Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New study shows, Fluoride causes Brain Damage.

1235»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Not quite. I've been reading up on, well, one of the sources mentioned in the article...

    topnav_naidlogo.png

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=317

    Seems they reckon that Humans may be more sensitive to genotoxicity than rodents, amongst other reckonses. It's an interesting read actually.

    I'll be back with a few quotes soon. :p

    Excellent. Something to actually get stuck into.

    Cheers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    But I'm not interested in digging up more stuff for you to promptly ignore.

    pacman.gifI wonder why??

    Well, i'll take it it's untrue then, along with all the other bull you have clogged up the thread with.
    (Details below)
    King Mob wrote: »
    You are simply trying to avoid my point as usual.

    Avoid your point??
    You're simply trying to avoid facing the fact that your 'point' is in fact based on dishonesty and bull****e.
    Let's have a look shall we?
    Or as you asked me yourself:
    "Then perhaps you can explain which ones I've made that are false or unfair."
    Certainly.


    Here's a selection of some of your 'points' about the graph:
    King Mob wrote: »
    They fail to mention that all those other countries have alternative means of fluoridation such as fluoridated salt.

    All?
    Its completely untrue that all those other countries have alternative means of fluoridation. This is when you started to trot out your bullcrap, dishonesty and misrepresentations regarding the graph.
    King Mob wrote: »
    So they are either totally ill informed about what they are talking about or deliberately left that bit out. Not sure which is worse.

    Indeed..

    At this stage i asked for proof to back up your dubious facts.
    No reply of course.
    Wonder why..
    In the end i had to do your research for you.
    King Mob wrote: »
    However the unfluoridated populations are in fact getting fluoride by other means.
    More bullcrap, and dishonestly phrased.
    'Getting fluoride' could mean anything.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Most countries in Europe in fact fluoridate by other means.
    No,in fact they do not.
    And i gather you are weren't trying to shift the goalposts from those specific countries on the graph..
    King Mob wrote: »
    But both populations are getting fluoride, though from different sources.

    Indeed.
    Weasely.
    Nope.
    King Mob wrote: »
    AFAIR only one or two have actually banned it, the rest don't do it because they use other methods
    Oh dear.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And in many of them fluoridated salt, milk or other products are available.

    Incorrect.
    Yet again. This is getting ridiculous at this stage.

    Fluoridated milk: zero zilch of the countries we're discussing.

    "Currently milk fluoridation programs exist in several countries including Bulgaria, Chile, China, Peru, the Russian Federation, Thailand, and the UK."
    http://www.allianceforacavityfreefuture.org/en/us/technologies/systemic-fluorides/milk-fluoridation


    Fluoridated salt is available in all of 3 countries.
    Not 'many of them'.rolleyes.gif
    In those three countries, people have a choice of buying fluoridated or unfluoridated salt.
    This is certainly not on a par with water fluoridation for many obvious reasons and to suggest otherwise is inaccurate/dishonest.

    Infants and young children consume next to no salt. (as every parent knows)
    Many choose very low salt diets to stay healthy or at least try to limit as much as possible.

    Other facts regarding salt fluoridation:

    Germany:
    -Fluoridated salt has only been available since 1991.
    (The graph covers the years 1965 to 2000)
    -In the course of the next thirteen years, the market share of fluoridated and iodized domestic salt rose to 63.1%
    -Fluoridated and iodized salt is still not allowed to be used in restaurant or cafeteria kitchens.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156167

    France:
    Domestic salt both with added fluoride (at 250 ppm) and without fluoride has been on the market since 1986.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156166

    Switzerland:
    After an early start in 1955, the introduction and acceptance of fluoridated salt (FS) for domestic use was slow in Switzerland because up to around 1980 there was no consistent strategy for the support of the use of FS. Part of the dental community still supported water fluoridation, while others criticized the insufficient concentration of fluoride in the salt (90 ppm). All Swiss cantons have a historical monopoly on salt trade, and until 1983 most cantonal governments resolved to authorize the sale of fluoridated domestic salt. Some of the cantonal governments made fluoridated salt the only available type of "kitchen salt" in 1-kg packages. After the concentration had been increased to 250 ppm in 1983, the use of FS gained further acceptance. A temporary setback occurred in 1992-1994, but was successfully met with by making the FS available in several package sizes, while other types of salt (with or without iodine) were available in 500 g packages only. By 2004, the market share of fluoridated domestic salt reached 88%. Further endeavours aim at increasing the use of FS by large kitchens. FS is available in portions of 12.5 kg (since 2001) and 25 kg (since 1976).
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156165


    As for 'other products being available'
    Yes am sure there would be fluoride supplements available on prescription, but that doesn't count as fluoridation in the context of what we're talking about, that's if we're using non-weasely tactics here..

    Of course no apologies/corrections at any stage from you.
    King Mob wrote: »
    No, that guy is fairly convinced that they are after his precious bodily fluids.
    Seems you are as well.

    Still prattling on.
    And passing smarmy remarks as usual, all the while trying to pass off blatant untruths as facts in a desperate attempt to prove your crap points, when in fact its clear you either don't have a clue what you're talking about; or my personal pick: you do know the facts, but they get in the way of your non-argument.

    Toodloo.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So lots of random accusations, selective quotes missing the point of basic english words....

    And yet you still can't actually address the point I made.
    even if we assume all your arguments are true, and that only 3 countries fluoridate their salt and no other fluoridation counts, why then does the graph not adjust for the large percentages of people in these countries who are fluoridated?

    If you can't answer this simple direct question in one go, is there really any point in my going back and tackling any of there other points?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    You seem to be in denial about your lies and weasely misrepresentations.
    Not my problem.
    I dont see any reason to continue discussing anything with you if you resort to these tactics.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    You seem to be in denial about your lies and weasely misrepresentations.
    Not my problem.
    I dont see any reason to continue discussing anything with you if you resort to these tactics.
    And I would address those points if you had actually addressed the direct simple question posed to you.
    You can't.

    Hence any effort I made to address your above points would be wasted as you would still be ignoring the central point I have been trying to get you to address for the last 3-4 pages. And chances are you'd simply ignore those counter points too.

    The fact is the chart is a dishonest representation of the facts and is one example of the propaganda presented in the report which you have swallowed uncritically.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    And I would address those points if you had actually addressed the direct simple question posed to you.
    You can't.

    Hence any effort I made to address your above points would be wasted as you would still be ignoring the central point I have been trying to get you to address for the last 3-4 pages. And chances are you'd simply ignore those counter points too.

    The fact is the chart is a dishonest representation of the facts and is one example of the propaganda presented in the report which you have swallowed uncritically.

    A pathetic attempt to save face.
    Stubornness and denial knows no bounds it seems.
    I will be adding more links to this thread, but i shall be ignoring your input from now on in light of your awful bull****.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    A pathetic attempt to save face.
    Stubornness and denial knows no bounds it seems.
    I will be adding more links to this thread, but i shall be ignoring your input from now on in light of your awful bull****.

    That's great, and you'll still have ignored my point.

    Though I'll find it hilarious that you're pretending to "just be getting the information out there" while totally ignoring any critical points against whatever propaganda and psuedo-science you repost.

    Perhaps you should get a blog, that way you don't have to look at people questioning what you believe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    How many people have suffered brain damage from fluoride so far?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    studiorat wrote: »
    How many people have suffered brain damage from fluoride so far?

    I've counted 5 so far.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    ed2hands wrote: »

    This says nothing about added fluoride in drinking water. The main causes mentioned here are from naturally occurring fluoride in water and cheap teas.

    The other is an abstract from an literature review that states :
    The results of the three reviews showed that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries in children and adults. With the exception of dental fluorosis, no association between adverse effects and water fluoridation has been established. Water fluoridation reduces caries for all social classes, and there is some evidence that it may reduce the oral health gap between social classes.

    "The Fluoride Debate" link is anti-fluoride site dressed up as a impartial discussion.

    Why are you posting these?


Advertisement