Jump to content

The law and flouride added to our water


Recommended Posts

The lack of general chemistry knowledge displayed on this thread is more alarming than anything they put into the water.

 

Do you think we can talk them into campaigning to outlaw that dangerous chemical, hydrogen monoxide? It causes more human deaths than all other chemicals put together, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by Heidi Stevenson

5 September 2010

 

In this age of repression on genuine scientific research, we need to take note that scientists free to do open and honest research, and report on it, have often taken stands that dispute their agencies' officials stances. Nowhere has that been more true than in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the issue of fluoride. Rank and file EPA scientists have strongly opposed water fluoridation.

EPA scientists protected by the National Treasury Employees Union were approached by an employee in 1985. His concern was that he was:

...being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.(1)

A statement issued by EPA scientists stated that they tried to "settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure." Therefore, they went public with it and filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a public interest group's suit against the EPA. In their statement, from which the above quote was extracted, the scientists avered that their opposition to fluoridation only grew stronger after that incident.

 

Your source believes in homeopathy :hihi:

 

She has 0 credibility when it comes to knowing about things added to water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Floride is te 2nd most deadly chemical to humans , after aresenic

 

This is woefully false. Flourine, the element, is deadly poisonous. Flouride, the compound, is utterly harmless in the quantities being considered; for the same reason that table salt is harmless (and indeed beneficial) despite both sodium and chlorine being lethal to ingest. The properties of a compound bear no relation whatsoever to the properties of the elements which form it.

 

He made up the arsenic bit, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your source believes in homeopathy :hihi:

 

She has 0 credibility when it comes to knowing about things added to water.

 

Strange that the N.H.S finds Homeopathy credible? Perhaps you should take your obvious authority on…..well just about everything it seems, and challenge government policy on this matter lol!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you feel is causing fish with dual sex organs in our rivers?

 

What I feel doesn't matter - what matters is what the scientific evidence shows (and that's scientific evidence not pseudoscientific drivel like the stuff you've been posting). It **may** possibly turn out to be oestrogen mimics or it may not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.