reply to post by Krzyzmo
Flouride is a poison
Anything can be deadly when used inappropriately, the modern use of fluoride isn't harmful.
There are poison labels on every bag of flouride shipped in
Again intentionally misleading. Yes, it's used in rat poison, which is obviously not very healthy. Despite the obvious fact that somethings toxicity
is primarily based on it's dosage, you're basically stating anything used in rat poison, regardless of ingredient, is poison. For example, with this
reasoning, sodium fluoride, which is allegedly "poison", contains sodium. You consume sodium everyday, therefore you are consuming poison. A bit of
a stretch, no?
I guess I have to do some work to address that mountain of propaganda...
Prior to 1945 fluoride was considered a toxic waste that caused many law suits due to its improper disposal.
Prior to 1945, fluoride was already acknowledged as already occurring naturally in water as calcium fluoride, also that populations that were
consuming the higher, reasonable, doses of naturally occurring fluoride had overall improved their teeth.
Over ninety years ago, in 1908, Dr. Frederick S. McKay started his first investigations in Colorado Springs which involved examination and
charting of the teeth of 2,945 local school children. Over the years, Dr. McKay personally authored over 40 papers regarding the cause of 'Colorado
Brown Stain' (mottling) and the benefits of fluoride.
In 1935 to 1936 Dr. Trendley Dean was appointed by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) to study fluoridated areas. He compared the
populations of Colorado Springs and Pueblo to other cities and concluded in 1936 that water which contained one ppm fluoride cause mottling in its
'very mildest form' in ten per cent of the population. If the water contained 2.5 ppm fluoride, 75 to 80 per cent had mottling. Thus, he concluded,
by keeping the fluoride content of the water at 1.5 ppm or less, mottling was unlikely to occur.
So your statement is kind of a moot point regardless.
It is the waste product of chemical fertilizers and aluminum processing
Misleading use of the words "waste product". Are they literally just dumping crates that are built by factories and putting into the water...? No.
It's being recycled etc.
Fluoride is more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic
Again with this toxicity argument. Hydrogen fluoride, which is probably what you refer to as the byproducts that factories use, is considerably
harmful. Sodium and calcium fluoride, not so much.
An example;
Women dies in water-drinking contest. Now, do you think the water or fluoride killed her?
After all, you think fluoride is some poisonous, toxic stuff...
Oh, but what's in water? Hydrogen and oxygen, does that mean that they are inherently toxic or poisonous? No.
There is also evidence that fluoride can cause cancer and increase hip fractures.
The
Nation Cancer Institute would disagree with fluoride causing cancer
and the
American Dental Association does not support any link between bone health.
According to generally accepted scientific knowledge, the ingestion of optimally fluoridated water does not have an adverse effect on bone health.
Exposure to fluoride at levels considered optimal for the prevention of dental decay appears to have no significant impact on bone mineral
density.
An excess of fluoride in the system can cause...
Can you link any legitimate studies that show what concentration of fluoride can cause what you've listed? Beyond that, you're not supposed to be
consuming "excess" amounts fluoride. We're not talking about what happens when a baby eats 15 pounds of fluoride...
Many communities that fluoridate their water have amounts that could cause 3rd stage Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis
Wikipedia states;
Common causes of fluorosis include inhalation of fluoride dusts/fumes by workers in industry, use of coal as an indoor fuel source (a common
practice in China), consumption of fluoride from drinking water (naturally occurring levels of fluoride in excess of the CDC recommended safe levels),
and consumption of fluoride from the drinking of tea, particularly brick tea.
It also says;
Symptomatic skeletal fluorosis is almost unknown in the U.S., with about a dozen cases reported.
Seems to be a conflict of information here, I'll let you sort it out.
Also worth noting that the common causes of fluorosis don't originate from the consumption of sodium fluoride in the water supply...
The FDA admits that there are no properly done double-blind studies that show that fluoride treatments are helpful
Already partially addressed with the "prior to 1945..." part, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Give me the source for your statement.
Information regarding fluoride including benefits
I found were, most dentists don’t take the time to study this topic
I'll admit I have no source, but I'd argue that most, if not all, dentists are somewhat knowledgeable about fluoride and aware of the unreasonable
opposition to it.
So why do dentists continue to push this??
Why do we "push" something that works...?
Damage done to children’s teeth can require more cosmetic type dentistry and this is a big money maker for them.
Evil dentists are in on it I tell you...No,no,no...THE COMMIES! A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the
knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie works!
[edit on 16-8-2010 by Whyhi]
