My analogy stands. The fluoride treatment (as opposed to fluoridated water, with a much lower concentration) is administered ONLY when needed, and then ONLY in measured doses. And in this case it was administered improperly.
Fluoride has cululative toxic effects
You were already forced to admit that fluoride is excreted by the kidneys, so that statement is incorrect. The fact of the matter is that fluoride blood plasma levels maintain an equlilbrium with fluoride in the bones, and the rest is excreted. It does NOT accumulate in the bones.
It is a poison, with no nutritional value whatsover.
I have 3700 studies that say you are wrong.
It destroys and/or inhibits vital cellular functions. Water is needed for life. There's a bit of a difference between the two.
Yes, but the fact reamins that fluoride maintained at the proper levels is not toxic. Just like arsenic in the water at current levels is not toxic.
Here is an online textbook on toxicology:
The beneficial and harmful effects that a chemical has on an organism depend, in part, on the amount of the chemical that gets into the organism. The total amount of a chemical that is administered to, or taken by, the organ- ism is called the dose.
The effect of a chemical depends not only on the amount of the chemical that gets into the organism but also on the resulting concentration of the chemical in the body (the amount of chemical compared with the body size), the length of exposure to the chemical, and the route of exposure.
The measure of dose in toxicology is important; a large dose of a beneficial chemical can have a harmful effect, and a small dose of a harmful chemical can have no adverse effect. In the words of the 16th-century physician Paracelsus, "All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy."
Aren't you being a little melodramatic? Considering the fact that water has been fluoridated in this country for over 50 years and nobody is dropping like flies from this "horrendous poison". Which brings up and interesting question, if fluoride is such an "horrendous poison", and many communities have been drinking it for decades, why can't the researchers at the journal "Flouride" find epidemological evidence of increased death rates in communities that have fluoridated water vs those that don't?
It is NEVER needed Tom. And as it is a highly reactive toxin, lethal for a small child if swallowed, it is reckless endangerment.
You were already forced to admit that fluoride is excreted by the kidneys, so that statement is incorrect.
Obviously not ALL of it is excreted.
Fluorine Excretion and Balances in Adult Men -- intake @4-14 mg/day, absorption =94% -- 40% retained Trace Elements In Human and Animal Nutrition, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (1987) p.378
The fact of the matter is that fluoride blood plasma levels maintain an equlilbrium with fluoride in the bones, and the rest is excreted. It does NOT accumulate in the bones.
There shouldn't be ANY fluoride in the bones. Fluoride in bones leads to skeletal fluorosis.
Skeletal fluorosis is a crippling bone disease caused by fluoride
Any fluoride ions in plasma will cause the potassium and calcium ions to bond with them, thus leading to all sorts of problems with electrolyte levels and the nervous system.
Which brings up and interesting question, if fluoride is such an "horrendous poison", and many communities have been drinking it for decades, why can't the researchers at the journal "Flouride" find epidemological evidence of increased death rates in communities that have fluoridated water vs those that don't?
A toxin needn't kill its victim in order to be a toxin. Some fates are worse than death. I've already posted enough links on that...