Fluoride is bad
Aaf‘
II a u
Hi’; So you eat ass
Ass doesn
II a u
Hi’; So you eat ass
Ass doesn
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
20 comments displayed.
#6 to #3
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (12/25/2015) [-] That's possibly the most wrong thing I've ever heard. That or my entire area should have been dead for over 20 years.
#11 to #10
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (12/27/2015) [-] I was operating under the assumption that people needed their brains to live.
Fluoride can cause damage to developing children, but they would have to drink an awful lot of it. Ingesting fluoridated water or toothpaste is perfectly safe, provided you have plenty of water in your system (unlikely to be a problem in this case) and enough calcium in your diet.
Fluoride can cause damage to developing children, but they would have to drink an awful lot of it. Ingesting fluoridated water or toothpaste is perfectly safe, provided you have plenty of water in your system (unlikely to be a problem in this case) and enough calcium in your diet.
#19 to #17
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (12/27/2015) [-] Yes, but some things are less deadly than others, and some things are impossible to be killed by for logistical reasons. For instance that volume of potassium would likely kill you anyway.
#12 to #11
-
anon (12/27/2015) [-]
I never claimed it to be deathly dangerous, and I doubt I'm wrong in calling it a neurotoxin, and I agree that it's more dangerous to children. By the way, Strawman, since you called me out on a claim I never made.
In regards to your refute, the non-lethal side-effects require a far smaller threshold of fluoride than the lethal one. The former is 10 mg/day for adults and 2 for children or so, right?
Crossing that lowest threshold on a regular basis from what I understand can cause dental fluorosis. Now, the condition by itself doesn't really cause anything and has nothing to do with fluoride being a neurotoxin, but apparently two out of five americans have it according to a study from 4 years ago or so. This leads to the assumption that a smaller fraction of the populace consume an even larger amount of fluroide, which naturally means that the negative effects are greater. The effects are amplified if there is anything wrong with the kidneys by the way.
Maybe I'm cherrypicking, and I wouldn't be surprised if I would, but apparently there has been plenty of recent studies that do show relationships between fluoride and it's consumers' physical and psychical conditions.
At the end of the day, there is plenty of proof that fluroide does function like a neurotoxin, and thus has fallen into the same class as lead and arsenic.
Feel free to refute any present points and add a few of your own, and please refrain from refuting arguments I haven't made.
In regards to your refute, the non-lethal side-effects require a far smaller threshold of fluoride than the lethal one. The former is 10 mg/day for adults and 2 for children or so, right?
Crossing that lowest threshold on a regular basis from what I understand can cause dental fluorosis. Now, the condition by itself doesn't really cause anything and has nothing to do with fluoride being a neurotoxin, but apparently two out of five americans have it according to a study from 4 years ago or so. This leads to the assumption that a smaller fraction of the populace consume an even larger amount of fluroide, which naturally means that the negative effects are greater. The effects are amplified if there is anything wrong with the kidneys by the way.
Maybe I'm cherrypicking, and I wouldn't be surprised if I would, but apparently there has been plenty of recent studies that do show relationships between fluoride and it's consumers' physical and psychical conditions.
At the end of the day, there is plenty of proof that fluroide does function like a neurotoxin, and thus has fallen into the same class as lead and arsenic.
Feel free to refute any present points and add a few of your own, and please refrain from refuting arguments I haven't made.
#14 to #12
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (12/27/2015) [-] Fluoride is most definitely harmful in high concentrations, because it interferes with the calcium ions your nervous system needs to function; but since most people consume a substantial amount of calcium in their daily diet there shouldn't be too much trouble. Sure if you chug hydrofluoric acid you'll know about it, but not from the minute volume in drinking water.
And the property of fluoride is also shared by chloride, albeit far less potently. But then again chloride is found in much higher quantities in both drinking water and food. The point I'm trying to make is that thorough testing was done prior to the addition of fluoride to the water supply, and presumably the dosage was, as is typical of such things, to far below the toxic level.
And the property of fluoride is also shared by chloride, albeit far less potently. But then again chloride is found in much higher quantities in both drinking water and food. The point I'm trying to make is that thorough testing was done prior to the addition of fluoride to the water supply, and presumably the dosage was, as is typical of such things, to far below the toxic level.
#16 to #14
-
anon (12/27/2015) [-]
You wouldn't mind sharing some numbers rather than saying that the numbers are legit?
I couldn't find much personally, but I've encountered plenty of fishy **** in regards to numbers.
For example, a portion of chips does not contain a lot of calories, but nobody is going to point out that a portion of chips is like a handful. Question is, what person is satisfied with a handful of chips?
Another example is in regards to alcohol, written by some alcohol beverage journal (check out dat bias) said that although beer does contain phytoestrogens, the amount of it isn't big enough to have an impact on your body in terms of hormone balance and it's effects. Now, you go to a bar, and you see people who chug plenty of beer, who are also the people who happen to be quite chubby and have mantits. Beer doesn't cause this stuff unless you drink excessive amounts, but what amount is considered "excessive" isn't something people like to point out.
I'm basing my skepticism on the fact that I see plenty of cases around me which give me reasons to suspect that not every person is a saint.
In all seriousness, I can't find any numbers in regards to amounts of fluoride in water and how much water that means I ought to drink, other sources aside.
Also I recall reading that fluoride interacts with your blood in some nasty manner. Any thoughts on that?
I couldn't find much personally, but I've encountered plenty of fishy **** in regards to numbers.
For example, a portion of chips does not contain a lot of calories, but nobody is going to point out that a portion of chips is like a handful. Question is, what person is satisfied with a handful of chips?
Another example is in regards to alcohol, written by some alcohol beverage journal (check out dat bias) said that although beer does contain phytoestrogens, the amount of it isn't big enough to have an impact on your body in terms of hormone balance and it's effects. Now, you go to a bar, and you see people who chug plenty of beer, who are also the people who happen to be quite chubby and have mantits. Beer doesn't cause this stuff unless you drink excessive amounts, but what amount is considered "excessive" isn't something people like to point out.
I'm basing my skepticism on the fact that I see plenty of cases around me which give me reasons to suspect that not every person is a saint.
In all seriousness, I can't find any numbers in regards to amounts of fluoride in water and how much water that means I ought to drink, other sources aside.
Also I recall reading that fluoride interacts with your blood in some nasty manner. Any thoughts on that?
#18 to #16
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (12/27/2015) [-] You can go straight over to wikipedia for the toxicity report on fluoride...
That's very valid, though typically these things are taken more seriously.
"Excessive" is typically defined as consumption beyond reasonable limits: In this case that would probably be the point where a person is damaging their liver. But it's going to vary based on metabolism. Thus averages are taken across a population.
You "ought" to drink as much water as you feel you want, cramming more into your body won't harm you though.
When you drink fluoridated water, you're not just getting fluoride, you're also getting a crapload of water. Concentrations matter when it comes to chemistry, and when the numbers are this low.
The "numbers" I can find indicate a maximum upper bound of 1.2 mg/L. The US has its set at 0.7 mg/L, which is well below, and not going to hurt you.
Fluoride ions are extremely reactive, so chances are it can do all sorts of stuff, but probably not to your blood. Your blood is designed to contain all sorts of volatile elements safely, so you're ok.
That's very valid, though typically these things are taken more seriously.
"Excessive" is typically defined as consumption beyond reasonable limits: In this case that would probably be the point where a person is damaging their liver. But it's going to vary based on metabolism. Thus averages are taken across a population.
You "ought" to drink as much water as you feel you want, cramming more into your body won't harm you though.
When you drink fluoridated water, you're not just getting fluoride, you're also getting a crapload of water. Concentrations matter when it comes to chemistry, and when the numbers are this low.
The "numbers" I can find indicate a maximum upper bound of 1.2 mg/L. The US has its set at 0.7 mg/L, which is well below, and not going to hurt you.
Fluoride ions are extremely reactive, so chances are it can do all sorts of stuff, but probably not to your blood. Your blood is designed to contain all sorts of volatile elements safely, so you're ok.
#2 to #1
-
sandmansniper (12/25/2015) [-] Sort of. Moreso it is super reactive, so it removes **** , and if it was more concentrated, your teeth.
#4
-
digitalmasterx (12/25/2015) [-]
basically any 'benefits' of fluoride heavily outweigh the negatives.
and it's in most american drinking waters.
buy bottled water(but also sometimes bottled water can be tap water because shady companies)
and it's in most american drinking waters.
buy bottled water(but also sometimes bottled water can be tap water because shady companies)
#7 to #4
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (12/25/2015) [-] The benefits are well documented, and I've never heard or seen any sign of any negatives, so I'd say it's decent.
#8 to #7
-
digitalmasterx (12/25/2015) [-]
"As of November 2015, a total of 56 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and a total of 36 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 49 of the 56 human studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ"
fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/
fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/
#9 to #8
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (12/25/2015) [-] According to wikipedia fluoride has been found to have effects during human development, but I can see no sound reason to suspect any neurological damage. This entire concept only exists because fringe conspiracy nuts got overexcited. Fluoride ions are dangerous because they bind to calcium ions, which are important for brain function, but there's no way that the volume in water could cause any harm, you would need to ingest a fluoride salt of some kind in high quantities to die.
