Did you know Walton county's water is NOT fluoridated?

[fisher]

YouTube - Cuckoo Clock and Glockenspiel

What an educated reply.

I guess when you don't have the science to refute the fact that fluoride is a very toxic substance or an answer to the words from the top dental advocate in Canada or a good response to the idea that choice it the right answer versus dictatorial government edicts, it's time to get desperate with name calling?

Oh well--

 

[dgsevier]

What an educated reply.

I guess when you don't have the science to refute the fact that fluoride is a very toxic substance or an answer to the words from the top dental advocate in Canada or a good response to the idea that choice it the right answer versus dictatorial government edicts, it's time to get desperate with name calling?

Oh well--

OK, OK you win. I'll quit dining on a quart of Crest each morning for breakfast. (Now I know why that third arm was beginning to grow from the side of my neck).

BTW, you may want stop touching that plastic mouse and keyboard so much. There is irrefutable, uber-scientific evidence that the chemicals used in plastic computer components lead to absolutely batty behavior.

 

[30A Skunkape]

What an educated reply.

I guess when you don't have the science to refute the fact that fluoride is a very toxic substance or an answer to the words from the top dental advocate in Canada or a good response to the idea that choice it the right answer versus dictatorial government edicts, it's time to get desperate with name calling?

Oh well--

It is an appropriate response because I will be the first to admit I am not an authority on fluoridation, but I am very good at sniffing out cuckoos.

Do you suggest that the words of 'the top dental advocate in Canada (who dubbed him with that title, anyway?) trump the opinions of the World Health Organization, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Controls, the Surgeon General and the National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research? I know, I know, probably a mass conspiracy of some sort, but you can read all about it here: http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoridation_statement_sixauthorities.pdf

Furthermore, you assert that fluoride is somehow or another so darn toxic that people will be dropping like flies (or at least should be), yet the data from honest-to-goodness toxicologists (of which Dr Limeback admits he is not counted among the ranks of) fails to demonstrate any such effect. How do you explain the discrepency between your assertion and reality? Here is the journal article that suggests that you are promoting fear out of proportion to threat; it is on Medline if you want to look it up and dissect it and see where the toxicologists err. Clin Toxicol (Phila). Dec 2007;45(8):815-917

If you want to approach the issue from a cost/benefit point of view, then I am with you. For example, fluoridating water in areas where the natural levels are elevated may be a waste of money. However, playing the 'dicatorial government poisoning the people and supressing the truth' card will quickly land you in the cuckoobird camp.

 

[fisher]

;-)

It is an appropriate response because I will be the first to admit I am not an authority on fluoridation, but I am very good at sniffing out cuckoos.

Do you suggest that the words of 'the top dental advocate in Canada (who dubbed him with that title, anyway?) trump the opinions of the World Health Organization, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Controls, the Surgeon General and the National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research? I know, I know, probably a mass conspiracy of some sort, but you can read all about it here: http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoridation_statement_sixauthorities.pdf

Furthermore, you assert that fluoride is somehow or another so darn toxic that people will be dropping like flies (or at least should be), yet the data from honest-to-goodness toxicologists (of which Dr Limeback admits he is not counted among the ranks of) fails to demonstrate any such effect. How do you explain the discrepency between your assertion and reality? Here is the journal article that suggests that you are promoting fear out of proportion to threat; it is on Medline if you want to look it up and dissect it and see where the toxicologists err. Clin Toxicol (Phila). Dec 2007;45(8):815-917

If you want to approach the issue from a cost/benefit point of view, then I am with you. For example, fluoridating water in areas where the natural levels are elevated may be a waste of money. However, playing the 'dicatorial government poisoning the people and supressing the truth' card will quickly land you in the cuckoobird camp.

Again, I admit that there are two very different sides of the debate. With plenty of heavy weight on both sides.

To say that the scientists that oppose fluoridation are cuckoos makes you sound like a bit of a cuckoo (I already know that I'm a bit of a cuckoo). You seem to be lashing out and name calling without taking a look at the facts on the other side of the argument. Your only answer seems to be that folks on the other side of the issue are all cuckoos.

Just remember, the global warming issue is very similar in the way the debate rages among scientists. Two sides of the story. You seem to support the side that disagrees with the "mainstream" governmental or quasi governmental entities. I guess this makes you a cuckoo too. Don't virtually all major nations support the opinion that global warming is very real, is caused by mankind and his fossil burning fuels, and that we are doomed if we don't take drastic measures to reduce carbon emissions? You disagree--are you a cuckoo.

Although there seems to be global consensus on the issue of global warming, there is no such consensus on the issue of fluoridation of water. There are many more countries that oppose fluoridation than believe in fluoridation. You are way outside the world mainstream on the global warming issue. I am among the consensus on the fluoride issue in terms of the world view. So, who is right and who is wrong. Don't know. But, I'm all for giving folks a choice. That's why I like the Walton County policy--gives everyone a choice since there is no concensus of opinion on water fluoridation.

So, who is the cuckoo on the fluoride issue.

By the way, I'm on your side on the global warming issue. Guess that makes us both cuckoos. ;-)

 

[Miss Kitty]

Again, I admit that there are two very different sides of the debate. With plenty of heavy weight on both sides.

To say that the scientists that oppose fluoridation are cuckoos makes you sound like a bit of a cuckoo (I already know that I'm a bit of a cuckoo). You seem to be lashing out and name calling without taking a look at the facts on the other side of the argument. Your only answer seems to be that folks on the other side of the issue are all cuckoos.

Just remember, the global warming issue is very similar in the way the debate rages among scientists. Two sides of the story. You seem to support the side that disagrees with the "mainstream" governmental or quasi governmental entities. I guess this makes you a cuckoo too. Don't virtually all major nations support the opinion that global warming is very real, is caused by mankind and his fossil burning fuels, and that we are doomed if we don't take drastic measures to reduce carbon emissions? You disagree--are you a cuckoo.

Although there seems to be global consensus on the issue of global warming, there is no such consensus on the issue of fluoridation of water. There are many more countries that oppose fluoridation than believe in fluoridation.

So, who is the cuckoo

...it's me! I don't know why I keeping hitting this thread about fluorinated water!

 

[fisher]

...it's me! I don't know why I keeping hitting this thread about fluorinated water!

Thanks for joining the cuckoos nest with me and skunk.

 

[Miss Kitty]

Thanks for joining the cuckoos nest with me and skunk.

...I'm bringing my bottled water.

 

[Lynnie]

Uh-oh, I am late....again. But, when I did receive flouride treatments at the dentist (don't any longer), I was not supposed to swallow?????

Maybe this point has already been covered.......oh well, sorry I'm late!

Cheers~~~~~~~~

 

[scooterbug44]

...I'm bringing my bottled water.

Hope it's not a plastic bottle - those chemicals get into your water and are bad for you don't ya know!

Lynnie - you weren't supposed to swallow the flouride - different rules ;-).

 

[fisher]

Hope it's not a plastic bottle - those chemicals get into your water and are bad for you don't ya know!

Lynnie - you weren't supposed to swallow the flouride - different rules ;-).

Why do you say different rules? That just proves my point--you don't swallow the fluoride rinse or the fluoridated toothpaste for the plain and simple fact that fluoride is very toxic even in small doses.