It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Next Level BS #38: Water Fluoridation, The Facts, The Crazy, and the Reality

page: 12
60
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

BS I backed all my claims by study. You called them theory. arguing with you is just a waste of my time. You enjoy it, drink it. You like GMO eat it. It is your right but don't try and push it and give crap claim from a u tube video.




posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkipperJohn
a reply to: superman2012

BS I backed all my claims by study. You called them theory. arguing with you is just a waste of my time. You enjoy it, drink it. You like GMO eat it. It is your right but don't try and push it and give crap claim from a u tube video.

Your linked study had nothing to do with water fluoridation or the levels it uses. You want to bask in your ignorance, that's on you. I don't need a youtube video to provide the many many many many links to studies (on both sides of the fence) that I have linked to with definitive science, not maybes, coulds, mays, suggests, etc.

If you can't tell the difference between facts and fear, there is nothing anyone can do, especially if you keep refusing to accept that there is more then your narrow view on the subject.

What does water fluoridation and your lack of understanding of it, have to do with GMO's and my supposed enjoyment from eating them? I'm not pushing anything, besides truth. You don't like it, click the X in myATS to unsubscribe from it if the truth makes you that uncomfortable.

Edit:
Here is my post in response to your "claims backed by studies". I noticed you failed to address any of the ways I picked it apart and showed it to be horse----. Feel free to carry on in ignorance, delete it from myATS, sit back and watch the thread, or respond. It makes no difference to me at all. I will, however, carry on defending my stance on this. That stance is; there are many lies, half truths, and rumours going around that have nothing to do with water fluoridation. If you're going to be against something, make sure you know that you are armed with the truth and not repeating something that isn't true, and never has been true.
edit on 23-2-2015 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012




You want to bask in your ignorance, that's on you


really dude. really? name calling?



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkipperJohn
a reply to: superman2012




You want to bask in your ignorance, that's on you


really dude. really? name calling?



I didn't call you a name. Do you know what ignorance means????

Edit: Maybe you don't...It's a state of being misinformed. Had I called you a misinformed idiot...that would've been a name.
edit on 23-2-2015 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:00 AM
link   
I'm curious if commercial farms use fluoridated water when irrigating/watering their crops.

If they do use it, does that mean the food that is grown with fluoridated water is also high in fluorine content?



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Philippines
I'm curious if commercial farms use fluoridated water when irrigating/watering their crops.

If they do use it, does that mean the food that is grown with fluoridated water is also high in fluorine content?





Fluoride does build up in the soil and plants do absorb it through the root system ...so in a nutshell yes the more accumulated fluoride in the soil means the plants in question will absorb more and you eating that plant will increase your fluoride levels


Fluorides accumulate in the soil. One of the indirectly toxic effects observed is the leaching of organic matter as well as aluminum and iron from soil samples by fluoride. In experiments they cacrried out with soil samples, the amount of those substances dissolved was proportional to the fluoride content of the solutions used.

www.floresflowers.com...
edit on 24-2-2015 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Philippines

I can't speak for them, but if they are using local treated water with fluoride the answer would be yes.
If they are using untreated ground water, or surface water then I have no idea as I haven't seen the lab reports on those particular areas. I know my towns raw water is very low in fluoride and the reverse osmosis plant further takes it down to less than .01 mg/L.
There are sites on the web that will tell you all the information you want to know about a specific water supply, but tracking down where your food comes from, finding out which water supply it uses and whether they use that on irrigation is a lot more work than I, or anyone else (that I know of) would care to do for each separate food item in a typical diet.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012
Hi, good show. you have been very informative, I think by know you got through to those that WANT to form objective opinions... The rest, well "I am right you are wrong, wha, wha, wha".

The problem I have is that those that refuse to believe or listen to the other side of the story get pushed into a wall without making an objective decision and claim they want the freedom to choose, without actually watching the NLBS video, where they actual source studies where fluoridation is beneficial as well as the negative effects without moderation... FROM THE VIDEO.

People want a choice? What about the people withouth the resources to take care of their dental health as well as other health conditions arising from bad mental health, which is undeniable. It is simply impossible to have 2 sets of water supply, especially removing natural chemicals from all water.

What I get from this is that the needs of the few overrules the needs of the many... That is scary.





edit on 24-2-2015 by kykweer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Joe, you need to stop making me feel these feelings. Make yourself less attractive brah.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: kykweer

Right, in my opinion, if you have adults that don't want to take care of themselves let them be. If you have adults that want to take of themselves but don't have the means to, provide it for them. Unfortunately, children don't have a say usually when the have a negligent parent.

There is no right answer for this issue, only a "best for now" practice.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: kykweer


What I get from this is that the needs of the few overrules the needs of the many... That is scary.

Indeed... the needs of a few homeless people apparently overrule the needs of the middle class and above. Every time I debate superman2012 on this issue I always point out that toothpaste is a much better alternative, and the counter-argument is always in defence of poor people who can't afford toothpaste or a toothbrush. Apparently it's so important to keep homeless people from having cavities that we must fluoridate the entire water supply even though the vast majority of people are not homeless and have no need for fluoridated water. It's like some sort of misguided moral crusade, or perhaps just a last ditch effort to justify something which is clearly absurd. Good intentions often pave the way to hell.
edit on 24/2/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: kykweer


What I get from this is that the needs of the few overrules the needs of the many... That is scary.

Indeed... the needs of a few homeless people apparently overrule the needs of the middle class and above. Every time I debate superman2012 on this issue I always point out that toothpaste is a much better alternative, and the counter-argument is always in defence of poor people who can't afford toothpaste or a toothbrush. Apparently it's so important to keep homeless people from having cavities that we must fluoridate the entire water supply even though the vast majority of people are not homeless and have no need for fluoridated water. It's like some sort of misguided moral crusade, or perhaps just a last ditch effort to justify something which is clearly absurd. Good intentions often pave the way to hell.

That's a lie and you know it.
The "debate" is always about the lies your side spouts about this issue and when shown that you are wrong, you leave never to be seen again in many threads.
Not everyone who is poor is homeless. Not everyone who doesn't have access to dental care is homeless. Some people have priorities and place shelter over dental care for themselves and their kids. You sound like Mitt Romney.
Is it an outdated practice? Probably, but for now, it is the cheapest best way to give a very minimum level of care so it doesn't cost the government more in the long run. Government went the cheapest way possible while looking like they care, that shouldn't surprise anyone here.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
That's a lie and you know it.

On page 6 of this thread I mentioned that water fluoridation is on obsolete system since the advent of toothpaste and other treatments, and you immediately replied saying that not everyone can afford proper dental care. In this thread you admitted that you don't think fluoride should be ingested but you said "What other way are you going to make sure that children/the poor/people with no knowledge of dental hygiene can get fluoride to help their teeth?". You always come back to that point after conceding that you think fluoridation is a pretty stupid program.


originally posted by: superman2012
The "debate" is always about the lies your side spouts about this issue and when shown that you are wrong, you leave never to be seen again in many threads.

There is no debate happening because you always think you are right 100% of the time regardless of the evidence and arguments anyone else presents. You some how see yourself as an infallible authority on fluoridation and everyone who doesn't agree with you is a fear monger. I don't bother arguing the health risks of fluoridation with you anymore because I know it's completely pointless. There are way too many factors in our environment to pinpoint the damage caused by fluoride even though it's very easy to prove how toxic fluoride is at larger doses.

In this thread I presented chart comparing the relative toxicity of fluoride with lead and arsenic but I should have known you'd just come back to that same point "there's not enough evidence to show fluoride has cumulative toxic effects". There was a time when we thought lead had no cumulative effects but now we know better. And lets just assume for a moment that fluoride is perfectly safe and that no one is allergic to it (even though many people clearly are allergic to fluoride and they can't shower or bath in it), even if it were perfectly safe this is still an issue of consent. You people arguing that we have the freedom to filter our water are complete idiots, that's not a freedom, it costs money and time to do that.


originally posted by: superman2012
Not everyone who is poor is homeless. Not everyone who doesn't have access to dental care is homeless. Some people have priorities and place shelter over dental care for themselves and their kids.

Even poor people can afford cheap toothpaste and a toothbrush.


originally posted by: superman2012
You sound like Mitt Romney.

Lmao see you are trying to make this into some sort of moral crusade for poor people. I simply don't think all the potential health risks are worth one debatable advantage which only really benefits poor people. It's not that I don't care about poor people, I simply don't think we should be violating the rights of everyone else to help one small group of people in a way which might also be harming them. You have to bypass consent and ignore the fact that everyone has different medical needs. Like I said, it's either a misguided moral crusade or a last ditch excuse.

edit on 24/2/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Poor people and homeless people are not the same and you using the term homeless while saying that fluoridated water is useless because of that fact is very good attempt at a logical fallacy.




There is no debate happening because you always think you are right 100% of the time regardless of the evidence and arguments anyone else presents. You some how see yourself as an infallible authority on fluoridation and everyone who doesn't agree with you is a fear monger. I don't bother arguing the health risks of fluoridation with you anymore because I know it's completely pointless. There are way too many factors in our environment to pinpoint the damage caused by fluoride even though it's very easy to prove how toxic fluoride is at larger doses.

No debate because I haven't been proven wrong yet! If I am, I will admit it. I have in many other threads, some on water fluoridation. So right there again, you have been proven wrong. Using lies and skewed science to try to prove your point makes you a fear monger, not my use of facts and science. At least we agree that there are way too many factors to pinpoint any damage on fluoride in water fluoridation, so that's something.




In this thread I presented chart comparing the relative toxicity of fluoride with lead and arsenic but I should have known you'd just come back to that same point "there's not enough evidence to show fluoride has cumulative toxic effects". There was a time when we thought lead has no cumulative effects but now we know better. And lets just assume for a moment that fluoride is perfectly safe and that no one is allergic to it (even though many people clearly are allergic to fluoride and they can't shower or bath in it), even if it were perfectly safe this is still an issue of consent. You people arguing that we have the freedom to filter our water are complete idiots, that's not a freedom, it costs money and time to do that.

So you are claiming that in the future, people will know that fluoride is as toxic as lead and you are just ahead of the times? Consent was never the issue and I would like you to show one person that said we don't deserve to have consent. You do have the freedom to filter it, just as you have the freedom to dig your own well with the right paperwork. What freedoms do you want? The freedom to pick and choose chemicals and minerals in your water, but you are still willing to let the government provide the water for you??? Seems kind of bass akwards to trust the government on one hand, but not on the other...


Even poor people can afford cheap toothpaste and a toothbrush.

Not at the cost of food, shelter or clothing for their kids. I would the basic needs for my family if ever in that position...you wouldn't? You would choose toothpaste over a loaf of bread?


Lmao see you are trying to make this into some sort of moral crusade for poor people.

Lmao, not a crusade, merely pointing out that you are so out of touch with reality that poor people equate to homeless people in your narrow view of the world.


Like I have said before, I can provide the science, facts and studies, as well as prove the lies spouted, but I can't make people think.


ps- I don't think it is a "stupid program" I think it is time to come up with another way. This is, and I have always said this, the best way for now.
edit on 24-2-2015 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012


Poor people and homeless people are not the same

I never said they were the same. My definitions would be that homeless people are poor and homeless, but poor people don't need to be homeless. Poor people with a home can generally afford things like toothpaste because it's only a few dollars, one tube lasts weeks or months, and it's an important part of dental hygiene which not many people ignore. The only people that fluoridation really targets are homeless people who can't even afford toothpaste. But it's not exactly clear where homeless people get most of their water.


At least we agree that there are way too many factors to pinpoint any damage on fluoride in water fluoridation, so that's something.

Yes but the difference between you and me is that I don't then reach the conclusion it must be perfectly safe just because we have no conclusive evidence to the contrary. My position is that we shouldn't do it until we have a conclusive understanding of the health implications of fluoridation. And there are many other good reasons which can be used to back up that position, such as lack of consent.


Consent was never the issue and I would like you to show one person that said we don't deserve to have consent. You do have the freedom to filter it, just as you have the freedom to dig your own well with the right paperwork.

So they have given their consent to have their water fluoridated because they have the ability to build a well or filter their water? You talk about this tiny number of poor people who need fluoridation because they can't afford toothpaste, well here I'm talking about a massive number of people who can't afford very expensive water filter systems or well permits, but those people are irrelevant to you?


What freedoms do you want?

The freedom to not have the public water supply contimated with chemicals which are intended to treat the people instead of the water. As. simple. as. that.


Not at the cost of food, shelter or clothing for their kids. I would the basic needs for my family if ever in that position...you wouldn't? You would choose toothpaste over a loaf of bread?

Like I said, the people who can't afford toothpaste are mostly people who can't afford shelter. And it's not that I don't care about those homeless people, although I know you'd love to paint that picture. I simply don't think it can be justified as a program which has broad implications for everyone but is only useful to those people who can't afford toothpaste.
edit on 24/2/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder



I never said they were the same. My definitions would be that homeless people are poor and homeless, but poor people don't need to be homeless. Poor people with a home can generally afford things like toothpaste because it's only a few dollars, one tube lasts weeks or months, and it's an important part of dental hygiene which not many people ignore. The only people that fluoridation really targets are homeless people who can't even afford toothpaste. But it's not exactly clear where homeless people get most of their water.

My mistake, I assumed you knew that homeless people were not the same as poor people, but I was confused about where you thought they were getting their water from, as they are homeless, and having water in pipes going into homes kind of makes it harder for them to get fluoridated water.


Yes but the difference between you and me is that I don't then reach the conclusion it must be perfectly safe just because we have no conclusive evidence to the contrary. My position is that we shouldn't do it until we have a conclusive understanding of the health implications of fluoridation. And there are many other good reasons which can be used to back up that position, such as lack of consent.

Studies since 1950s with lots of science, big words, case studies to back it up is a good way to come to a logical conclusion. The lies contained here are not a good reason to dismiss fluoride either(my favourite is the one where it is used to control the masses
). Coming up on 70 years of mass water fluoridation and none of the claims (so far) are coming true or weren't true to begin with. That right there, should be proof of no "grand conspiracy".
As for lack of consent. I completely 100% agree with you.



So they have given their consent to have their water fluoridated because they have the ability to build a well or filter their water? You talk about this tiny number of poor people who need fluoridation because they can't afford toothpaste, well here I'm talking about a massive number of people who can't afford very expensive water filter systems or well permits, but those people are irrelevant to you?

They moved to that community, or they didn't vote, or they weren't informed, or many other reasons. I talked about a tiny number of poor people? Do you think dentists would still be employed if everyone could afford, or actually did take care of their teeth? For regular check ups, yes, but they wouldn't have nearly as much work. Water fluoridation has proven that it helped in the past. Now? Like I have stated many times, I think the time has come for a better way. Do I know a better way? No. So for now, this is the best for now, way.
A massive number of people can't afford a water filter? I thought you said poor people were only a few? It targets middle class and higher. Surely they can afford $140, don't you think? Especially if it is that important to them. I mean, I pay more than that for one months worth of water!


The freedom to not have the public water supply contimated with chemicals which are intended to treat the people instead of the water. As. simple. as. that.

It's isn't contaminated, it is put there for a very simple reason. Again, filter it out, vote it out, move, etc., if you don't like it. You do have a choice, you are just setting a very narrow limit to what choice you want to make.


Like I said, the people who can't afford toothpaste are mostly people who can't afford shelter. And it's not that I don't care about those homeless people, although I know you'd love to paint that picture. I simply don't think it can be justified as a program which has broad implications for everyone but is only useful to those people who can't afford toothpaste.

I would hope you care about homeless people, I don't doubt that you do. It isn't just for people "that can't afford toothpaste" but for people that maybe don't have the resources for, or the knowledge of proper dental care.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012


It's isn't contaminated, it is put there for a very simple reason. Again, filter it out, vote it out, move, etc., if you don't like it. You do have a choice, you are just setting a very narrow limit to what choice you want to make.

I wouldn't drink tap water even if they did remove fluoride. The main reason I want it removed is because fluoridated water gives me minor rashes when I shower or bath it but I'm also concerned that it could have cumulative health effects which are hard to detect without very sensitive studies and that's it doing damage to the masses who ingest it on a daily basis because people like you tell them it's perfectly fine. I simply don't see why it's worth the benefit when we don't fully understand the health risks. Only a very small percentage of the world fluoridates their water and statistics prove that those people in unfluoridated nations have teeth which are just as good as people in fluoridated nations.

I also think that your suggestions are ridiculous. Filtering the water is not only expensive but it also removes a lot of the good minerals that exist in the water. I much prefer to drink bottled spring water which contains minute amounts of naturally occurring fluoride (very different from the fluoride they drip into the water supply). But many people cannot afford bottled water or a water filter and I'd still prefer the public water supply didn't contain a chemical intended to treat human beings when we don't fully understand the health risks involved, and I'd like my skin not to itch every time I shower for too long. I can't filter all my shower water or buy water to shower with, and all states in my country practice water fluoridation so it's pretty hard to escape. Voting isn't the magical solution you make it out to be.

edit on 25/2/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Good for your teeth? BC has better teeth than the flouridated provinces. So nada on that one.

Also, poison.

The healthy side is not making anything up.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: kykweer


What I get from this is that the needs of the few overrules the needs of the many... That is scary.

Indeed... the needs of a few homeless people apparently overrule the needs of the middle class and above. Every time I debate superman2012 on this issue I always point out that toothpaste is a much better alternative, and the counter-argument is always in defence of poor people who can't afford toothpaste or a toothbrush. Apparently it's so important to keep homeless people from having cavities that we must fluoridate the entire water supply even though the vast majority of people are not homeless and have no need for fluoridated water. It's like some sort of misguided moral crusade, or perhaps just a last ditch effort to justify something which is clearly absurd. Good intentions often pave the way to hell.

I think that some people (not all) are incapable of monitoring themselves or take care of their children regardless of being poor or not. Anyone could have bad habits that affect their teeth negatively. Just because you brush your teeth and floss or whatever does not mean all people in your social class will be just as responsible to themselves or their children, indeed complete removal could have an unknown impact on the polulation who have unknowingly relied on flueridated water more than they think and underestimated.

So ill stick to this being a case of the needs of the few trying to deny the needs of the many.

In my opinion and from the evidence i have seen flueridation has positive attributes and without it the health system could be under severe pressure...even more so.

ETA everyone agrees it is am outdated practice as well as expensive... Other options such as supplemented food groups should be investigated... Till then fluederation of water is the remedial action.
edit on 25-2-2015 by kykweer because: (no reason given)


ETA2. My water isnt fluedirated and i also get skin iritations.
edit on 25-2-2015 by kykweer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   
I think the debate is off track. Introducing fluride to the water supply and to get to that 0.7mg/L is wasted. It wastes money and changes the environment unnaturally. About 99% flueridated water is not intended as drinking water and thats why it got banned in places like Israel.

It also causes a build up in nature where 0.2mg/L may occur naturally before flueridation but could change after a few years after the flueridated has been introduced. So where they may have initially added 0.5mg/L to get to 0.7ml/L it needs to be monitored not to surpass the 1mg/L overdose.

Money should be better spent on water conservation

Just use Brazil as an example.

Brazil
By 2008, 41% of people (73.2 million) in Brazil were getting artificially-fluoridated water.[5]

Water fluoridation was first adopted in Brazil in the city of Baixo Guandu, ES, in 1953.[121] A 1974 federal law required new or enlarged water treatment plants to have fluoridation, and its availability was greatly expanded in the 1980s, with optimum fluoridation levels set at 0.8 mg/L. Today, the expansion of fluoridation in Brazil is a governmental priority; state-sponsored research points to a sharp correlation between the availability of fluoridation and benefits to human health. Between 2005 and 2008, fluoridation became available to 7.6 million people in 503 municipalities.[citation needed] As of 2008, 3,351 municipalities (60.6%) had adopted fluoridation, up from 2,466 in 2000.[122]

Thata all fine and well. Thats a huuuge amount of money spent on flueridation.

The problem is is that flueridation causes wearing on infrstructure and comes with increased maintenance costs... But we cares? The voting public cant see leaking pipes.

Now they are in huge trouble.

"Waterworks in most of Brazil's largest cities have not significantly reduced water loss rates in recent years, says water and sanitation NGO Instituto Trata Brasil (ITB).

Citing data from sanitation information center SNIS, it said water loss in 90 of the country's largest 100 cities did not go down in 2011 to 2012.

Overall, 3.9 liters of every 10 liters of treated water were wasted through leaks, illegal connections and other irregularities in the 100 cities with populations of over 250,000 people"

www.bnamericas.com...

The problem is not those evil nazi scape goats. Its the people that have secured these contracts.
edit on 25-2-2015 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2015 by kykweer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join