Fluoride endgame approaches....

dj jarvis

jma wrote: »

I personally know the person that adds the chemicals here. I also knew the person that was responsible for it where I grew up, or more specifically, my father knew him. There was also an incident, fairly recently, 25 km away where 1 or 2 local council workers accidentally added too much of something (not sure if Chlorine, Fluoride or something else), and there was not much they could do about it except warn people locally (i.e. in passing or whatever). This might not be the "proof" you're looking for, but isn't the absence of proper control proof enough? I mean, the EPA document that was linked to only had information about a percentage of the WSZs, and 34 of those tested exceeded the legal limits of Fluoride.


so a once off incident has colored your view , and you cant really say that this happens all the time around the country , you made a statement saying there was no control , i asked you to prove it , this is how a fact based discussion works


I'm not arguing that. As I said, it may or may not be relevant. In other words, I don't know how diluted it needs to be in order to make it odourless and colourless. At the concentration that it's SUPPOSED to be, yes, it is (AFAIK) colour- and odourless.

but you worded it in such a way as to make it look like a fact , this weakens your argument when you do this



Sounds like you don't care either way, which is fine, but then why are you here? If you're not willing to "wade through all the crap", then you're probably missing some relevant facts and points that some of us have posted.


so i cant join a thread looking for more info? , in fairness you are the one putting this stuff out here , i want to know more , again , this is how a discussion works



Have you tried Madrid drinking water? Madrid is reported to have very good drinking water, actually, and I've read that people in Madrid are very proud of their water, which supposedly comes from deep underground reserves. As for London and New York, I'm pretty sure they fluoridate their water also.

i have , and it does not have a patch on dublins IMO , as for london and newyork , the water quality or lack of has nothing to do with fluoride
and again your post was not without bias , so again i will question the statement and motive


if you and other posters are putting out statements as "fact" then you have to understand , as its a public forum i can and will ask for you to back these up , if you cant then it does not help you stand point at all , me , i have no bias here, i dont know enough either way , this is why im asking

why are the anti fluoride camp SO SO touchy about being asked for facts and figures ?
just makes you all look bad when feet are stamped like children

Aquarius34

Jimminy Mc Fukhead wrote: »

Fluoride must be eroding some peoples brains alright.

hahahahahahahahahaha You made me laugh out loud! To get around the stupidity at times, god you have to laugh. This thread is becoming a joke.


Prove to me rat poison kills you.

Hold on.... I will come back with test results later.

dj jarvis

Aquarius34 wrote: »

How about, grow a back bone!

LOL , really , thats your come back LOL :eek:
still waiting for your "proof" for your verbal diarrhea in your earlier post

and you are aware , others can see that you are un able to back up your stance , so come on , dont look like a complete numpty , cough up the stats and proof like a good lad

Aquarius34

Jimminy Mc Fukhead wrote: »

:

why are the anti fluoride camp SO SO touchy about being asked for facts and figures ?
just makes you all look bad when feet are stamped like children

One would have to ask why on earth would you defend it?

Aquarius34

dj jarvis wrote: »

LOL , really , thats your come back LOL :eek:
still waiting for your "proof" for your verbal diarrhea in your earlier post

and you are aware , others can see that you are un able to back up your stance , so come on , dont look like a complete numpty , cough up the stats and proof like a good lad

Well you obviously don't have a back bone, you lean on others for fluoride research. Did you know that it's poison yet? I am sure someone has mentioned it above.

opinion guy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Well you obviously don't have a back bone, you lean on others for fluoride research. Did you know that it's poison yet? I am sure someone has mentioned it above.

Do you think you are persuading people ??

I'm on the middle on this arugment. I don't think I know enough either way to make a clear decision. You coming on here spouting opinions with providing evidence dont' convince me one bit to join your side. Quite the opposite.

Seriously - go and take some science courses before trying to argue this debate

Tiddlypeeps

I don't know why I let myself get dragged into this argument again and again.
The ignorance and scar mongering going on here is insane.

First things first, for those stating that we are on our own in fluoridation and that the rest of the EU don't, you are wrong. A lot of the EU choose to fluoridate table salt instead of water. The does is still the same.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

fluoride kills rats too.
Main ingredient in rat poison.

The test results show that rats die from it.

It is this kind of ridiculous statement that dragged me in here.

The key to toxicity is dose. It is defined as "the degree to which something is poisonous". So you cannot say fluoride is toxic, that sentence doesn't make any sense because it doesn't infer any dose. The level of drinking water an Irish person can consume in a day is not toxic. If our water had fluoride levels higher than 1 parts per million then it would start to become toxic, increasing in toxicity with higher levels of fluoride. No legitimate study has ever concluded that fluoridating water between 0.5 and 1.0 parts per million is anything other than beneficial to human health. Here is a report published on the subject which you probably won't read but I'll supply it anyway.

What is commonly misunderstood about water fluoridation is that it is not just adding fluoride to water, it's making sure that water contains the optimal level of fluoride. Water is naturally fluoridated in lots of places. In places where the fluoride concentration is higher than 1.5 parts per million the water even needs to be defluoridated.

Here is a map showing the parts of the world that have such high levels of naturally occuring fluoride in the water that defluoridation is needed.

The only argument I've ever heard against fluoridating water that I feel is semi-reasonable is the argument against medicating people without their consent. That argument can be countered by the fact that fluoride is naturally occurring in so many places and without it you could be consuming toxic levels of fluoride, but that doesn't dismiss the argument completely. It's not like there are no alternatives tho so I don't know why they get such a bee in their bonnet. You can buy filters to remove it from tap water, you can dig a well or you can do it the old fashioned way and go to the nearest stream (can't get more natural than that) to name just a few.

zenno wrote: »

Well it's quite obvious that when a food manufacturer here in Ireland uses water to produce most food-stuffs, then the fluoride will be in the food and this is a well known fact.

Food manufacturers in Ireland do not go through the process of trying to remove the fluoride from the water before they produce food, they will all use the same water we drink to make their food of which is fluoridated.

You are being silly, if it's safe to drink then the amount of any absorbed by a plant watered by it (if any) is going to be the same or less, therefore safe. Also most crops in Ireland don't require any sort of artificial irrigation systems because it rains and awful lot here. So I'd be surprised if any vegetables produced on a comercial level ever see a drop of tap water except maybe for cleaning. But don't let common sense get in the way of your scare mongering.

If you have any actual evidence that proves that water fluoridation of below 1 parts per million is harmful then I would love to see it. If not then stop trying to fill peoples heads with garbage until you have the evidence to support your claims. Spouting that people should research it for themselves is only damaging your credibility.


Another myth I'll attempt to put to rest is that fluoridating water is just for people too lazy to brush their teeth so why bother. This is not true. Source1, Source2.

Fluoride can strengthen teeth in two ways — from the outside or the inside.

Fluoride also strengthens teeth from within. Swallowed fluoride enters the bloodstream and becomes part of the permanent teeth as they develop. This is called systemic fluoride. The teeth become stronger, so it is harder for acids to destroy the enamel.

Jimoslimos

Aquarius34 wrote: »

fluoride kills rats too.
Main ingredient in rat poison.

The test results show that rats die from it.

Toxicity is a matter of dose. Name me any chemical and in large enough quantities it will be toxic.

dj jarvis

opinion guy wrote: »

Do you think you are persuading people ??

I'm on the middle on this arugment. I don't think I know enough either way to make a clear decision. You coming on here spouting opinions with providing evidence dont' convince me one bit to join your side. Quite the opposite.

Seriously - go and take some science courses before trying to argue this debate

+1
thank you , could not have put it any better

he cant back anything up , and when challenged turns into a smart arse
that is one sure fire way of spotting a numpty
im the same as you , in that i dont have a side, but this lad is sure pushing me far far away from "his side "

Aquarius34

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Toxicity is a matter of dose. Name me any chemical and in large enough quantities it will be toxic.

Stop with the bull****.

It's toxic and has no beneficent or requirement to be added to our drinking supply. If it's toxic then why add it to our water supply. What is the logic in that? It's been already discussed here and people are not falling for this argument on the dosage and the bull**** for people to focus on as a way negate the reality that this kind of wrong doing should go unnoticed.

Capt'n Midnight

dj jarvis wrote: »

as for dublin water being rotten, i take it you have not drank the water in london , new york , madrid ect ect , ours is famous for being SO clear and clean

as some one said , first world problems

more like Northsider problems

Water quality varies around the city.

dj jarvis

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Stop with the bull****.

It's toxic and has no beneficent or requirement to be added to our drinking supply. If it's toxic then why add it to our water supply. What is the logic in that? It's been already discussed here and people are not falling for this argument on the dosage and the bull**** for people to focus on as a way negate the reality that this kind of wrong doing should go unnoticed.

jesus h christ , you know that in a large enough dose , salt is toxic
but in small doses it makes my chips taste num num ,
but wait , why would i put a toxin on my chips ????

its all about dosage
i have seen enough , you really dont know what you are ****ing on about
i feel embarrassed for you

dj jarvis

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

more like Northsider problems

Water quality varies around the city.

it sure does , but the point i was making , compared to lots and lots of capital citys , Dublin and indeed irelands water is seen as very good indeed

( unless you count the nasty toxic poison we put in our food and water to kill the children )

Heroditas

I see the guy who wrote the original letter to the Times is on the board of SEAI and was also heavily involved with the Greens at one stage.
I remember meeting him once. Had a bee in his bonnet too about mobile phones and masts.
I was tempted to get the tinfoil hat.

Jimoslimos

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Stop with the bull****.

It's toxic and has no beneficent or requirement to be added to our drinking supply. If it's toxic then why add it to our water supply. What is the logic in that? It's been already discussed here and people are not falling for this argument on the dosage and the bull**** for people to focus on as a way negate the reality that this kind of wrong doing should go unnoticed.

Eat salt with your dinner? Wash it down with a glass of wine?

Tiddlypeeps

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Stop with the bull****.

It's toxic and has no beneficent or requirement to be added to our drinking supply. If it's toxic then why add it to our water supply. What is the logic in that? It's been already discussed here and people are not falling for this argument on the dosage and the bull**** for people to focus on as a way negate the reality that this kind of wrong doing should go unnoticed.

Ok I'll have to break this right down for you because you don't seem to be able to comprehend whatsoever.

Toxicity is a matter of does. As Jimoslimos stated almost any chemical you can name is at some does toxic.

So with that in mind we will take a look at bananas. If you weight about 75kg and eat 487 bananas it will likely be fatal.

Do you consider bananas to be inherently poisonous?

Of course not so apply the same logic to water fluoride and it's the exact same situation.

jma

dj jarvis wrote: »

so a once off incident has colored your view , and you cant really say that this happens all the time around the country , you made a statement saying there was no control , i asked you to prove it , this is how a fact based discussion works

This is getting really annoying. I'm not talking about a once-off incident. I just gave you an example of one incident. I know of several incidents, some of them recent, and some of them dating back a few years. I KNOW about this, and I'm passing this on. It could be that others have similar experiences. What do you expect me to post here that would "proove" that these incidents actually occurred? You are also ignoring the second part of my answer to you, which suggests to me that you're just trolling. I have no issue with a fact based discussion, that is why I'm making the attempt to clarify. I use as much facts as I can. Some of it is obviously opinion as well. Chemical treatment of water supplies is not adequately controlled - this is my OPINION. Can you prove to me that it IS adequately controlled?

dj jarvis wrote: »

but you worded it in such a way as to make it look like a fact , this weakens your argument when you do this

It IS a fact. I never stated that the Fluoride in fluoridated water was detectable by human senses, nor was it my intent to mislead. I clearly referred to Chlorine in my original post.

dj jarvis wrote: »

so i cant join a thread looking for more info? , in fairness you are the one putting this stuff out here , i want to know more , again , this is how a discussion works

Of course you can. But you're the one who said you're not willing to "wade through all the crap" from both sides. If you're not willing to review all of the information and to read through ALL of the posts, instead of just "nitpicking" through parts of posts and parts of the discussion, then, again, it suggests trolling to me. If you ARE actually interested, and if you're ACTUALLY looking for more information, then you should stop "nitpicking" and join the discussion in a constructive manner.

dj jarvis wrote: »

i have , and it does not have a patch on dublins IMO , as for london and newyork , the water quality or lack of has nothing to do with fluoride and again your post was not without bias , so again i will question the statement and motive

That's fair enough. I'm just saying that Madrid's water is supposed to be very good. But taste is a matter of opinion. It could also be that some parts of Dublin have better water than others. I don't know. I also don't know what the factors are for London's and New York's water quality. Maybe you can enlighten us...

dj jarvis wrote: »

if you and other posters are putting out statements as "fact" then you have to understand , as its a public forum i can and will ask for you to back these up , if you cant then it does not help you stand point at all , me , i have no bias here, i dont know enough either way , this is why im asking

why are the anti fluoride camp SO SO touchy about being asked for facts and figures ?
just makes you all look bad when feet are stamped like children

Personally, I do try to back up my statements as much as I can, where appropriate, relevant and possible. But as you stated, you're not willing to examine all of the facts or statements. Again, I have absolutely no problem at all with you or anyone else asking. If you ask me, people from the pro "camp" are equally as touchy. I mean, one of my previous posts was misunderstood, and straight away dismissed as "bullsh1t". How can that lead to a constructive discussion?

Capt'n Midnight

dj jarvis wrote: »

it sure does , but the point i was making , compared to lots and lots of capital citys , Dublin and indeed irelands water is seen as very good indeed

( unless you count the nasty toxic poison we put in our food and water to kill the children )

Like I said Northsider problem :pac:

Yes you could smell the water in other places in Ireland, but that was because of silage runoff. When the chlorine was added it turned some of the organics into disinfectant. But that was a very long time ago in a far away land.

opinion guy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But that was a very long time ago in a far away land.

Narnia ? :pac:

dj jarvis

jma wrote: »

This is getting really annoying. I'm not talking about a once-off incident. I just gave you an example of one incident. I know of several incidents, some of them recent, and some of them dating back a few years. I KNOW about this, and I'm passing this on. It could be that others have similar experiences. What do you expect me to post here that would "proove" that these incidents actually occurred? You are also ignoring the second part of my answer to you, which suggests to me that you're just trolling. I have no issue with a fact based discussion, that is why I'm making the attempt to clarify. I use as much facts as I can. Some of it is obviously opinion as well. Chemical treatment of water supplies is not adequately controlled - this is my OPINION. Can you prove to me that it IS adequately controlled?


It IS a fact. I never stated that the Fluoride in fluoridated water was detectable by human senses, nor was it my intent to mislead. I clearly referred to Chlorine in my original post.


Of course you can. But you're the one who said you're not willing to "wade through all the crap" from both sides. If you're not willing to review all of the information and to read through ALL of the posts, instead of just "nitpicking" through parts of posts and parts of the discussion, then, again, it suggests trolling to me. If you ARE actually interested, and if you're ACTUALLY looking for more information, then you should stop "nitpicking" and join the discussion in a constructive manner.


That's fair enough. I'm just saying that Madrid's water is supposed to be very good. But taste is a matter of opinion. It could also be that some parts of Dublin have better water than others. I don't know. I also don't know what the factors are for London's and New York's water quality. Maybe you can enlighten us...


Personally, I do try to back up my statements as much as I can, where appropriate, relevant and possible. But as you stated, you're not willing to examine all of the facts or statements. Again, I have absolutely no problem at all with you or anyone else asking. If you ask me, people from the pro "camp" are equally as touchy. I mean, one of my previous posts was misunderstood, and straight away dismissed as "bullsh1t". How can that lead to a constructive discussion?

sorry , but you stating i know , in bold does not mean im going to take it as proof , sorry

as for posting proof , not just you but others , and in fairness NONE have come up with the goods

i think you picked the wrong forum , either food and health or conspiracy thread

either way , no sense is being made here , and even less proof has been shown

its not up to us to get proof , its up to you to provide it

as for you calling me a troll , well im sorry i disagree with you , so that makes me a troll ?
go back to my first few posts , i was asking for info , nothing else and got jumped on by tin foil hat brigade
and you call me a troll

Aquarius34

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I don't know why I let myself get dragged into this argument again and again.
The ignorance and scar mongering going on here is insane.

First things first, for those stating that we are on our own in fluoridation and that the rest of the EU don't, you are wrong. A lot of the EU choose to fluoridate table salt instead of water. The does is still the same.

So one would wonder why food companies add salt to all processed food items and then furthermore put we salt on practically everything we eat. Thanks for raising this. We need to raise awareness to this too. It really does add to the fluoride conspiracy alright, if people still want to call it a conspiracy. It seems that everything we eat and consume now has sodium chloride and fluoride added to everything we eat. Sodium fluoride that's added to our water supply is the most toxic of them all. I wouldn't be any bit surprised that some salts on shelf's would be the same as the **** they put into our water supply. They have to poison us somehow with this stuff. Seems to be a remarkable coloration there.

How wonderful for you to join in. This shall get interesting.

It is this kind of ridiculous statement that dragged me in here.

The key to toxicity is dose. It is defined as "the degree to which something is poisonous". So you cannot say fluoride is toxic, that sentence doesn't make any sense because it doesn't infer any dose. The level of drinking water an Irish person can consume in a day is not toxic. If our water had fluoride levels higher than 1 parts per million then it would start to become toxic, increasing in toxicity with higher levels of fluoride. No legitimate study has ever concluded that fluoridating water between 0.5 and 1.0 parts per million is anything other than beneficial to human health. Here is a report published on the subject which you probably won't read but I'll supply it anyway.

The thing is, we don't need fluoride. If your want to put poison in your water go and buy fluoride tablets. I am sure you will find a way of getting some.

What is commonly misunderstood about water fluoridation is that it is not just adding fluoride to water, it's making sure that water contains the optimal level of fluoride.

An optimum amount of toxic waste, sorry what was that?

Here is a map showing the parts of the world that have such high levels of naturally occuring fluoride in the water that defluoridation is needed.

Natural occurring fluoride is not the same as the fluoride they dump in our water supply. That argument is illogical and totality false. Not only that, if we were to agree with your stupid bull****, then why add more fluoride again if it occurs naturally in our water? There is absolutely no logic in it. Bull**** is just one of those things that just don't add up.

The only argument I've ever heard against fluoridating water that I feel is semi-reasonable is the argument against medicating people without their consent.

Sorry what was that, could you please say that again.

We don't want fluoride in our tap water, so yes it is without our consent. The awareness for anti fluoridation is growing all the time.

That argument can be countered by the fact that fluoride is naturally occurring in so many places and without it you could be consuming toxic levels of fluoride, but that doesn't dismiss the argument completely. It's not like there are no alternatives tho so I don't know why they get such a bee in their bonnet. You can buy filters to remove it from tap water, you can dig a well or you can do it the old fashioned way and go to the nearest stream (can't get more natural than that) to name just a few.

Why should we pay for removing fluoride in our water, when the government dump it in for no reason but to poison us. Fluoride is removal is not cheap at all to remove let me tell you. Especially in comparison to removing chlorine.

But don't let common sense get in the way of your scare mongering.

Fluoridation in our water supply has removed every strain on common sense left in our brains. Fluoride is actually responsible for destroying our brains. So common sense is out the window from there. Which is obviously the agenda here.

Spouting that people should research it for themselves is only damaging your credibility.

What is your credibility?

The government?

Capt'n Midnight

opinion guy wrote: »

Narnia ? :pac:

Louth

dj jarvis

Aquarius34 wrote: »

So one would wonder why food companies add salt to all processed food items and then furthermore put we salt on practically everything we eat. Thanks for raising this. We need to raise awareness to this too. It really does add to the fluoride conspiracy alright, if people still want to call it a conspiracy. It seems that everything we eat and consume now has sodium chloride fluoride added to everything we eat. Sodium fluoride that's added to our water supply is the most toxic of them all. I wouldn't be any bit surprised that some salts on shelf's would be the same as the **** they put into our water supply. They have to poison us somehow with this stuff. Seems to be a remarkable coloration there.

How wonderful for you to join in. This shall get interesting.




The thing is, we don't need fluoride. If your want to put poison in your water go and buy fluoride tablets. I am sure you will find a way of getting some.



An optimum amount of toxic waste, sorry what was that?



Natural occurring fluoride is not the same as the fluoride they dump in our water supply. That argument is illogical and totality false. Not only that, if we were to agree with your stupid bull****, then why add more fluoride again if it occurs naturally in our water? There is absolutely no logic in it. Bull**** is just one of those things that just don't add up.





Sorry what was that, could you please say that again.

We don't want fluoride in our tap water, so yes it is without our consent. The awareness for anti fluoridation is growing all the time.




Why should we pay for removing fluoride in our water, when the government dump it in for no reason but to poison us. Fluoride is removal is not cheap at all to remove let me tell you. Especially in comparison to removing chlorine.




Fluoridation in our water supply has removed every strain on common sense left in our brains fluoride is actually responsible for destroying our brains. So common sense is out the window from there. Which is obviously the agenda here.



What is your credibility?

The government?

yes , some brains do look like they are affected

as for credibility , you appear to have zilch , so people in glass houses and all that

Roadtrippin

Aquarius34 wrote: »

No. You're missing the point. Fluoride is poison. Why is there need to pump it into our drinking water. It's not below the standard. There should be no set standard for dumping toxic waste in drinking water, period. There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour whatsoever. They put enough of other chemicals alone in it that isn't exactly good for us without having to throw in fluoride on top of it.

It's been mentioned that fluoride is added to toothpaste and many food items as well. This nation is drunk and positioned on this stuff and it needs to be stopped immediately.

And you are missing my point. Whether something is poisonous is a matter of dosage. Too much of anything including water can be poisonous...

At the trace amount that can be found in Irish water (0.8 mg/l) fluoride is in no way harmful. Find me some credible studies that prove the opposite and I'll listen. Otherwise this is just scaremongering.

The only point regarding fluoride in Irish water that I agree with is this one:

Solair wrote: »

My major issue with it is just the lack of choice in the matter and also the fact that authorities, many of whom cannot master the art of pot hole filling, are basically mass-medicating the population.

So overall, it may well be an outdated public health measure to add fluoride to our water but by no means are the minuscule amounts in it at toxic levels.

The biggest threats to the quality of Irish drinking water are bacterial contamination (e.g. E-coli) and lead pollution (see p. 2 in below source) not fluoride.

http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/drinking/Drinking%20Water_web.pdf

jma

dj jarvis wrote: »

sorry , but you stating i know , in bold does not mean im going to take it as proof , sorry

as for posting proof , not just you but others , and in fairness NONE have come up with the goods

i think you picked the wrong forum , either food and health or conspiracy thread

either way , no sense is being made here , and even less proof has been shown

its not up to us to get proof , its up to you to provide it

as for you calling me a troll , well im sorry i disagree with you , so that makes me a troll ?
go back to my first few posts , i was asking for info , nothing else and got jumped on by tin foil hat brigade
and you call me a troll

You're obviously having trouble understanding what I'm saying to you, and there's no point in continuing a mature discussion with you. I wasn't trying to give you proof, I was telling you about an experience. Again, you're nitpicking and ignoring this part of my response to you:

It could be that others have similar experiences. What do you expect me to post here that would "proove" that these incidents actually occurred? You are also ignoring the second part of my answer to you, which suggests to me that you're just trolling. I have no issue with a fact based discussion, that is why I'm making the attempt to clarify. I use as much facts as I can. Some of it is obviously opinion as well. Chemical treatment of water supplies is not adequately controlled - this is my OPINION. Can you prove to me that it IS adequately controlled?

dj jarvis wrote: »

as for you calling me a troll , well im sorry i disagree with you , so that makes me a troll ?

No! Again, you've misinterpreted.

If you want to have a mature, constructive discussion with me, or if you have any constructive, relevant questions for me, let me know, and I'll be more than happy to try and answer them if I can. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.

Tiddlypeeps

Aquarius34 wrote: »

So one would wonder why food companies add salt to all processed food items and then furthermore put we salt on practically everything we eat. Thanks for raising this. We need to raise awareness to this too. It really does add to the fluoride conspiracy alright, if people still want to call it a conspiracy. It seems that everything we eat and consume now has sodium chloride and fluoride added to everything we eat. Sodium fluoride that's added to our water supply is the most toxic of them all. I wouldn't be any bit surprised that some salts on shelf's would be the same as the **** they put into our water supply. They have to poison us somehow with this stuff. Seems to be a remarkable coloration there.

How wonderful for you to join in. This shall get interesting.




The thing is, we don't need fluoride. If your want to put poison in your water go and buy fluoride tablets. I am sure you will find a way of getting some.



An optimum amount of toxic waste, sorry what was that?



Natural occurring fluoride is not the same as the fluoride they dump in our water supply. That argument is illogical and totality false. Not only that, if we were to agree with your stupid bull****, then why add more fluoride again if it occurs naturally in our water? There is absolutely no logic in it. Bull**** is just one of those things that just don't add up.





Sorry what was that, could you please say that again.

We don't want fluoride in our tap water, so yes it is without our consent. The awareness for anti fluoridation is growing all the time.




Why should we pay for removing fluoride in our water, when the government dump it in for no reason but to poison us. Fluoride is removal is not cheap at all to remove let me tell you. Especially in comparison to removing chlorine.




Fluoridation in our water supply has removed every strain on common sense left in our brains. Fluoride is actually responsible for destroying our brains. So common sense is out the window from there. Which is obviously the agenda here.



What is your credibility?

The government?

Well it's clear now you are deliberately sidestepping around any evidence presented. The only question that remains is to what end?

Aquarius34

Double post.

Aquarius34

Roadtrippin wrote: »

And you are missing my point. Whether something is poisonous is a matter of dosage. Too much of anything including water can be poisonous..

I am not missing the facts nor the truth to anything here.

We can sit here and keep this going. I can go on forever with this until the truth gets out. So you decide where this goes from here.

At the trace amount that can be found in Irish water (0.8 mg/l) fluoride is in no way harmful. Find me some credible studies that prove the opposite and I'll listen. Otherwise this is just scaremongering.

The only point regarding fluoride in Irish water that I agree with is this one:
So overall, it may well be an outdated public health measure to add fluoride to our water but by no means are the minuscule amounts in it at toxic levels.

So why add fluoride in the first place when it has no benefit other than poisoning our drinking water.

It's fine we can keep going through this. I am just letting you be aware that everyone who has a brain and has discernment will realise the agendas been played played out on this issue. It's getting a tad old and repetitive.

The biggest threats to the quality of Irish drinking water are bacterial contamination (e.g. E-coli) and lead pollution (see p. 2 in below source) not fluoride.

http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/drinking/Drinking%20Water_web.pdf

Fluoride is by far more harmful to our health than e-coli and moreover fluoride actually weakens our immune system. At least E coli is a bacteria and we can combat against with our immune system. Fluoride causes serious harm to our bodies and mental health. Most of which are irreversible.

dj jarvis

jma wrote: »

You're obviously having trouble understanding what I'm saying to you, and there's no point in continuing a mature discussion with you. I wasn't trying to give you proof, I was telling you about an experience. Again, you're nitpicking and ignoring this part of my response to you:




No! Again, you've misinterpreted.

If you want to have a mature, constructive discussion with me, or if you have any constructive, relevant questions for me, let me know, and I'll be more than happy to try and answer them if I can. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.

yup , as i thought , lots to say but nothing of substance
i tried a grown up discussion , as i have pointed a few times i just asked questions on some data people were talking about , and STILL nothing,
i understand you totally , i just dont agree with you

and yes it is a waste of time , i dont have time to be feed platitudes and be condescended to.

Aquarius34

dj jarvis wrote: »

yup , as i thought , lots to say but nothing of substance
i tired a grown up discussion , as i have pointed a few times i just asked questions on some data people were talking about , and STILL nothing,
i understand you totally , i just dont agree with you

and yes it is a waste of time , i dont have time to be feed platitudes and be condescended to.

You are free to leave this conversation. It already appears you can't handle one.