Fluoride

[Tiberius]

Ah, but as I pointed out, there are no double bind repeatable studies to show the harmful effects of long tern micro dosage of fluoridic acid. So we have to move on to round two, personal opinion and ideas. She can ask for something that doesn't exist, but when it is not produced cannot claim much.

The point is Pippy, that the lack of double blind studies confirming what you claim doesn't put you in a very good position. In fact, it makes your assertions ultimately baseless. Eilonnwy isn't asking for things that don't exist, but asking for things that should exist if your claims were even remotely true.

Ah, it isn't poisonous, yes. It won't kill you today. But it may well be toxic in the sense that it causes harm. The argument needs to be made for it efficacy, not it's minute amount. I bet you that you can't drink 9 liters in 15 minutes.

efficacy - capacity for producing a desired result or effect;

Just so we stand on the same page, do you agree with that definition? If so, then my point is still valid. If the capacity is has for producing an effect (in this case being deadly or causing harm) requires 1g of fluoride, and you are only consuming 2mg (if that) a day, you aren't in any danger.

No, I can't drink 9 litres in 15 minutes, and that isn't the point. I've done the math up above; you would die of water intoxication before the fluoride did anything to you. People just don't drink that amount of water, especially from the tap. People get water from all sorts of places.

I don't know. That makes it seem so safe. So normal. Water, yes. Trans fatty acids holding our brain tissue together, yes. Fluoride, not as much. Saying that there is such a thing as a balanced amount of fluoride makes fluoride seem necessary to survival, like air and water.

Fluoride isn't necessary for survival, no, but my comparison was in terms of toxicity. Water is toxic at high levels, as is fluoride. If it makes it seem so safe, it's because it is safe in those quantities. Sometimes Pippy (actually, most of the time) there isn't a conspiracy.

Is there a level of anti-freeze that is safe, that represents a balance? If there was anti-freeze added to the water, could I justify it with the reason that it is a minuscule amount, and such a tiny amount of anti-freeze can not do any harm. And what if you said "drinking anti-freeze is bad for me, why did you put it in the water, for what benefit?" and I replied "Silly man, there is so little it cannot be bad for you." And you say "Ummmm, the efficacy, the reason?" and I say "No, you don't understand, the amount is so small..."

I'm not saying that at all, and frankly it's a piss-poor attempt at a strawman. We've been over the benefits of fluoride; it strengthens your teeth, meaning less cavities and less trips to the doctor.

On no account am I saying (or have ever said) we should put any old chemical in our water as long as the amount isn't enough to do any damage. What I have said is that the fluoridation of water is beneficial for the teeth, and doesn't have any harmful effects at the levels it is used at.

Please address my actual points, not your ridiculous re-imaginings of them.