Should government force the populace to drink fluoridated water? Is fluoridation safe? How did our water get fluoridated anyway?
Government Mandated Fluoridated Water
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #2
Here is a wiki article on some of the negative health effects of water fluoridation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_opposition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_opposition
- Specifically, fluoride has been shown to weaken bone strength, leading to an increase in hip and wrist fracture.[15]
- A lowering of IQ.[16]
- Research indicating that fluoride causes chromosomal damage and interferes with DNA repair.[17][18][19] Cancer in general is not believed to be caused from water fluoridation.[20][21]
- A study using rats that were fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water. They were shown to have detrimental changes to their kidneys and brains,[22] an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the formation of beta amyloid deposits, a characteristic of Alzheimer's disease.[23][24] However another study found no link[25] Moreover, there is some research that suggests Alzheimer's disease can be prevented with water fluoridation because of the competition between aluminum and fluoride absorption.[26] Nonetheless, this research is also limited by design and no definitive conclusion of this effect can be made. Other studies claim that age and family history are the most important risk factors concerning alzheimers..[27]
- In animal studies, fluoride has been shown to inhibit melatonin production and promote precocious puberty.[28] Fluoride may have an analogous inhibitory effect on human melatonin production, as fluoride accumulates readily in the human pineal gland, the brain organ responsible for melatonin synthesis.[29] Further, fluoride can weaken the immune system, leaving people vulnerable to the development of cancer and AIDS.[30]
- A study showing that overdose of fluoride have been associated with liver damage, impaired kidney function, and fluorosis in children.[31]
- Animal studies demonstrate that fluoride can damage the male reproductive system in various species.[32]
OP
- Thread Starter
- #3
Where did water fluoridation come from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
Here is the historical campeign to fluoridate drinking water...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
Here is the historical campeign to fluoridate drinking water...
Flouridation is a reasonably stupid idea. But the evidence you site is problematic. Your thrust is threefold. The first two pillars are not merely weak but suffer from serious identical flaws.
1) There are people who have a vested interest in the outcome.
That may well be true. But it says little or nothing about the objective phenomena that lie at the heart of the argument.
I think the people at Monsanto, Cargill, Dow, Pioneer Hibreed(sp?), ConAgra and Archer Daniels Midland are twenty four karat brass-plated board-certified 200 proof raw-gum ****sticks with all the morals and self control of a psychotic three-balled tomcat. Their PR about genes from GMOs never ever entering the wild populations is unadulterated bull-****.
But that doesn't mean that the experimental results of their scientists are wrong. And when their test farms specify yields/acre under different pesticide and fertilizer regimes I'm inclined to take the reports at face value. I'd question what they left out. I'd question what they played up and how they designed their experiments if it there was a lot riding on getting the correct outcome. But I wouldn't dismiss the basic science out of hand.
Truth is truth whether I love or hate the one who reports it.
2) The messenger was a master manipulator. Therefore what he says is wrong.
They hired someone to get their point of view across. They hired him on the basis of how convincing he was. That has no bearing at all on whether what they hired him to say was correct, incorrect or an out and out lie. One should be on one's guard and keep an eye out for the techniques of his craft in the same way that one should watch out for Rocky Marciano's left hook.
Would you be equally inclined to dismiss the anti-flouridation argument if the same spokesman had been hired to sell it? If your answer is a less than resounding "Yes!" you have severely undercut your own objectivity and position.
Again, the truth is the truth regardless of who delivers it.
3) There's an article on Wikipedia that says flouridation is bad.
The greatest strength of open projects like the Wiki is that anyone can write a piece and edits are anonymous. The greatest weakness of open projects like the Wiki is that anyone can write a piece and edits are anonymous.
The science represented in the article gives uncritical support to admittedly tendentious research, dismisses anything that does not support the conclusion, takes unpublished work that has not been through the peer-reviewed wringer and gives it the same weight as "all" the research of the other side and cites petitions by people with no demonstrated credentials in the field as evidence for underlying scientific validity.
The position may be factually correct. In fact, I believe that it probably is substantially true. The UK review is interesting. The actual scientific literature cited seems sound on its face. But one is left with some nagging questions about the piece.
1) There are people who have a vested interest in the outcome.
That may well be true. But it says little or nothing about the objective phenomena that lie at the heart of the argument.
I think the people at Monsanto, Cargill, Dow, Pioneer Hibreed(sp?), ConAgra and Archer Daniels Midland are twenty four karat brass-plated board-certified 200 proof raw-gum ****sticks with all the morals and self control of a psychotic three-balled tomcat. Their PR about genes from GMOs never ever entering the wild populations is unadulterated bull-****.
But that doesn't mean that the experimental results of their scientists are wrong. And when their test farms specify yields/acre under different pesticide and fertilizer regimes I'm inclined to take the reports at face value. I'd question what they left out. I'd question what they played up and how they designed their experiments if it there was a lot riding on getting the correct outcome. But I wouldn't dismiss the basic science out of hand.
Truth is truth whether I love or hate the one who reports it.
2) The messenger was a master manipulator. Therefore what he says is wrong.
They hired someone to get their point of view across. They hired him on the basis of how convincing he was. That has no bearing at all on whether what they hired him to say was correct, incorrect or an out and out lie. One should be on one's guard and keep an eye out for the techniques of his craft in the same way that one should watch out for Rocky Marciano's left hook.
Would you be equally inclined to dismiss the anti-flouridation argument if the same spokesman had been hired to sell it? If your answer is a less than resounding "Yes!" you have severely undercut your own objectivity and position.
Again, the truth is the truth regardless of who delivers it.
3) There's an article on Wikipedia that says flouridation is bad.
The greatest strength of open projects like the Wiki is that anyone can write a piece and edits are anonymous. The greatest weakness of open projects like the Wiki is that anyone can write a piece and edits are anonymous.
The science represented in the article gives uncritical support to admittedly tendentious research, dismisses anything that does not support the conclusion, takes unpublished work that has not been through the peer-reviewed wringer and gives it the same weight as "all" the research of the other side and cites petitions by people with no demonstrated credentials in the field as evidence for underlying scientific validity.
The position may be factually correct. In fact, I believe that it probably is substantially true. The UK review is interesting. The actual scientific literature cited seems sound on its face. But one is left with some nagging questions about the piece.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #5
There are some very interesting sources cited in the footnotes of that wiki article. The negative health effects are well documented, IMO.
Apparently, 7,000 EPA career scientists agreed with this assessment and signed a petition to ban fluoridation of water.
Apparently, 7,000 EPA career scientists agreed with this assessment and signed a petition to ban fluoridation of water.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #6
More interesting stuff about water fluoridation...
http://nationalexpositor.com/News/908.html
All boldface emphasis is mine...
http://nationalexpositor.com/News/908.html
All boldface emphasis is mine...
Interesting.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
OK, I'm calling shenanigans on this one. I see this argument all the time with chloride and sucralose. The form of molecules is the most important aspect of how they affect the body, not the individual components thereof. Chlorine is a deadly molecule in the right form, particularly as a pure gas or as part of organochloride pesticides. However, it is also one of the most common ions in your body, and perfectly harmless table salt is half chlorine by molar mass.
Two carbons and a hydroxyl group is ethanol, which will make you happy on a saturday night. Take one of those carbons away and you have methanol, which will poison your brain and make you blind. The only components of strychnine are carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, which are all present in billions of harmless compounds. But put them together in a particular way, and you have a deadly poison.
This is how chemistry and toxicology works. The fact that fluorine is a component of a particular chemical tells you essentially nothing about how toxic that chemical is. And let me guarantee you, fluorine alone will not bind to the right sites to have the effects of both prozac and sarin! It is chemically ignorant scaremongering to suggest otherwise.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #9
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116202037.htm
How much can you trust what "big pharma" is reporting? The negative effects of exposure to fluorine compounds are well documented. When a study is produced by one of these companies that says that their particular drug is safe, why should we trust that report...especially considering their track record.
More fluoride information
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
How much can you trust what "big pharma" is reporting? The negative effects of exposure to fluorine compounds are well documented. When a study is produced by one of these companies that says that their particular drug is safe, why should we trust that report...especially considering their track record.
More fluoride information
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
:lfao:
Seriously, discussions of water fluoridation in the US have always struck me as not simply discussions of the risks/benefits of flouride, but of percieved federal government interference in daily life.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 10,826
- Reaction score
- 617
Not a knock against the OP, but rather, the "chemistry" expertise that the sources used. Always take what these sources say, with several grains of salt (also mentioned below!).
Fluoride is also used in TEFLON, which lines many non-stick cookware items.
Oxygen is also a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry in one form or another. Excessive levels of oxygen can cause oxygen poisoning in human beings.
Sodium is one of the basic ingredients in many drugs, and also a significant part of the mineral known as table salt. In its pure form, ingested sodium will burn the mouth, generating sodium hydroxide in the mouth, and corrode the tissues. It will also burn the esophagus and stomach.
Sodium is also an ingredient used in sodium cyanide, which, when combined with an acidic solution, releases hydrogen cyanide gas, used in the gas chambers for capital punishment.
Chlorine is the other basic ingredient in table salt, and was used in World War I gas formulations. It's also used in the creation of phosgene, another gas weapon.
Yet, should table salt be regulated?
Fluoride is also used in TEFLON, which lines many non-stick cookware items.
Oxygen is also a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry in one form or another. Excessive levels of oxygen can cause oxygen poisoning in human beings.
Sodium is one of the basic ingredients in many drugs, and also a significant part of the mineral known as table salt. In its pure form, ingested sodium will burn the mouth, generating sodium hydroxide in the mouth, and corrode the tissues. It will also burn the esophagus and stomach.
Sodium is also an ingredient used in sodium cyanide, which, when combined with an acidic solution, releases hydrogen cyanide gas, used in the gas chambers for capital punishment.
Chlorine is the other basic ingredient in table salt, and was used in World War I gas formulations. It's also used in the creation of phosgene, another gas weapon.
Yet, should table salt be regulated?
We can discuss profit motives, what else contains flouride, studies showing links to this and that and such, conspiracy theories about why; but when it comes right down to it, isn't the fact that it's a compulsive medication of the population enough?
If an invidividual needs some flouride for some medical reason, they can get a tablet!
Nomad
Master Black Belt
Here's a nice article that discusses fluorination without any obvious bias one way or the other (on a great site, IMO): http://www.straightdope.com/columns/070202.html
OP
OP
- Thread Starter
- #15
Not a knock against the OP, but rather, the "chemistry" expertise that the sources used. Always take what these sources say, with several grains of salt (also mentioned below!).
Fluoride is also used in TEFLON, which lines many non-stick cookware items.
Oxygen is also a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry in one form or another. Excessive levels of oxygen can cause oxygen poisoning in human beings.
Sodium is one of the basic ingredients in many drugs, and also a significant part of the mineral known as table salt. In its pure form, ingested sodium will burn the mouth, generating sodium hydroxide in the mouth, and corrode the tissues. It will also burn the esophagus and stomach.
Sodium is also an ingredient used in sodium cyanide, which, when combined with an acidic solution, releases hydrogen cyanide gas, used in the gas chambers for capital punishment.
Chlorine is the other basic ingredient in table salt, and was used in World War I gas formulations. It's also used in the creation of phosgene, another gas weapon.
Yet, should table salt be regulated?
I think some people may be extrapolating things a bit too far, but who knows. Do you think "big pharma" is all that concerned with the long term health effects of their products? They should be, but apparently they are not.
This is a side issue btw. The chemicals used in water fluoridation are a proven health risk.
Mr G
Orange Belt
I get my water from a well.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 10,826
- Reaction score
- 617
Anything in a large dose can be a proven health risk. Even the chemicals used to treat wastewater can be fatal, such as ozone, chlorine dioxide, etc. If someone were to inhale pure ozone or ClO2 in a significant quantity, he'd be hurdling towards the grave in a short order.
The key is, though, that the chemicals are used in very small amounts.
The concept is no different than theraputic drugs. A small amount gives you the benefits, but a large overdose is fatal.
Now, there are some natural water sources, that already contain a very high amount of solubilized fluoride in them, and the effects were certainly evident, such as the brown, mottled teeth, etc. Some of the water sources used by the Native Americans in the 1800's had such high concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride, that they were over an order of magnitude higher than the amounts that are seen in today's drinking water.
In those cases, further purification would have been needed to reduce the fluoride levels to something less toxic.
However, to paint the entire water fluoridation situation as dangerous to all, uses far too broad of a stroke.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,930
- Reaction score
- 1,453
I'm reminded of General Ripper in Dr. Strangelove:
..the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.....:lfao::lfao:
..the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.....:lfao::lfao:
When was the last time you had your water tested? Seriously. Groundwater contamination is a serious problem in many areas.
A five-month Associated Press investigation reveals that pharmaceutical residues already show up in the drinking water of 41 million people.
http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1205310642327040.xml&coll=2
So many chemicals in our water. So many drugs. What's 1 more?
http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1205310642327040.xml&coll=2
So many chemicals in our water. So many drugs. What's 1 more?
Similar threads
