kpmarine
Well-Known Member
It's not about making life longer, more about quality improvement. Life without dysentery from the town well is something I enjoy, personally.
John Birch Society
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Useful, not necessarily beneficial.
But wait, UB already said that it was Chlorine and Flouride in the water that were the main reasons we live longer. You don't believe that?
Tell me, how do you feel about Cleft lips and AIDS in Africa?
Tell me how Chlorine improves my life when it is not present in the water I drink?
ben·e·fi·cial
   [ben-uh-fish-uhl] Show IPA
adjective 1. conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful: the beneficial effect of sunshine.
2. Law . a. helpful in the meeting of needs: a beneficial association.
b. involving the personal enjoyment of proceeds: a beneficial owner.
[h=2]use·ful[/h]   [yoos-fuhl] Show IPA
adjective 1. being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society.
2. of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying common needs: the useful arts; useful work.
Not necessarily beneficial to a Iditarod runner, but definitely beneficial to me starting my car when it gets to -120 below zero.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
If you can intentionally misread someone's intent, I thought it was fair to do the same to you is all.
Whose intent did I misread?
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
It doesn't improve your life merely by it's presence, Chlorine keeps nastiness from developing in the potable water system. If you have a more cost-effective, equally safe method; I'm all ears. They both do not directly make you live longer. However, potable water that can be accessed easily is required for us to live. So not risking being exposed to water borne pathogens every day would be nice. I don't think the fluoride is bad, I haven't exactly seen a rash of fluoride poisonings on the news in my lifetime. It's supposed to help prevent cavities, and it is in way too low of a concentration in drinking water to be dangerous.
Cleft lips and aids in africa have what to do with anything?
Chlorine improves my life merely by its presence? In what way?
You know, a new study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association confirming fluoride as a toxic substance that actually destroys teeth, particularly those of developing young children and babies.
You can use silver in the water instead of Chlorine. Europe does it. They used Silver for thousands of years to purify water.
If it isn't on the local news it isn't dangerous?
Ask Londonfog
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Please
Could you link the actual study to a ADA website
I know they do discuss Flourosis in children
But that is in regions where Flouride occurs naturally.
So could you please link to a ADA website so we could see the actual study
http://jada.ada.org/content/141/10/1190.abstract
Note where they talk about it being caused by "adding water".
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Not quite as scary as you portray it
Objectives. The authors describe associations between dental fluorosis and fluoride intakes, with an emphasis on intake from fluoride in infant formula.
Methods. The authors administered periodic questionnaires to parents to assess children’s early fluoride intake sources from beverages, selected foods, dentifrice and supplements. They later assessed relationships between fluorosis of the permanent maxillary incisors and fluoride intake from beverages and other sources, both for individual time points and cumulatively using area-under-the-curve (AUC) estimates. The authors determined effects associated with fluoride in reconstituted powdered infant formulas, along with risks associated with intake of fluoride from dentifrice and other sources.
Results. Considering only fluoride intake from ages 3 to 9 months, the authors found that participants with fluorosis (97 percent of which was mild) had significantly greater cumulative fluoride intake (AUC) from reconstituted powdered infant formula and other beverages with added water than did those without fluorosis. Considering only intake from ages 16 to 36 months, participants with fluorosis had significantly higher fluoride intake from water by itself and dentifrice than did those without fluorosis. In a model combining both the 3- to 9-months and 16- to 36-months age groups, the significant variables were fluoride intake from reconstituted powder concentrate formula (by participants at ages 3–9 months), other beverages with added water (also by participants at ages 3–9 months) and dentifrice (by participants at ages 16–36 months).
Conclusions. Greater fluoride intakes from reconstituted powdered formulas (when participants were aged 3–9 months) and other water-added beverages (when participants were aged 3–9 months) increased fluorosis risk, as did higher dentifrice intake by participants when aged 16 to 36 months.
Clinical Implications. Results suggest that prevalence of mild dental fluorosis could be reduced by avoiding ingestion of large quantities of fluoride from reconstituted powdered concentrate infant formula and fluoridated dentifrice.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Wheel balance weights?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Accepted: sodium fluoride and hydrofluoric acid are toxic materials and at even fairly low concentrations can cause harm, or kill
Accepted: fluorine compounds can be absorbed through the skin
Accepted: fluorine compounds are added to drinking water for the purpose of reducing tooth decay and dental carries (cavities)
Accepted: fluorine compounds are also added to infant formulas, toothpastes mouthwashes, and numerous other products and some of these do NOT advertise their fluorine levels
Accepted: use of these products, and water for drinking and bathing are not metered or monitored by a physician.
Conclusion: either the daily usage of water for drinking and bathing, toothpastes mouthwashes and infant formulas should be monitored by a physician, to ensure the individual is not exposed to toxic levels of fluorine or they should be delivered like every other drug, by prescription or by the choice of the end user.
this is not crazy commie mind control talk this is law! administering a medication to an individual without their knowledge or consent, and without a medical license is a felony!
if i slipped you an aspirin without telling you i would be in prison as a poisoner. every day you are exposed to an unknown quantity of fluorine by various and sundry companies and government bureaucrats. do you think that the good people at the Colgate company are the people who should be deciding whether your daily drinking and bathing habits are safe for use with their products?
do you believe that your water quality bureaucrats have sufficient knowledge of medicine and drug interactions to make the smart call for every person's medical needs?
fluorine is dispensed to everybody regardless of need, medical condition, other medications, consent, or evaluation of their individual daily dosage.
why does a dude (or baby) with NO TEETH need fluoride? he dont. therefore the use of these powerful and toxic chemicals in our water should be prohibited.
Accepted: fluorine compounds can be absorbed through the skin
Accepted: fluorine compounds are added to drinking water for the purpose of reducing tooth decay and dental carries (cavities)
Accepted: fluorine compounds are also added to infant formulas, toothpastes mouthwashes, and numerous other products and some of these do NOT advertise their fluorine levels
Accepted: use of these products, and water for drinking and bathing are not metered or monitored by a physician.
Conclusion: either the daily usage of water for drinking and bathing, toothpastes mouthwashes and infant formulas should be monitored by a physician, to ensure the individual is not exposed to toxic levels of fluorine or they should be delivered like every other drug, by prescription or by the choice of the end user.
this is not crazy commie mind control talk this is law! administering a medication to an individual without their knowledge or consent, and without a medical license is a felony!
if i slipped you an aspirin without telling you i would be in prison as a poisoner. every day you are exposed to an unknown quantity of fluorine by various and sundry companies and government bureaucrats. do you think that the good people at the Colgate company are the people who should be deciding whether your daily drinking and bathing habits are safe for use with their products?
do you believe that your water quality bureaucrats have sufficient knowledge of medicine and drug interactions to make the smart call for every person's medical needs?
fluorine is dispensed to everybody regardless of need, medical condition, other medications, consent, or evaluation of their individual daily dosage.
why does a dude (or baby) with NO TEETH need fluoride? he dont. therefore the use of these powerful and toxic chemicals in our water should be prohibited.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
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 (5).
In one of the studies reviewed for the PHS report, scientists at NCI 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 (6).
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 (6). A 1999 report by the CDC supported these findings. The CDC 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). Subsequent interview studies of patients with osteosarcoma and their parents produced conflicting results, but with none showing clear evidence of a causal relationship between fluoride intake and risk of this tumor.
Recently, researchers examined the possible relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma in a new way: they measured fluoride concentration in samples of normal bone that were adjacent to a person’s tumor. Because fluoride naturally accumulates in bone, this method provides a more accurate measure of cumulative fluoride exposure than relying on the memory of study participants or municipal water treatment records. The analysis showed no difference in bone fluoride levels between people with osteosarcoma and people in a control group who had other malignant bone tumors (7).
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water
In one of the studies reviewed for the PHS report, scientists at NCI 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 (6).
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 (6). A 1999 report by the CDC supported these findings. The CDC 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). Subsequent interview studies of patients with osteosarcoma and their parents produced conflicting results, but with none showing clear evidence of a causal relationship between fluoride intake and risk of this tumor.
Recently, researchers examined the possible relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma in a new way: they measured fluoride concentration in samples of normal bone that were adjacent to a person’s tumor. Because fluoride naturally accumulates in bone, this method provides a more accurate measure of cumulative fluoride exposure than relying on the memory of study participants or municipal water treatment records. The analysis showed no difference in bone fluoride levels between people with osteosarcoma and people in a control group who had other malignant bone tumors (7).
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Liberal logic. If all the cows farted at once the earth explodes, but fluoride is Ambrosia!
Slapjacks !
Easy there Mr.
He lives(sponges) off of his wealthy inlaws for now. The welfare program is his fallback for when the inlaws wise up.
Who said it causes cancer? No one! Your point has no bearing on this matter at all.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
I just explained to you, in the quote you last replied to, how it improves your life. Keeping pathogens from thriving in our drinking water. We could use silver I suppose, can you show me that it's cheaper and just as safe as chlorine? Europe uses chlorine like everyone else, I don't know who told you that crap. I cannot find any reference to any silver purification occuring countrywide in any European nation.
As far a fluoride goes, I read your article. It in no way treats it as an issue with water. The water has a safe, regulated level. It's the formula companies puting it in there without disclosing the facts. Or the mothers who cannot/do not breast feed their children. As that is the only place they mention that issue persisting. Otherwise, it arguably does good things for the rest of the population that has it's adult teeth.