It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: v1rtu0s0
Dental health is a public health issue. No one is getting rich selling fluoride.
Also, what are the motivations for adding fluoride to the water? Money, convenience, lowering the masses IQ's?
Ignorance and fear.
What are the motivations against it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.