• 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:
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.
Click to expand...
you didnt listen

you claim this is all a scheme to save money on disposal, but how much are they saving when you add the cost of lobbyists, the cost to fake research that shows people drinking naturally fluoridated water have better teeth, and suppressing research that says ingesting fluoride is bad that doesnt help the teeth

and keep in mind none of this is a one-time cost, they have to keep doing it continuously or else water fluoridation will stop

so how much does all this cost WR? show me the bottom line where the companies are saving money.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
you didnt listen

you claim this is all a scheme to save money on disposal, but how much are they saving when you add the cost of lobbyists, the cost to fake research that shows people drinking naturally fluoridated water have better teeth, and suppressing research that says ingesting fluoride is bad that doesnt help the teeth

and keep in mind none of this is a one-time cost, they have to keep doing it continuously or else water fluoridation will stop

so how much does all this cost WR? show me the bottom line where the companies are saving money.
Click to expand...

Save money on disposal and profiting from the sale don't forget.

The cost of lobbyist is not perpetual, when a law gets past to mandate fluoridation their job is done. It then becomes work for those who oppose the law to try and reverse the law.

The research in which they did indeed pay for is not continuous. They had it out since 1940's-1960's and they are still using that evidence to fluoridate.

They don't have to suppress other scientific studies. They just mention their own on a national scale. They advertise their results. Nobody has the financial interest to advertise on a national scale the studies that tell of the damage caused by fluoride. If you want to find them it is up to you to look. Dr.'s everywhere, all over are trying to get the message out. They are backed buy 100's of studies. Pro-fluoridation is backed by paid scientific staff studies decades old and twisting topical science as if it means ingesting.

The "research" you mention about people having better teeth when drinking naturally fluoridated water has been refuted with no response or rebuttal.

Anyway, our water isn't naturally fluoridated. It is fluoridated with a waste product which also contains arsenic (CDC) http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=9005.

Point being, there is 100's of scientific papers on ill effects that hardly nobody knows about, yet scores of people cling to these horribly skewed papers. Why is that? Isn't that proof of suppression?
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...


Ok so eat your chap stick cause it glides across your lips. ACT will cross your teeth also if you swallow it. Just because it crossing your teeth on the way down helps doesn't mean you swallow it, it means you gargle with it or rub it on your teeth and SPIT IT OUT. I still think that argument is the most ridiculous I ever heard, and I do get around. IT IS TOXIC WHEN SWALLOWED.

The sited journals where posted in this thread already and without any response to them I might add. Conveniently skipped over i guess. Read up and get back with me.
 
Without Rights said:

The demand is not artificial, the demand is very real.
Click to expand...

Yes, the market demand is real; water utilities purchase fluoride. But according to your theory, they only do so because the conspiracy has influenced laws to make it mandatory! This is an artificially created demand and it potentially changes the supply/demand curve. You cannot assume the market price of the fluoride is the same without the conspiracy as it is with.

Without Rights said:
Please devise a scenario where, given the numbers, they can not be profitable
Click to expand...

 You want a scenario? Ok here we go:

Suppose that outside of the water utilities, there is virtually zero demand for the fluoride waste products of aluminum and phosphate companies. What would the market cost of fluoride be? Still $0.05 per pound? Hardly.

Since it's my scenario, I'm going to say that lack of demand lowers the market price to $0.01 per 11,172,000 pounds. Let's also suppose that maintaining the conspiracy costs $30M a year. How would this conspiracy work?

Before conspiracy: Cost to dispose of 11,172,000 pounds = $16,800,000 / year

After conspiracy: Costs minus Receipts = $29,999,999.99 / year

Oops. The conspiracy costs more to maintain than it saves.

(Of course I've picked a extreme numbers, but the point remains: There's still no "common sense" argument here; an economic argument requires you to provide evidence that there is a financial advantage to your conspiracy! (And since you brought it up - no you can't just cover the difference by adding on delivery fees; That would be figured into the market cost))

Without Rights said:
As for evidence go to the history.
Click to expand...

Don't change the subject. You made an economic argument, I'm asking you to back it up, so stick to the economics.
 
Last edited:
Without Rights said:
Ok so eat your chap stick cause it glides across your lips. ACT will cross your teeth also if you swallow it. Just because it crossing your teeth on the way down helps doesn't mean you swallow it, it means you gargle with it or rub it on your teeth and SPIT IT OUT.
Click to expand...

Indeed. All I was saying is that your analogy with lotions was inadequate. I didn't say that swallowing was required for fluoride to take effect, but drinking it still works.

I still think that argument is the most ridiculous I ever heard, and I do get around.
Click to expand...

It was not an argument. I was simply pointing out that your analogy didn't work.

IT IS TOXIC WHEN SWALLOWED.
Click to expand...

I can hear you find when you're not shouting.

The sited journals where posted in this thread already and without any response to them I might add. Conveniently skipped over i guess. Read up and get back with me.
Click to expand...

Just link back to one of those posts and I'll have a look.

It better show that tap-water amounts of fluoride are toxic...
 
Belz... said:
Indeed. All I was saying is that your analogy with lotions was inadequate. I didn't say that swallowing was required for fluoride to take effect, but drinking it still works.



It was not an argument. I was simply pointing out that your analogy didn't work.



I can hear you find when you're not shouting.



Just link back to one of those posts and I'll have a look.

It better show that tap-water amounts of fluoride are toxic...
Click to expand...

If something is toxic then it's toxic. Why would the amount matter? It's still toxic isn't it?
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...

WHAT? :boggled: The links to those numerous scientific studies doesnt do it for you?

I give up, you must be living in a very high fluoride area or something!
 
kageki said:
I already explained this earlier.

Water or oxygen itself is obviously not a poison. That's the difference.

Flouride is an industrial waste and toxic at any level. Maybe you guys like eating some mercury too?
Click to expand...

kageki, have you seen the links to the numerous scientific studies posted earlier in this thread? Many of those studies incorporated data collected from situations where fluoride levels are the same as those used in municipal water supplies.

Furthermore your argument regarding water and oxygen would be valid except for the fact that it does not take into account the bioaccumulation of fluoride. Fluoride builds up in the body and is not expelled like oxygen or water.

http://www.youarebeingpoisoned.com/fluoride.html for more information on the fluoride conspiracy
 
kageki said:
I already explained this earlier.

Water or oxygen itself is obviously not a poison. That's the difference.

Flouride is an industrial waste and toxic at any level. Maybe you guys like eating some mercury too?
Click to expand...
If something is toxic (like water, iodine, or oxygen can be) then it's toxic. Why would the amount matter? It's still toxic isn't it?
 
Mr.D said:
Yes, the market demand is real; water utilities purchase fluoride. But according to your theory, they only do so because the conspiracy has influenced laws to make it mandatory! This is an artificially created demand and it potentially changes the supply/demand curve. You cannot assume the market price of the fluoride is the same without the conspiracy as it is with.
Click to expand...

So according to your theory if a products demand is influenced by a lie then the price should be lower somehow. No, no no. It matters zero whether the demand was created by a real need or by circus clowns, the demand is there. The law of supply and demand is not effected by the reason for the demand, only by the demand itself.



 You want a scenario? Ok here we go:

Suppose that outside of the water utilities, there is virtually zero demand for the fluoride waste products of aluminum and phosphate companies. What would the market cost of fluoride be? Still $0.05 per pound? Hardly.
Click to expand...

Your point is destroyed by the fact that fluoride is $.05 per lbs and the only buyer is water utility companies.

Since it's my scenario, I'm going to say that lack of demand lowers the market price to $0.01 per 11,172,000 pounds. Let's also suppose that maintaining the conspiracy costs $30M a year. How would this conspiracy work?

Before conspiracy: Cost to dispose of 11,172,000 pounds = $16,800,000 / year

After conspiracy: Costs minus Receipts = $29,999,999.99 / year

Oops. The conspiracy costs more to maintain than it saves.
Click to expand...

In your scenario you have no reason why it would cost $30M and the price of fluoride has never, ever been $.01 per pound. Also in your math equation you only counted one pound per year. So basically your theory is flawed on every facet.

(Of course I've picked a extreme numbers, but the point remains: There's still no "common sense" argument here; an economic argument requires you to provide evidence that there is a financial advantage to your conspiracy! (And since you brought it up - no you can't just cover the difference by adding on delivery fees; That would be figured into the market cost))
Click to expand...

moot point to say the least. I am willing to bet you have never made a financial decision other than minus a $200 electric bill leaves me $40 for marijuana.

The common sense is very clear to anyone without an ridiculous denial. I guess if it cost $50 to flush a turd, selling the turd for $.01 might not be worth it because a turd is under the persuasion of supply and demand.

I have delivered food products for years and the price is ever changing and unstable, yet all the suppliers still profit. They don't lose money on delivering because they charge for delivery.

You whole theory is based on costs that don't exist. State something real. I didn't say devise a hypothetical cost analysis to back your argument. I come up with solid numbers that you don't refute. You come up with a BS fantasy.



Don't change the subject. You made an economic argument, I'm asking you to back it up, so stick to the economics.
Click to expand...

I stayed on subject. You have yet to prove that it is even remotely possible to lose on a deal where you save $16.5M and sell what your paying to dispose of. Rather, you come up with numbers out of thin air and call it a argument. I am not buying.
 
WR- i have an important question for you. it is clear that you think fluoridation is bad. most of us think its not a problem.

what are you trying to accomplish now? convince us of your point of view? its clearly not going to happen. i suggest you do all you can to avoid fluoridated water if that makes you happy. try to convince your neighbors, relatives, and friends..if that makes you happy.

but convincing the larger JREF community? it ain't gonna happen homey.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
If something is toxic (like water, iodine, or oxygen can be) then it's toxic. Why would the amount matter? It's still toxic isn't it?
Click to expand...

Water is not toxic, that is the difference. Water becomes troublesome when you drink so much you flush your body of electrolytes. Fluoride kills cells directly. Just because it is called "water toxicity" doesn't mean you are right. It means your argument is linguistic. Water is never toxic, it never kills cells. It only flushes the body of necessary elements. Science is a bitch isn't it.
 
parky76 said:
WR- i have an important question for you. it is clear that you think fluoridation is bad. most of us think its not a problem.

what are you trying to accomplish now? convince us of your point of view? its clearly not going to happen. i suggest you do all you can to avoid fluoridated water if that makes you happy. try to convince your neighbors, relatives, and friends..if that makes you happy.

but convincing the larger JREF community? it ain't gonna happen homey.
Click to expand...

If you have a comment that supports your reason for stating that it is "not a problem" I would appreciate hearing it. Or....

If you want to have a intelligent conversation on the good and bad of fluoridation backed by reason and science, that would also be great.

If you want to drive me away because you can't come up with nothing to combat my argument except, "it ain't gonna happen homey" then I think I'll stick around.

It is not my problem if the larger JREF community cannot come up with a science backed reason to drink fluoride. Only arguments that lose points in debate. You know the ones I mean don't you?

Actually this is also a fallacious argument. Appeal to the masses, Google it.
 
I'm really not interested in the debate anymore.
Edited by Gaspode: 
Removed personal attack.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Belz... said:
Indeed. All I was saying is that your analogy with lotions was inadequate. I didn't say that swallowing was required for fluoride to take effect, but drinking it still works.
Click to expand...

Drinking fluoride does not work, as you say. It poisons your body proven by science that I already posted as well as others.



It was not an argument. I was simply pointing out that your analogy didn't work.
Click to expand...

Pointing out that my analogy is flawed is an argument.



I can hear you find when you're not shouting.
Click to expand...
So you are just ignoring parts? O.k.



Just link back to one of those posts and I'll have a look.

It better show that tap-water amounts of fluoride are toxic...
Click to expand...

Do it yourself, I don't have to post it once for everybody who wants to claim it don't exist. I posted already, take the time and educate yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom