Simple fluoride question

[tyr_13]

"Some here" has based his opinion on reason for which you have none. http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20060322.html

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11571

You are not using the word 'reason' correctly. Even if you don't agree with his reasoning. You've linked to a book, an expensive one, not the studies that would support it. It's a red-herring.

Also, when I put that book into Amazon, The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson comes up. What else comes up with this book? Why Truther.org - Wake Up! 9/11 Was an Inside Job!, of course!

I'm not going to purchase a $55 book because you say it proves something when you haven't put up a convincing argument in the first place.

Your dishonest argument style contains such gems as putting words in other people's mouths, straw men building, and other annoyingly common tactics like ad-hom, "reason which you have none," type nonsense insults. If you wish to be taken seriously, don't do that.

 

[Without Rights]

Even if you don't agree with his reasoning. You've linked to a book, an expensive one, not the studies that would support it. It's a red-herring.

Also, when I put that book into Amazon, The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson comes up. What else comes up with this book? Why Truther.org - Wake Up! 9/11 Was an Inside Job!, of course!

I'm not going to purchase a $55 book because you say it proves something when you haven't put up a convincing argument in the first place.

Building a strawman?

I linked to a news release and a scientific report by The National Academies, a scientific organization comprising of The National Academies of Science and Engineering, The Institute of Medicine and The National Research Council. Not quite the red herring you describe. You probably didn't even follow the links I posted.

And if the book "Fluoride Deception" came up in a search it would only be logical. People who oppose fluoridation would also be likely purchase a report by a respected organization that backs them up.

Your dishonest argument style contains such gems as putting words in other people's mouths, straw men building, and other annoyingly common tactics like ad-hom, "reason which you have none," type nonsense insults. If you wish to be taken seriously, don't do that.

Where's the ad hom? Where's the strawman? There is none. Don't just say it, point it out. You saying I am doing that when I am not makes you an active user of these same tactics that you claim I use.

I'll point yours out, you claim I was only referencing a book by some guy when in reality I was referencing a news release and a scientific report by a scientific, medical and research council. And putting words in people's mouth would be a strawman so you're redundant.


And "reason which you have none" is not an insult. It is correct, he cannot reference a single piece of science that backs his arguments. I can. I have reason for which he has none.

You are not using the word 'reason' correctly.

Yes I am Einstein, I have reason to believe what I believe and he has none. Duh...

 

[Belz...]

There actually many different types and you don't swallow the stuff the dentists use, if you did swallow it, it would also be bad. That's why it says "Do not swallow" and something about calling poison control.

I'm not talking about swallowing the concentrated stuff. Weren't we discussing market demands, or whatnot ?

 

[Belz...]

So now it is foolish and silly to trust science?

I don't see how this follows from what I've said. I said YOU're silly.

Yes any amount of CO is toxic. In the smallest amounts it still displaces oxygen, not enough to kill but still toxic.

Uh-huh. So let's play a game. Is one molecule of fluoride in a glass of water "bad" ? When do you consider it "bad" ? I'd consider it "bad" when there are demonstratable ill effects on the population.

But hey, you got a cool pic of a Dodge logo. That's all the proof you need huh?

That you completely missed the point of the dodge logo is not surprising to me.

What do you mean "Are reptilian aliens involved, too"

Well, might as well believe in ALL conspiracy theories, once you get started.

"Some here" has based his opinion on reason for which you have none.

Ah. Yes. Insults. How interesting and convincing.

 

[Without Rights]

I'm not talking about swallowing the concentrated stuff. Weren't we discussing market demands, or whatnot ?

We were until you said

I am, actually. So, now there are two different kinds of fluoride and the one used by dentists is OK ?

You are not talking about market demand. You are talking about one type of fluoride being good and one being bad.

 

[tyr_13]

Building a strawman?

I linked to a news release and a scientific report by The National Academies, a scientific organization comprising of The National Academies of Science and Engineering, The Institute of Medicine and The National Research Council. Not quite the red herring you describe. You probably didn't even follow the links I posted.

No, you just lied. You did not link to a scientific report, you linked to a news release about a BOOK, one that costs $56 from that site and $54 from Amazon. I followed your link, and when I tried to read anything but that news release, I got asked to paid for it.

And if the book "Fluoride Deception" came up in a search it would only be logical. People who oppose fluoridation would also be likely purchase a report by a respected organization that backs them up.

Or, only that people who already believe in your type of conspiracy theory are the only ones buying into it...

Where's the ad hom? Where's the strawman? There is none. Don't just say it, point it out. You saying I am doing that when I am not makes you an active user of these same tactics that you claim I use.

"So now it is foolish and silly to trust science?" That's one instance of putting words in someone's mouth and building a straw man. An ad-hom you used (incorrectly) the word reason. Also, see the last part of your post I'm responding too.

I'll point yours out, you claim I was only referencing a book by some guy when in reality I was referencing a news release and a scientific report by a scientific, medical and research council. And putting words in people's mouth would be a strawman so you're redundant.

Book

And "reason which you have none" is not an insult. It is correct, he cannot reference a single piece of science that backs his arguments. I can. I have reason for which he has none.

No, you are misusing 'reason'. If you don't think he has a reason to believe what he does, even if you think it is the wrong reason, he still has at least one. If by reason you meant reasoning ability, yes, that's just an insult. To say that the people of this thread haven't referenced a single piece of scientific research, is dishonest (i.e. a lie).

Yes I am Einstein, I have reason to believe what I believe and he has none. Duh...

Duh no. He has reason. I don't care what you think 'reason' means. It isn't correct. You're wrong.

 

[Belz...]

We were until you said

You are not talking about market demand. You are talking about one type of fluoride being good and one being bad.

Uh-huh, but you may remember that I said that because you said this:

So, they are not uses for industrial fluoride, are you even paying attention?

You implied different kinds of fluoride were used so I was curious. I still don't get why dentists don't count.

 

[Belz...]

"Some here" has based his opinion on reason for which you have none. http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20060322.html

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11571

From your links:

March 22 -- Children exposed to drinking water containing 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter -- the Environmental Protection Agency's maximum allowable concentration -- risk developing severe tooth enamel fluorosis, says a new National Research Council report. About 200,000 Americans have drinking water with that much fluoride, which comes from both naturally occurring sources and pollution. A majority of the committee that wrote the report also said that people who consume water containing that much fluoride over a lifetime are likely at increased risk for bone fractures. The report does not examine artificially fluoridated water, which contains much less fluoride.

I don't think we were talking about fluoride from non-controlled sources.

 

[Belz...]

For the benefit of Belz...

The first link only argues that fluoride may not be that useful, the second one just claims its harmful, and the third one doesn't even work.

So far, no good.

 

[technoextreme]

I think you are confusing toxic with lethal.

Alle Ding sind Gift, und nichts ohn Gift; allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist.

 

[Without Rights]

No, you just lied. You did not link to a scientific report, you linked to a news release about a BOOK, one that costs $56 from that site and $54 from Amazon. I followed your link, and when I tried to read anything but that news release, I got asked to paid for it.

No, I linked to a report and a news release about a report.
From the news release:
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's standard for the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water -- 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water -- does not protect against adverse health effects, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. "

Or, only that people who already believe in your type of conspiracy theory are the only ones buying into it...

Yeah, me and all these conspiracy theorists:


John Doull, M.D., Ph.D. (chair)
Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology and Toxicology
University of Kansas Medical Center
Kansas City

Kim Boekelheide, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Brown University
Providence, R.I.

Barbara G. Farishian, D.D.S.
Dentist
Washington, D.C.

Robert L. Isaacson, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Department of Psychology
State University of New York
Binghamton

Judith B. Klotz, Dr.P.H.
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Epidemiology
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
Piscataway

Jayanth V. Kumar, D.D.S., M.P.H.
Director
Oral Health Surveillance and Research Unit
Bureau of Dental Health
New York State Department of Health
Albany

Hardy Limeback, D.D.S., Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto
Toronto

Charles Poole, M.P.H., Sc.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Epidemiology
School of Public Health
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill

J. Edward Puzas, Ph.D.
Donald and Mary Clark Professor of Orthopaedics
School of Medicine and Dentistry
University of Rochester
Rochester, N.Y.

Nu-May Ruby Reed, Ph.D.
Staff Toxicologist
Department of Pesticide Regulation
California Environmental Protection Agency
Sacramento

Kathleen M. Thiessen, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Center for Risk Analysis
SENES Oak Ridge Inc.
Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Thomas F. Webster, D.Sc.
Assistant Professor
Department of Environmental Health
Boston University School of Public Health
Boston

"So now it is foolish and silly to trust science?" That's one instance of putting words in someone's mouth and building a straw man. An ad-hom you used (incorrectly) the word reason. Also, see the last part of your post I'm responding too.

That's not putting words in no ones mouth. I said I trust science so I must be silly and he said yes, hence, I am silly for trusting the science. Using a word incorrectly (which I didn't) is not ad-hom. http://ogden.basic-english.org/basiceng.html

Book

Just because you can buy it on Amazon doesn't make it a book. It is a report from a scientific organization. "Now that several more studies have been done and because the Safe Drinking Water Act requires periodic reassessment of regulations, EPA asked for a new review." That is the report.

No, you are misusing 'reason'. If you don't think he has a reason to believe what he does, even if you think it is the wrong reason, he still has at least one. If by reason you meant reasoning ability, yes, that's just an insult. To say that the people of this thread haven't referenced a single piece of scientific research, is dishonest (i.e. a lie).

I said HE hasn't referenced a single piece of science. Turning that into everybody is a strawman argument.

He still has reason, is he saving it for a big moment. Me saying he has no reason was to give him an opening to state his reason which still is a mystery to me.

I didn't mean reasoning ability. I meant what I said. Reason: a thought or consideration offered to support an opinion.

Would it have been better for me to say; "I have offered consideration to support my opinion while you have offered no consideration to support yours."?

 

[Without Rights]

Alle Ding sind Gift, und nichts ohn Gift; allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist.

Paracelsus also believed that there were only 4 elements and the cosmos was embodied in them. He also believed poisons were brought from the stars. He believed that a bad spleen can be cured with lead, and breathing problems can be cured with mercury.

 

[Without Rights]

I don't think we were talking about fluoride from non-controlled sources.

The report is simply saying non-controlled sources contribute to higher fluoride concentrations. This is a brief from the report; http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/fluoride_brief_final.pdf

 

[Without Rights]

You implied different kinds of fluoride were used so I was curious. I still don't get why dentists don't count.

Dentists don't count because they don't purchase fluoride from aluminum and phosphate corporations. They do not effect the supply or demand of industrial byproduct fluoride.

 

[Belz...]

The report is simply saying non-controlled sources contribute to higher fluoride concentrations. This is a brief from the report; http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/fluoride_brief_final.pdf

Uh-huh, but are you now saying that the problem itself is not caused by fluoride added intentionally to the water system ?

Dentists don't count because they don't purchase fluoride from aluminum and phosphate corporations. They do not effect the supply or demand of industrial byproduct fluoride.

Thank you. See ? Wasn't that easy ?

 

[Without Rights]

Uh-huh, but are you now saying that the problem itself is not caused by fluoride added intentionally to the water system ?

I guess it is too hard to understand that if we are already getting a troublesome amount of fluoride, then adding more on purpose is a problem.

Thank you. See ? Wasn't that easy ?

I knew you weren't paying attention so here is our conversation on one page so you can comprehend.

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

you: Dentists ? Toothpast companies ?

me: They use pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not byproducts of industry.


you: So ?

me: So, they are not uses for industrial fluoride, are you even paying attention?



you:I am, actually. So, now there are two different kinds of fluoride and the one used by dentists is OK ?

me: There actually many different types and you don't swallow the stuff the dentists use, if you did swallow it, it would also be bad. That's why it says "Do not swallow" and something about calling poison control.


you: I'm not talking about swallowing the concentrated stuff. Weren't we discussing market demands, or whatnot ?

me: We were until you said

Quote:
I am, actually. So, now there are two different kinds of fluoride and the one used by dentists is OK ?

you: Uh-huh, but you may remember that I said that because you said this:

Originally Posted by Without Rights
So, they are not uses for industrial fluoride, are you even paying attention?

You implied different kinds of fluoride were used so I was curious. I still don't get why dentists don't count.

me: Dentists don't count because they don't purchase fluoride from aluminum and phosphate corporations. They do not effect the supply or demand of industrial byproduct fluoride.

you: Thank you. See ? Wasn't that easy ?

No it wasn't easy. I took over two weeks for you to finally understand. Next time I'll try not to use big words like "industrial" or "pharmaceutical".

 

[Belz...]

I guess it is too hard to understand that if we are already getting a troublesome amount of fluoride, then adding more on purpose is a problem.

Well, when you state your opinions clearly, people have a tendency to understand you better. So, basically you're not saying that putting fluoride into our water supply is the source of the problem, but rather than it exacerbates it.

I knew you weren't paying attention so here is our conversation on one page so you can comprehend.

Well it's not my fault you didn't mention all this to begin with. You're one of those funny people who think everybody should "get" what goes on in your head simply because you do.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I guess it is too hard to understand that if we are already getting a troublesome amount of fluoride, then adding more on purpose is a problem.



I knew you weren't paying attention so here is our conversation on one page so you can comprehend.

No it wasn't easy. I took over two weeks for you to finally understand. Next time I'll try not to use big words like "industrial" or "pharmaceutical".

maybe you could explain the difference between "industrial" fluoride and "pharmaceutical" fluoride for us

 

[Mr.D]

Sorry that I can't respond in depth right now, but work is hell.

The byproducts would be Fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluoride. Optics are aluminum fluoride, ceramics are lithium fluoride.

Interestingly, Wikipedia suggests that the latter compound is falling out of favor in comparison to the former. It also seems to imply that Fluorosilic acid is a byproduct of the phosphate industry while sodium fluoride is a byproduct of the aluminum industry.

Is that competition at work? Infighting within the conspiracy or are there really TWO conspiracies at work here?

Can you see how non-obvious and completely not "common sense" all of this starts to become once you drop the rhetoric and actually start looking at the evidence?

How about I say no significant demand outside fluoridation. As evidenced by the fact that ALCOA used to dispose and no longer do. The only other use I can find for the byproduct of industry would be to kill rats.

I notice that you dropped "proof" for "evidence" here.

I also note that you have begun to address an apparent self-contradiction that I was going to bring up later - how can you on one hand point out that sodium fluoride is rat poison, but with the other hand say it has absolutely no use whatsoever?

Are we beginning to get closer to an understanding of why I keep asking for evidence to back up your statements? Now that the tone between us has become softer (I'm not even reading the posts between you and Belz), do you think you could go back to square one and begin to build a solid case for your proposed economic motive for the conspiracy?

 

[Belz...]

(I'm not even reading the posts between you and Belz)

You should. They're quite entertaining.