Simple fluoride question

[Without Rights]

i cant find any information about a major george jordan testifying before congress, except for fluoride CT sites

can you link to some official transcript?

but even assuming he did testify, and he wasnt lying, hes testimony is still second hand, hes telling congress what someone else told him, so we also have to assume they werent lying

Joseph Borkin, the chief economic advisor of the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice, reports in one of his books: The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben

 

[Without Rights]

its kept my teeth in pretty good shape and i like the taste.

That's because you brush with it not because you swallow it.

But that's not the point. Why argue for mass medication of fluoride when it is available to anyone through the market? Why do we need to do this so bad that you feel the need to get involved? I myself skip stuff that would mean so little.

 

[elbe]

Joseph Borkin, the chief economic advisor of the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice, reports in one of his books: The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben

If this is the complete text of that book then neither "fluoride" nor any mention of "George Racey Jordan" occur in it. On the same site, though, there is an article entitled Fluoridation - Mind Control Of The Masses that has the following excerpt:

Mr. Perkins does not involve America, American institutions or individuals in his assertions, but when Major George Racey Jordan was in charge of the massive 'lend-lease airlift' operations from Great Falls, Montana, to Russia via Alaska, he queried the transshipment of considerable amounts of sodium fluoride via Fairbanks, Alaska, to Russia. He was told 'frankly' that it was to put into the drinking water in the prisoner-of-war camps to take away their will to resist.

To be honest, that doesn't come sound like a very reliable argument. I could easily see someone just BSing him about it.

Maybe the rest of the article contains interesting information to back up the mind control claim, but I haven't read it yet.

The site appears to be pretty CTish, but it's what I found that appears to contain the text of "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben".

ETA:

That's because you brush with it not because you swallow it.

I've been rather lucky, myself, I only recently had my first cavity and it certainly isn't due to particularly good dental hygiene. I certainly think the fluoride in the water supply helped keep my teeth as strong as they are. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Lucky]

Ya but this whole "fluoride makes you more suggestible" thing really IS a leap.

The journals show brain damage, it shows lower IQs (maybe), but they DO NOT show, nor has any study ever shown, how fluoride would make one more agreeable when locked up in a concentration camp or prison camp. Wouldn't the constant threat of violence and the heirarchical structures of such places be a more important factor in determining someone's willingness to go along with orders?

Its a leap to start with "fluoride has been shown to cause brain damage in high doses and possibly lowering IQ by a few points" and then say "fluoride is a mind control drug" or "fluoride makes you more likely to accept the system mannnn!"

Wouldn't a more likely motive for its introduction to our water supplies be a conjunction of profit and the idea that doing so is actually beneficial - however flawed that "beneficial" part may turn out to be?

Sadly rare to see such a sensible comment in the fluoridation debate.

I too would like to know whether there's anything in the claim that the Nazis and the Stalinists tried fluoride for behaviour control in PoW and/or concentration camps. The claim is certainly nothing new – I remember it being discussed as a non-controversial detail in Labour Party meetings decades ago. I have looked into it several times, and can't find enough evidence either to prove or debunk it. However, knee-jerk 'skepticism' is not appropriate – it's certainly not implausible, and would be no more bizarre than many other pseudoscientific Nazi beliefs and deeds.

Whether it (would have) worked is another matter - we can be confident that (if true) it wasn't based on adequate science. Anyway, we don't know the concentrations – they could have been many times higher than the ppm levels in fluoridated water. For this and other reasons, the 'mind control' issue is simply not relevant to any serious discussion of the pros and cons of fluoridation, and it's a pity that many people on both sides of the debate seem to think it's the central issue.

As for the claim that lobbying of politicians, public health bodies and dentists by various chemical industries that produce waste fluoride compounds played an important part in the introduction of fluoridation, it can't reasonably be doubted. I would therefore say that there was (and is) an element of 'conspiracy' associated with the pro-fluoridation lobby but, again, this says nothing about the risks/benefits of fluoridation (and has nothing to do with mind control).

Water fluoridation seems to be one of those polarising issues it's almost impossible to discuss sensibly – apparently one must be either a paranoid, tin-hatted neanderthal or a gullible apologist for the NWO.

I am not a CTist, I have studied the issues in some depth (trying, as far as possible, to separate scientific from social), and I come down on the 'anti-' side (though not necessarily for the same reasons as the lobbyists). I think that mass medication via the water supply was not a particularly good idea at the time it was introduced, and is now completely indefensible.

Anyone who wishes to treat their teeth (or their children's) with fluoride can do so with no trouble and little expense. The economics of treating the entire water supply, only a minute proportion of which is going to be in contact with the teeth (or ingested, if you favour that mode of action), never made any sense. In general, we do not (and should not) accept enforced medication – and, as has been pointed out, if we choose to go down this road then there are far more deserving candidates than fluoride. Nobody disputes that we are dealing with a substance that is (potentially) extremely harmful, and that there is (at least) conflicting evidence about safety levels applicable to all groups of the population. There is good reason to suspect that water fluoridation might raise the total consumption in some groups to unsafe levels.

I have never understood the level of fanaticism on either side of the fluoridation debate – is it too much to hope for an intelligent, informed discussion?

(And it's fluoride, btw.)

 

[Without Rights]

2nd hand testimony...about an evil Soviet plot to use fluoride to mind-control the people of Russia. sounds like a nutcase conspiracy theory to me.

At least that response is honest.

Sounds like an ad hominem again. A more dignified way of saying the same thing would be "sounds unlikely". That is a far leap from it "absolutely DID NOT HAPPEN".

And quit cherry picking. Why do you abandon arguments that aren't working for you?

As a matter of fact I retract all statements of Russia and Germany, now we can talk.

 

[elbe]

As a matter of fact I retract all statements of Russia and Germany, now we can talk.

Are you as well retracting claims that it makes people docile and controllable?
Or will you supply evidence to support that claim without returning to "the nazis did it" or "the soviets did it"?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Joseph Borkin, the chief economic advisor of the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice, reports in one of his books: The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben

ah, a third person we must trust implicitly, this just gets better and better

 

[quarky]

Other than the nazi stuff, its a reasonable debate. Fluorine is the most active halogen; it must be in a salt form, no? I haven't looked to see what form its in when added to water supplies. In toothpaste, its tin. (or it was)

How much tin do we need?

I personly don't think its a big deal, but as WihoutRights says, why add more to the water, as it is already in the toothpaste?
And why have some civilized countries dropped it?

Could we focus on that, and skip the hostilities?

 

[elbe]

I personly don't think its a big deal, but as WihoutRights says, why add more to the water, as it is already in the toothpaste?
And why have some civilized countries dropped it?

Could we focus on that, and skip the hostilities?

It is considered added dental protection and, it appears, that the majority of people want it in their water supply, or don't care about it one way or the other.
As for why other countries have dropped it, perhaps the people making the decisions were overwhelmed by conspiracy theory nonsense. Or maybe they did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that the added cost wasn't worth it.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It is considered added dental protection and, it appears, that the majority of people want it in their water supply, or don't care about it one way or the other.
As for why other countries have dropped it, perhaps the people making the decisions were overwhelmed by conspiracy theory nonsense. Or maybe they did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that the added cost wasn't worth it.

with increased awareness of dental hygiene it becomes less necessary to fluorodate the water, 50 years ago im not sure the average american brushed their teeth regularly

its probably unnecessary (or at least less necessary) now than when it was implemented, of course that still doesnt lend any credence to the conspiracy garbage

 

[Old Bob]

Ask your self why would many leading countries through out Europe ban s. fluoride in the water supply. I know that fluoride in the food chain ties up the minerals causing osteoporosis, misery for millions.

 

[tyr_13]

Ask your self why would many leading countries through out Europe ban s. fluoride in the water supply. I know that fluoride in the food chain ties up the minerals causing osteoporosis, misery for millions.

Because they administer it in other ways. OR they are stupidly allowing nuts to dictate policy based on irrational fear.

The US isn't the only country that does that.

 

[elbe]

Ask your self why would many leading countries through out Europe ban s. fluoride in the water supply. I know that fluoride in the food chain ties up the minerals causing osteoporosis, misery for millions.

I think the most likely answer is the one I mentioned three posts up.

Or maybe they did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that the added cost wasn't worth it.

Did they actually ban it, though? Or just stop, or decide never to start, using it? If they banned it wouldn't their be some sort of written law about it somewhere we could read that would explain why they banned it?

 

[Thunder]

what does the New England Journal of Medicine have to say about water fluoridation? How about Johns Hopkins?

here is a link to all their articles about fluoridation. most of them appear to be negative, though you need a paid account to read them

http://search.nejm.org/search?w=fluoridation

anyone got an account?

and you know, Without Rights, if folks like you would STOP talking about unsubstantiated reports of mind control use of fluoride by the Nazis, Soviets, and Martians, and just STUCK TO THE SCIENCE...maybe your goal of removing fluoride from the water supply might actually get accomplished. bringing up silly scare-tactic conspiracy theories may be one of the MAIN reasons why your argument is disregarded by the scientific community.

the best way to kill a movement or issue..is to throw in loony conspiracy theories into the mix. it works like a charm.

=)

=)

 

[quarky]

Doesn't much matter, as almost no one drinks straight tap water anymore in the U.S.
The fluorine issue has helped sell a lot of plastic bottles.

 

[Thunder]

i do...actually. nyc water tastes pretty good. is it even fluoridated anymore?

yes it is. just answered my own question. would still like to know what the NEJM says about it.

 

[Disbelief]

Doesn't much matter, as almost no one drinks straight tap water anymore in the U.S.
The fluorine issue has helped sell a lot of plastic bottles.

You mean the stuff that is taken out of the city water supply? You do realize that a lot of bottled water is really tap water?

I did have another point, but since I am drinking water as I have been reading this thread, I am feeling a bit lethargic.

 

[quarky]

You mean the stuff that is taken out of the city water supply? You do realize that a lot of bottled water is really tap water?

I did have another point, but since I am drinking water as I have been reading this thread, I am feeling a bit lethargic.

Yeah, I knew about that. Like Yogi Berra said, 95% of it is half psychological.

 

[Disbelief]

Yeah, I knew about that. Like Yogi Berra said, 95% of it is half psychological.

Are you talking to me? I just feel so relaxed. Man, this water is great!!!

 

[Old Bob]

Our bottled water in many cases is just filtered with a little added peroxide which I think is harmless providing the water lacks fluoride. The other side is it has a use by date mainly because the plastic bottle breaks down and pollutes the water. Chinese water with a Australian flag on the bottle appeared on super market shelves while ago. Sooner drink out of a puddle with wallabee poop in it.