Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

JJayoo

hooradiation wrote: »

Already done.
I see this kind of dishonesty is contagious.

Do you mean this

#1 - Appeal to the majority. The argument of cretins
#2 - Ignore other methods of fluoridation, Ignores naturally present fluoride in water
#3 - Fails to define the effects, fails to mention dosage, fails to give nay meaningful data
#4 - Appeal to nature, also a lie.
#5 - Vague numbers, dishonestly conflates mild fluorosis with severe flourisis.
#6 - The flouride levels that are cited for IQ loss are five times the level here in Ireland, has no relevance.
#7 - the FDA have no authority here. Also Flouride supplements are at a much higher concentration than in our drinking water, dishonest conflation of two separate things.
#8 - And. Therefore. so? Though this does earn the dubious distinction of being the only true thing so far, round of applause.
#9 - blatantly untrue.
#10 - American centric, and if it wasn't it's nothing to do with fluoridation anyway, as it proposes that removing fluoridation to alleviate outlying effects for people with poor health as opposed to tacking their poor health.


Thank you for wasting my time with this stupid bull****, it was a pleasure. No. really.

This is your proof ....? Talking out your arse, So when asked for proof of your statement you just give your initial statement again with zero proof to back anything up? and you expect people to listen to you? when in reality all you do is make throw-away comments backed up by insults. Your comments are pretty much the incoherent dribble I would expect to see under a youtube video.

Capt'n Midnight

If it doesn't work and it's expensive then why has it survived all the budget cuts in all the recessions since the 1960's ?

JJayoo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If it doesn't work and it's expensive then why has it survived all the budget cuts in all the recessions since the 1960's ?

Well I think this will be a valid/interesting question over the next few years as the Irish government implements more and more cuts and starts to bring in water charges. I think in general people,including myself, thought that ingesting Fluoride was good for your teeth and that it was important to have some in the bloodstream, but I think more and more people are beginning to realise that it's positive effects are when used tropically like toothpaste or mouthwash. 4 million per year could do a lot if properly funneled back into the health system.

I don't think it will ever be eliminated from the current American water supply, just too much money involved. According to wiki it costs 313 million per year to add Fluoride to the american supply and then you have to consider that if it was to stop the fertiliser industry would have to find another way to dispose of it.

hooradiation

JJayoo wrote: »

Do you mean this

Of course I mean that. Every one of those "facts" has a problem with it.
They're either flat out fallacies, using weasel words or at best irrelevant.

Let's take them one at a time, then. For your benefit, given your fixation with having people supply you with endless information you can simply ignore.

"fact" #1 - Most developed countries do not use fluoride in their water.

Argumentum ad populum - Also known as an appeal to the majority.
We've covered this before, as you'll recall.
Any problems here?

When you're done wasting time trying to argue around this point, I'll proceed to the second "fact" and so on.

JJayoo wrote: »

This is your proof ....? Talking out your arse, So when asked for proof of your statement you just give your initial statement again with zero proof to back anything up? and you expect people to listen to you? when in reality all you do is make throw-away comments backed up by insults. Your comments are pretty much the incoherent dribble I would expect to see under a youtube video.

Don't blame others for your inability to engage.

JJayoo

hooradiation wrote: »

Of course I mean that. Every one of those "facts" has a problem with it.
They're either flat out fallacies, using weasel words or at best irrelevant.

Let's take them one at a time, then. For your benefit, given your fixation with having people supply you with endless information you can simply ignore.

"fact" #1 - Most developed countries do not use fluoride in their water.

Argumentum ad populum - Also known as an appeal to the majority.
We've covered this before, as you'll recall.
Any problems here?

When you're done wasting time trying to argue around this point, I'll proceed to the second "fact" and so on.




Don't blame others for your inability to engage.

Has to be a joke at this stage. The Pro Fluoride side has not provided a single study showing that the ingestion of Fluoride through drinking water is beneficial to teeth, not one. The anti-Fluoride side has posted many studies that shows Fluoride is only beneficial when added tropically.

And your proof of all the errors in the video is woeful, actually it's non existent you have not provided one piece of proof that all the things in the video are false, you claim they are but you provide zero proof. So once again can you provide us with the studies that everything in the video is false like you state. Not your opinion actually studies that will contribute to this thread.

And this

Don't blame others for your inability to engage

I presume you are talking about yourself with this one.

Capt'n Midnight

JJayoo wrote: »

If it was to stop the fertiliser industry would have to find another way to dispose of it.

Let's kill this myth forever.

When lime reacts with fluorosilicic acid, calcium fluoride and sand are formed. These materials can be sent to most landfills as non-hazardous materials.

It can be neutrialised with calcium carbonate. €20/tonne is an OK end user price if they deliver it and spread it around your fields. The fertilizer industry would get limestone / chalk etc. for a fraction of that price.

JJayoo

Good info Capt n Midnight. I just assumed it would be hard to get rid off.

JJayoo

Poll closed results in

Starfox

Its quiet simple really, there are too many people who don't want to be force fed Fluoridation through our water supply, so take the fluoride out of the water and let the people who really want to keep taking this 'medicine' to go get some fluoride pills or other means of acquiring it, and Im sure the money that would become available from ending the fluoridation of water could be used to supply fluoride in other ways to the people who still want to put this stuff in their body

Nobody should be forced to drink this stuff. People should be able to choose, choose to acquire fluoride and ingest it if they wish to but not forced upon them, and not everybody can just avoid it by getting bottled water and so on. The only way it can be done to satisfy both pro and anti fluoride people is how i suggested.

People here can argue all day long, give opinions, examples, and medical studies, promote them or disregard them on the matter but at the end of the day its all about choice and basic human rights.

Worztron

Jimoslimos

Worztron wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yW-Y5Bxz6E

Even for SF that is some serious amount of misinformed populist claptrap.

"Fluoride is an acid based substance..."

Wish I stopped watching after that:(

hooradiation

JJayoo wrote: »

Has to be a joke at this stage. The Pro Fluoride side has not provided a single study showing that the ingestion of Fluoride through drinking water is beneficial to teeth, not one. The anti-Fluoride side has posted many studies that shows Fluoride is only beneficial when added tropically.

And your proof of all the errors in the video is woeful, actually it's non existent you have not provided one piece of proof that all the things in the video are false, you claim they are but you provide zero proof. So once again can you provide us with the studies that everything in the video is false like you state. Not your opinion actually studies that will contribute to this thread.

And this I presume you are talking about yourself with this one.

Man, how did i miss this shitty response and cowardly refusal to engage.
It's so wretched it's kind of beautiful.

JJayoo

hooradiation wrote: »

Man, how did i miss this shitty response and cowardly refusal to engage.
It's so wretched it's kind of beautiful.

Has to be a joke at this stage. The Pro Fluoride side has not provided a single study showing that the ingestion of Fluoride through drinking water is beneficial to teeth, not one.

I'm assuming you will share the relevant studies then

And your proof of all the errors in the video is woeful, actually it's non existent you have not provided one piece of proof that all the things in the video are false, you claim they are but you provide zero proof. So once again can you provide us with the studies that everything in the video is false like you state. Not your opinion actually studies that will contribute to this thread.

Pop up the info so people can go through it for themselves plus I find this funny

cowardly refusal to engage

as you are the person who made one sweeping statement based on your opinion and zero facts. So if you could supply all the info it would be great good lad

Your original statement still waiting for you to pick apart each point with the relevant studies like you said you would.

hooradiation wrote: »

#1 - Appeal to the majority. The argument of cretins
#2 - Ignore other methods of fluoridation, Ignores naturally present fluoride in water
#3 - Fails to define the effects, fails to mention dosage, fails to give nay meaningful data
#4 - Appeal to nature, also a lie.
#5 - Vague numbers, dishonestly conflates mild fluorosis with severe flourisis.
#6 - The flouride levels that are cited for IQ loss are five times the level here in Ireland, has no relevance.
#7 - the FDA have no authority here. Also Flouride supplements are at a much higher concentration than in our drinking water, dishonest conflation of two separate things.
#8 - And. Therefore. so? Though this does earn the dubious distinction of being the only true thing so far, round of applause.
#9 - blatantly untrue.
#10 - American centric, and if it wasn't it's nothing to do with fluoridation anyway, as it proposes that removing fluoridation to alleviate outlying effects for people with poor health as opposed to tacking their poor health.


Thank you for wasting my time with this stupid bullshit, it was a pleasure. No. really.

Reindeer

opinion guy wrote: »

Ban teeth!!!!!:eek:

I can't speak for you city dwellers, but I'm out in the country here, and it appears they've already banned teeth.