4 ms·

The key word in his sentence was "byproducts"

by hderms 12y ago

XorNot 12y ago
At which point he's free to show that the government is clearly using contaminated fluoridation equipment for the water. But that doesn't make water fluoridation a bad idea. Conspiracy theorists need to pick one mechanism (and then actually find out about it).
- adrianwaj 12y ago
  No, the onus of proof is on the government that what they are doing to the water is good, or rather to provide a precise ingredients list of what they are adding to the water, where they are getting it from and how it is created... on a location-by-location basis, and at regular intervals. And that can be cross-checked by third parties if they should wish. If there's a conspiracy, it's the one regarding what is supposedly good for my health and teeth. Who says I need "fluoride" delivered to me in this manner? Why can't I opt-in or at least have the information at-hand to make a decision as to whether I want to avoid tap water? Every water bill should have a precise ingredients list of the "product" being supplied. Why should water be different from any other thing I buy to drink.. especially in such large quantities, and as an ingredient indirectly in so many other foods I eat. It should be labelled as such. And it will never be because the ingredients are toxic - the onus of proof is on the government to accurately label their product to prove me wrong (if that is their goal.) I can say anything I want, but I still don't need to prove or individually "find out" anything. I am not doing the tampering.
  - XorNot 12y ago
    Just because you're too lazy to look up the wide body of literature on the benefits of water fluoridation, processes of water fluoridation, history and methodology...doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. But you know, guess what, you do have choices! It's called not using the municipal water supply and having it trucked in at great expense. Wouldn't be the first market where consumers are under-served due to lack of demand or apathy. I want HBO, but being in Australia can't get it.
    - adrianwaj 12y ago
      Have you read the counter-arguments to fluoridation? And speaking of laziness, I would never sit myself in front of HBO. Anyhow, the problem is informational I think right now. What's needed is accurate information on what's being added, where, and how much. Also, who's supplying it. I can read and believe as much as I want, from whatever source I want, but what's harder to dispute are real measurements. This sort of information should've been provided already, and the fact that in this day and age that this sort of information can't or won't be provided makes me wonder why not. In fact, in some respects I'd like to see these type of scientific measurements and ingredient lists provided BEFORE even ending fluoridation (which could serve to hide what has been added) and then people can be held accountable for what they have done in the name of science and health (or rather money and whatever other nefarious motive.) If fluoridation is so great, then let me see measurements on what exactly is being added to the water, and then I can work out the right dose to help me with any teeth problems I MIGHT have otherwise... how is that being lazy?
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        If you are in the U.S., it is likely listed on the Consumer Confidence report that your municipal water supplier is required (by the EPA) to provide: http://water.epa.gov/drink/local/ http://water.epa.gov/drink/local/ It's not monthly, but they aren't changing it all the time either. Here's some examples of them: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/YourWater/AnnualWaterQualityReports.aspx http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/YourWater/AnnualWaterQuality... http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=634 http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=634 http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtm...
        adrianwaj 12y ago
        Thanks. I looked at the Acton report: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/Documents/Water%20Quality%20Reports/acton2013.pdf http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/Documents/Water%20Quality%20... and it stated specifically that chlorine was being added (not fluoride.) Also, fluoride as 0.19 (before or after fluoridation?.. it wasn't specifically stated that it was being added, only that it was to help with teeth strength as a table note. NY was 1 ppm) But what I think is needed is precise analysis of ALL constituents of the actual fluoride additive used at the treatment plant. Some of those constituents could corrode pipes too (let alone one's body,) leading to further contamination. The people supplying the fluoride can provide that type of information, and it can be linked from those water websites without much effort.

The key word in his sentence was "byproducts"

by hderms 12y ago

The key word in his sentence was "byproducts"

At which point he's free to show that the government is clearly using contaminated fluoridation equipment for the water. But that doesn't make water fluoridation a bad idea. Conspiracy theorists need to pick one mechanism (and then actually find out about it).

adrianwaj 12y ago
No, the onus of proof is on the government that what they are doing to the water is good, or rather to provide a precise ingredients list of what they are adding to the water, where they are getting it from and how it is created... on a location-by-location basis, and at regular intervals. And that can be cross-checked by third parties if they should wish. If there's a conspiracy, it's the one regarding what is supposedly good for my health and teeth. Who says I need "fluoride" delivered to me in this manner? Why can't I opt-in or at least have the information at-hand to make a decision as to whether I want to avoid tap water? Every water bill should have a precise ingredients list of the "product" being supplied. Why should water be different from any other thing I buy to drink.. especially in such large quantities, and as an ingredient indirectly in so many other foods I eat. It should be labelled as such. And it will never be because the ingredients are toxic - the onus of proof is on the government to accurately label their product to prove me wrong (if that is their goal.) I can say anything I want, but I still don't need to prove or individually "find out" anything. I am not doing the tampering.
- XorNot 12y ago
  Just because you're too lazy to look up the wide body of literature on the benefits of water fluoridation, processes of water fluoridation, history and methodology...doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. But you know, guess what, you do have choices! It's called not using the municipal water supply and having it trucked in at great expense. Wouldn't be the first market where consumers are under-served due to lack of demand or apathy. I want HBO, but being in Australia can't get it.
  - adrianwaj 12y ago
    Have you read the counter-arguments to fluoridation? And speaking of laziness, I would never sit myself in front of HBO. Anyhow, the problem is informational I think right now. What's needed is accurate information on what's being added, where, and how much. Also, who's supplying it. I can read and believe as much as I want, from whatever source I want, but what's harder to dispute are real measurements. This sort of information should've been provided already, and the fact that in this day and age that this sort of information can't or won't be provided makes me wonder why not. In fact, in some respects I'd like to see these type of scientific measurements and ingredient lists provided BEFORE even ending fluoridation (which could serve to hide what has been added) and then people can be held accountable for what they have done in the name of science and health (or rather money and whatever other nefarious motive.) If fluoridation is so great, then let me see measurements on what exactly is being added to the water, and then I can work out the right dose to help me with any teeth problems I MIGHT have otherwise... how is that being lazy?
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      If you are in the U.S., it is likely listed on the Consumer Confidence report that your municipal water supplier is required (by the EPA) to provide: http://water.epa.gov/drink/local/ http://water.epa.gov/drink/local/ It's not monthly, but they aren't changing it all the time either. Here's some examples of them: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/YourWater/AnnualWaterQualityReports.aspx http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/YourWater/AnnualWaterQuality... http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=634 http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=634 http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtm...
      - adrianwaj 12y ago
        Thanks. I looked at the Acton report: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/Documents/Water%20Quality%20Reports/acton2013.pdf http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/Documents/Water%20Quality%20... and it stated specifically that chlorine was being added (not fluoride.) Also, fluoride as 0.19 (before or after fluoridation?.. it wasn't specifically stated that it was being added, only that it was to help with teeth strength as a table note. NY was 1 ppm) But what I think is needed is precise analysis of ALL constituents of the actual fluoride additive used at the treatment plant. Some of those constituents could corrode pipes too (let alone one's body,) leading to further contamination. The people supplying the fluoride can provide that type of information, and it can be linked from those water websites without much effort.