JT Round 3 - Rising Against vs westcoast - Happy People?

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Fluoride In The Water Does Not Have A Relevant Psychological Impact On The Human Physiology.”

Rising Against will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
westcoast will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Thank you Memoryshock for first of all taking on this debate tournament after It faced such a long drawn out period of inactivity, and secondly for providing such a fascinating topic for us today. One which IMO, is creating a lot of confusion among many people - particularly 'Conspiracy Theorists' and I look forward to the task of attempting to eliminate some of this confusion that many now seem to have and I hope to clear the path to achieve a sense of enlightenment on this topic for myself, my opponent and the readers.

I also feel I must wish my opponent Westcoast good luck here also and I'm hoping together we can create at the very least a fascinating, well thought out, interesting and above all else, intelligent and meaningful debate for all whom may read It. Thank you! Now, let's begin our debate..

 
 


Our chosen topic for today is: "Fluoride In The Water Does Not Have A Relevant Psychological Impact On The Human Physiology.”

Myself taking on the Pro position of said debate topic...

(Key words of our debate above have been both bolded and underlined)

Now, I get a sense from reading our chosen topic that this debate will more than likely turn into something of an "interpretive battle" between myself and my opponent. So, to eliminate such unwanted and unnecessary ventures, I plan on detailing below what myself and my opponents EXACT debate is (simply going from the debate topic title) and to also pin down exactly what we are supposed to be debating here in order to fully eliminate any confusion for all parties involved.

Firstly, though, let's take a quick look at what fluoride is and how It came to become a topic of debate at all...

Water Fluoride. It's History & Origins

 


So, first of all, let's establish a few things concerning Water Fluoride and It's origins (I feel discussing It's history & origins are the only way to truly understand It as a whole and to also give us a brief understanding of why It's being used despite such negative press towards It..).


The history of water fluoridation can be divided into three periods. The first (c. 1901–1933) was research into the cause of a form of mottled tooth enamel called the Colorado brown stain. The second (c. 1933–1945) focused on the relationship between fluoride concentrations, fluorosis, and tooth decay, and established that moderate levels of fluoride prevent cavities. The third period, from 1945 on, focused on adding fluoride to community water supplies.
[1]

The Colorado Brown stain, as briefly mentioned above, was a condition which was causing brown stains on teeth primarily in the Pikes Peak region of Colorado. On some occasions, even causing what was painful cracking of the teeth. The children of the area who were tested (by the Dentist Frederick McKay - the man who later spent around thirty years investigating the cause of the 'Colorado brown stain') noticed what was a complete lack of any cavity on any of their teeth.The brown stains were found to be as a result of high concentrations of the fluoride ions in their drinking water, one which was coming from the Pikes Peak.

Those whom were then further tested but had consumed water with a much lesser concentration showed the Brown stains much less - the same sort of situation with the lack of cavities.

It was at this time that it was considered that with a healthy amount of fluoride ions in the drinking water, tooth decay could be severely prevented.

So, you see, there was in fact no ulterior motive involved, there was in fact no De-population mindset involved, there was in fact no evil governmental body attempting to, for what ever reason, harm It's citizens. There was instead nothing but an attempt at helping others - that's why we have water fluoride. It's used to tackle Tooth decay - something which causes quite a high degree of distress for some and something which can be eased.

Fluoridation then became official United States policy by 1951. A mere 11 years later though, It was being used for the benefit of around 50 million people. And finally, by the 2000's, around 69.2% of the U.S. population whom were on public water systems were then receiving fluoridated water, amounting to 61.5% of the total U.S. population. [1] - [Same source as before]

This is why we have it, to prevent Tooth decay. Not to cause psychological harm to those innocent people like some are so determined to believe.

Anyway, I shall spend my next couple of posts discussing in more detail fluoride Itself and It's effects. Particularly the causes why some believe It to be dangerous and how some believe It causes harm. For now, I want to focus briefly on the second key part of our chosen debate in the hope of avoiding future confusion for all - as well as establishing my position in this debate.

The Psychology Factor

 


Psychology - By definition is the science of mental life

Another key point we have been set out to discuss in this debate is the all important psychological factor in all of this - The idea that Psychologically we are being affected and made to think, because of the use of water fluoridation, differently than to what is we would normally do. I.e being directly influenced specifically through the use of Water Fluoridation.

Now, this (the above statement) is something I, right off the bat, couldn't disagree with more. And I do however sincerely look forward to discussing this with my opponent - In fact, In my Socratic Questions, I have made sure to bring Up this point as I have no doubt psychologically no impact is caused by the use of water fluoridation and I look forward to attempting to prove it.

What I shall mention right now though is of course a coupe of simple facts - ones which mustn't be forgotten. So, if you discuss this with most conspiracy theorists - The use of fluoridation, admittedly you won't find much in favor of the use of water fluoridation, the same can be said for most sites of a conspiracy theory, or most sites discussing water fluoridation Itself!

But the simple facts are most people support It rather than are fearful of It, not forgetting such organizations like the WHO or even the ADA. These organizations, as mere examples, proved that Water fluoridation is a necessity, It's safe and that's why we have it. [PDF] [2]

The reasons for the "bad press" are dumbfounding and simple facts, like those above, prove It's use is needed and It's damages are limited if only used wrongly and unnecessarily.

Human Physiology

 



Human physiology is the science of the mechanical, physical, bioelectrical, and biochemical functions of humans in good health, their organs, and the cells of which they are composed.
[3]

Again, something I certainly plan on discussing in more detail in my future posts in this debate, but, for now, all I feel is necessary to understand It is but a quick definition. After all, all that's needed for an understanding of this key point in regards to this debate is a basic understanding of exactly what It means. Therefore to save valuable character space I shall move on and discuss the rest of my plans for this debate.

 
 


In my next couple of posts, I plan on going much deeper into all these areas discussed (and more), in the very real hope of persuading all whom may read that my position in this debate is of course the correct one. I plan on looking at all areas such as a more in-depth look at how we are being psychologically affected - or there lack of should I say, a more in-depth look at understanding why we need fluoride, what It does, showing the myths involved all the while revealing the facts, human physiology and showing how It's certainly not being affected by fluoride, searching for the true causes, and deciphering whether the introduction of Water Fluoridation really can be responsible for negative impacts on humans among other things.

I also look forward to rebutting my opponents key points - something I have no doubt in as I'm confident no truly reliable facts can be brought forward to show Water Fluoridation is indeed being used as a weapon against us but, instead used in a manner which causes It to be nothing but a propaganda tool used by those with an agenda.

Socratic Questioning..

 


Q1.) Simply put, do you believe Fluoridation is necessary and/or needed?

_______


Q2.) Do you believe de-population is occurring in today's modern world and If so, Is Water Fluoridation being used as a weapon in this?

_______


Q3.) What do you believe is the cause of negative traits In most humans today?

_______

Q4.) Do you trust Organizations such as the WHO, ADA, AMA or perhaps the CDCP? If not, please give an explanation into why...

_______


Q5.) Can you show any factually based sources which suggests the human psyche is at risk of being changed or influenced in anyway by the use of water fluoridation?

_______


Thank you. I now eagerly await my opponents Opening Statement......



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I would also like to thank MemoryShock for taking up the reins. I am glad to be moving forward!

Rising Against, I have given you a star for your opening statement as I found it to be very informational and well presented. Thank you for getting us started in style. I am thrilled to be handed a topic that I already have an interest and formed opinion of, as it should make this debate that much more enjoyable.

Let it begin:



Opening Statement:



Once again the topic is: "Fluoride In The Water Does Not Have A Relevant Psychological Impact On The Human Physiology.”

I am arguing the con position, or that it does have an impact.

I couldn’t agree more that this will come down to an interpretative battle. It has become increasingly apparent as I struggle to find good documentation on either side of the debate. After spending a good three hours of researching research, I now realize one of the reasons this topic was chosen. It will have more to do with our debating abilities vs. documentation so I am looking forward to this process.

I first want to address my opponents break-down of our debate points. While I agree with most of it I think we need to clarify what it is I am going to be trying to convince our audience of. My interpretation of psychological impact on the human physiology is one of an organic nature. Meaning, rather than trying to support influence on the cognitive psyche I believe it to be more of a physical impact on the organic brain, ie. function as well as the emotional impact of other physiological effects.

I will be delving into the how and why of that in my following responses but I think it important to highlight this point now.

Thanks to Rising Against for explaining the history and origin of fluoride. I wasn’t aware of it’s background and your link provided me with some essential information. While it is a nice story it highlights the first major point I want to make: The type of fluoride that was in the water at Pikes Peak was a naturally occurring inorganic compound called Calcium Flouride. It is considered harmless due to its extreme insolubility.

In comparison, the most commonly used compound for fluoridation of water, according to your first source, is Fluorosilicic acid. So what exactly is this? I was floored to find out that it is actually a liquid by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture. It is very toxic to humans, which is why there are limitations on how much is allowed to be put into our water supply. Problem is, it’s now put into so many things that on average we are ingesting levels well above that limit. This compound is used to make aluminum. Think about that.

So while I would agree that perhaps the risks associated with the naturally occurring calcium fluoride may not be great, the actual risks of ingesting a by-product of phosphate fertilizer might want to be closely scrutinized before spreading it around our water supply. You would think. This brings me to my second point:

The second source linked by my opponent is a paper put together based on independent opinion surveys, not scientific studies with any kind of supporting data. So to say:




These organizations, as mere examples, proved that Water fluoridation is a necessity, It's safe and that's why we have it.
…based on the linked source is very bold and I think made in error.

You seem to want to question my trust in government organizations, perhaps assuming I am going to take a conspiracy theorist approach to this topic. You will find however that while I like to entertain certain theories, I do so from a fact based and scientific based approach. In an attempt to satisfy a need to have government supported sources, I will go straight to the website of the CDC to prove my point.

[source 1]

At this CDC website there is information last updated in November 2010. Here they make the claim that Fluoride is beneficial and safe based on a few different published studies. Those studies are an outdated US paper from 1991, a University of York study done in 2000 and an Australian Government paper from 2007. I will concentrate on the last two since they are the most current.

Both of these papers essentially ask the same questions and come up with the same answers. They both compile the data by searching different sources of databases and by trying to eliminate the unreliable ones. I will link the papers and simply highlight the most pertinent remarks. Since I am limited in how much I can link and quote, this is only a small bit of information. I encourage you to go to the linked papers and read them.

The York paper executive summary:

[source 2]


The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean change in dmft/DMFT score.
(this after having to eliminate most of the studies due to poor data)


The assessment of natural versus artificial water fluoridation effects is greatly limited due to the lack of studies making this comparison.



Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken.



The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities.



Austrailian paper:

[source 3]


The search was conducted in December 2006. In total, 5418 non-duplicate citations were identified. After reviewing the potentially eligible, 77 citations were included in the review.



After adjusting for significant differences at baseline between the cases and controls, the results of Bassin et al (2006) suggest an increased risk of osteosarcoma amongst young males (but not females) with water fluoridation.


I have a lot more information to quote and link but it will have to wait for a later response as I am only allowed to submit so many lines per post. I think however, if after reading the linked papers and then reading the CDC summary it becomes apparent that there is a huge difference between what has actually been researched and reported.

So I think that one of the most important questions to ask when looking at this argument is the potential risk vs. benefit. Based on the studies that I have read I simply do not see that this has been proven to any degree. I will expand upon this more later, but let me simply give you an analogy here in my opening statement:

The CDC saying that putting fluoride in our water is beneficial and saying there is no clear association, no suggestion made or nor supporting proof that it has adverse affects is similar to claiming to that someone in respiratory distress has clear lung sounds. You see, this is a common mistake made by healthcare professionals. There is a huge difference between clear lung sounds and absent lung sounds. Just because you don’t hear a wheeze doesn’t necessarily mean they are breathing normally, but perhaps not moving any air at all.

Just because there hasn’t been a credible study done to look at the risks of fluoridation, does not mean they do not exist. I think the CDC website is a gross misrepresentation of the lack of information they have.

In my following posts I will outline the most commonly recognized risk factors associated with fluoridated water and do my best to present as much supporting evidence that I can. Perhaps it started out with good intentions as do most medical interventions. Over the years though, I believe that some mounting evidence has been ignored for the oh-so-common motivating monetary factor. Like so many other debated topics in our society, you only need to follow the money trail. To keep us on track though, I will limit my topic to the question at hand.

My goal is that at the end of this debate I will have convinced our audience of not only the dangerous lack of studies and supporting evidence of fluoridation safety, but that there is also compelling evidence as to its many risks, some of which have a relevant psychological impact on the human physiology.



My answers to your Socratic questions:

Q1.) Simply put, do you believe Fluoridation is necessary and/or needed?

No. I think there is mounting evidence that suggests the other multiple sources we are now exposed to is not only providing the needed levels to fight tooth decay, but approaching and in some areas surpassing what is considered safe levels.

Q2.) Do you believe de-population is occurring in today's modern world and If so, Is Water Fluoridation being used as a weapon in this?

Although there are multiple theories out there regarding de-population, I have yet to see any evidence compelling enough to subscribe to them. So no, I do not think that fluoride is being used as a weapon.

Q3.) What do you believe is the cause of negative traits In most humans today?

Now this is a loaded question. I could write pages on it, and I think that every one of us would have a different answer, because it is subjective. I think there are multiple factors, including social, environmental, organic and genetic. They also interact with each other, having a different outcome for each individual. If I had to say which I think has the biggest impact, I would say social.

Q4.) Do you trust Organizations such as the WHO, ADA, AMA or perhaps the CDCP? If not, please give an explanation into why...

I only trust them to a certain point. The why of this is due to the billions, if not trillions of dollars involved in their organizations and the companies they affect. I simply do not trust politicians and anyone that is in intricately involved in politics and I think you would have to admit there’s a whole lot of politics involved in the ones you listed.

Q5.) Can you show any factually based sources which suggests the human psyche is at risk of being changed or influenced in anyway by the use of water fluoridation?

I believe I can. I can’t prove it with this simple answer to your question. I intend to do this throughout the body of our debate by building a case using available abstract studies, theories and personal accounts. My intent is that by the end it will hard to dismiss this claim.



My Socratic questions to you:

1. You have made some bold claims about the safety of fluoride in our water supply. Have you been able to locate any scientific studies or articles that you are basing this opinion on, or is it simply because you are being told it is safe?


2. Do you think that more in-depth and detailed studies need to be done regarding fluoride safety? Why or why not?

3. Do you have fluoride in your drinking water? If so, have you always just assumed it was safe, trusting the government is looking out for your best interest?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

First Reply..

 


I fear for my opponent, I fear for him in the sense that I believe he has made a classic mistake in just his opening statement of this debate.

The classic mistake being he seems to have based his entire argument thus far on what is very questionable "evidence" provided from a source which can only be described as "a sea of disinformation". Reading his points put forth, he also seems to have attempted to focus primarily on providing for us these "sources" of his and seemingly not much else at all.

He even seems to agree with me here in my view of this "disinformation battle" which is all so clearly waging concerning his sources:


It has become increasingly apparent as I struggle to find good documentation on either side of the debate.


Then he goes onto say this..


I have a lot more information to quote and link but it will have to wait for a later response


An unusual tactic of firstly admitting there is no good, reliable documentation, and then deciding to further expand on this in his pending posts. Intriguing to say the least, especially as the sources highlighted so far are also clearly questionable in nature. (Source number 1 can't even be found - a blank page is shown!)

His second source itself highlights at points that much information has been left out due to not a high standard of evidence.

Now, please don't get me wrong here, these supposed sources or pieces of "evidence" being put forth simply can't be dismissed, that would be foolish, but the unreliability of them as a whole is the sole reason for me in my opening of this debate deciding to discuss at the very least, different areas of this topic. Not simply focusing on one aspect, one which I know to be unreliable - unreliable in the sense that MOST of what is out there is dis/mis information.

That being so, let's actually take a real look at some of the facts & figures, especially seeing as my opponent is showing such a high level of confidence in his position and so as to ensure all areas of this debate are adequately looked at and discussed in detail. But, unlike my opponent, let's take a look at something which we can be be sure on in terms of reliability.

Before continuing though, allow me tome make one small point...

(From my opponent)


You will find however that while I like to entertain certain theories, I do so from a fact based and scientific based approach. In an attempt to satisfy a need to have government supported sources, I will go straight to the website of the CDC to prove my point.


A good idea no doubt, and as you felt the need to go to the CDC to prove your point, I believe I shall also do the same:


The widespread availability of fluoride through water fluoridation, toothpaste, and other sources, however, has resulted in the steady decline of dental caries throughout the United States.

Even today, with other available sources of fluoride, studies show that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by about 25 percent over a person’s lifetime.
[1] - See my opponents reply to my first Socratic question

This is straight from the source my opponent highlighted. Although in fairness he does go onto question the CDC itself and what I have quoted above can't be considered conclusive evidence on anything, admittedly. But as I shall go on to prove. A concession from him this certainly does seem as his doubts are based on his belief in the lack of evidence provided - something which is untrue.

Let's cut out the myths and start reaching some facts

 


Now, in my previous post I had shown a couple of points that I felt were key to this debate, such as the history of fluoride for example - as well as the importance of physiology and psychology. I plan to discuss this much further in this debate, particularly the latter. For now though, I want to focus on what I feel is another key area but one which wasn't mentioned much in my opening.

It's of course the discussion of sources as well as the 'disinformation battle' waging between those whom believe fluoride to be a dangerous tool of TPTB - and those whom believe It to be a tool at helping others. This "battle" replicated in the form of a one-on-one debate between myself and my opponent.

So, in order to ensure I don't fall into a trap that I believe my opponent has fallen into, I will pick my sources very carefully indeed and I shall go straight to those whom are guaranteed to understand the nature of the discussion at hand.

ADA:

Please read the wealth of information provided by this fantastic source highlighting, from the official ADA website itself, many sources of important information which anyone whom would be wishing to understand the true natures of water fluoridation should certainly browse through. [2]

Please note that these are not ADA websites, ADA does not endorse any of these websites, nor are they affiliated with them nor are they controlling what is wrote there (which is why I felt the need to link to it more so than anything else) but I feel they are vital pieces of information here, ones which mustn't be forgotten or dismissed because of dis(mis)-information.

_____


Fluoridation - The facts. [PDF] [3]

Q. 17 & 18 are of particular importance in the above source as they also explain in a factual manner my side of this argument and they rightly so ignore the many myths involved. It's also fdiscussing the affects Fluoride has on humans.

(Please at this time refer to my opponents skepticism concerning the CDC particularly when looking at Q.18 from the above source.)

WHO:

[PDF] [4]

My opponents sources are from a york and Australian paper, mine are from the WHO & the ADA. I rest my case on the matter in this post.

 
 


Psychologically Tainted?

 


"Water Fluoridation is psychological harmful" Something my opponent will undoubtedly attempt to prove here but something I undoubtedly deny, again, basing my argument here on what is reliable and full of information sources - ones coming from those whom are in positions to be considered reliable.

My opponent agrees he does trust these organizations but only to a certain degree (refer to the reply to Q.4 of my questions). Is it the conspiracy theorist in him perhaps which is causing some doubt? Well, he continues on to state this:


I simply do not trust politicians and anyone that is in intricately involved in politics


An interesting thing to say no doubt. It also makes me question whether It is this adherent distrust of those whom may be in a position of authority which is causing his questioning of those in other positions of authority also, namely those in said positions regarding our debate topic I must wonder?



He goes onto claim I made an error and attempts to steer the debate away from the information I provided also, so please allow me time to clarify:

Here is what I wrote:


But the simple facts are most people support It rather than are fearful of It, not forgetting such organizations like the WHO or even the ADA. These organizations, as mere examples, proved that Water fluoridation is a necessity, It's safe and that's why we have it.


Note the bolded text in particular.


Note the title of where the quoted text above had come from: "The Psychology Factor." I.e. The discussion lay on psychology - not facts and figures.

And finally for arguments sake, Note that I have gone on to prove in this post how they have shown fluoridation to be safe and effective.

So, I say to him once more, many people agree with it (as I have shown), those whom It is coming from also strongly agree with it (as I have shown) and have proven time and time again that it is safe (As I have shown) but still It's a topic up for debate, and I ask why? Why is this?

Well, I go back to my previous point - the disinformation battle one which is ever waging and that is why, IMO, this is still a topic for discussion here. You see, as my opponent has shown, there is a certain level of mistrust to those whom may have positions of power.

ATS for example - constantly accused as being a disinformation tool for TPTB yet no evidence to support such a claim. But the claims by many are so constant and ever apparent still. And It's the same with Water Fluoridation. It's but a tool which helps those whom need help (history shows this and modern day documentation also shows this), but if one wants to search for this truth, It's difficult to find. Reason being, Dis & Mis-information is a foot.

That's why I fear for my opponent as he has almost certainly fallen into the classic trap. He has seemingly searched and found sources which back up his claim. But sources which are in question - and there are a lot of them to find.

Take a look at the below image from "sources" (A term used loosely) such as infowars for example - a clear attempt to show the water supply as toxic and a clear attempt to sway your way of thinking using wild claims.

[5]

A lack of information is feeding grounds for speculation. Therefore we MUST go to the source and we MUST ensure that we ignore the speculation which is tossed around and presented as "facts" so oftenly.

 
 


Socratic Questioning..

 


Q1.) Do you agree that there is a high degree of disinformation concerning this topic?

_____


Q2.) Can you show documents proving psychologically human physiology is being changed due to Fluoridation?

 
 


In reply..

 


Q.1.

Yes I have. Please read this post.
__

Q.2.

If 'something' Is set out to affect us in anyway, more "in-depth" studies should always be considered. Common sense really..
_____

Q.3.

I'm very sorry but I'm actually unsure if my particular region is fluoridated.

For the benefit of the debate though, yes, I do believe It to be safe (If It Is there) and our best interests are being looked out for in this instance.

 


I look forward to your reply..



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Sorry to delay this, but I need my 24 hrs extension. I could throw a post together, but I would rather take my time and make it count.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   

FIRST RESPONSE:


While I appreciate my opponents concern for what he perceives as a grave mistake, I believe this is based on his misinterpretation of my statements. Not only is he mistaken, but spent most of his first response supporting my arguments.

I am not going to spend this whole debate going back over what I have already said rather than outlining an intelligent discussion that moves forward. Therefore, I am only going to address this once.

I said:




Just because there hasn’t been a credible study done to look at the risks of fluoridation, does not mean they do not exist.


That pretty much sums it up. A sea of disinformation? I linked a site to the CDC, Center for Disease Control. The one that supposedly is the most revered when it comes to reliable info put out by the Powers That Be. I apologize for the link not working. I don't know why it didn't. I will attempt to link it again:

[1]

While you are attempting to make it appear that I find them reliable, I think I was rather clear that it is in fact just the opposite. That was my WHOLE point when it comes to the utter LACK of credible evidence that water fluoridation is safe. But thank you for expanding upon that and proving my point even more. Enough said.

Moving forward...

I want to highlight again the definition of the most commonly used fluoride for water fluoridation:

Fluorocilicic acid is an inexpensive liquid by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture. So we are drinking a chemical waste product from making phosphate fertilizer! For over sixty years this has been put into the water supply. At some point during this time, you would think the government would sponsor a wide-spread, credible study into the potential health risks. They have not. Of over 5,000 independent 'studies' only 77 were credible enough to us in the previously linked paper. Of those, most were admittedly questionable.

I don't think many dispute that water fluoridation reduces caries. Of course, money stands to be made by the same people endorsing it. But again, that is for another debate.
While there doesn't seem to be a common number for the percentage of effectiveness, it does seem to reduce caries by a mild amount. One could argue that it is hard to tell how much of that benefit is derived from the water fluoridation and how much of it is from the fluoride in toothpaste, mouthwash, vitamins and dental care. For the sake of this debate however, I don't think it really matters. I agree that possible cavity reduction is the one and only benefit.

The one adverse affect that most everyone now seems to agree on is fluorosis. This is the staining or streaking of the teeth from too much fluoride. At its worse, it can also cause cracking or pitting of the teeth. This in itself is not considered a health concern and seems to be an accepted risk vs. the benefit. For some however, it can and has led to a disfiguring condition, so I suppose it depends on whether it affects you or not, as to how much of a risk you consider it to be.




You may or may not be aware of the recent stir in the news about water fluoridation. The EPA just released revised recommendations for the maximum levels, down from .7 - 1.2 ppm to a maximum of .7ppm. They say this is due to fluorosis. Don't be fooled. This isn't new information. The EPA has known about this for years...since the last study I linked came out, actually before that. It was only because of the fuss some watch groups have made that got them to finally change it.

[2]

I think this is a good time for me to retract my answer to Rising Against's 4th Socratic question in his opening statement:
Q4.) Do you trust Organizations such as the WHO, ADA, AMA or perhaps the CDCP? If not, please give an explanation into why...

Although you didn't list the EPA, I really think we need to include them since they seem to be the Federal organization that makes the recommendations on the safety of fluoride here in the USA.

I answered it exactly one day before I watched the movie Gasland. I highly recommend this movie to EVERYONE. All of the suspicions that lingered for me regarding our federal agencies were exposed to such a point that I am seriously concerned for our country. Here is an agency (EPA) that I thought was there to look out for our health and well-being. Yes, as I said in my first answer, I know that those standards seem to hit some speed bumps when it comes to political interests and money. However, I had NO idea how grossly I underestimated the fraud and deceit. At the risk of going off-topic I will let this rest, but I can’t stress enough how dangerous it is for us as a nation to trust in the EPA. It sorrows me to say that, but it’s true. If anyone really believes that they give a frack what a little fluoridation does to our health, after turning a blind eye to the fracking poisoning across our country than I fear for us.

Now the points of my debate:

Tooth fluorosis is the first side affect I will list as a concern. Here are the others I will address one at a time:

*Skeletal fluorosis

*Neurotoxicity

*Osteosarcoma

*hypothyroidism

*accumulation in the pineal gland

*fluoride toxicity

Unlike the tooth fluorosis, which is recognized by all as a problem, the later conditions are not so easy to prove. I will attempt during this debate to provide enough information to allow the reader to form their own opinion. Even if I lose this debate, if I succeed at bringing awareness to even one person than all this time and effort will be worth it.

I don’t have enough character space to address all of these items in one response, so I will concentrate on two or three at a time.


Skeletal fluorosis:


[3]


Skeletal fluorosis is the medical condition in which fluoride substitutes for calcium in bone, causing soft bones that easily deform in growing children




[4]


Although skeletal fluorosis has been studied intensely in other countries for more than 40 years, virtually no research has been done in the U.S. to determine how many people are afflicted with the earlier stages of the disease, particularly the preclinical stages. Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed. Even if a doctor is aware of the disease, the early stages are difficult to diagnose.[4] Given this, it may be beneficial for general physicians and neuromuscular specialists to familiarize themselves with this uncommon disease and monitor fluoride levels in patients diagnosed with arthritis over time.

In order to try and provide one of the mentioned sources of Rising Against, I will provide a link to WHO:

[5]


Chronic high-level exposure to fluoride can lead to skeletal fluorosis. In skeletal fluorosis, fluoride accumulates in the bone progressively over many years. The early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis include stiffness and pain in the joints. In severe cases, the bone structure may change and ligaments may calcify, with resulting impairment of muscles and pain.


So while it is obvious and admitted by all that excess exposure to fluoride, both naturally occurring and man-made waste, causes skeletal fluorosis, and admitted by most that we really don't know how much fluoride we get throughout our day from all the multiple sources, the EPA and our government still tells us not that it is safe, but that there is no conclusive evidence it is not safe. I find it further disturbing that while most other countries have studied the affect of fluoride on skeletal fluorosis extensively, the US has not. Why?


Since I have already used up my allowed sources/pictures and external text I will have to save the other conditions for my next response. I have to say the more I look into all the implications of water fluoridation, I am increasingly relieved that fluoride is not added to my family’s water supply.


My answers to the Socratic questions:

Q1.) Do you agree that there is a high degree of disinformation concerning this topic?

Absolutely. That is what makes it hard to discern what is truth, propaganda and just plain hogwash. As I dig deeper however, I am discovering that the most concerning effects are ones I have never heard of.

Q2.) Can you show documents proving psychologically human physiology is being changed due to Fluoridation?

Give me some time.
I am working towards it. There are literal mountains of info out there and I am trying my best to present it in a way that is clear and concise. My goal again is to provide the reader with multiple sources of information pertaining to the above listed conditions. It is up to them to decide whether it is enough proof to convince them or not. I believe I can.



My Socratic questions to you:

1. If your teeth looked like the ones pictured above, how would you feel about your smile? Do you think this would affect your social interaction and relationships?


2. Let's say you had a child that was afflicted with skeletal fluorosis and you were told by your physician that the cause was unknown. After turning to the internet you found the articles I have linked. Would you not be outraged to find out that skeletal fluorosis, while heavily studied in third-world countries was basically ignored here in the US? If after finding that your water supply had 1.2ppm of phosphate fertilizer by-product in it, your child’s toothpaste was loaded with it, his vitamins had yet more and the dentist had just coated his teeth with it the month before, begin to think that perhaps a gross injustice was being done to you and your family? Why or why not?



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Second Reply & Rebuttal..

 


Reading my opponents posts I feel the start of my second reply must start with a rebuttal to clarify a few things.


A sea of disinformation? I linked a site to the CDC, Center for Disease Control.


Correct. This was one of your sources. But bear in mind, this one source from you didn't even work therefore It was fairly obvious (since I actually mentioned this link not working in my post) I was referring to your other sources that was used as well as the many fluoridation "sources" out there.



While you are attempting to make it appear that I find them reliable, I think I was rather clear that it is in fact just the opposite.


Again, correct, you was clear which Is why I went onto say "Although in fairness he does go onto question the CDC itself", but from what you said, those doubts were based on the "lack of research" in our topic. This lack of research was something I showed to be untrue therefore putting your doubts to rest.


I think this is a good time for me to retract my answer to Rising Against's 4th Socratic question in his opening statement:
Q4.) Do you trust Organizations such as the WHO, ADA, AMA or perhaps the CDCP? If not, please give an explanation into why...


Sorry, but no, you can't retract your answer here. I've already replied to what you said in the form of my previous post and trying to change what was said now doesn't really seem fair for that reason among many thus a retraction from what you said is impossible. What you said is now stuck.

Also I really do question at this point whether my opponent is fully aware of what he is supposed to be debating? After all the sudden need to retract a a previous statement - a retraction after my reply to his post where this was said, is surely a huge cause for concern is it not??

You also cite the EPA as a reason to do so, well, I didn't mention the EPA for a reason. That reason was I wanted to ensure I had the most reliable sources as I could find namely the WHO, ADA and AMA being IMO the best as was possible.


Although you didn't list the EPA, I really think


You think they should be mentioned, well, I disagree. Please see above.

May I also remind you my esteemed opponent at this point that we are only allowed 10 sentences of external material in our posts, something I feel should be mentioned as I feel It's unfair you based your entire argument of Skeletal fluorosis on external material which was over the limit of what Is allowed therefore, I'm now left unsure of exactly what I can rebut given some of it shall surely be deleted being against the rules.

(not to forget we are on a 10,000 character limit (citing your OP)).

For the benefit of our debate though, I shall wait until you have discussed all of what you have to say to dispute this point as a whole, after all, you did confirm you shall be further expanding on what you said in your next post(s). I just hope It can stay with-in the limits this time to avoid any confusion.

Now, due to character limits such as those I just mentioned, one point I really wanted to make in my previous post unfortunately couldn't be made. But, I felt It was an important point made by my opponent therefore I'm making sure I had time to answer It in this post instead.

What I’m referring to of course was this statement by him:


In comparison, the most commonly used compound for fluoridation of water, according to your first source, is Fluorosilicic acid. So what exactly is this? I was floored to find out that it is actually a liquid by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture. It is very toxic to humans, which is why there are limitations on how much is allowed to be put into our water supply. Problem is, it’s now put into so many things that on average we are ingesting levels well above that limit. This compound is used to make aluminum. Think about that.


Now, let me defend myself and my position here, although I really must state that personally, I am actually quite glad you thought the need to bring this up as It’s also the perfect opportunity for me to delve that little bit deeper into Water Fluoridation and some of the "lesser knowns" surrounding It. All the while exposing the myths.

Anyway, onto fluoridation and what's involved with in it..And we must't forget that this area of the debate is, I feel, the highest of any other when It comes to disinformation, therefore again, I am deciding to choose my sources very carefully and from sources whom are reliably in the know about such things.


Fluoride chemicals for water fluoridation in the UK must meet the specification laid down in the Department of the Environment's Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation of Water Supplies.
[1]

Please read this source above on the "technical issues" involving fluoridation and what's involved in it. I have showed a couple of quotes from it though so as to get a feel of what It is discussing exactly - namely the "ingredients" involved in water fluoridation.


Common misconceptions
It is often claimed by opponents of fluoridation that the aluminium and phosphate fertiliser industries have a vested interest in promoting water fluoridation. It is worthwhile addressing those claims here.
See above source..


These compounds are manufactured to exacting quality standards and must meet Department of the Environment purity specifications. Fluoride compounds used for water fluoridation are not now, and have never been, obtained as industrial waste.
See above source..

Again I feel I must state to all reading that a lack of understanding Is but feeding ground for wild speculations and untruths.

Determining the REAL cause of Psychological damage...

 


Now, as has been stated previously in this thread, the discussion here in this debate primarily relies on the psychological aspect of water fluoridation (something my opponent has seemingly ignored and instead decided to focus on the physical citing his most recent post). And in turn, those effects on humans. Not to forget we are seeking out relevant material to show such a thing.

Well, I ask, what would be a good marker to pursue such a thing? A good marker being to determine whether an impact is ever present. Well, I have decided to look up international statistics in regards to suicide rates - something which would most certainly show in statistics if an impact was being caused by water fluoridation and suicide being more than a relevant psychological impact I think all whom may be reading would agree. Not to forget most reliable statistics on mental health concerns are very hard to come by.

Anyway, again, I find myself reading surprising results - surprising in the sense that most would have you believe water fluoridation is dangerous (disinformation if you will). But, as statistics continue to show from those in positions to give these statistics, time and time again, water fluoridation is shown to NOT be harmful and is NOT causing adverse effects on humans. But instead positive ones.

Here is a guide to the type of statistics I am talking about here as well as the listing some of the top suicide rates per country (PLEASE REMEMBER: Not those whom has the most(!) which would be unreliable due to the different population per country but suicide rates are looked at)



Country - Rate** - Most recent year

1.) Lithuania - 40.2 - 2004

2.) Belarus - 35.1 - 2003

3.) Russia - 34.3 - 2004

4.) Kazakhstan - 29.2 - 2003

5.) Hungary- 27.7 - 2003

6.) Guyana- 27.2 - 2003

7.) Slovenia - 25.6 - 2004

8.) Latvia - 24.3 - 2004

9.) Japan - 24.0 - 2004

10.) South Korea - 23.8 - 2004

11.) Ukraine - 23.8 - 2004

(per 100,000 population/per year)**

[2]

Suicide rates being a good indicator as they are caused by a number of psychological issues such as depression for example.

Now, if water fluoridation really was having a relevant impact, surely these statistics would be different? After all according to my opponent and his position in this debate, psychological damage is indeed being done. But no, time and time again statistics show fluoridation is causing no appropriate amount of harm what so ever.

Facts are facts.

I mean, just take a look at the map above. suicide - probably the most relevant piece of statistic we could find to determine if fluoridation is affecting us psychologically and shows that the regions where fluoridation is primarily occurring, is having a by far less affect than in regions where their is none.

 
 

Socratic Questions

 


Q1.) You mention you will discuss the physical damage of water fluoridation in your next posts, as well as doing so in your most recent one, are you aware we're discussing psychological effects, not physical ones? (I point my opponent to our debate title here)

_____


Q2.) Don't you agree that if your position in this debate was in fact correct, the results would show mainly fluoridated nations seeing a much higher negative psychological impact such as a higher rate of suicide? If not, please state why..

_____


Q3.) My previous list of Socratic questions asked if you could now show a factually based document to show any documents proving psychologically human physiology is being changed due to Fluoridation and you refused to do this (as you didn't provide one) so, I find myself asking the same question once more.

In Reply..

 


1. Of course It would. But you seem to be forgetting one thing, fluoride is a natural thing and has been occurring for many years - long before any medical intervention - the same with fluorisis so your question doesn't seem to make much sense.

2. Yes, but as you yourself agreed to (See reply to Q.1 of my lsat set of SQ's), there is a wealth of disinformation out there, so again I'm failing to understand the reasoning behind your questions.

 


The floor is yours..



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Second response


It is obvious my opponent and I have a different opinion on what it is we are debating here. Given his comments and arguments so far, he seems to think ‘Relevant Psychological Impact on the Human Physiology’ means only conditions that are psychiatric or emotional in nature. As I outlined previously, if we are to include the human physiology, we must also discuss the physical aspect to the organic brain and body. While Rising Against wants to limit the discussion I think we must discuss both. To give a map of the world showing suicide rates and claiming it to be fact that fluoride doesn’t cause depression is well, how shall I say it? Grasping at straws. My goal is to outline all the known and suspected side effects of fluoride. All of them are physical in nature (which have an emotional affect)but some also extend to the brain, thereby having a psychological impact. In the end it is up to the judges to determine whether we have met the goal of the debate. May the best man/woman win.


I am not going to be drawn into re-hashing what I already re-hashed. I think I was clear enough before on my intent with the linked articles.

Rising Against does not feel it permitable to re-cant my answer to his previous Socratic question. Fair enough. Let me call it an expansion upon then. My opponent brought up the reliability of the reporting agencies so I think it feasible to discuss it at any point. That he doesn’t want to include the EPA is interesting. For the EPA is the leading agency that reports on the safety of fluoridation and makes the recommendations that leads to the amount allowed in our water supply. How can we NOT include them in our discussion?

I am once again amused at my opponents concern for my debating techniques. He said:




May I also remind you my esteemed opponent at this point that we are only allowed 10 sentences of external material in our posts…

I only had 8 sentences of external text. I made sure to count before posting. For the skeletal fluorosis I listed three external sources with definitions of what it is, and then summed up how I felt it pertinent to our debate. Here I am once again wasting my character space explaining myself so in that aspect my opponent is doing well, but let’s leave this concern to the judges.

We could go round and round about what the fluoride really is. Bottom line though, is that I don’t see how you can try and refute its chemical make-up. It is what it is. The following is a quote from Sourav Saha, an assistant professor in FSU's Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry:


"Because fluoride is carcinogenic even at such small doses, a sensor is needed to detect fluoride selectively at very low concentrations and in the presence of other naturally occurring and biologically important ions."
The article also states:

Used in the proper amounts, it can make teeth stronger and aid in the treatment of osteoporosis. When excessive amounts are consumed, however, it can be a killer -- a carcinogen that causes bone, lung and bladder cancers

[1]

Now you may think that this is nothing but an alarmist account that is twisting the facts around. However, in a very recent article from the Huffington post, it speaks directly of the latest EPA findings:


In a remarkable turnabout, federal health officials say many Americans are now getting too much fluoride because of its presence not just in drinking water but in toothpaste, mouthwash and other products, and it's causing splotches on children's teeth and perhaps more serious problems


The Environmental Protection Agency released two new reviews of research on fluoride Friday. One of the studies found that prolonged, high intake of fluoride can increase the risk of brittle bones, fractures and crippling bone abnormalities.

[2]

So now, after all these years of leading scientist trying to convince officials and the public of the many hazards associated with too much fluoride consumption, we are finally seeing it trickle down. How much longer until all the findings are brought to light?

IS YOUR DRINKING WATER SAFE??





Neurotoxicity:
There apparently have been quite a lot of studies done that indicates fluoride is absorbed into the central nervous system and accumulates in the brain. Once such laboratory study was done back in 1995 by DR. PHYLLIS J. MULLENIX, Ph.D., a pharmacologist and toxicologist. She was the Head of the Toxicology Department at the Forsyth Dental Center, a world renowned dental research institution affiliated with the Harvard Medical School. So this isn’t coming from some wack out in left field. In a statement by her dated September, 1998 she said:


Our 1995 paper in Neurotoxicology and Teratology was the first laboratory study to demonstrate in vivo that central nervous system (CNS) function was vulnerable to fluoride, that the effects on behavior depended on the age at exposure and that fluoride accumulated in brain tissues.

And:

We concluded that the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans.

[3]

I have found numerous other sources and studies indicating the same findings and concerns. Obviously I am very limited in my number of sources and external text, so I urge you to do some simple searches yourself to confirm this. Here is one more that discusses numerous human studies conducted in other countries that has also found a link to lower IQ.


Fluoride's ability to damage the brain represents one of the most active areas of research on fluoride toxicity today.

[4]

Some of the most disturbing connections to brain chemistry I am finding are that the fluoride causes an increased uptake of aluminum. This leads to the formation of beta-amyloid plaques which is what doctors are finding prevalent in Alzheimer’s patients. So now there is mounting evidence that indicates water fluoridations role in not only Alzheimer’s but dementia. I certainly think that fits the criteria for a Psychological Impact On The Human Physiology’.

Osteosarcoma:
This is a big one. I am fast approaching my character limit and have but one external source left, so I will give a summary of the condition and expand upon it more later.

In 2001 Elise Bassin, DDS completed a study revealing a connection between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma in young boys. A resulting study was published in the cancer Causes and Control medical journal. It caused quite a stir. Her major finding was that Boys who grew up in communities that added at least moderate levels of fluoride to their water got bone cancer -- osteosarcoma -- more often than boys who drank water with little or no fluoride. In fact FIVE times more likely. I want to stress again that this is but one study making this connection, but it got more attention because of the Harvard source.

[5]

If you read the linked article, you will learn that the study was later contested by one of her colleagues. What WebMD doesn’t go into however, is that the mentioned college Harvard professor Chester W. Douglass, omitted her results from his final report while conducting research on fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma on grants from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences. Douglass’s claim that no relationship between fluoride and cancer had been observed, along with his financial relationship with fluoride toothpaste manufacturer Colgate-Palmolive, led the Environmental Watch Group to file ethics complaints with NIEHS and Harvard. A Harvard ethics panel cleared Douglass; but the EWG and the Fluoride Action Network reported that he subsequently made a donation of $1 million to the Harvard dental school.

So to reaffirm what I said before; when looking for reasons why the reality of the risks is not revealed openly to the general public, all one has to do is follow the money trail.


My answers to your Socratic questions:

Q1.)I believe I already answered this question with my opening statement. I do not agree with you that we are only discussing psychological affects. I also point my opponent to the debate title. We are discussing both, and how they tie in together.

Q2There is absolutely no way you can rule out all the other factors surrounding suicide rates, such as economy, social impacts, health care, weather, job rates, crime rates, etc. just to name but a few. I realize you think proving this would make your argument easy, so I don’t blame you for trying but I think you are way off base. So no, I do not think you can make that link for the reasons I just listed.

Q3.)Here we go again. You can interpret it however you want. I absolutely did not refuse to do anything. I simply stated that I intend to provide the information, but cannot do so in just one post. I believe I have already linked several sources that if you were to read them and all the other sources out there that can be easily found; a reasonable person would come to the same conclusions I have. So to answer your question; YES. Please see linked articles that reference credible studies and results. I will be providing more.


My Socratic questions to you:
1) Do you feel that Alzheimer’s, Dementia and decreased IQ are psychological disorders? Why or why not?

2) In my life experiences, I have found that any sort of cancer has a huge psychological impact on not only the patient but their friends and family. When it is a child that falls victim that impact is even greater. Do you not think then that the prevalent studies linking water fluoridation and osteosarcoma to have not only a physical factor by psychological?



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by westcoast
 


I haven't been given much time to reply and everything I managed to write up so far has just been lost as my computer crashed (I had almost an entire post wrote up which I was really happy with as well
), so I'm going to wait a while, try again and post sometime tomorrow instead. Therefore I'm now taking my 24 hour extension.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Third Reply..

 



I only had 8 sentences of external text. I made sure to count before posting.


Agreed. And I'd firstly like to begin this post by pointing out I made the original mistake of looking at the amount of lines used rather than the sentences themselves which I now retract with full apologies to my opponent for my unfortunate mistake.


I am human after all (despite the rumors
) so, mistakes unfortunately do happen.

Now, onto our debate... And there is something my opponent said in his previous post which actually quite comfortably brings me to my first main point of this post here, It was his surprise at my discussing of only one albeit major psychological impact in looking for evidence of an impact caused by water fluoridation, he even at one point calls It "grasping at straws."

Now, let me point out to all whom may be reading that I didn't say suicide rates were and can only be the single point worth discussing ever. In fact, I mentioned in my last post that the reasoning for discussing it then and there was due to it being one of the only truly reliable pieces of statistic we can find in regards to determining whether Any introduction of water fluoridation has made an impact in psychological statuses of humans.

Thus discussing it first, then looking at statistics and determining whether an impact has been caused, which it has not. Clearly shown as nations where no fluoridation is being used is showing a HUGE increase as opposed to where it is being used.

And as you may have noticed I spent most of my previous post rebutting many of my opponents claims also, claims which quite frankly needed to be discussed, looked at and then clarified as well as myself cementing my position in this debate. Thus leaving a short space for the discussion of psychological effects and determining if any impact has been caused. You'll also note, that in this post, I have continued my discussion.


So, I say to my opponent, grasping at straws is perhaps a quite a premature statement to make.

Anyway, as he has decided to discuss some psychological impacts in his most recent most also, I shall, as planned, continue my discussion of it also - but, namely to ensure that my opponent isn't swaying opinion with incorrect facts and sources, I shall begin by discussing some of the points he has decided to bring up in favor of his argument as they tie in with what I wished to discuss at the same time.

Osteosarcoma - The truths

 


My opponent deciding to firstly discuss Osteosarcoma, quite an interesting point to bring up. My opponent showing a quiet confidence, one which we saw early on in this debate also, particularly when he decided to mention Fluorosilicic acid (hexafluorosilicic acid) Which I went onto refute quite comfortably. This time though expressing himself by calling it "a big one." So, I look forward to refuting this claim as well.

Something which can be done quite easily in fact. Here, let me quote something I found to be quite interesting from my opponent himself that I think shouldn't be forgotten...


If you read the linked article, you will learn that the study was later contested by one of her colleagues. What WebMD doesn’t go into however, is that the mentioned college Harvard professor Chester W. Douglass, omitted her results from his final report while conducting research on fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma on grants from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences. Douglass’s claim that no relationship between fluoride and cancer had been observed


Fascinating that my opponent continues to discuss this and bring it up in his post despite the obvious fact that It has been refuted already!

In fact, upon digging deeper myself,


A study by Hoover et al found no relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoridation. This study is important because of the large numbers involved (125,000 incident cancers, and 2.3 million cancer deaths).9
[PDF] [1]

A review of fluoride by the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies published by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005, found no increased risk of cancer from drinking fluoridated water.


I rest my case. My opponent deciding to "do all the hard work" for me It would seem by proving that his own source used is useless for his position of this debate. And I thank him for this.


But, may I also remind all reading of what my own opponent has stated in an earlier post also!:


perhaps assuming I am going to take a conspiracy theorist approach to this topic. You will find however that while I like to entertain certain theories, I do so from a fact based and scientific based approach.


Interesting since you have decided to instead follow the "conspiracy theorist angle" here informing the readers to "follow the money trail" as opposed to those of science and facts, ones which show your source here being retracted. I, once more, thank you for this revelation and I find myself questioning your tactics here given what you said above, and the road you instead have decided to follow In this debate.


Dementia & Fluoride

 


I find myself struggling in my search for reliable sources showing any sort of evidence to show any link between Dementia (something which covers a massive range of psychological issues) and Water Fluoridation here. Although, perhaps the lack of any linking between the two is merely because there simply is no correlation between them. It Isn't clear.

But, instead of looking for any statistics or reliable sources, let's take a different approach here, one which would hopefully be much more sensible shall we say in our goal of our search to find the truth and expose the myths. An approach I've attempted to adopt in this debate purely as facts and statistics show, once we have looked to eliminate the falseness of the nature of this topic the more we learn that water fluoridation actually Isn't dangerous at all.

So, instead, let's instead take a deeper look into how damage itself is caused and see if we can achieve a sense of enlightenment on our topic that way.

Dementia:


Dementia refers to the loss of intellectual functions such as thinking, remembering and reasoning to the extent that a person's daily functioning is affected.
[2]

Dementia I've found due to my research is most often caused by the part of the brain which is responsible for thoughts, memories, personally and such. The cerebral cortex to be exact. It's the death of our brain cells in this region which cause the damage.

Now, one of the only tests which can be found on a study of this region is quite conveniently one my opponent has decided to cite also - My opponent citing the test from 1995, the one which was done on rats. Well, that's very interesting and everything but I find myself asking my opponent here, where is the conclusive evidence on humans? Where is the report showing such a thing on humans? Where is the evidence showing a direct link, not speculation, of water fluoridation causing any adverse effects on humans?

And may I also remind my opponent that - and this from his own source used - that excessive amounts of fluoride are what causes damage to humans, fluoride being something which is monitored and already in use in minor doses.

The work of DR. Phyllis J. Mullenix if used on humans and achieving the same results would make for fascinating reading, there is no doubt, but that's not how It worked unfortunately and just because relatively interesting results were achieved on rats, that in no way means the same thing shall occur with humans. And to claim it is would be reaching to say the least.

There simply is no reason to believe any psychological damage to humans has been caused. If anything, everything is pointing to the complete opposite, water fluoridation is a good thing and I personally hope It's here to stay. After all, evidence, shows it does work! Mere speculation shows It does not.

I ask those reading, which would you follow? Evidence or speculation....

Rebuttal

 



Absolutely. That is what makes it hard to discern what is truth, propaganda and just plain hogwash. As I dig deeper however, I am discovering that the most concerning effects are ones I have never heard of.


And yet you cite this source in your previous post...Not once, but twice.

This website being nothing more than a cheap attempt at doing what ever is possible to literally force others to follow there way of thinking It would seem. I ask those reading to at the very least check out the homepage and get a feel for the tone of website. It appears to be noting more than dis(mis)information at best.

And you even agree with me that there is a wealth of disinformation out there (citing your reply to my first question in my first response), yet It seems you are looking for any old source which can back up your point. Interesting..


Socratic Questions...

 


Q1.) What do you have to say in reply to my showing of the safety of how hexafluorosilicic acid Is used? I see you have seemingly decided to ignore It after I provided a source explaining how safe it is..

_____


Q2.) Do you believe water fluoridation today is dangerous? If so, please by all means state why...

_____


Q3.) You don't believe everything is a conspiracy do you?

 


In Reply...

 



1) Of course the first two are. The latter I don't believe so at all.

_____


2) As I have shown in this post, there is in fact no relevant link between osteosarcoma and Water Fluoride. And I disagree, I think if any "huge impact" has been caused due to a severe illness such as that of cancer, It's obviously more emotional than that of psychological in regards to the surrounding family.

 


I await your next post...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Thank you for the apologies; not needed, but accepted.


Third Response:



I’ll start by laying to rest my argument against using the suicide statistics Rising Against presented and then came back to in his second response:




In fact, I mentioned in my last post that the reasoning for discussing it then and there was due to it being one of the only truly reliable pieces of statistic we can find in regards to determining whether any introduction of water fluoridation has made an impact in psychological statuses of humans.


I suppose on this point we will just have to agree to disagree then. I find this statistic, in relation to fluoridation to be completely unreliable. There are simply too many variables. If you were to seriously try and correlate these numbers you would have to first isolate and remove the variables, including natural fluoridation. No, it is impossible in my opinion to use this statistic.

In addition to that, to imply that depression is the only indicator for a psychological impact is inaccurate.

In regards to you implicating my source on esteosarcoma to be unreliable:



Fascinating that my opponent continues to discuss this and bring it up in his post despite the obvious fact that it has been refuted already!


Sorry, but you have misread my statements again. The findings were omitted, NOT refuted. In fact, this scientists legitimate studies and findings have been referenced over and over again by other reputable doctors, hence its publication in a medical journal. The only thing refuted were the allegations brought against Dr. Chestar W. Douglas (the professer who omitted the info) for having a conflict of interest. Remember, the one who after this made a 1 million dollar donation to the Havard Dental program?

In addition to that, I want to stress that osteosarcoma is perhaps the one most studied side effect outside of fluorosis and there are many scientists, biologists and doctors that support the finding.

What is fluoride?



My opponent still stresses that he feels fluoride to be a safe product in and of itself. He goes so far as to make it his first Socratic question. Rather than repeating myself I will accomplish both my rebuttal and answer the question at the same time:

Q1.) What do you have to say in reply to my showing of the safety of how hexafluorosilicic acid is used? I see you have seemingly decided to ignore it after I provided a source explaining how safe it is..

I will again go to the CDC website that has a published paper addressing the safety measures for handling hexafluorisilic acid and its many other components. Here is a quote:


There has been no fluorspar mine production in the United States since 1996; supplies were imported or


[1]

I originally had many more quotes but I ran out of external text allowance. I could go on and on. The sources out there on this substance and components are vast. I just don’t understand how you can say it is harmless.

As to your linked source ‘proving’ it safe? It basically says all the same things I have said and linked sources to. It simply wraps it up in a bow. It also talks about all the other dangerous compounds I have discussed. I’m sorry, but your link supports my argument. It is a dangerous, hazardous chemical waste by-product.

Alzheimer's and dementia



As to your confusion on dementia, I can understand if you have not had to deal with it. Alzheimer’s and dementia have been grouped together for some time. They are both recognized as psychological disorders with likely the same or similar source.


Perhaps the most well-known psychological disorders in the elderly are dementia and Alzheimer's disease



Alzheimer's disease is only one of many types of dementia, yet it is often the one most difficult to treat


[2]

This is why I spoke of the disorders together. They are considered by many to be part of the same disease process.

Hypothyroidism



So to understand this connection, we need to first talk about the relationship of Fluoride and iodine. They both belong to the halogens group of atoms and have an antagonistic relationship. Meaning that the fluoride lowers your iodine levels. If you have too much fluoride in your body it can interfere with how your thyroid gland works. For this reason it is possible that iodine deficiency, which is the most common cause of brain damage and mental disability in the world, is implicated in the consumption of fluoride.

I found a great article that addresses many of the conditions I am talking about, including hypothyroidism. Did you know that Fluoride has been used for years to treat Hyperthyroidism? For the same reasons that I just mentioned. Scary stuff:


Is fluoride in part the reason for near epidemic levels of hypothyroidism in the United States? Some experts and researchers believe this is the case.



Fluoride had been used for decades as an effective anti-thyroid medication to treat hyperthyroidism and was frequently used at levels below the current "optimal" intake of 1 mg/day


[3]


The most common symptoms of hypothyroidism are:
*Fatigue
*Cold intolerance
*Consistent weight gain
*Depression, or memory problems


Accumulation in the Pineal gland:



It has long been suspected that fluoride can accumulate in the pineal gland, since it is the one location in the brain that the brain/blood barrier does not exist. I found an incredible paper on the topic:


In conclusion, this study presented evidence that fluoride readily accumulates in the aged pineal. Fluoride may also accumulate in a child's pineal because significant amounts of calcification have been demonstrated in the pineals from young children



This could affect pineal metabolism in much the same way that high local concentrations of fluoride in the developing enamel organ affect ameloblast function


[4]

So what does this mean? While the pineal gland is not fully understood (also called the third eye in other cultures and believed to be a vital part in meditation), it is acknowledged as an important part of the endocrine system and produces the hormone melatonin.

Melatonin is an important hormone that helps regulate your sleep cycle and is closely indicated in clinical cases of depression. It is not fully understood, but for obvious reasons if its production is suppressed the concequences can have a huge psychological impact; both physical and emotional in nature.

[5]

My opponent closed his last response by bashing my linked sources. I think I have done a good job of linking a wide variety of sites, including government, recognized medical sites, MSM news articles, and yes one watch dog group. Keep in mind that if it were not for those watch dog organizations the EPA most likely would not have released its newest recommendations. They had the information for years and it was only because of the fuss made by the watch dog groups that they finally moved forward with it.

All I can do is present the information in the most clear, concise manner possible while providing as large a range of sources as possible. Quite a few of my sources further link very credible, acknowledged scientific studies and papers. If anyone were to take the time to investigate it I think that a reasonable person would come to the same conclusions that I have.


In answer to your second Socratic question:
Q2.) Do you believe water fluoridation today is dangerous? If so, please by all means state why..

Yes, I obviously do. I think I have stated this numerous times now and the why. First, I will direct you to my answer to your first question. It is hazardous material. Sure, you can dilute it to the point that it is no longer considered dangerous, but when that component has been proven to accumulate throughout the body, leading to the adverse conditions I have been explaining than I think it is safe to say it is dangerous.

Q3.) You don't believe everything is a conspiracy do you?

I find this question rather….abrasive. No, I do not think everything is a conspiracy, including water fluoridation. A conspiracy would indicate a select group of people meeting in private to persuade the masses for an evil purpose. I think that water fluoridation is something that started with perhaps both good intentions and a way of getting rid of a hazardous waste product. It has developed into a multi-billion dollar industry and its obvious ill health affects ignored for much too long. That is not a conspiracy but a travesty.

My questions to you:


1) Given the long documented affects of fluoride and iodine and its use to treat hyperthyroidism, do not find it logical to conclude too much could then cause hypothyroidism? Do you not think that depression and memory problems would both be considered a relevant Psychological Impact On The Human Physiology?

2) The pineal gland is responsible for the production of the hormone melatonin. If it were to be affected such as the studies indicate (note the one linked looked directly at autopsied patients, ie. direct physical findings) is there not also a strong argument to make to the direct link to depression?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I'm very sorry about this but after losing an entire post for the second time, due to my computer crashing, my closing will have to be exponentially short and blunt here. It's very unfortunate and I'm very frustrated but there's simply nothing I can do about this and I apologize to all whom are reading but I thought that at the very least due to time constraints "something" would be better than "nothing" at all, despite not wishing to do this for yet another time.

I'll start this post in reply to the Socratic Questions given.

In reply...

 


1.) I cited a snippet from the source I used below which actually refuted where you are going with this, as It's obvious, but unfortunately It is lost but I really do urge those reading to see the link!

And as I do not have it now, the only answer I can give would be from me. So, anyway in reply, yes, I suppose It can be seen as logical to assume It would. Although not factual.

2) Unfortunately, my laptop is no longer allowing me to view PDF files also (everything is running against me here it would seem.
), but I seriously urge the judges to read this source here: (Source)

Before long you WILL indeed learn the truth (I've read it before my computer messed up and I know for a fact the true results from the studies my opponent is discussing are already debunked and are laughable in reputation) about the effects of fluoride to the Pineal gland and you'll see that the results achieved were heavily in question. Using it as a source in this debate most certainly is also very questionable might I add given the facts surrounding it.

Anyway, in reply, No. There is not, Please see the source.


In summary

 


In summary, I have to admit, this has been an interesting debate for me, I'm sure the same goes for my opponent westoast, especially as Fluoride as a topic is something I have ventured into only for the first time purely for this debate. Admittedly though, beforehand I always held the position of most - the position my opponent has been granted which is arguing against the use of Fluoridation.

That being so, I don't think I could be happier with the position granted to me now as this match-up has progressed and as research has continued. The reason is simple: Beforehand, as I said, I blindly believed in the viewpoint of my opponent, but upon being given the opportunity to actually look into this topic much more and in this way, I now feel much more enlightened because of it.

You see, exposing the myths and uncovering the facts has always been my target here as even I knew beforehand that the amount of myth involved is vast. And even if a loss would be my fate here, I'm more than confident that I have achieved my goal.

You see my opponent would have you believe the introduction of water fluoridation is not needed (cite his reply to one of my Socratic questions), he would have you believe it is harmful ( citing one of his replies) and he would have you believe It's introduction does indeed cause psychological harm. I feel I have shown all of these things to be true - and much more.

My opponent again citing unreliable sources all the while I'm ensuring I'm obtaining mine from the most reliable of locations. Something I felt was imperative given the nature of this topic. I've also made sure I stuck to my debate plan, my opponent seemingly jumping from one thing to another (citing skeletal Fluorosis for example)

And in a summary, the facts of this debate are very clear.

In this debate I have shown Water fluoridation to be safe.

I have shown that It works and is indeed reducing tooth decay. (see this source)

I have shown It's the cheapest of all available options.

(Source)

I have shown my opponents sources and points to be incorrect time and time again (citing Osteosarcoma, Hexafluorosilicic acid and the alleged harm being caused to our Pineal gland as examples) all the while exposing absolutely no reason to be suspicious of any psychological damage caused what so ever.

I have shown a great deal of research has gone into this topic (which my opponent seemingly didn't believe, then he decided to change him mind as of late citing many unreliable ones but citing them nonetheless)

And I have shown that Water fluoride is indeed needed for the benefit of man.

I've continued to cite facts and my opponent has continued to cite speculatory sources and facts easily reputed. I feel the time has come to leave this debate to the judges, but I just hope they have taken note of the facts of this debate.

Water fluoridation IS needed, It IS safe and it does NOT cause psychological damage, or none which we can conclusively say occur and for this reason alone my opponent can't conclude his position is correct.


I thank all whom too the time to read. And I leave this to the judges...



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Due to extraneous circumstances (computer crash) Rising Against is granted another 24 hour extension.

Edit to add - Rising Against has posted in the minutes before granting his request. The prior post stands.
edit on Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:26:30 -0600 by MemoryShock because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Rising Against, I have definitely enjoyed our debate and I am sincerely sorry for your computer problems. I must say though, that you have done a great job in spite of it!


Closing Statement



My opponent would have you believe that fluoride is only a benign substance used as an additive by our government to reduce tooth decay, without any adverse effects.

Fluoride is, in fact, a toxic by-product of chemical waste. The three components used are:

*Sodium fluoride
*hexafluorosilicic acid (most commonly used)
*sodium hexafluorosilicate
Rising Against best source in an attempt to dispute this did nothing but confirm what is a FACT. There is no denying this FACT no matter how you try and dress it up.
Fluoride is a toxic by-product of chemical waste!




I do not feel that I ‘jumped around’ in this debate as my opponent claims. I very clearly outlined what points I would discuss and did so systematically in my responses. That he could counter my claims only by repeatedly bashing my sources, regardless of how reliable they were, I think speaks of his desperation.

His repeated rebuttal to my numerous conditions backed by reputable studies and scientists was a propaganda pamphlet by the ADA (American Dental Association). It is authored by dentist Dr. Herschel Horowitz, a self-proclaimed fluoride advocate.

The linked pamphlet echoes the same non-committal, weak statements as the CDC, such as:

*There is no known association…
*There is no credible, scientific evidence of adverse effects….
*Generally accepted science does not suggest…..

And my favorite:
*There is no generally accepted scientific evidence establishing a causal relationship…

This is the same propaganda used over and over again by government agencies when attempting to sway public opinion without proof.

I felt going into this debate that it was very important to discuss the most commonly recognized and studied adverse effects of water fluoridation. In summary, I provided information regarding:

*Tooth fluorosis
*Skeletal Fluorosis
*Neurotoxicity
*Osteosarcoma
*Hypothyroidism
*Accumulation in the pineal gland

All of these are the result of chronic fluoride exposure or toxicity. In addition, symptoms of acute toxicity are:

(Some, but not all of the symptoms)
*nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, headache, tremors, muscular spasm, seizures, shock and cardiac arrest


Now, keeping in mind this is from acute ingestion. But since my opponent still stresses how safe and needed fluoride is, I think it important to show its toxicity:


Once absorbed, fluoride binds calcium ions and may lead to hypocalcaemia. Fluoride has direct cytotoxic effects and interferes with a number of enzyme systems; it disrupts oxidative phosphorylation, glycolysis, coagulation, and neurotransmission (by binding calcium).



• Death may result from ingesting as little as 2 g of fluoride in an adult and 16 mg/kg in children. Symptoms may appear with 3-5 mg/kg of fluoride.


[1]

This is quite relevant to counter Rising Against closing argument that water fluoridation is needed. He went so far as to say that:




And I have shown that Water fluoride is indeed needed for the benefit of man.


This in spite of the mounting evidence that we not only get enough fluoride to fight tooth decay through other sources, such as toothpaste, mouth wash, vitamins, bottled water, milk and some food products, but that many of us are receiving well above what even the EPA now recommends as safe.


The federal government is recommending changing the amount of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in 50 years.



One reason for the increase in fluorosis: Americans now have access to fluoride from a variety of sources, including toothpaste, mouth rinses and prescription supplements, the Department of Health and Human Services says



"We've had to wait too long, but the government's official, belated -- and perhaps begrudging -- announcement marks its recognition that fluoride policies have been out of step with the science on the tap-water additive's toxicity to children, and that many American children are at risk from excess fluoride in drinking water and other sources,"



…documenting that excess fluoride exposure poses dangers that range from discolored teeth to potential hormone disruption and neurotoxicity.


[2]

I have to admit that since this debate began, I have spent nearly 30 hours researching/writing on the topic. I have come to the realization that while I thought I knew about the dangers of water fluoridation, I was in fact quite naïve. I went through the products in my home and in disgust, threw away numerous items, afraid that I may have been unintentionally poisoning my children. That what I perceive as proof that my own government agencies that were supposed to be protecting me have in fact been spoon feeding me thinly veiled propaganda at the risk of my family’s health infuriates me. I can say without a doubt that for me personally, this deception most definitely has a relevant psychological impact.

As to my opponent’s opinion, let’s review his answers to some of my questions:

Question:


If your teeth looked like the ones pictured above, how would you feel about your smile? Do you think this would affect your social interaction and relationships?


Answer:


Of course it would. But you seem to be forgetting one thing; fluoride is a natural thing and has been occurring for many years - long before any medical intervention - the same with fluorisis so your question doesn't seem to make much sense.


Question:


Do you feel that Alzheimer’s, Dementia and decreased IQ are psychological disorders? Why or why not?


Answer:


Of course the first two are. The latter I don't believe so at all

.

Question:


Given the long documented affects of fluoride and iodine and its use to treat hyperthyroidism, do not find it logical to conclude too much could then cause hypothyroidism? Do you not think that depression and memory problems would both be considered a relevant Psychological Impact On The Human Physiology?


Answer:


…So, anyway in reply, yes, I suppose it can be seen as logical to assume it would. Although not factual.



Given his responses, I think it safe to say that he at least agrees that the conditions themselves (with the exception of the pineal gland) do have a relevant psychological impact on the human physiology.

So I challenge you, the reader and the judges to look over that list of suspected adverse effects. If any of the information I have provided you with, or perhaps that you yourself have found or already know of, is compelling enough to convince you of the dangers of water fluoridation and its link in causing even one of these effects, than I have achieved my goal in this debate.

So I ask you again:

Is your drinking water really safe?








posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
This debate is now closed for judgement; Well Done Gents.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Westcoast has won and will be participate in the Junior Tournament Championship!!

Congrats to both Fighters.



WestCoast wins (even though I don't agree with the answer.) Again, the issue is a well thought out debate. Rising Against does several "okay, read this link" statements but doesn't summarize what's in the link and, frankly, posting cartoons instead of verbiage is a weak tactic. Although I personally agree with RA's side, WC wins the debate.




Rising Against opened this debate with a brief outline of the course that was to come and while it is true that RA provided sourced material to back the stance, the debate did seem to focus more on the opponent and not on the topic. Socratic questions were relevant, but answers given to Socratic questions asked, were short and did not provide much depth. RA did allow some off topic information to muddy the argument (suicide statistics) and I felt that did not help the case. It was not until the 3rd response that RA really began to focus on providing the reader information relevant to the argument and keep the topic moving forward. Though the closing statement was short, it was succinct and to the point.

westcoast also opened strong and from the beginning, the reader was made aware of the fighter’s thought process, how the information to support the topic was going to be provided and why it would be laid out this way. westcoast used sourced material that was relevant to the topic, as well as continually moving the debate forward, further strengthening the argument. Socratic questions asked were relevant and answered with relevance, though a few were left short winded.

All in all, a very interesting debate topic, well fought by both fighters and loaded with good information.

Debate winner: westcoast





new topics
top topics
 
6

log in

join