Very interesting discussion. I wonder if anyone here knows why the world started water fluoridation?
Knowing the motif may help us to find the truth.

jasonbeam wrote:Very interesting discussion. I wonder if anyone here knows why the world started water fluoridation?
Knowing the motif may help us to find the truth.

It was a simple best benefit/least cost and the probability of high success in application.

I haven't been reading the thread - it is a forty plus year throwback to me as a water supply engineer.

The strategic question for 2011 is whether it is justified now. The early days of fluoride were in an era when dental care and hygiene were far less supported than they are now. I suspect that factor may not have been given the prominence it deserves in this thread which seems to be dominated by the same polarised issues that were raised forty plus years ago in my case and Sydney NSW.

Wuffy wrote:Galaxian. EVERYTHING is a toxin and in high enough doses Kills you.
Slinging mud at your detractors with piles upon piles of ridiculous assertions does not make you in a better position.
You cannot convince people by insulting them, calling them sheeple, asking them to become enlightened and joining up with your grand discovery and becoming one of the blessed knowing ones.
Just make your arguments, show your evidence, stop with the hysterical conspiracy madness. It would make it so much easier to read and digest your posts if you didn't try to sound like such a damned martyr.

Hi Wuffy. If they pump you full of air, you'll also die. That isn't the issue. Are you going to whitewash the issue by dragging in irrelevant material?

The issue is that
a) A medication is added to public water which you MUST take, except at significant cost & inconvenience if you want to avoid it.
b) The medication has NOTHING to do with water purity. It is there solely & ostensibly to protect 0.5% of 5% of the population. In other words: The teeth of children.
c) A SYSTEMIC drug is given for the surface layer of the teeth of a few.
d) The tyrants do NOT care if it has side effects. Otherwise you do NOT give a systemic drug for a topical problem.

You got the wrong end of the stick: I have NO desire to convince anyone. And I have NO desire to portray myself in a better position. My posts are perfectly clear to all functionally literate sentient beings. Trouble is that many of them choose not to even read the evidence I've provided, or the rational arguments I've presented.

jasonbeam wrote:Very interesting discussion. I wonder if anyone here knows why the world started water fluoridation?
Knowing the motif may help us to find the truth.

Fairly detailed historical source: http://informationliberation.com/?id=14949
Hi jasonbeam. It started in the late 1940's. It wasn't the world. It was the United States, the headquarters of multinational criminals who have no interest in YOUR welfare, but only want to make more money.
The aluminium mining & smelting companies had a waste product: Sodium Fluoride which they were paying heavily to get rid of. They approached their mates in government & the various health agencies, paid them handsomely, & got them, within a few short months to announce that fluoride was not a waste product, but indeed was a nutritious essential element of human diet, & that we were all deficient in it.
Of course scientists knew that it was a poison, & not essential in our diet at all. So the corrupt officials pronounced that it protected children's teeth, & therefore ALL of us, from the unborn to the very elderly had to drink the stuff, & pay the aluminum companies for the privilege of drinking their waste! From profit loss, to profit gain in one stroke of the pen.

There are MANY links that explain it clearly. I've posted several since the beginning of this thread. Here are two good ones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl99zO2Zw4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2H8_Jopo-0

I really wonder, how many of you have watched the above 2 videos? Why did I post videos? Because they're digestible, unlike the vile poison that most are sooo in favor of ingesting, because the powers that be have assured them that it's OK. So if you can't even watch the videos (which actually show lots of documents). How on earth are you going to follow the thousands of pages of printed material (Google it if you don't believe me).

For heaven's sake pull your fingers out & follow up the names & topics covered in the videos.

Galaxian is ahead of the curve here. Just as most of the US population was in favor of cigarettes...even doctors were in favor of tobacco! Just as most people were in favor of asbestos. Just as they were in favor of breathing & ingesting lead. Just as they absolutely loved DDT. Just as most people are in favor of war. Just as they're in favor of impossible working hours. Just as they're in favor of banker & political corruption, and so forth. So they are in favor of poisoning themselves & their children & PAYING FOR IT! And you vaguely brush it off as a 'conspiracy theory'. Yes, just like tobacco, & ALL the stuff in this paragraph. ANYTHING that doesn't accord with the mass media propaganda & political lies & deceits is merely 'conspiracy theory'. The ultimate sedative to lull the brain; ridicule, buffoonery, & contempt for anything that is trying to force you to think.

Read the POLL above: Fully 61% of you love the stuff. You come out with crap such as "Anything is poisonous in large enough quantities". Which proves you haven't even understood the argument, let alone addressed it. Coming out with stuff such as "Well, don't drink tap water". Shows that you haven't understood the most elementary level of "Freedom of Choice", or of "Human Rights".
And Wuffy says that Galaxian must never call a spade a spade, but should be mealy mouthed & circumspect, wooly & non-assertive in any topic, no matter how important...because otherwise I might not 'persuade' people. Well, if I have to become a politically sensitive, smoke & mirrors, spin-doctor for the sake of those who refuse to be persuaded by logic, by evidence, & by rational arguments, they can bugger off. I have no time to wipe people's arses & blow their noses. By the way, anyone can change her/his vote. It's not a locked poll.
Here's yet another important link the sincere can try: http://slweb.org/bibliography.html

thanks galaxian - these are good sources. You are doing a great job against non critical status quo people that exist even amongst scientists it seems .
We sometimes need to remind each other of the consequences of living in a corporatist world.

Econ41, great to have someone involved here. Do you know who actually supplied the Fluoride when you wee active or even today? Is it a chemicals producer - do they synthesize fluoride or does the Australian government pay for the toxic side products/waste that could not be dumped in the waste - even in the 50s I suspect.

I personally suggest this very short video about a book dealing with the evidence for the connection between Bernays and national institute of dental research and Bernays.
"Engineering Consent" by Chris Bryson http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 6206528068
But "the fluoride deception" by Chris Bryson, an award winning journalist and former producer at the BBC is a must see:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl99zO2Zw4k[/youtube]

I think every scientist here should watch "the century of self" or at least any of Galaxian's links.
Science is not as pure as we think. The moment people or corporations are involved it requires additional checking and critical filtering - something we were taught not to do in most school systems in the world.

Here is shorter version of Galaxian's fluoride story i believe. http://www.prisonplanet.com/did-the-fat … -safe.html

and an interesting comment by a visitor:

I have largely omitted recommendation for usage of dentifrices and mouthrinses containing fluoride for my recently terminated 34 year career in dentistry. Yet, had I come out publicly and proclaimed my rationale, I could have counted on my dismissal from the dentist fraternity. I know the rascals at the health departments only too well.

Fluoride is bad news, but it has it's financial benefactors and fluoride usage is simply too financially rewarding to drop said usage. Business is business.

I hope Bernays will become better known - at least within the scientific circle. The unusually open BBC series "The century of self" would be a good start - I have links also on my blog - can be watched online.

Fluoridation of water is literally a conspiracy - and this is hard to disprove.

jasonbeam wrote:...Econ41, great to have someone involved here. Do you know who actually supplied the Fluoride when you wee active or even today? Is it a chemicals producer - do they synthesize fluoride or does the Australian government pay for the toxic side products/waste that could not be dumped in the waste - even in the 50s I suspect...

Sorry but I simply cannot remember. What memories I have are overlaid by partial memories of the introduction of waste pickle liquor to remove phosphorus from sewage effluents. That one circa late 1980's and a practice also open to being interpreted as a manipulation by industry ( or misinterpreted of course - depending on which side of the rabble rousing fence you park yourself. )

Back on fluoride there are two points I would bear in mind:
1) The decisions were made in a totally different context of dental practices, community awareness of dental health issues and a less aware practice of dental prophylaxis than is the case today. So don't make the mistake of hindsight retrofitting today's wisdom onto past decisions; THEN
2) (The point I made in my earlier post) faced with the same decisions today the outcome could be quite different. Certainly if put to referendum you could guarantee a "No" answer. Partially but not entirely attributable to known conservatism of the Australian electorate when faced by referenda.

The extent of community involvement in Government decision making is far different to what it was in the 50's, 60's and earlier. For example insofar as it has impacted on major infrastructure activities in the water and sewerage fields "The Environment" was invented quite recently. 1961 in NSW Australia with the real impacts starting through the 60s decade. That corresponded with the self perpetuating rise in community and stakeholder consultation on these types of activities. The introduction of water fluoridation to the Sydney supply was in the same time - about 1960 by guess/failing memory - someone can check.

Thanks econ41 - this is really interesting. You are right, we tend to forget the circumstances at that time. It is great news to hear you think democracy might work better today than in the old days. This gives me some hope we might be in a better situation to resist similar conspiracies today although the pressure by companies and probably government corruption (dependencies on corporations etc) may be higher.

The phosphorus story is interesting too - I am sure it does happen that waste products can be used legitimately for good things and that is a fantastic solution. However, corporations have too much power today and can easily distort our perception of evidence for whatever.

That's why I like to ask for the motifs - it would reveal likely bias and show the way to more reliable sources.

jasonbeam wrote:Thanks econ41 - this is really interesting. You are right, we tend to forget the circumstances at that time. It is great news to hear you think democracy might work better today than in the old days. This gives me some hope we might be in a better situation to resist similar conspiracies today although the pressure by companies and probably government corruption (dependencies on corporations etc) may be higher.

The phosphorus story is interesting too - I am sure it does happen that waste products can be used legitimately for good things and that is a fantastic solution. However, corporations have too much power today and can easily distort our perception of evidence for whatever.

That's why I like to ask for the motifs - it would reveal likely bias and show the way to more reliable sources.

The sewage program at that time had an aspect of potential manipulation.

There was a need to find means of disposing of the "sewage sludge" - the sloppy mud of solids which has been separated from most of the water. Faeces and kitchen/food remnants wastes mostly - the soaps and body fats have been skimmed off to byproducts lines. Plus the sand and grit settled out and separated. Still about 300 tonnes per day dry solids for a city the size of Sydney IIRC the numbers.

Same era and environmental re-use was becoming preferred over disposal without reuse.

The organisation engaged contractor consultants to run a massive design/construct program over a ten year period. They were traditional and from the US so my options of reusing sludge to grow new tree plantations did not use a lot of conventional and expensive disposal machinery etc etc.... and faced opposition from all the possible uses of US or US style machinery.

My solutions were framed in "best whole of community cost" . Given that the (organic - soil conditioning etc) sludge had agricultural value the best for community cost was gain the agricultural value by reuse - give it to farmers - even though the cost to the sewage organisation was not the lowest for that organisation. i.e. an overall win-win when the farmers gained a low cost resource. In contrast to my proposals the boss of the next similar sewage organisation went for "least cost for us to dispose" so we disagreed.

Then he became boss of the organisation I worked for.

And I found myself looking for a new job.


(I trust all that is clear enough - I have stated it as briefly as I can)

And, by the way, your throw-away:

jasonbeam wrote:It is great news to hear you think democracy might work better today than in the old days.....

...is context dependent. A bit dubious judging past politics using today's standards as "better". Not totally wrong - just a bit dubious - change via politics needs people who are unsatisfied with the standards of their time whilst they are living in their time. Conversely if it was right on the day then it was right on the day. Hindsight is of no value - you cannot go back.

econ41 wrote:

jasonbeam wrote:Very interesting discussion. I wonder if anyone here knows why the world started water fluoridation?
Knowing the motif may help us to find the truth.

It was a simple best benefit/least cost and the probability of high success in application.

I haven't been reading the thread - it is a forty plus year throwback to me as a water supply engineer.

The strategic question for 2011 is whether it is justified now. The early days of fluoride were in an era when dental care and hygiene were far less supported than they are now. I suspect that factor may not have been given the prominence it deserves in this thread which seems to be dominated by the same polarised issues that were raised forty plus years ago in my case and Sydney NSW.

Long time no see.

james1v wrote:...Long time no see.

Greetings.

I've moved on from "foruming" except for my long term interests in WTC 9/11 collapses - and the last remnants of discussion of that are on the JREF Forum.

I keep tabs on a few interest areas here.

Eric C

econ41 wrote:

james1v wrote:...Long time no see.

Greetings.

I've moved on from "foruming" except for my long term interests in WTC 9/11 collapses - and the last remnants of discussion of that are on the JREF Forum.

I keep tabs on a few interest areas here.

Eric C

(just to stay on topic) Hows the plumbing? Fluoridated?

Galaxian wrote:

Wuffy wrote:Galaxian. EVERYTHING is a toxin and in high enough doses Kills you.
Slinging mud at your detractors with piles upon piles of ridiculous assertions does not make you in a better position.
You cannot convince people by insulting them, calling them sheeple, asking them to become enlightened and joining up with your grand discovery and becoming one of the blessed knowing ones.
Just make your arguments, show your evidence, stop with the hysterical conspiracy madness. It would make it so much easier to read and digest your posts if you didn't try to sound like such a damned martyr.

Hi Wuffy. If they pump you full of air, you'll also die. That isn't the issue. Are you going to whitewash the issue by dragging in irrelevant material?

The issue is that
a) A medication is added to public water which you MUST take, except at significant cost & inconvenience if you want to avoid it.

You seem to have missed the point. I was trying to make that point to you.

Galaxian wrote:
b) The medication has NOTHING to do with water purity. It is there solely & ostensibly to protect 0.5% of 5% of the population. In other words: The teeth of children.
c) A SYSTEMIC drug is given for the surface layer of the teeth of a few.

Thank you, That's all you really needed to prop in there. I really do want to read more about this.

Galaxian wrote:
d) The tyrants do NOT care if it has side effects. Otherwise you do NOT give a systemic drug for a topical problem.

This part on the other hand is an over reaching assumption.

Galaxian wrote:
You got the wrong end of the stick: I have NO desire to convince anyone. And I have NO desire to portray myself in a better position. My posts are perfectly clear to all functionally literate sentient beings. Trouble is that many of them choose not to even read the evidence I've provided, or the rational arguments I've presented.

No the problem is, as I come across it, that you like to flood your posts with Hyperbole which really takes away from your arguments.

I will be honest I've read a few threads you are involved in, most of the time I skip past your threads and read your stuff through other peoples rebuttal because it's hard work to read your posts.
The simple throw away line about the Tyrants alone shifts the entire tone of your post and makes it feel like crazy woo.

You do find interesting things to discuss, really I would like to read more of it.

There is no overwhelming set over Majestic 12 trying to control you. Mostly it's an over bloated bureaucracy which places more importance on it's process' then outcomes. Refuses to review it's established systems without created 5 more useless things to do.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Galaxian wrote

ANYTHING that doesn't accord with the mass media propaganda & political lies & deceits is merely 'conspiracy theory'. The ultimate sedative to lull the brain; ridicule, buffoonery, & contempt for anything that is trying to force you to think.

Galaxian I am glad I can find a critical thinker in this forum (econ appears to be another..).
Apparently, theory for many active posters in this forum (rationalskepticism.org) stands for "fact", "indisputable" like the "theory of evolution".

I suspect many active posters here, if they are in science at all (some behave like irresponsible adolescents), are academics or simply haven't traveled much in this world (other than conferences).

Any child experiences conspiracies (on a personal scale) from early age, playing with others in a sandbox, at school etc.. For some reason when we leave school or uni to become tax payers and wage slaves, all conspiracies magically go away - especially on large scales - like fluoridation, tobacco, aspartame, flu vaccinations..

We only read about them in some history books (Hitlers Reichstags fire, Watergate, Golf of Tonkin..) if at all.

We ought to believe what profit driven media tell us and trust they would tell us if anything important is going on (including wrongdoings amongst their stakeholders or advertisers).

Despite tremendous temptations by corporations there are so few conspiracies in this world today that investigative journalism is now a near extinct animal. It may have to do that the dominant media corporations (Viacom, Disney, Newscorp..) are now bigger than the US GDP i.e. its debt!........let's think about this for a few seconds...

2 thirds voting to put a known poison (an inconvenient industrial waste product) in the drinking water - with highly controversial evidence and a very suspicious motif - is a good indicator of the kind of skepticism that dominates in this forum. Welcome to the challenge

Wuffy wrote:You do find interesting things to discuss, really I would like to read more of it.

There is no overwhelming set over Majestic 12 trying to control you. Mostly it's an over bloated bureaucracy which places more importance on it's process' then outcomes. Refuses to review it's established systems without created 5 more useless things to do.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Hi Wuffy. There's plenty of evidence that there's more than bloated bureaucracy involved. But, in the wider world, as on this forum, most people couldn't care. Indeed, they probably care even less. Notice that 71% here are quite blase about fluoride being added to water without their consent. They agree that governments should have the privilege of lying to them & doing medical procedures to them & their children without their permission.
By the way, your above quote is back to front. Here's the correct one:
"Never blame incompetence for that which is easily explained by malice!" _Galaxian

jasonbeam wrote:Galaxian wrote

ANYTHING that doesn't accord with the mass media propaganda & political lies & deceits is merely 'conspiracy theory'. The ultimate sedative to lull the brain; ridicule, buffoonery, & contempt for anything that is trying to force you to think.

Galaxian I am glad I can find a critical thinker in this forum (econ appears to be another..).
Apparently, theory for many active posters in this forum (rationalskepticism.org) stands for "fact", "indisputable" like the "theory of evolution".
I suspect many active posters here, if they are in science at all (some behave like irresponsible adolescents), are academics or simply haven't traveled much in this world (other than conferences).
Any child experiences conspiracies (on a personal scale) from early age, playing with others in a sandbox, at school etc.. For some reason when we leave school or uni to become tax payers and wage slaves, all conspiracies magically go away - especially on large scales - like fluoridation, tobacco, aspartame, flu vaccinations..
We only read about them in some history books (Hitlers Reichstags fire, Watergate, Golf of Tonkin..) if at all.
We ought to believe what profit driven media tell us and trust they would tell us if anything important is going on (including wrongdoings amongst their stakeholders or advertisers).
Despite tremendous temptations by corporations there are so few conspiracies in this world today that investigative journalism is now a near extinct animal. It may have to do that the dominant media corporations (Viacom, Disney, Newscorp..) are now bigger than the US GDP i.e. its debt!........let's think about this for a few seconds...
2 thirds voting to put a known poison (an inconvenient industrial waste product) in the drinking water - with highly controversial evidence and a very suspicious motif - is a good indicator of the kind of skepticism that dominates in this forum. Welcome to the challenge

Thank you jasonbeam That is a profound insight you posted. Let's hear it again:
"Any child experiences conspiracies (on a personal scale) from early age, playing with others in a sandbox, at school etc.. For some reason when we leave school or uni to become tax payers and wage slaves, all conspiracies magically go away".
LOUDER! Econ is getting old & perhaps hard of hearing:
"Any child experiences conspiracies (on a personal scale) from early age, playing with others in a sandbox, at school etc.. For some reason when we leave school or uni to become tax payers and wage slaves, all conspiracies magically go away"

Galaxian wrote:As I said further down: I don't give a tinker's toss how I appear to you. You really need more humility.

This clearly shows that the methods of arguing that Galaxian is using is clearly pseudoskeptical. Uncritically promoting conspiracy theories that have been flourishing for the past 70 years despite several refutations from a myriad of sources and then claiming that critics lack humility. That method is not only passive-aggressive, but a form of playing the martyr card.

It totally demolishes your argument, as others have also pointed out.

It does no such thing. If water fluoridation really reduces IQ as much as you say it does, then this makes a testable prediction, namely that the average intelligence in areas with water fluoridation should not increase, yet the Flynn effect clearly shows that it is. Thus, your position is refuted by the actually evidence.

No you don't. I don't accept that only an American journal is bonafide knowledge. Criticize the article & the research, not where it happened to be published...which could have been due to several reasons unknown to you.

Again, you are not responding to the argument. If this is such a scientific breakthrough, why was it published in an obscure journal with an impact factor usually associated with journals that are either completely crank or relatively unimportant? This is a perfectly valid criticism against the article, because it shows that the authors probably knew that it would not get accepted into more serious scientific journals. Do we even know if the journal applies strict peer-review?

with an impact factor usually associated with journals that are either completely crank or relatively unimportant?

Moridin wrote:This shows that you have not understood the point. Toxic effects are dependent on dose, so relatively low concentrations are, for all intents and purposes, not toxic. In some case, such as water, it is vital.

This shows that you didn't understand my response. a) toxicity for most things is dosage dependent. b) I wrote "a gram" which is actually quite high. You're seriously telling me that if I came across 1 molecule, I think it's toxic?

You clearly do not read what I post. I have explained to you that toxic effects are dose-dependent and thus you cannot naively extrapolate to lower concentrations from the fact that much higher concentrations have strong toxic effects.

YES, fluorine DOES go through the intestines: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... fTHpEugvUA
Why do I have to do your references for you? Because you assume too much.

Let us take a look at the article you references. The title is "Energy Metabolism of Erythrocytes in Lambs Chronically Exposed
to Fluorine Compounds". Erythrocytes are red blood cells, not intestines. Furthermore, no one is claiming that if you eat stuff that have dissolved fluorine, it will go through your intestines, but what is being claimed is that fluorine (F2) is a corrosive gas, whereas fluoride (F-) is a completely different compound and that it is pseudoscientific to confuse these to and say that because fluorine is dangerous, so must fluoride be. The article you references says nothing about fluoride ions being converted to corrosive fluorine gas.

You assume that there is NO metabolic pathway between fluoride & fluorine. You assume that we KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about metabolic pathways in organisms, because you did a few hours at uni, where they told you so.

Where have I claimed that I know absolutely everything about metabolic pathways in organisms? You are making a straw man fallacy. It can easily be understood that there should be no metabolic pathway from fluoride to fluorine, since the very point with metabolic pathways, especially dealing with toxic substances, is to make toxic substances less toxic (or make it easier for the body to get rid of), not the other way around.

But please, entertain us. Show us a metabolic pathway that transforms fluoride (the ions in the drinking water) to fluorine (the corrosive gas). The article you references certainly does not. We are all waiting in eager anticipation.

But of course they wouldn't pass a university entrance test, would they? But wait; there's more: http://www.jbc.org/content/241/23/5557.full.pdf That was just one pathway.

Let us see if this is a pathway that transforms fluoride (the ions in the drinking water) to fluorine (the corrosive gas). The title of the article is "Carbon-Fluorine Bond Cleavage", which is a 1966. You really are not one for contemporary sources, are you? The reaction presented in the article is

XCH2OO- + OH- ----> X- + HOCH2OO-

where X is an halogen, such as F. Clearly, this reaction only fulfills one of the criteria I put up, namely that it produces fluoride ions. This reaction, however, is a defluorination of fluoroacetate, which is not the same as fluorine (the corrosive gas). This study does not support your claim.

Did you even read this article before posting it? Or did you just search for a couple of keywords and posted whatever articles cam up?

Here's another: http://www.poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/html/prozac.html

That link sure does not sound unbiased, but that text is about an antidepressant called Prozac, not about how fluoride (the ions in the drinking water) is supposedly metabolized to fluorine (the corrosive gas). It is not even in the same scientific subject as what you claim it is. You did not even read the title of that text, did you?

Oops, & yet another: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... VK-JVEnkCg

At least this article actually contain text on the same subject as we where discussing. However, it just shows how the body breaks down drugs that contain fluorine and does not contain a metabolic pathway from fluoride (the ions in the drinking water) to fluorine (the corrosive gas).

0/3 Galaxian, worst score ever.

You think that because something is a gas, the organism has no way to use it & its derivatives in a bio-chemical reaction in the body? You've heard of red blood cells exchanging oxygen for carbon dioxide via the iron pathway? No? Never mind.

A lot of organisms uses gases, such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, NO etc. but that was not my claim. My claim was that there is no metabolic pathway turning fluoride (the ions in the drinking water) to fluorine (the corrosive gas). Your futile search for articles did not even turn up any articles that was relevant to it. One of them dealt with fluoroacetate, the other with antidepressants and the third with how drugs that contain fluorine is broken down by the body.

None of your articles support your point and none of them where even relevant to the topic.

You haven't even begun to understand this thread. Read my earlier posts. WE don't have to drink it, but we have to drink something. Bottled water is 50 times the price.

If you can to buy a product that costs money, you need to actually pay for it. That is nothing unfair, but precisely what a market economy is all about. Also, some bottled water also contain fluoride, so that won't help you. You also did not reply to any of the arguments in the part you quoted, so I guess I will just have to re-post it.

Being "forced" to pay (and even that is debatable), not forced to drink. You are also forced to pay for water purification and having your fecal waste separated from the drinking supply. Do you want to stop doing that too? The point is that it is reasonable to assume that people in general will consent to whatever a reasonable person who knew all the facts and where reasoning without fallacies or biases would consent to.

And as the Chairman & Strontium have pointed out, there's a lot of inconvenience & you have to shower in the stuff, breathing in the droplets.

I can certainly understand that showering is an inconvenience for you, and as we already have established, fluoride is not the same as fluorine. Apples and oranges.

Or brush your teeth with the stuff.

So you prefer cavities?

This is too weird. What the hell does sewage treatment have to do with forced medication?

The government takes money from you via taxation for sewage treatment. If you object to it, you will sooner or later have large people with guns come to your house and kidnap you. What's the matter? Only appeal to libertarianism when it appears that it helps your case?

Big, bombastic words, but meaningless. The situation is straightforward. Some fuckwit is forcing me, unless I go to the trouble of carrying bottled water everywhere, forcing me to drink an additive, specifically put in as a medication.

Again, you are not being forced to drink tap water. You are free to drink whatever you want, bottled water, your own urine, coke or whatever. Fluoride, as has been explained to you several times, is not a medication. All forms of liquid cost money and tap water is not free. Complaining that you have to pay for what you drink is a childish and immature argument, laughable in its absurdity.

The UN is a tool of hegemonic powers, a 'front', a smoke & mirrors distraction. It's better than nothing, but only just. It certainly has no precedence over the widely encompassing mind.

So you agree that "consent to medication" is not a human right as defined by the UN? If so, why is your argument trying to parasitize off of the human rights concept in order to prop it up?

Well done Moridin. You keep leading from behind. Galaxian will keep leading from the front.

More like leading from a basement, if you have such problems with showering and brushing your teeth.

Moridin wrote:

Galaxian wrote:As I said further down: I don't give a tinker's toss how I appear to you. You really need more humility.

This clearly shows that the methods of arguing that Galaxian is using is clearly pseudoskeptical. Uncritically promoting conspiracy theories that have been flourishing for the past 70 years despite several refutations from a myriad of sources and then claiming that critics lack humility. That method is not only passive-aggressive, but a form of playing the martyr card.....
.......

Your entire response is crap, & not worth bothering with. Post only when you understand the topic

Flynn effect

Considering that measuring the intelligence of even just one human being is already utterly flawed and of limited value, I find it rather unscientific to claim "brain power" has gone up over a long time for a large number of people. One of the biggest problems here is the definition of intelligence which is usually only regarded as a set of various logical and verbal skills totally ignoring emotional, social and other probably more important skills (e.g. critical thinking, resistance to the conformity effect, authority effect ..).

Also there are many reasons why test results go up over time. Just take the same Mensa test or even just a similar test again and you are likely to find your "IQ" go up significantly. I can probably take a clever teenager from Africa who scored perhaps 80 on his first IQ test, train him for a few weeks or months to easily get 100 or more even while drinking a glass of wine. I "changed" his IQ, the capacity of the brain in a few weeks/despite consumption of a mentally retarding chemical.. wow.

IQ tests are useful for certain things like finding similar minded people and special skills and to distract from other important skills.

If any mental skills or awareness of the average human increased it may well be despite fluoridation, despite all the other hundreds of chemicals we are exposed to and likely more related to changes in the media landscape, access of information and "devaluation" of non IQ tested skills - so those IQ skills get more attention and appreciation etc..

To call the Flynn effect a "scientific" result I find rather brave at best considering the numbers of hard to control variables involved.

Bottled water
.. and by the way bottled water in many countries can legally be tap water too - so it may be very hard to escape fluoride poisoning.

However, common sense would suggest that it would be enough to educate people about possible benefits of Fluroide and give them the chance to drink tea or buy supplements if they want.

Why do we not get vitamins or uncontroversial beneficial minerals added to the water supply (yet)? Would we want that?

The point of this thread in my opinion should not be discussing whether fluoride is beneficial but whether it is right or simply worth to curb our freedom to access clean water.

Especially the US but also other countries have been moving towards fascism (authoritarian control by non representative governments/corporations) for a long time now and perhaps eventually more rational thinkers wake up and examine their political environment, the motivation, funding, objectivity of scientific reporting.

jasonbeam wrote:...The point of this thread in my opinion should not be discussing whether fluoride is beneficial but whether it is right or simply worth to curb our freedom to access clean water....

There is a legitimate ethical question which could be worth discussion. You haven't correctly identified it however.

Then any point you may have tends to be discounted by the political rant:

jasonbeam wrote:...Especially the US but also other countries have been moving towards fascism (authoritarian control by non representative governments/corporations) for a long time now and perhaps eventually more rational thinkers wake up and examine their political environment, the motivation, funding, objectivity of scientific reporting.