UPSB v3
Serious Discussion / Fluoride - poison
-
Date: Wed, May 5 2010 02:53:33
Im sure some of you have heard about the consipiracy theories with fluoride. i really dont know how to take this problem on. fluoride is clearly
a poison, a drug and it is for no reason in our water. australia recently got it a couple years a go.. this is a very serious discussion.
it is pure fact and proven that fluoride is a dangerous substance in ur body. Ill take someones example. on the back of toothpaste itll have a poisin symbol
that regards to swalloing. if you do swallow ur meant to contact like a hospital or something. now this is for one small amount of fluoride, pea sized.
this same amount of fluoride, the amount that is dangerious, is the amount in 1 glass of water. less than probably, a couple ounces.
here, this can explain it better (please ignore the semi-cornyish opening its really interting/disturbing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk
follow it up with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo
the world rests on the peoples shoulders. -
Date: Wed, May 5 2010 03:10:48QUOTE (neoknux_009メMT @ May 4 2010, 08:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>??
nate, If you clearly have any reason to reject my concern then do so. This is exactly the kind of attitude then we should be discouraging. being blissfully ignorant gets people no where.
For once, I actually apologize. I go on a lot of forums with tons of stupid conspiracy theorists so I just assume the video that someone posts are stupid.
Interesting watch, actually. Thanks for bringing the topic up.
-
Date: Wed, May 5 2010 09:45:11
So...what's the point of this? Yea, there's fluoride in water, it's not like you can do anything about it.
-
Date: Wed, May 5 2010 10:43:52
i really don't like how those *insert the people responsible for everything* think they can do anything without checking with people about their ... what's the word... agree-ance?
even facebook and youtube and all those kinda things... ... ... /rant ... -
Date: Wed, May 5 2010 11:16:07
So don't drink the water?
Sometimes in life the simple answer is the right one. It's like that joke where a man goes to a doctor, lifts his right arm and says "Hey doctor, it hurts when I do that!", so the doctor says "So don't do that.". -
Date: Wed, May 5 2010 12:41:39
no no.
@loanshark
lol? what? why do you assume theres nothing we can do about it? thats quite the pessimistic attitude.
i understand that im bringing this up on UPSB which is kinda odd. but theres already lots of groups trying to get fluoride in our water. most of europe HAS BANEED it from the water bc they KNOW its bad for you. Why hasnt american and australia followed? why are there tons and tons of evidence agaisnt fluoride?
i dunno perhaps a deeper concert <.<. but the reason it was banned ie europe is bc people gathered and rebelled.
@nexus
the fact is its in the water. its so unavoidable. not only do we drink it fluoride water, we bathe in it, and its used to water our food sources etc. it enters the skin etc. not drinking the water wont solve anything unless i get a fluoride filter which cost thousands and or drink/wash my body with bottled water.
:/
===
for once in my life im actually wanting to protest. bc this is just stupid. fact is clear as daylight. its right there. -
Date: Wed, May 5 2010 12:49:54
somewhat interesting, but what you told me just freaked me out because i actually swallowed toothpaste froth before
-
Date: Wed, May 5 2010 15:17:17
dont little kids also brush their teeth? its possible they swallow the paste...
and i dont really remember this being an issue -
Date: Wed, May 5 2010 15:50:56
This strikes me as a bit alarmist. The only proven adverse effect of fluoride at the levels that it is added to water is the risk of dental fluorosis. To call it out right a poison is a bit strong. And it is not like governments just add fluoride to water for kicks, it is meant to help reducing cavities. And it has actually showed to work in that regard.
It may or may not be beneficial to add fluoride to water, but I really don't think people should act as if the sky is falling either way.
To the videos, I will say the first one seems quite sober and measured, although the warnings on tooth paste seems like quite weak evidence for the danger of water fluoridation.
The second video is really quite bad. I find it very manipulative and not very informative. It does nothing to explain the actual effects of water fluoridation, but only spends its time discrediting people who advocated for water fluoridation. -
Date: Fri, May 7 2010 00:22:48QUOTE (nateiskewl @ May 4 2010, 11:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>For once, I actually apologize. I go on a lot of forums with tons of stupid conspiracy theorists so I just assume the video that someone posts are stupid.
Interesting watch, actually. Thanks for bringing the topic up.
Actually mate, you did stumble upon another stupid conspiracy theory. This isn't quite tantamount to the anti-vaccination conspiracy theory, but about equivalent to the genetically-modified-foods-are-killing-us.
As TheOnion already stated, their are virtually no negative health effects shown to arise from fluoridation. Even after saying that though, I'd say we shouldn't have fluoride in the water; because its been shown to have very minimal positive effects for dental care, and it costs money, so why bother? -
Date: Fri, May 7 2010 02:29:18
do you find it odd that the government is caring about our teeth enough to add fluoride to our water?
why not add something like vitamin C, vitamin B D, zinc thatll be beneficial.
@zombo
yes its never been an issue bc youve never been informed. but it has been an issue for groups around the world.
@onion
right. thats fair enough i understand i havent really provided any evidence that fluoride isi bad for the human body. try this:
Dr. Vyvyan Howard on Fluoride in Drinking Water, he explains it as a toxin. less manipulative i hope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqMmoQgnXnA
Another Doctor Exposes Fluoride as Poison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP7IPDfC3yg...feature=related
honestly there are hundreds of videos of fluoride as being not healthy at all.
etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-_Li0axoPE...feature=related
etc. -
Date: Fri, May 7 2010 05:21:43QUOTE (neoknux_009メMT @ May 6 2010, 10:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>do you find it odd that the government is caring about our teeth enough to add fluoride to our water?
why not add something like vitamin C, vitamin B D, zinc thatll be beneficial.
I find it interesting that your slipping in this little suggestion that the government might have some dark ulterior motive behind adding fluoride to water, hopefully this isn't coming from the 1950's conspiracy theory that putting fluoride in the water supply was a communist plot to undermine public health. Why not vitamins in the water supply? There isn't significant evidence that vitamins are particularly beneficial to the general population, and it costs plenty of money as well.QUOTE (neoknux_009メMT @ May 6 2010, 10:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Dr. Vyvyan Howard on Fluoride in Drinking Water, he explains it as a toxin. less manipulative i hope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqMmoQgnXnA
Again mate, calling it a poison is the alarmist stuff that TheOnion was talking about. This Dr. makes an obscure reference to some of the reports used in a meta-analysis done by the Fluoride Action Network [link], what an unbiased resource they must be. Its interesting how little information the analysis has on the details of the reports [link], and how few papers they came up with (224), even though when the Department of Health commissioned the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York University to do a systematic review of the evidence on the benefits of fluoridation on dental health and to look for evidence of harm, they were able to find 3200 articles (almost makes you think the folks down at fluoridealert.org handpicked those articles). I suggest you read the study done by the Centre for Reviews of Dissemination [link], you might find it more objective than these shoddy videos with hardly a scrap of scientific evidence (by the way, the study did find that there were quite a few reports on various negative effects from fluoridation, but none recognized their being the kind of negative effects discussed in your posted videos).
-By the way, I absolutely love how the list they speak of which is supposed to include "professionals from the medical, scientific and environmental communities" include 132 Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine! Those are the dingbats trying to pass off homeopathy and the various other bullshit natural remedies as medicine.QUOTE (neoknux_009メMT @ May 6 2010, 10:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Another Doctor Exposes Fluoride as Poison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP7IPDfC3yg...feature=related
-The only thing the doctor in the first segment says is a health risk is the dental fluorosis, which nobody is disputing.
-The reports spoken about by Dan Stockin are disputed in the same meta-analysis I already posted.
-The idiotic evidence that eating toothpaste can cause health risks as a reason to not use fluoride in water is used again.QUOTE (neoknux_009メMT @ May 6 2010, 10:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>honestly there are hundreds of videos of fluoride as being not healthy at all.
etc
There are hundreds more videos on vaccinations causing autism, people find things like this to follow all the time. It would be laughable if you judged whether or not the scientific evidence for evolution was being disputed amongst the scientific community by looking at how many youtube videos there are debating it. Next time you post a conspiracy theory, check whether or not their are opposing views.QUOTE (neoknux_009メMT @ May 6 2010, 10:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh jesus christ she's an alternative medicine bullshitter....She brings up mercury seconds into her discussion....She isn't a health professional, and her wikipedia page shows just how bullshitty she is [link]....Doesn't the awfulness of the sources you find ring any sort of alarm that you may not be fully reading into this? -
Date: Fri, May 7 2010 08:10:23QUOTE (TheOnion @ May 5 2010, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>This strikes me as a bit alarmist. The only proven adverse effect of fluoride at the levels that it is added to water is the risk of dental fluorosis. To call it out right a poison is a bit strong. And it is not like governments just add fluoride to water for kicks, it is meant to help reducing cavities. And it has actually showed to work in that regard.
the government says that "there is no firm evidence demonstrating harmful affects of flouride". But this lack of firm evidence isn't the same thing as HAVING evidence of no harmful effects.
To understand what i mean, i'll give an extreme example. suppose no research into flouride has been done at all, then of course there is no firm evidence for harmful effects, like the government tells us. What we actually want however is evidence that demonstrates that no harmful effects can result from flouride intake.
In reality only very limited studies have focussed upon possible harmful flouride effects have been undertaken, which explains why there has been no firm evidence for the health effects - not because they aren't there, but because of a lack of studies, which i believe should have been done prior to adding flouride to our drinking supply.
For example, there have been a few recent studies in China demonstrating that flouride in drinking water lowers the IQ of children. Other possible adverse effects on the brain have not been investigated in China, Australia or any other country, which I believe should be investigated before flouride is added to the drinking supply.QUOTE (TheOnion @ May 5 2010, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>To the videos, I will say the first one seems quite sober and measured, although the warnings on tooth paste seems like quite weak evidence for the danger of water fluoridation.
This isn't a proof of the dangers, but rather an indication that possible dangers may exist, that should be investiaged. These dangers haven't been investiaged.QUOTE (TheOnion @ May 5 2010, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The second video is really quite bad. I find it very manipulative and not very informative. It does nothing to explain the actual effects of water fluoridation, but only spends its time discrediting people who advocated for water fluoridation.
The aim of this video isn't to show the harmful effects of flouridated water, but rather to show the motives of why a potentially hazardous substance was even considered to be added to our water supply.
-
Date: Fri, May 7 2010 12:37:08
My toothpaste has a fluoride concentration of 1450mg/L. Let's say I use 0.5mL to brush my teeth and swallow it. That's 0.725mg fluoride. I could actually eat the whole tube (125mL) without getting any symptoms of acute poisoning. The lethal dose of my toothpaste is 1~2L. Of course this is just about acute effects but even 0.5mL a day would be far below dangerous levels that can cause chronic toxicity. The amount of fluoride in drinking water is also safe.
Every vitamin and Dietary mineral is poisonous if you consume too much of it.
Fluoride seems to be special because it is not essential for the human body but it can still prevent dental caries. If there is not enough of it in our food, I don't see a problem with raising the amount in our drinking water. Don't forget that there are many places where the natural amount of fluoride in the water already is on that level and the beneficial effects were found by comparing people with different fluoride intake. e.g. in the story about Chinese kids with lower IQ, the fluoride concentration way beyond the amount that governments might add to your water.
The whole thing about HF forming in your stomach is cool and scary but it's actually harmless if you look at the doses your are consuming. It's the same with Hg in vaccines or As in beer. -
Date: Fri, May 7 2010 12:58:15QUOTE (Pudels Kern @ May 7 2010, 07:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>My toothpaste has a fluoride concentration of 1450mg/L. Let's say I use 0.5mL to brush my teeth and swallow it. That's 0.725mg fluoride. I could actually eat the whole tube (125mL) without getting any symptoms of acute poisoning. The lethal dose of my toothpaste is 1~2L. Of course this is just about acute effects but even 0.5mL a day would be far below dangerous levels that can cause chronic toxicity. The amount of fluoride in drinking water is also safe.
Every vitamin and Dietary mineral is poisonous if you consume too much of it.
I'm not saying that the flouride in the drinking water will be "lethal" as such, but will potentially result in harmful long term effects on the body. I am curious as to why you think the level of flouride in our drinking supply is a safe amount?QUOTE (Pudels Kern @ May 7 2010, 07:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Fluoride seems to be special because it is not essential for the human body but it can still prevent dental caries.
The rate of healthy teeth in the USA is the same for states that add flouride to their drinking supply and the states that don't.QUOTE (Pudels Kern @ May 7 2010, 07:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Don't forget that there are many places where the natural amount of fluoride in the water already is on that level and the beneficial effects were found by comparing people with different fluoride intake. e.g. in the story about Chinese kids with lower IQ, the fluoride concentration way beyond the amount that governments might add to your water.
This proves that flouride below the lethal dose can still cause damage to the brain. This leads us to ask the question, how much flouride is required for these effects to occur? Limited has been done on this, which is appauling considering the substance has now been added to the drinking water.
-
Date: Fri, May 7 2010 13:37:05
i know a couple of people who've had health problems drinking fluoride-d water... we had to get filters just for that >.>
-
Date: Fri, May 7 2010 14:21:59QUOTE (neoknux_009メMT @ May 7 2010, 02:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The rate of healthy teeth in the USA is the same for states that add flouride to their drinking supply and the states that don't.
This doesn't disprove what I said. If a state doesn't add fluoride it doesn't mean there is no fluoride in the drinking water of that state. You have to show us real scientific evidence against the positive effects of fluoride. Sadistic already posted a review
that comes to the conclusion that fluoride is beneficial. You can also read this article of the WHO.
I don't doubt that too much fluoride over a long period of time is bad for your health, especially for children but I think we would already know it if the amount that is added to the drinking water of some regions or rather the natural concentration is seriously harmful. Why would the people in the youtube videos know about it and nobody else? Why would the government want to poison tax payers?
Alle Ding' sind Gift, und nichts ohn' Gift; allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist.
"All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."
~Paracelsus -
Date: Fri, May 7 2010 17:43:29
in general I never drink tap water.
I find that shit taste disgusting. Water shouldn't even have taste, so it's quite sad when it tastes bad. Even with the filter it sometimes tastes even worse.
I only drink bottled mineral water -
Date: Fri, May 7 2010 23:23:46
I think the report from WHO that Pudels Kern posted is quite good at going through the current research in regards to fluoride. I especially think that the section on the health effects on humans is useful. It's from the bottom of page 31 to page 34 (41-44 in the pdf). Also the Guidelines and Standards section following is quite useful.
It shows that at 1.0 mg/L fluoride in water, water fluoridation has quite significant beneficial effects on reducing cavities, as it halves the number cavities. It also shows that at that level the dental fluorosis is quite low, and it mentions that dental fluorosis primarily only has cosmetic effects, as opposed to cavities. It also shows that skeletal fluorosis only is significant in levels above 10 mg/L and that no effects adverse has been shown on infants and fetuses.
To me it is quite clear that when as serious and important an organisation as the WHO recommend adding fluoride at 1.0 - 1.5 mg/L to water, it can not have any serious adverse effects at these levels. I think it is highly unlikely that WHO should have any underlying motives for recommending this, other than wanting to make people healthier.
I also think it is worthwhile to read the wikipedia article on water fluoridation. It is a featured article, which means that it's very well written and sourced. -
Date: Sat, May 8 2010 17:59:57
Firstly, it may be worth pointing out that at the beginning of the WHO article, it states:
"The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or
policies of the International Water Association or the World Health Organization."
Now on the subject of the contents of the article, the WHO article discusses the health effects of fluoride in chapter 3 titled "Human Health Effects". The chapter discusses the effects of fluoride on many parts of the body including teeth and the skeletal system, the digestive system and the reproductive system in addition to discussing possible links between fluoride intake and cancer. The article explains that evidence supports that there are minimal harmful effects on the skeletal system and the reproductive system and that fluoride does not link to cancer.
It is interesting to note however that the article makes no mention of the possible effects that fluoride may have on the central nervous system. If there is evidence that fluoride has no effect on the central nervous system, then why was there not a paragraph in the WHO article that mentions this, considering the central nervous system is our most valuable organ?
The reason is because very limited published research has been undertaken in this area, which is unacceptable if fluoride is to be added to the water supply.
Of the few studies that have been published, much of the research suggest that fluoride intake may have possible adverse effects on the brain in certain doses. These studies were conveniently omitted in the WHO article which suggests the article may be biased.
Finally, in the article it mentions that recent research studies could not conclusively prove a link between cancer and fluoride. I believe however that the burden of proof should be on those who say that there is no link between cancer and fluoride. In other words, I believe that it should be proven that there is no link between cancer and fluoride, rather than assuming there is no link merely because it hasn't been proven that such a link exists. -
Date: Sat, May 8 2010 19:23:26QUOTE (chrisphd @ May 8 2010, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Finally, in the article it mentions that recent research studies could not conclusively prove a link between cancer and fluoride. I believe however that the burden of proof should be on those who say that there is no link between cancer and fluoride. In other words, I believe that it should be proven that there is no link between cancer and fluoride, rather than assuming there is no link merely because it hasn't been proven that such a link exists.
No! The burden of proof is never on the people presenting the negative, but the positive! If there is no evidence that there is a link between cancer and fluoride, why would it be up to the WHO to prove their isn't? This is the same kind of reasoning used by anti-vacciners...
Please show me a peer reviewed study that presents conclusive evidence that there is a link between fluoride and cancer. I'm sure if there are so many of these studies, finding a peer reviewed one on PubMed won't be too hard.
oh, and-QUOTE (Sadistic @ May 7 2010, 01:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I suggest you read the study done by the Centre for Reviews of Dissemination [link]
-
Date: Sat, May 8 2010 20:42:17QUOTE (Sadistic @ May 8 2010, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>This is the same kind of reasoning used by anti-vacciners...
Not only them, but basically every nut-job conspiracy supporter.
You can't just say something exists and force the other side to disprove it without providing proof yourself. That's not science. -
Date: Sun, May 9 2010 03:42:29
I have never said there is a link between fluoride and cancer. Maybe you have assumed that I believe there is a link, but I do not. It is not scientific for me to say there is a link without evidence.
What I believe is that there MAY POSSIBLY be a link, and if there MAY POSSIBLY be a link, then fluoride should not be added to the tap water unless it is proven that no such link exists.QUOTE (Sadistic @ May 9 2010, 05:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>No! The burden of proof is never on the people presenting the negative, but the positive!
Firstly, this line of reasoning does not hold up under any scrutiny. I can always change "positive" statement to a "negative" statement and vise-versa.
Example:
Positive hypothesis. There is a link between fluoride and cancer.
Negative hypothesis. It is not the case that there is no link between fluoride and cancer.
Both the above statements have the same meaning, even though one of them is a positive statement and the other a negative. So if i present the latter statement, then according to your line of reasoning, I can alter who has the burden of proof by switching to the former statement and vise-versa.QUOTE (Sadistic @ May 9 2010, 05:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If there is no evidence that there is a link between cancer and fluoride, why would it be up to the WHO to prove their isn't? This is the same kind of reasoning used by anti-vacciners...
If I'm going on a bush walk and come across something that looks like a berry that I haven't seen before, I can choose to eat it or not eat it. Since I haven't proven the berry is poisonous should I just eat it?
No! I shouldn't eat the berry unless I'm sure that the berry is safe to eat.QUOTE (Sadistic @ May 9 2010, 05:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>please show me a peer reviewed study that presents conclusive evidence that there is a link between fluoride and cancer. I'm sure if there are so many of these studies, finding a peer reviewed one on PubMed won't be too hard.
Actually my point is the opposite. There are TOO LITTLE studies on the issue to even draw the conclusion that fluoride is safe.
-
Date: Sun, May 9 2010 04:04:38
I think I should also add for completeness that my government has made the claim that "fluoride is safe", yet from a scientific point of view, it has not been demonstrated that fluoride is safe.
-
Date: Sun, May 9 2010 10:06:34QUOTE (chrisphd @ May 9 2010, 01:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If I'm going on a bush walk and come across something that looks like a berry that I haven't seen before, I can choose to eat it or not eat it. Since I haven't proven the berry is poisonous should I just eat it?
No! I shouldn't eat the berry unless I'm sure that the berry is safe to eat.
Wins!
Thats excatly the logic we SHOULD be using. There is just not enough research on the topic to conclude weather or not it has no negative effects. A conservate point of view would NOT add flouride to water until it is proven to have no negative effects. -
Date: Sun, May 9 2010 16:55:46QUOTE (chrisphd @ May 8 2010, 11:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Firstly, this line of reasoning does not hold up under any scrutiny. I can always change "positive" statement to a "negative" statement and vise-versa.
Example:
Positive hypothesis. There is a link between fluoride and cancer.
Negative hypothesis. It is not the case that there is no link between fluoride and cancer.
Both the above statements have the same meaning, even though one of them is a positive statement and the other a negative. So if i present the latter statement, then according to your line of reasoning, I can alter who has the burden of proof by switching to the former statement and vise-versa.
-You misunderstood the difference between making a positive and negative statement.
Positive claim: There is proof that there is a link between fluoride and cancer.
Negative claim: There is proof that there is no link between fluoride and cancer.
-The person who has the burden of proof is always the one who presents the positive claim, because the negative is almost certainly assumed (if your agnostic on the subject) until the positive is proven. The reason you don't eat a wild berry if you don't know what it is, is because it has been proven that there is a relationship between wild berries and poison.
-There has been a reasonably large amount of research put into this though. 3200 studies isn't enough for you?
-Oh, and after they find that there is no relationship between fluoride and cancer, should they check if there is one between fluoride and autism? Acid Reflux Disease? Halitosis? Erectile Dysfunction? Heart Attacks? Kidney Diseases? How about they eliminate the possibility that fluoride is causing any possible harm to anyone by doing tens of thousands of studies?
-
Date: Sun, May 9 2010 16:59:16QUOTEhe reason you don't eat a wild berry if you don't know what it is, is because it has been proven that there is a relationship between wild berries and poison.
i don't know dude...
if I go in the forest and I pick up a mushroom and I can't recognize it, I'm not gonna eat even if there's no proof it's poison. better safe than sorry. why risk my life needlessly
bad analogy IMO... -
Date: Sun, May 9 2010 17:03:16QUOTE (Zombo @ May 9 2010, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>i don't know dude...
if I go in the forest and I pick up a mushroom and I can't recognize it, I'm not gonna eat even if there's no proof it's poison. better safe than sorry. why risk my life needlessly
Of course you wouldn't just eat a random mushroom you find, there is a relationship between wild mushrooms and poison.......If you had only heard of mushroom's being food, and never heard of wild mushrooms being poisonous (meaning, if you hadn't heard of a positive claim that some wild mushrooms are poisonous), you would probably gladly eat it. -
Date: Sun, May 9 2010 17:08:24
so you're saying it's enough to have a link between wild mushrooms possibly being poisonous to justify any wild mushroom of being poisonous.
in other words, I have a link between a supercategory and poison, i justify any element of that category can be poison
what is the supercategory for Fluoride? minerals in general? -
Date: Sun, May 9 2010 17:21:48
-I have no idea what supercategory means, but I'm gonna go with what I think it is based on the context and if I get it all wrong you can correct me lol.
-In your example you said-a mushroom. I assumed that meant any mushroom, some of which have been proven to be poisonous. If you can't recognize the particular mushroom your about to eat as one that has never been proven to kill people, you wouldn't eat it for fear it might be one of the mushrooms that can kill people.
-There is a relationship between putting random chemicals in your body and death, but we can identify this chemical as fluoride specifically, and there isn't a relationship between these small doses of fluoride and death. -
Date: Sun, May 9 2010 17:29:50
Ugh, what you people (minus sadi) are saying is just plain stupid. Here's your logic applied to another situation.
Obama is a lizard from Planet X. I do not have to provide proof that Obama is a lizard from Planet X. YOU have to provide proof that Obama is NOT a lizard from Planet X. Until then my hypothesis is correct.
That's not science, that's not being logical, that's being fucking retarded. -
Date: Sun, May 9 2010 17:32:54QUOTE (nateiskewl @ May 9 2010, 01:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Obama is a lizard from Planet X. I do not have to provide proof that Obama is a lizard from Planet X. YOU have to provide proof that Obama is NOT a lizard from Planet X. Until then my hypothesis is correct.
Exactly..... -
Date: Mon, May 10 2010 02:40:50
The government's action of adding fluoride to the water implicitly tells us the government thinks fluoride is safe. If not, then my argument would be that fluoride should be known to be safe before adding it to the water supply.
The government also states that "Fluoride is safe", yet they feel they don't have to prove that it is safe. Very much like the Obama lizard example. Isn't the statement "Fluoride is safe" a positive statement? -
Date: Mon, May 10 2010 03:04:17QUOTEOh, and after they find that there is no relationship between fluoride and cancer, should they check if there is one between fluoride and autism? Acid Reflux Disease? Halitosis? Erectile Dysfunction? Heart Attacks? Kidney Diseases? How about they eliminate the possibility that fluoride is causing any possible harm to anyone by doing tens of thousands of studies?
In a perfect world, the effects of fluoride should be investigated on all our bodily systems, but clearly this isn't feasible. I am aware that it is hard to know where to draw the line at how many studies should be done before fluoride is considered safe. However, maybe some people value different organs more than others. For example, personally I value my brain more than I value my teeth or bones, and so I would like to drink fluoride in water only if the effects on the brain have been investigated. Other people may like to drink fluoride in water only if the effects on teeth have been investigated and so forth.
The point is, since fluoride can't be proven to be safe for every different body organ and has been proven to have negative effects on some parts of the body (eg, browning of teeth), each individual should have a choice whether or not they are willing to risk the body organs that haven't been tested by consuming fluoride. Since fluoride is added to the public water supply, the government isn't giving people who can't afford bottled water a choice. Instead they should do what they did 10 years ago, and offer the public the option of free fluoride tablets.
Personally, for me this means that I would not like to consume fluoride since very limited research about fluoride effects on the brain have been done (none at all mentioned in the WHO article). In addition many of the studies that have been done show negative side effects on IQ. -
Date: Mon, May 10 2010 07:46:37QUOTE (chrisphd @ May 9 2010, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The government also states that "Fluoride is safe", yet they feel they don't have to prove that it is safe. Very much like the Obama lizard example. Isn't the statement "Fluoride is safe" a positive statement?
I don't know how your interpreting the word safe in this sense.
Saying that there isn't any remotely significant evidence to suggest that fluoride contributes to any major health risk is a positive claim though, and one that I'll gladly bare the burden of proof for.QUOTE (chrisphd @ May 9 2010, 10:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>In a perfect world, the effects of fluoride should be investigated on all our bodily systems, but clearly this isn't feasible. I am aware that it is hard to know where to draw the line at how many studies should be done before fluoride is considered safe. However, maybe some people value different organs more than others. For example, personally I value my brain more than I value my teeth or bones, and so I would like to drink fluoride in water only if the effects on the brain have been investigated. Other people may like to drink fluoride in water only if the effects on teeth have been investigated and so forth.
The point is, since fluoride can't be proven to be safe for every different body organ and has been proven to have negative effects on some parts of the body (eg, browning of teeth), each individual should have a choice whether or not they are willing to risk the body organs that haven't been tested by consuming fluoride. Since fluoride is added to the public water supply, the government isn't giving people who can't afford bottled water a choice. Instead they should do what they did 10 years ago, and offer the public the option of free fluoride tablets.
Personally, for me this means that I would not like to consume fluoride since very limited research about fluoride effects on the brain have been done (none at all mentioned in the WHO article). In addition many of the studies that have been done show negative side effects on IQ.
Why fluoride in particular mate? Why is it that you fear that fluoride may have these negative effects, when there isn't any evidence that it has? Why not salt? Why not corn syrup? Why not any of the other chemicals that you're pretty much forced to eat if you consume anything other than entirely organically grown food? -
Date: Tue, May 11 2010 17:23:08
the way I see it, government is always greedy.
so why would the government go out of their way to do something that cost them money if they're not convinced it's working.
just by this reasoning you can see that by protesting against fluoride you're doing the government a favor by saving them money.
so if they're so strongly against it that they're willing not to cut their costs then it's probably good.
its not a pretty argument, but just another perspective to add to this debate.