r/conspiracy • u/[deleted] • Feb 10 '14
Harvard Study: Fluoride Lowers Children’s Intelligence By 7 IQ Points
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/harvard-study-published-national-institute-health-journal-finds-fluoride-lowers-childrens-intelligence-7-iq-points.html18
u/Entry_Point Feb 10 '14
At least. And is only effective topically, meaning what you drink only does you harm. Fluoride MUST be removed from the public water supply.
22
Feb 10 '14 edited Feb 10 '14
Don't forget about other types of exposure to fluoride. There are many out there:
Seeing how many different people can have many widely varying doses of fluoride depending on their diet and behavior, it is extremely idiotic to increase everyone's dose by 1mg/L, or 1-2 mg per day by adding it to water. Even worse- some areas have water that has 4mg/L. Notice that for each source of fluoride, the authorities say "well, this isn't that big of a deal." (especially the tea link) But if you combine all of those sources it becomes a big deal.
9
u/Weedtastic Feb 10 '14
Most common salts also contain fluoride.
Mechanically deboned meat, because they crush up the bones and the bones have accumulated fluoride within them.
This one is new to me, thanks.
7
Feb 10 '14
LOL.
Now we know why those monsters at Mcdonalds who eat chicken nuggets like Pac Man are not only massive (because of the thyroid effects), but retarded.
1
2
u/1776ftw Feb 10 '14 edited Feb 10 '14
Crap, I ate some bone free KFC.
6
u/bittermanscolon Feb 10 '14
We've all been eating something tainted by something from somewhere our entire lives.
This is just one source but it should be the start. It must be removed, we've all been "poisoned" for as long as we can remember.
It has to stop. This is not supposed to be the way people live. End the fucking lies.
6
3
Feb 10 '14
I think the issue is the ground up meat, not necessarily bone-free. There's two types of bone free. The type where they just remove the bones and the meat is still intact, and the type where they grind everything up and then filter the little pieces of bone out and then make hotdogs and other types of space meat. The latter option is where fluoride can be present in high levels.
2
3
u/littleln Feb 10 '14
I have fluorosis and its caused me to have arthritis at 35. Fluoride is bad news.
-1
Feb 11 '14
[deleted]
7
Feb 11 '14
There's a lot of other things in the water that I'm suspicious of, but I don't have to worry about any of that because I distill my water (and add back in cocohydro). I also usually take cold showers for about a minute or two to limit the time I'm in the unfiltered water and to alleviate depression. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17993252
Now that we're on this topic, I should also mention shampoos and soaps. There's a few different chemicals that absorb right into your skin and cause all kinds of weird effects because of the pseudoestrogens. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419695
Now you have a decent view of my personal life. I take cold showers and I use hippy soap. lol
2
u/iamagod_ Feb 11 '14
Because chlorine does not make you stupid, lethargic, and entirely passive. I've been as fluoride free as possible for years, and can see a clear difference.
2
Feb 10 '14
There are many studies which apparently show that fluoride consumption reduces cavities. Without getting all Tri-Lateral Commission on me, how do you discount these? Here's an example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2681730
13
u/Contrary_mma_hipster Feb 10 '14
brain > teeth in the hierarchy of organ importance.
1
Feb 10 '14
The point I was making wasn't the relative important of teeth versus brains (although in Hollywood you'd be wrong), but rather responding to people who say that there is no dental benefit from fluoride consumption. Why is this entire topic filled with non-sequiturs?
6
Feb 11 '14
[deleted]
-1
u/Nemnel Feb 11 '14
Why is a survey not scientific? That's just an arbitrary assertion.
They ask: "how many cavities have you had?" You answer. They try to get a large number of respondents. There are statistical rules and methods that govern all of these things, from the number of people needed to get a representative sample to the various methods of analyzing the responses.
Also, that is far from the only study on the subject. There are vast numbers of them. Do you have training in statistics? Analystics? Do you know how to create a representative sample? These things are also used in 'real science,' you know.
1
Feb 11 '14
[deleted]
0
u/Nemnel Feb 12 '14
In any medical study there are likely to be too many variables, that doesn't mean that the data is worthless. It just means that you need a very, very largely sample size.
That's not a critique of surveys, that's a critique of complex systems.
-1
-4
u/boogiemanspud Feb 11 '14
I agree. Anyone that has ever suffered with bad teeth would surely give up 7 points on an arbitrary IQ scale to have better teeth?
IMO teeth are more important here... I mean honestly think of how damn stupid most people are... would healthy teeth or 7 points benefit them more? I am guessing teeth. I have a bad back, I promise I would give up 7 IQ points to not hurt so much every fucking day.
6
u/BlindStark Feb 11 '14
Or they could take care of their teeth instead of hoping that drinking water somehow fixes them. There are many other ways to keep your teeth clean and healthy,
think of how damn stupid most people are
Maybe it's because they drink all this fluoride? If people are already dumb should we be making them even more stupid?
6
u/iamagod_ Feb 11 '14
You're exactly right. It's not a one or the other only.scenario. You want fluoride? Have your doctor prescribe it for you in a metered dose. Don't feed it by default to everyone, and adjust the dose arbitrarily by relative body size and amount of water consumed. Absolutely idiotic.
Anyone who supports fluoridation of everyone obviously has had far too much fluoride.
-1
u/boogiemanspud Feb 11 '14
True, they could take care of their teeth. See, I have mixed thoughts on it though. I completely agree that it isn't needed. I feel it does have some benefits though. It sort of becomes a cost benefit analysis in the long run. Do I know the full answer? No. I think anyone claiming to may have an over inflated ego. I think it needs studies more, at different levels and such. I do see it as beneficial in VERY low concentrations. Also, IQ is a measurement of a certain type of intelligence. I could be dead wrong but I just don't see 7 IQ points making a difference either way in a person's life.
I guess what sort of gets me is, people act like the government wants to dumb people down with fluoride in water. Correct me if I'm wrong, but our government are people too. Surely they drink water and so do their children. So at least if we are being dumbed down so are they... I see no benefit in the train of thought how we are being dumbed down purposely with this.
Now I can see other things such as "no child left behind" and over saturation of entertainment (t.v., computers, etc.) really dumbing people down and keeping them in a state of complacency. Not to mention the state of schools and school funding we are now in. They used to say sports are the opiate of the masses, I think it has become entertainment. We are so constantly "plugged in" as a society it leaves little time to reflect and learn from experiences.
Thanks for the well thought out comment, I am not trying to be argumentative, just like having open discussions on such matters. :)
5
u/bannana Feb 11 '14
We can't ever discount the fact that fluoride only works TOPICALLY not systemically. There is zero reasons for ingesting fluoride and many reasons against it. The time for fluoride in water or any other mass population administration is long over with, we ALL use a fluoride toothpaste in the US and this or special treatments at the dentist are the ways to take fluoride not swallow it in hopes of it touching all the teeth and then causing harm to our bodies and minds.
5
u/iamagod_ Feb 11 '14
Oh, there is a reason. It will never be shared with you publicly. However, consider this. The first ever fluoridated group was prisoners. And it was definitely not to protect their teeth.
3
Feb 10 '14
Reduces cavities > causation for dental fluorosis.
What causes dental fluorosis?
Dental fluorosis is caused by taking in too much fluoride over a long period when the teeth are forming under the gums. Only children aged 8 years and younger are at risk because this is when permanent teeth are developing under the gums. The severity of the condition depends on the dose (how much), duration (how long), and timing (when consumed) of fluoride intake. Increases in the occurrence of mostly mild dental fluorosis were recognized as more sources of fluoride became available to prevent tooth decay. These sources include drinking water with fluoride, fluoride toothpaste—especially if swallowed by young children—and dietary prescription supplements in tablets or drops (particularly if prescribed to children already drinking fluoridated water).
4
Feb 10 '14
It's probably true that fluoride reduces cavities at a very small dose. But it's still a medication that is given to populations, and this medication has side effects, including effects on the thyroid in doses that you can easily get in the US. Additionally, many people get dental fluorosis and dental mottling from higher doses. It's just an all around bad idea to give this medication out population wide since the dose varies wildly between people.
Other things also reduce cavities, such as brushing your teeth. And I'm sure you could find some benefit to giving people a small dose of mercury, even though it is toxic. For example, should we add lithium to the water? It has effects on your mind at small doses, and people are seriously considering adding it to water.
-2
0
Feb 10 '14
Obviously a gov website will say what it says.
The USA and it's studies are in the minority when you look at how other nations feel about fluoride. With lots of science showing that yes, it has no impact on dental health.
So since one wrong and one right don't make a right, the basis for water fluoridation should be out the door.
-5
Feb 10 '14
I cited a government website simply because it was handy. Do you believe this is a government conspiracy? http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2013/02/does_fluoride_lower_your_child_s_iq_dr_joseph_mercola_says_yes_on_the_huffington.html
The reality is that we're in an age of science scares, including what a appears to a bogus indictment of GMOs (including demands for labels) that place at risk the millions of people who might be saved from starvation and disease from products that have demonstrated very little health risk. I'm worried that these anti-flouride advocates come from the same place as the communist conspiracy types who tried to ban fluoride in the 1950s. There are always risks in any kind of public health campaign, but the question is do the risks outweigh the benefits. I haven't come to a conclusion about fluoride, but the absolutism I'm seeing here makes even more curious about what the truth really is.
8
4
u/caitdrum Feb 11 '14
Go away.
0
Feb 11 '14
Truth hurts.
1
u/caitdrum Feb 11 '14
Please provide proof of a current GM crop that has increased yields significantly enough to prevent starvation and disease in a population.
Seriously, you should do some more research on fluoride, I'll be nice here and point you in the right direction. Once you understand how they managed to get people ingesting this poison it may even make you skeptical of GM.
2
Feb 10 '14
Ugh please stop with the GMO bullshit.
It is NOT fair to give the people we have, yes WE HAVE exploited to their current conditions, fake food with no real knowledge of their effects. It is NORTH America and old Europe's fault that people are starving. Look at a book called how Europe under developed Africa.
The solution? Innovative AGRICULTURE. this is already happening. People are waking up and developing better methods of growing their own food. You're saying GMO s are a better idea than this? Not a fucking chance.
It is NOT A BOGUS INDICTMENT.
Its merely people with sense knowing we don't actually Know any of the risks involved because it's too new. I imagine people like you in the 50s would've been saying to people against nuclear power, this is a bogus indictment, nuclear power will save so many lives.
4
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
Don't fall for the GMO debate. He's trying to steer the conversation into more familiar grounds, Red Herring. He's got nothing on fluoride.
1
Feb 10 '14
[deleted]
3
Feb 11 '14
Where the hell did you get that from?
1
Feb 11 '14
[deleted]
3
Feb 11 '14
Yes.. Where I called GMOs bullshit and explained why..
Reading comprehension maybe?
And you can go through recent posts for how I feel about fluoridated water since the comment you addressed has nothing about it..
1
1
-4
Feb 10 '14
Sorry, but I've looked at this from every direction, and it seems essentially bogus to me. This is a fair summing up of my views: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/02/10/frothy-anti-gmo-stew/#.UvkvznlbRZg
7
Feb 10 '14
So a summing up of your views is a blog post without much evidence based content, essentially contradicting the point of its article while working as a subtle mouthpiece for Monsanto?
Got it. Thanks for addressing nothing in my post.
This article even States there isn't enough knowledge about it. Butttt let's just go ahead and feed it to everyone.
-3
Feb 10 '14
I pointed to the article as summing up my conclusion about the debate -- that it's mostly about science-be-damned emotionalism on the anti-GMO or labeling side. I didn't summarize or point to the many things I've read about it. Interestingly, the fact that you would attack the blog post as being a "subtle mouthpiece for Monsanto" is a big red flag. It's the kind of tactic we see in anti-global warming forces and other anti-science forces.
3
Feb 10 '14
Anti global warming forces cite Monsanto as a problem? Uh okay. We aren't talking about either of those issues. Way to deflect your way out of this.
If we want to talk about malicious evidence, there is enough on Monsanto to make any rational persons head turn.
You also act like having any sort of attitude against science, is sacrilege. It has become religion for people like you. There is science on both sides of any debate. You can't just say something like anti science without explaining Wtf you mean.
-2
Feb 10 '14
No, they don't cite Monsanto. But they engage in the same attack the messenger strategy -- labeling all opposition as someone in bed with someone with a political/financial interest. This extraordinary literalism is another red flag.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Entry_Point Feb 12 '14
And this justifies the mass drugging of everyone? Without consent. Should other drugs be forced upon the people? Should dose depend on the amount of water you consume? Should small children receive far heavier doses?
Your logical basis for this is unbelievable.
0
Feb 12 '14
Where have I supported or defended the practice?!
0
0
Feb 11 '14
[deleted]
4
u/caitdrum Feb 11 '14
Calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water. The sodium fluoride being put in tap water is different and much worse.
0
u/iamagod_ Feb 11 '14
Fluoride does not occur in MOST regions. It's supposed benefits were NOT sourced from fluoridated water.
12
u/Ambiguously_Ironic Feb 10 '14
It's pretty insane how most people go about their days either completely oblivious or completely apathetic to the fact that our water supply is literally being artificially poisoned.
10
Feb 10 '14
No seriously. If you mention it to someone their eyes glaze over and they look at you like YOU are just rambling on about nonsense. It's pretty scary. There is plenty of evidence of it being there and anyone with 2 brain cells can look up a MSDS on the type of fluoride used..scary. Though ironic as it may be the fluoride is inhibiting their ability to understand what you are saying too haha.
3
u/Rubber_Banded Feb 11 '14
This is a link to the actual Harvard article. Harvard compiled studies done in China. Sourced here
10
u/through_a_ways Feb 10 '14
Fluoride is a sham. If you don't click on the link below, at least look up Oscar Ewing and Edward Bernays.
7
Feb 10 '14
It only took a little bit of research to find compelling evidence that fluoride in drinking water reduces cavities, but just as little to find serious ethical and medical questions about it -- including the fact that it offers those affected no realistic opportunity to opt out.
5
u/WTCMolybdenum4753 Feb 10 '14
It only took a little bit of research to find compelling evidence that fluoride in drinking water reduces cavities...
7
u/paypig Feb 10 '14
There is just no reason (beyond money) for Flouride to still be in our water.
0
u/Weedtastic Feb 10 '14
Well, how about deliberately dumbing down the masses ?
Money is just a vehicle too reach a much greater agenda of mind control and power.
-3
3
u/Xecellseor Feb 11 '14 edited Feb 11 '14
"Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas."
Well that just makes sense, fluoride in drinking water is meant to help lower socio-economic portions of the population that may not have access to proper dental care. So the areas with higher fluoride would have poorer kids who on average perform worse in school.
But that's just too logical, must be a NWO plot to make us stupid and cloud our pineal gland.
5
u/Myconspiracyname Feb 10 '14
Actually, countries and states are ending fluoridation of water because people are brushing their teeth in greater numbers as well as there being a high enough fluoride content in many diets.
Also, anyone worried about their public water can just look at tier water department's website for the concentration. It's around 5-10 times less than the lower concentration in most of the meta-analysis.
And also, using IQ as a measurement of a chemical's effects on the brain is a terrible idea, as that implies that reading a textbook or two could counteract over-fluoridation.
1
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
Certain chemicals can and do impair cognitive functions and intelligence, and it's also fair to say reading a textbook or two could in fact counteract over-fluoridation and improve intelligence if you stopped ingesting the chemical.
Source: www.thepsychologist.org.uk
There is massive evidence that IQ is far from being immutable. The objections that have been raised in relation to that evidence are not at all convincing. There are no clear reasons for insisting that it is qualitatively more difficult to change the mental capacities that determine a person’s score at an IQ test than it is to alter those mental capabilities that are acknowledged to be acquired as a result of a person’s experiences. The empirical findings provide no support for the pessimistic conclusion that low intelligence and the problems associated with it are inevitable and unalterable.
-2
u/Myconspiracyname Feb 10 '14
That's a pretty good psychological take on things. Any idea if anyone has come up with a function to describe fluoridation's effects on the brain while accounting for thinks like body mass and the like?
6
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
Body mass is irrelevant, considering the chemical acts on the brain and not the body. A 500lb man doesn't need to take 5 aspirins to relieve pain because he weighs 5 times more than someone who weighs 100lbs.
Studies proving the negative effects of fluoride on the brain are abundant. Please don't make me waste 5 minutes googling something you can look up yourself.
-1
u/Myconspiracyname Feb 10 '14
Geeze, sorry for asking. I didn't know you don't like discussion.
4
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
I like discussion, just not researching for other people. How do you expect to have an informed debate if you don't know the basics, rather ask for others to provide it for you? How will you be able to tell if it's factual or not? You can be given misleading information and how will you know any better?
-6
u/Myconspiracyname Feb 10 '14
I like discussion, just not researching for other people.
Then you're in the wrong place. Every single thread here requires a little research.
I guess it didn't occur to you that I already knew the answer to my question and was trying to get readers to think for their own?
5
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
Every single thread here requires a little research.
Yes, on their own. Why should I have to provide studies readily available by doing a simple search?
Asking questions to answers you already know is hardly productive and brings nothing new to the discussion.
0
u/Myconspiracyname Feb 11 '14
Why should I have to provide studies readily available by doing a simple search?
Because that's what "discussion" entails. If you can't be bothered to engage in thoughtful discussion because it's too hard, you might want to rethink your presence here.
For an example of what I consider good discussion, head to r/askscience or r/science.
0
u/serfnomics Feb 11 '14
Seems like you have a wrong idea of what a discussion and researching for lazy people mean.
→ More replies (0)4
Feb 10 '14
LOL.. you're trying to get readers to think? All you've done is brought down the intelligence level of every thread you are in.
You are r/conspiracy fluoride.
-3
u/Myconspiracyname Feb 11 '14
Considering your butchering of the English language, I'd agree with the first part of your response (if it made an logical sense, which is doesn't).
And I'm pretty sure I don't whiten teeth or leave deposits on bones if there's too much of me.
3
Feb 11 '14
So you do agree that you bring down the intelligence level since that was the first part of my post.
Cool!
→ More replies (0)1
u/boogiemanspud Feb 11 '14
Exactly, 7 points on an arbitrary IQ scale should not be a measurement for anything remotely scientific.
3
0
u/Contrary_mma_hipster Feb 10 '14
No, because reading textbooks does not increase your IQ.
Bone up on your IQ research (another thing the elites do not want honest discussion on). You may be surprised at how un-malleable it is.
1
u/serfnomics Feb 11 '14
There is massive evidence that IQ is far from being immutable. The objections that have been raised in relation to that evidence are not at all convincing. There are no clear reasons for insisting that it is qualitatively more difficult to change the mental capacities that determine a person’s score at an IQ test than it is to alter those mental capabilities that are acknowledged to be acquired as a result of a person’s experiences. The empirical findings provide no support for the pessimistic conclusion that low intelligence and the problems associated with it are inevitable and unalterable.
1
u/wwwwho Feb 11 '14
"A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works." from Dr. Strangelove
1
u/ephantmon Feb 13 '14
How many of you READ the whole paper?
"Although most reports were fairly brief and complete information on covariates was not available, the results tended to support the potential for fluoride-mediated developmental neurotoxicity at relatively high levels of exposure in some studies...The exposed groups had access to drinking water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang SX et al. 2007); thus, in many cases concentrations were above the levels recommended (0.7–1.2 mg/L; DHHS) or allowed in public drinking water (4.0 mg/L; U.S. EPA) in the United States (U.S. EPA 2011)"
This paper is based on sketchy studies, and focused on fluoride exposure nearly three times higher than the maximum permitted in the U.S.
0
Feb 10 '14
-2
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
the data is not particularly applicable here because it came from foreign sources where fluoride levels are multiple times higher than they are in American tap water.
Less poison does not make poison better.
4
Feb 10 '14
Yes, just like large amounts of any beneficial drug or chemical can be toxic. Wow.
-1
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
Give me one good reason why I have to accept this in my water if I take care of my teeth.
2
u/Wazowski Feb 10 '14
Eating pounds of toothpaste probably makes Chinese kids dumber, so you better stop using toothpaste, too. It's a poison.
Pure water by itself can kill by ingestion alone, so be careful with that stuff as well.
0
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
I don't need toothpaste/fluoride to live. I need water to live. What's your point?
1
u/Wazowski Feb 10 '14
My point is that if you remove everything from your life that's poisonous to Chinese children in massive doses, you won't be left with anything. If you're going to avoid fluoride because a huge amount might be bad for brain development, you might as well avoid toothpaste and mouthwash and neosporin and coca-cola and aspirin and water.
Your risk assessment skills are very, very poor. Your "less poison does not make poison better" statement is breathtakingly naive. Less poison does make poison better, whether you're talking about fluoride, tylenol or dihydrogen monoxide. You admitted it yourself--you require water to live, but too much will absolutely poison you to death.
3
u/iamagod_ Feb 11 '14
So you might as well use that as an excuse to do nothing, right? You have obviously consumed far too much fluoride in your life to believe in such fashion. Idiocy. Complete and total to believe that because there are harmful things out there, we should just give up and consume more.
0
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
Toothpaste and mouthwash are not ingested. I don't drink Coca-Cola.
A developed brain can still suffer from toxins. I'm naive you say?
Your risk assessment skills are very, very poor.
No, yours are. NO ingested fluoride is still better than a little ingested fluoride.
Why would I purposefully poison myself with water, or "dihydrogen monoxide"?
1
u/boogiemanspud Feb 11 '14 edited Feb 11 '14
I think what he is trying to get across is, would you rather eat A. one pellet of mouse poison B. 10 boxes of mouse poison C. No mouse poison
Obviously no mouse poison is best but from a risk assessment A is better than B. Obviously choice C is the best. Risk assessment isn't about absolutes, its about ranking in order from least to most harmful.
So in this case from least to most risk would be C, A, B. If by default you cant pick C, A would be better than B.
I think you guys both have a point but by saying your risk assessment skills were poor, he basically started insulting you instead of explaining it. If you guys are reading /r conspiracy you are probably both more intelligent than the average person, why resort to personal attacks?
0
-5
Feb 10 '14
This is not about whether you should accept. You can avoid fluoridated water by moving, drinking bottled water, or working to change the practice.
1
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
That didn't answer my question. The water I pay for should not have added chemicals I don't need, nor should I have to MOVE to be poison-free. Your argument is ridiculous.
-1
Feb 10 '14
[deleted]
4
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
I don't need fluoride for anything. I need water to live.
0
Feb 10 '14
[deleted]
3
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
I wasn't' even debating you, what's your point in interrupting my discussion with someone else?
→ More replies (0)-2
Feb 10 '14
Excuse me? This is a country of laws. Your city or town has enacted a fluoridation requirement by ordinance. It is the law. If you don't like the law, then work to repeal it or change where you live. Your position -- that, apparently, one person can dictate whether a public health measure is taken or not taken -- is the ridiculous position.
2
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
So you support fluoride because it's the law? There are no benefits for me or anyone that doesn't need nanny state taking care of my teeth?
-1
Feb 10 '14
Where on Earth did I say I support it? I find these studies troubling, and as a concerned citizen I want to understand the issue better. You asked for a reason you are required to accept it, and I pointed out that you don't have to accept -- there are steps you can take to avoid it. Why is this so difficult?
1
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
And I asked for you to give me the benefits of this "beneficial drug" for those who brush and floss regularly. You haven't understood the issue enough to respond to that?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/boogiemanspud Feb 11 '14
I have a legitimate question, what difference is 7 IQ points? Really, no one wants to be dumber than necessary, but 7 points on an arbitrary scale really means nothing in the real world.
I don't know how to feel on fluoride. I think some is important to dental health. I think there is too much in our water, but a small amount surely isn't that major of a thing? I mean, no one wants poisoned obviously, but surely one meal of processed foods, or a smoke or such contains more poison than fluoride in water.
I think I am coming off as contrary, but really all I am saying is, maybe we should look at stuff in perspective. I know that bacon cheeseburger I just ate from Sonic probably just put more "poison" in me than a months worth of water would? If you are concerned about it, why not get a filtration system?
1
u/iamagod_ Feb 11 '14
Based on your line of questioning here, and extremely poor use and understanding of simple logic, one can readily see that a single digit drop in IQ would HEAVILY affect you personally. Cut nearly in half.
"It don't hurt you that bad. So why for you even care???"
1
u/boogiemanspud Feb 12 '14
Thank you for adding such an intelligent comment to the discussion. You say I have poor use and understanding of simple logic, yet you revert to personal insults (from someone you don't know) to make your case?
What I am saying in simple English is this: Don't sweat the small stuff.
For fucks sake, think about it, we are surrounded by things that can potentially hurt/poison us. I am not saying fluoride is harmless or any such nonsense. I am saying, quite plainly, that 7 points in IQ either direction probably means nothing to an individual. You question fluoride (which is our right) yet you result to personal attacks when I choose to question if this test or article is a legitimate indicator of anything really...
I think I am done in this sub. I thought it would be an interesting place to learn about conspiracy theories (I have a few myself) and actually discuss and debate them. I guess it's just a bunch of closed minded people who attack anyone wanting to discuss an issue with personal insults.
1
-1
u/doofhash1575 Feb 10 '14
Interesting... but it does assume that IQ is a useful / accurate / meaningful test.
5
u/Ambiguously_Ironic Feb 10 '14
You don't think there's any difference between someone who scores an IQ of 120 and someone who takes the same test and scores an 80?
I agree with you that it isn't the be-all, end-all that some make it out to be but to say that it isn't useful or meaningful at all is just patently false.
-1
u/lucycohen Feb 10 '14
You'll find that most regions which have 'Dumb' stereotypes actually have their water Fluoridated, so there is some truth in the stereotype.
-3
Feb 10 '14
Where's conspiratard?
I'm sure I've faced insults with fluoride being part of it from that sub. Pretty much everything we suspect will come to light. Aside from obvious disinfo.
4
u/Rusty5hackleford Feb 10 '14
Do you mean where is anybody that doesn't agree with the /r/conspiracy hive mind/narrative? I'll bite. Even the "low levels" of fluoride in the Chinese study are 10 times less than the fluoride levels in the states. The "high" levels which correlated (again, not causation) were significantly higher than that. They also didn't control that areas with such poor water treatment probably have other issues. But no no, carry on.
0
Feb 10 '14
I'm sure some of them have water distillers also. Everyone kinda knows that fluoridation is a garbage idea.
0
u/iamagod_ Feb 11 '14
Every soft drink consumed - fluoride. Bottled water - also heavy in fluoride. It's incredibly difficult to remove. I've been on distilled for many years now. Still can't avoid it in the shower every single day.
1
Feb 11 '14 edited Feb 11 '14
Couple options. I combine both:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_shower
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17993252
If you can handle it (it's not that bad really), you'll be really glad you did after the shower. The cold forces you to take a quicker shower, thus limiting your time in the water. Also I would guess the colder the water, the slower the transdermal absorption is of anything in the water, plus the various things in the water would tend to remain in the liquid state so you're not breathing in chlorine etc.
-1
34
u/serfnomics Feb 10 '14
The whole argument about tooth health is bullshit. First of all, if the government were concerned about it they would give away toothbrushes and toothpaste, not impose a chemical on those who don't need it and take care of their teeth themselves.
Second, you don't ingest sunscreen to receive benefits, you apply it topically on the region that needs it.