Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

THE TRUTH ABOUT SODIUM FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER

13

Comments

  • #102
    dontgetfooled
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭dontgetfooled


    You've yet to show the Bilergroup is involved. Just a very very tenuous link.

    I said Barclay's is linked to the Bilderburg Group, and therein lies a vested interest. And a "very very tenuous link" as you put it shows they ARE INVOLVED.


    And you've yet to show that the benefits are inflated.
    You have also yet to show that it has any other effects that would indicate a conspiracy.

    For one, watch the you-tube video of the dentist a few pages back, read what the Nazi's used the same chemical for and use your brain if you haven't already drank too much tap water.

    (sorry, couldn't resist that one :D)


    Would you repost that bit for clarity please?

    Again, please read my OP. There is also enough empirical evidence to imply all is not what it seems or is claimed to be.

    Goodnight, I'll check in tommorow.

    DGF


  • #103
    Kernel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yea you're right because we had longer life spans when we were using "nature's way."

    Once again, you've twisted my point to get a cheap-shot in. As I've said, I'm no Luddite. I fully understand and appreciate the value of modern medicine. Adding chemicals to drinking water for no good reason that I can see, is a little different to treating somebody with antibiotics or some such thing.
    King Mob wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation
    Most of the stuff there has references.
    [/quote]

    In the context of the conspiracy theory being put forth, using the CDC a US Governmental Body as a source is not enough to cut the mustard. In fact, I don't believe the CDC is an independent body at all.
    bonkey wrote:
    Water isn't water, in that you will never get pure H2O as a water-supply. Different locations have different trace elements in the water. Not only that, but as a general rule, you don't want to drink untreated water....whether that be tapwater, bottled mineral water, rainwater, or whatever else it is that you choose to drink instead. As a general rule, we mess around with chemicals to add stuff and remove stuff.

    Fluoride? Thats one of those perfectly natural trace elements that we find in water.

    That's all very well, and understood, however, because there is a trace element of aluminium or some other mineral in the rainwater of some geographical location does not mean I want the government to add aluminium to my drinking water. I'm open to correction if you guys can show me some decent studies which prove that flouridation actually is worth carrying out. For one thing, it's certainly not believed to be cost effective in terms of the benefits it may or may not provide.


  • #104
    Veni Vedi Vici
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭Veni Vedi Vici


    Kernel wrote: »
    For one thing, it's certainly not believed to be cost effective in terms of the benefits it may or may not provide.

    I'm sure its disposal in our water system is cost-effective for the manufacturers trying to legally rid their operations of waste though... ;)


  • #105
    Kernel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »
    I'm sure its disposal in our water system is cost-effective for the manufacturers trying to legally rid their operations of waste though... ;)

    Yes, that's an aspect to it. :)

    BTW - for those who put all their faith in peer reviewed scientific journals, here's some nice new developments as a doctor is questioned over 20+ fake studies over the years - some of which used entirely fictional patients. Recommended a lot of Pfizer drugs, and coincidentally recieved 5 grants from Pfizer...... :rolleyes:

    Read all about Dr. Scott Reuben.


  • #106
    themetallifan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    Ok, I need to address loadsa stuff here s bear with me, I’ll do it in order of posts since my last one

    @dgf – With regards to reading your first post, I did. Its source is a holistic medicine site...how aptly scientific.( Holisitic medicine being the whole mind-body-soul thing.) You should properly read your other source : http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571. Rather than backing up your claims of ill-effect, it merely states “more research is needed” over and over again. I’ve talked about this in a previous post anyway, so no point in arguing this again.
    Just because you think it’s a conspiracy doesn’t mean anything. You haven’t given any evidence except regurgitating your OP, which, as I’ve eluded to, is unreliable.

    @Veni Vedi Vici – The video you posted is flawed from the outset. Pure fluoride in toothpaste is NOT the same as that added to water, so correlations without evidence is merely speculation.

    @Kernel – The report you linked me talks about IQ studies carried out in China. China has long been controversial in its publication of studies, as only certain ones are translated. The studies are also not peer-reviewed as in other countries e.g. here and the US. In this paper, it even eludes to this – “the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and their relevance to U.S. populations” So again – no evidence.

    @everyone against fluroidation – I’m not going to go into conspiracy theories (I know I know...the forum name...), I just want evidence to back up your claims. I’m sick of people wrongly quoting scientific papers and taking them out of context.

    KingMob has given two links in post number 83, that are PEER-REVIEWED and reliable sources of information. Can we have some of these to support your case guys?

    @Veni – It may be a catch 22 of sorts but the difference is pro-fluoridation papers seem to come from respectable journals, that are peer reviewed. Anti-fluoridation material seems to come from obscure, foreign journals with no peer review system. I know which one I’d bet money on.

    KingMob has given good sources too about the benefits of fluoridation, as have I in previous posts.

    @mysterious – running out of air...seems you’re going round in circles. I’ve already addressed the fact that it accumulates in the body, on the first few posts. You seem to be ignoring this. What relevance has Hitler got to this discussion?

    And do you not get it....no matter how many times we say it. There is a direct benefit of putting fluoride in water – less cavities. But you really don’t seem to want to accept any of our arguments. If we’re wrong that’s fine, but you’re either avoiding the topic or citing invalid references

    @dgf – cdc is government funded and the springerlink paper is funded by some company about as closely connected to fluoridation as the central bank is to Science Foundation Ireland. These papers are PEER REVIEWED...and the cdc is not the same organisation that is ‘pumping this stuff’. You are basing all your arguments on your opinion, and not backing anything up with sound evidence.

    @Veni – it’s not waste, it’s a waste by-product. It costs more to purify it than it would just to dump the un-separated waste.

    @Kernel – I’ll think you’ll find that if you research more on this guy, he lacked any go-ahead from a review board in his lab/hospital.

    A conspiracy theory is just that - a theory. No evidence to back it up, but little can be found to 100% disprove it (so it must be true then!)

    Phew.....long post. Will check back tomorrow guys.


  • #107
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    themetallifan wrote: »
    @mysterious – running out of air...seems you’re going round in circles. I’ve already addressed the fact that it accumulates in the body, on the first few posts. You seem to be ignoring this. What relevance has Hitler got to this discussion?

    And do you not get it....no matter how many times we say it. There is a direct benefit of putting fluoride in water – less cavities. But you really don’t seem to want to accept any of our arguments. If we’re wrong that’s fine, but you’re either avoiding the topic or citing invalid references

    So it accumalates and is dangerous and doesnt leave the body, how the **** is this good.

    And if they want to save our teeth whats, the point when it causes harm to our body.

    Yeah, I smoke weed, it's keeps me on a high, but its a curse to my health. Same thing.


    P.S I don't smoke weed:D If I did I wouldn't be so hypocritical to argue another dangeroous product called flouride entering my body.

    Phew.....long post. Will check back tomorrow guys.
    Oh I can't wait....


  • #108
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    exactly what does Peer Review mean tho?

    aint it another word for CircleJerk


  • #109
    dontgetfooled
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭dontgetfooled


    themetallifan wrote: »
    Ok, I need to address loadsa stuff here s bear with me, I’ll do it in order of posts since my last one

    @dgf – With regards to reading your first post, I did. Its source is a holistic medicine site...how aptly scientific.( Holisitic medicine being the whole mind-body-soul thing.)

    The site in question is merely the hosting site, it did not write the article. This article is freely distributed around different sites (reprinted with permission?)

    here's the same article, on a different site & taken from Nexus Magazine:

    http://www.whale.to/b/fluoride2.html

    The site is not the source.


  • #110
    6th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    mysterious wrote: »
    So it accumalates and is dangerous and doesnt leave the body, how the **** is this good.

    BUT IT DOES LEAVE THE BODY!


  • #111
    dontgetfooled
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭dontgetfooled


    themetallifan wrote: »
    @dgf – cdc is government funded and the springerlink paper is funded by some company about as closely connected to fluoridation as the central bank is to Science Foundation Ireland. These papers are PEER REVIEWED...and the cdc is not the same organisation that is ‘pumping this stuff’. You are basing all your arguments on your opinion, and not backing anything up with sound evidence.

    I said SpringerLink is connected to The Bilderburg Group, not Springerlink is connected to water fluoridation. The Bilderburg connection raises the red flag immediately.

    The CDC is a Government agency, the article is hosted on a .gov web-page, c'mon, they have vested interest.

    The bottom line is, there is little evidence to suggest that Flouride in the water benefits us in any way, even reducing cavities. This being the case, at the very least remove it until proper tests are carried out and all concern is allayed.

    However, they are not doing this are they?

    Now they have HA, an UNTESTED compound......


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    dontgetfooled
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭dontgetfooled


    6th wrote: »
    BUT IT DOES LEAVE THE BODY!

    6th is right, Fluoride does exit the body.


  • #113
    6th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    dontgetfooled wrote: »
    The site in question is merely the hosting site, it did not write the article. This article is freely distributed around different sites (reprinted with permission?)

    here's the same article, on a different site & taken from Nexus Magazine:

    http://www.whale.to/b/fluoride2.html

    The site is not the source.
    dontgetfooled wrote: »
    The CDC is a Government agency, the article is hosted on a .gov web-page, c'mon, they have vested interest

    Does the same arguement not apply in both cases?


  • #114
    dontgetfooled
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭dontgetfooled


    6th wrote: »
    Does the same arguement not apply in both cases?

    Not really, the CDC is US Government funded, hosted on a .gov webpage is just pointing out the fact it is really the US Governments own study and so the vested interest to validate Fluoridating water is quite obvious.

    But I get your point.


  • #115
    themetallifan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    mysterious wrote: »
    So it accumalates and is dangerous and doesnt leave the body, how the **** is this good.

    Apologies if I was a bit unclear on this. What I meant to say is, I've addressed the notion that it doesn't leave the body, with experimentally dervied figures in a previous post. It can be said, definitively, that it does exit the body.

    @mahatma - The peer review process basically involves a written article being sent to independent groups of scientists, some of whom are highly knowledgeable about the field and some of whom have no interest in it. Each peer, analyses the paper for faults and holes and sends a report back to the editor of the journal before it is published. On the basis of this, the journal either accepts it or not.

    @dgf - It was more the fact that it was hosted on a holistic med site than actually coming from one. It shows what type of 'science' is on the side of anti-fluoridation. Yes but neither writer is from a science background. The closest is Joel Griffiths, the main author who is a medical writer. If he was from a science background, it would say, as these guys love to boast about their importance. A quick google search gives no indiciation as to his qualifications either. So despite the source, it's still written by anti-fluoridation (and avid anti-communism) authors. If you can use the argument that the cdc is biased, I can say this is biased.

    Can you link me to the springerlnk publisher - bilderberg club connection. I'm interested in this....


  • #116
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    themetallifan wrote: »
    Apologies if I was a bit unclear on this. What I meant to say is, I've addressed the notion that it doesn't leave the body, with experimentally dervied figures in a previous post. It can be said, definitively, that it does exit the body.

    So again why add something posionous like this just to stop cavities.

    I'm a real fan of getting logic out of this, cus I see none.


  • #117
    themetallifan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    mysterious wrote: »
    So again why add something posionous like this just to stop cavities.

    I'm a real fan of getting logic out of this, cus I see none.

    Firstly, it's not 'poisonous' in the quantities added and no study has found it to be unsafe to add to drinking water at the levels it is currently added. Studies have consistently shown that at the levels it is added, it poses little or no concern.

    Secondly, that's exactly why it's added...to fight cavities. Alot of people neglect their dental health, so by adding HFA to the water supply (in minute quantities) many people will benefit from it.

    I can't understand your unwillingness to believe the facts published in actual scientific journals over 'findings' published in somewhat dodgy mediums.

    I suppose you think that the addition of chlorine to water at similar concentrations - 1mg/ml (which is actually a poisonous compound) is also a bit dodgy?


  • #118
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    themetallifan wrote: »
    Firstly, it's not 'poisonous' in the quantities added and no study has found it to be unsafe to add to drinking water at the levels it is currently added. Studies have consistently shown that at the levels it is added, it poses little or no concern.

    Secondly, that's exactly why it's added...to fight cavities. Alot of people neglect their dental health, so by adding HFA to the water supply (in minute quantities) many people will benefit from it.

    I can't understand your unwillingness to believe the facts published in actual scientific journals over 'findings' published in somewhat dodgy mediums.

    I suppose you think that the addition of chlorine to water at similar concentrations - 1mg/ml (which is actually a poisonous compound) is also a bit dodgy?


    So again I have to ask you,

    Why in water, toothpaste and now food.

    Why the obsession? Why can't they cure cancer and not worry so sexually about our teeth. I don't use flouride toothpaste. My teeth are perfect hadn't a cavity in 2 years.


  • #119
    themetallifan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    a)It's in water as way to HELP prevent cavities.
    b)It's in toothpaste for the exact same reason. Surely the fact that the reason agrees. for both tells you something for its effectiveness when used (very effective).
    c)They don't put it in our foods, it occurs naturally in ridiculously minute quantities. Did you know, it's also present in similarly minute quantities in the air we breathe? (And please don't say...'then why put in water at all since its everywhere else'....it's because water is the easiest means of ensuring everyone benefits and the quantities in food/air are too small to have any effect on dental health.

    Also, I'm not so sure what you mean by 'sexually' worrying about our teeth....I think maybe you mean obsessively?? If so, it's because Ireland has a terrible history of dental health (ever notice how many elderly people today have false teeth?)

    Oh and the fact that you haven't had a cavity says about as much as the fact that I have never had one...and I have always used fluoride toothpaste.

    And they're working on the 'cure to cancer' with papers published everyday on the subject. It'll come with time.


  • #120
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    themetallifan wrote: »
    a)It's in water as way to HELP prevent cavities.
    b)It's in toothpaste for the exact same reason. Surely the fact that the reason agrees. for both tells you something for its effectiveness when used (very effective).
    c)They don't put it in our foods, it occurs naturally in ridiculously minute quantities. Did you know, it's also present in similarly minute quantities in the air we breathe? (And please don't say...'then why put in water at all since its everywhere else'....it's because water is the easiest means of ensuring everyone benefits and the quantities in food/air are too small to have any effect on dental health.

    Also, I'm not so sure what you mean by 'sexually' worrying about our teeth....I think maybe you mean obsessively?? If so, it's because Ireland has a terrible history of dental health (ever notice how many elderly people today have false teeth?)

    Oh and the fact that you haven't had a cavity says about as much as the fact that I have never had one...and I have always used fluoride toothpaste.

    And they're working on the 'cure to cancer' with papers published everyday on the subject. It'll come with time.

    Oh noooooo?
    For someone to tell me that I don't know this topic, guess the fingers comes back to you sir:D

    http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2009/02/08/eu_food_authority_approves_fluoride_in_supplements_newsgrabs_8_february_2009.htm

    http://www.newstin.co.uk/tag/uk/102963537

    Abovetopsecret has a fresh thread with lots of more information that you don't seem to know:pac: on there. There is hundreds of people posting on there, can't see them imagining it either.

    I really do think the government are sexually attracted to preventing cavities. I mean I really am flattered by their such care and thoughts for this anti cavity campaign. Funny funny planet eh. It's hilarious.

    It's funny, since governments lie generally about everything when it's suits them. They just love our teeth.

    Give me a ****ing break.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    mysterious wrote: »
    Oh noooooo?
    For someone to tell me that I don't know this topic, guess the fingers comes back to you sir:D

    http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2009/02/08/eu_food_authority_approves_fluoride_in_supplements_newsgrabs_8_february_2009.htm

    http://www.newstin.co.uk/tag/uk/102963537

    Abovetopsecret has a fresh thread with lots of more information that you don't seem to know:pac: on there. There is hundreds of people posting on there, can't see them imagining it either.

    I really do think the government are sexually attracted to preventing cavities. I mean I really am flattered by their such care and thoughts for this anti cavity campaign. Funny funny planet eh. It's hilarious.

    It's funny, since governments lie generally about everything when it's suits them. They just love our teeth.

    Give me a ****ing break.
    So the reason you believe that fluoride is harmful, not because independent verifiable evidence show as much, but rather you read it on a conspiracy website?


  • #122
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    King Mob wrote: »
    So the reason you believe that fluoride is harmful, not because independent verifiable evidence show as much, but rather you read it on a conspiracy website?


    governments create conspiracy websites, this proves I'm alot more ahead than most;)

    The two lnks I posted were not C.Ts sites. Oh your and your selective reading again.

    ATS, don't like me, cus I debunk the crap and fear mongering and war madness on it. ATS want people lost in conspiracy theories. But because ATS hold 100,000s thousands of members, there is a huge news and information source. I've met quite a few interesting people on there.

    But just because it's a C.Ts site, doesn.t mean it's any less refutable than another source. I loathe the owners of that site. They are in the middle of censoring your vowels now incase you might say something against a group or people. Hense I won't go into this it's way off topic.

    Governments work on these sites. anyhow.


  • #123
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    mysterious wrote: »
    governments create conspiracy websites, this proves I'm alot more ahead than most;)

    The two lnks I posted were not C.Ts sites. Oh your and your selective reading again.

    ATS, don't like me, cus I debunk the crap and fear mongering and war madness on it. ATS want people lost in conspiracy theories. But because ATS hold 100,000s thousands of members, there is a huge news and information source. I've met quite a few interesting people on there.

    But just because it's a C.Ts site, doesn.t mean it's any less refutable than another source. I loathe the owners of that site. They are in the middle of censoring your vowels now incase you might say something against a group or people. Hense I won't go into this it's way off topic.

    Governments work on these sites. anyhow.
    Yea it kind of is more refutable than another source.
    For one it doesn't have the fact checking actual news site have.

    And those links are to the same article.
    And it is from a ct site.


  • #124
    themetallifan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    mysterious wrote: »
    Oh noooooo?
    For someone to tell me that I don't know this topic, guess the fingers comes back to you sir:D

    http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2009/02/08/eu_food_authority_approves_fluoride_in_supplements_newsgrabs_8_february_2009.htm

    http://www.newstin.co.uk/tag/uk/102963537

    Apologies, I wasn't aware of this. (This was approved early this year, theres little reason to think it's added to any foods yet.) Still makes no difference to my stance here though. It's the first time in all the posts (alot) that I've overlooked one of the facts. Seems like you tend to do that alot though so I think I'll be ok this one time. And...weren't you the one who said fluoride didn't leave the body?? Hmmm.....

    There is hundreds of people posting on there, can't see them imagining it either.

    Emm....yes I can. They're all CTs.


  • #125
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yea it kind of is more refutable than another source.
    For one it doesn't have the fact checking actual news site have.

    And those links are to the same article.
    And it is from a ct site.

    What do you want the **** news stations? Sarcosys mouth waving it's in my breivcase, or the 9/11 commision.

    What's your idea of a new souce? I really would like to know. Just recently I've observed your activity on this forum. It seems that every source and link you post. It's perfect, when someone else post their source its lunacy.

    I really find your activity with this hilarious. To the point of even of laughing. Why because you posted a wikipeadia page recently. And wikipeadia isn't always reliable either.

    But since I think you don't even know what is reliable and what's not or just when you say so it's topjob, I really do question this. This is like a coin maze at this stage, with your views on whats refutable or not:D

    Oh this was funny.


  • #126
    themetallifan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    I think you'll remember he said that that article was fully referenced in that post. Looking through previous posts for mistakes are we?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    themetallifan wrote: »
    Apologies, I wasn't aware of this. (This was approved early this year, theres little reason to think it's added to any foods yet.) Still makes no difference to my stance here though. It's the first time in all the posts (alot) that I've overlooked one of the facts. Seems like you tend to do that alot though so I think I'll be ok this one time. And...weren't you the one who said fluoride didn't leave the body?? Hmmm.....




    Emm....yes I can. They're all CTs.

    Wrong again, I don't want to be always pointing you out wrong but..:D

    There is actually a fair share of skeptics on that site too. There is a skeptic board. There is actually well known people on that site. There is 100,000s thousands of people from all walks. So to say they are C.Ts.


    Is again quite flawed.


  • #128
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    mysterious wrote: »
    What do you want the **** news stations? Sarcosys mouth waving it's in my breivcase, or the 9/11 commision.

    What's your idea of a new souce? I really would like to know. Just recently I've observed your activity on this forum. It seems that every source and link you post. It's perfect, when someone else post their source its lunacy.

    I really find your activity with this hilarious. To the point of even of laughing. Why because you posted a wikipeadia page recently. And wikipeadia isn't always reliable either.

    But since I think you don't even know what is reliable and what's not or just when you say so it's topjob, I really do question this. This is like a coin maze at this stage, with your views on whats refutable or not:D

    Oh this was funny.
    Yea wikipedia has references at the bottom of the page. They are usually more in depth and reliable. The wikipedia article is usually more concise and easier for laypeople to reference.

    For example in support of fluoridation people linked peer reviewed paper from reliable sources, posted on neutral sites. On the other side we had non peer reviewed papers from unreliable sources, posted on site that supported ideas like alchemy.

    Maybe you lay off the personal stuff.


  • #129
    themetallifan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    First you say
    The two lnks I posted were not C.Ts sites.

    Then you say
    just because it's a C.Ts site, doesn.t mean

    Now they are the exact same source. The second one just links to an excerpt of the first. Don't like to keep pointing you out as being wrong but :D

    I said "they're all CTs." I was referring to your sources. Did I mention the website users at all???

    Anyway, this is losing focus, we were discussing fluoridation in water...I can see this degenerating into a slagging match soon. Back to the current topic.

    As far as I can see so far, you've provided no evidence to the harmful effects of fluoride in drinking water, and any points you've raised, we've given a source to prove it wrong.


  • #130
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yea wikipedia has references at the bottom of the page. They are usually more in depth and reliable. The wikipedia article is usually more concise and easier for laypeople to reference.

    For example in support of fluoridation people linked peer reviewed paper from reliable sources, posted on neutral sites. On the other side we had non peer reviewed papers from unreliable sources, posted on site that supported ideas like alchemy.

    Maybe you lay off the personal stuff.
    So it has to be a source that you agree with or dissgaree with? So if wikipeadia isn't always reliable, it is immune to be unreliable? This nit picking relly pisses me off.

    Whats nuetral. I'm curious, because from where you come from doesn't appear balanced whatsoever. I say this politetly.


    How were they unreliable, what does it mean when you state they were reliable. I would like this straighten out, purely because I don't like when people just state it's unreliable mainly because it's becaise they don't agree with it.


  • #131
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    mysterious wrote: »
    So it has to be a source that you agree with or dissgaree with? So if wikipeadia isn't always reliable, it is immune to be unreliable? This nit picking relly pisses me off.

    Whats nuetral. I'm curious, because from where you come from doesn't appear balanced whatsoever. I say this politetly.


    How were they unreliable, what does it mean when you state they were reliable. I would like this straighten out, purely because I don't like when people just state it's unreliable mainly because it's becaise they don't agree with it.
    Wow you really can't see irony.

    I believe the metallifan already explained how those articles where unreliable.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Teg Veece
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 550 ✭✭✭Teg Veece


    mysterious wrote: »
    http://www.health.state.ri.us/disease/primarycare/oralhealth/prevention-fluoridation-map.php

    The states IQ taken from tickle IQ test not particulary favourable.
    North Dakota though is very high in IQ is one of the ones listed that is flouridated. The rest have little to know flouridated water within the top 11.

    Massachusetts -- 101.5
    2. North Dakota -- 101.4
    3. Vermont -- 101.2
    4. Montana -- 101.1
    5. South Dakota -- 101.1
    6. New Hampshire -- 101.0
    7. Minnesota -- 100.8
    8. Wisconsin -- 100.3
    9. Wyoming -- 100.2
    10. Iowa -- 100.0
    11. Idaho -- 99.9

    I wish there was more reliable sources, but this does show that in general the less flouridate states have higher IQs.

    There's justn1.6 IQ points separating 11th place from 1st place. That difference is so small considering the dubious accuracy of these average state IQ tests that it's pretty much meaningless.
    Hardly proof that the populations are being dumbed down.


  • #133
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    themetallifan wrote: »
    First you say
    I did
    Then you say

    I said with abovetopsecret.com. yes. It's C.T site.

    That was not the first two links i posted. Oh you must of choosed not to read my post properly oh geee.

    Now they are the exact same source. The second one just links to an excerpt of the first. Don't like to keep pointing you out as being wrong but :D
    Hands a shovel.

    I said "they're all CTs." I was referring to your sources. Did I mention the website users at all???
    But they are not all C.Ts
    Anyway, this is losing focus, we were discussing fluoridation in water...I can see this degenerating into a slagging match soon. Back to the current topic.
    Thank goodness you saved yourself.

    As far as I can see so far, you've provided no evidence to the harmful effects of fluoride in drinking water, and any points you've raised, we've given a source to prove it wrong.

    The IQ links were pretty informative.

    Did you watch the video of the dentist showing the amount of poision is in one pea sized amount of toothpaste in comparison to a glass of water. you should watch this with eyes open:D


  • #134
    themetallifan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    mysterious wrote: »
    I did

    The IQ links were pretty informative.

    Ah, since you said it that way....:l
    Did you watch the video of the dentist showing the amount of poision is in one pea sized amount of toothpaste in comparison to a glass of water. you should watch this with eyes open

    Yep I did, I've watched it loadsa times. Seems to be the one thing consistently posted in these types of discussions. Poison though, think I've explained in a previous post where you've gone wrong with the terminology there....whether its poisonous or not depends on the dose. Fluoride in water does not constitute a poison.

    You claim we're ignoring your links/arguments, but you seem to be equally ignoring the ones you dont like.....one of the main sources linked by DGF earlier, which apparently showed the evil of fluoride, turned out to conclude the exact opposite. You've linked stuff showing what fluoride's in, you love mentioning 9/11, you've thrown around terms like 'toxin' relating to fluoride, and we're the ones poorly informed????

    I think no matter what anyone says, you'll still believe this is a conspiracy? Yes?


  • #135
    6th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Mysterious, you have said that fluoride doesnt leave the body. It has been pointed out to you a number of times that it does. Why are you ignoring this point?


  • #136
    6th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    6th wrote: »
    Mysterious, you have said that fluoride doesnt leave the body. It has been pointed out to you a number of times that it does. Why are you ignoring this point?

    Well?


  • #137
    dontgetfooled
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭dontgetfooled


    Hey Guys,

    The natural occuring Fluoride in water is not Sodium Fluoride, but CALCIUM Fluoride. They are actually quite different.

    SF (artifically pumped into our water, classed as a Toxin)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_flouride

    CF (naturally occurring, CF is not classed as a Toxin)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride


    And this is from the US CODE on Chemical testing, as you can see poisoning and/or controlling people through a chemical such as, say, Fluoride, is in fact legal, the inbolded point 3 on paragraph 2 is a more than adequate loophole for this.

    If population control is in fact, the true reason.


    TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 32 > § 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents.

    (a) Prohibited activities
    (1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
    (2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

    (this sounds about right, but then there's this)

    (b) Exceptions: Subject to subsections the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

    (1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
    (2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
    (3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

    e) “Biological agent” defined
    In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—
    (1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
    (2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
    (3) deleterious alteration of the environment.


    SOURCE : http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001520---a000-.html

    I've also found one source that states that only 50% of Fluoride that is ingested leaves the body, but I'll find another before I post.

    6th & Mysterious, you may have to meet half way.....

    add correction: - it states 50% of SODIUM FLUORIDE doesn't leave the body, not all classes of Fluoride.

    DGF


  • #138
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    dontgetfooled wrote: »
    Hey Guys,

    The natural occuring Fluoride in water is not Sodium Fluoride, but CALCIUM Fluoride. They are actually quite different.

    SF (artifically pumped into our water, classed as a Toxin)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_flouride

    CF (naturally occurring, CF is not classed as a Toxin)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride
    That's bull****.
    They aren't defined as toxins at all. A toxin is produced by living cells or organisms.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxin
    And it has been explained to you that sodium fluoride is only dangerous at high doses. The lethal dose for a 70 kg human is estimated at 5–10 g.
    dontgetfooled wrote: »

    And this is from the US CODE on Chemical testing, as you can see poisoning and/or controlling people through a chemical such as, say, Fluoride, is in fact legal, the inbolded point 3 on paragraph 2 is a more than adequate loophole for this.

    If population control is in fact, the true reason.


    TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 32 > § 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents.

    (a) Prohibited activities
    (1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
    (2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

    (this sounds about right, but then there's this)

    (b) Exceptions: Subject to subsections the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

    (1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
    (2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
    (3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

    e) “Biological agent” defined
    In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—
    (1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
    (2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
    (3) deleterious alteration of the environment.


    SOURCE : http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001520---a000-.html
    Yep because we see riot cops spray people with sodium fluoride all the time.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mace_(spray)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_gas

    And did you know that riot police sometimes use huge quantities of dihydrogen monoxide to quell riots?

    dontgetfooled wrote: »
    I've also found one source that states that only 50% of Fluoride that is ingested leaves the body, but I'll find another before I post.

    6th & Mysterious, you may have to meet half way.....

    add correction: - it states 50% of SODIUM FLUORIDE doesn't leave the body, not all classes of Fluoride.

    DGF

    Care to post this source?


  • #139
    6th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's bull****.

    No need to be so aggressive.


  • #140
    themetallifan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    DGF-

    The word toxin means a biologically (e.g. by a plant or animal) produced toxic substance. Fluoride, or any derivative compounds - they're not toxins. To say otherwise is wrong. A simple dictionary lookup will back this up.

    You've given these rules, but that does not prove anything; it doesn't provide any evidence for your conspiracy theory. You've no way to say that these rules were written with fluoride in mind!

    Lastly, it does leave the body, and that 50% figure...I'd love to see the source, as I've given sources in previous posts that directly contradict this.....

    We seem to be re-arguing the same things, even though people have provided evidence in previous posts. That anti-fluoridation side seem to be ignoring key facts like retention, toxicity etc.


  • #141
    dontgetfooled
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭dontgetfooled


    themetallifan wrote: »
    DGF-

    The word toxin means a biologically (e.g. by a plant or animal) produced toxic substance. Fluoride, or any derivative compounds - they're not toxins. To say otherwise is wrong. A simple dictionary lookup will back this up.

    You've given these rules, but that does not prove anything; it doesn't provide any evidence for your conspiracy theory. You've no way to say that these rules were written with fluoride in mind!

    Lastly, it does leave the body, and that 50% figure...I'd love to see the source, as I've given sources in previous posts that directly contradict this.....

    We seem to be re-arguing the same things, even though people have provided evidence in previous posts. That anti-fluoridation side seem to be ignoring key facts like retention, toxicity etc.

    Ok.

    Its a Toxicant, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicant )either way they have the same effect, just different sources.

    The quote from the US code shows a legal loophole through which this could be put through, I never suggested it was written with Fluoride in mind, but it would sure come in handy.

    And yes we are arguing the same points, as it the same subject and we're on different sides of the fence.

    (I had a longer more detailed post, but it got wiped, i'll repost it later)


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    dontgetfooled
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭dontgetfooled


    King Mob wrote: »
    And it has been explained to you that sodium fluoride is only dangerous at high doses. The lethal dose for a 70 kg human is estimated at 5–10 g.

    I never stated it was put into our water to be lethal, however continued ingestion over many years, first in water, now in our food, should be cause for alarm.

    The cavity argument has enough counter studies and evidence to put it in the realm of reasonable doubt.

    This, in a court of law with a jury, would be sufficient to remove it from our water supply. Until at they very minimum, they cary out the additional research they recommend in the "peer reviewed" report.

    There should be a choice in this matter, there is not. That alone deserves questioning and there is a lot more suspicious circumstances that hint at a far more sinister motive.


    DGF


  • #143
    dontgetfooled
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭dontgetfooled


    themetallifan wrote: »

    Lastly, it does leave the body, and that 50% figure...I'd love to see the source, as I've given sources in previous posts that directly contradict this.....

    Here, 10th paragraph down:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/jun/12/medicineandhealth.genderissues

    Also here is the open letter I posted about, have to look into its claims more some of which are new to me:

    http://reactor-core.org/dental-health.html

    DGF


  • #144
    themetallifan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    Thanks for the source DGF...at least your claims are backed up somewhat.

    I've a couple of problems with it though:

    a) It's a newspaper report...as we all know, journalists aren't the best at reading scientific papers, as many examples in the past have shown.
    b) Max amounts are 30-35% retention over an 18hr period. Over another 18hrs, this is reduced to 9-10% and after 2 days is reduced to below 3%. That little bit of fluoride that accumulates, accumulates in the bone and has even been shown to aid in bone repair (see osteoporosis medicines). And by the way, the safety guidelines above have already taken this into account and it has been agreed by the European Health Council.

    I also think I see how people are confusing this...the second source says things like:
    Over 95% of fluoride in the body is accumulated within the skeleton and teeth.
    but non-scientists/people from non-scientific backgrounds fail to read the rest of the reports, where they go on to explain that:
    Fluoride is usually eliminated in its unchanged form
    The 95% refers only to the miniscule amount absorbed anyway.

    Sources (the ones I could relocate)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18514162?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076512?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


  • #145
    dontgetfooled
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭dontgetfooled


    themetallifan wrote: »
    Thanks for the source DGF...at least your claims are backed up somewhat.

    I've a couple of problems with it though:

    I'm not so keen either, as I said it was the only place I'd seen the claim & so didn't post the source first time round, also no external links to verify etc.

    The Author of the 2nd source wrote a book entitled "Good Teeth, From Birth to Death" and is adamantly anti-fluoride, citing numerous damages to your health as stated in his open letter.

    Here's a link to his book, you can download it in PDF by clicking "more / download"

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/12719970/Good-Teeth-From-Birth-to-Death-Judd-Full-Book


    DGF


  • #146
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    dontgetfooled wrote: »
    I never stated it was put into our water to be lethal, however continued ingestion over many years, first in water, now in our food, should be cause for alarm.
    For what reason should you be alarmed?
    dontgetfooled wrote: »
    The cavity argument has enough counter studies and evidence to put it in the realm of reasonable doubt.
    Not really. Could you provided some peer reviewed papers that would justify this statement?
    dontgetfooled wrote: »
    This, in a court of law with a jury, would be sufficient to remove it from our water supply. Until at they very minimum, they cary out the additional research they recommend in the "peer reviewed" report.
    But there has been tons of research done on it you're just dismissing it out of hand.
    dontgetfooled wrote: »
    There should be a choice in this matter, there is not. That alone deserves questioning and there is a lot more suspicious circumstances that hint at a far more sinister motive.
    So there should be two separate waters supplies because some people believe fluoridation to be a government plot?

    The choice argument is the most valid part of the issue as it doesn't have to rely on ridiculous claims of government conspiracy. If people want to argue this why make baseless accusations like "it lowers IQ" as so forth?


  • #147
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    dontgetfooled wrote: »

    Its a Toxicant, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicant )either way they have the same effect, just different sources.

    So who actually classes it as a toxicant in that case?


  • #148
    philiy
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭philiy


    Anyonw know where the floride that goes into Irish drinking water comes from?

    I mean what chemical company is it purchased from?

    Also wouldnt the government save allot of money if they didnt have to buy floride to put into the water supply? Wouldnt it go some way in helping the government during this econimic crisis?

    There is allot of evidence out there that floride dosnt do anything for teeth and that it infact damages human health and allot of people want it taken out of the Irish water system so why dosnt the government get ride of it and maybe help their popularity somewhat?


  • #149
    feoil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭feoil


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k1RzFsvn7E

    You may find this of interest


  • #150
    Slippin Jimmy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,031 ✭✭✭Slippin Jimmy


    I do not see how this is a conspiracy.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    Duffff-Man wrote: »
    I do not see how this is a conspiracy.



    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055514887

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055383572&highlight=sodium+fluoride

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055488044&highlight=sodium+fluoride


Advertisement