drinking water (Sodium fluoride)

mysterious

bonkey wrote: »

Where is the conspiracy?

The reason you said that, makes it even more disturbing.

If I don't like cheese I don't have to eat it.
If I odn't like flouride I don't have to have it.

There is plenty of evidence to say the flouridation, is not significant to benifet are teeth by any great scale. Plus it can actually create the opposite. The evidence is there, it seems your deliberately ignoring this fact.

Hitler used flouride and such chemicals in WW2.



The conspiracy is, we are given a not needed chemical into our water. Flouride is not necessary. It doesnt clean or improve the water at all. Despite chlorine also been a toxic, at least it actually cleans the water. This is a purpose. Flouride is not significant to our needs. The conspiracy is why put it in our water without a vote, or choice???????? When the evidence suggest that is does not really benifet our health. As it may help oral health, but figures don't show any major signifance. Flouride is not used in many EU countries. You don't see people with major differences do you? Or would you be so quick to try spot this argument, as you do seem biased to this flouride argument.


Do you agree with flouridation?

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

The reason you said that, makes it even more disturbing.

You seem to have ignored the reason I gave.

There is plenty of evidence to say the flouridation, is not significant to benifet are teeth by any great scale.

I've not only accepted this, I've been even more stringent in my analysis of what evidence there is.

Plus it can actually create the opposite. The evidence is there, it seems your deliberately ignoring this fact.
Hitler used flouride and such chemicals in WW2.

I'm ignoring nothing of the sort.

Aye Matey provided a list of "food for thought" and I showed that the very first of these was badly flawed in terms of applicability - an argument which Aye Matey subsequently accepted as valid. I made the point that I would like to see his own evaluation of the topics he provided before I go any further. So I'm not ignoring them...I waiting to see the response of the person who put them forward is.

If you'd like to take his place, and offer your assessment of them instead, I'm more than happy to accept that instead.

Let me be clear....if you are going to assert that the evidence is there, then I want you to actually clarify which evidence you're talking about, so we can meaningfully look at it. If you can't - or won't - then your're basically saying that evidence exists that you're not willing to let people evaluate for themselves.

In terms of the comments you've offered here...

The concentrations of fluoride used in WW2 were not to the order of 1ppm, nor anywhere near it. So what is the relevance? I've already pointed out that the poison is in the dose - a point Aye Matey! accepted, but which you seem to feel merit's neither response nor consideration.
Including other "such chemicals" is equally irrelevant. We're not discussing other "such chemicals". We're discussing fluoride.

The conspiracy is, we are given a not needed chemical into our water.

A chemical that occurs naturally in water. A chemical who's concentration in water is lowered where necessary in countries with fluoridation programmes, as well as raised, so that a baseline can be met.

That's an interesting point, actually. given that you're so opposed to fluoride, and keep drawing these references to its use by Hitler...are you of the opinion that all governments should treat water to remove all traces of naturally-occurring fluoride?

Flouride is not necessary.

No-one ever claimed it was. It was introduced on the belief that it was beneficial, not that it was necessary. Its concentrations were lowered in some places, on the basis that too high a concentration was dangerous - an assessment that you certainly seem to agree with.

The conspiracy is why put it in our water without a vote, or choice????????

What part of the Constitution of whatever country you live in requires a vote for such an action. If there isn't a requirement for a vote, you have your answer right there. There was no vote because no vote was required. You elect officials to do a job - you don't get to cry for a referendum because you don't like the job they're doing.

Flouride is not used in many EU countries. You don't see people with major differences do you? Or would you be so quick to try spot this argument, as you do seem biased to this flouride argument.

You seem to have missed the post of mine where I clarified my stance. I'm not in favour of "this fluoride argument" at all. I'm opposed to allegations that its dangerous and/or that there's a conspiracy behind its use. The only recommendations I would make to a nation without a fluoridation program is to ensure that naturally-occurring concentrations are below 1ppm, and to carry out further research. To nations with fluoridation programs, I would say that they should also carry out fuirther research.