12 Reasons To Reject Fluoridation!

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 5:01 am

Wow, where to begin?

First of all, you keep referring to the 12 Reasons… paper, so I'll just address that directly. But first, I think you said it best.

Dennis Stevenson wrote:

Also notice that in his posts he still gives absolutely no evidence for anything he says. He just makes more claims.

This is why 12 Reasons… don’t convince me- the only reference you provide is in number 3, and the rest of the article reeks of alarmist propaganda. I require more reliable evidence than any person's say so- and I must say, the longer we prolong this discussion, the less likely I am to change my mind. I have learned far more than I ever wanted to about fluoride in the past few days- if nothing else, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have certainly been enriched.
Second, after further research, some of your claims are misleading. I'll take them one at a time. I'm assuming that 12 Reasons… have been linked to enough so that it should be easy to find for anyone following this thread.

1. Right to choose medication. Fair enough- a reasonable point. You reference sodium fluoride as the drug in question.

2. Claiming fluoride is natural.
In other words, you are saying fluoride does not naturally occur in water. However, it does, sometimes in concentrations far higher than the 1ppm. Fluoride is the substance in question here. Second, the statement that the fluoride is "toxic waste from inside fertiliser [sic] factory smokestacks" is an appeal to fear. This is what Eyedunno meant when he said zomg (common internet slang for a particularly emphatic "Oh my God" among the younger generation). After looking up the process here- http://www.health.vic.gov.au/environment/downloads/fluori_qa07.pdf sections B9-10
I have to ask how you define treatment. What scrubbers do is capture waste in gas form and dissolve it in a liquid. Some of the fluoride is captured this way. Honestly, to me that just sounds incredibly efficient of the folks down under. Obviously, they have pretty rigorous safety standards in place- they don't WANT to kill anyone.

3. A report on the compound's uses. Now the chemical is sodium silicofluoride. I'm no chemist but couldn't there be a significant difference between sodium fluoride and sodium silicofluoride? Also, I was unable to validate the claim that Australian water is actually fluoridated using this, but taking your word for it in the interim, consider chlorine. I wouldn't want pure chlorine poured on me, or to ingest it. It's almost always labeled (in the US) as harmful or fatal if swallowed- and I certainly keep it out of reach of my kids.

4. The medical restrictions- a good point, however you fail to consider that anyone can get access to dozens of over the counter medications without any contact with a doctor- because they have been tested enough to be considered safe enough for virtually everyone to use.

5. I'd love a link to the study used to prove the deaths, or at the least a transcript of the full trial.

6. There are lots of problems with our political system- but I don't think this is one of them. Penn and Teller got people to sign a petition to end women's suffrage- and to remove hydrogen dioxide from the water supply. So I could also claim that water and women’s voting is undemocratic. This is why we have representatives that are (supposed to be) informed. But that's a tangent that I won't go into (I want this post as concise as possible).

7. Fluoride is not the only factor- this one has been done to death on the forums already, so I won't go into any more detail.

8. Among which experts, and how many? I could make the same claim of almost ANYTHING in science- should we just stop teaching Newton's theory of gravity because the debate is still raging among experts (7, and the rest of the scientific constituency)? Second, the amounts are known- 1ppm.

9. Fluoride is not toxic- your claim that it is is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst. It is harmful in high doses to very young humans. However, the 1ppm in the water supply is not enough to initiate fluoridosis on its own- it is merely a contributing factor. Also, you didn't mention skeletal fluoridosis that occurs in developing countries at an alarming rate, but is almost completely unheard of in developed countries, fluoridated or otherwise. And while 10% may "suffer" from fluoridosis, it is only in severe cases that it has any harmful effect.

10. I don't see what this has to do with fluoridation- as you say, fluoridation aside. However, if your point is that poor diet is the biggest contributor to tooth decay and as such, fluoridation is a stopgap measure, then fair enough. Still not a reason to stop fluoridation, just a reason to eat fewer sugars.

11. Everyone makes mistakes. However, you have the majority of the developed world, and the scientific constituency making the same claims. This "reason" amounts to "they might be wrong", and lists the most well known dangerous substances. It's easy to see how this line of reasoning can be taken to the absurd.

12. That and the pill is a pain in the gluteus maximus to take every time you're thirsty- good thing it's already dissolved! Seriously, I know people who take vitamins with every meal. If they had the option, they would probably rather get them for "free" in the water. Of course, that's not safe or economical, so we don't do it.

So, I think I've gone into exhaustive (for these forums) detail about why I didn't respond to your 12 Reasons… paper. As far as Eyedunno being a suppressive- while you might be right, it is drawing attention away from the discussion at hand. Respond to the points he makes, stop attacking his person. Undermining his credibility (which I don't think is working, anyway) is not helping yours. Finally, this is a public forum- any post, to anyone, is fair game, suppressive or not.

To the rest of you- sorry for the 3 page reply. I’ll try to keep it shorter.

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

People who read my one page article, '12 Reasons to reject Fluoridation' will make their own decision.

They can agree with your comments, that, "the article reeks of alarmist propaganda ... some of your claims are misleading ... an appeal to fear ... There are lots of problems with our political system - but I don't think this [that fluoridation is undemocratic and that we are being denied the right to decide for outselves] is one of them ... Fluoride is not toxic - your claim that it is is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst."

or they may agree with the many common sense and other points presented in '12 Reasons...'.

Perhaps they may decide - even after only reading Point 1. - that the argument is effectively over and that fluoridation should be rejected - join us in stopping it - and thereupon not be diverted down the garden path by yourself or Eyedunno.

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 4:15 pm

Raligan wrote:

Honestly, to me that just sounds incredibly efficient of the folks down under. Obviously, they have pretty rigorous safety standards in place- they don't WANT to kill anyone.

Indeed. What is "toxic waste" to some is "recycling" to others.

Raligan wrote:

Also, I was unable to validate the claim that Australian water is actually fluoridated using this, but taking your word for it in the interim, consider chlorine. I wouldn't want pure chlorine poured on me, or to ingest it. It's almost always labeled (in the US) as harmful or fatal if swallowed- and I certainly keep it out of reach of my kids.

Yeah, all of the halogens are extremely nasty and dangerous. Yet chlorine (in the form of sodium chloride) is a basic part of human diets, and iodine compounds are used as disinfectants. Furthermore, hydrochloric acid is horrible stuff as anyone who's ever been a poolboy (*raises hand*) would know. Just being upwind of a little bit of it fucking hurts your lungs and mucus membranes like nobody's business. Yet it's also a basic part of human digestion. Oh, and that's pumped into our drinking water too, and we should all be thankful for that - I don't really have a personal stake in the fluoridation thing, but I'm very glad that corrosive cement cleaner (heehee) is poured into the water I drink.

Raligan wrote:

As far as Eyedunno being a suppressive- while you might be right, it is drawing attention away from the discussion at hand.

Yeah, I've already admitted to being a suppressive with my Smashing Pumpkins t-shirt comment. Wink

The local Freezone suppressologist put me on antisuppressants, but I don't think they're working. But yeah, far from being offensive, the ad hominems were more bewildering than anything. I can't believe somebody would think this would get him/her off the hook from answering criticisms. Even if someone had somehow proven scientifically that I was an 8-year-old drooling retard, it would prove nothing aside from the fact of me being an 8-year-old drooling retard (well, and maybe some basic corollaries, such as "at least one 8-year-old drooling retard can use a keyboard and image macros of owls").

Incidentally, I somehow read almost half of the Ruth Minshull paper referenced earlier (it's really short). It seems to me that "suppressive" is no more or no less than "asshole" couched in Hubbard-speak, and you can shoehorn anybody you don't like into the label. Does someone you know always criticize others? If so, that person might be a suppressive. Does someone you know never criticize anyone, and just lets everybody around him/her get away with everything? If so, that person might be a suppressive. Is someone you know disorganized? If so, that person might be a suppressive. Is someone you know completely anal about organization? If so, that person might be a suppressive. Does someone you know undervalue his/her possessions? If so, that person might be a suppressive. Does someone you know overvalue his/her possessions? If so, that person might be a suppressive. I could continue, but I think I've made my point.

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

You have a golden opportunity to compare what Eyedunno wrote,

Eyedunno wrote:

... you can shoehorn anybody you don't like into the label [suppressive.]

with the free download of 'Ups and Downs' at: http://www.goldcenturypress.com/booklist.php. It highlights some interesting things about Eyedunno that he attempts to hide.

Eyedunno wrote:

Yeah, I've already admitted to being a suppressive with my Smashing Pumpkins t-shirt comment

Eyedunno isn't admitting anything. The interesting thing is that suppressives never think they're Suppressive. Others, in reading about suppressive characteristics, are likely to wonder if they might be suppressive, but the Eyedunnos of our world never do.

Incidentally, on the same site, you can download two of Ruth's other books, "How to Choose your People" which discusses the characteristics of just about every type of person we can meet. "Miracles for Breakfast" the third of Ruth's superb books gives practical ideas on how to take raising children to a new level.

All three books are very special.

Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 12:08 am

eyedunno wrote:

Does someone you know always criticize others? If so, that person might be a suppressive. Does someone you know never criticize anyone, and just lets everybody around him/her get away with everything? If so, that person might be a suppressive.(...) Does someone you know overvalue his/her possessions? If so, that person might be a suppressive. I could continue, but I think I've made my point.

Thats right. This is a dasterdly and, sadely, common tactic to use: Create some category- suppresive person, liberal, secular progressive, etc.- then look for any reason to dismissively toss those who disagree with you on any point into that bin. So they arent disagreing with you becasue they think you are wrong on some point, they are disagring with you because their character is diffective or because they are trying to carry out some nefarious agenda.

This tactic would surely be on the list of things suppressive persons habitually do if it wouldnt bar those who like labeling others suppresive persons from making use of this cheap rhetorical manuever.

Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 12:25 am

Dennis wrote:

The interesting thing is that suppressives never think they're Suppressive. Others, in reading about suppressive characteristics, are likely to wonder if they might be suppressive, but the Eyedunnos of our world never do.

In order to determine that Eyedunno is a suppresive person, you would have to know, not that he occasionaly exhibits certain suppresive traits, but that he habitually does. You simply cannot infer anything about what someone habitually does on the basis of a few posts.

Also he has already said that he agrees with you on your most important point, that water should not be flourinated without our consent. It seems unlikely that any suppressive person would be willing to go that far. He should, if he is a true suppresive person, be bent on opposing you at every turn and should not be in agreement with you on your most improtant point.

Since calling someones charter into question without good reason to do so is a discourtious thing to do, you should retract your charge and appoligize to Eyedunno.

Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 6:13 am

bagnasty wrote:

eyedunno wrote:

Does someone you know always criticize others? If so, that person might be a suppressive. Does someone you know never criticize anyone, and just lets everybody around him/her get away with everything? If so, that person might be a suppressive.(...) Does someone you know overvalue his/her possessions? If so, that person might be a suppressive. I could continue, but I think I've made my point.

Thats right. This is a dasterdly and, sadely, common tactic to use: Create some category- suppresive person, liberal, secular progressive, etc.- then look for any reason to dismissively toss those who disagree with you on any point into that bin. So they arent disagreing with you becasue they think you are wrong on some point, they are disagring with you because their character is diffective or because they are trying to carry out some nefarious agenda.

This tactic would surely be on the list of things suppressive persons habitually do if it wouldnt bar those who like labeling others suppresive persons from making use of this cheap rhetorical manuever.

I glad you brought that up. I was thinking along similar lines but it wasn't gelling together.

Eyedunno, I wasn't accusing you of Ad homs. I was quoting Dennis in that post... most likely in regards to aforementioned supressive comments.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 549

Quote:

Eyedunno isn't admitting anything. The interesting thing is that suppressives never think they're Suppressive. Others, in reading about suppressive characteristics, are likely to wonder if they might be suppressive, but the Eyedunnos of our world never do.

The interesting thing about people who aren't suppressives is that they don't think they're suppressive either. I for one don't really see anything about eyedunno that fits into the 'suppressive' category. That owl picture was hilarious. For example, he concedes one of your points and then merely said some things to the contrary:

Quote:

Yeah, all of the halogens are extremely nasty and dangerous. Yet chlorine (in the form of sodium chloride) is a basic part of human diets, and iodine compounds are used as disinfectants. Furthermore, hydrochloric acid is horrible stuff as anyone who's ever been a poolboy (*raises hand*) would know. Just being upwind of a little bit of it fucking hurts your lungs and mucus membranes like nobody's business. Yet it's also a basic part of human digestion. Oh, and that's pumped into our drinking water too, and we should all be thankful for that - I don't really have a personal stake in the fluoridation thing, but I'm very glad that corrosive cement cleaner (heehee) is poured into the water I drink.

......yet you ignore his point and go off into some 'suppressive person' BS. Seems like branding someone a witch or a heretic if you don't like what they're saying.

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:28 am

Well, conspiracies aside, the big questions are:

1.) Does the government have the right to medicate people against their will and/or without their knowledge? Different people require different levels of medication. Surely, forcing everyone to abide by a one-size-fits-all dosage regime is not only stupid, but dangerous. There are usually very different requirements between adults and children, men and women, whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc., and none of this is taken into consideration in the fluoridation requirements set up by the government.

2.) What is the point of fluoridating the entire water supply when much of it will never even be consumed? Think of the billions of gallons of water used in factories every day, the millions of gallons used to flush toilets, wash dishes, water gardens, irrigate crops, clean cars, and so on. All of it fluoridated, all the fluoride wasted and dumped into the environment. To say that this is somehow cheaper and smarter than dosing individuals according to their needs is ludicrous to me. We don't do this with any other health treatment, why make an exception for fluoride?

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:32 am

Well that's one f the conspiracies on Flouride is that it's an industrial waste and they're trying to "waste" it.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 549

JOBAfunky wrote:

Well that's one f the conspiracies on Flouride is that it's an industrial waste and they're trying to "waste" it.

Well then it should definitely be stopped! I see no reason so far to accept fluoridation, even if the idea that they are trying to get rid of industrial waste is false.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore