Take your medicine.?.

alastair

phantom_lord wrote: »

what difference does it make if it's used or not? it's in no way comparable.

Give that it's a standard propaganda point with the anti-fluoridation crowd - it's worth highlighting the misinformation.

nullzero

phantom_lord wrote: »

what difference does it make if it's used or not? it's in no way comparable.

chlorine is used as a weapon of war, it's also used in swimming pools. no one seems to see any reason to worry about that?

It's more about concentration levels and applications then the substance itself.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

You were happy to discuss flouride in general when you thought you were going to be seen as being "right".
Funny that.

Nope - I was happy to discuss fluoridation - which only involves sodium fluoride. Not sure how you managed to get confused in that regard.

phantom_lord

nullzero wrote: »

It's more about concentration levels and applications then the substance itself.

yes that's my point. cters can't seem to grasp that.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Nope - I was happy to discuss fluoridation - which only involves sodium fluoride. Not sure how you managed to get confused in that regard.

Read your posts, you've been quoting me for a while and responding and I believe water flouridation came up once in refernce to a link you posted, the rest of the discussion was to do with fluoride's use in rodenticides.

You're starting to display signs of narcissism Alastair.
We can all read your posts and see your contradictions with regard to what you've been discussing.

nullzero

phantom_lord wrote: »

yes that's my point. cters can't seem to grasp that.

Not quite, water fluoridation isn't conclusively good or bad, it's a grey area.
It's not "Cters", or "sceptics", people will ask questions when they are valid.
If other people want to feel fluoridation is fine that's their business.

Perhaps the best thing in the long run is to allow people to purchase their own sodium fluoide and add it to their water themselves and save the tax payer footing the bill.
Freedom of choice for all, surely thats not a bad idea.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Read your posts, you've been quoting me for a while and responding and I believe water flouridation came up once in refernce to a link you posted, the rest of the discussion was to do with fluoride's use in rodenticides.

You're starting to display signs of narcissism Alastair.
We can all read your posts and see your contradictions with regard to what you've been discussing.

:rolleyes: - to recap:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Podman
It is Sodium Fluoride in our drinking water and toothpaste.
...
Sodium Fluoride is the main ingredient in Rat Poison. In small doses it pacifies people, making them more likely to do as they are told.

No it's not, and no it doesn't.

Lets see a link to rat poison with sodium fluoride listed as an active ingredient (let alone the main active ingredient). Just the one will do nicely.

Sodium Fluoride is commonly used in fumigants (for insects), it's just not used as rat poison.

Sodium Fluoride is used as an insect repellent in wood treatment - it might well kill them in large enough doses, but it's primarily used as a repellent (in fumigant form). It doesn't do a damn thing to rats - and consequently is not used as an active ingredient in rat poison. Insect repellent (unsurprisingly) doesn't really bother rats.

What happens if you dose rats with Sodium Fluoride for two years?
(Survival of rats and mice was not affected by sodium fluoride administration.)

Sodium Fluoride is used in structural fumigants - timber is dosed with liquid insect repellent, and the vapour thrown off is lethal only to insects - not to rodents. It's more normally used as a liquid spray or bath for preserving timber from long term insect infestation - and again it doesn't kill rodents.

Regarding the link - fluorosis occurs in humans too - its no secret - but only at levels above those used for water flouridation. The levels the rats were dosed with were very high - and sodium fluoride is a toxin in large doses - but then so is table salt. And again - the rats (and mice) were not killed by longterm exposure to high doses of the compound you claim is used as a rat poison.

Sodium Fluoride is not. So let's stick to the subject under discussion.

See any contradictions/variation in the compound under discussion there? No - neither do I.

phantom_lord

nullzero wrote: »

Not quite, water fluoridation isn't conclusively good or bad, it's a grey area.

that wasn't the conclusion the supreme court came to. they found at the levels used there are no ill health effects caused.

uprising2

phantom_lord wrote: »

You realise that's their standards right? Not a list of ingredients?

Yes that's their standards and average amount's of each chemical in tap water.
Notice this bit:

These standards are normally based on a life time's consumption and also take into account the intake from food and other sources.
Many of the chemicals listed below are not normally found in drinking water, or only occur in local circumstances.

It says they are normally based and not normally found or only occur in local circumstances, what it doesn't say is that they are definately NOT found in water, and cannot be found in tap water.

So all of the said chemicals would be in water to varying amounts inside the DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL area, which would be most of the greater Dublin area, if they were never found in tap water EVER they wouldn't make it onto the list would they?

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

Yes that's their standards and average amount's of each chemical in tap water.

The standard isn't the average - it's a safe maximum - there's no suggestion that those figures reflect the actual chemical content of the water (let alone the average).

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

:rolleyes: - to recap:
See any contradictions/variation in the compound under discussion there? No - neither do I.

Yeah I do seeing that a lot of what I was discussing with you was based on this post I made...

I'm having difficulty finding ingredient lists for fumigants, a lot of info is out there for anticoagulants as they're more commonly used.

I found one link regarding how Flourides/Fluorines ( Sodium Flouride, Sulfuryl Flouride, Sodium Fluosilicate) are used in pest control, it displys a number of patents and information.

http://www.fluoride-history.de/p-insecticides.htm

It would seem that each pest control company used their own specific mix of chemicals in their fumigants (kind of like a secret sauce), so it's proving hard to find useful info. Maybe I just need to try harder though.

Seeing you just quoted mostly your own posts I'm left wondering what all that has to do with me?

uprising2

alastair wrote: »

Lets see a link to rat poison with sodium fluoride listed as an active ingredient (let alone the main active ingredient). Just the one will do nicely.

Here's ONE link for you

Sodium Flouride in Rat Poison

phantom_lord

uprising2 wrote: »

Yes that's their standards and average amount's of each chemical in tap water/QUOTE]

no it's not. it's the limits on what's acceptable. and prob based on eu guidelines.

uprising2 wrote: »

Nif they were never found in tap water EVER they wouldn't make it onto the list would they?

of course they would. just because it's not normally in it doesn't mean they're not going to have a limit for what's safe.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Yeah I do seeing that a lot of what I was discussing with you was based on this post I made... Seeing you just quoted mostly your own posts I'm left wondering what all that has to do with me?

I guess you're just ignoring your reference to sodium fluoride in that post?

I'm still waiting for that link to sodium fluoride as an active ingredient in rat poison btw.

nullzero

phantom_lord wrote: »

uprising2 wrote: »

Yes that's their standards and average amount's of each chemical in tap water/QUOTE]

no it's not. it's the limits on what's acceptable. and prob based on eu guidelines.



of course they would. just because it's not normally in it doesn't mean they're not going to have a limit for what's safe.

I made this point to you earlier...

Perhaps the best thing in the long run is to allow people to purchase their own sodium fluoide and add it to their water themselves and save the tax payer footing the bill.
Freedom of choice for all, surely thats not a bad idea.

Surely it's the best solution.
Those who want it buy it, those who don't don't have to.

uprising2

phantom_lord wrote: »

what difference does it make if it's used or not? it's in no way comparable.

chlorine is used as a weapon of war, it's also used in swimming pools. no one seems to see any reason to worry about that?

Chlorine is also found in tap water and sometime's you can actually smell it stronger than at other times, another chemical that has no place in tap "drinking" water.

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

Here's ONE link for you

Sodium Flouride in Rat Poison

A set of the usual anti-fluoridation claims about rat poison? Not really what I'm looking for. How about a link to a rat poison that includes sodium fluoride as an active ingredient (and lets recall its the same stuff the lab rats injested for a couple of years without any lethal impact).

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

I guess you're just ignoring your reference to sodium fluoride in that post?

I'm still waiting for that link to sodium fluoride as an active ingredient in rat poison btw.

Amongst other references Alastair.
Why don't you go find the link yourself then?
I explained the difficulty I had finding it, even though it's recognised as an ingredient in rodenticide fumigants, I couldn't find it on NWO heading paper signed by the high king of the lizard people, but I did provide you with a link.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

A set of the usual anti-fluoridation claims about rat poison? Not really what I'm looking for. How about a link to a rat poison that includes sodium fluoride as an active ingredient (and lets recall its the same stuff the lab rats injested for a couple of years without any lethal impact).

Again, comparing fluoridated water to poisonous fumigants is absurd.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Amongst other references Alastair.
Why don't you go find the link yourself then?
I explained the difficulty I had finding it, even though it's recognised as an ingredient in rodenticide fumigants, I couldn't find it on NWO heading paper signed by the high king of the lizard people, but I did provide you with a link.

You know whay you had difficulty in finding it?

Because it isn't a rat poison. They wolf the stuff down for months on end and still don't fall over.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Again, comparing fluoridated water to poisonous fumigants is absurd.

Glad we're in agreement on something.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Glad we're in agreement on something.

Funny, you're taking that out of context.

You're proposing that rats are immune to the effects of fluoride based on their exposure to fluoridated water.
Had those rats been fumigated with a fumigant using a fluoride based compound they would have died. You're claiming (as far as I can tell) they would have been fine.
That's what's absurd.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

They wolf the stuff down for months on end and still don't fall over.

That's a bit of an exageration to say the least.

uprising2

alastair wrote: »

The standard isn't the average - it's a safe maximum - there's no suggestion that those figures reflect the actual chemical content of the water (let alone the average).

That's an ass saving page for Dublin City Council, it says they occur in VARYING amount's, would you take this from Dublin City Council as scientific proof?

These standards are normally based on a life time's consumption and also take into account the intake from food and other sources.
Many of the chemicals listed below are not normally found in drinking water, or only occur in local circumstances.

phantom_lord

so we're all in agreement then that based on the weight of evidence that at the levels used it's only beneficial to health?

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Funny, you're taking that out of context.

You're proposing that rats are immune to the effects of fluoride based on their exposure to fluoridated water.
Had those rats been fumigated with a fumigant using a fluoride based compound they would have died. You're claiming (as far as I can tell) they would have been fine.
That's what's absurd.

Just to be clear on what I'm saying (though it should be obvious)

1. Sodium Fluoride is not a rat poison.
2. Sodium Fluoride/fluoridated water does not placate humans
3. Sodium Fluoride is not an active ingredient of rat poison because it's not sufficiently toxic to rats.
4. Giving rats high doses of injested Sodium Fluoride over prolonged periods of time does not kill rats.

Or to make it even simpler - fluoridation isn't putting rat poison in the water, and it doesn't work anything like lithium. Both of which are claims made by the CT crowd.

phantom_lord

uprising2 wrote: »

That's an ass saving page for Dublin City Council, it says they occur in VARYING amount's, would you take this from Dublin City Council as scientific proof?

until a few mins ago you were taking that page as proof of what is in the water?

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

That's an ass saving page for Dublin City Council, it says they occur in VARYING amount's, would you take this from Dublin City Council as scientific proof?

What's the problem - they can vary all over the shop - and the figures listed are still the safe maximum - there's no 'scientific proof' because they're not telling you any actual amount they have found - just the safe maximums they have to adhere to.

uprising2

alastair wrote: »

A set of the usual anti-fluoridation claims about rat poison? Not really what I'm looking for. How about a link to a rat poison that includes sodium fluoride as an active ingredient (and lets recall its the same stuff the lab rats injested for a couple of years without any lethal impact).

Ohh very sorry about that sir, just for you I googled "sodium fluoride active ingredient in rat poison" and got this

sodium fluoride active ingredient in rat poison

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Just to be clear on what I'm saying (though it should be obvious)

1. Sodium Fluoride is not a rat poison.
2. Sodium Flouride/fluoridated water does not placate humans
3. Sodium Flouride is not an active ingredient of rat poison because it's not sufficiently toxic to rats.
4. Giving rats high doses of injested Sodium Flouride over prolonged periods of time does not kill rats.

Or to make it even simpler - flouridation isn't putting rat poison in the water, and it doesn't work anything like lithium. Both of which are claims made by the CT crowd.

That doesn't make sense.
No body is saying that fluoridated water is what is used as a rat poison, you can't for instance throw tap water at a rat and expect it to die in front of you.
What is being said is that fluoride is used in rat poison, so why are we using our tax money to pay for it to go in our water?
Fluoride based compounds do make up fumigants that are used to poison rats.
You're so quick to be condescending, but you don't seem to be paying attention yourself Alastair.

If you want fluoride in your water you should be buying it yourself and and then adding it to your water yourself.
Those of us who don't want it then won't see our tax money being spent on something we don't want or need.

It's simple (or should be obvious), if you want fluoridated water you pay to fluoridate your own water, leave the rest of us out of it.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

No body is saying that fluoridated water is what is used as a rat poison.

They're not?

Podman wrote: »

Sodium Fluoride is a poison.
It is Sodium Fluoride in our drinking water and toothpaste.

Sodium Fluoride is the main ingredient in Rat Poison. In small doses it pacifies people, making them more likely to do as they are told.

Yitzhak Rabin

uprising2 wrote: »

Ohh very sorry about that sir, just for you I googled "sodium fluoride active ingredient in rat poison" and got this

sodium fluoride active ingredient in rat poison

Haha, the second link that shows up is this thread!

None of the results show that there is sodium fluoride in rat poison. Just CT's sites saying that there is.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

What is being said is that fluoride is used in rat poison

Ah, now - not that same slippery act. What is being said is that Sodium Fluoride is used in rat poison (when it's not)

nullzero wrote: »

you don't seem to be paying attention yourself Alastair.

No - I'm happy that I'm pretty much in tune with what's being claimed, cheers.

phantom_lord

nullzero wrote: »

That doesn't make sense.
No body is saying that fluoridated water is what is used as a rat poison, you can't for instance throw tap water at a rat and expect it to die in front of you.
What is being said is that fluoride is used in rat poison, so why are we using our tax money to pay for it to go in our water?
Fluoride based compounds do make up fumigants that are used to poison rats.
You're so quick to be condescending, but you don't seem to be paying attention yourself Alastair.

If you want fluoride in your water you should be buying it yourself and and then adding it to your water yourself.
Those of us who don't want it then won't see our tax money being spent on something we don't want or need.

It's simple (or should be obvious), if you want fluoridated water you pay to fluoridate your own water, leave the rest of us out of it.

if it's only benefical what's the problem?

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

They're not?

No evidently they're not, those quoted posts don't support what you're saying at all Alastair.

You're missing the point that fluoride is used in compounds that make up fumigants that poison rats.
It's also in our water.
The water itself isn't as poisonous as a dose of fumigant, although there's no reason to have it in our water as long as we have concerns about it's health implications.

Again, if you want to ingest fluoride you should be free to buy it and add it to your water, sprinkle it on your corn flakes or whatever floats your boat.
The rest of us should be free to not have to ingest it, and pay for it at the same time.

uprising2

alastair wrote: »

(and lets recall its the same stuff the lab rats injested for a couple of years without any lethal impact).

Ohh yea that's very relevent here, so anything rats eat and don't die is safe to us, and there's me buying food from a shop when all along I could have saved a few bob by eating from my neighbours bins.
YUM YUM

nullzero

yekahs wrote: »

Haha, the second link that shows up is this thread!

None of the results show that there is sodium fluoride in rat poison. Just CT's sites saying that there is.

And the evidence that fluoride is good for us comes from government and big pharma backed research.

phantom_lord

uprising2 wrote: »

Ohh very sorry about that sir, just for you I googled "sodium fluoride active ingredient in rat poison" and got this

sodium fluoride active ingredient in rat poison

nice of you to prove his point

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Ah, now - not that same slippery act. What is being said is that Sodium Fluoride is used in rat poison (when it's not)

No - I'm happy that I'm pretty much in tune with what's being claimed, cheers.

Slippery act?
We're talking about compounds made from sodium fluoride, whats the problem?

phantom_lord

nullzero wrote: »

And the evidence that fluoride is good for us comes from government and big pharma backed research.

did you read the court case i linked earlier?

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

No evidently they're not, those quoted posts don't support what you're saying at all Alastair.

You're missing the point that fluoride is used in compounds that make up fumigants that poison rats.

We are not talking about any other fluoride compound - we are talking about Sodium Fluoride - the only compound used in water fluoridation, and the unambigious compound referenced as a rat poison and human emotive placater.

Podman wrote: »

Sodium Fluoride is a poison.
It is Sodium Fluoride in our drinking water and toothpaste.

Sodium Fluoride is the main ingredient in Rat Poison. In small doses it pacifies people, making them more likely to do as they are told.

nullzero

phantom_lord wrote: »

if it's only benefical what's the problem?

It's not conclusive that it is benificial.
There's evidence to suggest that it is anything but benificial.
So therefor if you want it, you can pay for it, I'm not going to bother myself thanks very much.

uprising2

phantom_lord wrote: »

until a few mins ago you were taking that page as proof of what is in the water?

No I said it's an ass saving page for DCC, so when somebody finds these chemicals in their healthy drinking tap water they (DCC) can say "Ohh yes, but we did say they may be found to varying degree's in tap water", it's not scientific proof, just ass saving.

Yitzhak Rabin

nullzero wrote: »

Slippery act?
We're talking about compounds made from sodium fluoride, whats the problem?

They are compounds made from fluorine. Not sodium fluoride.

A compound changes its properties drastically from the original element.

Like how Sodium reacts violently with water and would burn skin.

Clourine is a poisonous chemical used as a war weapon.

But... Sodium Clouride is the most widely used food seasoning in the world.

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

Ohh yea that's very relevent here, so anything rats eat and don't die is safe to us, and there's me buying food from a shop when all along I could have saved a few bob by eating from my neighbours bins.

Funnily enough I'm not advocating you take up a rat's diet, I'm pointing out that the supposed main active ingredient in rat poison doesn't actually poison rats. That's not too tricky an argument to take on, is it?

uprising2

alastair wrote: »

What's the problem - they can vary all over the shop - and the figures listed are still the safe maximum - there's no 'scientific proof' because they're not telling you any actual amount they have found - just the safe maximums they have to adhere to.

Different people drink varying amounts of water, and if you look back you will see that a lot of the chemicals aren't removed from tap water at all.

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

No I said it's an ass saving page for DCC, so when somebody finds these chemicals in their healthy drinking tap water they (DCC) can say "Ohh yes, but we did say they may be found to varying degree's in tap water", it's not scientific proof, just ass saving.

It's ass-saving to the degree that they can point to a safe limit for a pollutant if it's found. Quite how it would save anybody's ass beyond that is lost on me for one.

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

Different people drink varying amounts of water, and if you look back you will see that a lot of the chemicals aren't removed from tap water at all.

Because they don't exceed the safe maximum. That's now standards are supposed to work.

phantom_lord

uprising2 wrote: »

No I said it's an ass saving page for DCC, so when somebody finds these chemicals in their healthy drinking tap water they (DCC) can say "Ohh yes, but we did say they may be found to varying degree's in tap water", it's not scientific proof, just ass saving.

ha earlier you were insisting that it was proof of what was in the water, and even now you still don't understand what the page says.

i also see nullzero can't back up any reason for his irrational fear of fluoridation as it's only been proved to be beneficial.

and no one can find any rat poision with sodium fluoride as its main active ingredient

i guess our work here is done.

nullzero

I was wondering if the rest of you would agree that the best path to take would be to make water fluoridation an optional thing.
I've made the point a few times already but surely those who feel (rightly or wrongly depending on opinion) that fluoridation is detrimental to their health should be aloud to consume non fluoridated water whilst those who wish to continue with fluoridated water could pay for that themselves?

Any thoughts?