Fluoridation? Hmm...Why?

[Cyclic13]

Just one 8 oz. glass of drinking water contains the "optimum" dose of 1 PPM (equivalent to 1 milligram/liter) daily dose of fluoride which hasn't changed in over 50 years... Quick question: Why exactly does the establishment recommend we drink 6-8 glasses of water a day, yet we should call poison control after swallowing a pea-sized amount of fluoridated toothpaste? Just How Much Fluoride is in Our Foods? Fluoride: Top 10 Scientific Developments of 2007 Professional Perspectives: Fluoride in Tap Water Fluoride Call to Action Fluoride Deception Part 1 (with award-winning journalist Christopher Bryson) Part 2;Part 3 "I would advise against fluoridation.. Side-effects cannot be excluded .. In Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances." - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000) "The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects." - Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association. "I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association. "E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects." - Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A. "Water contains a number of substances that are undesirable, and fluorides are just one of them" stated Dr. F. A. Bull, State Dental Director of Wisconsin, speaking at the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors. Peek-A-Boo... Thoughts?

[bluefinger]

Grif: oh~ they put fluoride in my water Simmons: Actually, that one's true Grif: What? Well, no wonder I listen to so much pop music Heh, at the moment, I'm on a computer with no sound, so I will watch the vids later. Well, it's not exactly a great situation. Fluorine can eat it's way through glass, plus it is extremely toxic, all things I already know. Putting something like that into water is a bit silly, as it is extremely difficult to regulate the exact amount within the water in order to for it to be kept at safe levels. We already get enough exposure to it, so why be exposed any more to such chemicals?

[Alric]

Its also a waste byproduct of some large manufacturing businesses. So they lobbied the government to promote how good it is. So instead of it costing them millions(billions?) of dollars a year to safely get rid of the hazardous waste, the government actually pays them to put it into the water. A very nice deal for them. Just shows how much the government cares for you.

[ChrissyMaria]

Its also a waste byproduct of some large manufacturing businesses. So they lobbied the government to promote how good it is. So instead of it costing them millions(billions?) of dollars a year to safely get rid of the hazardous waste, the government actually pays them to put it into the water. A very nice deal for them. Just shows how much the government cares for you. tell me, does bottled water have fluoride in it? does the toothpaste we use, if we spit the stuff out, does the fluoride in it get into your body if not ingested? is there any non fluoride toothpaste? or water, or food? i drink organic milk and bottled water, no tap, no soda at all, no juices am i good? i eat organic also

[wasup]

we get water fresh from a private spring Oh, and I gargle flouride rinse

[Cyclic13]

Oh, and I gargle flouride rinse Courtesy of the fertilizer industry... What better way to dispose of industrial waste then to get paid by the government to put it in drinking water? Two birds, with one stone... Overpopulation and sustainability problem? Check! Easy no fuss disposal of industrial waste? Check!

[ChrissyMaria]

i've also heard fluoride makes people like, submissive in a way, more compliant..is this true?

[Cyclic13]

I wouldn't be surprised... Just look at how complacent people have gotten...

[ChrissyMaria]

I wouldn't be surprised... Just look at how complacent people have gotten... thats why i said it, americans just kinda follow the media, the media says mccain, its mccain in wisconsin they greeted him with "we like mac and cheese" hence they call him mac...so people are gonna vote for him cause they like macaroni and cheese? PEOPLE ARE RETARTED lol why am i so rebellious then? is it the cannabis? is that the real reason cannabis is illegal?

[R.D.735]

Fluorine was mentioned earlier. I just wanted to point out that Flouride and Flourine are two different chemical substances. Calcium Fluoride is found in water supplies naturally, but so far no move has been made to remove it. Many water supplies have small amounts of metal compounds (hard water), and this has not been seen to be a public health crisis, even though metals like Calcium and Sodium are extremely dangerous if handled without proper care. I think the fluoride controversy is just hyped up fear-mongering. The ADA's official position is that fluoridation is very effective at reducing cavities and no compelling evidence exists that it is responsible for any serious health problems. It is a poison, but like toothpaste, proper care in its usage can have beneficial effects that are worth the risk.

[memeticverb]

Fluorine was mentioned earlier. I just wanted to point out that Flouride and Flourine are two different chemical substances. Calcium Fluoride is found in water supplies naturally, but so far no move has been made to remove it. Many water supplies have small amounts of metal compounds (hard water), and this has not been seen to be a public health crisis, even though metals like Calcium and Sodium are extremely dangerous if handled without proper care. I think the fluoride controversy is just hyped up fear-mongering. The ADA's official position is that fluoridation is very effective at reducing cavities and no compelling evidence exists that it is responsible for any serious health problems. It is a poison, but like toothpaste, proper care in its usage can have beneficial effects that are worth the risk. I dont believe its true anymore that the ADA currently believes water fluoridation is harmless, especially given the sheer volume of data that shows it is very harmful, and no real data to show it is not harmful, or even beneficial for reducing cavities. Also, i dont think the standard for the flouride in the water supply is calcium fluoride, but as mentioned by an earlier poster, a by product of the fertilizer and aluminum industries in the form of Barium hexafluorosilicate, Sodium hexafluorosilicate Fluoride Fact sheet "According to Dr Dean Burke, former chief biochemist at the National Cancer Institute, more that 50 000 Americans a year are dying of cancer caused by fluoridated drinking water." " If you have cereal with milk and a Coke, you have overdosed on fluoride. You have exceeded the American Dental Association's recommended daily dose by 230%." " In 1977, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis and Dr. Dean Burk, former chief chemist at the National Cancer Institute, released a study that linked fluoridation to 10,000 cancer deaths per year in the U.S. Their inquiry, which compared cancer deaths in the ten largest fluoridated American cities to those in the ten largest unfluoridated cities between 1940 and 1950, discovered a 5% greater rate in the fluoridated areas." " Fluoride interferes with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock. " WHY EPA'S HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

[ChrissyMaria]

so, if its so bad, why is it in EVERYTHING? why isn't there an outrage about fluoride? why isnt anyone speaking out about it? why is it not in the media? why doesn't the ada do something!

[memeticverb]

so, if its so bad, why is it in EVERYTHING? why isn't there an outrage about fluoride? why isnt anyone speaking out about it? why is it not in the media? why doesn't the ada do something! There is an outrage, just google fluoride and harm. Much of Canada is now fluoride free thanks to communities across the country banning it. Its not in the media because water fluoridation is very profitable. And th ADA has recently given warnings about consumption of too much fluoride, which they say many people are already doing. Its great to eat organic, maybe one of the best health decisions one could make. But apparently some organic foods are made by the same corrupt corporations, and lobbyists are trying to reduce the organic standards to include things like fluoride. Fluoride: The Hidden Poison in the National Organic Standards

[R.D.735]

We may as well be consistent and build a list of every common substance that has been accused of causing serious health problems: plastic, carbon monoxide (trace amounts from automobiles), carbon dioxide (more poison, and its a greenhouse gas), silicates (from drywall, plaster, dust, etc), electromagnetic radiation (cell phones, television signals, etc), ozone (manufacturing byproduct), benzene (one of the most common and dangerous byproducts of industry), noise pollution, stress, nanoparticles in suntan lotion, sunlight, aspartame, and pesticide residue in food are all serious health issues. Many of these are genuinely dangerous. Many of them are not. However, on fluoride, this is what the ADA says on their website about the cancer link with fluoride: Does drinking optimally fluoridated water cause or ac- celerate the growth of cancer? Answer. According to generally accepted scientific knowledge, there is no association between cancer rates in humans and optimal levels of fluoride in drinking water. Since community water fluoridation was introduced in 1945, more than 50 epidemiologic studies in different populations and at different times have failed to dem- onstrate an association between fluoridation and the risk of cancer. Studies have been conducted in the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. In addition, several indepen- dent bodies have conducted extensive reviews of the scientific literature and concluded that there is no rela- tionship between fluoridation and cancer.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) further commented on the safety of appropriate fluoride exposure in the December 5, 1997, Federal Register. 29. “...the weight of evidence from more than 50 epidemiological studies does not support the hypothesis of an association between fluoride exposure and increased cancer risk in humans. The EPA is in agreement with the conclusions reached by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).” Despite the abundance of scientific evidence to the contrary, claims of a link between fluoridation and increased cancer rates continue. This assertion is largely based on one study comparing cancer death rates in ten large fluoridated cities versus ten large nonfluoridated cities in the United States. The results of this study have been refuted by a number of organizations and researchers. Scientists at the National Cancer Institute analyzed the same data and found that the original investigators failed to adjust their findings for variables, such as age gender differences, that affect cancer rates. A review by other researchers pointed to further shortcomings in the study. The level of industrialization in the fluoridated cities was much higher than the nonfluoridated cities. Researchers noted that a higher level of industrialization is usually accompanied by a higher incidence of cancer. While the researchers noted that the fluoridated cities did have higher cancer rates over the twenty year study, the rate of increase in the nonfluoridated cities was exactly the same (15&#37 as the fluoridated cities. Following further reviews of the study, the consensus of the scientific community continues to support the conclusion that the incidence of cancer is unrelated to the introduction and duration of water fluoridation. In the early 1990's, two studies using higher than optimal levels of fluoride were conducted to evaluate the carcinogenicity of sodium fluoride in laboratory animals. The first study was conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The second study was sponsored by the Proctor and Gamble Company. In both studies, higher than optimal concentrations of sodium fluoride (25, 100, and 175 ppm) were consumed by rats and mice. When the NTP and the Proctor and Gamble studies were combined, a total of eight individual sex/species groups became available for analysis. Seven of these groups shows no significant evidence of malignant tumor formation. One group, male rats from the NTP study, showed "equivocal" evidence of carcinogenicity, which is defined by NTP as a marginal increase in neoplasms - i.e., osteosarcomas (malignant tumors of the bone) - that may be chemically related. The Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride of the U.S. Public Health Service combined the results of the two studies and stated: "Taken together, the two animal studies available at this time fail to establish an association between fluoride and cancer." It goes on and on, also mentioning good, old-fashioned fluoride toxicity as false. According to the ADA, it is impossible to get fluoride poisoning by drinking ordinary tap water, and there is no cancer link to long-term fluoride use. Note that it is more recent research (1990's as opposed to 1977, 1940 or 1950) that shows this definitively. That information was available at http://www.ada.org/public/topics/flu...acts/index.asp Download the pdf Hooray for science! A quick note: Much of Canada is now fluoride free thanks to communities across the country banning it. Many school districts in the US have shown great enthusiasm in battling evolution in the curricula. Nonscientific surveys show most Americans would ban di-hydrogen monoxide. When ignorance and action combine, it's bad news.

[adam has a dream]

Hooray for science! A quick note: Many school districts in the US have shown great enthusiasm in battling evolution in the curricula. Nonscientific surveys show most Americans would ban di-hydrogen monoxide. When ignorance and action combine, it's bad news. Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou. I was honestly about to vomit reading the other posts here. If anyone else can tell me the difference between a compound and an ion, they will get a prize! One simple question: SolSkye, do you have any background in chemistry?

[Cyclic13]

Does it matter? No. I wasn't claiming to be an authority on anything, just posting what I found for open discussion... Hence, the extended discussion section. If you have this vast compendium of knowledge of chemistry please prove to me how it benefits us. No one here has disproven the evidence against it, or shown me anything other than a block of text claiming it's safety. What about the evidence that the EPA, or that 30 year practicing dentist's video being against it having any benefits? I suppose they are all part of the looney fringe.

[adam has a dream]

It does matter in the sense that you've been writing a number of posts on the purported risks of a number of chemicals without providing sufficient breakdowns of those risks. Eg "Quick question: Why exactly does the establishment recommend we drink 6-8 glasses of water a day, yet we should call poison control after swallowing a pea-sized amount of fluoridated toothpaste?" Firstly, which 'establishment' are you talking about? I'm in Australia, and i certainly don't see the Government running advertisements on the benefits of drinking 6-8 glasses of water daily. It is not a wide recommendation. The obvious fact is that water is essential to life, so you should drink it, however i haven't found there to be a standard recommended amount. Secondly, you have to consider the concentrations of fluoride within toothpaste ( 1000 to 1450ppm fluoride, sourced from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothpa...ve_ingredients) as compared to water (0.7 to 1.2 ppm, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation). Now, you get about one cubic centimetre of toothpaste on your toothbrush, which is one millilitre. That means there is between 1.00 and 1.45 mg of fluoride in that amount of toothpaste (1000ppm multiplied by 1 mL gives 1 mg). To get the same amount of fluoride from tap water, you would need to drink 1000 litres. 0.1 mg of fluoride per kilogram of body mass is needed to cause an upset stomach, so for an average person (60kg) you'd need at least 6mg for even that effect (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride#Water_fluoridation). Which leads me to the point that the reasons not to swallow toothpaste are much more far reaching than fluoride poisoning - one of the inactive ingredients in toothpaste is sodium lauryl sulphate, a foaming agent. This same chemical is found in detergents and shampoos, and would make you violently sick (ie. you'd be vomiting all over the place). The only risk associated with swallowing toothpaste is if the swallowing was regular, as fluoride takes hours to break down within the body, and would hence build up if one was to swallow a pea sized amount of toothpaste twice daily. That is the reason why one is told not to swallow toothpaste, yet drinking large amounts of water water is promoted by others. As for the toxicity of fluoride in water, as previously mentioned, it takes around 6 mg of fluoride to cause an upset stomach. A standard glass of water is 250 mL, so eight glasses of water = 2 L = 2mg of fluoride, and that's the upper limit of recommendations. Once again, water has a 1ppm concentration of fluoride, which means you would need to drink 6 litres to get sick from the fluoride. Good luck preventing your stomach and bladder from rupturing before that. "More than 100 national and international health service agencies and professional organizations continue to accept that there are benefits of community water fluoridation in preventing tooth decay." http://www.fluoridefacts.org/fluoride/flu_supp_org.asp There is my vast compendium of knowledge on chemistry. It is peer-reviewed knowledge, no blocks of text, but simple calculations and facts about the safe limits of fluoride. I'm not sure where you got any of your information from, because it is not referenced, and from a few single people. Feel free to pick apart my argument with facts and logic. You stated that "Just one 8 oz. glass of drinking water contains the "optimum" dose of 1 PPM (equivalent to 1 milligram/liter) daily dose of fluoride which hasn't changed in over 50 years...". Funnily enough, 1 oz. of drinking water also contains 1 ppm of fluoride. 10000000000 L of drinking water also contains 1ppm of fluoride. Parts per million is a measurement of concentration, rather than total mass. So you're right that the internationally accepted concentration of fluoride in drinking water is 1 ppm. However, this is not a dose. A dose must be measured in terms of mass, and only mass, eg. a 6 mg dose. The dose may be adjusted according to suit the size of a person, ie 0.1mg of fluoride per kg of body mass, however, the measurement is still purely in terms of mass. I would be quite worried if the concentration of fluoride varied from glass to glass. Thankyou.

[Cyclic13]

You obviously didn't look at the legitimate links and quotes, or watch the videos... I'll take the advice of a 30 year practicing dentist who spent his own time and money to make a reasonable well-laid out professional looking video before I listen to some 20 year old on the internet with a chip on his shoulder and need to be right. Ciao.

[adam has a dream]

Thanks for being somewhat civil. You're completely incorrect about my not looking at the legitimate links, and the content on those sites is rubbish. The video by Bill Osmunson is, in my opinion, highly biased - particularly the toothpaste comment that i picked apart above. I was here to correct the errors in what you said, not convince you. I'm happy that i was able to correct you on "ppm", because that would cause a lot of confusion in people who have not come across the term. I simply read your factually and conceptually incorrect statement, and your reference-less quotes that didn't contain facts, and was satisfied that you personally couldn't provide a coherent argument against fluoride, let alone understand it. You're correct that this forum is titled "Extended Discussion", and it surprises me that you were unable to discuss the points i made, while i was able to discuss the points you made. Goodbye and good luck living in ignorance, hopefully you win a Darwin Award.

[Cyclic13]

I put the reference's of the quotes and who said them. I sure as hell didn't make them up. The link is at the bottom. With your undeniably vast insight and understanding thanks to wikpedia I implore you to watch the first video and point out the errors in the dentist's arguments. Where oh where did the 30 year practicing dentist and all those websites and people go wrong? Please save me from my ignorance, oh wise one. You're my only hope.

[adam has a dream]

Uhh.... possibly read my above argument on his toothpaste comment. As for your "links", no you did not reference any of the quotes. What you did do was give me the names and statuses of the people you quoted, however there is no context for the quotes, and no link for the context of each quote.

[adam has a dream]

Ps. Before i have to go back and look through wikipedia for more figures where my original ones came from (which happened to be the same as yours), i would like you to rebutt each point in my argument. Otherwise i don't plan on wasting my time on a brick wall.

[adam has a dream]

Pps. my vast insight and understanding is brought to me by logical thinking. I guess i was born with it. Doing university science and engineering has honed it. Wikipedia, i hail you for providing me with facts. My own brain: I hail you for providing me with the ability to think clearly and construct a valid opinion based on facts.

[Cyclic13]

As I said, the link is at the bottom just above the last picture... Your figures, and link to organizations in support of fluoride do nothing to quell the many videos very reasonable arguments about the absence of it's claimed benefits. The dentist in the first video even admits to ignorantly promoting fluoride without question for the first 25 years of his career, without really knowing the facts behind it. He admits that once he researched the facts he found no real benefits, hence why he spent his own money and time making a video against it's use. It's a poison. Period. If you spent half as long just looking at the original content of the first post as you did copying and pasting stuff from wikipedia, with your mind already made up, we wouldn't be where we are... (note: wikipedia has been proven to be an inaccurate source of information. Anyone and everyone can edit it. Including people that have something to lose from people finding out about it. Not that this is the case, but to put in bold letters it's a factual source of information is premature) Since when did unquestioning acceptance of the introduction of a poisonous byproduct of the aluminum and fertilizer industry into drinking water become equivalent to logical thinking? Seriously, man. You're new here, and it seems you need a lesson in humility to take that ego of yours off it's high horse. No one gives a damn that your learning science and engineering at the university. You're still 20 years old. To claim you have more qualifications, knowledge, and insight than a Nobel Prize Medicine co-winner, an ex-president of the AMA, an EPA Senior toxicologist, and 30 year practicing dentist, among countless others, is beyond laughable. Case in point: 14 nobel prize winners against fluoride. The one who needs to open their mind to both sides isn't me. I looked at both sides of the argument prior to posting, and couldn't just write off all these credible people that were vehemently against it's use. Why are you so quick to write it off? What research have you done or seen about fluoride which proves it's benefits beyond a shadow of a doubt? You clearly have yet to watch the facts let alone try and debunk the valid points made. New Evidence on Fluoride & the Developing Brain "In 2007, the question of how fluoride affects the developing brain gained renewed attention from researchers around the world. Research teams from Brazil, China, India, Italy, Mexico, and the United States conducted important new analyses, including 3 new studies investigating fluoride’s impact on childhood IQ, and several new animal studies investigating fluoride’s effects on learning, memory, and behavior. The studies, which strengthen the concerns expressed by the US National Research Council in 2006, further highlight that it’s not just the teeth, but the brain, that may be impacted by too much fluoride during infancy and childhood..."

[adam has a dream]

As I said, the link is at the bottom just above the last picture... Your figures, and link to organizations in support of fluoride do nothing to quell the many videos very reasonable arguments about the absence of it's claimed benefits. The dentist in the first video even admits to ignorantly promoting fluoride without question for the first 25 years of his career, without really knowing the facts behind it. He admits that once he researched the facts he found no real benefits, hence why he spent his own money and time making a video against it's use. It's a poison. Period. If you spent half as long just looking at the original content of the first post as you did copying and pasting stuff from wikpedia, with your mind already made up, we wouldn't be where we are... Since when did accepting the introduction of a poisonous byproduct of the aluminum and fertilizer industry into drinking water become equivalent to logical thinking? Seriously, man. You're new here, and it seems you need a lesson in humility to take that ego of yours off it's high horse. No one gives a damn that your learning science and engineering at the university. You're still 20 years old. To claim you have more qualifications, knowledge, and insight than a Nobel Prize Medicine co-winner, an ex-president of the AMA, an EPA Senior toxicologist, and 30 year practicing dentist, among countless others, is beyond laughable. The one who needs to open their mind to both sides isn't me. I looked at both sides of the argument prior to posting, and couldn't just write off all these credible people that were vehemently against it's use. Why are you so quick to write it off? What research have you done or seen about fluoride which proves it's benefits beyond a shadow of a doubt? You clearly have yet to watch the facts let alone try and debunk the valid points made. Fact: I've read the quotes. Fact: I've watched the video made by a doctor whose qualifications i checked (just to make sure he was real). He is highly qualified in medicine, and i accept that. Fact: While i have read the quotes and watched the video by the doctor, i'm simply not convinced by his arguments. Read below to find out why Now, by telling me that something is a poisonous by-product of an industrial or agricultural process to make it seem dangerous, you seem like an ignorant layman. Which leads me to the point: I have heard about the horrific effects of Hydrogen Fluoride in industry. Having a vat of that stuff tipped onto a person is not something i'd wish upon anyone. I understand basic chemistry. I understand advanced chemistry, and with this knowledge comes an understanding of the final product: Sodium Fluoride, whether it came from an industrial product or was made from pure sodium and fluorine, is the same product. Producing pure SF from an industrial process will make it no more or less dangerous than if it was produced in the lab, because it is the same compound. That absolutely kills your point of it being a by-product of any industry, which you seem to vehemently stick to. You could by the same token say that water recycled (and purified to H20) from an industrial process is harmful. That's rubbish. What you want to be telling me is at what levels this by product is poisonous. Please do, and then i might listen to you. Sodium chloride is extremely poisonous in high concentrations. Sodium chloride is table salt. Sodium is poisonous in high concentrations, yet it is found in the majority of foods, and it is necessary for the body in trace concentrations, otherwise we die. Think about that. I will repeat for the third time that the doctor does not make a valid point with the toothpaste. Toothpaste contains a number of chemicals, the most dangerous of these being the foaming agent i mentioned. Would you swallow a piece of soap? Or a pea-sized amount of shampoo? It's the same thing. By my calculations, the fluoride content of the toothpaste was negligible. But that point is completely irrelevant when the reason not to swallow toothpaste has nothing to do with fluoride. This makes the comparison between the pea-sized amount of toothpaste and eight ounces of water an invalid one. I do agree with the doctor on not giving babies tap water. Babies get all of their nutrients from baby formula. Now, due to their tiny mass and the fact that they will drink a lot more water than your average person, the amount of fluoride they receive (per kilogram of body mass) is a lot more than the recommended or even safe amount. This, however, is not a good enough reason (in my opinion) to ban fluoridation of water. Funnily enough, my links do provide information on the benefits of fluoridating water. Particularly the one on fluoride. It provides figures on the reduction in tooth decay caused by fluoridation. A reasonable argument would contain related facts. The doctor's video didn't, and your quotes contained no facts. As for copying and pasting, the only things i copied and pasted were the concentrations of fluorides in toothpaste and water, and the amount of fluoride required to induce gastro-intestinal complications. Thankyou for attempting to insult me, it failed. The rest of my post included simple calculations done by me, which i will walk you through and explain if need be - they support the arguments i posed in conclusion of my paragraphs. I would like you to explain to me where i went wrong. Now, to say that i claimed to have more knowledge than the doctor is a fallacy. Trying to accuse me of that is another failed insult. What i said was i have extensive knowledge of chemistry that you don't, and using this knowledge i am able to break down an illogical chemical comparison. There was no substance to the toothpaste argument. The comment on fluoride in babies is 1) in line with my calculations and 2) out of my depth, as i don't do biology, so i can't comment on the developmental complications that would result from fluoride overdose in babies. This leads me to say that i'm quite happy to stay on my high horse, as that is the point of a discussion. I'm on my horse, and you're definitely on yours. Now until one of us knocks each other over with a valid argument, i'm staying on mine. If you disprove me and knock me off mine, i'd expect you to come down to humility. I will do the same if you can't prove me wrong. I have told you why i don't find enough of the arguments of Dr Osmunson to be sound. I have also told you that there are no facts in your quotes, all you are showing is that there are a number of people against fluoridation. Would you like me to provide you with a number of quotes (containing no facts/evidence) from a number of high-ranking people who support fluoridation? I'm probably going to go to sleep, as it's two in the morning. I'll continue this further if there's a point. You can respond to all of that, but i won't bother replying if you don't read and respond to this: I ask you, once again, to disprove my facts. I ask you to pick apart my calculations.