I have to admit, i haven't read all four pages extensively but i've tried to familiarise myself, instead, with differing viewpoints. I feel i must start my particular addition to this highly volatile subject by pointing out the thread title-
"Debate on Weather Sodium Fluoride Has Any Benefits".
There have been alot of posts simply hatemongering a fair question which is honestly deplorable behaviour for a forum in which healthy dissent is pivotal! Enough said on that matter.
Some posts have also been stating the need to assert what we are dealing with ie "Fluoride" or "Fluorine"; i find this silly for two reasons - firstly, the title of the topic is self explainatory and secondly, these posts in which a definition is called for repeatedly state no reason as to why a confirmation of such is required!
One last bone of contention with the overall reception of this topic are the allusions to bottled water. Any small amount of research will show you that fluoride is added to many top brand name bottled waters and they don't always have to admit it, either.
In my opinion, having studied the development and industrial application of Sodium
Fluoride (the
inorganic chemical compound NaF which is used in toothpaste and water fluoridation etc) only has one beneficial use and even that is open to much speculation. It is used as Flouride-18 in PET scans and is favoured as a positron emmiter due to it's short half-life. Of course, it's still a radioactive isotope, regardless of how quickly it decays! Frankly, i'm not sure i'd like it anywhere near my brain tissue.
Still, PET scans have accelerated the field of clinical oncology greatly and that has to be accepted regardless of how one feels about having one's body bombarded by tiny atom bombs (essentially, being microwaved).
*chuckles*
Now, on to oral hygiene, yes? Sodium Flouride, in countless tests under countless conditions, has no comparitive benefit to dental health whatsoever. Personally, i have been using a non-Fluoride toothpaste for as long as i can remember and my teeth (except a pesky wisdom one) are fine. Studies comparing the teeth of children and adults in America (where water fluoridation is commited) and Europe (where it is considered a form of enforced medication) have shown, repeatedly, no
discernable variations in overall dental health. Actual figures report 8-40% difference which is clearly no where near definative enough to base a conclusion on.
The problem, as i see it, is this - there are a number of natural mineral properties in our water supply which are provided quite nicely by nature. This does not include villiaumite (which is highly toxic to humans) or fluorite (which is used as a smelting flux). If any constituent of Flour
ine (chemical element atomic number 9) was supposed to be in our drinking water i'm sure nature would have put it there for us?
Before i go into the really ugly bits, i'm going to point a couple of things out-
The Latin word Fluo meaning "to flow" is how the mineral Fluorite came to it's name (it being used to help the
flow of metal in metallurgy/smelting by lowering the metal's boiling point). The mineral is very rare and is mostly found in plutonic Nephelene Syenite which also contains the mineral Villiaumite which is the
only naturally occuring NaF (Sodium Fluoride) in existence as far as we are aware.
All other NaF is
inorganic.
F is the chemical element Fluorine. It has the atomic number 9 and occurs as diatomic F2 molecule which is highly poisonous. The most important consideration for our discussion is it's unrivalled suitability in the enrichment of U235.
So, how do these dots connect up? I will restate my belief that if any mineral form of F(luorine) were supposed to be in drinking water nature would certainly have put it there for our long slow crawl out of the embrionic ooze (note:
belief). So we have this inexorable,
apparently insubstantiated, albeit diametric link between dental health and nuclear weapons. Is there a connection? I believe there is.
Several accidents occured during the Manhatten project and at least three of them involved UF6 being exposed to air (Uranium Fluoride leaks) which produced highly toxic UO2F2 (uranyl fluoride) and HF (hydrogen fluoride) and subsequently got into the water supply. The next step is two-fold. Firstly, the overseers of the Manhatten project found out that the water soluble Fluoride from these accidents caused lassitude and silliness in the local populace who were exposed (the couch potato effect as it is often referred to) and began experimenting on rats to determine just exactly
how docile they could be made. The other thing that came about was purposeful exposure to the less volatile NaF or Sodium Fluoride (which caused similar effects but over a much much longer timespan due to it's half-life i mentioned earlier); this exposure was done under the premise of dental health in order to "dumb-down" the fear factor of being exposed to the much much more dangerous Uranyl and Hydrogen compounds.
I hope this helps some of you understand a little more about the origins of Sodium Fluoride. At the end of the day i believe it should always be a personal choice as to what you put inside your body however, sadly for the United States, this is becoming an increasingly remote liberty. It is already within the Presidential "special powers" created by the Bush Administration to force "vaccinations" upon the People. It won't take a great leap to start dumping nuclear waste into the water supply, afterall - what does the North American Union want a load of nuclear waste floating about the place for when it can just as easily get us to ask for it to be spoon fed to us in the name of those celebrity "Pearly Whites"?
Before one can make a choice, one must wake up
-Goo™
”
