Point 1 response:
-Statistical evidence shows equal or even fewer cavities in our region when compared to a Fluoridated city of EQUIVALENT population and demographics.
-fluoride actually only effects teeth when applied topically. Ingesting fluoride kills "friendly" probiotic bacteria that your body depends on in your G.I. Tract. And also upsets the microbiological food chain from the bottom up.
- fluorides are not simply a natural mineral and therefore safe. It is a class of substances both natural and artificial ranging from slightly hazardous to extremely hazardous.
- the CDC actually posted a 187 page toxicology report on all known types of fluorides and fluorines which clearly defines hazards of long term exposure to standard "drinking water levels" of fluorosilic acid. Despite the CDC's party line endorsement of fluoridation, many individuals within the CDC have spoken against fluoridation.
Point 2 response:
The argument of this point is that because they already put harmful chemicals into municipal water why should we be upset about 1 more?
This one is ridiculous and isn't even worthy of a response.
Point 3 response:
Fluoride is not entirely undetectable to taste. It is very subtle and nearly indistinguishable to most people. That however, was not really an argument of anti fluoride folks.
Professional brewery's know that boiling will dissipate chloramines from water before brewing begins. Unfortunately, Fluorides, and fluorines DON'T work that way. They will remain after boiling. The yeast cultures will fight against them every step of the way in fermentation and the culture will be weak when the batch is done. Will it taste different? No, but that's irrelevant. The presence of fluoride in every part of our food supply in unpredictable concentrations is
Point 4 response:
-Dr. Wu claims that fluoride acts systemically. It get's into your system and for a few hours you will secret fluoride with your saliva. The article also admits that this amount is not a sufficient topical amount to prevent tooth decay. It is sufficient to cause pancreatic, thyroid, liver, and kidney distress. This is known to the medical community to be true. The ADA is made up of dentists who deal with teeth. Not medical doctors who deal with organs.
The 1990 CDC report that gets spread around is 23 years old. Since that time there are volumes of data linking fluoride to a wide range of medical issues.
Point 5 response:
The argument here is that many things including fluoride are harmful in high enough doses. Well we are just discussing fluoride not the other things. -In the amounts that it would be administered (without consent) as a drug in the water supply it may be less harmful on entry, but fluid dynamics suggest that it will concentrate and diminish in an unpredictable way once it is out in the world. It is impossible to predict what individual dosages would be per person. As well as what other exposures each person would have.
-Philadelphia is paying an enormous amount of money to reduce the Fluoride in it's municipal water, because the levels became (unpredictably) too high. This process is extremely difficult costly and inefficient for a city that has had devastating financial lows, yet they see this as a necessity and are spending the money.
-Fluoride, as stated above, is linked to a wide range of illnesses. Many people with those conditions, such as diabetics, cancer patients, etc... Are more sensitive to very small amounts of fluoride.
Did fluoride cause their conditions? Who knows, but these people have to live with weakened immune systems and hypersensitivity to toxicity.
-This speaks nothing to the ethical debate of whether it's o.k. To force a population of people to ingest a medication against their will!
Point 6 response:
This argument suggests that the scientific and medical community is not equally divided about fluoridation. It also go's on to question the validity of naturopathic and holistic medicine by simply stating that those forms of medicine have come under fire in the past by others.
- when speaking about the scientific and medical community we are not speaking locally we are speaking about the worldwide community and it's body of knowledge which is divided if not largely against fluoridation.
Point 7 response:
The argument, if it makes one here, is that the Harvard study which showed evidence of fluoride actually reducing cognitive function in children was flawed. The proposed reason was that the study showed statistical analysis from an area in china with a high concentration of fluoride. It also tries to disqualify the study itself because of the route in which it became popularly cited.
- who cares if the study was posted on cracked.com and then reposted on Reuters? The fact is the Harvard study did take place and it did show evidence of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water having reduced cognitive function.
- the dosage in the Chinese municipal water was not ridiculously high in fact not much higher than Philadelphia's peak area which prompted the city to pay to have fluoride levels reduced through processing.
- also the dosage of the study was by far less then dosages administered topically both by dentists and in many public schools (.25mg - 1.5mg)
-A study by Florida State University found that fluoride at .45 ppm by itself a strong enough sedative to significantly retard sensory and mental reaction time. .7 to 1.2 is the standard drinking water levels. Pharmaceutical companies began to pair it with other sedatives because it compounds and amplifies the effects. Fluoride paired with Valium becomes Rohypnol. Stelazinum is a powerful fluoride based sedative used in nursing homes and care facilities.
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |