It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 28
25
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   

superman2012

Rychwebo
reply to post by dragonridr
 





Well i think you're asking why they do it? Same reason they add iodine in salt or vitamin b in milk. to promote good health. The cost is low and the effects high. Not all areas add fluoride since if they get there water from ground sources its already there. If you dont want flouride your choice as they say dont drink the water. Or in the UK milk since they add it to their milk. Dont buy toothpaste use baking soda and prepare for higher dental bills .


They do add vitamin b to milk, and iodine to salt, but not the water. That's not administering, because not everyone drinks milk or uses iodized salt. I'm really trying to grasp this line of thinking. Also, I may have missed it, but were there sources showing any unfluoridated water supply causing the high health problems that fluoride is intended to prevent?

Are there sources showing properly dosed fluoridated water supply causing high health problems?


Correction: Also, I may have missed it, but were there sources showing of any unfluoridated water supply being the cause of any health problems that fluoride is intended to prevent.

Maybe that needs rewording? I'm trying to find out if there is evidence to support the claim that NOT fluoridating water has lead to the health problems it's supposedly meant to cure.




posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Rychwebo

superman2012

Rychwebo
reply to post by dragonridr
 





Well i think you're asking why they do it? Same reason they add iodine in salt or vitamin b in milk. to promote good health. The cost is low and the effects high. Not all areas add fluoride since if they get there water from ground sources its already there. If you dont want flouride your choice as they say dont drink the water. Or in the UK milk since they add it to their milk. Dont buy toothpaste use baking soda and prepare for higher dental bills .


They do add vitamin b to milk, and iodine to salt, but not the water. That's not administering, because not everyone drinks milk or uses iodized salt. I'm really trying to grasp this line of thinking. Also, I may have missed it, but were there sources showing any unfluoridated water supply causing the high health problems that fluoride is intended to prevent?

Are there sources showing properly dosed fluoridated water supply causing high health problems?


Correction: Also, I may have missed it, but were there sources showing of any unfluoridated water supply being the cause of any health problems that fluoride is intended to prevent.

Maybe that needs rewording? I'm trying to find out if there is evidence to support the claim that NOT fluoridating water has lead to the health problems it's supposedly meant to cure.

Are you asking if not adding fluoride to the water has helped reduce cavities?
or
Are you asking if unfluoridated water has caused cavities?

Edit: In either case, I have not come across anything that agrees with either of those two questions.

edit on 13-12-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Does not having it cause problems? I mean if having it helps, then not having it must be harmful I'd think.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
what you can do is boil a pot of water. So once it's boiling then turn off the stove. Let the water start to cool. After a few hours come back. See if you have a thin layer of a clear looking film across the top of the water? You should be able to spoon it out. And pinch sum between your fingers, it should be greesy and brown in color. That's what's in city water. Whatever it is, it's nasty! I really hate the thought that I'm forced to drink that. But buying bottled water all the time is too difficult. I tried doing that and I just couldnt keep going to the store everytime I ran out. So I'm back to tap water for now. It sucks but it's better than no water.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Rychwebo
reply to post by superman2012
 


Does not having it cause problems? I mean if having it helps, then not having it must be harmful I'd think.


Having an education is good for you and well obviously not having one isnt fatal.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012

Rychwebo
reply to post by dragonridr
 





Well i think you're asking why they do it? Same reason they add iodine in salt or vitamin b in milk. to promote good health. The cost is low and the effects high. Not all areas add fluoride since if they get there water from ground sources its already there. If you dont want flouride your choice as they say dont drink the water. Or in the UK milk since they add it to their milk. Dont buy toothpaste use baking soda and prepare for higher dental bills .


They do add vitamin b to milk, and iodine to salt, but not the water. That's not administering, because not everyone drinks milk or uses iodized salt. I'm really trying to grasp this line of thinking. Also, I may have missed it, but were there sources showing any unfluoridated water supply causing the high health problems that fluoride is intended to prevent?

Are there sources showing properly dosed fluoridated water supply causing high health problems?


Correction: Also, I may have missed it, but were there sources showing of any unfluoridated water supply being the cause of any health problems that fluoride is intended to prevent.

Maybe that needs rewording? I'm trying to find out if there is evidence to support the claim that NOT fluoridating water has lead to the health problems it's supposedly meant to cure.

Are you asking if not adding fluoride to the water has helped reduce cavities?
or
Are you asking if unfluoridated water has caused cavities?

Edit: In either case, I have not come across anything that agrees with either of those two questions.

edit on 13-12-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)


So you haven't read anything that explains the downsides to NOT fluoridating water, with respect to health?

I'm only trying to understand. If I had an amulet that I claimed kept dragons from harming me, one would wonder if getting rid of the amulet would lead to me being attacked by a dragon.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   

dragonridr

Rychwebo
reply to post by superman2012
 


Does not having it cause problems? I mean if having it helps, then not having it must be harmful I'd think.


Having an education is good for you and well obviously not having one isnt fatal.


Your analogy is not the same as showing me evidence. Also, I never let education get in the way of my learning.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Rychwebo

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012

Rychwebo
reply to post by dragonridr
 





Well i think you're asking why they do it? Same reason they add iodine in salt or vitamin b in milk. to promote good health. The cost is low and the effects high. Not all areas add fluoride since if they get there water from ground sources its already there. If you dont want flouride your choice as they say dont drink the water. Or in the UK milk since they add it to their milk. Dont buy toothpaste use baking soda and prepare for higher dental bills .


They do add vitamin b to milk, and iodine to salt, but not the water. That's not administering, because not everyone drinks milk or uses iodized salt. I'm really trying to grasp this line of thinking. Also, I may have missed it, but were there sources showing any unfluoridated water supply causing the high health problems that fluoride is intended to prevent?

Are there sources showing properly dosed fluoridated water supply causing high health problems?


Correction: Also, I may have missed it, but were there sources showing of any unfluoridated water supply being the cause of any health problems that fluoride is intended to prevent.

Maybe that needs rewording? I'm trying to find out if there is evidence to support the claim that NOT fluoridating water has lead to the health problems it's supposedly meant to cure.

Are you asking if not adding fluoride to the water has helped reduce cavities?
or
Are you asking if unfluoridated water has caused cavities?

Edit: In either case, I have not come across anything that agrees with either of those two questions.

edit on 13-12-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)


So you haven't read anything that explains the downsides to NOT fluoridating water, with respect to health?

I'm only trying to understand. If I had an amulet that I claimed kept dragons from harming me, one would wonder if getting rid of the amulet would lead to me being attacked by a dragon.

You misunderstand what it is for.
It is an aid for dental hygiene. That is all. It isn't a miracle. It isn't a cure-all. It is to aid a person and used to slow down tooth decay in cases of poor dental hygiene.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   

spartacus699
what you can do is boil a pot of water. So once it's boiling then turn off the stove. Let the water start to cool. After a few hours come back. See if you have a thin layer of a clear looking film across the top of the water? You should be able to spoon it out. And pinch sum between your fingers, it should be greesy and brown in color. That's what's in city water. Whatever it is, it's nasty! I really hate the thought that I'm forced to drink that. But buying bottled water all the time is too difficult. I tried doing that and I just couldnt keep going to the store everytime I ran out. So I'm back to tap water for now. It sucks but it's better than no water.

Go down to your water plant and find out what they use to treat the water. Most likely culprit is the pipes leading to your house though...unless you never clean your pots! (jk)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012

Rychwebo
reply to post by dragonridr
 





Well i think you're asking why they do it? Same reason they add iodine in salt or vitamin b in milk. to promote good health. The cost is low and the effects high. Not all areas add fluoride since if they get there water from ground sources its already there. If you dont want flouride your choice as they say dont drink the water. Or in the UK milk since they add it to their milk. Dont buy toothpaste use baking soda and prepare for higher dental bills .


They do add vitamin b to milk, and iodine to salt, but not the water. That's not administering, because not everyone drinks milk or uses iodized salt. I'm really trying to grasp this line of thinking. Also, I may have missed it, but were there sources showing any unfluoridated water supply causing the high health problems that fluoride is intended to prevent?

Are there sources showing properly dosed fluoridated water supply causing high health problems?


Correction: Also, I may have missed it, but were there sources showing of any unfluoridated water supply being the cause of any health problems that fluoride is intended to prevent.

Maybe that needs rewording? I'm trying to find out if there is evidence to support the claim that NOT fluoridating water has lead to the health problems it's supposedly meant to cure.

Are you asking if not adding fluoride to the water has helped reduce cavities?
or
Are you asking if unfluoridated water has caused cavities?

Edit: In either case, I have not come across anything that agrees with either of those two questions.

edit on 13-12-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)


So you haven't read anything that explains the downsides to NOT fluoridating water, with respect to health?

I'm only trying to understand. If I had an amulet that I claimed kept dragons from harming me, one would wonder if getting rid of the amulet would lead to me being attacked by a dragon.

You misunderstand what it is for.
It is an aid for dental hygiene. That is all. It isn't a miracle. It isn't a cure-all. It is to aid a person and used to slow down tooth decay in cases of poor dental hygiene.


I understand the claims on what it's for, you've told me already. I'm just talking about seeing some balance exist. What I have gathered, based on what you have provided me, is that there are no studies done showing any downsides to NOT fluoridating water, which means the same as there is no upside to fluoridating it. As in, when you take away the amulet (fluoride), the dragons (any health problems) still aren't found. My logic is sound here, I'm not crazy, its only crazy to think fluoride is helping anyone, while not fluoridating the water doesn't show the opposite effect.

My logic bears, repeating because it seems its being evaded.
If fluoride = positive health benefits
Then
No fluoride MUST show negative health results.

If not fluoridating results in nothing negative to health
Then
Adding fluoride does nothing for positive health benefits by the same logic.

These are logical statements, the results indicate fluoridating the water supply is a wasted effort for the purported claims.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
If you really want to be taken seriously,I would recommend looking closer at the "studies" you are using to refute what others have said about fluoride in the water.If you can prove that those studies were done by people with no connection to corporate funding or government funding,then just maybe you have a case here.

Otherwise I think it's bunk.Fluorene Is one of the most active elements on the perodic table.I find it difficult to believe it has little effect other than strengthing teeth.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

lonegurkha
If you really want to be taken seriously,I would recommend looking closer at the "studies" you are using to refute what others have said about fluoride in the water.If you can prove that those studies were done by people with no connection to corporate funding or government funding,then just maybe you have a case here.

Otherwise I think it's bunk.Fluorene Is one of the most active elements on the perodic table.I find it difficult to believe it has little effect other than strengthing teeth.

If you look hard enough, you can find a link anywhere to the government so please tell me how I am supposed to accomplish your challenge?
The government is the entity that approved water fluoridation. There have been third party studies that I have linked to, but those get dismissed because they don't jive with peoples beliefs. It's fine. I have come to accept that people don't want/can't accept change.

In response to your second paragraph. Dosage is everything.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Rychwebo
 

No.

You are trying to obfuscate the point I have given again.

Fluoride aids in dental hygiene. As in, it helps dental hygiene. Not having it in the water does nothing for dental hygiene.

Polysporin aids in healing wounds, no polysporin does nothing for healing wounds.

In fact, dental fluorosis has been shown to help in the arrest of dental diseases, with the only negative being whiter teeth in mild cases.

Your question deals with something NOT being present that AIDS something and drawing a "conclusion" that if it wasn't in the water, the water should be harmful to the person. Not true. Water fluoridation does not TREAT the water, it is designed to TREAT the person. You are assuming that the fluoride is aiding the water in this argument as you presented it.

edit on 14-12-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Having been a chemical operator for 20 years I usually relied on the material safety data sheet to see how dangerous a particular chemical was.Having handled chemicals that were extremely dangerous at levels as small as 3ppb Or 3 parts per billion.I am very cautious around chemicals.

Just for fun here's the MSDS sheets on the 2 most used forms of fluoride used in water treatment.

sodium fluoride

Fluorosalicilate acid

Looks to me that this stuff is pretty hazardous.The second one even breaks down at 105 degrees to form something even more dangerous.Any idea what temperature water boils at? Lets make soup with tap water what do you think?

I have no problem with change of any kind as long as it's for the better.I'm not seeing where this is better.
edit on 12/14/2013 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/14/2013 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

lonegurkha
reply to post by superman2012
 


Having been a chemical operator for 20 years I usually relied on the material safety data sheet to see how dangerous a particular chemical was.Having handled chemicals that were extremely dangerous at levels as small as 3ppb Or 3 parts per billion.I am very cautious around chemicals.

Just for fun here's the MSDS sheets on the 2 most used forms of fluoride used in water treatment.

sodium fluoride

Fluorosalicilate acid

Looks to me that this stuff is pretty hazardous.The second one even breaks down at 105 degrees to form something even more dangerous.Any idea what temperature water boils at? Lets make soup with tap water what do you think?

I have no problem with change of any kind as long as it's for the better.I'm not seeing where this is better.
edit on 12/14/2013 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/14/2013 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

Chemical operator for 20 years but you don't take into account dosages? Ever dose things in water? How is that different than whatever it is you did?
Why not look up the MSDS for Sodium Chloride and tell me what it says?



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Even small dosages over a long enough time can have a cumulitive effect if your body can not remove the chemical or it's breakdown products.

Sometimes the breakdown products are even more dangerous than the original substance,and even more difficult for the body to get rid of. Oft times the body will store these substances in body fat. Guess what happens when you lose some weight. The stored chemical is released all at once, and it's effects will be felt all at once.

So long time exposure to relatively small amounts can have a very dangerous effect if the circumstances are right.Look, Superman I'm not trying to dis ya here.I'm just saying that there is a bigger picture here that is not being addressed. It's a good thread with some real good info....but there is more to the overall story.

By the way pretty much everyone knows salt ain't good for ya in large doses.
edit on 12/14/2013 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

lonegurkha
Even small dosages over a long enough time can have a cumulitive effect if your body can not remove the chemical or it's breakdown products.

Sometimes the breakdown products are even more dangerous than the original substance,and even more difficult for the body to get rid of. Oft times the body will store these substances in body fat. Guess what happens when you lose some weight. The stored chemical is released all at once, and it's effects will be felt all at once.

So long time exposure to relatively small amounts can have a very dangerous effect if the circumstances are right.Look, Superman I'm not trying to dis ya here.I'm just saying that there is a bigger picture here that is not being addressed. It's a good thread with some real good info....but there is more to the overall story.

By the way pretty much everyone knows salt ain't good for ya in large doses.
edit on 12/14/2013 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

Right, and as discussed earlier, given the dosage in water fluoridation combined with the amount the average American drinks in a year, it would take over 500 years to get skeletal fluorosis based on how much the body can get rid of vs. what is ingested. Your body doesn't break it down the way it is described in the MSDS so it can't get "more dangerous".
I hope you didn't take me the wrong way, I was just saying that the dosage is what matters in chemicals.

Edit: My point wasn't just salt. ANYTHING taken in large doses or taken improperly can be harmful.
edit on 14-12-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Ahhhh yes you are probably correct about the skeletal disease,I couldn't say as I have no knowledge of it.However there are other portions of the body that may be more sensetive to very small doses of these chemicals.The brain for one is very sensitive to small amounts of substances.I don't think that there are any good studies on effects on the brain or liver or for that matter any other organs in the body.

As I said previously fluorine is a very reactive chemical.I think that some very serious long term studies to prove or disprove anything about the effects of these chemicals on the human body. However i would like to see those studies by some one who has no vested interest in whatever is found by the studies.Especially government or corporate interests.I have little faith that this will happen.

In the meantime I would prefer to err to the side of caution.Just as I did when I worked in the chemical industry.Anyway thanks for a very interesting thread.S&F



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   

superman2012
reply to post by Daedalus
 


Instead of talking about "pretty teeth", why not do some research into why dental hygiene is necessary for whole body health and how easy it is to add fluoride to the water to aid in keeping the teeth healthy?
No one ever talked about the aesthetic appeal of teeth on this thread.


the fluoride by itself, in that concentration, with that delivery method, is ABSOLUTELY USELESS for the stated purpose of "dental hygene"

it's a load of crap....i really hate to think anyone here is stupid enough to believe that it actually has any kind of quantifiable beneficial effect...



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

superman2012
reply to post by Daedalus
 


Apparently you missed the mark again.

I came on here to show people (and I have) that the lies repeated in the anti-fluoride camp are just that.
There is no proof of any of their claims.
When I show that, the goalposts get moved.
Fine, it is a neurotoxin. Fine, it gets used in Sarin gas production.

What I haven't seen is the fearful telling me at what %, which kind, how exactly it is used, etc. and how that compares to properly dosed water fluoridation. Again, they take a small part of what they read, and run it up the fear flagpole.
There is nothing wrong with making fun of that.

You want to call me condescending? Damn right I am. After a thread that has gone on this long, and dealing with MANY people that decide to just attack me, rather than refute ANYTHING I have said, it gets frustrating and eventually you realize that you must handle these people like you would to a two year old explaining how lightening works and it isn't God bowling.
edit on 13-12-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)


and you keep missing the mark....

you keep saying proper dosage....

tell me, what is the proper dosage for...say...cyanide?

that's also a natural thing...surely, it's good for us at the proper dose...

it's funny...when companies get caught dumping industrial waste into rivers, they('re supposed to be) fined to holy hell, and back....but when government dumps industrial waste into the municipal drinking water, it's suddenly ok, and it's good for us...

the fact that's it's industrial waste, that it's added to the water, and that it's added against people's will, is enough to refute everything you said....



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join