What about flouride?

[Winehole23]

Any govt stepping on your const rights is too big, fed state or local.

Except, there is no Cons utional issue here.

[Winehole23]

this twisted misrep. A judicial solution would ensure protection from the bottom up.

You're the one who's twisted like a pretzel.

The federal government is the top of the scale, localities are the bottom. You'd have the federal government overturn local determinations of the public good, based not on the science, but a completely novel judicial interpretation of the cons ution. That's a top down solution in search of a problem.

[RandomGuy]

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.

I take it back then.

Here is where you correctly addressed a potential cause.

Of course, all of those things are present in the US as well.

The question then becomes a bit more reasonable.

How much would cavities increase, if we completely stopped flouridating water?

I suppose the answer would be:

The people with the least access to regular dental care, who don't brush their teeth regularly will experience the greatest rise.

[RandomGuy]

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?

Actually, the doses that are of concern tend to be higher than what is in the water.

Infants, diabetics, and those with kidney problems should be considered.

The overall benefits to society still far outweigh harm to smaller sub-segments, especially when it is fairly easy to remove and reduce flouride in tapwater in such cases.

Several of the big bad utilities that put floride in their water actually put these concerns directly in the links I provided, by the way.

Not that you are interested in reading anything that might harm your conspiracy theory.

[RandomGuy]

Once more for emphasis:



Actually, you fuggin' little maggot...

My position went from:

Parker2112: From a policy standpoint, It makes sense, for both policy makers and corps, to dilute poisonous waste products like flouride (see vid #3) to safe levels spread over the water supply nationwide rather than create polluted hot spots and ensuing lawsuits that stifle an entire industry and ultimately the national economy.

ON PAGE 2... to your summary of my position on page three of:


you trick. You twisted this whole plain and simple, with anti-conspiracy banter. That was the beginning of all of this. On the record. Eat a , RG, bad intent or none.

You seem to have twisted yourself.

The statement that "rather than create polluted hot spots and ensuing lawsuits that stifle an entire industry" is exactly the definition of a conspiracy theory.

You started the thread with a conspiracy theory, and have repeated that conspiracy theory throughout.

To wit (just from the first 15 pages or so, i stopped after that)

are "they" just trying to keep the aluminum industry from being exposed to crippling, neverending civil action from those in and around the plants that would otherwise be dumping this waste into waste ponds in and around their facilities?


And was this initially a means of diminishing the claims of workers who were exposed to the wastes daily and who devloped numerous lung diseases and cancers but couldn't collect because the science was concealed from public view, thus allowing them to continue dumping into the water, AND keeping sick, dying plant workers from recovering?

it was continually pushed on San Antonio until they relented. Interesting. Whos doing the pushing? And without public support, why?


why put toxic crap, chemicals that are known to cause disease and degradation of the human body into the water supply if the science on benefits is disputed?

[you can't see the] forest for the trees

they would never admit to putting harmful waste into water. But here, they do admit to the origin of the stuff.

None on this forum even believes that the flouride used is a industrial waste product. proof positive that this subject matter is not an area of common knowledge


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

ensuring economic vaibility of a plant by ensuring profitable/affordable disposal of toxic wastes = nothing to do with science

I dont know why motive keeps coming up.

lets just say corporations stay out of court, CEOs keep jobs. Shareholders are happy. Employees stay employed. Contracts get paid. Local residents dont get sick. Corps avoid bankruptcy. Fertilizer gets made. Crops yield.

who can really ever certify the quality of Chinese products? Lies Lies Lies

ensuring economic vaibility of a plant by ensuring profitable/affordable disposal of toxic wastes = nothing to do with science

take a look at the history of flouridation. Take a look at its origins, at who initially advocated for dosing the public, and who funded those lobbyists. Its not hard to find at all.

Industry can turn a profit and fund the scrubbing requirements. And only the weakest/youngest will get sick. But the process needs to be transparent. Just like Iraq, govt knows best....
This is why your water is dosed.

lets just say corporations stay out of court, CEOs keep jobs. Shareholders are happy. Employees stay employed. Contracts get paid. Local residents dont get sick. Corps avoid bankruptcy.

If the point was to keep the business profitable, an arangement so simple would defeat the whole purpose.

Do I knowthat sodium flouride waste is emitted from that plant? yes.
Does it make me su ious about the timing? yes.

the motive behind most corporate strategies is $. They lobby municipalities to dose for what? $. They entice paid professionals to advocate for the practice how? $. They stand to lose what if lobbyists dont return results? $. Lobbyists actually won, and everyone is happy because of what? $. whats new.

People are getting dosed so that corps avoid bankruptcy.

I dont have to believe the conspiracy...

Its a given that taking a pollutant and turning it into a profitable product is motive enough on the one side.
What is municipal motive for buying? That is the killer. I waited long enough, I guess.

[the motivation to surpress data that flouride is dangerous is to avoid] Massive public exposure and years of PI lawsuits.

as it was pollution litigation that drove industry to lobby for fluoridation.

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

I HAD SU ION ABOUT THE SU IOUS NATURE OF THE CIR STANCES

I get it.

You think there is a sinister plot on the part of some big money interest.

I don't think that statement is at all a misrepresentation of your position, espeically given the pages and pages of restatement of just precisely that.

The fact that you want to cloak your irrational, unproven beliefs, in some manner that you think makes you sound like the height of rationality is your business.

I ain't buying your brand of bull though, so stop asking me to.

[Parker2112]

You seem to have twisted yourself.

The statement that "rather than create polluted hot spots and ensuing lawsuits that stifle an entire industry" is exactly the definition of a conspiracy theory.

You started the thread with a conspiracy theory, and have repeated that conspiracy theory throughout.

To wit (just from the first 15 pages or so, i stopped after that)




I get it.

You think there is a sinister plot on the part of some big money interest.

I don't think that statement is at all a misrepresentation of your position, espeically given the pages and pages of restatement of just precisely that.

The fact that you want to cloak your irrational, unproven beliefs, in some manner that you think makes you sound like the height of rationality is your business.

I ain't buying your brand of bull though, so stop asking me to.

You see, Blake came in a skeptic just like you. But he refrained from twisting words, twisting opponents views, dropping unfavorable facts, burying lies within half-page posts, etc.

You need to take a ing lesson. You fed into the system, and we got out. When it was just me and chump we had a frank discussion, that was open and the one goal was discussing the topic truthfully.

The minute you dropped in with the quote from above, things swayed due to your complete mischaracterization of my position, your demonization of any opposition, and most important your lack of honesty. Read above.

You need to think twice next time you want to sway the conversation with dishonesty. That can blow up in your face.

And if you want to keep going, I will start pulling your bull posts apart and show you for the dishonest bum you are.

If you want to play the game dirty, dont get mad when you get the ing hose in the face.

[Blake]

Did you watch the vids?

The comparison is not in the toxicity, but in the lobbyist who pushed both, and who had knowledge of the dangers of asbestos, and the comparison is that the same SINISTER LOBBYIST (not product) who misled the public pushed both, thereby tying fluoride to the same shadowy/lying advocate.

the difference being that today knowledge of asbestos and fluoride is so much more accessible.

We can all easily find the levels at which fluoride is considered dangerous and it what forms.

The research is there if you are willing to look for it instead of watching biased youtube videos.

[RandomGuy]

The material you have provided so far has failed to rise to any modi standard of proof.

1) If floridation is really uncons utional,

what cons utional principle (remember to cite the specific cons utional section that applies and how it is generally applied under commonly accepted jurisprudence) is violated?

2) You have said you have provided proof that flouride in water is ineffective,

but I can readily cite studies showing that flouride, including some studies you yourself have put forth, shows it is. The fact that other countries without flouridated water experience reductions in cavities does NOT provide a sufficient level of proof that flouridating water is ineffective, merely that there is the potential of reducing cavities other than flouridating water.

3) Flouridation of water puts senstives at risk?

So? Is this risk mitagated by education and making sure that health professionals understand this risk and can help such people take steps to reduce this risk?

4) Is done without full disclosure to the public.

It would seem to me that showing disclosure in a website, and indeed holding actual public votes on the issue debunks this fairly well.

5) Unnecessary expense.

Something of a value judgement again. SAWS charges 9 cents a gallon for water, and .5% of that is the cost of flouridation.
That comes out to $ 0.00045 per gallon of water, to effectively reduce an entire population's tendency to expensive dental treatment. Four and a half ten thousandths of a dollar. One twentieth of a penny.

Unnnecesary? possibily. expensive? no.

If you have anything further to provide, either directly showing motive of the conspiracy you so obviously believe or of any of the actual provable things you have claimed, I'm still game.

or not, I am your audience.

Convince me.

Position: fluoridation is
1. unconst,
2. ineffective,
3. puts sensitives at risk,
4. done without a full disclosure to public, and
5. unnecessary expense.

[Parker2112]

The material you have provided so far has failed to rise to any modi standard of proof.

1) If floridation is really uncons utional,

what cons utional principle (remember to cite the specific cons utional section that applies and how it is generally applied under commonly accepted jurisprudence) is violated?

2) You have said you have provided proof that flouride in water is ineffective,

but I can readily cite studies showing that flouride, including some studies you yourself have put forth, shows it is. The fact that other countries without flouridated water experience reductions in cavities does NOT provide a sufficient level of proof that flouridating water is ineffective, merely that there is the potential of reducing cavities other than flouridating water.

3) Flouridation of water puts senstives at risk?

So? Is this risk mitagated by education and making sure that health professionals understand this risk and can help such people take steps to reduce this risk?

4) Is done without full disclosure to the public.

It would seem to me that showing disclosure in a website, and indeed holding actual public votes on the issue debunks this fairly well.

5) Unnecessary expense.

Something of a value judgement again. SAWS charges 9 cents a gallon for water, and .5% of that is the cost of flouridation.
That comes out to $ 0.00045 per gallon of water, to effectively reduce an entire population's tendency to expensive dental treatment. Four and a half ten thousandths of a dollar. One twentieth of a penny.

Unnnecesary? possibily. expensive? no.

If you have anything further to provide, either directly showing motive of the conspiracy you so obviously believe or of any of the actual provable things you have claimed, I'm still game.

or not, I am your audience.

Convince me.

Next time I want my stuff remixed, I'll let you know DJ RG. Dont hold your breath.

[Winehole23]

at Parker calling direct quotations and repe ion of his own bullet points a remix.

[Parker2112]

lol at Parker calling direct quotations and repe ion of his own bullet point a remix.

Chopping and Screwing a bit yourself WH? The above post isnt what I was referring to. post 659. But Im about 99% sure you already knew that.

[Winehole23]

What did I misrepresent, counselor? Please be specific, if you can.

[Parker2112]

The above post isnt what I was referring to. post 659. But Im about 99% sure you already knew that.

[Winehole23]

You refuse to be specific. How unsurprising.

[RandomGuy]

Next time I want my stuff remixed, I'll let you know DJ RG. Dont hold your breath.

So what you are saying is that you don't have any proof to support your direct assertions?

Fill me on on the "constiutionality" issue at least.

[RandomGuy]

You see, Blake came in a skeptic just like you. But he refrained from twisting words, twisting opponents views, dropping unfavorable facts, burying lies within half-page posts, etc.

You need to take a ing lesson. You fed into the system, and we got out. When it was just me and chump we had a frank discussion, that was open and the one goal was discussing the topic truthfully.

The minute you dropped in with the quote from above, things swayed due to your complete mischaracterization of my position, your demonization of any opposition, and most important your lack of honesty. Read above.

You need to think twice next time you want to sway the conversation with dishonesty. That can blow up in your face.

And if you want to keep going, I will start pulling your bull posts apart and show you for the dishonest bum you are.

If you want to play the game dirty, dont get mad when you get the ing hose in the face.

Meh.

I readily admit I am wrong, and I have been in a couple of places here.

You have yet to admit to your own ignorance when it comes to your repeated claims of NaF as a flouridating agent in water.

Your own research that you yourself posted noted that the silicate version of flouride is what is being primarily used.

When it comes to your civil conversation with Chump, he started asking you questions that you refused to answer, then you got all snotty, like some cheese-eating high school smart ass who gets huffy when his teacher actually has the nuts to ask him a question based on the assigned reading.

You then spent several pages strutting about saying "look at me, I won" in an even more juvenile display of one-upmanship.

Bottom line is that you have repeated refused to answer basic questions and provide proof when repeatedly asked.

I don't mind fully giving as good as I get, and you have done little to merit my respect.

[RandomGuy]

majority of the hexafluorosilicic acid is converted to aluminium fluoride and cryolite.[4] These materials are central to the conversion of aluminium ore into aluminium metal.

Interesting.

One of Parker's main claims is that the big bad companies use the water supply to dispose of H2SiF6, because they don't want to worry about disposing of this chemical.

The above quote though, seems to indicate that the "majority" of this chemical is actually used to make aluminum, and not actually disposed of.

Not sure where the claims that the aluminum industry would want to dispose of the chemical feedstock it needs to make aluminum in the first place comes from. Probably a missing piece of the chemical puzzle here. Seems like putting it into water means that there is more compe ion for one of the base materials they use in their manufacturing process.

[RandomGuy]

the additive [NaF] is a carcinogen (which you know as well as I there is no way to test the effects).

The effects would be pretty easy to test.

One would simply have to start culling cancer data from cities and areas before and after flourinated water was introduced.

I find it amazing that so few attempts have been made in that area, despite the large numbers of people who are interested in this, and believe that flouride in the water is so bad.

I searched and was not able to really come up with much at all, beyond two rather flawed, but very oft-cited studies.

[CosmicCowboy]

The effects would be pretty easy to test.

One would simply have to start culling cancer data from cities and areas before and after flourinated water was introduced.

It's really NOT that easy. You simply can't isolate that as the only possible causative factor during the same time frame. Attempting to do so is flawed logic.

[RandomGuy]

the additive [NaF] is a carcinogen (which you know as well as I there is no way to test the effects).

The effects would be pretty easy to test.

One would simply have to start culling cancer data from cities and areas before and after flourinated water was introduced.

I find it amazing that so few attempts have been made in that area, despite the large numbers of people who are interested in this, and believe that flouride in the water is so bad.

I searched and was not able to really come up with much at all, beyond two rather flawed, but very oft-cited studies that have NEVER been subjected to peer-review that I know of.

This, weighed against rather solid scientific studies that show the benefits of flouride in terms of dental health, and there isn't much of a case.

Further, the lack of scientific data such as this poses a huge problem to the "the chemical producers are trying to keep from getting sued" schtick.

If there isn't any science to support potential litigation, then how are we to believe that the companies are trying to avoid lawsuits?

What lawsuits?

If any money-grubbing tort lawyer worth his NaF smelled even the vaguest HINT that his would be profitable, why has it not been done?

[RandomGuy]

It's really NOT that easy. You simply can't isolate that as the only possible causative factor during the same time frame. Attempting to do so is flawed logic.

You can actually start isolating and controlling for potential other causes.

That is what scientists do all the time. You gather data, then apply as rigorous a set of reasonable questions at that data to slowly weed out any confounding factors, until you have either proved or disproved your null hypothesis.

Peer-reviewed science, in this regard, functions to further test conclusions by applying more sets of eyes to data to see if it really supports a conclusion.

That is the height of logic.

Not really sure what you mean here.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/00-33-2/332-74.pdf

Interesting bit here:

The ability of fluoride to enter the brain is enhanced by its ability to form a lipid-soluble complex with aluminium. Aluminofluoride complexes are able to stimulate guanine nucleotide binding proteins (G proteins) and can produce pharmacological and toxicological effects in animal and human cells, tissues and organs

One of the things they are currently looking into regarding Alzheimers is exposure to aluminum. I would wonder, therefore, if there is some link.

The two fairly decent studies listed as part of this:
http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/629FINAL.htm

Are two studies cited as 11 and 12:

11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)

12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995).

With the above quoted section coming from the latter.

Personally though, I am generally dubious of Chinese-produced research. They have some serious problems with scientific research (have to find the Economist issue on that)

That said, here is a seemingly decent scientific website:
International Society for Fluoride Research Inc
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/

Seems like, if someone *cough* *cough* were broadly interested in actual science, this would be a good place to start to make a case. Although my attempts to find a bit more solid stuff was not successful.

[Winehole23]

See why I left this topic? He just doesn't get it, does he.

WELL, YOU CAME BACK.

[Wild Cobra]

WELL, YOU CAME BACK.

Just for a wise ass remark.

[Parker2112]

Just for a wise ass remark.

I absolutely get it. When you piss enough folks off with elaborate end-zone dances, they put a Buddy Ryan style target on you.