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 to consume
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 .
15 pages about flouride? Really?
Starting threads about sketches? Really?
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.
Right. Public schools in Western Europe apparently have dental care at each school, which is why they don't need to fluoridate the water.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.
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.
I read the info 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 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...fadditives.htmdone.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.
cdc.gov
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.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.
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.
Hard to disagree.No logic here.
You absolutely have not shown the process to be worthless.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
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.
At the levels they add, there has been no conclusive evidence of risk but there has been rather conclusive evidence of dental benefits.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 DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, IF IT PUTS ANY SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION AT RISK?
1. which is none: cdc.govI 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 cons ution provides us with the fundamental right to consent to medical treatment, a right which is infringed through mass medication in the water supply
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 cons ution are you referring to?
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/...cic%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 )
Further ing 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.
"BULL " 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.
You have not even begun to give any data to prove your theory.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.
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.
You just don't get it.
Toyota polishes chrome and etches glass with fertilizer.
So did you look up all those references to see if the writers of the article were spinning the information or not?
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.
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 do entation 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.
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 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.
Last edited by Parker2112; 09-29-2010 at 10:06 AM.
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 Ins ute 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 subs ute 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 Ins ute 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 ac ulating 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 ins uted. 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 en ies are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvert of the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and other Federal en ies 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 enson 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, led "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
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.
An interesting looking read...I will get to it this afternoon.
http://www.thehealthvine.net/index.p...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.
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 Ins ute still states the following:
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 Ins ute 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.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 Ins ute 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 Ins ute 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/f...idated-water#5
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.
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 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 " it toxic"?
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...oridated-waterThe 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
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 " 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 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 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?
Name one corporation that has stated in any internal do ent 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.
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.
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 .
Parker, do you have some linkable, solid scientific study regarding the cancer risks I can look at?
Asking to prove a negative now?
Sad.
If you can't prove the positive that was asked of you, just say so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
