..and I highly doubt Calgary City Council would have made a knee-jerk decision to remove fluoride from the water without looking at the pro's and con's, and all the studies etc.
...here you sit complaining about it after the fact, but you could have shown up to the hearings and presented some facts to support fluoridation.
The reason for my jab at dentists is that they (throught their Dental Associtasion institutions) have fully endorsed the ingestion of an industrial waste and not respecting the work of brain doctors, cancer doctors etc. who are revealing this stuff to be detrimental to our health.
Show us an opinion of credible "brain doctors" (neurologists) and "cancer doctors" (oncologists) published in a leading, peer-reviewed, medical journal to support your claims.
So far all you have is some quack doctors looking to make a buck supported by fringe lobby groups attending lobby funded conventions in lobby funded papers.
You know, there are tons of things we eat that come from industrial by-products. I believe the potassium iodate in iodized salt is one. Perfectly safe.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 02-08-2011 at 07:57 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
The reason for my jab at dentists is that they (throught their Dental Associtasion institutions) have fully endorsed the ingestion of an industrial waste and not respecting the work of brain doctors, cancer doctors etc. who are revealing this stuff to be detrimental to our health.
This is why no one takes you seriously.
You say "not respecting" when what you actually mean is "not agreeing with me". You think they are quacks because they disagree. Maybe they disagree because the other guys are wrong.
You accept things that support your position from newspapers, ideologically driven websites and "journals" that only support one conclusion, but reject things that come from similar sources that disagree with your position (not to mention the stuff that comes from real journals). So your opinion is easily discounted because it's fundamentally flawed.
You could even be technically right, but right for the wrong reason is still wrong.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Show us an opinion of credible "brain doctors" (neurologists) and "cancer doctors" (oncologists) published in a leading, peer-reviewed, medical journal to support your claims.
So far all you have is some quack doctors looking to make a buck supported by fringe lobby groups attending lobby funded conventions in lobby funded papers.
You know, there are tons of things we eat that come from industrial by-products. I believe the potassium iodate in iodized salt is one. Perfectly safe.
"quack doctor" (Duckologist)
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
The reason for my jab at dentists is that they (throught their Dental Associtasion institutions) have fully endorsed the ingestion of an industrial waste and not respecting the work of brain doctors, cancer doctors etc. who are revealing this stuff to be detrimental to our health.
1) A waste product can be used in safety after purification. Chemicals are always purified despite what you may think.
2) "Brain and cancer" doctors routinely use fluorine-containing molecules in either treatment pharmaceuticals or as a diagnostic tool. For example, PET (positron emission tomography) routinely uses radioactive F-containing molecules to image tumors. I have personally worked on these projects in Cancer research groups and I have yet to see anyone propose what you claim.
Edit: I'll add that the PET compounds are synthesized every day in hospitals around the world. These are done using fluoride sources and are then injected into humans and animals in much higher concentrations than is in drinking water.
Personally I won't lose a lot of sleep over this (I can afford proper dental care for my kids), but the anti-fluoride arguments always struck me as rather weak.
- The health effects claims are pretty much bogus. I've gone through the scientific literature as well as the major regulatory reviews; there is no credible evidence of harmful effects other than fluorisis at levels used in Calgary drinking water. Most of the studies quoted by anti-fluoride activists as showing harmful effects use concentrations higher than Calgary's as the "low fluoride control group."
- The claims of no benefit likewise don't hold up to scrutiny. Anti-fluoride sites use some pretty dubious comparisons when they try to demonstrate no benefit.
- Maybe there's some grounds to the "ethical" argument, but not very strong in my opinion. Optimizing the concentration of a mineral that's already present (at concentrations of 0.1 to 0.4 ppm in the Bow River, compared to 0.7 ppm as the target in drinking water) is a lot different than adding a drug. I don't see it as any different than adding iodide to salt, vitamin D to milk or folic acid to flour - they're all cost-effective ways of providing a net health benefit to the population.
- The "industrial waste" argument is just plain silly. The fluoride compounds added disassociate in water, and a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion regardless of where it comes from. Whether it was originally sodium fluoride or calcium fluoride makes absolutely no difference.
The fluoride compounds added disassociate in water, and a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion regardless of where it comes from. Whether it was originally sodium fluoride or calcium fluoride makes absolutely no difference.
IONS!? Ions are always bad, unless they're good.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Show us an opinion of credible "brain doctors" (neurologists) and "cancer doctors" (oncologists) published in a leading, peer-reviewed, medical journal to support your claims.
So far all you have is some quack doctors looking to make a buck supported by fringe lobby groups attending lobby funded conventions in lobby funded papers.
You know, there are tons of things we eat that come from industrial by-products. I believe the potassium iodate in iodized salt is one. Perfectly safe.
I guess Dr. Phyllis J. Mullenix is a "quack" doctor. There were plenty of legitimate professionals in the links I provided, not that you took a look anyways.
All these professionals travelling to all these international conferences on fluoride are completely wasting their time on "quack" science?
It seems like everyone is all for the fluoridation of water here, so who is paying for the lobbying for removing fluoride?
For example, it doesn't seem like something heavy industry would fund and therefore benefit from....but obviously someone is paying the bills.
And as you put it:
"there are tons of things we eat that come from industrial by-products"
So we should sit by and just appreciate the government force unknowns into everything we consume?
Have you noticed that in the decades since we have been consuming these by-products/chemicals that North Americans, from a public health standpoint, are the unhealthiest people on the planet?
The disease and obesity is off the charts, to the point now that this generation will not out-live their parents. But let's not question fluoride, we need that stuff....
The Following User Says Thank You to mikey_the_redneck For This Useful Post:
You say "not respecting" when what you actually mean is "not agreeing with me". You think they are quacks because they disagree. Maybe they disagree because the other guys are wrong.
You accept things that support your position from newspapers, ideologically driven websites and "journals" that only support one conclusion, but reject things that come from similar sources that disagree with your position (not to mention the stuff that comes from real journals). So your opinion is easily discounted because it's fundamentally flawed.
You could even be technically right, but right for the wrong reason is still wrong.
Hey are these people "ideologically driven", or "quacks"?
Dr. Dean Burk, former Director & Chief Chemist Emeritus of United States (US) National Cancer Institute: "fluoride causes more human cancer deaths, and causes it quicker, than any other chemical".
Dr. C. Heyd, MD, past President of Americal Medical Association, " I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long-range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable."
Dr. W. Marcus, Ph.D., Senior US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxicologist: "Regarding fluoridation, the EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects."
Hey are these people "ideologically driven", or "quacks"?
Dr. Dean Burk
Dr. C. Heyd
Dr. W. Marcus
The day I read an epidemiological study that shows toxicity at the levels treated in Calgary's water is the day I will start believing any of these people. They may have credentials. I have a PhD. Does that make me able to refute evidence with no statistical backup?
I read some of your links. They provide little to no epidemiological evidence. Ashartus debunked (in a simple internet forum post) the anti-fluoride arguments.
Anti-fluoride people are very similar to the anti-vaccine types; they will spout anything as their "negative evidence' yet all the published, peer-reviewed literature, show a net public heatlh benefit to fluoridation of water. Where's the statistically-based refutation of the evidence?
The idiots on council who voted for removal are as dumb as you can get. Mayor Nenshi suggested perhaps this should be reviewed by a panel of experts who can objectively review the evidence, rather than a council who rely on internet garbage and crackpots to tell them their opinion. Why didn't the council let this panel present their findings before this decision? What are they so scared of? Perhaps that the epidemiological evidence doesn't provide the boogeyman they want?
Oh, and how about that horse's arse Jim Stevenson on why it shouldn't go to a plebiscite?
Quote:
“I don’t think 53% of the 30% who vote should be able to force a medication on a 100% of the people of the city,” he said.
“It’s not the right way to decide mass medication.”
As opposed to your 12 kool-aid drinking colleagues deciding it instead? Genius. Jokes this good don't come along often.
And to whoever said it will get the pool smell out of the water - no it won't. That's the chlorination of the water that makes it smell that way. The chlorination which is a similar net public health benefit. Why don't we discuss removing that from the water supply too? It's probably bad for us!
Last edited by billybob123; 02-08-2011 at 10:00 PM.
