Delicious Unconstitutional Water

[HardBoot]

What has not yet been mentioned is the longtime use of fluoride as the main ingredient of:
- The Sarin nerve gas,
- Rat poisons,
- Psychotropics (i.e. Prozac) because it makes people docile (and infertile).

Great, more unscientific horseshit.

Rat 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.

[WorldPowerLabs]

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... 

[HardBoot]

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...

Well 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

[WorldPowerLabs]

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...

Well 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

I'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.

[Uncle Vernon]

I'm glad that I have well water...

Ever contemplated just how many dead things that has passed through before you ingested it? Filtered through a metric shitload of wallaby poo!

[tramjoe]

I'm glad that I have well water...

Ever contemplated just how many dead things that has passed through before you ingested it? Filtered through a metric shitload of wallaby poo!

To 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 ;-)

[WorldPowerLabs]

I'm glad that I have well water...

Ever contemplated just how many dead things that has passed through before you ingested it? Filtered through a metric shitload of wallaby poo!

To 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 ;-)

That'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.

[Rufus]

only that we shouldn't drug people without control of the dose and without their specific consent.

I 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.

[tramjoe]

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.

We 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.).

[tramjoe]

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.

Ahem. 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).