How We Got Fluoridated

Stop Fluoridation USA ^ | Unknown | Philip Heggen

[Mortimer Snavely]

I'm all for Purity of Essence, myself.

[FormerLurker]

SEE: How Quackery Sells, by William T. Jarvis, Ph.D. and Stephen Barrett, M.D

For those who are wondering why I posted this particular quote, it's to demonstrate the sort of disinformation put forth by TRUE QUACKS.

[Toskrin]

Purity Of Essence - POE. Peace On Earth - POE. We are onto something here!

[RadioAstronomer]

Most people think that quackery is easy to spot. Often it is not. Its promoters wear the cloak of science. They use scientific terms and quote (or misquote) scientific references

Case in point; the power line scare a few years ago.

[Mortimer Snavely]

I only drink grain alcohol with rain water.

[FormerLurker]

Case in point; the power line scare a few years ago.

Actually, the post you responded to shows how quacks attempt to discredit true facts, such as the fact that fluoride is a highly reactive toxin that is MORE toxic than lead. Those that promote fluoride as any sort of nutrient aren't just quacks, they are charlatans that are advoctating and recommending the ingestion of a substance that causes neurological disorders, skeletal fluorosis, lowered IQ, cancer, osteoporosis, and hip fractures.

There is ample evidence that demonstrates the highly toxic nature of this substance. Unfortunately, those whose chief concern is (or was as the case may be) their pocketbook have obfuscuated the facts concerning this toxin, and have promoted it as necessary for health and well-being. It has NO redeeming properties, as it is not part of any normal celluar process, it does NOT prevent cavities, and it is lethal in concentrations used in fluoride treatments if a young child were to swallow the gel.

Fluoride ions in the bloodstream interfere with electrolytes, robbing potassium and calcium from the normal celluar activity of neurons. Fluoride is possibly linked to mental illness such as depression and other illneses due to the change in electrolytes and body chemistry.

In a nutshell, fluoride IS a poison. To promote it, recommend it, and even PUMP it into our water supply, forcing populations to ingest a poison, is outright madness.

[LaineyDee]

I lived in Amarillo in the mid 70's for a short time...and saw alot of the stained teeth in the locals. My dentist there... told me not to give my 18mo old son any of the tap water because the high levels of fluoride in it, would cause permanent stains. We immediately ordered distilled water delivered to our home.

Sulphur was never mentioned, but I never smelled that distinct "rotten egg" smell that it typically emits.....so I don't think that's the prob.

[RadioAstronomer]

I disagree. I rate the rant against fluoridation right alongside the rant against aspartame, power lines and also the health benefits of magnets in your shoes.

[RadioAstronomer]

You can have too much fluoride. See:

http://www.aapd.org/publications/brochures/fluorosis.asp

[FormerLurker]

I disagree. I rate the rant against fluoridation right alongside the rant against aspartame, power lines and also the health benefits of magnets in your shoes.

Then perhaps you should do a little reading. Try the main article, click on the link titled Introduction, and proceed through there. Do you think lead ingestion is safe? You should if you think fluoride is, as lead is LESS toxic than fluoride, and that is a scientific fact. It is dispensed as if it were as harmless as sugar, or even LESS harmful than sugar. It is right up their with rat poison in all actuallity. You really owe it to yourself to read the material. Refer to post #43 and see just who in science and medicine are opposed to fluoridation...

[RadioAstronomer]

I have done a great deal of reading, and I still think that it's junk science.

[FormerLurker]

You can have too much fluoride. See:
http://www.aapd.org/publications/brochures/fluorosis.asp

And that is probably the most benign effect. Much worse than that is skeletal fluorosis, which is prevelant in areas with high concentrations of fluoride in their water system. Also prevelant in those areas are statistically significant lowered IQ scores in children.

Take a look at post #99, which lists fluoride deaths. You might want to look at post #19 and #34 as well...

[FormerLurker]

I have done a great deal of reading, and I still think that it's junk science.

And with whom exactly in post #43 do you disagree with, and what is it exactly that I've posted that you disagree with?

You say this is junk science, but you do not refute specific facts, you simply make ad hominem arguments.

Junk science is that used by those who claim this toxin is actually necessary for good health. In fact, those that promote such to be true are recklessly endangering the health and welfare of the people not just of this Nation, but the people of the world. In fact, there are MANY countries where they HAVE discontinued fluoridation as it is obvious to anyone with any scientific training that fluoride IS in fact a poison.

[TomB]

Still at it?

Let's see, I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me what solubility has to do with fluoride ion levels in the body. And you have yet to discuss the 3700 studies done since 1970 that show the safety and efficacy of fluoride, along with the 280 I posted.

[FormerLurker]

Fluoride is a toxin, so ANY amount should be avoided if possible. Those areas that DO fluoridate their water supplies DO also have children with statistically significant lower IQ and increased cases of skeletal fluorsis.

Fluoride's Neurological Effects: studies show there may be grave implications for Alzheimers, Dementia, Attention Deficit Disorder, reduced IQ in children

EFFECT OF HIGH-FLUORIDE WATER ON INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN

FLUORIDE AND INTELLIGENCE

Effect of a High Fluoride Water Supply on Children's Intelligence

Fluorine

[FormerLurker]

Let's see, I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me what solubility has to do with fluoride ion levels in the body.

Like duh Tom, you can't understand why it's a bad thing to have virtually unlimited solubilty (as in sodium fluoride) in the blood stream versus a limited solubility (calcium fluoride) of 16 ppm? Will you ever understand that 16 ppm in the blood stream is not as bad as 50 mg, as in the case of the 3 year old that died while having a fluoride treatment?

And you have yet to discuss the 3700 studies done since 1970 that show the safety and efficacy of fluoride, along with the 280 I posted.

Funny, in the other thread you claimed that there were 37,000, not just 3700...

Can you get your numbers staight Tom? Perhaps you should try linking those studies instead of just CLAIMING that they support your position. I've found one out of your list of 280 from the ADA website that DIDN'T support your position nor that of the ADA, yet it was claimed that it DID in fact support your position. Now THAT is TRUE JUNK SCIENCE, where you hope to dazzle with smoke and mirrors..

And I'm sure if we were to look at the list in DETAIL, that you've admitted editing in order to remove those studies that obviously don't support your position, we'd STILL find a whole bunch that state that fluoride is NOT a good thing...

[TomB]

Will you ever understand that 16 ppm in the blood stream is not as bad as 50 mg, as in the case of the 3 year old that died while having a fluoride treatment?

How do you get that 16 ppm? You seem to be pulling numbers out of thin air.

Funny, in the other thread you claimed that there were 37,000, not just 3700...

That shows me how well you read and endeavour to understand other's posts. I specifically said in post 393 that since 1970 there have been 3700 studies, whereas in post 406 in the history of fluoride investigation there have been 35000.

I've found one out of your list of 280 from the ADA website that DIDN'T support your position nor that of the ADA, yet it was claimed that it DID in fact support your position.

I deleted all the studies that were referenced in the ADA report that didn't support fluoridation, I missed one and apologized.

However, you use that as a convientient excuse to ignore the other 280 studies. Well, they are still there, they aren't going anywhere.

And I'm sure if we were to look at the list in DETAIL, that you've admitted editing in order to remove those studies that obviously don't support your position, we'd STILL find a whole bunch that state that fluoride is NOT a good thing...

Well, go ahead. And you STILL haven't posted any epidemological studies showing the dangers of flouridation.

[FormerLurker]

How do you get that 16 ppm? You seem to be pulling numbers out of thin air.

You really should lay off that 5000 ppm toothpaste Tom, it is rotting your mind.

If you remember, I had posted a table in the other thread that listed the maximum solubility of various fluoride compounds..

From Fluoridation: Aspects of toxicity

Table 1.

Fluoride	Maximum Solubility
Calcium fluoride	16 ppm at 18°C (c. 1-62,500)
	17 ppm at 26°C
Sodium fluoride	42,200 ppm at 18°C (c. 1-25)
Sodium fluosilicate	6,250 ppm at 17°C (c. 1-150)
Hydrofluosilicic acid	Miscible liquid

However, you use that as a convientient excuse to ignore the other 280 studies. Well, they are still there, they aren't going anywhere.

I specifically said in post 393 that since 1970 there have been 3700 studies, whereas in post 406 in the history of fluoride investigation there have been 35000.

In any event, I'm sure that MANY of those don't support your position, and you are simply throwing numbers around. In fact, the 3700 figure is unsupported by any evidence, although it might be possible, as there are obviously those who work for the ADA that absolutely insist that we ingest this poison and wish to ensure that we do.

In any case, post a study (or a link to it), then we'll discuss it. I could say there's n number of studies supporting my position, but that would simply be cheating, now wouldn't it....

Well, go ahead. And you STILL haven't posted any epidemological studies showing the dangers of flouridation.

Oh I have Tom. You have simply ignored them and claimed they don't exist.

[TomB]

If you remember, I had posted a table in the other thread that listed the maximum solubility of various fluoride compounds..

I'm aware of the chart, but it doesn't answer how you get from a measure of solubility to a measure of ionic concentration. I want you to explain what those solubility numbers has to do with the concentration of fluoride in water.

In any event,

In any event, you obviously don't even read my posts.

Sad.

I'm sure that MANY of those don't support your position, and you are simply throwing numbers around.

LOL You're SURE? Prove that statement. Seems like you're just throwing assumptions around.

In any case, post a study (or a link to it), then we'll discuss it.

Here's one at random.

Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries

I could say there's n number of studies supporting my position, but that would simply be cheating, now wouldn't it....

Of course not, but since there are many more studies showing the safety and efficacy of fluoride, it wouldn't work.

You have simply ignored them and claimed they don't exist.

No, the studies you have linked are either in vitro studies where you stuff a poor rat full of fluoride and yell when it gets sick, or in vivo studies, like the China studies, that investigate fluoride poisoning.

I'd like some studies of people in this country, drinking normally flouridated water, either natural or added.