Fluoride in tap water

Toothsmith

Do you understand anything about what you've posted?

Anyone can cut and paste. All these effects are for fluoride concentrations way above theraputic dose.

You might just as well be cutting and pasting articles about aspirin overdose.

melancholly

Toothsmith wrote: »

You might just as well be cutting and pasting articles about aspirin overdose.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=55406


you should make your overdose drug of choice ibuprofen, according to that! (and i 100% believe it as it is a press release on behalf of nurofen!)

Ben84

BernardM wrote: »

FACTS ABOUT FLUORIDE
- Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry and it’s also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972.

It doesn't matter where it comes from. Phrases like waste product are emotive and nothing more. Another waste product of the aluminium industry is pure oxygen. While we're on the topic of oxygen, that's a waste product of plants photosynthesising.

As for the poisons act, I looked it up and found only one reference to fluoride, and not in the form this article suggests. It mentions Barium Silicofluoride, which is not at all related to the fluoride compounds we're talking about. For a start it has a totally different structure and contains other elements. Barium Silicofluoride is a completely unrelated compound sold as a pesticide. It simply has a fluorine atom in its structure.

BernardM wrote: »

- Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

This is all wrong and makes no sense in this context. Prozac and Sarin, like all compounds, have specific molecular structures that give them their form and function. The basic atoms they're made from such as oxygen, hydrogen, phosphate or fluorine do not make them what they are.

They have made a completely erroneous assumption and taken everyone reading it who doesn't know better with them.

However, even if we continue down this wrong path, using the quoted structure of Sarin it seems it contains phosphate too. This is a harmless and abundant mineral on earth which is used extensively in all life forms for various processes like building cell membranes, photosynthesis and the transfer of energy from breaking down food. You would die without phosphate. Every living thing on earth would die without phosphate, but this article is attempting to suggest that anything found in Sarin is poison, and that would include phosphate.

I could discuss the abundant errors in this article for a very long time, but these two examples are good ones to highlight.

Unfortunately the writer of this article appears to either have no grasp of basic science, or is trying to deceive readers.

BernardM

What are your views on the articles on post 223, Ben 84.

BernardM

Toothsmith wrote: »

Interesting advert on the left of that page for a 'ladybug' which you can stick on your mobile phone to 'reduce the radiation'.

Obviously a publication that's well into it's science, and not looking to whip up scare stories then!!!

What are your views on the articles written here, not the advertisements or is the information just so well written and flawless for you to argue with Toothsmith.

Toothsmith

The articles have to be considered in the context of the publication which prints them.

Proper scientific journals have reference panels who consider the quality of the science and reasearch before they approve an article for publication.

Those are just glossy mags that publish what their readers want to read so that the advertisers know the demographic of the people they will be advertising to.

Anyone can put any form of words together to form a well written article. I've seen some very well written articles predicting the end of the world - problem was, it all should have happened about 6 years ago.

Toothsmith

BernardM wrote: »

What are your views on the articles on post 223, Ben 84.

Standard anti-fluoride deception.

I'd believe the ladybug protected me from my mobile phone's 'radiation' before I took that stuff seriously. It's just an exercise in creative fiction.


EDIT - Sorry, didn't notice at first that you were asking Ben.

coldstreamalways

If I may be so bold, I trained in Birmingham-which is Fluoridated- and joined an NHS practice in a non-fluoridated area. The levels of decay I have seen in children from lower socioeconomic groups is tantamount to child abuse.

We know that diet is responsible for decay, and that Fluoride in toothpaste has a small effect on childrens teeth (including fluorosis if they swallow the stuff) but I cannot believe the "anti F-" brigade honestly believe that parents who can barely take their children to school every day will suddenly start feeding their children properly.

I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and no, I do not agree with "mass madication" in principle, however, you really have to see these four and five year olds who present with acute abscesses, hugely swollen faces and temperatures nearing 40 degrees C to realise what we are doing by not Fluoridating the water.
I saw very little childhood decay in Birmingham despite working in outreach community clinics in some very poor areas with low english speaking levels. I saw even less Fluorosis.

Toothsmith

Ben84 wrote: »

It doesn't matter where it comes from. Phrases like waste product are emotive and nothing more.


....... or is trying to deceive readers.

Thanks for all that Ben84.

The problem with people like the Anti-fluoride groups isthat they work like the Nazi propaganda machines (How's that for nice emotive language use?).

As you can see with the posts above, they just flood out soooo much 'information' that it's impossible to go through it item by item and point out the inaccuracies/lies/misinformation.

There is no way you can check out every single reference. It's often hard to trace them back to any original source.

But then again, it's like the Nazi rule of propaganda :- if you tell a lie often enough, people come to accept it as the truth.

Volcano

BernardM wrote: »

What are your views on the articles on post 223, Ben 84.

The oxymoronic heading: "The Science of Alternative Medicine" should have been a clue for you Bernard.

"The claims made by alternative medicine practitioners are generally not accepted by the medical community because evidence-based assessment is not available for the safety and efficacy of many of these practices."

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