It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Artlogic
Daedalus
reply to post by Artlogic
you, and the OP are saying "proper dosage"...but i gotta ask "what dosage of poison is proper for daily consumption?"
i think it's the disconnect between what each camp is saying...i think what is being missed is the fact that the fluoride being added to drinking water is industrial waste, and not the naturally occurring type...that, by itself, is a BIG difference..i suppose it changes the context a bit...
1~ A great many things we consume everyday are toxic in large doses, fluoride included. But to answer your question 1mg/l.
2~ I like the wording this guy uses:
One of the fundamental concepts of Chemistry - one of the most important ideas that have advanced science - is that everything is made of atoms. It doesn't matter, chemically, where the atoms come from, they still react the same way. So, from a health perspective, that they are waste products of another process is irrelevant. Reference: Year 8 high school science class.
59demon
superman2012
I'm getting sick of the people that just decide this is time for personal attacks, or people that don't have the intellectual capacity to not only read the thread, but to argue their point using credible sources.
Maybe these people would have the intellectual capacity if the gubment stopped fluoridating the water...
(Sorry I just had to go there).
Daedalus
reply to post by superman2012
i also asked you, what if the drinker is using a straw? i have a tooth up front that is extremely sensitive to cold, so i drink with a straw, so the liquid gets nowhere near any of my front teeth....so what then? minimal contact with the teeth...doesn't seem like it would do it's job very well....
as far as your other post goes....seriously, what dose of neurotoxin is proper for daily consumption? i can't believe i even hafta ask this, lol the very obvious answer is "none"
Daedalus
Artlogic
Daedalus
reply to post by Artlogic
you, and the OP are saying "proper dosage"...but i gotta ask "what dosage of poison is proper for daily consumption?"
i think it's the disconnect between what each camp is saying...i think what is being missed is the fact that the fluoride being added to drinking water is industrial waste, and not the naturally occurring type...that, by itself, is a BIG difference..i suppose it changes the context a bit...
1~ A great many things we consume everyday are toxic in large doses, fluoride included. But to answer your question 1mg/l.
2~ I like the wording this guy uses:
One of the fundamental concepts of Chemistry - one of the most important ideas that have advanced science - is that everything is made of atoms. It doesn't matter, chemically, where the atoms come from, they still react the same way. So, from a health perspective, that they are waste products of another process is irrelevant. Reference: Year 8 high school science class.
again, completely missing what i said....this is not an attack, mind you, just a friendly back and forth....
ok, sodiums react differntly than calciums in the body....the industrial waste they put in the water are sodiums, whereas the naturally occuring fluoride is a calcium..that's the distinction...and seriously..it's a frigging neurotoxin, lol...zero miligrams per wtfever is proper..
superman2012
reply to post by Artlogic
I agree with you. It is redundant and I wish that they could figure out a way to deliver it to people that have very poor knowledge of dental hygiene and no one else.
superman2012
I'm not saying this is 100% proof. All I have said is that there is no proof that "properly dosed water fluoridation" has killed/harmed anyone. Yes. Look it up before you say it. There is a proper dose. *eyeroll*
Rychwebo
Do we have any progression happening yet?
Its not killing us and its not making us better. So begs the question.... Why the support?
There seems to be an aversion to the simple question of why anyone wants fluoride to be legislated to be consumed?
The government has, and still does, the job of recommending an ideal intake of various foods, vitamins, and minerals. Fluoride is one that apparently has a recommended amount for healthy teeth, but as far as I know, its the only thing that has made the leap from "recommended" to "administered".
The facts are already out. I motion to make the leap into a discussion of how and why fluoride is administered instead of recommended.
Pardon me for sounding emotional, ignorant, stupid, or out of line, but I'm simply trying to understand something that nobody on the pro fluoride side seems to talk about. I don't know what to make of it.
Rychwebo
Do we have any progression happening yet?
Its not killing us and its not making us better. So begs the question.... Why the support?
There seems to be an aversion to the simple question of why anyone wants fluoride to be legislated to be consumed?
The government has, and still does, the job of recommending an ideal intake of various foods, vitamins, and minerals. Fluoride is one that apparently has a recommended amount for healthy teeth, but as far as I know, its the only thing that has made the leap from "recommended" to "administered".
The facts are already out. I motion to make the leap into a discussion of how and why fluoride is administered instead of recommended.
Pardon me for sounding emotional, ignorant, stupid, or out of line, but I'm simply trying to understand something that nobody on the pro fluoride side seems to talk about. I don't know what to make of it.
"The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was -0.45 (95% confidence interval: -0.56, -0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.
CONCLUSIONS:
The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children's neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment."
superman2012
If the studies that I showed were just done by the big bad fluoride companies, I could understand your fear. Most of the studies were done by the government, the same people who say that cigarette smoking is harmful to your health. I guess your side just picks and chooses when to listen to the government though, right?
Amanda5
reply to post by Rychwebo
It causes heart attacks that kill people - or perhaps you read my post earlier in this thread and chose to ignore it. I have posted in threads such as these before - please feel free to read through them.
Sodium fluoride is a toxic poison - listed on government poisons registers - it makes people very sick in a variety of ways and it also outright kills people, one example is via heart attacks.
Perhaps Rychwebo - you could experiment for the rest of us - by ingesting as much sodium fluoride every day as you possible can - and when it hasn't killed you the rest of us can believe you. Now the most important questions - how much of the discussed poison are you willing to ingest and over how long a period will you ingest that amount on a daily basis?
This is what is recorded on an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet);
Section 3: Hazards Identification
Potential Acute Health Effects: Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye exposure (irritant, corrosive), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive). Severe over exposure can result in death.
Section 15: Other Regulatory Information
Federal and State Regulations: California prop.65: This product contains the following ingredients for which the State of California has found to cause birth defects which would require a warning under the statute...
Please feel free to read further for yourself.
Good luck to every reader as you sift through the information and disinformation.
Much Peace...
badgerprints
superman2012
If the studies that I showed were just done by the big bad fluoride companies, I could understand your fear. Most of the studies were done by the government, the same people who say that cigarette smoking is harmful to your health. I guess your side just picks and chooses when to listen to the government though, right?
Sure,
The "government" did studies on tobacco but never actually shut down tobacco because it made them so much money.
They also knew how much damage to the environment that fluoride in particular was doing but to acknowledge that would cost the guilty industries and the very wealthy politicians who were supported by those industries a lot of money. It would have also put a LOT of cold war production back because of the massive number of lawsuits that were getting ready to occur.
The government made it all go away.
"Fluoride is good for you. See. We give it to your kiddies for shiny teeth."
"Lawsuits? For Fluoride? Don't be so silly. See how happy the kids are?"
It's not about Nazis or secret mind control. It's even about oral hygiene. It's about big corruption and big money.
You're actually acting as if you think I'm too stupid to know the difference between history and propaganda.
I'm pretty sure you don't want to know about the actual history of the fluoride story. Or you just don't want anyone else to know.
The big bad fluoride companies never existed until the government needed a way to cover up the fact that the entire countries water supplies were already being contaminated with toxic waste like fluoride.
Do you actually think the government would go through all of the trouble of getting fluoride into our water supply just for shiny teeth?
Ask yourself which actually came first?
Fluoride pollution or billions of dollars in propaganda over more than half a century to cover it up?
Seems to me that you are the one who's afraid.
Are you afraid of reading a little history?
Tusks
It will not kill us in small doses, but it will decrease our intelligence, which is likely the goal.
Here's an October 2012 Harvard abstract by Chinese researchers:
"The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was -0.45 (95% confidence interval: -0.56, -0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.
CONCLUSIONS:
The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children's neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment."
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The frightful drop in US education status in the past 40 years may be evidence of such.edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)
Tucket
superman2012
I'm not saying this is 100% proof. All I have said is that there is no proof that "properly dosed water fluoridation" has killed/harmed anyone. Yes. Look it up before you say it. There is a proper dose. *eyeroll*
Isn't half of your thread is missing?
If your going to argue that its not harmful, than shouldn't you argue the health benefits of ingestion?
Artlogic
superman2012
reply to post by Artlogic
I agree with you. It is redundant and I wish that they could figure out a way to deliver it to people that have very poor knowledge of dental hygiene and no one else.
Education my friend is the key.
If everyone looked after themselves, this thread wouldn't exist....