Delicious Unconstitutional Water - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: HardBoot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2012, 07:29:47 am
content: I know a company which produces fluorosilicic acid(couple guys who work there), they give the stuff away to municipalities to dump in the water for the cost of shipping because it's costs quite a lot to dispose of otherwise.It's not "food grade" or "lab grade", the purity is rather low, about 98%, the remaining contaminants are volatiles, mercury, thallium, nickel, lead. The concentration and contaminants varies greatly from source to source.The type of fluoride and concentration dumped into the water determines it's effect.The standard? concentration is 1ppm in the USA, at that level some fluorides are completely harmless(tin/calcium), while some other types(sodium/hfsa) will have negative effects to teeth, bones, brain, largely if it's in the water source you're living on.What made it something put into the water for public health started with the original study funded by alcoa(aluminum producer who was causing trouble with their fluoride pollution) wanting to show a positive effect from sodium fluoride(more toxic than fluorosilicic acid), the study on systemic effects were scrapped because of the inconsistent results... the rats were dying of a wide variety of problems, they're more sensitive than humans, 1ppm seemed to be the max the rats could live on without measurable effects.If you've grown up consuming fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride, the neurological and dental damage is permanent, you can slightly fight the former with a mild stimulant, the latter... dentures, it'll cycle out of your bones, but it's half-life is 10-15 years.

author: tramjoe
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2012, 07:39:14 am
content: Freaky, I am glad I do not live in one of those retarded countries who puts fluor in the tap water. It's been most debated along the years and I thought it was clear now that the effect is counter-productive for your teeth on the long term, without even talking about additional contaminants, reason why I do not really understand why some places still do it.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2012, 08:57:46 am
content: They dope the water with fluoride here in the UK as it is "good for you". In the 1920's and 30's they had a major problem with cattle that were grazing down wind of the brick yards in Bedfordshire, They were getting a disease called big knee, their joints swollen and they could not move the knees being the most visibly swollen hence the name. It is a form of arthritis caused by the fluoride fall out from brick burning. The increase in arthritis in the western world is approximately in direct proportion to the rise in use of fluoride in the water, In areas where the fluoride is naturally higher just about every living creature will show signs of arthritis. Putting known toxins in the water should be banned internationally.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2012, 09:09:42 am
content: Quote from: tramjoe on August 05, 2012, 07:39:14 amI think you'll find that most official peer reviewed published research on the issue has the fluoride being beneficial (under the prescribed limit), so that's how many countries still get away with it. Whether or not the research is actually correct depends a lot on how it's framed, and how you view it in relation to things.e.g. Dental Fluorosis is a real known issue, as is fluoride poising.In Sydney for example where they do put fluoride in the water, along with other stuff like ferric chloride (yes, the PCB etchant), the main reason why it's still in there is because the government is scared that if they take it out, people will ask why and assume there was some risk to it, and hence the lawsuits will start for anything even remotely fluoride related.It's the classic "don't blame us" multiple people at fault protection mechanism.You can't blame Sydney Water, because they only do what the government tell them to do, and you can't blame the government because they are only doing what the Health Department recommend, and you can't blame the health department because they are only doing what the research recommends, and what the World Health Orgasisation recommends etc... etc...Ms EEVblog (a water scientist) who is deeply in-the-know on this issue says that Sydney Water at least never test the level at the tap level because of unknown (natural+other) levels that could possibly be introduced into the system outside the control of Sydney Water, so they only control the level at the filtration supply tank level. They don't care what level actually comes out of your tap.And fluoride in the water is essentially unnecessary because flouride benefits for teeth is a contact issue. i.e. you would need to swish your mouth with water all day for it to have a a major effect. It's much better off being in the toothpaste only for direct contact. But only for those with poor diets...If you have a good diet and brush your teeth regularly, there is no need for fluoride. Ad with the right diet, no brushing required at all.For those interested, take a look at some of the various indigenous tribes around the world that ALL have perfect teeth and never brush because they are not eating our western crap. e.g. The New Zealand Maori's are particularly famous for perfect teeth it before western diet influence.Dave.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2012, 09:14:00 am
content: This is a great example of important science being turned into conspiracy theory outrage and nonsense.It is 100% proven that exposure to the fluoride ion (whether in the drinking water, toothpaste, or fluoride treatments) dramatically reduces the occurrence and severity of cavities. It is basically what makes it possible to keep your teeth for your entire lifetime even with some of the horrible things we eat and drink. This is supported by a wide range of studies not just one discredited commercial source, and also basic chemistry. You take a tooth that has been treated with fluoride and one that hasn't and you throw them in some acid and you find that the fluoridated tooth requires a stronger acid and dissolves slower. It can cause discoloration and increased brittleness, but overall it is a clear win for dental health. Any argument which starts to the contrary simply can't be taken seriously.How much fluoride is required, what the best way to administer it, what the other negative consequences, and what level of additional contamination is introduced along with the fluoride ion are certainly important matters. Unfortunately you just skipped over any sort of rational thought and went straight for the hyperbole and the conspiracy theories, so there doesn't seem to be much point in debating those issues.

author: tramjoe
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2012, 01:36:57 pm
content: @dave + @ejeffreyIt indeed seems clear that fluoride is beneficial to dental health for adults, in limiting the occurence of cavities. No discussion about it.But as Dave pointed out, one implementation problem is about controlling the dose you get out of your tap. An other unknown is how much people use it and how. For adults, this puts efficacy in question. For children with not-yet-mature teeth, well, that raises the problems of potential fluorosis (I have one, sure, not cavities but my teeth are brownish, some of them degraded mechanically when I was a kid - think spitting out bits of teeth).The thing is that there are too many variables not under control IMHO to safely promote this.There are so many things that can happen: the minimal dose from tap water can combine with other chemicals (i.e. with Al, forming a compound that crosses the blodd/brain barrier and cause damages similar to Alzheimer) , can raise in quantity unexpectedly (as Dave said, controls are not always made where they would make most sense) and cause fluorosis on their own or combine with other absorbed fluoride amounts and cause fluorosis.Also, it _is_ common practice to use hexafluorosilicic acid instead of pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluorate. That happens in France where I live in most water treatment factories. As OP said, this is a byproduct of some industrial processes, should be considered (and is in fact categorized like so) a toxic waste as it is contaminated with arsenic, lead, cadmium, heavy metals, phosphorous fertilizers, Al when it comes from the Al industry, etc. Side effects of some of these are well known, some other are not. The studies you are talking about are probably not taking those points into account.Bear in mind that heavy metals, as well a fluoride have a cumulative effect on the human organism as they are stored and never (or in very small quantity) release by your body. No study can take that into account, same as no study can give you any idea of hormonal disruptions, effects of mixing fluorite with other agents, etc., are those topics are simply not the subject of the studies used to claim usefulness of adding fluoride in tap water.And as Dave said, fluoride is efficient in local application, not when ingested.Lastly, remember that Sweden and Germany outlawed adding fluoride to tap water and that most EU countries as well reject that practice. There must be a reason ?Forced medication is not something ethically sound in any way, I just find it disgusting and morally wrong. People who don't should at least respect thewish of those who do not want to be forced to ingest any kind of medecine without them contolling it. Dammit, just brush your teeth and you'll be fine - as long as you do not swallow the toothpaste, which in addition to fluoride often also contains endocrinian perturbators like triclosan, which are too bio-accumulative, and that can also be found in tap water, but that's a story for an other day ;-)There is enough crap in our water due to human industry, no need to voluntarily add some more - unless you like russian roulette.Edit:QuoteThis is your opinion. Statistics might show a global improvement of dental health, but statistics tell you nothing about individuals. And as an individual, I'd rather care for my own teeth myself and reduce my risks of fluorosis (too late for me, take that in a past tense) that cause the brittleness and discoloration you are talking about.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2012, 02:02:28 pm
content: In the UK they also put aluminum sulfate into tap water to make it sparkle, there was a famous case where the stuff was put into the wrong tank and so far to much went into the water, the local water authority stated that it was not harmful shortly before the local people started falling like flies with all sorts of strange illnesses.

author: HardBoot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2012, 05:33:30 pm
content: I should continue with a followup.Calcium fluoride is the most common type of naturally existing fluorine compound found in water, it's basically harmless, the level of calcium fluoride is what gives the base levels of natural fluorine in global statistics, in some areas it's quite high, several ppm, still harmless, in some areas it's pretty much nonexistent.The solution, let's add sodium fluoride.It's the equivalent saying you should add cyanogen chloride to food because there is a lack of sodium chloride, or putting thallium iodide instead of potassium iodide into salt.The positive studies I can find on fluorides for dental health only study topical treatment, applying it to your teeth and spitting it out, toothpaste, dental cleanings, about 2/3 are funded by very questionable groups, fertilizer and aluminum manufactures. The remaining 1/3 still showed a very small benefit, so nothing wrong there, just do NOT swallow toothpaste and don't use fluorinated toothpaste on children since they're swallow it and children are particularly vulnerable.Systemically(ingesting) it's(hfs/NaF) well known to have toxic effects in small amounts with prolonged exposure.China studied water fluoridation and found it was a double edged sword... they picked up the Nazis research on mass medication* and found the benefits were insignificant to the problems it would cause.China exports Sodium Fluoride internationally for water fluoridation, but has banned it's use domestically.*As far as I can tell they NEVER fluoridated the water on a large scale, just studied it on some a small number of guinea pigs(prisoners), more conspiracy bullshit about it being used in foreign cities and concentration camps.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2012, 07:32:19 pm
content: Quote from: HardBoot on August 05, 2012, 05:33:30 pmOK, I am going to really try to avoid getting sucked into a political / public policy debate here, but your chemistry is wrong here. Calcium fluoride is rather insoluble compared to sodium salts, but up to several ppm it is soluble. At the <1 ppm level found in drinking water it is completely dissociated. Saying that sea water has 'calcium fluoride not sodium fluoride' is, chemically speaking, meaningless. Sea water has Ca2+, Na+, and F- (as well as a lot of other ions) floating around. Same with drinking water, but of course there is much less Na+ compared to sea water. Whether the fluoride ions originally came from a sodium salt or a calcium salt is chemically irrelevant.What you have probably heard, and is correct, is that the source of most fluoride naturally occurring in water supplies comes from calcium fluoride rock. Also, the presence of calcium prevents the fluoride concentration from getting too high, as if it rises over the solubility threshold, it will start to precipitate out. This is good news because it means that naturally occurring fluoride levels can't go above several ppm, but is not an issue when talking about the concentrations used in water treatment, and in any case there is a fair bit of calcium in most domestic water.QuoteIt would be if sodium ions were extremely toxic elements not normally found in drinking water. In reality a more apt comparison would be that it is like iodizing salt with sodium iodide instead of potassium iodide.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2012, 10:33:11 pm
content: Quote from: tramjoe on August 05, 2012, 01:36:57 pmAnd therein lies the rub.Why is dental health such an important issue that mandates it being in our DRINKING water? Something we need to ingest every day to survive?Heck, here in Oz dental health isn't even covered under our Medicare national health system, yet dental is important enough for the government to mandate our drinking water must be spiked? WTF?!I don't blame any country or municipality for banning it, as it damn well should be.Where does it end? Forced vitamins or other 'beneficial" substances mandated into our food via our soil or by genetic modification? How about our air?IMO, everyone should be ultimately responsible for their own health, and we should have a right to have our drinking water as pure as possible, just like clean air and non-contaminated soils.The solution is awareness and a proper healthcare system that supports it, not forced chemical ingestion.The statistics also usually tell you little about the improvement in dental health through social awareness change etc.And as always, correlation does not imply causation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causationAs others had said, no one doubts the benefits of fluoride in dental health, but to use that as justification to add it our potable water is missing the bigger picture.Dave.BTW, I avoid tap water whenever possible

author: JohnS_AZ
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2012, 10:54:09 pm
content: I never felt I ever got a really straight answer about fluoride (and other water quality issues), so I installed a R.O. Water treatment system. If we drink it, or cook with it, it comes from the R.O. system.

author: gxti
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2012, 11:07:14 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 05, 2012, 10:33:11 pmBecause it's cheap, easy to do, demonstrably positive, and much more effective than leaving it to individual households. If it were only sold as tablet so you could fluoridate your own water, not even a small fraction of people who get fluoridated water today would use it.QuoteYour bread is already fortified with folic acid, your salt with iodide, and your milk with Vitamin D. Just like fluoridated water, you can opt out if you wish by buying it somewhere else. Oh, and GMO has nothing to do with the topic but thanks for the trigger phrase.QuoteYeah, about that clean air. The unfortunate thing about air is that it goes wherever it pleases, and if not for regulation it would be (and has been) full of all kinds of interesting things. Same goes for groundwater and the soil that it runs through. Heck, it's actually easier to get pure water than pure air. Air and soil aren't things that you can leave to the individual, because every time a few individuals will ruin it for the rest of us. Municipal water isn't really the same ballpark, although groundwater is.As for having a right to pure drinking water, you have a right to drill your own well or to buy it by the barrel from any vendor you please. Just because the local government is selling you fluoridated water does not mean you are beingforcedto do anything, it's merely the most efficient structure by which to pipe water to people's homes.QuoteIt's tempting to rebel against things that are forced on oneself, regardless of the rationale behind it or the substantial likelihood that when not forced one would choose it anyway. I'm no stranger to it myself. But that's all it is, an emotion without reason. And in the end you're still not being forced to do anything, it would just beinconvenientto go without.Also, boo on OP for framing it as "unconstitutional water". Pretty sure the founding fathers (watch out, here comes an appeal to authority) didn't have much to say about municipal utilities. Unfortunately all internet debate about this subject is tainted by the flavor of conspiracy nuttery

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 12:07:15 am
content: Quote from: gxti on August 05, 2012, 11:07:14 pmOnly an idiot would fluoridate their own water and ingest it as means to improve dental health.There is an infinitely better solution, like rubbing it on your teeth and spiting it out.Because, well, you have to brush your teeth anyway (and floss), which is many orders of magnitude better dental prevention than fluoride treatment. Fluoride is just icing on the cake, if you actually need it for your individual circumstance.Dave.

author: HardBoot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 01:12:27 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 05, 2012, 10:33:11 pmIt's a really nice change seeing someone not feeding their baby fluoridated water, I've told many with children and they don't care, their reasoning usually is "it can't be bad if the government does it"1/4 of american children have minor fluorisis, when you get enough in your system to have visible effects on your teeth, that means it's also in your bones and throughout your system, China banned it because it was too much of a double edged sword, Germany banned it because the Nazis did extensive research and even though it had topical upsides... oh boy, what fucked up plans they had for it. As for as I can tell they never actually went ahead with wide-scale usage, only had trials.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 01:45:13 am
content: Quote from: HardBoot on August 06, 2012, 01:12:27 amSydney's eastern suburbs have undergone a comparatively significant rise in childhood tooth decay as a result of well meaning mums ensuring that young Dominic and Stephanie only ingest bottled water! A statistic you fluoridation deniers will choose to ignore.

author: HardBoot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 02:15:46 am
content: You know, a video on your water filtration system would be pretty interesting.You don't have to get into water fluoridation or anything like that, could just say it's bad for children, just a run through of the system, how it works, and it's uses.Some areas have bad water, even without fluoride added, could be useful information for people.Also, if you filter your house's water, do you blast the pipes with chlorine or hydrogen peroxide to clean them once in a while? Without chlorine sometimes bacteria will gather in places, although copper piping isn't bad for that, more of a plastic pipe issue.If it were a tear down themed video would get decent views.

author: Obi_Kwiet
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 03:14:17 am
content: Quote from: HardBoot on August 06, 2012, 01:12:27 amHow do you know?

author: HardBoot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 04:43:34 am
content: Quote from: Obi_Kwiet on August 06, 2012, 03:14:17 amCDC and ADA, it was in their extended report which basically said children should not consume fluoridated water until their adult teeth have developed because the fluorine ruins the calcium structure and takes the place of the calcium. Don't remember on the details regarding bones, wasn't good. I don't recall mention on neurological effects, although there are detailed Chinese and Nazi studies on that.

author: Ferroto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 10:07:22 am
content: That's it i'm distilling my own water

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 12:53:02 pm
content: What has not yet been mentioned is the longtime use of fluoride asthe main ingredientof:- The Sarin nerve gas,- Rat poisons,- Psychotropics (i.e.Prozac) because it makes people docile (and infertile).It is also worth mentioning the massive use of fluoride in the water supplies of the lucky winners sent to gulags by Father Stalin,the second greatest murderer of all times...This is a highly recommended half an hour long documentary to watch, about how the so-called 'corporate science' shaped public policy against the scientifically documented high toxicity of fluoride, and the individuals and institutions that played an important role in shaping public policy on the toxicity of fluoride and the purported 'safety' of the controversial public water fluoridation program:The Fluoride Deception (Christopher Bryson, 2004)Though it is copyrighted material, Christopher Bryson's book 'The Fluoride Deception (2004)' can easily be found online, in .PDF format.-George

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 02:34:46 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on August 06, 2012, 12:53:02 pmGreat, more unscientific horseshit.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 03:01:40 pm
content: Quote from: A Hellene on August 06, 2012, 12:53:02 pmIs it any better, now?-George

author: FJV
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 03:22:45 pm
content: I can only speak for the Netherlands.Where I live the water out of the water tap is checked more often than anything you'll be able to buy in a bottle.Unless they use tap water to fill those bottles, that is.Also the person adding the fluoride and his/her children drink the same tap water as everybody. This cannot be avoided, because each cup of coffee, tea, soft drink, beer, fruit juice contains tap water.People suggesting conspiracies to poison the general population should at least come up with a method that does not expose the evildoers to their own poison. aOh and the current alleged "socialist overlord" drinks "fluoride contaminated" water and beer.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 03:44:36 pm
content: The history, I believe, is much more impartial here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flouridation

author: Obi_Kwiet
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 04:17:48 pm
content: Quote from: HardBoot on August 06, 2012, 04:43:34 amWell, I couldn't find anything about that, but I did find a page with their actual recommendations:http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/dental_fluorosis.htmI also noticed that come communities have too much fluoride in their water due to naturally occurring sources, so it's not as easy as simply banning it.Quote from: A Hellene on August 06, 2012, 12:53:02 pmThat's a really dumb point. Firstly, because reagent is not the same as ingredient, and secondly, there is such a thing as toxicity level. Many crucial vitamins and minerals become toxic in excessive doses, even if you will die without them.

author: HardBoot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 06:08:47 pm
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on August 06, 2012, 02:34:46 pmRat Poison is true, I have an ancient tin of sodium fluoride rat poison, it was commonly used before more modern chemical warfare agents become used for pest control... and weed killing. Zylkon B was also used for pest extermination.The psychotropics, ya bullshit; they don't work because of the fluoride itself, it's more a structural component, but the high amount of fluorine released from the decomposition of the molecule has an effect with long term use.Sarin, also bullshit, it's extreme toxicity isn't really from the fluorene, it's a piece of the puzzle.Lots of poisonous things things made of carbon and hydrogen.

author: WorldPowerLabs
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 08:14:02 pm
content: The fluoridation of water was also done originally to mitigate the PR damage (and hence, scrutiny) from a large fluoride release during the Manhattan Project.Whether there are benefits from fluoridation or not, the main problem is this: it's not needed for the safety of the water, and it amounts to medicating people without their consent and without any control over the dosage to each individual.I'm glad that I have well water...

author: HardBoot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 08:20:36 pm
content: Quote from: WorldPowerLabs on August 06, 2012, 08:14:02 pmWell water is usually contaminated in areas with industry or drilling.Get it tested? If you're lucky, you have a source of fresh water which isn't ruined like most of the world... or remote Canada/Russia lol

author: WorldPowerLabs
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 09:16:10 pm
content: Quote from: HardBoot on August 06, 2012, 08:20:36 pmI'm lucky to have clean well water -- it is tested regularly, and I live in a rural area away from heavy industry and large-scale agriculture.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 10:43:45 pm
content: Quote from: WorldPowerLabs on August 06, 2012, 08:14:02 pmEver contemplated just how many dead things that has passed through before you ingested it? Filtered through a metric shitload of wallaby poo!

author: tramjoe
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 11:33:35 pm
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on August 06, 2012, 10:43:45 pmTo mimic the same kind of logic applied above in that thread, in reverse (yeah, it's time to un-dramatize this thing): wallaby poo, being organic in nature, is full of carbon. Carbon filters are used all over the industry to purify to a very high degree not only liquids but even gases, proving their exceptional abilities. Therefore, that well water must be of the highest purity :-)Time for bed I guess ;-)

author: WorldPowerLabs
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2012, 05:34:35 pm
content: Quote from: tramjoe on August 06, 2012, 11:33:35 pmThat's pretty funny, actually... although I'm sure that some wallaby poo (or perhaps fish poo) makes it into municipal supplies -- around here, such supplies are either reservoirs or wells.My main issue is this -- I'm OK with chlorine/chlorides/bromides, etc. being added to the water in order to make it safer for consumption. I'm not OK with something being added to provide a specific claimed medical benefit -- by its very definition, a drug -- without a way to opt out and without any control of the dose received by each individual. If I drink 2 glasses of water a day, and you drink 9, then we'll be receiving very different doses of something that is not required to make the water safe. An infant will receive a much larger dose from 1 glass than I will.I'm not arguing about whether fluoride is effective -- only that we shouldn't drug people without control of the dose and without their specific consent.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2012, 06:34:07 pm
content: Quote from: WorldPowerLabs on August 07, 2012, 05:34:35 pmI have heard the same kind of argument about GM crops. "I don't mind GM foods as long as all products are clearly marked so I can choose to buy/not buy them". Basically "I demand that I am allowed to indulge my ignorance and stupidity".Either a particular GM crop is safe and everyone can eat it or it isn't and no one should eat it. The answer to that question doesn't depend on who is asking it. I (ignoring possible political interference and distortion which is a concern) consider people who spend their lives studying the question are far better equipped than me to answer it and I will accept their answer.

author: tramjoe
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2012, 06:34:23 pm
content: Quote from: WorldPowerLabs on August 07, 2012, 05:34:35 pmWe are 100% in line there, to the exception that my own position reaches a little further and I also argue that the way the benefit/risk ratio of fluoride is evaluated does not lead me to the same conclusion as the authorities pushing fluoride in the tap water for two reasons:- The statistically very good results of the studies is obscuring some individual risks (fluorosis) that I would not be willing to accept had I a choice (that connects directly to your point).- The studies probably overlooked the human factor in implementation of fluoridation, that lends to risks I would no be willing to accept had I a choice (that connects to OP and my own points of the fluoride sources actually used, Dave's point about how quantities are measured, etc.).

author: tramjoe
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2012, 06:44:30 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on August 07, 2012, 06:34:07 pmAhem. This is all nice in theory, but in the world we're living in, it is not true. There are degrees in food safety, and the acceptable risk depends a lot on "who".If you take a starving rural ethiopian population with a very degraded life expectancy and bad to no access to clean water, GM crop is not only safer than the water they drink, it will probably not make their overall food quality worse, and will probably, if it has an economical edge (I am not saying that it has, I actually doubt it, but that argument has been used before because it reaches its target), be beneficial for their life expectancy.If you take a healthy western family with a long life expectancy, good sanitary conditions, high income, access to a large variety of food, then it might represent an added risk with no tangible benefits.All of that being said, I do not think the debate regarding GM crops is about the immediate risk upon consumption, but more about a list of side effects that are not linked to the food quality in itself:- Contamination by dissemination of other crops and the resulting intellectual property " infrigements" by neighbour farmers and worsens the conclusions of any future discovery that the GM crop is bad in a way of an other (if it causes cancer but dos not disseminate, you can stop buying it. If it has alrteady disseminated, good luck).- The general idea that someone can patent a living thing, which make me sick to my stomach.- The unknown effects on the surrounding ecosystem(s).