Water Fluoridation will NOT kill you.

ATTENTION!!!

Please debate the topic, do not use this as a venue for name-calling and bickering....You are responsible for your own posts.

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

reply to post by Pylon

- Flouride causes fluorosis.

That has never been denied. Mild forms of dental fluorosis are actually beneficial in repelling dental problems.
Skeletal fluorosis is what we were talking about when saying that you need to ingest an average amount of water over 500+ years to get it from properly dosed water fluoridation.

- Water fluoridation costs money.

Again, never said it wasn't. It is cheaper than paying for healthcare related to poor dental hygiene though.

- You can't control the dose because you don't know how much water people drink, or how the concentration has changed before it reaches the tap.

You can control the dose as you dose it in the water plant. So much gets added per litre of water. Just like chlorine.

- The right dose depends on the person and age.

No. The right dose is according to the MAC in your area. If you put lemonade powder in water and an adult and a toddler both drank it, you are saying the toddler will ingest more of the lemonade powder than the adult?

- If some people don't want to ingest it, we shouldn't force them for the greater good.

Absolutely. I believe everyone should have the choice. This thread wasn't about that.

- You're much better off simply brushing and flossing.

Again, you are correct. Water fluoridation's aim was to reach the people that don't do this. Thereby trying to stop the amounts of health related disease from poor dental hygiene.

- There are worse things than death.

Now, you are just scaring me.

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

You're right.

I'm sorry Daedalus. I've lost too many of my precious points making fun of you.
Let's try to stick to the topic and not eachother.
Merry Christmas!

reply to post by TheWhiteKnight


No arguments against what I have said? Just personal attacks, again?

You're right about one thing, I do wait for the chance to debate over any credible evidence. Sadly, I only have to defend myself from personal attacks such as yours because for some reason, people choose to attack me, instead of the huge amount of links and sources I have provided.

Thanks for proving me right in that aspect.

Edit: If you want to argue the bad aspects of water fluoridation go right ahead, I will take part in that. The silly personal attacks will be ignored from now on.
Merry Christmas!

I can't believe people are still trying to debate with someone that has a blatant lie as their signature, "Fluoride won't kill you.". He must be forgetting the fine print he has been spouting this entire topic, "in small doses".

It's simple... what you consume becomes one with your body. It does so by traveling through your blood stream to every inch of your body. What you consume affects your body no matter the dosage. The effects could be noticeable instantly, or not noticeable at all, or only noticed after a long period of time which is about when it becomes difficult to prove what the true cause was. Either way, it affects your body.

For example, when you drink alcohol it gets into your blood, and circulates through every part of your body, including your brain. The alcohol, no matter the dosage, affects your body. Noticeably or not.

Same for drinking fluoridated water. It gets into your blood, and circulates through every part of your body, including your brain, and other important organs. Fluoride is a toxic chemical, so no matter what it damages your organs. If the dosage is small, it damages your organs a small amount. If the dosage is large, it damages your organs a large amount. It is as simple as that. What is important here is the time... the longer you consume it, the more you damage your body.

The bad part is when the fluoride reaches your very fragile brain. The brain relies on your blood to operate, and when the blood contains toxic fluoride, you can be sure it is damaging small parts of your brain, probably killing brain cells, and causing unknown issues. It could be lowering your IQ, cause depression, or who knows, turning you homosexual. The brain is a complex thing. If you go in your brain and start messing with it, cutting connections, rewiring things, (which is completely possible with toxic chemicals in your blood) crazy things can happen, it can change your mind, literally.

Same for medicine. You consume it, and it gets absorbed into the blood stream, and travels to all parts of the body, and hopefully the part you want to target. That is why almost every commercial on television that advertises medication has a long list of side-effects. Pharmaceutical companies create medications to do certain tasks in one part of the body, and they don't focus on what that medication does to the rest of the body. Yet, our method of administrating the medication (consumption) causes the medication to reach all parts of the body. Although the medication may help relieve back pain for example, it is also traveling to all parts of the body and causing all kinds of side-effects.

So think about it... If fluoridated water had a commercial on television, do you think it would be without a long list of side-effects?

reply to post by WeAre0ne

I can't believe people are still trying to debate with someone that has a blatant lie as their signature, "Fluoride won't kill you.". He must be forgetting the fine print he has been spouting this entire topic, "in small doses".

Just as I can't believe that people keep spouting that it is a poison in quantities not relevant to water fluoridation. Chlorine is a poison too if dosed too high. Salt is too. Everything is. What was your point?

It's simple... what you consume becomes one with your body. It does so by traveling through your blood stream to every inch of your body. What you consume affects your body no matter the dosage. The effects could be noticeable instantly, or not noticeable at all, or only noticed after a long period of time which is about when it becomes difficult to prove what the true cause was. Either way, it affects your body.

So you are claiming that it does, it may, it may not, cause something to happen to your body? How is that an argument for not fluoridating water?

For example, when you drink alcohol it gets into your blood, and circulates through every part of your body, including your brain. The alcohol, no matter the dosage, affects your body. Noticeably or not.

Right. It also gets cleaned out of your body.

Same for drinking fluoridated water. It gets into your blood, and circulates through every part of your body, including your brain, and other important organs. Fluoride is a toxic chemical, so no matter what it damages your organs. If the dosage is small, it damages your organs a small amount. If the dosage is large, it damages your organs a large amount. It is as simple as that. What is important here is the time... the longer you consume it, the more you damage your body.

Right, and we have covered that as well. To cause skeletal fluorosis (which is what fluoride can do) you would need to drink that average amount, every day, for 500+ years. That is a long time, and I hope never to live that long.

The bad part is when the fluoride reaches your very fragile brain. The brain relies on your blood to operate, and when the blood contains toxic fluoride, you can be sure it is damaging small parts of your brain, probably killing brain cells, and causing unknown issues. It could be lowering your IQ, cause depression, or who knows, turning you homosexual. The brain is a complex thing. If you go in your brain and start messing with it, cutting connections, rewiring things, (which is completely possible with toxic chemicals in your blood) crazy things can happen, it can change your mind, literally.

lol at the homosexual part.
Please list ANY sources for your claims. Thanks in advance but I don't think any will be provided.

Same for medicine. You consume it, and it gets absorbed into the blood stream, and travels to all parts of the body, and hopefully the part you want to target. That is why almost every commercial on television that advertises medication has a long list of side-effects. Pharmaceutical companies create medications to do certain tasks in one part of the body, and they don't focus on what that medication does to the rest of the body. Yet, our method of administrating the medication (consumption) causes the medication to reach all parts of the body. Although the medication may help relieve back pain for example, it is also traveling to all parts of the body and causing all kinds of side-effects.

Source? and relevance to water fluoridation?

So think about it... If fluoridated water had a commercial on television, do you think it would be without a long list of side-effects?

Probably not. Not in the lawsuit-happy society we live in.

My "in small doses" isn't really correct, I stated multiple times, "in proper dosage". Let me cut off the argument at the pass. There are proper dosages, check out the MACs in your area for acceptable levels of everything in your water.

superman2012
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

 

You're right.

I'm sorry Daedalus. I've lost too many of my precious points making fun of you.
Let's try to stick to the topic and not eachother.

Merry Christmas!

when in doubt, go for the backhanded apology.....you're too predictable, mate....

right...anyway, yes, the topic...

i don't see any sane, earthly reason to continue this farce of a debate....you are completely unwilling to entertain that you might be wrong, and completely unwilling to accept anything anyone says that isn't in direct alignment with you own personal opinion on the matter.....it's a waste of my time, energy, and intellect, to continue with this...i'm done.

seeya around, happy hollidays.

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012
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)

Polysporin is not added to the water, so it only aids in doing a job when it is knowingly being used.
Fluoride has its place in toothpaste, it aids hygiene when its being used.

So why is it in the water again?

It doesn't need to be there, nobody will suffer poor dental hygiene without it, because you know of no such studies showing this. Its not making anybody better in any measurable way whatsoever. Its absolutely useless being added to the water, right?

As discussed ad nauseam in this thread, it is added in water as water is a good medium to get the fluoride to the teeth.
I never suggested polysporin was in the water, it was an analogy, my apologies for it not being good enough for you to understand.
People have poor dental hygiene, that is a fact.
Fluoride helps aid dental hygiene, that is a fact.

What problems are you having understanding this still!?? Please ask in a concise and specific manner exactly what you want answered and I will do my best. Please, no more moving the goalposts though.

So bottled water is a good medium to get fluoride to the teeth? Or really any drink/food that contains water would be a good medium too, right? You're saying WATER is a good delivery, so why THE water and not SOME water, that we may elect to purchase?

I'm sure sodas would be a good medium for dispensing fluoride to the mouth as well, as they contain water and enter via mouth hole.

The one thing I am trying to straighten out and understand is why its in the water source, as opposed to added to various products? Its true that tap water isn't the only thing that gets into mouths. Its also true that other water and water containing items get into the mouth. So why choose the tap water?

Rychwebo

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012
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)

Polysporin is not added to the water, so it only aids in doing a job when it is knowingly being used.
Fluoride has its place in toothpaste, it aids hygiene when its being used.

So why is it in the water again?

It doesn't need to be there, nobody will suffer poor dental hygiene without it, because you know of no such studies showing this. Its not making anybody better in any measurable way whatsoever. Its absolutely useless being added to the water, right?

As discussed ad nauseam in this thread, it is added in water as water is a good medium to get the fluoride to the teeth.
I never suggested polysporin was in the water, it was an analogy, my apologies for it not being good enough for you to understand.
People have poor dental hygiene, that is a fact.
Fluoride helps aid dental hygiene, that is a fact.

What problems are you having understanding this still!?? Please ask in a concise and specific manner exactly what you want answered and I will do my best. Please, no more moving the goalposts though.

So bottled water is a good medium to get fluoride to the teeth? Or really any drink/food that contains water would be a good medium too, right? You're saying WATER is a good delivery, so why THE water and not SOME water, that we may elect to purchase?

I'm sure sodas would be a good medium for dispensing fluoride to the mouth as well, as they contain water and enter via mouth hole.

The one thing I am trying to straighten out and understand is why its in the water source, as opposed to added to various products? Its true that tap water isn't the only thing that gets into mouths. Its also true that other water and water containing items get into the mouth. So why choose the tap water?

Tap water, goes to every house and is much cheaper than bottled water.
Soda would not be an aid to dental hygiene.

Daedalus

superman2012
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

 

You're right.

I'm sorry Daedalus. I've lost too many of my precious points making fun of you.
Let's try to stick to the topic and not eachother.

Merry Christmas!

when in doubt, go for the backhanded apology.....you're too predictable, mate....

right...anyway, yes, the topic...

i don't see any sane, earthly reason to continue this farce of a debate....you are completely unwilling to entertain that you might be wrong, and completely unwilling to accept anything anyone says that isn't in direct alignment with you own personal opinion on the matter.....it's a waste of my time, energy, and intellect, to continue with this...i'm done.

seeya around, happy hollidays.

I am completely happy to entertain the idea I am wrong. The closest anyone has come to showing me any proof of that though, is RickyMouse.
I believed the other side for a lot longer than my current stance on the issue. That right there shows that I am willing to admit I am wrong, and attacking my character again still does nothing for your argument.
I'm still waiting for any proof to the contrary of what I have brought up in the first 3 posts of this thread.

Edit: All the other usual opponents of water fluoridation have left never to be seen again, so I don't blame you. Have a Merry Christmas!

reply to post by WeAre0ne


I'm going to edit my signature to more accurately reflect my stance. Thanks for showing me that I was wrong.

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012
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)

Polysporin is not added to the water, so it only aids in doing a job when it is knowingly being used.
Fluoride has its place in toothpaste, it aids hygiene when its being used.

So why is it in the water again?

It doesn't need to be there, nobody will suffer poor dental hygiene without it, because you know of no such studies showing this. Its not making anybody better in any measurable way whatsoever. Its absolutely useless being added to the water, right?

As discussed ad nauseam in this thread, it is added in water as water is a good medium to get the fluoride to the teeth.
I never suggested polysporin was in the water, it was an analogy, my apologies for it not being good enough for you to understand.
People have poor dental hygiene, that is a fact.
Fluoride helps aid dental hygiene, that is a fact.

What problems are you having understanding this still!?? Please ask in a concise and specific manner exactly what you want answered and I will do my best. Please, no more moving the goalposts though.

So bottled water is a good medium to get fluoride to the teeth? Or really any drink/food that contains water would be a good medium too, right? You're saying WATER is a good delivery, so why THE water and not SOME water, that we may elect to purchase?

I'm sure sodas would be a good medium for dispensing fluoride to the mouth as well, as they contain water and enter via mouth hole.

The one thing I am trying to straighten out and understand is why its in the water source, as opposed to added to various products? Its true that tap water isn't the only thing that gets into mouths. Its also true that other water and water containing items get into the mouth. So why choose the tap water?

Tap water, goes to every house and is much cheaper than bottled water.
Soda would not be an aid to dental hygiene.

Tap water goes to ALMOST every house, ok, and it is cheaper than bottled water, but that's not a good argument for saying why fluoride has to be in it. Soda, alone, isn't an aid to dental hygiene, and I never said it was. Water, alone, is also not an aid to dental hygeine. You're really terrible at this running in circles thing and avoiding my questions with terrible analogies.

Its not killing anyone, but its also not helping anyone's dental hygiene, so its a waste of money. You've agreed already that it does nothing by ingesting it, hence why it's in toothpaste and not to be swallowed. And not having it in water doesn't show any increase of poor dental hygiene.

So we have facts here to look at now.
1. It doesn't aid in dental hygiene (because the opposite must prove true as well)
2. Drinking it doesn't help anything
3. Its not killing anyone
4. It cost money, time, energy, and precise equipment to ensure accurate administration to the water.

The only point I am trying to understand after gathering all of the data, is why we are wasting the money and effort. Its a waste despite anyone saying otherwise. Although you haven't said its a waste, you've acquiesced to facts leading to that very conclusion, and you've provided nothing to show its not a waste.

This thread has finally resolved itself by explaining that properly dosed fluoride in tap water has not killed anyone based on known records, overdosing has occurred in the past, and no studies have been done showing any downsides to unfluoridated water. So to conclude, despite being off topic, fluoridation of water is an extension of humanities wasteful ignorance, and to indirectly support such wastefulness has costs.

reply to post by superman2012

Do you see any error in your argument? Its plain as day. I've been skipping over your reasoning skills from way back, I'm certain you are just trying to get me to see your way, but going about it with flawed reasoning is no way to help me understand anything. Pretend I'm intelligent please. I decided to take a moment to point out one recent example here, maybe you can hold off on these types of posts later on because its a waste of time.

I asked why fluoride is in the water...

it is added in water as water is a good medium to get the fluoride to the teeth

I responded:
"I'm sure sodas would be a good medium for dispensing fluoride to the mouth as well, as they contain water and enter via mouth hole."

You see what I did there right? Soda has water in it. You say that fluoride must be added to water to get it in your mouth.

Soda would not be an aid to dental hygiene

Do you see the trouble I have taking you seriously when I get a lot of muck like this? I never said soda was an aid to dental hygiene, but adding fluoride, according to you, it would be an aid. Because water doesn't aid in dental hygiene, unless, according to you, fluoride is added.

So why can't fluoride help dental hygiene when its added to other water containing foods/drinks?

reply to post by Rychwebo

If you had told me that the soda was made using fluoridated water, then it would have been a level playing field.
I have no information on the merits of fluoride when placed in a sugary acidic drink.

Do you see how you failed to give me the proper information in your question and then felt the need to try to use it as proof of my "lack of knowledge"?

You might as well have said that acid would also be a good medium for fluoride as that is mostly water as well. Do you see how your logic is fouled?

I'm sure added to other foods or drinks it might have a benefit. As I don't have information regarding the solubility of fluoride in soda, nor do I have information that says how the sugars and acids would affect the fluoride, I can't say for sure.

I can say that fluoride is soluble in water and that it is an easy way to get it to each house.

Do you have anything to refute any of my points?

To be honest, I am getting pretty sick of having to defend my point against every little hypothetical situation you people can think of...but it is kind of fun to see what comes up next.

Rychwebo

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012
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)

Polysporin is not added to the water, so it only aids in doing a job when it is knowingly being used.
Fluoride has its place in toothpaste, it aids hygiene when its being used.

So why is it in the water again?

It doesn't need to be there, nobody will suffer poor dental hygiene without it, because you know of no such studies showing this. Its not making anybody better in any measurable way whatsoever. Its absolutely useless being added to the water, right?

As discussed ad nauseam in this thread, it is added in water as water is a good medium to get the fluoride to the teeth.
I never suggested polysporin was in the water, it was an analogy, my apologies for it not being good enough for you to understand.
People have poor dental hygiene, that is a fact.
Fluoride helps aid dental hygiene, that is a fact.

What problems are you having understanding this still!?? Please ask in a concise and specific manner exactly what you want answered and I will do my best. Please, no more moving the goalposts though.

So bottled water is a good medium to get fluoride to the teeth? Or really any drink/food that contains water would be a good medium too, right? You're saying WATER is a good delivery, so why THE water and not SOME water, that we may elect to purchase?

I'm sure sodas would be a good medium for dispensing fluoride to the mouth as well, as they contain water and enter via mouth hole.

The one thing I am trying to straighten out and understand is why its in the water source, as opposed to added to various products? Its true that tap water isn't the only thing that gets into mouths. Its also true that other water and water containing items get into the mouth. So why choose the tap water?

Tap water, goes to every house and is much cheaper than bottled water.
Soda would not be an aid to dental hygiene.

Tap water goes to ALMOST every house, ok, and it is cheaper than bottled water, but that's not a good argument for saying why fluoride has to be in it. Soda, alone, isn't an aid to dental hygiene, and I never said it was. Water, alone, is also not an aid to dental hygeine. You're really terrible at this running in circles thing and avoiding my questions with terrible analogies.

Its not killing anyone, but its also not helping anyone's dental hygiene, so its a waste of money. You've agreed already that it does nothing by ingesting it, hence why it's in toothpaste and not to be swallowed. And not having it in water doesn't show any increase of poor dental hygiene.

So we have facts here to look at now.
1. It doesn't aid in dental hygiene (because the opposite must prove true as well)
2. Drinking it doesn't help anything
3. Its not killing anyone
4. It cost money, time, energy, and precise equipment to ensure accurate administration to the water.

The only point I am trying to understand after gathering all of the data, is why we are wasting the money and effort. Its a waste despite anyone saying otherwise. Although you haven't said its a waste, you've acquiesced to facts leading to that very conclusion, and you've provided nothing to show its not a waste.

This thread has finally resolved itself by explaining that properly dosed fluoride in tap water has not killed anyone based on known records, overdosing has occurred in the past, and no studies have been done showing any downsides to unfluoridated water. So to conclude, despite being off topic, fluoridation of water is an extension of humanities wasteful ignorance, and to indirectly support such wastefulness has costs.

1. It does aid in dental hygiene, look through the links I have provided for you, or just let me know how I can make it easier for you to click the button on your mouse for you.
2. Drinking it coats the mouth, the teeth are in the mouth, it does nothing for your teeth in your stomach though.
3. Its not killing anyone, nor hurting anyone.
4. Absolutely correct.

It is a waste in people that maintain proper dental hygiene, it has been shown (in links for you to read) to aid in dental hygiene.

Your deducing skills on this particular matter are clearly wrong.

Saying something that helps a person, should hurt when not used, is ridiculous. Here is your problem with this.

Will I catch measles if I didn't get my vaccinations? Mumps? Rubella? Can you prove this?


Edit: Like I have said many times to you and others, ask the specific question you would like answered rather than saying I'm not answering your questions.

I try, but if the question isn't clear or if you leave information out, you are setting my up for failure and not helping your argument.

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012

Rychwebo

superman2012
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)

Polysporin is not added to the water, so it only aids in doing a job when it is knowingly being used.
Fluoride has its place in toothpaste, it aids hygiene when its being used.

So why is it in the water again?

It doesn't need to be there, nobody will suffer poor dental hygiene without it, because you know of no such studies showing this. Its not making anybody better in any measurable way whatsoever. Its absolutely useless being added to the water, right?

As discussed ad nauseam in this thread, it is added in water as water is a good medium to get the fluoride to the teeth.
I never suggested polysporin was in the water, it was an analogy, my apologies for it not being good enough for you to understand.
People have poor dental hygiene, that is a fact.
Fluoride helps aid dental hygiene, that is a fact.

What problems are you having understanding this still!?? Please ask in a concise and specific manner exactly what you want answered and I will do my best. Please, no more moving the goalposts though.

So bottled water is a good medium to get fluoride to the teeth? Or really any drink/food that contains water would be a good medium too, right? You're saying WATER is a good delivery, so why THE water and not SOME water, that we may elect to purchase?

I'm sure sodas would be a good medium for dispensing fluoride to the mouth as well, as they contain water and enter via mouth hole.

The one thing I am trying to straighten out and understand is why its in the water source, as opposed to added to various products? Its true that tap water isn't the only thing that gets into mouths. Its also true that other water and water containing items get into the mouth. So why choose the tap water?

Tap water, goes to every house and is much cheaper than bottled water.
Soda would not be an aid to dental hygiene.

Tap water goes to ALMOST every house, ok, and it is cheaper than bottled water, but that's not a good argument for saying why fluoride has to be in it. Soda, alone, isn't an aid to dental hygiene, and I never said it was. Water, alone, is also not an aid to dental hygeine. You're really terrible at this running in circles thing and avoiding my questions with terrible analogies.

Its not killing anyone, but its also not helping anyone's dental hygiene, so its a waste of money. You've agreed already that it does nothing by ingesting it, hence why it's in toothpaste and not to be swallowed. And not having it in water doesn't show any increase of poor dental hygiene.

So we have facts here to look at now.
1. It doesn't aid in dental hygiene (because the opposite must prove true as well)
2. Drinking it doesn't help anything
3. Its not killing anyone
4. It cost money, time, energy, and precise equipment to ensure accurate administration to the water.

The only point I am trying to understand after gathering all of the data, is why we are wasting the money and effort. Its a waste despite anyone saying otherwise. Although you haven't said its a waste, you've acquiesced to facts leading to that very conclusion, and you've provided nothing to show its not a waste.

This thread has finally resolved itself by explaining that properly dosed fluoride in tap water has not killed anyone based on known records, overdosing has occurred in the past, and no studies have been done showing any downsides to unfluoridated water. So to conclude, despite being off topic, fluoridation of water is an extension of humanities wasteful ignorance, and to indirectly support such wastefulness has costs.

1. It does aid in dental hygiene, look through the links I have provided for you, or just let me know how I can make it easier for you to click the button on your mouse for you.
2. Drinking it coats the mouth, the teeth are in the mouth, it does nothing for your teeth in your stomach though.
3. Its not killing anyone, nor hurting anyone.
4. Absolutely correct.

It is a waste in people that maintain proper dental hygiene, it has been shown (in links for you to read) to aid in dental hygiene.

Your deducing skills on this particular matter are clearly wrong.

Saying something that helps a person, should hurt when not used, is ridiculous. Here is your problem with this.

Will I catch measles if I didn't get my vaccinations? Mumps? Rubella? Can you prove this?


Edit: Like I have said many times to you and others, ask the specific question you would like answered rather than saying I'm not answering your questions.

I try, but if the question isn't clear or if you leave information out, you are setting my up for failure and not helping your argument.

edit on 16-12-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

How else can one say that fluoride aids in dental hygiene? You first need a control group, using non-fluoridated, and the measure of healthy teeth must be less than the group using the fluoridated water.
You say, water + fluoride = a measurable level of healthy teeth

I want to see the control group proving the above by showing me; water (minus the fluoride) = a negative deviation to the level of healthy teeth. Show me the consequences to non fluoridated water. I'm not saying that you are POSITIVELY GOING to have unhealthy teeth without fluoride in the tap water, but there should be a measurable percentage of unhealthy teeth when compared to a group of people using fluoridated water. Is this not understood? I want to see this proof using a comparison study to support the claim that fluoride has positive effects.

Your inducing skills on this particular matter are clearly wrong.

reply to post by Rychwebo


If you read the whole thread (or even the first three posts with links provided, hence the quip about making it easier than clicking a button twice on your mouse) you would have seen this and you could have saved yourself the trouble and the need to tell you more than once what is already stated on this thread.
Merry Christmas!

superman2012
So you are claiming that it does, it may, it may not, cause something to happen to your body? How is that an argument for not fluoridating water?

This quote of yours just highlights your inability to read. I clearly state, what you consume affects your body no matter the dosage. Then I say, no matter what it effects your body. I then say the effects (meaning something absolutely happened to your body) may or may not be noticeable. Just because it is not noticeable, doesn't mean there was no effect. How on Earth did you read, "it may not cause something to happen to your body"???

For example, CANCER, in it's early stages shows no signs or symptoms. A lot of illnesses show no NOTICEABLE signs or symptoms at first. Meaning your body is effected, but you don't notice it. Do you understand now?

Fluoride has the same effect. It destroys your organs like all other toxins do at small dosages unnoticeably, and at large dosages destroys your body noticeably. Yes, salt, alcohol, chlorine, and all the other toxins we consume in small and large dosages kill us slowly, leading to many different illnesses that we have been brainwashed to shrug off as old age. That is why they are classified as toxins. Many people try to avoid these toxins, but they can't when it's in their water and food.

As for the rest of your post, you prove yet again you are closed minded, and you are ignoring posts, and or not comprehending what the posts say. You are not debating, you are just ignoring peoples posts and they saying "prove it", even though countless research papers, studies, and absolute logic have been shoved in your face.

It's hard not to comment about you on this topic since you seem to be the main character provoking replies with ridiculous amounts of ignorance.

Water Fluoridation will NOT kill you...

That reminds me of a quote I read on ATS last year:

Originally posted by Screwed
I for one love our Government and everyone who runs it.
I believe they know what's best for me and do not question their authority over me.

We have been lied to on an unbelievable scale.

Until you realize that is a FACT, no amount of truth about fluoridation will sink in.

To those who ARE actually interested in the truth, keep reading...

"There is not a single scientific, or laboratory, study from anywhere in the world which proves that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in humans. There are, however, hundreds of published scientific papers which show that water fluoridation is dangerous to human, animal, plant and aquatic life, which is no surprise, since fluoride is more toxic than lead and only marginally less so than arsenic."

National Pure Water Association, UK

Most European countries do not fluoridate… so where are all the toothless Europeans?


Fluoride is a cumulative poison… we excrete half what we ingest.

Guess where the rest is stored? In the bones...