drinking water (Sodium fluoride)

Aye Matey! · 13-02-2009 9:24pm

bonkey wrote: »

You brought it up...repeatedly....in this thread and others.
You made allegations that people like me weren't using it enough.
You made comments to the effect that it was more important than evidence.

[directed @ mysterious]

You emhasise directive conversational emphasis by way of italics.

mysterious · 14-02-2009 7:25pm

Well I brought Non flouride toothpaste today.:)

I'm getting flouride filtration system too.
Not putting rat poison in my water, when there is no logic to putting a poison in my body.

Nazis used Chlorine and Flouride weaponary against the Austrians in WW2 :rolleyes:. The US government became the most powerful nation on the planet after Nazis germany had fallen. The CIA was created, as a spy secret network to spy on the Russians and what not. They backed many nazis into their network. And this is how they gained all these poisoning agents that are used today. This is only a fraction of what i'm only going to say on this thread about the CIA. The Nazis used some crazy stuff back in the day.

Of course you can believe what you want. You should all look into the history of the CIA, it will open your eyes.

Flouride is a waste factory product that does not need to be put into our water supply. It occurs in our water naturally and some foods. We don't need to have more poison into our water aswell.

mysterious · 14-02-2009 7:28pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Why add mercury to thimerosal? Because without mercury, you'd have a completely different compound with different physical and chemical properties.

Or are you asking why thimerosal was added to vaccines? Because it's a potent bacteriostatic - it prevented potential contaminants from growing in the vaccine, which could have made the recipient rather ill. Which would you rather in your bloodstream; a small, harmless does of thimerosal, or a hefty dose of salmonella, staphylococcus, E. coli, etc.?

But mercury and thimserosal is added to it for what.

Are they really putting it in for the benifet of our health in some doses. Give me a break.

bonkey · 15-02-2009 12:25pm

mysterious wrote: »

Not putting rat poison in my water, when there is no logic to putting a poison in my body.

There's water in rat poison as well.
A sufficient concentration of H2O in your system will kill you.

Better stay away from that water stuff too. There's no logic to putting a poison in your body.

Since Paracelcus in the 16th century, it has been widely understood in toxicology that "the dose makes the poison".

You, clearly, are of a different opinion. 500 years of toxicology, or some anonymous guy on the internet...who to believe?

bonkey · 15-02-2009 4:30pm

bonkey wrote: »

His site seems to be down, but Ben Goldacre had some stuff on fluoridation on his Bad Science blog a while ago. As is often the case for him, he ends up more-or-less walking a middle ground, arguing that neither side of the debate really have good research to back them up.

Here's teh link to that article I mentioned previously:

http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/foreign-substances-in-your-precious-bodily-fluids/

Aye Matey! · 15-02-2009 5:24pm

bonkey wrote: »

Since Paracelcus in the 16th century, it has been widely understood in toxicology that "the dose makes the poison".

An accurate statement but a comparison of H2O and NaF toxicity in terms of the liklihood of intoxication is a crticially weak argument. I'm used to seeing a researched methodology in your rebuttal posts but at this moment in time you're forsaking available scientific evidence again in the name of popular scientific consensus.

Some food for thought:

Fluoride compounds which are put in water (fluoridation), toothpaste and supplement tablets (including some vitamins) were never tested for safety before approval. Recent independent research by scientists not associated with dental trade organizations has shown the following:

Neurotoxic and Lowers IQ
In 1995, neurotoxicologist and former Director of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix published research showing that fluoride built up in the brains of animals when exposed to moderate levels. Damage to the brain occured and the behavior patterns of the animals was adversely effected. Offspring of pregnant animals receiving relatively low doses of fluoride showed permanent effects to the brain which were seen as hyperactivity (ADD-like symptoms). Young animals and adult animals given fluoride experienced the opposite effect -- hypoactivity or sluggishness. The toxic effects of fluoride on the central nervous system was subsequently confirmed by previously-classified government research. Two new epidemiological studies which tend to confirm fluoride's neurotoxic effects on the brain have shown that children exposed to higher levels of fluoride had lower IQs.

A study published in Brain Research shows that rats drinking only 1 part per million fluoride (NaF) in water had histologic lesions in their brain similar to Alzheimer's disease and dementia. In addition, evidence was seen pointing to possible damage to the blood brain barrier from extended fluoride exposure. This study was the third in a series of papers published by Varner et al. Brain Research Vol. 784 No. 12 p 284-298 (1998). Results of this recent study and other studies showing significant dangers from low-level fluoride exposure were presented at a recent scientific symposium.

Causes Cancer
The Department of Health in New Jersey found that bone cancer in male children was between two and seven times greater in areas where water was fluoridated. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) researchers confirmed the bone cancer-causing effects of fluoride at low levels in an animal model. A new study has shown that fluoridation of water is linked to uterine cancer deaths.

Changes Bone Structure and Strength
Fluoride gradually builds up in the bones and causes adverse changes to the bone structure. Quite a few studies have shown that fluoridation leads to increases in hip fractures. The tensile strength of the hip is destroyed over time by fluoride ingestion.

Causes Birth Defects and Perinatal Deaths
A toxicologist in the United Kingdom recently found that perinatal deaths in a fluoridated area was 15% higher than in neighboring non-fluoridated areas. The fluoridated area had a higher socio-economic status and would have been expected to have less perinatal deaths. The fluoridated area also had a 30% higher rate of Down's Syndrome. Chile banned fluoridation because of research by the world-reknowned researcher, Dr Albert Schatz, which showed a link to infant deaths due to fluoridation.

Proven Ineffective
Fluoride compounds in water and in supplements do not provide any significant cavity-protecting effects. All of the recent large-scale studies of water fluoridation have shown that there are no positive effects. That is why countries without fluoridation have shown an equal improvement in dental health as those with fluoridation. (See Research Item #5.) There is scientific evidence that excessive fluoride exposure leads to increased levels of caries. Even pro-fluoridation scientists admit that there is not any properly-conducted research showing that fluoride supplements help prevent cavities. (Note: check vitamins carefully to be sure they do not include fluoride.)

Impairs Immune System
Independent research has shown that fluoride impairs the functioning of the immune system. In the United States, where toxic fluoride compounds are regularly added to water and given to children since the 1960s and 1970s, we are beginning to see an overwhelming number of people of that generation who are developing chronic immune system disorders.

Causes Acute Adverse Reactions
Several double-blind studies have shown that fluoridated water can often cause acute adverse reactions (in addition to the chronic poisoning effects discussed below). Some of the effects seen in double-blind studies include: gastrointestinal symptoms, stomatitis, joint pains, polydipsia, headaches, visual disturbances, muscular weakness, and extreme tiredness. An enlightening review of a book by one famous and well-respected researcher from The Netherlands who found adverse reactions in double-blind experiments can be read here.

Causes Initial Stages of Skeletal Fluorosis
Fluoride can cause severe skeletal fluorosis at high levels. Chronic, long-term exposure to levels of fluoride commonly found in water and food in the U.S. can cause the beginning stages of skeletal fluorosis including: pains in bones and joints, sensations of burning, pricking, and tingling in the limbs, muscle weakness, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal disorders, reduced appetite, backache, osteoarthritis, etc. In fact, decades of ingestion of fluoride from water and other common sources can be expected to cause these symptoms in large numbers of people based on calculations of fluoride intake and excretion. (Keep in mind that fluoride is a cumulative poison since it builds up in the body of years.) Very few healthcare practitioners are capable of diagnosing such a condition because healthcare practitioners are not trained to test for or recognize the effects chronic poisoning from fluoride.

Increases Lead and Arsenic Exposure
Fluoride compounds put into water are often contaminated with lead, arsenic and radio nuclides since the fluoride compounds are toxic waste byproducts which largely come from pollution scrubbers of fertilizer plants. A study published in 2000 showed that the dumping of toxic silicofluoride compounds into water ("fluoridation") causes an increase in blood lead levels in children.

Fluoride Causes Osteoarthritis
In a study published in Rhuematology International in 2001, researchers found a link between fluoride exposure and the development of osteoarthritis. The level of exposure that caused osteoarthritis is common in the United States.

Contributes to the Development of Repetitive Stress Injury
A clinical study in New Zealand showed that fluoride ingestion may be a contributing factor in the development of Repetative Stress Injury (RSI) since such ingestion may encourage the development of apatite crystal formation. Elimination of fluoride plus regular supplementation of magnesium appeared to help RSI patients considerably.

Causes Permanent Disfigurement of the Teeth in Many Children
A very large and increasing number of children are experiencing dental fluorosis which is a permanent adverse structural change to the teeth.

Inhibits Key Enzymes
As fluoride builds up in different parts of the body over decades it can disrupt the actions of many key enzymes. This fact has been known for a long time.

Supresses Thyroid Function
Fluoride was given at low levels during the early to mid 20th century as an effective way of supressing thyroid function and treating hyperthyroidism. Articles and research can be found on the Thyroid web page.

Causes Large Numbers of Acute Poisonings
Fluoride is an extremely poisonous substances at exceptionally low doses and has caused a large number of acute poisonings. This is why a poison warning is now required on fluoridated toothpastes sold in the U.S.

Independent Experts Oppose Dumping Fluoride Into Water
Over 1500 professionals at the US EPA, including toxicologists and risk assessment experts voted unanimously to oppose the fluoridation initiative in California because of the health risks involved. See summary or official EPA union statement. Even the Candian Dental Association Consultant and Researcher urged people to avoid drinking fluoridated water.

Unethical
Fluoridation amounts to forced medication of the water supply. Such practices demonstrate a complete lack of ethics on the part of its promoters. Studies as early the 1930s showed extreme hazards to man and the environment due to fluoride dumping and exposure. Companies and organizations involved used the promotion of "fluoridation" as a way to avoid lawsuits due to dumping toxic wastes and later for economic gain. Please read the short history of fluoridation for more detailed information.

Banned in Many Countries
Fluoridation is not legal or not used in the overwhelming number of countries including industrialized countries. Please see Fluoride Status of Countries web page.

bonkey · 15-02-2009 9:59pm

Aye Matey! wrote: »

An accurate statement but a comparison of H2O and NaF toxicity in terms of the liklihood of intoxication is a crticially weak argument.

Its intended to be. The argument presented was critically weak. I structured the response to highlight that.

The only reason offered in the post I was responding to was that its in rat poison, its a poison, and therefore logic tells us its bad. I wished to highlight how poor an argument that is.

I side with goldacre. There is little - if any - good science on the subject. I neither side with those making the allegations that it is good and safe for you, nor with those who argue that its dangerous and hazardous. I side with those who say there isn't enough solid research to draw firm conclusions either which way...but those people tend not to appear on the conspiracy theories forum.

The notion that there is a conspiracy to push some harmful, mind-numbing substance on the populace is - at best - based on the same lack of solid, well-researched evidence as those conspiracy-promoters correctly insist is lacking in terms of supporting the idea of fluoride as some sort of miracle-cure for teeth.

at this moment in time you're forsaking available scientific evidence again in the name of popular scientific consensus.

No, I'm not. I'm rejecting extreme stances such as "its in rat poison, ergo its bad".

I'm used to people mistaking the rejection of one stance as support of another. Its unusual to see it from someone criticising the abandonment of a scientific stance, though, for I would expect such a person to be aware that unless its a binary system with only two possibilities, that the rejection of one cannot scientifically be equated with support of another.

ETA: The links you provide as "food for thought" are exactly the type of poor science that I'm talking about. Taking just the first of these, the lowest non-zero concentration of fluorides used in teh research was 75ppm. This is, as you are no doubt aware, 75 times higher than the suggested 1ppm recommendation for water fluoridation.

Going back to my "critically weak" argument about the dose makes the poison, do you think its accurate and reasonable to portray concentrations 75 times higher as being somehow relevant? Do you think its accurate and reasonable to refer to it as "moderate" concentrations? If someone drank 75 shots of whiskey in an evening, would you refer to it as "moderate alcohol consumption"? Would you believe that the findings for such consumption could be reasonably applied to someone who drank one shot of whiskey?

The poison is in the dose. You dismissed it as a critically weak argument, but the very first link in your food for though blatantly ignores this basic tenet. If I go through the rest of the links, how many do you feel will stand up to analysis as being "good science"?

Aye Matey! · 16-02-2009 12:05am

bonkey wrote: »

The notion that there is a conspiracy to push some harmful, mind-numbing substance on the populace is - at best - based on the same lack of solid, well-researched evidence as those conspiracy-promoters correctly insist is lacking in terms of supporting the idea of fluoride as some sort of miracle-cure for teeth.

This much is true. The fallacy of a supposition does not negate the fallacy of its antagonism. It should however beseech any intellect to interrogate as to why a process perseveres long since past its implementation which in terms of scientific verity is void of merit or subsidy. Reciprocally the antagonism does not negate its corrosponding supposition ergo any accrual of 'bad science' which supports an anti-fluoridation viewpoint does not provide any disparity for the fact that the fluoridation process finds its abode amid redundancy and incompetency. Though its mutually accepted between both you and I that corroborations either way are 'flakey' at best it still does not excuse your advocation of a superfluous and outmoded treatment of our water systems.

It is really as simple as this my freind:

The negative implications of water fluoridation cannot be empirically proven therefore we are without a sufficient 'raison d'être' to abmonish or reluinquish it. The very lack of scientific verity does not and should not imply a subsequent ACTION.

The positive implications of water fluoridation cannot be empirically proven therefore we are with a sufficient 'raison d'être' to abmonish or reluinquish it. The very lack of scientific verity does not and should imply should not imply INACTION.

Penultimately the science supporting the anti-fluoridation viewpoint does not herald its ending and finally the science supporting the pro-fluoridation viewpoint does not herald its continuity.

So long as you indulge in elations of non-commital apathy to either viewpoint ('pro' or 'anti') then you are consequentially albeit indirectly advocating the prolongation of an obsolete process.

(Please don't mistcontrue anything I've said here as vehichle for deliberated offense. The foremost shortcoming of textual interaction is the ommision of tone. Were mine not ommited you would hear the calm, warm reception of it inflections

.)

bonkey wrote: »

how many do you feel will stand up to analysis as being "good science"?

Granted the parts per million is a slight significant oversight. Hopefully the preceding paragraphs will have capably addressed this mode of discrepancy. I do however welcome that further scrutiny be directed at the said array of negative 'scientific' findings. What I learn as a result of each members accurate rebuttal can only refine my psyche and scope further.

djpbarry · 16-02-2009 2:16pm

mysterious wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

Or are you asking why thimerosal was added to vaccines? Because it's a potent bacteriostatic - it prevented potential contaminants from growing in the vaccine, which could have made the recipient rather ill. Which would you rather in your bloodstream; a small, harmless does of thimerosal, or a hefty dose of salmonella, staphylococcus, E. coli, etc.?

But mercury and thimserosal is added to it for what.

Did you read my post?

bonkey · 16-02-2009 5:42pm

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Penultimately the science supporting the anti-fluoridation viewpoint does not herald its ending and finally the science supporting the pro-fluoridation viewpoint does not herald its continuity.

This tends to be conform with observation as well. By-and-large, fluoridation programs (beit water-based, or salt-based) continue where established, and don't get initiated where not already present.

Which leads to the question that's highly relevant to this forum....

Where is the conspiracy?

Granted the parts per million is a slight significant oversight. Hopefully the preceding paragraphs will have capably addressed this mode of discrepancy. I do however welcome that further scrutiny be directed at the said array of negative 'scientific' findings. What I learn as a result of each members accurate rebuttal can only refine my psyche and scope further.

To be honest, this sounds a bit like you're admitting that you're not in a position to evaluate the evidence you yourself presented. If you're not, then one has to question the basis on which you presented it, given that it has a very clear bias towards the "anti-fluoridation" perspective.

If, on the other hand, you are in a position to evaluate the evidence, then I think it is more than reasonable to ask you to offer your opinion on the quality of the material you've offered before expecting anyone else to offer a detailed critique of it.

So how about it? Do you believe the material you offered as "food for thought" is representative of the perspective it is trying to support? Do you believe it does a good job of representing that perspective? Do you believe you have meaningfully evaluated it to the best of your abilities, and if so what conclusions did you draw?

mysterious · 17-02-2009 1:18pm

bonkey wrote: »

Where is the conspiracy?

The reason you said that, makes it even more disturbing.

If I don't like cheese I don't have to eat it.
If I odn't like flouride I don't have to have it.

There is plenty of evidence to say the flouridation, is not significant to benifet are teeth by any great scale. Plus it can actually create the opposite. The evidence is there, it seems your deliberately ignoring this fact.

Hitler used flouride and such chemicals in WW2.

The conspiracy is, we are given a not needed chemical into our water. Flouride is not necessary. It doesnt clean or improve the water at all. Despite chlorine also been a toxic, at least it actually cleans the water. This is a purpose. Flouride is not significant to our needs. The conspiracy is why put it in our water without a vote, or choice???????? When the evidence suggest that is does not really benifet our health. As it may help oral health, but figures don't show any major signifance. Flouride is not used in many EU countries. You don't see people with major differences do you? Or would you be so quick to try spot this argument, as you do seem biased to this flouride argument.

Do you agree with flouridation?

bonkey · 17-02-2009 2:29pm

mysterious wrote: »

The reason you said that, makes it even more disturbing.

You seem to have ignored the reason I gave.

There is plenty of evidence to say the flouridation, is not significant to benifet are teeth by any great scale.

I've not only accepted this, I've been even more stringent in my analysis of what evidence there is.

Plus it can actually create the opposite. The evidence is there, it seems your deliberately ignoring this fact.
Hitler used flouride and such chemicals in WW2.

I'm ignoring nothing of the sort.

Aye Matey provided a list of "food for thought" and I showed that the very first of these was badly flawed in terms of applicability - an argument which Aye Matey subsequently accepted as valid. I made the point that I would like to see his own evaluation of the topics he provided before I go any further. So I'm not ignoring them...I waiting to see the response of the person who put them forward is.

If you'd like to take his place, and offer your assessment of them instead, I'm more than happy to accept that instead.

Let me be clear....if you are going to assert that the evidence is there, then I want you to actually clarify which evidence you're talking about, so we can meaningfully look at it. If you can't - or won't - then your're basically saying that evidence exists that you're not willing to let people evaluate for themselves.

In terms of the comments you've offered here...

The concentrations of fluoride used in WW2 were not to the order of 1ppm, nor anywhere near it. So what is the relevance? I've already pointed out that the poison is in the dose - a point Aye Matey! accepted, but which you seem to feel merit's neither response nor consideration.
Including other "such chemicals" is equally irrelevant. We're not discussing other "such chemicals". We're discussing fluoride.

The conspiracy is, we are given a not needed chemical into our water.

A chemical that occurs naturally in water. A chemical who's concentration in water is lowered where necessary in countries with fluoridation programmes, as well as raised, so that a baseline can be met.

That's an interesting point, actually. given that you're so opposed to fluoride, and keep drawing these references to its use by Hitler...are you of the opinion that all governments should treat water to remove all traces of naturally-occurring fluoride?

Flouride is not necessary.

No-one ever claimed it was. It was introduced on the belief that it was beneficial, not that it was necessary. Its concentrations were lowered in some places, on the basis that too high a concentration was dangerous - an assessment that you certainly seem to agree with.

The conspiracy is why put it in our water without a vote, or choice????????

What part of the Constitution of whatever country you live in requires a vote for such an action. If there isn't a requirement for a vote, you have your answer right there. There was no vote because no vote was required. You elect officials to do a job - you don't get to cry for a referendum because you don't like the job they're doing.

Flouride is not used in many EU countries. You don't see people with major differences do you? Or would you be so quick to try spot this argument, as you do seem biased to this flouride argument.

You seem to have missed the post of mine where I clarified my stance. I'm not in favour of "this fluoride argument" at all. I'm opposed to allegations that its dangerous and/or that there's a conspiracy behind its use. The only recommendations I would make to a nation without a fluoridation program is to ensure that naturally-occurring concentrations are below 1ppm, and to carry out further research. To nations with fluoridation programs, I would say that they should also carry out fuirther research.

drinking water (Sodium fluoride)

Comments