Secret camera footage of fluoride facility in Austin

ssssssssssssssssssh!

90% of all "progessivess" in Texas, live in Austin ...

The water in Austin is pumped from from the Austin chalk, it is highly alkaline, and has LOTS of dissolved minerals
 
It's amazing how communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
 
faethor said:
It's amazing how communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Click to expand...

So I guess you are for fluoride in your tap water?
 
Interesting video, but it doesn't really get into details. Yes, fluoride is a nasty chemical in it's purest form, but in trace amounts that may not be the case. Chlorine is also in the tap water and it's pretty nasty, possibly worse then fluoride, but in trace amounts it's just enough to keep out much nastier organisms. In fact, everything can be deadly in it's purest form - pure water itself can be toxic under certain conditions.

Having said that, there's probably less and less reason to put fluoride in the tap water as more and more people drink filtered or distilled water these days anyways and fluoride can be found in tooth pastes.
 
There is NO reason to add fluoride to drinking water. It is expensive and clinically active in the human body but when it is added to the city water supply there is absolutely no dose control. Dose goes up in summer as you sweat and require more intake and dose is also higher for people who drink more water for other reasons such as in the case of diabetics.
 
redrumloa said:
So what is pro-science about putting fluoride in the water supply?
Click to expand...
The studies have found increased protection against tooth decay. Both during development of the tooth and exposure of the tooth itself. At the amounts we're using the largest, and about only, negative consequence is fluordsis, staining the teeth. And now the recommendations are to reduce the amount, which will save money spent. Seriously, I wish THIS was the biggest problem we're facing right now.

If you're afraid of the Red Menance of Flouride you can take actions today to minimize the impact you believe to be the case. And certainly an individual can move to an area of the Country w/o city water or sometimes even make their own well. Beyond that you can catch and filter rain water.

BTW, I live with my own well. We brush teeth and feed the kids flouride tabs. This is because in my area there's no city water supply.
 
faethor said:
The studies have found increased protection against tooth decay. Both during development of the tooth and exposure of the tooth itself. At the amounts we're using the largest, and about only, negative consequence is fluordsis, staining the teeth.
Click to expand...
If you have fluoridosis of the teeth you probably also have issues with your bones. It is not healthy and can lead to rapid decay. There is no need to use fluoride systemically and it should only be used topically on the teeth (and flouride toothpaste carries a poison warning label and reminds you not to swallow).
If you're afraid of the Red Menance of Flouride you can take actions today to minimize the impact you believe to be the case. And certainly an individual can move to an area of the Country w/o city water or sometimes even make their own well. Beyond that you can catch and filter rain water.
Click to expand...
Right - if someone is putting stuff in the city water supply that you don't want to drink then move or spend money on filtration. It shouldn't be an issue. How about you get clean water delivered to your tap and you can add whatever crap you want to it at that point?
BTW, I live with my own well. We brush teeth and feed the kids flouride tabs. This is because in my area there's no city water supply.
Click to expand...
Brush teeth with fluoride toothpaste - do not eat it. You already get plenty of fluoride if you drink tea.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Right - if someone is putting stuff in the city water supply that you don't want to drink then move or spend money on filtration. It shouldn't be an issue. How about you get clean water delivered to your tap and you can add whatever crap you want to it at that point?
Click to expand...

This should be a no-brainer to me. I am dumbfounded that someone would argue against such logic.
 
redrumloa said:
This should be a no-brainer to me. I am dumbfounded that someone would argue against such logic.
Click to expand...
I have no issues here with removing fluoride, however the issue faethor pointed out was that science holds the answers. This video had no science in it really. We can argue all you want, but it's research and cold hard numbers that should decide. Is fluoridated water really harmful or not? What this video presented was mostly crap. No one here so far has presented any facts either way and there are many factors at play. There's the health issue and there's the economics issue. First, does it REALLY cause health issues in such low doses? Does it REALLY help fight tooth decay? Then, depending on the answer to those questions, we can then compare the cost of fighting tooth decay with fluoridated water vs other means vs no treatment at all. The decision to add fluoride to water was made decades ago, I have no issue re-evaluating that decision. But I wouldn't add or remove something just because someone says it's useless or poisonous but without backing any of those claims up. Without facts, we're getting into religious dogma territory.

EDIT: The Wikipedia article on this says you're probably better of with the fluoridated water: Water fluoridation
Dental caries remain a major public health concern in most industrialized countries, affecting 60–90% of schoolchildren and the vast majority of adults.[8] Water fluoridation prevents cavities in both children and adults,[9] with studies estimating an 18–40% reduction in cavities when water fluoridation is used by children who already have access to toothpaste and other sources of fluoride.[2] Although water fluoridation can cause dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of developing teeth, most of this is mild and usually not considered to be of aesthetic or public-health concern.[10] There is no clear evidence of other adverse effects. Moderate-quality studies have investigated effectiveness; studies on adverse effects have been mostly of low quality.
Click to expand...
Based on that, perhaps the answer is we need better quality studies. I certainly see no reason for a knee jerk reaction.
 
I agree with Glacucus. I have no issue removing Flouride. But running around with the sky is following mentality is crazy. There is minimal, at best, harm to the consumer. And at best the cost savings of about 35:1 cost savings vs the more frequent, and not fun, dental treatments.
 
redrumloa said:
For you Glaucus.
Click to expand...

From the site:

Fluoride, the active ingredient in many pesticides and rodenticides, is a powerful poison - more acutely poisonous than lead. Because of this, accidental over-ingestion of fluoride can cause serious toxic symptoms.
Click to expand...

No scaremongering here, nosir! Almost as bad as a few years ago when I was debating this subject with someone who insisted in conflating fluoride in water with fluorine gas used in WW1....

The amounts of fluoride needed to cause fluoridosis is high enough that to get it from water alone you'd have to be drinking gallons of stuff a day, at which point, quite frankly you have bigger problems that you need to address.

As Glaucus was wise to point out, this thread needs more science.

So here is some.

Personally, I'll take the word of the BMA over some quack group shock site any day.

Science, it works!
 
Red, I said science. Whilst you might feel linking to youtube vids bolsters your case, it really, really doesn't.

When I talk of science I talk of peer reviewed papers.

This is a peer reviewed paper going into fluoridation of water.

This is another.

And another.

(All three were flagged up on the BMA site as parts of the foundation of why they hold the stance they do.)
 
redrumloa said:
I guess you didn't actually watch it and I am wasting my time.
Click to expand...

You guess wrong.

I watched it and the first thing that came up was:

Where is the evidence? Where are the papers that they're pointing to?

There is a reason I dismiss out of hand news stories about medicine: The media for the most part screws up when it comes to science, especially when it comes to medicine.

Which is why I pointed to the papers directly.

And also why I was hoping for you to do the same.

Simply relying on news stories written by journos with little or no understanding of medicine (or worse, those who grossly misrepresent it for their own purposes) is not helpful to anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top