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.
- Flouride causes fluorosis.
- Water fluoridation costs money.
- 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.
- The right dose depends on the person and age.
- If some people don't want to ingest it, we shouldn't force them for the greater good.
- You're much better off simply brushing and flossing.
- There are worse things than death.
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?
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
it is added in water as water is a good medium to get the fluoride to the teeth
Soda would not be an aid to dental hygiene
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.
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)
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?
Water Fluoridation will NOT kill you...
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.
"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