• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple fluoride question

elbe said:
Really? No demand at all? That seems odd to me. Just because you legally have to pay for professional disposal doesn't mean no other industries would want it. I should think that industrial chemical waste can probably still be used in other areas. But I'm no industrial chemist.
Click to expand...


It's odd that a toxic chemical waste byproduct has no uses? Then what it is used for? Find one other use for it and I will pat you on the back.
 
Belz... said:
So ?
Click to expand...
So, they are not uses for industrial fluoride, are you even paying attention?



It isn't. Please pay attention. It was an argument against your ANALOGY about lotions that you'd ingest, remember ?
Click to expand...
Then why did present it as a argument to fluoridate? That's what we are talking about remember. My lotion argument was in response to your "touch the teeth on the way down" theory so how is it now an argument against my response to it? You said it first, so you must of thought it was a good argument for fluoridation.





And if you see them, then they must be true.

We can play that game all day.
Click to expand...

Yes, if I see 100's of scientific papers written in respected journals then they must be true. Silly me.
 
Belz... said:
I just thought of something...

If you're a pedestrian, like I often am, you know that you're exposed, every day, to carbon monoxide. Now, this substance is toxic and in fact many people commit suicide with it.

By Without Rights' logic, ANY amount of carbon monoxide is toxic, and we should ban cars at once before they kill us all.

See a problem with that ?
Click to expand...

No, by my logic you shouldn't mandate the pumping of carbon monoxide into your home. I am not saying you should ban aluminum manufacturing. Nice try though.
 
Mr.D said:
Without Rights:

It's pretty clear this is going nowhere: Every time I ask you for evidence, you assert something and claim your say-so is sufficient. You suggest that I want impossible or ever more evidence and I complain that you've barely provided any.
Click to expand...
agreed



Let me know where I'm incorrect regarding your position and please try to answer the questions which I feel need further clarification.

1) Aluminum companies produce fluoride by-products.

2) Some of these products are waste (Specifically which one(s?) - I note that I found that aluminum companies sell fluoride compounds to several industries - presumably these are not the products we are discussing)
Click to expand...
What industries in particular?

3) There is "no demand outside of water fluoridation." for this waste anywhere at any time for any purpose whatsoever.
Click to expand...
No, I say it doesn't matter since fluoridation significantly increased demand to the point where disposal is no longer necessary.
a) In part because it's not "pharmaceutical grade fluoride" and cannot be economically processed to be pharmaceutical grade.
Click to expand...
Right, dentists and toothpaste companies do not buy industrial byproducts for their purposes.
b) Nor can it be economically processed into anything else useful to anyone ever. (including manufacturers of rat poison?)
Click to expand...
same as question 3

4) From sales to said utilities: (Income (inc. Delivery) minus Costs) is always advantageous compared to Cost of disposal, but only so long as water utilities want to buy it.
Click to expand...
If it is not then the CEO's need to be fired. I am certain that if it was not advantageous then they would stop selling it and go back to paying for disposal.

The rest I will get to later
 
bwinwright said:
Without Rights, Based on everything I have learned about fluoride, you are absolutely correct. Eustace Mullins says Hitler put sodium fluoride in the drinking water of the prisoners in the concentration camps to make them easier to control, reporting that Hitler was able to reduce the number of guards by 75%, needing only one guard instead of four for a given prison population. Dr. Bill Deagle also scientifically addresses the fluoride question. Of course, there is also Donald Rumsfeld's Plague, aspartame, which is now in thousands of food products. Then, there is the Chemtrails argument where various heavy metals are being dumped into our air supply. Also, the Depleted Uranium situation is extremely ugly and frightening. There is plenty of speculation as to why all of this is happening but one thing seems to be sure; IT IS HAPPENING. People who wish to counteract this poisoning should look into various nutrients, vitamins, minerals, etc. which help to remove various toxins from our bodies, along with scrubbing clean our cardiovascular systems to empower the immune system. At least, this is something we can all do.
Click to expand...

Wow. Is there any lunacy you won't buy into?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_fluorosis

The Chinese government now considers any water supply containing over 1 ppm fluoride a risk for skeletal fluorosis.[3]

In the United States, an average of 1 ppm of fluoride is intentionally added to water supplies for water fluoridation. The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), as established by the US Environmental Protection Agency, is 4 ppm.
Click to expand...

The Chinese consider over 1 ppm a risk and yet the EPA allows up to 4 ppm?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis

Why do we even bother flouridating again? Is it really good for your teeth when too much actually hurts your teeth?
 
Mr.D said:
5) This conspiracy suppresses opposing research by
a) doing no ongoing lobbying
b) doing no ongoing research
c) publishing no fake research
e) doing no active suppression of current research
d) "ridicul[ing] anyone who [disagrees]"
e) advertising nationally (for free?)
f) not otherwise interfering with "Dr.'s everywhere ... backed buy 100's of studies." get the message out to anyone who looks.
Click to expand...

a) correct, once fluoridation is mandated there is no need to continue lobbying.
b) correct, the trick is to pretend the research they funded years ago is sufficient proof.
c) Never said that, the published research was done by people with interests in suppressing the truth. http://www.ewg.org/node/17684.http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fluoride.htm Stacking the deck is an efficient and cheap way to fake research.
d) Happens regularly. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/30739/anti-fluoride-claims-criticised
e) Never said for free, as you know, many industries pay for advertising and are still very profitable. But in some cases tax dollars have paid for this advertising. http://www.fluoridationcenter.org/papers/2000/lasvegasreviewjournal110800.htm
f) Have you ever seen this http://www.fluoridealert.org/prof-statement.pdf. No, wonder why. Maybe because it helps no one financially to show it on a national scale. Have you seen any of the fluoride research done that shows ill effects?
6) The members of this conspiracy knowingly expose themselves, their family, neighbors and friends ("who can't afford non fluoridated water to cook with and drink" or who go to local restaurants, bars, public parks or anywhere else that might use "local water to process foods") to poison.
Click to expand...
I cannot speak on behalf of conspirators. I can only say people have done a lot worse things for the love of money. I cannot speak on behalf of people who kill for money either but it does happen.

Is that the gist of it? There are a few other minor points, but does this cover the bulk of it?
Click to expand...

Oscar Ewing, a lawyer for ALCOA became head of the FSA in 1947. Under his control of the PHS (Public Health Services) 87 cities began fluoridation.

The EPA's own scientists have come out in opposition to fluoridation siting scientific evidence and claiming the EPA was forcing them to tow the line when they did not agree. http://www.fluoridation.com/epa2.htm

Scientist's who agree with fluoridation are not necessarily part of the conspiracy. This point is reiterated in John Colquhoun's publication "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation."
 
Quick drive-by post.

Without Rights said:
Mr.D said:
2) Some of these products are waste (Specifically which one(s?) - I note that I found that aluminum companies sell fluoride compounds to several industries - presumably these are not the products we are discussing)
Click to expand...
What industries in particular?
Click to expand...

Ceramics and optics. But again, I don't know if this particular compound I'm referring to is one of the ones you are referring to as "waste" sold to water utilities for fluoridation.

So, can you be specific as to which compounds you are referring to?


Without Rights said:
There is no demand outside of water fluoridation.
Click to expand...
Without Rights said:
No, I say it doesn't matter since fluoridation significantly increased demand to the point where disposal is no longer necessary.
Click to expand...

Please clarify which position you are taking.
 
Without Rights said:
So, they are not uses for industrial fluoride, are you even paying attention?
Click to expand...

I am, actually. So, now there are two different kinds of fluoride and the one used by dentists is OK ?

Then why did present it as a argument to fluoridate?
Click to expand...

I didn't. Sheesh.

My lotion argument was in response to your "touch the teeth on the way down" theory
Click to expand...

Unless you claim it DOESN'T, then it wasn't a theory, but a fact.

You said it first, so you must of thought it was a good argument for fluoridation.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It's amazing how little you've managed to follow my argument. Personally, I don't give a hoot whether they put it into the water system or not. So far I've seen no indication that people have suffered ill effects from it, and I don't drink water, myself. However, I can see why they did, and my point was that your assertion that it was useless is clearly not true. Whether it is useful enough to justify putting it into our tap water is another issue, but it obviously isn't completely useless.

Yes, if I see 100's of scientific papers written in respected journals then they must be true. Silly me.
Click to expand...

Yes, silly you.
 
I'm not the one making that argument. Some here have said that ANY amount of fluoride is dangerous. Toxic, lethal, whatever. You know what I mean.
 
There is a simple fact that has been overlooked in this debate. Everyone is talking about fluoride without understanding this simple fact. Water that contains naturally-occurring fluoride contains calcium fluoride; water with added fluoride contains sodium fluoride. The former is beneficial when ingested; the latter is toxic.
 
Last edited:
Mr.D said:
So, can you be specific as to which compounds you are referring to?
Click to expand...

The byproducts would be Fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluoride. Optics are aluminum fluoride, ceramics are lithium fluoride.





Please clarify which position you are taking.
Click to expand...
How about I say no significant demand outside fluoridation. As evidenced by the fact that ALCOA used to dispose and no longer do. The only other use I can find for the byproduct of industry would be to kill rats.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
I am, actually. So, now there are two different kinds of fluoride and the one used by dentists is OK ?
Click to expand...

There actually many different types and you don't swallow the stuff the dentists use, if you did swallow it, it would also be bad. That's why it says "Do not swallow" and something about calling poison control.




Yes, silly you.
Click to expand...

So now it is foolish and silly to trust science? Oh, except those two papers that say it's good that were done in the 60's, trusting those and ignoring everything else is wise. Damn, it must be nice to deny everything that goes against your weak argument. No wonder.
 
Belz... said:
Nice http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/608045fd3950b30f8.gif.

You've conveniently ignored this part:

By Without Rights' logic, ANY amount of carbon monoxide is toxic,
Click to expand...

Yes any amount of CO is toxic. In the smallest amounts it still displaces oxygen, not enough to kill but still toxic.

So your new argument is that small amounts of fluoride cause no acute effects so we might as well drink it?

Even though science has shown fluoride builds up in the brain. Forsythe Research Institute, Neurotoxicol Teratol 1995 #17 pgs169-177

Or nevermind that damage has been proven at levels from .5 ppm. Varner JA, Jensen KF, Horvath W, Isaacson RL, Chronic administration of sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Brain Res 1998 Feb 16;784(1-2):284-98

Nevermind the CJCED study which proved fluoride penetrates the blood-brain barrier and accumulates in cerebral tissue.

Or nevermind the fact that no study has ever shown directly that ingesting any fluoride is beneficial (unless you can prove me wrong).

Small amounts of arsenic don't cause acute effects either so lets add that to the water too. Maybe a little lead too, why not.

But hey, you got a cool pic of a Dodge logo. That's all the proof you need huh?
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
So it's not just lobbying, but a conspiracy.

Are reptilian aliens involved, too, or do you have any proof of this ?
Click to expand...

Me and Mr D have been discussing it, take a look-see, I will so value your opinion on it.

What do you mean "Are reptilian aliens involved, too"

too=also, are you trying to say I said reptilians are involved in something else. That is a nice try at slandering me. I guess when all else fails resort to lies.

Build a strawman much?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom