WHY I OPPOSE WATER FLUORIDATION - A Scientific Perspective by Carrie Medina (https://www.facebook.com/notes/carrie-r-medina/why-i-oppose-water-fluoridation-a-scientific-perspective-by-carrie-medina/4378189142694)
Apparently it's a big conspiracy to steal our bodily fluids?
This has consumed otherwise intelligent people for about a month now in Portland. I get it on one level, people ought to just brush their teeth rather than be forced to drink fluoride, but is it really this bad?
QuoteFluoride affects the pineal gland.
OMG :aaa:
QuoteA Scientific Perspective
QuoteI must give full credit to FluorideAlert.org
No conflicts of interest here. Nope. None. :lulz:
This stuff preys on the fact that most people don't have the first clue about toxicology, epidemiological studies, and won't read the papers anyway. And it still amuses me that in the US you actually REDUCE water fluoride in areas where it's naturally high.
Wait until they discover that oxygen is a highly volatile element with cancer causing properties that can also give you lung damage
(in high doses for prolonged periods, but that's besides the point apparently.)This is all still harmless noise compared to the anti-vaccination propaganda, though.
The thing with fluoride is I can't find anything objective. You have the one camp saying that it's toxic waste from aluminum manufacturing and it crystallizes in your brain and lowers IQ, and the other camp saying it's perfectly safe and saves kids teeth. (I see a lot of little kids with rotten teeth so I kind of question that.) No middle ground.
I don't think it's lethal but I use spring water for drinking and cooking. Even if they stopped fluoridating, tap water would still suck. It has chlorine and all kinds of shit that makes it taste nasty, plus weird little floaty things. :x
America.
Fix your plumbing.
Tapwater tastes great here and has neither chlorine or fluorine.
It is called maintenance. It sounds like you haven't done that in 50 years.
Quote from: Net on September 14, 2012, 05:13:23 AM
WHY I OPPOSE WATER FLUORIDATION - A Scientific Perspective by Carrie Medina (https://www.facebook.com/notes/carrie-r-medina/why-i-oppose-water-fluoridation-a-scientific-perspective-by-carrie-medina/4378189142694)
Apparently it's a big conspiracy to steal our bodily fluids?
This has consumed otherwise intelligent people for about a month now in Portland. I get it on one level, people ought to just brush their teeth rather than be forced to drink fluoride, but is it really this bad?
This is all over the place. It's an old conspiracy theory, born IIRC in the red scare of the 50s/60s.
Fact: Small amounts of flouride will help your bones and teeth. This is why it is added to tap water in many places.
Fact: Large amounts of flouride will fuck your brain up badly.
Fact: Given the quantities in tap water, the amount required to fuck you up would require enough water to kill you.
Quote from: :regret: on September 14, 2012, 12:19:03 PM
America.
Fix your plumbing.
Tapwater tastes great here and has neither chlorine or fluorine.
It is called maintenance. It sounds like you haven't done that in 50 years.
Shut your pie hole. The flouride is ADDED.
Canada has been doing it for decades, and look at them. Shiny teeth and shiny eyes and hardly anyone gets eaten.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 11:29:22 AM
The thing with fluoride is I can't find anything objective. You have the one camp saying that it's toxic waste from aluminum manufacturing and it crystallizes in your brain and lowers IQ, and the other camp saying it's perfectly safe and saves kids teeth.
I think the main problem is that both are technically true, but you need a helluva lot of fluoride for it to become a genuine problem... like more than a human could probably ingest.
EDIT: Shit, I see Roger already beat me to it. And yep... anyone who's seen my videos can tell you Canadian fluoride makes your teeth look BEE-YOO-TEE-FULL.
Providence tap water is just fine, only one part per million is fluoride, and uses residual-free chlorine at about .3 parts per million when most cities have it at A LOT higher. This is why we have the best drinking water in the nation. For a shitty little corrupt city, they tend to not fuck around when it comes to these things.
Quote from: Suu on September 14, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
Providence tap water is just fine, only one part per million is fluoride, and uses residual-free chlorine at about .3 parts per million when most cities have it at A LOT higher. This is why we have the best drinking water in the nation. For a shitty little corrupt city, they tend to not fuck around when it comes to these things.
Yeah, true, but why do you guys insist on adding thee parts per million of Nyarlathotep?
Quote from: Hoopla on September 14, 2012, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: Suu on September 14, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
Providence tap water is just fine, only one part per million is fluoride, and uses residual-free chlorine at about .3 parts per million when most cities have it at A LOT higher. This is why we have the best drinking water in the nation. For a shitty little corrupt city, they tend to not fuck around when it comes to these things.
Yeah, true, but why do you guys insist on adding thee parts per million of Nyarlathotep?
BEST DRINKING WATER IN THE AAAAAAAAAAA I CAN SEE FOREVERRRRRR!
Quote from: Hoopla on September 14, 2012, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: Suu on September 14, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
Providence tap water is just fine, only one part per million is fluoride, and uses residual-free chlorine at about .3 parts per million when most cities have it at A LOT higher. This is why we have the best drinking water in the nation. For a shitty little corrupt city, they tend to not fuck around when it comes to these things.
Yeah, true, but why do you guys insist on adding thee parts per million of Nyarlathotep?
I don't know what you're talking about. @_@
Now if you excuse me, I need to take my Deep One for a walk.
I have my teeth and I am not retarded, therefore I conclude that fluoride is not a bad thing in tapwater.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 02:56:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 14, 2012, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: Suu on September 14, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
Providence tap water is just fine, only one part per million is fluoride, and uses residual-free chlorine at about .3 parts per million when most cities have it at A LOT higher. This is why we have the best drinking water in the nation. For a shitty little corrupt city, they tend to not fuck around when it comes to these things.
Yeah, true, but why do you guys insist on adding thee parts per million of Nyarlathotep?
BEST DRINKING WATER IN THE AAAAAAAAAAA I CAN SEE FOREVERRRRRR!
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Hoopla on September 14, 2012, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 11:29:22 AM
The thing with fluoride is I can't find anything objective. You have the one camp saying that it's toxic waste from aluminum manufacturing and it crystallizes in your brain and lowers IQ, and the other camp saying it's perfectly safe and saves kids teeth.
I think the main problem is that both are technically true, but you need a helluva lot of fluoride for it to become a genuine problem... like more than a human could probably ingest.
EDIT: Shit, I see Roger already beat me to it. And yep... anyone who's seen my videos can tell you Canadian fluoride makes your teeth look BEE-YOO-TEE-FULL.
I've read that it stays in your body, though. That's how it works, isn't it? It stays in your bones and teeth, at least. So, you get it every time you drink tapwater, plus every time you eat something cooked in tapwater. The longer you boil something, the more concentrated it gets. If you're making chili or stew and keep adding water when it starts looking like it wants to scorch before it's ready, you could end up with a lot of fluoride in there.
If you do all this year after year, you probably have a fuckton of fluoride in your body. Not enough to kill you, but it's not supposed to be there. It strikes me as something that could potentially trigger some kind of disease. If I'm going to get sick and/or die unnecessarily, I'd prefer it to be from something I actually enjoyed and not nastyass tap water. :lol:
There's some naturally occuring fluoride in most spring water too, but it's a miniscule amount and IIRC it's calcium fluoride and not stannous?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:26:06 PM
I've read that it stays in your body, though. That's how it works, isn't it? It stays in your bones and teeth, at least.
No, that's calcium.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 06:32:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:26:06 PM
I've read that it stays in your body, though. That's how it works, isn't it? It stays in your bones and teeth, at least.
No, that's calcium.
How does it do anything for your teeth, then?
*confuuuuused...*
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 06:32:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:26:06 PM
I've read that it stays in your body, though. That's how it works, isn't it? It stays in your bones and teeth, at least.
No, that's calcium.
How does it do anything for your teeth, then?
*confuuuuused...*
It goes near your teeth as you're drinking, shouts "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, TEETH!" as it passes by, and encourages your teeth to be strong.
Quote from: v3x on September 14, 2012, 06:40:24 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 06:32:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:26:06 PM
I've read that it stays in your body, though. That's how it works, isn't it? It stays in your bones and teeth, at least.
No, that's calcium.
How does it do anything for your teeth, then?
*confuuuuused...*
It goes near your teeth as you're drinking, shouts "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, TEETH!" as it passes by, and encourages your teeth to be strong.
That must be why they put it in toothpaste.
SPIT OR SWALLOW, THE ETERNAL CONTROVERSY
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:45:08 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 14, 2012, 06:40:24 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 06:32:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:26:06 PM
I've read that it stays in your body, though. That's how it works, isn't it? It stays in your bones and teeth, at least.
No, that's calcium.
How does it do anything for your teeth, then?
*confuuuuused...*
It goes near your teeth as you're drinking, shouts "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, TEETH!" as it passes by, and encourages your teeth to be strong.
That must be why they put it in toothpaste.
SPIT OR SWALLOW, THE ETERNAL CONTROVERSY
Swallowing toothpaste over an extended period of time will cause little white spots to form on your teeth. If that's the look you're going for, though...
Quote from: Hoopla on September 14, 2012, 06:50:35 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:45:08 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 14, 2012, 06:40:24 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 06:32:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:26:06 PM
I've read that it stays in your body, though. That's how it works, isn't it? It stays in your bones and teeth, at least.
No, that's calcium.
How does it do anything for your teeth, then?
*confuuuuused...*
It goes near your teeth as you're drinking, shouts "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, TEETH!" as it passes by, and encourages your teeth to be strong.
That must be why they put it in toothpaste.
SPIT OR SWALLOW, THE ETERNAL CONTROVERSY
Swallowing toothpaste over an extended period of time will cause little white spots to form on your teeth. If that's the look you're going for, though...
Toothpaste is also full of alumina. No shit.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 06:52:41 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 14, 2012, 06:50:35 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:45:08 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 14, 2012, 06:40:24 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 06:32:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 14, 2012, 06:26:06 PM
I've read that it stays in your body, though. That's how it works, isn't it? It stays in your bones and teeth, at least.
No, that's calcium.
How does it do anything for your teeth, then?
*confuuuuused...*
It goes near your teeth as you're drinking, shouts "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, TEETH!" as it passes by, and encourages your teeth to be strong.
That must be why they put it in toothpaste.
SPIT OR SWALLOW, THE ETERNAL CONTROVERSY
Swallowing toothpaste over an extended period of time will cause little white spots to form on your teeth. If that's the look you're going for, though...
Toothpaste is also full of alumina. No shit.
I was going for a blowjob joke. More coffee... :rimshot:
The story is that fluoride is toxic waste from aluminum manufacturing, and it would have been really expensive to dispose of, so somebody said "LET'S PUT IT IN WATER AND TOOTHPASTE - FOR THE CHILLERIN"
In 1974.
Possible, but wouldn't we have progressed to plutonium by now?
Something else occurs to me...(nano-rant follows):
Really Portland? REALLY? The "city of the weird", and the BEST you can do is some rehashed Bircher shit? FUCK YOU, PORTLAND, YOU'VE LET ME DOWN FOR THE LAST TIME. We're cutting off all trade. No more un-rusted 80s bikes for YOU, fuckers!
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 07:08:42 PM
Something else occurs to me...(nano-rant follows):
Really Portland? REALLY? The "city of the weird", and the BEST you can do is some rehashed Bircher shit? FUCK YOU, PORTLAND, YOU'VE LET ME DOWN FOR THE LAST TIME. We're cutting off all trade. No more un-rusted 80s bikes for YOU, fuckers!
It's occurred to me that what we might be seeing now with all these fluoride protests, is the logical consequence of decades of malnourished vegan brains.
People thought it was cute when everybody went vegan, got fluorescent hair, tattoos, and started the annual naked bike rides in the nineties. Harmless self-expression they said. Then, in the 00's they started welding bike frames together until they were two stories tall and riding them in traffic, putting bacon on their doughnuts, and lodging giant rings in their earlobes—ah, what amusing charms of Portland we all thought.
Now it's a Dr. Strangelove routine
that they don't even know they're doing. :crankey:
Quote from: Net on September 14, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 07:08:42 PM
Something else occurs to me...(nano-rant follows):
Really Portland? REALLY? The "city of the weird", and the BEST you can do is some rehashed Bircher shit? FUCK YOU, PORTLAND, YOU'VE LET ME DOWN FOR THE LAST TIME. We're cutting off all trade. No more un-rusted 80s bikes for YOU, fuckers!
It's occurred to me that what we might be seeing now with all these fluoride protests, is the logical consequence of decades of malnourished vegan brains.
People thought it was cute when everybody went vegan, got fluorescent hair, tattoos, and started the annual naked bike rides in the nineties. Harmless self-expression they said. Then, in the 00's they started welding bike frames together until they were two stories tall and riding them in traffic, putting bacon on their doughnuts, and lodging giant rings in their earlobes—ah, what amusing charms of Portland we all thought.
Now it's a Dr. Strangelove routine that they don't even know they're doing.
:crankey:
I just screen capped this post and printed it off on the color printer. It is going on my office wall, next to the 3' X 5' psycho Squiddy pic.
Quote from: Net on September 14, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 07:08:42 PM
Something else occurs to me...(nano-rant follows):
Really Portland? REALLY? The "city of the weird", and the BEST you can do is some rehashed Bircher shit? FUCK YOU, PORTLAND, YOU'VE LET ME DOWN FOR THE LAST TIME. We're cutting off all trade. No more un-rusted 80s bikes for YOU, fuckers!
It's occurred to me that what we might be seeing now with all these fluoride protests, is the logical consequence of decades of malnourished vegan brains.
People thought it was cute when everybody went vegan, got fluorescent hair, tattoos, and started the annual naked bike rides in the nineties. Harmless self-expression they said. Then, in the 00's they started welding bike frames together until they were two stories tall and riding them in traffic, putting bacon on their doughnuts, and lodging giant rings in their earlobes—ah, what amusing charms of Portland we all thought.
Now it's a Dr. Strangelove routine that they don't even know they're doing.
:crankey:
There's a movie in there somewhere.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 07:43:48 PM
Quote from: Net on September 14, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 07:08:42 PM
Something else occurs to me...(nano-rant follows):
Really Portland? REALLY? The "city of the weird", and the BEST you can do is some rehashed Bircher shit? FUCK YOU, PORTLAND, YOU'VE LET ME DOWN FOR THE LAST TIME. We're cutting off all trade. No more un-rusted 80s bikes for YOU, fuckers!
It's occurred to me that what we might be seeing now with all these fluoride protests, is the logical consequence of decades of malnourished vegan brains.
People thought it was cute when everybody went vegan, got fluorescent hair, tattoos, and started the annual naked bike rides in the nineties. Harmless self-expression they said. Then, in the 00's they started welding bike frames together until they were two stories tall and riding them in traffic, putting bacon on their doughnuts, and lodging giant rings in their earlobes—ah, what amusing charms of Portland we all thought.
Now it's a Dr. Strangelove routine that they don't even know they're doing.
:crankey:
I just screen capped this post and printed it off on the color printer. It is going on my office wall, next to the 3' X 5' psycho Squiddy pic.
Whoa, I'm honored.
Quote from: Net on September 14, 2012, 08:44:53 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 07:43:48 PM
Quote from: Net on September 14, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 07:08:42 PM
Something else occurs to me...(nano-rant follows):
Really Portland? REALLY? The "city of the weird", and the BEST you can do is some rehashed Bircher shit? FUCK YOU, PORTLAND, YOU'VE LET ME DOWN FOR THE LAST TIME. We're cutting off all trade. No more un-rusted 80s bikes for YOU, fuckers!
It's occurred to me that what we might be seeing now with all these fluoride protests, is the logical consequence of decades of malnourished vegan brains.
People thought it was cute when everybody went vegan, got fluorescent hair, tattoos, and started the annual naked bike rides in the nineties. Harmless self-expression they said. Then, in the 00's they started welding bike frames together until they were two stories tall and riding them in traffic, putting bacon on their doughnuts, and lodging giant rings in their earlobes—ah, what amusing charms of Portland we all thought.
Now it's a Dr. Strangelove routine that they don't even know they're doing.
:crankey:
I just screen capped this post and printed it off on the color printer. It is going on my office wall, next to the 3' X 5' psycho Squiddy pic.
Whoa, I'm honored.
Any time you get put up next to Squiddy is an honor, yes.
She's one of my heroes. Because she eats people that annoy her.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't fluoridated drinking water essentially been subjected to the largest clinical trial in history? And if it's so bad for you at the dosage level in tap water, and if we've been adding it in the US since the 40s...
WHERE ARE THE FUCKING FLUORIDE ZOMBIES?
To me, the fluoride issue is about informed consent, and treating people without individual consideration (there's a better term for this, but I'm not a doctor...). Sure, fluoride may be harmless, but different people, different physiology... Just seems a little heavy handed to me, one way or another.
Show me any evidence that anyone's physiology involves fluoride being bad for them at the amount they receive from drinking tap water. Otherwise, that's a pretty meaningless argument that can be applied to literally anything.
Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 15, 2012, 05:43:52 PM
Show me any evidence that anyone's physiology involves fluoride being bad for them at the amount they receive from drinking tap water. Otherwise, that's a pretty meaningless argument that can be applied to literally anything.
There is a rare disorder in which the lungs can calcify if the person is exposed to any amount of fluoride. However, people who have this disorder have a lot of other issues to worry about and having to drink bottled water is the least of their concerns.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.
Wait...
... are you also protesting water treatment that removes excess fluoride in areas where it leaches into the water naturally?
Are you outraged about sanitizing drinking water?
Fluoride can be removed from tap water with filtration, or avoided by drinking bottled water.
Fluoridated water is a public health issue and can reduce unnecessary deaths due to infections from tooth decay.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.
It's called living in a community. We are all subjected to more or less uniform standards and regulations. Vehicle safety, air quality, and yes, water fluoridation.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.
How many examples will satisfy you? 1? 10? 100? Because I can spend the time digging up thousands of medical treatments that give the same treatment for the same condition, or an equal number of municipal codes relating to saftey, water treatment, etc. But I would rather watch this football game and drink my beer.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 15, 2012, 07:56:30 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.
Wait...
... are you also protesting water treatment that removes excess fluoride in areas where it leaches into the water naturally?
Are you outraged about sanitizing drinking water?
Fluoride can be removed from tap water with filtration, or avoided by drinking bottled water.
Fluoridated water is a public health issue and can reduce unnecessary deaths due to infections from tooth decay.
I'm not sure how you got "outrage" from my post and I'm certainly not protesting anything.
I think maybe I'm having a different conversation than everyone else, accidentally. I don't take issue with fluoride treatments.
Regardless of the substance or it's relative degree of safety, there is a separate issue. Is it right to administer medical treatment through the water supply? Are there other methods of administering this treatment that don't require automatic inclusion without having been previously diagnosed with a condition by a doctor that would require this treatment?
I was hoping to spin the conversation into a direction where issues of the above nature could be discussed, instead of the tired old "fluoride is teh BADZ!" vs "flouride is NOMS!" route, which, I think, has been well explored.
Also, your non-sequitors about water treatment don't make the distinction between treating and purifying water for human consumption, and administering medical treatment through that water. Obviously I believe that water should be treated. Don't insult me.
I'm not making any claims, I'm just not trying to read the same FLUORIDE!!!!!! thread.
In hind-sight, I s'pose I could have done that differently.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 15, 2012, 07:56:30 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.
Wait...
... are you also protesting water treatment that removes excess fluoride in areas where it leaches into the water naturally?
Are you outraged about sanitizing drinking water?
Fluoride can be removed from tap water with filtration, or avoided by drinking bottled water.
Fluoridated water is a public health issue and can reduce unnecessary deaths due to infections from tooth decay.
I'm not sure how you got "outrage" from my post and I'm certainly not protesting anything.
I think maybe I'm having a different conversation than everyone else, accidentally. I don't take issue with fluoride treatments.
Regardless of the substance or it's relative degree of safety, there is a separate issue. Is it right to administer medical treatment through the water supply? Are there other methods of administering this treatment that don't require automatic inclusion without having been previously diagnosed with a condition by a doctor that would require this treatment?
I was hoping to spin the conversation into a direction where issues of the above nature could be discussed, instead of the tired old "fluoride is teh BADZ!" vs "flouride is NOMS!" route, which, I think, has been well explored.
Also, your non-sequitors about water treatment don't make the distinction between treating and purifying water for human consumption, and administering medical treatment through that water. Obviously I believe that water should be treated. Don't insult me.
I'm not making any claims, I'm just not trying to read the same FLUORIDE!!!!!! thread.
In hind-sight, I s'pose I could have done that differently.
Fluoride is more accurately a nutritional supplement than a medical treatment.
Like I said, it's a public health issue. In my mind it is not significantly different from basic water sanitation, so I find it bemusing when people discuss it as if it is. One prevents dysentery and other waterborne bacterial illnesses, and one prevents dental caries.
(Of course, without looking too hard you can also find people who believe the government is poisoning us with their basic water sanitation, or with the vitamin d in milk.)
I'm not exactly sure where you got the notion that my comparisons were "non-sequiturs", as they are directly relevant. The government tampers with the water supply in all numbers of ways, including the act of creating a municipal water system in the first place.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
Is it right to administer medical treatment through the water supply?
Yes it is right. I believe the pros do outweigh the cons as far as I understand them.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
Are there other methods of administering this treatment that don't require automatic inclusion without having been previously diagnosed with a condition by a doctor that would require this treatment?
There are other ways but they cost at the minimum, twice as much as water fluoridation per year, and are not as effective.
The main thing that gave me pause were concerns of some experts on the topic about the effect of fluoride on river ecology, since fluoridated water inevitably ends up there. That may not be the consensus opinion, however.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.
Good point. We should just ship filthy water to homes, and let the individual decide whether or not to treat it.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 15, 2012, 10:35:03 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
Show me where it's ethical to treat 3.14x10^8 people exactly the same without any individual consideration. The substance and it's harmlessness are irrelevant.
Good point. We should just ship filthy water to homes, and let the individual decide whether or not to treat it.
God Bless The Free Market
\
:teabagger1:
Dude.
In addition to fluoridated water in Florida, they also had mandatory fluoride treatments administered by a dental hygienist on a weekly basis IN PUBLIC SCHOOL. I remember having it all through 3rd grade on Tuesdays. God that stuff tasted horrid. Just like that gel crap they make you use when actually AT the dentist. It's supposed to be berry...but totally not. Not at all.
My parents never once pitched a fit. They never once got all fucking hippie on me, and I can't remember anyone back in the late 80s blowing a cork or not allowing their kids to partake in the treatment. Granted, I hated the shit, but my teeth are in damn good condition, and I'm pretty sure I have to thank those fluoride treatments for that.
...Ugh, now I'm remembering the taste! :vom:
Quote from: Net on September 15, 2012, 10:16:55 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
Is it right to administer medical treatment through the water supply?
Yes it is right. I believe the pros do outweigh the cons as far as I understand them.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
Are there other methods of administering this treatment that don't require automatic inclusion without having been previously diagnosed with a condition by a doctor that would require this treatment?
There are other ways but they cost at the minimum, twice as much as water fluoridation per year, and are not as effective.
The main thing that gave me pause were concerns of some experts on the topic about the effect of fluoride on river ecology, since fluoridated water inevitably ends up there. That may not be the consensus opinion, however.
That's worth looking into, although of course in the many areas where the groundwater leaches naturally-occurring fluoride, river water already contains it so it seems like those ecologies would be the first place to look for detrimental effects.
Interesting, brief read:
http://www.bfsweb.org/facts/tech_aspects/chemsmanufac.htm
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
I think maybe I'm having a different conversation than everyone else, accidentally. I don't take issue with fluoride treatments.
Regardless of the substance or it's relative degree of safety, there is a separate issue. Is it right to administer medical treatment through the water supply? Are there other methods of administering this treatment that don't require automatic inclusion without having been previously diagnosed with a condition by a doctor that would require this treatment?
I was hoping to spin the conversation into a direction where issues of the above nature could be discussed, instead of the tired old "fluoride is teh BADZ!" vs "flouride is NOMS!" route, which, I think, has been well explored.
Also, your non-sequitors about water treatment don't make the distinction between treating and purifying water for human consumption, and administering medical treatment through that water. Obviously I believe that water should be treated. Don't insult me.
I'm not making any claims, I'm just not trying to read the same FLUORIDE!!!!!! thread.
So your preference is for an argument on medical ethics?
And you're taking a Kantian standpoint?
I suppose that's legit.
So, let's move the argument forward.
Adding fluoride is okay, so how about adding alkali metals/earthmetals to prevent behavioral abnormalities and criminal behavior?
It should be effective and beneficial for a healthy society. People who have poor nutritional habits are more likely to be poor and have access only to tap water, so why not just solid up the water a bit to help compensate?
As evidence that it does show benefit, I would offer the fact that such mineral supplements are used in prison food.
So why not? I suppose tending to the mental health of the underclass is not really a priority like reducing medical expenses. Besides, criminal/abnormal behavior has its uses within the greater society, while the prevalence of such behaviors in prison is only problematic.
Quote from: Our Common Enemy on September 16, 2012, 05:01:54 AM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
I think maybe I'm having a different conversation than everyone else, accidentally. I don't take issue with fluoride treatments.
Regardless of the substance or it's relative degree of safety, there is a separate issue. Is it right to administer medical treatment through the water supply? Are there other methods of administering this treatment that don't require automatic inclusion without having been previously diagnosed with a condition by a doctor that would require this treatment?
I was hoping to spin the conversation into a direction where issues of the above nature could be discussed, instead of the tired old "fluoride is teh BADZ!" vs "flouride is NOMS!" route, which, I think, has been well explored.
Also, your non-sequitors about water treatment don't make the distinction between treating and purifying water for human consumption, and administering medical treatment through that water. Obviously I believe that water should be treated. Don't insult me.
I'm not making any claims, I'm just not trying to read the same FLUORIDE!!!!!! thread.
So your preference is for an argument on medical ethics?
And you're taking a Kantian standpoint?
I suppose that's legit.
So, let's move the argument forward.
Adding fluoride is okay, so how about adding alkali metals/earthmetals to prevent behavioral abnormalities and criminal behavior?
It should be effective and beneficial for a healthy society. People who have poor nutritional habits are more likely to be poor and have access only to tap water, so why not just solid up the water a bit to help compensate?
As evidence that it does show benefit, I would offer the fact that such mineral supplements are used in prison food.
So why not? I suppose tending to the mental health of the underclass is not really a priority like reducing medical expenses. Besides, criminal/abnormal behavior has its uses within the greater society, while the prevalence of such behaviors in prison is only problematic.
I am going to pretend for a moment that you're not an idiot, and patiently explain that it's because behavior-altering alkali affect different people very, very differently and must be carefully administered under the constant monitoring of a medical professional, and can't be shown to have an overall public health benefit. In addition, UNDISCLOSED water treatments violate every ethical standard in place.
Those prohibitively significant issues aside, water treatments designed to alter public behavior do not fall under the public health umbrella.
Quote from: Our Common Enemy on September 16, 2012, 05:01:54 AM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on September 15, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
I think maybe I'm having a different conversation than everyone else, accidentally. I don't take issue with fluoride treatments.
Regardless of the substance or it's relative degree of safety, there is a separate issue. Is it right to administer medical treatment through the water supply? Are there other methods of administering this treatment that don't require automatic inclusion without having been previously diagnosed with a condition by a doctor that would require this treatment?
I was hoping to spin the conversation into a direction where issues of the above nature could be discussed, instead of the tired old "fluoride is teh BADZ!" vs "flouride is NOMS!" route, which, I think, has been well explored.
Also, your non-sequitors about water treatment don't make the distinction between treating and purifying water for human consumption, and administering medical treatment through that water. Obviously I believe that water should be treated. Don't insult me.
I'm not making any claims, I'm just not trying to read the same FLUORIDE!!!!!! thread.
So your preference is for an argument on medical ethics?
And you're taking a Kantian standpoint?
I suppose that's legit.
So, let's move the argument forward.
Adding fluoride is okay, so how about adding alkali metals/earthmetals to prevent behavioral abnormalities and criminal behavior?
It should be effective and beneficial for a healthy society. People who have poor nutritional habits are more likely to be poor and have access only to tap water, so why not just solid up the water a bit to help compensate?
As evidence that it does show benefit, I would offer the fact that such mineral supplements are used in prison food.
So why not? I suppose tending to the mental health of the underclass is not really a priority like reducing medical expenses. Besides, criminal/abnormal behavior has its uses within the greater society, while the prevalence of such behaviors in prison is only problematic.
So, you're equating "healthy teeth" with "behavior control"?
REALLY?
Also, unethical treatment of convicts somehow equals ethical treatment of the population at large?
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 16, 2012, 05:33:55 AM
So, you're equating "healthy teeth" with "behavior control"?
REALLY?
Well, if you're going to use the argument that promoting clean teeth is in society's best interests since it is a preventative measure, why not explore other preventative measures?
As to Hairy jumping on the HUGE DOSES conclusion like a child in a mud puddle, that's hardly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about supplementary doses, as would be found in a healthy diet. You know, eating your greens. Introducing minerals in water isn't the same as taking care of the nutrition desert effect of low-income neighborhoods, but it would provide benefit to those who could use it. In this regard it is not substantially different from inclusions of low-level doses of fluoride.
So, I take your aversion to the idea to indicate that physical health is a matter of public good, but mental health is a personal concern.
WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED?
Quote from: Our Common Enemy on September 16, 2012, 06:01:45 AM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 16, 2012, 05:33:55 AM
So, you're equating "healthy teeth" with "behavior control"?
REALLY?
Well, if you're going to use the argument that promoting clean teeth is in society's best interests since it is a preventative measure, why not explore other preventative measures?
As to Hairy jumping on the HUGE DOSES conclusion like a child in a mud puddle, that's hardly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about supplementary doses, as would be found in a healthy diet. You know, eating your greens. Introducing minerals in water isn't the same as taking care of the nutrition desert effect of low-income neighborhoods, but it would provide benefit to those who could use it. In this regard it is not substantially different from inclusions of low-level doses of fluoride.
So, I take your aversion to the idea to indicate that physical health is a matter of public good, but mental health is a personal concern.
WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED?
Are you seriously suggesting that trace minerals work the same on everyone, regardless of the individual's brain chemistry?
Please say yes.
I gotta say, though, that this thread had the predictable result. One person arguing for the sake of arguing, at least one guy who swallows the whole CT but won't admit it, and me feeling pretty damn smug.
7/10. Would read again.
Just had a little fun looking up what happens when people are exposed to certain trace metals.
Lithium, for example, can cause horrible birth defects when consumed by pregnant women, even with a very low dosage (below that required for behavior modification). Obviously, this should be added to our water supply. UNNNNG.
OCE, you are a fucking genius. They should make you the Goddamn surgeon general.
EDIT TO ADD LINK: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410736_2
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 16, 2012, 06:06:37 AMAre you seriously suggesting that trace minerals work the same on everyone, regardless of the individual's brain chemistry?
Please say yes.
I'm suggesting that deficiency of trace minerals due to improper diet has a predictable effect on an individual's brain chemistry. Spinach hasn't killed any babies to my knowledge.
Your scarecrow doesn't speak.
Perhaps tedious antagonism will help?
Quote from: Our Common Enemy on September 16, 2012, 06:01:45 AM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 16, 2012, 05:33:55 AM
So, you're equating "healthy teeth" with "behavior control"?
REALLY?
Well, if you're going to use the argument that promoting clean teeth is in society's best interests since it is a preventative measure, why not explore other preventative measures?
As to Hairy jumping on the HUGE DOSES conclusion like a child in a mud puddle, that's hardly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about supplementary doses, as would be found in a healthy diet. You know, eating your greens. Introducing minerals in water isn't the same as taking care of the nutrition desert effect of low-income neighborhoods, but it would provide benefit to those who could use it. In this regard it is not substantially different from inclusions of low-level doses of fluoride.
So, I take your aversion to the idea to indicate that physical health is a matter of public good, but mental health is a personal concern.
WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED?
Can you name some of the minerals you're thinking of? And maybe do a little research into their current presence in municipal tap water, and the effect they have on the water delivery system?
And then, maybe you should try having a clue
before you post about a topic? It makes the conversation more pleasant for everyone involved.
IF THEY'RE GONNA FLUORIDAT THEY OUGHTTA PUT OTHER MINTERLS IN TAP WATER TOO!
/
:mullet:
:lulz:
"Spinach"
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Yeah, PUT MORE IRON in the tap water! That won't precipitate out any more than it already does! How about we add calcium as well?
:facepalm:
Funny thing that Mister Public Health Genius Guru doesn't seem to know for some reason (I am guessing that reason is because he isn't paying any attention in high school health class), we the public are already supplemented to the gills, through delivery methods that actually make sense. Like vitamin D in milk (want to look up what epidemic that alleviated?) and niacin, iron, thiamin, riboflavin, and folic acid in flour.
ZOMG POISON! IT'S A CONSPIRACY! GET BIG GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY NUTRITION! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE BABIES WITH EXPOSED SPINAL CORDS!
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I'm sorry, making fun of you is WAY too fun and easy. It's too early to be cackling like a ninny. I'll compose myself now.
I wouldn't worry too much about fluoride in the water, what's more likely to fuck people up are the trace, or not so trace, pharmaceuticals in the water supplies. There is no conclusive science out there right now that tells us what the long term consequences of prolonged exposure to even trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. The best they can come with at this point is "fuck if we know?"
Don't worry about the fluoride.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 16, 2012, 03:16:02 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about fluoride in the water, what's more likely to fuck people up are the trace, or not so trace, pharmaceuticals in the water supplies. There is no conclusive science out there right now that tells us what the long term consequences of prolonged exposure to even trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. The best they can come with at this point is "fuck if we know?"
Don't worry about the fluoride.
Yeah, pretty much this.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 16, 2012, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 16, 2012, 03:16:02 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about fluoride in the water, what's more likely to fuck people up are the trace, or not so trace, pharmaceuticals in the water supplies. There is no conclusive science out there right now that tells us what the long term consequences of prolonged exposure to even trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. The best they can come with at this point is "fuck if we know?"
Don't worry about the fluoride.
Yeah, pretty much this.
Not to mention PCBs, mercury, lead, arsenic, radionuclides, DDE, VOCs, MTBE, and a host of other industrial contaminants.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 14, 2012, 07:08:42 PM
Something else occurs to me...(nano-rant follows):
Really Portland? REALLY? The "city of the weird", and the BEST you can do is some rehashed Bircher shit? FUCK YOU, PORTLAND, YOU'VE LET ME DOWN FOR THE LAST TIME. We're cutting off all trade. No more un-rusted 80s bikes for YOU, fuckers!
Well Cameron Whitten(sp?) did end his hunger strike in front of city hall for the right of a homelesss tent city to keep operating downtown...slow news cycle, I guess.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 15, 2012, 05:43:52 PM
Show me any evidence that anyone's physiology involves fluoride being bad for them at the amount they receive from drinking tap water. Otherwise, that's a pretty meaningless argument that can be applied to literally anything.
Plus there's the option to ingest BPA in bottled water if the tap-water offends a person.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 16, 2012, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 16, 2012, 03:16:02 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about fluoride in the water, what's more likely to fuck people up are the trace, or not so trace, pharmaceuticals in the water supplies. There is no conclusive science out there right now that tells us what the long term consequences of prolonged exposure to even trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. The best they can come with at this point is "fuck if we know?"
Don't worry about the fluoride.
Yeah, pretty much this.
Seconding this.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 16, 2012, 02:57:01 PM
"Spinach"
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Yeah, PUT MORE IRON in the tap water! That won't precipitate out any more than it already does! How about we add calcium as well?
:facepalm:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
All I can say on the subject is: OMG Babies don't even have teeth man! (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=fluoridated+baby+water&num=10&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=618&tbm=isch&tbnid=6CDv7nWXzQi-UM:&imgrefurl=http://blog.fluoridefreeaustin.com/2010/04/07/heb-covers-the-bases--will-the-real-baby-water-please-stand-up.aspx&docid=Qc-486oL9mOkVM&imgurl=http://images.quickblogcast.com/8/6/7/3/5/163531-153768/HEBFluoride.jpg%253Fa%253D59&w=800&h=600&ei=FzRWULDJOOaDywGL3YGQDg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=571&sig=104737188845069229594&page=1&tbnh=121&tbnw=161&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:78&tx=68&ty=61) <Is hyperlink!
The fluoride bit is a little too much to me. I'm fine and I've been on the 'ride for my whole life.
Also, OCE, dude, you seem bright. You are acting a bit like a jerk though. Do not mistake opposition of thought for an insult and open fire. Unless you are here to troll. If that is the case... good fuckin' luck. You were warned. Where do you think trolls come from, huh? :eek:
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on September 16, 2012, 05:40:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 16, 2012, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 16, 2012, 03:16:02 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about fluoride in the water, what's more likely to fuck people up are the trace, or not so trace, pharmaceuticals in the water supplies. There is no conclusive science out there right now that tells us what the long term consequences of prolonged exposure to even trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. The best they can come with at this point is "fuck if we know?"
Don't worry about the fluoride.
Yeah, pretty much this.
Seconding this. weighing IN 71.5Kg 1.5 over
i think i should weigh may often: 1:40:40.? pdT
Next Saturday they're having a big fluoride protest: https://www.facebook.com/events/430120720358121/
Do any Portland spags want to go with me to sell handmade tin (okay, aluminum) foil hats to the protesters and film the encounter?
Quote from: Net on September 17, 2012, 01:11:07 AM
Next Saturday they're having a big fluoride protest: https://www.facebook.com/events/430120720358121/
I suppose they felt they had too much credibility with regard to the whole Occupy thing.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 01:13:07 AM
Quote from: Net on September 17, 2012, 01:11:07 AM
Next Saturday they're having a big fluoride protest: https://www.facebook.com/events/430120720358121/
I suppose they felt they had too much credibility with regard to the whole Occupy thing.
If I can't dance on Henry Trendley Dean's grave, it's not my revolution!
I think, in the end, freaking out about a fucking conspiracy theory is easier than freaking out about mega-corporations fucking us in the ass.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 02:29:12 AM
I think, in the end, freaking out about a fucking conspiracy theory is easier than freaking out about mega-corporations fucking us in the ass.
DING! DING! MOTHERFUCKING DING!
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 02:29:12 AM
I think, in the end, freaking out about a fucking conspiracy theory is easier than freaking out about mega-corporations fucking us in the ass.
I think it's probably both. It's the freaking out that needs to be addressed IMO. It is ineffective... and predictable.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 17, 2012, 02:39:12 AM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 02:29:12 AM
I think, in the end, freaking out about a fucking conspiracy theory is easier than freaking out about mega-corporations fucking us in the ass.
I think it's probably both. It's the freaking out that needs to be addressed IMO. It is ineffective... and predictable.
I'm gonna disagree. Freaking out was, for a time, effective as hell. But now many protestors have found something more
underground to protest. Retro-activism. I'm cooler than you are, because I'm on the leading edge of protest. And so on.
Hipster paradise.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 02:46:17 AM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 17, 2012, 02:39:12 AM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 02:29:12 AM
I think, in the end, freaking out about a fucking conspiracy theory is easier than freaking out about mega-corporations fucking us in the ass.
I think it's probably both. It's the freaking out that needs to be addressed IMO. It is ineffective... and predictable.
I'm gonna disagree. Freaking out was, for a time, effective as hell. But now many protestors have found something more underground to protest. Retro-activism. I'm cooler than you are, because I'm on the leading edge of protest. And so on.
Hipster paradise.
See, I wasn't around for the bad old days of protesting. The images and clips from the 60's speak to me of a generation of patriots and nutjobs in equal proportion. Some were both. They took it seriously and there were very serious consequences.
I cannot say that ALL that goes on today is hippy-hipster-dipsterism, but the current idea of peaceful protest has as much edge to it as boiled toast when compared to iron cats like MLK and Ghandi. They paid the price of speaking truth to power. I don't know enough about Ghandi to say, but I believe king saw the bullet coming. He stood his ground. Others will too in the future, but I wonder if it will be enough in the end.