What about flouride?

[Parker2112]

So enough with the premature touchdown dances. You ain't Billy "White Shoes."

I can win on certain issues/arguments. I cant prove aliens exist

(the equivalent of what you guys want, prove the conspirators, the conspiracy, track the distribution, even where such a strategy would likely be purposefully withheld to prevent public alarm... and with a yesterday deadline)

but I CAN dispel the assertion that every eye witness to a UFO is untrustworthy. And then I can dance...
http://www.gbmnews.com/News_Photos/111907/DanceMovement.jpg

[Winehole23]

sometimes its about asking the right questions, and find your own answers. trouble dealing with ambiguity much, wh?You should stop giving yourself so much credit for your wisdom writing.

The questions you raise are hackneyed and silly, though somewhat redeemed by the unintentionally comic dimension of you taking them so seriously.

And the ambiguity you hoist up into the air for general admiration frankly looks more like a fig leaf for not knowing what you think and being all over the place.

[Parker2112]

You apparently have no trouble with being ambiguous.

If you can't even answer your own tough questions then why do you still believe in this conspiracy?

I dont have to believe the conspiracy to think chinese product shouldnt be in the water, and municipalities nationwide shouldnt be spending money on useless powder for the water, that is a known toxin in sufficient quantities, and that we should have a say in what medicines we put into our bodies.

[Parker2112]

You should stop giving yourself so much credit for your wisdom writing.

The questions you raise are hackneyed and silly, though somewhat redeemed by the unintentionally comic dimension of you taking them so seriously.

And the ambiguity you hoist up into the air for general admiration frankly looks more like a fig leaf for not knowing what you think and being all over the place.

You assume I come here to assert. I come here to question in a roundtable setting, with the focus being on finding answers. all you guys can offer so far is uninformed scepticism. it is no wonder why you lose on issue after issue.

the case will not get a verdict by this jury though.

[Winehole23]

I'll take my own uninformed skepticism over your half-baked inferences. Every day.

[Parker2112]

if this issue was as easy as uninformed "public is never duped/I am too smart to have the wool pulled over my eyes" skepticism, then this argument wouldnt have made it beyond page 2-3.

If my goal was to confirm that this is not a cut and dried issue, and that questions do exist, then...http://blogs.chron.com/jeromesolomon/Billy_Johnson_Oilers.jpg

[Parker2112]

I'll take my own uninformed skepticism over your half-baked inferences. Every day.

uninformed being the key word here. Might as well concede that..
zb9UND65mto

[Blake]

If my goal was to confirm that this is not a cut and dried issue, and that questions do exist, then...http://blogs.chron.com/jeromesolomon/Billy_Johnson_Oilers.jpg

You're dancing in the wrong end zone. You just don't know it.

[Parker2112]

@Blake: now that might be a strawman...:lol

[Blake]

uninformed being the key word here.

you've done very little to inform us of anything other than Toyota uses fluoride and that you know how to copy and paste self-humorous pictures.

[Parker2112]

You're dancing in the wrong end zone. You just don't know it.

see above. maybe I do. or maybe I just realized that at least no one is gonna take my head off in while I stand here.

[Parker2112]

you've done very little to inform us of anything other than Toyota uses fluoride and that you know how to copy and paste self-humorous pictures.

you and WH admit that you wont read any source I link.

wait for it....

http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2007/08/large_jail.jpg

[Winehole23]

the case will not get a verdict by this jury though.Why deny yourself credit for that as well: your own brief was featherlight, nearly substance free.

Your case was so shitty the jurors all went home, and now you are crying about justice denied. :lol

[Parker2112]

you've done very little to inform us of anything other than Toyota uses fluoride

I never showed this conclusively...:)

[Parker2112]

Why deny yourself credit for that as well: your own brief was featherlight, nearly substance free.

Your case was so shitty the jurors all went home, and now you are crying about justice denied. :lol

you misrep the quote. no one has enough evidence to convict including myself. conceded that pages ago. :sleep

[Winehole23]

Now you want to have it both ways. I get that.

[Parker2112]

http://www.casinoman.net/images/blog/fred-astaire.jpg

[Parker2112]

Now you want to have it both ways. I get that.

next you'll want me to prove JFK was hit because of his developing misgivings on Vietnam...

[Blake]

@Blake: now that might be a strawman...:lol

Na, there is no evidence in that picture on it's own merit that the receiver scored a TD. For all I know, the ref is coming to tell him he ran the wrong way.

Based on your failure to address the strawmen you set up and your confusing correlation and causation, you have not scored a TD by anyone's measure other than your own.

In fact, I might believe this is a cut and dried issue more now than before I originally entered this thread.

[Blake]

next you'll want me to prove JFK was hit because of his developing misgivings on Vietnam...

only if you make such an assertion.

[Blake]

I never showed this conclusively...:)

even worse.

[Winehole23]

I can see you're distancing yourself now from some of the things you were suggesting earlier. That's probably wise.

[Parker2112]

Na, I refuse to read the stuff you cited to. Wait, what were we talking about again? There was only one shooter dammit!

[Blake]

you and WH admit that you wont read any source I link.

wait for it....



If I didnt read it, I explained why somewhere in this thread.

Feel free to try another link.

I'm waiting for it.

[Winehole23]

It's kindly a long walk back. Hope you're not wearing your soft soled shoes, Fred Astaire.

[Parker2112]

I can see you're distancing yourself now from some of the things you were suggesting earlier. That's probably wise.

No, I'm saying you guys didnt get to the meat in the bun. You just picked off sesame seeds as far as Im concerned.

The key question that defeats most of my position:

Its a given that taking a pollutant and turning it into a profitable product is motive enough on the one side.

BUT:What is municipal motive for buying? That is the killer. I waited long enough, I guess. Oh well...lets go with another oldie but goodie...

0JU-HNz0iKo

[Parker2112]

lmfao

[Winehole23]

No, I'm saying you guys didnt get to the meat in the bun. You just picked off sesame seeds as far as Im concerned.
There was no meat in the bun. You merely assumed its presence, and so your senses led you promptly to it.

[Parker2112]

touchdown
G8LE69g9lI0

[Parker2112]

There was no meat in the bun. You merely assumed its presence, and so your senses led you promptly to it.

the meat being the win.

[Winehole23]

We are all still waiting for the meat too, P2112. A free standing ascription of corporate motive doesn't get you as far as you seem to think.

[Parker2112]

touchdown
G8LE69g9lI0

they dont make em like that anymore. all hail the common man working hard with his hands.

[Winehole23]

pwLB2Vei6tE

[Winehole23]

the meat being the win.That's not the goal line. It's a lane marker and it's your brisket on the blacktop. You beefed.

[Winehole23]

http://www.failking.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/skateboard-fail.jpg

[Parker2112]

anybody else notice him carrying the black midget?

[Winehole23]

Beg pardon?

[Parker2112]

D-ELlm_-PBk

he made it, cant we all?

[Parker2112]

Beg pardon?

dusty. the bloodied black little fellow.

[Winehole23]

I didn't see a black midget in the HOF clip. Did I miss one?

[Winehole23]

Just non-sequitur your way out. It could work.

BTW, why are you still here Parker? I thought you already awarded yourself the touchdown and the win.

[Winehole23]

Come to bask in yer own afterglow, are ye?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I'm back.

So now, Toyota hasn't even been shown to actually use NaF, much less SAWS.

[Parker2112]

Im in the glow of Dusty Rhodes. Yeah he cradled the little guy in the second clip. must-see-TV.

I got bored long ago, I started amusing myself with these clips. Unless I prove that the world is round the discussion was gonna flatline.

[Winehole23]

He can't support a single inference. Not one.

[Parker2112]

He can't support a single inference. Not one.

the links are there. I dont have the energy.

[Parker2112]

do you want me to go back and quote myself, repost links, and read you articles over the phone? nah, I dont need it that bad.

[Parker2112]

touchdown
G8LE69g9lI0
black midget and DD's. classic.

[Winehole23]

Then he does a touchdown dance. Excuse me... dances.

[Parker2112]

sometime when I have time to kill Ill stitch the case together with everythng up till that point.

[Parker2112]

anyone remember the von erichs?

[Winehole23]

the links are there. I dont have the energy.That's hardly surprising. You were kinda sloppy the first time around.

[Parker2112]

8A-spxRYrpY

[Winehole23]

sometime when I have time to kill Ill stitch the case together with everythng up till that point.Motif.

Are you aware how often you use this verbal crutch, when you're killing time on ST?

I've seen you use it two or three times.

[Winehole23]

Promises, promises.

[Winehole23]

Sometime in the future I promise to do better but not a moment sooner..

[Winehole23]

anyone remember the von erichs?I watched von Erich's brood and many others on Southwest Championship Wrestling on local TV late at night, way back in the day. Yer point?

Aren't we just dating ourselves now?

[Parker2112]

jujst wondering if I was the only one

[Parker2112]

Its a lot of info, links quotes and cites, including my own argument. If I make my case, it warrants a new thread. just a warning.

[Winehole23]

Thanks for the warning. That's really scary.

[Parker2112]

I just dont want all the "why start a new thread" business. It will no longer be "What about Flouride?"

It will be "Beware Flouride!!!"

[Winehole23]

b/c scare quotes and exclamation points are credibility enhancers.

Go for it, dude.

[Parker2112]

b/c scare quotes and exclamation points are credibility enhancers.

Go for it, dude.

your support means the world.:toast

I'm off to do some errands sir. a good evening to you.

[Winehole23]

It will be "Beware Flouride!!!"Already dreaming about the title before you've verified a single thing in your research. Bold.

You do dream big, Parker but there's, ah, downsides to that. Have you read Don Quixote?

[ChumpDumper]

Its a lot of info, links quotes and cites, including my own argument. If I make my case, it warrants a new thread. just a warning.Will you spam your own thread with stupid, irrelevant pictures and YouTubes like you did this one?

[Winehole23]

@ Parker:

No seriously, have you read Don Quixote?

[Winehole23]

If not, you should do so immediately.

[Winehole23]

I would draw your attention to the comic/borderline tragic frequency of butt-whippings. Quixote and Sancho get their asses kicked routinely.

[Winehole23]

For better and for worse for the knight of mournful countenance, the power of delusion is strong.

[Blake]

I would draw your attention to the comic/borderline tragic frequency of butt-whippings. Quixote and Sancho get their asses kicked routinely.

Do windmills pump out fluoride as a waste product?

[Winehole23]

Parker can just stipulate that. He's not very particular about proof.

[RandomGuy]

700k, in addition to the corresponding reduction in otherwise-necessary disposal costs, andaccount for the fact that these emitters/sources dont exist in every town/city (far from it), but the product is sold to most municipalities.

Do that math for me please.

You have made a pretty explicit claim of motive without providing actual proof.

You have made the standard conspiracy theorist fail of confusing correlation with causality.

What proof do you have of what motivated SAWS to put floride in SA water?

Direct statements would constitute sufficient proof.

Glibly pointing to the full moon and saying "co-incidence, I don't think so" doesn't constitute evidence.

As for doing the math, I have done the math, more so than you seem to have.

Hell, I even found who was supplying SAWS with floride, something you never bothered to do. It wasn't Toyota, was it?

[RandomGuy]

1. a timeline article I linked earlier listed exactly who paid these lobbyists. RIF.

2. No one is getting rich. People are getting dosed so that corps avoid bankruptcy.

Really?

Please provide reasonable proof of the second thesis.

What would constitute reasonable proof:

1. Cost of disposal per gallon of floride waste product, along with chemical formulas of exact products used by specific companies.

2. Total quantities of waste produced.

3. Total quantities of floride sold/used for purposes of adding to drinking water.

I would LOVE to be able to do the math for myself.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Get cracking.

[Winehole23]

I hear Parker wants to write a longer, more in-depth treatment. Maybe you could offer yourself as an editor. He sure needs one.

[Parker2112]

I hear Parker wants to write a longer, more in-depth treatment. Maybe you could offer yourself as an editor. He sure needs one.

been done.
http://www.amazon.com/Fluoride-Deception-Christopher-Bryson/dp/1583227008/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285623314&sr=8-1

The British Author:
"Christopher Bryson is an award-winning investigative reporter and television producer. After reporting on Guatemalan Army human rights abuses from Central America in the late 1980s for the BBC World Service, National Public Radio, and The Atlanta Constitution, he then won a George Polk Award as part of the Jonathan Kwitny investigative team on public television’s The Kwitny Report."

Reviews:
“It is my sincere hope that Christopher Bryson’s apparently thorough and comprehensive perusal of the scientific literature on the biological actions of fluoride and the ensuing debates through the years will receive the attention it deserves and that its implications will be seriously considered.”—Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Medicine

[Winehole23]

been done.
http://www.amazon.com/Fluoride-Decep...5623314&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Fluoride-Deception-Christopher-Bryson/dp/1583227008/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285623314&sr=8-1)You read it?

What does it say? What convinces you it's right?

[Parker2112]

You read it?

What does it say? What convinces you it's right?



the guy gives an in-depth interview, the vid of which is LINKED IN THIS THREAD.

Thought you knew. :wakeup

He blames the aluminum industry.

[Parker2112]

I dont have to think he's right to think its unreasonable for our govt to dose the public with anything on such a level.

[Winehole23]

I'm a reader. I won't watch an embedded youtube.

It's your godammed thread, Parker...if you can't recap in your own words, you haven't mastered the material and can't realistically vouch for its veracity.

[Parker2112]

check it at the 1:00 mark.

8f-m-Fmd1lY

[Winehole23]

You can't recap it in your own words. Not surprised.

[Parker2112]

I'm a reader...

then why didnt you read my re-cap yet?

knife to a gun fight. for real.

[Parker2112]

still there....

8f-m-Fmd1lY

[Winehole23]

After pointing at someone else's book you didn't read failed, you fell back on a linked interview you can't even summarize. Strong.

[Parker2112]

flouride is a toxic byproduct from the aluminum industry that is loaded from actual plants into tanker trucks, and instead of being hauled to toxic waste sites, its sent to water plants in 64% of our communities nationwide, and dumped into the water supply under the guise of healthier teeth.

94% of Western Europe has outlawed the flouridation of drinking water, and the teeth in their kids' heads are just as healthy as ours.

the author/interview subject here claims that the flouridation is a leftover practice secured by scientist advocates that were also involved in advocating asbestos, manhattan project, and ethynol.

Some communities have outlawed the use of of flouride recently, and there is a growing tide of critics, even in the EPA, however some cited scientists have lost their careers over the criticism



Worth the watch.

try checking in the first ten posts on this thread. you'll get the three vids and the summary there.

[Parker2112]

http://soft-arts.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/checkmate.jpg

[Winehole23]

You think that's checkmate. :lol

[Winehole23]

I'll just say this: you have pretty low standards for evidence.

[Parker2112]

You think that's checkmate. :lol

You think a tossed king means something else. :lol

[Winehole23]

An almost none whatsoever when it comes to argument.

[Parker2112]

I didnt say it was conclusive. BUT: The guy worked at the BBC prior to the investigation, he is an award winning investigative reporter, and multiple people have lost jobs over this issue, some of which are interviewed in the vids. But I wouldnt expect you to know that.

[Winehole23]

This is what, the third or fourth time you've declared victory in this thread?

Insecure, much?

[Parker2112]

An almost none whatsoever when it comes to argument.

your standards for informing yourself on the issue prior to condemnation are lower

[Winehole23]

Your argument sucks. It deserves condemnation regardless of the background issues.

[Parker2112]

Your argument sucks. It deserves condemnation regardless of the background issues.

Actually, anyone arguing for:
1. such an expensive practice,
2. in a time of economic depression,
3. in the face of the data that has come back from European studies showing the practice is placebo at best (and also linked in this thread), and
4. in a nation which prides itself on individual liberties

without contradicting evidence is automatically subject to directed verdict (read: the burden is on the naysers; also read: that's you, WH).

WH, I know you understand you're fighting out of a huge hole on this issue. Maybe that's why I can't make a move without coming back to your attacks on this issue.

[Winehole23]

Actually, anyone arguing for:
1. such an expensive practice,
2. in a time of economic depression,
3. in the face of the data that has come back from European studies showing the practice is placebo at best (and also linked in this thread), and
4. in a nation which prides itself on individual libertiesStrawman. I didn't argue for any of these.


without contradicting evidence is automatically subject to directed verdict (read: the burden is on the naysers; also read: that's you, WH).:lol

This isn't a courtroom. It's a discussion board. There are no directed judgments here, and the evidence you submitted doesn't float the inferences you made.

[Parker2112]

Strawman. I didn't argue for any of these.
:lol

This isn't a courtroom. It's a discussion board. There are no directed judgments here, and the evidence you submitted doesn't float the inferences you made.

How would you know? You were doing crosswords through direct.

[Blake]

Actually, anyone arguing for:
1. such an expensive practice,
2. in a time of economic depression,
3. in the face of the data that has come back from European studies showing the practice is placebo at best (and also linked in this thread), and
4. in a nation which prides itself on individual liberties

without contradicting evidence is automatically subject to directed verdict (read: the burden is on the naysers; also read: that's you, WH).

WH, I know you understand you're fighting out of a huge hole on this issue. Maybe that's why I can't make a move without coming back to your attacks on this issue.


Cost Savings of Community Water Fluoridation
Two published studies conducted by CDC reaffirm the benefits of community water fluoridation. Together, the studies continue to show that widespread community water fluoridation prevents cavities and saves money, both for families and the health care system. In fact, the economic analysis found that for larger communities of more than 20,000 people where it costs about 50 cents per person to fluoridate the water, every $1 invested in this preventive measure yields approximately $38 savings in dental treatment costs.

"An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation"1 presents the results of an economic analysis of water fluoridation under modern conditions of widespread availability of fluorides. Researchers from CDC and Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, found that under typical conditions, the annual per-person cost savings in fluoridated communities ranged from $16 in very small communities (<5,000) to nearly $19 for larger communities (>20,000). The analysis takes into account the costs of installing and maintaining necessary equipment and operating water plants, the expected effectiveness of fluoridation, estimates of expected cavities in non-fluoridated communities, treatment of cavities, and time lost visiting the dentist for treatment.

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm


Most countries in Europe have experienced substantial declines in cavities without the use of water fluoridation.[4] For example, in Finland and Germany, tooth decay rates remained stable or continued to decline after water fluoridation stopped. Fluoridation may be useful in the U.S. because unlike most European countries, the U.S. does not have school-based dental care, many children do not visit a dentist regularly, and for many U.S. children water fluoridation is the prime source of exposure to fluoride.[16] The effectiveness of water fluoridation can vary according to circumstances such as whether preventive dental care is free.[54]

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

Western Europe also uses fluoridated salt in lieu of fluoridating the water.

The surgeon general also fully endorses the use of fluoridated water in prevention of cavities.

The burden is, and has been since post #1 in this quack conspiracy thread, on you to prove the surgeon general [or any other such reputable source] is either ignorant or lying.

sidebar: based on your posting history, I have little doubt that if this were 1950 that you would be dropping hints that fluoridated water is the work of communists.

[Parker2112]

Western Europe also uses fluoridated salt in lieu of fluoridating the water.

The surgeon general also fully endorses the use of fluoridated water in prevention of cavities.

The burden is, and has been since post #1 in this quack conspiracy thread, on you to prove the surgeon general [or any other such reputable source] is either ignorant or lying.

sidebar: based on your posting history, I have little doubt that if this were 1950 that you would be dropping hints that fluoridated water is the work of communists.

"What about Flouride?"

Really put myself out there with that one...I can see how such a hard-line argumentative beginning to a thread would garner the burden right off...:lol

again, man, will you guys give up already.

http://fit.bethlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/droids.jpg
"These are not the arguments you are looking for..."

[Blake]

http://www.casinoman.net/images/blog/fred-astaire.jpg

[Parker2112]

we used to call that a "false call" on the gradeschool basketball courts. that meant we get ball.

[Winehole23]

You're all over the place, Parker. I don't think you have any clear idea what you've argued for. That you seem to think this makes you look reliable and all of us silly is, well, pretty silly.

[Parker2112]

You're all over the place, Parker. I don't think you have any clear idea what you've argued for. That you seem to think this makes you look reliable and all of us silly is, well, pretty silly.

you think I'm selling.

:lol

most of the most argumentative exchanges on this thread revolve around me not buying mindless skepticism. But I dont need to sell.

[Winehole23]

You walked it back. We get that.

[Winehole23]

You're a fake skeptic/conspiracist who likes having it both ways. We get that too.

[Parker2112]

I havent walked back from shit. I have cited certain sources here, and made certain arguments, some as recently as today. When I can review this thread and put together a cohesive review of the contents of the thread for non-readers like yourself, I will. Till then its on pause.

I assume your feathers are riled over losing a couple of rounds hard, and I assume that you are trying as hard as you can to rack up some points and get back to break-even, but I'll give you a hint: until you actually know what I have posted, dont expect to take the spoils with any of your generic "youre a conspiracy theorist" arguments.

[Parker2112]

You're a fake skeptic/conspiracist who likes having it both ways. We get that too.

Im not a skeptic or a CT, I'm open minded. You seem to think there is something wrong with that concept. I think only a fool would mindlessly march to the beat of someone else's drum. And you sir, whether you want to admit it or not, have done that all thread long. The beat of someone else's status-quo.

[Winehole23]

Just because I have complained about the poor quality of your posts, doesn't necessarily mean I believe or disbelieve anyone else's.

[Winehole23]

The information disclosed in the thread is generally fine as far as it goes, but did not sustain the inferences you were selling us earlier.

[Parker2112]

Just because I have complained about the poor quality of your posts, doesn't necessarily mean I believe or disbelieve anyone else's.

again, how would you know anything about posts you never read?

[insert B. Whiteshoes pic here]

:sleep

[Winehole23]

[insert B. Whiteshoes pic here]Pretending you got nothing for sale is a juke.

[Parker2112]

Pretending you got nothing for sale is a juke.

you're clueless brother.

[Winehole23]

Maybe, but who's taking your word for anything around here?

[Parker2112]

And you and Cry Havoc have big cred after the great showing earlier?

[Winehole23]

Yr posts speak for themselves.

You can't just put on a funny hat on the thread (that you created, btw, as a platform for your own reckless inferences) at the 11th hour, and claim to be above it all. You had an angle, and you were working it.

[Winehole23]

And you and Cry Havoc have big cred after the great showing earlier?I never claimed any cred. I just questioned yours. Your brazen lie about your own role in this thread makes it plain to anyone so unfortunate as to read all the way through.

[Parker2112]

Yr posts speak for themselves.

You can't just put on a funny hat on the thread (that you created, btw, as a platform for your own reckless inferences) at the 11th hour, and claim to be above it all. You had an angle, and you were working it.

Honestly, I feel like the points/arguments were made, and none of the substance was discussed beyond 1st mention. Dismissed completely prior to even reading.

You never read the shit I posted.

But more important, you never made any other argument other than "conspiracy theory."

Do you really believe this puts you in a position to critique my posts?

why dont you tackle the issues presented. Then you can talk.

[Winehole23]

You never read the shit I posted. I read some of it. It doesn't lead where you think. RG pantsed you on that.

[Winehole23]

why dont you tackle the issues presented? Because your presentation was absurd.

[Winehole23]

Why should you be immune to criticism?

[Winehole23]

Bottom line, there's not a well-demonstrated risk to people. If you want to say there's not a well-demonstrated health benefit, that's the European view, and it may even be the right one for all I know. But acknowledging that doesn't make any of the bs you were trying to sell us any less stinky.

[Blake]

I dont have to believe the conspiracy to think chinese product shouldnt be in the water, and municipalities nationwide shouldnt be spending money on useless powder for the water, that is a known toxin in sufficient quantities, and that we should have a say in what medicines we put into our bodies.

the fact that govt is putting something extra in the water "for our own good" is really the only argument I would validate.

[Parker2112]

Bottom line, there's not a well-demonstrated risk to people.

so lets have the govt start putting random medicines in the water that have been fda approved. There would be no risk right?

They shouldnt be doing it in the first place. If youre going to put the stuff in public water, lets have a well-demonstrated benefit THAT EVERYONE CONSENTS TO. Regardless what Winehole might think, it is not enough to say "you have no right to refuse the dose, because it wont hurt you."

That is why your arguments fail. You skip out on the important shit.

America. The Beautiful.

[Blake]

so lets have the govt start putting random medicines in the water that have been fda approved. There would be no risk right?

It's not a random medicine.

Fluoride in low doses has been proven to prevent tooth decay.

There are places in the world where they actually have to de-fluoridate the water because the natural concentration levels are too high.

The water in SA already has fluoride levels at .3 parts per million and they add more to reach .8 parts. Since it's already a natural occurrence, I really don't have much of a problem with them adding it to the levels that researchers have deemed appropriate to prevent tooth decay.

As it costs San Antonio Water System $.01 per 1000 gallons to fluoridate the water, I still see no tangible evidence of any type of conspiracy to which any corporations are keeping themselves from going bankrupt thanks to fluoridated water.

For those that don't want to drink the fluoride, a reverse osmosis filter system can remove it.



They shouldnt be doing it in the first place. If youre going to put the stuff in public water, lets have a well-demonstrated benefit THAT EVERYONE CONSENTS TO. Regardless what Winehole might think, it is not enough to say "you have no right to refuse the dose, because it wont hurt you."

That is why your arguments fail. You skip out on the important shit.

America. The Beautiful.

Since when have we ever done anything that required 100% voter approval?

The majority of voters in this city approved the proposal. It's not something that was done without the public's consent.

Your argument that you have at least confirmed there are some concerns about fluoridated water fails.

[Parker2112]

It's not a random medicine.

Fluoride in low doses has been proven to prevent tooth decay.

If you read through the info in this therad you'll find this is highly disputed. Countries that dont fluoridate experience the same decrease in cavities. If you read more about it, you'll find that this stems from better dental care, flouride tootpaste, and access to dentists most likely explains the drop...not flouridated water.


There are places in the world where they actually have to de-fluoridate the water because the natural concentration levels are too high.
If you'll read the info in this thread, you'll find that the difference between naturally occurring fluoride and sodium fluoride is explained, as well as the sources for each, and the dangers of each.


The water in SA already has fluoride levels at .3 parts per million and they add more to reach .8 parts. Since it's already a natural occurrence, I really don't have much of a problem with them adding it to the levels that researchers have deemed appropriate to prevent tooth decay.
they arent adding calcium flouride to the water...they are adding industrial products (NaF). There is a huge difference in the two. Read more about it.


As it costs San Antonio Water System $.01 per 1000 gallons to fluoridate the water, I still see no tangible evidence of any type of conspiracy to which any corporations are keeping themselves from going bankrupt thanks to fluoridated water.where do base your conclusions on corps? You dont even discuss costs to dispose of waste from industrial scrubbers. You point to Buyers, and make a conclusion about sellers. No logic here.

And even such a relatively small cost as you claim, which results in hundreds of thousands in expense to the city, would put 20-25 additional people to work in San Antonio. And as we have already said the process has been shown to be worthless. So why arent we putting people to work instead of putting medicine in the water? This is not to say how it might affect the economy nationwide if it was stopped completely


For those that don't want to drink the fluoride, a reverse osmosis filter system can remove it.true. But what about poor families, especially those with children for whom parents have to mix formula? Did you know that the federal govt warns the public against giving fluoridated water to babies? If you didnt, then how do we know that all families with little ones taking formula know? And the ultimate question, WHY THE HELL DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, IF IT PUTS ANY SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION AT RISK?





Since when have we ever done anything that required 100% voter approval?

The majority of voters in this city approved the proposal. It's not something that was done without the public's consent.

Your argument that you have at least confirmed there are some concerns about fluoridated water fails.

I have just succinctly summarized at least 5 different holes in your knowledge on the issue. You didnt know:
1. difference in naturally occurring fluoride and NaH
2. uniform drop in cavities has occurred even outside of fluoridated countries
3. That disposal costs are avoided by polluting corps when they can sell their waste as NaH to municipalities (not directly so far as I can tell)
4. that it is not recommended for infants on formula
5. that the constitution provides us with the fundamental right to consent to medical treatment, a right which is infringed through mass medication in the water supply

[Parker2112]

And finally, the importation of Chinese fluoride, fluoride which contains other contaminants and which we have no reason to believe conforms to our consumption standards here in the US, since the Chinese are notorious for sending us toxic shit to consume

[word]

I dont know, honestly it sounds like only pussies are affected.

or little babies.

:lol:lol:lol

[Parker2112]

:lol:lol:lol

that was sarcasm, responding to sarcastic comments.

But, generally, it is only babies and those who are extra sensative to fluoride.

MAJOR XCEPT: the new chinese imported fluoride. Who knows when we are going to find out that people are coming down sick from that shit.

[DarrinS]

15 pages about flouride? Really?

[Cry Havoc]

15 pages about flouride? Really?

Starting threads about sketches? Really?

[Blake]

If you read through the info in this therad you'll find this is highly disputed.

It is not highly disputed by anyone of note.

If you have your own personal scientific findings on fluoride, I'll be glad to look at what you have.

Until then, I'll take the word of prominent sources such as the surgeon general over anyone you reference in this quack thread.


Countries that dont fluoridate experience the same decrease in cavities. If you read more about it, you'll find that this stems from better dental care, flouride tootpaste, and access to dentists most likely explains the drop...not flouridated water.

Right. Public schools in Western Europe apparently have dental care at each school, which is why they don't need to fluoridate the water.

You are the one arguing about the costs, but you apparently would have no problem with the huge cost of providing this same type of dental care.

You apparently have no idea what you have been posting in this thread.


If you'll read the info in this thread, you'll find that the difference between naturally occurring fluoride and sodium fluoride is explained, as well as the sources for each, and the dangers of each.

I read the info in this thread.

I then read the info from this site:


Some consumers have questioned whether fluoride from natural groundwater sources, such as calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added “artificially,” such as FSA or sodium fluoride. Two recent scientific studies listed below demonstrate that the same fluoride ion is present in naturally occurring fluoride or fluoride drinking water additives and that no intermediates or other products were observed at pH levels as low as 3.5. In addition, fluoride metabolism is not affected differently by the chemical compounds nor are they affected by whether the fluoride is present naturally or artificially.

The ionic speciation study conducted in 2006 mentioned previously (Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW. Re-examination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by fluoride NMR and pH measurement. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:8:2572)

The pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride was studied by a 2008 study (G.M. Whitford, F.C. Sampaio, C.S. Pinto, A.G. Maria, V.E.S. Cardoso, M.A.R. Buzalaf, Pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride: Lack of effect of chemical compound, Archives of Oral Biology, 53 (2008) 1037–1041).

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm


they arent adding calcium flouride to the water...they are adding industrial products (NaF). There is a huge difference in the two. Read more about it.

done.

cdc.gov


where do base your conclusions on corps? You dont even discuss costs to dispose of waste from industrial scrubbers. You point to Buyers, and make a conclusion about sellers.

I have not made any kind of conclusion one way or the other, but you are the one apparently drawing some kind of conclusion about buyers and sellers.

You are also the one that claimed corporations are pushing this to stay out of bankruptcy.

It's not on me to try to prove that this is not the case. YOU made the claim. YOU provide some evidence as such.

Otherwise, I have no reason to think it to be anything but more crappy strawmen from you.


No logic here.

Hard to disagree.


And even such a relatively small cost as you claim, which results in hundreds of thousands in expense to the city, would put 20-25 additional people to work in San Antonio. And as we have already said the process has been shown to be worthless. So why arent we putting people to work instead of putting medicine in the water? This is not to say how it might affect the economy nationwide if it was stopped completely

You absolutely have not shown the process to be worthless.

On the contrary, I rather easily found it to be worthwhile.

You just stated that 20-25 people would be put to work while asking why we aren't putting people to work just two sentences apart.

Impressive failure.


true. But what about poor families, especially those with children for whom parents have to mix formula? Did you know that the federal govt warns the public against giving fluoridated water to babies? If you didnt, then how do we know that all families with little ones taking formula know? And the ultimate question, WHY THE HELL DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, IF IT PUTS ANY SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION AT RISK?

At the levels they add, there has been no conclusive evidence of risk but there has been rather conclusive evidence of dental benefits.


I have just succinctly summarized at least 5 different holes in your knowledge on the issue. You didnt know:
1. difference in naturally occurring fluoride and NaH
2. uniform drop in cavities has occurred even outside of fluoridated countries
3. That disposal costs are avoided by polluting corps when they can sell their waste as NaH to municipalities (not directly so far as I can tell)
4. that it is not recommended for infants on formula
5. that the constitution provides us with the fundamental right to consent to medical treatment, a right which is infringed through mass medication in the water supply

1. which is none: cdc.gov
2. due to the universal healthcare systems in other countries and the fact that they also started fluoridating table salt
3. directly unproven (as far as you or I can tell)
4. because of possible overdose issues
5. what part of the constitution are you referring to?

[RandomGuy]

they arent adding calcium flouride to the water...they are adding industrial products (NaF). There is a huge difference in the two. Read more about it.

NaF you say?

Do me a favor, and read the actual bid for what they are putting in the water.

http://www.saws.org/business_center/procbids/Notes/Fluorosilicic%20Acid.pdf

Now, Parker, can you tell me what the chemical name is of floride they are actually putting in the water?

(hint: here is the wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid) )

Further fucking with your asinine and unproven assertion that SAWS' decision to floridate the water with the Toyota plant's industrial by-products, is the fact that what was actually added to the SAWS water is a by-product of fertilizer production, not automobile manufacture.

In case you aren't familiar with Central Texas, it just *happens* to have a large amount of farmland.

Farmland= need for fertilizer. I would be willing to bet a good deal of money that the company in question probably has been handling or dealing with fertilizers long before Toyota built it's plant. Their website says the company has been existant since 1984.

This pretty much fully debunks your assertion that SAWS' decision had anything to do with Toyota's construction of its plant.

Sloppy reasoning, sloppy research.

You have yet to provide any proof whatsoever of motivation on the part of either industry or the people who make the decisions to floridate water.

NONE.

"BULLSHIT" has been officially called on your claim, and you have not yet provided anything to support your theory.

Check.
If you have no proof, *that* is mate.

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Parker2112

1. a timeline article I linked earlier listed exactly who paid these lobbyists. RIF.

2. No one is getting rich. People are getting dosed so that corps avoid bankruptcy.


Really?

Please provide reasonable proof of the second thesis.

What would constitute reasonable proof:

1. Cost of disposal per gallon of floride waste product, along with chemical formulas of exact products used by specific companies.

2. Total quantities of waste produced.

3. Total quantities of floride sold/used for purposes of adding to drinking water.

I would LOVE to be able to do the math for myself.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Get cracking.

You have not even begun to give any data to prove your theory.

I want costs/benefits, as well as ANY STATEMENT OF MOTIVE WHATSOEVER.

Just.
One.

Your theory, your burden of proof. This is the second time I have asked for direct proof of your assertion.

[ChumpDumper]

You just don't get it.

Toyota polishes chrome and etches glass with fertilizer.

[Parker2112]

You have not even begun to give any data to prove your theory.

I want costs/benefits, as well as ANY STATEMENT OF MOTIVE WHATSOEVER.

Just.
One.

Your theory, your burden of proof. This is the second time I have asked for direct proof of your assertion.

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm
So did you look up all those references to see if the writers of the article were spinning the information or not?

[RandomGuy]

You have not even begun to give any data to prove your theory.

I want costs/benefits, as well as ANY STATEMENT OF MOTIVE WHATSOEVER.

Just.
One.

Your theory, your burden of proof. This is the second time I have asked for direct proof of your assertion.



http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

Nothing there speaks to the motives you have directly implied.

You do not have any statement that even remotely supports the assertion that the decision to fluoridate water was driven purely by the economic interests of companies with fluoride by-products to dispose of their chemicals.

You have also flatly stated that the companies now are pushing this to avoid bankruptcy.

When I ask for costs/benefits, I want to see financial figures that support this theory. I highly doubt that, for the sizes of the companies involved, the fact that they sell small portions of their fluoride wastes as opposed to properly disposing of them makes the difference between bankruptcy and solvency.

For you to prove your statement, you must show this. To show this, you must be able to show the cost difference. To show *that* you must show the costs of disposal, the revenue from selling it, and demonstrate that this differential makes a material difference to the parent company financials.

Even this would be necessary, BUT NOT SUFFICIENT, to prove your theory.

You have directly implied that this financial motive is the cause of decisions to put fluorine ion compounds into water. This claim requires you to provide some documentation or statements on the part of the people involved that this is indeed what is happening.

Until you do both of these things to some reasonable degree, your theory is, to put it mildly, a crackpot idea.

[Parker2112]

When I ask for costs/benefits, I want to see financial figures that support this theory. I highly doubt that, for the sizes of the companies involved, the fact that they sell small portions of their fluoride wastes as opposed to properly disposing of them makes the difference between bankruptcy and solvency.



Are you too dense to understand the scenario here?

[limited industry participants] selling to [municipalities NATION WIDE]

Do you understand this OPENS A NATIONAL MARKET TO A HANDFUL OF PARTIES!!!!??? WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAYING OUT OF POCKET TO DISPOSE OF WASTE?

Imagine taking you're household trash that you normally pay the city to dispose of, and now imagine it become marketable to tens of thousands of cities if not more. IMAGINE. And for sake of comparison, lets make it so that you are constantly under threat of litigation by anyone who is exposed to your trash, because the shit is toxic. Follow?

You are right about one thing: it wouldnt mean bankruptcy. It would mean higher prices to consumers of fertilizer and aluminum.

MAJOR EXCEPT THAT I WAS IMPLYING EARLIER, THAT WOULD BANKRUPT CORPS:
Massive public exposure and years of PI lawsuits. I understand you WERE too dense to carry out that line of thought.

[Parker2112]

Debunk this testimony to the US Senate.
I'm sure you're internet connection is all you need.

http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/629FINAL.htm



STATEMENT OF
Dr. J. WILLIAM HIRZY

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 280

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND DRINKING WATER

UNITED STATES SENATE

JUNE 29, 2000




Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present the views of the union, of which I am a Vice-President, on the subject of fluoridation of public water supplies.
Our union is comprised of and represents the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C. Our members include toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and others defined by law as "professionals." The work we do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for management's use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy. I am not here as a representative of EPA, but rather as a representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union. The union first got involved in this issue in 1985 as a matter of professional ethics. In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our opposition has strengthened since then. Summary of Recommendations

1) We ask that you order an independent review of a cancer bioassay previously mandated by Congressional committee and subsequently performed by Battelle Memorial Institute with appropriate blinding and instructions that all reviewer's independent determinations be reported to this Committee.

2) We ask that you order that the two waste products of the fertilizer industry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future toxicity studies, rather than a substitute chemical. Further, since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an entire lifetime.
3) We ask that you order an epidemiology study comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years for behavioral and other disorders.
4) We ask that you convene a joint Congressional Committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves.

National Review of Fluoridation The Subcommittee's hearing today can only begin to get at the issues surrounding the policy of water fluoridation in the United States, a massive experiment that has been run on the American public, without informed consent, for over fifty years. The last Congressional hearings on this subject were held in 1977. Much knowledge has been gained in the intervening years. It is high time for a national review of this policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. New hearings should explore, at minimum, these points: WP="BR1">
1) excessive and un-controlled fluoride exposures;
2) altered findings of a cancer bioassay;
3) the results and implications of recent brain effects research;
4) the "protected pollutant" status of fluoride within EPA;
5) the altered recommendations to EPA of a 1983 Surgeon General's Panel on fluoride;
6) the results of a fifty-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities;
7) the findings of fact in three landmark lawsuits since 1978;
8) the findings and implications of recent research linking the predominant fluoridation chemical with elevated blood-lead levels in children and anti-social behavior; and

9) changing views among dental researchers on the efficacy of water fluoridation
Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of America's children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980's and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher. Centers for Disease Control and EPA claim that dental fluorosis is only a "cosmetic" effect. God did not create humans with fluorosed teeth. That effect occurs when children ingest more fluoride than their bodies can handle with the metabolic processes we were born with, and their teeth are damaged as a result. And not only their teeth. Children's bones and other tissues, as well as their developing teeth are accumulating too much fluoride. We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, are looking for the effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and other tissues in American children. What has been reported so far in this connection is disturbing. One example is epidemiological evidence (2a, 2b) showing elevated bone cancer in young men related to consumption of fluoridated drinking water.

Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we do know that American children in large numbers are afflicted with hyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on the rise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are on the rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. There are biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed research on fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures (e.g. 3,4,5,6). Considering the economic and human costs of these conditions, we believe that Congress should order epidemiology studies that use dental fluorosis as an index of exposure to determine if there are links between such effects and fluoride over-exposure.
In the interim, while this epidemiology is conducted, we believe that a national moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted. There will be a hue and cry from some quarters, predicting increased dental caries, but Europe has about the same rate of dental caries as the U.S. (7) and most European countries do not fluoridate (8). I am submitting letters from European and Asian authorities on this point. There are studies in the U.S. of localities that have interrupted fluoridation with no discernable increase in dental caries rates (e.g., 9). And people who want the freedom of choice to continue to ingest fluoride can do so by other means.
Cancer Bioassay Findings In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (10), the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a special commission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in the salvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The final, published version of the NTP report says that there is, "equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats," changed from "clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats."
The change prompted Dr. William Marcus, who was then Senior Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, to blow the whistle about the issue (22), which led to his firing by EPA. Dr. Marcus sued EPA, won his case and was reinstated with back pay, benefits and compensatory damages. I am submitting material from Dr. Marcus to the Subcommittee dealing with the cancer and neurotoxicity risks posed by fluoridation.
We believe the Subcommittee should call for an independent review of the tumor slides from the bioassay, as was called for by Dr. Marcus (22), with the results to be presented in a hearing before a Select Committee of the Congress. The scientists who conducted the original study, the original reviewers of the study, and the "review commission" members should be called, and an explanation given for the changed findings.
Brain Effects Research Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children (11,12). Another paper (3) shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the "optimal" dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million (13). And another (14) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal. Another publication (5) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on the brain's pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals. Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New York has also been reported (6).
Given the national concern over incidence of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism in our children, we believe that the authors of these studies should be called before a Select Committee, along with those who have critiqued their studies, so the American public and the Congress can understand the implications of this work.
Fluoride as a Protected Pollutant The classic example of EPA's protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940's and 1950's as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPA's then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer manufacture as,
"...an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride..." In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the pollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not into rivers or the atmosphere. I am submitting a copy of her letter.

Other Federal entities are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvert of the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and other Federal entities on the matter of fluoride, answers to which have not yet been received. We believe that EPA and other Federal officials should be called to testify on the manner in which fluoride has been protected. The union will be happy to assist the Congress in identifying targets for an inquiry. For instance, hydrofluosilicic acid does not appear on the Toxic Release Inventory list of chemicals, and there is a remarkable discrepancy among the Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, arsenic and lead, given the relative toxicities of these substances.


Surgeon General's Panel on Fluoride We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon General's panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon General's panel (16) were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride.
Kingston and Newburg, New York Results In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17). In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city. We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of the Centers For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a Select Committee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among American children and the implications of that increase for skeletal and other effects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fractures and arthritis.

Findings of Fact by Judges In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here. In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictionalgrounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland New Zealand wrote the following about the case:
"In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary...

"Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation."


In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: "This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature's determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health." Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: "[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man."


The significance of Judge Flaherty's statement and his and the other two judges' findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.
Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind.
I am submitting a copy of the excerpted letter from Judge Flaherty and another letter referenced in it that was sent to Judge Flaherty by Dr. Peter Sammartino, then Chancellor of Fairleigh Dickenson University. I am also submitting a reprint copy of an article in the Spring 1999 issue of the Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law by Jack Graham and Dr. Pierre Morin, titled "Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water. Mr. Graham was chief litigator in the case before Judge Flaherty and in the other two cases (in Illinois and Texas).
We believe that Mr. Graham should be called before a Select Committee along with, if appropriate, the judges in these three cases who could relate their experience as trial judges in these cases. Hydrofluosilicic Acid There are no chronic toxicity data on the predominant chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, used to fluoridate American communities. Newly published studies (19) indicate a link between use of these chemicals and elevated level of lead in children's blood and anti-social behavior. Material from the authors of these studies has been submitted by them independently.

We believe the authors of these papers and their critics should be called before a Select Committee to explain to you and the American people what these papers mean for continuation of the policy of fluoridation.

Changing Views on Efficacy and Risk In recent years, two prominent dental researchers who were leaders of the pro-fluoridation movement announced reversals of their former positions because they concluded that water fluoridation is not an effective means of reducing dental caries and that it poses serious risks to human health. The late Dr. John Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand, and he published his reasons for changing sides in 1997 (20). In 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, announced his change of views, then published a statement (21) dated April 2000. I am submitting a copy of Dr. Limeback's publications.
We believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who have not changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernest Newbrun and Herschel Horowitz, should be called before a Select Committee to testify on the reasons for their respective positions. Thank you for you consideration, and I will be happy to take questions

[Blake]

Are you too dense to understand the scenario here?

[limited industry participants] selling to [municipalities NATION WIDE]

Do you understand this OPENS A NATIONAL MARKET TO A HANDFUL OF PARTIES!!!!??? WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAYING OUT OF POCKET TO DISPOSE OF WASTE?

Imagine taking you're household trash that you normally pay the city to dispose of, and now imagine it become marketable to tens of thousands of cities if not more. IMAGINE. And for sake of comparison, lets make it so that you are constantly under threat of litigation by anyone who is exposed to your trash, because the shit is toxic. Follow?

You are right about one thing: it wouldnt mean bankruptcy. It would mean higher prices to consumers of fertilizer and aluminum.

MAJOR EXCEPT THAT I WAS IMPLYING EARLIER, THAT WOULD BANKRUPT CORPS:
Massive public exposure and years of PI lawsuits. I understand you WERE too dense to carry out that line of thought.

great.

give an example of a corp that would go bankrupt.

[Parker2112]

great.

give an example of a corp that would go bankrupt.

Watch that vid in post #1, and tune in to the part about Florida Corps facing widespread litigation from public exposure to improperly disposed of waste. Those guys found a happy ending, bankruptcy averted. But they would be at risk in any disposal scenario.

[Parker2112]

An interesting looking read...I will get to it this afternoon.

http://www.thehealthvine.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=59


Phosphate fertilizer suppliers have more than $10 billion invested in production and mining facilities in Florida. Phosphate fertilizer production accounts for $800 million in wages per year. Florida's mines produce 30% of the world supply and 75% of the US supply of phosphate fertilizers. Much of the country's supply of fluoro-silicic acid for water fluoridation is also produced in Florida.

Phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and mining are not environment friendly operations. Fluorides and radionuclides are the primary toxic pollutants from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer in Central Florida. People living near the fertilizer plants and mines experience lung cancer and leukemia rates that are double the state average. Much of West Central Florida has become a toxic waste dump for phosphate fertilizer manufacturers. Federal and state pollution regulations have been modified to accommodate phosphate fertilizer production and use: These regulations have included using recovered pollution for water fluoridation.

[Blake]

Debunk this testimony to the US Senate.
I'm sure you're internet connection is all you need.



Most of that is testimony of opinions.

Some of that is slanted or cherry picked research.

such as Hirzy's cancer finding studies.

the National Cancer Institute still states the following:


Can fluoridated water cause cancer?

The possible relationship between fluoridated water and cancer has been debated at length. The debate resurfaced in 1990 when a study by the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, showed an increased number of osteosarcomas (bone tumors) in male rats given water high in fluoride for 2 years (3). However, other studies in humans and in animals have not shown an association between fluoridated water and cancer (4).

In a February 1991 Public Health Service (PHS) report, the agency said it found no evidence of an association between fluoride and cancer in humans. The report, based on a review of more than 50 human epidemiological (population) studies produced over the past 40 years, concluded that optimal fluoridation of drinking water “does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans” as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data reported to date (4).

In one of the studies reviewed for the PHS report, scientists at the National Cancer Institute evaluated the relationship between the fluoridation of drinking water and the number of deaths due to cancer in the United States during a 36-year period, and the relationship between water fluoridation and number of new cases of cancer during a 15-year period. After examining more than 2.2 million cancer death records and 125,000 cancer case records in counties using fluoridated water, the researchers found no indication of increased cancer risk associated with fluoridated drinking water (5).

In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted an extensive literature review concerning the association between fluoridated drinking water and increased cancer risk. The review included data from more than 50 human epidemiological studies and six animal studies. The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer (5). A 1999 report by the CDC supported these findings. The report concluded that studies to date have produced “no credible evidence” of an association between fluoridated drinking water and an increased risk for cancer (2).

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water#5

Some of this comes down to who you are going to believe....a chemist that is cherry picking studies on rats to back up his claim or the National Cancer Institute which claims to have conducted extensive literature review on the matter. These studies include data on actual relationships between cancer and fluoridated water over set numbers of years.

[Blake]

Watch that vid in post #1, and tune in to the part about Florida Corps facing widespread litigation from public exposure to improperly disposed of waste. Those guys found a happy ending, bankruptcy averted. But they would be at risk in any disposal scenario.

I'm not going to watch a 9 minute youtube just to find the name of a corporation.

Is it really such a huge request to provide one name of one corporation?

If potential bankruptcy is really such an issue, it should be absolutely no problem for you to provide several corp names.

[Parker2112]

I'm not going to watch a 9 minute youtube just to find the name of a corporation.

Is it really such a huge request to provide one name of one corporation?

If potential bankruptcy is really such an issue, it should be absolutely no problem for you to provide several corp names.

I have a better one: Name one corp in the US who produces toxic waste who isnt subject to b/r in the event that they are found liable for a massive public exposure or through tortious negligence for improper handling or disposal.

Just one will do.

Ill wait.

[RandomGuy]

Are you too dense to understand the scenario here?

[limited industry participants] selling to [municipalities NATION WIDE]

Do you understand this OPENS A NATIONAL MARKET TO A HANDFUL OF PARTIES!!!!??? WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAYING OUT OF POCKET TO DISPOSE OF WASTE?

Imagine taking you're household trash that you normally pay the city to dispose of, and now imagine it become marketable to tens of thousands of cities if not more. IMAGINE. And for sake of comparison, lets make it so that you are constantly under threat of litigation by anyone who is exposed to your trash, because the shit is toxic. Follow?

You are right about one thing: it wouldnt mean bankruptcy. It would mean higher prices to consumers of fertilizer and aluminum.

MAJOR EXCEPT THAT I WAS IMPLYING EARLIER, THAT WOULD BANKRUPT CORPS:
Massive public exposure and years of PI lawsuits. I understand you WERE too dense to carry out that line of thought.

Now we are getting somewhere.

You have backpedaled from the obviously disprovable assertion that flouride revenues and/or avoidance of disposal fees represent anything more than chump change to the companies involved. Fair enough.

What you *really* meant was that they were worried about lawsuits. This is a much better and more reasonable line of inquiry.

You are now hanging your hat on "this shit is toxic".

The question then shifts to:

What evidence do you have on the part of the people who produce flouride that they are directly suppressing evidence that their "shit it toxic"?


The report, based on a review of more than 50 human epidemiological (population) studies produced over the past 40 years, concluded that optimal fluoridation of drinking water “does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans” as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data reported to date

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water

Given that flouride in one form or another is naturally present in water, in roughly the same proportion that is the standard level recommended, this would seem to require some pretty sharp linkage.

Given that the evidence I have browsed through that you presented only links "high levels" of flouride to potential problems, we would therefore need some indication that, in humans exposed to much lower concentrations of flouride, there is some statistically meaningful link.

Further, if the "shit is toxic", one of the hallmarks of good science is reproducability, so that link should be pretty easy to establish. If you can't very clearly establish such a strong claim, we must dismiss it.

I will go back through the thread and browse through the materials you have provided, to see if such a causal link can be determined. From what I remember of my previous readings, the best you can do to prove "this shit is toxic" is to show that there is a possibility that it doesn't prevent as much tooth decay as previously thought. Again the tricky problem of correlation/causation rears its ugly head.

Personally, my knowledge of chemistry leads me to ask a single question of NaF.

NaF is an ionic compound, like just about anything that sodium binds to.

So we have a dilute amount of F- and a Na+ floating around in solution (blood)

Given that we have a much higher solution of Na+ and Cl- ions (dissolved table salt molecules in ionic solution) floating around in our bodies, we can probably safely conclude that the presence of a few extra Na+ atoms probably aren't going to be all that harmful to the human body that requires the presence of this chemical for normal bodily processes.

That leaves the potential villian to be F-, something that is also present naturally.

It would seem to this layman that there would have to be a pretty clear link to be able to prove "this shit is toxic" in a courtroom to any reasonable degree. Courts are funny that way. They have a strange tendency to be reasonable and scientific in their approach to such topics.

This leads back to the question of sufficiency of evidence, doesn't it?

[RandomGuy]

I have a better one: Name one corp in the US who produces toxic waste who isnt subject to b/r in the event that they are found liable for a massive public exposure or through tortious negligence for improper handling or disposal.

Just one will do.

Ill wait.

Name one corporation that has stated in any internal document or whistleblower testimony that they are surpressing the vast and irrefutable evidence that flouridated water is harmful to human beings.

Such testimony was clearly available in the big tobacco suits.

Just one will do.

I will wait.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question22.html

That is a good attempt at getting at the science.

The studies though reflected in the anti-flouride side of the argument range from 50-30 years old.

Hmm... surely there must be something newer.

[RandomGuy]

I googled the term "flouride cancer studies" and found almost no original research.

What I did find was a lot of cross-linked hysteria on the part of many "natural health" types. That and "infowars" type conspiracy theory clearinghouses.

Hardly a bastion of either reliability or lack of bias.

It was hard to find studies newer than 1993 or so. Seems like the link was fairly settled about that time and nobody has since bothered with it.

Seems like, if the link was so strong and easy to prove, that opponents would be able to trot out some good, peer-reviewed science that is newer than 1964 to prove it.

Meh, if there were really any whiff of money in it, class action litigators would be all over it like stink on shit.

Parker, do you have some linkable, solid scientific study regarding the cancer risks I can look at?

[ChumpDumper]

I have a better one: Name one corp in the US who produces toxic waste who isnt subject to b/r in the event that they are found liable for a massive public exposure or through tortious negligence for improper handling or disposal.

Just one will do.

Ill wait.Asking to prove a negative now?

Sad.

If you can't prove the positive that was asked of you, just say so.

[Parker2112]

Asking to prove a negative now?

Sad.

If you can't prove the positive that was asked of you, just say so.

this hypo answers his question. as you know.

[Blake]

this hypo answers his question. as you know.

absolutely not.

I asked for a name of a corporation.

Stop dancing and just provide a name. Very simple.

[Parker2112]

You have backpedaled from the obviously disprovable assertion that flouride revenues and/or avoidance of disposal fees represent anything more than chump change to the companies involved.

First off, if YOU would have been up on the OP (the vid), you wouldve interpreted my comments in the correct light, as it was pollution litigation that drove industry to lobby for fluoridation. If you knew that, we wouldnt have had 3-4 four pages of finger pointing, etc...

I didnt retreat from anything...I had the info about lawsuits threatening to derail industry in FLA from the first post. It was you jumping in uninformed.

As a matter of fact, the document that I posted yesterday was up in this thread since about page 4 or 5. And yet when I repeated it, the thread went silent, because no one else had read it. Only now do you guys realize that fluoride is sourced from industrial waste. Weeks after that info was posted here.

If you guys cant bring yourselves current before you start with the bullshit assumptions and namecalling, then dont expect me to catch up every joe blow each time they want to take a running gunning start at a "conspiratorial" claim.

So lets make this clear: You jump in, late and uninformed, insisting that I repeat info time after time like a trained parrot. Same for blake.

I have spent time on this topic. I have provided much info. Do yourself a favor and check that stuff out. Other than that, I will post new info that I find as I find it, and eventually I plan to consildate those findings in a seperate thread.

[Parker2112]

absolutely not.

I asked for a name of a corporation.

Stop dancing and just provide a name. Very simple.

you dont even have a clue where the bankruptcy issue came in. It was part of the issue from the start. Until you watch the vid, you're lost.

see the above post...its not my job to catch you up.

[Parker2112]

And RG, after that bogus "backpedaling" crap, do you really expect me to read the rest of the post?

[Wild Cobra]

Parker, did you look up any of the material cited in the links to see if they were valid?

[ChumpDumper]

this hypo answers his question. as you know.No, it doesn't.

You're the one making the claim.

Back it up.

[ChumpDumper]

Only now do you guys realize that fluoride is sourced from industrial waste. Weeks after that info was posted here.No, we already knew that.

It was you who conflated sources of fluoride for SAWS water.

Did you ever straighten that out for yourself?

[Blake]

you dont even have a clue where the bankruptcy issue came in. It was part of the issue from the start. Until you watch the vid, you're lost.

see the above post...its not my job to catch you up.

this is your attempt at a persuasive speech, not mine.

If you are really trying to convince, it's your job to validate your claims, not the audience's job to debunk them.

You've done nothing but throw out lazy accusations and lame jpgs.

[Parker2112]

No, it doesn't.

You're the one making the claim.

Back it up.

Yes it does. Any corp producing toxic waste can potentially go b/r with enough liability.

If he answers the question truthfully, as in states the above, then his answer becomes clear.

I'm saying not just one corp is prone to b/r, but all. So pick any corp with a potential liabilty for toxic tort and you, Blake, have a name for one.

[Parker2112]

No, we already knew that.

It was you who conflated sources of fluoride for SAWS water.

Did you ever straighten that out for yourself?

Horseshit. You may claim to know, but dont claim anything for these others. They disputed this up to yesterday.

As for the SAWS water, if you read the original post I said I HAD SUSPICION ABOUT THE SUSPICIOUS NATURE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Beyond that you dont have a leg to stand on unless you show I asserted the Toyota scenario as fact. Which Never happened.

[Parker2112]

this is your attempt at a persuasive speech, not mine.

If you are really trying to convince, it's your job to validate your claims, not the audience's job to debunk them.

You've done nothing but throw out lazy accusations and lame jpgs.

Ive done nothing but shut your ass up and have you back off from "crackpot" to "your sources sound sincere."

I admitted when I botched the aim of your article yesterday. You cant admit to a damn thing.

You think your opinion can rival scientists in the field. I think your opinion is drawn from your need to redeem yourself after having to eat your words yesterday, and thus it is completely compromised by pride and the need to be right, no matter what more informed sources reveal about the situation.

That makes you not worth the effort.

[Winehole23]

^^^fucked his day again. Pobrecito.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes it does. Any corp producing toxic waste can potentially go b/r with enough liability.So it doesn't prove anything.


If he answers the question truthfully, as in states the above, then his answer becomes clear.If you answered questions truthfully, this would have been a much shorter thread.


I'm saying not just one corp is prone to b/r, but all. So pick any corp with a potential liabilty for toxic tort and you, Blake, have a name for one.So your truthful answer is none.

OK.


Horseshit. You may claim to know, but dont claim anything for these others. They disputed this up to yesterday.

As for the SAWS water, if you read the original post I said I HAD SUSPICION ABOUT THE SUSPICIOUS NATURE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Beyond that you dont have a leg to stand on unless you show I asserted the Toyota scenario as fact. Which Never happened.Yes, you put forth your conspiracy theory about Toyota's selling leftover polishing slag to put in the San Antonio water supply. It was subsequently obliterated by the simplest of searches that you were unable or unwilling to do yourself.

This is why I think you prefer to be ignorant. It makes for better copy.

[Blake]

Ive done nothing but shut your ass up and have you back off from "crackpot" to "your sources sound sincere."

You are definitely still crackpot.

I find it odd that the EPA Union as a whole would take up this cause "to protect the employees they represent from the risks of fluroidated drinking water."

Hirzy sounds sincere, is a noted chemist and I don't see any ulterior motive from him, but I still think he is just flat wrong.

Looking at some the key points in his speech, he used cherry picked studies on rats regarding cancer and stood on the faulty testimonies of guys like Dr. John Colqhoun and his book Why I Changed my Mind About Water Fluoridation.


I admitted when I botched the aim of your article yesterday. You cant admit to a damn thing.

I admit I'm not sure I know the aim of your thread. I'm not sure you know the aim of your thread.


You think your opinion can rival scientists in the field. I think your opinion is drawn from your need to redeem yourself after having to eat your words yesterday, and thus it is completely compromised by pride and the need to be right, no matter what more informed sources reveal about the situation.

That makes you not worth the effort.

It appears you fought off the urge to go jpeg. That's a least a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, you still are obviously butthurt and would rather accuse me of having a prejudiced opinion instead of simply backing up your claims.

That's a shame.

[Parker2112]

You are definitely still crackpot.

I find it odd that the EPA Union as a whole would take up this cause "to protect the employees they represent from the risks of fluroidated drinking water."

Hirzy sounds sincere, is a noted chemist and I don't see any ulterior motive from him, but I still think he is just flat wrong.

Looking at some the key points in his speech, he used cherry picked studies on rats regarding cancer and stood on the faulty testimonies of guys like Dr. John Colqhoun and his book Why I Changed my Mind About Water Fluoridation.



I admit I'm not sure I know the aim of your thread. I'm not sure you know the aim of your thread.



It appears you fought off the urge to go jpeg. That's a least a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, you still are obviously butthurt and would rather accuse me of having a prejudiced opinion instead of simply backing up your claims.

That's a shame.

Unlike you, I prefer to defer to those working in the field. I dont claim to know the sole truth from reading a handful of articles on the internet.

The most I am willing to say is that there is a valid debate here.

What you are trying to do is dismiss the views of numerous DDSs, MDs, Scientists, and Nobel Award winners. All with your handy-dandy all-powerful internet connection, the one that allows you to leap into tall professions with a single bound and surpass years of experience faster than a speeding locomotive. all to discredit to me.

How completely asinine. Maybe its just me, but I dont trust anyone who claims such things.

At least Winehole had the sense to let the clattering die when he saw a valid debate for himself (even if it had been there all along...he just neglected to read the thread). Take his cue Blake.

[RandomGuy]

[butt-hurt personal attacks, little substantiated facts]

Not much to comment on there.


Moving on...

[RandomGuy]

I didnt retreat from anything...

Do you still claim that Toyota is selling flouride products to SAWS from their chrome-producing manufacturing processes?

I showed conclusively, by way of an actual invoice bid from a chemical company to SAWS that:

1) Toyota is not the company selling to SAWS.
2) The chemical that is being put in the water is not the same chemical that is used in the chrome-manufacturing process.

[RandomGuy]

Horseshit. You may claim to know, but dont claim anything for these others. They disputed this up to yesterday.

As for the SAWS water, if you read the original post I said I HAD SUSPICION ABOUT THE SUSPICIOUS NATURE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Beyond that you dont have a leg to stand on unless you show I asserted the Toyota scenario as fact. Which Never happened.

You very strongly implied it, and you know it.

You said, roughly:

"SAWS started putting flouride in its water right around the time the Toyota plant was built, coincidence? I don't think so.


WH: the flouridation varies, many communities still dont do it, some stopped, some just started. I think SA just started recently, they actually just approved it before Toyata came to town. Whowouldathunkit. Chromedreams.

You liked this idea so much you said it again:


flouridation of SA water started just prior to Toyota's commitment to open the plant there. co-in-se-dink?

The implication is pretty clear to any fair reading. You were attempting to link the two correlated activities as if they had a causal relation. The word "Chromedreams" pretty much states your implication that the NaF by-product from chrome manufacturing was being put into SAWS water.

[RandomGuy]

Ive done nothing but shut your ass up and have you back off from "crackpot" to "your sources sound sincere."

I admitted when I botched the aim of your article yesterday. You cant admit to a damn thing.

You think your opinion can rival scientists in the field. I think your opinion is drawn from your need to redeem yourself after having to eat your words yesterday, and thus it is completely compromised by pride and the need to be right, no matter what more informed sources reveal about the situation.

That makes you not worth the effort.

I always try to set my ego aside in such debates. I freely admit when I am wrong about things, or have one of my misunderstandings clarified.

As for my opinion "rivaling scientists in the field" you bring up a very relevant issue.

If, as you claim, companies are trying to shield themselves from a tort, then there must be a potential for action.

Since most courts tend to defer to scientific evidence, I must ask:

What peer reviewed studies do you have to link floride in water to any widespread harm to humans?

I would readily acknowledge floridosis in teeth as being a potential harm, when humans are exposed to high concentrations of floride.

That isn't the issue, though.

You are claiming that some harm is being done.

Can you prove that harm? Peer reviewed scientific research would be acceptable proof.

Out of context quotes from scientists in 1964 would not.

Once again, this is your theory and your burden of proof.

I want to read the available scientific evidence showing just how harmful low concentrations of floride in drinking water is.

[Winehole23]

Unlike you, I prefer to defer to those working in the field.You cherry-picked sources to fit the prejudgment of the matter you probably acquired at infowars.

I dont claim to know the sole truth from reading a handful of articles on the internet.Funny, you've already claimed victory a number of times.

The most I am willing to say is that there is a valid debate here.The most I am willing to say is that you've shown your proficiency at cutting and pasting...

What you are trying to do is dismiss the views of numerous DDSs, MDs, Scientists, and Nobel Award winners. All with your handy-dandy all-powerful internet connection, the one that allows you to leap into tall professions with a single bound and surpass years of experience faster than a speeding locomotive. all to discredit to me....and leapt over the professional consensus in a single bound in one of the lamest appeals to authority I've ever seen here. Kudos!

How completely asinine. Maybe its just me, but I dont trust anyone who claims such things.I wonder why you believe yourself. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

At least Winehole had the sense to let the clattering die when he saw a valid debate for himself I had to go to work. When I came back, I saw that others posters were regulating you properly, and felt no need to interfere.

(even if it had been there all along... You had been ignoring it yourself until just now. The backpedalling that brought you to this point sure kicked up some dust, but that ought not haze anyone who read all the way through.


...he just neglected to read the thread)A couple of pages ago Blake pantsed you for posting two sources you mischaracterized as supporting you, when in fact they upheld the exact opposite conclusion. A couple of pages before that, you admitted you don't really read through your sources either but just throw them up on the wall to see what others will say. Not finding you or the quality of your evidence credible doesn't make me a non-reader. I read plenty. What I did read wasn't too convincing.

Project your own faults, much?

[Blake]

Unlike you, I prefer to defer to those working in the field.

Hirzey doesn't work directly in the field.

If you really preferred to defer to those working in the field, this thread would never have happened, much less go past several dozen pages.


The most I am willing to say is that there is a valid debate here.

The debate then is that there is a valid debate.

If you really preferred to defer to those working in the field, this would not be a debate.

iow, there is really no debate that this is not a debate.


What you are trying to do is dismiss the views of numerous DDSs, MDs, Scientists, and Nobel Award winners. All with your handy-dandy all-powerful internet connection, the one that allows you to leap into tall professions with a single bound and surpass years of experience faster than a speeding locomotive. all to discredit to me.

How completely asinine. Maybe its just me, but I dont trust anyone who claims such things.

Is it really surprising that there are scientists out there with differing view points?

Why are you dismissing the findings of the pro-fluoride scientists?

Why are you dismissing the view of the surgeon general of the United States?


At least Winehole had the sense to let the clattering die when he saw a valid debate for himself (even if it had been there all along...he just neglected to read the thread). Take his cue Blake.

If some researchers come up some direct connection between fluoridated water and disease, I would absolutely agree that it should be debated.

Until then, it's simply an opinon that it should be removed, even if it is from Nobel prize winner Arvid Carllson.

His opinion definitely carries great weight. Without any substantial research to back up his opinion, however, it's not enough to even open a real debate.

[Parker2112]

Do you still claim that Toyota is selling flouride products to SAWS from their chrome-producing manufacturing processes?



This is where you ran with it. This never happened. Quote me. Else: You manufacturing this crap = your cred at 0.

Am I suspicious? Yes. Am I stupid enough to think that NaF leaves the Toyota plant and goes directly to SAWS? Hell fuggin no.

Am I stupid enough to think I can understand the relationship of these parties solely through info learned on the net? Hell no.

Is the timing suspicious? Hell yeah.

Are you stupid enough to claim all the above? Well....you do.

[Parker2112]

Do you still claim that Toyota is selling flouride products to SAWS from their chrome-producing manufacturing processes?

I showed conclusively, by way of an actual invoice bid from a chemical company to SAWS that:

1) Toyota is not the company selling to SAWS.
2) The chemical that is being put in the water is not the same chemical that is used in the chrome-manufacturing process.

The more I think about this, you are a fucking idiot for taking what I stated and manufacturing this chain of claims. Congrats :toast

[Winehole23]

The inference you were making was plain enough. Disowning it now is definitely the smart thing to do.

[Parker2112]

You very strongly implied it, and you know it.

You said, roughly:

"SAWS started putting flouride in its water right around the time the Toyota plant was built, coincidence? I don't think so.



You liked this idea so much you said it again:



The implication is pretty clear to any fair reading. You were attempting to link the two correlated activities as if they had a causal relation. The word "Chromedreams" pretty much states your implication that the NaF by-product from chrome manufacturing was being put into SAWS water.

Implies nothing but suspiscion. If there was an arrangement, it would be a very tenuated one, and RG nor myself would not be able to discover the details so handily. But evidently your not smart enough to realize that.

[Parker2112]

You cherry-picked sources to fit the prejudgment of the matter you probably acquired at infowars.
Funny, you've already claimed victory a number of times.
The most I am willing to say is that you've shown your proficiency at cutting and pasting...
...and leapt over the professional consensus in a single bound in one of the lamest appeals to authority I've ever seen here. Kudos!
I wonder why you believe yourself. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I had to go to work. When I came back, I saw that others posters were regulating you properly, and felt no need to interfere.
You had been ignoring it yourself until just now. The backpedalling that brought you to this point sure kicked up some dust, but that ought not haze anyone who read all the way through.

A couple of pages ago Blake pantsed you for posting two sources you mischaracterized as supporting you, when in fact they upheld the exact opposite conclusion. A couple of pages before that, you admitted you don't really read through your sources either but just throw them up on the wall to see what others will say. Not finding you or the quality of your evidence credible doesn't make me a non-reader. I read plenty. What I did read wasn't too convincing.

Project your own faults, much?

Again, you attack me, but cant touch the sources. You are still hurting over getting your weak attempts at critique smacked down so hard.

pobrecito indeed.

[Winehole23]

^^^awards himself he game ball again. Guess his previously self-awarded victories didn't take.

[Parker2112]

You are claiming that some harm is being done.



There you again, with the words in my mouth. My main arguments are: unnecessary cost, infringement of constitutional rights, and lack of disclosure.

I dont buy much harm outside of outlying sensative populations.

You suck at this, and your cred is still 0. Quote me otherwise. Or if all you can do is manufacture my conclusions and do battle dishonestly, then shut up

[RandomGuy]

Debunk this testimony to the US Senate.
I'm sure you're internet connection is all you need.

http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/629FINAL.htm

There we go.

A link to actual science, suitably sourced.

Lets start with the first citation from your good Doctor's testimony:


According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of America's children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1)

Study name (linked to a pdf file showing actual study):
Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. (http://www.ci.fairbanks.ak.us/documents/boardscommissions/fluoridetaskforce/referencematerials/efficacy/19970600Heller%20Dental%20Caries%20and%20Dental%20 Fluorosis%20JPHD.pdf)


Overall, 23.5 percent of the children
had at least very mild fluorosis, and this percentage increased with increasing
water fluoride level. Only 5.7 percent of the children exhibited fluorosis higher than the very mild level.

The study did establish, unsurpsisingly, that higher water concentrations of floride in water did increase incidence of floridosis.

Not sure where the good doctor based his "66%" claim. The researched stated pretty clearly that only 23.5% of the children studied.

Further what was studied was simply floride levels in schools.

An important methodologic issue
was our use of the fluoride level of
school water to determine the child's
water fluoride status. This approach
assumes that the children were exposed
to the same fluoride level at
home as at school. While this may not
always be the case, the alternative of
trying to determine water fluoride
level from the residential histories was
seen as a less reliable method of determining
exposure to fluoride from
water. Using the residential data provides
only an indication of whether or
not that community was listed as being
optimally fluoridated in the 1985
Fluoridation Census (18), but not the
actual fluoride level.

Seems like the good doctor can't support his claim based on what I could read of the paper. Either he misunderstood or misrepresented what it said.

Onwards and upwards.

[RandomGuy]

There you again, with the words in my mouth. My main arguments are: unnecessary cost, infringement of constitutional rights, and lack of disclosure.

I dont buy much harm outside of outlying sensative populations.

You suck at this, and your cred is still 0. Quote me otherwise. Or if all you can do is manufacture my conclusions and do battle dishonestly, then shut up

You said "this shit is toxic".

What exactly did you mean?

[RandomGuy]

The next studies cited by the doctor in his testimony were both studies not subjected to peer-review, from what I saw. Good faith attempts, but hardly conclusive.

My time is up, but I will continue to go through the testimony's citations.

Honestly, the whole issue smells like pseudo-science.

If you are tyring to claim that the big, bad companies are trying to keep themselves from lawsuits, that claim is severely crimped by a lack of evidence that might stand up in court regarding the harmful effects of putting floride in drinking water.

[Parker2112]

Hirzey doesn't work directly in the field.

If you really preferred to defer to those working in the field, this thread would never have happened, much less go past several dozen pages.



The debate then is that there is a valid debate.

If you really preferred to defer to those working in the field, this would not be a debate.

iow, there is really no debate that this is not a debate.



Is it really surprising that there are scientists out there with differing view points?

Why are you dismissing the findings of the pro-fluoride scientists?

Why are you dismissing the view of the surgeon general of the United States?



If some researchers come up some direct connection between fluoridated water and disease, I would absolutely agree that it should be debated.

Until then, it's simply an opinon that it should be removed, even if it is from Nobel prize winner Arvid Carllson.

His opinion definitely carries great weight. Without any substantial research to back up his opinion, however, it's not enough to even open a real debate.

your arrogance knows no bounds

[Parker2112]

You said "this shit is toxic".

What exactly did you mean?

that is a given. You didnt know?

It must be promperly disposed of, and precautions must be taken or handlers get sick.

Are you implying otherwise?

[Parker2112]

^^^awards himself he game ball again. Guess his previously self-awarded victories didn't take.

guess for all your squirming you cant avoid the hurt inflicted following your half-hearted entrance.

[Winehole23]

Quite the contrary, I'm amused.

[TeyshaBlue]

Good God, Parker. While you might have a debatable point, your debating, such that it is, resembles the skills used by my 6 year old granddaughter getting caught redhanded doing something wrong. You've done all but throw a tantrum. You foist a statement, then spend 30 posts saying you didn't. Your obfuscation abilities are not quite what you think they are. Hiding behind the coward's skirts of inference and innuendo is not a viable method of discourse.
Fuck me, I can't believe I waded back into this.:depressed

[Parker2112]

it shows in your compulsive offense.

[RandomGuy]

Are you too dense to understand the scenario here?

[limited industry participants] selling to [municipalities NATION WIDE]

Do you understand this OPENS A NATIONAL MARKET TO A HANDFUL OF PARTIES!!!!??? WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAYING OUT OF POCKET TO DISPOSE OF WASTE?

Imagine taking you're household trash that you normally pay the city to dispose of, and now imagine it become marketable to tens of thousands of cities if not more. IMAGINE. And for sake of comparison, lets make it so that you are constantly under threat of litigation by anyone who is exposed to your trash, because the shit is toxic. Follow?

You are right about one thing: it wouldnt mean bankruptcy. It would mean higher prices to consumers of fertilizer and aluminum.

MAJOR EXCEPT THAT I WAS IMPLYING EARLIER, THAT WOULD BANKRUPT CORPS:
Massive public exposure and years of PI lawsuits. I understand you WERE too dense to carry out that line of thought.

Imagine, I can do. I can also imagine purple flying ponies.

Now explain to me how a scientifically weak thesis will provide the basis for litigation?

I looked at the underlying studies, and wasn't all that impressed by what I saw.

Quite frankly, the evidence suggests that the overall benefits to the economy far outweigh any potential harm. This is directly supported by numerous sources provided by Blake in the course of the thread.

[Parker2112]

Good God, Parker. While you might have a debatable point, your debating, such that it is, resembles the skills used by my 6 year old granddaughter getting caught redhanded doing something wrong. You've done all but throw a tantrum. You foist a statement, then spend 30 posts saying you didn't. Your obfuscation abilities are not quite what you think they are. Hiding behind the coward's skirts of inference and innuendo is not a viable method of discourse.
Fuck me, I can't believe I waded back into this.:depressed

I get irritated because: 1. RG has been throwing dishonest crap in the game. 2. Blake is so set on redemption he insits that he can debunk any source, even Nobel Prize winning scientists. 3. WHs pride is evidently so wounded he cant help himself but to continue his personal attacks on me, and 4. No one here is debating the issue, outside of the occasional post by RG that doesnt misrepresent the position of the subject entirely.

Honestly we should all find our way out. I give you this Teysha, based on that point alone you have more intelligence than the entire crew here including myself.

GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2rl9OV3Auts/S9bzDatlO6I/AAAAAAAAFRI/K5P656Up_pM/s1600/temple_of_doom_flaming-heart.jpg

[RandomGuy]

that is a given. You didnt know?

It must be promperly disposed of, and precautions must be taken or handlers get sick.

Are you implying otherwise?

Not at all. Concentrated chemicals of any sort can be dreadfully harmful.

I don't drink concentrated bleach either, but very dilute amounts used to disinfect water are quite beneficial to me, compared to the nasty brain-eating amoebas and worse in untreated water.

Are you claiming that all chemicals that are harmful in concentrated doses must be harmful in extremely dilute quantities?

[Parker2112]

Quite frankly, the evidence suggests that the overall benefits to the economy far outweigh any potential harm.

I actually agree with this. It helps industry, and it means people dont get sick from polution, outside of the sensitive populations (which is what Ive said from day 1)

But that still doesnt help with 1. the constitutional issue, 2. the lack of transparency in the policy, and 3. the lack of justification for the expense

[Winehole23]

(burp)

[Parker2112]

Not at all. Concentrated chemicals of any sort can be dreadfully harmful.

I don't drink concentrated bleach either, but very dilute amounts used to disinfect water are quite beneficial to me, compared to the nasty brain-eating amoebas and worse in untreated water.

Are you claiming that all chemicals that are harmful in concentrated doses must be harmful in extremely dilute quantities?

In the diminished doses it seems that this practice of fluoridation can still harm infants, diabetics, and those with kidney problems. Are you saying these sensitive populations should not be considered in what the dose should be?

[Parker2112]

(burp)

I could do with more of these and less of your usual-of-late.

[Winehole23]

You only wish.

[Winehole23]

Just keep fucking that chicken, Ted.

[Parker2112]

preparation H works to reduce swelling in and around the anal sphincter caused by intense trauma to the end-zone, billy

[Winehole23]

The chicken died. I'm informing PETA.

[Parker2112]

anal fissure. go directly to jail. do not collect $200.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, you attack me, but cant touch the sources. You are still hurting over getting your weak attempts at critique smacked down so hard.

pobrecito indeed.


your arrogance knows no bounds:lol hypocrite much?


But that still doesnt help with 1. the constitutional issue, 2. the lack of transparency in the policy, and 3. the lack of justification for the expense1) What constitutional issue? No one is forced to drink the water.

2) The lack of transparency only exists in your mind because you choose to remain ignorant. If one chooses to wear a blindfold, one will not see through anything.

3) The expenses are as transparent as anything else you refuse to actually examine.

[Parker2112]

:lol hypocrite much?

1) What constitutional issue? No one is forced to drink the water.

2) The lack of transparency only exists in your mind because you choose to remain ignorant. If one chooses to wear a blindfold, one will not see through anything.

3) The expenses are as transparent as anything else you refuse to actually examine.

1) Horseshit. all day every day. People need water. Municipalities provide that function. Many cant afford alternatives to public water.

If you use that public source to dose the masses who will no doubt use it, you remove the peoples right to make the ultimate decisions regarding their health and welfare. Of which they have a constitutional right to do so.

not even a straight faced argument.

2) Horseshit. What percentage of the public do you think knows that they are being dosed with fluoride from industrial waste?

As for the personal attack, keep it klassy, Chump.

3) Expenses are transparent true. But the reasons for the expense are not, as there is a dubious track record all things considered, and outside studies and data are not open to debate with our elected officials. So again you fall flat.

[Parker2112]

I could keep you hyenas at bay all day, but I think I will take Teyshas lead here.

[Winehole23]

Good riddance.

[Parker2112]

Ha!

http://www.modernguidetohealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/anal-fissure-treatment.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

1) Horseshit. all day every day. People need water. Municipalities provide that function. Many cant afford alternatives to public water.Many can. And in SA they voted to have fluoride. That's pretty democratic tbh.


If you use that public source to dose the masses who will no doubt use it.There is great doubt whether they will use it. Sorry.


2) Horseshit. What percentage of the public do you think knows that they are being dosed with fluoride from industrial waste?You are asking if people are ignorant? I'm sure they are, but the knowledge of the sources of fluoride used in SAWS is quite transparent. It's on the internets. You didn't look it up. Turns out it was very easily found. Therefore it's clear you chose to remain ignorant on the topic so you could dream up your little conspiracy theory about Toyota's selling polishing slag to SAWS to dump in the water supply. Now you walked back a little from that -- your new theory is there are a couple of middlemen between Toyota and SAWS.


As for the personal attack, keep it klassy, Chump.It's not an attack. You have proved your ignorance time and time again. Claiming someone is ignorant is not an attack. Claiming someone has chosen to remain ignorant is an opinion, but my claim is backed up by your arguments.

You also proved you are a hypocrite when it comes to personal attacks.

Keep it classy, indeed.


3) Expenses are transparent true. But the reasons for the expense are not, as there is a dubious track record all things considered, and outside studies and data are not open to debate with our elected officials. So again you fall flat.There is plenty of justification of the expense. You choose remain ignorant of it, and start hand waving, posting stupid pictures and personally attacking people who provide evidence of justification.

[Winehole23]

I wonder what happened to all the "smoking guns." There used to be several. Now there is just a "valid debate."

[RandomGuy]

Implies nothing but suspiscion.

Well, let's see what we can do with "suspicion" and see what a reasonable person might infer.

"Parker2112 moved into the neighborhood, then gerbil and ducktape sales spiked. Coincidence?"

"Parker2112 moved next to a sheep farm, then the sheep got really skittish around people with gloves. Coincidence?"

"Parker2112 got himself a bigscreen TV and high-speed internet connection, then suddenly tissue paper and lube sales spiked. Coincidence?"

What would be the reasonable inference to the above statements?

What would a good critical thinker conclude about what I was trying to say?

[Blake]

your arrogance knows no bounds



Is it really surprising that there are scientists out there with differing view points?

Why are you dismissing the findings of the pro-fluoride scientists?

Why are you dismissing the view of the surgeon general of the United States?

[Blake]

Quite frankly, the evidence suggests that the overall benefits to the economy far outweigh any potential harm.


I actually agree with this. It helps industry, and it means people dont get sick from polution, outside of the sensitive populations (which is what Ive said from day 1)

But that still doesnt help with 1. the constitutional issue, 2. the lack of transparency in the policy, and 3. the lack of justification for the expense

you just justified the expense even if you aren't aware you did.

well done. :tu

[RandomGuy]

I actually agree with this. It helps industry, and it means people dont get sick from polution, outside of the sensitive populations (which is what Ive said from day 1)

But that still doesnt help with 1. the constitutional issue, 2. the lack of transparency in the policy, and 3. the lack of justification for the expense

Constitutional issue? Filter your water. The government isn't really forcing anyone to do anything. The policy is set at the local level.

Tranparency? SAWS had a public debate prior to it, and puts all the information about it on its website. I found a lot of larger city municipal water utilities that put the information right out there.

Lack of Justification of the expense.
As pointed out the expense was less than .5% of SAWS operating budget. Blake pointed out an economic study showing that for the wider economy avoiding expensive dental treatment more than justified the cost.

What exactly is your point then?

[Parker2112]

I wonder what happened to all the "smoking guns." There used to be several. Now there is just a "valid debate."

smoking guns = when you/yours were arguing that fluoride used was not industrial waste.

try and keep up.

[Parker2112]

Many can. And in SA they voted to have fluoride. That's pretty democratic tbh.

remind me how constitutional rights are affected by popular vote. Decent try. i guess.

[RandomGuy]

Now explain to me how a scientifically weak thesis [dilute levels of floride are toxic] will provide the basis for litigation?

[Parker2112]

You are asking if people are ignorant? I'm sure they are, but the knowledge of the sources of fluoride used in SAWS is quite transparent. .

Where was that fluoride coming from again?

[Winehole23]

smoking guns = when you/yours were arguing that fluoride used was not industrial waste. I never argued that. Who did?

[Winehole23]

remind me how constitutional rights are affected by popular vote. Decent try. i guess.What constitutional right? Please be specific.

[Parker2112]

There is plenty of justification of the expense.

Only if we throw out contrary findings and evidence. Of which there are multiple sources in this thread.

Nice brush off of the opposition though.

[RandomGuy]

smoking guns = when you/yours were arguing that fluoride used was not industrial waste.

try and keep up.

NaCl, table salt is an industrial waste that results from and is used in a variety of manufacturing processes.

Warm water is an "industrial waste" in some manufacturing processes.

Labeling something "industrial waste" does not make its presence in the human body in dilute amounts toxic, does it?

[Blake]

remind me how constitutional rights are affected by popular vote. Decent try. i guess.

as has been asked on numerous occasions already, what part of the consitution are you referring to?

[Parker2112]

you just justified the expense even if you aren't aware you did.

well done. :tu

I know the expense is justified in $. It avoids pollution, damages, illness, and extra burdens on the economy.

I know that it is not justified in sense. Constitutiona bars it, sensative populations undermine it at current levels, and the data doesnt support its actual utility.

This is complex. Maybe leave it to others.

[Parker2112]

NaCl, table salt is an industrial waste that results from and is used in a variety of manufacturing processes.

Warm water is an "industrial waste" in some manufacturing processes.

Labeling something "industrial waste" does not make its presence in the human body in dilute amounts toxic, does it?

Then why were folks, including chump, arguing the fact?

[Blake]

Only if we throw out contrary findings and evidence. Of which there are multiple sources in this thread.

Nice brush off of the opposition though.

the contrary findings don't measure up to the official findings.

Why do you continue to brush off the surgeon general of the US among others?

[ChumpDumper]

remind me how constitutional rights are affected by popular vote. Decent try. i guess.Hey, if it's actually unconstitutional, there would have already been a lawsuit regarding it. Or is the opposition too poor to pay lawyers?


Where was that fluoride coming from again?You already have been told, yet you still say it's Toyota.


Only if we throw out contrary findings and evidence. Of which there are multiple sources in this thread.

Nice brush off of the opposition though.Nice additional hypocrisy from you.

[Parker2112]

as has been asked on numerous occasions already, what part of the consitution are you referring to?

right to privacy encompasses the right to decide medical treatment. Study.

[Parker2112]

Hey, if it's actually unconstitutional, there would have already been a lawsuit regarding it. Or is the opposition too poor to pay lawyers?



good point. good subject for research

[ChumpDumper]

Then why were folks, including chump, arguing the fact?Show me where I argued that fact.

Now.

You don't need to start flat out lying now. It's not going to make things better for you.

[RandomGuy]

Only if we throw out contrary findings and evidence. Of which there are multiple sources in this thread.

Nice brush off of the opposition though.

There is just as much, indeed much more, evidence that there is little or no harm to the levels of floride present in water.

The overall weight of evidence does not support the theory that floride levels normally found in drinking water is harmful.

If it were as obviously bad as opponents pump it up to be, then there would be more than a couple of minor papers on the possibility of certain types of bone cancer. One was an unpublished doctoral dissertation. God knows there are enough motivated people fighting floride for SOMEONE to have taken the time to do a decent scientific study.

Hardly the stuff of an iron-clad court case, is it?

[Blake]

I know the expense is justified in $. It avoids pollution, damages, illness, and extra burdens on the economy.

Great, you again justified the expense.

You can cross #3 off your list.

Maybe by page 50 you will have crossed off #2.


I know that it is not justified in sense. Constitutiona bars it, sensative populations undermine it at current levels, and the data doesnt support its actual utility.

This is complex. Maybe leave it to others.

The Constitution does not bar it.

The data does support it.

This is not complex.

You are ignorant.

[ChumpDumper]

good point. good subject for researchDid you know the government forces us to ingest altered dairy products too?

It's a conspiracy!

There is also chlorine in the water.

It's toxic!

[Parker2112]

You already have been told, yet you still say it's Toyota.

.

any idiot would know that the NaF would have to be processed for consumption, so it couldnt possibly go from Toyota to SAWS. I never said this. I said the timing was suspicious, and I still believe there could be more to this timing behind the curtain.

Thanks RG!

[Parker2112]

Did you know the government forces us to ingest altered dairy products too?

It's a conspiracy!

What does that have to do with forced medicines?

I think the conspiracy is you conspiring to twist facts in argument for self gain.

[Parker2112]

I understand...you cant distinguish between consumed products and medical treatment. Now I get it.

[RandomGuy]

Labeling something "industrial waste" does not make its presence in the human body in dilute amounts toxic, does it?



Then why were folks, including chump, arguing the fact?

You didn't answer my question.

Labeling something "industrial waste" does not make its presence in the human body in dilute amounts toxic, does it?

[ChumpDumper]

any idiot would know that the NaF would have to be processed for consumption, so it couldnt possibly go from Toyota to SAWS. I never said this.You said it goes from Toyota to some processing plant to SAWS.

And you still say it's NaF in the SAWS water. Any idiot who actually read the thread would know that isn't the case.


I said the timing was suspicious, and I still believe there could be more to this timing behind the curtain.Suspicious ignorance.


Thanks RG!?

[Winehole23]

This is complex. Maybe leave it to others.Good idea. You obviously can't carry the burden.

[ChumpDumper]

What does that have to do with forced medicines?It is forced on us for health reasons. You would claim it to be unconstitutional.


I think the conspiracy is you conspiring to twist facts in argument for self gain.What am I gaining from this?

[RandomGuy]

any idiot would know that the NaF would have to be processed for consumption, so it couldnt possibly go from Toyota to SAWS. I never said this. I said the timing was suspicious, and I still believe there could be more to this timing behind the curtain.

Thanks RG!

Define "more to this timing behind the curtain".

What was the chemical forumla for the chemical in that bid sheet again?

[Blake]

right to privacy encompasses the right to decide medical treatment. Study.

You are not being forced to drink SAWS water. You shouldn't even have to study to know this.

[RandomGuy]

any idiot would know that the NaF would have to be processed for consumption, so it couldnt possibly go from Toyota to SAWS. I never said this. I said the timing was suspicious, and I still believe there could be more to this timing behind the curtain.

Thanks RG!



Screw, let's just spell it out.




NaF you say?

Do me a favor, and read the actual bid for what they are putting in the water.

http://www.saws.org/business_center/procbids/Notes/Fluorosilicic%20Acid.pdf

Now, Parker, can you tell me what the chemical name is of floride they are actually putting in the water?

(hint: here is the wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid) )

Further fucking with your asinine and unproven assertion that SAWS' decision to floridate the water with the Toyota plant's industrial by-products, is the fact that what was actually added to the SAWS water is a by-product of fertilizer production, not automobile manufacture.

The fact that you still are harping on "NaF" proves you didn't bother reading my linked material, Parker2112, you lazy fuck.

Since you are too lazy to read the stuff I give you, then let me give you the actual chemical forumula of Hexaflourosilicic acid.

H2SiF6

There is no sodium in that compound.

[Winehole23]

right to privacy encompasses the right to decide medical treatment. Study.Drinking tap water isn't mandatory. If you choose to drink it, no one has infringed your privacy.

[Winehole23]

Blake, you beat me to it. :lol

[Blake]

What am I gaining from this?

what we all strive for.....internet glory.

[Winehole23]

Dumping chumps?

[Blake]

Blake, you beat me to it. :lol

I figure I beat at least 3 maybe 4 others to the punch. :lol

[RandomGuy]

I figure I beat at least 3 maybe 4 others to the punch. :lol

Yeah. Quite frankly, the links you posted earlier pretty much beat the shit out of the OP long before now.

:toast

Poor Parker pretty much glossed over all the links you provided him.

"Look at my youtube videos, but don't ask me to read the material you present".

Confirmation bias in action. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

what we all strive for.....internet glory.

:lobt:

You are hereby awarded 754,923 Internet Points for conspicious science under fire.

[Parker2112]

You said it goes from Toyota to some processing plant to SAWS.

And you still say it's NaF in the SAWS water. Any idiot who actually read the thread would know that isn't the case.

Suspicious ignorance.

?

Actually, 1. I never said that. Quote it. Now. Or label yourself a liar. No need to fill this thread with more [burps].

2. I actually dont claim to know shit about SAWS water. I didnt say SAWS uses NaF. Quote me when I said I did. I SAID ITS SUSPICIOUS. Quote me. Now. Or label yourself a liar.

[Parker2112]

Screw, let's just spell it out.



The fact that you still are harping on "NaF" proves you didn't bother reading my linked material, Parker2112, you lazy fuck.



Quite honestly, I dont read 9/10ths of the shit you post. You like to hear yourself talk, but you spit out a lot of false assumptions, intolerably simple calculations passed off as real intelligence, and wordy beating around the bush because you enjoy the process.

This doesnt mean I have to take you seriously and read your garbage, I told you your cred with me is 0, and I dont engage your 9/10ths of the bullshit you spew.

[Winehole23]

I dont engage your 9/10ths of the bullshit you spew.Yet you demand yours be taken seriously.