The argument for putting fluoride in water is for the children. That is the *only* 'legitimate' argument for fluoride. Let's ignore the fact that fluoride has been proven to deteriorate the enamel of teeth in children. Just for a second.
I recently read an incredibly IGNORANT article in 'The Mercury', in which, the ONLY arguments presented, were COUNTER arguments. The author of this garbage presented his bullshit in a SEMI articulate fashion. EXCEPT, they forgot to make an argument of their own!
What the fuck is reasonable about this situation? The Mercury didn't pose a single argument on its own merits, but wanted to counter…counter arguments? Does the Mercury remember that our water is already, NOT POISONED? Do they remember, that the argument being made is to POISON our water, not the other way around? There is no legitimate, scientific argument FOR fluoride. Only half assed arguments against it.
Let's be intellectually honest. Harvard found children that drink flouride are SIGNIFICANTLY less intelligent via IQ tests. Children that drink flouride have shown significant enamel decay.
Let's also ignore that if you want the benefits of this BIPRODUCT, that it is readively available in NON-digestive forms via mouthwash, and toothpaste formulas that ARE PROVIDED BY THE STATE TO POOR CHILDREN ALREADY.
What the fuck are you pro-fleuride people all about? Cause to me, you all look like gigantic fucking douchebag sheep. The Mercury should be ashamed of itself.