The Flouride debate thing again

RolandTD20Kdrummer

searchlightsoul wrote:

Semantics. It's toxic in higher doses. Just like lead, radiation (I'm sure you have radio?) you incorporate small amounts into your body all the time, but it is not harmful biologically at low levels.

Well, how come so many countries still use it? I live in Australia BTW and its a non-issue. Not because of ignorance but because most people don't want to spend their lives worrying about this shit, and then get hit by a truck.

Given that you seem so intent on critical thinking, how about you actually critique the data your using. I mean simply indicating a correlation between high fluoride and bone density in ONE case (or even a few) is inadequete because a study (unlike an experiment) isn't removing other variables. Maybe the fluride levels came from another source i.e diet, maybe reduced bone density or whatever was more strongly linked to poor diet and a low socio-economic environment.

I don't think it's intelligent to have something still classified as toxic for a local situation (teeth) to run systemic throughout your entire body.

I'm with Europe. I can just remember to brush my teeth.