Simple fluoride question

Belz... said:
Well, when you state your opinions clearly, people have a tendency to understand you better. So, basically you're not saying that putting fluoride into our water supply is the source of the problem, but rather than it exacerbates it.
Click to expand...

Do I have to go back and show you where I said fluoridation compounds what we already get from other sources? Must I be so redundant with you.


Well it's not my fault you didn't mention all this to begin with.
Click to expand...
OMG. So me saying toothpaste companies and dentists don't use industrial fluoride is not the same as saying they don't purchase it from industry. I am sorry you didn't get it but I said it more than 2 weeks ago. Maybe when I try to make a point to you I should say it in triplicate. I'll try to say what I want to get across in as many ways as I can think of in hope that you understand at least one of them.

You're one of those funny people who think everybody should "get" what goes on in your head simply because you do.
Click to expand...

I think you should get what goes on in this thread. Like me saying "They use pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not byproducts of industry" and "they are not uses for industrial fluoride" Those statement didn't happen in my head. I have to talk like a baby to you. Teeth man no use bad stuff from metal guy. Tooth paste no have either.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
maybe you could explain the difference between "industrial" fluoride and "pharmaceutical" fluoride for us
Click to expand...

Maybe you should grow a brain and figure it out for yourself.

Please remember your Membership Agreement. Be civil and polite.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Myriad
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr.D said:
Sorry that I can't respond in depth right now, but work is hell.



Interestingly, Wikipedia suggests that the latter compound is falling out of favor in comparison to the former. It also seems to imply that Fluorosilic acid is a byproduct of the phosphate industry while sodium fluoride is a byproduct of the aluminum industry.

Is that competition at work? Infighting within the conspiracy or are there really TWO conspiracies at work here?

Can you see how non-obvious and completely not "common sense" all of this starts to become once you drop the rhetoric and actually start looking at the evidence?
Click to expand...

Well, according to a source on wiki, sodium fluoride was used to fluoridate the water for at least 30 years. That's 30 years of selling fluoride to municipalities for the purpose of fluoridation. It also says people became worried about having NaF in the water supply and that was the reason behind switching forms. Having the conspiracy end 30 years after the fact is not proof that the conspiracy never occurred.




I notice that you dropped "proof" for "evidence" here.
Click to expand...
The definition of evidence is: To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.

I also note that you have begun to address an apparent self-contradiction that I was going to bring up later - how can you on one hand point out that sodium fluoride is rat poison, but with the other hand say it has absolutely no use whatsoever?
Click to expand...
Not a self-contradiction. Our conversation lead me to try to find uses for it and I did. That would be progression, not contradiction.

Are we beginning to get closer to an understanding of why I keep asking for evidence to back up your statements? Now that the tone between us has become softer (I'm not even reading the posts between you and Belz), do you think you could go back to square one and begin to build a solid case for your proposed economic motive for the conspiracy?
Click to expand...
You didn't respond to my last two posts on the financial side of the debate. You changed the subject to types of fluoride and left the economics out. Going back to square one would be cumbersome and redundant. I don't have to repeat myself on the economics just because you found that they switched types of fluoride in the mid-90's.
 
Last edited:
Without Rights said:
Maybe you should grow a brain and figure it out for yourself.
Click to expand...
i did some research, and found the following

Sodium monofluorophosphate - used in toothpaste

Hexafluorosilicic acid - use in water fluoridation in the US and UK

Sodium fluoride - used in toothpaste, water fluridation outside the US, and fluoride tablets

Aluminium fluoride - used in aluminum production


so which one is good and which one is bad?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
i did some research, and found the following

Sodium monofluorophosphate - used in toothpaste

Hexafluorosilicic acid - use in water fluoridation in the US and UK

Sodium fluoride - used in toothpaste, water fluridation outside the US, and fluoride tablets

Aluminium fluoride - used in aluminum production


so which one is good and which one is bad?
Click to expand...

All are bad to swallow. The most redundant point on the whole thread is toothpaste companies and dentists do not purchase fluoride that is scraped off the side of a smoke stack. The source is the key. I can make NaF in a lab and it will not contain arsenic like industrial fluoride does. That's what pharmaceutical fluoride is. Fluorine is combined with other elements by a chemist in a controlled environment as to prevent contamination.
 
Without Rights said:
Do I have to go back and show you where I said fluoridation compounds what we already get from other sources? Must I be so redundant with you.
Click to expand...

A simple "yes" would've been ok with me, but thanks.

OMG. So me saying toothpaste companies and dentists don't use industrial fluoride is not the same as saying they don't purchase it from industry.
Click to expand...

Which wasn't the first thing you said, anyway. Say, didn't somebody call you on that, now ?

I think you should get what goes on in this thread. Like me saying "They use pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not byproducts of industry" and "they are not uses for industrial fluoride" Those statement didn't happen in my head.
Click to expand...

No, but they probably only make sense in it.

What's an "industrial" fluoride ?
 
Belz... said:
A simple "yes" would've been ok with me, but thanks.
Click to expand...

The answer is no then. Fluoridation is a problem within itself just as other sources pose a problem.



Which wasn't the first thing you said, anyway.
Click to expand...
Then what was?
Say, didn't somebody call you on that, now ?
Click to expand...



Nobody called me on the fact that dentists and toothpaste companies use pharmaceutical fluoride. Are you just making this stuff up as you go along? He called me on the fact that water facilities no longer use NaF to fluoridate. A whole different point which doesn't help you in your quest to dismiss the fact that you were not paying attention to what I said and only look at what I write to search for discrepancy.



No, but they probably only make sense in it.
Click to expand...

And there we have it. You are finally admitting that you can't understand simple sentences. Who else doesn't understand "they use pharmaceutical grade fluoride" or "they are not uses for industrial fluoride".

What's an "industrial" fluoride ?
Click to expand...

More redundancy, very well.

A fluoride that is created through industrial processes. Pharmaceutical fluoride would be created by a chemist in a controlled environment.
 
I think water fluoridation may cause paranoid thinking and lead someone to believe in conspiracy theories.
 
(Sorry for the delay, work continues to be hell)

Without Rights said:
It also says people became worried about having NaF in the water supply and that was the reason behind switching forms. Having the conspiracy end 30 years after the fact is not proof that the conspiracy never occurred.
Click to expand...

I think I didn't make my point clear; Your original clam was that there was a conspiracy of aluminum and phosphate companies. Having begun to explore a little about the economics of the aluminum industry (actually only one company within the industry), I came upon some information that suggests that aluminum companies are losing sales to phosphate companies. This would be information needed to make a complete economic theory of the conspiracy, wouldn't it?

Without Rights said:
The definition of evidence is: To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
Click to expand...

Dodging the point by using a secondary dictionary definition? You're smarter than that. You understood the point that scientific proof is achieved in part by a preponderance of evidence. If you want to be taken seriously, avoid poor debate tactics like this.

Without Rights said:
Not a self-contradiction. Our conversation lead me to try to find uses for it and I did. That would be progression, not contradiction.
Click to expand...

I agree; it is progression - which is why I noted that it was an _apparent_ self-contradiction which would have had to been addressed in the future if you hadn't. But all this misses the point; There is demand outside of water utilities - which means some of the statements you've made supporting your theory are wrong.

Without Rights said:
You didn't respond to my last two posts on the financial side of the debate. You changed the subject to types of fluoride and left the economics out.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. This is still about the economics behind the conspiracy - one type of fluoride is provided by one industry and another type by a second industry. Demand has shifted from one type to another which begs several questions.

Are the phosphate and aluminum industries competitors in the fluoride business? Are they partners in the conspiracy? How does this lowering demand for sodium fluoride change the economics for the aluminum industry?

You've provided evidence regarding supply, demand and cost of disposal for sodium fluoride and aluminum companies (again, strictly speaking only one company). Can you provide the same for Hexafluorosilicic acid and phosphate companies?
 
Skipping back to address a few points a ways back.

Without Rights said:
e) Never said for free, as you know, many industries pay for advertising and are still very profitable. But in some cases tax dollars have paid for this advertising. http://www.fluoridationcenter.org/papers/2000/lasvegasreviewjournal110800.htm
Click to expand...

The point is, advertising costs money (even if _some_ of it is paid for by someone else). How much do they spend on it? One more time - it is insufficient to simply assert that "it's covered" or "it's paid for."

Without Rights said:
I cannot speak on behalf of conspirators. I can only say people have done a lot worse things for the love of money. I cannot speak on behalf of people who kill for money either but it does happen.
Click to expand...
Without Rights said:
Scientist's who agree with fluoridation are not necessarily part of the conspiracy. This point is reiterated in John Colquhoun's publication "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation."
Click to expand...

There's actually a pretty important point buried in here. There's a big difference between (for example) an aluminum company executive who believes his company is helping to improve public health while also improving the company bottom line and an aluminum company executive who is knowingly poisoning his entire community to save some money.

Just how many people minimum (roughly) at the aluminum and phosphate companies must be knowingly exposing the public to danger for this conspiracy to actually be workable?
 
And a couple of other random responses.



Without Rights said:
Right, dentists and toothpaste companies do not buy industrial byproducts for their purposes.
Click to expand...

You did not address my question. Is it economically infeasible to process "industrial" sodium fluoride into "pharmaceutical" sodium fluoride? Is it chemically impossible?

Without Rights said:
If it is not then the CEO's need to be fired. I am certain that if it was not advantageous then they would stop selling it and go back to paying for disposal.
Click to expand...

You being certain of something is not evidence of anything. I agree that generally speaking companies preferentially do things that are profitable (or less unprofitable), now show your evidence that this conspiracy is more profitable than the alternatives.

Without Rights said:
You seem to be one of the more logical people on this thread.
Beside the conspiracy side, do you think swallowing F in any form is beneficial?
Click to expand...

I have not read any of the links you've pointed to in this thread, so I'd have to confess to being not well informed enough to make a scientific opinion. At this time I'm more interested to see if a plausible economic argument can be made. Once that plays out to my satisfaction, I do have a few questions for kageki and oddball though.
 
Without Rights said:
Explain how I am offering two false choices to him. We have only discussed the conspiracy side and I want his take on the medical aspect of fluoride. How is this false dichotomy?
Click to expand...

A false dichotomy is not about false choices but about incomplete ones. You ask him if it's beneficial. Beneficial and harmful are not the only two possibilities.

Fluoridation is a problem within itself just as other sources pose a problem.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said.

Nobody called me on the fact that dentists and toothpaste companies use pharmaceutical fluoride.
Click to expand...

Well, that's funny, because I recall somebody asking you to explain what the difference was. I'd like to know, because I'd also like to know how come that demand doesn't affect prices.

And there we have it. You are finally admitting that you can't understand simple sentences.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was just a little joke. Thanks for missing it entirely.

A fluoride that is created through industrial processes. Pharmaceutical fluoride would be created by a chemist in a controlled environment.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. But is there a difference in the end product ? And are the materials used to make them the same ?
 
I think it's safe to say the word "simple" can be removed from this threads title. :eye-poppi
 
Mr.D said:
You did not address my question. Is it economically infeasible to process "industrial" sodium fluoride into "pharmaceutical" sodium fluoride? Is it chemically impossible?
Click to expand...

Given the advances in science I have no doubt it could be done but that is not the point. My point can be made solid by crests website, armourassociates.com,

"Regardless of the form, commercial fluoride originates
as the mineral fluorospar, CaF2, which is converted by sulfuric
acid to hydrogen fluoride (hydrofluoric acid, HF):
CaSO4 + 2HF CaF2 + H2SO4 (1)
Sodium fluoride is produced by the neutralization of hydrofluoric
acid with sodium hydroxide (eq 2). Stannous fluoride
is made by the digestion of tin metal with HF (eq 3),
and sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP) results from the
fusion reaction of sodium fluoride with sodium
trimetaphosphate at 500 C (eq 4).
NaF + H2O NaOH + HF (2)
SnF2 + H2 Sn + 2HF (3)
Na2PO3F NaF + NaPO3 (4)"


You being certain of something is not evidence of anything. I agree that generally speaking companies preferentially do things that are profitable (or less unprofitable), now show your evidence that this conspiracy is more profitable than the alternatives.
Click to expand...

I never said me being certain was evidence, I said 30 years of fluoride as an asset rather than a liability is proof. They are in the business of making money not throwing it away. I have gave enough evidence to make a logical conclusion. You will not be satisfied unless I have the books and that's impossible so you require impossible evidence.
 
Mr.D said:
I think I didn't make my point clear; Your original clam was that there was a conspiracy of aluminum and phosphate companies. Having begun to explore a little about the economics of the aluminum industry (actually only one company within the industry), I came upon some information that suggests that aluminum companies are losing sales to phosphate companies. This would be information needed to make a complete economic theory of the conspiracy, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

30 yrs after the fact, I'd say no.



Dodging the point by using a secondary dictionary definition? You're smarter than that. You understood the point that scientific proof is achieved in part by a preponderance of evidence. If you want to be taken seriously, avoid poor debate tactics like this.
Click to expand...

I am not dodging the point. The reason I posted the definition was because I meant the same thing when I said evidence and proof. I changed the vocab for no special reason like you where trying to insinuate.



I agree; it is progression - which is why I noted that it was an _apparent_ self-contradiction which would have had to been addressed in the future if you hadn't. But all this misses the point; There is demand outside of water utilities - which means some of the statements you've made supporting your theory are wrong.
Click to expand...

I already cleared that up in an earlier post by saying "there is no significant demand"


Are the phosphate and aluminum industries competitors in the fluoride business? Are they partners in the conspiracy? How does this lowering demand for sodium fluoride change the economics for the aluminum industry?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, it is bad for aluminum industry but that was out of their control because the people demanded they stop using it, according to the same source that says NaF is no longer used.

You've provided evidence regarding supply, demand and cost of disposal for sodium fluoride and aluminum companies (again, strictly speaking only one company). Can you provide the same for Hexafluorosilicic acid and phosphate companies?
Click to expand...

No time to look into right now, later.
 
Mr.D said:
The point is, advertising costs money (even if _some_ of it is paid for by someone else). How much do they spend on it? One more time - it is insufficient to simply assert that "it's covered" or "it's paid for."
Click to expand...

Impossible to answer unless I am on the Board of Directors.

Just how many people minimum (roughly) at the aluminum and phosphate companies must be knowingly exposing the public to danger for this conspiracy to actually be workable?
Click to expand...

1
 
Belz... said:
A false dichotomy is not about false choices but about incomplete ones. You ask him if it's beneficial. Beneficial and harmful are not the only two possibilities.
Click to expand...

I asked him a y or n question which is a true dichotomy, not a false one. I never said is it beneficial or harmful, I only said is it beneficial. That leaves it open for him to answer anyway he feels. If he wanted to say "I don't think it is beneficial but I don't think it is harmful either" he could of. False dichotomy forces a choice between two answers and that never happened.



That's not what you said.
Click to expand...
Yes I did. Just because I say one source is compounded by another doesn't mean that it is only a problem when compounded. Like a knife in the back compunds the damage done by a knife in the stomach, that doesn't mean the knife in the stomach is fine and dandy.



Well, that's funny, because I recall somebody asking you to explain what the difference was. I'd like to know, because I'd also like to know how come that demand doesn't affect prices.
Click to expand...
Read post to Mr D about crest's website



Actually, it was just a little joke. Thanks for missing it entirely.
Click to expand...
Nice sense of humor. Is joking your last line of defense to avoid admitting that you weren't paying attention?



Uh-huh. But is there a difference in the end product ? And are the materials used to make them the same ?
Click to expand...
Yes there is a difference. Like I said before, industrial fluoride contains arsenic, toothpaste is arsenic free. And the materials are different also. Aluminum Fluoride is not used to make toothpaste or dental fluoride.
 
Last edited:
Without Rights said:
I asked him a y or n question which is a true dichotomy, not a false one. I never said is it beneficial or harmful, I only said is it beneficial. That leaves it open for him to answer anyway he feels. If he wanted to say "I don't think it is beneficial but I don't think it is harmful either" he could of. False dichotomy forces a choice between two answers and that never happened.
Click to expand...

Alright, but it was a leading question.

Yes I did. Just because I say one source is compounded by another doesn't mean that it is only a problem when compounded. Like a knife in the back compunds the damage done by a knife in the stomach, that doesn't mean the knife in the stomach is fine and dandy.
Click to expand...

Indeed. In other words it's hard to know what the hell you're saying.

Nice sense of humor. Is joking your last line of defense to avoid admitting that you weren't paying attention?
Click to expand...

Are insults yours ?

Yes there is a difference. Like I said before, industrial fluoride contains arsenic, toothpaste is arsenic free. And the materials are different also. Aluminum Fluoride is not used to make toothpaste or dental fluoride.
Click to expand...

Thank you. That answers my question.
 
I haven't read this entire thread, I just wanted to pop in as I was passing by this forum and I couldn't help but notice the humor in seeing this thread sitting there.. A "simple fluoride question" spanning 9 full pages of debate. I guess it wasn't such a simple question after all. I will have to read this later for fun.

Forgive my derail.
 
Without Rights said:
Yes there is a difference. Like I said before, industrial fluoride contains arsenic, toothpaste is arsenic free. And the materials are different also. Aluminum Fluoride is not used to make toothpaste or dental fluoride.
Click to expand...

So, if they use industrial fluoride in the water, then your real beef would be with the arsenic in it? If this is the only difference, then this would have to be the real root of your problem.
 
Belz... said:
Alright, but it was a leading question.
Click to expand...

Your right, I was trying to lead him into having a discussion about the health aspects. What would have been the proper way to do that in your world?



Indeed. In other words it's hard to know what the hell you're saying.
Click to expand...

It would be hard to comprehend if your too busy trying to find fault in it and not really trying to understand. I can't make a simple comment to you, I have to include every aspect into every sentence or you will jump to conclusions.



Are insults yours ?
Click to expand...

My what?
 
Disbelief said:
So, if they use industrial fluoride in the water, then your real beef would be with the arsenic in it? If this is the only difference, then this would have to be the real root of your problem.
Click to expand...


No. Arsenic is a major problem but the real difference is the swallowing of Fluoride. When you brush, you spit it out. When the dentist Fluoridates your teeth he installs a dental dam. You don't swallow Pharma Fluoride, you rub it on your teeth just like the science behind it says you should do. Swallowing only damages your body, including the teeth.
 
Without Rights said:
No. Arsenic is a major problem but the real difference is the swallowing of Fluoride. When you brush, you spit it out. When the dentist Fluoridates your teeth he installs a dental dam. You don't swallow Pharma Fluoride, you rub it on your teeth just like the science behind it says you should do. Swallowing only damages your body, including the teeth.
Click to expand...

Now, all you need to do is show that you get all of the fluoride out of your mouth after brushing your teeth and that you swallow none of it.
 
Without Rights said:
Your right
Click to expand...

My right ?

I was trying to lead him into having a discussion about the health aspects.
Click to expand...

No, you were trying to lead him into a good/bad scenario, with nothing in between. I was just mentioning that it was a false dichotomy. Sheesh.

I have to include every aspect into every sentence or you will jump to conclusions.
Click to expand...

Really? Where did I jump to conclusions ? In fact, coming from you, it's rather funny, because you seem to be under the impression that I think that fluoride is harmless.

My what?
Click to expand...

Rights, it was just a few hours ago:

You said:
Nice sense of humor. Is joking your last line of defense to avoid admitting that you weren't paying attention?
Click to expand...
Me said:
Are insults yours ?
Click to expand...

Your what ? Your last line of defense to avoid admitting that you weren't paying attention.

Again, sheesh.
 
Without Rights said:
I am not dodging the point. The reason I posted the definition was because I meant the same thing when I said evidence and proof. I changed the vocab for no special reason like you where trying to insinuate.
Click to expand...

If you're not going to engage in an intellectually honest discussion, should I bother?

(Meanwhile: I notice elsewhere in the thread, Disbelief asked a question that I was saving up for later)
 
Wow. This really is the thread that never ends. It just goes on and on...my friends.
 
Edx said:
One question about flouride that bugs me is WHY its in the water at all? Whats the reason? Im sure Im missing something but surely its not some idea that they are somehow trying to help us care for our teeth? Please tell me theres some sensible reason!
Click to expand...



The Rooskies are trying to contaminate and poison our precious bodily fluids. Thats why I stick with distilled water and thats why the Rooskies drink Vodka.

Purity of Essence, Peace on Earth

jack-d-ripper-from-dr-strangelove.jpg



Sorrrry, I couldn't resist! :p
 
Now they even want to put in ice cream, Mandrake. Kids' ice cream. Can you believe it?

You'll answer to the Coca Cola Corporation.

I mean, a BIG plane like a 52, comin' in LOW, fryin' the chickens in the roost, hell yes they can make it!

Mein Fuerher! I can valk!
 
Disbelief said:
Now, all you need to do is show that you get all of the fluoride out of your mouth after brushing your teeth and that you swallow none of it.
Click to expand...

What is your point? Is is that since some people don't rinse properly we should go ahead and put it in the water supply?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom