Plant officials stop flouridating water... Get put on leave

reply to post by Phage


You did by inferring that it could be better used in x-ray to determine atherosclerosis and bone cancer; something to that affect.

The cost of Fluoridating water nation wide is huge. Why should taxpayers be paying all these costs. The equipment is expensive, mandatory testing costs are expensive, the cost of the certified fluorides are expensive, etc... Why does everyone have to be paying for what only half the people want. Talk about shoving their ways down other peoples throats and making them pay for it. If you want fluoride buy fluoridated toothpaste or take paxil or prozac.

reply to post by Phage

Incorrect. Neither the article you linked nor the study it refers to show that.

VeritasAequitas' link was a compilation of studies.

Again stubborn Phage, recently the CDC itself acknowledged that Dental Fluorosis has increased.

And by now I think you won't mislead anymore on concentration vs. dose. Discerning readers can spot what you are doing.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

You did by inferring that it could be better used in x-ray to determine atherosclerosis and bone cancer; something to that affect.

So you turn the potential for fluoride used in CT scans to be a useful diagnostic tool for the detection of calcification into this:

You can not tell me, that it is beneficial when I have a father who is dying from it's effects..

Your father has heart disease and it must be from fluoride. I'm sorry about your father but do you really think that all heart disease is caused by fluoride?

reply to post by Phage

Yes.

Moving on...

Not exactly. Reduction of tooth decay also occurs when fluorosis is not present.

You did not quote or read what I said entirely...To state reduction of tooth decay occurs when fluoride is not present is correct. However, mottling of the teeth which result in the reduction of tooth decay does happen during acute fluoride poisoning.

Incorrect. Neither the article you linked nor the study it refers to show that.

According to the proponents, fluoridation is responsible for about 40% of all fluorosis;

www.fluoridation.com...

Tomato, tomahto, to me..

In the sake of denying ignorance, I would recommend this to you..

www.fannz.org.nz...

This study found that water fluoridation increases the incidence of dental fluorosis, but has no lasting benefit in reducing tooth decay. The study concluded that there had not been a significant increase in fluorosis incidence since the 1980s (which was already 3 times higher than predicted when fluoridation was first proposed). The levels reported then were around 25% to 28% (Colquhoun, 1985).

Why do you say they are uninformed?

Why do you assume they are? I have every reason to believe that they, like you, were pacified by the mere utterance of 'dental health' and got tunnel vision. Since they, like you, believe that TPTB have our best vested interests at heart, would or could never harm us. So they put their faith in the 'Yes Men' so to speak.

What if you live in an area with a water supply with a natural level of 0.7 ppm?

I would like to insult your ego just a bit by notifying you that Sodium fluoride is not the naturally recurring substance in water; CALCIUM fluoride is... Adding by-products of atomic weapons is just dumb...If you had any sense, you wouldn't consume arsenic in any dosage or concentration, much less sodium fluoride; which by the way is against international regulations to dump in the oceans. How in the world is it acceptable to feed it to humans in an uncontrolled fashion; yet it is deemed unacceptable to feed it to the fish?

Really? I thought it was a representational republic. You know that there are communities which have stopped or never had fluoridation, right? That doesn't sound Nazi (neo or otherwise).

Really? I wasn't aware that you represented my best interests nor did I give you such consent. Don't go talking about how great fluoride is if you aren't even willing to consume it yourself.

reply to post by rickymouse

Why should taxpayers be paying all these costs.

Um. Who is going to pay it but at less than $1 per person per year on average it's pretty cheap compared to dental bills for filling cavities.

Why should I pay to subsidize a train system that I don't use?

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin


I recently read on article on a ten-year study from Harvard. The point of it was that people that drank water with added fluoride for ten years had a significant reduction in their IQ scores compared to the group of people that drank water with no fluoridation for ten years. I try to drink the best water available but it does get expensive after a while. Good article, though.

~LR

Originally posted by Phage
To help prevent tooth decay.

Do you gargle your tap water? Neither do I. Nor anybody I know. Does it really help our teeth if we are just swallowing it?

reply to post by bacci0909


No it doesn't'; which he keeps tip-toeing around. You apply the toothpaste topically. A brief instant of the water passing through your teeth does not constitute effectiveness. They even tell you on the toothpaste tube not to ingest the stuff.

reply to post by Phage


I did not say that his heart problems were caused solely by fluoride. Exacerbated? Yes.

You first must be aware of the problems between poor dieting especially high in cholesterol and calcium. The cholesterol and calcium, which the fluoride from his Sweet Tea binds to, make up the plaque that block the arterial walls of the heart valves, and the fluoride causes oxidative stress to the artery walls.

reply to post by Phage

Funny enough this link you posted earlier........www.inspq.qc.ca...
Is from Quebec where the use of Fluoride is almost zero if not zero now.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


naturalsociety.com...

Groundbreaking new research has linked sodium fluoride to cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death worldwide. Researchers found that fluoride consumption directly stimulates the hardening of your arteries, a condition known as atherosclerosis that is highly correlated with the #1 killer.

Atherosclerosis -- or hardening of the arteries -- is the leading cause of heart attacks, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease.

www.webmd.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

Which means you could technically get at least 8 ppm even more at the usage of the 1ppm in 80% of what you consume daily..

Don't get me wrong. I think that eating a lot of processed food is not a good idea. Nor do I think drinking a lot of water with high concentrations of fluoride (or some other things) is a good idea.

We almost agree here on something, on the paragraph above I agree with the processed food and I agree with the water too but I would not drink it with any concentrations of Fluoride.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

However, mottling of the teeth which result in the reduction of tooth decay does happen during acute fluoride poisoning.

Yes. So what? How many cases of acute fluoride poisoning are seen in areas where fluoridation is used?

Tomato, tomahto, to me..

So you think that a statement that fluoridation being responsible for 40% of the cases of fluorosis is the same as saying there has been a 40% increase in fluorosis? Once again your concepts about math seem a bit odd.

In the sake of denying ignorance, I would recommend this to you..

In the sake of denying ignorance I would recommend you read what the study in question actually found:
Prevalence of enamel defects and dental caries among 9-year-old Auckland children.
NZ Dental Journal December 2008 (p145-152)

Conversely, the prevalence of deciduous teeth dental caries was significantly lower in fluoridated areas (54.9 per 100) than in non-fluoridated areas (62.0 per 100), P=0.05.

www.hiirc.org.nz...

Why do you assume they are? I have every reason to believe that they, like you, were pacified by the mere utterance of 'dental health' and got tunnel vision.

Or perhaps they have looked at both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusions as have I. Perhaps they have gone to the actual studies rather than listening to some erroneous interpretation of them

I would like to insult your ego just a bit by notifying you that Sodium fluoride is not the naturally recurring substance in water; CALCIUM fluoride is

Yes. So what? It's the fluoride that matters. Do you think there is something dreadfully awful about sodium? You think that calcium fluoride is safer than sodium fluoride? Did you miss this post? www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't go talking about how great fluoride is if you aren't even willing to consume it yourself.

What makes you say I am unwilling to consume it?

Reading up on this subject before I post a response really shocked me. It has to be harmful one way or another to some people. Common fluoride, is actually known as,"sodium fluoride." That is a waste bi product of most nuclear plants and factories. You can get fluoride poisoning this way and some people even have reported radiation poisoning from it. I think my glass of water from the faucet will suffice.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Groundbreaking new research has linked sodium fluoride to cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death worldwide. Researchers found that fluoride consumption directly stimulates the hardening of your arteries, a condition known as atherosclerosis that is highly correlated with the #1 killer.

That is just another misrepresentation of the study on the use of fluoride in CT scans. There is nothing in the study connecting fluoride (much less fluoridation) to hardening of the arteries.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

Consuming up to 8 processed foods would result in the ingestion of 8 ppm of fluoride

No. It would result in eating 8 "servings" at 1 ppm (assuming that the "serving" was nothing but water and that water was tap water from a fluoridated water supply).

not to mention that quite a few people drink much more than 1L of water or that boiling the water increases the concentration of fluoride.

Yes they do drink more than 1 liter of water a day. Yes, boiling water does increase the concentration. If you increase the concentration from 1 to 8ppm you have boiled that 1 liter down to 1/8 liter, about 4 ounces. That's a lot of boiling.

We seem to be stuck on this 1ppm concentration when it varies around the world.
For example if we eat a can of corn imported from say Indiana USA verses a can of corn from Russia?

All I am trying to say is that this 1ppm is not universal yet this web site is.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Phage

Yes. So what? How many cases of acute fluoride poisoning are seen in areas where fluoridation is used?

I'd suppose quite a few. Read the next answer for clarification.

So you think that a statement that fluoridation being responsible for 40% of the cases of fluorosis is the same as saying there has been a 40% increase in fluorosis?

Actually, yes, let me explain. By saying that fluoridation is responsible for 40% of the cases is technically saying that fluoridation is responsible for a 40% increase in fluorosis; because where did the other percentage of causes for fluorosis come from before they even fluoridated water? How could fluoridation be used as part of a percentage before it was even practiced? That would have to mean in order for it to be responsible for 40% of the cases of fluorosis is due to fluoridation; which did not happen until the early sixties to early 80's. It could only have increased the rates of fluorosis.

In the sake of denying ignorance I would recommend you read what the study in question actually found: Prevalence of enamel defects and dental caries among 9-year-old Auckland children. NZ Dental Journal December 2008 (p145-152)

Why did you avoid this quote at the very beginning of the article? I am not arguing the effectiveness of fluoridation in regards to dental cavities; I am arguing about the correlation between fluoridation and the rise of fluorosis.

Summary This study found that water fluoridation increases the incidence of dental fluorosis, but has no lasting benefit in reducing tooth decay. The study concluded that there had not been a significant increase in fluorosis incidence since the 1980s (which was already 3 times higher than predicted when fluoridation was first proposed). The levels reported then were around 25% to 28% (Colquhoun, 1985).

Or perhaps they have looked at both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusions as have I. Perhaps they have gone to the actual studies rather than listening to some erroneous interpretation of them

This sounds like some sort of domestic terrorist propaganda. I supposed these are the same people who published the official "9-11" story including 'radical muslim fundamentalists' that 'hate our freedom' when just about any major country has our same 'freedoms'. Why not attack them? Then the 'listening to erroneous interpretations of them; would be akin to saying you were part of the group that believe the 'official story' opposed to the 'erroneous interpretations' of the 9-11 Truthers..Get outta town...

Yes. So what? It's the fluoride that matters. Do you think there is something dreadfully awful about sodium? You think that calcium fluoride is safer than sodium fluoride? Did you miss this post?

'So what' he says....It is not 'the fluoride that matters'. It is how it bonds. The process between the bonding of naturally occurring calcium fluoride, and artificial sodium fluoride are completely different. I would also like to point out that the MSDS document you posted was in reference to Sodium Fluoride not Calcium Fluoride... However because the second one did mention calcium fluoride, I would like to mention that A) The acute toxicity between calcium and sodium are different; as well as B) Calcium fluoride is soluble in water.

Toxicological Data on Ingredients: Sodium fluoride: ORAL (LD50): Acute: 52 mg/kg [Rat]. 57 mg/kg [Mouse].

Toxicological Data on Ingredients: Sodium fluoride: ORAL (LD50): Acute: 52 mg/kg [Rat]. 57 mg/kg [Mouse].

Few inorganic fluorides are soluble in water.

en.wikipedia.org...

What makes you say I am unwilling to consume it?

As much propaganda as you regurgitate; you'd think you'd be petitioning your city council to add it if it wasn't already. I say you are willing; because you'd be leading by example.

reply to post by Iwinder

All I am trying to say is that this 1ppm is not universal yet this web site is.

1ppm is a typical "target" level for artificial fluoridation. Artificial fluoridation is not used in water supplies which have levels greater than that. Since this discussion is about artificial fluoridation that is why 1ppm is being used.

There are water supplies with much higher concentrations of fluoride. In the US the EPA has set a limit of 4.0ppm. In other parts of the world there are lower limits and in other parts of the world there is no regulation.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Well for all practical purposes it does.

For practical purposes, no it doesn't. The concentration doesn't change.

The more important problem is why the hell 51 percent of the people think they have the right to tell you you must drink poisoned water.

They don't. Interesting point though. What if your water supply has natural fluoride at 1 ppm (not uncommon)? Why should 49% of the people be able to insist that it be removed? If you don't want to drink tap water you can filter it or buy something else. Ever heard the expression, you can lead a horse to water?

edit on 8/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The thing is this thread is about adding Fluoride to the water supply not a natural occurrence.

Regards, Iwinder