Simple fluoride question

[defaultdotxbe]

Well actually I live in Queensland, Australia and recently our State government decided to add fluoride to our drinking water. I heard a lot of negative things being said about fluoride in the news and wanted to investigate the issue for myself.

Basically I have found much more evidence which supports the idea that fluoride is not required in drinking water for healthy teeth and there are significant negative effects associated with fluoride ingestion.

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

 

[Thunder]

Well actually I live in Queensland, Australia and recently our State government decided to add fluoride to our drinking water. I heard a lot of negative things being said about fluoride in the news and wanted to investigate the issue for myself.

Basically I have found much more evidence which supports the idea that fluoride is not required in drinking water for healthy teeth and there are significant negative effects associated with fluoride ingestion.

I suggest you start drinking water...lots of it. Don't stop drinking water until something bad happens to you that you can associate with fluoride.

I mean it now, keep drinking!! And you are not allowed to pee either!!

 

[Without Rights]

So, what should we do? So far, all you've done is rant about how evil it is. Yeah, we get it, you think it's bad. Still haven't proven it to anyone other than yourself, but hey, that's okay. If I were to believe you, which, to be honest, is unlikely at best, what should I do, Mr. Paranoid Dude? Hmm? I mean, other than post hysterical, shrill screeds on internet forums?

Is this targeted at me?

 

[Without Rights]

Got any evidence for this? (Amount and toxicity of waste product, cost of disposal/neutralization, cost of sales vs. ROI etc.)

I don't have to get all records from the companies to conclude what is obvious. Fluoride is a level I toxin (according to OSHA), which means, according to my local disposal corp., is $6000 a truck load to dispose of. They also told me a typical truckload is 3000-4000 pounds. If they sell it for a nickel a truck load to water facilities then it is apparent they are saving money. Of course I don't have the receipts to know what the private transaction really involves. It is just common sense.

 

[Belz...]

You know.....fluoridation is the most monstrous, evil plot ever conceived by Communists? What is the goal? To sap our precious bodily fluids.

That's why I only drink rain water..or distilled water. Your average Commy only drinks Vodka and rain water.

In the name of General Jack D. Ripper...I say we fight these Commys head on!!!

The thing I don't get about this CT is that instead of working from an observed fact backwards to its cause, like most CTs, it starts from a cause and works forwards to... nothing.

People are not less independent than they were 100 years ago... so what's the evidence that it causes any sort of problem ? Point in case, the CTers themselves don't seem affected by it.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I don't have to get all records from the companies to conclude what is obvious. Fluoride is a level I toxin (according to OSHA), which means, according to my local disposal corp., is $6000 a truck load to dispose of. They also told me a typical truckload is 3000-4000 pounds. If they sell it for a nickel a truck load to water facilities then it is apparent they are saving money. Of course I don't have the receipts to know what the private transaction really involves. It is just common sense.

but the water company isnt going to buy just every truckload of fluoride that pulls into their parking lot, they only put a very small amount in the water so if they have more than they need then THEY are stuck with the $6000/truck disposal bill

and thats ignoring the costs to properly add it to the water, they aren't just dumping trucks of it in the reservoir, i wouldnt be surprised if it costs more than $6000 to put 3000 lbs of fluoride into water

 

[kageki]

I suggest you start drinking water...lots of it. Don't stop drinking water until something bad happens to you that you can associate with fluoride.

I mean it now, keep drinking!! And you are not allowed to pee either!!

This is such a ridiculous argument.

Yes there is such thing as water poisoning, but water is still not a poison and also vital.

Yes you don't die right away from ingesting small amounts of poison, but it's still a poison i.e. flouride.

Also I'm curious about the difference between naturally flouridated water and the flouride that is being used in our water supply. There are different grades correct? That vitamin c pill probably isn't the exact same thing as the vitamin c you will find in fruits.

 

[Thunder]

War in Gaza. Recession getting worse. Gas shortages in Europe. Iran pursuing nuclear power.

And what's being talked about here? Fluoride.

 

[kageki]

War in Gaza. Recession getting worse. Gas shortages in Europe. Iran pursuing nuclear power.

And what's being talked about here? Fluoride.

You are derailing. If you don't want to discuss the topic then don't reply.

 

[Mr.D]

I don't have to get all records from the companies to conclude what is obvious. Fluoride is a level I toxin (according to OSHA), which means, according to my local disposal corp., is $6000 a truck load to dispose of. They also told me a typical truckload is 3000-4000 pounds. If they sell it for a nickel a truck load to water facilities then it is apparent they are saving money. Of course I don't have the receipts to know what the private transaction really involves. It is just common sense.

Sigh.

"Common sense" doesn't tell me how much Fluoride needs to be disposed of.

It doesn't tell me how much Fluoride is used by water facilities.

It doesn't tell me what the overhead costs are to have a second disposal channel potentially moving a "level I toxin" across public highways and byways (dont' forget insurance and OSHA, NTSB and other local agency compliance and inspection costs)

In other words, "common sense" really isn't enough to claim a profit motive, nevermind a sufficient profit for corporate executives to be "poisoning" (potentially) their own water supply!

Want to try again?

 

[The Truth Hurts]

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

I am not suggesting that fluoride has any acute effects, nor am I suggesting that fluoride will kill anyone or make them visibly ill. What I am suggesting is that there is enough research out there that indicates that where fluoride is ingested it has been linked to lower IQs in children and to bone cancer in males (I suppose that it does make people visibly ill).

There is also links which I have posted earlier in this thread which demonstrate that regardless of fluoride all western countries have experienced a similar decline in incidence of teeth problems in their populations. This is shown on a graph based on figures from the world health organisation.

Just because people have been doing something for hundreds or thousands of years does not mean that it is right does it? I mean people are worshiping all sorts of gods for thousands of years and even using these beliefs to justify killing other people for thousands of years. It aint right is it?

I reckon if you were unlucky enough to live in an area where there are high levels of natural fluoride then you would probably have turned out less intelligent than if you hadnt. You would still get by, just probably wouldnt reach your full potential. That said, maybe being stupid and ignorant is more enjoyable than understanding things like Climate Change and Peak Oil. In the short term anyways...

 

[The Truth Hurts]

I suggest you start drinking water...lots of it. Don't stop drinking water until something bad happens to you that you can associate with fluoride.

I mean it now, keep drinking!! And you are not allowed to pee either!!

Hmmmm interesting argument... very intelligent. You do drink fluoridated water dont you!?

 

[The Truth Hurts]

The thing I don't get about this CT is that instead of working from an observed fact backwards to its cause, like most CTs, it starts from a cause and works forwards to... nothing.

People are not less independent than they were 100 years ago... so what's the evidence that it causes any sort of problem ? Point in case, the CTers themselves don't seem affected by it.

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.

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.

 

[Without Rights]

but the water company isnt going to buy just every truckload of fluoride that pulls into their parking lot, they only put a very small amount in the water so if they have more than they need then THEY are stuck with the $6000/truck disposal bill

and thats ignoring the costs to properly add it to the water, they aren't just dumping trucks of it in the reservoir, i wouldnt be surprised if it costs more than $6000 to put 3000 lbs of fluoride into water

This makes no sense. First off, if they buy one truck load out of 10 they save $6000.00 and make who knows how much off the sale.

Your second point really gets me. It has nothing to do with phosphate or aluminum company profits. What do they care how much it costs to drip in the water when it is the taxpayers who are paying for it. So it matters zero if it costs $100,000 to drip a truck load in the water, they don't pay those costs.

 

[Without Rights]

Sigh.

"Common sense" doesn't tell me how much Fluoride needs to be disposed of.

It doesn't tell me how much Fluoride is used by water facilities.

It doesn't tell me what the overhead costs are to have a second disposal channel potentially moving a "level I toxin" across public highways and byways (dont' forget insurance and OSHA, NTSB and other local agency compliance and inspection costs)

In other words, "common sense" really isn't enough to claim a profit motive, nevermind a sufficient profit for corporate executives to be "poisoning" (potentially) their own water supply!

Want to try again?

Sure Why not.

Alcoa says "2.66 pounds of fluoride per ton of aluminum" and they produce 4.2 million tons of aluminum, so...11,172,000 pounds of fluoride. Roughly 2800 truck loads or $16,800,000 of disposal costs.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]According to Chemical Engineering News in 1988 143,000 tons of fluoride were added to American water supplies. Since fluoridation has risen by more than 20% since 1988 I can assume that the number would be around 20% higher today, or 340,000,000 pounds. A big enough market for Alcoa to sell all of their fluoride.[/FONT]

According to solvay chemical corp, bulk fluoride sells for $.05 a pound. Alcoa would therefore have around $600,000 of fluoride to sell every year.

Or a total savings of $17.5 M every year.


And there is no second disposal channel. According to Alcoa they have 0 pounds of fluoride waste product disposal (alcoa.com). So there is only a single channel, the same as if they were paying $16 M to dispose of it. And, me being in the logistics business for 12 years knows that when a product is purchased the cost of transport are put onto the buyer not the seller. And transport of hazardous material requires no inspection costs, no fees to OSHA or NTSB, only an endorsement which costs $80.00 paid for by the driver in most cases. Insurance is only slightly higher and I can afford it in my small private business so I know this would not be an issue to Alcoa and others.

 

[Without Rights]

War in Gaza. Recession getting worse. Gas shortages in Europe. Iran pursuing nuclear power.

And what's being talked about here? Fluoride.

Fallacious argument again?

If you made a valid point I might fall over and die.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

This makes no sense. First off, if they buy one truck load out of 10 they save $6000.00 and make who knows how much off the sale.

Your second point really gets me. It has nothing to do with phosphate or aluminum company profits. What do they care how much it costs to drip in the water when it is the taxpayers who are paying for it. So it matters zero if it costs $100,000 to drip a truck load in the water, they don't pay those costs.

now im confused, who is supposedly behind this? if they have the authority to institute water fluoridation and subsidize it with tax money why not just subsidize the normal disposal costs and pocket the rest? or just de-list fluoride as a hazardous chemical and dump it in a landfill? or just dump it anywhere and have the government look the other way

 

[Without Rights]

now im confused, who is supposedly behind this? if they have the authority to institute water fluoridation and subsidize it with tax money why not just subsidize the normal disposal costs and pocket the rest? or just de-list fluoride as a hazardous chemical and dump it in a landfill? or just dump it anywhere and have the government look the other way

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.

 

[Without Rights]

now im confused, who is supposedly behind this? if they have the authority to institute water fluoridation and subsidize it with tax money why not just subsidize the normal disposal costs and pocket the rest? or just de-list fluoride as a hazardous chemical and dump it in a landfill? or just dump it anywhere and have the government look the other way

So does this mean you think the people who sell Fluoride pay for the process of putting it in our water? It is paid for by the water facility. If it is county or city water, then who do you think pays for it?

 

[dudalb]

That said, maybe being stupid and ignorant is more enjoyable than understanding things like Climate Change and Peak Oil. In the short term anyways..

Anybody who disagrees with me is stupid and/or ignorant. The battle cry of the Woo merchant.