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 66
    More: Amusing, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, American Public Health Association, Veterans Committee, health association, American Dental Association, fluoridation  
•       •       •

4062 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-03 07:59:58 AM
5 votes:

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 07:28:38 AM
5 votes:

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 08:16:16 AM
4 votes:

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 10:39:28 AM
3 votes:

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 08:31:32 AM
3 votes:

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 08:15:15 AM
3 votes:
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 08:13:49 AM
3 votes:

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 08:02:01 AM
3 votes:

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 07:30:43 AM
3 votes:
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 07:24:45 AM
3 votes:

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 10:45:21 AM
2 votes:

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 10:38:12 AM
2 votes:

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 10:06:00 AM
2 votes:

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 08:04:04 AM
2 votes:

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 07:55:21 AM
2 votes:

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 07:51:16 AM
2 votes:
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 07:37:05 AM
2 votes:

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 07:30:01 AM
2 votes:

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 07:27:34 AM
2 votes:

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


j6p.net

/the above is NOT a photoshop.
2013-05-03 07:08:36 AM
2 votes:
"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 06:34:19 AM
2 votes:
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 06:07:38 AM
2 votes:
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
oblig
2013-05-03 09:40:49 PM
1 votes:

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?
2013-05-03 05:42:41 PM
1 votes:

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 03:37:08 PM
1 votes:

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 03:09:07 PM
1 votes:
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 01:41:05 PM
1 votes:

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 01:12:07 PM
1 votes:

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 12:59:04 PM
1 votes:

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 12:40:10 PM
1 votes:

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 12:30:50 PM
1 votes:

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 12:26:18 PM
1 votes:

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 11:49:13 AM
1 votes:

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 11:29:52 AM
1 votes:

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 11:22:41 AM
1 votes:

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 11:14:56 AM
1 votes:
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 11:07:31 AM
1 votes:

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 10:55:26 AM
1 votes:

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 10:53:10 AM
1 votes:

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 10:48:34 AM
1 votes:

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 10:43:56 AM
1 votes:

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 10:15:46 AM
1 votes:

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 10:14:45 AM
1 votes:

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 10:13:13 AM
1 votes:

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 10:11:48 AM
1 votes:
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 10:09:03 AM
1 votes:

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 09:46:05 AM
1 votes:

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 09:41:53 AM
1 votes:

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 09:31:37 AM
1 votes:

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 09:26:23 AM
1 votes:

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 09:21:14 AM
1 votes:
Ah flouride.  The point at which the conservtive conspiracy theorist meet the enviro wackos in the big circle of crazy.
2013-05-03 09:11:00 AM
1 votes:

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 09:01:52 AM
1 votes:

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 08:56:02 AM
1 votes:
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 08:43:55 AM
1 votes:

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 08:41:34 AM
1 votes:

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 08:32:58 AM
1 votes:

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 08:11:28 AM
1 votes:

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


Trolls come in all forms.
2013-05-03 07:54:47 AM
1 votes:
This type of derp is dangerous.
2013-05-03 07:50:52 AM
1 votes:

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 07:50:23 AM
1 votes:
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 07:35:50 AM
1 votes:

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 07:23:06 AM
1 votes:
I like the people that fret about fluoride in the water, but also hate environmentalists.
2013-05-03 07:10:01 AM
1 votes:
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 06:46:42 AM
1 votes:

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


Both.
2013-05-03 06:31:29 AM
1 votes:
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
 
Displayed 66 of 66 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report