up the truth to get that money. It's not like I can find an example that is the exact same, because there isn't one. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
then we discovered it was bad and buildings with asbestos were renovated.. I accept that many business owners are selfish and that in many situations, personal profit is the highest motivation. I don't accept that putting a useless waste product into drinking water which is potentially very dangerous for the population and then creating a huge campaign to falsely educate said population about why this waste product is beneficial for them when it is in fact harmful is a good business model to achieve this goal. if it's dangerous, people would find out, government / companies in charge experience a backlash. I don't believe the monetary benefits of doing this could be even close to sufficient of a motivation for potentially harming hundreds of millions of people.. it's too big.. | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
• Raul Montenegro, PhD, Right Livelihood Award 2004 (known as the Alternative Nobel Prize), President of FUNAM, Professor of Evolutionary Biology, National University of Cordoba, Argentina • The current President and six past Presidents of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology • Three scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters Union in Washington D.C. * William Marcus, PhD, Former chief toxicologist of the EPA Water Division, Boyds, MD • Three members of the National Research Council committee who wrote the landmark 2006 report: Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards (Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS; Robert L. Isaacson, PhD; Kathleen M. Thiessen, PhD) • The Board of Directors, American Academy of Environmental Medicine • Two advisory board members of the UK government sponsored “York Review” • Andy Harris, MD, former national president, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Salem, OR • Theo Colborn, PhD, co-author, Our Stolen Future • Lynn Margulis, PhD, a recipient of the National Medal of Science • Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, President and Executive Director, Environmental Working Group (EWG) • Ron Cummins, Director, Organic Consumers Association • Vyvyan Howard, MD, PhD, President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) • Magda Aelvoet, MD, Former Minister of Public Health, Leuven, BELGIUM • Doug Everingham, former Federal Health Minister (1972-75), Australia • Peter Montague, PhD, Director of Environmental Health Foundation • Ted Schettler, MD, Science Director, Science and Environmental Health Network • Stephen Lester, Science Director, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice • Lois Gibbs, Executive Director, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice, Goldman Prize Winner (1990), Falls Church, VA • FIVE Goldman Prize winners (2006, 2003, 1997, 1995, 1990) • Sam Epstein, MD, author, “Politics of Cancer” and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition • Pat Costner, retired Senior Scientist, Greenpeace International • Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides • Sandra Duffy, Board President, Consumers for Dental Choice • Joseph Mercola, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, http://www.mercola.com, Chicago, IL • Leo Cashman, Executive Director of DAMS (Dental Amalgam Mercury Syndrome) • Chris Bryson, author, The Fluoride Deception • Environmental leaders from over 30 countries, and • Legendary folksinger, songwriter and activist, Pete Seeger : ) all these guys are "crazy" too, they want to put a stop to end fluoridation too.. go figure.. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
| ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
On May 14 2009 02:34 travis wrote: It's not the same situation at all? Fine, I concede it's not really the exact situation. But not the same at all? Sure it wasn't mandated, but it didn't have to be(not that it ever would or could be)... Anyways, my point was to display that corporations are rarely interested in the truth, but rather in what nets them more money. And that they will go as far as to repeatedly cover up the truth to get that money. It's not like I can find an example that is the exact same, because there isn't one. I don't think anyone is disputing that there is a balance between society's safety and company/govnernment wealth. Your original point, which you used asbestos to support, is that the government decided to put this in the water to support profits for some third party despite knowing it was harmful. That is a ridiculous claim. More likely, although equally unfounded, is that they started doing it because they thought it would help people's teeth. Now if you want to make a case that there are studies showing they should stop doing it but they aren't because of pressures of third party companies supplying the fluoride, go ahead and make that claim. But making a claim that they put it in originally because profits outweigh health is ridiculous and unfounded. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 02:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: here in norway, asbestos was huge and used for everything, schools, government buildings, whatever. then we discovered it was bad and buildings with asbestos were renovated.. I accept that many business owners are selfish and that in many situations, personal profit is the highest motivation. I don't accept that putting a useless waste product into drinking water which is potentially very dangerous for the population and then creating a huge campaign to falsely educate said population about why this waste product is beneficial for them when it is in fact harmful is a good business model to achieve this goal. I don't see why your opinion matters when the fact is that over the last 50 years these corporations have made a FUCKTON of money off of fluoridation. if it's dangerous, people would find out, government / companies in charge experience a backlash. the people at the top almost never face heat. if you disagree with this then find some examples of extremely powerful individuals facing harsh consequences. I don't believe the monetary benefits of doing this could be even close to sufficient of a motivation for potentially harming hundreds of millions of people.. it's too big.. so, what, are you ignoring the asbestos example? this is precisely why I posted it. not that there aren't other examples, but most never got the exposure that asbestos did. did you even read the page I linked you to? have you heard of high fructose corn syrup? do you know how bad that is for people? very very very unhealthy, it causes a plethora of health concerns. did you know that tests were done and found mercury in nearly half of samples that were tested? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,484088,00.html and still, just recently, the Corn Refiners Association launched an ad campaign trying to persuade public opinion. despite the OBVIOUS health risks associated with corn syrup. if that isn't blatant apathy toward public welfare then I don't know what is. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 02:39 Liquid`Drone wrote: are you saying that this is a large list compared to the list of people in favour of fluoridation? how many of them are actively rallying for fluoridation ? | ||
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 13 2009 14:59 Chill wrote: They're not saying that. They are saying they are a group of people like any other group of people. And like any other group of people they value their own personal interests and not your personal interests. When those 2 side conflict, do you think the group of people on the government will prioritize their own personal wealth or the health of some random people they never saw live? It's a simple matter of each one taking care of their own before of others, like 99.9% of the human beings on planet earth do. That is what most of the "it's a conspiracy!!" callers miss out.I like when people talk about the government like some evil oppressing robot, instead of a group of people like any other group. "In this world each one takes care of their own. It is you and only you who needs to watch for your own interests. Because no one else will." - Said to me when I was 6 by the wisest man I ever met: my father. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 02:47 Chill wrote: I don't think anyone is disputing that there is a balance between society's safety and company/govnernment wealth. Your original point, which you used asbestos to support, is that the government decided to put this in the water to support profits for some third party despite knowing it was harmful. That is a ridiculous claim. no, when did I say the government knew it was harmful? it is not the government's job to test it, but rather to make decisions based on the results of previous experimentation. More likely, although equally unfounded, is that they started doing it because they thought it would help people's teeth. You can learn the history of water fluoridation yourself rather than speculating. http://www.fluoride-history.de/ (a fantastic website, btw) Now if you want to make a case that there are studies showing they should stop doing it but they aren't because of pressures of third party companies supplying the fluoride, go ahead and make that claim. But making a claim that they put it in originally because profits outweigh health is ridiculous and unfounded. In a free market society, money tends to be the driving force of change. I don't know if the major producers of fluoride actually thought it was healthy or not. Maybe they did. I am saying that isn't the point, even if they did it clearly was not properly tested. And why is that? Because they wanted their money now! | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
it was then revealed that she had been bullying one of her employees, and one month later she had been dethroned and lost all power, she went from being a person who could basically dictate the prime minister of norway to being someone whose opinion was wholly insignificant, because she behaved in a way people found unacceptable. I have no illusions of usa being equal to norway in this aspect, but come on, there have been countless scandals in usa where say, politicians went from a position of power to a position of insignificance because of scandals in their personal life- like that guy who visited prostitutes.. i dont have time to answer all points at the moment so I only dealt with the one I could answer from the top of my head without having to read anything | ||
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 14 2009 03:31 travis wrote: Pretty much. I've watched live on our national legislative government TV an audience where they would pass or not a law that allows transgenic soy to be planted on our soil. The 2 hours of formalities could be resumed to something like:no, when did I say the government knew it was harmful? it is not the government's job to test it, but rather to make decisions based on the results of previous experimentation. - Legislator sided with multinational Soy companies: "Here I have these whole pile of paper signed by top scientists saying it's ok for your health. PLUS it would be economically beneficial everyone *blinks* ![]() - Legislator sided with greenpeace: "But here I have another whole pile of paper signed by other top scientists saying otherwise! But.. that's all I have to offer.." - House majority: "hmm those are some really big pile of paper... guess I'll just vote on whatever my party told me to. Are we over yet?" * law passes And that is how law is done. There is no evil people hiding in a dark room planning how to screw you up. It's just as simple as a bunch of people who care more about their own personal interests then your interests. | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
On May 14 2009 02:39 Liquid`Drone wrote: are you saying that this is a large list compared to the list of people in favour of fluoridation? - no I didn't, read it again - on a personal level, had I not read up on the matter and I had to go on trust only, just 3 names list would be enuf to raise my own concerns on the matter. Unfortunately I have read enough to make my own mind up about the issue. - if you need a winning list, by all means burst ur own bubble, keep drinking fluoridated water, won't be my loss; mind u know from one tl.netter to another, I'll keep trying though. | ||
Gray[FH
152 Posts
| ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
but to me, grand-scale scientific consensus has appeared trustworthy on every issue I've attempted to research myself. I see no reason to doubt it in this case. | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
Dr. William Marcus, Ph.D, Environmental Protection Agency Scientist, Food & Water Journal, Summer 1998 "Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity, and other effects." "I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association "fluoridation ... it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has. " Professor Albert Schatz, Ph.D. (Microbiology), Discoverer of streptomycin & Nobel Prize Winner (- another one, go figure). Dr. Robert Carton, Ph.D, former Environmental Protection Agency Scientist (20 years), Food & Water Journal, Summer 1998 "The level of fluoride the government allows the public is based on scientifically fraudulent information and altered reports. People can be harmed simply by drinking water." Dr. Hardy Limeback, biochemist and Professor of Dentistry, University of Toronto, former consultant to the Canadian Dental Association. "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never. In fluoridated areas, people should never use fluoride supplements. We tried to get them banned for children but (the dentists) wouldn't even look at the evidence we presented" (- a pro-fluoridation guy, waking up) | ||
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
| ||
Infundibulum
United States2552 Posts
| ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 13 2009 09:49 Yurebis wrote: so how can you ever get more than the 1000mg+/kg from toothpaste in your saliva when you can't even have like 400mg in your bloodstream without potentially dying? edit: To be clear, I mean that, even if you could, it would still be less effective than brushing your teeth. How much fluoride was in that chink's saliva anyways... lol @ random racial slur. From what I've been reading (The Google books link as well as various studies found through Google Scholar), it's clear that the action of fluoride is not as simple as applying it to your teeth, and there's no reason why applying a higher concentration should be proportionally more effective than a lower concentration. Fluoride evidently fights cavities via the demineralization and remineralization processes of your enamel. These take place while / after you eat, not while you're brushing. And the fluoride concentration in your saliva may come into play here. The concentration in toothpaste wouldn't really matter, beyond how much of that fluoride is actually absorbed into the enamel. This pretty much defeats your concentration-based arguments comparing toothpaste to fluorinated drinking water. | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 14 2009 05:04 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: The fact that Fluoride was (is) an industrial byproduct, with no real method of safe disposal, is a hint here But aren't we, as a species, continually finding uses for our "wastes"? Such as all our recycling efforts. Or nuclear fuel reprocessing. Our efforts to make our "waste" useful are advances in our knowledge and technology. I don't see how you can suddenly turn it into evidence of wrongdoing. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:17 Bill307 wrote: But aren't we, as a species, continually finding uses for our "wastes"? Such as all our recycling efforts. Or nuclear fuel reprocessing. Our efforts to make our "waste" useful are advances in our knowledge and technology. I don't see how you can suddenly turn it into evidence of wrongdoing. can you come up with a comparable example? where we are consuming a chemical waste product. I do agree with your general message, but I think it is important to note that there are technological advances that are good for mankind, and technological "advances" that were agendized from the start and only good for select groups. There are plenty of examples of each. | ||
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
Jensen writes about how our whole "civilization" is just a fluke of very very recent human history. the vast majority of our history is classified as "pre-history" which goes on for 900,000 years before we start to develop poisons and "waste" and all things like that. so, i woudlnt say that we are continualy finding uses for our waste- i think its more accurate that we just recently started producing deadly chemicals on a large scale like this. and in any event, i dont think drinking them qualifies as sufficently dealing with the problem. | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:21 travis wrote: can you come up with a comparable example? where we are consuming a chemical waste product. I don't feel like looking into it, but I don't see why it's a big deal. So chemical waste happens to be a cheap source of fluorine atoms. So what? I bet there are all kinds of useful atoms or metals in chemical waste that aren't taken advantage of because it's too costly to isolate them compared to mining them from other sources. Bear in mind we are NOT using "chemical waste". We are using ONE SPECIFIC element, among myriad others, that can be obtained from it. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:27 Bill307 wrote: I don't feel like looking into it, but I don't see why it's a big deal. So chemical waste happens to be a cheap source of fluorine atoms. So what? I bet there are all kinds of useful atoms or metals in chemical waste that aren't taken advantage of because it's too costly to isolate them compared to mining them from other sources. the big deal is that we can't look into nature and see the effects of consuming it, because it isn't something that naturally occurs like that in the first place. so if we are going to be mass consuming something that doesn't even biodegrade in nature then there should be extremely extensive testing. | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:26 cUrsOr wrote: i think its more accurate that we just recently started producing deadly chemicals on a large scale like this. "Deadly chemicals"? Like what, Chlorine? Which is also 50% of table salt? Seriously, this is ridiculous. You can't refer to a single element as "chemical waste" or a "deadly chemical". Chlorine is the easiest example of an element that's both "deadly" (Chlorine gas, or Chlorine in water as an anti-septic) and an integral part of our diet. The fact that two substances share an element in common is meaningless. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:34 Bill307 wrote: "Deadly chemicals"? Like what, Chlorine? Which is also 50% of table salt? Seriously, this is ridiculous. You can't refer to a single element as "chemical waste" or a "deadly chemical". Chlorine is the easiest example of an element that's both "deadly" (Chlorine gas, or Chlorine in water as an anti-septic) and an integral part of our diet. The fact that two substances share an element in common is meaningless. I am pretty sure he was referring to toxic waste in general. | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:31 travis wrote: the big deal is that we can't look into nature and see the effects of consuming it, because it isn't something that naturally occurs like that in the first place. so if we are going to be mass consuming something that doesn't even biodegrade in nature then there should be extremely extensive testing. Did you miss the posts about how the Colorado river and other natural sources of water are already naturally-fluroidated? "doesn't even biodegrade in nature" - how the fuck can an ELEMENT "biodegrade"? Having a single element is like the definition of something having degraded. And if you put Sodium Fluoride in water, I'm sure it will dissolve just like Sodium Chloride. Does that not count as biodegrading? | ||
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
*Sigh* I guess I'll have to look into this more thoroughly after all :/ | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:49 KlaCkoN wrote: Physician's series of posts right now were surprisingly convincing. *Sigh* I guess I'll have to look into this more thoroughly after all :/ Convincing? It's common to find people with impressive(-looking) degrees who are wrong about something. Not to mention how many other people with equivalent degrees disagree with them. If he wants to be convincing then he should post actual research, not people's opinions. | ||
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:59 Bill307 wrote: Convincing? It's common to find people with impressive(-looking) degrees who are wrong about something. Not to mention how many other people with equivalent degrees disagree with them. If he wants to be convincing then he should post actual research, not people's opinions. Yeah good point, but the fact that some of the people on that list seem to be so very much against it is enough for me to bother looking into it. It's different than some random maniac shouting something. Travis's article was alarming as well, it seemed to be well referenced though I haven't bothered to look through them, yet. (Need to find a list of credible medical journals first =p) | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:39 Bill307 wrote: Did you miss the posts about how the Colorado river and other natural sources of water are already naturally-fluroidated? correct me if I am wrong, but natural water fluoridation comes from fluorine, whereas human fluoridation is done through various fluorine compounds, which are just believed to dissolve with no ill effects. "doesn't even biodegrade in nature" - how the fuck can an ELEMENT "biodegrade"? I wasn't talking about fluorine I was talking about the waste sources that the fluorine compounds we use come from. I guess that is misleading on my part. But my point is that sodium fluoride, as well as the other compounds we use, are derived from hazardous waste. Having a single element is like the definition of something having degraded. And if you put Sodium Fluoride in water, I'm sure it will dissolve just like Sodium Chloride. Does that not count as biodegrading? I am sure that almost all of it dissolves. But what about the bit that doesn't? And what about all the other possible chemical processes that can occur in our water thanks to the introduction of various fluoride compounds? And what about potential radioactivity? I really don't know, this is pure speculation. But do you know? I really am not trying to support my argument here..I really don't have much knowledge of chemistry. Just trying to introduce ideas. My argument is centered around the fact that the whole process was clearly an agenda to make money and remove waste, and for that reason alone we shouldn't be inclined to trust it. fluorine, sodium fluoride, hydrosiloflouoricicic acid, fluoridation, fluoride, this whole thing is starting to confuse me now | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 08:08 Bill307 wrote: In that case, you might want to try Google Scholar. It shows how many other papers have cited each paper in the search results. how would you go about using this function? like, what purpose does it have for you? | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
- this guy represents, and is talking as a spokesman for over 7000 EPA scientists and employees. - even if ur a stubborn mule half way through u won't need to hear much more to realize it's in ur best interest to be concerned; if ur not worried by the end, ur outright retarded.. (I speak of course to those that live in areas were the water is fluoridated, double pun not intended even though humor might be found) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8903910725020792574 | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
http://www.whistleblowertv.org/2009/03/episode10/ - it's all interesting but the fluoride part starts at minute 17, it's short but it will explain to u why that union is so important. | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
I haven't bothered correcting many of the ignorant or outright incorrect statements made by many about the fluoride subject, on both sides; that's not my interest even if I had the time for it - still I might review a few of the most harmful comments this weekend if I find time just to dissipate some the misconceptions that offend critical thinking the most. Physician please read this back and imagine someone posted this who wasn't you and state how this is a reasonable comment. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 10:03 Frits wrote: Physician please read this back and imagine someone posted this who wasn't you and state how this is a reasonable comment. I thought it was perfectly reasonable, assuming he actually knows what he is talking about. | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
| ||
Frits
11782 Posts
On May 14 2009 10:09 travis wrote: I thought it was perfectly reasonable, assuming he actually knows what he is talking about. No it's a bunch of pompous bullshit, either you use arguments and add to the discussion or shut up until you actually find the time to do so. Any discussion should be based on it's arguments, not the (self-proclaimed) authority of someone. You will find this in any critical thinking textbook which makes the comment about it somewhat ironic. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
aRod
United States758 Posts
In the past, it made sense to fluoridate water to prevent cavities. But nowadays people brush their teeth and visit the dentist more frequently and we no longer see increased cavity rates in regions without fluoridated water. Also the increases in bone mass provided by fluoride don’t seem to correlate with bone strength or health and may even increase the rates of osteosarcoma and fractures. The original reason we started fluorinating water don’t seem to apply to today’s world (Not necessary for cavity prevention or bone health). It may be the case that a low level of fluoride is still beneficial, but I don’t see any reason for the fluoride currently in the water supply. | ||
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
kinda weird though this thread has been hijacked for 20+ page on an issues not quite related to the op lol... btw physician, are u a doctor in RL? | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 14 2009 08:37 travis wrote: correct me if I am wrong, but natural water fluoridation comes from fluorine, whereas human fluoridation is done through various fluorine compounds, which are just believed to dissolve with no ill effects. I wasn't talking about fluorine I was talking about the waste sources that the fluorine compounds we use come from. I guess that is misleading on my part. But my point is that sodium fluoride, as well as the other compounds we use, are derived from hazardous waste. I am sure that almost all of it dissolves. But what about the bit that doesn't? And what about all the other possible chemical processes that can occur in our water thanks to the introduction of various fluoride compounds? And what about potential radioactivity? I really don't know, this is pure speculation. But do you know? I really am not trying to support my argument here..I really don't have much knowledge of chemistry. Just trying to introduce ideas. My argument is centered around the fact that the whole process was clearly an agenda to make money and remove waste, and for that reason alone we shouldn't be inclined to trust it. fluorine, sodium fluoride, hydrosiloflouoricicic acid, fluoridation, fluoride, this whole thing is starting to confuse me now Alright, I don't know how much chemistry you know already, but let me try to give you a chemistry lesson about Fluorine, Fluoride, toothpaste, and fluoridated drinking water, without using too much chemistry jargon. "Fluorine" is the element. "Fluoride" = Fluorine ion. An "ion" is just an atom with missing electrons or extra electrons, making it either positively- or negatively-charged, respectively. In this case, a Fluoride ion is a Fluorine atom plus one electron, making it negatively-charged. "Sodium Fluoride", used in toothpaste, is an "ionic" compound consisting of positively-charged Sodium ions (Sodium minus one electron) and negatively-charged Fluoride ions (Fluorine plus one electron). When Sodium and Fluorine come together, each Sodium atom gives an electron to each Fluorine atom, making one a positive ion and the other a negative ion. As you might guess, since the two ions have opposite charges, they attract each other, causing them to stick to each other. "Sodium Chloride" (table salt) is similar: positive Sodium ions and negative Chloride ions. Ionic compounds like these dissolve fairly easily in water because water molecules have a positive side and a negative side. You can picture water molecules as bar magnets, with north and south poles. To picture an ionic compound dissolving, picture taking a really big bar magnet and placing one end on a table filled with smaller bar magnets. E.g. put the north end on the table and all the surrounding magnets will turn so that their south ends point towards it. This is what it looks like when an ion dissolves in water. The individual Sodium and Fluoride/Chloride ions end up surrounded by water molecules. Now that you can visualize Fluoride ions dissolved in water, you can start to understand why we talk about fluoridated water without specifying how it's fluoridated. In the end, the fluoride ions separate from the rest of the compound when it dissolves. The only concern is, what is the rest of the compound made of? According to Wikipedia, the three compounds used to fluoridate water are Sodium Fluoride and two compounds consisting of Fluorine, Silicon, and either Hydrogen or Sodium. Clearly the Sodium ions are fine: we ingest them all the time from salt. And Hydrogen ions just mean the water is a tad more acidic (I'll explain this in my next post, in case you're curious). But what about the Silicon? You might be interested to know that one of these Silicon compounds is "a cheap liquid byproduct of phosphate fertilizer manufacture". Getting worried? ![]() So in conclusion, the substances used to fluoridate water are, aside from their Fluorine content, harmless. | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
The different acid names tell you where the extra Hydrogen / protons come from, e.g. Sulfuric Acid consists of H2SO4 dissolved in water, where it splits into two positive H+ ions and one negative SO4- ion. The opposite of acids, bases, are water with extra hydroxide (OH-) ions, which are negatively-charged. When you combine an acid and a base, the positive H+ ions and the negative OH- ions combine to form H2O, i.e. water. Cool, huh? That's acids and bases in a nutshell. ![]() (By the way, if you ever look up acids on Wikipedia, you'll see them talking about "protons" and "Hydronium ions". These are just different names for H+ ions. ![]() Now here's something crazy: apparently water doesn't just sit there as H2O: it spontaneously splits into H+ and OH- ions, which spontaneously combine to form H2O again. ![]() | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 13:04 Bill307 wrote: Now here's something crazy: apparently water doesn't just sit there as H2O: it spontaneously splits into H+ and OH- ions, which spontaneously combine to form H2O again. ![]() edit: just realized im stupid anyways thanks for the lesson i learned a lot about the quote, what does that do as far as the functionality that water has for us? i mean water seems to be special in many ways, are any of those ways related to this? | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
If teaching didn't pay so badly I might actually go into it. ![]() Water sticks together because the molecules are half-positive and half-negative. Just picture a bunch of mini bar magnets and everything makes sense. ![]() That's why water sticks to a lot of materials, as well, like plastics. Any substance where the molecules are slightly positive or slightly negative will stick to water. Any substance where the molecules are all neutral, like oils, will actually repel water. | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 14 2009 13:12 travis wrote: about the quote, what does that do as far as the functionality that water has for us? i mean water seems to be special in many ways, are any of those ways related to this? I honestly have no idea what it means, but I think it means nothing (that we'd care about) and isn't related to any of water's special properties at all. ![]() It probably means something to chemistry students, but you'd have to ask them. As far as I'm concerned, it's just an example of how stuff at the molecular level is always changing. It's like how the surface of ice is constantly changing back and forth between liquid water and solid ice (like that children's experiment where you put a string on an ice cube in the freezer and after a while the string ends up inside the ice cube). | ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
| ||
| ||