posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 07:37 PM
reply to post by Chadwickus
Whether the study was concentrating on the efficacy of Fluoride as a marker chemical for more effective cardiovascular related PET/CT procedures
isn't particularly the most important factor in the results obtained through the study, i wouldn't have though?
During these assessments of Fluoride, it has apparently been determined completely irrespective of the study goals of ascertaining the efficiency or
effectiveness of Fluoride as a PET marker chemical, that it also has an apparently dangerously high potential to cause physical damage to human
health, or at least be a significant causal factor due to it acting as a sort of catalysing chemical, in many cases of hardening of arteries and the
human cardiovascular system in general.
That would be the point to consider from the standpoint of a public health risk assessment, which is what this thread is highlighting, regardless of
whether that information gathered was the primary focus or goal of the study or otherwise, surely?
In other words, while the study didn't set out to research the potential detrimental effects on human cardiovascular systems and the role, if any,
Fluoride might play..the study did indeed discover a correlation that Fluoride does in fact play a significant role in these detrimental effects on
our heart and circulatory health.
PET/CT efficacy of Fluoride is a fairly moot issue, when faced with the findings about the potent damage that the chemical wreaks and it's direct
correlation in areas of causation or contribution to ever rising statistics on the biggest cause of premature death, heart disease.
Call me old fashioned if you like, but i don't much care if a study starts out looking for the best flavour additive to add to ice cream to increase
it's sales, but in doing the study discovers that the additive caused heart disease, i'm going to care more about the health findings, than whether i
like the flavour enough to buy more ice cream.
edit on 20-3-2012 by MysterX because: error