Response Protocol for Chronic Fluoride Poisoning/Fluoride Allergic Reaction

DC, the main thing you need to think about is why a fairly sizeable minority of the population of the globe can drink water that is naturally fluoridated and suffer no ill effects (if the level is within limits). We can look at the area in India where people are suffering real fluoride poisoning (from natural sources), and we can see the results of that and compare it to what all the anti-fluoridation websites claim fluoride is doing. They don't come close, do they?

What I'm saying is that, becuase so many people are drinking fluoridated water, either supplemented or natural, and their neighbors don't, we have the perfect situation to examine possible reactions. Remember in vivo (in real life) studies are always preferable to in vitro (in a lab, usually stuffing a rat with something) studies.

I would prefer they not add anything to my water. I can decide for myself what I put into my body thank you very much. It is not the Governments business to put anything into the water unless it is to clean it.

Now some eggheads are talking about putting lithium in the water.
How does that help me? Can I say no? Do I have a choice on what is added to the most essential resource for my survival? Why is it wrong to want just plain water?

Originally posted by Smack
I would prefer they not add anything to my water. I can decide for myself what I put into my body thank you very much. It is not the Governments business to put anything into the water unless it is to clean it.

Now some eggheads are talking about putting lithium in the water.
How does that help me? Can I say no? Do I have a choice on what is added to the most essential resource for my survival? Why is it wrong to want just plain water?

I understand your point. And if you live in the US you have the choice through your local water authorities as to whether or not you want to adjust the fluoride in your water. That is the way the founding fathers envisioned these decisions being made, at the local level.

That being said, if you can convince a majority of people it isn't in their best interest to fluoridate, due to ever-expanding governmental encroachment, more power to you. However, when I point out that, until we do away with government-funded dental coverage for low income families, esp. children, it is in a persons best financial interest to reduce decay in as cheap a way as possible, I think my argument is stronger.

Let the best side win. And I have no hard feelings either way. (as I pointed out on one of these threads, my town has two municipal authorities, one with and one without fluoride).

However, when the anit-fluoride activists lie and use scare tactics, that's when I feel I have to intervene. I think its morally wrong to scare people into making what is essentially a political decision (i.e. global warming).

Cheers.