the keystone part of my case of keystone is a keystone beer

4/15/2013 1:55:21 PM

^speaking of things that WILL kill you if you drink too much of them...

4/15/2013 1:56:17 PM

OMG, BUT BEER HAS FLUORIDE IN IT!!!

(ABOUT 45 µg/L for your average domestic)

4/15/2013 2:01:16 PM

All done.

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 2:14 PM. Reason : ]

4/15/2013 2:08:09 PM

Something worth noting:

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm#four

Quote :

"The MCLG for fluoride is 4.0 mg/L or 4.0 ppm. EPA has set this level of protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems. EPA has set an enforceable regulation for fluoride, called a maximum contaminant level (MCL), at 4.0 mg/L or 4.0 ppm"

So while Raleigh's levels of fluoride are presumably safe, the national requirement is not.

My view:

1. Rinsing your teeth with fluoride prevents cavities.

2. Actually consuming fluoride has no positive effect, and can have detrimental effects that seem to begin around 2 mg/L.

Given this, why not take part of the $350 million a year and spend it on PSAs telling people to a) brush their damn teeth, and b) use fluoride mouthwash if your teeth are unusually weak.

At the least, the nationally regulated level should be reduce to 1 mg/L.

4/15/2013 2:09:47 PM

4 pages?

seriously guys?

4/15/2013 2:13:20 PM

Nice Mildew...I'm sure a lot of the slobs on this thread will be envious of my physique as well

4/15/2013 2:14:45 PM

Quote :

"Quote : " 1) It's not added intentionally, HSF is added intentionally. No one is buying Arsenic to treat the water. 2) Where are you getting your water? What is the arsenic level? Can you provide a copy of the water quality report showing measurable levels of arsenic? thanks" There is Arsenic in FSA, which is added intentionally. Do you really need me to explain that to you? If I was to produce this report I highly doubt it would yield the result I want which is for dtownral to get his head out of his ass and actually think about this topic. Instead what I would expect is for dtownral to find another minute point to argue in attempts to discredit the totality of research which has clearly been done and presented on my website and others. Such an effort to produce this report to a nobody on the wolf web would hardly be efficacious to our cause anyhow, and not worth my time. If you don't actually give a shit why are you still talking? You don't even want to debate this in a legitimate way so it must be an ego thing. "

the NSF standard for HSF is based on the study that it does not contribute to measureable quantities of arsenic in your drinking water. basically, like many things, it has arsenic in it but not at a level that can impact the level in the drinking water. its not intentionally added, its simply often a contaminant from the production of HSF. I don't know how to make that more simple. regardless though, this is a semantics argument, I'm just pointing out that you are making this non-keystone point to scare people.

so, if you don't want to share the water quality report can you at least post what municipality you are getting your water from and what the measured arsenic level is? that should not take any effort so there should be no concerns about if it would be efficacious.

4/15/2013 2:20:35 PM

If you're not going to legitimately address the intentional addition of a chemical which has contaminants in it, why should I address the individual contaminant you've got your whole non-argument wrapped up around?

I'm taking issue with the intentional addition of Hydrofluorosilicic acid. If it has arsenic or lead in it, a rational person would question - Why? What benefit does this chemical provide? If none (and I don't hear you arguing that there IS a benefit) then why are we paying for it, and adding it to the water?

You clearly have no rational personality whatsoever, so it is no mystery why this is so difficult for you to understand.

4/15/2013 2:25:39 PM

what municipality are you in and how much lead and arsenic is in your drinking water? I am addressing your contaminant concern, I'm pointing out that the NSF standard is based on showing that HSF additional does not contribute to arsenic levels.

what is the arsenic level in your water, and what municipality are you purchasing your water from?

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2013 2:27:13 PM

THE CHEMICALS

4/15/2013 2:48:52 PM

What's a rational personality? One that agrees with you?

4/15/2013 2:51:53 PM

Quote :

"Something worth noting: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm#four Quote : "The MCLG for fluoride is 4.0 mg/L or 4.0 ppm. EPA has set this level of protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems. EPA has set an enforceable regulation for fluoride, called a maximum contaminant level (MCL), at 4.0 mg/L or 4.0 ppm" So while Raleigh's levels of fluoride are presumably safe, the national requirement is not. My view: 1. Rinsing your teeth with fluoride prevents cavities. 2. Actually consuming fluoride has no positive effect, and can have detrimental effects that seem to begin around 2 mg/L. Given this, why not take part of the $350 million a year and spend it on PSAs telling people to a) brush their damn teeth, and b) use fluoride mouthwash if your teeth are unusually weak. At the least, the nationally regulated level should be reduce to 1 mg/L."

I'd like to hear some responses to this.

4/15/2013 2:53:15 PM

Quote :

"PSAs telling people to a) brush their damn teeth, and b) use fluoride mouthwash if your teeth are unusually weak."

i was under the impression that flouride is important to children's teeth, and that's one of the main reasons it's added to the water. PSA's aren't going to get kids to brush and rinse with flouride mouthwash.

4/15/2013 2:58:10 PM

Quote :

"What's a rational personality? One that agrees with you?"

A rational personality is one who can assess information in an axiomatic way and not resort to character assassination, perry mason tactics etc. to discredit an entire body of research.

For example: it is self evident that adding hydrofluorosilicic acid to the water is a violation of current FDA drug laws, in that the chemical used has not been approved by the FDA for use to treat or mitigate any disease whatsoever. There's really no debating this, as it is self evident. A rational personality would be able to pick up on this immediately, regardless of opinion on the efficacy of FSA use in our water supplies.

It is also self evident, given this FACT, that our government officials are guilty of practicing medicine without a license since they are literally prescribing this drug to all citizens who drink their water in unmeasurable quantities.

4/15/2013 3:06:11 PM

Sorry man, but it's funny to hear you explain what a rational personality is, when you accept this conspiracy theory and won't entertain the countless legitimate arguments against it.

4/15/2013 3:08:23 PM

Bullet -

As long as you consider alternative information a "Conspiracy theory" you will continue to be deceived. I feel bad for you if that is how you view the world.

There isn't a single legitimate argument presented here, or even by the panel of so-called experts who testified in Durham to the efficacy of this policy - so of course I don't accept them. I do a fair amount of entertainment though, as evidenced by my sacrificial back-n-forth with dtownral who is among the most asleep in this thread.

That's why I have a rational personality, and those who can't even honestly confront the science and information do not.

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 3:23 PM. Reason : Edit]

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 3:25 PM. Reason : edit]

4/15/2013 3:21:19 PM

Then you're one of the very, very few who has a rational personality. Of course, that is what most conspiracy theorist believe, that somehow they are the one in a million who actually knows the truth. Anyways, good luck on your crusade. But if you ask me, there's more important things you should be spending your time on. If you think the water is harmful, there's a very, very simple solution. Stop drinking it.

4/15/2013 3:24:20 PM

Bullet I'm actually one of millions around the world who have researched this subject and learned the truth. I actually stand with the likes of most western nations in NOT artificially fluoridating the public water. We aren't special or different, just willing to honestly look at the facts.

If I am considered a conspiracy theory for coming to a logical conclusion based on research - then fuck, I guess I'll be a conspiracy theorist.

And while there are many other issues worth consideration (like geoengineering aka Chemtrails, illegal wars, monetary system, etc). this is an effort I have chosen to participate in. I'm doing something, and I just love all those who say I should give up and concentrate on something more worthwhile, when they obviously do nothing at all.

4/15/2013 3:28:33 PM

Quote :

"""Something worth noting: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm#four Quote : "The MCLG for fluoride is 4.0 mg/L or 4.0 ppm. EPA has set this level of protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems. EPA has set an enforceable regulation for fluoride, called a maximum contaminant level (MCL), at 4.0 mg/L or 4.0 ppm" So while Raleigh's levels of fluoride are presumably safe, the national requirement is not. My view: 1. Rinsing your teeth with fluoride prevents cavities. 2. Actually consuming fluoride has no positive effect, and can have detrimental effects that seem to begin around 2 mg/L. Given this, why not take part of the $350 million a year and spend it on PSAs telling people to a) brush their damn teeth, and b) use fluoride mouthwash if your teeth are unusually weak. At the least, the nationally regulated level should be reduce to 1 mg/L.""" I'd like to hear some responses to this."

Worth considering, since it's not based on the belief that fertilizer manufacturers are colluding with government to poison us, like crazy conspiracy theorist Corey Sturmer believes.

My only concern is that there may be cities in the country that require a supply fluoride level of 4mg/L to handle their unique water transportation issues, and setting it too low would cause them to seek out a worse solution.

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 3:29 PM. Reason : ]

4/15/2013 3:28:48 PM

All I'm saying is, all you have to do is stop drinking municipal water.

4/15/2013 3:29:55 PM

Quote :

"i was under the impression that flouride is important to children's teeth, and that's one of the main reasons it's added to the water. PSA's aren't going to get kids to brush and rinse with flouride mouthwash."

Well the PSAs would be intended for parents, not kids.

In my opinion, cavities aren't a big enough issue to warrant adding a chemical to the water supply. There could be adverse effects that we aren't aware of at this time. If you disagree, fine, but there is no reason for the regulated (not recommended) limit to be more than 1 mg/L, given what we do currently know.

4/15/2013 3:30:15 PM

Quote :

"the science is supporting US, NOT YOU. "

Wrong.

You stop replying to me when I post rational stuff that actually disproves your opinion. Even if I did the math to disprove you, you wouldn't believe me.

Your cause is stupid and worthless, why don't you pick something to spend your time on that actually will make a difference in the world?

4/15/2013 3:32:49 PM

Hey Moron -

Have you called the distributor like I have to determine where the municipal government buys the chemical from? Because I have and it's a company called MOSAIC, a division of POTASH corporation. Here's the document. Now who is crazy? Me for knowing this, or you for denying this FACT?

4/15/2013 3:34:03 PM

You still don't grasp the concept of "concentration" do you?

4/15/2013 3:35:18 PM

Quote :

"Hey Moron - Have you called the distributor like I have to determine where the municipal government buys the chemical from? Because I have and it's a company called MOSAIC, a division of POTASH corporation. Here's the document. Now who is crazy? Me for knowing this, or you for denying this FACT?"

I don't think anyone claimed that municipalities don't buy fluoride from fertilizer companies. That wasn't the argument.

Quote :

"You still don't grasp the concept of "concentration" do you?"

Yes, you haven't addressed this yet. The fact that small amounts may sometimes be good, while large amounts can kill you. Like Iron. And Vitamin D. or Calcium.


[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 3:37 PM. Reason : ]

4/15/2013 3:35:48 PM

Wolfmarsh -

Please do the math and explain to me why the city government has the authority to forcibly medicate the entire population via the water supply.

I want to hear this argument from someone, somewhere in this thread.

4/15/2013 3:39:23 PM

If the chemical has no benefit, why is any concentration considered a good thing?

If we agree the chemical has no benefit, why is a lesser concentration of it a positive thing?

I want to hear you proponents address the LEGITIMATE issue of our city MEDICATING the water supply.

4/15/2013 3:40:28 PM

I don't need to do the math to explain it.

Sometimes, it's necessary for leaders to make decisions for the "betterment of society". In this case specifically, any potential negatives are far outweighed by the positives. Do you understand that?

4/15/2013 3:42:15 PM

Quote :

"Worth considering, since it's not based on the belief that fertilizer manufacturers are colluding with government to poison us"

No one in this thread has made that argument, no need to be disingenuous.

The truth is that fertilizer manufacturers are selling fluoride to municipalities, which would otherwise cost them money to dispose of. Nothing at all wrong with this. The problem is that, in high enough concentrations, fluoride is detrimental to human health.

BIG PROBLEM: The EPA regulated level is twice the concentration where you begin to see negative effects.

Smaller problem: It's highly debatable that the government should be medicating our bodies through the water supply. Sure, you can choose to get water elsewhere, but that's pretty expensive if you don't have personal access to a clean groundwater supply.

4/15/2013 3:45:36 PM

So you must be of the opinion that our leaders made the right decision (net benefit) when they built pumps and distribution systems to add this chemical to our water supply.

Do you believe that drinking this chemical can benefit our teeth but not affect the rest of the body?

If so - how is that possible when the chemical is ingested by swallowing?

4/15/2013 3:46:24 PM

Quote :

"No one in this thread has made that argument, no need to be disingenuous."

yes, i'm pretty sure thegoldenrul made that exact argument. I specifically asked that question.

4/15/2013 3:46:44 PM

^
quote? i didn't see it

4/15/2013 3:47:35 PM

Quote :

"Sure, you can choose to get water elsewhere, but that's pretty expensive if you don't have personal access to a clean groundwater supply."

It's already been mentioned too, but almost all groundwater supplies aren't nearly as clean as municipally treated water.

4/15/2013 3:47:58 PM

^
exactly, so that makes it even harder to opt out

4/15/2013 3:49:25 PM

Quote :

"quote? i didn't see it"

well, not maybe not that exact argument, but he's argued that the fertilizer companies and the american dental association were in cahoots in leading a disingenuous PR campaign about the benefits of flouride, when they new it was toxic.

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ]

4/15/2013 3:50:45 PM

well done, dtownral, well done

4/15/2013 3:51:39 PM

Quote :

"So you must be of the opinion that our leaders made the right decision (net benefit) when they built pumps and distribution systems to add this chemical to our water supply."

Yes. And you are of the opinion that they were wrong. Millions of underprivileged people would disagree with you, even if they don't know it.

Quote :

"Do you believe that drinking this chemical can benefit our teeth but not affect the rest of the body?"

No, because I understand chemistry. Again, I don't know how I can say this simpler. Every medical treatment has the potential for negative side effects. When a treatment is chosen, it's because the potential benefits outweigh the potential negatives.

I am not saying that flouride in high concentrations isn't harmful, because it is. However, the concentrations you are exposed to through tap water isn't harmful.

4/15/2013 3:51:40 PM

This is what I said:

Quote :

"http://www.fluoride-osteosarcoma-law.com/fluoride_water.html This was a strange phenomenon, given that the USPHS and the American Dental Association (ADA) had been adamantly against the addition of fluoride to drinking water for years. In October 1944, the Journal of the American Dental Association published this statement about fluoride in water: We do know that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 parts per million of fluoride will cause such developmental disturbances as osteosclerosis, spondylosis, and osteropetrosis, as well a goiter; and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances… By 1950, however, the ADA had changed its tune without any further evidence regarding the safety of adding fluoride to our water. Even when the three initial studies were concluded, there was no evidence that fluoridated water posed a benefit to dental health. It is interesting to note that, in 1947, the Chief Counsel of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) became the head of the United States Public Health Service. At the time, ALCOA was the biggest producer of hazardous fluoride waste. The head of ALCOA provided very strong incentives to the American Dental Association to support the fluoridation of water. Today, the ADA is paid well to endorse the fluoridation of water. Grants are awarded to researchers who can show that fluoride is beneficial. In July 2005, officials launched an investigation of one Harvard professor suspected of suppressing medical evidence linking fluoridated water with osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in adolescent boys (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201277.html) Please see our section on Fluoride and Osteosarcoma for more information about this serious fluoride health hazard."

4/15/2013 3:52:39 PM

Quote :

"Yes. And you are of the opinion that they were wrong. Millions of underprivileged people would disagree with you, even if they don't know it. Quote : "Do you believe that drinking this chemical can benefit our teeth but not affect the rest of the body?" No, because I understand chemistry. Again, I don't know how I can say this simpler. Every medical treatment has the potential for negative side effects. When a treatment is chosen, it's because the potential benefits outweigh the potential negatives. I am not saying that flouride in high concentrations isn't harmful, because it is. However, the concentrations you are exposed to through tap water isn't harmful."

So you understand chemistry but do you understand internal medicine? How do you know it isn't harmful? if it's only been done since 1957, wouldn't the earliest long term studies on its effects only recently be completed? Do they teach you in chemistry about bioaccumulation in bones? Thyroid disorder and the internal effects fluoride have on your organ tissues?

Further, have you read the 2006 500 page NRC report on fluoride toxicity? If not I highly recommend you do so.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

4/15/2013 3:55:53 PM

Quote :

"However, the concentrations you are exposed to through tap water isn't harmful."

In Raleigh, yes, because it is regulated at .7-1 mg/L

The EPA regulated level is 4 mg/L.

4/15/2013 3:56:26 PM

Quote :

"So you understand chemistry but do you understand internal medicine? How do you know it isn't harmful? if it's only been done since 1957, wouldn't the earliest long term studies on its effects only recently be completed? Do they teach you in chemistry about bioaccumulation in bones? Thyroid disorder and the internal effects fluoride have on your organ tissues? Further, have you read the 2006 500 page NRC report on fluoride toxicity? If not I highly recommend you do so."

I am not paying for that report to argue a point. If you give me a PDF copy of it, I'll read it.

You really aren't comprehending what I said at all. Of course flouride can be toxic in high enough concentrations, but so can table salt.

The benefit outweighs the negatives.

Why do you believe that people who can't afford dental care deserve to have their teeth fall out?

4/15/2013 4:03:30 PM

Wolfmarsh -

It's free on the link I sent you - scroll down a bit and you'll see the chapters you can click and read.

Look I get what you're saying about concentrations. If you drink enough concentrated citric acid, you die. if you drink enough water you will die.

I fucking get it guys but you're TOTALLY missing the point.

The whole idea that this chemical is beneficial to our teeth is a ruse meant to provide a cover for the fertilizer companies who need a profitable way to dump their waste which is illegal for them to dump anywhere else. It's a hoax, and that's all I'm trying to point out.

You should not accuse me of not caring for the children, when there are videos of me arguing to the authorities that they should spend the money on this chemical instead on toothbrushes and toothpaste so that they can enjoy REAL dental care. The irony is that the destitute are affected moreso by fluoridation than more wealthy citizens.

4/15/2013 4:10:13 PM

Quote :

"The benefit outweighs the negatives."

The same was said about asbestos at one point. It's possible that we might find detrimental effects in lower concentrations. If there is no benefit from ingestion, and it is potentially harmful, why continue to add it to the water supply?

Quote :

"Why do you believe that people who can't afford dental care deserve to have their teeth fall out?"

Anyone can afford fluoridated toothpaste.

4/15/2013 4:11:06 PM

Quote :

"The same was said about asbestos at one point. It's possible that we might find detrimental effects in lower concentrations. If there is no benefit from ingestion, and it is potentially harmful, why continue to add it to the water supply?"

Sounds like the answer is "because science says that it's safe, except when it doesn't". Also, it's apparently safe to assume that science will never give us any more information on this topic than it has up to this point, and the null hypothesis is "consumption of fluoride is safe".

4/15/2013 4:19:26 PM

I'm still waiting to hear OP's arsenic levels

Quote :

"BIG PROBLEM: The EPA regulated level is twice the concentration where you begin to see negative effects. "

He is speaking at Raleigh City Council meetings, the level here is 0.7

If he wants to change the non-enforceable EPA regulations that municipalities are already under, the City Council isn't going to be able to help his cause.

4/15/2013 4:20:17 PM

^^well, it has been in the drinking water since the 40s, right? So over 70 years of test cases?

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 4:21 PM. Reason : ]

4/15/2013 4:20:42 PM

dtownral is going to wait forever on the arsenic report from my tap in hopes he can score some kind of 3-point message board victory over the legitimate movement I started here in the area. It's starting to be funny at this point.

I'm still waiting on YOU to offer a legitimate debate worth my time!

4/15/2013 4:24:11 PM

^^^
I get that you're trying to prove him wrong, but what do you really think? Namely about this:

Quote :

"The same was said about asbestos at one point. It's possible that we might find detrimental effects in lower concentrations. If there is no benefit from ingestion, and it is potentially harmful, why continue to add it to the water supply?"

Quote :

"^^well, it has been in the drinking water since the 40s, right? So over 70 years of test cases?"

Asbestos was used in the US for 130 years, dawg.

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2013 4:24:14 PM

Quote :

"^^well, it has been in the drinking water since the 40s, right? So over 70 years of test cases?"

Well, I apparently have dental fluorosis (had no explanation for the white marks on my front teeth until now), so...

If we don't fully understand the complications of chronic fluoride consumption, then we don't really know what to look for in 70 years of test cases. Also, not all Western countries put fluoride in the water.

4/15/2013 4:25:17 PM