Water Fluoridation will NOT kill you.

reply to post by superman2012


The forced medication issue is all that needs to matter to get fluoridation to be stopped cold. it is unjust. I don't care about exaggerated claims. And, by the way, your claim that fluoridation reduces dental caries is just as much bad science as any of the ones cited by activists you decry.

superman2012
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Dihydrogen Monoxide does not bother me at all. I have a high tolerance to it as I was exposed to it quite a bit as a child.

I know as much, but I like trying to show people things! Without threads like these, I wouldn't have found out about the Newburgh-Kingston study on fluoride!

Thanks for that.

I'm surprised.
I thought you said you knew about fluoride.
The newbury-kingston study actually was carried out.
It just wasn't disclosed as it actually happened.
That's ok though.
The details are in that book I mentioned.
What was that you said? Oh yeah. No way in hell you'd read that book.
You know there were studies that showed the benefits of smoking too -back in the 1950's.

reply to post by Artlogic

Even if correct dose water fluoridation is a concern, using disingenuous information is not helpful to the cause

How are citing studies on the various, harmful effects to rats, humans, and tadpoles from fluorides not helping the cause?

The OP is somewhat correct about the post, aside from being able to prove fluoride wont kill you by gathering autopsy and toxicology reports on every dead human. You could say there hasn't been any peer reviewed study conclusively showing a death from ingesting fluoridated water, and the OP would be right. However, when humans talk we are looking for a human element and some constructive debate on the entirety of a truth.

If someone were to say that it harms rats, but I'm not a rat. Then why on earth do we rely on testing rats so much? We aren't studying the effects of things for the rats benefit. There have not been any studies showing that being impaled by a sharpened, frozen log of yak butter will kill you either, but I'm sure it would cause a sting. All us humans are pointing out, is that, it might cause a sting. Not only would it might cause a sting, but its been shown to sting rats. Its also been correlated to sting our IQ. Being stupider doesn't kill you exactly, but aren't we aloud to talk about it?

Can we talk about it? All we are doing is sitting in a pretty circle around the pro fluoride people saying, "It hasn't killed anyone yet, soooo, we're gonna keep dumping it in your feeding tube. Cool?"

Then all I'm saying is, "But sir, do we have to? Look at the rats over theref, they're not having as many baby's, and they aren't so good at reading and writing as much as they used to be."

I personally believe low dose fluoride is the least of our worries when it comes to potable water

What kind of side step is this? Its the least of our worries? So if its a worry, get rid of the worry from its source, now we have one less worry.

there are many other nasty things in there which are potentially far more harmfull, to me it's like being in a burning building but being more concerned about saving your favourite photos than saving yourself....

Other nasty things? Get rid of the fluoride since its the easiest one to get rid of, by just simply not adding it. Then we would save money to focus on the other nasty things. To me, its like being in a burning building, but realizing my favorite photos were never in the house to begin with, so now I have some extra time to put out the fire.

however I must agree that the "anti" side are arguing with emotion not peer reviewed facts

Did you look at the peer reviewed journals?

potential for harm from -correctly dosed- water fluoridation is being dramatically overstated. Ill link below what I believe to be the definitive examination of the topic, few will read it all, inside is virtually all available info.

Dramatically overstated? Can't we just say fluoride is bad, it even says it over and over again in the thing that you say few will read. Looks like a whole lot of work goes into making sure fluoride is in the water, and a whole lot of work goes into fighting to keep it in there. A whole lot of logic is being thrown out the window to say it MUST be in our water before we even get it out of the faucet.

Health effects related to the exposure to elevated levels of fluoride include dental and skeletal fluorosis (see Chapter 3)

A number of overdosing incidents have occurred, mostly in small water supplies, that practice artificial fluoridation. With well designed fail-safe equipment and working practices overdosing incidents can be avoided (Leland et al., 1980).

Looking at the link you posted makes me wonder what kind of human would read it and say, "Yep, go ahead and put some in my water for sure!"

I'd hate to be the heavy tea drinker working at an aluminum plant, I might want to avoid the tap water. So lets all agree that we aren't dead after that shower and drinking some delicious tap water and discuss why we want to keep it there instead of taking a supplement based on each individual.

You know what I most find disturbing about this whole idea of fluoridation of water?

It's the fact that Nature is perfect in its essence and the only reason Nature has so many problems nowadays, is because of us.

Why would you want to add a chemical to water in the first place? How can we be so sure it wouldn't have a negative impact on the medium to long-term?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for conscious progress. However, you've got to bring a god damn good reason to convince me we need to modify Nature, especially water.

And what reason did they give us?

Tooth care.

Seriously? People will need to wake up one day...

Rychwebo
reply to post by Artlogic

 

Even if correct dose water fluoridation is a concern, using disingenuous information is not helpful to the cause

How are citing studies on the various, harmful effects to rats, humans, and tadpoles from fluorides not helping the cause?

The OP is somewhat correct about the post, aside from being able to prove fluoride wont kill you by gathering autopsy and toxicology reports on every dead human. You could say there hasn't been any peer reviewed study conclusively showing a death from ingesting fluoridated water, and the OP would be right. However, when humans talk we are looking for a human element and some constructive debate on the entirety of a truth.

If someone were to say that it harms rats, but I'm not a rat. Then why on earth do we rely on testing rats so much? We aren't studying the effects of things for the rats benefit. There have not been any studies showing that being impaled by a sharpened, frozen log of yak butter will kill you either, but I'm sure it would cause a sting. All us humans are pointing out, is that, it might cause a sting. Not only would it might cause a sting, but its been shown to sting rats. Its also been correlated to sting our IQ. Being stupider doesn't kill you exactly, but aren't we aloud to talk about it?

Can we talk about it? All we are doing is sitting in a pretty circle around the pro fluoride people saying, "It hasn't killed anyone yet, soooo, we're gonna keep dumping it in your feeding tube. Cool?"

Then all I'm saying is, "But sir, do we have to? Look at the rats over theref, they're not having as many baby's, and they aren't so good at reading and writing as much as they used to be."

I personally believe low dose fluoride is the least of our worries when it comes to potable water

What kind of side step is this? Its the least of our worries? So if its a worry, get rid of the worry from its source, now we have one less worry.

there are many other nasty things in there which are potentially far more harmfull, to me it's like being in a burning building but being more concerned about saving your favourite photos than saving yourself....

Other nasty things? Get rid of the fluoride since its the easiest one to get rid of, by just simply not adding it. Then we would save money to focus on the other nasty things. To me, its like being in a burning building, but realizing my favorite photos were never in the house to begin with, so now I have some extra time to put out the fire.

however I must agree that the "anti" side are arguing with emotion not peer reviewed facts

Did you look at the peer reviewed journals?

potential for harm from -correctly dosed- water fluoridation is being dramatically overstated. Ill link below what I believe to be the definitive examination of the topic, few will read it all, inside is virtually all available info.

Dramatically overstated? Can't we just say fluoride is bad, it even says it over and over again in the thing that you say few will read. Looks like a whole lot of work goes into making sure fluoride is in the water, and a whole lot of work goes into fighting to keep it in there. A whole lot of logic is being thrown out the window to say it MUST be in our water before we even get it out of the faucet.

Health effects related to the exposure to elevated levels of fluoride include dental and skeletal fluorosis (see Chapter 3)

A number of overdosing incidents have occurred, mostly in small water supplies, that practice artificial fluoridation. With well designed fail-safe equipment and working practices overdosing incidents can be avoided (Leland et al., 1980).

Looking at the link you posted makes me wonder what kind of human would read it and say, "Yep, go ahead and put some in my water for sure!"

I'd hate to be the heavy tea drinker working at an aluminum plant, I might want to avoid the tap water. So lets all agree that we aren't dead after that shower and drinking some delicious tap water and discuss why we want to keep it there instead of taking a supplement based on each individual.

I agree with virtually everything you state here, no argument from me, as I noted water fluoridation seems redundant. The point I'm trying to make is simply this, overdramatizing the issue does not help the "anti" cause, if anything it makes it easier for those who don't understand the issue or wish it to continue, to dismiss them as nutters. I agree it is not required, I dissagree that it is a catastrophic problem.
Testing on rats whilst giving a good indication is not definitive when applied to humans, asprin is beneficial to us but deadly to felines for example.
I look forward to seeing the results of the frozen log of yak butter impalement study also

Excellent rebuttle allround sir,
On the burning building I concede the point entirely, nice....

To conclude, as I stated, water fluoridation seems to be redundant and on the balance of available peer reviewed evidence it should probably be stopped. But, the hysteria generated by the "anti" crowd makes it far more difficult to achieve this outcome because as I said it makes it simple for those who wish to continue the "dumping" as some put it, to dismiss them as nutters.

I personally have shifted my view considerably over the course of this thread on this issue from believing it is benificial to pretty much feeling it should be halted, due in no small part to my discovering the WHO PDF I linked. Not because of the frantic uninformed noise of the rabbid anti crowd....

I thankyou for your response, and look forward to the continuing debate.

Artlogic

reply to post by Rychwebo


Hi,

I feel and resonate with what you said. I like you!

reply to post by Artlogic


Well, I find your honesty and humbleness admirable!

Artlogic

Rychwebo
reply to post by Artlogic

 

Even if correct dose water fluoridation is a concern, using disingenuous information is not helpful to the cause

How are citing studies on the various, harmful effects to rats, humans, and tadpoles from fluorides not helping the cause?

The OP is somewhat correct about the post, aside from being able to prove fluoride wont kill you by gathering autopsy and toxicology reports on every dead human. You could say there hasn't been any peer reviewed study conclusively showing a death from ingesting fluoridated water, and the OP would be right. However, when humans talk we are looking for a human element and some constructive debate on the entirety of a truth.

If someone were to say that it harms rats, but I'm not a rat. Then why on earth do we rely on testing rats so much? We aren't studying the effects of things for the rats benefit. There have not been any studies showing that being impaled by a sharpened, frozen log of yak butter will kill you either, but I'm sure it would cause a sting. All us humans are pointing out, is that, it might cause a sting. Not only would it might cause a sting, but its been shown to sting rats. Its also been correlated to sting our IQ. Being stupider doesn't kill you exactly, but aren't we aloud to talk about it?

Can we talk about it? All we are doing is sitting in a pretty circle around the pro fluoride people saying, "It hasn't killed anyone yet, soooo, we're gonna keep dumping it in your feeding tube. Cool?"

Then all I'm saying is, "But sir, do we have to? Look at the rats over theref, they're not having as many baby's, and they aren't so good at reading and writing as much as they used to be."

I personally believe low dose fluoride is the least of our worries when it comes to potable water

What kind of side step is this? Its the least of our worries? So if its a worry, get rid of the worry from its source, now we have one less worry.

there are many other nasty things in there which are potentially far more harmfull, to me it's like being in a burning building but being more concerned about saving your favourite photos than saving yourself....

Other nasty things? Get rid of the fluoride since its the easiest one to get rid of, by just simply not adding it. Then we would save money to focus on the other nasty things. To me, its like being in a burning building, but realizing my favorite photos were never in the house to begin with, so now I have some extra time to put out the fire.

however I must agree that the "anti" side are arguing with emotion not peer reviewed facts

Did you look at the peer reviewed journals?

potential for harm from -correctly dosed- water fluoridation is being dramatically overstated. Ill link below what I believe to be the definitive examination of the topic, few will read it all, inside is virtually all available info.

Dramatically overstated? Can't we just say fluoride is bad, it even says it over and over again in the thing that you say few will read. Looks like a whole lot of work goes into making sure fluoride is in the water, and a whole lot of work goes into fighting to keep it in there. A whole lot of logic is being thrown out the window to say it MUST be in our water before we even get it out of the faucet.

Health effects related to the exposure to elevated levels of fluoride include dental and skeletal fluorosis (see Chapter 3)

A number of overdosing incidents have occurred, mostly in small water supplies, that practice artificial fluoridation. With well designed fail-safe equipment and working practices overdosing incidents can be avoided (Leland et al., 1980).

Looking at the link you posted makes me wonder what kind of human would read it and say, "Yep, go ahead and put some in my water for sure!"

I'd hate to be the heavy tea drinker working at an aluminum plant, I might want to avoid the tap water. So lets all agree that we aren't dead after that shower and drinking some delicious tap water and discuss why we want to keep it there instead of taking a supplement based on each individual.

I agree with virtually everything you state here, no argument from me, as I noted water fluoridation seems redundant. The point I'm trying to make is simply this, overdramatizing the issue does not help the "anti" cause, if anything it makes it easier for those who don't understand the issue or wish it to continue, to dismiss them as nutters. I agree it is not required, I dissagree that it is a catastrophic problem.
Testing on rats whilst giving a good indication is not definitive when applied to humans, asprin is beneficial to us but deadly to felines for example.
I look forward to seeing the results of the frozen log of yak butter impalement study also

Excellent rebuttle allround sir,
On the burning building I concede the point entirely, nice....

To conclude, as I stated, water fluoridation seems to be redundant and on the balance of available peer reviewed evidence it should probably be stopped. But, the hysteria generated by the "anti" crowd makes it far more difficult to achieve this outcome because as I said it makes it simple for those who wish to continue the "dumping" as some put it, to dismiss them as nutters.

I personally have shifted my view considerably over the course of this thread on this issue from believing it is benificial to pretty much feeling it should be halted, due in no small part to my discovering the WHO PDF I linked. Not because of the frantic uninformed noise of the rabbid anti crowd....

I thankyou for your response, and look forward to the continuing debate.

Artlogic

I like how you try and pigion hole all anti fluoride people as loons and rabbid.

As far as I can remember all I have ever asked for is a real scientific double blind study be done, as NONE has ever been done.

I guess to you that sounds rabbid, I mean someone who wants proof of benefit before allowing poison to be forced into the general publics water supply?

What are your thoughts on the facts that we were lied to about it having proven positive effects and being safe for human consumption when it was sold to the GOV? and that being untrue as no scientific double blind study has ever been done?

I am not sure why< but this seems appropriate right now...

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

reply to post by superman2012


What they are adding to the water is Sodium Fluoride which is harmful look up the msds on it someday for an eye opener.
They are pretending that they are adding the inert calcium fluoride.

reply to post by VforVendettea


Great response - a lot of people don't get the fact that calcium fluoride is naturally occurring so we don't even have to add it. The sodium fluoride (comes from industrial waste) actually leaches the naturally occurring calcium fluoride out of the environment.

I have notes from an elderly gentleman who was a farmer and he cured his cattle of cancer eye by remedying the lack of naturally occurring calcium fluoride - having been leached from the environment due to the local water being laced with industrial by product sodium fluoride.

As for the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) I even managed to get my doctor to look at it as well as the poisons register where poisons are rated on a danger scale - in Australia - sodium fluoride is rated 6.1 which is the most poisonous for that category. Let's face facts - it should not even be on a poison list - right?!

Much Peace...

AmenStop

reply to post by Artlogic


I like how you try and pigion hole all anti fluoride people as loons and rabbid.

As far as I can remember all I have ever asked for is a real scientific double blind study be done, as NONE has ever been done.

I guess to you that sounds rabbid, I mean someone who wants proof of benefit before allowing poison to be forced into the general publics water supply?

What are your thoughts on the facts that we were lied to about it having proven positive effects and being safe for human consumption when it was sold to the GOV? and that being untrue as no scientific double blind study has ever been done?

I am not sure why< but this seems appropriate right now...

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

edit on 9-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)

I never claimed "all" also, I don't need to pigeon hole anyone, they do that to themselves.

I don't recall addressing you specifically, but anyway on this point I would refer you to the OP's previous statements about the difficulties in performing said double blind test.

Calling people idiots and so on in a debate setting, even without all the facts, yep rabbid.

There are positive short term effects, but due to long term effects being questionable there is debate. Correct dosage is the platform for this thread and as such providing evidence outside of those parameters amounts to strawman tactics.

Read the PDF.

My previous opinions were based on evidence that I felt was genuine and unbiased.
I will always reserve the right to change my opinion should evidence come to light that supercedes what I have seen previously, I do not suffer from cognitive dissonance like many of my peers.

Furthermore, after conceding to a different viewpoint which is more inline with yours, you still remain on the attack anyway, thankyou in that regard for enhancing my point.

I'm not sure why but this seems appropriate right now...

With friends like you, who needs enemies.

reply to post by Artlogic


you, and the OP are saying "proper dosage"...but i gotta ask "what dosage of poison is proper for daily consumption?"

i think it's the disconnect between what each camp is saying...i think what is being missed is the fact that the fluoride being added to drinking water is industrial waste, and not the naturally occurring type...that, by itself, is a BIG difference..i suppose it changes the context a bit...

I have pretty much abandoned this thread...well responding to the people that obviously can't read. If you actually have anything to contribute that refutes anything I have brought up, please feel free to PM me and I will come and respond/argue/debate with you.

I'm getting sick of the people that just decide this is time for personal attacks, or people that don't have the intellectual capacity to not only read the thread, but to argue their point using credible sources.

I'm not saying this is 100% proof. All I have said is that there is no proof that "properly dosed water fluoridation" has killed/harmed anyone. Yes. Look it up before you say it. There is a proper dose. *eyeroll*


ps- I'm glad that I can still count on some of you (RickyMouse) to have an intelligent conversation and state your position eloquently. The others hold onto their beliefs (with no research) more tightly than a two year old in the mall determined not to lose their mommy.

Come at me with facts/evidence/case studies/research papers/anything that could prove your point. If you don't, I'll just assume you have nothing to back up your opinion. Everyone is allowed to have one.

VforVendettea
reply to post by superman2012

 

What they are adding to the water is Sodium Fluoride which is harmful look up the msds on it someday for an eye opener.
They are pretending that they are adding the inert calcium fluoride.

Look up sodium hypochlorite's msds. Do you know what that is used for?

Your argument is for the people that don't understand dosages/purity levels. Do you believe the Gods are trying to hit you with fire everytime there is lightening too?

So sick of the utter ignorance and the repetition of baseless things people have been told/overheard on the internet.

badgerprints

superman2012
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Dihydrogen Monoxide does not bother me at all. I have a high tolerance to it as I was exposed to it quite a bit as a child.

I know as much, but I like trying to show people things! Without threads like these, I wouldn't have found out about the Newburgh-Kingston study on fluoride!

Thanks for that.

I'm surprised.
I thought you said you knew about fluoride.
The newbury-kingston study actually was carried out.
It just wasn't disclosed as it actually happened.
That's ok though.
The details are in that book I mentioned.
What was that you said? Oh yeah. No way in hell you'd read that book.
You know there were studies that showed the benefits of smoking too -back in the 1950's.

Take that study however you want.
Yup. Why would I read a book about ignorance and fear over something people don't understand? I can read books about people being afraid of the dark as well.
Neither here nor there, but there were a lot of studies done showing that cigarette smoking was harmful dating back to the 30's...but you wouldn't like to acknowledge that right? You just take what everyone else was saying and use it as an argument to back up your other argument (the two are unrelated in case you were wondering). If the studies that I showed were just done by the big bad fluoride companies, I could understand your fear. Most of the studies were done by the government, the same people who say that cigarette smoking is harmful to your health. I guess your side just picks and chooses when to listen to the government though, right?

sorgfelt
reply to post by superman2012

 

The forced medication issue is all that needs to matter to get fluoridation to be stopped cold. it is unjust. I don't care about exaggerated claims. And, by the way, your claim that fluoridation reduces dental caries is just as much bad science as any of the ones cited by activists you decry.

Lol
Again, no science to back up your claims. Why is this so scary for people?

Daedalus

superman2012
Water is a good medium to apply it and to get it into every house.

but you've glossed over the point he made that it's a topical thing, and doesn't do anything beneficial when ingested....so i'll ask..

what good does it do to get it into every house, if it isn't serving the stated purpose?

What happens to water when you drink it?

(I can't believe I have had to say this over 3 times on this thread)

It coats your mouth. Your teeth are in your mouth. Fluoride in the water gets on the teeth.

There was no glossing over his point, there was an assumption by me that people can think critically.

superman2012

I'm getting sick of the people that just decide this is time for personal attacks, or people that don't have the intellectual capacity to not only read the thread, but to argue their point using credible sources.

Maybe these people would have the intellectual capacity if the gubment stopped fluoridating the water...


(Sorry I just had to go there).

Daedalus
reply to post by Artlogic

 

you, and the OP are saying "proper dosage"...but i gotta ask "what dosage of poison is proper for daily consumption?"

i think it's the disconnect between what each camp is saying...i think what is being missed is the fact that the fluoride being added to drinking water is industrial waste, and not the naturally occurring type...that, by itself, is a BIG difference..i suppose it changes the context a bit...

1~ A great many things we consume everyday are toxic in large doses, fluoride included. But to answer your question 1mg/l.

2~ I like the wording this guy uses:

One of the fundamental concepts of Chemistry - one of the most important ideas that have advanced science - is that everything is made of atoms. It doesn't matter, chemically, where the atoms come from, they still react the same way. So, from a health perspective, that they are waste products of another process is irrelevant. Reference: Year 8 high school science class.

From:
skeptics.stackexchange.com...

This word best describes my opinion of water fluoridation:

redundant
rɪˈdʌnd(ə)nt/
adjective

not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous.
synonyms: unnecessary, not required, inessential, unessential, needless, unneeded, uncalled for, dispensable, disposable, expendable, unwanted, useless

I simply don't believe that in correct doses it is a concern, however as happened right here where I live overdoses via accident can occur, plus there are myriad options for better application....see^ "redundant"

reply to post by superman2012


i also asked you, what if the drinker is using a straw? i have a tooth up front that is extremely sensitive to cold, so i drink with a straw, so the liquid gets nowhere near any of my front teeth....so what then? minimal contact with the teeth...doesn't seem like it would do it's job very well....

as far as your other post goes....seriously, what dose of neurotoxin is proper for daily consumption? i can't believe i even hafta ask this, lol the very obvious answer is "none"