I would like point out to you that you seem to be attempting to launch a debate, not answer a question. Try to remember what forum you are in. Do you have anything that might answer the OP’s question?
Duke of York, as a person with little trust in doctors, medical products manufacturers, and the FDA, I have to point out your comments are ill-founded, irresponsible, and unconvincing.
No
A) Cite?
B) Most are from infections or medical procedures, not dietary supplements or medical products
Very few after decades of use, these days
No, they are not, but no, you are not.
You’re wrong. The only real definition of “poison” is “too much”. Sometimes too much is a whale liver, sometimes it’s a picogram. Vitamins A, D, & E can be fatal.
Dietary supplements are not drugs, despite the FDA’s recent actions.
No. The comment shows that your are not only ill-informed, but have not attempted the most basic research.
Well, before fat-soluble compounds, at least.
The thing is, you really seem to **not **know some very well know facts. I fear that “critiques” such as yours only serve to discredit sensible well-founded evaluations of our medical and medical products industries.
I can see at least a dozen posts that do not answer the OP’s question, including yours. So are you only picking on posters who disagree with you?
Thank you for your stern rebuke. How crass of me to make comments on the forum unless I had fully researched them first. You really put me in my place. I’m going to stand in the naughty corner for the next 30 minutes. Although I disagree with some of your comments, I just can’t be bothered to respond to them. I’m not the type to get my knickers in a knot over forum comments, as I’m sure you’re not. But I am amazed you think my comments only serve to discredit sensible well-founded evaluations of our medical and medical products industries. I didn’t know I had the power.
Anyway, have a nice day.
It was also available over-the-counter.
You’re welcome.
You deserved it.
Please be so kind as to discuss this elsewhere if you are so inclined
Moderator Note
Duke of York, General Questions is for the purpose of obtaining factual information. Your posts so far have only been opinions and assertions, so that it is reasonable for other posters to ask you to back them up. If you’re not going to do this, there is no reason for you to continue to post in this thread. If you merely want to state opinions about fluoridation, then open another thread in IMHO or the Pit.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Yes, poison. There’s more than enough evidence that suggests so that its addition to drinking water should be considered suspect at best and straight up racket at worst. Go look into where the fluoride they put into water supplies comes from. Hint: it’s industrial waste that would otherwise cost the producers to dispose of.
So, why, in your view, is the American Dental Association apparently forging data that disputes these claims?
Even if that is accurate on its face, is that fact supposed to be some kind of indictment, all by itself?
AIUI, a very similar assertion could once have been made about aspirin.
Milk is industrial waste if you’re talking about the beef industry. Ditto for lard, and the hide they use to make leather. Doesn’t necessarily mean you will never touch the stuff.
Did you know that Water is toxic in high enough doses? I’m not being a smartass and talking about drowning (that’s actually just suffocation, leading to a fatal oxygen deficiency). Look up a condition called Overhydration or Water Intoxication. If you have too much water in your system, it throws your body chemistry out of wack and causes all sorts of problems.
It’s particularly nasty because a lot of the observable symptoms are the same as for severe dehydration or heat stroke.
It is an interesting fine line here. At what point do we consider that the tooth enamel is “just fine” and what so we consider the stronger fluoride based enamel?
So to stretch the argument a bit:
Seawater has about the same fluoride concentration as recommended for drinking water to reduce tooth decay. River waters are about half that, which puts them still way above the concentration of unflouridated drinking water. My suggestion is that drinking water without fluoride is an artefact of modern civilisation, and the vast majority of animals on the planet evolved in the presensce of fluoride in their diet, and they grow hard decay resistant teeth as a result. Modern humans are an aberration, and that civilised man drinks and eats from sources that are not what he evolved with, and many human water sources are deficient in fluoride, in a manner that is unusual in nature. That teeth can be grown with a reasonably hard enamel that whilst softer than a fluoride based one, is a matter of having evolved a backup capability for when there isn’t enough fluoride around to grow the best form of enamel.
It isn’t fluorine in the water that is unnatural, rather it is the lack of it.
Exactly…which, in turn, destroys our Purity of Essence!
Fluoride levels in water vary greatly. Where I live it is about 0.3 PPM naturally other parts of the state it is over 3PPM. Optimal is about 1PPM. You are correct in that there are few places with no fluoride in the water but most places it is less then optimal. My point about enamel being fine without enamel is that it isn’t required to make enamel, yes it is harder then without it but it functions fine without it especially if one doesn’t consume modern western society ammounts of sugar. I’m a believer water fluoridation, sorry if I didn’t give that impression.
Sorry, really my fault, I was just taking the notion and running with it to see how far it got me. It is interesting that there are two forms of enamel.
But it would be interesting to work the numbers, and see just how much fluoride is a “natural” rather than an artificial component of water across the world.
My thinking has been that modern dams and other water catchment systems do not provide enough time for rainwater to leach the fluoride, and are thus artificially low. So the entire fluoridation argument can be stood on its head - and be cast as adding what was missing, not adding something new.
Women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women but I do deny them my essence.
There is no single “natural” level of fluoride in water sources. It is highly variable and depends on the nature of the source (river, reservoir, artesian, borehole), the local geology, the contact time between the water falling as rain and leaving the water source, etc. I work in the laboratory of a UK water company. The “natural” fluoride concentrations in the area covered vary between less than the limit of detection to over 4 mg/l. Where the levels exceed 1.5 mg/l, the water is blended with a low-fluoride source to bring the concentration down to below this level.
Yeah, that is pretty much what I thought. I think Britain is an interesting study as it seems to encompass just about every source of water imaginable. My thinking was to contrast the range of levels seen in more “natural” sources with sources that are clearly artificially managed.
Is your life totally paralysed by your mistrust of everything anyone who has any knowledge about anything ever says? Logically, it should be given that nobody is ever always right.
It’s a method that worked with Iocane powder.