posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 11:45 AM
Lazarus the Long says:
"you seem to agree that flouride should not be added to drinking water...
The problem I have with fluoride compounds being added to the municipal water supply is that the people have no say as to whether they should choose
it or not. This is wrong; even if the addition of fluoride to drinking water were not controversial, I do not like, on principle, the
government medicating its citizens.
And as for the true amount of danger, neither I nor anyone else here (and probably no one else, period) knows the true extent of danger from fluoride
It depends, I believe, on how much fluoride one takes in, as well as the body's tolerance to fluoride, and its contraindications. My guess (and
that's all we're really doing here -- guessing) is that, in most cases , the benefits outweigh the disadvantages; but it would be a lot
better if each person could judge his or her own optimum levels of fluoride ingestion.
"I would like your comments on: the FDA not approving of flouride to be ingested internally..."
That's not surprising; a lot of drugs are considered safe for topical use, but not for internal use; others for both topical and internal use. Some
of the older topical antiseptics, such as mercurochrome, merthiolate, and tincture of iodine, are very dangerous when taken internally, but were used
by generations of people as a topical defense against infection.
As a matter of fact, colloidal silver, which is touted as a cure for a lot of things, was never approved of for internal use, since the amount of
colloidal silver required to defeat an internal infection (which it does, in high enough concentrations) would cause undesirable side effects, such as
permanent skin discoloration.
"...or did i get that info wrong?"
I don't know, but I assume you're right. High concentrations of fluoride internally probably aren't all that good for you, just like a fungicide
"...also the little piece on Stalin using it in his prison camps to maintain order... "
Everything I have seen about Hitler and/or Stalin and fluoride being used to instill passivity in its subjects seems to start with a quote by a person
named Charles Perkins who made a bunch of claims to the fact in 1954. Borkin, in his book "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" quotes
Perkins, but, like Perkins, does not give names or quotes any study.
I have seen nothing an any scientific literature of fluoride compounds being shown to cause passivity; certainly with large numbers of people on
fluoride, there has to be enough raw data out there for a researcher do do a chi-sqaure or ANOVA z-crit study using standard passivity indicators,
i.e., arrests for violent crimes, to determine if there's a correlation. Given that there are a bunch of people that would dearly love to see a
positive correlation as a vindication of their beliefs, it is a bit suspicious that no one has done any research on this -- or at least has not
And of coruse, as I mentioned earlier, fluoride compounds were used to strengthen teeth before either Stalin or Hitler were even born.
"what, if any, studies are you familiar with that discuss the toxicity rates, buildup duration within the body/rate of absorbsion. the concern I
have here, is that evidence seems to indicate that the body can only absorb so much, and it doesn't flush out the excess, instead stores it in
connective tissues and bones... (where it can cause harm)."
That's quite possible. I have no expertise whatsoever in the field; I took exactly one biochemistry course in my whole life. I am not familiar with
any studies at all, except that just about all of the mainstream boys, including the American Dental Association (ADA), the Center for Disease Control
(CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and so on, seem to think that the studies out there have shown its efficacy and effectiveness.
I think that just about every person here, gets his opinion by reading and accepting the opinions of others who he trusts and respects. I am
certainly not someone who blindly trusts the government, but when I see all the professional societies saying it's cost effective and people like
David Icke saying it's not ...
...well, I'm sure you understand whom I tend to follow.
"it would seem that a little flouride while children are growing isn't too terrible of a thing, but increased amounts throughout life (drinking
water, meds, mouthwash) can cause the problems we are talking about... "
You're right; they could. All we have to go on is to find out what studies have been performed and evaluate them -- or (and this is what we're
going to do because we're not scientists), is to agree with an individual or a group or a group of groups that we have reason to believe are
objective and knowlegeable.
I hope my posts here would at least add to the discussion. I am not an expert, nor do I pretend to be one; in the techno-world of today, normal folks
like you and I are forced to take some views as gospel and build our opinions from them.
For that reason, it's incumbent on all of us to choose whom we will believe and make that a wise choice.