I got got an A- on my Persuasive research paper on Fluoride!

Well done. It must have been a well thought out argument.

he'll give that to his boss, and you'll never get a good job. congrats.

GOOD JOB!!!

English?

If it was one of science classes, you'd get an F. They can be hardass on you if it goes against mainstream BS when it comes to science.

Good job. : )

opps you're right.

Not if it's well researched and well thought out. Science is the practice of exploring other ideas. It's no different from that doctor who came out saying thalidomide caused birth defects, and he was right.

WOO HOO! congrats!!!!

Can you make that paper available for others to use who are 'fighting' their cities on the floride issue?

Do you mean like posting the whole thing in this thread or what?

I would love to read it! Great job and great topic!

Excellent and congrats!

Well that's just plain AWESOME!

I want you to keep up the good work and stay wholly focused on the road your headed. You will help many many people. Your contributions will help change the world. But, you must remained focused.

How many of you would like it if i posted my paper on this thread for you all to enjoy? Would you like that?

I sure would read it!

well, no, not in this thread. You said it was 8 pgs long. Anywhere where someone can copy and print it and use it as reason to stop the poisoning of a cities water supply. PDF maybe? I don't know.

I have been gathering info over the last few yrs. to present to our city council -to stop the poisoning of our water supply. I live in a small communinity that maybe has 1,500 that uses the city water supply...any ammo I can throw at the council to prove that hexiflorasilica acid (sp)(toxic waste material fluoride)does more harm than good would very much be appreciated.

The people in this small country town (all over the country) have no idea that they are paying to be poisoned.

somehow yes. 8 pgs is long to post here. For me who is soon ready to butt heads with my city council....all the more proof that I can present to them that toxic waste'flouride' does more harm than good--well, I welcome all the more proof.

thanks!

post it on scribd.com

Congrats for actually following up and doing something about your convictions. That puts you far ahead of most people on here, and a million miles ahead of most sheeple.

Congrats for actually following up and doing something about your convictions. That puts you far ahead of most people on here, and a million miles ahead of most sheeple.

Some nerd is gonna copy and paste it for their research paper. Lol. Post it tho i wanna read. I mean in the water quality report for my city, they state they put "xx" parts per million in tge water. It was in. Chart form, and the right column showed the dangers if consumed to much where: yellowing of teeth, and bone cancers.... Ot made me laugh out loud. Thats all the proof i needed. Oh and in the benefits column it said, cleans teeth. Who.would figure if uo consumed less it cleans..but consume more, it yellows. Just like low dosages of radiation is "oaky". Go.figure?

Ima post it on this thread, I know it will take a while to do but its worth it.

It is human nature to not consume things that are not meant to be digested in a human body, for if that was not the case then it would be a common sight to see people having rocks as snacks or eating mud cakes for breakfast. Therefore, Humans should not consume public drinking water that has been contaminated with fluorides, specifically Sodium fluoride. This is because many independent, corporate, clinical, and governmental studies have linked ingestion of this solution to a variety of both short and long term health effects over a wide range of demographics. This problem is not limited to the United States, or the Americas, it is a threat to the health of inhabitants of the world.

It is disturbing to imagine that billions of people across the planet are exposing themselves to this element on a daily basis without fully understanding the adverse health effects of what they are consuming. And for a society that applauds itself on the technological and medical advancements that it has produced, one would assume that America would have come up with a more effective way of preventing tooth decay than involuntarily poisoning its citizens.

And where exactly does the fluoride originate from that can be found in virtually every major city’s water supply? Well a little research shows that one of the major manufactures of Sodium Fluoride for the United States is the Fluoride Chemicals Co., ltd. It is located in Yunnan, China, where it manufactures a 98% water treatment Sodium fluoride. The company also lists other uses for its product, notably as a flux for soldering and welding, a flux and pacifier for ceramic and porcelain, an enamel wood preservative, UF2 adsorbent in nuclear industry, as well as an insecticide (Adams 3). Besides as being in other non consumable uses, the company clearly warns about the health risks if unprotected human contact is made, stating that it is both “highly corrosive to human skin…and harmful to people’s respiratory system” (Adams 5). Even the suppliers of Sodium fluoride admit that it is dangerous to human health! So why is it all of a sudden safe and beneficial when dissolved in water? It neither safe nor beneficial under any conditions, and that is what is needed to be understood by the consumers of this man made poison.

The First national recognition of the existence of fluoride was the infamous Colorado “brown stain”; but scientifically known as dental Fluorosis, an enamel defect that was predominantly evident in Colorado Springs, Colorado in the early 1900’s. Fluoride was first proposed as the reason for the children’s bad dental health by resident dentist Dr. F.S. McKay and later supported by Dr. V. G. Black, the latter who would be known in time as an outstanding dental researcher (Meiers 3). After extensive investigating on the cause of the stains, and cross referencing the defect with similar cases reported in Naples, Italy; Durango, Mexico; and some of the cattle population in Deer Lodge Valley, Montana. Later studies would reveal that the average amount of fluoride in the water was 7.5ppm, almost twice today’s maximum value (Meiers 6). And although they were experiencing this phenomenon throughout the community, the citizens of those communities were not shocked by the condition, since they and the others were born with “brown stain” and therefore did not know what it was like to have normal healthy teeth (Meiers 4). Dr. McKay later came up with a follow up report in 1917 about his finding from the previous year and found that out of the 3,500 children living in Colorado Springs, around 85% (2,975) of them showed varying degrees of dental Fluorosis (Meiers 5).

But Colorado would not be the last place we would hear from concerning dental Fluorosis. By the year 1936 over 200 confirmed cases of dental Fluorosis with an additional 100 cases they have only been reported to Dr. H Trendly Dean, who at the time worked for the U.S. Department of Public health (Connet, Beck, and Micklem 110). Furthermore by that year a total of eight separate major studies had been published that supported the fact that fluoride is the main contributor to dental Fluorosis (mottled teeth) (Connet, Beck, and Micklem 69-72). Not only did these studies show the connection to dental Fluorosis, but they also showed as strong connection to non-dental problems, specifically the bones and the thyroid gland (Connet, Beck, and Micklem 72).

The relationship between the two was strengthened after Steyn released studies in which South African children who were suffering from Goiters as the result of an unknown cause. Steyn then isolated the high levels of fluoride as the culprit because the affected children did not possess an iodine deficiency which would’ve eliminated fluoride as the source of the Goiters (Connet, Beck, and Micklem 72). In a follow up to the 1939 African study, Doctors Wilson and DeEds concluded that dental Fluorosis could also result from a “synergistic action between fluoride and thyroid hormones” (Connet, Beck, and Micklem 72).

In spite of this, the government of the United States pressed forth an effective advertising campaign in the late 1940’s and into the 1950’s, in which they advocated the introduction of Sodium fluoride (NaF) into the public water supply on the basis that increased consumption of NaF would prevent tooth decay in children (vasanth 3). The catalyst for this media campaign was perhaps a study published in the June 1950 edition of The Journal of the American Dental Association that was conducted by Henry Trendly Dean, head researcher for Association of Professional Health Dentists head researcher in 1945 (Connet, Beck, and Micklem 69-72). But as one reads into the “study”, one finds that it actually contains no original research at all! Dean simply restated the findings from four previous studies by three other researchers and added a report that he had already published seven years prior that was a summary of an unpublished report about the effects of different levels of Fluoride on the skeletal system throughout Texas communities (Connet, Beck, and Micklem 83, 85-87).

Besides lack of original research, such a study should be rightly criticized for its’ bias against those who, for all of the reports cited within the “study” are actually done by people who are all openly supportive of fluoridation of public water supply. Secondly, Dean should have had done a lot more than rehash four studies done by his colleagues. Thirdly, I am surprised that this poorly constructed study had such an impact that Dr. Bruce Forsyth, the Assistant Surgeon General at the time, used it as a prime example of why the community leaders should advocate the immersion of Fluoride into their water supply when he said, “ As a result of new evidence obtained through scientific methods and procedure regarding their Grand Rapids project, where community water has been fluoridated since January 25th, 1945, the Public Health Service has now altered its basic health policy regarding fluoridation to read: ‘Using scientific methods and procedures, communities desiring to fluoridate their communal water supplies should be strongly encouraged to do so’” (Connet, Beck, and Micklem 85).

Your professor forwarded your paper onto the gummint, and you are now classified as a potential dissident, someone who won't think like the herd. Keep on your toes from here on in.

The domino effect soon followed as several major medical and dental institutions and associations quickly jumped onto the policy of painting fluoride in a positive light within a few months of the report by; namely the American Association of Public Health Dentists (AAPHD), the American Dental Association (ADA), the American Public Health Association (APHA), and both the State and territorial health officers (Bannet 2). Several more organizations eventually succumbed to fluoridation fever in the years to come, notably the National Research Council in 1951, the American Medical Association in 1954, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1953 (Connet, Beck, and Micklem 87, 89-90). This pattern shows that more than likely factions within the medical community had a “follow the leader” approach when it came to the promotion of fluoride.

Although the numerous organizations rushed to become champions for fluoride, no document could be found that shows that they actually read Dean’s report before supporting the fluoride movement that was started by his report in the first place. This should immediately set off a red flag since I find it imperative that such organizations with such high credibility carefully review all evidence before refuting or accepting any claim. However, it would seem as if they just blindly accepted Dean’s “findings.” The real reason for their support was that they were afraid of being ostracized from the medical community, its members labeled as “conspiracy theorists”, and the organization losing credibility and possibly memberships in the process. This trended only started when the Assistant Surgeon General used Dr. Henry Trendly Dean’s biased report as an excuse to promote fluoridation within communities. This is not proper way to do things in any professional medical institution, and actually takes away fluoride’s credibility since advocating fluoridation was just the “popular” thing to at the time.

Not really. English and Science are two entirely different things. I wrote a really bullshit paper about nothing in English class yet I got an A. That won't fly in science class. I learned the hard way...

Post it all. I would read it.