Thread 16716389

Why are normies so adamant on defending fluoride in the water supply?
Its literally proven to:
>lower iq
>cause skeletal fluorosis
>calcify your pineal gland overtime which literally regulates sleep
>competes with iodine for the thyroid and messes with its function

It's only good if its applied to teeth it causes all sorts of issues if its ingested. Its like adding titanium dioxide to the water because its a sunscreen ingredient and it'll make your skin more resistant to sun damage.

>>16716389 (OP)
idk something about republicans and flat earth.

It kills bacteria of the water.

>>16716394
you're thinking of chlorine

>>16716389 (OP)
They/them are complete idiots like this one: >>16716390

>>16716389 (OP)
People are very susceptible to propaganda and the fertilizer industry needs a place to dispose of its toxic waste, the water supply is ideal. Because if they didn't fool you into thinking it's something good, they'd have to bury it, and it would leach into the water supply and people would be upset about that. So just stick it directly in and tell them it's good!

>>16716390
>idk.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/K5dRfMYoDqFs

>>16716389 (OP)
it's good for your teeth

>>16716389 (OP)
>Why are normies so adamant on defending fluoride in the water supply?
Because they're too lazy and stupid to brush their teeth.

>>16716389 (OP)
This paragraph from the wikipedia article on water fluoridation I find quite amusing.

>>16716389 (OP)
The general population refuses to brush their teeth is why. If you don't believe me, you've not interacted with many normies. And if you doubt they'd be that reckless with their own health, look no further than how fat they are.

Midwit board. There are no benefits like for teeth or whatever. The chemical dumping/money theory is ridiculous. It is on purpose.

The fluoride is in the water to dull the edge on the cattle. It is unquestioned because people are literally cattle.

>>16716397
That too

>>16716389 (OP)
Americans simply can't be trusted to brush, you're cattle and your masters want you to have functional teeth, all there is to it.

>>16716563
>There are no benefits like for teeth or whatever.
there are though

>The fluoride is in the water to dull the edge on the cattle.
what's the mechanism of action

>>16716405
>The American Water Works Association (AWWA) released a memo in 2012 remarking on ongoing shortages of FSA supplied to water utilities. AWWA noted that FSA shortages were cyclical and typically seen after June, and recommended utilities ensure full storage by June each year and prepare for increased lead times during warmer months (AWWA, 2012).
>https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/Fluorosilicic%20Acid%20Supply%20Chain%20Profile.pdf
Then in 2015 the recommended dose dropped to 0.7 my/L. Oddly they don't mention the FSA shortage as their reason for lowering the dose which is instead mostly about dental fluorosis: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/05/01/2015-10201/public-health-service-recommendation-for-fluoride-concentration-in-drinking-water-for-prevention-of

>>16716389 (OP)
Why normies are adamant to defend it?
Well-poisoning involving conspiracy theories. The same people bitching about fluoride often also talk about government mind control or 5G or other similar bullshit people don't have much patience for.
The reason most experts defend it is because fluoride in the blood stream allows it to deposit inside the teeth rather than just coating the outside. There is little to no evidence that the effects you and others complain about can occur at the doses that drinking water is supplemented with which renders them irrelevant. So it's a minor (though often overstated) benefit with effectively no drawback.

The pineal gland calcification thing is always a funny one. Flouride was never "proven" to cause it and you quickly drive normies away when you mention it because of all the woo-woo shit that it gets lumped in with.

>>16716389 (OP)
None of that is "proven". I've ready various studies and it's always quite literally nothing.

>>16716389 (OP)

Literally TDS.

>>16716563
>The chemical dumping/money theory is ridiculous
No that's just a convenient benefit.

>>16718465
More like a convenient side-belief that you can switch on and off at a moment's notice as a coping device. Dumb faggot.

>>16716563
Do you use toothpaste? It has fluoride in it. Some of that fluoride gets absorbed into your body.

I suspect that OP is right. The obsession with providing a public benefit is ridiculous. Clearly companies should be allowed to sell fluoridated water as a speciality product just like bottled water, but tap water should be free of fluoride.
The obsession with schoolchildren and the poor is really appalling. People should have a choice as to how much fluoride is in the water they drink. If people want to drink fluoridated water, then they should pay for it out of pocket. The rest of us should get clean water free of fluoride.

>>16718294
>if I blatantly deny it maybe people will believe me

>>16718924
Well if your argument relies on "since the sky is purple..." the correct response is "the sky is not fucking purple."

>>16718294
>The reason most experts defend it is because fluoride in the blood stream allows it to deposit inside the teeth rather than just coating the outside.
Your bloodstream/saliva produces hydroxypatite for this theres no need to pour a neurotoxin into the water supply.
>There is little to no evidence that the effects you and others complain about can occur at the doses that drinking water is supplemented with which renders them irrelevant.
The maximum ppm level guidelines for most countries fall in line with what was stated to lower iq in studies and you're also assuming it doesn't accumulate in the body overtime which it does.
>The pineal gland calcification thing is always a funny one.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/8/2885

>>16718936
>no comeback

>>16719096
>theres no need to pour a neurotoxin into the water supply.
I agree it's unnecessary. But that there is at least a minor benefit is uncontested.
>The maximum ppm level guidelines for most countries fall in line with what was stated to lower iq in studies
Idk what "most countries" set their recommendations at. But the US recommendation is well below anything confirmed to have an IQ effect.
>pineal gland
Cool. You found one study. One study does not a concensus make.
Here, have a meta-analysis on pineal gland calcification that includes the fluoride thing.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9987140/

The evidence is not as strong as you think.

>>16718936
>the correct response is "the sky is not fucking purple."

>>16719105
>I agree it's unnecessary. But that there is at least a minor benefit is uncontested.
Have you seen the non minor issues I listed earlier?
>meta-analysis
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9987140/
did you even read your own study?
"The prevalence of pineal gland calcification in this study was 61.65%"

>>16719136
>"The prevalence of pineal gland calcification in this study was 61.65%"
The question washing "does pineal gland calcification happen?" Because obviously it does.
The question is whether fluoride causes it. And there isn't very good evidence of that. The study discusses that this correlation was looked into. And that it wasn't as strong a signal as age, sex, or race.

>>16719140
>question washing
Wasn't*
Sorry. Phoneposting.

>>16719105
>no IQ effect
At low doses It improves some brain functions and hurts others. Adding them up to get an iQ isn't Pareto optimal.

>>16719140
They weren't looking at the the relation between fluoridated/unfloridated regions in the meta study. Its a meta study they're bound to generalize if they're not paying attention to specifics its like saying "old people were found to have more arthritis" it doesn't really explain anything that wasn't immediately obvious.

>https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/8/2885
Both calcified and calcium-free areas of the pineal gland undergo mineralization and accumulate, among other things, magnesium, iron, manganese, zinc, strontium, or copper [105]. However, it was not until the 1990s that it was discovered that the foci of calcification within the gland may be accompanied by extremely high concentrations of fluoride for soft tissue [54]. In 2001, Luke [52] first published the results of fluoride concentration measurements in pineal glands taken from human corpses. The mean concentration was 297 mg F/kg of wet weight (ww), but the range of recorded values was very wide (14 mg/kg–875 mg/kg ww). It is not difficult to notice that they are similar or even higher than those observed in bones and teeth and many times exceed the concentrations observed in other soft tissues (e.g., in muscles, they are about 1 mg F/kg ww). After converting these values into dry weight (dw), we obtain concentrations of 1485 + 1285 mg F/kg dw. Although these data come from older individuals (studies were conducted on a group of deceased people aged 70 to 100 years), this does not disprove the idea that the pineal gland may be considered the most fluoride-saturated organ of the human body. It has been observed that the fluoride content in pineal gland apatite is higher than in any other natural apatite and may even reach 21000 mg/kg [52,53].

>>16719189
Well they did explicitly discuss the relationship found in the included studies:
>A modern lifestyle like using electromagnetic field (EMF)-emitting material such as cell phones and audio/video players; using fluoride in mouthwash, toothpaste, and tab water; and using herbicides were also considered as the critical risk factors for pineal gland calcification [12, 28, 29]
However,
>The prevalence of pineal gland calcification was [...] also highest among obese.
Do you think fluoride also makes you fat?

>>16716389 (OP)
Because we have been to the UK and seen people who grew up in regions in which fluoridated water is not the norm. They generally have worse teeth than even the poorest Americans.

Lower IQ is found in areas with EXCESSIVE, NATURALLY OCCURRING fluoride in the water, which is most prevalent in parts of Africa and poorer parts of Asia. Yes, poor people who live in areas of Africa & Asia that can't properly treat their water for contaminants (and also don't have adequate nutrition) tend to have lower IQ. No fucking shit.

>>16716389 (OP)
>hey guys, this meta-analysis indicates that the poorest areas of the planet, which lack infrastructure to remove excessive natural fluoride, lead, arsenic, cobalt and other shit from their water, have dumber people with poorer health
Wow, really!?

>>16716389 (OP)
Fluoride is the most evil element in the periodic table, it's the evil version of carbon

>>16716974
>there are though
no. The tiny amount of flouride in drinking water won't get absorbed into your teeth, especially if said water isn't spending tons of time in contact with your teeth. Drinking it has no effect. The benefit of flouride in drinking water for teeth is laughably miniscule compared to using toothpaste, it doesn't play a meaningful role.

>>16719115
tangentially related, but it always gets me when midwits try to claim the ancient greeks couldn't see blue because they described the sea as "wine-dark" and the sky as "bronze coloured". Like, have these people ever actually looked at the sky and sea? Not always blue. Plus bronze turns blue when it oxidises.

>>16719240
Not true according to statistics. UK actually has better dental health overall than the USA.

>>16721088
It ends up in in the whole body including saliva.
>>16721096
Did learning the word "midwit" increase the time you spend hating on them?

>press F to pay respects
Schizos, we've been had