Hmmm. The author of the article has a PhD in environmental history, so a social science. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it’s not actual hard science. Where people research and develop novel things.
I don’t want to blow smoke anywhere near any asses. But does that article site one primary literature source? They’re all articles or if it’s an actual paper, it’s an opinion piece. I’m not going through all of them because it reads like some crazy uncle on a conspiracy theory rant.
Are you a scientist? I know what I’m talking about, although I’m afraid you’re not.
There’s an actual journal article (I know it’s only Nature scientific reports, but it’s a valid reference). I know it doesn’t explicitly state it’s not toxic, but:
“Thus, based on the evidence available on the topic, it is not possible to state neither any association or the lack of an association between F exposure and any neurological disorder.”
Taken straight from their conclusion.
Obviously there’s many more sources, and again, I’m happy to provide you with some of you’d like to enhance your knowledge on the subject.
Fluoride is safe topically and ineffective when introduced to our water supply. It is not some giant conspiracy, just a practice that is no longer necessary and unsafe because the industrial waste fluoride that is used is contaminated. Please save me the appeal to authority nonsense.
Edit: if it’s As and Pb, both (among many other things) are closely monitored in any city water supply (and also occur naturally) to ensure there is little to none.
I can (and I’m sure you can as well) look up exactly the levels of contaminants allowed in your drinking water if it’s coming from a plant.
If it’s another element(s) or compound(s), I’m quite interested to know what they may be.
Also as per my last reply, are you a scientist of any kind?
Hmmm. The author of the article has a PhD in environmental history, so a social science. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it’s not actual hard science. Where people research and develop novel things.
I don’t want to blow smoke anywhere near any asses. But does that article site one primary literature source? They’re all articles or if it’s an actual paper, it’s an opinion piece. I’m not going through all of them because it reads like some crazy uncle on a conspiracy theory rant.
Are you a scientist? I know what I’m talking about, although I’m afraid you’re not.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99688-w
There’s an actual journal article (I know it’s only Nature scientific reports, but it’s a valid reference). I know it doesn’t explicitly state it’s not toxic, but:
“Thus, based on the evidence available on the topic, it is not possible to state neither any association or the lack of an association between F exposure and any neurological disorder.”
Taken straight from their conclusion.
Obviously there’s many more sources, and again, I’m happy to provide you with some of you’d like to enhance your knowledge on the subject.
Fluoride is safe topically and ineffective when introduced to our water supply. It is not some giant conspiracy, just a practice that is no longer necessary and unsafe because the industrial waste fluoride that is used is contaminated. Please save me the appeal to authority nonsense.
Contaminated with what exactly?
Edit: if it’s As and Pb, both (among many other things) are closely monitored in any city water supply (and also occur naturally) to ensure there is little to none.
I can (and I’m sure you can as well) look up exactly the levels of contaminants allowed in your drinking water if it’s coming from a plant.
If it’s another element(s) or compound(s), I’m quite interested to know what they may be.
Also as per my last reply, are you a scientist of any kind?