Not trying to get into the war on diets but they didn't eat large amounts of processed grains and other things that go with a society that lives in a fixed position. When humans switched from hunter gathers to farming and started making food made from grains a staple is the where they start finding increased levels of tooth decay. As I understand it this creates a different ph and then sort of bacterial ecosystem in your mouth that isn't great for your teeth.


But its potentially not perfectly good drinking water. Its a very large stagnant pool of water that is a prime area from which to spread disease. We have our water governing bodies filter it and then treat it with other chemicals (most likely industrial waster too, as that would be the cheapest and most effective way to produce it. Doesn't mean it isn't useful) to make sure that we don't have spread whatever bacteria or disease related organism to the general public.

Too assess the risk/benefit I'd suggest reading documents such as the one in link below by NSW health and if you can find it the Australian Standards for adding fluoride to water.

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/water/Documents/fluoridation-questions-and-answers-nsw.pdf

Sounds ridiculous. If you're not brushing your teeth I doubt fluoridated water is going to be a miracle cure for dental health. I would be interested to know how beneficial it actually is.

Numerous countries banning the practice, the public having no idea of the costs or operation, the clergy of science conflicted on the issue and the potential for disaster pumping chemicals that some are calling "neurotoxins" into a perfectly good water supply.

It does not seem unreasonable to have concerns and questions regarding the practice but to do so you are bombarded with "conspiracy theorist", "nut job" ad hominems.

Because people don't brush their f*cking teeth anymore.

To be fair, I know that Coca Cola has funded studies to show that sugary drinks have nothing to do with weight gain or obesity (I'm pretty sure that's right, I can't remember it off the top of my head), and I wouldn't be surprised if back in the day cigarette companies did the same thing to show that they don't cause lung cancer.
However, people do take these studies with more than a grain of salt, because that is bad science. The bias is there from the beginning and so will influence the outcome and can skew the results. And funnily enough, batfink has fallen for that bias in the fluoride issue. The article in the OP was pushing an agenda and framed the actual results in a misleading way. The Lancet took their data from a meta-analysis (though I still can't figure out where they got the 7 point IQ drop that they quoted...??), and the meta-analysis was a summary of several studies done, most of them coming from China.

The real question is how do you blame this on the Jews?

Lol, the Lancet lost all prestige when it claimed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq left over a million dead based on a survey done by stringers. Rwanda had a million dead, the difference in the scale of death was visible to anyone but the Lancet chose to publish a lie for a political agenda. It is garbage.

Ok experts, explain to us "fools" the benefits versus the risk (that science has proven) involved with adding an industrial by-product to perfectly good drinking water. What if the worst should happen and dangerous levels were to go through unchecked? Is it a necessary risk for the so called benefits?

Please no strawmen about anti vaccers etc or corporations needing profits fluoridating our water to make new drugs.

That's a long bow to draw. With that reasoning we could say automotive emissions and smog is beneficial to our health and longevity of life.

more loopiness from the anti-science crowd

This sort of thing (blaming corporations because they're big and profitable) is terribly damaging to the world. People wilfully ignore some of the great things these corporations do simply because they 'don't trust' a company that rakes it in.

What is completely retarded is that the only way new drugs are made is from these profits.

I do not understand some people and their ignorant paranoia.

Ahhh yes, when all else fails blame the corporations!

So easy to just dismiss the weight of scientific evidence without providing any ACTUAL EVIDENCE of SPECIFIC INSTANCES of "corporate dodginess" affecting health studies. The mere involvement of 'big pharma' is enough to just wave away the mountains of evidence.

I have no problem with questioning the motives of any profit-seeking company, however there needs to be actual evidence of a conspiracy to hide adverse findings before you can dismiss the scientific consensus.

Go on - are you going to argue vaccines cause autism? I'm waiting for it!

Edited by AzzaMarch: 13/11/2015 02:07:23 PM

Edited by AzzaMarch: 13/11/2015 02:08:49 PM

This.

There are 'dangerous' chemicals in everything. This is just more paranoia from idiots who fear what they don't understand.

It's as bad as anti-vaxxers.

So what? You aren't addressing the point which is that ANY chemical can be toxic depending on the dosage.

What harm are you alleging the fluoride in the water supply creates?

Why is life expectancy longer than it has ever been?

Why isn't there any broadbased evidence at a population level to show that fluoride is correlated with health problems?

The simple answer is that, at the dosages that exist in the public water supply, it simply is not unhealthy.

http://fluoridealert.org/faq/

well lots of foods contain forms of fluoride & fluorite.

no all perfectly healthy and not in need of added fluoride in their water......

why not let the people decide and just use the toothpaste as a deterrent????

as opposed to survey companies who are engaged by companies who have something to gain specifically targetting the correct demographic to achieve the desired result.....that's good science right?


as far as variable go, what about the variables in the people who are being forced feed this shit.......do you even know how the fluoride was introduced and where it came from?????? i seriously doubt it

Let's not forget chemtrails.

Dosage matters when determining whether a chemical is "toxic".

Leafy vegetables contain arsenic - that doesn't make them bad for you.

conspiracy theories :oops:

:oops:

Died before they were 30.

sorry it's the truth, is that not statistically science??

and what did the aboriginals of each nation do before fluoride and chlorine??

ur well on ur way to preppa status

Edited by Socawho: 12/11/2015 11:16:02 AM

Also from the meta-anaylsis:



Possible lead exposure in drinking water, and concentrations of fluoride far greater than is allowed in the US.

From the meta-analysis:



Unless my statistical knowledge is way off, this seems to indicate that the drop in IQ score is less than a point. While it may be statistically significant, it's not exactly huge.

well my family do not have access to fluoride or chlorine in our water supply as we live off water collected from our roof and stored in underground concrete water tanks, no filtering other than a sand box trap on the input water pipe, and all my kids have great teeth are healthy and we all have lovely soft hair from water........ less is more

Didn't The Lancet also publish Andrew Wakefield's vaccine linked to autism study?

That was the original intention yes.

-PB