• 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

Disbelief said:
Ok, so you have no idea. Then again, you proved that long ago.
Click to expand...

Alrighty then. I believe your question was why don't I focus on people swallowing fluoride while brushing their teeth. In which my response, "nobody is forcing people to swallow fluoride from toothpaste", is a sufficient answer.

I think you have no idea how to follow a conversation. But then again, you proved that on your 2nd-current posts.
 
Tomblvd said:
When put into water fluorine dissociates into fluoride ions. That is simple chemistry.
Click to expand...

No it's not. That is chemistry you just made up by posting this nonsense. Fluorine is compounded with other elements before it is put into the water. It doesn't magically create a compound when water is added.

And the point you keep ignoring is that fluoride, lead and mercury are all present in drinking water. And you cannot prove that fluoride at the proper levels is dangerous.
Click to expand...

I already showed a study that shows 1 ppm is dangerous and that current levels allowed are dangerous. I also showed that most get too much from natural sources. What you keep ignoring is the fact that ingested fluoride has never been proven beneficial and adding it to the water is lunacy.

Since lead and mercury are also found naturally then adding them to the water supply purposely would not be a problem to you, huh? The same with fluoride. The fact that fluoride exists in water naturally is not reason to add it purposely.




http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm
It's a meta analysis including hundreds of studies.
Click to expand...

Conclusion of this meta analysis;

"Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research conducted in this area. The evidence of a benefit of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities. This evidence on benefits and harms needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, costs and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation. All of these issues fell outside the scope of this review."

The only evidence of a reduction in dental caries due to fluoridation of water is a correlation between the time fluoridation began and the reduction of caries. In this same period topical fluoride has increased. Furthermore, the same correlation has been shown in countries that don't fluoridate their water.



This study says there is not enough evidence to come to a confident conclusion a number of times. It also states that no clinical studies have been done to show a direct benefit.

"No randomised controlled trials of the effects of water fluoridation were found."

"none of the research included was of quality A, i.e. high quality without bias"

And for good measure, is another meta analysis on fluoridation effects on IQ.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947

Conclusion;

children who live in a fluoridated area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ
 
Without Rights said:
No it's not. That is chemistry you just made up by posting this nonsense. Fluorine is compounded with other elements before it is put into the water. It doesn't magically create a compound when water is added.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand basic chemistry.

There are certain compounds that contain fluoride, calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride, silicofluoide, etc. These compounds, when added to water, dissociate into their constituent ions at a given rate. Some, like calcium fluoride, don't tend to break down as much as, say, sodium fluoride, which almost completely breaks down into sodium ions and fluoride ions in the water. That is how the fluoride gets into the water.

This is grade school chemistry.
 
Without Rights said:
Alrighty then. I believe your question was why don't I focus on people swallowing fluoride while brushing their teeth. In which my response, "nobody is forcing people to swallow fluoride from toothpaste", is a sufficient answer.

I think you have no idea how to follow a conversation. But then again, you proved that on your 2nd-current posts.
Click to expand...

No, but you have admitted to using fluoridated toothpaste. The concentration of fluoride is much greater in toothpaste than in your drinking water, yet you can not prove that people successfully get all of the fluoride from the toothpaste out of their mouths. Therefore, there would be a much higher risk because of the concentration of fluoride in toothpaste than from the drinking water.
 
Without Rights said:
And for good measure, is another meta analysis on fluoridation effects on IQ.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947

Conclusion;

children who live in a fluoridated area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ
Click to expand...

I didn't even get past the abstract before I noticed that you are misrepresenting the conclusion of the paper.

"in China ... children who live in a fluorosis area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ than those who live in a nonfluorosis area or a slight fluorosis area."

Which is a different conclusion altogether.
 
Last edited:
Without Rights said:
I brush with fluoride toothpaste daily.
Click to expand...

Ok then. Two questions come to mind:

1) Would you advocate removal of fluoride from drinking water where it occurs naturally over 1 ppm? (Just picking a value that you've quoted as harmful)?

2) Are (were) there any circumstances under which the positive effects on dental health of "high-fluoride" (few ppm) water would outweigh the negative effects you claim? [Kageki, you can jump in on this one too since you posted something that ties in here]
 
If you simply Google "the truth about fluoride" hundreds of thousands of articles and videos pop up for your review. Numerous physicians, research scientists, and other educated people are saying the same things about fluoride...IT IS POISON. It leads to numerous health problems, including cancer. While you're at it, check out Aspartame and MSG too.

Also, look into statins, like Lipitor. Read "Cardiovascular Fraud". Learn what Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, allegedly the world's foremost authority on cholesterol, has to say about it in his book The Cholesterol Myths. He says, "People with the highest cholesterol live the longest, and there is no such thing as bad cholesterol."

So, why would the FDA allow corporate America to poison us? Because they are absolutely corrupt beyond measure? How could our elected officials allow such criminal behavior? Because they are corrupt beyond measure too?
 
bwinwright said:
If you simply Google "the truth about fluoride" hundreds of thousands of articles and videos pop up for your review. Numerous physicians, research scientists, and other educated people are saying the same things about fluoride...IT IS POISON. It leads to numerous health problems, including cancer. While you're at it, check out Aspartame and MSG too.

Also, look into statins, like Lipitor. Read "Cardiovascular Fraud". Learn what Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, allegedly the world's foremost authority on cholesterol, has to say about it in his book The Cholesterol Myths. He says, "People with the highest cholesterol live the longest, and there is no such thing as bad cholesterol."

So, why would the FDA allow corporate America to poison us? Because they are absolutely corrupt beyond measure? How could our elected officials allow such criminal behavior? Because they are corrupt beyond measure too?
Click to expand...

The question is why would almost every health organization in the world allow its governmnet to poison its population? Are you telling me that every scientist in almost every government agency is in on the conspiracy?

And another question, what is to be gained? By whom? How? Why?
 
Tomblvd said:
The question is why would almost every health organization in the world allow its governmnet to poison its population? Are you telling me that every scientist in almost every government agency is in on the conspiracy?

And another question, what is to be gained? By whom? How? Why?
Click to expand...

No. Just the Zionist scientists. Stalin was aware of this.
 
bwinwright said:
If you simply Google "the truth about fluoride" hundreds of thousands of articles and videos pop up for your review. Numerous physicians, research scientists, and other educated people are saying the same things about fluoride...IT IS POISON.
Click to expand...

Guess what happens when you Google

"the truth about 9/11"

"the truth about vaccines"

"the truth about the holocaust"

"the truth about the jews"

"the truth about the moon landing"

"the truth about UFOs"

"The truth about Bigfoot"
 
Mr.D said:
I didn't even get past the abstract before I noticed that you are misrepresenting the conclusion of the paper.

"in China ... children who live in a fluorosis area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ than those who live in a nonfluorosis area or a slight fluorosis area."

Which is a different conclusion altogether.
Click to expand...

From the paper;

"Sixteen case-control studies that assessed the development of low IQ in children who had been exposed to fluoride earlier in their life were included in this review. A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ."
 
Tomblvd said:
You obviously don't understand basic chemistry.

There are certain compounds that contain fluoride, calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride, silicofluoide, etc. These compounds, when added to water, dissociate into their constituent ions at a given rate. Some, like calcium fluoride, don't tend to break down as much as, say, sodium fluoride, which almost completely breaks down into sodium ions and fluoride ions in the water. That is how the fluoride gets into the water.

This is grade school chemistry.
Click to expand...


That's not what you said, you said they put fluorine in the water. Fluorine is not a compound.
 
Disbelief said:
No, but you have admitted to using fluoridated toothpaste. The concentration of fluoride is much greater in toothpaste than in your drinking water, yet you can not prove that people successfully get all of the fluoride from the toothpaste out of their mouths. Therefore, there would be a much higher risk because of the concentration of fluoride in toothpaste than from the drinking water.
Click to expand...



Alright, I got it. In order for me to protest putting Fluoride in the water I have to "prove that people successfully get all of the fluoride from the toothpaste out of their mouths" because if I don't that makes my protest of adding fluoride purposely moot, is that it? Retarded.
 
Mr.D said:
Ok then. Two questions come to mind:

1) Would you advocate removal of fluoride from drinking water where it occurs naturally over 1 ppm? (Just picking a value that you've quoted as harmful)?

2) Are (were) there any circumstances under which the positive effects on dental health of "high-fluoride" (few ppm) water would outweigh the negative effects you claim? [Kageki, you can jump in on this one too since you posted something that ties in here]
Click to expand...

on 1) No

2) No, drinking fluoride has no good dental effects and actually causes dental fluorosis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom