Growing fight over fluoride in drinking water 

Why don't they put naturally occurring fluoride in the water then? Why does it have to be chemical byproduct waste?

@@phimaneackhavong2194 Gaslighting would be changing the subject to have you look at something else that is not relevant. The subject is toxins in water and a movement for them to be removed. My comment which is on topic, makes you uncomfortable, so you insult me, that is another form of gaslighting.

@@progmanmike I don't think its chemical byproduct waste. It has to do with the amount a minerals needed for the water supply, we know how to make mineral substitutes and people don't mind taking vitamins and minerals when its added to milk or other beverages or foods pills or question their safety or question the safety of fluoride in dental products. In many cases synthetic minerals are safer because there is quality assurance where in nature you can't control the effectiveness or safety anymore. The world is too polluted.

The true issue at ✋

The product they add to the water is Hydrofluosilicic Acid. They get it from Phosphate Fertilizer plants or Quartz Mining. They are basically supplying hazardous waste disposal services to save these multibillion dollar companies billions in disposal costs. The safety data sheet for the product clearly states where it comes from and that it is extremely dangerous. This is one of the top government deceptions in history.

Fluoride is a poison never meant to be ingested and why dentist don't drink tap water..

We are upset about Hydroflusilicic Acid being added to the water. Hazardous Waste from mining and fertilizer.

Helps your teeth…. Shrinks your pineal gland… in your brain. Dummy.

Plenty of cancer, dementias, Alzheimer's....

False. The best claim the CDC can make is that is reduces cavities by 25%, that is very close to margin of error. No clinical randomized trials have ever been done to prove effective or safe. 95% of the world is fluoride free. We don't put pharmaceutical grade fluoride in the water, it is hazardous industrial waste that would cost 10's of billions to dispose of if they couldn't sell it to municipalities. You've been lied to.

Thats a lie

> is it better than Flint water? Everything is better than Flint water! You might almost be better off drinking my car's engine coolant!

Still is.

thats why they put sugar in toothpaste so you first scratch the enamel up with the sandpaper grit then leave a bunch of sugar there, seems legit

@@richardjohnson8009 sure

@@SurBlox you know those #1 dentist recommended vibrating toothbrushes, they for one dont reach everywhere and for two they sand down your enamel like a power sander

I'm weirded out yet curious what these even do

@@cody42693it helps the teeth by ingesting it through the rectum 😂 I don’t know, honestly.

… the point is it is waaaaay cheaper to do it at the plant than families buying it.

Because the actual mineral is more expensive than the chemical waste they put in the treatment plant

​@@progmanmikefluoride is a element not a mineral

@@iamdenislara Because they want everything to be cheaper for families to buy, RIGHT.

you can always get high on some flouride!

Because, if you read the studies behind this, fluoride is difficult to obtain from outside sources.

That's why they turn hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride gases into FSA or fluorosilicic acid.

That's quite the assumption.

fluorosilicic acid

looks like you have not. 76 studies showing negative effect on children's IQ from exposure to Fluoride. Under oath, CDC, EPA and NSF scientist all admit fluoride causes harm. Should municipalities provide hazardous waste disposal services for quartz mining operations by adding industrial waste to drinking water?

Dude in most cases preventable with care. We are talking cavities not anything else here. A water faucet should be a water faucet, not a general dispenser for medication….

Stop eating sugar then. That’s what’s causing the dental problems. 😂 not lack of fluoride

@@GardensoftheAncientsHerbalfluoride is not a medication, it’s a natural occurring mineral. The PFAS in your drinking water is more likely to lower your IQ and is actually known to give you cancer…. And yet these activists are not screaming at the city and county meetings to get PFAS out of drinking water.

@@GardensoftheAncientsHerbal public health is important. salt is iodized, cereals have folate. Some things were added to things that are used daily for the betterment of all people (especially those who can't afford buying extra things)

Once again a water faucet should dispense pure water. It should not be a medicine dispenser. Seriously think about what I’m saying. This isn’t folate a required nutrient.

Because sugar and dentistry has nothing to do with this equation

By that logic the majority of the world who has banned fluoride and other unnecessary chemicals in water would have their teeth rotting. But that is not the case.

Not a single clinical randomized study to support your claim, not one. you'd think in 75 years they'd do one, but who is actually going to do a randomized trial on hazardous industrial waste that clearly has safety warnings on the safety data sheets. They already know it is extremely dangerous and deadly.

You are seriously part of the problem, "doc". I bet you love your amalgam fillings too. And how 'bout those toxic root canals? Asshat

not true.

So the study data is incorrect? Cite your references showing the facts and data that support your position.

@@BlownMacTruck Just look at the bio-chem

@@BlownMacTruck ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vjOlp75FXC8.htmlsi=yb1zRw9ugUXCYaK-

@@BlownMacTruck I posted a RU-vid link. I hope it doesn't get taken down

@@BlownMacTruck The study data?? Not sure what you mean? Maybe biochemistry? If so, you are committing a fallacy. Socrates, so I have logically dismissed an affirmative claim, therefore I must know what the claim affirms. There was no study sited from @DG123z

Flouride can occur naturally though

​@@cody42693but that is not the case in our water supply, so there's no point in saying that.

But this is decades of research across hundreds of sources. They couldn't keep that secret in.

True. These guys think just cause studies which are not replicated have bad research, it means every research is bad. Most reasearch are not replicated because it doesn't make money.

@evanafurey Why do you think this and seemingly so strongly. When I look at the tension between the doctors duty to help and do no harm and the patients autonomy to decide what medical treatments are performed, I am a bit torn. Generally speaking, denial of medical practices are a decision where the consequences more or less end with the patient. They either benefit or suffer from their decision. In this sense I I believe there must be a higher level of justification for the doctors pursuing do good and no harm principle over the autonomy of the patient. But in the case of fluoride in the water now the medical practices consequences do not end at the individual who denies it. The medical practices decision, of adding fluoride to the water, extents beyond the people that deny it to the people that want it. If we find health a universal good, one that should or cannot be denied to someone, and those that want it deem fluoride in the water as a necessary to health, we have denied a universal good from someone. Thoughts? Disagreements?

Nah, it's fine.

Why not?

​@@danielmcdermott3558Water should be WATER, PERIOD! You want fluoride ADD YOUR OWN!

​@@charlesritter6640 I am a chemist, so I COULD PUT FLUORIDE IN MY WATER IF I WANTED. But that is not the point. I don't think you understand me and are taking too much from a reactionary stance inculcated from your surrounding rather than your ability as a free rational agent to think for yourself. I tried to piece together bioethics with peoples commonsense notions of freedom. In philosophy I call people like you stupid. You have such a big ego but understand such a small portion of all that can be known that you are willing to harm people due to your ignorance. Congrats. @charlesritter6640

Thank you for posting this. I hadn't seen it.

LOL That was proven false 50 years ago or more.

*Realists

OP - No, the science still doesn't back their conspiracy theories.

judging by the amount of gaslighting in this comment section id say yes, yes they were again.

If they left it alone from the start you wouldn't be here to make this comment

@@cody42693 You know what I mean. CLEAN WATER and NOTHING ELSE

@@charlesritter6640 Flouride is found naturally in water.

@@cody42693 WHY then do they need to add more?

@charlesritter6640 Because flouride is not commonly found naturally in water. It depends where.

Dig a well and drink fluoride free tap water, don't be lazy.

​@@badpanda1532You can find flouride in well water.

@@cody42693 then stop drinking….

@@badpanda1532 Why. Flouride is not harmful. I mean, it can be in very large quantities, but you won't find that in modern water systems that are regulated.

@evanafurey Why do you think this and seemingly so strongly. When I look at the tension between the doctors duty to help and do no harm and the patients autonomy to decide what medical treatments are performed, I am a bit torn. Generally speaking, denial of medical practices are a decision where the consequences more or less end with the patient. They either benefit or suffer from their decision. In this sense I I believe there must be a higher level of justification for the doctors pursuing do good and no harm principle over the autonomy of the patient. But in the case of fluoride in the water now the medical practices consequences do not end at the individual who denies it. The medical practices decision, of adding fluoride to the water, extents beyond the people that deny it to the people that want it. If we find health a universal good, one that should or cannot be denied to someone, and those that want it deem fluoride in the water as a necessary to health, we have denied a universal good from someone. Thoughts? Disagreements