Posted on 08/22/2007 7:08:24 AM PDT by DogByte6RER
FReep This Poll!
Do you want fluoride added to your drinking water supply?
Yes
No
Not sure
Go to the North County Times/The Californian link provided. Scroll down a bit and look for the poll on the right hand side.
Vote your choice.
(Excerpt) Read more at nctimes.com ...
You used the word ANY. Any still means any, you can not explain it away.
One ppm is acceptable. The question you need to ask is what is unacceptable. Now we can speak to dosage and what is statically significant. I will state again that to date adding fl- to the water is an acceptable statical dose. The fl- fear mongers forget to tell us that statically we are at much great risk of harm by driving to work, cooking, bathing or climbing stairs then we are to fl- ingestion. They also forget to tell us that statically the benefit of fl- is much greater than the risk. They also forget to tell us that they know the average American does not have the educational back ground to understand the topic. Most importantly, they forget to tell us that by miss use of their position they are able to gain fame and fortune by selling the fear of fl-. Aint a free press wonderful, we can be miss lead on a daily basis. I have no bone to pick with you.
I think there is an immense risk to adding anything to the water system that should be considered extensively and reviewed often which fluoride hasn’t been. Especially when that something is a bio accumulator.
Quoting the EXACT words from my original post, which you’re trying so desperately to take out of context:
“...allowing the government to put ANY unnecessary substance in our water supply “for the common good” is an extremely dangerous precedent to set...”
I absolutely stand by that statement and nothing in my subsequent post counters it in any way. Read my posts on this thread. Or go read all my posts, for that matter. I have never said the government could not put strictures on the individual for the common good. That has been going on since the dawn of civilization and is the basis of all law. But it is one thing to modify individual behavior for the public good, and a far different thing to force the ingestion of substances for an individual’s health against an individual’s will.
Unlike my bad driving, my bad teeth do not affect you or the rest of the public in any way, so society has no compelling interest in the state of my teeth. I, not you, suffer the pain if my teeth rot, and I, not you, pay the dental bills for their repair. Therefore I, not you and not some government entity, should decide if I want to ingest unneeded chemicals along with my much-needed water.
Government should ensure that the water supply is safe and available. Individuals should decide how to care for their teeth. It is a matter of freedom and self-determination.
I agree with you that water should be constantly monitored (even if we do not add anything to it). Fl- has been and will continue to receive extensive evaluation. I have personally been evaluating the professional literature on this topic for over 30 years.
Good point! Chlorine is much closer in chemical reactivity than fluorine and we consume a lot more of it in our drinking water then fluorine! Ergo, if one is against fluorinating our water, one must also be against chlorinating our water.
it’s the fearmongers in dentistry and pediatrics selling products here and they have yet to account for the bioaccumulation and the vast increase in potential sources of fluoride exposure since 1962.
i have a freind with a masters in chemistry who’s lectured me at length about the dangers of putting anything into the food supply or water supply and fluoride specifically. this has nothing to do with adequate scientific background, and everything to do with a crap load of folks making a ton of cash off a government program
Another political comment from you. I believe it is best to agree that we disagree and let the topic rest between us.
You continue to focus on one word out of context. I have shown proof that I did not use the word “any” in a blanket manner. You have seen my exact quote “...ANY unnecessary substance..” and you know it doesn’t mean what you keep trying to twist, fold and mutilate it into meaning.
My point is not anti-fluoride fearmongering and you know it. My point is a civil rights issue, the right of an individual in a free society to control what goes into his/her body, and you know it.
Your issue is that fluoride is good for us so therefore it is right and proper to put it in the commom water supply. My issue is that it doesn’t matter how good fluoride is for us, it is not right and proper to put it in the common water supply. I have no particular animus against fluoride, although I personally choose to minimize its use. Since my choice has no potential to harm you or society at large, I have the right to make that choice, no matter how wrong you believe it to be.
I routinely ingest other supplements that I believe are good for my health and ameliorate or prevent certain conditions. But even those supplements which I routinely ingest I DO NOT want in the water supply, because I respect the freedom of others to make different choices and live with the consequences of those choices. I only wish others would give my choice not to fluoridate the same respect I give theirs.
Focusing on my use of a particular indefinite adjective as it relates to a certain prepositional phrase, rather than addressing the substance of my argument, is too much like trying to decide what the meaning of “is” is.
Since you admit that you are parsing my words rather than addressing my argument, we are done here.
You did not understand what was going on until I told you. I admit to nothing. You ranted on about how I was twisting your words and now you realize that I was not, and you admit you were clueless. Actually, you were done several post earlier.
You are correct about the right of the individual to control what goes into one's body, especially the water you consume.
From a purely conservative perspective, you are not mandated by the government to use the common water supply. By accepting to use a common water supply, you are accepting what would technically be a form of socialism - a government supplied commodity. We aren't used to thinking of the water supply as socialistic, but when you get right down to it, it is an appropriate description. If you accept to choose to consume a government supply of water, then you have chosen to consume what the government decides to put in it. If you don't want to drink government tap water, don't! There are lots of alternatives. Some people use well water, if available. And many people drink various bottled waters and just use the tap water for cleaning. You can filter your tap water at home. The free market has a solution for you so you don't need to depend on socialism.
In other words, the fluoride can be in the water and you can opt out!
How are F- ions bioaccumulated? fluorocarbons are bioaccumulated due primarily to their hydrophobic nature. But how is ionic F- bioaccumulated?
As I stated in an earlier post, I do opt out with a whole house reverse osmosis system. As an autonomous adult in an ostensibly free society, I shouldn’t have to go to such lengths, but unfortunately I do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.