• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple fluoride question

Without Rights said:
Roughly 2800 truck loads or $16,800,000 of disposal costs.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]...
[/FONT]
bulk fluoride sells for $.05 a pound.

...

Or a total savings of $17.5 M every year.
Click to expand...

Good. Now you have the beginnings of an actual argument! But, there's still more to be demonstrated;

What's the market for bulk fluoride? Who else produces it as a raw or by-product? Who besides water utilities use it and for what? Are supply and demand seasonal? Is the price sensitive to changes in supply or demand?
 
dudalb said:
Anybody who disagrees with me is stupid and/or ignorant. The battle cry of the Woo merchant.
Click to expand...

Sorry dudalb, I should clarify my statement. I dont believe that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid or ignorant. What I was suggesting by the statement was that it might actually be more enjoyable (less stressful) to be one of those people who are stupid and ignorant and live blissfully unaware yet happy go lucky lifestyles. Not that all people living blissfully unaware yet happy go lucky lifestyles are necessarily stupid nor ignorant.

Sorry for the confusion and I hope this clarifies the statement for you.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
in this day and age i would probably agree that fluoride in water isnt necessary (awareness of dental hygiene is much more prevalent than it was half a century ago)

however the quantities of fluoride put into artificially fluoridated water are so small youd have to drink insane amounts to have any ill effects (youd get sick from drinking so much water long before you got sick from the fluoride) and the amount is much less than naturally fluoridated sources of water, which people have been drinking for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years
Click to expand...


Too bad many studies have shown ill effects from 1PPM, the same as our water. Then compounded with all the products that are processed with fluoridated water.

You'd get sick from water first? Water leaves your system, fluoride builds up.
 
Mr.D said:
Good. Now you have the beginnings of an actual argument! But, there's still more to be demonstrated;

What's the market for bulk fluoride? Who else produces it as a raw or by-product? Who besides water utilities use it and for what? Are supply and demand seasonal? Is the price sensitive to changes in supply or demand?
Click to expand...

I already demonstrated a market that demands more than the largest aluminum corp in the world can produce.

All this other garbage is diversionary. And like I said before, it comes down to common sense. "More needs to be demonstrated" only because you will never have enough. Only a complete idiot would think that spending millions in disposal is better than selling what you where gonna dispose of.
 
Last edited:
Without Rights said:
I already demonstrated a market that demands more than the largest aluminum corp in the world can produce.
Click to expand...

I agree that you have. When I said "good," I wasn't being sarcastic - I was happy to see someone ready and willing to defend their position with actual evidence.

Unfortunately, what you have not yet demonstrated is that water fluoridiation demands artificially created by "a conspiracy by phosphate and aluminum companies" are sufficient to generate the profit margins! For that we need other figures to figure out (among other things) what that $0.05 per pound might be without the fluoridation demand.

If you are unwilling to continue, then your argument of conspiracy boils down to
Without Rights said:
... to common sense ... Only a complete idiot would think ....
Click to expand...
and you'll skeptical thinkers here at the JREF unlikely to be convinced by such.

Without Rights said:
only because you will never have enough
Click to expand...

The goalposts remain where they were; Provide evidence for profit/savings sufficient for a conspiracy of aluminum and phosphate companies to artificially create demand by water utilities. Then provide evidence that said conspiracy creates and/or preserves this artificial demand by ... (and here it's not entirely clear what your argument is. Does this conspiracy pay off the medical community and politicians? Supress scientific papers? Propagandize the public?)
 
I knew it!
THe Aluminum and Phosphate companies are out to pollute our Precious Bodily Fluids!
It there no end to this conspiracy!
There is a damn good reason why Kubrick, wanting to portray a paranoid madman.chose the Flouridated water conspiracy as Jack D Ripper's obssesion.
 
Without Rights said:
Ok, they don't have the power to institute fluoridation. Welcome to how America works 101. Corporations pay lobbyists, lobbyist lobby (go figure), laws get passed.

It is very hard to convince people to subsidize the cost of a corporations waste disposal or to de-classify a toxin because it helps a corporations profit margin. I have never heard of a lobby to get the Government to "look the other way", I think my IQ just fell a couple points.

It is easier to twist science that backs topical use of fluoride into a argument that swallowing fluoride is beneficial. Americans have to agree with it in order for it to work.
Click to expand...
paying lobbyists, eh? id figure you need some really good lobbying and a lot of it to convince people to poison their own water supply

what do you suppose something like that costs? probably cuts pretty deep into their profits, i dont suppose youd have any figures on this?
 
The Truth Hurts said:
Ummm did you by any chance check the previous posts in this thread... there has been plenty of evidence posted. Have a look, you might be enlightened.
Click to expand...

You mean, if I agree with you I will be enlightened ? Interesting.

I firmly believe that people today are far far less independent than those 100 years ago! Not that this claim has anything to do with fluoride ingestion merely an opinion.
Click to expand...

That's nice. I have opinions, too. Welcome to the club.
 
I firmly believe that people today are far far less independent than those 100 years ago! Not that this claim has anything to do with fluoride ingestion merely an opinion.
Click to expand...

Ah, the "Good Old Days" syndrome.
 
dudalb said:
Ah, the "Good Old Days" syndrome.
Click to expand...

I would say it's a hybrid of "Golden Age Syndrome" (seen most acutely on the right-wing, harking back to the days before Liberals Destroyed America) and the "Hip vs Square" analysis of society.

According to the tenets of "Hip vs Square" thinking, capitalism needs a sea of mindless, consuming automatons in order to function. Conformity is the goal, so the thinking goes, and once we break free of these strictures by say, taking a tab of acid or reading Aldous Huxley, we'll finally be able to see that everything The Man has been telling us is a lie. This has been debunked well by Thomas Frank in The Conquest of Cool (a good companion to which would be Heath + Potter's The Rebel Sell - google either for excerpts)

So people are "far far less independent than those 100 years ago" because presumably, modern society is composed of 98% "sheeple", and the 2% who "get it". Nevermind the fact that deprivation and disease were only two heads on a multi-headed hydra that kept most of society at subsistence levels. Even if it were possible to support an argument that people were more intellectually free in the 19th century (a dubious assertion) we can empirically demonstrate that materially, wider society was far worse off. Match that up with Maslow's heirarchy of needs and you end up with a society far more concerned with lower-order needs such as food and shelter, rather than having the luxury of being able to debate 9/11 and water fluoridation on the internet thanks to the modern electrical grid, higher income levels and much more widespread housing. Apparently in 1930 only 2/5's of society actually owned the house they were living in. In 1930!
 
Last edited:
I would say it's a hybrid of "Golden Age Syndrome" (seen most acutely on the right-wing, harking back to the days before Liberals Destroyed America) and the "Hip vs Square" analysis of society.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the same thing..a looking back to a golden age that never existed.
And althought the right is prone to it, the Left is only marginally better. You have a number of people...some who post here and you can probably guess who I am talking about....who basically hate modern industrial, techonology based society and for that reason are violently anti Captalist (they see the society they hate as a result of Capitalism ) and long for a happier, pre industrial society of indepedent Yeoman Farmers (although that never existed,the classic Yeoman farmer never was anywhere near a majority of the agriculture based community) living communally happily together.
Surprise, these people worship Ned Lud and at least one of their spokepersons here openly advocates tearing up the streets in the cities and converting them to agriculture.(BTW it is amazing how many of these people know NOTHING about real world agriculture).
And One of the benefits of growing older is realizing how stupid the endless striving to be "cool" and "hip" and Living FOr The Next Big Thing really is.
 
Belz... said:
Not that any of its proponents could point to anyone they know who fits that stereotype.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and in fact the conformist sheep is by and large a mythic creature. Now we can all point to stupid people - there's no doubt that they exist and there's certainly plenty of people who don't question authority. That being said, capitalism actually functions better when we're caught up in the game of "competitive consumption", wherein our clothes, the music we listen to, the fair trade coffee we buy, the organic-only produce we eat all become part of our self-identity.

A sea of conformist sheep would actually work better under a communist system, than a capitalist one. The fact is that a granola-munching dreadlocked vegan hippie is just as much a driver of consumption as a GAP-wearing, MTV watching MBA candidate.
 
Reading the warning sign on a roll of welding wire- "contains fluoride (along with other nastiness) can cause teeth mottling and osteopyrosis" just from the fumes. When are the pro-fluoride -er- people going to wake up? Pitchfork time boys & girls.
 
Question re: "flouride as mind control drug"

I asked this before in this forum but from what I can see no one has been able to reply with any detail on it - but if the case for fluoride as a mind control agent is primarily based on the fact that Nazis and Soviets used it, are there any primary-source documents from the Nazi or Soviet archives that explicitly state "increased docility" or the like as an intended aim of water fluoridation?

Might be hard if the documents don't exist but was wondering if someone knew of anyone who has tried to locate such a document, either coming up empty or finding something that backs up these claims...
 
Mr.D said:
what you have not yet demonstrated is that water fluoridiation demands artificially created by "a conspiracy by phosphate and aluminum companies" are sufficient to generate the profit margins! For that we need other figures to figure out (among other things) what that $0.05 per pound might be without the fluoridation demand.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean? If it is a conspiracy does that make a higher profit margin necessary? We need other figures among other things, What? Listen closely, the demand is there, cities/states who have mandated fluoridation MUST purchase fluoride. The companies that sell it to them are in a good position because it is mandated. Of course there is a fluctuation in the price, just like everything else, when the price goes down they still profit. They still saved $16.5M in disposal costs. They sell it and they damn sure charge a delivery charge just like everyone else who runs a business. The only way they don't make a profit is if they are stupid MFer's.

Please devise a scenario where, given the numbers, they can not be profitable


The goalposts remain where they were; Provide evidence for profit/savings sufficient for a conspiracy of aluminum and phosphate companies to artificially create demand by water utilities.
Click to expand...

I already did, some where around $17 M annually.

Then providence that said conspiracy creates and/or preserves this artificial demand by ... (and hede evire it's not entirely clear what your argument is. Does this conspiracy pay off the medical community and politicians? Supress scientific papers? Propagandize the public?)
Click to expand...

The demand is not artificial, the demand is very real.

As for evidence go to the history. Gerald J. Cox, an employee of ALCOA did the first extremely flawed experiment concluding that caries were reduced in lab rats after fluoridation. Robert Ewing, ALCOA lawyer was head of the FSA. Education (propaganda) and research (made to order by the financier) was all funded by aluminum manufacturers.

Now when someone says anything contrary they are attacked and ridiculed. 100's of scientific papers are out there that show ingestion is harmful even in low doses but they get no attention in the media. You have to find them yourself.

The only papers that I can find that support fluoridation are skewed crap paid for by ALCOA, or horrible correlation charts that are skewed because they fail to consider topical fluoride.

The conspiracy is simple, shove "ingestion is great" down the throats of America and ridicule anyone who says different.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
paying lobbyists, eh? id figure you need some really good lobbying and a lot of it to convince people to poison their own water supply

what do you suppose something like that costs? probably cuts pretty deep into their profits, i dont suppose youd have any figures on this?
Click to expand...


You didn't listen. Lobbyist don't convince them to poison their own water supply, they convince them that drinking this wonderful element will prevent caries and strengthen teeth. They misinterpret the science. The science says topical use prevents caries. They remove "topical" from all their propaganda (lieing with the truth, another fallacious argument). Drinking lotion doesn't hydrate the skin.
 
Without Rights said:
Drinking lotion doesn't hydrate the skin.
Click to expand...

No, but drank water usually happens to go through the teeth, first.

Besides, I'm still waiting to see actual evidence that the level of fluoride we have in our water is actually harmful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom