It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Water Fluoridation will NOT kill you.

page: 22
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:24 AM
reply to post by ArnoldNonymous

Nobody is scared of the end of the world, at least I'm not, I'm just rational about water fluoridation. I would assume its purpose is for the general welfare of the people.

If we have a teeth epidemic going on, I am unaware of it.

I know coronary heart disease is a major cause of death, in the United States, but somehow municipalities care about teeth more than death.

Using the same rationale, providing for the general welfare of the people would seem to put more emphasis on adding cholesterol lowering medication to the water, in small amounts. While they're at it, add some amino acids and omega 3s.

Although I understand the anti-anti fluoride argument, I don't understand what side you stand on except to just be right about the facts with no consideration to the obvious concerns. Adding fluoride is said by some to cause problems, on the opposite side, not adding it would also not cause problems. I know the thread is directed at clarifying concerns, but once you've clarified it for everyone, now what? Do you want it or do you prefer not to have it, are you able to keep your teeth healthy without it? If we have to force medicate people, why don't we force people to eat vegetables everyday?

To repeat, I'm not screaming doomsday, I'm just concerned about the thought process of why you have to force this one medication in people for something as trivial as dental hygiene. It's really a bizarre concept that eludes a consistent form of logic when compared to real health problems. It's a very narrow way to approach forced medicating of a population. Following the same logic, we ought to force vaccinate everyone for everything, only if it is riskier that tartar of course.

The tartar problem in America is so completely out of hand we believe that the only solution is to wage a war against it, by forcing and allowing fluoride in our most precious resource. It's utter insanity, even if it's mildly effective in dental hygiene, it's still an insane approach. Why doesn't the water company just mail tablets of vitamins, minerals, and your daily requirement of fluoride instead? It's already in toothpaste for gods sake, what is the obsession with it? It's about as crazy as the religious right's obsession with gay marriage. The government has an obsession with tartar control? I don't get it.

Maybe someone can clarify the obsession for me? It's certainly not health.
edit on 7-12-2013 by Rychwebo because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by superman2012

It won't be fluoride anymore!

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 06:40 PM

I would have no problem drinking something that won't harm me, thanks!

Leave us not forget that fluoride (concentration aside) was (and i think still is) used as insecticide, and rat poison...

these things tend to have a cumulative effect, and i'm pretty sure there has never been a study done to show the cumulative effect of a lifetime of fluoride exposure.

it might not hurt you immediately, but what about 20, 30, 40, or 50 years down the road?

i think it's intelectually dishonest of you to ask if vitamin deficient people end up in the hospital...i think we both know they to me about fluoride deficient people ending up in the hospital, and costing taxpayers money....i'd be very interested to read about that.

also, would you care to touch on the subject of dental fluorosis?

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 06:47 PM

Water is a good medium to apply it and to get it into every house.

but you've glossed over the point he made that it's a topical thing, and doesn't do anything beneficial when i'll ask..

what good does it do to get it into every house, if it isn't serving the stated purpose?

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 07:38 PM

Your health is directly related to your dental health.

untrue. if you want to make a general statement like that, you might want to look to the gut.

As stated by another poster on the first page. Dental disease is directly linked to heart health

he never said that...he said that 50% of heart disease starts as gum disease....i'm not even sure if THOSE figures are accurate, but that's what the man said.....not what you said he said....

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:03 PM

reply to post by Rychwebo

Suspect all you want. I have typed it in plain English for people to read over and study. All I have been refuting is the garbage science that frightened people have been spouting.

It is absolutely a persons choice to either be scared of something they don't understand, or do research into it and come to their own conclusion.

If you (for whatever reason) don't believe me because I am fully in support of water fluoridation and have seen ZERO science/studies or evidence supporting the "claim" that it is not beneficial, then read over RickyMouse's posts. His conclusions are more science supported than any in your camp, the "I don't believe it because I don't want to believe it" group.

So you admit your motivation is to push the corporate line? For the profit of the chemical corporations over the safety of the general public. I just can not figure out why a flesh and blood man, would want to defend corporate profit over public health?

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by superman2012

The Newburgh study - did find differences in health issues. I am a Teacher and I conducted my own research - I will share with you a direct quote from the notes I utilised when approaching my local council with the intention to stopping the act of placing sodium fluoride in the water.

"The most visible effects from fluoride in Newburgh's water systems are not fewer cavities but instead the high rates of speckled and mottled teeth known as dental fluorosis. After fifty years, Newburgh children have virtually the same amount of dental decay as their counterparts in the 'control' city of Kingston."

You really have to factor in the sugar content in the diet and the teeth brushing habits to get an accurate result.

"Because of fluoridation the US has the highest rates of hip fractures in the world and an epidemic of arthritis in 21 million Americans. No one appears to have noticed when, in an obscure paper published in 1979, Dr Hodge quietly admitted that his safety figures had been wrong."


"From 1972 to 1974 the number of heart attacks in Antigo, Winsconsin doubled in a year, following the addition of fluoride to the water systems. Because of this, they took the fluoride out and the heart attack rate came down."

As a Teacher my interest in researching sodium fluoride was piqued when I read about the dumbing down effects.

"Eighteen subsequent studies on fluoride and the brain have shown lower IQ levels in children with elevated fluoride levels, even after controlling for other factors that could lower IQ such as parental education levels, lead levels, iodine exposure and family income. Research has shown elevated cancer rates in cities with fluoridated water, cancerous changes in lever cells and unscheduled DNA synthesis."

I noticed that Students who had dental fluorosis were struggling with their work. The research I conducted led me to learn that statistically, Children can lose up to 20% of their IQ from the effects of ingesting sodium fluoride. To me as a Teacher - 20% is close enough to 25% which is a quarter - and that - is the difference between a Student who is failing and a Student who is performing well enough to be passing assignments and exams. When I learned about what sodium fluoride is doing to the intellectual and cognitive abilities of Children - I got mad and then I researched and learned the truth.

Just look at the Material Safety Data Sheet - it states quite clearly - do not inhale, do not ingest and do not allow contact with the skin.

Much Peace...

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:10 PM


reply to post by superman2012

Takin .2 micro grams of rat poison everyday won't kill you either.

Doesn't mean you should ingest the stuff.

edit on 12/6/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

Tell that to the millions of people who are on Warfarin as a blood thinner.

To OP: just forget it, man. This site's thrown all pretense of rational thought and science out the window lately, it's disgusting.

You do know that no true clinical double blind study has ever been done proving the safety of fluoride for human consumption at any level above natural calcium fluoride. So I guess you were talking about yourself and how you can't use rational thoughts or arguments because the science is not done yet. At least you can admit your shortcomings, that's a good start.

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:12 PM

Omg really? This is a 60s thing. It stops tooth decay, it's not a Russian plot

No it doesn't,Fluoride actually has negative long term effects on teeth in every study over 5 years in length.

edit on 7-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:14 PM

I feel bad for you Superman. You laid out a great thread with facts which were cited and give a great argument, yet you still have to argue with people about it with every "what if" situation they can think of.

I may be wrong, but I thought water fluoridation was to help keep the water clean. Bacteria is eventually going to get in the water somewhere with the huge grid of water networks throughout the country (and world).

My only question is how often are they checking the fluoride levels in the water and how stable is it/ does it change constantly? I figure 3rd world countries and lower tech ones may have problems with this.

Ps- and for all those who keep complaining about the end of the world being in the water, stop drinking it. Quit your complaining and do something about it. Bunch o' whiners
edit on 7-12-2013 by ArnoldNonymous because: (no reason given)

You are blatantly lying. The science has never been proven, ever, not one true study has been done properly and the four that have been done poorly show no positive effects, and do show negative effects.

But just keep ignoring the truth.

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:15 PM
You don't have to be a rocket scientist, or a complete idiot to see many disparages between the OP, PhDs, doctors, scientists, and decades of studies. When studies are done with findings like these, you have to wonder the motivation behind a supporter of fluoridation.

A "I support fluoridation"
B "But Harvard, with the help of 22 years of data, say that it may be a developmental neurotoxicant."
A "I don't care about studies, because studies say its good for me. If fluoride doesn't make its way into just about everything I eat and drink, I'll be quite upset."

Today more than ever, evidence of fluoride’s toxicity is entering the public sphere. The summer of 2012 saw the publication of a systematic review and meta-analysis by researchers at Harvard University that explored the link between exposure to fluoride and neurological and cognitive function among children. The report pooled data from over 27 studies- many of them from China- carried out over the course of 22 years. The results, which were published in the journal Environmental Health Sciences showed a strong connection between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and decreased IQ scores in children. The team concluded that “the results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults.” [1] The newest scientific data suggest that the damaging effects of fluoride extend to reproductive health as well. A 2013 study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology showed a link between fluoride exposure and male infertility in mice. The study’s findings suggest that sodium fluoride impairs the ability of sperm cells in mice to normally fertilize the egg through a process known as chemotaxis. [2] This is the latest in more than 60 scientific studies on animals that have identified an association between male infertility and fluoride exposure.[3]

This page was published December 5th, 2013
By Dr. Gary Null, Global Research

I'd just like to know the OP's desires for the future of fluoridation. Do you want it to continue, or cease? If you want it to continue, what else do you suggest we add to the water for our benefit? If you are a true believer of forced tartar control, what other forces would you implement to better our health that could easily be added to the water? Does anyone have any idea as to why fluoride is supported? I'd like some valid reason other than simply 'imposing will'.

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:18 PM
Still no answer on your motivation? Scared to tell me?
edit on 7-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:18 PM

reply to post by VoidHawk

Argh! over 2 hours!? Can you please direct me to where the person is hurt by properly dosed water fluoridation?
Thanks in advance!
Even the name and then I will google it myself!

lemme ask....

how long did you spend researching sources for the OP of this thread?

i'm willing to bet it was more than two hours, and if it wasn't, then shame on you.

the best advice i could offer you is to watch the damn video, and don't be so lazy....unless of course, you're simply not willing to hear anything that is contrary to your stated views, as per the OP...

the first step to denying ignorance, is keeping an open mind...

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:26 PM


People give themselves different priorities. It is their choice to take care of themselves, but they don't.'s not their choice, it's their responsibility to take care of themselves...even if the action taken is as simple as going to see a doctor when something hurts....if they ignore their health, and don't get problems taken care of, then they get the outcome they is not the roll of government to nanny, and coddle the people, and put s**t in the water that isn't directly related to making it safe to drink..

They could, but ingesting it wouldn't help the teeth, unlike water which would coat the whole mouth.

unless the drinker is using a straw...then it barely touches any teeth....i don't understand how you can STILL believe this silly argument that it being in the water is in any way a dental hygiene preventative

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:58 PM



People give themselves different priorities. It is their choice to take care of themselves, but they don't.'s not their choice, it's their responsibility to take care of themselves...even if the action taken is as simple as going to see a doctor when something hurts....if they ignore their health, and don't get problems taken care of, then they get the outcome they is not the roll of government to nanny, and coddle the people, and put s**t in the water that isn't directly related to making it safe to drink..

They could, but ingesting it wouldn't help the teeth, unlike water which would coat the whole mouth.

unless the drinker is using a straw...then it barely touches any teeth....i don't understand how you can STILL believe this silly argument that it being in the water is in any way a dental hygiene preventative

He doesn't, he is paid to do this.

No.....I kid.
edit on 7-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:07 PM

reply to post by Rychwebo

For now we will just have to agree to disagree, fluoride is non essential, ergo potentially a risk and proven to be unsafe in humans and rats.

It has not been PROVEN unsafe in humans in water fluoridation levels...which is what this thread is about. I don't give a rats ass about...well...rats.

methinks you're missing the point....

lemme put it differently for you...

the artificial fluorides used in water fluoridation are a known poison (neurotoxin, actually)....ingesting them in ANY concentration is a bad idea...and to justify it's use with the lame excuse "but it helps your teeth" is goddamn retarded, because of the VERY limited contact/benefit it would have...

it's an unsafe substance for human consumption, in any amount...just because it doesn't immediately kill you, doesn't make it safe...

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:08 PM
Superman2012: I think you're confusing "has not been proven dangerous" with "has been proven not dangerous". Easy mistake really, it's the same 5 words, just with one moved a few spaces.

There are lots of problems associated with ingestion of flouride (you put links to many of them!) And equating lack of a smoking gun with innocence is tragically foolish, perhaps even deliberately deceptive on your part.

I think jumping in front of a pure diamond ballistic missile hasn't been PROVEN dangerous either. Wanna give it a try?

I mean seriously here, what's your interest? You come off with this condescending tone as if you have something to gain by maintaining the practice of putting industrial byproducts in water supplies.

Water flouridation is UNECESSARY, and ultimately the negative effects are difficult to trace (sound like a perfect industrial disposal network yet?).

Most of Europe doesn't flouridate and they are healthier than Americans in pretty much every metric, so sorry mate, you started a thread to attempt a debunk and ultimately YOU got debunked.

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:09 PM

reply to post by jaws1975

I'm not pushing it. I'm attempting to show that there are many untruths about it and that people fear it based on faulty intelligence. The anti-fluoride camp either tweaks the data to fit their agenda or uses arguments that are outright lies.

I don't believe that people need to drink fluoride, but until there is a better way to help people with poor dental hygiene, this is the best way. I also don't believe that fluoride in properly dosed water fluoridation will harm anyone, so I don't see a problem.

There have been no conclusive studies that prove water fluoridation helps people with poor dental hygiene. Topically applied fluoride by your dentist has been shown to help. There have been many complaints about mottled teeth from fluoridated water. And I did read of one person who had fluoride poisoning. But most important is that we should not all be medicated against our will, especially because the dose per person is totally uncontrollable. It is an unscientific experiment being done on us without our consent. That fact in itself is cause to cry unscientific and even unconstitutional to water fluoridation and makes one wonder why it is even being done.

I agree that activists are too often fear mongers and exaggerate to motivate people. That is a major problem to me, because it makes it harder in the end to fight for what's right. But one of the problems that generates activists is that those in control of the status quo have all of the research money, relegating any contrary opinions to cheaply and hence poorly done research or anecdotes. That does not mean one should totally discount the opinions of an activist, but we should call for proper research to be done.

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:16 PM

(sound like a perfect industrial disposal network yet?

kinda like what they did with oil/gasoline (petrol)

a little off-topic, i know, but it's the same kind of lies and deception, used to make us pay for the privilege of ingesting/burning corporations industrial waste...

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:21 PM
This debate has become circular and off topic, the OP clearly defined the discussion as being about inaccurate anti-fluoridation propaganda being used when defining harm caused by "correct" dosage. Even if correct dose water fluoridation is a concern, using disingenuous information is not helpful to the cause, quite the opposite. I personally believe low dose fluoride is the least of our worries when it comes to potable water, there are many other nasty things in there which are potentially far more harmfull, to me it's like being in a burning building but being more concerned about saving your favourite photos than saving yourself....
As many others have pointed out there exists myriad options for topical fluoride treatment, as such it may well be redundant to mass medicate, however I must agree that the "anti" side are arguing with emotion not peer reviewed facts. In short, it may not be needed in 1st world countries but the potential for harm from -correctly dosed- water fluoridation is being dramatically overstated. Ill link below what I believe to be the definitive examination of the topic, few will read it all, inside is virtually all available info.


new topics

top topics

<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in