Harvard Study: Fluoride Lowers Children’s Intelligence By 7 IQ Points

reply to post by Phage

It's a water treatment, not a medical treatment. It's not dissimilar to the use of chlorination as a water treatment. Chlorination helps to prevent parasitic and bacterial disease, fluoridation helps to prevent dental disease.

Chlorination is a water treatment because it's treating things in the water directly. Fluoride is not. Its alleged treatment doesn't occur until ingestion. Not completely analogous.

Now concerning whether it's a medical treatment or not.

Fluoride is prescribed via pill/tablet form for the prevention of dental disease as well. I imagine you wouldn't say that's not a medical treatment, right? Same chemical, same treatment. The difference here is the form of administration. Water. You're suggesting that means it's no longer a medical treatment?

Treatment standards take variables like you mention into account.

I'm sure they do. I was taking that into consideration when I had said what I did

Still that ultimately amounts to an average that cannot take into account people that inevitably fall outside those figures. Hence my concern over dosage and the need for individual calibration. Just as we do in other applications of treatment with chemicals. We adjust for things like age, weight, monitoring effectiveness, etc. All of that is absent here. With water fluoridation we are abandoning practices we normally take with utmost diligence, and for no good reason.

But it seems to me that those in fitness training drink bottled water (or "enhanced" water) rather than tap water anyway. That is an assumption on my part though.

Definitely not uncommon during events. Training, which constitutes the majority of the time, you certainly have lots of tap water consumed though. Whether at home or at the gym. My local gym forms a near continuous line with people refilling their water bottles at the water fountain. At home, where I typically workout/train, I consume tap by refilling my glass over and over. I truly think this scenario is reflected across the nation.

But by putting it to a vote it would tend to encourage discussion and thus knowledge about the issue. And, along with the vote, would come implied consent.

Absolutely but that's just the thing. That is now dependent on timing. Now take into account those that were never aware of the issue or aware of that vote because they moved to the area later. How about those born there later.

As I mentioned, and maybe this isn't your experience, I have found it quite common for people to be completely unaware their water is flouridated to begin with. Regardless of why, that fact is contrary to consent. Unless you're saying a minority of consent from the community [voters] will extend consent to the rest of the community [future community included].

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

With water fluoridation we are abandoning practices we normally take with utmost diligence, and for no good reason.

That "utmost diligence" concerns substances that are dangerous at low dosages, where a slight descrepancy can have strong deleterious effects. But "no good reason?"

The study confirmed previous findings of an inverse relation between fluoride concentration in the drinking water and dental caries in children. This correlation was found in spite of the extensive use of fluoridated toothpaste and caries-preventive programs implemented by the municipal dental services in Denmark. Linking Danish health registers with environmental and administrative registers offers an opportunity for obtaining sample sizes large enough to identify health effect, which otherwise could not be identified.

source

That is now dependent on timing. Now take into account those that were never aware of the issue or aware of that vote because they moved to the area later. How about those born there later.

Due dilligence. If you are concerned about fluoridation it would be something you would consider before moving there. You might want to check on the natural fluoridation level as well. Just because water is not artificially fluoridated does not mean it is fluoride free. Natural levels are often higher than artificial. Sometimes to the point of being unallowable. While you're at it the crime rate would be of interest as well. Oh, I'll be sure to inform my newborn that our water is fluoridated so that she can decide if she wants to drink tap water.

As I mentioned, and maybe this isn't your experience, I have found it quite common for people to be completely unaware their water is fluoridated to begin with.

See above. Maybe because they don't (or didn't) care.

Unless you're saying a minority of consent from the community [voters] will extend consent to the rest of the community [future community included].

No. I would assume it would be a majority of the community. That's what a true democracy is. In this case I would rather see the issue decided by the people rather than politicians because it is not just an individual health issue, it is a community health issue.

AlphaHawk
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

So, in low fluoride content water we can expect the same result but at a slower pace.

No we can't, that's pure speculation on your part.

i think youll find that it is a cumilative poison and half stays in your body forever.