If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   "Why am I against fluoridated water? Because I don't know what I'm talking about"   (ericdsnider.com) divider line 321
    More: Amusing, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, American Public Health Association, Veterans Committee, health association, American Dental Association, fluoridation  
•       •       •

4064 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 May 2013 at 6:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



321 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-03 05:39:23 PM  

Cretony38: Did you need me to spell out dictionary.com for you?


You were talking about the dictionary.com definition? Wow. I at least assumed you had some sort of dumb shiat to English dictionary to get the definition you used.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fluoride

Click that link and tell me if it says what you told us it does. farking lying farking idiot.
 
2013-05-03 05:42:41 PM  

Cretony38: Again you're clueless heypete. That's all I ever said was "look it up" I never stated a position on how little of this substance is safe in drinking water. But it's clearly poison in anything I've read including the dictionary. No matter how small the amount it's origin & uses do not change that it is a toxic substance.  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sulfuryl-fluoride/questions.html You go ahead put it in your mouth everyday, I will use it to kill pests & vermin.


Shockingly enough, certain things in high concentrations can be dangerous, while in low concentrations can be beneficial.Tylenol is a safe, effective pain reliever when taken in the recommended dosages, but if one takes too much then it can cause irreversible liver damage.

Slight changes in a molecule can result in a chemical being toxic or not -- look at the difference between ethylene glycol and propylene glycol. The former is quite toxic while the latter is significantly less so.

Sulfuryl fluoride is not the stuff that's being used for water fluoridation, so that's a red herring. That's like saying "Hydrochloric acid contains chlorine, which is highly reactive and toxic. Thus, anything that contains chlorine, even sodium chloride (table salt), is toxic."

There are plenty of things that contain fluorine that are not dangerous: Teflon, which contains fluorine, is incredibly inert and non-toxic.

Drinking concentrated fluorosilic acid, such as what's used in water fluoridation, is certainly dangerous. When diluted to appropriate ratios, however, it promotes dental health, as has been clearly established by the studies that I directly linked to.

You claim that fluorine and fluorine-containing compounds are poisonous and toxic regardless of concentration. Ok, fine. Now back up that claim. Show me reputable scientific studies that show that the substances used for fluoridation of water (e.g. sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, and sodium fluorosilicate) are harmful or toxic at the concentrations used in public water supplies. I'll wait.
 
2013-05-03 05:55:09 PM  

Cretony38: Again you're clueless heypete. That's all I ever said was "look it up"

study it out

FTFY
 
2013-05-03 06:01:33 PM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lying through his teeth and doing it in a hilariously obvious manner,

Well, if your blog says so. (And the chart isn't from the WHO. But nice deceptive try, anyway.)

At least I can add another "derp" to your FARK note - Anti-Fluoride.
 
2013-05-03 06:51:02 PM  

Cretony38: heypete: Cretony38: Yet YOU, heyPete cannot cite even one, the irrefutable data that drives you vigilantly to fight any questions for this most precious of theories. All I asked of you was to define the very word of what you hold to be the most sanctimonious of truths. I NEVER even said it was wrong to put in drinking water. I only asked what was it and why are you so convinced? realizing my audience here I suggested the simplest of reference which somehow is too much to ask of you. Did you need me to spell out dictionary.com for you?

How about these two studies which were cited earlier? How about the Centers for Disease Control? The CDC has whole sections dedicated to that topic.

These scientific studies, endorsed by national and international public health authorities and experts, clearly show that fluoridation of water improves dental health with essentially no side effects. There is no doubt that in sufficient concentrations fluoride and other fluorine-containing chemicals can be harmful, but when present in relatively low concentrations it serves to improve dental health.

The ball's in your court now. So far, you haven't really brought up any real evidence to back up your position other than saying "look at the dictionary definitions of fluorine and fluoride". That doesn't really cut it. Can you show any evidence from any credible peer-reviewed scientific studies? Any statements and policies from respected national or international public health authorities?

Put simply, the burden of proof is on you to support your assertions that fluoridation of water is a bad thing.

Again you're clueless heypete. That's all I ever said was "look it up" I never stated a position on how little of this substance is safe in drinking water. But it's clearly poison in anything I've read including the dictionary. No matter how small the amount it's origin & uses do not change that it is a toxic substance.  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sulfuryl-fluoride/questions.html You go ah ...


Look it up so can PANIC. DON'T YOU SHEEPS SEE!? THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO PUT POISON IN YOUR WATER ERRRMAHGERDDD. IM ALSO SCARED OF VITAMINS!!! THEY PUT VITAMIN D IN MILK!!!! IT CAN KILL YOU!!!
 
2013-05-03 07:04:25 PM  

spickus: I've hunted high and low. I don't think there is one.


I think the WHO might not have cherry-picked the set of countries and the date ranges for each country such that every single one of them just happens to show nearly linear convergence toward the same point over time.

Nor would they to layer data from 18 countries over each other to create an overwhelming mass of visual information.
 
2013-05-03 07:21:39 PM  

hardinparamedic: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lying through his teeth and doing it in a hilariously obvious manner,

Well, if your blog says so. (And the chart isn't from the WHO. But nice deceptive try, anyway.)

At least I can add another "derp" to your FARK note - Anti-Fluoride.


I'm not "anti" fluoride.  It's just that the studies that include the largest populations don't support the notion that it's as effective as people here claim.  It may have some positive effect, but it's negligible. But you're barely literate, so I'm not surprised you can't discern the difference.
 
2013-05-03 07:27:52 PM  
Fluoride doesn't make your teeth stronger or brainwash you.

...but it does make your teeth show up on government spy satellites

/the tips of shoelaces are called aglets. They serve a sinister purpose.
 
2013-05-03 07:30:03 PM  

Arachnophobe: AlienOmega: "Fluoride in toothpaste does not actually fight tooth decay. It does however render teeth visible to spy satellites."

[/just had a Justice League Unlimited binge]

Then you must also be aware of the sinister true purpose of aglets.


*shakes impotent Randian fist, goes off to research the connection between boy bands and global warming

/study it out
 
2013-05-03 07:32:41 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: hardinparamedic: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lying through his teeth and doing it in a hilariously obvious manner,

Well, if your blog says so. (And the chart isn't from the WHO. But nice deceptive try, anyway.)

At least I can add another "derp" to your FARK note - Anti-Fluoride.

I'm not "anti" fluoride.  It's just that the studies that include the largest populations don't support the notion that it's as effective as people here claim.  It may have some positive effect, but it's negligible. But you're barely literate, so I'm not surprised you can't discern the difference.


So you have been shown to be dishonest and you still show up, right when the other nut disappears. Almost like a pattern. So did you ever find out what a p value is? Hehehe even if you are just trolling it is still fun to destroy your arguments. Thanks, work was slow today!
 
2013-05-03 07:34:46 PM  

Muta: I wonder how many farkers that took this article seriously have made fun of people who took articles in The Onion seriously.

 
How many will now say, "I knew it was satirical humor all along, chortle chortle chortle".


That's just what the Bildeburgers, in conjunction with the reverse vampires and the Rand Corporation, WANT you to think.
 
2013-05-03 07:38:48 PM  

HeadLever: Wayne 985: What else can we add to water to make Americans healthier then? There have to be other interest groups who stand to make profits.

Chlorine?  I mean why just have 'Big Fluoride' when we can have "Big Halogen'?  The more the merrier, right?


I lament the fact that Big Doggy Door will never get its comeuppance in court

/countless documented deaths of children
//and no one cares
 
2013-05-03 08:04:23 PM  

hardinparamedic: blog


You need to check it out again! It's gotten so much better!
 
2013-05-03 09:04:24 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'm not "anti" fluoride. It's just that the studies that include the largest populations don't support the notion that it's as effective as people here claim. It may have some positive effect, but it's negligible. But you're barely literate, so I'm not surprised you can't discern the difference.


Numerous posters in this thread have posted studies directly debunking this statement, and pointing out you have "nary a clue" what you are talking about. You've been directy caught in lies in this thread

But please. Continue to toss around insults like they actually mean something, other than to express your own impotent, psuedo-conservative rage.
 
2013-05-03 09:34:17 PM  

jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: hardinparamedic: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lying through his teeth and doing it in a hilariously obvious manner,

Well, if your blog says so. (And the chart isn't from the WHO. But nice deceptive try, anyway.)

At least I can add another "derp" to your FARK note - Anti-Fluoride.

I'm not "anti" fluoride.  It's just that the studies that include the largest populations don't support the notion that it's as effective as people here claim.  It may have some positive effect, but it's negligible. But you're barely literate, so I'm not surprised you can't discern the difference.

So you have been shown to be dishonest and you still show up, right when the other nut disappears. Almost like a pattern. So did you ever find out what a p value is? Hehehe even if you are just trolling it is still fun to destroy your arguments. Thanks, work was slow today!


Implying that I'm a sock puppet?  By all means, I give fark admins permission to reveal any alts I may have.  Use this post as my consent to ask them for a list of my alts (I don't have any).  Your paranoia is fairly interesting.  It's also interesting that I posted a chart compiled from WHO data across vast regions, then you cite as a rebuttal a study from a single state.  Cherry picking isn't a great way to convince anyone of anything.

hardinparamedic: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'm not "anti" fluoride. It's just that the studies that include the largest populations don't support the notion that it's as effective as people here claim. It may have some positive effect, but it's negligible. But you're barely literate, so I'm not surprised you can't discern the difference.

Numerous posters in this thread have posted studies directly debunking this statement, and pointing out you have "nary a clue" what you are talking about. You've been directy caught in lies in this thread

But please. Continue to toss around insults like they actually mean something, other than to express your own impotent, psuedo-conservative rage.


Lies?  I haven't been caught in a single lie, you just have a reoccurring inability to comprehend basic English.  WHO data shows that the vast improvement in oral health over the past several decades is relatively uniform despite the fact that countries experiencing these improvements don't fluoridate, your argument for fluoridation is asinine, and you don't have anything but a handful of cherry picked studies to back your claims.  Honestly, you and a few others here exhibit textbook examples of confirmation bias.
 
2013-05-03 09:40:49 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: hardinparamedic: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lying through his teeth and doing it in a hilariously obvious manner,

Well, if your blog says so. (And the chart isn't from the WHO. But nice deceptive try, anyway.)

At least I can add another "derp" to your FARK note - Anti-Fluoride.

I'm not "anti" fluoride.  It's just that the studies that include the largest populations don't support the notion that it's as effective as people here claim.  It may have some positive effect, but it's negligible. But you're barely literate, so I'm not surprised you can't discern the difference.

So you have been shown to be dishonest and you still show up, right when the other nut disappears. Almost like a pattern. So did you ever find out what a p value is? Hehehe even if you are just trolling it is still fun to destroy your arguments. Thanks, work was slow today!

Implying that I'm a sock puppet?  By all means, I give fark admins permission to reveal any alts I may have.  Use this post as my consent to ask them for a list of my alts (I don't have any).  Your paranoia is fairly interesting.  It's also interesting that I posted a chart compiled from WHO data across vast regions, then you cite as a rebuttal a study from a single state.  Cherry picking isn't a great way to convince anyone of anything.
But please. Continue to toss around insults like they actually mean something, other than to express your own impotent, psuedo-conse ...


Hahaha I will shut up when you show the link of said data on the WHO site. You have been repeatedly asked to do so yet never answered. Why is that? And my paranoia does not cover fluoride poisoning. Interesting that paranoia, is it not? Come on, show us the WHO site with the data you presented. Do not worry, I will be waiting for it. And you showed a demonstrably fake chart based on supposed data from European countries, yet mine was based here in the US, how does that work again?
I am also guessing you never figured out what a p value is?
 
2013-05-04 12:52:32 AM  
Who's done more research on the subject than the good people at the American Tobacco Industry? They say it's harmless. Why would they lie? If you're dead, you can't smoke... Munson

Industrial waste is industrial waste, benefit or no it seems if we follow the financial aspect of this issue we find a pile of money being moved from one party to another, always in the direction of public tax dollars to private individuals.

When Chinese manufacturers and Canadian importers conspire to push up acceptable levels of melamine in pet food its a tragic shame. Why use a product as a substitution for protein when it could be safely used as a substitute for urea or phosphate based  fertilizer?

Simple, sell melamine as a fertiziler and you get X per pound, add it to a pet food product and you get Y per pound. If Y is higher than X you push it into the market as Y.

We need aluminum, we need phosphate based fertiizers. Both processes produce prodigious amounts of silicofluorides, it feels absurd that the byproducts of these processes are considered a health benefit specifically related to tooth decay,

How many fillings do you have? Despite being exposed to fluoride your entire life in both your toothpaste and water supply? I have 14, maybe the efficacy of fluoride versus potential harm for enforcing a mandatory drug consumption as part of industrial waste re-sale should be evaluated. After all since the ban in Central Europe of introducing byproduct fluoride to water supplies doesn't seem to have impacted anything outside of the pockets of companies and individual who had been receiving public dollars in exchange for a waste product.
 
2013-05-04 01:00:22 AM  
So we're all at least agreed that we shouldn't be fluoridating the water because of the beer. Glad we can agree on that.
 
2013-05-04 03:19:22 AM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld:
 I'm not "anti" fluoride.  It's just that the studies that include the largest populations don't support the notion that it's as effective as people here claim.  It may have some positive effect, but it's negligible. But you're barely literate, so I'm not surprised you can't discern the difference.


Holy Christ, I can't believe this argument is still going on.  I found this thread entertaining at work today, but now 4 bourbons deep I felt compelled to interject.  The crux of your argument is that correlation doesn't imply causality, but to "prove" your point you provide a graph with one extremely broad data set.  That's not how it works.  Your graph prove the whole "correlation doesn't equal causality" thing but against your favor.  There are so many outside factors (healthcare, economic, etc.) that weigh into your hypothesis without any representation.  However there were several links provided which took these factors into consideration and the results contradicted your graph, yet you continued to repeat your failed argument.  So I'm concluding you're either trolling or stupid because there's no other explanation for the argument you're setting forth.
 
2013-05-04 06:12:47 AM  

NathanAllen: Who's done more research on the subject than the good people at the American Tobacco Industry? They say it's harmless. Why would they lie? If you're dead, you can't smoke... Munson

Industrial waste is industrial waste, benefit or no it seems if we follow the financial aspect of this issue we find a pile of money being moved from one party to another, always in the direction of public tax dollars to private individuals.

When Chinese manufacturers and Canadian importers conspire to push up acceptable levels of melamine in pet food its a tragic shame. Why use a product as a substitution for protein when it could be safely used as a substitute for urea or phosphate based  fertilizer?

Simple, sell melamine as a fertiziler and you get X per pound, add it to a pet food product and you get Y per pound. If Y is higher than X you push it into the market as Y.

We need aluminum, we need phosphate based fertiizers. Both processes produce prodigious amounts of silicofluorides, it feels absurd that the byproducts of these processes are considered a health benefit specifically related to tooth decay,

How many fillings do you have? Despite being exposed to fluoride your entire life in both your toothpaste and water supply? I have 14, maybe the efficacy of fluoride versus potential harm for enforcing a mandatory drug consumption as part of industrial waste re-sale should be evaluated. After all since the ban in Central Europe of introducing byproduct fluoride to water supplies doesn't seem to have impacted anything outside of the pockets of companies and individual who had been receiving public dollars in exchange for a waste product.


Your argument is based on a quote from an idiot in a movie? Okay....

Counterargument (since you have not read any of the papers presented here):

Just when I think you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this...and totally redeem yourself! Harry

Since you are making the assertion that "big fluoride" exist, and that fluoride is so damaging (you should stop using Nitrogen, it is present in fertilizers) show some peer-reviewed papers that contradict what has been shown here.
 
2013-05-04 01:04:07 PM  

NathanAllen: How many fillings do you have? Despite being exposed to fluoride your entire life in both your toothpaste and water supply? I have 14,
maybe the efficacy of fluoride versus potential harm for enforcing a mandatory drug consumption as part of industrial waste re-sale should be evaluated.


Or maybe you've just got shiatty personal hygiene, because the efficacy of fluoride versus potential harm has been evaluated many times over six and a half decades that water fluoridation has been happening,  and the results have consistently shown that the benefits outweigh the negatives.

So, there you go. Your Concerns were all based on your ignorance of the situation. I hope you feel better now.
 
Displayed 21 of 321 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report