Note to others: That rant was updated from 1964 merely by the addition of “WIFI.” 
Well, I mentioned chemtrails earlier too…don’t forget that. I try and keep in step with the changing flow and shift of the crazy…
-XT
As we all should! But chemtrails are almost modern. The kids probably haven’t heard all the Classic CTs.
Actually, my father grew up in Texas with well water that was naturally fluoridated. His teeth were stained brown, since their well had a higher concentration of fluoride than is recommended.
My family has good, strong teeth.
Some of them might not know about chemtrails, as that one seems to have moved on afaict. Still, the communist thing was a nice touch I thought…sort of gave it that well rounded feel. And I didn’t think anyone would remember about the mining waste thingy…that was a real golden oldie.
-XT
Uh … wow! :o :smack:
I thought I was being funny, but definitely didn’t want to be troublesome. I suppose I was “whooshing” although I really am unfamiliar with the … er … lingo.
I do not think I said anything about “significant quantities”. I believe that the claim that miniscule amounts of fluoride ion (F-) can be viewed as forming miniscule amounts of “hydrofluoric acid” is essentially correct. But of course that “hazardous” acid, whether miniscule or not, will be exactly neutralized by the “hazardous” lye, another reason I thought my whole post was hilarious.
Sorry. (But it really is surprising you couldn’t deduce the humourous intent, especially with the Strangelove reference.)
In my earliest years we drank well water. About the time I started to school in 1949, unfloridated city water became available. Then sometime in the late fifties, I think, floride was added to the water.
I remember the biggest objection that was talked about at the time and that was the question of whether or not this was a Communist plot. We had just come through a period when people had been taught not to trust anyone and to be suspicious of the everything. The Communists in our country were plotting to overthrow our government by any means possible. (sigh)
By the time floride was added to our water it was too late for me. Even though I had taken good care of my teeth, on one trip to the dentist I learned that I had fifteen cavities. I think I must hold the record. Having them filled was absolute hell. Eventually I lost teeth, had root canals done, crowns made for molars and eventually had cupper and lower teeth capped for most of the front.
When floride was introduced, the number of cavities in areas that had floride dropped like a lead weight. Crest toothpaste was marketed as the floride toothpaste and sales really took off. It has made all of the difference in the world. (But l do want to change a lot of things in our government.)
For the last fifty years we have laughed that we ever thought that the Communists were trying to get us by putting floride in our water.
That iodine in the salt is there to keep people from having goiters. In the USA, you can still purchase uniodized salt, but I won’t buy it.
Do be careful when you put it on your poisonous mashed potatoes. Those potatoes have arsenic in them you know.
As for those Communists – I remember listening to a radio talk show on the way home from teaching school one day. Some woman was concerned about how if we’re not careful, soon Communists would be teaching in our schools! I had just left a Communist friend working late grading papers. She was an excellent teacher. About the most “Communistic” thing that she did at school was to wear red on May 1st.
Thanks a lot Czar, Now I have to change my shirt…
I’ll just conclude I am one of the lucky kids that grew up on Fluoridated water and didn’t end up wiith cavities or like her!
That’s not because of paranoid freaks, though, it’s because there are a some uses for salt that require it to not have iodine in it. The one that comes first to my mind is the rinse mix in neti pots, but there are a few other instances.
But certainly the salt in food should have iodine in it, because goiters can be prevented and thyroid disease is not fun.
A “whoosh” is the noise that a joke makes when it flies over someone’s head. 
(In this case, mine, apparently.) :smack:
No, but that was implied by your hyperbolic (and evidently satirical) remarks regarding tendency of the HF produced being able to “dissolve glass” and “cause permanent blindness if introduced to the eye” along with stating that the “‘waste product’ associated with dissolving this poison in water is NaOH, that’s the same corrosive substance used in drain cleaner.” As I indicated, the quantities produced are actually minuscule, and the quantity of hydroxide produced is an order of magnitude smaller than the hydroxide already present in neutral water.
I agree.
Not exactly. The HF and hydroxide concentrations I calculated are equilibrium concentrations. The equilibrium reaction I showed above is constantly going back and forth, so the fluoride ion is constantly undergoing hydrolysis with the water to produce HF and hydroxide, and the HF is constantly reacting with the hydroxide to produce fluoride and water.
Well, I did notice that after the fact, which is why I wondered if I were being whooshed, which is the act of completely missing a joke that goes over someone’s head. :smack:
I wonder how many of these people who are so very concerned about fluoride in their drinking water spend long amounts of time exposing themselves and their children to car exhaust. I wonder what cleaning products they use in their house. I wonder about the dyes in their clothes, and the chemicals they use to wash their clothes. I wonder about what they use to kill ants and dandelions in their yards every summer. In other words, reactionary people, calm the hell down. We’re exposed to chemicals every day.
My parents grew up with unfluoridated water, and they have terrible teeth.
My sister and I grew up with fluoridated water, and we have OK but not great teeth.
I’ll take some damage to my precious bodily fluids or exposure to “toxins” in exchange for better teeth.
Here is a link to a site summarizing some of the more recent research on the issue. The citations, the majority peer-reviewed, published studies/articles, are easily available for further scrutiny.
And please note, I referred to INGESTING fluoride, as opposed to topical application, in my initial post, when discussing the perceived benefits and age of exposure.
Very relevent since the topic at hand is fluoridation of drinking water, not topical application via dental products.
So even if one is of the view that individuals/parents should NOT have the right to control intake/dosage in light of the assumed benefits to dental health (a philosophy I reject) the evidence indicates that the forced ingestion of fluoride is a rather ineffective method of delivery. Perhaps forced topical applications instead? :rolleyes:
From the above link:
"According to a 1999 report issued by the CDC, fluoride’s actions “primarily are topical for both adults and children.” CDC repeated this position again in 2001, stating: “fluoride’s predominant effect is posteruptive and topical.”
One more thing…I have an interesting little book on my shelves entitled "Our Daily Poison; The effects of DDT, Fluorides, Hormones, and Other Chemicals on Modern Man (published 1955) (yes, I am a bibliophile…some women blow their money on clothes or cosmetics…I buy books :o)
It contains 2 chapters detailing (in transcript form) the House Investigating Committee hearings held between Feb. 13 to March 6, 1952 on the issue of fluoridation of public water supplies in the U.S.
The overwhelming conclusion of these hearings, based on the scientific evidence presented by those both for and against, was that mass fluoridation was an unjustifiable risk for questionable benefit. They essentially kicked it to the states/local jurisdictions to decide for themselves. (pretty much where we stand today).
It is very enlightening reading, if only to realize that at the time, there WAS no consensus among dental professionals or scientists; if anything, most opposed it.
I liked the first one.
Though we aren’t sure and we’re using different conditions, it could be…
Yeah, anything produced by Fluoridealert is pretty suspect. Since that page is their interpretations of the studies, not the studies words themselves, it isn’t worth much. It has the potential to be useful information, but based on their history of extremely bad science and leaping to extremely unwarranted conclusions, I’ll pass.
There seems to be an idea that water in bottles isn’t fluoridated. There was a scandal here a few years ago when it turned out that the Coca Cola bottled water brand was full of carcinogenic chemicals. Little noticed was the news announcement that this water was from the mains water supply all of our tap water comes out of. They just mixed it with chemicals and put it in bottles.
You think people who lived in times past were breaking their teeth on bread? Want good teeth? Grow up drinking lots of milk, lay off the sugar and potatoes and so forth.
Yes, and you continue to be wrong in suggesting that fluoridated water doesn’t benefit adults.
From the CDC link I provided earlier (which you apparently did not look at):
“Because frequent exposure to small amounts of fluoride each day will best reduce the risk for dental caries in all age groups, the work group recommends that all persons drink water with an optimal fluoride concentration and brush their teeth twice daily with fluoride toothpaste.”
This seems very clear, unlike whatever you are getting from fluoridealert.com about “topical” fluoride (context not provided).
It is also extremely unconvincing to go up against established and well-documented science with a 1952 book about hearings before a “House Investigating Committee” at the height of the Red Scare. There were people in Congress at that time who would have made Col. Jack D. Ripper look sane.
Since you’re continuing to sound the alarm about alleged fluoride hazards, what’s your position on communities that have naturally fluoridated water? Should they spend big bucks to remove that fluoride because it’s a “toxin” and “industrial pollutant”?
They put the water through a reverse osmosis filtration process in which bromine was inadvertently introduced.
The “chemicals” that they mixed it with were actually minerals, including magnesium sulfate (Epsom salt), potassium chloride and table salt (sodium chloride).
Reverse osmosis filtered bottled water does not contain fluoride.