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
 
2013-05-03 06:07:38 AM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
oblig
 
2013-05-03 06:09:23 AM  
We'll inevitably have a rush of FARK posters in this thread who feel the exact same way, submitter!
 
2013-05-03 06:19:10 AM  

sammyk: [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 257x196]
oblig


Also mentioned explicitly in TFA.
 
2013-05-03 06:31:29 AM  
What if the only people able to recognize the damage it does aren't doctors and scientists but conspiracy theorists and people on Facebook?

Everybodypanic.jpg
 
2013-05-03 06:33:38 AM  
I just don't like the idea of my beer being adulterated with fluoride. Many Portland breweries use the city's (delicious) tap water as the basis for their beers. Adding fluoride introduces a change that is neither wanted nor desired.

Keep fluoride out of the water. If not for the childrens' sakes, at least for the beer's.
 
2013-05-03 06:34:19 AM  
What if the only people able to recognize the damage it does aren't doctors and scientists but conspiracy theorists and people on Facebook?
If science explicitly disagrees with tinfoil-hat nutters and dipshiats on Facebook, I think it's a pretty safe bet to side with the scientists.
 
2013-05-03 06:34:38 AM  

Jim_Callahan: sammyk: [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 257x196]
oblig

Also mentioned explicitly in TFA.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-03 06:44:38 AM  
The important thing to know is, are anti-fluoride nuts liberals or conservatives?
 
2013-05-03 06:46:01 AM  
That was stupid. Knock-off Colbert bit.
 
2013-05-03 06:46:42 AM  

KeatingFive: The important thing to know is, are anti-fluoride nuts liberals or conservatives?


Both.
 
2013-05-03 06:47:24 AM  

hardinparamedic: KeatingFive: The important thing to know is, are anti-fluoride nuts liberals or conservatives?

Both.


Oh good. I was afraid it might be MY tribe.
 
2013-05-03 06:47:43 AM  
Awesome article is awesome.  Science!
 
2013-05-03 06:55:03 AM  

KeatingFive: The important thing to know is, are anti-fluoride nuts liberals or conservatives?


From what I've seen on Facebook, both.
 
2013-05-03 06:59:49 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Also mentioned explicitly in TFA.


I see you, article reader.

img2u.info
 
2013-05-03 07:03:48 AM  
That's some good sarcasm. I feel refreshed.
 
2013-05-03 07:08:36 AM  
"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]
 
2013-05-03 07:10:01 AM  
Psst. Hey, conservatives. They sneak iodine into the table salt. That makes saltpeter. That's the anti-boner stuff they used in WWII. Turns you gay.
 
2013-05-03 07:18:03 AM  

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.
 
2013-05-03 07:23:01 AM  
Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.
 
2013-05-03 07:23:06 AM  
I like the people that fret about fluoride in the water, but also hate environmentalists.
 
2013-05-03 07:24:45 AM  

Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.


Sodium is poisonous. Chlorine is poisonous. So I guess we don't want any sodium chloride, do we?

/...and I hear there's a lot of dihydrogen monoxide in the water we drink. It can make people drown.
 
2013-05-03 07:25:43 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: I like the people that fret about fluoride in the water, but also hate environmentalists.


Or take colloidal silver as advertised on Alex Jones.
 
2013-05-03 07:27:34 AM  

notto: Or take colloidal silver as advertised on Alex Jones.


j6p.net

/the above is NOT a photoshop.
 
2013-05-03 07:28:38 AM  

Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.


My, what a convincing argument.

On one hand, we have a random person on the internet telling people to look in the dictionary and be scared of what they read.

On the other hand, we have actual scientists, national and international scientific and public health organizations, and decades of peer-reviewed research to support the idea that adding minute amounts of fluoride to drinking water improves dental health for entire communities with essentially no side effects.

I think I'm going to with the scientists on this one.
 
2013-05-03 07:30:01 AM  

Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.


A certain amount of fluoride, and other fluorine compound, exposure is just a part of being alive. How much you're exposed to depends on where you live, what you eat etc but there are wells with ground water with considerably more fluoride per liter than any municipal water supply is going to have. And in some cases people have drunk this water for centuries with no observed detriment to their health.
 
2013-05-03 07:30:43 AM  
I grew up in Newburgh NY, one of the very first cities to introduce fluoride into the water.

I've never had a cavity in my life.

And I'd be happy to pummel this guy's ass with a bat to prove how docile it has made me.
 
2013-05-03 07:32:26 AM  

IlGreven: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

Sodium is poisonous. Chlorine is poisonous. So I guess we don't want any sodium chloride, do we?

/...and I hear there's a lot of dihydrogen monoxide in the water we drink. It can make people drown.


Oxygen and hydrogen are both extremely flammable. I would't want stuff that dangerous in my home.
 
2013-05-03 07:33:05 AM  

hardinparamedic: notto: Or take colloidal silver as advertised on Alex Jones.



/the above is NOT a photoshop.


You're.... you're kidding, right?
 
2013-05-03 07:35:50 AM  

hardinparamedic: /the above is NOT a photoshop.


Best of all, even if you stop taking the silver, the skin coloring doesn't go away.
 
2013-05-03 07:37:05 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: You're.... you're kidding, right?


It's a condition known as argyria, in this fine gentleman's case due to his consumption of colloidal silver for several years.
 
2013-05-03 07:40:14 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

A certain amount of fluoride, and other fluorine compound, exposure is just a part of being alive. How much you're exposed to depends on where you live, what you eat etc but there are wells with ground water with considerably more fluoride per liter than any municipal water supply is going to have. And in some cases people have drunk this water for centuries with no observed detriment to their health.


imageshack.us

And in others.....


/Puts the fluoride in your water.
 
2013-05-03 07:41:06 AM  

WhyteRaven74: hardinparamedic: /the above is NOT a photoshop.

Best of all, even if you stop taking the silver, the skin coloring doesn't go away.


Why would you want it to go away??!!!
 
2013-05-03 07:42:11 AM  

odinsposse: IlGreven: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

Sodium is poisonous. Chlorine is poisonous. So I guess we don't want any sodium chloride, do we?

/...and I hear there's a lot of dihydrogen monoxide in the water we drink. It can make people drown.

Oxygen and hydrogen are both extremely flammable. I would't want stuff that dangerous in my home.


I'm not going to give my baby anything with chemicals in it.
 
2013-05-03 07:50:23 AM  
FTA: . Too many people let the fact that their ideas are unsound prevent them from voicing them. Too many people use their ignorance and lack of critical-thinking skills as an excuse for cowardice.

Does this sound like any particular tab on any particular news agregation site?
 
2013-05-03 07:50:52 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: hardinparamedic: notto: Or take colloidal silver as advertised on Alex Jones.

/the above is NOT a photoshop.

You're.... you're kidding, right?



I had to do a little searching to refresh my memory, but that's Stan Jones, a man from Montana who unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate as a Libertarian who stated in a debate that the U.S. and Europe is on the verge of forming a one-world Communist government.

He ingested colloidal silver because he believed that Y2K would somehow render modern antibiotics non-functional.
 
2013-05-03 07:51:16 AM  
How about chlorine? ferric oxide?, alum?, hydrchloric acid?, sodium hydroxide? I build water treatment plants.  All of these chemicals are routinely put in water sold for human consumption. In order for water to pass standards in Texas, it must have a free chlorine residual of .2 ppm.
I love the flouridiots.  They scream about it when they have no idea what else goes on.
 
2013-05-03 07:52:49 AM  

sammyk: [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 257x196]
oblig


Done in one.
 
2013-05-03 07:54:47 AM  
This type of derp is dangerous.
 
2013-05-03 07:55:21 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I just don't like the idea of my beer being adulterated with fluoride. Many Portland breweries use the city's (delicious) tap water as the basis for their beers. Adding fluoride introduces a change that is neither wanted nor desired.

Keep fluoride out of the water. If not for the childrens' sakes, at least for the beer's.


Water filtration for brewing beer and coffee.. How does it work?
 
2013-05-03 07:55:58 AM  

Dear Jerk: That's the anti-boner stuff they used in WWII.


Pretty sure that is a myth though, the military sneaking saltpeter into soldier's breakfasts
 
2013-05-03 07:57:22 AM  
I am not coming down on one side or the other on this but I think that the onus is on those who wish to put fluoride into the water to justify doing so, not on those opposed to adding it.
 
2013-05-03 07:58:17 AM  

heypete: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

My, what a convincing argument.

On one hand, we have a random person on the internet telling people to look in the dictionary and be scared of what they read.

On the other hand, we have actual scientists, national and international scientific and public health organizations, and decades of peer-reviewed research to support the idea that adding minute amounts of fluoride to drinking water improves dental health for entire communities with essentially no side effects.

I think I'm going to with the scientists on this one.


So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...
 
2013-05-03 07:59:16 AM  
Wow. TFA.  Always nice to see a pro at work.
 
2013-05-03 07:59:36 AM  
The amount of flouride in a tube of toothpaste could kill a small child.  If you ingests more than the amount used to brush, call poison control.

Enjoy your flouride water!
 
2013-05-03 07:59:58 AM  

Whodat: I am not coming down on one side or the other on this but I think that the onus is on those who wish to put fluoride into the water to justify doing so, not on those opposed to adding it.


You mean the decades of confirmed peer reviewed journals and studies that have said it's good for overall health? That evidence?
 
2013-05-03 08:02:01 AM  

KeatingFive: The important thing to know is, are anti-fluoride nuts liberals or conservatives?


The only anti-fluoride person I know is very liberal.

I'm a liberal, but I'm also a scientist, and I have little patience for anti-scientific nonsense no matter what side of the political spectrum it falls on.

Whether homeopathy, anti-fluoride, or fear-mongering about GMOs or nuclear power on the left, or creationism, climate change denialism, and fear-mongering about discredited abortion health risks on the right, or anti-vaccine fear-mongering across the political spectrum.

It's all bullshiat.  Sadly, no political persuasion has a monopoly on anti-scientific ideas.
 
2013-05-03 08:04:04 AM  

Cretony38: heypete: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

My, what a convincing argument.

On one hand, we have a random person on the internet telling people to look in the dictionary and be scared of what they read.

On the other hand, we have actual scientists, national and international scientific and public health organizations, and decades of peer-reviewed research to support the idea that adding minute amounts of fluoride to drinking water improves dental health for entire communities with essentially no side effects.

I think I'm going to with the scientists on this one.

So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...


you know what else is poisonous. Alcohol, Morphine, Oxygen,  and many other things you utilize everyday.
 
2013-05-03 08:04:56 AM  
Fluoride? Hell, they aren't even putting lithium into Portland's water!
 
2013-05-03 08:11:28 AM  

KeatingFive: The important thing to know is, are anti-fluoride nuts liberals or conservatives?


Trolls come in all forms.
 
2013-05-03 08:13:49 AM  

badhatharry: The amount of flouride in a tube of toothpaste could kill a small child.  If you ingests more than the amount used to brush, call poison control.

Enjoy your flouride water!


That's a lie.

Toothpaste only has about 1000 ppm fluoride in it, or about 20-30 times LESS than a lethal dose. At the very most, it might give you a tummy ache - as you would expect from being stupid enough to eat a tube of toothpaste.

Practically everything can be lethal if you ingest too much of (think; water toxicity). I take asprin when I have a headache. I don't take 30 of them because I'm not a moron.

Enjoy eating 30 tubes of toothpaste!
 
2013-05-03 08:15:15 AM  
Fluoride in water.
Iodine in salt.
Niacin in flour.
Vitamin D in milk.

We've been doing it for decades and it seems to have worked pretty well so far.
 
2013-05-03 08:16:16 AM  

spickus: imageshack.us

And in others.....


/Puts the fluoride in your water.


Dental fluorosis occurs with extremely high levels of fluoride exposure, typically at levels way above what you find in the municipal tap.

Do you know how these people typically get their dental fluorosis? They usually get it from well water, because the naturally occurring well water will typically have way higher levels of dissolved fluoride in it. The municipal tap is monitored to keep fluoride at a low level which is demonstrated safe for human consumption.
 
2013-05-03 08:17:45 AM  

TwistedFark: badhatharry: The amount of flouride in a tube of toothpaste could kill a small child.  If you ingests more than the amount used to brush, call poison control.

Enjoy your flouride water!

That's a lie.

Toothpaste only has about 1000 ppm fluoride in it, or about 20-30 times LESS than a lethal dose. At the very most, it might give you a tummy ache - as you would expect from being stupid enough to eat a tube of toothpaste.

Practically everything can be lethal if you ingest too much of (think; water toxicity). I take asprin when I have a headache. I don't take 30 of them because I'm not a moron.

Enjoy eating 30 tubes of toothpaste!


Once you realize that everything is trying to kill you, you can enjoy life.
 
2013-05-03 08:17:49 AM  

hardinparamedic: notto: Or take colloidal silver as advertised on Alex Jones.

[j6p.net image 300x330]

/the above is NOT a photoshop.


Maybe I'm missing something...what about that picture is supposed to make me think it's a PS?

/curious
 
2013-05-03 08:19:50 AM  

RexTalionis: spickus: imageshack.us

And in others.....


/Puts the fluoride in your water.

Dental fluorosis occurs with extremely high levels of fluoride exposure, typically at levels way above what you find in the municipal tap.

Do you know how these people typically get their dental fluorosis? They usually get it from well water, because the naturally occurring well water will typically have way higher levels of dissolved fluoride in it. The municipal tap is monitored to keep fluoride at a low level which is demonstrated safe for human consumption.


No shiat?
 
2013-05-03 08:20:10 AM  
yep.

Done in one.

Was expecting the General somewhere around the fifth post or so.

good job.
 
2013-05-03 08:24:16 AM  

badhatharry: The amount of flouride in a tube of toothpaste could kill a small child.  If you ingests more than the amount used to brush, call poison control.

Enjoy your flouride water!


Wake up, sheeple!
 
2013-05-03 08:26:37 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I just don't like the idea of my beer being adulterated with fluoride. Many Portland breweries use the city's (delicious) tap water as the basis for their beers. Adding fluoride introduces a change that is neither wanted nor desired.

Keep fluoride out of the water. If not for the childrens' sakes, at least for the beer's.


This is the only legitimate argument, and has completely swayed my opinion. No fluoride!
 
2013-05-03 08:27:04 AM  

DirkValentine: hardinparamedic: notto: Or take colloidal silver as advertised on Alex Jones.

[j6p.net image 300x330]

/the above is NOT a photoshop.

Maybe I'm missing something...what about that picture is supposed to make me think it's a PS?

/curious


He's blue. Taking colloidal silver can turn you blue like a goddamned smurf.
 
2013-05-03 08:27:11 AM  

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.


They're forged by Illuminati mystics.. to prevent us from finding out the truth!
 
2013-05-03 08:29:34 AM  

TrollingForColumbine: Cretony38: heypete: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

My, what a convincing argument.

On one hand, we have a random person on the internet telling people to look in the dictionary and be scared of what they read.

On the other hand, we have actual scientists, national and international scientific and public health organizations, and decades of peer-reviewed research to support the idea that adding minute amounts of fluoride to drinking water improves dental health for entire communities with essentially no side effects.

I think I'm going to with the scientists on this one.

So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...

you know what else is poisonous. Alcohol, Morphine, Oxygen,  and many other things you utilize everyday.


All I did was point out that this industrial by-product which has been used as pest control for what it is. And you guys get so defensive and attack me because you don't like the facts. Well I don't like them either. "Decades of peer review" so if its such a convincing argument why are they constantly studying it? And where does your fluoride come from?
 
2013-05-03 08:31:32 AM  

Cretony38: So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...


No, my position is to say "a dictionary definition does not tell the whole story and it's silly to rely on just the dictionary in the face of extensive scientific studies that say that it is beneficial".

Would I want to breathe pure fluorine gas? Certainly not. It is, as you point out, poisonous. There's a lot of things that, if taken to excess, are poisonous or harmful but can be beneficial in smaller quantities. Iron, for example, is necessary for hemoglobin in the blood, but if you ingesting excessive iron can cause failure of the liver, heart, and pancreas. Same thing with antibiotics (which are effectively poison) and other medicines. Drinking too much water can be dangerous to your health.

Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies show that adding fluoride compounds to drinking water improves dental health with extremely rare side effects. National and international public health agencies composed of scientists, doctors, dentists, and other experts recommend doing so.

Are you suggesting that I disregard scientific results which are based on decades of study, leading experts from around the world, and national and international public health agencies because of a dictionary definition?
 
2013-05-03 08:32:49 AM  

Lady Indica: DirkValentine: hardinparamedic: notto: Or take colloidal silver as advertised on Alex Jones.

[j6p.net image 300x330]

/the above is NOT a photoshop.

Maybe I'm missing something...what about that picture is supposed to make me think it's a PS?

/curious

He's blue. Taking colloidal silver can turn you blue like a goddamned smurf.


HA!!!  That's all I could think of but was obviously to farking lazy to google it.

That's funny stuff!
 
2013-05-03 08:32:58 AM  

Kuroshin: AverageAmericanGuy: I just don't like the idea of my beer being adulterated with fluoride. Many Portland breweries use the city's (delicious) tap water as the basis for their beers. Adding fluoride introduces a change that is neither wanted nor desired.

Keep fluoride out of the water. If not for the childrens' sakes, at least for the beer's.

This is the only legitimate argument, and has completely swayed my opinion. No fluoride!


farking campden tablets or charcoal filters, HOW DO THEY WORK?!
 
2013-05-03 08:34:34 AM  

Cretony38: All I did was point out that this industrial by-product which has been used as pest control for what it is. And you guys get so defensive and attack me because you don't like the facts. Well I don't like them either. "Decades of peer review" so if its such a convincing argument why are they constantly studying it? And where does your fluoride come from?


You sound concerned.
 
2013-05-03 08:38:03 AM  
Of course Fluoride is bad. Dr Mercola told me so. My right wing conservative conspiracy believing mother-in-law uses xylitol toothpaste with no fluoride in it and her town in Washington voted down a measure to fluoridate their water. But she's old, so when her teeth fall out, we can just blame it on that.
 
2013-05-03 08:38:14 AM  

Lexx: farking campden tablets or charcoal filters, HOW DO THEY WORK?!


Neither remove fluoride.
 
2013-05-03 08:38:16 AM  

VictoryCabal: Fluoride in water.
Iodine in salt.
Niacin in flour.
Vitamin D in milk.

We've been doing it for decades and it seems to have worked pretty well so far.


We should also be putting lithium in something.
 
2013-05-03 08:39:40 AM  

spickus: Neither remove fluoride.


Distillation, however, does.
 
2013-05-03 08:41:34 AM  

neversubmit: VictoryCabal: Fluoride in water.
Iodine in salt.
Niacin in flour.
Vitamin D in milk.

We've been doing it for decades and it seems to have worked pretty well so far.

We should also be putting lithium in something.


brawndo
 
2013-05-03 08:42:46 AM  

heypete: spickus: Neither remove fluoride.

Distillation, however, does.


Never said otherwise but I am curious as to why people are concerned about it affecting beer?
 
2013-05-03 08:43:55 AM  

DirkValentine: Lady Indica: DirkValentine: hardinparamedic: notto: Or take colloidal silver as advertised on Alex Jones.

[j6p.net image 300x330]

/the above is NOT a photoshop.

Maybe I'm missing something...what about that picture is supposed to make me think it's a PS?

/curious

He's blue. Taking colloidal silver can turn you blue like a goddamned smurf.

HA!!!  That's all I could think of but was obviously to farking lazy to google it.

That's funny stuff!


It really is because its not a harmful condition, except I would imagine psychologically.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria
 
2013-05-03 08:44:19 AM  

heypete: Cretony38: So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...

No, my position is to say "a dictionary definition does not tell the whole story and it's silly to rely on just the dictionary in the face of extensive scientific studies that say that it is beneficial".

Would I want to breathe pure fluorine gas? Certainly not. It is, as you point out, poisonous. There's a lot of things that, if taken to excess, are poisonous or harmful but can be beneficial in smaller quantities. Iron, for example, is necessary for hemoglobin in the blood, but if you ingesting excessive iron can cause failure of the liver, heart, and pancreas. Same thing with antibiotics (which are effectively poison) and other medicines. Drinking too much water can be dangerous to your health.

Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies show that adding fluoride compounds to drinking water improves dental health with extremely rare side effects. National and international public health agencies composed of scientists, doctors, dentists, and other experts recommend doing so.

Are you suggesting that I disregard scientific results which are based on decades of study, leading experts from around the world, and national and international public health agencies because of a dictionary definition?


The real problem is the amount of prescription medicine that doesn't get filtered out of the water things like viagra and antidepressants.  Sometimes after drinking water I get boners yet am apathetic about fapping it.
 
2013-05-03 08:44:47 AM  

TwistedFark: badhatharry: The amount of flouride in a tube of toothpaste could kill a small child.  If you ingests more than the amount used to brush, call poison control.

Enjoy your flouride water!

That's a lie.

Toothpaste only has about 1000 ppm fluoride in it, or about 20-30 times LESS than a lethal dose. At the very most, it might give you a tummy ache - as you would expect from being stupid enough to eat a tube of toothpaste.

Practically everything can be lethal if you ingest too much of (think; water toxicity). I take asprin when I have a headache. I don't take 30 of them because I'm not a moron.

Enjoy eating 30 tubes of toothpaste!


I thought that was true. It may not be lethal but it's a lot more than a tummy ache. The warning is right on the tube, you can check yours, "If you accidentally swallow more than the amount used for brushing, get medical assisstance or contact Poision Control right away."  This is one of those idiotic legal disclaimers but it's there for a reason. Somebody sued because they were injured by misusing this product.
 
2013-05-03 08:45:36 AM  

spickus: Never said otherwise but I am curious as to why people are concerned about it affecting beer?


True. I was just pointing it out in case anyone was curious. :)

As for beer, I dunno. I can't taste any difference between normal fluoridated water and non-fluoridated water. Various articles I've read on the subject say that it shouldn't affect taste at all.

/likes beer
 
2013-05-03 08:46:02 AM  

Milo Minderbinder: That's some good sarcasm. I feel refreshed.


QFT
 
2013-05-03 08:46:39 AM  
Wichita voted down fluoride just this past year. So keep that in mind, Portland. You'll be just like Wichita, America.
 
2013-05-03 08:46:45 AM  

CPennypacker: neversubmit: VictoryCabal: Fluoride in water.
Iodine in salt.
Niacin in flour.
Vitamin D in milk.

We've been doing it for decades and it seems to have worked pretty well so far.

We should also be putting lithium in something.

brawndo


One of these things is not like the other.

Iodine in salt.
Niacin in flour.
Vitamin D in milk.
Lithium in Brawndo.

Can you tell which one is not like the other?
 
2013-05-03 08:48:48 AM  
I lol'ed.

/See also: anti-vaxxers
 
2013-05-03 08:49:53 AM  

neversubmit: CPennypacker: neversubmit: VictoryCabal: Fluoride in water.
Iodine in salt.
Niacin in flour.
Vitamin D in milk.

We've been doing it for decades and it seems to have worked pretty well so far.

We should also be putting lithium in something.

brawndo

One of these things is not like the other.

Iodine in salt.
Niacin in flour.
Vitamin D in milk.
Lithium in Brawndo.

Can you tell which one is not like the other?


BUT ITS GOT WHAT PLANTS CRAVE
 
2013-05-03 08:50:00 AM  

neversubmit: Lithium in Brawndo.


But it's got what plants crave!
 
2013-05-03 08:53:59 AM  
TwistedFark: Toothpaste only has about 1000 ppm fluoride in it, or about 20-30 times LESS than a lethal dose.

Um, in what universe are legal doses measured in parts per million?

Please stop trying to help.
 
2013-05-03 08:56:02 AM  
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".
 
2013-05-03 08:56:49 AM  
LETHAL. Goddamn autocorrect.
 
2013-05-03 08:57:47 AM  

Zagloba: TwistedFark: Toothpaste only has about 1000 ppm fluoride in it, or about 20-30 times LESS than a lethal dose.

Um, in what universe are legal doses measured in parts per million?

Please stop trying to help.


I think we can all agree that fluoride is legal.
 
2013-05-03 09:00:00 AM  

CPennypacker: neversubmit: CPennypacker: neversubmit: VictoryCabal: Fluoride in water.
Iodine in salt.
Niacin in flour.
Vitamin D in milk.

We've been doing it for decades and it seems to have worked pretty well so far.

We should also be putting lithium in something.

brawndo

One of these things is not like the other.

Iodine in salt.
Niacin in flour.
Vitamin D in milk.
Lithium in Brawndo.

Can you tell which one is not like the other?

BUT ITS GOT WHAT PLANTS CRAVE


t3knomanser: neversubmit: Lithium in Brawndo.

But it's got what plants crave!


CONTEXT MATTERS! :)
 
2013-05-03 09:01:52 AM  

Zagloba: Um, in what universe are legal doses measured in parts per million?


But let's do it right. The LD50 for sodium fluoride is 32mg/kg of bodyweight. At 1000ppm of fluoride, you'd need to consume 32g of toothpaste per kg of bodyweight for a lethal dose (unless I slipped a decimal point out). An average tube contains 164g, so a very small child could die from eating an entire tube.
 
2013-05-03 09:06:49 AM  

spickus: Lexx: farking campden tablets or charcoal filters, HOW DO THEY WORK?!

Neither remove fluoride.


Yes they do.  Let me google that for you.
 
2013-05-03 09:08:31 AM  

Lexx: spickus: Lexx: farking campden tablets or charcoal filters, HOW DO THEY WORK?!

Neither remove fluoride.

Yes they do.  Let me google that for you.


No they do not and your link doesn't say that they do.
 
2013-05-03 09:08:32 AM  
Some laid back cities have natural Lithium in the water.
 
2013-05-03 09:08:44 AM  

Lexx: Yes they do.  Let me google that for you.


Those products remove  chlorine, not  fluorine.
 
2013-05-03 09:11:00 AM  

TwistedFark: badhatharry: The amount of flouride in a tube of toothpaste could kill a small child.  If you ingests more than the amount used to brush, call poison control.

Enjoy your flouride water!

That's a lie.

Toothpaste only has about 1000 ppm fluoride in it, or about 20-30 times LESS than a lethal dose. At the very most, it might give you a tummy ache - as you would expect from being stupid enough to eat a tube of toothpaste.

Practically everything can be lethal if you ingest too much of (think; water toxicity). I take asprin when I have a headache. I don't take 30 of them because I'm not a moron.

Enjoy eating 30 tubes of toothpaste!


We require potassium to survive, but too much kills you.  Vitamin C is toxic at a high enough level, so we should avoid it altogether. Enjoy your scurvy.

Any time someone runs to the "flouride is poison" argument, I know they're not worth engaging since they haven't employed any critical thinking to the subject.

Thank you for doing it so I didn't have to.
 
2013-05-03 09:11:50 AM  
Let's not insult colloidal silver. Can you think of a better way to protect yourself from vampires?

/Fed fluoride since I was a kid.
//Never had any cavities.
///Extreme liberal.
 
2013-05-03 09:12:06 AM  

Lady Indica: This type of derp is dangerous.


Dangerous?

Eh, maybe....maybe not.

Entertaining?

Hell yes!
 
2013-05-03 09:12:35 AM  
I once conpaired the use of fluorine to homeopathy, that was a fun thread...
 
2013-05-03 09:14:26 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: We require potassium to survive, but too much kills you.


It's always amusing to point out that potassium-40 is radioactive and is the largest source of radiation for the average person. Postassium-rich foods like bananas are sometimes used for informal examples of radiation exposure.
 
2013-05-03 09:16:51 AM  

heypete: rufus-t-firefly: We require potassium to survive, but too much kills you.

It's always amusing to point out that potassium-40 is radioactive and is the largest source of radiation for the average person. Postassium-rich foods like bananas are sometimes used for informal examples of radiation exposure.


Pure potassium also LIGHTS ON FIRE when you expose it to WATER. Can you think of anything more unnatural?!
 
2013-05-03 09:17:25 AM  

TheGogmagog: The real problem is the amount of prescription medicine that doesn't get filtered out of the water things like viagra and antidepressants.  Sometimes after drinking water I get boners yet am apathetic about fapping it.


at least with all the ambien in the water we are likely catching up with ourmasturbation in the middle of the night with those zombie like trances.
 
2013-05-03 09:17:27 AM  

spickus: Lexx: spickus: Lexx: farking campden tablets or charcoal filters, HOW DO THEY WORK?!

Neither remove fluoride.

Yes they do.  Let me google that for you.

No they do not and your link doesn't say that they do.


Whoops, I thought you meant Chlorine.  But carbon filtration (bone carbon) does remove fluoride from water.
 
2013-05-03 09:20:00 AM  

Skarekrough: Lady Indica: This type of derp is dangerous.

Dangerous?

Eh, maybe....maybe not.

Entertaining?

Hell yes!


It was satire you dolts!
 
2013-05-03 09:21:14 AM  
Ah flouride.  The point at which the conservtive conspiracy theorist meet the enviro wackos in the big circle of crazy.
 
2013-05-03 09:22:04 AM  

neversubmit: I once conpaired the use of fluorine to homeopathy, that was a fun thread...


Oh, you're good. Even a typo in the brag. Bravo, sir!

/my water will remember you with its memory
 
2013-05-03 09:23:08 AM  
I don't think we should do it.  I have fluoride prescriptions for my kids, and I agree with the overwhelming science supporting it being good for healthy teeth.  But I get hung up on the issue of why I should force you to make that choice.  When we do things at a societal level, I'd like the benefits to be clearly visible for society.  Saving you $15/year on dental work benefits the rest of us how?
 
2013-05-03 09:25:22 AM  

phaseolus: He ingested colloidal silver because he believed that Y2K would somehow render modern antibiotics non-functional.


Why did my nose just start bleeding when I read this?  This can't be good...
 
2013-05-03 09:26:23 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I just don't like the idea of my beer being adulterated with fluoride. Many Portland breweries use the city's (delicious) tap water as the basis for their beers. Adding fluoride introduces a change that is neither wanted nor desired.

Keep fluoride out of the water. If not for the childrens' sakes, at least for the beer's.


I'm sure most of the breweries already filter their water before it's brewed with. Fluoride isn't exactly hard to filter out.

If fluoride in the water bothers you that much, get a good activated carbon filter or, if you're super paranoid, a reverse osmosis filter for your drinking water.
 
2013-05-03 09:26:26 AM  

t3knomanser: Zagloba: Um, in what universe are legal doses measured in parts per million?

But let's do it right. The LD50 for sodium fluoride is 32mg/kg of bodyweight. At 1000ppm of fluoride, you'd need to consume 32g of toothpaste per kg of bodyweight for a lethal dose (unless I slipped a decimal point out). An average tube contains 164g, so a very small child could die from eating an entire tube.


Sodium fluoride, which is the reference standard for water, is measure in mg/m3  (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0563.html )

Hydorgen fluoride, a gas, is measure in PPM.  Most gases ADLH are measure in straight PPM. (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0334.html )


Also, if your afraid of Fluoride in water, you should fear the Chlorine in salt.
 
2013-05-03 09:27:23 AM  

Rootus: I don't think we should do it.  I have fluoride prescriptions for my kids, and I agree with the overwhelming science supporting it being good for healthy teeth.  But I get hung up on the issue of why I should force you to make that choice.  When we do things at a societal level, I'd like the benefits to be clearly visible for society.  Saving you $15/year on dental work benefits the rest of us how?


not sure if serious.....
 
2013-05-03 09:27:49 AM  

born_yesterday: phaseolus: He ingested colloidal silver because he believed that Y2K would somehow render modern antibiotics non-functional.

Why did my nose just start bleeding when I read this?  This can't be good...


It's because they know.
 
2013-05-03 09:29:45 AM  

Muta: Skarekrough: Lady Indica: This type of derp is dangerous.

Dangerous?

Eh, maybe....maybe not.

Entertaining?

Hell yes!

It was satire you dolts!


To be fair, though, tell me "Why am I against? Because I don't know what I'm talking about"  doesn't seem like a real Tea Party statement.
 
2013-05-03 09:30:16 AM  
Hello, welcome to my home. Would you like a glass of water? Yes? Just a moment.  Oh, by the way, our water is non-fluorinated. Would you like me to add some fluoride to your water?
 
2013-05-03 09:30:43 AM  

born_yesterday: phaseolus: He ingested colloidal silver because he believed that Y2K would somehow render modern antibiotics non-functional.

Why did my nose just start bleeding when I read this?  This can't be good...


YOU IDIOT, YOU REMOVED THE IMPLANT!!!!
 
2013-05-03 09:31:37 AM  

born_yesterday: Why did my nose just start bleeding when I read this? This can't be good...


Nothing a little silver solution couldn't fix, I'm sure.

You know what the best part of it is? Silver isn't very toxic so it doesn't really have any other damaging effects.... it's basically just a full-body warning to the rest of the world that you're a giant moron.
 
2013-05-03 09:34:43 AM  

skozlaw: born_yesterday: Why did my nose just start bleeding when I read this? This can't be good...

Nothing a little silver solution couldn't fix, I'm sure.

You know what the best part of it is? Silver isn't very toxic so it doesn't really have any other damaging effects.... it's basically just a full-body warning to the rest of the world that you're a giant moron.


Like a snuggie.
 
2013-05-03 09:35:14 AM  

EyeballKid: To be fair, though, tell me "Why am I against? Because I don't know what I'm talking about"  doesn't seem like a real Tea Party statement.


Maybe because you have a hard time with satire?

Just so you know, this guy writes for Glenn Beck.
 
2013-05-03 09:36:21 AM  

Lexx: spickus: Lexx: spickus: Lexx: farking campden tablets or charcoal filters, HOW DO THEY WORK?!

Neither remove fluoride.

Yes they do.  Let me google that for you.

No they do not and your link doesn't say that they do.

Whoops, I thought you meant Chlorine.  But carbon filtration (bone carbon) does remove fluoride from water.



If you ask for activated carbon you will not get bone char and vice versa.  It is a big difference. Claiming that carbon filtration will remove fluoride is inaccurate. Claiming that filtration with bone char will remove fluoride is correct. I currently operate a 12.5 million gallon a day water treatment facility and have been in the industry for nearly 23 years. Until today I have never heard of bone char.  Typically fluoride is removed using resin filled vessels that are regenerated with salts.
 
2013-05-03 09:41:53 AM  

Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.


I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!
 
2013-05-03 09:46:05 AM  

heypete: rufus-t-firefly: We require potassium to survive, but too much kills you.

It's always amusing to point out that potassium-40 is radioactive and is the largest source of radiation for the average person. Postassium-rich foods like bananas are sometimes used for informal examples of radiation exposure.


That reminds me - I've actually seen people arguing against water fluoridation who then confuse fluoride with uranium hexafluoride.

I'm definitely against the latter being in my water supply.
 
2013-05-03 09:49:11 AM  

Iblis824: Sodium fluoride, which is the reference standard for water, is measure in mg/m3



Most people use hydrofluosilicic acid as their source of F not sodium fluoride. The MSDS you linked is specifically for sodium fluoride and the numbers you are quoting are for exposure to airborne particles and have nothing to do with water treatment (or toothpaste). The MCL for fluoride in water is 4 mg/L. I know you were responding to a post about toothpaste but you mentioned water in your reply.
 
2013-05-03 09:50:27 AM  

spickus: I currently operate a 12.5 million gallon a day water treatment facility and have been in the industry for nearly 23 years.


Fark has such an interesting cross-section of the population wandering through it.
 
2013-05-03 09:50:53 AM  

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]


The plastic tips at the ends of shoelaces are called aglets.  Their true purpose is sinister.
 
2013-05-03 09:51:28 AM  

Zeno-25: I'm sure most of the breweries already filter their water before it's brewed with


Most do not, actually.  They consider it part of the character of the beer.  I don't think the brewers care, however, about fluoride.
 
2013-05-03 09:54:36 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: heypete: rufus-t-firefly: We require potassium to survive, but too much kills you.

It's always amusing to point out that potassium-40 is radioactive and is the largest source of radiation for the average person. Postassium-rich foods like bananas are sometimes used for informal examples of radiation exposure.

That reminds me - I've actually seen people arguing against water fluoridation who then confuse fluoride with uranium hexafluoride.

I'm definitely against the latter being in my water supply.


Someone told me that our immune system actually relies on a certain amount of background radiation to function properly.  But I'm not arguing for uranium supplements.
 
2013-05-03 09:58:23 AM  

jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!


What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.
 
2013-05-03 09:59:06 AM  

abb3w: spickus: I currently operate a 12.5 million gallon a day water treatment facility and have been in the industry for nearly 23 years.

Fark has such an interesting cross-section of the population wandering through it.


My thoughts exactly.  This place has everything.
 
2013-05-03 10:02:07 AM  

Moopy Mac: Zagloba: TwistedFark: Toothpaste only has about 1000 ppm fluoride in it, or about 20-30 times LESS than a lethal dose.

Um, in what universe are legal doses measured in parts per million?

Please stop trying to help.

I think we can all agree that fluoride is legal.


So are Barium Enemas. I'll just leave you to take these legsl substances how ever you want.
 
2013-05-03 10:03:36 AM  

Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.


See? these are the type of answers that gives me the peace of mind that there are soldiers of the truth out there! Do not get me wrong, it is not as if I actually do biomedical research or some nonsense and I would NEVER know how to use PubMed. Perhaps you, soldier of truth, can link to some peer-reviewed studies showing the damaging effects of flouride at the concentrations we currently use. That would bring the truth out in the open!
 
2013-05-03 10:04:46 AM  

spickus: Iblis824: Sodium fluoride, which is the reference standard for water, is measure in mg/m3


Most people use hydrofluosilicic acid as their source of F not sodium fluoride. The MSDS you linked is specifically for sodium fluoride and the numbers you are quoting are for exposure to airborne particles and have nothing to do with water treatment (or toothpaste). The MCL for fluoride in water is 4 mg/L. I know you were responding to a post about toothpaste but you mentioned water in your reply.


From what i hear, al ot of people are moving to Sodium fluorosilicate because the hydrofluosilic acid is expensive to ship, being about 70% water.<a data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" en.wikipedia.org="" wiki="" sodium_fluorosilicate"="" target="_blank">

But yeah, i just linked the NIOSH guides to answer the question about when ppm is used for dangerous exposures.  NIOSH is mostly concerned with worker safety, so they'd most likely be exposed to the dust
 
2013-05-03 10:04:56 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: That reminds me - I've actually seen people arguing against water fluoridation who then confuse fluoride with uranium hexafluoride.

I'm definitely against the latter being in my water supply.


Yeah. UF6 is nasty stuff. Definitely don't want any of that around.
 
2013-05-03 10:05:06 AM  

Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.


If you think there was an organized plan to get us to all accept something deadly, then you're arguing for a conspiracy theory.

But I get it - you're "just asking questions."
 
2013-05-03 10:05:22 AM  
Drinking overly filtered water, in general, is bad for you.
 
2013-05-03 10:06:00 AM  

badhatharry: The amount of flouride in a tube of toothpaste could kill a small child.  If you ingests more than the amount used to brush, call poison control.

Enjoy your flouride water!


Hey, look!  Someone who can't spell "fluoride" is shiatting his pants in fear over it!  Well, he certainly seems like a reputable sort.

badhatharry: I do think that alien beings have visited Earth in the past and may still visit. There are many sightings by credible witnesses, including airline pilots and scientists. There are many references throughout history of flying craft before 1900.


badhatharry: I have seen a ghost. You would believe in them if you saw one.


In other shocking news, he's a birther who believes that climate change is a hoax and that vaccine are linked to autism.  I'm sure if we could get a Bigfoot, Moon Landing, and Flat Earth thread, he'd have a lot of knowledge to drop.
 
2013-05-03 10:09:03 AM  

Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.


And you wanted "a single study," right?

Fluoridation of Drinking Water: a Systematic Review of its Efficacy and Safety
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm
 
2013-05-03 10:09:41 AM  

Zeno-25: AverageAmericanGuy: I just don't like the idea of my beer being adulterated with fluoride. Many Portland breweries use the city's (delicious) tap water as the basis for their beers. Adding fluoride introduces a change that is neither wanted nor desired.

Keep fluoride out of the water. If not for the childrens' sakes, at least for the beer's.

I'm sure most of the breweries already filter their water before it's brewed with. Fluoride isn't exactly hard to filter out.

If fluoride in the water bothers you that much, get a good activated carbon filter or, if you're super paranoid, a reverse osmosis filter for your drinking water.


YOU CAN'T TRICK ME, SPOOK
 
2013-05-03 10:10:23 AM  

paidhima: My thoughts exactly.  This place has everything.


You have no idea how right you are.
 
2013-05-03 10:11:48 AM  
And for the people who love conspiracy theories for the lulz:

http://insidejobscast.com/
A podcast dedicated to "fun"covering the truth!
 
2013-05-03 10:13:13 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

And you wanted "a single study," right?

Fluoridation of Drinking Water: a Systematic Review of its Efficacy and Safety
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm


Easy read if your only source of information comes from shady websites and reading the dictionary:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/41/1/129.long
 
2013-05-03 10:14:45 AM  

Iblis824: From what i hear, al ot of people are moving to Sodium fluorosilicate because the hydrofluosilic acid is expensive to ship, being about 70% water.


While it's true that HFS is mostly water and therefore more expensive to ship, the fact that it can fed neat without the need for expensive storage silos & dry feed systems ensures that it is more economical than sodium fluoride for all but the largest water plants. It's interesting that people are moving to sodium fluoride. Where did you hear that?
 
2013-05-03 10:14:55 AM  

spickus: I currently operate a 12.5 million gallon a day water treatment facility and have been in the industry for nearly 23 years.

static4.businessinsider.com


WHAT COMMUNIST CELL DO YOU BELONG TO?
 
2013-05-03 10:15:46 AM  

RexTalionis: Drinking overly filtered water, in general, is bad for you.


What is overly filtered water and why is drinking it bad for you?
 
2013-05-03 10:18:51 AM  

Rootus: Zeno-25: I'm sure most of the breweries already filter their water before it's brewed with

Most do not, actually.  They consider it part of the character of the beer.  I don't think the brewers care, however, about fluoride.


This is true.  Dissolved solids and chemicals in the water are a big part of how beer tastes.  Beer is mostly water, don't you know.

Fluroide, and other things, may be filtered out by the macrobreweries, since they have to replicate a consistent product.  Microbreweries mostly use the water that they're given because they brew in one place.
 
2013-05-03 10:21:20 AM  

spickus: Lexx: spickus: Lexx: spickus: Lexx: farking campden tablets or charcoal filters, HOW DO THEY WORK?!

Neither remove fluoride.

Yes they do.  Let me google that for you.

No they do not and your link doesn't say that they do.

Whoops, I thought you meant Chlorine.  But carbon filtration (bone carbon) does remove fluoride from water.


If you ask for activated carbon you will not get bone char and vice versa.  It is a big difference. Claiming that carbon filtration will remove fluoride is inaccurate. Claiming that filtration with bone char will remove fluoride is correct. I currently operate a 12.5 million gallon a day water treatment facility and have been in the industry for nearly 23 years. Until today I have never heard of bone char.  Typically fluoride is removed using resin filled vessels that are regenerated with salts.


OK, then you can clear this up for me.  I worked at a treatment plant years ago (*treatment plant fistbump*).  You know the open air tanks, pretty early in the process, that have oxygen pumped into them?  I swear the safety guy told me that if you fell in, you would sink in the poop-water, because the aeration would prevent buoyancy.  He said if you were smart, and kept your wits about you, you would walk to the edge of the tank, find the wall, then walk along to find the ladder out.  Was he just messing with me?  Seems like a crappy thing to do during a safety course.  Get it?!  Anyways, I brought this up a couple of years ago on FARK, and someone disagreed with me, so I'd like some vindication, if possible.
 
2013-05-03 10:22:23 AM  

spickus: RexTalionis: Drinking overly filtered water, in general, is bad for you.

What is overly filtered water and why is drinking it bad for you?


Absolutely pure H20 with no dissolved anything in it not only tastes a little flat, but is also not as good for you as other water.

If you just drank pure distilled H2O you could achieve water "poisoning" faster I guess.  Otherwise its pretty damn neutral.
 
2013-05-03 10:27:53 AM  

Rootus: When we do things at a societal level, I'd like the benefits to be clearly visible for society.  Saving you $15/year on dental work benefits the rest of us how?


Shorter wait times at the dentist's office?
 
2013-05-03 10:30:25 AM  

Iblis824: Sodium fluoride, which is the reference standard for water, is measure in mg/m3


Sodium fluoride, which is the standard for toothpaste (but not the only fluoride source), is measured in PPM in toothpaste, at least when you try and find out how much fluoride is in toothpaste, that's the only data you can easily get.
 
2013-05-03 10:38:12 AM  

born_yesterday: OK, then you can clear this up for me.  I worked at a treatment plant years ago (*treatment plant fistbump*).  You know the open air tanks, pretty early in the process, that have oxygen pumped into them?


*treatment plant fistbump*

You worked in a WASTE water treatment plant. My water has no lumps.

I swear the safety guy told me that if you fell in, you would sink in the poop-water, because the aeration would prevent buoyancy.

You are correct.

 Wear a coast Guard Approved life jacket when
working around aeration tanks where there are no
guardrails to protect you. Because of the volume in
the aeration tank that is occupied by air bubbles, a
person without a floatation device is not buoyant
enough to float or swim in an aeration basin (PDF warning)

He said if you were smart, and kept your wits about you, you would walk to the edge of the tank, find the wall, then walk along to find the ladder out.

I have never heard that but it would beat doing nothing if the basin had a ladder. Most do not!

What a way to die..... drowned in the waste of thousands of people.
 
2013-05-03 10:39:28 AM  

spickus: RexTalionis: Drinking overly filtered water, in general, is bad for you.

What is overly filtered water and why is drinking it bad for you?


http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientschap12.pdf    <--- From the WHO.

I'll give you some highlights:

"In this chapter, demineralised water is defined as water almost or completely free of dissolved minerals as a result of distillation, deionization, membrane filtration (reverse osmosis or nanofiltration), electrodialysis or other technology. The total dissolved solids (TDS) in such water can vary but TDS could be as low as 1 mg/L. The electrical conductivity is generally less than 2 mS/m and may even be lower (<0.1 mS/m). "

"It has been adequately demonstrated that consuming water of low mineral content has a negative effect on homeostasis mechanisms, compromising the mineral and water metabolism in the body. An increase in urine output (i.e., increased diuresis) is associated with an increase in excretion of major intra- and extracellular ions from the body fluids, their negative balance, and changes in body water levels and functional activity of some body water management-dependent hormones.Experiments in animals, primarily rats, for up to one-year periods have repeatedly shown that the intake of distilled water or water with TDS≤ 75 mg/L leads to: 1.) increased water intake, diuresis, extracellular fluid volume, and serum concentrations of sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl) ions and their increased elimination from the body, resulting in an overall negative balance..,and 2.) lower volumes of red cells and some other hematocrit changes (3). "

"Additional evidence comes from animal experiments and clinical observations in several countries. Animals given zinc or magnesium dosed in their drinking water had a significantly higher concentration of these elements in the serum than animals given the same elements in much higher amounts with food and provided with low-mineral water to drink. Based on the results of experiments and clinical observations of mineral deficiency in patients whose intestinal absorption did not need to be taken into account and who received balanced intravenous nutrition diluted with distilled water, Robbins and Sly (9) presumed that intake of low-mineral water was responsible for an increased elimination of minerals from the body."

"For about 50 years, epidemiological studies in many countries all over the world have reported that soft water (i.e., water low in calcium and magnesium) and water low in magnesium is associated with increased morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared to hard water and water high in magnesium. An overview of epidemiological evidence is provided by recent review articles (12-15) and summarized in other chapters of this monograph (Calderon and Craun, Monarca et al.). Recent studies also suggest that the intake of soft water, i.e. water low in calcium, may be associated with higher risk of fracture in children (16), certain neurodegenerative diseases (17), pre-term birth and low weight at birth (18) and some types of cancer (19, 20). In addition to an increased risk of sudden death (21-23), the intake of water low in magnesium seems to be associated with a higher risk of motor neuronal disease (24), pregnancy disorders (so-called preeclampsia) (25), and some cancers (26-29).

When used for cooking, soft water was found to cause substantial losses of all essential elements from food (vegetables, meat, cereals). Such losses may reach up to 60 % for magnesium and calcium or even more for some other microelements (e.g., copper 66 %, manganese 70 %, cobalt 86 %). In contrast, when hard water is used for cooking, the loss of these elements is much lower, and in some cases, an even higher calcium content was reported in food as a result of cooking (38-41)"

"Increased risk from toxic metals may be posed by low-mineral water in two ways: 1.) higher leaching of metals from materials in contact with water resulting in an increased metal content in drinking water, and 2.) lower protective (antitoxic) capacity of water low in calcium and magnesium.  ...
  Among eight outbreaks of chemical poisoning from drinking water reported in the USA in 1993-1994, there were three cases of lead poisoning in infants who had blood-lead levels of 15 μg/dL, 37μg/dL, and 42μg/dL. The level of concern is 10 μg/dL. For all three cases, lead had leached from brass fittings and lead-soldered seams in drinking water storage tanks. The three water systems used low mineral drinking water that had intensified the leaching process (42). First-draw water samples at the kitchen tap had lead levels of 495 to 1050 μg/L for the two infants with the highest blood lead; 66μg/L was found in water samples collected at the kitchen tap of the third infant (43). "
 
2013-05-03 10:40:53 AM  
It all comes down to if you believe in forced drugging. If you want fluoride in your water, add it your self.
 
2013-05-03 10:43:56 AM  

ourbigdumbmouth: It all comes down to if you believe in forced drugging. If you want fluoride in your water, add it your self.


Naturally occurring water has sodium fluoride in it. Would you object to it so much if municipalities simply modify the filtration system so that it doesn't remove as much fluoride as it does now in its purification?
 
2013-05-03 10:45:18 AM  

jrodr018: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

See? these are the type of answers that gives me the peace of mind that there are soldiers of the truth out there! Do not get me wrong, it is not as if I actually do biomedical research or some nonsense and I would NEVER know how to use PubMed. Perhaps you, soldier of truth, can link to some peer-reviewed studies showing the damaging effects of flouride at the concentrations we currently use. That would bring the truth out in the open!


So put your vitriol & politics aside. The fact remains Fluoride is a toxic compound, an industrial by product that is to toxic to be dumped into a landfill. And was used in pest control. So are these facts incorrect?
 
2013-05-03 10:45:21 AM  

ourbigdumbmouth: It all comes down to if you believe in forced drugging. If you want fluoride in your water, add it your self.


I believe in protecting morons from themselves

Also I believe in protecting people from adding their own fluoride incorrectly and poisoning themselves
 
2013-05-03 10:47:28 AM  

CPennypacker: ourbigdumbmouth: It all comes down to if you believe in forced drugging. If you want fluoride in your water, add it your self.

I believe in protecting morons from themselves


But where will we get all the bubblewrap?
wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net
 
2013-05-03 10:47:30 AM  
 
2013-05-03 10:48:34 AM  

Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

See? these are the type of answers that gives me the peace of mind that there are soldiers of the truth out there! Do not get me wrong, it is not as if I actually do biomedical research or some nonsense and I would NEVER know how to use PubMed. Perhaps you, soldier of truth, can link to some peer-reviewed studies showing the damaging effects of flouride at the concentrations we currently use. That would bring the truth out in the open!

So put your vitriol & politics aside. The fact remains Fluoride is a toxic compound, an industrial by product that is to toxic to be dumped into a landfill. And was used in pest control. So are these facts incorrect?


Sunlight at its current levels sustains the planet. If we moved the planet closer and got a higher dose it would burn us all to death and turn the earth into a rotating ash sphere.Concentration is relevant. Do you deny this?
 
2013-05-03 10:49:15 AM  

chimp_ninja: that vaccine are linked to autism


English much?  Your entire point is invalid.
 
2013-05-03 10:50:12 AM  

born_yesterday: OK, then you can clear this up for me. I worked at a treatment plant years ago (*treatment plant fistbump*). You know the open air tanks, pretty early in the process, that have oxygen pumped into them? I swear the safety guy told me that if you fell in, you would sink in the poop-water, because the aeration would prevent buoyancy.


Probably mostly screwing with you.  However, some of that depedning upon the type of aeration they were using (course bubble to help with mixing or fine bubble to pump as much oxygen into the water as possible).  Course bubble aeration will create currents and eddies within the tank to keep things stirred up and this may impact how easily you could swim.  Just think of it as a big hot tub the night after a big party that you are trying to swim in with the bubbles on.

/Engineer involved with water and wastewater
 
2013-05-03 10:50:59 AM  

spickus: Esc7: Absolutely pure H20 with no dissolved anything in it not only tastes a little flat

Yes it does.

but is also not as good for you as other water.

Citation please.

The expert meeting concluded that only a few minerals in natural waters had sufficient concentrations and distribution to expect that their consumption in drinking water might sometimes be a significant supplement to dietary intake in some populations.


See my entire previous post.
 
2013-05-03 10:51:16 AM  

CPennypacker: Also I believe in protecting people from adding their own fluoride incorrectly and poisoning themselves


You don't add it to your own water.  You take it as a pill, just like any other prescribed medicine.
 
2013-05-03 10:51:56 AM  

spickus: You are correct.


That is something that I didn't know.  Reading through it, that makes sense. Thanks.
 
2013-05-03 10:53:10 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I just don't like the idea of my beer being adulterated with fluoride. Many Portland breweries use the city's (delicious) tap water as the basis for their beers. Adding fluoride introduces a change that is neither wanted nor desired.

Keep fluoride out of the water. If not for the childrens' sakes, at least for the beer's.


In a letter to the Oregonian, the owner and head brewer at Upright Brewing stated, "I can tell you that at standard levels (up to 0.7 ppm), fluoride in water is tasteless, odorless and doesn't affect the brewing process in any way. It is harmless to yeast and doesn't change the taste of beer one bit."
 
2013-05-03 10:55:26 AM  

Rootus: You don't add it to your own water. You take it as a pill, just like any other prescribed medicine.


The benifit of fluoride is topical.
 
2013-05-03 10:56:43 AM  

Krieghund: AverageAmericanGuy: I just don't like the idea of my beer being adulterated with fluoride. Many Portland breweries use the city's (delicious) tap water as the basis for their beers. Adding fluoride introduces a change that is neither wanted nor desired.

Keep fluoride out of the water. If not for the childrens' sakes, at least for the beer's.

In a letter to the Oregonian, the owner and head brewer at Upright Brewing stated, "I can tell you that at standard levels (up to 0.7 ppm), fluoride in water is tasteless, odorless and doesn't affect the brewing process in any way. It is harmless to yeast and doesn't change the taste of beer one bit."


THEY'VE ALREADY GOT TO HIM.
 
2013-05-03 10:58:28 AM  

spickus: My water has no lumps.


That was a beautiful turn of phrase.

/worked at a waste water treatment plant
//ok, technically the Sanitation District office next to the treatment plant. Still too close for most people.
 
2013-05-03 10:59:29 AM  
If you're worried about fluoride in the water, you probably don't want to look up estrogen analogues and bisphenol-A.

Cheers.
 
2013-05-03 11:00:33 AM  

CPennypacker: Sunlight at its current levels sustains the planet. If we moved the planet closer and got a higher dose it would burn us all to death and turn the earth into a rotating ash sphere.Concentration is relevant. Do you deny this?


Exactly right.  Those that point to the risks of substances without any context of dosage should be forced to sit throught the next EPA seminar on the Clean Water Act.
 
2013-05-03 11:01:36 AM  

TwistedFark: badhatharry: The amount of flouride in a tube of toothpaste could kill a small child.  If you ingests more than the amount used to brush, call poison control.

Enjoy your flouride water!

That's a lie.

Toothpaste only has about 1000 ppm fluoride in it, or about 20-30 times LESS than a lethal dose. At the very most, it might give you a tummy ache - as you would expect from being stupid enough to eat a tube of toothpaste.

Practically everything can be lethal if you ingest too much of (think; water toxicity). I take asprin when I have a headache. I don't take 30 of them because I'm not a moron.

Enjoy eating 30 tubes of toothpaste!


What if you ate a toothpaste tuba?
 
2013-05-03 11:01:54 AM  

spickus: My water has no lumps.


Until the operator in the Waste Water Treatment Plan upstream screws up :)
 
2013-05-03 11:02:51 AM  

CPennypacker: rotating ash sphere


Not a bad name for a band...
 
2013-05-03 11:06:01 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: TwistedFark: badhatharry: The amount of flouride in a tube of toothpaste could kill a small child.  If you ingests more than the amount used to brush, call poison control.

Enjoy your flouride water!

That's a lie.

Toothpaste only has about 1000 ppm fluoride in it, or about 20-30 times LESS than a lethal dose. At the very most, it might give you a tummy ache - as you would expect from being stupid enough to eat a tube of toothpaste.

Practically everything can be lethal if you ingest too much of (think; water toxicity). I take asprin when I have a headache. I don't take 30 of them because I'm not a moron.

Enjoy eating 30 tubes of toothpaste!

What if you ate a toothpaste tuba?


You would look like a Oompa Loompa.
 
2013-05-03 11:07:31 AM  

ourbigdumbmouth: It all comes down to if you believe in forced drugging. If you want fluoride in your water, add it your self.


Forced Drugging? Oooh scary words. It's not like there are valid public health reasons with little to no drawbacks to keeping fluoride levels within what science has deemed safe and beneficial.

Of course a super libertarian type like you probably monitors your own water out of your hand dug well and keeps the fluoride to within levels deemed safe by your own research and understanding.

/snark off
 
2013-05-03 11:14:56 AM  
My problem with flouride in the water isn't that I think it's dangerous; it's that it's totally unnecessary. Why don't we start supplementing the water with Vitamin C? It's goofy.
 
2013-05-03 11:18:47 AM  

Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.


Ah, there it is.

Welcome to green.
 
2013-05-03 11:21:00 AM  
RexTalionis:  I'll give you some highlights:


Wow, lots of info.

RexTalionis: Drinking overly filtered water, in general, is bad for you.

Your link :  "HEALTH RISKS FROM DRINKING DEMINERALISED WATER"

Filtered is NOT the same thing as demineralized.

From your post  "In this chapter, demineralised water is defined as water almost or completely free of dissolved minerals as a result of distillation, deionization, membrane filtration (reverse osmosis or nanofiltration), electrodialysis or other technology."

Your municipal water supply will never be "almost or completely free of dissolved minerals".  Only one of the methods that you bolded is even filtration (which is my whole point). Membrane filtration can demineralize water as you have described. But because of EPA regulations due to one your other concerns: "higher leaching of metals from materials in contact with water resulting in an increased metal content in drinking water " you don't have to be concerned with this in the US because we are required to provide a non-corrosive water. The cheapest and most effective way to do this is to add alkalies such as lime, caustic or soda ash. If it is determined during annual testing that a municipalities water supply is corrosive, that supplier will be required to correct the problem most quickly. Either by better pH control and/or corrosion inhibitors.

And here's why: (paraphrasing you) "Among eight outbreaks of chemical poisoning from drinking water reported in the USA in 1993-1994 **, there were three cases of lead poisoning in infants who had blood-lead levels of 15 μg/dL, 37μg/dL, and 42μg/dL. The level of concern is 10 μg/dL. For all three cases,lead had leached from brass fittings (<--bullshiat*) and lead-soldered seams (<---culprit) in drinking water storage tanks. "

This however is not due to "overly filtered water". It is due to improper pH and corrosion control.

*Brass fitting have always had very little lead and the industry has been going lead free for many years.
** The lead copper rule became law in '91 and I guess it was a little too slow for those infants.
 
2013-05-03 11:22:41 AM  

Wayne 985: My problem with flouride in the water isn't that I think it's dangerous; it's that it's totally unnecessary.


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Public Health Association all would seem to disagree with you.

Why would all of these agencies recommend fluoride if it was totally unncessary?
 
2013-05-03 11:22:49 AM  

chimp_ninja: badhatharry: The amount of flouride in a tube of toothpaste could kill a small child.  If you ingests more than the amount used to brush, call poison control.

Enjoy your flouride water!

Hey, look!  Someone who can't spell "fluoride" is shiatting his pants in fear over it!  Well, he certainly seems like a reputable sort.


He's not talking about fluoride, he's talking about flour-ide, when flour is added to water. Maybe he's got a gluten allergy.
 
2013-05-03 11:27:27 AM  

spickus: RexTalionis:  I'll give you some highlights:


Wow, lots of info.

RexTalionis: Drinking overly filtered water, in general, is bad for you.

Your link :  "HEALTH RISKS FROM DRINKING DEMINERALISED WATER"

Filtered is NOT the same thing as demineralized.

From your post  "In this chapter, demineralised water is defined as water almost or completely free of dissolved minerals as a result of distillation, deionization, membrane filtration (reverse osmosis or nanofiltration), electrodialysis or other technology."

Your municipal water supply will never be "almost or completely free of dissolved minerals".  Only one of the methods that you bolded is even filtration (which is my whole point). Membrane filtration can demineralize water as you have described. But because of EPA regulations due to one your other concerns: "higher leaching of metals from materials in contact with water resulting in an increased metal content in drinking water " you don't have to be concerned with this in the US because we are required to provide a non-corrosive water. The cheapest and most effective way to do this is to add alkalies such as lime, caustic or soda ash. If it is determined during annual testing that a municipalities water supply is corrosive, that supplier will be required to correct the problem most quickly. Either by better pH control and/or corrosion inhibitors.

And here's why: (paraphrasing you) "Among eight outbreaks of chemical poisoning from drinking water reported in the USA in 1993-1994 **, there were three cases of lead poisoning in infants who had blood-lead levels of 15 μg/dL, 37μg/dL, and 42μg/dL. The level of concern is 10 μg/dL. For all three cases,lead had leached from brass fittings (<--bullshiat*) and lead-soldered seams (<---culprit) in drinking water storage tanks. "

This however is not due to "overly filtered water". It is due to improper pH and corrosion control.

*Brass fitting have always had very little lead and the industry has been going lead fr ...


None of which negates my point that highly filtered water (for example, through reverse osmosis filtration, which, incidentally, someone suggested in this thread is good for one's health) is bad for you. This whole "water must be pure!" movement is complete bullshiat.
 
2013-05-03 11:28:43 AM  

spickus: For all three cases,lead had leached from brass fittings (<--bullshiat*) and lead-soldered seams (<---culprit) in drinking water storage tanks. "


Don't forget that many municipalites still have lead water pipes as well.  Most are doing what they can to get them replaced, but many still have them.  For these towns, it is imperative that they closely watch the pH and oxidation potential of the water.
 
2013-05-03 11:29:52 AM  

Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.


So put your vitriol & politics aside. The fact remains Fluoride is a toxic compound, an industrial by product that is to toxic to be dumped into a landfill. And was used in pest control. So are these facts incorrect?


Yeah in the same sense that a toddler would fight Mohammad Ali. Dude, I provided a 30 year old easy to read review paper showing no negative effects of fluoride (at the concentrations currently used), another (newer) paper was listed above that one. Of course ANY chemical can have deleterious effects if used in the appropriate concentrations. And this is not politics, it is science. I will change my mind when you show me peer reviewed, repeatable studies that show a negative effect of fluoride at the concentrations currently used. There, you have the floor.

/I am sure I butchered that Futurama quote
 
2013-05-03 11:30:04 AM  

HeadLever: spickus: My water has no lumps.

Until the operator in the Waste Water Treatment Plan upstream screws up :)


There is no surface water to use here so he'd have to really screw up to get effluent in my wells. 8 wells between 140' & 600' deep.
 
2013-05-03 11:30:15 AM  
Fluoride is unnecessary.  There's plenty of countries that don't use fluoridated water, and their dental health has been improving with the rest of the world.  Fluoride isn't the only factor involved in dental health, and it's obviously not responsible for the improvement.  Frankly, the biggest cheerleaders for fluoride don't know what the hell they're talking about.
 
2013-05-03 11:32:59 AM  

RexTalionis: None of which negates my point that highly filtered water (for example, through reverse osmosis filtration, which, incidentally, someone suggested in this thread is good for one's health) is bad for you. This whole "water must be pure!" movement is complete bullshiat.


You're right. If you treat your own drinking water in a way that is not done due to health concerns, some bad things might happen.
 
2013-05-03 11:34:25 AM  

Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

See? these are the type of answers that gives me the peace of mind that there are soldiers of the truth out there! Do not get me wrong, it is not as if I actually do biomedical research or some nonsense and I would NEVER know how to use PubMed. Perhaps you, soldier of truth, can link to some peer-reviewed studies showing the damaging effects of flouride at the concentrations we currently use. That would bring the truth out in the open!

So put your vitriol & politics aside. The fact remains Fluoride is a toxic compound, an industrial by product that is to toxic to be dumped into a landfill. And was used in pest control. So are these facts incorrect?


The fact also remains that Fluoride is prevalent in well water at concentrations much higher than what is proposed, that many compounds we need to consume wouldn't be allowed in concentration at a landfill, and that the fluoride containing compound used in pest control (sulfuryl fluoride - SO2F2) is not the compound that is being used to treat municipal water supplies.  Any of those incorrect either?
 
2013-05-03 11:35:05 AM  

HeadLever: Wayne 985: My problem with flouride in the water isn't that I think it's dangerous; it's that it's totally unnecessary.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Public Health Association all would seem to disagree with you.

Why would all of these agencies recommend fluoride if it was totally unncessary?


Something can be good for you and still unnecessary. Like Vitamin C. Let's start putting that in the water supply. I hear there's a Vitamin D deficiency as well. Maybe pump that into the water.

For the record, groups like the AMA also recommend making professional boxing a crime, so... there's that kind of mindset to contend with. They advocate for a lot of stuff that is physically good for you, but still intrusive.
 
2013-05-03 11:36:14 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: There's plenty of countries that don't use fluoridated water, and their dental health has been improving with the rest of the world.


Probably because most of them are finding out what a toothbrush is.
 
2013-05-03 11:44:08 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fluoride is unnecessary.  There's plenty of countries that don't use fluoridated water, and their dental health has been improving with the rest of the world.  Fluoride isn't the only factor involved in dental health, and it's obviously not responsible for the improvement.  Frankly, the biggest cheerleaders for fluoride don't know what the hell they're talking about.


As the official Fark representative of not knowing what the hell you're talking about, I respect your opinion
 
2013-05-03 11:44:15 AM  

Wayne 985: Like Vitamin C. Let's start putting that in the water supply. I hear there's a Vitamin D deficiency as well. Maybe pump that into the water.


These don't do well in chlorinated drinking water and is a non-starter.  Besides, vitamins come from food and need to be digested in order to be effective.  Flouride is a topical treatment that is not typically found in foods.
 
2013-05-03 11:46:28 AM  

CPennypacker: As the official Fark representative of not knowing what the hell you're talking about, I respect your opinion


CP and myself on the same side of an issue?  This tread is full of suprises.
 
2013-05-03 11:47:04 AM  

HeadLever: CPennypacker: As the official Fark representative of not knowing what the hell you're talking about, I respect your opinion

CP and myself on the same side of an issue?  This tread is full of suprises.


Aren't we usually?
 
2013-05-03 11:47:11 AM  
Why would you want to add more chemicals to your water and body? It is amazing how many people want fluoride in their water, I have not drinking fluorinated water for over ten years and have not had any tooth decay or health issues from a lack of fluoride. It is amazing how many people enjoy and support poisoning of their water, food and bodies.
 
2013-05-03 11:49:13 AM  

pmdgrwr: Why would you want to add more chemicals to your water and body? It is amazing how many people want fluoride in their water, I have not drinking fluorinated water for over ten years and have not had any tooth decay or health issues from a lack of fluoride. It is amazing how many people enjoy and support poisoning of their water, food and bodies.


You mean apart from all the other chemicals that compose your body? and food? and water? and air? Sorry, I will keep my chemicals.
 
2013-05-03 11:53:37 AM  

HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There's plenty of countries that don't use fluoridated water, and their dental health has been improving with the rest of the world.

Probably because most of them are finding out what a toothbrush is.


They're developed countries in Europe.  Maybe you should read about it before spouting off.

CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fluoride is unnecessary.  There's plenty of countries that don't use fluoridated water, and their dental health has been improving with the rest of the world.  Fluoride isn't the only factor involved in dental health, and it's obviously not responsible for the improvement.  Frankly, the biggest cheerleaders for fluoride don't know what the hell they're talking about.

As the official Fark representative of not knowing what the hell you're talking about, I respect your opinion


When did Fark nominate you as the "official representative of not knowing what the hell you're talking about"?  You certainly would have gotten my vote, but I assume you won in a landslide anyway.
 
2013-05-03 11:54:18 AM  

HeadLever: Wayne 985: Like Vitamin C. Let's start putting that in the water supply. I hear there's a Vitamin D deficiency as well. Maybe pump that into the water.

These don't do well in chlorinated drinking water and is a non-starter.  Besides, vitamins come from food and need to be digested in order to be effective.  Flouride is a topical treatment that is not typically found in foods.


Fair enough. What else can we add to water to make Americans healthier then? There have to be other interest groups who stand to make profits.
 
2013-05-03 11:54:58 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There's plenty of countries that don't use fluoridated water, and their dental health has been improving with the rest of the world.

Probably because most of them are finding out what a toothbrush is.

They're developed countries in Europe.  Maybe you should read about it before spouting off.

CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fluoride is unnecessary.  There's plenty of countries that don't use fluoridated water, and their dental health has been improving with the rest of the world.  Fluoride isn't the only factor involved in dental health, and it's obviously not responsible for the improvement.  Frankly, the biggest cheerleaders for fluoride don't know what the hell they're talking about.

As the official Fark representative of not knowing what the hell you're talking about, I respect your opinion

When did Fark nominate you as the "official representative of not knowing what the hell you're talking about"?  You certainly would have gotten my vote, but I assume you won in a landslide anyway.


Nobody knows what the hell you're talking about, I just represent us.
 
2013-05-03 11:55:42 AM  

Wayne 985: HeadLever: Wayne 985: Like Vitamin C. Let's start putting that in the water supply. I hear there's a Vitamin D deficiency as well. Maybe pump that into the water.

These don't do well in chlorinated drinking water and is a non-starter.  Besides, vitamins come from food and need to be digested in order to be effective.  Flouride is a topical treatment that is not typically found in foods.

Fair enough. What else can we add to water to make Americans healthier then? There have to be other interest groups who stand to make profits.


Bourbon
 
2013-05-03 11:56:30 AM  

Wayne 985: HeadLever: Wayne 985: Like Vitamin C. Let's start putting that in the water supply. I hear there's a Vitamin D deficiency as well. Maybe pump that into the water.

These don't do well in chlorinated drinking water and is a non-starter.  Besides, vitamins come from food and need to be digested in order to be effective.  Flouride is a topical treatment that is not typically found in foods.

Fair enough. What else can we add to water to make Americans healthier then? There have to be other interest groups who stand to make profits.


Are you saying we're all in the pocket of big fluoride?
 
2013-05-03 12:02:13 PM  

CPennypacker: Wayne 985: HeadLever: Wayne 985: Like Vitamin C. Let's start putting that in the water supply. I hear there's a Vitamin D deficiency as well. Maybe pump that into the water.

These don't do well in chlorinated drinking water and is a non-starter.  Besides, vitamins come from food and need to be digested in order to be effective.  Flouride is a topical treatment that is not typically found in foods.

Fair enough. What else can we add to water to make Americans healthier then? There have to be other interest groups who stand to make profits.

Are you saying we're all in the pocket of big fluoride?


Don't you know that scientists are in either the pockets of "big fluoride", "big climate", "big pharmaceuticals" and several other "bigs"? Have you ever seen a poor scientist? they are all "in" these vast conspiracies!
 
2013-05-03 12:02:53 PM  

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?
 
2013-05-03 12:05:22 PM  

odinsposse: IlGreven: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

Sodium is poisonous. Chlorine is poisonous. So I guess we don't want any sodium chloride, do we?

/...and I hear there's a lot of dihydrogen monoxide in the water we drink. It can make people drown.

Oxygen and hydrogen are both extremely flammable. I would't want stuff that dangerous in my home.


Oxygen can be poisonous in high enough concentrations.  That's why I won't breathe the stuff.
 
2013-05-03 12:08:27 PM  

CPennypacker: Nobody knows what the hell you're talking about, I just represent us.


Of course you don't know what the hell I'm talking about.  The only thing you ever do is take the opposing position of anyone with anything resembling a conspiracy theory regardless of the facts.  You never bother to research, if you did, you wouldn't have your ass handed to you in every thread.

Quick g-search came up with this.. Plenty of citations included from reputable agencies.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/01/overwhelming-number-of -s cientific.html

And here's a chart from the World Health Organization.sdsdw.org

But it must be the fluoride!!! derp!!!
 
2013-05-03 12:09:46 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 beat big chlorine by installing a hypochlorite generator but now I'm beholden to Morton.
 
2013-05-03 12:10:49 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: Nobody knows what the hell you're talking about, I just represent us.

Of course you don't know what the hell I'm talking about.  The only thing you ever do is take the opposing position of anyone with anything resembling a conspiracy theory regardless of the facts.  You never bother to research, if you did, you wouldn't have your ass handed to you in every thread.

Quick g-search came up with this.. Plenty of citations included from reputable agencies.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/01/overwhelming-number-of -s cientific.html

And here's a chart from the World Health Organization.[sdsdw.org image 596x433]

But it must be the fluoride!!! derp!!!


What, exactly, do you think your chart proves, of anything?

Why are you wrong in every thread? I can predict your position on any issue by imagining the stupidest possible interpretation of what is being discussed.
 
2013-05-03 12:11:02 PM  

Cretony38: The fact remains Fluoride is a toxic compound, an industrial by product that is to toxic to be dumped into a landfill. And was used in pest control. So are these facts incorrect?


"Fluoride" is "a compound" = false

You're already not off to a good start there.
 
2013-05-03 12:11:25 PM  

pmdgrwr: It is amazing how many people want fluoride in their water,


It is also amazing how many folks want an intake of minerals as well - things like the cobalt, zinc, iron, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, etc.  It is kind of weird that we would want stuff like that in our bodies isn't it?
 
2013-05-03 12:16:30 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: But it must be the fluoride!!! derp!!!


coorelation is not causation.  There is may items which can impact tooth decay beyond fluoride in drinking water.  Thinks like brushing and flossing habits, type of food, education, and general health can all have a huge impact on these numbers and trends.  Also don't forget that fluoride is also a naturally occuring mineral that is in pretty high concentrations in some water sources.
 
2013-05-03 12:17:37 PM  

spickus: I beat big chlorine by installing a hypochlorite generator but now I'm beholden to Morton.


Big Salt got you down?
 
2013-05-03 12:19:33 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: And here's a chart from the World Health Organization


I've posted that chart in the past myself. It wasn't well received.

/I'm off to add mind control juice fluoride to your water.
 
2013-05-03 12:20:17 PM  

CPennypacker: What, exactly, do you think your chart proves, of anything?

Why are you wrong in every thread? I can predict your position on any issue by imagining the stupidest possible interpretation of what is being discussed.


So your response is to pretend you're even dumber than usual and resort to the usual projection shtick?

Looks to me like fluoride is irrelevant in terms of the decrease in tooth decay.  What are your mental gymnastics telling you?

sdsdw.org
 
2013-05-03 12:21:06 PM  

HeadLever: spickus: I beat big chlorine by installing a hypochlorite generator but now I'm beholden to Morton.

Big Salt got you down?


Beats the RMP
 
2013-05-03 12:22:04 PM  

Muta: Skarekrough: Lady Indica: This type of derp is dangerous.

Dangerous?

Eh, maybe....maybe not.

Entertaining?

Hell yes!

It was satire you dolts!


Satire, yes, but there are enough mouth-breathing, tin-foil wearing, vaccine-avoiding crazies out there that wouldn't recognize satire if it shiat in their lap.  They'd lock onto the literal derp in the article as PROOF that they're right.
 
2013-05-03 12:22:29 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Looks to me like fluoride

(added to drinking water) is irrelevant in terms of the decrease in tooth decay.

FTFY
 
2013-05-03 12:22:38 PM  

spickus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And here's a chart from the World Health Organization

I've posted that chart in the past myself. It wasn't well received.

/I'm off to add mind control juice fluoride to your water.


Big fluoride strikes again!!!
 
2013-05-03 12:22:59 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Looks to me like fluoride is irrelevant in terms of the decrease in tooth decay.


Probably because that graph is not telling the entire story.  Fluoride can still be very relevent in this regard, but still drowned out by other factors.  Again, you are confusing coorelation and causation.
 
2013-05-03 12:23:45 PM  

HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: But it must be the fluoride!!! derp!!!

coorelation is not causation.  There is may items which can impact tooth decay beyond fluoride in drinking water.  Thinks like brushing and flossing habits, type of food, education, and general health can all have a huge impact on these numbers and trends.  Also don't forget that fluoride is also a naturally occuring mineral that is in pretty high concentrations in some water sources.


Correlation is not causation?  You do know that I'm saying EXACTLY THAT, right?  There is no correlation between fluoridation and tooth decay as this chart shows.  Other factors are responsible, so if you believe fluoride is responsible, you better be able to prove it.. with data.
 
2013-05-03 12:25:39 PM  

spickus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Looks to me like fluoride (added to drinking water) is irrelevant in terms of the decrease in tooth decay.

FTFY


Yet more derp.. Are you actually arguing that the natural fluoride in water has been increasing, and thus resulting in countries that don't fluoridate, achieving drastic improvements?
 
2013-05-03 12:26:18 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: What, exactly, do you think your chart proves, of anything?

Why are you wrong in every thread? I can predict your position on any issue by imagining the stupidest possible interpretation of what is being discussed.

So your response is to pretend you're even dumber than usual and resort to the usual projection shtick?

Looks to me like fluoride is irrelevant in terms of the decrease in tooth decay.  What are your mental gymnastics telling you?

[sdsdw.org image 596x433]


My mental gymnastics are telling me that you read that chart and it tells you fluoride makes no difference, when it should be telling you nothing because all it shows is the individual changes of the DMF index per country, and each country has different health care, differnet healthcare coverage, dental care, teach different dental care and maintenance procedures to their citizens, have different food consumption habits, have different levels of naturally occuring minerals and chemicals, including fluoride, in their water, and as such says nothing, really, about the effect fluoride itself has on preventing tooth decay

But by all means, keep digging.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-03 12:28:08 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: But it must be the fluoride!!! derp!!!

coorelation is not causation.  There is may items which can impact tooth decay beyond fluoride in drinking water.  Thinks like brushing and flossing habits, type of food, education, and general health can all have a huge impact on these numbers and trends.  Also don't forget that fluoride is also a naturally occuring mineral that is in pretty high concentrations in some water sources.

Correlation is not causation?  You do know that I'm saying EXACTLY THAT, right?  There is no correlation between fluoridation and tooth decay as this chart shows.  Other factors are responsible, so if you believe fluoride is responsible, you better be able to prove it.. with data.


What a peer reviewed study looks like vs. a "fluoridealert.org":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543717/
 
2013-05-03 12:30:50 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: There is no correlation between fluoridation and tooth decay as this chart shows


No it does not.  In order for the chart to show that, you first must prove that graph is free from any other outside factors that can impact your conclusion.  So far, you have not done that.
 
2013-05-03 12:33:41 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: spickus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Looks to me like fluoride (added to drinking water) is irrelevant in terms of the decrease in tooth decay.

FTFY

Yet more derp.. Are you actually arguing that the natural fluoride in water has been increasing, and thus resulting in countries that don't fluoridate, achieving drastic improvements?


Another study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3082236/
 
2013-05-03 12:34:37 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: spickus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Looks to me like fluoride (added to drinking water) is irrelevant in terms of the decrease in tooth decay.

FTFY

Yet more derp.. Are you actually arguing that the natural fluoride in water has been increasing, and thus resulting in countries that don't fluoridate, achieving drastic improvements?


No, I was agreeing with you farktard. According to this study, adding fluoride to drinking water is of dubious benefit. According to a brazillion other studies. topical application of fluoride to teeth (along with vastly improved dental hygiene) is quite beneficial.

/Derp indeed
 
2013-05-03 12:35:28 PM  

HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There is no correlation between fluoridation and tooth decay as this chart shows

No it does not.  In order for the chart to show that, you first must prove that graph is free from any other outside factors that can impact your conclusion.  So far, you have not done that.


But he has tens of blogs yet left uncited. Watch out!
 
2013-05-03 12:36:07 PM  

CPennypacker: My mental gymnastics are telling me that you read that chart and it tells you fluoride makes no difference, when it should be telling you nothing because all it shows is the individual changes of the DMF index per country, and each country has different health care, differnet healthcare coverage, dental care, teach different dental care and maintenance procedures to their citizens, have different food consumption habits, have different levels of naturally occuring minerals and chemicals, including fluoride, in their water, and as such says nothing, really, about the effect fluoride itself has on preventing tooth decay

But by all means, keep digging.


You're still providing nothing to prove your claim or refute the chart.  And your argument has basically devolved to "hey, what the fark does the WHO know about studying health, they're a bunch of jackwads, and I know better, but I won't cite my super secret data"

Look, the fact is that all countries, regardless of fluoridation are approaching the same rate, so fluoridation cannot be a significant factor.  Obviously, you fail to understand this.   Do you act this stupid in front of live people, or just on the internet?
 
2013-05-03 12:36:40 PM  
did they close another toxic waste dump this week? what with all the pro-fluoride articles today.

/Off to drink some roundup since theres not quite enough on my food.
 
2013-05-03 12:38:27 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?


Chlorine I get. That's a matter of stopping the spread of serious disease. Making prettier teeth should not really be a top priority for the government.
 
2013-05-03 12:40:10 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yet more derp.. Are you actually arguing that the natural fluoride in water has been increasing, and thus resulting in countries that don't fluoridate, achieving drastic improvements?


No, he is aguing that your graph does not make the claim that fluoride is irrlelvent as you did.  Again, you have not accounted for any outside factors such as flouride levels in natural water, education, brushing and flossing habits, or a number of other things.

It is very plausible that natural fluoride levels may be increasing if more municipal water is being pumped from groundwater wells.
 
2013-05-03 12:40:29 PM  

HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There is no correlation between fluoridation and tooth decay as this chart shows

No it does not.  In order for the chart to show that, you first must prove that graph is free from any other outside factors that can impact your conclusion.  So far, you have not done that.


Actually, no, you're the one who has to prove that there were outside factors that impacted the results.
 
2013-05-03 12:44:13 PM  

HeadLever: No, he is aguing that your graph does not make the claim that fluoride is irrlelvent as you did.  Again, you have not accounted for any outside factors such as flouride levels in natural water, education, brushing and flossing habits, or a number of other things.


I don't have to prove that there aren't any outside factors. You have to prove that there are.  I shouldn't have to explain something so basic.  You can't ask me to prove a negative.

My claim- there is no teakettle on mars
Your claim- there is a teakettle on mars
Your demand-  Prove to me that their isn't, or I'm right.
 
2013-05-03 12:47:03 PM  

Wayne 985: Making prettier teeth should not really be a top priority for the government.


So it is about making teeth 'prettier' and not about tooth decay and the health issues (and cost) assoicated with that?  Now you are just grasping at straws.  Hey if you dont want to drink fluoridated water, go buy some bottled water (though you had better check first as fluoride can be found in bottled water as well) or buy a water purification system.

Or move to a place that doesn't have fluoride added or naturally.  That is your choice.  No one is making you drink it.
 
2013-05-03 12:51:05 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Actually, no, you're the one who has to prove that there were outside factors that impacted the results.


Your the one posting the graph.  It is yours.  How the hell am I supposed to know the background data behind it?  Besides, I am not the one confusing coorelation and causation.  That is your fallacy.  Not mine.  Until you can prove your coorlation in the graph does cause your stated result, I'll continue to call you out on that fallacy.
 
2013-05-03 12:51:34 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I don't have to prove that there aren't any outside factors. You have to prove that there are.


It can readily assumed that there are factors other than drinking water fluoridation which may be factors in these countries' DMFT rates.  Otherwise we'd expect the numbers for every country in the fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups to be statistically identical across the entire chart.

Why play stupid?
 
2013-05-03 12:53:09 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HeadLever: No, he is aguing that your graph does not make the claim that fluoride is irrlelvent as you did.  Again, you have not accounted for any outside factors such as flouride levels in natural water, education, brushing and flossing habits, or a number of other things.

I don't have to prove that there aren't any outside factors. You have to prove that there are.  I shouldn't have to explain something so basic.  You can't ask me to prove a negative.

My claim- there is no teakettle on mars
Your claim- there is a teakettle on mars
Your demand-  Prove to me that their isn't, or I'm right.


Read the two papers I listed.
 
2013-05-03 12:53:32 PM  

HeadLever: No, he is aguing that your graph does not make the claim that fluoride is irrlelvent as you did. Again, you have not accounted for any outside factors such as flouride levels in natural water, education, brushing and flossing habits, or a number of other things.


It should be also be noted the decline in DMFT also tends to correlate with the implementation of universal healthcare (and dental care) coverage in a lot of the countries listed in the chart.

The US is unique among developed nations in that not everyone has the resources for dental coverage. Thus, comparing the US with any other countries in this respect is just not useful or relevant.
 
2013-05-03 12:53:49 PM  

poot_rootbeer: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I don't have to prove that there aren't any outside factors. You have to prove that there are.

It can readily assumed that there are factors other than drinking water fluoridation which may be factors in these countries' DMFT rates.  Otherwise we'd expect the numbers for every country in the fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups to be statistically identical across the entire chart.

Why play stupid?


Lol "play"
 
2013-05-03 12:57:24 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: My claim- there is no teakettle on mars fewer pirates means higher global temperature
Your claim- there is a teakettle on mars you need to prove that is an accurate comparison as coorelation does not always equal causation

BNCW's rebuttal - you need to prove that it doesn't
Everyone else *facepalm*
 
2013-05-03 12:58:04 PM  

HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Actually, no, you're the one who has to prove that there were outside factors that impacted the results.

Your the one posting the graph.  It is yours.  How the hell am I supposed to know the background data behind it?  Besides, I am not the one confusing coorelation and causation.  That is your fallacy.  Not mine.  Until you can prove your coorlation in the graph does cause your stated result, I'll continue to call you out on that fallacy.


You're making the claim that there is something wrong about the graph.  You're asking that I prove that there are not outside factors.  That's not how a debate works.   You must prove that there are outside factors, you cannot simply say there might be outside factors and request that I disprove every outside factor that could possibly exist.  Are you honestly this stupid?

poot_rootbeer: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I don't have to prove that there aren't any outside factors. You have to prove that there are.

It can readily assumed that there are factors other than drinking water fluoridation which may be factors in these countries' DMFT rates.  Otherwise we'd expect the numbers for every country in the fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups to be statistically identical across the entire chart.

Why play stupid?


You don't seem to understand the point.  They're arguing "sure, everything is getting better, but that doesn't mean fluoride isn't responsible too", when in fact, the chart shows just that.  If elves are magically appearing in everyone's room at night and performing fluoride treatments, they need to prove it.
 
2013-05-03 12:59:04 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Looks to me like fluoride is irrelevant in terms of the decrease in tooth decay. What are your mental gymnastics telling you?


It tells me that the US, which is the only country on that chart where not every citizen or resident has access to dental care, exhibited as steep a decline in DMFT as unfluoridated countries which had universal healthcare and dental care coverage for all citizens.
 
2013-05-03 12:59:48 PM  

HeadLever: Wayne 985: Making prettier teeth should not really be a top priority for the government.

So it is about making teeth 'prettier' and not about tooth decay and the health issues (and cost) assoicated with that?  Now you are just grasping at straws.  Hey if you dont want to drink fluoridated water, go buy some bottled water (though you had better check first as fluoride can be found in bottled water as well) or buy a water purification system.


It is not the government's job to wipe your ass, although maybe you'd like them to. Wouldn't want people getting diaper rash, after all. Its job is to do for people what they can't do for themselves.

Or move to a place that doesn't have fluoride added or naturally.  That is your choice.  No one is making you drink it.

That reminds me of the people who teach creationism in Louisiana public schools and then claim their pupils aren't being forced to learn it. Newsflash: government resources are nearly monopolies and telling people to move is stupid for any number of reasons I can begin listing.
 
2013-05-03 01:01:28 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If elves are magically appearing in everyone's room at night and performing fluoride treatments, they need to prove it.


I didn't mean to imply that the elves are directly applying the fluoride but they do put it in my toothpaste.
 
2013-05-03 01:01:37 PM  

RexTalionis: It should be also be noted the decline in DMFT also tends to correlate with the implementation of universal healthcare (and dental care) coverage in a lot of the countries listed in the chart.


I am not sure that I would go that far, however, regular dental cleanings becoming more and more commonplace (free under many dental plans) is likely one huge cause of that downward trend.
 
2013-05-03 01:01:48 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Actually, no, you're the one who has to prove that there were outside factors that impacted the results.

Your the one posting the graph.  It is yours.  How the hell am I supposed to know the background data behind it?  Besides, I am not the one confusing coorelation and causation.  That is your fallacy.  Not mine.  Until you can prove your coorlation in the graph does cause your stated result, I'll continue to call you out on that fallacy.

You're making the claim that there is something wrong about the graph.  You're asking that I prove that there are not outside factors.  That's not how a debate works.   You must prove that there are outside factors, you cannot simply say there might be outside factors and request that I disprove every outside factor that could possibly exist.  Are you honestly this stupid?

poot_rootbeer: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I don't have to prove that there aren't any outside factors. You have to prove that there are.

It can readily assumed that there are factors other than drinking water fluoridation which may be factors in these countries' DMFT rates.  Otherwise we'd expect the numbers for every country in the fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups to be statistically identical across the entire chart.

Why play stupid?

You don't seem to understand the point.  They're arguing "sure, everything is getting better, but that doesn't mean fluoride isn't responsible too", when in fact, the chart shows just that.  If elves are magically appearing in everyone's room at night and performing fluoride treatments, they need to prove it.


Dude, seriously, check out the Nevada study. It teases out several factors that contribute to different DMTF rates in different populations. At this point it seems like you asked for data, data was provided and now you are concentrating in discussing semantics.
 
2013-05-03 01:03:27 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're making the claim that there is something wrong about the graph


No I am not.  I am saying that coorelation is not necessarily causation.  It may be that you assertion is spot on.  However, without the confidence as to eliminate other factors that may impact the coorelation, you can not say that A is a result of B
 
2013-05-03 01:05:02 PM  

jrodr018: Read the two papers I listed.


You can link the relevant sections if you'd like.  If you're too lazy to read your own link, then I'm not bothering with you.

HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: My claim- there is no teakettle on mars fewer pirates means higher global temperature
Your claim- there is a teakettle on mars you need to prove that is an accurate comparison as coorelation does not always equal causation
BNCW's rebuttal - you need to prove that it doesn't
Everyone else *facepalm*


You're the one asking to prove the negative, not me.  Are you honestly this stupid, or just trolling?
 
2013-05-03 01:06:13 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: Read the two papers I listed.

You can link the relevant sections if you'd like.  If you're too lazy to read your own link, then I'm not bothering with you.

HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: My claim- there is no teakettle on mars fewer pirates means higher global temperature
Your claim- there is a teakettle on mars you need to prove that is an accurate comparison as coorelation does not always equal causation
BNCW's rebuttal - you need to prove that it doesn't
Everyone else *facepalm*

You're the one asking to prove the negative, not me.  Are you honestly this stupid, or just trolling?


Well no wonder you are uninformed. Sorry did not realize you are just stupid.
 
2013-05-03 01:10:27 PM  

Wayne 985: Its job is to do for people what they can't do for themselves.


I don't look at it that way.  If the people (goverment) want flouride in thier drinking water, fine. If you don't, that doesn't bother me either.  However, I'll correct you all day when you want to concoct some cocamamy story as to why it is going to kill us all and ignore the science on the issue.

I tend to support it just because the societal benifit is typically greater than the cost, not that I think that you 'need' it.
 
2013-05-03 01:10:47 PM  

jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: Read the two papers I listed.

You can link the relevant sections if you'd like.  If you're too lazy to read your own link, then I'm not bothering with you.

HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: My claim- there is no teakettle on mars fewer pirates means higher global temperature
Your claim- there is a teakettle on mars you need to prove that is an accurate comparison as coorelation does not always equal causation
BNCW's rebuttal - you need to prove that it doesn't
Everyone else *facepalm*

You're the one asking to prove the negative, not me.  Are you honestly this stupid, or just trolling?

Well no wonder you are uninformed. Sorry did not realize you are just stupid.


If you can't be bothered to read your own link and be able to quote a single relevant statement supporting your position, then you're not worth talking to.
 
2013-05-03 01:12:07 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're the one asking to prove the negative, not me.


No I am not.  I am asking you to refrain from telling everyone that A equals B when you have no clue if it does or not.  If you can't prove A equals B (which this graph does not), then quit stating it.

It is pretty simple really.
 
2013-05-03 01:18:06 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: Read the two papers I listed.

You can link the relevant sections if you'd like.  If you're too lazy to read your own link, then I'm not bothering with you.

Well no wonder you are uninformed. Sorry did not realize you are just stupid.

If you can't be bothered to read your own link and be able to quote a single relevant statement supporting your position, then you're not worth talking to.


Wow, so the data presented is not good enough for you? have you ever read a scientific paper? Like I said, I see the problem now. Once again, I did not realize your deficiencies.
 
2013-05-03 01:18:44 PM  

HeadLever: Wayne 985: Its job is to do for people what they can't do for themselves.

I don't look at it that way.  If the people (goverment) want flouride in thier drinking water, fine. If you don't, that doesn't bother me either.  However, I'll correct you all day when you want to concoct some cocamamy story as to why it is going to kill us all and ignore the science on the issue.

I tend to support it just because the societal benifit is typically greater than the cost, not that I think that you 'need' it.


Okay, so you clearly didn't actually read what I wrote. Try again, please: http://www.fark.com/comments/7732350/83992343#c83992343

It ain't that difficult to figure out.
 
2013-05-03 01:19:40 PM  
i.imgur.com

If history is any indicator, I'd get out now. Looks like a market correction is just around the corner...
 
2013-05-03 01:22:04 PM  

soup: [i.imgur.com image 728x523]

If history is any indicator, I'd get out now. Looks like a market correction is just around the corner...


Look at that... the DMFT levels are rising through the roof in spite of fluoridation!


/Yes, I'm bored.
 
2013-05-03 01:25:57 PM  

Wayne 985: Okay, so you clearly didn't actually read what I wrote.


I know what you wrote.  Is it unneccesary?  For the most part yes.  However, my point was not that it was necessary, but that it was benifical as indicated by the vaious sources I listed.  Chlorine in the water supply is also unnessary, so long as every user boils thier water for 10 minutes before using any of it.
 
2013-05-03 01:32:49 PM  

LordJiro: What if the only people able to recognize the damage it does aren't doctors and scientists but conspiracy theorists and people on Facebook?
If science explicitly disagrees with tinfoil-hat nutters and dipshiats on Facebook, I think it's a pretty safe bet to side with the scientists.


Well, it actually  has been shown to occasionally give kids 'flouride poisoning', i.e. white spots on their teeth. I knew two brothers in my homeschool group who had pretty weird-looking teeth because they drank flouridated water all the time.

That said, yeah, it's basically a good thing, just ask your dentist if you're worried about white spots.
 
2013-05-03 01:34:27 PM  

badhatharry: The amount of flouride in a tube of toothpaste could kill a small child.  If you ingests more than the amount used to brush, call poison control.

Enjoy your flouride water!


So you're an anti-flouridation kook, too? Not surprising, I suppose, given all the other stuff you believe

badhatharry: I believe that if there was a birth certificate, Obama would have released it.


badhatharry: Global warming/climate change is a hoax.


badhatharry: There is a definite increase in autism. Even after removing mercury from the vaccines it is still increasing. ... I think it is a mix of genetics and environment and maybe even vaccines.


badhatharry: I do think that alien beings have visited Earth in the past and may still visit. There are many sightings by credible witnesses, including airline pilots and scientists. There are many references throughout history of flying craft before 1900.


badhatharry: I have seen a ghost. You would believe in them if you saw one.

 
2013-05-03 01:37:58 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: And here's a chart from the World Health Organization.


Is that why it says right on it that it's from Fluoride Action Network? And you pulled it off an anti-fluoridation blog from San Diego? Because the WHO runs those things or something you farknut?

CPennypacker: Why are you wrong in every thread?


Because his entire worldview is apparently shaped by whatever dumb crap he can find on any random blog he can pull up in Google....
 
2013-05-03 01:39:34 PM  

jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: Read the two papers I listed.

You can link the relevant sections if you'd like.  If you're too lazy to read your own link, then I'm not bothering with you.

Well no wonder you are uninformed. Sorry did not realize you are just stupid.

If you can't be bothered to read your own link and be able to quote a single relevant statement supporting your position, then you're not worth talking to.

Wow, so the data presented is not good enough for you? have you ever read a scientific paper? Like I said, I see the problem now. Once again, I did not realize your deficiencies.


Still didn't read your own paper?  Sorry, but you're the only person who doesn't understand how this works.  You make a statement, which is either a quote, or a paraphrase of something in the document, then if it warrants attention, I read the document and debate if necessary.  As it stands, you did little more than provide me with a result from lmgtfy.com.  If you're that lazy, or too stupid to understand your own link, what would make me believe that something within your link is worth reading?

You've had 3 chances now to provide a single statement from your link, and you cannot be bothered to do that little?
 
2013-05-03 01:41:05 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: Read the two papers I listed.

You can link the relevant sections if you'd like.  If you're too lazy to read your own link, then I'm not bothering with you.

HeadLever: BraveNewCheneyWorld: My claim- there is no teakettle on mars fewer pirates means higher global temperature
Your claim- there is a teakettle on mars you need to prove that is an accurate comparison as coorelation does not always equal causation
BNCW's rebuttal - you need to prove that it doesn't
Everyone else *facepalm*

You're the one asking to prove the negative, not me.  Are you honestly this stupid, or just trolling?


Short version: "At the community level, the study strongly points to the importance of retaining and expanding the community fluoridation program as an effective preventive measure."

Long version: "The SiC Index was significantly higher than mean DMFT Index when comparing each demographic variable within each survey year (p < 0.001). Females, older adolescents (16-19 year olds), minority groups, those living in areas where the municipal water supply is not fluoridated, and those without dental insurance had higher mean DMFT scores. "

And yes, the authors are doing the proper controls.  Fluoridation is one of several variables with a statistically significant positive impact on dental health.

This paper was put right in front of you after you demanded data.  At least skimming it is the minimum courtesy after such a demand.

Right now, the simplest explanation for your behavior is that you're dimly aware that research is proving you to be grossly incorrect, so to try to save face you're pretending you can't read the research, presumably because you have to be at the gym in 26 minutes.
 
2013-05-03 01:41:58 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: Read the two papers I listed.

You can link the relevant sections if you'd like.  If you're too lazy to read your own link, then I'm not bothering with you.

Well no wonder you are uninformed. Sorry did not realize you are just stupid.

If you can't be bothered to read your own link and be able to quote a single relevant statement supporting your position, then you're not worth talking to.

Wow, so the data presented is not good enough for you? have you ever read a scientific paper? Like I said, I see the problem now. Once again, I did not realize your deficiencies.

Still didn't read your own paper?  Sorry, but you're the only person who doesn't understand how this works.  You make a statement, which is either a quote, or a paraphrase of something in the document, then if it warrants attention, I read the document and debate if necessary.  As it stands, you did little more than provide me with a result from lmgtfy.com.  If you're that lazy, or too stupid to understand your own link, what would make me believe that something within your link is worth reading?

You've had 3 chances now to provide a single statement from your link, and you cannot be bothered to do that little?


Oooh I am running out of chances with you? how scary!
 
2013-05-03 01:43:44 PM  

Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.


Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!
 
2013-05-03 01:44:34 PM  
 
2013-05-03 01:48:58 PM  

skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And here's a chart from the World Health Organization.

Is that why it says right on it that it's from Fluoride Action Network? And you pulled it off an anti-fluoridation blog from San Diego? Because the WHO runs those things or something you farknut?


Where'd the data come from, you farking retard?

chimp_ninja: Long version: "The SiC Index was significantly higher than mean DMFT Index when comparing each demographic variable within each survey year (p < 0.001). Females, older adolescents (16-19 year olds), minority groups, those living in areas where the municipal water supply is not fluoridated, and those without dental insurance had higher mean DMFT scores. "


Oh, now let me do the exact same thing that you people have been doing: "that doesn't mean that there isn't some other variable creating these results.  Prove to me that there isn't!"  Something tells me that the standards of proof are going to flip flop again.
 
2013-05-03 01:49:25 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Still didn't read your own paper? Sorry, but you're the only person who doesn't understand how this works. You make a statement, which is either a quote, or a paraphrase of something in the document, then if it warrants attention, I read the document and debate if necessary. As it stands, you did little more than provide me with a result from lmgtfy.com. If you're that lazy, or too stupid to understand your own link, what would make me believe that something within your link is worth reading?

You've had 3 chances now to provide a single statement from your link, and you cannot be bothered to do that little?


And from the other paper that you're dickishly refusing to read:

Short version: "The results of this study support existing work suggesting water fluoridation together with the use of fluoridated dentifrice provides improved caries prevention over the use of fluoridated dentifrice alone."

Long version: "The data suggests when detection criteria are set at level of caries into dentine there are clear differences between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations (p < 0.0001). However, if the detection threshold is changed to white spot lesion level these differences are reduced but still significant (p < 0.0001). The data sets were comparable between the two scoring techniques, particularly at a threshold of caries into dentine with both techniques (clinical and photographic scoring) demonstrating significant differences between fluoridated Newcastle and non-fluoridated Manchester (p < 0.0001). Data from repeat clinical caries examinations were available for 47 subjects. Weighted Kappa statistics for comparison of ICDAS tooth surface scores were generated at a surface level and showed excellent agreement (weighted Kappa = 0.80) [47]. A similar comparison on 50 subjects was made for ICDAS photographic scores and produced good agreement (weighted Kappa = 0.74)."

Two cities with very similar demographics (age, gender, economics, insurance, etc.), one fluorinated, one not.  They interviewed people about dietary and brushing habits, and they were very similar.  And yet, the people in the city with fluoridated water had much better dental outcomes.

There are many, many studies like this.  You're just not willing to read them.
 
2013-05-03 01:50:40 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And here's a chart from the World Health Organization.

Is that why it says right on it that it's from Fluoride Action Network? And you pulled it off an anti-fluoridation blog from San Diego? Because the WHO runs those things or something you farknut?

Where'd the data come from, you farking retard?

chimp_ninja: Long version: "The SiC Index was significantly higher than mean DMFT Index when comparing each demographic variable within each survey year (p < 0.001). Females, older adolescents (16-19 year olds), minority groups, those living in areas where the municipal water supply is not fluoridated, and those without dental insurance had higher mean DMFT scores. "

Oh, now let me do the exact same thing that you people have been doing: "that doesn't mean that there isn't some other variable creating these results.  Prove to me that there isn't!"  Something tells me that the standards of proof are going to flip flop again.


When you are challenging decades of scientific consensus then it is up to YOU to prove your point, and posting links to conspiracy blogs and calling people stupid is falling far short of that mark. You are embarassing yourself. Go take a nap.
 
2013-05-03 01:52:17 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: chimp_ninja: Long version: "The SiC Index was significantly higher than mean DMFT Index when comparing each demographic variable within each survey year (p < 0.001). Females, older adolescents (16-19 year olds), minority groups, those living in areas where the municipal water supply is not fluoridated, and those without dental insurance had higher mean DMFT scores. "

Oh, now let me do the exact same thing that you people have been doing: "that doesn't mean that there isn't some other variable creating these results. Prove to me that there isn't!" Something tells me that the standards of proof are going to flip flop again.


I think you don't understand what you're reading.  Hint: Peer-reviewed scientific journals require the appropriate controls.  The paper includes the expected multi-variable analysis.

If you were just uninformed, I'd be happy to have that discussion.  But you're proving to be an aggressively and willfully ignorant dick.
 
2013-05-03 01:52:43 PM  

jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jrodr018: Read the two papers I listed.

You can link the relevant sections if you'd like.  If you're too lazy to read your own link, then I'm not bothering with you.

Well no wonder you are uninformed. Sorry did not realize you are just stupid.

If you can't be bothered to read your own link and be able to quote a single relevant statement supporting your position, then you're not worth talking to.

Wow, so the data presented is not good enough for you? have you ever read a scientific paper? Like I said, I see the problem now. Once again, I did not realize your deficiencies.

Still didn't read your own paper?  Sorry, but you're the only person who doesn't understand how this works.  You make a statement, which is either a quote, or a paraphrase of something in the document, then if it warrants attention, I read the document and debate if necessary.  As it stands, you did little more than provide me with a result from lmgtfy.com.  If you're that lazy, or too stupid to understand your own link, what would make me believe that something within your link is worth reading?

You've had 3 chances now to provide a single statement from your link, and you cannot be bothered to do that little?


Oooh I am running out of chances with you? how scary!


Anyway....
"This study found that those children living in communities with fluoridated municipal water supplies experience substantially lower mean DMFT scores. This has special importance in Nevada where attempts to expand the fluoridation program to counties other than Clark County have met with considerable resistance."
"Overall this study found that older adolescents, those of racial groups, those who live in non-fluroidated areas, and those without dental insurance all experienced higher mean DMFT scores in all years included in this report." See, factors associated with increased caries prevalence.
"Findings from this study should aid in two ways. At the community level, the study strongly points to the importance of retaining and expanding the community fluoridation program as an effective preventive measure. At the individual level the study identifies the need for more targeted efforts to reach children early with a focus on females, Hispanics and Blacks, and uninsured children."
If you cannot see how this relates to the limited graph you showed (and you did not provide a direct link to WHO, that would be nice to see), I cannot help you, dude.
 
2013-05-03 01:54:31 PM  

chimp_ninja: BraveNewCheneyWorld: chimp_ninja: Long version: "The SiC Index was significantly higher than mean DMFT Index when comparing each demographic variable within each survey year (p < 0.001). Females, older adolescents (16-19 year olds), minority groups, those living in areas where the municipal water supply is not fluoridated, and those without dental insurance had higher mean DMFT scores. "

Oh, now let me do the exact same thing that you people have been doing: "that doesn't mean that there isn't some other variable creating these results. Prove to me that there isn't!" Something tells me that the standards of proof are going to flip flop again.

I think you don't understand what you're reading.  Hint: Peer-reviewed scientific journals require the appropriate controls.  The paper includes the expected multi-variable analysis.

If you were just uninformed, I'd be happy to have that discussion.  But you're proving to be an aggressively and willfully ignorant dick.


I am fairly sure he doesn't know what a p value is.
 
2013-05-03 01:57:59 PM  

jrodr018: If you were just uninformed, I'd be happy to have that discussion.  But you're proving to be an aggressively and willfully ignorant dick.

I am fairly sure he doesn't know what a p value is.


I'd say the average is between a pint and a quart.
 
2013-05-03 02:04:58 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And here's a chart from the World Health Organization.

Is that why it says right on it that it's from Fluoride Action Network? And you pulled it off an anti-fluoridation blog from San Diego? Because the WHO runs those things or something you farknut?

Where'd the data come from, you farking retard?


We don't know. We do know that the Fluoride Action Network, an anti-fluoridation organization says it comes from the World Health Organization. But we don't actually have any evidence of that.

SO what we have here is you being provided with direct links to multiple primary sources, and you responding by quoting some blog which uses a graph it got from some organization who claims they got data from the WHO  So that's not even secondary or tertiary sources.

So yeah, tell us more about how he's the retard.
 
2013-05-03 02:05:17 PM  

jrodr018: If you cannot see how this relates to the limited graph you showed (and you did not provide a direct link to WHO, that would be nice to see), I cannot help you, dude.


BraveNewCheneyWorld seems to be at the unfortunate intersection of Confident and Wrong, keeping his eyes closed and yelling louder to defend a scientifically untenable point.  He's likely so wrong that he is unable to detect how wrong he is.  Not uncommon with crackpots of various persuasions.

If you're ever at a major scientific meeting with broad scope (ACS, APS, MRS, etc.) keep an eye out for a session where crackpots are herded by the organizers.  They're generally at the least appealing day/time, in the smallest room, and entirely designed to let the conference organizers avoid angry phone calls and emails from dues-paying crackpots who claim oppression.  Cold fusion, perpetual motion machines, etc. all get lumped together under some coded session title like "Other means of Energy Production".

They're fun to sit in on, because the audience inevitably fills up with crackpots, and you get to witness good crackpot-on-crackpot verbal sparring.  "Why would anyone build your zero-point energy harvesting machine when my low-energy nuclear reactor runs on inexpensive nickel!"  "Well, because I've also invented an engine that uses water as the fuel which will couple to it to drive costs down to pennies per Exajoule!" "Both of you are wrong, because you're stuck in the outdated paradigm that energy has to be conserved!"  Etc.
 
2013-05-03 02:17:56 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Where'd the data come from, you farking retard?


Not really sure, buddy. See, your bullshiat graph from the Fluoride Action Network (not the WHO as you previously lied to everyone about) doesn't properly cite the data it's using and there are multiple DMFT sets at the site provided.

Seems like you're the one who posted the bullshiat graph from Fluoride Action Network (not the WHO as you previously lied to everyone about) so I guess I'll just wait for you to enlighten us all.
 
2013-05-03 02:24:58 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: We don't know. We do know that the Fluoride Action Network, an anti-fluoridation organization says it comes from the World Health Organization. But we don't actually have any evidence of that.


No, it definitely does. It's probably the regional DMFT data sets and it's entirely, completely and perfectly accurate..... to the point of being useless.

It's not that the graph is wrong. Even ignoring the fact that the dipshiat lied about the source even though it says right on it that it's from a crackpot conspiracy group, it doesn't imply anything at all other than the possibility that something other than water fluoridation led to the big decline in the 1970s in tooth decay in industrialized nations.

The problem for Captain Derpenstein there is that what actually correlates well with the big decline in industrialized nations starting in the 70s is.... wait for it....

The introduction of fluoridated toothpaste.

In fact, the one data set that actually tracks fluoridated and non-fluoridated DMFT numbers is Ireland and the DMFT index goes down consistently with the introduction of fluoride.

Which brings us to the argument about whether or not, with the widespread availability of fluoridated toothpaste water fluoridation is of any practical value any more... but that's a whole other thing.
 
2013-05-03 02:32:33 PM  

Cretony38: Decades of peer review" so if its such a convincing argument why are they constantly studying it?


*plonk*
 
2013-05-03 02:39:48 PM  

heypete: It's always amusing to point out that potassium-40 is radioactive and is the largest source of radiation for the average person.


For the average person, I think it's roughly tied for third. As I recall the traces from natural radon and 1950s fallout legacy are higher, and cosmic background is comparable (ranging from higher in the mountains to lower by the shore).
 
2013-05-03 02:43:02 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!


You employ a typical distraction effort. But clearly fail to address the core questions or how much poison is ok? You can attack me for asking but you refuse to answer with any meaningful data as others here have. Enjoy your ignorance. Please block me.
 
2013-05-03 02:44:48 PM  

Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!

You employ a typical distraction effort. But clearly fail to address the core questions or how much poison is ok? You can attack me for asking but you refuse to answer with any meaningful data as others here have. Enjoy your ignorance. Please block me.


Its not poisonous at the levels they add to municipal water. You can tell this by all of the people not poisoned over the past few decades. There's people being not poisoned all over the place.
 
2013-05-03 02:54:07 PM  

Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!

You employ a typical distraction effort. But clearly fail to address the core questions or how much poison is ok? You can attack me for asking but you refuse to answer with any meaningful data as others here have. Enjoy your ignorance. Please block me.


"Distraction effort"? No. I'm just mocking you. The whole "go read the dictionary" bit is so wonderfully simpleminded that it is actually a fairly good troll, but I've seen no reason to take anything you say seriously. Don't feel bad - I don't generally engage with creationists, either
 
2013-05-03 02:56:49 PM  

heypete: Cretony38: So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...

No, my position is to say "a dictionary definition does not tell the whole story and it's silly to rely on just the dictionary in the face of extensive scientific studies that say that it is beneficial".

Would I want to breathe pure fluorine gas? Certainly not. It is, as you point out, poisonous. There's a lot of things that, if taken to excess, are poisonous or harmful but can be beneficial in smaller quantities. Iron, for example, is necessary for hemoglobin in the blood, but if you ingesting excessive iron can cause failure of the liver, heart, and pancreas. Same thing with antibiotics (which are effectively poison) and other medicines. Drinking too much water can be dangerous to your health.

Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies show that adding fluoride compounds to drinking water improves dental health with extremely rare side effects. National and international public health agencies composed of scientists, doctors, dentists, and other experts recommend doing so.

Are you suggesting that I disregard scientific results which are based on decades of study, leading experts from around the world, and national and international public health agencies because of a dictionary definition?


No. Except you all failed to cite even one study so far. Which one of the decades of studies convinced you so completely that somehow you can't remember it but you attack Anyone who asks any questions? What is fluoride anyway?
 
2013-05-03 02:58:09 PM  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridation#Use_thr o ughout_the_world

http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/

i fully expect this to pass, sadly. and if you motherfarkers keep quoting strangelove im gonna post a picture of obama and bush riding on a farking drone sucking each other off.
 
2013-05-03 03:02:12 PM  

knowless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridation#Use_thr o ughout_the_world

http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/

i fully expect this to pass, sadly. and if you motherfarkers keep quoting strangelove im gonna post a picture of obama and bush riding on a farking drone sucking each other off.


THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK

DUN DUN DUHHHHHHHHHNNNNALALALALALALALA
 
2013-05-03 03:09:07 PM  
The world is flat. Here's a link to a blog that parses data from a reliable source and shows that world, in fact, exists. This proves that the world is and has always been, as I have asserted, flat. It is now, in my mind, up to you to cite numerous scientific studies proving your assertion that the world is round despite the fact that it is me challenging well known and generally accepted scientific facts that have remained unchanged for centuries. Get to work, dumbass.

Why are you so stupid? You keep doing this mental dance that makes you ignore anything that looks like it challenges mainstream scientific fact. If only you could see how wrong you are. Stop projecting.
 
2013-05-03 03:09:46 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!

You employ a typical distraction effort. But clearly fail to address the core questions or how much poison is ok? You can attack me for asking but you refuse to answer with any meaningful data as others here have. Enjoy your ignorance. Please block me.

"Distraction effort"? No. I'm just mocking you. The whole "go read the dictionary" bit is so wonderfully simpleminded that it is actually a fairly good troll, but I've seen no reason to take anything you say seriously. Don't feel bad - I don't generally engage with creationists, either


So simple you cant even just read the definition? You are a sad failure at a grown up discussion. Just keep eating what your fed.
 
2013-05-03 03:11:04 PM  

heypete: Cretony38: So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...

No, my position is to say "a dictionary definition does not tell the whole story and it's silly to rely on just the dictionary in the face of extensive scientific studies that say that it is beneficial".

Would I want to breathe pure fluorine gas? Certainly not. It is, as you point out, poisonous. There's a lot of things that, if taken to excess, are poisonous or harmful but can be beneficial in smaller quantities. Iron, for example, is necessary for hemoglobin in the blood, but if you ingesting excessive iron can cause failure of the liver, heart, and pancreas. Same thing with antibiotics (which are effectively poison) and other medicines. Drinking too much water can be dangerous to your health.

Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies show that adding fluoride compounds to drinking water improves dental health with extremely rare side effects. National and international public health agencies composed of scientists, doctors, dentists, and other experts recommend doing so.

Are you suggesting that I disregard *scientific results which are based on decades of study, leading experts from around the world, and national and international public health agencies because of a dictionary definition?


*Citation please?
 
2013-05-03 03:12:04 PM  

Cretony38: Except you all failed to cite even one study so far.


Several studies have been cited by other posters in this thread. You should probably read them.

Which dictionary was it that convinced you so completely that you feel the need to question decades of scientific research and recommendations by national and international public health bodies composed of experts?
 
2013-05-03 03:13:55 PM  
lol, the dumb farker wont let me post to his blog.
 
2013-05-03 03:27:15 PM  

Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!

You employ a typical distraction effort. But clearly fail to address the core questions or how much poison is ok? You can attack me for asking but you refuse to answer with any meaningful data as others here have. Enjoy your ignorance. Please block me.

"Distraction effort"? No. I'm just mocking you. The whole "go read the dictionary" bit is so wonderfully simpleminded that it is actually a fairly good troll, but I've seen no reason to take anything you say seriously. Don't feel bad - I don't generally engage with creationists, either

So simple you cant even just read the definition? You are a sad failure at a grown up discussion. Just keep eating what your fed.


What my fed what?
 
2013-05-03 03:37:08 PM  

Cretony38: *Citation please?


Scroll up slightly.  About to here.  Or any of the dozens of comments following it.

There are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the benefits of water fluoridation.  It's one of the most cost-effective public health programs ever devised.
 
2013-05-03 03:39:12 PM  

heypete: Cretony38: Except you all failed to cite even one study so far.

Several studies have been cited by other posters in this thread. You should probably read them.

Which dictionary was it that convinced you so completely that you feel the need to question decades of scientific research and recommendations by national and international public health bodies composed of experts?


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?
 
2013-05-03 03:48:31 PM  

chimp_ninja: jrodr018: If you cannot see how this relates to the limited graph you showed (and you did not provide a direct link to WHO, that would be nice to see), I cannot help you, dude.

BraveNewCheneyWorld seems to be at the unfortunate intersection of Confident and Wrong, keeping his eyes closed and yelling louder to defend a scientifically untenable point.  He's likely so wrong that he is unable to detect how wrong he is.  Not uncommon with crackpots of various persuasions.

If you're ever at a major scientific meeting with broad scope (ACS, APS, MRS, etc.) keep an eye out for a session where crackpots are herded by the organizers.  They're generally at the least appealing day/time, in the smallest room, and entirely designed to let the conference organizers avoid angry phone calls and emails from dues-paying crackpots who claim oppression.  Cold fusion, perpetual motion machines, etc. all get lumped together under some coded session title like "Other means of Energy Production".

They're fun to sit in on, because the audience inevitably fills up with crackpots, and you get to witness good crackpot-on-crackpot verbal sparring.  "Why would anyone build your zero-point energy harvesting machine when my low-energy nuclear reactor runs on inexpensive nickel!"  "Well, because I've also invented an engine that uses water as the fuel which will couple to it to drive costs down to pennies per Exajoule!" "Both of you are wrong, because you're stuck in the outdated paradigm that energy has to be conserved!"  Etc.


Agreed on all points. This is why the scientific method should be mandatory in high school. I bet we'd see less crackpots around.
 
2013-05-03 03:49:15 PM  

Cretony38: So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...


Cretony38: I NEVER even said it was wrong to put in drinking water. I only asked what was it and why are you so convinced?


Oops.

Also, are you a Creationist?  Because every time you use the "Just Asking Questions" runaround you owe them a small royalty.
 
2013-05-03 03:50:55 PM  

chimp_ninja: Cretony38: So you looked it up in your dictionary, how'd ya like what you read? So your defense is to attack me for directing you to your own reference and I'm in the wrong? I guess It's only a little poison...

Cretony38: I NEVER even said it was wrong to put in drinking water. I only asked what was it and why are you so convinced?

Oops.

Also, are you a Creationist?  Because every time you use the "Just Asking Questions" runaround you owe them a small royalty.


He's a troll. JAQing off is what they do
 
2013-05-03 03:57:36 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: jrodr018: Cretony38: Look it up in the dictionary and then say you want more fluoride in your body. And "Remineralization" isn't in the dictionary.

I am just glad that the Dictionary people are not "in" this vast worldwide conspiracy. Thanks for the truth, man. Thanks, valiant savior!

What  conspiracy? I merely asked you protectionists to simply look it up. And I get attacked for asking you to be better informed. But you guys are satisfied with the pat answer "it's been studied for decades" without a one of you citing a single study?!? I guess you all just swallowed it whole.

Can't you meanies see that he's Just Asking Questions?!!!1!

You employ a typical distraction effort. But clearly fail to address the core questions or how much poison is ok? You can attack me for asking but you refuse to answer with any meaningful data as others here have. Enjoy your ignorance. Please block me.

"Distraction effort"? No. I'm just mocking you. The whole "go read the dictionary" bit is so wonderfully simpleminded that it is actually a fairly good troll, but I've seen no reason to take anything you say seriously. Don't feel bad - I don't generally engage with creationists, either

So simple you cant even just read the definition? You are a sad failure at a grown up discussion. Just keep eating what your fed.

What my fed what?


You're obviously satisfied with all the info you need to make an informed decision on this subject and somehow know more than the people who make reference their business. All I asked is that we agree on the definition of this substance is that you seem to love so much.
 
2013-05-03 04:01:24 PM  

Cretony38: You're obviously satisfied with all the info you need to make an informed decision on this subject and somehow know more than the people who make reference their business. All I asked is that we agree on the definition of this substance is that you seem to love so much.


api.ning.com
 
2013-05-03 04:03:24 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Cretony38: You're obviously satisfied with all the info you need to make an informed decision on this subject and somehow know more than the people who make reference their business. All I asked is that we agree on the definition of this substance is that you seem to love so much.

[api.ning.com image 534x413]


I see at least someone checked my source for the flat earth theory
 
2013-05-03 04:09:58 PM  

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.
 
2013-05-03 04:14:39 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: What, exactly, do you think your chart proves, of anything?

Why are you wrong in every thread? I can predict your position on any issue by imagining the stupidest possible interpretation of what is being discussed.

So your response is to pretend you're even dumber than usual and resort to the usual projection shtick?

Looks to me like fluoride is irrelevant in terms of the decrease in tooth decay.  What are your mental gymnastics telling you?

[sdsdw.org image 596x433]


Has anybody found a direct link to WHO for this graph? Admittedly my google-fu is week. I did find this though:

http://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/the-cavities-in-the- an ti-fluoride-movement-further-proof-never-to-take-evidence-at-face-valu e/
 
2013-05-03 04:15:16 PM  
Damn it, *weak. Preview, preview!
 
2013-05-03 04:24:40 PM  

jrodr018: Has anybody found a direct link to WHO for this graph?


No, and you won't. He lied. It says right on it that it comes from the conspiracy theorist group Fluoride Action Network (FAN). The only data set the WHO has that even mentions fluoridated vs non is a set for Ireland over time.
 
2013-05-03 04:27:28 PM  

skozlaw: jrodr018: Has anybody found a direct link to WHO for this graph?

No, and you won't. He lied. It says right on it that it comes from the conspiracy theorist group Fluoride Action Network (FAN). The only data set the WHO has that even mentions fluoridated vs non is a set for Ireland over time.


It figures. I was just assuming that he was presenting data out of ignorance, not outright malice. Benefit of the doubt and all that. Thanks!
 
2013-05-03 04:33:43 PM  

poot_rootbeer: Cretony38: The fact remains Fluoride is a toxic compound, an industrial by product that is to toxic to be dumped into a landfill. And was used in pest control. So are these facts incorrect?

"Fluoride" is "a compound" = false

You're already not off to a good start there.


Not sure your start is so good, either.  Fluorine is an element, not a compound, but if you put pure fluorine in your water it would probably eat your face off.  Fluoride is an ion, and is always present in a compound, such as sodium fluoride or stannous fluoride (early Crest).  So I would say your correction = false.
 
2013-05-03 04:42:09 PM  

BSABSVR: Cretony38: Decades of peer review" so if its such a convincing argument why are they constantly studying it?

*plonk*


Aha!  A new meme to go with "Evolution is just a theory!!"
 
2013-05-03 05:06:12 PM  

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 ahead put it in your mouth everyday, I will use it to kill pests & vermin.
 
2013-05-03 05:14:36 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 ...


Agreed! Although I will use it for both things! From your link:
I thought fluoride was good for me, so why should I be concerned about getting too much of it?The amount of fluoride the public is exposed to has increased over the last several decades since the introduction of drinking water fluoridation and consumer dental products (such as fluoride toothpaste and mouth rinses). This has led to a large decline in the prevalence of tooth decay, but has also been accompanied by a modest increase in dental fluorosis, a condition that can cause effects ranging from barely visible lacey white markings, to more severe staining or pitting of the tooth's enamel. While the proper levels of fluoride provide important benefits to dental health, the majority of the US population is not exposed to excessive levels. However, fluoride exposure is too high for some children, particularly those who live in areas that has high naturally occurring fluoride in their drinking water, which are in excess of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended fluoridation levels.

Have a good weekend!
 
2013-05-03 05:17:59 PM  

jrodr018: Has anybody found a direct link to WHO for this graph?



I've hunted high and low. I don't think there is one.
 
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 321 of 321 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report