Did you not read where the fluoride comes from? The smokestack scrubbers have heavy metals and other contaminates. There is no processing to purify it so it is contaminated.
Perhaps you could argue there is not enough contaminates to cause a problem, but that does not change the fact you are dumping pollutants into the water supply under the guise of public health.
Even if they dumped pharmeucutical grade fluoride into the water it would likely not be effective unless the population has no access to tooth paste or dental care. Not to mention people with kidney problems should not have any fluoride at all.
The implications of treating people with a medication without their approval is also problematic. Many nations throughout Europe do not use fluoride in their water supply. Their tooth decay is not higher because of it.
So like I was saying, this is not a conspiracy. It is proven fact. It is something that should be sunsetted and fertilizer plants should start treating their waste instead of dumping it in our water supply.
Well firstly, you did not provide any specific contaminants. You did mention heavy metals, which are inherently in normal ground water. They are also controlled, as I mentioned in my last post.
Can you provide a source that states there’s no processing of “it”? Can you also state what exactly “it” is? NaF, HF, SiCl4, or something else?
Also, for the third time, are you some sort of scientist? Especially one who would have knowledge of actual chemistry?
If I don’t get at least somewhat of a semblance of intelligence in your reply, this is over, and you should really try to accept people trying to educate you on topics you clearly don’t know.
As I’ve said at least a couple times, I’d be happy to provide multiple sources proving F- in water is safe. I will even help walk you through these sources. I’m all for educating people.
So, please don’t reply with some stupid shit stated in that shitpost of an article you linked.
I’m genuinely trying to help/educate. So please take me up on the offer if you would like to.
So let me gets this straight. You do not refute anything I have said.
Your are right, this is over.
I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fluoride that is added to municipal systems comes from the smoke stack scrubbers of fertilizer plants. I also provided a sourced peer reviewed article that explained that adding fluoride to water when there is the presence of toothpaste and dental care is not effective.
There is a mountain of evidence comparing dental health in communities that use of fluoride artificially added and those who do not. Guess what, none of it supports adding fluoride. Why? Because it does not work when you already have basic dental care. There is no statistical difference.
Please read carefully because it supports everything I have said. Fluoride is effective topically but there is no benefit in ingesting it.
The conspiracy theory and is somehow drinking fluoride helps teeth pre-eruption. This is pure fantasy and what people who support adding fluoride to water believe.
Your elaborate straw man is that I am saying fluoride is dangerous. Instead I said it is effective topically but not when ingested. As in, there is no beneficial effect of swallowing it.
I provided an article you chose to dismiss because the guy who wrote havsa PHD in social sciences and therefore is full of shit. I won’t even go into how fucked up that is.
Because yes a research scientists is going to know about public policy!? I mean you are literally so stupid about this it isn’t funny.
I get you pretend to be smart but really have zero critical thinking skills.
Woah, no need to get so angry, I’m merely asking questions (which you’re not providing answers to).
I’m refuting the one thing you’ve mentioned multiple times; the “contaminated” source of fluoride. You make it seem like it’s dangerous because “it comes from the smoke stack scrubbers of fertilizer plants.” Why do you keep bringing this up?
Since you brought it, up have you studied this at a university level? While I have not directly studied the fluoridation of water in university, I have studied chemistry. That is where all my questions are coming from. I’m not concerned about this from a dental perspective.
While that article is peer-reviewed and has sources, it’s pertaining to a very specific region, and also is published in a fairly obscure journal with a trash impact factor.
This is also the first I’ve heard mention of pre-eruption benefits of fluoride. I’ve never stated I believe this, and have not heard anyone else mention this in favour of fluoridation.
Also as I mentioned in a previous comment, I am in no way saying the individual with a PhD in a social science is “full of shit”. I’m just saying the article is an opinion piece, and reads like a conspiracy theorist wrote it. Think Charlie and Pepe Silvia from IASIP.
Many scientists (research-based) go into public policy as well. Mainly because they’re capable of thinking critically and are able to contribute to policy in their area of expertise.
Also for the third time, are you a scientist, or have any scientific background?
Doesn’t questioning all these things you’re saying display critical thinking?
Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Did you not read where the fluoride comes from? The smokestack scrubbers have heavy metals and other contaminates. There is no processing to purify it so it is contaminated.
Perhaps you could argue there is not enough contaminates to cause a problem, but that does not change the fact you are dumping pollutants into the water supply under the guise of public health.
Even if they dumped pharmeucutical grade fluoride into the water it would likely not be effective unless the population has no access to tooth paste or dental care. Not to mention people with kidney problems should not have any fluoride at all.
The implications of treating people with a medication without their approval is also problematic. Many nations throughout Europe do not use fluoride in their water supply. Their tooth decay is not higher because of it.
So like I was saying, this is not a conspiracy. It is proven fact. It is something that should be sunsetted and fertilizer plants should start treating their waste instead of dumping it in our water supply.
BreadOven@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Well firstly, you did not provide any specific contaminants. You did mention heavy metals, which are inherently in normal ground water. They are also controlled, as I mentioned in my last post.
Can you provide a source that states there’s no processing of “it”? Can you also state what exactly “it” is? NaF, HF, SiCl4, or something else?
Also, for the third time, are you some sort of scientist? Especially one who would have knowledge of actual chemistry?
If I don’t get at least somewhat of a semblance of intelligence in your reply, this is over, and you should really try to accept people trying to educate you on topics you clearly don’t know.
As I’ve said at least a couple times, I’d be happy to provide multiple sources proving F- in water is safe. I will even help walk you through these sources. I’m all for educating people.
So, please don’t reply with some stupid shit stated in that shitpost of an article you linked.
I’m genuinely trying to help/educate. So please take me up on the offer if you would like to.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So let me gets this straight. You do not refute anything I have said.
Your are right, this is over.
I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fluoride that is added to municipal systems comes from the smoke stack scrubbers of fertilizer plants. I also provided a sourced peer reviewed article that explained that adding fluoride to water when there is the presence of toothpaste and dental care is not effective.
There is a mountain of evidence comparing dental health in communities that use of fluoride artificially added and those who do not. Guess what, none of it supports adding fluoride. Why? Because it does not work when you already have basic dental care. There is no statistical difference.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6309358/
Please read carefully because it supports everything I have said. Fluoride is effective topically but there is no benefit in ingesting it.
The conspiracy theory and is somehow drinking fluoride helps teeth pre-eruption. This is pure fantasy and what people who support adding fluoride to water believe.
Your elaborate straw man is that I am saying fluoride is dangerous. Instead I said it is effective topically but not when ingested. As in, there is no beneficial effect of swallowing it.
I provided an article you chose to dismiss because the guy who wrote havsa PHD in social sciences and therefore is full of shit. I won’t even go into how fucked up that is.
Because yes a research scientists is going to know about public policy!? I mean you are literally so stupid about this it isn’t funny.
I get you pretend to be smart but really have zero critical thinking skills.
BreadOven@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Woah, no need to get so angry, I’m merely asking questions (which you’re not providing answers to).
I’m refuting the one thing you’ve mentioned multiple times; the “contaminated” source of fluoride. You make it seem like it’s dangerous because “it comes from the smoke stack scrubbers of fertilizer plants.” Why do you keep bringing this up?
Since you brought it, up have you studied this at a university level? While I have not directly studied the fluoridation of water in university, I have studied chemistry. That is where all my questions are coming from. I’m not concerned about this from a dental perspective.
While that article is peer-reviewed and has sources, it’s pertaining to a very specific region, and also is published in a fairly obscure journal with a trash impact factor.
This is also the first I’ve heard mention of pre-eruption benefits of fluoride. I’ve never stated I believe this, and have not heard anyone else mention this in favour of fluoridation.
Also as I mentioned in a previous comment, I am in no way saying the individual with a PhD in a social science is “full of shit”. I’m just saying the article is an opinion piece, and reads like a conspiracy theorist wrote it. Think Charlie and Pepe Silvia from IASIP.
Many scientists (research-based) go into public policy as well. Mainly because they’re capable of thinking critically and are able to contribute to policy in their area of expertise.
Also for the third time, are you a scientist, or have any scientific background?
Doesn’t questioning all these things you’re saying display critical thinking?