They had been in the country for over....hold on.
They dont have cameras in Eastern Europe/Russia/everywhere
They can build a bomb but do no recon
Why the fukk didn't they dip then smart guy?
Tamerlan Tsarvaev was an HL paranoid conspiracy theorist
- Thread starter Dusty Bake Activate
- Start date
Why the fukk didn't they dip then smart guy?
Ms~Opinionated
Rookie
I don't believe it.
No really, I don't believe a damn thing put out by the media.
No really, I don't believe a damn thing put out by the media.
Ms~Opinionated
Rookie
How is that fluoride working for teeth today? With every brush of your teeth and every drink of water and people still have lots of cavities and a lot of mercury(amalgam) fill-ins. According to National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, "Black and Hispanic children and those living in families with lower incomes have more decay." If it is about fluoride why would tooth decay rates be divided among socioeconomic status since they are all getting fluoride. Because it is not about Fluoride it is about nutrition.
"Amazingly, the United States is only one of eight countries in the entire developed world that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its water supply. (The other seven are: Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore.) In Europe, Ireland is the only country that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its drinking water, and England fluoridates 10 percent.
"Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply in order to reduce tooth decay.[9] Its use in the U.S. began in the 1940s, following studies of children in a region where water is naturally fluoridated. It is now used for about two-thirds of the U.S. population on public water systems[10] and for about 5.7% of people worldwide.[11] Although the best available evidence shows no association with adverse effects other than fluorosis, most of which is mild,[12] water fluoridation has been contentious for ethical, safety, and efficacy reasons,[11] and opposition to water fluoridation exists despite its support by public health organizations.[13] As mentioned, fluoride primarily only helps teeth when it is in the mouth. After it is swallowed, it has minimal effect.
Consumption of large amounts of fluoride can lead to fluoride poisoning and death, the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight).[16][17][18] Ingestion of fluoride can produce gastrointestinal discomfort at doses at least 15 to 20 times lower (0.2–0.3 mg/kg) than lethal doses.[19] Chronic intake and topical exposure may cause dental fluorosis, and excess systematic exposure can lead to systemic effects such as skeletal fluorosis. Young children are at risk for receiving excess fluoride, and the ADA has recently issued an interim guidance on their fluoride consumption.[20]
In 1974 a 3-year old child swallowed 45 milliliters of 2% fluoride solution, estimated to be triple the fatal amount, and then died. The fluoride was administered during his first visit to the dentist, and the dental office was later found liable for the death.[21]" - According to Wikepedia article titled Fluoride Therapy
Who really implemented the fluoridation of the water?
"Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.
And award-winning BBC producer and investigative journalist Christopher Bryson writes:
[Bernays] operated from the same office building, One Wall Street, where the Alcoa lawyer Oscar Ewing had also worked. In 1950 Ewing had been the top government official to sign off on the endorsement of water fluoridation, as Federal Security Administrator in charge of the US Public Health Service.
"Do you recall working with Oscar Ewing on fluoridation?" I asked Bernays.
"Yes," he replied.
Bernays's personal papers detail his involvement in one of the nation's earliest and biggest water fluoridation battles ....
Bryson goes on for pages describing how Bernays master-minded the campaign to convince Americans to accept water fluoridation.
Yes, the United States Government
saving teeth everywhere. 
From the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research:
In 1909 Dr. McKay (r) persuaded the Colorado State Dental Association to invite Dr. Green Vardiman Black (l), one of the nation's most eminent dental researchers, to attend 1909 convention where McKay's findings were to be presented. The two men began joint research and discovered other areas of the country where brown staining of teeth occurred.
Fluoride research had its beginnings in 1901, when a young dental school graduate named Frederick McKay left the East Coast to open a dental practice in Colorado Springs, Colorado. When he arrived, McKay was astounded to find scores of Colorado Springs natives with grotesque brown stains on their teeth. So severe could these permanent stains be, in fact, sometimes entire teeth were splotched the color of chocolate candy. McKay searched in vain for information on this bizarre disorder. He found no mention of the brown-stained teeth in any of the dental literature of the day. Local residents blamed the problem on any number of strange factors, such as eating too much pork, consuming inferior milk, and drinking calcium-rich water. Thus, McKay took up the gauntlet and initiated research into the disorder himself. His first epidemiological investigations were scuttled by a lack of interest among most area dentists. But McKay persevered and ultimately interested local practitioners in the problem, which was known as Colorado Brown Stain.
A Fruitful Collaboration
McKay's first big break came in 1909, when renowned dental researcher Dr. G.V. Black agreed to come to Colorado Springs and collaborate with him on the mysterious ailment. Black, who had previously scoffed that it was impossible such a disorder could go unreported in the dental literature, was lured West shortly after the Colorado Springs Dental Society conducted a study showing that almost 90 percent of the city's locally born children had signs of the brown stains. When Black arrived in the city, he too was shocked by the prevalence of Colorado Brown Stain in the mouths of native-born residents. He would write later:
"I spent considerable time walking on the streets, noticing the children in their play, attracting their attention and talking with them about their games, etc., for the purpose of studying the general effect of the deformity. I found it prominent in every group of children..."
Black investigated fluorosis for six years, until his death in 1915. During that period, he and McKay made two crucial discoveries. First, they showed that mottled enamel (as Black referred to the condition) resulted from developmental imperfections in children's teeth. This finding meant that city residents whose permanent teeth had calcified without developing the stains did not risk having their teeth turn brown; young children waiting for their secondary set of teeth to erupt, however, were at high risk. Second, they found that teeth afflicted by Colorado Brown Stain were surprisingly and inexplicably resistant to decay. The two researchers were still a long way from determining the cause of Colorado Brown Stain, but McKay had a theory tucked away in the back of his head. Maybe there was, as some local residents suggested, an ingredient in the water supply that mottled the teeth? Black was skeptical; McKay, though, was intrigued by this theory's prospects.
That year, McKay trekked across the Rocky Mountains to Oakley, Idaho to meet with parents who had noticed peculiar brown stains on their children's teeth. The parents told McKay that the stains began appearing shortly after Oakley constructed a communal water pipeline to a warm spring five miles away. McKay analyzed the water, but found nothing suspicious in it. Nonetheless, he advised town leaders to abandon the pipeline altogether and use another nearby spring as a water source.
McKay's advice did the trick. Within a few years, the younger children of Oakley were sprouting healthy secondary teeth without any mottling. McKay now had his confirmation, but he still had no idea what could be wrong with the water in Oakley, Colorado Springs, and other afflicted areas. The answer came when McKay and Dr. Grover Kempf of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) traveled to Bauxite, Arkansas-a company town owned by the Aluminum Company of America-to investigate reports of the familiar brown stains. The two discovered something very interesting: namely, the mottled enamel disorder was prevalent among the children of Bauxite, but nonexistent in another town only five miles away. Again, McKay analyzed the Bauxite water supply. Again, the analysis provided no clues. But the researchers' work was not done in vain.
McKay and Kempf published a report on their findings that reached the desk of ALCOA's chief chemist, H. V. Churchill, at company headquarters in Pennsylvania. Churchill, who had spent the past few years refuting claims that aluminum cookware was poisonous, worried that this report might provide fresh fodder for ALCOA's detractors. Thus, he decided to conduct his own test of the water in Bauxite-but this time using photospectrographic analysis, a more sophisticated technology than that used by McKay. Churchill asked an assistant to assay the Bauxite water sample. After several days, the assistant reported a surprising piece of news: the town's water had high levels of fluoride. Churchill was incredulous. "Whoever heard of fluorides in water," he bellowed at his assistant. "You have contaminated the sample. Rush another specimen."
Shortly thereafter, a new specimen arrived in the laboratory. Churchill's assistant conducted another assay on the Bauxite water. The result? Photospectrographic analysis, again, showed that the town's water had high levels of fluoride tainting it. This second and selfsame finding prompted Churchill to sit down at his typewriter in January, 1931, and compose a five-page letter to McKay on this new revelation. In the letter, he advised McKay to collect water samples from other towns "where the peculiar dental trouble has been experienced... We trust that we have awakened your interest in this subject and that we may cooperate in an attempt to discover what part 'fluorine' may play in the matter."
McKay collected the samples. And, within months, he had the answer and denouement to his 30-year quest: high levels of water-borne fluoride indeed caused the discoloration of tooth enamel.
New Questions Emerge
Hence, from the curious findings of Churchill's lab assistant, the mystery of the brown stained teeth was cracked. But one mystery often ripples into many others. And shortly after this discovery, PHS scientists started investigating a slew of new and provocative questions about water-borne fluoride. With these PHS investigations, research on fluoride and its effects on tooth enamel began in earnest. The architect of these first fluoride studies was Dr. H. Trendley Dean, head of the Dental Hygiene Unit at the National Institute of Health (NIH). Dean began investigating the epidemiology of fluorosis in 1931. One of his primary research concerns was determining how high fluoride levels could be in drinking water before fluorosis occurred. To determine this, Dean enlisted the help of Dr. Elias Elvove, a senior chemist at the NIH. Dean gave Elvove the hardscrabble task of developing a more accurate method to measure fluoride levels in drinking water. Elvove labored long and hard in his laboratory, and within two years he reported back to Dean with success. He had developed a state-of-the-art method to measure fluoride levels in water with an accuracy of 0.1 parts per million (ppm). With this new method in tow, Dean and his staff set out across the country to compare fluoride levels in drinking water. By the late 1930s, he and his staff had made a critical discovery. Namely, fluoride levels of up to 1.0 ppm in drinking water did not cause enamel fluorosis in most people and only mild enamel fluorosis in a small percentage of people.
Proof That Fluoride Prevents Caries
Dean wondered whether adding fluoride to drinking water at physically and cosmetically safe levels would help fight tooth decay. This hypothesis, Dean told his colleagues, would need to be tested.In 1944, Dean got his wish. That year, the City Commission of Grand Rapids, Michigan-after numerous discussions with researchers from the PHS, the Michigan Department of Health, and other public health organizations-voted to add fluoride to its public water supply the following year. In 1945, Grand Rapids became the first city in the world to fluoridate its drinking water.The Grand Rapids water fluoridation study was originally sponsored by the U.S. Surgeon General, but was taken over by the NIDR shortly after the Institute's inception in 1948. During the 15-year project, researchers monitored the rate of tooth decay among Grand Rapids' almost 30,000 schoolchildren. After just 11 years, Dean- who was now director of the NIDR-announced an amazing finding. The caries rate among Grand Rapids children born after fluoride was added to the water supply dropped more than 60 percent. This finding, considering the thousands of participants in the study, amounted to a giant scientific breakthrough that promised to revolutionize dental care, making tooth decay for the first time in history a preventable disease for most people.
A Lasting Achievement
Almost 30 years after the conclusion of the Grand Rapids fluoridation study, fluoride continues to be dental science's main weapon in the battle against tooth decay. Today, just about every toothpaste on the market contains fluoride as its active ingredient; water fluoridation projects currently benefit over 200 million Americans, and 13 million schoolchildren now participate in school-based fluoride mouth rinse programs. As the figures indicate, McKay, Dean, and the others helped to transform dentistry into a prevention-oriented profession. Their drive, in the face of overwhelming adversity, is no less than a remarkable feat of science-an achievement ranking with the other great preventive health measures of our century. - National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
This story has so many holes."The average cost for a community to fluoridate its water is estimated to range from approximately $0.50 a year per person in large communities to approximately $3.00 a year per person in small communities. For most cities, every $1 invested in water fluoridation saves $38 in dental treatment costs.
The American Dental Association continues to endorse fluoridation of community water supplies as safe and effective for preventing tooth decay." - American Dental Assoc.
Oh really.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
^I didn't even read any of what you typed yet, but do you really think I'm going to respond to that shyt without a link?
And please don't intersperse your own comments within copy and pasted material with no quote tags or bolds or anything. Geez...didn't you learn how to type book reports and term papers in school?
And please don't intersperse your own comments within copy and pasted material with no quote tags or bolds or anything. Geez...didn't you learn how to type book reports and term papers in school?
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
I dont have a afro i have a amerifro
i don't cuhsidder myself to be a cuhspearasee theeris buh I dont belee da story we gettin from da comuniss obomba rajeem or da librul madea. i juss dont think dat whie fokes wood do such a thing even dey r islams. I diddint even know dat dere were whie fokes dat wuz islams.
all da whie fokes i eva knone wuz good and treet me well like shon hannidy who is like a fatha to me. dey r kine jentle anjelic unblemish soles. iss juss not in dere natcher to do sumthin so savage and animistic. it had to be a bla or a ayrab.
da hole thing is fishy to me becuz furss I saw a noospaper dat said it wuz too ayrabs. den I herd dat a ayrab got qestioned in da hospitle about it. den I herd on da noos dat it wuz a darkskin negro. den I red on da intanets dat it wuz an indian. den dey sed it wuz too whie islams. it is all very confoosin to me. i think dat da whie fokes dey say dat did it were frame.
i am pretty shore dat if we eva find da reel terrists dey look like dey either have a joolry keyosk at da mall or play fuh da memfiss grizzleys.
all da whie fokes i eva knone wuz good and treet me well like shon hannidy who is like a fatha to me. dey r kine jentle anjelic unblemish soles. iss juss not in dere natcher to do sumthin so savage and animistic. it had to be a bla or a ayrab.
da hole thing is fishy to me becuz furss I saw a noospaper dat said it wuz too ayrabs. den I herd dat a ayrab got qestioned in da hospitle about it. den I herd on da noos dat it wuz a darkskin negro. den I red on da intanets dat it wuz an indian. den dey sed it wuz too whie islams. it is all very confoosin to me. i think dat da whie fokes dey say dat did it were frame.
i am pretty shore dat if we eva find da reel terrists dey look like dey either have a joolry keyosk at da mall or play fuh da memfiss grizzleys.
Polofresh4
Pro
Thats the point of the thread....Logic just seems to stop in certain places of the story...Some parts seem super thought out and the common sense things are missed.
Some of us just cant give that a pass by saying they dont have security cameras in their own country or that for the last year that they have been here, they have missed all of ours.
Ms~Opinionated
Rookie
This is an example of the absurdity of conspiratorial thinking. Who do you think implemented fluoridation of water in the first place and continues to support it? Dentists, scientists...learned people who did case studies and experiments serving the public good who came to find out that fluoride prevents the rotting of teeth. Not some robed, moustache-twirling Illuminati villains.
I'm so sorry. I was tired and lazy last night when I copy and pasted all of that information in my prior post. I was too lazy to even form an argument.
This really isn't a debate I care enough about to have.
I guess what I was trying to say was is that there were motives involved, studies exposing the dangers of fluoride use, shady characters involved, and doubts about the official story.
The dangers of using fluoride are greater than the benefits of having no cavities. The risks outweigh the benefits, so I don't think it is/was about cavities.
THIS THREAD IS
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
AV Dicey
All Star
How is that fluoride working for teeth today? With every brush of your teeth and every drink of water and people still have lots of cavities and a lot of mercury(amalgam) fill-ins. According to National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, "Black and Hispanic children and those living in families with lower incomes have more decay." If it is about fluoride why would tooth decay rates be divided among socioeconomic status since they are all getting fluoride. Because it is not about Fluoride it is about nutrition.
"Amazingly, the United States is only one of eight countries in the entire developed world that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its water supply. (The other seven are: Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore.) In Europe, Ireland is the only country that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its drinking water, and England fluoridates 10 percent.
"Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply in order to reduce tooth decay.[9] Its use in the U.S. began in the 1940s, following studies of children in a region where water is naturally fluoridated. It is now used for about two-thirds of the U.S. population on public water systems[10] and for about 5.7% of people worldwide.[11] Although the best available evidence shows no association with adverse effects other than fluorosis, most of which is mild,[12] water fluoridation has been contentious for ethical, safety, and efficacy reasons,[11] and opposition to water fluoridation exists despite its support by public health organizations.[13] As mentioned, fluoride primarily only helps teeth when it is in the mouth. After it is swallowed, it has minimal effect.
Consumption of large amounts of fluoride can lead to fluoride poisoning and death, the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight).[16][17][18] Ingestion of fluoride can produce gastrointestinal discomfort at doses at least 15 to 20 times lower (0.20.3 mg/kg) than lethal doses.[19] Chronic intake and topical exposure may cause dental fluorosis, and excess systematic exposure can lead to systemic effects such as skeletal fluorosis. Young children are at risk for receiving excess fluoride, and the ADA has recently issued an interim guidance on their fluoride consumption.[20]
In 1974 a 3-year old child swallowed 45 milliliters of 2% fluoride solution, estimated to be triple the fatal amount, and then died. The fluoride was administered during his first visit to the dentist, and the dental office was later found liable for the death.[21]" - According to Wikepedia article titled Fluoride Therapy
Who really implemented the fluoridation of the water?
"Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.
And award-winning BBC producer and investigative journalist Christopher Bryson writes:
[Bernays] operated from the same office building, One Wall Street, where the Alcoa lawyer Oscar Ewing had also worked. In 1950 Ewing had been the top government official to sign off on the endorsement of water fluoridation, as Federal Security Administrator in charge of the US Public Health Service.
"Do you recall working with Oscar Ewing on fluoridation?" I asked Bernays.
"Yes," he replied.
Bernays's personal papers detail his involvement in one of the nation's earliest and biggest water fluoridation battles ....
Bryson goes on for pages describing how Bernays master-minded the campaign to convince Americans to accept water fluoridation.
Yes, the United States Government
From the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research:
In 1909 Dr. McKay (r) persuaded the Colorado State Dental Association to invite Dr. Green Vardiman Black (l), one of the nation's most eminent dental researchers, to attend 1909 convention where McKay's findings were to be presented. The two men began joint research and discovered other areas of the country where brown staining of teeth occurred.
Fluoride research had its beginnings in 1901, when a young dental school graduate named Frederick McKay left the East Coast to open a dental practice in Colorado Springs, Colorado. When he arrived, McKay was astounded to find scores of Colorado Springs natives with grotesque brown stains on their teeth. So severe could these permanent stains be, in fact, sometimes entire teeth were splotched the color of chocolate candy. McKay searched in vain for information on this bizarre disorder. He found no mention of the brown-stained teeth in any of the dental literature of the day. Local residents blamed the problem on any number of strange factors, such as eating too much pork, consuming inferior milk, and drinking calcium-rich water. Thus, McKay took up the gauntlet and initiated research into the disorder himself. His first epidemiological investigations were scuttled by a lack of interest among most area dentists. But McKay persevered and ultimately interested local practitioners in the problem, which was known as Colorado Brown Stain.
A Fruitful Collaboration
McKay's first big break came in 1909, when renowned dental researcher Dr. G.V. Black agreed to come to Colorado Springs and collaborate with him on the mysterious ailment. Black, who had previously scoffed that it was impossible such a disorder could go unreported in the dental literature, was lured West shortly after the Colorado Springs Dental Society conducted a study showing that almost 90 percent of the city's locally born children had signs of the brown stains. When Black arrived in the city, he too was shocked by the prevalence of Colorado Brown Stain in the mouths of native-born residents. He would write later:
"I spent considerable time walking on the streets, noticing the children in their play, attracting their attention and talking with them about their games, etc., for the purpose of studying the general effect of the deformity. I found it prominent in every group of children..."
Black investigated fluorosis for six years, until his death in 1915. During that period, he and McKay made two crucial discoveries. First, they showed that mottled enamel (as Black referred to the condition) resulted from developmental imperfections in children's teeth. This finding meant that city residents whose permanent teeth had calcified without developing the stains did not risk having their teeth turn brown; young children waiting for their secondary set of teeth to erupt, however, were at high risk. Second, they found that teeth afflicted by Colorado Brown Stain were surprisingly and inexplicably resistant to decay. The two researchers were still a long way from determining the cause of Colorado Brown Stain, but McKay had a theory tucked away in the back of his head. Maybe there was, as some local residents suggested, an ingredient in the water supply that mottled the teeth? Black was skeptical; McKay, though, was intrigued by this theory's prospects.
That year, McKay trekked across the Rocky Mountains to Oakley, Idaho to meet with parents who had noticed peculiar brown stains on their children's teeth. The parents told McKay that the stains began appearing shortly after Oakley constructed a communal water pipeline to a warm spring five miles away. McKay analyzed the water, but found nothing suspicious in it. Nonetheless, he advised town leaders to abandon the pipeline altogether and use another nearby spring as a water source.
McKay's advice did the trick. Within a few years, the younger children of Oakley were sprouting healthy secondary teeth without any mottling. McKay now had his confirmation, but he still had no idea what could be wrong with the water in Oakley, Colorado Springs, and other afflicted areas. The answer came when McKay and Dr. Grover Kempf of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) traveled to Bauxite, Arkansas-a company town owned by the Aluminum Company of America-to investigate reports of the familiar brown stains. The two discovered something very interesting: namely, the mottled enamel disorder was prevalent among the children of Bauxite, but nonexistent in another town only five miles away. Again, McKay analyzed the Bauxite water supply. Again, the analysis provided no clues. But the researchers' work was not done in vain.
McKay and Kempf published a report on their findings that reached the desk of ALCOA's chief chemist, H. V. Churchill, at company headquarters in Pennsylvania. Churchill, who had spent the past few years refuting claims that aluminum cookware was poisonous, worried that this report might provide fresh fodder for ALCOA's detractors. Thus, he decided to conduct his own test of the water in Bauxite-but this time using photospectrographic analysis, a more sophisticated technology than that used by McKay. Churchill asked an assistant to assay the Bauxite water sample. After several days, the assistant reported a surprising piece of news: the town's water had high levels of fluoride. Churchill was incredulous. "Whoever heard of fluorides in water," he bellowed at his assistant. "You have contaminated the sample. Rush another specimen."
Shortly thereafter, a new specimen arrived in the laboratory. Churchill's assistant conducted another assay on the Bauxite water. The result? Photospectrographic analysis, again, showed that the town's water had high levels of fluoride tainting it. This second and selfsame finding prompted Churchill to sit down at his typewriter in January, 1931, and compose a five-page letter to McKay on this new revelation. In the letter, he advised McKay to collect water samples from other towns "where the peculiar dental trouble has been experienced... We trust that we have awakened your interest in this subject and that we may cooperate in an attempt to discover what part 'fluorine' may play in the matter."
McKay collected the samples. And, within months, he had the answer and denouement to his 30-year quest: high levels of water-borne fluoride indeed caused the discoloration of tooth enamel.
New Questions Emerge
Hence, from the curious findings of Churchill's lab assistant, the mystery of the brown stained teeth was cracked. But one mystery often ripples into many others. And shortly after this discovery, PHS scientists started investigating a slew of new and provocative questions about water-borne fluoride. With these PHS investigations, research on fluoride and its effects on tooth enamel began in earnest. The architect of these first fluoride studies was Dr. H. Trendley Dean, head of the Dental Hygiene Unit at the National Institute of Health (NIH). Dean began investigating the epidemiology of fluorosis in 1931. One of his primary research concerns was determining how high fluoride levels could be in drinking water before fluorosis occurred. To determine this, Dean enlisted the help of Dr. Elias Elvove, a senior chemist at the NIH. Dean gave Elvove the hardscrabble task of developing a more accurate method to measure fluoride levels in drinking water. Elvove labored long and hard in his laboratory, and within two years he reported back to Dean with success. He had developed a state-of-the-art method to measure fluoride levels in water with an accuracy of 0.1 parts per million (ppm). With this new method in tow, Dean and his staff set out across the country to compare fluoride levels in drinking water. By the late 1930s, he and his staff had made a critical discovery. Namely, fluoride levels of up to 1.0 ppm in drinking water did not cause enamel fluorosis in most people and only mild enamel fluorosis in a small percentage of people.
Proof That Fluoride Prevents Caries
Dean wondered whether adding fluoride to drinking water at physically and cosmetically safe levels would help fight tooth decay. This hypothesis, Dean told his colleagues, would need to be tested.In 1944, Dean got his wish. That year, the City Commission of Grand Rapids, Michigan-after numerous discussions with researchers from the PHS, the Michigan Department of Health, and other public health organizations-voted to add fluoride to its public water supply the following year. In 1945, Grand Rapids became the first city in the world to fluoridate its drinking water.The Grand Rapids water fluoridation study was originally sponsored by the U.S. Surgeon General, but was taken over by the NIDR shortly after the Institute's inception in 1948. During the 15-year project, researchers monitored the rate of tooth decay among Grand Rapids' almost 30,000 schoolchildren. After just 11 years, Dean- who was now director of the NIDR-announced an amazing finding. The caries rate among Grand Rapids children born after fluoride was added to the water supply dropped more than 60 percent. This finding, considering the thousands of participants in the study, amounted to a giant scientific breakthrough that promised to revolutionize dental care, making tooth decay for the first time in history a preventable disease for most people.
A Lasting Achievement
Almost 30 years after the conclusion of the Grand Rapids fluoridation study, fluoride continues to be dental science's main weapon in the battle against tooth decay. Today, just about every toothpaste on the market contains fluoride as its active ingredient; water fluoridation projects currently benefit over 200 million Americans, and 13 million schoolchildren now participate in school-based fluoride mouth rinse programs. As the figures indicate, McKay, Dean, and the others helped to transform dentistry into a prevention-oriented profession. Their drive, in the face of overwhelming adversity, is no less than a remarkable feat of science-an achievement ranking with the other great preventive health measures of our century. - National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
"The average cost for a community to fluoridate its water is estimated to range from approximately $0.50 a year per person in large communities to approximately $3.00 a year per person in small communities. For most cities, every $1 invested in water fluoridation saves $38 in dental treatment costs.
The American Dental Association continues to endorse fluoridation of community water supplies as safe and effective for preventing tooth decay." - American Dental Assoc.
Oh really.
where do i nominate for post of the year...over flouride too
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
the mechanic
Greasy philosophy
Islam putting the FUN back into FUNDAMENTALISM
Daammnnn.. VVD over here shytting on folks 
thats part of it sure. but you cant just accept the official story without questioning its authenticity, especially when the source is our shady ass government. the government has lied and deceived so much throughout history i cannot understand how people can accept any statement from them on blind faith. our government is completely dysfunctional and everything they say/do should be double and triple checked for accuracy and integrity.
but in the case of 9/11 they wont give us enough information to even question the original story. you dont see a problem there?
then when you see bush and his cronies get immensely rich off defense contracts and energy contracts and whoknowswhatelse contracts after 9/11 thats makes things even more suspicious.
then here at home you see reactionary legislation and the government further constrict civil rights and expand the power of what the government and specifically the PRESIDENT is able to constitutionally do, especially in times of "emergencies." very dangerous precedents are being set, which makes things even MORE suspicious and dangerous.
and its not like this would be the first time the government has fabricated a reason to begin/enter a war. we are known for finding reasons to invade countries and conquer them, then flip their economies into satellites for the US economy. we are masters at that, so for that reason alone we should highly question our governments actions before and after 9/11.
you could argue bush and his network, the skull and bones boys, simply capitalized on an opportunity created by 9/11. but lets assume for a moment thats true, do you see how low our standards have become? that we are hoping our president and our government were only involved in the subsequent exploitation of the iraq people and the exploitation or iraq for wealth and the deception of the american people in regards to 9/11, and just hoping they weren't involved in its planning or execution. how sad a people we've become... talk about lowered expectations.
to be honest i think the government's role in 9/11 was limited. but i do still think they knew about it before it happened and at the minimum they allowed it to happen so they could capitalize on it afterwards. but either way the shyt is completely and utterly unacceptable.
i agree in principle with this, but i dont agree there is "little to no daylight between the two ideas." taking into consideration our governments track record of deceiving the american people with false reasons to start wars, combined with the 1001 shady coincidences surrounding 9/11, we have to at least remain in a suspended state of judgement about what really happened that day. but i think you've already decided what you think is true. i think you've chalked it up in your mind as government negligence and aren't asking any more questions, which is unwise.
but again, the bigger bigger point is that it doesnt even matter whether it was maliciousness or negligence on the part of the government because in either case they are totally unfit for governance.
the irony lol.
yes lets talk about science and logic. there is study after study that in CHILDREN fluoride in the water can damage teeth rather than strengthen teeth, a condition called fluorosis. adults are also susceptible to fluorosis. so for these reasons alone it should not be in the WATER SUPPLY. but it is also suggested that pregnant women and infants should not ingest fluoridated water either. so if water fluoridation can be harmful to pregnant women, babies, and small children, do you think it's something we should have in our water supply?
yes lets talk about logic.
lets talk about the logic of being exposed to something, both internally and externally, several times a day, for the entirety of our lives... the entirety of our lives... THE ENTIRETY OF OUR LIVES... and what effect that could possibly have on the body. this could POTENTIALLY become something like a lifelong medication of sodium fluoride depending on how much daily exposure one has to fluoridated water. but we take showers in the water, we cook our food with the water, we soak in baths of the water, and we DRINK the water. so id say over the course of a lifetime the exposure will be pretty extensive for anyone living in an area where they fluoridate the water.
yes lets talk about logic. since we already have fluoride in toothpaste thats applied externally to the teeth to fight cavities, whats the extra benefit of putting in into the water where we INGEST IT. if we have fluoride in the toothpaste to fight cavities why do we need it in the water where it may cause fluorosis or other damage?
logic, yes. what's the logic of adding a chemical used to kill cockroaches and rats, literally rat poison, to our PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY to be ingested by all the humans on a daily basis, and for all the humans to apply on the outside of their skin on a daily basis.
lol come one fam, this one's hiding in plain sight.
there are scientists and dentists against it as well.
Fluoride Action Network | Who Opposes Fluoridation?
but listen im not asking you to believe one way or the other. im asking you to suspend your judgement until you are 100% positive what the truth is. I keep coming back to we should not commit to a belief unless we are positive, because of the physiological effects that come with firmly holding a belief. a belief will influence every piece of information you come into contact with thereafter, so its important beliefs are 100% correct and grounded in reality.
@the downturn in human health. I must've missed that.i shouldnt even have to explain this but life expectancy is not the only indicator of quality of life or of human health.
we have just as many, if not more people by percentage of population who are sick, in pain, with illness, with dysfunction in our society as we probably ever have in history. a large part of the medical industry's wealth comes from first getting people sick by exposing them to multiple sources of toxins and harmful electromagnetic radiation, then keeping them sick by keeping them dependent on some synthetic chemical drug.
and there's no reason for it. if the government grew some balls and actually regulated shyt, and we could get folks clean water, clean air, and nutritious food we would probably eliminate 90% of all disease. but as it stands now the government is obedient to the will of the food and drug companies, and most of our doctors dont even have extensive knowledge of basic nutrition.
really think about the implications of what im saying.
do they regulate in some ways? yes. in all ways? no. in ENOUGH ways? the evidence of the destruction of our planet would suggest not.
actually they can. and they should. it's their job. they're the fukking government and it's their job to make sure no company compromises my health or quality of life, especially just to make a profit. thats actually the governments main function, to protect the citizens. lol and you talk about gundam not knowing the basics.
im talking about the evil government poisoning us in this thread because this is a message board. in real life i have identified the areas for improvement and plans are already in motion. you should get down bro, it just requires taking some extra time in your personal sphere of influence to organize your people for a common objective.
i dont agree
your war strategy has to fit the circumstances you're in. if i was in the gaza strip with the jew physically putting pressure on me then rocks and rockets would be my offense. but here in the US with the jew only putting economic pressure on me, i can better serve my purpose through education and economic prosperity for the people. plans for liberation are not one-size-fits-all.
im focused on all issues negatively affecting the human experience.
your false presumptions are tiresome.
You generally come off like a privileged denizen of a 1st world nation with too much comfort and too much leisure time inventing things to bytch about.
Why don't you go to Burkina Faso and tell Ibrahim about how you're getting fukked so bad in America by having to work about 40 hours a week and getting paid $25,000-$60,0000, whatever it is you make per year and having to suffer under the intolerable conditions of having fluoride in your water, as opposed to shyt, guinea worms, and cholera, and how horrible it is that you get to live until you're about 75 on average. Then watch him give you this
the injustice being done to others around the world does not alleviate the injustice being done to our people here at home.
if i were in faso i would be fighting with those brothers, if i were in syria i would fight with those brothers. so here in the US i fight with my sisters and brothers.
all life matters... so i am against all injustice everywhere.
but listen saturday school is over bro, just think about what i posted.
its not about whether we subscribe to a conspiracy theory or subscribe to the official government story... we just cant accept things as fact based on incomplete information, on BOTH sides.