drinking water (Sodium fluoride)

Kernel

WhaLofShi wrote: »

Speaking of "off the grid", where's Run to da Hills? Must be 3 days since he posted. Have they finally gotten to him?

Yeah, I hear that Diogenes and King Mob sent in their reports detailing how the counter intelligence of calling him a crazy loon and acting all skeptical hasn't dissuaded his truth seeking. As a result, he has been marked for termination. We can only hope that RTDH is spared and sent for re-education instead.

Aye Matey!

Kernel wrote: »

Diogenes and King Mob sent in their reports detailing how the counter intelligence of calling him a crazy loon and acting all skeptical hasn't dissuaded his truth seeking.

espinolman

It is explained very well here what fluoridated water is about
"It weakens your will, takes away the capacity for free and creative thought, and makes you a slave to the state" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwKMxwKQjR4

Aye Matey!

espinolman wrote: »

It is explained very well here what fluoridated water is about
"It weakens your will, takes away the capacity for free and creative thought, and makes you a slave to the state" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwKMxwKQjR4

A fair amount of speculation and conflict exists surrounding the discussions pertaining to fluoridation which seem to be bereft of any concurrence between CT enthusiasts and skeptics. The foremost trepidation seems to be a lack of credible information sources and generally unsubstantiated and sensationalized claims. I’ve presented what one Dr. Osmunson hopes to be a series of dispassionate scientific facts that require no leap of faith or reason. The resultant assumptions and contextual interpretation I leave to you guys…

Source:
Dr. Bill Osmunson DDS MPH is a General and Cosmetic Dentist who boasts tenure of over thirty years and a previous completion of a Masters in Public Health, in Nutrition and Health Education. The legitimacy of his practice can be researched here straight from the horse’s mouth: http://www.smilesofbellevue.com/

Stance:
Through the first twenty-five years of Dr. Osmunson’s practice he ‘aggressively promoted’ water fluoridation and academically trusted its benefits based on essentials and statistical particulars available to him. It was only upon his own upon callous researching of the relevant government agencies, reports and studies that he began to view water fluoridation ‘as a problem’.

Facts Presented:
(Please note that Dr. Osmunson’s practice resides in the United States and all submitted statistical data is proprietary to the water fluoridation system of the United States unless otherwise indicated. Particulars concerning chemical compositions and amounts, product labeling and packaging, implementation dates and cross analysis public health dates are subjective only to but possibly not limited to the United States)

FACT 1: It is customary for a tube of toothpaste to disclose ‘drug facts’ on its back. Furthermore if accidently orally ingested the label advises to contact the Poison Control Centre. The minimal amount of ingested paste required to warrant the aforementioned label is what’s referred to as a ‘pea sized’ amount for children under an age that ranges from six seven years.

FACT 2: A ‘pea sized’ amount of paste contains approximately 0.25 mg of Fluoride. The same amount of Fluoride can be found in 8 ounces of water which incidentally is enough liquid to fill a small glass.

FACT 3: The American Dental Association and Centre for Disease Control makes the following statement regarding infants and the constituent composites of prepared baby formula : “If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or levels of fluoride”. The parts per billion fluoride concentration of fluoridated water (1000 PPB) is two hundred and fifty times more concentrated times that of breast milk (4).

FACT 4: Dental Fluorosis (the formation of white and brown spots on teeth) is caused by frequent ingestion of Fluoride during the development years (birth to eight years). The body’s absorption of fluoride is not limited to a biochemical mechanism alone in which the effects of excessively ingested fluoride are localized to the teeth or mouth area in general. An infant, for example, will begin to absorb fluoride through its skin if left too long in a bath of fluoridated water.

FACT 5: A cross examination of data provided by the World Health Organization spanning from 1971 to 2000 reveals that countries average amount of tooth decay has decreased by same amount in countries with or without fluoridated water.

Conclusion 1: Following simple logic the public health warning of FACT 1 based on the quantitative equation of FACT 2 implies that a child under minimum age of six and maximum age of seven should contact the Poison Control centre upon orally ingesting a glass of water.

Conclusion 2: The contravention of the official recommendation of FACT 3 which is commonplace implies the dangerous physical harming of infants.

Conclusion 3: FACT 4 implies that the dental fluorosis is but a physically obvious effect and does not negate the fact that other facets of the human system such as the skeletal system and various organic sub-systems are affected.

Conclusion4: FACT 5 implies there are little next to no significant benefits of fluoridated water in terms of dental hygiene and health.

mysterious

Many countries in Europe don't use Flouridizatoin, it doesnt seem to show higher rates of tooth decay of gum disease. Infact Most Europeans have better teeth than us. We are only to begin to catch up in looking after our teeth.

I also believe that mercury and Flouride is put into our food and water to dumb us down. Mercury is get them when they are born, and flouride is get them while they are moving around. Flouride is also claimed to lower your IQ by 20%

That I can see already especially showing how ignorant we Westerners have become to so many simple facts of life. We are so ignorant it's not even funny. Also many new diesases are forming. Autism is meant to be linked with Mercury since all newborns are getting Mercury once born. Autism is a fast rising phenominon.

I boil my water, to get the chlorine out. I'm buying a filter to get rid of the flouride.

• Also try ask for non mercury fillings if possible
• Boil water
• Use a britta filter
• Don't buy advertised food on T.V most of it is poison or junk.
• Try not to eat any food with the roya family label
• Eat balanced diet (eat less red meat)
• try not to eat processed food as much as possible
• Drink herbal teas rather than caffiene tea.

These are some things that I do. I've noticed vast improvement;)
Infact My last IQ test was raised by 10. So don't know if that means any significance. My energy levels are higher and I am more aware of my third eye. My intution is as good as it was when i was 7 years old.

Government's hate me:D

mysterious

espinolman wrote: »

It is explained very well here what fluoridated water is about
"It weakens your will, takes away the capacity for free and creative thought, and makes you a slave to the state" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwKMxwKQjR4

It's a real startling fact.
Most people don't realise
How much minerals, oils, smells, tastes of certain foods, additives, so on so forth has an enormous effect on our spirtual/mental/physical health

It doesnt take any rocket scientist to work that out.
I.e if you eat toxins, it will effect you negatively
I.ie If you eat nutrients it will effect you positively.

It is a real concern in today's world with this method of control. In my eyes, the people have become even powerless and less willed as we used too.


Do you think we as people would overthrow a governemtn today like did in the past, Most defenately not.

The only way to succeed and pass this ****, is to be aware and change. Your a step ahead of them. Governments are fools anyway. They are arrogant and think they can find further ways to control the people. But as history happens over and over, they will fail. Though the majority will be trapped into this slavery.

It isn't conspiracy anymore.

time lord

I work for a local authoriy in this area. The fluride we add is a by product of some industrial process from Holland or the Netherlands.(nice and cheap) The ammount added is self regulated by a pump. It has been known to pump in a serious ammount into the system by mistake.. this is ireland afterall. The fluride you ingest never leaves your body. It accumalates more and more. A large section of the county I work in dont get the fluride unbeknown to them and no dentists or people have complained yet. This is a years old situation. A report I think called the "baker" report was available from the Green party on this issue. In my opinion is it harmful? Over 3score and ten years probably not. Would I take it out if I could? yes. Will I give fluride toothpaste to my kids before they can brush properly? not on your life.

Aye Matey!

time lord wrote: »

I work for a local authoriy in this area. The fluride we add is a by product of some industrial process from Holland or the Netherlands.(nice and cheap) The ammount added is self regulated by a pump. It has been known to pump in a serious ammount into the system by mistake.. this is ireland afterall. The fluride you ingest never leaves your body. It accumalates more and more. A large section of the county I work in dont get the fluride unbeknown to them and no dentists or people have complained yet. This is a years old situation. A report I think called the "baker" report was available from the Green party on this issue. In my opinion is it harmful? Over 3score and ten years probably not. Would I take it out if I could? yes. Will I give fluride toothpaste to my kids before they can brush properly? not on your life.

But will you let them drink unfiltered water?

Are there any major activist / semi-political groups in Ireland manouvering against this (besides the GP)?

tony 2 tone

mysterious wrote: »

Many countries in Europe don't use Flouridizatoin, it doesnt seem to show higher rates of tooth decay of gum disease. Infact Most Europeans have better teeth than us. We are only to begin to catch up in looking after our teeth.

I also believe that mercury and Flouride is put into our food and water to dumb us down. Mercury is get them when they are born, and flouride is get them while they are moving around. Flouride is also claimed to lower your IQ by 20%

That I can see already especially showing how ignorant we Westerners have become to so many simple facts of life. We are so ignorant it's not even funny. Also many new diesases are forming. Autism is meant to be linked with Mercury since all newborns are getting Mercury once born. Autism is a fast rising phenominon.

I boil my water, to get the chlorine out. I'm buying a filter to get rid of the flouride.

• Also try ask for non mercury fillings if possible
• Boil water
• Use a britta filter
• Don't buy advertised food on T.V most of it is poison or junk.
• Try not to eat any food with the roya family label
• Eat balanced diet (eat less red meat)
• try not to eat processed food as much as possible
• Drink herbal teas rather than caffiene tea.

These are some things that I do. I've noticed vast improvement;)
Infact My last IQ test was raised by 10. So don't know if that means any significance. My energy levels are higher and I am more aware of my third eye. My intution is as good as it was when i was 7 years old.

Government's hate me:D

Just a couple of things, it's FLUORIDE and IN FACT. Only the fact you claim your IQ has risen, it wouldn't bother me as much.

espinolman

time lord wrote: »

The fluride we add is a by product of some industrial process from Holland or the Netherlands.(nice and cheap)

It is industrial waste.

time lord wrote: »

The ammount added is self regulated by a pump. It has been known to pump in a serious ammount into the system by mistake.. this is ireland afterall.

I was reading in the Local Planet that it contains many toxic contaminants such as lead , arsenic , chromium and uranium and all of these are carcinogenic or neuro-toxic. Here:
http://localplanet.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=213&Itemid=58

bonkey

tony 2 tone wrote:

ust a couple of things, it's FLUORIDE and IN FACT.

This isn't the Spell Czechs forum.

Mahatma coat

espinolman wrote: »

It is industrial waste.

Is It Industrial waste tho? there are a lot of products that are Industrial Byproducts, or manufactured from what would have initially been seen as a waste element of a parent process, take MDF or Plywood, they are not Industrial waste, but they are made from sawdust and veneer respectivley which in and of itself is a waste product of the milling process.

I was reading in the Local Planet that it contains many toxic contaminants such as lead , arsenic , chromium and uranium and all of these are carcinogenic or neuro-toxic.

Linkey???







That said I'm not a fan of Fluoride meself, then I wouldnt be a fan of chlorine in the water either tho

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

I boil my water, to get the chlorine out.

Good for you. You do know that it doesn't actually work, right?

Infact My last IQ test was raised by 10.

Which would be more-or-less within the margin of error that an IQ test would be expected to produce in someone of your age (which is within a year of 23, unless you told fibs on the 911 thread about your age in 2001)...but hey...

My energy levels are higher

An awful lot of the points you've made in that list are related to basic, dietary recommendations. Balanced diet, less processed food, less/no caffeine...

Hey...if it takes belief in a conspiracy theory for someone to eat healthier...I say "keep believing".

I would, of course, ask why you're buying into the health recommendations from government-paid scientists though

Government's hate me:D

Why?

You're doing mostly what their nutritionists tell you to do. That you're doing it because someone else told you to doesn't matter one whit to them. And, to boot, by buying filters and boiling your water, you're incurring additional costs, supporting Big Business!

If anything, you're the perfect citizen for the world you believe exists...someone who thinks they're bucking the system, while inadvertantly supporting any number of agendas.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Is It Industrial waste tho?

Yes and no.

It is manufactured from what would otherwise be industrial waste....as you suggested yourself.

His site seems to be down, but Ben Goldacre had some stuff on fluoridation on his Bad Science blog a while ago. As is often the case for him, he ends up more-or-less walking a middle ground, arguing that neither side of the debate really have good research to back them up.

mysterious

bonkey wrote: »

Good for you. You do know that it doesn't actually work, right?

Well I was told it helps, do u know how to remove chlorine?

Which would be more-or-less within the margin of error that an IQ test would be expected to produce in someone of your age (which is within a year of 23, unless you told fibs on the 911 thread about your age in 2001)...but hey...

Also mu intution and precognotion abilties are also coming back.

I could go into quantim physics too buts that another topic:D

An awful lot of the points you've made in that list are related to basic, dietary recommendations. Balanced diet, less processed food, less/no caffeine...

I know, its helps restore the inner balance, spritual awareneness and mental/physical health.

Hey...if it takes belief in a conspiracy theory for someone to eat healthier...I say "keep believing".

I never said it was conspiracy

You did.

I would, of course, ask why you're buying into the health recommendations from government-paid scientists though

You see you haven't a slightest Idea who I am, what I do, and what I'm capable of doing, knowing or creating;)

I don't buy into anyone else's agenda.;)

Why?

Why what?

You're doing mostly what their nutritionists tell you to do. That you're doing it because someone else told you to doesn't matter one whit to them. And, to boot, by buying filters and boiling your water, you're incurring additional costs, supporting Big Business!

No one tells me what to or how to do anything.

If anything, you're the perfect citizen for the world you believe exists...someone who thinks they're bucking the system, while inadvertantly supporting any number of agendas.

Believe in what, what you percieve it to be, in *your* way again.

So what do you believe. That flouride is safe

Do you know flouride is poison? And it accumalates up in your body. You should do some research on mercury it's disturbing. It's not about believing. These are toxins, and very lethal. Mercury affects the brain. Why do dentist give you mercury fillings, and why is there murcury in MMR jabs. Have you any research into this??

We are becoming dumb robots. I would prefer to be a human being who is aware, able to use both logic and intution. who can dicern my thoughts from my feelings, understand my head from my heart and understand what my body is telling, what my body is feeling.

This is called knowing.

Now days we have so much toxins added to our water, food, tablets and so on, affecting us, and it's not in our control or choice. It's making people ignorant.

That is conspiracy.

mysterious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV_gjuKiY4

I've known the government have been trying to kill us for along time:D

But this is a nail in the coffin for me.
For the next two weeks, I'm researching, typing, printing and calling the health board.

Once I have my paper work done. I'm calling my local T.Ds and local politicians in my hometown send them copy of this each, and demand some explaining to do about our drinking water

They will hear me a mile away:D

I'm goong to set a difference on a local scale hopefully other's will too.

djpbarry

mysterious wrote: »

Well I was told it helps, do u know how to remove chlorine?
...
No one tells me what to or how to do anything.

:rolleyes:

mysterious wrote: »

Mercury affects the brain. Why do dentist give you mercury fillings, and why is there murcury in MMR jabs.

I believe you are referring to thimerosal? This is no longer used in vaccines - it was phased out about 10 years ago.

Besides, it's completely harmless at low concentrations. I routinely work with this substance, at much higher concentrations than what would have been used in vaccines. It hasn't done me any harm. I can still ..eh... make good with words and ...em... make computer ...em.... go?

bonkey

djpbarry wrote: »

Besides, it's completely harmless at low concentrations.

Pfah. That's just what those scientists who say a nutritious, balanced diet is good for you would have you believe.

mysterious

djpbarry wrote: »

:rolleyes:
IBesides, it's completely harmless at low concentrations. I routinely work with this substance, at much higher concentrations than what would have been used in vaccines. It hasn't done me any harm. I can still ..eh... make good with words and ...em... make computer ...em.... go?

Then why add mercury.

Whats the point. Mercury is very potent. Even in small doses.

djpbarry

mysterious wrote: »

Then why add mercury.

Why add mercury to thimerosal? Because without mercury, you'd have a completely different compound with different physical and chemical properties.

Or are you asking why thimerosal was added to vaccines? Because it's a potent bacteriostatic - it prevented potential contaminants from growing in the vaccine, which could have made the recipient rather ill. Which would you rather in your bloodstream; a small, harmless does of thimerosal, or a hefty dose of salmonella, staphylococcus, E. coli, etc.?

Aye Matey!

bonkey wrote: »

You brought it up...repeatedly....in this thread and others.
You made allegations that people like me weren't using it enough.
You made comments to the effect that it was more important than evidence.

[directed @ mysterious]

You emhasise directive conversational emphasis by way of italics.

mysterious

Well I brought Non flouride toothpaste today.:)

I'm getting flouride filtration system too.
Not putting rat poison in my water, when there is no logic to putting a poison in my body.

Nazis used Chlorine and Flouride weaponary against the Austrians in WW2 :rolleyes:. The US government became the most powerful nation on the planet after Nazis germany had fallen. The CIA was created, as a spy secret network to spy on the Russians and what not. They backed many nazis into their network. And this is how they gained all these poisoning agents that are used today. This is only a fraction of what i'm only going to say on this thread about the CIA. The Nazis used some crazy stuff back in the day.

Of course you can believe what you want. You should all look into the history of the CIA, it will open your eyes.

Flouride is a waste factory product that does not need to be put into our water supply. It occurs in our water naturally and some foods. We don't need to have more poison into our water aswell.

mysterious

djpbarry wrote: »

Why add mercury to thimerosal? Because without mercury, you'd have a completely different compound with different physical and chemical properties.

Or are you asking why thimerosal was added to vaccines? Because it's a potent bacteriostatic - it prevented potential contaminants from growing in the vaccine, which could have made the recipient rather ill. Which would you rather in your bloodstream; a small, harmless does of thimerosal, or a hefty dose of salmonella, staphylococcus, E. coli, etc.?

But mercury and thimserosal is added to it for what.

Are they really putting it in for the benifet of our health in some doses. Give me a break.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

Not putting rat poison in my water, when there is no logic to putting a poison in my body.

There's water in rat poison as well.
A sufficient concentration of H2O in your system will kill you.

Better stay away from that water stuff too. There's no logic to putting a poison in your body.

Since Paracelcus in the 16th century, it has been widely understood in toxicology that "the dose makes the poison".

You, clearly, are of a different opinion. 500 years of toxicology, or some anonymous guy on the internet...who to believe?

bonkey

bonkey wrote: »

His site seems to be down, but Ben Goldacre had some stuff on fluoridation on his Bad Science blog a while ago. As is often the case for him, he ends up more-or-less walking a middle ground, arguing that neither side of the debate really have good research to back them up.

Here's teh link to that article I mentioned previously:

http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/foreign-substances-in-your-precious-bodily-fluids/

Aye Matey!

bonkey wrote: »

Since Paracelcus in the 16th century, it has been widely understood in toxicology that "the dose makes the poison".

An accurate statement but a comparison of H2O and NaF toxicity in terms of the liklihood of intoxication is a crticially weak argument. I'm used to seeing a researched methodology in your rebuttal posts but at this moment in time you're forsaking available scientific evidence again in the name of popular scientific consensus.

Some food for thought:

Fluoride compounds which are put in water (fluoridation), toothpaste and supplement tablets (including some vitamins) were never tested for safety before approval. Recent independent research by scientists not associated with dental trade organizations has shown the following:

1. Neurotoxic and Lowers IQ
   In 1995, neurotoxicologist and former Director of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix published research showing that fluoride built up in the brains of animals when exposed to moderate levels. Damage to the brain occured and the behavior patterns of the animals was adversely effected. Offspring of pregnant animals receiving relatively low doses of fluoride showed permanent effects to the brain which were seen as hyperactivity (ADD-like symptoms). Young animals and adult animals given fluoride experienced the opposite effect -- hypoactivity or sluggishness. The toxic effects of fluoride on the central nervous system was subsequently confirmed by previously-classified government research. Two new epidemiological studies which tend to confirm fluoride's neurotoxic effects on the brain have shown that children exposed to higher levels of fluoride had lower IQs.
2. A study published in Brain Research shows that rats drinking only 1 part per million fluoride (NaF) in water had histologic lesions in their brain similar to Alzheimer's disease and dementia. In addition, evidence was seen pointing to possible damage to the blood brain barrier from extended fluoride exposure. This study was the third in a series of papers published by Varner et al. Brain Research Vol. 784 No. 12 p 284-298 (1998). Results of this recent study and other studies showing significant dangers from low-level fluoride exposure were presented at a recent scientific symposium.
3. Causes Cancer
   The Department of Health in New Jersey found that bone cancer in male children was between two and seven times greater in areas where water was fluoridated. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) researchers confirmed the bone cancer-causing effects of fluoride at low levels in an animal model. A new study has shown that fluoridation of water is linked to uterine cancer deaths.
4. Changes Bone Structure and Strength
   Fluoride gradually builds up in the bones and causes adverse changes to the bone structure. Quite a few studies have shown that fluoridation leads to increases in hip fractures. The tensile strength of the hip is destroyed over time by fluoride ingestion.
5. Causes Birth Defects and Perinatal Deaths
   A toxicologist in the United Kingdom recently found that perinatal deaths in a fluoridated area was 15% higher than in neighboring non-fluoridated areas. The fluoridated area had a higher socio-economic status and would have been expected to have less perinatal deaths. The fluoridated area also had a 30% higher rate of Down's Syndrome. Chile banned fluoridation because of research by the world-reknowned researcher, Dr Albert Schatz, which showed a link to infant deaths due to fluoridation.
6. Proven Ineffective
   Fluoride compounds in water and in supplements do not provide any significant cavity-protecting effects. All of the recent large-scale studies of water fluoridation have shown that there are no positive effects. That is why countries without fluoridation have shown an equal improvement in dental health as those with fluoridation. (See Research Item #5.) There is scientific evidence that excessive fluoride exposure leads to increased levels of caries. Even pro-fluoridation scientists admit that there is not any properly-conducted research showing that fluoride supplements help prevent cavities. (Note: check vitamins carefully to be sure they do not include fluoride.)
7. Impairs Immune System
   Independent research has shown that fluoride impairs the functioning of the immune system. In the United States, where toxic fluoride compounds are regularly added to water and given to children since the 1960s and 1970s, we are beginning to see an overwhelming number of people of that generation who are developing chronic immune system disorders.
8. Causes Acute Adverse Reactions
   Several double-blind studies have shown that fluoridated water can often cause acute adverse reactions (in addition to the chronic poisoning effects discussed below). Some of the effects seen in double-blind studies include: gastrointestinal symptoms, stomatitis, joint pains, polydipsia, headaches, visual disturbances, muscular weakness, and extreme tiredness. An enlightening review of a book by one famous and well-respected researcher from The Netherlands who found adverse reactions in double-blind experiments can be read here.
9. Causes Initial Stages of Skeletal Fluorosis
   Fluoride can cause severe skeletal fluorosis at high levels. Chronic, long-term exposure to levels of fluoride commonly found in water and food in the U.S. can cause the beginning stages of skeletal fluorosis including: pains in bones and joints, sensations of burning, pricking, and tingling in the limbs, muscle weakness, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal disorders, reduced appetite, backache, osteoarthritis, etc. In fact, decades of ingestion of fluoride from water and other common sources can be expected to cause these symptoms in large numbers of people based on calculations of fluoride intake and excretion. (Keep in mind that fluoride is a cumulative poison since it builds up in the body of years.) Very few healthcare practitioners are capable of diagnosing such a condition because healthcare practitioners are not trained to test for or recognize the effects chronic poisoning from fluoride.
10. Increases Lead and Arsenic Exposure
    Fluoride compounds put into water are often contaminated with lead, arsenic and radio nuclides since the fluoride compounds are toxic waste byproducts which largely come from pollution scrubbers of fertilizer plants. A study published in 2000 showed that the dumping of toxic silicofluoride compounds into water ("fluoridation") causes an increase in blood lead levels in children.
11. Fluoride Causes Osteoarthritis
    In a study published in Rhuematology International in 2001, researchers found a link between fluoride exposure and the development of osteoarthritis. The level of exposure that caused osteoarthritis is common in the United States.
12. Contributes to the Development of Repetitive Stress Injury
    A clinical study in New Zealand showed that fluoride ingestion may be a contributing factor in the development of Repetative Stress Injury (RSI) since such ingestion may encourage the development of apatite crystal formation. Elimination of fluoride plus regular supplementation of magnesium appeared to help RSI patients considerably.
13. Causes Permanent Disfigurement of the Teeth in Many Children
    A very large and increasing number of children are experiencing dental fluorosis which is a permanent adverse structural change to the teeth.
14. Inhibits Key Enzymes
    As fluoride builds up in different parts of the body over decades it can disrupt the actions of many key enzymes. This fact has been known for a long time.
15. Supresses Thyroid Function
    Fluoride was given at low levels during the early to mid 20th century as an effective way of supressing thyroid function and treating hyperthyroidism. Articles and research can be found on the Thyroid web page.
16. Causes Large Numbers of Acute Poisonings
    Fluoride is an extremely poisonous substances at exceptionally low doses and has caused a large number of acute poisonings. This is why a poison warning is now required on fluoridated toothpastes sold in the U.S.
17. Independent Experts Oppose Dumping Fluoride Into Water
    Over 1500 professionals at the US EPA, including toxicologists and risk assessment experts voted unanimously to oppose the fluoridation initiative in California because of the health risks involved. See summary or official EPA union statement. Even the Candian Dental Association Consultant and Researcher urged people to avoid drinking fluoridated water.
18. Unethical
    Fluoridation amounts to forced medication of the water supply. Such practices demonstrate a complete lack of ethics on the part of its promoters. Studies as early the 1930s showed extreme hazards to man and the environment due to fluoride dumping and exposure. Companies and organizations involved used the promotion of "fluoridation" as a way to avoid lawsuits due to dumping toxic wastes and later for economic gain. Please read the short history of fluoridation for more detailed information.
19. Banned in Many Countries
    Fluoridation is not legal or not used in the overwhelming number of countries including industrialized countries. Please see Fluoride Status of Countries web page.

bonkey

Aye Matey! wrote: »

An accurate statement but a comparison of H2O and NaF toxicity in terms of the liklihood of intoxication is a crticially weak argument.

Its intended to be. The argument presented was critically weak. I structured the response to highlight that.

The only reason offered in the post I was responding to was that its in rat poison, its a poison, and therefore logic tells us its bad. I wished to highlight how poor an argument that is.

I side with goldacre. There is little - if any - good science on the subject. I neither side with those making the allegations that it is good and safe for you, nor with those who argue that its dangerous and hazardous. I side with those who say there isn't enough solid research to draw firm conclusions either which way...but those people tend not to appear on the conspiracy theories forum.

The notion that there is a conspiracy to push some harmful, mind-numbing substance on the populace is - at best - based on the same lack of solid, well-researched evidence as those conspiracy-promoters correctly insist is lacking in terms of supporting the idea of fluoride as some sort of miracle-cure for teeth.

at this moment in time you're forsaking available scientific evidence again in the name of popular scientific consensus.

No, I'm not. I'm rejecting extreme stances such as "its in rat poison, ergo its bad".

I'm used to people mistaking the rejection of one stance as support of another. Its unusual to see it from someone criticising the abandonment of a scientific stance, though, for I would expect such a person to be aware that unless its a binary system with only two possibilities, that the rejection of one cannot scientifically be equated with support of another.

ETA: The links you provide as "food for thought" are exactly the type of poor science that I'm talking about. Taking just the first of these, the lowest non-zero concentration of fluorides used in teh research was 75ppm. This is, as you are no doubt aware, 75 times higher than the suggested 1ppm recommendation for water fluoridation.

Going back to my "critically weak" argument about the dose makes the poison, do you think its accurate and reasonable to portray concentrations 75 times higher as being somehow relevant? Do you think its accurate and reasonable to refer to it as "moderate" concentrations? If someone drank 75 shots of whiskey in an evening, would you refer to it as "moderate alcohol consumption"? Would you believe that the findings for such consumption could be reasonably applied to someone who drank one shot of whiskey?

The poison is in the dose. You dismissed it as a critically weak argument, but the very first link in your food for though blatantly ignores this basic tenet. If I go through the rest of the links, how many do you feel will stand up to analysis as being "good science"?

Aye Matey!

bonkey wrote: »

The notion that there is a conspiracy to push some harmful, mind-numbing substance on the populace is - at best - based on the same lack of solid, well-researched evidence as those conspiracy-promoters correctly insist is lacking in terms of supporting the idea of fluoride as some sort of miracle-cure for teeth.

This much is true. The fallacy of a supposition does not negate the fallacy of its antagonism. It should however beseech any intellect to interrogate as to why a process perseveres long since past its implementation which in terms of scientific verity is void of merit or subsidy. Reciprocally the antagonism does not negate its corrosponding supposition ergo any accrual of 'bad science' which supports an anti-fluoridation viewpoint does not provide any disparity for the fact that the fluoridation process finds its abode amid redundancy and incompetency. Though its mutually accepted between both you and I that corroborations either way are 'flakey' at best it still does not excuse your advocation of a superfluous and outmoded treatment of our water systems.

It is really as simple as this my freind:

The negative implications of water fluoridation cannot be empirically proven therefore we are without a sufficient 'raison d'être' to abmonish or reluinquish it. The very lack of scientific verity does not and should not imply a subsequent ACTION.

The positive implications of water fluoridation cannot be empirically proven therefore we are with a sufficient 'raison d'être' to abmonish or reluinquish it. The very lack of scientific verity does not and should imply should not imply INACTION.

Penultimately the science supporting the anti-fluoridation viewpoint does not herald its ending and finally the science supporting the pro-fluoridation viewpoint does not herald its continuity.

So long as you indulge in elations of non-commital apathy to either viewpoint ('pro' or 'anti') then you are consequentially albeit indirectly advocating the prolongation of an obsolete process.

(Please don't mistcontrue anything I've said here as vehichle for deliberated offense. The foremost shortcoming of textual interaction is the ommision of tone. Were mine not ommited you would hear the calm, warm reception of it inflections .)

bonkey wrote: »

how many do you feel will stand up to analysis as being "good science"?

Granted the parts per million is a slight significant oversight. Hopefully the preceding paragraphs will have capably addressed this mode of discrepancy. I do however welcome that further scrutiny be directed at the said array of negative 'scientific' findings. What I learn as a result of each members accurate rebuttal can only refine my psyche and scope further.

djpbarry

mysterious wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

Or are you asking why thimerosal was added to vaccines? Because it's a potent bacteriostatic - it prevented potential contaminants from growing in the vaccine, which could have made the recipient rather ill. Which would you rather in your bloodstream; a small, harmless does of thimerosal, or a hefty dose of salmonella, staphylococcus, E. coli, etc.?

But mercury and thimserosal is added to it for what.

Did you read my post?

bonkey

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Penultimately the science supporting the anti-fluoridation viewpoint does not herald its ending and finally the science supporting the pro-fluoridation viewpoint does not herald its continuity.

This tends to be conform with observation as well. By-and-large, fluoridation programs (beit water-based, or salt-based) continue where established, and don't get initiated where not already present.

Which leads to the question that's highly relevant to this forum....

Where is the conspiracy?

Granted the parts per million is a slight significant oversight. Hopefully the preceding paragraphs will have capably addressed this mode of discrepancy. I do however welcome that further scrutiny be directed at the said array of negative 'scientific' findings. What I learn as a result of each members accurate rebuttal can only refine my psyche and scope further.

To be honest, this sounds a bit like you're admitting that you're not in a position to evaluate the evidence you yourself presented. If you're not, then one has to question the basis on which you presented it, given that it has a very clear bias towards the "anti-fluoridation" perspective.

If, on the other hand, you are in a position to evaluate the evidence, then I think it is more than reasonable to ask you to offer your opinion on the quality of the material you've offered before expecting anyone else to offer a detailed critique of it.

So how about it? Do you believe the material you offered as "food for thought" is representative of the perspective it is trying to support? Do you believe it does a good job of representing that perspective? Do you believe you have meaningfully evaluated it to the best of your abilities, and if so what conclusions did you draw?