It Had to Happen: CT’ers Go After Iodized Salt

March 3rd, 2013
submit to reddit Share

Note:  it can be spelled iodized or iodised

I suppose it was only a matter of time before it started to happen.   Conspiracy theorists and various “natural healing” groups are now moving from fluoridated water to iodized salt.   The claims are pretty similar:  That it is forced medication that takes away choice from the individual, that it is dangerous and toxic and that the goals of adding iodine have nothing to do with improving human health and everything to do with causing disease/controlling the population/reducing fertility etc etc.

Historic Background:

Iodine is a necessary dietary trace mineral that all humans need for optimal health.  It can be found in a number of different foods, but the most rich source of iodine is seafood.  Fish and other marine life is rich in iodine, and therefore, those who consume fish regularly will generally have sufficient iodine levels.  However, in areas where diet is not as varied and seafood is not as common, iodine deficiency can be common.

Iodine is required for the synthesis of thyroid hormone and without sufficient iodine, the thyroid cannot readily produce the hormones triiodothyronine and thyroxine . The result is improper regulation of metabolism. This can lead to stunted growth, fatigue, depression, loss of strength and other health problems.

In infants and children, it can cause cretinism, a severe stunting of development which can also result in mental retardation.  According to the WHO, cretinism, as a result of iodine deficiency is the single largest preventable cause of mental retardation in the world.  Studies have shown that inadequate iodine before birth can cause problems with fetal neurological development that can produce lifelong disability.

In the most extreme cases, iodine deficiency can cause goiter – a swelling of the thyroid gland.  More than 90% of goiters in the world are caused by lack of iodine.   Goiters can become quite large, even to the point where the swelling makes breathing or talking difficult.  If left untreated, the swelling can be permanent.

Severe iodine deficiency was once fairly common in much of the industrial world.   In the United States, a large area from the midwest, through the Great Lakes region and into the Northwest was dubbed the “Goiter Belt.”   Residents of this area ate little or no seafood and both the local soil and water had relatively low amounts of dissolved iodine, resulting in little exposure from locally grown foods or water.

Doctors in the region were deeply concerned about widespread iodine deficiency. Doctor David Murray Cowie was one of the pioneers of iodine supplementation. Cowie had become aware of successful, although small scale, programs to add potassium or sodium iodide to table and cooking salt. This had been done in Switzerland for several years and appeared promising. In 1923, Cowie appealed to the Michigan State Medical Society, who endorsed the plan to add iodine to cooking and table salts.  With the full backing of the Michigan State Medical Society, Cowie turned to the Michigan Salt Producer’s Association. A committee was created to determine the proper levels for salt iodization and in 1924, it was determined that salt would be produced containing .01% sodium iodide.

Starting in May of 1924, iodized salt began showing up on the shelves of Michigan stores.  By the fall of 1924, the Morton Salt Company began distributing iodized salt nationwide.  The sale was labeled as such, and was consumed enthusiastically by a public aware of the dangers of goiters.  The addition of iodine to salt does not increase the price significantly.  In fact, it is so cheap, that a years worth of iodine costs mere pennies per person.

The iodization of salt in the US was swiftly followed by other industrial countries.  By the 1930′s, much of the industrial world’s cooking and table salt supply.  The results were dramatic.  By the mid 1930′s, occurrence of goiters had dropped significantly.  By the 1940′s, the US Congress was being called upon to mandate iodization of all salts.  Canada and other countries had done so in the 1930′s.

Today most table and cooking salt produced in the industrial world is iodized.  Non-iodized salt is still available and is preferred for canning and some other uses.  In some areas, all salt sold to consumers is required to be iodized, unless it is specifically sold for purposes other than general table use.  In some areas, iodized salt has only recently been introduced or mandated.  In South Africa, for example, iodization of salt was mandated in 1995 to combat a national epidemic of iodine deficiency.

There remain a few industrial countries where iodized salt is not the norm, although many have chosen other methods of iodine supplementation.  In the UK, only 5% of salt is fortified with iodine, however, iodine is fed to dairy herds as a means of increasing the iodine levels in milk.  This resulted in a large decline of goitersHowever, reduced consumption of milk is leading to calls for iodized salt as the standard for the United Kingdom, due to increasing rates of iodine deficiencies.

It should be noted that salt iodization has not been highly successful in reducing iodine deficiency, but remains less than 100% successful.  Today, severe iodine deficiency, of the type which can cause goiters is very rare in the developed world.  However, minor deficiencies of iodine is still common.  Although this is not as serious as severe deficiency, sub-optimal iodine intake can be a concern, especially in pregnant women.  Part of the problem is the vast variance in how much salt individuals use.  Another problem has been the increased use of processed foods, which may be salted with non-iodized salts.  Doctors have called upon the EU to make salt iodization mandatory for all salt used in food preparation as one way of reducing the high rate of mild iodine deficiencies found in the European population.

Assuring that everyone gets sufficient iodine may require additional steps, including greater use of supplements, ionization of salts used in processed foods, increased levels of iodine in salt or other measures.   However, the iodized of salt remains an important measure in reducing iodine deficiency and has been endorsed by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and other major bodies.  In 1992, the UN World Summit for Children called for the universal iodization of salt, a goal which has not yet been met.

Opposition:

Despite the decades of success and safety of salt iodization, it is predictable that there would be a growing movement to oppose it.   The reasons are the same used for fluoridation of water, vaccines and so on.   It’s described as unnatural, dangerous, forced medication and so on.

Via Global Healing Center:

Things have changed since the 1920′s with the manufacturing of toxic chemicals and more cost effective ways of harvesting salt. Most of the salt harvested then was natural salt from the sea or from natural salt deposits and contained the beneficial trace mineral iodine.

Table Salt or “Iodized Salt” is not a healthy naturally occurring rock, crystal or sea salt. It is a manufactured type of sodium called sodium chloride with added iodide.

Iodine in salt available at grocery stores, restaurants and in practically all processed foods, have synthetic chemicals added to them. These chemicals may include manufactured forms of iodide, sodium solo-co-aluminate, fluoride sodium bicarbonate, toxic amounts of potassium iodide, anti-caking agents and aluminium derivatives. Table salt has also been bleached. Unfortunately, most table salt is not only unhealthy, but is toxic to the body and should never be considered as a source of healthy iodine.

Salt found in nature is not usually white it is pink in color such as Himalayan Crystal salt which is harvested in pristine mountains and naturally dried in the sun.

Of course, salt today is still derived from natural sources, and things like “anti-caking” agents have been added for decades, because, without them, salt would solidify and not pour properly due to moisture. Salt in nature can be any number of colors, as a result of impurities. Sodium Chloride is and always was the primary component of salts used in foods. It’s the primary component of both sea and rock salts.

There are other sites out there claiming iodine in salt is the cause of aids or some other disease.  They will not be linked here, but they can be found quite easily.  Still others claim iodine from salt leads to excessive iodine intake, although this is also not true, as it would be very difficult to consume enough iodine to be in danger of of iodine toxicity from the amounts in salt.  It is certainly possible to have too much iodine, but in such cases, it is not generally the result of salt usage.

Others claim that it is simply unnatural, with little additional details.

For example, this site:

In the early part of the 20th century, iodine deficiency was quite common in the United States and Canada. Use of Iodized salt has decreased this deficiency. While many types of table salt are iodine-enriched, they are also stripped of all their natural health properties, and are chemically processed.

The bad news is that table and cooking salt found in most homes, restaurants, and processed foods is void of nutritional value, lacking beneficial trace minerals. Processing salt turns it into sodium chloride, an unnatural salt the human body actually sees as a toxic invader!

No.  Potassium iodide is potassium iodide.  Sodium iodide is sodium iodide.  Your body doesn’t care if it was put there or naturally there.  And you cannot “turn it into sodium chloride” it always was sodium chloride because that’s what common salt is.   It certainly is not a toxic invader, although it could be toxic if you had enough of it.  In fact, it’s vital to your body’s basic operations.

Thankfully, iodized salt has become so commonplace and widely accepted that these ridiculous claims remain fringe in the first world and are unlikely to result in any sizable movement against iodine supplementation through salt.  Unfortunately, they can cause a great deal of harm in the developing world.  Just as efforts to introduce lifesaving measures like vaccines have been threatened by unfounded claims of harm, so has iodized salt.

Via the Guardian:

Pakistan’s mistrust of iodised salt is aggravating a deeper health crisis
Commonly held conspiracy theories about iodine and infertility may have led to widespread malnutrition and birth defects, researchers say

At a bustling general store in Lahore, people ask a lot of questions about one seemingly innocuous product: table salt. If it contains iodine, about 40% of his customers spurn it, according to proprietor Muhammad Waqas Vicky. They won’t allow their families to consume what they call “mixed salt”, believing it causes infertility. “The majority among them are businessmen and religious people,” said Vicky. Pakistanis of all classes have been hearing about the alleged dangers of iodised salt for nearly two decades. But insufficient iodine in the diet can cause spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, goitre, mental retardation, birth defects and other problems.

Anti-polio campaigns here have been the target of deadly attacks that stemmed from similar myths, but officials blame the iodine-related infertility rumours, at least in part, for a massive health crisis. Nearly half of Pakistan’s population of 200 million suffers from some form of iodine deficiency disorder, according to last year’s National Nutrition Survey, which was carried out by academics, Unicef and Pakistan’s health ministry. Various reports have linked manifestations such as lethargy and lower IQ scores to dampened national productivity, which can further harm a fragile country like Pakistan, consistently beset by economic crisis as it is.

How did this happen? Some experts see little mystery in the evolution of what has become one of Pakistan’s more bizarre and destructive conspiracy theories. Seventeen years ago, well-meaning government officials launched a maternal health initiative in the face of ever-rising birthrates. To this day, people remember a slide show on official Pakistan television – at the time the nation’s only channel – that pushed prenatal care and awareness of vital nutrients. The penultimate slide promoted one element in particular: iodine.

The final slide, officials recall, credited the initiative to the government’s department of primary health and family planning. “There was a communication mistake,” Tariq Aziz, an expert on iodised salt production, said of the 1995 broadcast. “People thought this was purely a family planning initiative.”

After the public conflated iodine with government-enforced birth control, rumours took off about an international scheme to limit Muslim population growth through iodised salt. The falsehoods became especially potent in a society that prizes large families and where contraception use is low. By 2001, a mere 17% of Pakistani households used iodised salt, Unicef reported, compared with, say, Bangladesh, where the consumption rate was 78%.

Sadly myths like the one that has become common in Pakistan are very hard to combat and tend to get even worse as opportunistic quacks attempt to milk them for profit, whether to sell books, lecture tickets or cures to the imagined problem. Although especially prevalent in Pakistan, these same myths are present elsewhere. Attempts by groups like the WHO to increase the use of iodized salt can easily be portrayed as outsiders attempting to poison native populations. The growing ranks of Western conspiracy theorists certainly do not help either.


This entry was posted on Sunday, March 3rd, 2013 at 5:00 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Conspiracy Theories, History, Misc, Quackery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



78 Responses to “It Had to Happen: CT’ers Go After Iodized Salt”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. 51
    Satan_Klaus Says:

    I’m really only posting to point out a spelling error but its funny how it is impossible to tell if Bob is dead serious or trolling all of you.

    Spelling error:
    “However, the ionization of salt remains an important measure in reducing iodine deficiency and has been endorsed by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and other major bodies.”

    I suppose that was supposed the read iodisation, not ionisation. Imagine the outcry and horror if the public found out that our salt was IRRADIATED. (Interestingly, natural salt contains trace amounts of a beta+ decaying isotope. I can already see the headlines: “Table salt contains antimatter!” and “Warning: emits annihilation radiation” warning signs on every salt shaker.)


    Quote Comment
  2. 52
    Bob Wilson Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I wasn’t talking about a study but rather of an organization that conveined a panel on it.

    Just about all the major national and international dental and medical organizations out there endorse fluoridation.

    Science is not done by popularity poll and neither should science policy. What is the agenda of these organizations/ To cite a small example, I have read that the food pyramid, which is the consensus of many ” major national and international medical organizations” is the result of lobbying by food producing groups. Else why the puzzling inclusion of dairy products when most adults cannot digest milk.

    If you want some hard scientific studies I can get you plenty. There are hundreds.

    Here is just some reference material I took five minutes on Google to find.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1865532

    meta-study. no authors given. behind paywall so how can I evaluate methodology?

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826212037.htm

    This is a general press summary article of “material” from the “Center for Advancing Health”. The reporter apparently did interview one of the authors who had the honesty to state that “The study, which focused on tooth loss as an indication of overall oral health, could not adjust for factors such as use of toothpaste, which also provides a dose of fluoride.”

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

    Another “consensus” recommendation. We know how accurate these are. What was the “consensus” on hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal women until recently?


    Quote Comment
  3. 53
    Bob Wilson Says:

            DV82XL said:

    You have not demonstrated that there is any scientific reason to reject controlled water fluoridation,

    Of course I have. I cited a website with multiple studies of dangerous side effects from fluoridation and have shown that the beneficial effects of fluoride on teeth can be gained by the much safer topical application rather than ingesting.

    nor have you established that doing so establishes any dangerous precedent in and of itself as it does not extend government authority beyond that which has already been established by controlled chlorination of water supplies.

    There is no parallel between chlorination and fluoridation. Chlorine, and now chloramines, are added to water to rid it of dangerous pathogens. Fluoride is not added to make the water safer but for some non-water safety related agenda by do-gooder politicians. Pointing out that this can be extended is entirely reasonable and supportable by the facts I cite such as the control of soda size. I ask you, specify the limits that should be placed on the addition of substances to water by governments for some non-water related public health end?

    Furthermore you cannot claim you are being forced to consume water that has been fluoridated, as you have the option of bottled water, or relocating to a jurisdiction that does not practice controlled water fluoridation. In short all of your arguments fail on logic and remain unconvincing.

    That is an amazing statement. So the general population has to take expensive and inconvenient steps to avoid the poisons introduced in the water the government?


    Quote Comment
  4. 54
    Russ Says:

            Bob Wilson said:

    That is an amazing statement. So the general population has to take expensive and inconvenient steps to avoid the poisons introduced in the water the government?

    You still have not ever dealt with the fact that the fluoride levels in water are often not caused by the government but that a substantial number of water sources already have adequate fluoride as they are. Fluoride supplementation only makes water of a low fluoride level more similar to that which occus in regions with an optimal fluoride level.

    Look, would it be ok with you if it were done by some more “Natural” means?

    What if water with fluoride in it from aquifers were piped in or brought in on tankers to areas with low fluoride?

    What if water providers simply made extra efforts to seek out natural fluoridated water, like by drilling to whatever depth proved to have the most dissolved fluoride or using eservoirs which have geology that promotes fluoride dispersion?

    What if they brought in tons and tons of naturally occurring rock that had high fluoride levels and dumped it into the reservoirs to try to get some to dissolve out?

    Would that be ok with you?

    BTW: For the record. I do harbor some doubts about the effectiveness of fluoride water in this day and age when nobody seems to ever drink tap water and kids seem to live on juice/milk/soda and processed foods. I’m sure it is somewhat helpful because some of that water ends up being drinken at fountains or ends up in foodstuffs. I just wonder if maybe it’s all for not and perhaps there could be a better way, like fluoridation of the beverages dispensed at school cafeterias or something. That might at least get more kids, when it’s important.

    That has nothing to do with harm though. There’s no evidence of harm. It might be futile or nearly futile, but certainly not harmful.


    Quote Comment
  5. 55
    DV82XL Says:

            Bob Wilson said:

    Of course I have. I cited a website with multiple studies of dangerous side effects from fluoridation and have shown that the beneficial effects of fluoride on teeth can be gained by the much safer topical application rather than ingesting.

    You linked to a website that did not show any such thing. Apparently you are a scientific illiterate who is incapable of understanding or interpreting what you read in this regard.

            Bob Wilson said:

    There is no parallel between chlorination and fluoridation. Chlorine, and now chloramines, are added to water to rid it of dangerous pathogens. Fluoride is not added to make the water safer but for some non-water safety related agenda by do-gooder politicians. Pointing out that this can be extended is entirely reasonable and supportable by the facts I cite such as the control of soda size. I ask you, specify the limits that should be placed on the addition of substances to water by governments for some non-water related public health end?

    Of course there is a parallel. When a community decides that it is going to treat its water supply by adding chemicals to further one health-related objective, it establishes a precedent that it can also choose to treat its water to meet other health-related objectives when those objectives are those of the community at large Thus no new precedent is being established. Each community makes that decision for itself and sets its own limits on what can done in this regard through its elected representatives. To make the broad claim that to allow controlled fluoridation of water supplies licences governments to add anything to the water supply at a whim is risible. Again it is an invocation of the slippery-slope fallacy, and fails to recognize that this particular issue is debated regularly and some communities have chosen not to fluoridate.

            Bob Wilson said:

    That is an amazing statement. So the general population has to take expensive and inconvenient steps to avoid the poisons introduced in the water the government?

    This statement presumes that the general population rejects the idea of controlled water fluoridation, however it seems that only places where the majority seems to want this treatment done are the ones doing it. If the foundation of your argument above is that the minority should not be forced to endure the ‘tyranny of the majority’ then indeed they do not as long as they have options: in this case to use alternative water supplies.


    Quote Comment
  6. 56
    Bob Wilson Says:

            Russ said:

    You still have not ever dealt with the fact that the fluoride levels in water are often not caused by the government but that a substantial number of water sources already have adequate fluoride as they are. Fluoride supplementation only makes water of a low fluoride level more similar to that which occus in regions with an optimal fluoride level.

    Look, would it be ok with you if it were done by some more “Natural” means?

    What if water with fluoride in it from aquifers were piped in or brought in on tankers to areas with low fluoride?

    What if water providers simply made extra efforts to seek out natural fluoridated water, like by drilling to whatever depth proved to have the most dissolved fluoride or using eservoirs which have geology that promotes fluoride dispersion?

    What if they brought in tons and tons of naturally occurring rock that had high fluoride levels and dumped it into the reservoirs to try to get some to dissolve out?

    Would that be ok with you?

    What is an ‘adequate level’? Adequate for your meddling? Your definition of adequate presupposes the purpose of water is to prevent tooth decay. That is not my purpose in drinking water.

    My position is that if the fluoride level is too high, then water companies should reduce it to safe levels. Otherwise, leave it as it is and let people decide if they want to supplement their own water.

    {quote]BTW: For the record.

    I do harbor some doubts about the effectiveness of fluoride water in this day and age when nobody seems to ever drink tap water and kids seem to live on juice/milk/soda and processed foods.

    I’m sure it is somewhat helpful because some of that water ends up being drinken at fountains or ends up in foodstuffs.

    I just wonder if maybe it’s all for not and perhaps there could be a better way, like fluoridation of the beverages dispensed at school cafeterias or something. That might at least get more kids, when it’s important.

    That has nothing to do with harm though. There’s no evidence of harm. It might be futile or nearly futile, but certainly not harmful.

    Wow, you really believe that? See my point above about nanny politicians forcing water bottlers to add fluoride to bottled water that Mr. D8… whatis says is a slippery slope fallacy. Is there any limit to your desire to control other peoples’ lives? Oh, but I guess its OK because it’s for the ‘chilrun’. This is precisely the rationale that Bloomberg gives for his ridiculous soda bottle law. Maybe you should let the chilrun’s parents take care of them?


    Quote Comment
  7. 57
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Bob Wilson said:

    My position is that if the fluoride level is too high, then water companies should reduce it to safe levels.

    They already do that.

    The level that is considered “optimal” by most governing bodies is .7 ppm. This is a compromise and based on studies which have shown that benefits extend upward to 1.2 ppm, but that this approaches the level where there could be fluorosis. Many water systems use concentrations of less than .7 mg/l.

    When levels are naturally much higher, perhaps as high. The EPA does not consider de-fluoridation necessary until levles reach 4 ppm. At that point, removal is warranted. It’s not easy. There are a couple of ways of doing it. It can be done with a resin absorption ion-exchange system or using a combination of binding chemicals.

    But you never actually responded to Russ’s point.

    Lets make sure we understand where Bob Wilson stands oin Fluoride:

    3 ppm of fluoride in water is perfectly okay if it’s there naturally. If the level is 2 ppm or 3 ppm or 3.5, as long as it is there from rock, that’s just great.

    BUT

    If the level is .5 ppm because someone took water that was naturally .1 ppm and added some extra fluoride…. NO THAT IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY

    Correct?


    Quote Comment
  8. 58
    Bob Wilson Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    If the level is .5 ppm because someone took water that was naturally .1 ppm and added some extra fluoride…. NO THAT IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY

    Correct?

    My position is that supplementing water fluoride is unsafe and unnecessary.

    Fluoride is just like any other toxic chemical. If its concentration is too high then it should be reduced. Otherwise leave it alone and concentrate your resources on other dangerous substances in water.


    Quote Comment
  9. 59
    Bob Wilson Says:

            DV82XL said:

    You linked to a website that did not show any such thing.

    Yes it did

    Of course there is a parallel. When a community decides that it is going to treat its water supply by adding chemicals to further one health-related objective

    There is no parallel there. Making water safe by treating pathogens already in it is not the same as using it to pursue some objective unrelated to the water safety.

    Again it is an invocation of the slippery-slope fallacy, and fails to recognize that this particular issue is debated regularly and some communities have chosen not to fluoridate.

    See Russ’ amazing post above. We have already gone far down your fallacious slippery slope.

    My questions to you remain open:

    Cite a reference that claims water fluoridation is more effective than topical application.

    What are the limits on government inserting substances into water for ‘health related’ purposes.


    Quote Comment
  10. 60
    DV82XL Says:

            Bob Wilson said:

    Yes it did

    ….

    Cite a reference that claims water fluoridation is more effective than topical application..

    Your reference did not show anything to support the contention that controlled fluoridation of water cases any harm. To assert that it does is an outright lie, or the product of deep-set ignorance on your part

    Also you seem to forget that you are the one that is attempting to convince us that the practice of controlled fluoridation of water is wrong, thus it is you that has to prove your contention. Nether I, or anyone else contributing to this thread, gives a damn what you want to believe or not. Therefore do not presume to demand that we provide references


    Quote Comment
  11. 61
    Bob Wilson Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Your reference did not show anything to support the contention that controlled fluoridation of water cases any harm. To assert that it does is an outright lie, or the product of deep-set ignorance on your part

    You are wrong, it does.

    Also you seem to forget that you are the one that is attempting to convince us that the practice of controlled fluoridation of water is wrong, thus it is you that has to prove your contention. Nether I, or anyone else contributing to this thread, gives a damn what you want to believe or not. Therefore do not presume to demand that we provide references

    You want to add a foreign substance to the water so it is up to you to prove its safety and efficacy.

    If you cannot answer my questions, say so. I repeat them for you and other denizens of this benighted corner of the internet who care to try them:

    Cite a reference that claims water fluoridation is more effective than topical application.

    What are the limits on government inserting substances into water for ‘health related’ purposes.


    Quote Comment
  12. 62
    Bob Wilson Says:

    Actually, I have many more questions but those will do to start.

    To enliven the discussion, look at this video to see what a nasty customer elemental fluorine is:
    http://www.periodicvideos.com/videos/009.htm

    As the professor mentions at the end, fluorine is tightly bound to other atoms like sodium or tin in fluoride. But as he also remarks at the end of the video, contrary to popular belief, bone is not an inert stable material. Instead it is a dynamic tissue that readily interchanges materials with its surrounding fluids and tissues. The fluoride interacts with the calcium hydoxyapatite in the bone to change its characteristics. If you apply the fluoride topically you limit the changes to the materials you want to change i.e. the enamel of the teeth. By ingesting it you affect the bone throughout the body resulting in changes that are not beneficial such as making skeletal bone more brittle.

    I am truly surprised that this does not give more people here pause.


    Quote Comment
  13. 63
    DV82XL Says:

            Bob Wilson said:

    You are wrong, it does.

    Then quote the relevant passages rather than just asserting you are right.

            Bob Wilson said:

    You want to add a foreign substance to the water so it is up to you to prove its safety and efficacy. If you cannot answer my questions, say so.

    I repeat: you have lost sight of your position in the debate occurring in this thread. You have come asserting that controlled fluoridation of water is wrong for scientific and ideological reasons therefore the onus is on you to provide proof of those assertions. You cannot simply state your position and then demand everyone else work to prove you wrong. Any idiot can do that, and many have tried on these pages, they too have been told to put up or shut up. So far nothing you have posted supports your contentions to anyone’s satisfaction that is participating in this discussion.

            Bob Wilson said:

    To enliven the discussion, look at this video to see what a nasty customer elemental fluorine is:

    I am truly surprised that this does not give more people here pause.

    That is because most of us have a basic grasp of chemistry. This is why we do not panic knowing that common table salt has chlorine as one of its two components, while still being aware that elemental chlorine is a poisonous and highly corrosive gas.

    Trying this tactic demonstrates ether that you are far stupider than I thought, or that you think we are.


    Quote Comment
  14. 64
    Shafe Says:

            Bob Wilson said:

    What are the limits on government inserting substances into water for ‘health related’ purposes.

    Limits are imposed by voters who elect our representatives in government. If you think the government should refrain from adding fluoride or other chemicals to the water, then your course of action is to convince other voters to take their concerns to their representatives, either by petition or by ballot.

    It is not an easy process (nor should it be) to effect change this way (though it is the proper way), and it will be harder still if your arguments are not sound. Thus it is your onus to present a compelling argument against a practice that we deem safe and successful. So far, you have not.


    Quote Comment
  15. 65
    Apollo Says:

    Bob Wilson.

    If you’ve been reading any sufficent quantity of posts on this blog, you’ll notice that a lot of people who come into the comments get all blowy and huff-huff, and follow almost the exact same route as you’ve done thus far.

    Come in and dispute X for moral, ethical and scientific reasons, using scientific evidence as the basis to support your position on the morality, ethics, and safety of whatever..

    Once the ‘scientific evidence’ has been torpedoed, and generally pulled apart as bad science, the commentor will then generally get angrier and angrier, often posting multiple times in a row about X and how THEIR poosition on it is the only right position to have.

    Moving on from that, the commentor moves onto the defence and DEMANDS that the more frequent readers of the blog, and the blog host himself, prove that their position is correct.It’s predictable, and generally an indicator that the commentor has lost the arguement.

    I’m not attacking you personally or anything, but, using flawed scientific evidence, or a flawed understanding of the evidence, on this blog and then getting outraged when corrected, is a bit, well, stupid. Calm down a bit, take your time to actually READ the papers, etc, that are linked, and find someone impartial to explain things if you get confused.

    Finally, for the record, I’m for the fluoridation of drinking water.


    Quote Comment
  16. 66
    Bob Wilson Says:

            Shafe said:

    Limits are imposed by voters who elect our representatives in government. If you think the government should refrain from adding fluoride or other chemicals to the water, then your course of action is to convince other voters to take their concerns to their representatives, either by petition or by ballot.

    Actually, this has happened and is happening in many areas. For example:
    Waterloo, Canada http://tinyurl.com/24mn8ez
    Basel, Switzerland http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/basel/
    Wichita, KS http://tinyurl.com/b7tzzbf

    It is not an easy process (nor should it be) to effect change this way (though it is the proper way), and it will be harder still if your arguments are not sound. Thus it is your onus to present a compelling argument against a practice that we deem safe and successful. So far, you have not.

    That is an amazing statement. So, if the government decides that it wants to reduce population growth and it can show that introducing birth control agents into the water is safe and effective, the onus is on the citizens to prove that they should not?


    Quote Comment
  17. 67
    DV82XL Says:

            Bob Wilson said:

    That is an amazing statement. So, if the government decides that it wants to reduce population growth and it can show that introducing birth control agents into the water is safe and effective, the onus is on the citizens to prove that they should not?

    No it means if the majority wants something to be an individual does not have the right to veto it arbitrarily, this is what is implied by democracy run by majority rule. Your example fails because it assumes that enough people would agree to such a scheme, and in the real world (as opposed to the over-active imaginations of people like you) this not likely to happen.

    At any rate who are you to claim membership in a community and then assert that you be granted the right to block the will of its members at a whim? Your option is to leave that group, not demand that it bends to your desires.


    Quote Comment
  18. 68
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Bob Wilson said:

    Actually, this has happened and is happening in many areas. For example:
    Waterloo, Canada http://tinyurl.com/24mn8ez
    Basel, Switzerland http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/basel/
    Wichita, KS http://tinyurl.com/b7tzzbf

    Yeah, well, voters do make a lot of bad decisions. I think Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.” I’ll try to continue to educate the public to avoid this from happening.


    Quote Comment
  19. 69
    Shafe Says:

            Bob Wilson said:

    That is an amazing statement. So, if the government decides that it wants to reduce population growth and it can show that introducing birth control agents into the water is safe and effective, the onus is on the citizens to prove that they should not?

    I have a more apt example. Highway departments, through the benefit of experience, testing, and research, have determined that it is sometimes economical and safe to use fly ash (a waste product of coal burning) as a pozzolan admixture to concrete. This is not a consideration that can be made lightly, as the failure of concrete in highway bridges can have catastrophic consequences. But the community, through the judgment of elected representatives and their appointees, has deemed fly ash to be acceptable for that use, subject to testing and monitoring, as with all concrete ingredients.

    So, if an activist decides that he wants the state to halt the use of fly ash in concrete, claiming it presents an unacceptable risk to the public, as it contains the same heavy metals as the coal from which it is derived, does it fall to the state to halt its use, against the judgment of the community, until it can “prove” to this activist that there is no danger? Or do they continue operating in the manner that the community deems to be safe and economical until the activist can present a cogent argument?


    Quote Comment
  20. 70
    Bob Wilson Says:

            Apollo said:

    Bob Wilson.

    If you’ve been reading any sufficent quantity of posts on this blog, you’ll notice that a lot of people who come into the comments get all blowy and huff-huff, and follow almost the exact same route as you’ve done thus far.

    Thanks for the advice. I think I see your problem and there may be a way to help yourself.

    You have probably been troubled by your lack of success with your career and especially the ladies because of your submissive beta-male personality. After all, look at how you frequent this site, which basically consists of smug posts by the alpha male claiming that those who have not accepted the God of science are benighted idiots. Then, people like you, who have trouble fitting into society because of your inadequacy come here and write posts saying “Yeah, you know that post by the big guy, well that goes for me too.” Then you and your fellow sycophants pat each other on the back and bask in the approval of the alpha male because you too have received Science.

    And to make your problem even more degrading, your hero is really a pudgy, pimply-faced geek who works as an orderly in some clinic and probably lives in his parents’ basement!

    You probably wonder how to improve your situation? Well, I could suggest that you talk with the pastor of your church but you are probably such a loser and a loner that you do not belong to a church. So you should start by considering your relationship to the true God, which will help you in your relationship with others. I suggest you start reading books about Christian faith such as the books by the Rev. Billy Graham or the book “A purpose-driven life” by Pastor Rick Warren. If you pray and meditate I am sure you will find the way.

    Finally, for the record, I’m for the fluoridation of drinking water.

    Well, good for you.


    Quote Comment
  21. 71
    DV82XL Says:

            Bob Wilson said:

    ….smug posts by the alpha male claiming that those who have not accepted the God of science are benighted idiots…you should start by considering your relationship to the true God,….

    So in the end this is what you are: an anti-science Christian apologist. What little shreds of credibility that you may have had to this point are now gone.


    Quote Comment
  22. 72
    Wakeup Says:

    It is obvious that the governments try to limit your choices of you getting healthy food, water, salt, etc by introducing these toxic chemicals in most commonly used foods.
    Someone who really cares for their people would give them the choice and flexibility to add what they want in their food by leaving it as natural and pure as possible.


    Quote Comment
  23. 73
    DV82XL Says:

            Wakeup said:

    … leaving it as natural and pure as possible.

    You do understand that ‘natural’ and ‘pure’ are most often diametrically opposed conditions for anything. Pure salt for example is only the compound NaCl but naturally harvested sea salt, for example, can contain a vast spectrum of other ions, some of them rather toxic if ingested in quantity. See:Elements in Light Grey Celtic Sea Salt®


    Quote Comment
  24. 74
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Wakeup said:

    It is obvious that the governments try to limit your choices of you getting healthy food, water, salt, etc by introducing these toxic chemicals in most commonly used foods.
    Someone who really cares for their people would give them the choice and flexibility to add what they want in their food by leaving it as natural and pure as possible.

    In most countries, you can buy non-iodized salt. It is prefered for pickling and canning and some other uses and if you look for it, you can find it. Kosher salt is not iodized (I believe it never is, but correct me, someone, if I am wrong)

    I would not recommend it, however. Iodine is an important trace nutrient and using iodized salt is a good way to assure you are getting it. Unless you eat a lot of seafood or something, it’s probably your best bet for avoiding thyroid issues.


    Quote Comment
  25. 75
    Bob Bartoli Says:

    The link below was a forum subject that got a lot of play back in 2008 that I started. Yes I invented the conspiracy, LOL. Anyone interested in learning more about table salt vs naturally harversted sea salt might gain some knowledge from it. Is it 100% scientific no but does it give you good information while a back and forth discussion ensues – yes. Enjoy and do comment back and no my real name is not Bob Bartoli

    http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=120907


    Quote Comment
  26. 76
    DV82XL Says:

            Bob Bartoli said:

    Anyone interested in learning more about table salt vs naturally harvested sea salt might gain some knowledge from it.

    The usual spectacle of those with no grasp of either chemistry or metabolic biology arguing a topic they are not equipped to understand, invoking conspiracies to cover any gaps between their perceptions and reality. Nothing we haven’t seen before.


    Quote Comment
  27. 77
    Jason Says:

    Lets get back to the bigger issue of fluoride.

    If it is so good for you and does no harm and is not actually poisoning the population then there are some simple questions I would like answered:

    1. Why does the US government mandate that it be put n water regardless of whether the people want it or no? Why don’t they let people go out and buy fluoridated water if they want it?

    2. Why don’t other countries? Why is it banned most other places?


    Quote Comment
  28. 78
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Jason said:

    Lets get back to the bigger issue of fluoride.

    If it is so good for you and does no harm and is not actually poisoning the population then there are some simple questions I would like answered:

    1. Why does the US government mandate that it be put n water regardless of whether the people want it or no? Why don’t they let people go out and buy fluoridated water if they want it?

    2. Why don’t other countries?

    Why is it banned most other places?

    it is not mandated in any way by the US government. How water is treated and whether it is fluoridated is the business of the local water provider. Water is usually provided either by a city owned water service or a regional water service. For example, where I live, it’s the Connecticut Water Authority. Some towns and cities fluoridate and some do not.

    And it is standard in many countries. In fact, there are quite a few countries where a larger percentage of the cities and water suppliers fluoridate than in the US.

    It’s done in much of Canada, in the UK, in Australia, in Ireland, in South Korea.


    Quote Comment

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string FTSIz1 to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam