Iota Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Nobody is disputing the fact that fluoride has toxic effects in high doses, However, those doses do not occur via fluoridation, so those effects are irrelevant to the current discussion. After all, 10 litres of water would probably kill you- are you going to ban it? Pointless comparison, I'm not against fluoridation on the basis that it's a chemical. Consumption of water is a necessary risk because it takes vast amounts before it's toxic, because it's absolutely crucial that we drink it, and water isn't the cause of potentially carcinogenic compounds forming, as chloride and fluoride can do. "I wholly disagree. It's evidence that a risk has yet to be known, not that one doesn't exist." How do you sleep at night, knowing there's a risk that your room has a tiger in it? Do you worry about that risk or do you dismiss it because, if there were one, you would know about it by now? Well, it's the same with fluoride in water. The risk must be small or non-existent. If tigers were being added to rooms at random, John, I'd be concerned. If nobody's adding them I have nothing to worry about, other than naturally occurring tiger's of course, but I'd accept that, because nobody is implementing it. "I consider dental fluorosis a form of harm" So do I. It affected my aunt who grew up in an area where the natural fluoride levels were high. She has mottled teeth. However, since they don't add enough fluoride to drinking water to cause fluorosis, that objection is also irrelevant. Seeing as it occurred as a result of it being added to the water, not all that long ago, I see it has relevance. "Not that I don't recognise the tooth decay preventing properties of fluoridated water intake." Please yourself, but you are ignoring the science. If, when, recognising the scientific findings, but objecting to the implementation of water fluoridation, I'm somehow 'ignoring the science', fine. Who is being facetious? If you think politics is letting you down, join a party that agrees with your views and campaign for it, or stand for election. Good luck standing on a ticket that says "I don't believe evidence". It was a blunt and unrealistic response to part of what I said. If it wasn't facetious, it was much more likely than not to come across as it.
Recommended Posts