Water Fluoridation will NOT kill you.

superman2012
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Lots of fear there. Not much science or facts.
I'm still waiting for you explain my contradictory message?

Amazing that you got through everything I posted, since all the information I posted contains exactly what you speak of and takes about 30 minutes plus to absorb, even if you have a chemistry background.

I can see you didn't even take the time to read anything I posted, which only leads me to one conclusion.

You are ruled by your Ego and the only thing you are doing on this thread is maintaining a thing called "Blind Ignorance".

Follow the money trail you will be enlightened.

Good luck to you.


RT

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

WeAre0ne
reply to post by superman2012

 

Your argument is uninformed and idiotic.

Fluoride damages the Thyroid at any dose. No matter what, fluoride will always cause a harmful chemical reaction in your body. You can either slowly damage your body over time with small doses, or damage it instantly in one large dose. No matter what, damage is being done.

Most studies of fluoride usually quote "excess doses" because that is the only time the side effects become obvious, and more notable for study. Keyword SIDE EFFECTS. Your thyroid can be damaged long before you see side effects.

Small doses of fluoride are known to affect the thyroids function. That is why they used it as a medication to reduce thyroid function, because it worked so well with little dose compared to other substances that require higher doses. These are the REAL FACTS.

Learn to study...

Fluoride damages the Thyroid at any dose.

Your claim. Prove it.

Most studies of fluoride usually quote "excess doses" because that is the only time the side effects become obvious

Right. Harmful. No side effects in low doses. You are making my argument for me.

UH no this whole thread is based on your fallacious claim of fluorides safety. You prove it by showing a double blind study, or stop lying to the public.

Read Kingston-Newburgh and come back.

yes I have seen you reference that improperly done study many times. That doesnt all of a suden give it any validity.

No real double blind study = no real proof of safety.

Stop lying to the public about fluorides safety, it has not been proven safe for human consumption, NO( amount is safe, so ANY amount is excess.

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop

 

So how exactly would a double blind study work using two different towns? If you are saying that would work then I have already linked to you the Newburgh-Kingston study which you claimed to read...

So what you are saying is you dont even know what a double blind study is? Wow, I thought you had prepared for this thread ahead of time.

Yes I do. Do you?

You are saying that the control and the fluoride drinkers should not be located in the same location? Does this work with any other study? Is that not the point? To be drinking the SAME water, one fluoridated, one not? Kingston-Newburgh satisfies that condition.
Nice attempt at a straw man argument though.

Pointing out my inadequacies instead of staying on point.

I will do this in my best daffey duck voice for you.

yes you use one town that is NOT fluoridated. then you have all people in the study drink "bottled water" half fluoridated and half not.

Again, once your mind is clear this simple idea would have come to you on your own, dont be sad, if you stop it soon it shouldnt be permanent.

But but but, then the anti-fluoride people will claim that the fluoride in the water when they bathe/cook/etc was fluoride tainted as well when it doesn't show what they expect. Uh oh. You didn't think of that did you. The water that comes into your house isn't only for drinking. How do you suppose you get around that? Don't you have to have a control? How do you do that if the people are drinking two different waters, bottled water and tap water? I'm starting to think you don't know how to do a double blind experiment.

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

WeAre0ne
reply to post by superman2012

 

Your argument is uninformed and idiotic.

Fluoride damages the Thyroid at any dose. No matter what, fluoride will always cause a harmful chemical reaction in your body. You can either slowly damage your body over time with small doses, or damage it instantly in one large dose. No matter what, damage is being done.

Most studies of fluoride usually quote "excess doses" because that is the only time the side effects become obvious, and more notable for study. Keyword SIDE EFFECTS. Your thyroid can be damaged long before you see side effects.

Small doses of fluoride are known to affect the thyroids function. That is why they used it as a medication to reduce thyroid function, because it worked so well with little dose compared to other substances that require higher doses. These are the REAL FACTS.

Learn to study...

Fluoride damages the Thyroid at any dose.

Your claim. Prove it.

Most studies of fluoride usually quote "excess doses" because that is the only time the side effects become obvious

Right. Harmful. No side effects in low doses. You are making my argument for me.

UH no this whole thread is based on your fallacious claim of fluorides safety. You prove it by showing a double blind study, or stop lying to the public.

Read Kingston-Newburgh and come back.

yes I have seen you reference that improperly done study many times. That doesnt all of a suden give it any validity.

No real double blind study = no real proof of safety.

Stop lying to the public about fluorides safety, it has not been proven safe for human consumption, NO( amount is safe, so ANY amount is excess.

I have given you the reason why a double blind study is not possible. You refuse to believe that while giving horrible input into how to achieve one. I gave you the next best thing. Two towns of close to the same population that get their water from the SAME source. One fluoridated their water, one did not.
If you can't put two and two together and figure out that that is as close as it will get. There is nothing more I can do for you.

It's all there, you just have to read.

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop

 

So how exactly would a double blind study work using two different towns? If you are saying that would work then I have already linked to you the Newburgh-Kingston study which you claimed to read...

So what you are saying is you dont even know what a double blind study is? Wow, I thought you had prepared for this thread ahead of time.

Yes I do. Do you?

You are saying that the control and the fluoride drinkers should not be located in the same location? Does this work with any other study? Is that not the point? To be drinking the SAME water, one fluoridated, one not? Kingston-Newburgh satisfies that condition.
Nice attempt at a straw man argument though.

Pointing out my inadequacies instead of staying on point.

I will do this in my best daffey duck voice for you.

yes you use one town that is NOT fluoridated. then you have all people in the study drink "bottled water" half fluoridated and half not.

Again, once your mind is clear this simple idea would have come to you on your own, dont be sad, if you stop it soon it shouldnt be permanent.

But but but, then the anti-fluoride people will claim that the fluoride in the water when they bathe/cook/etc was fluoride tainted as well when it doesn't show what they expect. Uh oh. You didn't think of that did you. The water that comes into your house isn't only for drinking. How do you suppose you get around that? Don't you have to have a control? How do you do that if the people are drinking two different waters, bottled water and tap water?

I'm starting to think you don't know how to do a double blind experiment.

Your true colors are showing.

Your response to me saying that a real scientific double blind study needs to be done in order to prove safety is.... Ready... here it come...... NO one will believe it? What? So then why do any study ever, why prove anything No one will ever believe it. You are a true working shill and have proven it today.

time to start a new clean log in so we wont recognise you.

superman2012
Right. Harmful. No side effects in low doses. You are making my argument for me.

I already did prove it. Doctors used to prescribe low doses of fluoride to intentionally reduce thyroid function. Look it up, do your research. There are side effects in low doses, it's called reduced thyroid function, and the resulting chain reaction of that. But by side effects I meant unintentional side effects like the effects on bones, kidneys, teeth, and the brain, etc. which can seriously harm you.

You are just arguing semantics. I expect nothing less from someone who is trying to argue a toxic substance is ok to drink.

Realtruth

superman2012
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Lots of fear there. Not much science or facts.
I'm still waiting for you explain my contradictory message?

Amazing that you got through everything I posted, since all the information I posted contains exactly what you speak of and takes about 30 minutes plus to absorb, even if you have a chemistry background.

I can see you didn't even take the time to read anything I posted, which only leads me to one conclusion.

You are ruled by your Ego and the only thing you are doing on this thread is maintaining a thing called "Blind Ignorance".

Follow the money trail you will be enlightened.

Good luck to you.


RT

I just did you the courtesy of reading your post the same way you read mine! I have seen all that before. You forget the hours of research I did on this thread...oh yes, hours. A couple of your YT videos doesn't negate all the information that I have presented. Go through them and learn, unless your ego is in your way...

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop

 

So how exactly would a double blind study work using two different towns? If you are saying that would work then I have already linked to you the Newburgh-Kingston study which you claimed to read...

So what you are saying is you dont even know what a double blind study is? Wow, I thought you had prepared for this thread ahead of time.

Yes I do. Do you?

You are saying that the control and the fluoride drinkers should not be located in the same location? Does this work with any other study? Is that not the point? To be drinking the SAME water, one fluoridated, one not? Kingston-Newburgh satisfies that condition.
Nice attempt at a straw man argument though.

Pointing out my inadequacies instead of staying on point.

I will do this in my best daffey duck voice for you.

yes you use one town that is NOT fluoridated. then you have all people in the study drink "bottled water" half fluoridated and half not.

Again, once your mind is clear this simple idea would have come to you on your own, dont be sad, if you stop it soon it shouldnt be permanent.

But but but, then the anti-fluoride people will claim that the fluoride in the water when they bathe/cook/etc was fluoride tainted as well when it doesn't show what they expect. Uh oh. You didn't think of that did you. The water that comes into your house isn't only for drinking. How do you suppose you get around that? Don't you have to have a control? How do you do that if the people are drinking two different waters, bottled water and tap water?

I'm starting to think you don't know how to do a double blind experiment.

Your true colors are showing.

Your response to me saying that a real scientific double blind study needs to be done in order to prove safety is.... Ready... here it come...... NO one will believe it? What? So then why do any study ever, why prove anything No one will ever believe it. You are a true working shill and have proven it today.

and you are correct, double blind studies are impossible, they cant be done, ever, Oh wait, they are done all the time, oh , sorry another thing you are just blatantly way out their wrong about. and I mean wayyy out there. lol

time to start a new clean log in so we wont recognise you.

edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop

 

So how exactly would a double blind study work using two different towns? If you are saying that would work then I have already linked to you the Newburgh-Kingston study which you claimed to read...

So what you are saying is you dont even know what a double blind study is? Wow, I thought you had prepared for this thread ahead of time.

Yes I do. Do you?

You are saying that the control and the fluoride drinkers should not be located in the same location? Does this work with any other study? Is that not the point? To be drinking the SAME water, one fluoridated, one not? Kingston-Newburgh satisfies that condition.
Nice attempt at a straw man argument though.

Pointing out my inadequacies instead of staying on point.

I will do this in my best daffey duck voice for you.

yes you use one town that is NOT fluoridated. then you have all people in the study drink "bottled water" half fluoridated and half not.

Again, once your mind is clear this simple idea would have come to you on your own, dont be sad, if you stop it soon it shouldnt be permanent.

But but but, then the anti-fluoride people will claim that the fluoride in the water when they bathe/cook/etc was fluoride tainted as well when it doesn't show what they expect. Uh oh. You didn't think of that did you. The water that comes into your house isn't only for drinking. How do you suppose you get around that? Don't you have to have a control? How do you do that if the people are drinking two different waters, bottled water and tap water?

I'm starting to think you don't know how to do a double blind experiment.

Your true colors are showing.

Your response to me saying that a real scientific double blind study needs to be done in order to prove safety is.... Ready... here it come...... NO one will believe it? What? So then why do any study ever, why prove anything No one will ever believe it. You are a true working shill and have proven it today.

time to start a new clean log in so we wont recognise you.

edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)

I didn't think I had to say it but:

The way to handle the experiment THAT YOU PROPOSED is preposterous. It wouldn't work because that is NOT a double blind experiment either. I thought that you would know that seeing as how you brought it up...

superman2012

Realtruth

superman2012
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Lots of fear there. Not much science or facts.
I'm still waiting for you explain my contradictory message?

Amazing that you got through everything I posted, since all the information I posted contains exactly what you speak of and takes about 30 minutes plus to absorb, even if you have a chemistry background.

I can see you didn't even take the time to read anything I posted, which only leads me to one conclusion.

You are ruled by your Ego and the only thing you are doing on this thread is maintaining a thing called "Blind Ignorance".

Follow the money trail you will be enlightened.

Good luck to you.


RT

I just did you the courtesy of reading your post the same way you read mine!

I have seen all that before. You forget the hours of research I did on this thread...oh yes, hours. A couple of your YT videos doesn't negate all the information that I have presented. Go through them and learn, unless your ego is in your way...

You have not done any real reseaarch, you have shown NO proof because there is none, and then you stated that it is imposible to prove so we should just believe you...


LOLOLOOOOOOLLOOLOLOLOLLLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop

 

So how exactly would a double blind study work using two different towns? If you are saying that would work then I have already linked to you the Newburgh-Kingston study which you claimed to read...

So what you are saying is you dont even know what a double blind study is? Wow, I thought you had prepared for this thread ahead of time.

Yes I do. Do you?

You are saying that the control and the fluoride drinkers should not be located in the same location? Does this work with any other study? Is that not the point? To be drinking the SAME water, one fluoridated, one not? Kingston-Newburgh satisfies that condition.
Nice attempt at a straw man argument though.

Pointing out my inadequacies instead of staying on point.

I will do this in my best daffey duck voice for you.

yes you use one town that is NOT fluoridated. then you have all people in the study drink "bottled water" half fluoridated and half not.

Again, once your mind is clear this simple idea would have come to you on your own, dont be sad, if you stop it soon it shouldnt be permanent.

But but but, then the anti-fluoride people will claim that the fluoride in the water when they bathe/cook/etc was fluoride tainted as well when it doesn't show what they expect. Uh oh. You didn't think of that did you. The water that comes into your house isn't only for drinking. How do you suppose you get around that? Don't you have to have a control? How do you do that if the people are drinking two different waters, bottled water and tap water?

I'm starting to think you don't know how to do a double blind experiment.

Your true colors are showing.

Your response to me saying that a real scientific double blind study needs to be done in order to prove safety is.... Ready... here it come...... NO one will believe it? What? So then why do any study ever, why prove anything No one will ever believe it. You are a true working shill and have proven it today.

time to start a new clean log in so we wont recognise you.

edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)

I didn't think I had to say it but:

The way to handle the experiment THAT YOU PROPOSED is preposterous. It wouldn't work because that is NOT a double blind experiment either. I thought that you would know that seeing as how you brought it up...

So you honestly believe that my small sentence would be the entire structure of the study, you are not the man I thought you were. That was a very quick answer to your absurd statement that a study could not be done.


your just being silly on purpose to make me smile. Stop your making me have to much fun, and I cant sit here and laugh all night.

AmenStop

superman2012

Realtruth

superman2012
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Lots of fear there. Not much science or facts.
I'm still waiting for you explain my contradictory message?

Amazing that you got through everything I posted, since all the information I posted contains exactly what you speak of and takes about 30 minutes plus to absorb, even if you have a chemistry background.

I can see you didn't even take the time to read anything I posted, which only leads me to one conclusion.

You are ruled by your Ego and the only thing you are doing on this thread is maintaining a thing called "Blind Ignorance".

Follow the money trail you will be enlightened.

Good luck to you.


RT

I just did you the courtesy of reading your post the same way you read mine!

I have seen all that before. You forget the hours of research I did on this thread...oh yes, hours. A couple of your YT videos doesn't negate all the information that I have presented. Go through them and learn, unless your ego is in your way...

You have not done any real reseaarch, you have shown NO proof because there is none, and then you stated that it is imposible to prove so we should just believe you...


LOLOLOOOOOOLLOOLOLOLOLLLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I gave you as close to the proof that you wanted with, what is close enough to what you need. You can LOL all you want. I'm not afraid to research things that I have no knowledge on. All the proof is there, you just have to be willing to read and digest the information..but then there is also critical thinking which seems to be in short supply from the anti-fluoridians.

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop

 

So how exactly would a double blind study work using two different towns? If you are saying that would work then I have already linked to you the Newburgh-Kingston study which you claimed to read...

So what you are saying is you dont even know what a double blind study is? Wow, I thought you had prepared for this thread ahead of time.

Yes I do. Do you?

You are saying that the control and the fluoride drinkers should not be located in the same location? Does this work with any other study? Is that not the point? To be drinking the SAME water, one fluoridated, one not? Kingston-Newburgh satisfies that condition.
Nice attempt at a straw man argument though.

Pointing out my inadequacies instead of staying on point.

I will do this in my best daffey duck voice for you.

yes you use one town that is NOT fluoridated. then you have all people in the study drink "bottled water" half fluoridated and half not.

Again, once your mind is clear this simple idea would have come to you on your own, dont be sad, if you stop it soon it shouldnt be permanent.

But but but, then the anti-fluoride people will claim that the fluoride in the water when they bathe/cook/etc was fluoride tainted as well when it doesn't show what they expect. Uh oh. You didn't think of that did you. The water that comes into your house isn't only for drinking. How do you suppose you get around that? Don't you have to have a control? How do you do that if the people are drinking two different waters, bottled water and tap water?

I'm starting to think you don't know how to do a double blind experiment.

Your true colors are showing.

Your response to me saying that a real scientific double blind study needs to be done in order to prove safety is.... Ready... here it come...... NO one will believe it? What? So then why do any study ever, why prove anything No one will ever believe it. You are a true working shill and have proven it today.

time to start a new clean log in so we wont recognise you.

edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)

I didn't think I had to say it but:

The way to handle the experiment THAT YOU PROPOSED is preposterous. It wouldn't work because that is NOT a double blind experiment either. I thought that you would know that seeing as how you brought it up...

So you honestly believe that my small sentence would be the entire structure of the study, you are not the man I thought you were. That was a very quick answer to your absurd statement that a study could not be done.

You LOL when I don't give you the answer you want but defend a crap answer you gave me when you could have taken enough time to word it fully and as specifically as you could have possibly wanted?
My turn.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

Realtruth

superman2012
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Lots of fear there. Not much science or facts.
I'm still waiting for you explain my contradictory message?

Amazing that you got through everything I posted, since all the information I posted contains exactly what you speak of and takes about 30 minutes plus to absorb, even if you have a chemistry background.

I can see you didn't even take the time to read anything I posted, which only leads me to one conclusion.

You are ruled by your Ego and the only thing you are doing on this thread is maintaining a thing called "Blind Ignorance".

Follow the money trail you will be enlightened.

Good luck to you.


RT

I just did you the courtesy of reading your post the same way you read mine!

I have seen all that before. You forget the hours of research I did on this thread...oh yes, hours. A couple of your YT videos doesn't negate all the information that I have presented. Go through them and learn, unless your ego is in your way...

You have not done any real reseaarch, you have shown NO proof because there is none, and then you stated that it is imposible to prove so we should just believe you...


LOLOLOOOOOOLLOOLOLOLOLLLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I gave you as close to the proof that you wanted with, what is close enough to what you need. You can LOL all you want. I'm not afraid to research things that I have no knowledge on. All the proof is there, you just have to be willing to read and digest the information..but then there is also critical thinking which seems to be in short supply from the anti-fluoridians.

You gave me NO proof, because there is NO proof. Stop lying about fluorides safety.

Now if you said, that No study has ever shown fluoride to be safe for human consumption, however I think its good for your teeth, then I would leave you alone.

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop

 

So how exactly would a double blind study work using two different towns? If you are saying that would work then I have already linked to you the Newburgh-Kingston study which you claimed to read...

So what you are saying is you dont even know what a double blind study is? Wow, I thought you had prepared for this thread ahead of time.

Yes I do. Do you?

You are saying that the control and the fluoride drinkers should not be located in the same location? Does this work with any other study? Is that not the point? To be drinking the SAME water, one fluoridated, one not? Kingston-Newburgh satisfies that condition.
Nice attempt at a straw man argument though.

Pointing out my inadequacies instead of staying on point.

I will do this in my best daffey duck voice for you.

yes you use one town that is NOT fluoridated. then you have all people in the study drink "bottled water" half fluoridated and half not.

Again, once your mind is clear this simple idea would have come to you on your own, dont be sad, if you stop it soon it shouldnt be permanent.

But but but, then the anti-fluoride people will claim that the fluoride in the water when they bathe/cook/etc was fluoride tainted as well when it doesn't show what they expect. Uh oh. You didn't think of that did you. The water that comes into your house isn't only for drinking. How do you suppose you get around that? Don't you have to have a control? How do you do that if the people are drinking two different waters, bottled water and tap water?

I'm starting to think you don't know how to do a double blind experiment.

Your true colors are showing.

Your response to me saying that a real scientific double blind study needs to be done in order to prove safety is.... Ready... here it come...... NO one will believe it? What? So then why do any study ever, why prove anything No one will ever believe it. You are a true working shill and have proven it today.

time to start a new clean log in so we wont recognise you.

edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)

I didn't think I had to say it but:

The way to handle the experiment THAT YOU PROPOSED is preposterous. It wouldn't work because that is NOT a double blind experiment either. I thought that you would know that seeing as how you brought it up...

So you honestly believe that my small sentence would be the entire structure of the study, you are not the man I thought you were. That was a very quick answer to your absurd statement that a study could not be done.

You LOL when I don't give you the answer you want but defend a crap answer you gave me when you could have taken enough time to word it fully and as specifically as you could have possibly wanted?
My turn.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

No Im not fake laughing, I am really busting up your a riot.

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

Realtruth

superman2012
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Lots of fear there. Not much science or facts.
I'm still waiting for you explain my contradictory message?

Amazing that you got through everything I posted, since all the information I posted contains exactly what you speak of and takes about 30 minutes plus to absorb, even if you have a chemistry background.

I can see you didn't even take the time to read anything I posted, which only leads me to one conclusion.

You are ruled by your Ego and the only thing you are doing on this thread is maintaining a thing called "Blind Ignorance".

Follow the money trail you will be enlightened.

Good luck to you.


RT

I just did you the courtesy of reading your post the same way you read mine!

I have seen all that before. You forget the hours of research I did on this thread...oh yes, hours. A couple of your YT videos doesn't negate all the information that I have presented. Go through them and learn, unless your ego is in your way...

You have not done any real reseaarch, you have shown NO proof because there is none, and then you stated that it is imposible to prove so we should just believe you...


LOLOLOOOOOOLLOOLOLOLOLLLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I gave you as close to the proof that you wanted with, what is close enough to what you need. You can LOL all you want. I'm not afraid to research things that I have no knowledge on. All the proof is there, you just have to be willing to read and digest the information..but then there is also critical thinking which seems to be in short supply from the anti-fluoridians.

You gave me NO proof, because there is NO proof. Stop lying about fluorides safety.

Now if you said, that No study has ever shown fluoride to be safe for human consumption, however I think its good for your teeth, then I would leave you alone.

It's all there.
I can't force you to think just like I can't force you to read. Once you read it, and if you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them later on. I have to go talk to my handlers....err....tuck my children into bed.

superman2012
reply to post by whatsup86

 

The argument actually still stands because it is very obvious your work at the waterplant made you this passionate about convincing yourself and others the water you help distributing in one way or another isnt harmfull.

Actually no it doesn't. I was on your side before. I did research on my own and discovered there was nothing but people hiding in caves because the Gods were throwing bolts of light at them. Zero science proving their claims or outright lies.

Assuming the toxic waste would contain fluoride it would be cheaper than handing out pills.

Is it cheaper? How much is fluoride for water fluoridation? How much is it in pill form?

Now you have no reason to promote fluoride tap water anymore. Instead you should be asking yourself why they are wasting so much money on fluorising the water supply.

Ahhh...now I see your problem. You are confused. You think I am saying they should do this, when all I am doing is showing that the anti-fluoride side is fraught with lies and fear. That explains it. Now you have no reason to argue, right?

Well I havent seen you bring all the real facts to the table just a few points that tried to dismiss the claims made by the anti-fluoride side. Some valid but not all, maybe you should be a little more critical about the evidence you give.

And the maths is very simple, you dont even need a price. If you just take the daily dose you take in by drinking tap water and put that in a pill. Then you only give it to people who have tap water but no toothpaste. Obviously you would need a lot less fluoride, just a few 1000s of a percentage of the amount we are now pouring in the water supply. Since handing out a pill is 100000 times more efficient way. Dont forget how much water with fluoride gets wasted on anything but drinking and on people who have toothpaste.

So again why are they wasting all this money?

reply to post by whatsup86

It's in the water because we want it on the teeth. Sure if it gets absorbed into the body it comes out in our saliva but it covers your teeth when you drink water. Plus having it directed into your stomach and released at once instead of being in water to be drank thoughout the day might hurt the stomach or cause a reaction as it isn't diluted nor given throughout a period of time. If it was a small amount it might not be strong enough to make it to the saliva.

This is just my best guess as to why they don't give it out in pills. I don't really know.

Edit: There are facts in the first 3 posts. They are made "real" by them being facts.

I have seen it proven beyond all doubt that fluoridated water is harmful to people and livestock. I have been to city council meetings that had doctors and veterinarians attending, that testified with photos and documentation that fluoridated water will in fact ruin livestock raised for food, and hurt dogs and cats and lower their lifespan, and do the same for people.

I would take their testimony over the OP any day. Why? because they have infinitely more credibility

Those doctors that testified in the city I live in are the very reason that our city is not allowed to serve fluoride in the drinking water. And we here are all very thankful for that.

Superman2012, I bet traveling with you would be a real hoot!, You would say "guys, please stop for a second at this chemical plant up ahead, I need some more fluoride!"

Copied from another thread. I wasn't planning on putting it in this one because I believe this topic is only to ' prove' that fluoride is harmless in low doses, to me that is irrelevant to whether it should put in the nations water supply or not. I'm adding it here because I am curious to what the answers might be.

Someone may be able to clear this up for me.
If water is in all tap water how would I know how much fluoride is in what I eat ( if i used water to prepare the meal)
is there fluoride in the fruits and vegetables if the plants are watered with fluoride?
Is there fluoride in animal meat if they drank the water?
Does my body absorb fluoride when I have have long baths or showers?
How much fluoride would be in ready made foods prepared with fluoridated water?
What If I drink a LOT of tap water along with umpteen cups of coffee ( I assume if I boiled water the fluoride would become more concentrated? )
What if I am on medication that already has fluoride in it?


These are just question I am wondering and I assume the ones pushing for it to be put into tap water would know this.


It may be that at low doses it's deemed harmless but seeing there is water is almost everything how can we keep tabs of our intake?

If there is NO PROOF of fluoride being harmful in low doses does that necessarily mean it is 100% safe? Or does it just mean there is no proof... Yet... ( that can swing both ways)


I've only recently learnt about all this and haven't looked further into it until this thread.

I live where our water is fluoridated , only found this out today , I'm not happy about the fact that I have no choice in the matter. My other option is to pay for water to be brought in or $1000 for a filter , I don't think this is fair on us who take responsibility for ourselves which includes oral hygiene . Why are we put at risk ( albeit a small risk) for the minority who CHOOSE not to care about their teeth?


I work where I see the tiny tots to adults being brought in to have their teeth pulled and trust me they are not drinking tap water anyway.
The state of teeth today is down to an unhealthy diet and self neglect , child neglect when it comes to kids.

What ever happened to informed consent before being medicated ?