In my hometown while waiting for the train, I stumbled across the following flier posted practically everywhere.
Click the image to enlarge.
I was intrigued because as we all know, I love taking apart stupid things like this as an excuse to inflict you with a blog post, so I took one down to check out whether what it says is factual at all.
A little bit about fluoride levels in our water.
For later reference, we’ll start by throwing some facts in your face. I noticed the information on the flier is obviously American given the choice of words, measurements and the website (which we’ll talk about in a bit) is majority American articles. So I decided to check American and Australian fluoride levels in the water. It seems our Government has differing levels of fluoride present in different areas, as represented by this handy diagram I stole from the Internet.
We can assume that the fluoride level doesn’t go above 1.1 mg/L in these controlled conditions, which is just a little over one millionth of a litre. America has a MCL of 4 mg/L, and the average levels works out to be similar to that of ours. I’ll work with the maximums for the sake of the argument, because results for that will be applicable over smaller amounts as well.
As little as 1/10 of an ounce of fluoride can kill a 100 lbs adult.
If we look at this so called fact, given that 1/10 of a fluid ounce is roughly 3 mg/L, we can say that the amounts present in our water are way less than that (given 1.1 is the maximum, and in places like where I live it’s considerable lower), and therefore not a threat in normal doses. While it is possible that that much fluoride could kill someone, we aren’t having nearly enough in a short enough period of time to have that effect.
1/1000 of an ounce can kill a 10 pound infant.
This one is difficult because babies grow rapidly, gaining and losing weight all the time. Looking it up though, apparently it is recommended babies not be given water to drink until they’re 6 months old since the water they need is gotten when they drink breast milk. So we’ll work on that.
I looked, and at 6 months of age the average weight for a baby can be anywhere between 15 and 21 pounds. Now, using the power of basic math, I can see that the child would need to be younger than 6 months to be the size needed for that level of fluoride to be poisonous. Since babies that are at that age aren’t meant to drink water, we can say unless someone was a really irresponsible parent the baby shouldn’t be at risk.
Fluoride is the active ingredient in most insecticides!
A type of fluoride IS used in pesticides, called sulfuryl fluoride, so this is sort of true. What this flier mysteriously forgets to mention is that this is not what is put in our water. What is actually put in our water is called sodium fluoride, a completely different thing. Sulfuryl fluoride is poisonous which is just one reason why pesticides have DANGER printed on them. So this fact is really a complete twist of the facts in an attempt to scare those who believe everything they read. It frustrates me when people feel that the only way to prove their point is to obscure the truth (Especially when it’s not even for the lulz!).
Fluoride causes bone cancer. In your bones.
This one is true. To a degree. Too much fluoride will cause brittleness of the bones (Just as not enough will make them weak), and there are apparently scientific studies that link fluoride to the cancer. Of course, these studies are years old and there are counter-studies showing no actual link between cancers and fluoridation.
So really, this is another case of selective hearing. These people are taking only the studies that benefit their cause to try and scare people into siding with them. And on the flier they’re stating these studies are absolute fact, which is wrong. It saddens me that people do this rather than embrace all the facts and make an educated decision.
Water fluoridation doesn’t strengthen teeth or fight tooth decay.
This is the big one. Not only does the flier hate on fluoride with the above, but it then states that fluoride doesn’t even do the things it’s meant to do. This is despite scientific proof that it strengthens the bones and teeth, and there is studies proving the statistical link between fluoride being in the water and the reduction of cavities.
This seems to be a case of not just twisting the facts, but outright lying. They blatantly ignore the facts and lie in favour of boosting their case. The fuck is wrong with them?
Hey, they have a website!
The flier points to a website to have the truth revealed to us. Now I don’t WANT to link to the site, but I have to for the sake of yes. InfoWars.com seems to be a news website in which the featured stories include conspiracies. At first look, there are no articles on fluoride, so I used the search option. The most recent articles about it completely ignore the studies I pointed out, tries to link fluoride to shorter lives, and is an overall idiot. Watching a video featuring Alex Jones (Creator and runner of InfoWars.com), when you get past the constant plugs for his website, he claims everything he says about fluoride (some of which is covered above) is “absolute truth”, even though everything he claims can be debunked or at least can be reasonably doubted by several facts and studies.
Pure garbage. Just Google “alex jones is an idiot” and you’ll see plenty of examples of exactly that.
In short, the flier is bullshit. The “facts” it states are either outright lies, or twisted truths in an attempt to make it sound like Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists are completely right. If they thought about it for two seconds they would realize that while yes in large amounts fluoride is poisonous, in small doses it is actually good for your health. You can’t convince these idiots though. This makes me sad.
I would also like to point out that what I’m basing all my information on is that found on the internet at varying sources. I link to a few studies for and against the point, but also read up on articles on water fluoridation on Wikipedia and other sources. The information is correct to the best of my knowledge, but I may of missed something here or there. If I did, I’m sorry.
People who use “you’re” instead of “your”. I’ve come to slowly accept, as annoying as it is, that people will use “your” instead of “you’re”, due to laziness and a general inability to utilize the English language above a Primary School level. What truly bugs me are the people who try to show off how grammatically superior they are to others by making sure to use “you’re” and still use it incorrectly. “I saw you’re dog the other day.” is not the proper use, and you’re a retard for thinking it is.
