Simple fluoride question

[Edx]

One question about flouride that bugs me is WHY its in the water at all? Whats the reason? Im sure Im missing something but surely its not some idea that they are somehow trying to help us care for our teeth? Please tell me theres some sensible reason!

[defaultdotxbe]

surely its not some idea that they are somehow trying to help us care for our teeth?
yes, thats the reason, since youve already decided to reject feel free to cite this as proof of whatever wacky conspiracy theory you like

[sleeplessdwarf]

It is very much the reason. I recently took my 12 yr old daughter to get braces and after seeing the overall good quality of her teeth, the Dentist asked where did we live. They are very aware of the places that do not have fluoride in the water supply. I also worked for a small water company in Pensacola, Fl that serviced about 25% of the people and we were not using fluoride as the big company was. We were presented with all the dental info that they provide to encourage using it. Ofc it usually comes down to the people voting to have it or not, but I left that company before we ever changed policy.

[Caustic Logic]

I'm pretty sure it's not a mind control plan, the fluoride in water. But I still don't like it.

Toothpaste tubes say do not swallow. The dentist gives you a cup of blue fluid, says slosh it around and spit out. Do not swallow!

Fluoride water comes out of your tap. Cook with it, wash dishes with it, shower in it, drink it. That's fine.

???

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm pretty sure it's not a mind control plan, the fluoride in water. But I still don't like it.

Toothpaste tubes say do not swallow. The dentist gives you a cup of blue fluid, says slosh it around and spit out. Do not swallow!

Fluoride water comes out of your tap. Cook with it, wash dishes with it, shower in it, drink it. That's fine.

???

You put salt on your food? Try eating a couple of spoonfuls. Everything in moderation. :boggled:

[sleeplessdwarf]

Well, I do not know enough about it to disagree. But after working for that company, I would say that in most cities, the last thing you should worry about is the fluoride. :D There is so much rust in the older pipes, that 16 inch mains are only at half capacity. It was very common to knock off huge chunks of rust while working on/replacing pipes. There are still many asbestos pipes remaining, not that it hurts you when its wet, but they are there. Then once we finished we would toss some chlorine in to clean up our mess. It was not always the certified boss who did this and certainly it was not always measured to the correct amount. I have always used filtered water since that job(I am a general germaphobe) and while I am sure the filter does not do near as much as I am told or would hope, I still feel better doing it.

[Thunder]

if you take in too much fluoride it is very bad for you.
if you take in too much oxygen it is very bad for you.
if you take in too much water it is very bad for you.
if you take in too much Vitamin C..it is very bad for you.

just because overdosing on something is bad for you..doesn't mean it does not have very positive benefits in healthy doses.

people can die if they drink too much fluoride. people can also die if they drink too much water or breath too much oxygen.

are folks going to now stop drinking water or stop breathing air?

[Caustic Logic]

if you take in too much fluoride it is very bad for you.
if you take in too much oxygen it is very bad for you.
if you take in too much water it is very bad for you.
if you take in too much Vitamin C..it is very bad for you.

Ironically, that last one is untrue, or so I've heard. Vitamin C is only harmful if you take so many pills of it that you rip your gut.

I don't like the concept of fluoride in water in general, since AFAIK they don't tell you what is a safe dose, and how much water to drink or soak in or not. I would presume they know the effects, and don't want people dying on them, and dilute it so much that it would be harmless in any amount. But then I have to wonder if it's even dentally active at that point, and if not, then why the fuss? And if you can do with that little, are they just way overloading the toothpaste so it's dangerous if swallowed?

And I'd have to look into the subtler effects of small doses before I'd be cool with it here. Like, where are they getting it from? Fluoride flowers of Finland? Mine sludge treated with sulfuric acid? I just don't get also why DENTISTS of all people are so excited to create less work for themselves.

So, just a lot of blah blah uninformed concerns I suppose, but it's a big enough list for me given that I have my super-amped dangerous toothpaste already, I don't see how a tiny fragment of the same stuff in the water I already don't drink enough of would help much. It ain't worth the risks I'm so ignorant of, IMO. The voters here seem to agree, for good or ill.

[Mobyseven]

I just don't get also why DENTISTS of all people are so excited to create less work for themselves.

Ah, yes. I remember my first trip to the dentist-man. Why, it must have been nine-score metric yearlings ago now (a measurement that made more sense back then, when everyone was young because old people had been banned). After what seemed like an eternity, but was later revealed to just have been a rather long time, sitting uncomfortably on a large Tongan man in the waiting room, the Toothmeister - that's what he made us call him, you see - finally announced my name.

I was led through a cavernous pipeline lined with rusting wooden floorboards until we came upon an dark, abandoned theatre. A profile from the rafters lit up the only object on the stage: The chair.

The chair was twisted trainwreck of metal gears and levers, the machinery not quite hidden under the poorly stitched rabbit-hide furnishings. I sat uncomfortably and waited for the examination to begin.

Clunk!

As if by some arcane magic the chair flew to life and threw me upon my back, the metal teeth grinding beneath me at the behest of my captor and interrogator.

"Do you eat candy?"

The question, though not entirely unexpected, was delivered with such force as to throw me off guard. "Wha--huh?" I stammered.

"Do. You. Eat. Candy? Answer me, child!"

"Uh...yes sir. Occasionally, sir," I lied, "and I always brush my teeth after, honest!"

"You occasionally eat candy, do you? Well, we'll have to change that!"

"No sir!" I cried, "Not the candy! Please don't stop me from eating candy, it is ever such a delectable treat! Oh, I'll do anything, just let me eat my candy..."

The Toothmeister cackled, "Foolish child! You must not stop eating candy. You must eat MORE candy! Candy for breakfast; candy for lunch; candy for dinner! And forget about brushing your teeth - such wasteful behaviour, I'll not tolerate it! From now on you will clean your teeth by gargling soda, and soda only."

"Honest truth, sir? I can eat candy and gargle soda and nothing bad will happen to my teeth?"

"Of course not," the Toothmeister replied, "follow my rules and your teeth will be healthy to the day you die! Why ever would I lie to such a charming boy as yourself?"

I certainly couldn't think of a reason, and he was such a kind man that I bade him well and set off on my way with a gracious, "Thankyou sir!"

"No trouble, my child!" he hollered after me, "Dont forget to make an appointment with my secretary on the way out...say, for the twentieth anniversary of your birth? And bring a chequebook - I have a big surprise for you!"

And on my way I went, following a convenient trail of barley sugars back to the entrance while the maniacal laughter of the Toothmeister faded off behind me.

[Edx]

yes, thats the reason, since youve already decided to reject feel free to cite this as proof of whatever wacky conspiracy theory you like

:jaw-dropp Not citing a conspiracy theory actually, I always found the claims nonsence but this is the one part that rings true. Honestly if that really is the only reason I find this absolutely insane!

The fact is I have never once heard a dentist or any dentists say that I should drink more tap water in order to care better for my teeth, which you would expect if it really did help. You know what they actually tell me to do? They tell me how to brush my teeth better. But what does toothpaste contain? Fluoride. However you arent meant to injest it and what got me thinking about this again the other day is, I looked at the packed and it even says DO NOT SWALLOW or something to that effect. In the past i did watch a really wacky CT film that isnt even worth mentioning the name of, but what did ring true is when they said why dont they add vitamins in our drinking water, those things that are actually proven to be beneficial to us? And as someone pointed out there are many vitamins where it is almost practically impossible to overdose as you "pee" it out as my chemist told me after I was enquired if it was going to be harmfull taking a Vitamin B suppliment along with my general Vitamin pill. I am taking one now where in several different areas is giving me in one case over 3,000% more than the RDA and in a few other cases over 2,000%! If I want to help my teeth I will get a good tooth brush, toothpaste and a good mouthwash. The idea that the drinking tap water makes any practical difference is absurd.

Seriously the idea that fluoride is there to help our teeth is the craziest thing Ive heard in a long time.

[Edx]

I would say that in most cities, the last thing you should worry about is the fluoride. :D There is so much rust in the older pipes, that 16 inch mains are only at half capacity. It was very common to knock off huge chunks of rust while working on/replacing pipes. There are still many asbestos pipes remaining, not that it hurts you when its wet, but they are there.t.

Bloody hell, i live in the UK but that is pretty worrying... almost makes me want to get a filter! haha

[fuelair]

I'm pretty sure it's not a mind control plan, the fluoride in water. But I still don't like it.

Toothpaste tubes say do not swallow. The dentist gives you a cup of blue fluid, says slosh it around and spit out. Do not swallow!

Fluoride water comes out of your tap. Cook with it, wash dishes with it, shower in it, drink it. That's fine.

???
Toothpaste and dentist (professional concentrations) solution have things in them for legitimate reasons that are not all that good for your tummy. Swallowing Listerine is the same thing - you can do it, but it is not a great idea. Remember, material in only your mouth is not likely to get into your bloodstream (the fluoride solution is for topical application to treat the tooth surfaces not to deliver low level bacteria killing/tooth strengthening assistance) I suggest actual research on the concentrations of fluoride in the two.
Even check on the levels that are considered a problem COMPARED to the levels in normal fluoridated water - some of those levels (the too high ones)are found in UNTREATED water supplies.

[Arus808]

my brother-in-law was pissed the first year he moved to Hawaii, and had his regular check up. He grew up in JAX, FL where the water is flouridated. Never had a cavity in his life, and had healthy teeth.

Moved to hawaii, and in the first year, he developed 3 cavities, despite brushing and flossing his teeth normally.

[Caustic Logic]

saw this in another thread. Feelin' vindicated at the moment.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/79326.php

I guess this isn't a CT thread, but all the CT-provoked defensive pro-fluoride anecdotal 'common-sense' responses to the OP are missing the bus.

[Horatius]

saw this in another thread. Feelin' vindicated at the moment.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/79326.php

I guess this isn't a CT thread, but all the CT-provoked defensive pro-fluoride anecdotal 'common-sense' responses to the OP are missing the bus.



Except that all their info seems to come from the Fluoride Action Network, which is a group that Quackwatch has put on their "not recommended" list of information sources. See Quackwatch's take on the issue here:

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html

[Horatius]

More information on the FAN and the data they use here:

http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter56.html#2

[Without Rights]

Hitler used it to pacify his serfs.

Let me give everyone a homework assignment. Find any scientific study that says swallowing fluoride helps prevent cavities. You won't find one. That's because it works topically to prevent cavities. Ingestion of fluoride causes many harmful effects, including dental fluorosis, which thins the teeth and makes them like nails.

And that is pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not the stuff scrapped off the side of the smoke stack at a phosphate mine that we get in our water.

The bottom line is this. Mass medication is not ethical or legal in the US. Ingesting fluoride is only toxic, with no positive effects. And fluoride was used by the Nazis to pacify dissent. You figure out the rest.

[dudalb]

Hitler used it to pacify his serfs.

Let me give everyone a homework assignment. Find any scientific study that says swallowing fluoride helps prevent cavities. You won't find one. That's because it works topically to prevent cavities. Ingestion of fluoride causes many harmful effects, including dental fluorosis, which thins the teeth and makes them like nails.

And that is pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not the stuff scrapped off the side of the smoke stack at a phosphate mine that we get in our water.

The bottom line is this. Mass medication is not ethical or legal in the US. Ingesting fluoride is only toxic, with no positive effects. And fluoride was used by the Nazis to pacify dissent. You figure out the rest.

And visions of Sterling Hayden in "Dr Strangelove" pass by my eyes.

"We Must Protect Our Precious Bodily Fluids!".

[Gurdur]

Hitler used it to pacify his serfs.
...... And fluoride was used by the Nazis to pacify dissent.


Bollocks.

[Thunder]

Hitler used it to pacify his serfs.

Let me give everyone a homework assignment. Find any scientific study that says swallowing fluoride helps prevent cavities. You won't find one. That's because it works topically to prevent cavities. Ingestion of fluoride causes many harmful effects, including dental fluorosis, which thins the teeth and makes them like nails.

And that is pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not the stuff scrapped off the side of the smoke stack at a phosphate mine that we get in our water.

The bottom line is this. Mass medication is not ethical or legal in the US. Ingesting fluoride is only toxic, with no positive effects. And fluoride was used by the Nazis to pacify dissent. You figure out the rest.

lies...lies...and more lies.

if we have all been drinking fluoridated water...how come we voted in such high numbers this election day?

[defaultdotxbe]

lies...lies...and more lies.

if we have all been drinking fluoridated water...how come we voted in such high numbers this election day?
regardless of who won, we all voted for exactly who they wanted us to vote for

[Almo]

Find any scientific study that says swallowing fluoride helps prevent cavities. You won't find one. That's because it works topically to prevent cavities. Ingestion of fluoride causes many harmful effects, including dental fluorosis, which thins the teeth and makes them like nails.

Find any scientific study that shows you can swallow flouridated water without touching your teeth with it first, at least without going through a lot of effot not to.

[defaultdotxbe]

Find any scientific study that shows you can swallow flouridated water without touching your teeth with it first, at least without going through a lot of effot not to.
additionally, its my understanding that concentrations of fluoride in artificially fluoridated water are much lower than naturally fluoridated water supplies

perhaps mother nature is in on the conspiracy as well

[Ladewig]

Hitler used it to pacify his serfs.
[snip]
And fluoride was used by the Nazis to pacify dissent. You figure out the rest.

Can you explain the mechanism by which a chemical "pacifies dissent"?

Can you explain whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats who are using this chemical to pacify dissent?

Can you give some examples of the types of dissent that have been already been pacified (e.g. positions on abortion, school prayer, guns control)?

[Without Rights]

Bollocks.

O.k., so here is what we know. Germany administered fluoride through drinking water to its citizens and prisoners. According to you, I guess, Hitler just cared about their teeth. Never mind the 100's of scientific studies that prove the neurological damage fluoride causes. Here's a few:

Influence of Fluoride Exposure on Reaction Time and Visuospatial Organization in Children, Epidemiology July 2000

Intracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons. J Neurosci 1986

Effect of excessive fluoride intake on mental work capacity of children and a preliminary study of its mechanism, Hua Hsi I Ko Ta Hsueh Hsueh Pao,1994 Jun, 25

Effect of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence in Children, Fluoride, 1995

Subchronic neurotoxicity in rats of the structural fumigant, sulfuryl fluoride, Neurotoxicol-Teratol, 1988

Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats, Neurotoxicology Teratology, 1995

Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Brain Res 1998

Effects of high iodine and high fluorine on children's intelligence and the metabolism of iodine and fluorine, Chung Hua Liu Hsing Ping Hsueh Tsa Chih, 1994

The effects of fluoride on the human embryo, Chinese Journal of Control of Epidemic Diseases, 1989


Perhaps you know of some journals that report ingestion of fluoride as beneficial. I wont hold my breath.

[Confuseling]

...what did ring true is when they said why dont they add vitamins in our drinking water, those things that are actually proven to be beneficial to us?

Well, they put folic acid in American bread. And personally I think they should here as well (I'm UK too)

[dudalb]

If you want to argue the Flouride is bad from a physical health point of view, go ahead. Most medical experts think you are wrong, but you can make a case..a weak one, but a case.
But the "Fluoride Can Be Used To Brainwash and Pacify You" is pure BS.
Notice how the Tin Foilers always seem to prefer the WORST argument they can find ?

[Without Rights]

Can you explain the mechanism by which a chemical "pacifies dissent"?

Can you explain whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats who are using this chemical to pacify dissent?

Can you give some examples of the types of dissent that have been already been pacified (e.g. positions on abortion, school prayer, guns control)?

The mechanism, fluoride reduces I.Q, alters the hypothalamus and causes ADD. By damaging brain function and reducing intelligence people are less likely to worry about things in the world that require thought.

Since you just asked about chemicals in general, many chemicals are made to pacify dissent in patients. Seraquill and Thorazine are commonly used.

Rep or Dem? Neither. It is lobbyist paid for by aluminum and phosphate corporations. Since fluoride is toxic it is expensive to dispose of. Now it is sold for profit instead of being an expense.

Examples? A loaded question if I ever heard one.

[Without Rights]

Find any scientific study that shows you can swallow flouridated water without touching your teeth with it first, at least without going through a lot of effot not to.

What is your point. Brush your teeth and you will get the needed fluoride. You think you should drink a proven poison because it passes through your teeth.

I think you drank too much fluoride.

[defaultdotxbe]

O.k., so here is what we know. Germany administered fluoride through drinking water to its citizens and prisoners.
a google search for "nazi fluoride" (without quotes) reveals the usual suspects on the first page (rense, prisonplanet, etc) and a bunch of smaller 1-off pages, blogs and forums

anyway, what im getting at is, can you provide any credible evidence the nazis used fluoride for pacification? (or anything for that matter)

[JimBenArm]

Ah, so it's the usual Blather, Rense.com, Repeat nonsense.

If it worked like this, wouldn't we be just as likely to simply agree with your anti-fluoride gobbledegook, since our IQ's would be lower, we'd be suffering from ADD and couldn't focus on arguments, and be pacified to simply agree with what the nice man on the internet had to say?

Instead, we ask for proof, and you offer none, just insults.

Who's suffering from the effects? Hmmm.

[Without Rights]

lies...lies...and more lies.

if we have all been drinking fluoridated water...how come we voted in such high numbers this election day?

Lies?

There are no study that says swallowing fluoride helps prevent cavities. Is that a lie? Show me the study.


Ingestion of fluoride causes many harmful effects. Is that a lie? Damn all those scientific journals are a bunch of liars.

And that is pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not the stuff scrapped off the side of the smoke stack. Is that a lie? Show me the truth then.

Mass medication is not ethical or legal in the US. Is this a lie?

Ingesting fluoride is only toxic, with no positive effects. Is that a lie? Show me one study that shows a positive effect. I have listed several that show negative effects.

[Without Rights]

a google search for "nazi fluoride" (without quotes) reveals the usual suspects on the first page (rense, prisonplanet, etc) and a bunch of smaller 1-off pages, blogs and forums

anyway, what im getting at is, can you provide any credible evidence the nazis used fluoride for pacification? (or anything for that matter)

No, I can source the fact that they administered fluoride through the water. I can only guess that it was to dumb down the population since science warns us of the neurological effects. What else would it be used for? Did Hitler care about dental health? If so, how did he know swallowing fluoride would help since there is zero studies that say so?

[Without Rights]

Ah, so it's the usual Blather, Rense.com, Repeat nonsense.

If it worked like this, wouldn't we be just as likely to simply agree with your anti-fluoride gobbledegook, since our IQ's would be lower, we'd be suffering from ADD and couldn't focus on arguments, and be pacified to simply agree with what the nice man on the internet had to say?

Instead, we ask for proof, and you offer none, just insults.

Who's suffering from the effects? Hmmm.


I don't read any of those sites.

I have mentioned proof that fluoride damages brain function.

Just insults? Where? Your post is a good example of those tactics. For example, I have been asking for one single study that says swallowing fluoride is beneficial. Maybe you can come through.

Show me the study.

And show me where I just insulted.

[JimBenArm]

I don't read any of those sites.

I have mentioned proof that fluoride damages brain function.

Just insults? Where? Your post is a good example of those tactics. For example, I have been asking for one single study that says swallowing fluoride is beneficial. Maybe you can come through.

Show me the study.

And show me where I just insulted.

(bolding mine)

What is your point. Brush your teeth and you will get the needed fluoride. You think you should drink a proven poison because it passes through your teeth.

I think you drank too much fluoride.
There you go! Always glad to oblige!
Also, mentioning proof is not providing proof. Just for future reference.

I'm not going to provide any proof, since it's not my field of expertise. However, your lack of proof of the contrary position is duly noted, and ridiculed.

And please point out any flaws in my first post's position that if fluoride did all those dastardly things, that we wouldn't be arguing with you but agreeing? Hmm. Anything wrong there? Anything at all?

[Thunder]

Lies?

There are no study that says swallowing fluoride helps prevent cavities. Is that a lie? Show me the study.



the amount of fluoride in a glass of water is too small to harm you in any way. ive been drinking tap water for years and I feel fine.

if you are really soo concerned about fluoride, stop drinking tap water, and dont brush your teeth with fluoride containing toothpaste.

why is this so hard for you?

btw..please provide proof that the Nazis used fluoride to pacify people.

ive just done a Yahoo search and only found insane religous websites, and utterly unsubstantiated allegations. no evidence, no numbers, no facts....nothing.

there is more evidence that Hitler had one testicle, then he fluoridated water to make people servile.

[Without Rights]

If you want to argue the Flouride is bad from a physical health point of view, go ahead. Most medical experts think you are wrong, but you can make a case..a weak one, but a case.
But the "Fluoride Can Be Used To Brainwash and Pacify You" is pure BS.
Notice how the Tin Foilers always seem to prefer the WORST argument they can find ?

If most medical experts agree that ingesting fluoride is good and causes no damage then Show me a study.

If you think that it is a weak case then you are uneducated. There are 100's of studies that show the damage it causes and zero that show benefits. Are all those journals wrong? What study contradicts the 100's of studies from around the world that prove fluoride is toxic.

Since fluoride is a neurotoxin that has been proven to lower IQ and damage the hypothalamus it is not a far stretch to say it alters behavior also.

How about some facts instead of ad hominem.

Here's a fun fact, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Italy and France all have banned fluoridated water because there is zero evidence that it is beneficial and tons of peer reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride is toxic.

Also medicating large populations without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner is illegal.

Calling me a CT or woo is the only argument I get. Where is the science?

[defaultdotxbe]

No, I can source the fact that they administered fluoride through the water.
so why dont you?

If so, how did he know swallowing fluoride would help since there is zero studies that say so?
studies found a link between people drinking naturally fluoridated water and a lower instance of tooth decay and cavities, it has nothing to do with ingesting the fluoride

Many epidemiologic surveys conducted in the late 1930s and early 1940s showed that children who lived in communities with optimal levels of fluoride occurring naturally in their drinking water had about 50 percent to 65 percent fewer decayed teeth than did children who lived in communities with negligible concentrations of fluoride. These studies showed that about one part fluoride to one million parts of water (1 ppm) produced maximal protection against dental decay and only minimal amounts of dental fluorosis, a cosmetic condition of teeth that may occur from the chronic ingestion of excessive fluoride during the period when permanent teeth are forming.
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eph_01/eph_01_00213.html

[Thunder]

No, I can't source the fact that they administered fluoride through the water.

um, until you or anyone else provides actual evidence of it, it simply did not happen.

thats right!! without physical, photo, video, eye-witness evidence of an event..it DID NOT OCCUR.

i suspect this was alllll made up, by anti-Communists, to spread fear and suspicion about water fluoridation. whats the best way to scare people about a governmant program??

tell folks it was invented by the Soviets or the Nazis. works every time.

[Without Rights]

(bolding mine)


There you go! Always glad to oblige!
Also, mentioning proof is not providing proof. Just for future reference.

I'm not going to provide any proof, since it's not my field of expertise. However, your lack of proof of the contrary position is duly noted, and ridiculed.

And please point out any flaws in my first post's position that if fluoride did all those dastardly things, that we wouldn't be arguing with you but agreeing? Hmm. Anything wrong there? Anything at all?


Mentioning proof is not providing proof? What, do you want me to mail you the journals? Mentioning scientific journals is providing proof. Proof from trained chemists and doctors. You can't provide proof because there is none. You think you have to be an expert to quote an expert? Maybe your to lethargic to research a little.

I never said fluoride is some mythical like drug that will make you agree with everything anybody says. The studies show fluoride damages the brain, brain and behavior go hand in hand. And typing on a computer requires very little action or motivation.

[defaultdotxbe]

um, until provide actual evidence of it, it simply did not happen.

thats right!! without physical, photo, video, eye-witness evidence of an event..it DID NOT OCCUR.

one thing about the nazis is they documented EVERYTHING, if they did this, there would be records, how much was used, how it was administered, what the anticipated effects were, what the actual effects were, etc etc

[Praktik]

Ya but this whole "fluoride makes you more suggestible" thing really IS a leap.

The journals show brain damage, it shows lower IQs (maybe), but they DO NOT show, nor has any study ever shown, how fluoride would make one more agreeable when locked up in a concentration camp or prison camp. Wouldn't the constant threat of violence and the heirarchical structures of such places be a more important factor in determining someone's willingness to go along with orders?

Its a leap to start with "fluoride has been shown to cause brain damage in high doses and possibly lowering IQ by a few points" and then say "fluoride is a mind control drug" or "fluoride makes you more likely to accept the system mannnn!"

Wouldn't a more likely motive for its introduction to our water supplies be a conjunction of profit and the idea that doing so is actually beneficial - however flawed that "beneficial" part may turn out to be?

[Thunder]

the whole "fluoride is bad for you" movement would do a whole lot better if they left out the nazi mind-control lies. why is it that possibly good theories always get screwed up by paranoid bs?

maybe they KNOW their theory is bunk..so they add in a little paranoid conspiracy theory nonesense to ENSURE its illegitamacy.


that way, they can yell and scream "the NWO is trying to kill my theory!!!..dont listen to them!!", rather then face the music of a quiter, yet much more embarrasing, scientific dethrowning.

see? these people really aren't as stupid as they sound. they think these things through.

[Almo]

What is your point. Brush your teeth and you will get the needed fluoride. You think you should drink a proven poison because it passes through your teeth.

I think you drank too much fluoride.

My point was that your post was irrelevant. It doesn't matter if flouride is topical; flouride in water touches your teeth and therefore does its job. It's well-known that people who live in places with flouridated water have better teeth.

I think you're ignoring, distorting, or are misinformed about the whole flouride issue.

[Without Rights]

um, until provide actual evidence of it, it simply did not happen.

thats right!! without physical, photo, video, eye-witness evidence of an event..it DID NOT OCCUR.

i suspect this was alllll made up, by anti-Communists, to spread fear and suspicion about water fluoridation. whats the best way to scare people about a governmant program??

tell folks it was invented by the Soviets or the Nazis. works every time.

You edited my post. That's a dirty trick.

But we have testimony from Major George R. Jordan to Congress in the 1950's that in his post as U.S.-Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets admitted to "Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps, to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient."

This was said before US fluoridated so he is not saying it to try and scare people about a Government program.

More testimony from a chemist, Charles Perkins, saying that a colleague who worked in Nazi Germany confessed to him that fluoride was being added to drinking water.

[Praktik]

You edited my post. That's a dirty trick.

But we have testimony from Major George R. Jordan to Congress in the 1950's that in his post as U.S.-Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets admitted to "Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps, to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient."


Ok that was said, but was it accurate? What is the scientific and psychological basis for that?

Or was it hyped up in testimony to emphasize the "evil" of the yet-to-be-named "Evil Empire"? Its not like the 50s were a golden age for relations between the two countries.

[Without Rights]

My point was that your post was irrelevant. It doesn't matter if flouride is topical; flouride in water touches your teeth and therefore does its job. It's well-known that people who live in places with flouridated water have better teeth.

I think you're ignoring, distorting, or are misinformed about the whole flouride issue.

This is the worst argument I have ever heard.

It doesn't matter if fluoride is topical? We should put it in water because it hits the teeth. It's called toothpaste, use it.

Next time your brushing your teeth just swallow instead of spitting. Spitting is irrelevant, right.

Austria, Sweden, Italy and Belgium don't fluoridate their water and they have a decline in tooth decay that is coefficient with fluoridated societies. According to the World Health Organization, the biggest decline in tooth decay has been Sweden.

[Without Rights]

Ok that was said, but was it accurate? What is the scientific and psychological basis for that?

Or was it hyped up in testimony to emphasize the "evil" of the yet-to-be-named "Evil Empire"? Its not like the 50s were a golden age for relations between the two countries.

Stalin murdered 20 million people. I don't think they had to say he fluoridated the water to try and demonize him.

[Without Rights]

the whole "fluoride is bad for you" movement would do a whole lot better if they left out the nazi mind-control lies. why is it that possibly good theories always get screwed up by paranoid bs?

maybe they KNOW their theory is bunk..so they add in a little paranoid conspiracy theory nonesense to ENSURE its illegitamacy.


that way, they can yell and scream "the NWO is trying to kill my theory!!!..dont listen to them!!", rather then face the music of a quiter, yet much more embarrasing, scientific dethrowning.

see? these people really aren't as stupid as they sound. they think these things through.

Is there a fact in here I can read? No, just ad hominem. Go figure. You still stand far away from the scientific journals proving toxicity. And you stay clear of answering the call for science that proves ingestion fights cavities. As a matter of fact everybody avoids those topics. Screw Hitler, we are in the here and now. Argue a point, state a fact, reference a study.

Anybody?

[Without Rights]

Ya but this whole "fluoride makes you more suggestible" thing really IS a leap.

The journals show brain damage, it shows lower IQs (maybe), but they DO NOT show, nor has any study ever shown, how fluoride would make one more agreeable when locked up in a concentration camp or prison camp. Wouldn't the constant threat of violence and the heirarchical structures of such places be a more important factor in determining someone's willingness to go along with orders?

Its a leap to start with "fluoride has been shown to cause brain damage in high doses and possibly lowering IQ by a few points" and then say "fluoride is a mind control drug" or "fluoride makes you more likely to accept the system mannnn!"

Wouldn't a more likely motive for its introduction to our water supplies be a conjunction of profit and the idea that doing so is actually beneficial - however flawed that "beneficial" part may turn out to be?

Then why argue for fluoridation. It's toxic, it has never been proven beneficial. That should be enough.

[defaultdotxbe]

This was said before US fluoridated so he is not saying it to try and scare people about a Government program.
actually the first cities started fluoridating water in the US in 1945

In the mid 1940s, four widely cited studies were conducted. The researchers investigated cities that had both fluoridated and unfluoridated water. The first pair was Muskegon, Michigan and Grand Rapids, Michigan, making Grand Rapids the first community in the world to add fluoride chemicals to its drinking water to try to benefit dental health on January 25, 1945. Kingston, New York was paired with Newburgh, New York. Oak Park, Illinois was paired with Evanston, Illinois. Sarnia, Ontario was paired with Brantford, Ontario, Canada.[/URL]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation#cite_note-18)

[Thunder]

Then why argue for fluoridation. It's toxic, it has never been proven beneficial. That should be enough.

why isnt this enough? why bring up the Boogey-men Nazis and Soviets?

cant you just argue on the science? why try to scare people?

:D

I have read a lot about all the horrible things the Nazis and the Soviets did. I have co-workers and friends who lived in the USSR. They have no reason to hold back their accusations and confessions about the Soviet Union. Yet, for some odd reason, the ONLY people who talk about fluoridation and mind control..are wacky paranoid conspiracy theorists...not former Soviet citizens or refugees from the Nazi regime.

I wonder why that is???

:confused:

And one, final thing. I drink fluoridated water daily. I hold back nothing and curse people out at work. I even get aggressive with my boss. No docility and subserviance here. Please explain that.

[JimBenArm]

Mentioning proof is not providing proof? What, do you want me to mail you the journals? Maybe you could try quoting relevent passages.
Mentioning scientific journals is providing proof. Proof from trained chemists and doctors.No, it's just claiming there is proof. Showing it to me is providing it. Claiming it exists is just hot air. You can't provide proof because there is none. You know none exists how? You've scavanged everyplace in the entire world and know the contents of every research paper ever published on the subject? Wow, I'm almost impressed, except you don't know that any more than I do!
You think you have to be an expert to quote an expert? Maybe your to lethargic to research a little. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything more than you being another internet know-nothing with an agenda, stating things you know little about, pretending to have done research you haven't, posing as an expert after reading a few internet sites and buying their snake-oil. Unlike you, I don't pretend to have expertise where I don't actually have it. So, all the evidence I need is right here in this very thread. You keep proving my point for me, thank you very much!

I never said fluoride is some mythical like drug that will make you agree with everything anybody says.

Here's exactly what you did say.

The mechanism, fluoride reduces I.Q, alters the hypothalamus and causes ADD. By damaging brain function and reducing intelligence people are less likely to worry about things in the world that require thought.

Now, I didn't say anything other than if this evil substance does all these things, I wouldn't be able to argue with you. I'd be too stupid, wouldn't be able to focus on what you were trying to say, and wouldn't be able to make a coherent argument against it. I would, in fact, agree with you, since I could not argue against it. Seems this is your very argument about it being used by the Nazis to pacify the resistance. So, unless I missed something, which I didn't, you fail miserably. You just haven't been able to figure that out yet. Must be fluoride poisoning! Better get that checked out!

The studies show fluoride damages the brain, brain and behavior go hand in hand. And typing on a computer requires very little action or motivation.So, there has to be action and motivation for the effects to show? I thought the reduction in IQ, having ADD, and not being able to do things that require thought were the symptoms. Guess typing on a keyboard doesn't require thought. At least on one end of this internet connection.

[Without Rights]

why isnt this enough? why bring up the Boogey-men Nazis and Soviets?

cant you just argue on the science? why try to scare people?

:D

I have read a lot about all the horrible things the Nazis and the Soviets did. I have co-workers and friends who lived in the USSR. They have no reason to hold back their accusations and confessions about the Soviet Union. Yet, for some odd reason, the ONLY people who talk about fluoridation and mind control..are wacky paranoid conspiracy theorists...not former Soviet citizens or refugees from the Nazi regime.

I wonder why that is???

:confused:

And one, final thing. I drink fluoridated water daily. I hold back nothing and curse people out at work. I even get aggressive with my boss. No docility and subserviance here. Please explain that.

No one here will argue science I think the damage done by fluoride is scarier than Nazis and Russians, but there is testimony on the matter so why can't I mention it. This is the conspiracy theory forum so we are supposed to explore these things.

If the Nazis and Russians were poisoning their people they would not tell them they are poisoning them so those people you mentioned wouldn't know.

Why don't asbestos give everyone who inhales it cancer? Why don't Xanax cure everyone who suffers from anxiety? Why doesn't Prozac cure all depression?

And that is not to say that you have not damaged your brain.

Honestly, I can care less about arguing what Hitler or Stalin did, that is just what everyone attacks because it is easy. I am only concerned with the health issues that most people refuse to acknowledge despite the scientific evidence.

Or some people who think the benefit of fluoridated water passing through your teeth on the way down your throat some how makes the argument that it is toxic when swallowed "irrelevant".

[Without Rights]

Maybe you could try quoting relevent passages.
No, it's just claiming there is proof. Showing it to me is providing it. Claiming it exists is just hot air. You know none exists how? You've scavanged everyplace in the entire world and know the contents of every research paper ever published on the subject? Wow, I'm almost impressed, except you don't know that any more than I do!
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything more than you being another internet know-nothing with an agenda, stating things you know little about, pretending to have done research you haven't, posing as an expert after reading a few internet sites and buying their snake-oil. Unlike you, I don't pretend to have expertise where I don't actually have it. So, all the evidence I need is right here in this very thread. You keep proving my point for me, thank you very much!



Here's exactly what you did say.



Now, I didn't say anything other than if this evil substance does all these things, I wouldn't be able to argue with you. I'd be too stupid, wouldn't be able to focus on what you were trying to say, and wouldn't be able to make a coherent argument against it. I would, in fact, agree with you, since I could not argue against it. Seems this is your very argument about it being used by the Nazis to pacify the resistance. So, unless I missed something, which I didn't, you fail miserably. You just haven't been able to figure that out yet. Must be fluoride poisoning! Better get that checked out!

So, there has to be action and motivation for the effects to show? I thought the reduction in IQ, having ADD, and not being able to do things that require thought were the symptoms. Guess typing on a keyboard doesn't require thought. At least on one end of this internet connection.


I provided the scientific studies, why don't you look at them. Educate yourself. Anyone with a lick of sense can easily check and see if I am just making up studies.

I can say that no science exists that proves the benefit of ingestion because the proponents of fluoridation do not source any. They are under fire everyday and if they had any science they would produce it.

The rest of your garbage post is redundant and full of ad hominem. That is all you got.

I got an idea, go swallow some toothpaste and do your own experiment.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

one thing about the nazis is they documented EVERYTHING, if they did this, there would be records, how much was used, how it was administered, what the anticipated effects were, what the actual effects were, etc etc

The Nazis "documented EVERYTHING?" Was there a big bunker in some mountain with a filing system for this "everything?"

Just askin'.

[defaultdotxbe]

The Nazis "documented EVERYTHING?" Was there a big bunker in some mountain with a filing system for this "everything?"

Just askin'.
its all in hitler's secret antarctic base

...with hitler


......and the aliens :D


but seriously though they did keep very good records of everything they did, so if they were experimenting with fluoride youd be able to produce documentation

[Thunder]

The Nazis "documented EVERYTHING?" Was there a big bunker in some mountain with a filing system for this "everything?"

Just askin'.

yes. we know. you are "just asking questions".

:D

[Thunder]

I provided the scientific studies, why don't you look at them. Educate yourself. Anyone with a lick of sense can easily check and see if I am just making up studies.

I can say that no science exists that proves the benefit of ingestion because the proponents of fluoridation do not source any. They are under fire everyday and if they had any science they would produce it.

The rest of your garbage post is redundant and full of ad hominem. That is all you got.

I got an idea, go swallow some toothpaste and do your own experiment.


if you swallow too much fluoride...it is bad for you.

but that also goes for water, garlic, mustard, peanut oil, cream cheese, and borscht.

tell us something we dont know....

whats the solution to this horrible dilemma? dont swallow too much fluoride. now you are safe.

..just out of curiosity, does this have anything to do with swallowing too much mouthwash due to the high alchohol content?

=)

[JimBenArm]

I provided the scientific studies, why don't you look at them. Educate yourself. Anyone with a lick of sense can easily check and see if I am just making up studies.
Only places that state what you did and tie it to the concentrations of that in drinking water are the ones you deny reading. So, no thank you. I stay away from Rense.com, so as to preserve my precious bodily fluids.

I can say that no science exists that proves the benefit of ingestion because the proponents of fluoridation do not source any. They are under fire everyday and if they had any science they would produce it.
Under fire from who? You?:wackytwitcy:

The rest of your garbage post is redundant and full of ad hominem. That is all you got.
Ahem. Ad hominem is : you are wrong because you are ugly. Not ad hominem: You are wrong and you are ugly. If you're going to use terms, please make at least an attempt to understand what they mean. Otherwise you look foolish and stupid. You don't want to do that, do you?
Simply because you don't like what I said doesn't make it ad hom. Especially when I'm correct.

I got an idea, go swallow some toothpaste and do your own experiment.
How very typical. You don't know anything about me other than the fact I've shown you to be another Internet Wanna-Be Expert, and you want to cause me harm. Such a nice boy! If you can't argue your points without resorting to childish tantrums, maybe you should find somewhere else to post your nonsense. You don't want to look immature on top of looking foolish, do you?

[Mongrel]

I can say that no science exists that proves the benefit of ingestion because the proponents of fluoridation do not source any. They are under fire everyday and if they had any science they would produce it.

So going to Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.co.uk/) or Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8474047)and searching for "benefits of fluoridation" was too hard?

Papers like "The Effectiveness of Community Water Fluoridation in the United States (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119952085/abstract)" or "Effectiveness of Water Fluoridation (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120004282/abstract)" or even "The US experience with fluoridation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897745)".

You either didn't look or searched with your eyes closed

[Thunder]

im gonna assume he didnt care to look. why read something that disagrees with what you already have decided is da truth?

[Without Rights]

if you swallow too much fluoride...it is bad for you.

but that also goes for water, garlic, mustard, peanut oil, cream cheese, and borscht.

tell us something we dont know....

whats the solution to this horrible dilemma? dont swallow too much fluoride. now you are safe.

..just out of curiosity, does this have anything to do with swallowing too much mouthwash due to the high alchohol content?

=)

Oh boy!

O.k., something you don't know...

Oh, water, garlic, mustard, peanut oil, cream cheese, and borscht are not toxic. They do not kill brain cells, they don't damage your thyroid and kidneys. They become toxic in large amounts for other reasons, not because they destroy cells. You don't have to mark them "toxic" on the container they are in. You don't have to have a hazmat endorsement on your license to transport those things.

Look at your mustard, does it say "WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately."

All you have to do is not swallow too much. Wrong. A study at Cornell U. shows fluoride accumulates in bones. It replaces hydroxyl ions and makes the bones and teeth harder but more brittle over time.

Furthermore, a study done at Aarhus University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Denmark, concludes;

"A significant increase in fluorosis prevalence has occurred over the last 20 years due to increased fluoride exposure of pre-school children."

and what was the level of exposure? "Fluoride concentrations of 1 ppm"

Nothing to do with swallowing to much mouthwash, unless it is ACT.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Actually, if you drink too much water, it does kill brain cells by bursting and crushing them. Bones and teeth have cellulose, which keeps them flexible. With age, cellulose production tapers off, so bones and teeth will become more brittle over time.

Google Colorado brown spot disease. Fluoride was only added to drinking water after it was observed to prevent cavity formation.

[Without Rights]

Actually, if you drink too much water, it does kill brain cells by bursting and crushing them. Bones and teeth have cellulose, which keeps them flexible. With age, cellulose production tapers off, so bones and teeth will become more brittle over time.

Google Colorado brown spot disease. Fluoride was only added to drinking water after it was observed to prevent cavity formation.

No water does not kill brain cells. Drinking too much water dilutes electrolytes to a point where they become dangerously low and is known as hyponatremia.
That is the only danger water poses, except fluoridated water that is. Unless there is some obstruction of the urethra and you can't urinate, but even then water doesn't crush brain cells.

Cellulose? Are we plants? I think you mean enamel.

[Without Rights]

So going to Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.co.uk/) or Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8474047)and searching for "benefits of fluoridation" was too hard?

Papers like "The Effectiveness of Community Water Fluoridation in the United States (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119952085/abstract)" or "Effectiveness of Water Fluoridation (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120004282/abstract)" or even "The US experience with fluoridation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897745)".

You either didn't look or searched with your eyes closed

Great, thanks for making me waste $30 on a skewed garbage observation. All three sound the same as the first, but there is no way I am spending $90. But the first is complete garbage. Why is there no correlation to unfluoridated countries. He shows a reduction in tooth decay since fluoridation began. Nice work. Too bad the same reduction took place in countries that don't fluoridate. (Neurath, 2005 (http://www.fluorideresearch.org/384/files/384324-325.pdf))


Another study bashes studies that show ingestion as beneficial.

"The most serious defect of the studies of possible beneficial effects of water fluoridation was the lack of appropriate design and analysis. Many studies did not present an analysis at all, while others did not attempt to control for potentially confounding factors. Age, sex, social class, ethnicity, country, tooth type (primary or permanent), mean daily regional temperature, use of fluoride, total fluoride consumption, method of measurement (clinical exam or radiographs, or both), and training of examiners are all possible confounding factors in the assessment of development of dental caries." Marian S McDonagh BMJ Medical Journal

For those scoring at home, BMJ is not Rense.com.

[Without Rights]

Only places that state what you did and tie it to the concentrations of that in drinking water are the ones you deny reading. So, no thank you. I stay away from Rense.com, so as to preserve my precious bodily fluids.

I never mentioned rense.com only legitimate scientific journals. There is a good ad hom, say I got my info from wacks instead of confronting the studies. You can't combat the studies so you try and associate me with a website.


Under fire from who? You?:wackytwitcy:

Yeah, it's just me.


Ahem. Ad hominem is : you are wrong because you are ugly. Not ad hominem: You are wrong and you are ugly. If you're going to use terms, please make at least an attempt to understand what they mean. Otherwise you look foolish and stupid. You don't want to do that, do you?
Simply because you don't like what I said doesn't make it ad hom. Especially when I'm correct.

You are wrong and you are ugly is ad hominem if you don't explain why I am wrong. You are attacking me and misstating where I located studies in an effort to negate the studies, purely ad hominem. What are you correct about? You didn't even say anything. You offer nothing at all to a constructive argument.

How very typical. You don't know anything about me other than the fact I've shown you to be another Internet Wanna-Be Expert (ad hom), and you want to cause me harm. Such a nice boy! If you can't argue your points without resorting to childish tantrums, maybe you should find somewhere else to post your nonsense. You don't want to look immature on top of looking foolish, do you?

Yeah, no ad hominem in there at all. How did you show me blah blah blah? You have said nothing.

[Praktik]

Stalin murdered 20 million people. I don't think they had to say he fluoridated the water to try and demonize him.

?? I was merely pointing out that in an atmosphere of antagonism in the early days of the Cold War, that any interepretation attributing extra evil in the ways of Stalin would be more likely to be the one adopted by Americans at the time.

Also that testimony alone from a Major General is not proof of a link between fluoride and suggestibility. He just said it was used for that purpose - but based on what? We're not told. We're just told that it is so.

I remain highly skeptical about this claim. I cannot connect lower IQ by a few points to being more likely to follow a guard's orders in prison. In my mind the monopoly of force and the regimented structure of the lives of prisoners is the driving force behind docility.

Then why argue for fluoridation. It's toxic, it has never been proven beneficial. That should be enough.

Right. But many people believe it HAS proven beneficial. Thats why cities all over America adopted it: in the belief that doing so was providing a health benefit.

That may be true - or not. But that was the primary motive, coinciding with a profit incentive for the manufacturers.

[JimBenArm]

I never mentioned rense.com only legitimate scientific journals. There is a good ad hom, say I got my info from wacks instead of confronting the studies. You can't combat the studies so you try and associate me with a website.




Yeah, it's just me.




You are wrong and you are ugly is ad hominem if you don't explain why I am wrong. You are attacking me and misstating where I located studies in an effort to negate the studies, purely ad hominem. What are you correct about? You didn't even say anything. You offer nothing at all to a constructive argument.



Yeah, no ad hominem in there at all. How did you show me blah blah blah? You have said nothing.
Amazing! Maybe you should actually try reading what I posted, maybe this time comprehending it?
What I posted about ad hom stands. Insult is not ad hom. Learn the difference. I can't cure your ignorance without some effort on your part.

So, Mr. Paranoid Person, let's try another tack, shall we? Since the last one was totally ignored.

Again, using your own words about what should have happened to everyone if all this evil stuff about fluoride is true, our IQ's would have dropped, we'd all have ADD and we couldn't think straight. Now, again, since wide-scale fluoridation didn't start until after WWII, one would think that our technical progress would pretty much have halted at that level, since we all would be too stupid and unable to focus on doing stuff.

However, the exact opposite has occurred. Since WWII, we have gone from few black & white TVs to HDTV in color. Polio was rampant, as were other diseases, which now are preventable by vaccines. (You're not also an anti-vax moron, too, are you?) There had been no satellites launched, now every Joe Schmoe has GPS. No one had even been in space, now we've landed on the moon and have a permanent space station (I'm sure you're not a "no moon landing" idiot as well, right?). The computers that existed then filled a large room, took massive amounts of power to run. Today, you can carry around one in a small briefcase. Oh, and you can get in touch with everyone on WiFi and e-mail. And there's this little thing called the internet. Maybe you're familiar with it? Oh, and my own personal favorite, nuclear power.

Not too bad for people with low intellegence and ADD!

So if the effects are so bad, why aren't they having any, well, effect? Hmm?

And why am I running circles around you logically if I'm so unable to focus and pay attention? That's really gotta sting. A fluoride-infested drooling idiot is making you look bad. Wow. Makes me wonder what's in YOUR water!

[Ladewig]

The mechanism, fluoride reduces I.Q, alters the hypothalamus and causes ADD. By damaging brain function and reducing intelligence people are less likely to worry about things in the world that require thought.

Since you just asked about chemicals in general, many chemicals are made to pacify dissent in patients. Seraquill and Thorazine are commonly used.

Rep or Dem? Neither. It is lobbyist paid for by aluminum and phosphate corporations. Since fluoride is toxic it is expensive to dispose of. Now it is sold for profit instead of being an expense.

Examples? A loaded question if I ever heard one.

So the heads of aluminum and phosphate corporations are willing to unabashedly hinder America's progress and put the lives of its citizens (and themselves) in jeopardy for some extra money. Do these corporate criminals not fly on airplanes piloted by fluoridated pilots? Do they not use the services of fluoridated surgeons or pharmacists? Do they not use bridges, elevators, and buildings constructed by fluoridated engineers?

As for the link between lower IQ and docileness, I don't see it. The folks near the bottom of the IQ scale seem positively rambunctious given their agitation and fear over Obama's super sekret political platform. If the goal is submission, then it's seems obvious that now is not the time to wave the "Mission: Accomplished" banner.

[Without Rights]

Amazing! Maybe you should actually try reading what I posted, maybe this time comprehending it?
What I posted about ad hom stands. Insult is not ad hom. Learn the difference. I can't cure your ignorance without some effort on your part.

So, Mr. Paranoid Person, let's try another tack, shall we? Since the last one was totally ignored.

Again, using your own words about what should have happened to everyone if all this evil stuff about fluoride is true, our IQ's would have dropped, we'd all have ADD and we couldn't think straight. Now, again, since wide-scale fluoridation didn't start until after WWII, one would think that our technical progress would pretty much have halted at that level, since we all would be too stupid and unable to focus on doing stuff.

However, the exact opposite has occurred. Since WWII, we have gone from few black & white TVs to HDTV in color. Polio was rampant, as were other diseases, which now are preventable by vaccines. (You're not also an anti-vax moron, too, are you?) There had been no satellites launched, now every Joe Schmoe has GPS. No one had even been in space, now we've landed on the moon and have a permanent space station (I'm sure you're not a "no moon landing" idiot as well, right?). The computers that existed then filled a large room, took massive amounts of power to run. Today, you can carry around one in a small briefcase. Oh, and you can get in touch with everyone on WiFi and e-mail. And there's this little thing called the internet. Maybe you're familiar with it? Oh, and my own personal favorite, nuclear power.

Not too bad for people with low intellegence and ADD!

So if the effects are so bad, why aren't they having any, well, effect? Hmm?

And why am I running circles around you logically if I'm so unable to focus and pay attention? That's really gotta sting. A fluoride-infested drooling idiot is making you look bad. Wow. Makes me wonder what's in YOUR water!

Wow!

O.k., like I said earlier, fluoride will not reduce IQ to the point where you are drooling on yourself and not every one will be effected the same due to many factors. I am not going to set out to prove everyone on this thread has a damaged brain. The prevalence of A.D.D. has risen drastically as has mental disorders. I present scientific evidence that you refuse to except because we have color TVs and can argue on a forum. Compelling. Boy are you making me look dumb. Hey, cigarettes don't cause emphysema because I smoke and I don't have it. Hell, cancer either. I am cancer free so no way cigs cause cancer. Liquor doesn't kill braincells either, I mean I drink and I can form complete sentences. Completely absurd.

Here is something that can maybe give you something rational to argue.

Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, probably because of their capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by changing the permeability of the cell membrane and by inhibiting certain enzyme systems.
- Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept 18, 1943

these findings indicate that children drinking high F water are at risk for impaired development of intelligence."
SOURCE: Trivedi MH, et al. (2007). Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence of school children in India

High fluoride burden has a definite effect on the intellectual and physical development of children."
SOURCE: Wang S, et al. (2005). Effects of coal burning related endemic fluorosis on body development and intelligence levels of children. Journal of Applied Clinical Pediatrics

"The results of this study show that the children living in high fluoride areas have lower IQs than the children from the non-endemic area. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 10:98-100


Oh, these don't matter. We've been to space.

Interesting, the US Census Bureau records IQ.

1950 mean IQ 91.64
2000 mean IQ 89.2

So IQs are dropping, albeit not extreme, but this in a period where fluoridation was relatively low.

[Praktik]

Ok fine. I think there's been some questions about the methodology of these studies but let's accept their findings at face value for the sake of argument.

There's still no connection between a 3-5 point IQ drop and docility. At least none that I have been made aware of. Have you seen science that demonstrates a connection?

To my mind all of this is based on unsubstantiated speculation on the motives of Nazis and Commies for using it - with no hard evidence to back it up.

[Without Rights]

As for the link between lower IQ and docileness, I don't see it. The folks near the bottom of the IQ scale seem positively rambunctious

Not just lower IQ, a damaged brain. There is a difference between the two.


As for the rest of your post, I am not going to argue corporate morals. That is another thread.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Pardon me, I meant collagen. Without collagen fibers, our skin and bones are not flexible. Collagen production declines with age.

I notice you have focused on high levels of fluoride, any evidence that the levels of fluoridation maintained by water departments can be called high?

[Praktik]

Not just lower IQ, a damaged brain. There is a difference between the two.


As for the rest of your post, I am not going to argue corporate morals. That is another thread.


Ok... but I voluntarily damage my brain all the time when I ingest drugs like alcohol or recreational drugs - does this make me more "docile"?

Only when I smoke pot.... ;) And that actually does NO brain damage (studies have show it "freezes" brain cells, rather than kill them as alcohol or cocaine would).

"Brain Damage" is a pretty general term - damaged how? To a degree where personality changes occur? If so - that needs to be substantiated.

[dudalb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

Because somebody had to do it in this thread.

[Without Rights]

Ok... but I voluntarily damage my brain all the time when I ingest drugs like alcohol or recreational drugs - does this make me more "docile"?

Only when I smoke pot.... ;) And that actually does NO brain damage (studies have show it "freezes" brain cells, rather than kill them as alcohol or cocaine would).

"Brain Damage" is a pretty general term - damaged how? To a degree where personality changes occur? If so - that needs to be substantiated.

Personality changes do occur with long term drug or alcohol use. Anybody who knows a drug addict or alcoholic can testify to this fact.

Studies show fluoride effects the hippocampal neurons.

"when fluoride was present intracellularly, the inactivation kinetics of the calcium current were accelerated and the persistent component of the current was largely suppressed" J Neurosci 1986 Oct

Another study

"After controlling by significant confounders, urinary fluoride correlated positively with reaction time and inversely with the scores in visuospatial organization...An increase in reaction time could affect the attention process, also the low scores in visuospatial organization could be affecting the reading and writing abilities in these children."

Influence of Fluoride Exposure on Reaction Time and Visuospatial Organization in Children, Epidemiology July 2000, Volume 11, Number 4 Supplement S153

Another...

"Neurological changes associated with skeletal fluorosis have been attributed to compression radioculomyelopathy.10 Axonal degeneration with secondary demyelination in myelinated fibres in the sural nerves in patients with skeletal fluorosis has also been reported.11 The central and peripheral nerves were damaged directly by fluoride, and the damaged function of motor nerves was imputed to osteoproliferation of vertebrae.12"
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi, India

[Without Rights]

Pardon me, I meant collagen. Without collagen fibers, our skin and bones are not flexible. Collagen production declines with age.

I notice you have focused on high levels of fluoride, any evidence that the levels of fluoridation maintained by water departments can be called high?

I haven't focused at all on high doses. One study I posted uses 1PPM, the same used in most water systems. Another shows that fluoride accumulates in bones and teeth over time. Also everything that is processed with fluoridated water compounds the 1PPM prescribed to us Dr Sam.

[Without Rights]

Ok fine. I think there's been some questions about the methodology of these studies but let's accept their findings at face value for the sake of argument.

I cant do that because my argument is that the study is skewed.

There's still no connection between a 3-5 point IQ drop and docility. At least none that I have been made aware of. Have you seen science that demonstrates a connection?


Not docility directly but damage to the hypothalamus, and the protective cellular membrane. The connection would be in damage to the brain, not low IQ. Low IQ is just a result of the damaged brain. I don't think it is a stretch to theorize that it could serve as a pacifier by harming the hypothalamus. The endocrine system relies on the hypothalamus to function properly. The endocrine system is instrumental in determining mood. Therefore it can produce a docile mood by restricting the neuron flow from the hypothalamus and the nervous system.

[dudalb]

I cant do that because my argument is that the study is skewed.



Not docility directly but damage to the hypothalamus, and the protective cellular membrane. The connection would be in damage to the brain, not low IQ. Low IQ is just a result of the damaged brain. I don't think it is a stretch to theorize that it could serve as a pacifier by harming the hypothalamus. The endocrine system relies on the hypothalamus to function properly. The endocrine system is instrumental in determining mood. Therefore it can produce a docile mood by restricting the neuron flow from the hypothalamus and the nervous system.

In other words you have no real evidence but a lot theories that take the evidence and strectch it to the breaking point.
But Carry on. Our Precious Bodily Fluids must be preserved.

[Praktik]

Not docility directly but damage to the hypothalamus, and the protective cellular membrane. The connection would be in damage to the brain, not low IQ. Low IQ is just a result of the damaged brain. I don't think it is a stretch to theorize that it could serve as a pacifier by harming the hypothalamus. The endocrine system relies on the hypothalamus to function properly. The endocrine system is instrumental in determining mood. Therefore it can produce a docile mood by restricting the neuron flow from the hypothalamus and the nervous system.

Ok, well - I'm no neurologist. I'd be interested if anyone here had access to the expertise to further the discussion on the point above.

It's easier for me to cautiously accept your quote as a possibility, its just I've seen it stated as fact and have yet to come across anything concrete that demonstrates that fluoride fluoride increases docility.

Since the source on this involves Nazis and Soviets, what I'd like to see is if either country has some science telling them that it increases docility in their archives. Heck, would be cool to see what their rationale was period.

[Without Rights]

In other words you have no real evidence but a lot theories that take the evidence and strectch it to the breaking point.
But Carry on. Our Precious Bodily Fluids must be preserved.

You use a lot of fallacious arguments.

Selective observation by being blind to every post of scientific papers and focusing on one theory, then stretching that into "a lot of theories". No just one theory with logical explanations.

Ad Hominem by saying I am stretching the evidence without actually explaining yourself. Why don't you point out the errors in my logic?

[Thunder]

Without- honestly now, you want to believe that fluoride is bad for you. most of us will tell you brushing your teeth with toothpaste and washing your mouth with mouthwash is just fine. you clearly DO NOT want to believe us, regardless of all the evidence and reports we provide to you.

so what are you really trying to accomplish here? convince us of your point of view? it aint gonna happen buddy.

[Without Rights]

Ok, well - I'm no neurologist. I'd be interested if anyone here had access to the expertise to further the discussion on the point above.

It's easier for me to cautiously accept your quote as a possibility, its just I've seen it stated as fact and have yet to come across anything concrete that demonstrates that fluoride fluoride increases docility.

Since the source on this involves Nazis and Soviets, what I'd like to see is if either country has some science telling them that it increases docility in their archives. Heck, would be cool to see what their rationale was period.

The theory is at least plausible and worth thought. I've said earlier that I don't know for sure about the Russians and I don't want that to be the focus. This is a CT thread so it is natural to mention the conspiracy aspects surrounding F use by the Nazis and Russia. And we do have testimony from a military officer, liaison to Russia, who says they openly talked to him about them fluoridating and the purpose was to dumb down and pacify the Russian serfs.

I know testimony from one guy is not 100% proof of fact, but it should at least compel a constructive debate, especially in a CT thread.

[Without Rights]

Without- honestly now, you want to believe that fluoride is bad for you. most of us will tell you brushing your teeth with toothpaste and washing your mouth with mouthwash is just fine. you clearly DO NOT want to believe us, regardless of all the evidence and reports we provide to you.

so what are you really trying to accomplish here? convince us of your point of view? it aint gonna happen buddy.


You have not listened to anything I said. I never said brushing was bad. I actually said that fluoride is proven to fight cavities when used topically. Never proven through ingestion. Ingestion has been proven bad.

All the evidence you provide? Where? Those three papers that only show correlation to decreases in cavities since fluorides use? Even though the same decreases, sometimes greater decreases, are recorded in countries that do no fluoridate. No studies showing it is safe, no controlled studies to show it is effective. Give me a brief synopsis on all the evidence you provided, please.


What am I trying to accomplish. What are you trying to accomplish? No one here as even remotely convinced me of positive effects from ingestion. As well, no one as even tried to look at the science I produce and find flaw in them.

[Thunder]

And we do have testimony from a military officer, liaison to Russia, who says they openly talked to him about them fluoridating and the purpose was to dumb down and pacify the Russian serfs.

.

and did this "military officer" provide any proof?

I guess no. Just like Rumsfeld said that Al Qaeda had giant underground bunkers in Afghanistan..but provided no proof.

Proof is in the pudding..and I see no chocolate. The Nazis and Soviets DID NOT use fluoride as mind control.

Am I wrong? Did they? Prove it.

:p

[Without Rights]

and did this "military officer" provide any proof?

I guess no. Just like Rumsfeld said that Al Qaeda had giant underground bunkers in Afghanistan..but provided no proof.

Proof is in the pudding..and I see no chocolate. The Nazis and Soviets DID NOT use fluoride as mind control.

Am I wrong? Did they? Prove it.

:p

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
You are using a fallacious argument. Burden of proof.

His testimony he cannot prove. I imagine he didn't walk around Red Russia tape recording everything. So you turn this into it didn't happen and speak of it as a fact, like you somehow have superiority over the debate. Where is your burden of proof? Are you not held to the same standard as a military Major? Where is your proof you need to come to the absolute conclusion that he lied in his testimony to congress.

[ktesibios]

Without, I think you misunderstand. You are making a positive claim that the Nazis and Soviets used flouride as a mind control drug, and citing an Army Major who made the same claim as evidence. The making of a positive claim carries with it the burden of proof. Unless you cite independent evidence in support, which neither you nor your Major appear to have done, the burden is not met.

Parky, OTOH. is not necessarily making a positive claim that the Major's testimony was a lie. He's simply noting that the burden of proof for your claim has not yet been met, consequently he has no BOP other than to demonstrate that your notion of evidence does not rise to the level required for the claim to be accepted. Since you have not provided any evidence other than your Major's similarly unsupported claim, this has in fact been done.

I'm no logician, but that's how i see it.

[Without Rights]

Without, I think you misunderstand. You are making a positive claim that the Nazis and Soviets used flouride as a mind control drug, and citing an Army Major who made the same claim as evidence. The making of a positive claim carries with it the burden of proof. Unless you cite independent evidence in support, which neither you nor your Major appear to have done, the burden is not met.


I'm no logician, but that's how i see it.

I admit I spoke of it like fact early in the thread but I was really just throwing out there. I have stated several times that I don't think it is important to the debate. I said the major is not absolute proof but lack of further proof is not proof that his claims were not true. I myself would not reject it so quickly as everyone in here does because I don't see a reason to. Parky is out of bounds when he claims fluoridation by Nazis absolutely did not happen. He requires proof to make that claim.


*Edit: I didn't read what you wrote to him so excuse my redundancy.

Let me say I don't think I have reached a burden of truth to absolutely prove Hitler and Russia used Fluoride.

[Elizabeth I]

Stalin murdered 20 million people. I don't think they had to say he fluoridated the water to try and demonize him.

We didn't know in the 1950s that Stalin had murdered 20 million people. The full extent of his lunacy didn't really become clear until after the fall of the former Soviet Union.

[Old Bob]

Sodium fluoride is toxic,and as stated earlier a brain damage agent. One way off loading rubbish and be paid for it is to sell it to the water boards. How dumb are the public to tolerate the lies that we are told. Good for your teeth Bul---it. Cavities can be caused by eating acid based foods and if the correct foods are eaten nothing bad happens. Teeth should not be cleaned for up to 5 hours after eating because food traces have minerals which attach to the enamel, re- enameling and protecting if the food is right. Time to get the pitch forks out to those bar---ds that push the blatant lie. More than one type of fluoride, look it up. As for the rest who think it's good wake up for your kids sake.

[Praktik]

How dumb are the public to tolerate the lies that we are told. Good for your teeth Bul---it...(snip)...As for the rest who think it's good wake up for your kids sake.

CT Pet Peeve #36: Disdain for the General Public

This telling quote gets under my skin. Its pretty common to see this type of thinking among CT adherents. We get it Old Bob, you're through the veil man.

This type of thinking has a long history though. The 60's had "hip" versus "square" society. They too were enlightened and the rest of society were blinded, unable to see the evil all around them, ambling along in their dreary, workaday lives mindlessly consuming as the "useful idiots" of the "system". What this ended up doing of course, was to alienate a large segment of the would-be revolutionaries from the source of their potential political success.

They looked down on "the general public." They saw the public as dazed sheep that needed to be slapped awake. Hence the "freak outs" and nowadays things like Zeitgeist, or seeing "9/11 was an inside job!" written on the seat handle on the bus exemplify that approach perfectly. Every revolution needs the general public or they just can't get off the ground. What they needed was an inclusive revolution, not an exclusive one that ended up living and dying on the margins of society.

Thing is, we all know there's a bunch of stupid people out there. Just get in a car and start driving, and that will become apparent very quickly. But I really think quotes like Old Bob's go too far: they're more a sign if his mental and emotional state than anything else. They're like epithets.

Commonly, it is asserted that "consumer culture" needs "sheep" who get told what to buy and then go buy it. Fact is, the engine of consumerism is driven by the need for all of us to differentiate ourselves, to demonstrate to others what makes us unique, or attractive, or intelligent or cultured or cool. Capitalism does not require a Pleasantville Society, it does better with diverse societies of individuals who prize their individuality.

Like ours. Heck, the No Logo fan club has to get their hemp shirts and granola somewhere, and dont those choices tell us a bit about who they are?

So why do they think so many people are "dumbass"? Because people shop at stores? Or litter? Or is it because they elect dumbass politicians? Or because Paris Hilton is one of the most-searched terms on the web? Or - because more people aren't filling the streets to demand an end to water fluoridation??

Or is it because it fulfills a psychological need - the same one that drives our consumer culture - to differentiate ourselves from one another. To display our capacity to "get it", to show just how much we hate the things about the current system that bother us. To elevate ourselves in the pantheon of humanity to the exalted level of "in on the secret" - even if you get none of the benefits of being "in on it" (such as fluoride manufacturing profits), you can see that game they're playing right there... oh ya, you can see...

"How dumb are the public" he says - not as dumb as you say it is Old Bob....

[Thunder]

Parky is out of bounds when he claims fluoridation by Nazis absolutely did not happen. He requires proof to make that claim.
.

no my friend. it is YOU who is making the claim. therefore it is YOU who must provide the proof. so far, you have only provided unreliable and uncorroborated testimony.

[Without Rights]

no my friend. it is YOU who is making the claim. therefore it is YOU who must provide the proof. so far, you have only provided unreliable and uncorroborated testimony.

I am not claiming the Major said those things, he absolutely said them, under oath and before Congress. How many times do I have to say that his testimony is not 100% truth?

But by your words, you are claiming 100% proof positive that the Major is lying. Burden of proof is on you. My burden of proof ended when I quoted the Major. I never claimed his testimony was fact, just that he said it. It is you who is claiming fact when you say he was lying.

[Thunder]

what evidence did Major provide? hearsay? "i heard some guy say something about something that was done"?

what kind of evidence is that? why wouldnt he lie about the USSR? back then, maybe even I would.

[Without Rights]

History is also full of dazed sheep. Such as Hitlers populous who gave him the authority to attack any nation he wanted as long as he called them Communists first. All this while claiming Germany was still a free society.

[Without Rights]

what evidence did Major provide? hearsay? "i heard some guy say something about something that was done"?

what kind of evidence is that? why wouldnt he lie about the USSR? back then, maybe even I would.


Why wouldn't he lie?

Hmmm, let's see. Maybe because he was a Major testifying before Congress. His career, his commission.

What would be his motivation to risk his career, a slight blight on a already extremely hated Communist nation? Was he ordered to do it? If he did it on his own, what was his motivation? Why did he want congress to think this was happening?

And hearsay is sometimes admissible evidence when there is necessity and when the witness is credible. Also when the accused has no credibility or has a record of similar acts. Most of these things where present. The Major had credibility. The accused had none. The accused was a mass murderer.

Also, Major Jordan testified that one of his tasks as liaison was to procure vast quantities of sodium fluoride from Montana and deliver to Siberia. This testimony is not hearsay.

Is there another use for fluoride that you know of? I personally don't.


I gather that even if it were the Russians who were testifying before Congress, that you would still not even consider it. What's the point of your passion? Mine is my 3 children's brains. I imagine that I am more impervious to fluoride than my kids, so that is why I have spent so much time here.

Do you have a passion for teeth? Do you despise cavities? Do you get paid to do it? (watch out Without Rights, they will focus on just that, being the big CT you are)

What, and this is definitely an open question, is your motivation for such adamant arguing for the use of fluoride?

[defaultdotxbe]

Why wouldn't he lie?

Hmmm, let's see. Maybe because he was a Major testifying before Congress. His career, his commission. What would be his motivation to risk his career for a slight blight on a already extremely hated Communist nation.
i cant find any information about a major george jordan testifying before congress, except for fluoride CT sites

can you link to some official transcript?

but even assuming he did testify, and he wasnt lying, hes testimony is still second hand, hes telling congress what someone else told him, so we also have to assume they werent lying

[Thunder]

2nd hand testimony...about an evil Soviet plot to use fluoride to mind-control the people of Russia. sounds like a nutcase conspiracy theory to me.

[Thunder]

What, and this is definitely an open question, is your motivation for such adamant arguing for the use of fluoride?

its kept my teeth in pretty good shape and i like the taste.

[Without Rights]

i cant find any information about a major george jordan testifying before congress, except for fluoride CT sites

can you link to some official transcript?

but even assuming he did testify, and he wasnt lying, hes testimony is still second hand, hes telling congress what someone else told him, so we also have to assume they werent lying

Joseph Borkin, the chief economic advisor of the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice, reports in one of his books: The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben

[Without Rights]

its kept my teeth in pretty good shape and i like the taste.

That's because you brush with it not because you swallow it.

But that's not the point. Why argue for mass medication of fluoride when it is available to anyone through the market? Why do we need to do this so bad that you feel the need to get involved? I myself skip stuff that would mean so little.

[elbe]

Joseph Borkin, the chief economic advisor of the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice, reports in one of his books: The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben
If this (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_igfarben02.htm) is the complete text of that book then neither "fluoride" nor any mention of "George Racey Jordan" occur in it. On the same site, though, there is an article entitled Fluoridation - Mind Control Of The Masses (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/salud_fluor06.htm) that has the following excerpt:
Mr. Perkins does not involve America, American institutions or individuals in his assertions, but when Major George Racey Jordan was in charge of the massive 'lend-lease airlift' operations from Great Falls, Montana, to Russia via Alaska, he queried the transshipment of considerable amounts of sodium fluoride via Fairbanks, Alaska, to Russia. He was told 'frankly' that it was to put into the drinking water in the prisoner-of-war camps to take away their will to resist.
To be honest, that doesn't come sound like a very reliable argument. I could easily see someone just BSing him about it.

Maybe the rest of the article contains interesting information to back up the mind control claim, but I haven't read it yet.

The site appears to be pretty CTish, but it's what I found that appears to contain the text of "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben".

ETA:
That's because you brush with it not because you swallow it.
I've been rather lucky, myself, I only recently had my first cavity and it certainly isn't due to particularly good dental hygiene. I certainly think the fluoride in the water supply helped keep my teeth as strong as they are. But that's just my opinion.

[Lucky]

Ya but this whole "fluoride makes you more suggestible" thing really IS a leap.

The journals show brain damage, it shows lower IQs (maybe), but they DO NOT show, nor has any study ever shown, how fluoride would make one more agreeable when locked up in a concentration camp or prison camp. Wouldn't the constant threat of violence and the heirarchical structures of such places be a more important factor in determining someone's willingness to go along with orders?

Its a leap to start with "fluoride has been shown to cause brain damage in high doses and possibly lowering IQ by a few points" and then say "fluoride is a mind control drug" or "fluoride makes you more likely to accept the system mannnn!"

Wouldn't a more likely motive for its introduction to our water supplies be a conjunction of profit and the idea that doing so is actually beneficial - however flawed that "beneficial" part may turn out to be?
Sadly rare to see such a sensible comment in the fluoridation debate.

I too would like to know whether there's anything in the claim that the Nazis and the Stalinists tried fluoride for behaviour control in PoW and/or concentration camps. The claim is certainly nothing new – I remember it being discussed as a non-controversial detail in Labour Party meetings decades ago. I have looked into it several times, and can't find enough evidence either to prove or debunk it. However, knee-jerk 'skepticism' is not appropriate – it's certainly not implausible, and would be no more bizarre than many other pseudoscientific Nazi beliefs and deeds.

Whether it (would have) worked is another matter - we can be confident that (if true) it wasn't based on adequate science. Anyway, we don't know the concentrations – they could have been many times higher than the ppm levels in fluoridated water. For this and other reasons, the 'mind control' issue is simply not relevant to any serious discussion of the pros and cons of fluoridation, and it's a pity that many people on both sides of the debate seem to think it's the central issue.

As for the claim that lobbying of politicians, public health bodies and dentists by various chemical industries that produce waste fluoride compounds played an important part in the introduction of fluoridation, it can't reasonably be doubted. I would therefore say that there was (and is) an element of 'conspiracy' associated with the pro-fluoridation lobby but, again, this says nothing about the risks/benefits of fluoridation (and has nothing to do with mind control).

Water fluoridation seems to be one of those polarising issues it's almost impossible to discuss sensibly – apparently one must be either a paranoid, tin-hatted neanderthal or a gullible apologist for the NWO.

I am not a CTist, I have studied the issues in some depth (trying, as far as possible, to separate scientific from social), and I come down on the 'anti-' side (though not necessarily for the same reasons as the lobbyists). I think that mass medication via the water supply was not a particularly good idea at the time it was introduced, and is now completely indefensible.

Anyone who wishes to treat their teeth (or their children's) with fluoride can do so with no trouble and little expense. The economics of treating the entire water supply, only a minute proportion of which is going to be in contact with the teeth (or ingested, if you favour that mode of action), never made any sense. In general, we do not (and should not) accept enforced medication – and, as has been pointed out, if we choose to go down this road then there are far more deserving candidates than fluoride. Nobody disputes that we are dealing with a substance that is (potentially) extremely harmful, and that there is (at least) conflicting evidence about safety levels applicable to all groups of the population. There is good reason to suspect that water fluoridation might raise the total consumption in some groups to unsafe levels.

I have never understood the level of fanaticism on either side of the fluoridation debate – is it too much to hope for an intelligent, informed discussion?

(And it's fluoride, btw.)

[Without Rights]

2nd hand testimony...about an evil Soviet plot to use fluoride to mind-control the people of Russia. sounds like a nutcase conspiracy theory to me.

At least that response is honest.

Sounds like an ad hominem again. A more dignified way of saying the same thing would be "sounds unlikely". That is a far leap from it "absolutely DID NOT HAPPEN".

And quit cherry picking. Why do you abandon arguments that aren't working for you?

As a matter of fact I retract all statements of Russia and Germany, now we can talk.

[elbe]

As a matter of fact I retract all statements of Russia and Germany, now we can talk.
Are you as well retracting claims that it makes people docile and controllable?
Or will you supply evidence to support that claim without returning to "the nazis did it" or "the soviets did it"?

[defaultdotxbe]

Joseph Borkin, the chief economic advisor of the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice, reports in one of his books: The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben
ah, a third person we must trust implicitly, this just gets better and better

[quarky]

Other than the nazi stuff, its a reasonable debate. Fluorine is the most active halogen; it must be in a salt form, no? I haven't looked to see what form its in when added to water supplies. In toothpaste, its tin. (or it was)

How much tin do we need?

I personly don't think its a big deal, but as WihoutRights says, why add more to the water, as it is already in the toothpaste?
And why have some civilized countries dropped it?

Could we focus on that, and skip the hostilities?

[elbe]

I personly don't think its a big deal, but as WihoutRights says, why add more to the water, as it is already in the toothpaste?
And why have some civilized countries dropped it?

Could we focus on that, and skip the hostilities?
It is considered added dental protection and, it appears, that the majority of people want it in their water supply, or don't care about it one way or the other.
As for why other countries have dropped it, perhaps the people making the decisions were overwhelmed by conspiracy theory nonsense. Or maybe they did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that the added cost wasn't worth it.

[defaultdotxbe]

It is considered added dental protection and, it appears, that the majority of people want it in their water supply, or don't care about it one way or the other.
As for why other countries have dropped it, perhaps the people making the decisions were overwhelmed by conspiracy theory nonsense. Or maybe they did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that the added cost wasn't worth it.
with increased awareness of dental hygiene it becomes less necessary to fluorodate the water, 50 years ago im not sure the average american brushed their teeth regularly

its probably unnecessary (or at least less necessary) now than when it was implemented, of course that still doesnt lend any credence to the conspiracy garbage

[Old Bob]

Ask your self why would many leading countries through out Europe ban s. fluoride in the water supply. I know that fluoride in the food chain ties up the minerals causing osteoporosis, misery for millions.

[tyr_13]

Ask your self why would many leading countries through out Europe ban s. fluoride in the water supply. I know that fluoride in the food chain ties up the minerals causing osteoporosis, misery for millions.

Because they administer it in other ways. OR they are stupidly allowing nuts to dictate policy based on irrational fear.

The US isn't the only country that does that.

[elbe]

Ask your self why would many leading countries through out Europe ban s. fluoride in the water supply. I know that fluoride in the food chain ties up the minerals causing osteoporosis, misery for millions.
I think the most likely answer is the one I mentioned three posts up.
Or maybe they did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that the added cost wasn't worth it.
Did they actually ban it, though? Or just stop, or decide never to start, using it? If they banned it wouldn't their be some sort of written law about it somewhere we could read that would explain why they banned it?

[Thunder]

what does the New England Journal of Medicine have to say about water fluoridation? How about Johns Hopkins?

here is a link to all their articles about fluoridation. most of them appear to be negative, though you need a paid account to read them

http://search.nejm.org/search?w=fluoridation

anyone got an account?

and you know, Without Rights, if folks like you would STOP talking about unsubstantiated reports of mind control use of fluoride by the Nazis, Soviets, and Martians, and just STUCK TO THE SCIENCE...maybe your goal of removing fluoride from the water supply might actually get accomplished. bringing up silly scare-tactic conspiracy theories may be one of the MAIN reasons why your argument is disregarded by the scientific community.

the best way to kill a movement or issue..is to throw in loony conspiracy theories into the mix. it works like a charm.

=)

=)

[quarky]

Doesn't much matter, as almost no one drinks straight tap water anymore in the U.S.
The fluorine issue has helped sell a lot of plastic bottles.

[Thunder]

i do...actually. nyc water tastes pretty good. is it even fluoridated anymore?

yes it is. just answered my own question. would still like to know what the NEJM says about it.

[Disbelief]

Doesn't much matter, as almost no one drinks straight tap water anymore in the U.S.
The fluorine issue has helped sell a lot of plastic bottles.

You mean the stuff that is taken out of the city water supply? You do realize that a lot of bottled water is really tap water?

I did have another point, but since I am drinking water as I have been reading this thread, I am feeling a bit lethargic.

[quarky]

You mean the stuff that is taken out of the city water supply? You do realize that a lot of bottled water is really tap water?

I did have another point, but since I am drinking water as I have been reading this thread, I am feeling a bit lethargic.

Yeah, I knew about that. Like Yogi Berra said, 95% of it is half psychological.

[Disbelief]

Yeah, I knew about that. Like Yogi Berra said, 95% of it is half psychological.

Are you talking to me? I just feel so relaxed. Man, this water is great!!!

[Old Bob]

Our bottled water in many cases is just filtered with a little added peroxide which I think is harmless providing the water lacks fluoride. The other side is it has a use by date mainly because the plastic bottle breaks down and pollutes the water. Chinese water with a Australian flag on the bottle appeared on super market shelves while ago. Sooner drink out of a puddle with wallabee poop in it.

[Thunder]

Does WR believe that water fluoridation is an evil NWO conspiracy? or just bad medical science?

[Mongrel]

And I believe that the OBs "Bottled water has an expiry date because of tEh PLastixsss!!!" got rebutted in another thread.

[Old Bob]

Just because someone rebutted a past thread doesn't prove anything. The people who poo- hoo things often offer little except name calling. It makes sense to me that water doesn't age but plastic does and please don't tell me that water gets stale for the reason of the use by date. Now slowly people are realizing that all's not right with fluoride. Even if fluoride was a help it's just not right to force it on any one. I have dodged it all my life and still have my own teeth.Acid foods damage teeth fluoride just numbs your brain so you don't feel tooth ache.

[PhantomWolf]

Just because someone rebutted a past thread doesn't prove anything. The people who poo- hoo things often offer little except name calling. It makes sense to me that water doesn't age but plastic does and please don't tell me that water gets stale for the reason of the use by date. Now slowly people are realizing that all's not right with fluoride. Even if fluoride was a help it's just not right to force it on any one. I have dodged it all my life and still have my own teeth.Acid foods damage teeth fluoride just numbs your brain so you don't feel tooth ache.

Yeah it has zero effect on your teeth.... oops (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120004282/abstract)

ETA: BTW, other studies have shown that the amount of flouride taken into the body in areas with flouridated water isn't significantly more than the amount that is absorbed from brushing your teeth with flouridated toothpaste. Even if you spit most out you still swallow some and the amount in that is more than you'd get in ordinaray usage of treated water.

[1337m4n]

Is there any reason for this dicussion to be in the CT forum and not the Politics forum, or the Medicine forum?

If y'all were discussing "Flouride is in the water because teh gubmint is out to get us", that would be a CT, but what you're actually discussing is more along the lines of "is flouride good for you", which does not belong in this forum.

[Without Rights]

Does WR believe that water fluoridation is an evil NWO conspiracy? or just bad medical science?


If I have to chose between your two choices it would be the later. Although if you want to get technical the science is actually pretty solid. Drinking fluoride is bad, putting it on your teeth is helpful.

[Without Rights]

Are you as well retracting claims that it makes people docile and controllable?
Or will you supply evidence to support that claim without returning to "the nazis did it" or "the soviets did it"?

Who are you? Just read Jr.

[Without Rights]

ah, a third person we must trust implicitly, this just gets better and better

trust implicitly? Did I insinuate that or are you exaggerating my point to make my true point absurd? Hmm.

[Without Rights]

Other than the nazi stuff, its a reasonable debate. Fluorine is the most active halogen; it must be in a salt form, no? I haven't looked to see what form its in when added to water supplies. In toothpaste, its tin. (or it was)

How much tin do we need?

I personly don't think its a big deal, but as WihoutRights says, why add more to the water, as it is already in the toothpaste?
And why have some civilized countries dropped it?

Could we focus on that, and skip the hostilities?


I appreciate any amount of validation in this thread. I have said again and again that the Nazi stuff was just for the point of conversation and is not proof of anything. The point was that this is a CT thread and people are saying that so lets talk about them.

But the attack dogs focused on that and I learned a lesson.

[Without Rights]

what does the New England Journal of Medicine have to say about water fluoridation? How about Johns Hopkins?

here is a link to all their articles about fluoridation. most of them appear to be negative, though you need a paid account to read them

http://search.nejm.org/search?w=fluoridation

anyone got an account?

and you know, Without Rights, if folks like you would STOP talking about unsubstantiated reports of mind control use of fluoride by the Nazis, Soviets, and Martians, and just STUCK TO THE SCIENCE...maybe your goal of removing fluoride from the water supply might actually get accomplished. bringing up silly scare-tactic conspiracy theories may be one of the MAIN reasons why your argument is disregarded by the scientific community.

the best way to kill a movement or issue..is to throw in loony conspiracy theories into the mix. it works like a charm.

=)

=)

Once again this is a CT forum and people are saying it so lets discuss it.

Now, are you agreeing that Fluoride should not be swallowed?

[Without Rights]

Doesn't much matter, as almost no one drinks straight tap water anymore in the U.S.
The fluorine issue has helped sell a lot of plastic bottles.

It does matter. people cook with tap water. Corporation use local water supplies to process foods and drink. Plus not everyone can afford to buy bottled water. Beside the fact that most bottled water is just local fluoridated water with a label.

[sleeplessdwarf]

Once again this is a CT forum and people are saying it so lets discuss it.

Now, are you agreeing that Fluoride should not be swallowed?


Many agree that beer should not be swallowed. Pretty sure it is not good for you, but it does not give anyone the right to say that we are being killed by alcohol. Wait, are we? Sure some are, but does not make it a CT.

[Without Rights]

It is considered added dental protection and, it appears, that the majority of people want it in their water supply, or don't care about it one way or the other.
As for why other countries have dropped it, perhaps the people making the decisions were overwhelmed by conspiracy theory nonsense. Or maybe they did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that the added cost wasn't worth it.

No, the other countries were overwhelmed with scientific evidence.

Can you site a scientific journal that provides evidence that swallowing fluoride is beneficial. Can you argue a point against the 20+ scientific papers that say it causes many diseases. And these same diseases have risen in our society in a coefficient manner. Ignore it all and it doesn't exist???

[Without Rights]

Many agree that beer should not be swallowed. Pretty sure it is not good for you, but it does not give anyone the right to say that we are being killed by alcohol. Wait, are we? Sure some are, but does not make it a CT.

Alcohol is not forced on the people. You go to the store and buy it if you want to. Fluoride is also available at the store. Why do I need the Government to medicate me beyond my reach of control. This is a free society which includes medical freedom. I don't want fluoride. Why am I being medicated by force?

[sleeplessdwarf]

Alcohol is not forced on the people. You go to the store and buy it if you want to. Fluoride is also available at the store. Why do I need the Government to medicate me beyond my reach of control. This is a free society which includes medical freedom. I don't want fluoride. Why am I being medicated by force?


Force? Vaccines medicate you. Many Ctist believe that they are full of deadly chemicals, and even if they are, you are not forced to take them. Ctist claim that you are but anyone that has bothered to check knows that you can sign a waiver and still put your kids in public school. No one forces you to take public water. You can get it from other sources but if it is a ct and is meant to control the masses, they do not do a very good job. Way too many people in this country can get their water from non fluoride sources.

[PhantomWolf]

Can you site a scientific journal that provides evidence that swallowing fluoride is beneficial.

Strawman argument. The research into the benefit doesn't look at "swallowing" it merely looks at the fact the water is flouridated, and those studies show a 10-15% decrease in cavities amoung adults and a 25-30% decrease in young children. Other studies have shown that children brushing their teeth with flouride toothpaste swallow about the same amount whether they have flouridated water or not, that the amount they take in via the toothpaste far exceeds that they take in via their drinking water. Do you suggest we should stop flouridating toothpaste?

[Thunder]

Alcohol is not forced on the people. You go to the store and buy it if you want to. Fluoride is also available at the store. Why do I need the Government to medicate me beyond my reach of control. This is a free society which includes medical freedom. I don't want fluoride. Why am I being medicated by force?

dont drink tap water. :D

[Elizabeth I]

I beseech you:

FlUOride.

FlUOridation.

FlUOridated.

Please? Pleeeeeease?

[skbuncks]

It has been claimed a couple of times in this thread that the phosphate and aluminium fertiliser industries have a dark, nefarious interest in disposing of unwanted fluoride waste in water supplies. This is a misconception which couldn't be further from the truth.

Manufacturing process:

Typically the mineral apatite, which is a mixture of calcium phosphates, fluorides and carbonates, is heated with sand to around 1200 to 1500ºC. Vapourised P4 is produced which is subsequently condensed.

The by-product is fluorosilicic acid (hexafluorosilicic acid H2SiF6)is recovered from the vapour phase which ensures a high degree of purity. The product is therefore manufactured in tandem with the production of phosphoric acid and can be described as a co-product.

It would be equally valid to call phosphoric acid a by product of fluorosilicic acid manufacture.

As an added aside some of the phosphoric acid generated is the starting point for phosphates that eventually end up in toothpastes.

skb

[TjW]

I beseech you:

FlUOride.

FlUOridation.

FlUOridated.

Please? Pleeeeeease?

And also, though it has NOTHING to do with this thread:
FlUOrescent

[elbe]

Who are you? Just read Jr.
That seems awfully dismissive, no?
No, the other countries were overwhelmed with scientific evidence.
I didn't make a specific claim about what other countries did or did not do, just hypothesizing what I thought were the likely answers. Do you have evidence of your, very certain, claim? I imagine that if they did in fact ban fluoride (or is it fluorine?) there would be a law on the books explaining why and, if they are anything like the US, it should be publicly available.
Can you site a scientific journal that provides evidence that swallowing fluoride is beneficial. Can you argue a point against the 20+ scientific papers that say it causes many diseases. And these same diseases have risen in our society in a coefficient manner. Ignore it all and it doesn't exist???
My memory isn't really all that great, I'm afraid, so maybe I've forgotten something, but I don't recall anyone claiming swallowing fluoride is beneficial. It's application to teeth is beneficial, and ingesting too much of it is detrimental, but evidence appears to say that ingesting the small amounts we do has little to no impact on our bodies, positive or negative.

[Elizabeth I]

And also, though it has NOTHING to do with this thread:
FlUOrescent

Right on, brother or sister! [raises the fist of the militant speller]

[Walter Bellhaven]

Don't you see what's going on here, Without Rights? These fluorideheads are too dumbed down to understand what you're saying!

But seriously though, mass-medication is weird and disturbing. Maybe that's just the fluoride talking..

[ddt]

I didn't make a specific claim about what other countries did or did not do, just hypothesizing what I thought were the likely answers. Do you have evidence of your, very certain, claim? I imagine that if they did in fact ban fluoride (or is it fluorine?) there would be a law on the books explaining why and, if they are anything like the US, it should be publicly available.

For one case, the Netherlands had fluoridation of the drinking water from 1960 to 1973. According to wikipedia, opponents cited concerns of adverse effects, and the availability of other means of getting fluorine to the teeth.

I don't want to go into the good/bad discussion. Wiki states that too much fluorine may cause fluorosis of teeth and other things. I'll leave it to you to continue that discussion - but you might do it in a more cordial fashion.

As to the other means: my first dentist, 1970s, heavily plugged toothpaste with fluorine. He also administered once or twice a kind of fluorine-containing paste to my teeth at a 6-month checkup. Since years, virtually all toothpastes on sale here do contain fluorine. Also, dental care for children up to 18 has always been part of any health care insurance. So, methinks there are excellent means of getting enough fluorine to people's teeth.

Of course, these are social parameters that vary from country to country, so YMMV. In particular for the US, with its tens of millions of uninsured people I can imagine millions not seeing a dentist and those very same millions largely overlapping with those who do not give their children enough discipline to daily brush their teeth and/or do not know about the beneficial effects of fluoridated tooth paste.

BTW, there is no fundamental adverseness in the Netherlands against such additives. For instance, we've had for decades that all table salt sold had iodine added against thyroid problems, and bakers still use salt with added iodine.

[Cuddles]

But seriously though, mass-medication is weird and disturbing.

Why? Seriously. Assume for a moment that fluoride in water does provide benefits to dental health but does not cause any adverse effects. Why would putting fluoride in water supplies by either weird or disturbing? As far as I'm concerned it would be absolutely the obvious thing to do, depending on costs of course.

Obviously if there really are detrimental effects then that would be a different matter entirely, but from your post it doesn't seem as if that is relevant to finding it disturbing. I see this kind of sentiment a lot from various conspiracu theorists, anarchists and the like, but I've never understood where it comes from. Sure, if you assume something is bad for you then the idea of it being made difficult to avoid isn't very nice, but if you assume that something isn't bad, or is actually good, why would you still consider having it provided for everyone a bad thing?

[Belz...]

I'm pretty sure it's not a mind control plan, the fluoride in water. But I still don't like it.

Toothpaste tubes say do not swallow. The dentist gives you a cup of blue fluid, says slosh it around and spit out. Do not swallow!

Perhaps you should get inform as to WHY you shouldn't swallow it.

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

"With the exception of toothpaste intended to be used on pets such as dogs and cats, and toothpaste used by astronauts, most toothpaste is not intended to be swallowed, and doing so may cause nausea or diarrhea"

It won't kill you, you know.

[Belz...]

Hitler used it to pacify his serfs.

Starting with a Godwin is not exactly a good sign.

Tell me something, if this stuff makes you more pacified, why aren't any of us affected ?

Let me give everyone a homework assignment. Find any scientific study that says swallowing fluoride helps prevent cavities. You won't find one. That's because it works topically to prevent cavities. Ingestion of fluoride causes many harmful effects, including dental fluorosis, which thins the teeth and makes them like nails.

Who said anything about swallowing large amounts ?

And that is pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not the stuff scrapped off the side of the smoke stack at a phosphate mine that we get in our water.

Isn't that kind of a good thing ?

[Belz...]

The mechanism, fluoride reduces I.Q, alters the hypothalamus and causes ADD.

Source ?

By damaging brain function and reducing intelligence people are less likely to worry about things in the world that require thought.

Actually, ignorant people seem to worry a whole lot more about these things...

Rep or Dem? Neither. It is lobbyist paid for by aluminum and phosphate corporations.

Huh ? For what purpose ?

Examples? A loaded question if I ever heard one.

Actually, beign able to provide evidence for your claim is pretty much standard in science AND skepticism.

[Belz...]

If most medical experts agree that ingesting fluoride is good and causes no damage then Show me a study.

Actually, you're the one making a claim.

Mentioning proof is not providing proof? What, do you want me to mail you the journals? Mentioning scientific journals is providing proof.

No, REFERENCING journals constitutes evidence. Claiming that they exist is not the same thing.

This is the worst argument I have ever heard.

You don't go out much, do you ?

Oh, water, garlic, mustard, peanut oil, cream cheese, and borscht are not toxic.

Try drinking 90 litres of water per day and you'll find out the hard way.

You are wrong and you are ugly is ad hominem

No it isn't. You are wrong because you are ugly IS.

[Old Bob]

Reading this thread I'm sure all the pro fluoride people are already damaged. Sorry for them, but it's just too late. John Hopkins does not give sodium fluoride thumbs up.

[PhantomWolf]

Reading this thread I'm sure all the pro fluoride people are already damaged. Sorry for them, but it's just too late. John Hopkins does not give sodium fluoride thumbs up.

And yet I'm pro-fluoride but have lived most of my life on tank water rather then city suply. How do you figure that?

[Seanrmr]

Hey Old bob have you gotten to be one of us lucky queenslanders who now have fluoride added to the water. Though noticing that queenslanders are already have some of the worst results school wise at the moment in Australia we won't really be able to tell if the queenslanders are getting their brains dulled.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24777327-3102,00.html

[Klimax]

Reading this thread I'm sure all the pro fluoride people are already damaged. Sorry for them, but it's just too late. John Hopkins does not give sodium fluoride thumbs up.

Well,in my country no fluoride is in the water,yet I find this CT not correct (nonsense).

[Old Bob]

I'm sure fluoride doesn't drop memory or book work abilities, what it does is to instill fear and compliance. Making victims easy to order about(give your wife some) As I have said in earlier thread all the army bases have fluoride water making the testosterone loaded teenagers controllable. Also sodium fluoride is hard to dispose, toxic and would cost big industry, so lets sell it to the water boards. Bet some palms were greased. Town and city one by one and we except it? why arn't we marching with pitch forks.

[Arus808]

old bob, since WR wont give out sources, you can help him. Provide links to studies taht support that Fluoride can be used as a way to pacify peopkle,.


And keep in mind that I have a nephew who is hyperactive, drinks fluoridated water, and brushes his teeth. Disobey's when he thinks he can get away with it, and has to be told numerous times what to do and what not to do;.

That is definitely a "pacified" little child.

[Old Bob]

Our bodies are a highly refined machine which have replicated for along time, why risk change or damage. If the talking heads told you "yer yer thats true" or if some silver spoon so called professional person with odd letters after there name stated Yes it's good for your teeth (give me my bribe now) would you ,are you suckered. Think of the small amount of water drunk against the average house hold use, does that make sense or is it a way of getting rid of a toxin? I blame sodium f. for many of the health problems we all face eg. osteoporosis and many mineral shortage's in our food leading to shortened lives. In my opinion all the people who decide it's pushed on us are murdering evil criminal crap or too stupid to hold the position they have.

[PhantomWolf]

Our bodies are a highly refined machine which have replicated for along time, why risk change or damage. If the talking heads told you "yer yer thats true" or if some silver spoon so called professional person with odd letters after there name stated Yes it's good for your teeth (give me my bribe now) would you ,are you suckered. Think of the small amount of water drunk against the average house hold use, does that make sense or is it a way of getting rid of a toxin? I blame sodium f. for many of the health problems we all face eg. osteoporosis and many mineral shortage's in our food leading to shortened lives. In my opinion all the people who decide it's pushed on us are murdering evil criminal crap or too stupid to hold the position they have.

Ahhh, so it's merely your opinion. gotcha. Of course there have actually been a number of studies that conclude that those that live in fluoridated water areas have less tooth decay than those that don't, but it's sure to be coincidence right?

[Old Bob]

Phatomwolf, I could say " A study shows that 87.5% of the people scratch their butts twice a day." Then print it in the news and bingo it's fact. I don't believe the % studies that constantly come out. In this commercial world money bends the rules. I feel nauseated knowing that the bulk of the people of Qld are now slowly being damaged. It will take years to turn Anzac stock into wimps but slowly they control us. As for sources of info you are all sitting in front of the greatest information tool we ever had. Just put in search things like "toxins added to water" or some thing similar. I have stumbled on many anti sodium fluoride sites without even trying.

[Seanrmr]

Old Bob do you think that if they stop drinking the fluoride in the water that the people will realise they were manipulated or is it a permanent brain damage?

[Miss_Kitt]

Um, excuse me?

Several of the studies mentioned specified "highly fluoridated" and/or had studies done on rats, where the equivalent human dosage would be enormously higher than what drinking the standard 1 ppm would give you. Also relevant in this discussion is what fluoride compounds are used, since how we metabolize chemicals varies greatly depending on how they are bonded when they are ingested.

The discussion of whether or not adding fluoride to the water supply may be adviseable given that the access to dental care, better toothbrushes and toothpaste, widespread knowledge of better brushing techniques are now much more prevalent than they were when the public health benefits seemed worthwhile; but that should be based upon doing matched cohort studies with good controls. Bringing in some (undocumented) reference to Nazis using fluoride to pacify the population is absurd.

One thought: Given that there are places where the naturally occuring fluoride levels are higher than the standard 1 ppm, what levels of passivity, ADD, lower IQ etc. do we find in those communities versus comparable communities with no or lower levels?

[Old Bob]

Seanrmr, more damage to the young and from what I have read it is some what permanent. Takes a while to build up so guess it would be a slow job to remove it from our bodies. As others are happy to point out my explanations are basic. Don't think anybody ingesting fluoride then stopping would be aware of the subtle changes in themselves, a old person doesn't know when dementia sets in or is aware they have it in most cases. The less you get the better.

[PhantomWolf]

Phatomwolf, I could say " A study shows that 87.5% of the people scratch their butts twice a day." Then print it in the news and bingo it's fact. I don't believe the % studies that constantly come out. In this commercial world money bends the rules. I feel nauseated knowing that the bulk of the people of Qld are now slowly being damaged. It will take years to turn Anzac stock into wimps but slowly they control us. As for sources of info you are all sitting in front of the greatest information tool we ever had. Just put in search things like "toxins added to water" or some thing similar. I have stumbled on many anti sodium fluoride sites without even trying.

You could claim it, but could you actually back it up. Scientific papers need facts to back up their claims. Heck the whole reason they started using fluoride in water trearment was because people in areas of natural fluoridated water had better teeth. Studies also show that the amount of fluoride ingested via water is small compared to the amount ingested by simply cleaning your teeth. Do you suggest we all stop brushing our teeth with fluoride toothpaste cause it's a mind control substance. By the way, several people have asked to to provide scientific evidence of that, but currently you haven't shown anything other than a stubborn belief in your being correct.

[Old Bob]

PhantomWolf, regards tooth paste, yes stop using the rubbish. Hunt for a tooth cleaner at good health shops or use bicarb soda or "Ganoderma" as we do. Not only the fluoride but in most brands the abrasive compound is aluminium in it powdered white form plus a LSL and aspartame sweetener. As for finding out truths regards fluoride if you and others are fair dinkum in wanting to know you would find out. I said in a earlier post that "John Hopkins" group has come out against sodium fluoride and thats easy to find. As much as we all argue and bicker my reason for trying to point out the danger is tribal in that I wish to see the people of this planet informed and healthy. Unfortunately many on these lists misinterpret some of what I say, Guess I use to much slang as we tend to forget that people from other countries don't know what the hell I'm saying. Any way all you Sun God worshipers have a happy xmas time.

[Peace]

I think it's nice the government care about so much about our teeth, they're putting fluoride in the water.

[TjW]

I think it's interesting that the realities of the people responsible for putting fluoride in the water are so different from the paranoid fantasy.

In the paranoid fantasy, some shadowy higher ups in a national organization whom one cannot know or vote for are mandating chemicals being put in the water.

In the reality, officials of local municipalities or water districts decide whether or not to provide fluoride to their customers. And these guys aren't shadowy "higher-ups". They're local people who typically were elected using a dozen volunteers and some yard signs.

Now, it's true you may not know who they are if you don't take an interest. Whose fault is that?

[Without Rights]

(With heavy sarcasm) Yeah, forced medication is nice. Maybe they should put amphetamines in gravy and Lipitor in cheese burgers. That would be "nice" also.

Here's a better idea, if you want fluoride you buy it, if you don't, you don't.

[Without Rights]

I think it's interesting that the realities of the people responsible for putting fluoride in the water are so different from the paranoid fantasy.

In the paranoid fantasy, some shadowy higher ups in a national organization whom one cannot know or vote for are mandating chemicals being put in the water.

In the reality, officials of local municipalities or water districts decide whether or not to provide fluoride to their customers. And these guys aren't shadowy "higher-ups". They're local people who typically were elected using a dozen volunteers and some yard signs.

Now, it's true you may not know who they are if you don't take an interest. Whose fault is that?

The locals succumb to the CDC version of how swallowing fluoride is beneficial even when there is no direct study showing that it has benefits when swallowed. It only helps topically according to science. Just because the local municipalities are a argumentss duped as you doesn't mean that ingestion is a good thing. Google fallacious arguments and read up, you are posing one.

[Without Rights]

Does WR believe that water fluoridation is an evil NWO conspiracy? or just bad medical science?

Not a NWO conspiracy, rather a conspiracy by phosphate and aluminum companies who had a big expense of disposing of a toxic substance. Now it is a profitable substance.

They simply twisted the science that fluoride helps teeth. Yes it does, but only topically. The opposite happens with shampoo, twisted science tells you rubbing vitamin E on your head helps make hair stronger but it only does so when swallowed.

By the way, it can't be bad medical science because there is no science behind ingestion. Just really bad correlations.

[Without Rights]

Force? Vaccines medicate you. Many Ctist believe that they are full of deadly chemicals, and even if they are, you are not forced to take them. Ctist claim that you are but anyone that has bothered to check knows that you can sign a waiver and still put your kids in public school. No one forces you to take public water. You can get it from other sources but if it is a ct and is meant to control the masses, they do not do a very good job. Way too many people in this country can get their water from non fluoride sources.


Well the poor who can't afford non fluoridated water to cook with and drink are pretty much forced. Plus food processing companies use local water to process foods. So if I don't want fluoride I have to buy organics and buy gallons of water daily. Try living with your water shut off for a month then tell me it is not forced.

[Without Rights]

Strawman argument. The research into the benefit doesn't look at "swallowing" it merely looks at the fact the water is flouridated, and those studies show a 10-15% decrease in cavities amoung adults and a 25-30% decrease in young children. Other studies have shown that children brushing their teeth with flouride toothpaste swallow about the same amount whether they have flouridated water or not, that the amount they take in via the toothpaste far exceeds that they take in via their drinking water. Do you suggest we should stop flouridating toothpaste?

Not a straw man. How am I misinterpreting your argument? There is research about swallowing fluoride and it is all bad. There is only evidence of fighting cavaties when applied topically. You and your cohorts lack evidence to support reason behind ingesting fluoride. The scientific evidence is greatly in my favor, that is no where near a straw man argument, rather a argument that points out your lack of evidence as opposed to my mountain of evidence.

As for your child swallowing toothpaste argument, that is why they sell non-fluoridated toothpaste for children. Also labels warn that you supervise your children while they brush with fluoride. Furthermore, if children swallow fluoride while brushing then it is only compounded by the fluoridated water they consume.

The science you reference shows only a correlation between the fall in cavities and the introduction of fluoridated water. This same correlation is found in countries that don't fluoridate. Therefore your correlation is not coefficient. The coefficient correlation can be made properly by looking at countries who started brushing with fluoride. That is what made the cavities drop. If it was swallowing it then the countries that don't fluoridate would not have seen the same drop that fluoridated countries see.

[Without Rights]

dont drink tap water. :D

Don't eat at a restaurant. Don't drink Soda, fruit juice or tea. Don't eat any prepackaged foods.

If I can't afford all this I am being forced.

[Thunder]

Don't eat at a restaurant. Don't drink Soda, fruit juice or tea. Don't eat any prepackaged foods.

If I can't afford all this I am being forced.

Oh well, you'll just have to accept the mind control.

There are worse things in life.

:D

[Without Rights]

Ok, well - I'm no neurologist. I'd be interested if anyone here had access to the expertise to further the discussion on the point above.

It's easier for me to cautiously accept your quote as a possibility, its just I've seen it stated as fact and have yet to come across anything concrete that demonstrates that fluoride fluoride increases docility.

Since the source on this involves Nazis and Soviets, what I'd like to see is if either country has some science telling them that it increases docility in their archives. Heck, would be cool to see what their rationale was period.


My quote was "I don't think it is a stretch to theorize", that is hardly stating it as a fact. The fact I stated was that fluoride damages the hypothalamus. If you read on the functions of the hypothalamus then you can see why I come to my THEORY.

[Without Rights]

Oh well, you'll just have to accept the mind control.

There are worse things in life.

:D

So you are conceding then, alright.

[Thunder]

So you are conceding then, alright.


No, I just cant believe this silly topic is still being discussed.

I like flouride. It tastes yummy. And it has prevented many cavities and the further wearing away of my enamel.

So, when it comes to Parky76 and fluoride, we are buddies.

....yet I still hate Bush and Fox News. How does that work again?

[Without Rights]

No, I just cant believe this silly topic is still being discussed.

I like flouride. It tastes yummy. And it has prevented many cavities and the further wearing away of my enamel.

So, when it comes to Parky76 and fluoride, we are buddies.

....yet I still hate Bush and Fox News. How does that work again?


First, fluoride is tasteless. It is the added ingredients in toothpaste that you love so much.

Are you saying that topical fluoride has prevented cavities or that ingesting has?

Yeah, me and fluoride are buddies also, when it comes in a tube labeled "do not swallow"

[Without Rights]

Oh well, you'll just have to accept the mind control.

There are worse things in life.

:D

You also have to except the brain damage, the lower IQ, the dental fluorosis, and the osteoporosis. Oh but these are the arguments you don't touch. My bad, didn't mean to bring them up again.

[Without Rights]

No, I just cant believe this silly topic is still being discussed.

I like flouride. It tastes yummy. And it has prevented many cavities and the further wearing away of my enamel.

So, when it comes to Parky76 and fluoride, we are buddies.

....yet I still hate Bush and Fox News. How does that work again?


List of fallacious arguments used by Parky.

1. Ad hominem quite regularly. I.e. crazy Cters, loons, nut jobs, woo woos, etc.
2. Straw man, by misstating arguments and over exaggerating positions. I.e pretending I disagree with brushing teeth.
3. false dichotomy
4. Burden of proof I.e not providing proof of claims
5. Reductive fallacy, I.e. oversimplifying the facts
6. Psychogenic Fallacy, I.e. claiming I hold my beliefs because I have an axe to grind with the Government
7. Not invented here. I.e. foreign governments positions don't matter.
8. Appeal to anonymous authority. I.e claiming evidence that doesn't exist
9. False cause. I.e. claiming it is ingestion of fluoride that has caused reduction of cavities and ignoring topical use.
10. Appeal to widespread belief. I.e. since most think it, it must be true.
11. Pigheadedness, I.e. refusing to acknowledge science that contradicts your beliefs.
12. Cherry picking. I.e. focusing on a few points that are arguable and ignoring points you can't contest.
13. Selective reading.
14. Changing the subject
15. Having your cake. I.e. by claiming I should stick to the science but then giving the science no merit in further arguments
16. Moving the goal posts.

There you go, long live the king

[Thunder]

So says the king of fallacious arguments.

Long live the king.

Reported for personal attacks. Learn to attack the message and not the messenger WR.

[Without Rights]

Reported for personal attacks. Learn to attack the message and not the messenger WR.

What is the message I am supposed to attack? You have no message. You have fallacious arguments and that is all. I used a simple debate tool called ad absurdum to show how react to arguments that you can't defend. Ad absurdum is not a fallacious argument.

[Thunder]

List of fallacious arguments used by Parky.

1. Ad hominem quite regularly. I.e. crazy Cters, loons, nut jobs, woo woos, etc.
2. Straw man, by misstating arguments and over exaggerating positions. I.e pretending I disagree with brushing teeth.
3. false dichotomy
4. Burden of proof I.e not providing proof of claims
5. Reductive fallacy, I.e. oversimplifying the facts
6. Psychogenic Fallacy, I.e. claiming I hold my beliefs because I have an axe to grind with the Government
7. Not invented here. I.e. foreign governments positions don't matter.
8. Appeal to anonymous authority. I.e claiming evidence that doesn't exist
9. False cause. I.e. claiming it is ingestion of fluoride that has caused reduction of cavities and ignoring topical use.
10. Appeal to widespread belief. I.e. since most think it, it must be true.
11. Pigheadedness, I.e. refusing to acknowledge science that contradicts your beliefs.
12. Cherry picking. I.e. focusing on a few points that are arguable and ignoring points you can't contest.
13. Selective reading.
14. Changing the subject
15. Having your cake. I.e. by claiming I should stick to the science but then giving the science no merit in further arguments
16. Moving the goal posts.

There you go, long live the king

Do you want to talk about fluoride..or talk about me?

[JimBenArm]

So, what should we do? So far, all you've done is rant about how evil it is. Yeah, we get it, you think it's bad. Still haven't proven it to anyone other than yourself, but hey, that's okay. If I were to believe you, which, to be honest, is unlikely at best, what should I do, Mr. Paranoid Dude? Hmm? I mean, other than post hysterical, shrill screeds on internet forums?

[JoeyDonuts]

So, what should we do? So far, all you've done is rant about how evil it is. Yeah, we get it, you think it's bad. Still haven't proven it to anyone other than yourself, but hey, that's okay. If I were to believe you, which, to be honest, is unlikely at best, what should I do, Mr. Paranoid Dude? Hmm? I mean, other than post hysterical, shrill screeds on internet forums?

Submariners don't brush their teeth. Unless you wanna get nice and fresh for that hunky new torpedo chief.

[Mr.D]

a conspiracy by phosphate and aluminum companies who had a big expense of disposing of a toxic substance. Now it is a profitable substance.

Got any evidence for this? (Amount and toxicity of waste product, cost of disposal/neutralization, cost of sales vs. ROI etc.)

[JimBenArm]

Submariners don't brush their teeth. Unless you wanna get nice and fresh for that hunky new torpedo chief.
Well, after the first 10 days underway, he does start to look better.

[The Truth Hurts]

Hi all, I have done some investigation into this fluoride debate and I have come to the conclusion that there are enough reputable studies regarding negative effects of fluoride to persuade me that it should not be added to water supplies and should be removed from water supplies where it has been added. It is not required to ensure healthy teeth as demonstrated by the following graphs based on data from the World Health Organization which compare countries which have fluoride in the water to those that do not. As you will see from the graphs in the link provided below all western countries have experienced similar improvements in dental health over time regardless of fluoridation.

h t t p : // w w w . fluorideaction.net/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft . html

The following link contains a video produced by a show called "What's Good For You" in Australia. It shows a balanced review of the fluoride debate and whilst the article concludes that it is up to us to decide, the truth is it is not up to us because fluoride is being put in the water whether you want it or not.

h t t p : / / health.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id= 230698
(sorry all, had to stretch the links out to get them past, I havnt made 15 posts or more so am not allowed to post URLs)

The following quotes are provided FYI:

"Water fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century... if not of all time." Dr Robert Carton, former President of the Union of Government Scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency.

"There is not a single scientific, or laboratory, study from anywhere in the world which proves that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in humans. There are, however, hundreds of published scientific papers which show that water fluoridation is dangerous to human, animal, plant and aquatic life, which is no surprise, since fluoride is more toxic than lead and only marginally less so than arsenic."
National Pure Water Association, UK

In 1997, more than 1,000 members of the union working at the Environmental Protection Agency HQ in Washington DC, who are directly responsible for the implementation of the US Safe Drinking Water Act, voted unanimously to ban water fluoridation.

"Our members' review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiological studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are the recent epidemiological studies linking fluoride exposure to lower I.Q. in children. As professionals charged with assessing the safety of drinking water, we conclude that the health and welfare of the public is not served by the addition of this substance to the public water supply."
Vice-President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, USA.

"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for someone he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some people say that it can reduce tooth decay in children."
Dr Peter Mansfield, Director, Templegarth Trust.

References on the scientific case... against fluoride

Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea.

A. K. Susheela and Mohan Jha, "Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous Bone Composition", IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Vol 9, No.11, pp 1021-1022 (1981)

"Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, with the capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by inhibiting certain enzymes. Sources of fluoride intoxication include drinking water containing 1 ppm or more of fluorine."

Journal of the American Medical Association, September 18, 1943

Fluoride stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells, but inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood.

Robert A. Clark, "Neutrophil Iodination Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation," Blood, Vol 57, pp. 913-921 (1981)

Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis. As little as 0.2-ppm fluoride stimulates superoxide production in resting white blood cells, virtually abolishing phagocytosis. Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below 1 ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents.

"Immune Status of Children in Chemically Contaminated Environments", Zdravookhranenie, Issue 3, pp 6-9 (1987)

Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body's own tissues, and increases the tumour growth rate in cancer prone individuals.

Alfred Taylor and Nell C. Taylor, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumour Growth", Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol 119,p 252(1965); Sheila Gibson, "Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Function", Complementary Medical Research, Vol 6, pp 111-113 (1992)

Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood.

S. K. Jain and A.K. Susheela, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Antibody Formation in Rabbits", Environmental Research, Vol. 44, pp 117-125 (1987)

Fluoride depresses Thyroid activity.

Viktor Gorlitzer Von Mundy, "Influence of Fluorine and Iodine on the Metabolism, Particularly on the Thyroid Gland," Muenchener Medicische Wochenschrift, Vol 105, pp 182-186 (1963); "Effect of Fluorine on Thyroid Iodine Metabolism and Hyperthyroidism", Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 18, pp 1102-1110 (1958)

Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in the body.

Vilber A.O. Bello and Hillel J. Gitelman, "High Fluoride Exposure in Hemodialysis Patients", American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 15, pp 320-324 (1990)

Fluoride promotes development of bone cancer.

S.E. Hrudley et al., "Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma" Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol 81, pp 415-416 (1990); Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton, "Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumours Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride", Genetics Vol 48, pp 307-310 (1963)

Fluorides cause premature aging of the human body.

Nicholas Leone, "Medical Aspects of Excessive Fluoride in a Water Supply", Public Health Reports, Vol 69, pp 925-936 (1954); "The Village Where People are Old Before their Time", Stern Magazine, Vol 30, pp 107-108,111-112 (1978)

Fluoride ingestion from mouth rinses and dentifrices in children is extremely hazardous to biological development, life span and general health.

Yngve Ericsson and Britta Forsman, "Fluoride retained from mouth rinses and dentifrices in preschool children", Caries Research, Vol.3, pp 290-299 (1969); W.L. Augenstein, et al., "Fluoride ingestion in children: a review of 87 cases", Paediatrics, Vol 88, pp 907-912, (1991); George Waldbott, "Mass Intoxication from Over-Fluoridation in Drinking Water", Clinical Toxicology, Vol 18, No 5, pp 531-541 (1981)

Fluorides diminish the intelligence capability of the human brain.

Fluoride, Vol 26, No.4, pp 189-192, 1995, "Effect of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence In Children". Presented to the 20th Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research, Beijing, China, September 5-9, 1994

Fluoride studies in rats can be indicative of a potential for motor disruption, intelligence deficits and learning disabilities in humans. Humans are exposed to plasma levels of fluoride as high as those in rat studies. Fluoride involves interruption of normal brain development. Fluoride affects the hippocampus in the brain, which integrates inputs from the environment, memory, and motivational stimuli, to produce behavioural decisions and modify memory. Experience with other developmental neurotoxicants prompts expectations that changes in behavioural functions will be comparable across species, especially humans and rats.

Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No, 2, p 176, "Neurotoxicity of Sodium F luoride", Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan, 1995

Fluorides accumulate in the brain over time to reach neurologically harmful levels.

Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No, 2, p 176, "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride", Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan, 1995

"Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good."

Journal of the American Dental Association, Editorial, October 1, 1944

The contents of a family-size tube of fluoridated toothpaste is enough to kill a 12.5 kilo child.

In 1991, the Akron (Ohio) Regional Poison Centre reported, "… death has been reported following ingestion of 16 mg/kg of fluoride. Only 1/10 of an ounce of fluoride could kill a 50 kilo adult. According to the Centre, "fluoride toothpaste contains up to 1 mg/gram of fluoride." Even Proctor and Gamble, the makers of Crest, acknowledge that a family-sized tube "theoretically contains enough fluoride to kill a small child." (National Pure Water Association, UK)

"Fluorides have been used to modify behaviour and mood of human beings. It is a little known fact that fluoride compounds were added to the drinking water of prisoners to keep them docile and inhibit questioning of authority, both in Nazi prison camps in World War II and in the Soviet gulags in Siberia."

National Pure Water Association, UK

Fluorides are medically categorized as protoplasmic poisons, which is why they are used to kill rodents.

The Journal of the American Medical Association on September 18, 1943, states, "… fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. The exact mechanisms of such actions are obscure."

Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate.

In 1975 Dr John Yiamouyiannis published a preliminary survey, which shows that people in fluoridated areas have a higher cancer death rate than those in non-fluoridated areas. The National Cancer Institute attempts to refute the studies. Later in 1975, Yiamouyiannis joins with Dr. Dean Burk, chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute (1939-1974) in performing other studies which are then included in the Congressional Record (USA) by Congressman Delaney, who was the original author of the Delaney Amendment, which prohibited the addition of cancer-causing substances to food used for human consumption.

Both reports confirmed the existence of a link between fluoridation and cancer. (Note: Obviously Dr. Burk felt free to agree with scientific truth only after his tenure at NCI ended, since his job depended on towing the party line)

Fluorides have little or no effect on decay prevention in humans.

In 1990 Dr John Colquhoun is forced into early requirement in New Zealand after he conducts a study on 60,000 school children and finds no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. He additionally finds that a substantial number of children in fluoridated areas suffered from dental fluorosis. He makes the study public. There is no scientific data that shows that fluoride mouth rinses and tablets are safe for human use.

A 1989 study by Hildebolt, on 6,000 school children contradicts any alleged benefit from the use of sodium fluorides.

In 1990 a study by Dr John Yiamouyiannis on 39,000 school children contradicts any alleged benefits from the use of sodium fluorides.

In 1992 Michael Perrone, a legislative assistant in New Jersey, contacts the FDA requesting all information regarding the safety and effectiveness of fluoride tablets and drops. After 6 months of stalling, the FDA admitted they had no data to show that fluoride tablets or drops were either safe or effective. They informed Perrone that they will "probably have to pull the tablets and drops off the market."

In 1976, Dr D. W. Allman and co-workers from Indiana University School of Medicine (USA) feed animals 1 part-per-million (ppm) fluoride and found that in the presence of aluminium in a concentration as small as 20 parts per billion, (like in a toothpaste tube, using aluminium pans to boil water, or drinking beverages in aluminium cans), fluoride is able to cause an even larger increase in cyclic AMP levels.

Cyclic AMP inhibits the migration rate of white blood cells, as well as the ability of the white blood cell to destroy pathogenic organisms.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol 55, Sup B, p 523, 1976, "Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Tissue Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo".

"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time."

Robert Carlton, Ph.D., former U.S. EPA scientist on "Marketplace" Canadian Broadcast Company Nov 24, 1992

"Regarding fluoridation, the EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects"

William Marcus, Ph.D., senior EPA toxicologist, Covert Action, 1992, p 66

***Most of the above information has been copied from the following website by Selwyn Johnston - h t t p : / / w w w . johnston-independent.com/fluoride_fraud. h t m l #.

That should keep you all busy for a while : )

[The Truth Hurts]

Oh there is also this in case you wanted more...

A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride
h t t p : / / w w w .slweb.org/bibliography. h t m l

stretched again, sorry

[sackett]

Fluoridation again? Man, this is 50's stuff! Early 50's!

Back then, it was the commies. Who is it now?

What have they done to our precious bodily fluids?

[Thunder]

I suggest we all just drink rain water..or Vodka. That's what your average Commy drinks.

=)

[The Truth Hurts]

Just cause its been said before doesnt make it wrong...

There is credible information showing that there is a problem, it is up to individuals to chose to investigate the evidence or to dismiss it without investigation. You can only take a horse to water... you cant force it to drink...

[Thunder]

My cat...along with scratching the walls...also drinks fluoridated water. He has for the last 3 years. He seems just fine to me.

Millions of dogs, cats, horses, cows, drinking fluoridated water, and no problems.

How can this be??

[sackett]

Tell me, TTH old boy, when did you first become aware of this...situation?

[Without Rights]

Do you want to talk about fluoride..or talk about me?

I was doing fine talking about fluoride until you pretended that you had a viable argument when you don't. That was to help you see the error of your ways. Now if you would like to stop using these fallacious arguments over and over I'll be glad to talk about fluoride again. You can start by addressing all those lines you skipped over in my posts.

[Thunder]

You know.....fluoridation is the most monstrous, evil plot ever conceived by Communists? What is the goal? To sap our precious bodily fluids.

That's why I only drink rain water..or distilled water. Your average Commy only drinks Vodka and rain water.

In the name of General Jack D. Ripper...I say we fight these Commys head on!!!

[Without Rights]

My cat...along with scratching the walls...also drinks fluoridated water. He has for the last 3 years. He seems just fine to me.

Millions of dogs, cats, horses, cows, drinking fluoridated water, and no problems.

How can this be??

The King lives.

Another great fallacious argument. My cat drinks it so who cares what science says. Brilliant.

I guess if fluoride was a problem then we would be able to see the damage, otherwise it must not exist. Hmmm, my friend has cancer but I don't see any difference, the Dr's must be lying along with all those scientists.

[Without Rights]

You know.....fluoridation is the most monstrous, evil plot ever conceived by Communists? What is the goal? To sap our precious bodily fluids.

That's why I only drink rain water..or distilled water. Your average Commy only drinks Vodka and rain water.

In the name of General Jack D. Ripper...I say we fight these Commys head on!!!

Ignore the science and resort to non-arguments. It is becoming very typical of you. But to your credit, much of your friends are the same way. You are just the KING!

[Thunder]

Ignore the science and resort to non-arguments. It is becoming very typical of you. But to your credit, much of your friends are the same way. You are just the KING!

Have you felt the effects of fluoride upon any of your bodily fluids yet?

[sackett]

Have you felt the effects of fluoride upon any of your bodily fluids yet?

No, but he does deny women his essence.

[Thunder]

Address the argument. Do not call people names.

[The Truth Hurts]

Tell me, TTH old boy, when did you first become aware of this...situation?

Well actually I live in Queensland, Australia and recently our State government decided to add fluoride to our drinking water. I heard a lot of negative things being said about fluoride in the news and wanted to investigate the issue for myself.

Basically I have found much more evidence which supports the idea that fluoride is not required in drinking water for healthy teeth and there are significant negative effects associated with fluoride ingestion.

[defaultdotxbe]

Well actually I live in Queensland, Australia and recently our State government decided to add fluoride to our drinking water. I heard a lot of negative things being said about fluoride in the news and wanted to investigate the issue for myself.

Basically I have found much more evidence which supports the idea that fluoride is not required in drinking water for healthy teeth and there are significant negative effects associated with fluoride ingestion.
in this day and age i would probably agree that fluoride in water isnt necessary (awareness of dental hygiene is much more prevalent than it was half a century ago)

however the quantities of fluoride put into artificially fluoridated water are so small youd have to drink insane amounts to have any ill effects (youd get sick from drinking so much water long before you got sick from the fluoride) and the amount is much less than naturally fluoridated sources of water, which people have been drinking for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years

[Thunder]

Well actually I live in Queensland, Australia and recently our State government decided to add fluoride to our drinking water. I heard a lot of negative things being said about fluoride in the news and wanted to investigate the issue for myself.

Basically I have found much more evidence which supports the idea that fluoride is not required in drinking water for healthy teeth and there are significant negative effects associated with fluoride ingestion.

I suggest you start drinking water...lots of it. Don't stop drinking water until something bad happens to you that you can associate with fluoride.

I mean it now, keep drinking!! And you are not allowed to pee either!!

[Without Rights]

So, what should we do? So far, all you've done is rant about how evil it is. Yeah, we get it, you think it's bad. Still haven't proven it to anyone other than yourself, but hey, that's okay. If I were to believe you, which, to be honest, is unlikely at best, what should I do, Mr. Paranoid Dude? Hmm? I mean, other than post hysterical, shrill screeds on internet forums?


Is this targeted at me?

[Without Rights]

Got any evidence for this? (Amount and toxicity of waste product, cost of disposal/neutralization, cost of sales vs. ROI etc.)

I don't have to get all records from the companies to conclude what is obvious. Fluoride is a level I toxin (according to OSHA), which means, according to my local disposal corp., is $6000 a truck load to dispose of. They also told me a typical truckload is 3000-4000 pounds. If they sell it for a nickel a truck load to water facilities then it is apparent they are saving money. Of course I don't have the receipts to know what the private transaction really involves. It is just common sense.

[Belz...]

You know.....fluoridation is the most monstrous, evil plot ever conceived by Communists? What is the goal? To sap our precious bodily fluids.

That's why I only drink rain water..or distilled water. Your average Commy only drinks Vodka and rain water.

In the name of General Jack D. Ripper...I say we fight these Commys head on!!!

The thing I don't get about this CT is that instead of working from an observed fact backwards to its cause, like most CTs, it starts from a cause and works forwards to... nothing.

People are not less independent than they were 100 years ago... so what's the evidence that it causes any sort of problem ? Point in case, the CTers themselves don't seem affected by it.

[defaultdotxbe]

I don't have to get all records from the companies to conclude what is obvious. Fluoride is a level I toxin (according to OSHA), which means, according to my local disposal corp., is $6000 a truck load to dispose of. They also told me a typical truckload is 3000-4000 pounds. If they sell it for a nickel a truck load to water facilities then it is apparent they are saving money. Of course I don't have the receipts to know what the private transaction really involves. It is just common sense.
but the water company isnt going to buy just every truckload of fluoride that pulls into their parking lot, they only put a very small amount in the water so if they have more than they need then THEY are stuck with the $6000/truck disposal bill

and thats ignoring the costs to properly add it to the water, they aren't just dumping trucks of it in the reservoir, i wouldnt be surprised if it costs more than $6000 to put 3000 lbs of fluoride into water

[kageki]

I suggest you start drinking water...lots of it. Don't stop drinking water until something bad happens to you that you can associate with fluoride.

I mean it now, keep drinking!! And you are not allowed to pee either!!

This is such a ridiculous argument.

Yes there is such thing as water poisoning, but water is still not a poison and also vital.

Yes you don't die right away from ingesting small amounts of poison, but it's still a poison i.e. flouride.

Also I'm curious about the difference between naturally flouridated water and the flouride that is being used in our water supply. There are different grades correct? That vitamin c pill probably isn't the exact same thing as the vitamin c you will find in fruits.

[Thunder]

War in Gaza. Recession getting worse. Gas shortages in Europe. Iran pursuing nuclear power.

And what's being talked about here? Fluoride.

:)

[kageki]

War in Gaza. Recession getting worse. Gas shortages in Europe. Iran pursuing nuclear power.

And what's being talked about here? Fluoride.

:)

You are derailing. If you don't want to discuss the topic then don't reply.

[Mr.D]

I don't have to get all records from the companies to conclude what is obvious. Fluoride is a level I toxin (according to OSHA), which means, according to my local disposal corp., is $6000 a truck load to dispose of. They also told me a typical truckload is 3000-4000 pounds. If they sell it for a nickel a truck load to water facilities then it is apparent they are saving money. Of course I don't have the receipts to know what the private transaction really involves. It is just common sense.

Sigh.

"Common sense" doesn't tell me how much Fluoride needs to be disposed of.

It doesn't tell me how much Fluoride is used by water facilities.

It doesn't tell me what the overhead costs are to have a second disposal channel potentially moving a "level I toxin" across public highways and byways (dont' forget insurance and OSHA, NTSB and other local agency compliance and inspection costs)

In other words, "common sense" really isn't enough to claim a profit motive, nevermind a sufficient profit for corporate executives to be "poisoning" (potentially) their own water supply!

Want to try again?

[The Truth Hurts]

in this day and age i would probably agree that fluoride in water isnt necessary (awareness of dental hygiene is much more prevalent than it was half a century ago)

however the quantities of fluoride put into artificially fluoridated water are so small youd have to drink insane amounts to have any ill effects (youd get sick from drinking so much water long before you got sick from the fluoride) and the amount is much less than naturally fluoridated sources of water, which people have been drinking for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years

I am not suggesting that fluoride has any acute effects, nor am I suggesting that fluoride will kill anyone or make them visibly ill. What I am suggesting is that there is enough research out there that indicates that where fluoride is ingested it has been linked to lower IQs in children and to bone cancer in males (I suppose that it does make people visibly ill).

There is also links which I have posted earlier in this thread which demonstrate that regardless of fluoride all western countries have experienced a similar decline in incidence of teeth problems in their populations. This is shown on a graph based on figures from the world health organisation.

Just because people have been doing something for hundreds or thousands of years does not mean that it is right does it? I mean people are worshiping all sorts of gods for thousands of years and even using these beliefs to justify killing other people for thousands of years. It aint right is it?

I reckon if you were unlucky enough to live in an area where there are high levels of natural fluoride then you would probably have turned out less intelligent than if you hadnt. You would still get by, just probably wouldnt reach your full potential. That said, maybe being stupid and ignorant is more enjoyable than understanding things like Climate Change and Peak Oil. In the short term anyways...

[The Truth Hurts]

I suggest you start drinking water...lots of it. Don't stop drinking water until something bad happens to you that you can associate with fluoride.

I mean it now, keep drinking!! And you are not allowed to pee either!!

Hmmmm interesting argument... very intelligent. You do drink fluoridated water dont you!?

[The Truth Hurts]

The thing I don't get about this CT is that instead of working from an observed fact backwards to its cause, like most CTs, it starts from a cause and works forwards to... nothing.

People are not less independent than they were 100 years ago... so what's the evidence that it causes any sort of problem ? Point in case, the CTers themselves don't seem affected by it.

Ummm did you by any chance check the previous posts in this thread... there has been plenty of evidence posted. Have a look, you might be enlightened.

I firmly believe that people today are far far less independent than those 100 years ago! Not that this claim has anything to do with fluoride ingestion merely an opinion.

[Without Rights]

but the water company isnt going to buy just every truckload of fluoride that pulls into their parking lot, they only put a very small amount in the water so if they have more than they need then THEY are stuck with the $6000/truck disposal bill

and thats ignoring the costs to properly add it to the water, they aren't just dumping trucks of it in the reservoir, i wouldnt be surprised if it costs more than $6000 to put 3000 lbs of fluoride into water


This makes no sense. First off, if they buy one truck load out of 10 they save $6000.00 and make who knows how much off the sale.

Your second point really gets me. It has nothing to do with phosphate or aluminum company profits. What do they care how much it costs to drip in the water when it is the taxpayers who are paying for it. So it matters zero if it costs $100,000 to drip a truck load in the water, they don't pay those costs.

[Without Rights]

Sigh.

"Common sense" doesn't tell me how much Fluoride needs to be disposed of.

It doesn't tell me how much Fluoride is used by water facilities.

It doesn't tell me what the overhead costs are to have a second disposal channel potentially moving a "level I toxin" across public highways and byways (dont' forget insurance and OSHA, NTSB and other local agency compliance and inspection costs)

In other words, "common sense" really isn't enough to claim a profit motive, nevermind a sufficient profit for corporate executives to be "poisoning" (potentially) their own water supply!

Want to try again?

Sure Why not.

Alcoa says "2.66 pounds of fluoride per ton of aluminum" and they produce 4.2 million tons of aluminum, so...11,172,000 pounds of fluoride. Roughly 2800 truck loads or $16,800,000 of disposal costs.

According to Chemical Engineering News in 1988 143,000 tons of fluoride were added to American water supplies. Since fluoridation has risen by more than 20% since 1988 I can assume that the number would be around 20% higher today, or 340,000,000 pounds. A big enough market for Alcoa to sell all of their fluoride.

According to solvay chemical corp, bulk fluoride sells for $.05 a pound. Alcoa would therefore have around $600,000 of fluoride to sell every year.

Or a total savings of $17.5 M every year.


And there is no second disposal channel. According to Alcoa they have 0 pounds of fluoride waste product disposal (alcoa.com). So there is only a single channel, the same as if they were paying $16 M to dispose of it. And, me being in the logistics business for 12 years knows that when a product is purchased the cost of transport are put onto the buyer not the seller. And transport of hazardous material requires no inspection costs, no fees to OSHA or NTSB, only an endorsement which costs $80.00 paid for by the driver in most cases. Insurance is only slightly higher and I can afford it in my small private business so I know this would not be an issue to Alcoa and others.

[Without Rights]

War in Gaza. Recession getting worse. Gas shortages in Europe. Iran pursuing nuclear power.

And what's being talked about here? Fluoride.

:)

Fallacious argument again?

If you made a valid point I might fall over and die.

[defaultdotxbe]

This makes no sense. First off, if they buy one truck load out of 10 they save $6000.00 and make who knows how much off the sale.

Your second point really gets me. It has nothing to do with phosphate or aluminum company profits. What do they care how much it costs to drip in the water when it is the taxpayers who are paying for it. So it matters zero if it costs $100,000 to drip a truck load in the water, they don't pay those costs.
now im confused, who is supposedly behind this? if they have the authority to institute water fluoridation and subsidize it with tax money why not just subsidize the normal disposal costs and pocket the rest? or just de-list fluoride as a hazardous chemical and dump it in a landfill? or just dump it anywhere and have the government look the other way

[Without Rights]

now im confused, who is supposedly behind this? if they have the authority to institute water fluoridation and subsidize it with tax money why not just subsidize the normal disposal costs and pocket the rest? or just de-list fluoride as a hazardous chemical and dump it in a landfill? or just dump it anywhere and have the government look the other way

Ok, they don't have the power to institute fluoridation. Welcome to how America works 101. Corporations pay lobbyists, lobbyist lobby (go figure), laws get passed.

It is very hard to convince people to subsidize the cost of a corporations waste disposal or to de-classify a toxin because it helps a corporations profit margin. I have never heard of a lobby to get the Government to "look the other way", I think my IQ just fell a couple points.

It is easier to twist science that backs topical use of fluoride into a argument that swallowing fluoride is beneficial. Americans have to agree with it in order for it to work.

[Without Rights]

now im confused, who is supposedly behind this? if they have the authority to institute water fluoridation and subsidize it with tax money why not just subsidize the normal disposal costs and pocket the rest? or just de-list fluoride as a hazardous chemical and dump it in a landfill? or just dump it anywhere and have the government look the other way

So does this mean you think the people who sell Fluoride pay for the process of putting it in our water? It is paid for by the water facility. If it is county or city water, then who do you think pays for it?

[dudalb]

That said, maybe being stupid and ignorant is more enjoyable than understanding things like Climate Change and Peak Oil. In the short term anyways..

Anybody who disagrees with me is stupid and/or ignorant. The battle cry of the Woo merchant.

[Mr.D]

Roughly 2800 truck loads or $16,800,000 of disposal costs.

...

bulk fluoride sells for $.05 a pound.

...

Or a total savings of $17.5 M every year.


Good. Now you have the beginnings of an actual argument! But, there's still more to be demonstrated;

What's the market for bulk fluoride? Who else produces it as a raw or by-product? Who besides water utilities use it and for what? Are supply and demand seasonal? Is the price sensitive to changes in supply or demand?

[The Truth Hurts]

Anybody who disagrees with me is stupid and/or ignorant. The battle cry of the Woo merchant.

Sorry dudalb, I should clarify my statement. I dont believe that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid or ignorant. What I was suggesting by the statement was that it might actually be more enjoyable (less stressful) to be one of those people who are stupid and ignorant and live blissfully unaware yet happy go lucky lifestyles. Not that all people living blissfully unaware yet happy go lucky lifestyles are necessarily stupid nor ignorant.

Sorry for the confusion and I hope this clarifies the statement for you.

[Without Rights]

in this day and age i would probably agree that fluoride in water isnt necessary (awareness of dental hygiene is much more prevalent than it was half a century ago)

however the quantities of fluoride put into artificially fluoridated water are so small youd have to drink insane amounts to have any ill effects (youd get sick from drinking so much water long before you got sick from the fluoride) and the amount is much less than naturally fluoridated sources of water, which people have been drinking for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years


Too bad many studies have shown ill effects from 1PPM, the same as our water. Then compounded with all the products that are processed with fluoridated water.

You'd get sick from water first? Water leaves your system, fluoride builds up.

[Without Rights]

Good. Now you have the beginnings of an actual argument! But, there's still more to be demonstrated;

What's the market for bulk fluoride? Who else produces it as a raw or by-product? Who besides water utilities use it and for what? Are supply and demand seasonal? Is the price sensitive to changes in supply or demand?

I already demonstrated a market that demands more than the largest aluminum corp in the world can produce.

All this other garbage is diversionary. And like I said before, it comes down to common sense. "More needs to be demonstrated" only because you will never have enough. Only a complete idiot would think that spending millions in disposal is better than selling what you where gonna dispose of.

[Mr.D]

I already demonstrated a market that demands more than the largest aluminum corp in the world can produce.


I agree that you have. When I said "good," I wasn't being sarcastic - I was happy to see someone ready and willing to defend their position with actual evidence.

Unfortunately, what you have not yet demonstrated is that water fluoridiation demands artificially created by "a conspiracy by phosphate and aluminum companies (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4300509#post4300509)" are sufficient to generate the profit margins! For that we need other figures to figure out (among other things) what that $0.05 per pound might be without the fluoridation demand.

If you are unwilling to continue, then your argument of conspiracy boils down to

... to common sense ... Only a complete idiot would think ....

and you'll skeptical thinkers here at the JREF unlikely to be convinced by such.


only because you will never have enough


The goalposts remain where they were; Provide evidence for profit/savings sufficient for a conspiracy of aluminum and phosphate companies to artificially create demand by water utilities. Then provide evidence that said conspiracy creates and/or preserves this artificial demand by ... (and here it's not entirely clear what your argument is. Does this conspiracy pay off the medical community and politicians? Supress scientific papers? Propagandize the public?)

[dudalb]

I knew it!
THe Aluminum and Phosphate companies are out to pollute our Precious Bodily Fluids!
It there no end to this conspiracy!
There is a damn good reason why Kubrick, wanting to portray a paranoid madman.chose the Flouridated water conspiracy as Jack D Ripper's obssesion.

[defaultdotxbe]

Ok, they don't have the power to institute fluoridation. Welcome to how America works 101. Corporations pay lobbyists, lobbyist lobby (go figure), laws get passed.

It is very hard to convince people to subsidize the cost of a corporations waste disposal or to de-classify a toxin because it helps a corporations profit margin. I have never heard of a lobby to get the Government to "look the other way", I think my IQ just fell a couple points.

It is easier to twist science that backs topical use of fluoride into a argument that swallowing fluoride is beneficial. Americans have to agree with it in order for it to work.
paying lobbyists, eh? id figure you need some really good lobbying and a lot of it to convince people to poison their own water supply

what do you suppose something like that costs? probably cuts pretty deep into their profits, i dont suppose youd have any figures on this?

[Belz...]

Ummm did you by any chance check the previous posts in this thread... there has been plenty of evidence posted. Have a look, you might be enlightened.

You mean, if I agree with you I will be enlightened ? Interesting.

I firmly believe that people today are far far less independent than those 100 years ago! Not that this claim has anything to do with fluoride ingestion merely an opinion.

That's nice. I have opinions, too. Welcome to the club.

[dudalb]

I firmly believe that people today are far far less independent than those 100 years ago! Not that this claim has anything to do with fluoride ingestion merely an opinion.

Ah, the "Good Old Days" syndrome.

[Praktik]

Ah, the "Good Old Days" syndrome.

I would say it's a hybrid of "Golden Age Syndrome" (seen most acutely on the right-wing, harking back to the days before Liberals Destroyed America) and the "Hip vs Square" analysis of society.

According to the tenets of "Hip vs Square" thinking, capitalism needs a sea of mindless, consuming automatons in order to function. Conformity is the goal, so the thinking goes, and once we break free of these strictures by say, taking a tab of acid or reading Aldous Huxley, we'll finally be able to see that everything The Man has been telling us is a lie. This has been debunked well by Thomas Frank in The Conquest of Cool (a good companion to which would be Heath + Potter's The Rebel Sell - google either for excerpts)

So people are "far far less independent than those 100 years ago" because presumably, modern society is composed of 98% "sheeple", and the 2% who "get it". Nevermind the fact that deprivation and disease were only two heads on a multi-headed hydra that kept most of society at subsistence levels. Even if it were possible to support an argument that people were more intellectually free in the 19th century (a dubious assertion) we can empirically demonstrate that materially, wider society was far worse off. Match that up with Maslow's heirarchy of needs and you end up with a society far more concerned with lower-order needs such as food and shelter, rather than having the luxury of being able to debate 9/11 and water fluoridation on the internet thanks to the modern electrical grid, higher income levels and much more widespread housing. Apparently in 1930 only 2/5's of society actually owned the house they were living in. In 1930!

[dudalb]

I would say it's a hybrid of "Golden Age Syndrome" (seen most acutely on the right-wing, harking back to the days before Liberals Destroyed America) and the "Hip vs Square" analysis of society.

Pretty much the same thing..a looking back to a golden age that never existed.
And althought the right is prone to it, the Left is only marginally better. You have a number of people...some who post here and you can probably guess who I am talking about....who basically hate modern industrial, techonology based society and for that reason are violently anti Captalist (they see the society they hate as a result of Capitalism ) and long for a happier, pre industrial society of indepedent Yeoman Farmers (although that never existed,the classic Yeoman farmer never was anywhere near a majority of the agriculture based community) living communally happily together.
Surprise, these people worship Ned Lud and at least one of their spokepersons here openly advocates tearing up the streets in the cities and converting them to agriculture.(BTW it is amazing how many of these people know NOTHING about real world agriculture).
And One of the benefits of growing older is realizing how stupid the endless striving to be "cool" and "hip" and Living FOr The Next Big Thing really is.

[Belz...]

According to the tenets of "Hip vs Square" thinking, capitalism needs a sea of mindless, consuming automatons in order to function.

Not that any of its proponents could point to anyone they know who fits that stereotype.

[Praktik]

Not that any of its proponents could point to anyone they know who fits that stereotype.

Exactly, and in fact the conformist sheep is by and large a mythic creature. Now we can all point to stupid people - there's no doubt that they exist and there's certainly plenty of people who don't question authority. That being said, capitalism actually functions better when we're caught up in the game of "competitive consumption", wherein our clothes, the music we listen to, the fair trade coffee we buy, the organic-only produce we eat all become part of our self-identity.

A sea of conformist sheep would actually work better under a communist system, than a capitalist one. The fact is that a granola-munching dreadlocked vegan hippie is just as much a driver of consumption as a GAP-wearing, MTV watching MBA candidate.

[Old Bob]

Reading the warning sign on a roll of welding wire- "contains fluoride (along with other nastiness) can cause teeth mottling and osteopyrosis" just from the fumes. When are the pro-fluoride -er- people going to wake up? Pitchfork time boys & girls.

[Praktik]

When are the pro-fluoride -er- people going to wake up? Pitchfork time boys & girls.


When are they gonna OPEN THEIR EYES!!??


:D

[Praktik]

Question re: "flouride as mind control drug"

I asked this before in this forum but from what I can see no one has been able to reply with any detail on it - but if the case for fluoride as a mind control agent is primarily based on the fact that Nazis and Soviets used it, are there any primary-source documents from the Nazi or Soviet archives that explicitly state "increased docility" or the like as an intended aim of water fluoridation?

Might be hard if the documents don't exist but was wondering if someone knew of anyone who has tried to locate such a document, either coming up empty or finding something that backs up these claims...

[Belz...]

Praktik... the NAZIS used it. That should be reason enough for us to believe...

[Without Rights]

what you have not yet demonstrated is that water fluoridiation demands artificially created by "a conspiracy by phosphate and aluminum companies (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4300509#post4300509)" are sufficient to generate the profit margins! For that we need other figures to figure out (among other things) what that $0.05 per pound might be without the fluoridation demand.

What does that even mean? If it is a conspiracy does that make a higher profit margin necessary? We need other figures among other things, What? Listen closely, the demand is there, cities/states who have mandated fluoridation MUST purchase fluoride. The companies that sell it to them are in a good position because it is mandated. Of course there is a fluctuation in the price, just like everything else, when the price goes down they still profit. They still saved $16.5M in disposal costs. They sell it and they damn sure charge a delivery charge just like everyone else who runs a business. The only way they don't make a profit is if they are stupid MFer's.

Please devise a scenario where, given the numbers, they can not be profitable


The goalposts remain where they were; Provide evidence for profit/savings sufficient for a conspiracy of aluminum and phosphate companies to artificially create demand by water utilities.

I already did, some where around $17 M annually.

Then providence that said conspiracy creates and/or preserves this artificial demand by ... (and hede evire it's not entirely clear what your argument is. Does this conspiracy pay off the medical community and politicians? Supress scientific papers? Propagandize the public?)

The demand is not artificial, the demand is very real.

As for evidence go to the history. Gerald J. Cox, an employee of ALCOA did the first extremely flawed experiment concluding that caries were reduced in lab rats after fluoridation. Robert Ewing, ALCOA lawyer was head of the FSA. Education (propaganda) and research (made to order by the financier) was all funded by aluminum manufacturers.

Now when someone says anything contrary they are attacked and ridiculed. 100's of scientific papers are out there that show ingestion is harmful even in low doses but they get no attention in the media. You have to find them yourself.

The only papers that I can find that support fluoridation are skewed crap paid for by ALCOA, or horrible correlation charts that are skewed because they fail to consider topical fluoride.

The conspiracy is simple, shove "ingestion is great" down the throats of America and ridicule anyone who says different.

[Without Rights]

paying lobbyists, eh? id figure you need some really good lobbying and a lot of it to convince people to poison their own water supply

what do you suppose something like that costs? probably cuts pretty deep into their profits, i dont suppose youd have any figures on this?


You didn't listen. Lobbyist don't convince them to poison their own water supply, they convince them that drinking this wonderful element will prevent caries and strengthen teeth. They misinterpret the science. The science says topical use prevents caries. They remove "topical" from all their propaganda (lieing with the truth, another fallacious argument). Drinking lotion doesn't hydrate the skin.

[Belz...]

Drinking lotion doesn't hydrate the skin.

No, but drank water usually happens to go through the teeth, first.

Besides, I'm still waiting to see actual evidence that the level of fluoride we have in our water is actually harmful.

[defaultdotxbe]

You didn't listen. Lobbyist don't convince them to poison their own water supply, they convince them that drinking this wonderful element will prevent caries and strengthen teeth. They misinterpret the science. The science says topical use prevents caries. They remove "topical" from all their propaganda (lieing with the truth, another fallacious argument). Drinking lotion doesn't hydrate the skin.
you didnt listen

you claim this is all a scheme to save money on disposal, but how much are they saving when you add the cost of lobbyists, the cost to fake research that shows people drinking naturally fluoridated water have better teeth, and suppressing research that says ingesting fluoride is bad that doesnt help the teeth

and keep in mind none of this is a one-time cost, they have to keep doing it continuously or else water fluoridation will stop

so how much does all this cost WR? show me the bottom line where the companies are saving money.

[Without Rights]

you didnt listen

you claim this is all a scheme to save money on disposal, but how much are they saving when you add the cost of lobbyists, the cost to fake research that shows people drinking naturally fluoridated water have better teeth, and suppressing research that says ingesting fluoride is bad that doesnt help the teeth

and keep in mind none of this is a one-time cost, they have to keep doing it continuously or else water fluoridation will stop

so how much does all this cost WR? show me the bottom line where the companies are saving money.

Save money on disposal and profiting from the sale don't forget.

The cost of lobbyist is not perpetual, when a law gets past to mandate fluoridation their job is done. It then becomes work for those who oppose the law to try and reverse the law.

The research in which they did indeed pay for is not continuous. They had it out since 1940's-1960's and they are still using that evidence to fluoridate.

They don't have to suppress other scientific studies. They just mention their own on a national scale. They advertise their results. Nobody has the financial interest to advertise on a national scale the studies that tell of the damage caused by fluoride. If you want to find them it is up to you to look. Dr.'s everywhere, all over are trying to get the message out. They are backed buy 100's of studies. Pro-fluoridation is backed by paid scientific staff studies decades old and twisting topical science as if it means ingesting.

The "research" you mention about people having better teeth when drinking naturally fluoridated water has been refuted with no response or rebuttal.

Anyway, our water isn't naturally fluoridated. It is fluoridated with a waste product which also contains arsenic (CDC) http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=9005.

Point being, there is 100's of scientific papers on ill effects that hardly nobody knows about, yet scores of people cling to these horribly skewed papers. Why is that? Isn't that proof of suppression?

[Without Rights]

No, but drank water usually happens to go through the teeth, first.

Besides, I'm still waiting to see actual evidence that the level of fluoride we have in our water is actually harmful.


Ok so eat your chap stick cause it glides across your lips. ACT will cross your teeth also if you swallow it. Just because it crossing your teeth on the way down helps doesn't mean you swallow it, it means you gargle with it or rub it on your teeth and SPIT IT OUT. I still think that argument is the most ridiculous I ever heard, and I do get around. IT IS TOXIC WHEN SWALLOWED.

The sited journals where posted in this thread already and without any response to them I might add. Conveniently skipped over i guess. Read up and get back with me.

[Mr.D]

The demand is not artificial, the demand is very real.


Yes, the market demand is real; water utilities purchase fluoride. But according to your theory, they only do so because the conspiracy has influenced laws to make it mandatory! This is an artificially created demand and it potentially changes the supply/demand curve. You cannot assume the market price of the fluoride is the same without the conspiracy as it is with.


Please devise a scenario where, given the numbers, they can not be profitable


You want a scenario? Ok here we go:

Suppose that outside of the water utilities, there is virtually zero demand for the fluoride waste products of aluminum and phosphate companies. What would the market cost of fluoride be? Still $0.05 per pound? Hardly.

Since it's my scenario, I'm going to say that lack of demand lowers the market price to $0.01 per 11,172,000 pounds. Let's also suppose that maintaining the conspiracy costs $30M a year. How would this conspiracy work?

Before conspiracy: Cost to dispose of 11,172,000 pounds = $16,800,000 / year

After conspiracy: Costs minus Receipts = $29,999,999.99 / year

Oops. The conspiracy costs more to maintain than it saves.

(Of course I've picked a extreme numbers, but the point remains: There's still no "common sense" argument here; an economic argument requires you to provide evidence that there is a financial advantage to your conspiracy! (And since you brought it up - no you can't just cover the difference by adding on delivery fees; That would be figured into the market cost))


As for evidence go to the history.


Don't change the subject. You made an economic argument, I'm asking you to back it up, so stick to the economics.

[Belz...]

Ok so eat your chap stick cause it glides across your lips. ACT will cross your teeth also if you swallow it. Just because it crossing your teeth on the way down helps doesn't mean you swallow it, it means you gargle with it or rub it on your teeth and SPIT IT OUT.

Indeed. All I was saying is that your analogy with lotions was inadequate. I didn't say that swallowing was required for fluoride to take effect, but drinking it still works.

I still think that argument is the most ridiculous I ever heard, and I do get around.

It was not an argument. I was simply pointing out that your analogy didn't work.

IT IS TOXIC WHEN SWALLOWED.

I can hear you find when you're not shouting.

The sited journals where posted in this thread already and without any response to them I might add. Conveniently skipped over i guess. Read up and get back with me.

Just link back to one of those posts and I'll have a look.

It better show that tap-water amounts of fluoride are toxic...

[kageki]

Indeed. All I was saying is that your analogy with lotions was inadequate. I didn't say that swallowing was required for fluoride to take effect, but drinking it still works.



It was not an argument. I was simply pointing out that your analogy didn't work.



I can hear you find when you're not shouting.



Just link back to one of those posts and I'll have a look.

It better show that tap-water amounts of fluoride are toxic...

If something is toxic then it's toxic. Why would the amount matter? It's still toxic isn't it?

[Mr.D]

If something is toxic then it's toxic. Why would the amount matter? It's still toxic isn't it?

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

[grmcdorman]

Precisely. Another example: if we don't get enough iodine, we develop various health problems (see http://www.vitalhealthzone.com/nutrition/minerals/iodine.html). However, iodine - in bulk - is a poison (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002658.htm).

So, is it toxic or not?

[defaultdotxbe]

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

too much of a good thing...

[The Truth Hurts]

No, but drank water usually happens to go through the teeth, first.

Besides, I'm still waiting to see actual evidence that the level of fluoride we have in our water is actually harmful.

WHAT? :boggled: The links to those numerous scientific studies doesnt do it for you?

I give up, you must be living in a very high fluoride area or something!