Where is the demand for fluoride "ENHANCED" water coming from?

To answer your question in your Header, more than likely waste sites like slag pits for Aluminum production etc.
This poison is a major toxin as we all know and why its in your local bottled spring water is a mind bender.

It "Fluoride" costs a fortune to dispose of but yet they still find ways to rid themselves of it.
Somebody is making a fortune off of the dregs of the "Love Canal"
en.wikipedia.org...

Now I'm not saying the Fluoride is from there but you get my point I hope, waste is waste and do what you can with it to keep the shareholders happy and my job is then secure.

S&F for a great thread.
Regards, Iwinder

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: v1rtu0s0
Sure. Send it over.

That's right I forgot Phage and his family do not enjoy Fluoridated water from their taps.
I'll pay for the shipping :-)

Regards, Iwinder

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Or you could do the research yourself instead of trying to trust other people.

If i was to research everything for myself i would never get anything done.

if i had to research every part of my car before agreeing with the mechanic, if i had to study up to be come a surgeon before i go under the knife, if i had to research the pro's and con's of everything i eat i would never eat. This line "do your own research annoys me", it implies that you basically don't think I have a clue what i am talking about (to be clear I don't).

Besides I could go and google "how to remove my own tooth" and do all the research on the best way to do it but at the end of the day I am going to get a professional do do it for me.

So when a respected dentist says to me "you have the start of some tooth decay there buddy, try this toothpaste", again I am going to agree with him over the guy on internet.

I mean really, why is it ok for you to trust the people at the "Fluride action network" but not ok for me to trust my dentist.

We are not talking about your car, what we are discussing is your body and its heatlh.
Now a dentist is a doctor correct?....Over the past 8 months or so I have questioned my doctors to the point they duck and run when I enter a room......Why? Because I have serious medical problems and I do a lot of tapping on the keyboard and I ask questions that might put some Doctors on edge and this happens more than your think.
I think you know better than to play this off as a new set of piston rings instead of a possibly fatal condition.

If you want some really good insight because you are too lazy, or you really don't want to know the truth then just start by reading the links people are putting up on this great thread.
But is not the Automotive forum and therefore you should rethink about how you respond to threads as posted.
Regards, Iwinder

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Also, what are the motivations for adding fluoride to the water? Money, convenience, lowering the masses IQ's?

Dental health is a public health issue. No one is getting rich selling fluoride.

What are the motivations against it?

Ignorance and fear.

No one is getting rich selling fluoride.
Is that a fact?......how about the corporations that would have to send it to a hazardous waste facility and pay for the disposal?

But no they like to sell it at a premium to municipalities where ever they can and make a profit or at least don't lose a dime.
Regards, Iwinder

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I believe it was Alcoa that was behind the whole "fluorides are good" campaign. It was a stroke of genius, actually. They went from "we have to pay to dispose of these toxic wastes" to "we get paid for this valuable by-product of metal refining."

The University of Cincinnati's Kettering Laboratory, funded largely by top fluoride emitters such as Alcoa, quickly dominated fluoride safety research. A book by Kettering scientist (and Reynolds Metals consultant) E.J. Largent was admittedly written in part to "aid industry in lawsuits arising from fluoride damage." Nonetheless, the book became a basic international reference work. In 1939, Alcoa-funded scientist Gerald J. Cox was one of the first to observe that the "present trend toward complete removal of fluoride from water and food may need some reversal." It was Cox who proposed that the "apparently worthless by-product" might reduce cavities in children. Cox fluoridated lab rats, concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and declared flatly: "The case should be regarded as proved."

In 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made, not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims.

"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." - Robert Carton, former EPA Scientist

During the early 1980s, New Zealand's most prominent fluoridation advocate was John Colquhoun, the country's chief dental officer. He styled himself an "ardent fluoridationist" until he tried to gather statistics to bolster the claim that fluoride was a boon to dental health. "I observed that ... the percentage of children who were free of dental decay was higher in the unfluoridated part of most health districts in New Zealand," Colquhoun reported. The national health department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish his findings and he was encouraged to resign.

www.nofluoride.com...

You are correct sir/madame
S for your great post.
Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: Phage

It's actually becoming more an issue of community decision. Many communities are voting it out. Some are voting to keep it. A few are voting to start. The trouble is, the misinformation clouds the issue. People end up making their decisions based on who makes the most noise.

That is a good point and may I ask whom made the decision up until now? I bet it was not the "community" before the internet happened along and replaced the "Bubble headed bleached blonde"
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Regards Iwinder

originally posted by: kazootica
Sure hope you're getting paid overtime on this thread Phage. Before I thought you were a voice of reason with facts but now I'm pretty sure your either a shill or just way too trusting of TPTB. When us humans can understand that evil controls every aspect of our life and certainly doesn't give a # about us humans we may start to make progress. Probably not but at least we have Jesus to save us.

I hate to say it, but I believe you are at least partially correct.

Thank you for your posts regarding the benefits of fluoride in small quantities. I appreciate your reasonable approach.

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: etombo

Speaking for myself, it's not a matter of questioning the academic credentials of medical professionals as it is questioning the integrity of those who might have a financial stake in the matter.

Are fluorides poisonous? Yes

Are there limits to how much can be safely ingested? Yes

Knowing how lobbies influence government, would I trust any government official or agency to set that limit? Tuskegee Airmen.

Would I accept at face value a scientist or study funded by a for-profit corporation with a financial stake in the matter? Love Canal.

You all can drink what you want, I'll stick with my distilled. If I'm wrong, I haven't lost a thing.

While I agree that fluoride is not nearly as harmful as it's being made out to be, I have a strong preference that water supplied en masse is simply purified and that's it. I think it's wrong to add anything to mass consumed products when those supplements could be provided separately.
I'm fine with gallons of fluoridated water being produced as it's up to the consumer to use or not.
Consider that we consume a considerable amount of alcohol, knowing full well it's a poison to our systems and we still live long lives.

Here's a link where they disprove the Nazi use of fluoride: www.politifact.com... since those that believe it are willing to buy into unfounded claims.

@Phage: Again, I appreciate your tireless efforts to educate.
However, I just want you to know you have destroyed Lithgow for me now as whenever I see him,
I think "Oh hey! It's Phage!"

a reply to: [post=18673720]gottaknow[/post
Totally agree with this post, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of fluoridation however I still disagree with it.
Not being anti science about it, agree with vaccination and think homeopathy etc is nonsense.
Its just that for water I think treatment should kept to what is required for it to be safe to drink.

a reply to: Iwinder
The problem with people who say they research it themselves is that they don't really. Its not like you are setting up your own tests or conducting studies. Instead you are just choosing to believe one set of information online over another.
For most people (and I include myself in this) the choice is more to do with pre existing bias than the case by case evidence. Othersiseofthecoin is absolutely correct to say that no one has the time yo be an expert in everything.
When making my choice of what to believe I will in the majority of cases go with the expert opinion over that of the online foil hat wearer with an axe to grind.

Floride is only able to partially prevent Streptococcus mutans (and other strains in a mouth) from reproduction. It's a tough bacteria but I believe there are safer ways to kill it with herbal poisons, silver, peroxide etc.
These organisms are much better survivalists than you or me so if the poison is strong enough to prevent it from reproduction it could be strong enough to prevent US from reproduction

I grew up in an area where fluoride in the well water(Texas, Llano Estacado)- over seventy now and never had a cavity, but my teeth have never been totally white, despite regular brushing and cleaning. So I'd say fluoride is a trade-off in drinking water. a reply to: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Iwinder
The problem with people who say they research it themselves is that they don't really. Its not like you are setting up your own tests or conducting studies. Instead you are just choosing to believe one set of information online over another.
For most people (and I include myself in this) the choice is more to do with pre existing bias than the case by case evidence. Othersiseofthecoin is absolutely correct to say that no one has the time yo be an expert in everything.
When making my choice of what to believe I will in the majority of cases go with the expert opinion over that of the online foil hat wearer with an axe to grind.

I wish I could star this post a thousand times. Oh, you've done your own research? Please send us some pics of your lab. How much did you pay your test subjects? I would really enjoy hearing about your test protocols and look forward to reading your lab notes.

Or did you just look at things on the internet? What standards did you use to decide which 'expert' to believe? The color scheme of the web site? Whether they used flash or tabbed browsing? Did it depend on what products were being hawked in the ads?

Listen, we have to be careful what and who we believe as we try to make life altering decisions. Many people who are presented to us as 'experts' by the establishment are no such thing, but there really is no substitute for a true education and real honest to god experimentation by serious people.

a reply to: tadaman

LOL! How about a credible source instead?

Only when applied topically a reply to: Phage

No but they are saving a ton of money not having to legally dispose of a toxic chemical, go get a barrel of flouride and dump it in your local creek.....you'll be arrested for Eco terrorism. a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
Floride is only able to partially prevent Streptococcus mutans (and other strains in a mouth) from reproduction.

That's not how it prevents cavities. Fluoride hardens the enamel. It's not there as a bacteriostatic agent.