This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Fluoride

Jump to new

I should have known better than get into an argument with you anti-fluoride ... who have no understanding of therapeutic doses and similar concepts but are happy to keep parroting "the dictionary says fluoride is a poison so it must be bad". You do realise that there is such a medical condition as water posioning? Or when you require an anti-coagulant for medical treatment will you say "Sorry doc, don't treat me with anti-coagulants because they are used as rat poison"? Any chemical is neither all bad or all good but has an effect that is a function of dosage.
 
If we were to accept your argument, could you comment on why you would feel it is acceptable to force fluoride on those who do not want it (regardless of their reasons), rather than subsidise or entirely pay for the cost of providing a personal supply of fluoride to those who do wish to consume it.
I am quite happy for my tax dollars to go to providing a free supply of fluoride tablets for any Queenslander who wishes to add it to their drinking water.

For me this comes down to a moral argument as much as anything else.

The supply of clean drinking water is a basic right of every person in a civilised society such as ours. To add a substance which many people - for their own very good reasons - do not want in that basic water supply is rendering that water supply undrinkable.
 
freddy2 said:
I should have known better than get into an argument with you anti-fluoride ... who have no understanding of therapeutic doses and similar concepts
Click to expand...

As it turns out I know quite a bit about therapeutic doses and similar concepts.
Originally Posted by Whiskers
That's why there is a poisons schedule monitered by the Poisons Schedule Standing Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
Click to expand...

but are happy to keep parroting "the dictionary says fluoride is a poison so it must be bad".
Click to expand...

The dictionary said poison is

  • a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.
  • Chemistry. to destroy or diminish the activity of (a catalyst or enzyme).
Click to expand...

You incorrectly expanded the dictionary "says fluoride" is a poison.

You do realise that there is such a medical condition as water posioning?
Click to expand...

Indeed. But strictly speaking it is not poisoning. Water intoxication or hyperhydration, occurs when extreme amounts of water are consumed in a short period of time. It's as a direct result of an imbalance of electrolytes in body fluids

Deaths from water intoxication in normal individuals result from either water drinking contests, in which individuals attempt to consume large amounts of water in just a few minutes, or long periods of intense exercise when electrolytes are not replenished with the water.

Water isn't poisoning in the true sense of poisoning, because it doesn't have an inherant property to destroy health or life and destroy or diminish the activity of (a catalyst or enzyme).

The problem of water intoxication or hyperhydration comes about because of some extreme activity stretching the body to the limit without a proper balance of electrolytes.

Or when you require an anti-coagulant for medical treatment will you say "Sorry doc, don't treat me with anti-coagulants because they are used as rat poison"?
Click to expand...

Actually I take a low dose asprin daily as does my GP for just that. But you make the silly comparrison.

Any chemical is neither all bad or all good but has an effect that is a function of dosage.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you finished off with a relatively intelligent statement.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Due to what? Just wondering...

Oil use at the alumina plant???
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure it was a single source Smurf, but the power station and alumina plant were mentioned.

A couple of friends used to live just north west of Gladstone and the fruit industry there had a lot of problems from sulphur residue settling in the area on the prevailing south east winds. It got a bit of a hot issue in the 1990's. But I haven't had much info since.
 










I'm still wondering why people think putting poison in our Drinking Water is a Good Thing.

hhhmmmm, maybe it's the Sodium Fluoride they consumed in the drinking water that ate out the intelligence part of their brain...
 

Options:
1) No fluoride in water supply, government does nothing for anyone
2) No fluoride in water supply, government pays for fluoride treatment for those who want it
3) Fluoride in water supply, government does nothing for those who don't want fluoride in water supply
4) Fluoride in water supply, government pays for people who don't want fluoride in water supply.

Best option = benefits - costs (in terms of $, health outcomes, however you want to measure it)
So obviously the government has decided that the best option for society is 3).

And just like for immunisations this does not mean there will be no negative effects, just that comparatively society is better off with water fluoridation.
 
You make it sound so REASONABLE to put poison in the water.

How about doing some research on the origin and people behind Water Fluoridation...

The Fluoride Deception

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3
 
Kimosabi said:
You make it sound so REASONABLE to put poison in the water.

How about doing some research on the origin and people behind Water Fluoridation...
Click to expand...

The people behind water fluoridation seem to be dentists, epidemiologists, and government beurucrats amongst others. Why don't you explain who you think are behind it. I don't see some great conspiracy just people trying to improve society by reducing dental caries.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation :

While the use of fluorides for prevention of dental caries was discussed in the 19th century in Europe,[6] community water fluoridation in the United States owes its origin in part to the research of Dr. Frederick McKay, who pressed the dental community for an investigation into what was then known as "Colorado brown stain."[7] In 1909, of the 2,945 children seen by Dr. McKay, 87.5% had some degree of stain or mottling. All the affected children were from the Pikes Peak region. Despite having a negative impact on the physical appearance of their teeth, the children with stained or mottled teeth also had fewer cavities than other children. McKay brought the problem to the attention of Dr. G.V. Black, and Black's interest into the Colorado stain led to greater interest throughout the dental profession.

Initial hypotheses for the staining included poor nutrition, overconsumption of pork or milk, radium exposure, childhood diseases, or a calcium deficiency in the local drinking water.[7] In 1931, researchers from the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) finally concluded that the cause of the Colorado stain was a high concentration of fluoride ions in the region's drinking water (ranging from 2 to 13.7 ppm) and areas with lower concentrations had no staining (1 ppm or less).[8] Pikes Peak's rock formations contained the mineral cryolite, one of whose constituents is fluorine. As the rain and snow fell, the resulting runoff water dissolved fluoride which made its way into the water supply.

Dental research then moved toward determining a safe level for fluoride in water supplies. The research had two goals: (1) to warn communities with a high concentration of fluoride of the danger, initiating a reduction of the fluoride levels in order to prevent the Colorado stain, currently known as dental fluorosis, and (2) to encourage communities with a low concentration of fluoride in drinking water to increase the fluoride levels in order to help prevent tooth decay.

The classic epidemiological study to attempt to determine the optimal level of fluoride in water was led by Dr. H. Trendley Dean, a dental officer of the U.S. Public Health Service, in 1934.[9][10] His research on the fluoride - dental caries relationship, published in 1942, included 7,000 children from 21 cities in Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The study concluded that the optimal level of fluoride which minimized the risk of severe fluorosis but had positive benefits for tooth decay was 1 part per million (ppm). In 1939, Dr. Gerald J. Cox[11] conducted laboratory tests on fluoride and suggested adding fluoride to drinking water (or other media such as milk or bottled water) in order to improve oral health.[12] In 1937, dentists Henry Klein and Carroll E. Palmer had considered the possibility of fluoridation to prevent cavities after their evaluation of data gathered by a Public Health Service team at dental examinations of Native American children.[13] In a series of papers published afterwards (1937-1941), yet disregarded by his colleagues within the U.S.P.H.S., Klein summarized his findings on tooth development in children and related problems in epidemiological investigations on caries prevalence.

In the mid 1940s, four widely-cited studies were conducted. The researchers investigated cities that had both fluoridated and unfluoridated water. The first pair was Muskegon, Michigan and Grand Rapids, Michigan, making Grand Rapids the first community in the world to modify its fluoride levels in drinking water to benefit dental health on January 25, 1945.[14] Kingston, New York was paired with Newburgh, New York.[15] Oak Park, Illinois was paired with Evanston, Illinois. Sarnia, Ontario was paired with Brantford, Ontario, Canada.[16] The research found a decrease in the incidence of tooth decay in cities which had added fluoride to water supplies.
 

Freddy, I grew up with that attitude for a long time, because I trusted and believed what was advertised about fluoride toothpaste.

What I did when confronted with information that went severely against the grain of what I had been led to believe, I adopted an objective position to research the issues. You should also take an objective, as opposed to subjective search of the issues, otherwise you will be among the coming minority who will suffer from the effects in ignorance.

Freddy, the bit you selected and pasted from wiki was under the heading, History It is just that, hiostory.

If you read the whole page starting from the top, a normal, rational person would at least start to get some concerns about the safety of fluoride.


There is the first clue freddy, Fluoride is a toxic by product of a number of industries including the manufacture of fertiliser.

Then further down the page...


Freddy, on the issue of 'conspiracy' and 'people just trying to improve society', you should should research the recall and banning of numerous drugs and products produced by industry in the name of trying to improve society. A notable recent example is asbestos produced by Hardies and proven that they not only should have done the work to prove it safe, but actually did their level best to hide the truth so they could make huge amounts of money out of a resource they had.

And you have the audacity to suggest that some people, organisations and businesses don't conspire to expand their own income and profits at the expense of the community.

Try this for a quick search of banned drugs created by companies supposedly to improve society, err to fatten their own wallets. http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/ed_outreach/health-safety/drug_testing/banned_drug_classes.pdf
 

If you bother to watch the video's that I posted, they tell you who was behind the concept of putting Fluoride in your drinking water.

The video clearly identify's the Atomic and Aluminium industries that funded dodgy research as the main drivers of putting industrial waste at profit, into your drinking water...
 
freddy2 said:
In 1931, researchers from the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) finally concluded...
Click to expand...
Isn't an Alcoa study into fluoride a bit like a Shell study into the environmental effects of oil drilling or a Philip Morris study into the health effects of smoking? Vested interest...
 
Smurf1976 said:
Isn't an Alcoa study into fluoride a bit like a Shell study into the environmental effects of oil drilling or a Philip Morris study into the health effects of smoking? Vested interest...
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly.
What's the bet that Alcoa et al have made generous donations to the appropriate political parties?
 
And don't forget the self-interested dentists that want fluoride in the water. Oh, but that's not right they actually lose business from the reduction in dental caries. Guess the self-interest conspiracy theory isn't very logical. Would a company such as ALCOA with $30.4 billion revenue participate in a conspiracy to fluoridate water for miniscule amounts of money (million or 2) - I think not.
 

freddy, you don't know Braceface do you?

You obviously haven't read all the research posted here or watched the video's posted above.

Two obvious points freddy.

Firstly, all the evidence does not support a significant, if any reduction in dental caries. But for the sake of arguement, I go with the assumption that children raised on fluoridated water have less caries. What the research also says it that fluoridation increases the incidence of fluorosis, causes teeth to become harder and more brittle, consequently the outer enamel layer can split and even fall completely off. The obvious financial benifit for dentists is they get to perform much more fissure crack sealing, whitening and broken teeth repairs, caps, etc.

Secondly, companies that produce fluoride by-products face enormous costs to safely store or dispose of fluorine/fluoride under EPA standards. Their motivation is simple. Convince people it's good for teeth to get it put in toothpaste and fluoridated water supplies. What better way to get rid of industrial waste by spreading it all over the country in small amounts... and get paid for doing it.

It's really not that hard to work out, freddy. Any... well almost any blind freddy can see that.
 

I can just see the dentists getting together and saying - "Well a cost/benefit analysis has shown we can earn more money if water is fluoridated, so get out there and convince everyone to fluoridate the water. What we lose out in doing less fillings we can make up with treating fluorosis." - LOL

And what percentage of fluoride waste are these companies able to rid themselves of due to water fluoridation? It would be so insignificant (<1%) that it makes the claim that ALCOA conspires to have water fluoridated totally incredible.

To believe that there is a conspiracy of self interest between dentists and the aluminum industry to have water fluoridated is ridiculous. Much, much more likely is that dentists, epidemiologists and assorted health officials believe that comparatively water fluoridation benefits society.
 



freddy, are you so niave or what!

Do you mean to tell me you have never heard of a case of doctors, dentists, hospitals etc performing unnecessary surgery, writing un-needed prescriptions for drug use, overservicing patients or bulk billing none existant patients and any number of other wroughts to make a few extra dollars?

Nursing homes have been in the news often for collecting as much as they could for patients and providing shockingly poor care.

Do you mean to tell me you have never heard of public officials on the take from business. Hell man every state has some politician or public official charged with corruption, negligence professional misconduct or the like!?

Freddy, when your talking US$30k or so (reported recently) for a tanker load that is a lot of dough they can make whereas the best they could do before was try to sneak in down a rain water pipe somewhere for naught.
 
I think there are a lot of people on here Whiskers that would take great offence to what you have insinuated here.

I don't believe it is rational to think that every public servant is on the take. Health officials primarily get into that industry because they care about people.

It's like saying all teachers have no interest in education or in helping kids. Absolutely preposterous.
 
chops_a_must said:
I think there are a lot of people on here Whiskers that would take great offence to what you have insinuated here.
Click to expand...

I don't think so chops. Notice I was talking in past tense... referring to the few that have been caught out doing the wrong thing.


I think it has been pretty clear that freddy led the issue onto vested interests. The vested interests had been spelt out in much of the previous posts and videos kimosabi recently posted.

I have often said that a lot of health professionals are against the use of fluoride and that obviously implies that most are doing the right thing.

If it wasn't clear for the casual visitor to this thread, I'll emphasise that most professionals do the right thing or at least do as their superiours order. However, in any industry or organisation there are invariably some who seek to further their own interest as opposed to acting in the true spirit of their job and responsibilities, the small minority.

But as has been pointed out some lobby groups have powerful backing... eg the american gun lobby... fluoride is clearly one with some big money corporate industries behind them, and that invariably corrupts some people, usually in influencial places. It is these few in particular and often you will get passive followers who also take advantage of the situation just because it's there.

Youre not going to try to tell me that no professional ever did the wrong thing are you?

Here in Qld the Health Dept (heirachy) is on the nose with numerous blunders of professional incompetance. The Dr Patel fiasco here in Bundaberg, similar incidents in three or four other hospitals and now there is another case of them hiring another doctor with a crook record.

Just today in the Qld parliament it was emphasised that a lot of professionals have left the QDPI in particular because they were being told to do things and make reports that went against their experience and research to further a political objective.
 

often agrees with chops but finds the whiskers point fair and reasonable this time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Deception: use + abuse of information by governments + terrorists
Replies
2
Views
5K
reichstag911
R
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
R
New York Times GOLD article
Replies
3
Views
9K
Mofra
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...