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.

 

Wellington Florida, and Pinella's County Say, "NO!" to Fluoride!

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Yeah, well their waters already effed up!! Just sayin!!




posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Phage

Actually, that isn't true. There are decades of use of artificial fluoridation as well as a lot longer record of natural fluoridation that shows that low levels of fluoride are not harmful and do have beneficial effects.


If the benefit/risks are so obvious why is there so much controversy? Each side feels equally strong about "their" science but the fact that we have this argument over and over again means that it's far from settled. In the mean time it makes sense to err on the side of safety. I could say the same about mercury in fillings - it is irresponsible to put a known hazardous substance into peoples' mouths and then hope it has no health problems down the road. Maybe 150 yrs ago it was a good idea but not in this day and age.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
This has been a fun thread. Gerbil wheels spinning out of control, some more wobbly than others and some not even gaining a spin.

In the end, I make me own health calls.

Hopefully the rest of the west will catch up and see that corporate interests that push fluoride are no better than the corporations that push sugar, tobacco, alcohol, and McDonalds.

Corporations and politicians are not very good at tending to the individual or the community health.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by saneguy
 


If the benefit/risks are so obvious why is there so much controversy?
Mostly because opponents think it's ok to distort and invent facts to make their point (i.e. there is a difference between "natural" fluoride and artificial fluoride). There is none, but they have to come up with a response to the question "what about natural fluoride" so they make something up.


In the mean time it makes sense to err on the side of safety.
That's an oft heard phrase. But it amounts to just ending the use of fluoridation. There is no "in the mean time." It leaves no room to access risk vs benefits. There is scant evidence of risk, there is strong evidence of benefit.

It should be a community decision. Even if it isn't based on the science. But the good news for opponents is that the hype seems to be winning.

edit on 2/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 




Corporations and politicians are not very good at tending to the individual or the community health.

Right. Things like sanitation and community health programs...good for nothing.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by saneguy
 


If the benefit/risks are so obvious why is there so much controversy?
Mostly because opponents think it's ok to distort and invent facts to make their point (i.e. there is a difference between "natural" fluoride and artificial fluoride).


Do you think it is only the anti-fluoridation group that is willing to "distort and invent facts to make their point"? It seems to me that this is a common trait of people who have strong beliefs and get entrenched in them. I daresay there are just as many in the fluoridation camp doing the same thing. The thing is, I don't believe the science will ever be done because there is no motivation for it. If this were a pharmaceutical drug there would be study after study to try and prove efficacy because billions of profit were at stake.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by saneguy
 


I daresay there are just as many in the fluoridation camp doing the same thing.
I guess you're saying it's ok to make stuff up then. But can you provide some examples of pro-fluoridation making things up? You're going to have to come up with a lot to match the myths of the opposing side.


If this were a pharmaceutical drug there would be study after study to try and prove efficacy because billions of profit were at stake.
And perhaps less to demonstrate its safety for that very reason. But in a way that's a good example. Look at the "side effects may include..." warning that goes along with that drug. Risk vs benefit. Some things are potentially pretty dangerous but the benefits outweigh those risks.

Fluoridation has been demonstrated to be low risk (very low risk) and it has been demonstrated to have strong benefits. And those studies are based on the real world. It works and people don't get sick from it. You can say, "well it might be bad" all you want, it just doesn't prove to be the case. You can say "well, it doesn't really work" all you want, it just doesn't prove to be the case.

edit on 2/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Seems to me that there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that water fluoridation causes more harm than the questionable good that has been shoved at us.

fluoridealert.org...
health.gov...
www.huffingtonpost.com...
thyroid.about.com...
www.nofluoride.com...
pubs.acs.org...


The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.


fluoridealert.org...

Seems to be an equally divided debate. Probably best to leave it up to the individual.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   


That's an oft heard phrase. But it amounts to just ending the use of fluoridation. There is no "in the mean time." It leaves no room to access risk vs benefits. There is scant evidence of risk, there is strong evidence of benefit. It should be a community decision. Even if it isn't based on the science. But the good news for opponents is that the hype seems to be winning.
reply to post by Phage
 


We all know you are a "Science Guy" and you are most often correct.......but what if I go digging for Scientific papers dating back to the 40"s and 50's regarding lead paint? You must know by now Fluoride was introduced way back in the atomic age where watching a A bomb go off was thought to be entertainment.

We all know how that ended, And yes the A bomb tests were covered with peer reviewed papers too.......


What if I keep looking and find papers that pertain to say....DDT/PCB's/Asbestos/Spraying used oil on the roads/Agent Orange/Tylenol/
etc...etc...etc... and these papers happen to be peer reviewed.


I know this may seem off topic but you keep harping on the "Science" when you see fit.
I see fit to raise the above points in the name of Science....
Regards, Iwinder



edit on 3-2-2014 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Another victory for the big dental industry lobbyists, I suppose. They're the biggest ones to benefit when everybody's teeth rot out of their heads.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


I always thought that the dental industry at large promoted water fluoridation.

This is just a case of people realizing that fluoridating the human body should be left up the individual human.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Witness2008
I always thought that the dental industry at large promoted water fluoridation. This is just a case of people realizing that fluoridating the human body should be left up the individual human.

That's what they WANT you to think! Oh, they're clever.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I have heard people put unwanted medication in coffee grounds. Do you know if that makes it any safer?





top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join