Fluoride - Crazy people!

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 




No, you explained why it might be rational or ethical to implement mass fluoridation, not why it is rational or ethical to have everyone ingest it.

Implementation without ingestion is impossible in this case. You want unfluoridated water pipes and fluoridated water pipes to go to each house and then the person can choose? I explained why they do it with sources to back it up.



Oh yes I'm sure if I just vote that will change something... lol. And have you looked at how expensive the proper fluoride filters are? Fluoride is one of the hardest chemicals to remove from water, even with the top of the line filters it wont get all the fluoride. Plus why should I have to spend more money just to avoid something I never agreed to? It's bad enough that I already have to buy bottled drinking water.

That is the problem with this and many other countries. You want change but you don't want to try anything to change it.

Fire is free. Distill it if you are that worried.




posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



Implementation without ingestion is impossible in this case. You want unfluoridated water pipes and fluoridated water pipes to go to each house and then the person can choose?

No... I want unfluoridated water pipes to all houses. Should something be implemented just because it's the only viable option? Obviously not... we should not attempt to mass medicate everyone until there is a clear and solid plan for safely implementing such a plan. I don't rob a bank when I run out of money, I come up with a better idea for making money and if I can't come up with a better idea I still don't rob the bank because it's an utterly stupid idea.


Distill it if you are that worried.

It's not me that I am really worried about. It's the people who aren't informed enough to avoid ingestion of fluoride.
edit on 21/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 




No... I want unfluoridated water pipes to all houses. Should something be implemented just because it's the only viable option? Obviously not... we should not attempt to mass medicate everyone until there is a clear and solid plan for safely implementing such a plan. I don't rob a bank when I run out of money, I come up with a better idea for making money and if I can't come up with a better idea I still don't rob the bank because it's an utterly stupid idea.

So should they just stop treating water and everyone should have their own way of getting water?
You are fine with water being piped to your house. Did you know that the water treatment plants take out many harmful pathogens, minerals and gases? Should we stop treating water until everyone agrees as to how it should be run or should we take out things that we know are bad for us and add others that are beneficial? You have your choice. Do you even know what your local water treatment plants does to treat your water? Do you have any idea what chemicals are added? Do you have a clue as to what is contained in the raw water and the reason behind treating it? Do you know that all water sources are not the same and must be treated according to vigorous testing done on the raw water? What testing results have you seen? What are the MAC's in your area? How deep is your well? Are you using a well or surface water? Where is the source of the well/surface water? What contaminants can get in it/are in it?

Isn't it funny the amount of information you didn't know you didn't know before you started on this thread?




It's not me that I am really worried about. It's the people who aren't informed enough to avoid ingestion of fluoride.

They are fine. No one is dying because of fluoridated water. No one is becoming stupid because of water fluoridation (at treatment plants).

Unless of course you have any sources backing up your claim...



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Just to clarify my position:

If this is about the peoples right to choose what they get added to their water, I get it. Go out and vote. Make a change.

If this is about people saying fluoride is horrible and it is a mind control product that the Nazis used and we are all going to die and it is unhealthy. That is what I have a problem with.

Proof. I have provided my sources and my information.

The moon is not made out of cheese.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

occrest
reply to post by superman2012
 

I don't care what percentage it is. I don't want to ingest the crap. Period.

Your argument is moot. You will NEVER convince me that drinking poison is beneficial to my health.


Your choice.

I would be careful how you phrase things though. Many things that you drink/eat would be a poison if consumed at a certain purity level...



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



So should they just stop treating water and everyone should have their own way of getting water?

I never said they should stop treating the water. Fluoride is not used to treat the water in any way, it is used to treat the PEOPLE who drink the water.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by superman2012
 



So should they just stop treating water and everyone should have their own way of getting water?

I never said they should stop treating the water. Fluoride is not used to treat the water in any way, it is used to treat the PEOPLE who drink the water.


So just to be clear.

You are fine with EVERY other chemical introduced in the treatment process (of which I'm sure you have no idea what they do or use in your city/town) except for fluoride?

You want a say in what they do, as long as and only if, they want to include fluoride?

Edit: Sodium Hypochlorite is used to kill pathogens that could make a person sick. Isn't this interfering with Mother Nature as well? Sodium Hydroxide is used to raise the pH levels. Along with various and numerous other chemicals that do not draw the ire of people. Want to know why? Because they are conditioned to fear things they don't know. Hell, our biology demands that otherwise we wouldn't be around too long. The media made a big sensation about fluoride and some scared people started making some stories up and it snowballed from there.

Like I said, I don't believe that it needs to be in my water supply (my personal belief) but I completely understand why they do it in other areas. Public service until a point though, right?
edit on 21-10-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   

superman2012
You are fine with EVERY other chemical introduced in the treatment process (of which I'm sure you have no idea what they do or use in your city/town) except for fluoride?

Fluoride is the only chemical in the treatment process which is intended to treat the people instead of treat the water, so yes I have a damn problem with it. The only other chemical worth noting is chlorine, because they use very high amounts of that and it could have detrimental health affects. But chlorine is extremely easy to remove from the water and it actually plays a role in keeping the water safe to drink. I have no problem with that, the evidence is clear and the ethics of it are clear. That is an extremely different circumstance to a chemical which is used to treat the people who drink the water, especially when the chemical in question is highly controversial and linked to decreased IQ in many studies, is most likely a neurotoxin, is probably responsible for calcification of the pineal gland, causes fluorosis of the teeth in a great percentage of children, and is hardly used anywhere in the world (because of health and environmental concerns) except Western nations.
edit on 21/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


It is actually used extensively around the world in "civilized" society. Where it isn't used in water treatment, it is used in salt added to food.

Tell you what.

You won't convince me that there is a fluoride boogeyman and I'm not going to convince you that the many scientific papers/studies/reports/case studies say that fluoride won't kill you when dosed at acceptable levels in water treatment. So here is your gauntlet.

I have never, never seen one case where someone's life was cut short, someone died, someone's IQ was lowered, children started growing horns, and whatever else the anti-fluoride people are shouting about these days.

You show me one documented, with a scientific study, report, something official (government, third party, university, etc you get it) out of the MILLIONS of people drinking fluoridated water from a water treatment plant where the dosing was correct and I will stop posting in this thread.

One.

Edit: It must be backed up with hard science. A professional spouting some opinion doesn't count. Like that YT video. Sorry, I'm not trying to move the goalposts, I'm merely trying to set the goal post in cement.
edit on 21-10-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



Edit 2: I'll check back in the morning.
edit on 22-10-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



It is actually used extensively around the world in "civilized" society. Where it isn't used in water treatment, it is used in salt added to food.

Lol... there are plenty of "civilized" places which don't add fluoride to their water, like I said, only 5% of the worlds population is fluoridated and the US accounts for a very large portion of that 5%. And the amount put in salt in some places is absolutely minuscule and the amount of salt people ingest is also very small compared to the amount of water people ingest.


fluoride won't kill you when dosed at acceptable levels in water treatment.

Nothing will kill you when administered in small diluted doses, but it will have a small affect on your body and over time that affect will build up. The evidence of fluoride being a deadly poison is overwhelming, you can kill almost anything with a fairly small amount of pure fluoride and it's considered an act of terrorism to dump it in the environment. Just because it is ingested in small doses does not make it better (especially when no one is controlling our doses). This is the whole BS argument that officials use, and then when people claim to have adverse health affects which are caused by fluoride is impossible to prove that fluoride actually did it because there are so many contaminants in our environment, not to mention the government obviously has a very strong motivation to cover up the evidence and make it look like fluoride is perfectly safe.


I have never, never seen one case where someone's life was cut short, someone died, someone's IQ was lowered

So you can magically detect how smart a person should be, or how long they should live, and that they are always smart enough and always live long enough to prove that fluoride does nothing?
edit on 22/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 




Lol... there are plenty of "civilized" places which don't add fluoride to their water, like I said, only 5% of the worlds population is fluoridated and the US accounts for a very large portion of that 5%. And the amount put in salt in some places is absolutely minuscule and the amount of salt people ingest is also very small compared to the amount of water people ingest.

5% of the population is misleading and poor form to report it as such. 5% of the population has reported that they use water fluoridation. There is a great percentage of the world where it is unknown if they do or if they use fluoridated salt, fluoridate milk, etc.



Nothing will kill you when administered in small diluted doses, but it will have a small affect on your body and over time that affect will build up.

I'm sure you have a legitimate source to back that up in relation to fluoride right?



The evidence of fluoride being a deadly poison is overwhelming, you can kill almost anything with a fairly small amount of pure fluoride and it's considered an act of terrorism to dump it in the environment.

I don't think anyone has ever said it wasn't a poison....if not used properly. There are MANY examples of that type of fluoride poisoning.



Just because it is ingested in small doses does not make it better (especially when no one is controlling our doses).

No one is controlling the doses? How did you come to that conclusion? You really are showing that you haven't done much research into the opposite side of what you believe. There are MAC's (remember when I brought them up?) I believe in most of the states it is 4 mg/l allowed.



This is the whole BS argument that officials use, and then when people claim to have adverse health affects which are caused by fluoride is impossible to prove that fluoride actually did it because there are so many contaminants in our environment, not to mention the government obviously has a very strong motivation to cover up the evidence and make it look like fluoride is perfectly safe.

That right there is the BS argument.
You are saying it is impossible to prove your argument because of other contaminants? Surely there must be studies done on towns that are near each other that take their water from the same source and one fluoridates their water and the other doesn't? Saying you can't prove something that you say is the truth is quite the easy way to "try" to win an argument.




So you can magically detect how smart a person should be, or how long they should live, and that they are always smart enough and always live long enough to prove that fluoride does nothing?

No. I never made such claims. You did.
Thanks for proving to me that you, in fact, have no argument based on any science.


Edit: Just pointing out that you COULD NOT provide me with ONE case.
edit on 22-10-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



5% of the population is misleading and poor form to report it as such. 5% of the population has reported that they use water fluoridation. There is a great percentage of the world where it is unknown if they do or if they use fluoridated salt, fluoridate milk, etc

It's based on the cities and towns around the world which are known to fluoridate their water. If it is unknown for a certain place, the chances are very high that they do not fluoridate. But yes, 5% isn't meant to be an exact figure. It's just an approximate guess.


I'm sure you have a legitimate source to back that up in relation to fluoride right?

Haven't you ever heard of skeletal fluorosis? That is just one of the many documented health affects caused by too much fluoride, which can build up in the body until it reaches hazardous concentration levels.


Skeletal fluorosis

A bone disease caused by too much fluoride. In severe cases, there is damage to bones and joints, as well as pain.

High fluorine concentrations in the body lead to hardened and less elastic bones, which increases the risk of fractures.

The bones may thicken and bone tissue accumulates, which contribute to impaired joint mobility.

The majority of patients eventually suffer from nausea and possible ruptures of the stomach lining.

In some cases, the thyroid gland may be damaged, resulting in hyperparathyroidism. In hyperparathyroidism the secretion of parathyroid hormones goes out of control, resulting in depletion of calcium in bone structures and higher-than-normal concentrations of calcium in the blood. Lower calcium concentrations in bones make them more susceptible to fractures.

According to UNICEF, fluorosis is endemic in at least 25 countries. The number of people suffering from skeletal fluorosis globally is thought to be in the tens of millions. WHO estimates that 2.7 million people in China have the crippling form of the disease.

What Is Fluoride? What Does Fluoride Do?



No one is controlling the doses?

Ummm genius.... I mean nobody controls how much any given person will consume. Therefore nobody is controlling the doses. They control the purity in the water, but not how much people consume.


You are saying it is impossible to prove your argument because of other contaminants?

It's not impossible, but it's extremely hard because there is a preconceived notion that fluoride is not dangerous to our health and the government puts a lot of effort into discrediting any study which attempts to link any health condition to the consumption of fluoride. They just point to something else and blame it on that, saying there's not enough evidence to reach a definitive conclusion about fluoride.

But we don't need to directly prove that fluoride has adverse health affects, all we need to do is show that fluoride in the water supply is almost entirely useless when it comes to reducing cavities in the masses, which can be clearly seen when looking at fluoridated nations vs non-fluoridated nations. The evidence in that respect is damning and highly conclusive imo. Why would you even argue for us to take the risk when you can't actually prove that it has a positive affect?

I'm not saying that fluoridated tooth paste isn't helpful at reducing cavities, there is a lot of strong evidence which shows how effective fluoride can be when applied topically. But there is very much a lack of evidence which shows that water fluoridation is effective, they are in completely different leagues. There is simply no reason why everyone should have to ingest a toxic chemical derived from industrial waste materials. Quite frankly I'll stick with the rest of the world when it comes to fluoride, the western world is clearly delusional and cares more about profits then it does about the health of its own citizens.
edit on 22/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Well here's one interesting study from Harvard which I found with just a quick Google search:

Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis


Background: Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children’s neurodevelopment.

Objective: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to investigate the effects of increased fluoride exposure and delayed neurobehavioral development.

Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Water Resources Abstracts, and TOXNET databases through 2011 for eligible studies. We also searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, because many studies on fluoride neurotoxicity have been published in Chinese journals only. In total, we identified 27 eligible epidemiological studies with high and reference exposures, end points of IQ scores, or related cognitive function measures with means and variances for the two exposure groups. Using random-effects models, we estimated the standardized mean difference between exposed and reference groups across all studies. We conducted sensitivity analyses restricted to studies using the same outcome assessment and having drinking-water fluoride as the only exposure. We performed the Cochran test for heterogeneity between studies, Begg’s funnel plot, and Egger test to assess publication bias, and conducted meta-regressions to explore sources of variation in mean differences among the studies.

Results: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.

Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 




It based on the cities and towns around the world which are known to fluoridate their water. If it is unknown for a certain place, the chances are very high that they do not fluoridate. But yes, 5% isn't meant to be an exact figure. It's just an approximate guess.

Fair enough.



Haven't you ever heard of skeletal fluorosis? That is just one of the many documented health affects caused by too much fluoride, which can build up in the body until it reaches hazardous concentration levels.

At what level is the fluoride? How much contaminated water must a person drink?
Yes I have heard of it, but we were discussing water treatment fluoridation, not naturally occurring high concentrations of fluoride in water, which is one of the main contributing factors. The others are:

Common causes of fluorosis include inhalation of fluoride dusts/fumes by workers in industry, use of coal as an indoor fuel source (a common practice in China), consumption of fluoride from drinking water (naturally occurring levels of fluoride in excess of the CDC recommended safe levels[1]), and consumption of fluoride from the drinking of tea,[2] particularly brick tea. Skeletal fluorosis can be caused by cryolite (Na3AlF6, sodium hexafluoroaluminate).

From Wikipedia.



Ummm genius.... I mean nobody controls how much any given person will consume. Therefore nobody is controlling the doses. They control the purity in the water, but not how much people consume.

Thanks for the recognition!

How much do you figure the average person would have to drink before they would be in danger of getting fluoride poisoning from drinking water!?!? You would die from all that water in your system before you would even get CLOSE to getting fluoride poisoning!
lol



It's not impossible, but it's extremely hard because there is a preconceived notion that fluoride is not dangerous to our health and the government puts a lot of effort into discrediting any study which attempts to link any health condition to the consumption of fluoride.

Point me to a study with the criteria above. You made the claim, prove it.



They just point to something else and blame it on that, saying there's not enough evidence to reach a definitive conclusion about fluoride.

Example?



But we don't need to directly prove that fluoride has adverse health affects, all we need to do is show that fluoride in the water supply is almost entirely useless when it comes to reducing cavities in the masses, which can be clearly seen when looking at fluoridated nations vs non-fluoridated nations. The evidence in that respect is damning and highly conclusive imo. Why would you even argue for us to take the risk when you can't actually prove that it has a positive affect?

Are you talking about your scientific graph?!?
The one with no population numbers. The one that doesn't say if it is showing every person in the US and other countries is using fluoridated water or not? The one that just shows the country with some number on the left? The one that was made by a FAN researcher?!? That would have the same implications as if you made the graph and had NO SCIENCE to back it up. That graph is a joke. He pulled some info off the WHO website and made a graph with nonsensical numbers to keep the fear in the fearful. It worked.




I'm not saying that fluoridated tooth paste isn't helpful at reducing cavities, there is a lot of strong evidence which shows how effective fluoride can be when applied topically. But there is very much a lack of evidence which shows that water fluoridation is effective, they are in completely different leagues.

Agreed they are in different leagues, but I did explain exactly why they do it and it does make sense. I wonder how many ppm get absorbed into the body when you brush your teeth with it. I bet it is more than a gallon of fluoridated water will have, and you are okay with that because they haven't scared with that fact yet.




There is simply no reason why everyone should have to ingest a toxic chemical derived from industrial waste materials.

As you yourself pointed out, it isn't toxic in it's limited dosage.



Quite frankly I'll stick with the rest of the world when it comes to fluoride, the western world is clearly delusional and cares more about profits then it does about the health of its own citizens.

100% your choice. I just wish people would do the tiniest bit of research (science, not hearsay) before they make their decisions. Just like people that refuse all vaccinations....but that's another story.



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   

ChaoticOrder
Well here's one interesting study from Harvard which I found with just a quick Google search:

Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis


Background: Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children’s neurodevelopment.

Objective: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to investigate the effects of increased fluoride exposure and delayed neurobehavioral development.

Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Water Resources Abstracts, and TOXNET databases through 2011 for eligible studies. We also searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, because many studies on fluoride neurotoxicity have been published in Chinese journals only. In total, we identified 27 eligible epidemiological studies with high and reference exposures, end points of IQ scores, or related cognitive function measures with means and variances for the two exposure groups. Using random-effects models, we estimated the standardized mean difference between exposed and reference groups across all studies. We conducted sensitivity analyses restricted to studies using the same outcome assessment and having drinking-water fluoride as the only exposure. We performed the Cochran test for heterogeneity between studies, Begg’s funnel plot, and Egger test to assess publication bias, and conducted meta-regressions to explore sources of variation in mean differences among the studies.

Results: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.

Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.


Wrong, wrong, wrong.

This has nothing to do with water fluoridation and rather focuses on naturally occurring high levels of fluoride. This is the "Harvard study" that is all in China with the exception of one in Iran.



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



Common causes of fluorosis include inhalation of fluoride dusts/fumes by workers in industry, use of coal as an indoor fuel source (a common practice in China), consumption of fluoride from drinking water (naturally occurring levels of fluoride in excess of the CDC recommended safe levels[1]), and consumption of fluoride from the drinking of tea,[2] particularly brick tea. Skeletal fluorosis can be caused by cryolite (Na3AlF6, sodium hexafluoroaluminate).

That Wikipedia article is highly misleading, the vast majority of people with fluorosis got it from drinking too much tap water which contained artificially added fluoride, not naturally occurring fluoride. Only a very small fraction of the US population actually drinks tap water which contains naturally occurring fluoride (it's close to 3%), yet more than 40% of all US children are afflicted with dental fluorosis according to studies conducted by the CDC. How is that possible unless the vast majority of those children had their fluorosis caused by artificially added fluoride in their drinking water? Do children work in areas which contain fluoride dusts? I don't think so...


How much do you figure the average person would have to drink before they would be in danger of getting fluoride poisoning from drinking water!?!?

Again it's not about the immediate damage, it's about the slow and continual damage which is caused by unending consumption of fluorides. The fluoride does build up in our body, like ANY other chemical we consume regularly the level of fluoride concentration in our bodies can grow to dangerous levels and when it does we get problems such as skeletal fluorosis.


That graph is a joke. He pulled some info off the WHO website and made a graph with nonsensical numbers to keep the fear in the fearful.

You claiming the graph is nonsensical does not make it nonsensical. It plots hard data from an official source in a correct way and clearly shows how the level of tooth cavities in many non-fluoridated nations has dropped at a similar rate as those nations who do fluoridate. If you can come up with a more technically correct graph which disproves that graph then go right ahead.


I wonder how many ppm get absorbed into the body when you brush your teeth with it.

I don't see how that would be true, toothpaste is not ingested like tap water is, people take care to wash their mouths out and not to swallow the toothpaste. Plus, if we do get such a high level of fluoride from toothpaste that only makes fluoridating the water even more dangerous because it would dramatically increase our fluoride intake.


This has nothing to do with water fluoridation and rather focuses on naturally occurring high levels of fluoride. This is the "Harvard study" that is all in China with the exception of one in Iran.

I guess that's a legitimate point, but it still shows how dangerous fluoride can be and how it can affect our IQ. I don't think the brain damaging affects of fluoride simply disappear when you drink a small enough amount of it, the affects simply become too small to easily detect. But I do also think the affects build up over time. Even if the amount in our drinking water is small it's still dangerous and no where worth the risk. It's neurotoxin and even in small amounts it will damage the brain slowly but surely. But by the time it becomes obvious it's almost impossible to say with certainty what actually caused the brain damage.
edit on 22/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 





That Wikipedia article is highly misleading, the vast majority of people with fluorosis got it from drinking too much tap water which contained artificially added fluoride, not naturally occurring fluoride. Only a very small fraction of the US population actually drinks tap water which contains naturally occurring fluoride (it's close to 3%), yet more than 40% of all US children are afflicted with dental fluorosis according to studies conducted by the CDC. How is that possible unless the vast majority of those children had their fluorosis caused by artificially added fluoride in their drinking water?

Talk about highly misleading!!!

There is NO correlation showing that tap water causes skeletal fluorosis nor dental fluorosis.
That comes from drinking UNTREATED water with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride. Geez, do a tiny bit of research.



Again it's not about the immediate damage, it's about the slow and continual damage which is caused by unending consumption of fluorides. The fluoride does build up in our body, like ANY other chemical we consume regularly the level of fluoride concentration in our bodies can grow to dangerous levels and when it does we get problems such as skeletal fluorosis.

Which again, has only been shown and only has been happening in people with UNTREATED water. You're killing your own argument...



You claiming the graph is nonsensical does not make it nonsensical. It plots hard data from an official source in a correct way and clearly shows how the level of tooth cavities in many non-fluoridated nations has dropped at a similar rate as those nations who do fluoridate. If you can come up with a more technically correct graph which disproves that graph then go right ahead.

I don't get it. Can you please explain the graph to me then? Exactly as it is made? Thanks in advance!




I don't see how that would be true, toothpaste is not ingested like tap water is, people take care to wash their mouths out and not to swallow the toothpaste. Plus, if we do get such a high level of fluoride from toothpaste that only makes fluoridating the water even more dangerous because it would dramatically increase our fluoride intake.

Believe it. Sorry to give you another thing to fear. Things do not need to be ingested for your body to absorb them. Stick your hand in a bath and watch the wrinkles form. Lots of foods contain fluoride, I already provided you a link.



I don't think the brain damaging affects of fluoride simply disappear when you drink a small enough amount of it, the affects simply become too small to easily detect. But I do also think the affects build up over time. Even if the amount in our drinking water is small it's still dangerous and no where worth the risk. It's neurotoxin and even in small amounts it will damage the brain slowly but surely. But by the time it becomes obvious it's almost impossible to say with certainty what actually caused the brain damage.

You are allowed to have your opinion.
If this is about not wanting a medicinal ingredient in the water without your consent, I completely understand. However, don't disguise your lack of knowledge and fear of the chemical as a crusade for helping the public understand. Blind leading the blind if no one understands it completely.
They have to do many more studies and much more research to prove it, but again like you said, how can you ever prove anything to the anti-fluoride people? They need this particular boogeyman.
I used to believe exactly what you did. Then I researched both sides. FAN is out to make money. The government is out to make money. The only difference being, the government is spending money (water fluoridation) to save money later on (dental neglect). How do you fluoridate water to just those households where the people don't take care of their chompers? Are you fine with paying for them when you take care of your own and pay for your own dental care? Why doesn't FAN head off the government and start a fund for people to use if they need dental care instead of lobbying for water fluoridation removal? Then they actually have a leg to stand on if they can help everyone.



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



There is NO correlation showing that tap water causes skeletal fluorosis nor dental fluorosis.

You still didn't answer my question about how 40% of US children can have dental fluorosis when only 3% of the US population actually drinks water with naturally occurring fluoride. I know several people with dental fluorosis, and NONE of them drink water with naturally occurring fluoride in it. So your claim above is completely bogus as far as I'm concerned. Complete and utter hogwash verging on the line of propaganda.


Things do not need to be ingested for your body to absorb them.

Yes... but things are absorbed much more thoroughly when you ingest them.


However, don't disguise your lack of knowledge and fear of the chemical as a crusade for helping the public understand. Blind leading the blind if no one understands it completely. They have to do many more studies and much more research to prove it, but again like you said, how can you ever prove anything to the anti-fluoride people?

It's clear that you actually know just as little about fluoride and its health affects as I do, if we need more research to reach a definite conclusion then it's clear the whole thing is guess work and speculation. In fact when they first started fluoridating the water they knew virtually nothing about it, and still to this day we have so much conflicting research that it's still hard to discern any truth about fluoride. We are putting this thing in our water which is very poorly understood and has a lot of potential health implications, just because people argue it has one debatable advantage (and people living without that "advantage" appear to be doing absolutely fine). It's pure insanity and if you can't see that you too are insane.
edit on 22/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 




You still didn't answer my question about how 40% of US children can have dental fluorosis when only 3% of the US population actually drinks water with naturally occurring fluoride.

Where is that number coming from?
Edit: Found it. I think you mean 40% of the less than 1/4 of people that had some form of dental fluorosis, from unaffected to severe with less than 1% of the 25% of the US population having severe.
Again, more shady math to make people fear fluoride.


I know several people with dental fluorosis, and NONE of them drink water with naturally occurring fluoride in it.

Prove it. Link to the general chemical and toxicity report for their raw water source. Link to their water treatment plants annual testing to prove that they add fluoride and what the ppm's are. I would like to see before and after comparisons before I will believe your claim. Also, their medical report showing the have dental fluorosis and not just poor dental hygiene.



So your claim above is completely bogus as far as I'm concerned. Complete and utter hogwash verging on the line of propaganda.

My claim? I asked for proof. You have not provided any. If you provide what I asked for in my first reply in this post I shall be happy to entertain the thought that you are right. You don't even know what they add at your water treatment plant!



Yes... but things are absorbed much more thoroughly when you ingest them.

Absorbed is absorbed. It doesn't matter if you ingest it or not it is still in your system and that is what you people are afraid of isn't it? Plus you eat food don't you? I gave you a link to show which foods have naturally occurring fluoride in them.



It's clear that you actually know just as little about fluoride and its health affects as I do, if we need more research to reach a definite conclusion then it's clear the whole thing is guess work and speculation.

Going off the facts as they are now, I tend to agree that fluoride is needed and not, in any way, harmful when dosed at ppm that it is. Would I like to see more research? Yes! I would love to see a 75 year study with twins where one drinks fluoridated water and the other doesn't. Everything else exactly the same in their lives except for that one variable.



In fact when they first started fluoridating the water they knew virtually nothing about it, and still to this day we have so much conflicting research that it's still hard to discern any truth about fluoride. We are putting this thing in our water which is very poorly understood and has a lot of potential health implications, just because people argue it has one debatable advantage (and people living without that "advantage" appear to be doing absolutely fine).

People with that advantage are also doing absolutely fine. Absolutely no cases of people being hurt by properly dosed water fluoridation from a water treatment plant. You can't provide one, one example.
That right there should show you. If not, you must be too insane. Insane with fear.

It's human nature. I'm not judging you, just trying to teach you.
edit on 22-10-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)


Link to my above edit.
edit on 22-10-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



Where is that number coming from?



By 2006, 69.2% of the U.S. population on public water systems were receiving fluoridated water, amounting to 61.5% of the total U.S. population; 3.0% of the population on public water systems were receiving naturally occurring fluoride.[10]

en.wikipedia.org...



Adolescents aged 12-15 had the highest prevalence of dental fluorosis (40.6%) (Figure 2). The prevalence is lower among older age groups. The lowest prevalence was among those aged 40-49 (8.7%). The prevalence of dental fluorosis among children aged 6-11 (33.4%) was lower than the prevalence among those aged 12-15 (40.6%).

www.cdc.gov...


EDIT: and in case you want to argue that is has grown much higher than 3% since 2006, the CDC released some data in 2010 which indicates that the percentage is still very close to 3%.

www.cdc.gov...

If you take the value given for "U.S. population on community water systems (CWS)" and compare it to the value given for "Population served by CWS with naturally occurring fluoride" you get the following:

(10077922 / 276607387) x 100 = 3.64%
edit on 22/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join