You are using fearmongering to advance your cause by claiming there is arsenic in drinking water

So support your claim

4/15/2013 4:27:34 PM

Dude, give it a rest. There are people in this thread trying to actually have a discussion and you're shitting on it with your typical tripe.

4/15/2013 4:29:32 PM

I am trying to have a real debate

4/15/2013 4:30:42 PM

I haven't looked at the website, but does he claim that arsenic is added to the water? Or that the water has a harmful amount of arsenic in it? If so, then dtownral has a good point.

4/15/2013 4:31:15 PM

All I said which Dtownral will not stop harping on,

is that the certificate of analysis provided by the key chemical company for the chemical (FSA) which is added to our water

states in plain black and white

that there are concentrations of lead, arsenic and other contaminants.

The chemical is purchased by Raleigh and added to the water supply because THEY say it is beneficial to your teeth. All I questioned was how this chemical (which has arsenic and lead in it) could be beneficial to our teeth, and if so, how swallowing it would not also affect the other tissues in our body.

4/15/2013 4:33:37 PM

i'm no expert on arsenic poisoning, but i'm pretty sure if levels were at all threatening in Raleigh's water supply, people would be dropping like flies by now

4/15/2013 4:38:28 PM

People are dropping like flies these days. Do you know anyone who has died from cancer?

4/15/2013 4:40:29 PM

MORE PEOPLE DIE FROM CANCER THESE DAYS THAN EVER

Except the exact opposite of that.

4/15/2013 4:41:28 PM

Quote :

"People are dropping like flies these days. Do you know anyone who has died from cancer?"

You're implying that fluoride FSA causes cancer, which hasn't shown to be true in low doses.


[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2013 4:42:54 PM

FLOURIDE CAUSES ARSENIC POISONING AND CANCER RELATED DEWORMING AGENT DEATHS!

4/15/2013 4:45:25 PM

is somebody a liar and/or a thief in this thread? if not, I'm out

4/15/2013 4:46:31 PM

I agree and don't mean to imply FSA does this explicitly or exclusively but I would argue that it is a contributing factor to the epidemic.

4/15/2013 4:48:28 PM

k well come back with peer reviewed studies that show a positive correlation and I'll be all ears

wait. actually, i don't even in live in Raleigh, much less give two shits about this 'cause'

4/15/2013 4:49:48 PM

Quote :

"I agree and don't mean to imply FSA does this explicitly or exclusively but I would argue that it is a contributing factor to the epidemic."

You can't make that argument because you don't have any proof of it.

This is a better argument:

Quote :

"It's possible that we might find detrimental effects in lower concentrations. If there is no benefit from ingestion, and it is potentially harmful, why continue to add it to the water supply?"

4/15/2013 4:51:04 PM

Adult swim:

In 1977, the U.S. Congress requested that animal studies be conducted to determine if fluoride can cause cancer. The result of the Congressional request was an extensive animal study conducted in the 1980s by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and published in 1990.

The main finding of NTP’s study was a dose-dependent increase in osteosarcoma (bone cancer) among the fluoride-treated male rats. However, despite the fact that 1) the cancer occurred in the target organ (bone) for fluoride accumulation, that 2) the increase in bone cancer was statistically-significant, that 3) the doses of fluoride were low for an animal cancer study, and that 4) NTP acknowledged it is “biologically plausible” that fluoride could induce bone cancer, the NTP ruled that the study only provided “equivocal evidence” that fluoride was the cause of the cancer.

According to a report in Chemical & Engineering News: “A number of government officials who asked not to be identified also have told C&EN that they have concerns about the conclusions of the NTP study. They, too, believe that fluoride should have been placed in the “some evidence” category, in part because osteosarcoma is a very rare form of cancer in rodents.”

In addition to increased bone cancer, the NTP study also found increases in rare liver cancers, oral cavity cancers and thyroid cancers among the fluoride-treated rats. The NTP ruled, however, that the cancers were not related to the fluoride treatment – despite reaching “statistical significance” in some of NTP’s analyses.


Link: http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/cancer03/

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 5:00 PM. Reason : typo]

4/15/2013 4:58:17 PM

Quote :

"Bullet All American 11841 Posts user info edit post I haven't looked at the website, but does he claim that arsenic is added to the water? Or that the water has a harmful amount of arsenic in it? If so, then dtownral has a good point. 4/15/2013 4:31:15 PM thegoldenrul New Recruit 46 Posts user info edit post All I said which Dtownral will not stop harping on, is that the certificate of analysis provided by the key chemical company for the chemical (FSA) which is added to our water states in plain black and white that there are concentrations of lead, arsenic and other contaminants. The chemical is purchased by Raleigh and added to the water supply because THEY say it is beneficial to your teeth. All I questioned was how this chemical (which has arsenic and lead in it) could be beneficial to our teeth, and if so, how swallowing it would not also affect the other tissues in our body. "

yes, he mentions arsenic and if you read the city council minutes from him and his followers they talk about arsenic more than flouride at the meetings.

there is a reason for that, arsenic sounds a lot scarier than flouride or even HSF. they are using arsenic to scare people into supporting them.

he then made the claim that there is arsenic in his drinking water.

there is not arsenic in his drinking water (if there is, its because it was already there). As arsenic is the leading contaminant in HSF production, the NSF has done studies on arsenic and based standards on there being no impact to drinking water at those levels. additionally, Raleigh has years of non-detects in their water quality reporting.

so, claiming that the city is adding arsenic to the water and that there is arsenic in your water is purposefully dishonest for the purpose of scaring people into supporting their cause.

he has not supported, or attempted to support, his claim that Raleigh water has arsenic. I asked that, in the absence of a water quality report, he post what the level was and what municipality the water is from. he would not. he is misrepresenting facts to scare people into supporting him.



[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 5:30 PM. Reason : (and in regards to flouride, he has done nothing to support that flouride levels <1ppm are harmful)]

4/15/2013 5:29:05 PM

flouride

4/15/2013 5:33:09 PM

Yeah, I'm fairly certain 1 study done on rats back in the 80s isn't proof of anything. Public policy should be based on a body of information that contains countless studies leading to a single conclusion.

Also, I think you'd be better off letting adultswim make your argument. He seems to have a much better grasp at logic.

4/15/2013 5:34:45 PM

Quote :

"In 1977, the U.S. Congress requested that animal studies be conducted to determine if fluoride can cause cancer. The result of the Congressional request was an extensive animal study conducted in the 1980s by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and published in 1990. The main finding of NTP’s study was a dose-dependent increase in osteosarcoma (bone cancer) among the fluoride-treated male rats. However, despite the fact that 1) the cancer occurred in the target organ (bone) for fluoride accumulation, that 2) the increase in bone cancer was statistically-significant, that 3) the doses of fluoride were low for an animal cancer study, and that 4) NTP acknowledged it is “biologically plausible” that fluoride could induce bone cancer, the NTP ruled that the study only provided “equivocal evidence” that fluoride was the cause of the cancer. According to a report in Chemical & Engineering News: “A number of government officials who asked not to be identified also have told C&EN that they have concerns about the conclusions of the NTP study. They, too, believe that fluoride should have been placed in the “some evidence” category, in part because osteosarcoma is a very rare form of cancer in rodents.” In addition to increased bone cancer, the NTP study also found increases in rare liver cancers, oral cavity cancers and thyroid cancers among the fluoride-treated rats. The NTP ruled, however, that the cancers were not related to the fluoride treatment – despite reaching “statistical significance” in some of NTP’s analyses. Link: http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/cancer03/"

for comparison, in a 100kg human that would be just under 300-gal of Raleigh water per day.

edit: actually, i can't confirm that dosage they have in the table. the quotes they use are for dosages much higher than the table shows from what i can find. So it would be much more than that for an adult human.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/LT_rpts/tr393.pdf


[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 6:06 PM. Reason : .\]

4/15/2013 5:40:11 PM

this dude can't even spell fluoride

4/15/2013 6:22:35 PM

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 6:26 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2013 6:23:36 PM

drill a well you fucking hippies

4/15/2013 6:54:57 PM

that's a really terrible plan

4/15/2013 7:04:45 PM

Quote :

"Asbestos was used in the US for 130 years, dawg."

The asbestos argument is not really valid on either side. Asbestos was around when we didn't have the technology to know that it was harmful, same with lead based paint.

We have only even had computers for 60 or so years. Even less if you think about what is required to do scientific analysis.

That said, thegoldenrul has made it clear that the argument isn't about fluoride, it's about the government's decision to force it down our throats, literally. Luckily, the majority is smarter and more plentiful than the followers of this movement, so we get to keep our fluoride in the water.

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 8:02 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2013 8:01:43 PM

Quote :

"Sounds like the answer is "because science says that it's safe, except when it doesn't"."

Pretty much. The alternative is listening to cranks and nutballs like Corey Sturmer.

4/15/2013 8:29:48 PM

Guaranteed more people are listening to this crank nutball than Moron in real life.

Thanks for the laugh and encouragement.

4/15/2013 8:36:23 PM

don't confuse the negative attention from this thread as people actually caring about what you have to say

people are bored at work and you make this shit easy

4/15/2013 8:38:43 PM

Quote :

"The asbestos argument is not really valid on either side. Asbestos was around when we didn't have the technology to know that it was harmful, same with lead based paint."

By what metric of technology could you possibly make this claim?

Quote :

"That said, thegoldenrul has made it clear that the argument isn't about fluoride, it's about the government's decision to force it down our throats, literally."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

4/15/2013 8:44:31 PM

Quote :

"don't confuse the negative attention from this thread as people actually caring about what you have to say people are bored at work and you make this shit easy "

Nah I know the narcissistic slumbering masses don't care about what I have to say. How could I expect them to when they don't even care about themselves?

This post and subsequent discussion is not for them, although I entertain it. There are people reading who do have more than a couple brain cells in their head and will naturally understand that there is something wrong with this policy. Those who attack me and hate on the messenger - they don't count. They're as entertaining to me as I am to them. They have already made up their mind so I only engage as to provide material for those who are awake enough to educate themselves further. I write for them, because they'll be the ones eventually doing something about it.

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 8:47 PM. Reason : Quote]

4/15/2013 8:47:17 PM

4/15/2013 8:50:05 PM

i'm totally just going with my gut instinct on the topic, all those years in undergraduate and graduate and post-graduate education on related topics were just about drinking beer. i'm in the top 1% of geometry students and made a 1430 on the SAT.

4/15/2013 9:08:26 PM

I agree with thegoldenrul

4/15/2013 9:26:31 PM

Quote :

"By what metric of technology could you possibly make this claim? "

This can't be a serious question.

Asbestos was being mined commercially for insulation 50 years before electricity was even available.

If you are trying to argue that scientists in 1875 could have identified asbestos as a threat as well as they do in 2013, you might have a bad time.

Computers and the internet alone turn thousands of 19th century man hours into fractions of that today.

4/15/2013 9:27:04 PM

^
It wasn't outlawed until 1989.

Faster computers haven't given us complete knowledge over the human body and the effects chemicals have on it. That still takes years and years and years of research.

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 9:44 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2013 9:39:52 PM

4/15/2013 9:54:27 PM

non-friable asbestos products are pretty safe, even friable isn't a hazard unless its disturbed. most of the hazard with asbestos was during the production, that's what generated all of the civil cases that caused it to be regulated. and they knew it was dangerous by that time, even workers knew it was a problem by the 40's.

4/15/2013 10:13:33 PM

It's been proven that boiling water in a teflon pot for 15 minutes adds 2ppm fluoride to the water.

That's almost triple what is in raleigh tap water.

I just don't think you understand what a trivial amount of fluoride 0.7ppm is.

4/15/2013 10:14:50 PM

Quote :

"drill a well you fucking hippies"

who's the "hippies" in this thread?

4/15/2013 10:20:27 PM

^^
My point is that if it's been shown that 2 ppm has adverse effects, it's not a huge stretch to say that .7 might have effects we haven't discovered yet.

I think it's stupid to put chemicals in our drinking supply for a problem that can be prevented with toothpaste. It's strange that people defend it so fiercely. Most of Europe has stopped fluoridation.

And it's insane that the EPA hasn't reduced the regulated level from 4 ppm to 1.

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2013 10:23:56 PM

well you should go petition the city council to lower the EPA level

4/15/2013 10:24:54 PM

i don't care that much. i just like debating

maybe you should form a counter protest since you like fluoride so much

[Edited on April 15, 2013 at 10:30 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2013 10:27:15 PM

i just dislike misinformation campaigns

4/15/2013 10:33:23 PM

Quote :

"My point is that if it's been shown that 2 ppm has adverse effects, it's not a huge stretch to say that .7 might have effects we haven't discovered yet. I think it's stupid to put chemicals in our drinking supply for a problem that can be prevented with toothpaste. It's strange that people defend it so fiercely. Most of Europe has stopped fluoridation. And it's insane that the EPA hasn't reduced the regulated level from 4 ppm to 1. "

I think part of the problem though is that the point of adding fluoride is more than just for peoples' teeth, or to give everyone cancer like Corey Sturmer believes. And there are approximately 10 million people in the US that live in areas where the water is fluoridated by natural sources. Is crackpot conspiracy theorist Corey Sturmer suggesting these people SHOULDN'T be drinking their natural water after it's treated? Should fluoride not only not be added to municipal water, but should it actively be removed too? What other minerals should be removed from water?

Naturally fluoridated water supplies: http://bfsweb.org/onemillion/09%20One%20in%20a%20Million%20-%20The%20Extent%20of%20Fluoridation.pdf

Many states have reviewed this policy, and it seems they've calculated savings in the millions from everyone having access to fluoridated water, not just the select few lucky enough to live somewhere there is fluoride in their water.

4/15/2013 10:59:25 PM

Quote :

"I think part of the problem though is that the point of adding fluoride is more than just for peoples' teeth"

What else is it for?

Quote :

"Many states have reviewed this policy, and it seems they've calculated savings in the millions "

Links?

4/15/2013 11:20:38 PM

^ http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/savings/

it has anti fungal properties, but it doesn't look like the concentrations in water are meaningful for this purpose.

4/15/2013 11:25:48 PM

So can thegoldenrul produce any victims of municipal fluoridation?

millions of people are drinking fluoridated water across the country, and in the 50+ years of this practice, surely we'd be seeing widespread measurable effects that contrast with areas that don't fluoridate their water.

In some areas where groundwater has high naturally occurring concentrations of fluoride, the fluoridation process works to *reduce* the concentration in the water.

4/16/2013 1:37:29 AM

Bobby,

The CDC reports that over 40% of adolescents suffer from some degree of Fluorosis, due to the ingestion of inorganic fluorides artificially added to the water supply. So to be clear - the very same agency which our government uses to justify Fluoridation also says that there has been a likewise explosion in fluorosis ever since the practice began.

What is fluorosis? It's a defect in the formation of enamel which in mild cases results in white spots or brown streaking, but in more serious ones the total degradation of enamel itself.

Most people stop at the aesthetic differences, without considering what else the aesthetic change is indicating. Think about it for a moment - if you are over exposed to ingested fluorides which results in white spots and mottling of your enamel, does it not stand to reason that every single other organ in your body is similarly overexposed?

Therein lies my concern - since this is added to our water (not applied topically), and our cellular makeup is roughly 75% composed of water it is total idiocy to suggest that we can continue drinking this chemical, every day, for our entire life, whilest only ever having our teeth affected.

So to ascertain who is a victim - start with the teeth. It's like a canary in the gold mine. If you have fluorosis, it might be time to start looking into the other studies which suggest lowered IQs, bone fragility, osteoarthritis, blood deficiencies, thyroid disruption.

It's pure naivete to assume the government cares more about your teeth than every other organ in your body.

4/16/2013 7:38:03 AM

4/16/2013 7:52:10 AM

Quote :

"The CDC reports that over 40% of adolescents suffer from some degree of Fluorosis, due to the ingestion of inorganic fluorides artificially added to the water supply"

false, no they don't

misinformation campaign

4/16/2013 8:38:54 AM

Quote :

" false, no they don't misinformation campaign"

dtownral,

You are such a joke to me at this point you barely deserve a serious response from me, however I will do so anyhow for the benefit of those critical thinkers who might otherwise be mired by your dense & misleading comments on my efforts.

This is directly from CDC's own website:

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/dental_fluorosis.htm

Quote :

"What is dental fluorosis? Dental fluorosis is a change in the appearance of the tooth’s enamel. These changes can vary from barely noticeable white spots in mild forms to staining and pitting in the more severe forms. Dental fluorosis only occurs when younger children consume too much fluoride, from any source, over long periods when teeth are developing under the gums."

4/16/2013 9:13:05 AM