Want Water With No Added Fluoride? Move to the Park Cities.

FluorideisaPoison.jpg
Ben Kraal
Dallas City Councilman Sheffie Kadane still isn't sure Dallas should be fluoridating its water.

"Have you seen toothpaste that has fluoride in the toothpaste?" he asked Dallas Water Utilities Director Jody Puckett this morning. "And have you read the disclaimer on it that says 'Do not swallow, and if you do swallow this toothpaste, go get your stomach pumped'?"

"There is a disclaimer on the fluoride toothpaste only," he continued, his concerns unassuaged by Puckett's comment that toothpaste has 10 times the concentration of fluoride as Dallas tap water. "It doesn't tell you on the non-fluoride toothpaste."

Story tips: Whatever You Do, Don't Stop Paying Attention to the Fluoridation Debate

Kadane's voice was a lonely one at this morning's Quality of Life Committee meeting. His colleagues all seemed to inclined to buy the argument that the public health benefits of fluoridation are sufficiently great and the $600,000-per-year cost is sufficiently small that the 50-year-old practice should continue. The proposal to stop fluoridation isn't quite dead, but it's dying.

Where, then, can the fluoridation-averse turn for acceptable drinking water in North Texas? Dallas and the couple dozen suburbs it supplies with treated drinking water are out. Ditto for Richardson, Plano, and the rest of the northern suburbs served by the North Texas Municipal Water District, as well as Fort Worth, Arlington, and other points west.

The answer is the Park Cities, which have never fluoridated their water and don't plan to.

"I've been here 27 years almost, and it has never come up during my tenure," says Rob McCormic, lab supervisor with the Park Cities Municipal Utilities District.

To understand this lack of fluoridation, you first have to understand that Highland Park and University Park teamed up decades ago specifically to avoid buying Dallas water. This was 1938, long before fluoridation was an issue, but both cities felt that they were being overcharged. There were also some fears -- idle ones, according to an opinion piece in The Dallas Morning News at the time -- that Dallas would use its control of the water supply as a means of forcing annexation.

Three decades later, this meant that the Park Cities was faced with making its own decision on fluoridation. This became the topic of heated debate in the late-1960s, several years after Dallas voters approved fluoridation. HP officials wanted to have a referendum, but UP dragged its feet until two staunch fluoride opponents were elected to the water district's obscure governing board. After that, the discussion was essentially over, judging by the lack of further newspaper coverage.

Every now and then, McCormic says, he gets a call from a concerned citizen or a dentist who vow to revive the discussion but never actually do. Maybe, perhaps, the lack of routine dental care just isn't much of a concern in the Park Cities.

Send your story tips to the author, Eric Nicholson.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
216 comments
FluorideFreeAKL-twit
FluorideFreeAKL-twit

The last sentence sums up the ignorance of the author quite well: 

"..perhaps the lack of routine dental care just isn't much of a concern in the Park Cities."

Water fluoridation does not form part of "routine dental care" 0.016ppm fluoride in saliva from ingesting a bioaccumulative protoplasmic poison is not cariostatic (CDC) Fluoride works topically (toothpaste) at a strength 62,500 times higher, not by ingestion. 

Clearly the park cities are not having a scourge of tooth decay, like kids in Fluoridated Toronto for example. 

sixandahalf
sixandahalf

...I just wonder what the local money trail looks like for this issue...who's making the money?...and how much?...and who did they pay to make that much?...

Skeptical
Skeptical

Most of the world knows better than to poison their population by adding a rat poison to their drinking water.  But Americans just have to prove how stupid they are.  Their IQ's have been lowered to the point that they argue to keep the rat poison in their water.

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

@Skeptical @6jwillie <--Calling you out, because I know neither of you are on here for any other reason than to spread fear-mongering and misinformation.

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

Just wondering, here. What is the LD50 of junk science, if one is exposed, say, to a dozen or so comments per blog? 

Studies show the average human brain is very porous, and toxic stuff gets poured into it constantly by various "experts" or folks who have made themselves "experts" on this and that. Sometimes even pundits who should have an active and efficient filter system absorb too much and are overwhelmed. 

That's why it is necessary to return every now and then to the real world. Let the brain air out, release its toxins. The alternative is a kind of zombie state in which victims stumble around muttering about fluoridation or UFOs or gluten or how many angels can dance on a grassy knoll.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@sixandahalf 

Another thing these dentists fail to tell patients is that chronic overexposure to fluoride can cause tooth loss.
See PubMed:

"[Fluorine as a factor in premature aging]. "
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16892576

"Dental fluorosis during tooth growth and loss of dentition (tooth loss) in adulthood are two consequences of chronic intoxication with fluorine compounds."

And the CDC reports 41% of 12-15 year old teenagers now have "dental fluorosis". This statistic included teenagers in both non-fluoridated areas as well as fluoridated areas. But they keep pushing for more and more water fluoridation. What gives? I guess dental implants are pretty lucrative.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@linda.and.rosa  I don't know about Nazi Germany but have you heard of George Racey Jordan, Major USAF (ret)?  During the war (WWII) he learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cowlike and more resigned to their slavery.

He claimed fluoridationists even used the big lie technique, that, a FLUORIDE ION, is a FLUORIDE ION, whether it is in combination with calcium or sodium, it would make no difference to humans. He claimed they (fluoridationsts) are completely lost if they cannot hold the line on this one point.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/health/flouride.html

Skeptical
Skeptical

@DonkeyHotay @CogitoErgoSum 

I enjoy buying organic fruits and vegetables to avoid pesticides and then coming home only to rinse and cook them in tap water tainted with rat poison.  It's the only logical thing to do.  Who really cares?  We're all gonna die anyway, right?  Who cares if it harms the vulnerable?  I need my rat poison on tap!!! 

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

Dear Skeptical,

We know the "Nazi fluoride" myth was extended to other populations.  It's not very plausible – sort of like saying "the population was pacified with calcium" or some other nutrient.

Chemically speaking, a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion.

Just as H20 acts differently from H2O2 --  we don't speak of them as their elements acting differently, but how they act as compounds. Fluoride, because it is a very common earth mineral, is found in numerous compounds.


The thing to remember is that fluoridation is just adding a few more *fluoride ions* to those already found in ground water.  These ions, via the saliva,  are attracted to the surface of teeth and make them more resistant to decay.  Pretty nifty.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul  You know as well as I do that less than 50% of fluoride is excreted in adults.  And up to 80%-90% of fluoride is retained by infants and children.  Are you trying to prove that fluoride has lowered your IQ, or what?

Just because fluoride increases in the urine from brushing your teeth with toothpaste doesn't mean 100% of it is excreted.  What gave you that idea anyway?  Your dentist?

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@Skeptical @DonkeyHotay 

"...  According to the Physician's Desk Reference, the mucosal lining inside the mouth has an absorption efficiency of over ninety percent...."

So women can get pregnant if they swallow?

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@Skeptical @DonkeyHotay @CogitoErgoSum 

Well, if the Fl is in your urine, that means it is being excreted and not accumulated in your body.

Please sharpen your critical thinking skills.  Right now, a brand new unsharpened pencil right out of the box is sharper than your cognitive skills.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@linda.and.rosa 

That is why naturally occurring fluoride is "calcium fluoride" and not man-made hexafluorosilicic acid, or hydrofluorosilicic acid, or silicofluorides.  Fluoride is naturally attracted to calcium in water, teeth, bones, calcified arteries, etc.  Calcium is a fluoride antagonist in the body and is used as an antidote for fluoride poisoning.  The LD50 of "calcium fluoride" is 4250 mg/kg.  But the LD50 for "hexafluorosilicic acid" used in water fluoridation is 70 mg/kg.  Do you see a difference?  The LD50 is what it takes to kill 50% of the population.  When you remove calcium from naturally occurring "calcium fluoride", you are left with a biocide/pesticide/rodenticide.  A general protoplasmic poison.  Calcium fluoride cannot be used as a pesticide or rodenticide due to the calcium content.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@half 

Why do you want to add any fluoridation product to tap water when you can get the SYSTEMIC effect you seek by simply brushing your teeth with a fluoridated toothpaste or simply gargling with a fluoridated mouthwash? 

half
half

@Skeptical @half @linda.and.rosa As far as "pharmaceutical grade fluoride", those such as you who seem to think the use of this fluoride is somehow superior to the use of HFA, would be putting the entire population at greater risk, if decision makers were foolish enough to listen to you.

"Some have suggested that pharmaceutical grade fluoride additives should be used for water fluoridation. Pharmaceutical grading standards used in formulating prescription drugs are not appropriate for water fluoridation additives. If applied, those standards could actually increase the amount of impurities as allowed by AWWA and NSF/ANSI in drinking water.

The U.S. Pharmacopeia-National Formulary (USP-NF) presents monographs on tests and acceptance criteria for substances and ingredients by manufacturers for pharmaceuticals. The USP 29 NF–24 monograph on sodium fluoride provides no independent monitoring or quality assurance testing. That leaves the manufacturer with the responsibility of quality assurance and reporting. Some potential impurities have no restrictions by the USP including arsenic, some heavy metals regulated by the U.S. EPA, and radionuclides.

The USP does not provide specific protection levels for individual contaminants, but tries to establish a relative maximum exposure level of a group of related contaminants. The USP does not include acceptance criteria for fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate.
While 6-year-old children who had not ingested fluoridated water showed higher dft in the
WF-ceased area than in the non-WF area, 11-year-oldchildren in the WF-ceased area who had ingested
fluoridated water for approximately 4 years after birth showed significantly lower DMFT than those in the
non-WF area. This suggests that the systemic effectof fluoride intake through water fluoridation could be
important for the prevention of dental caries.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@half @linda.and.rosa 

Yes, they use phosphorite rock to make fertilizer.  When they clean the smoke stacks after making said fertilizer, it is loaded into trucks and dispensed into the drinking water through various water districts.  It's called hexafluorosilicic acid, or hydrofluorosilicic acid, or silicofluorides.  Take your pick.  There is nothing pharmaceutical grade about it.  It comes with other contaminates free of charge.  One of the contaminates is arsenic.  Furthermore some of these fluoridation chemicals come from China.

So my question is, given that fluoride is absorbed systemically through the tissues of the mouth when brushing your teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, why is it necessary to then add it to tap water?  And who did the lab work proving I was even deficient in this substance?

half
half

@Skeptical @linda.and.rosa The substance most commonly used to fluoridate water systems is Hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). HFA is extracted from naturally occurring phosphorite rock. It is a co-product of the process which extracts the other co-product, phosphoric acid. The phosphoric acid co-product is utilized in the soft drinks we consume, and in fertilizers which become incorporated into the foods we eat. The HFA co-product is carefully diluted to a 23% solution and utilized to raise the level of already existing fluoride ions in water by a few parts per million, up to the optimal level of 0.7 parts per million, in those water systems which are not already at that level naturally.

half
half

@Skeptical @DonkeyHotay @CogitoErgoSum 

have just quioted from (and others providing evidence for the systemic role of fluoride? For example

Newbrun, E. (2004). Systemic Benefits of Fluoride and Fluoridation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 64(s1), 35–39.,
Singh, K. A., & Spencer, A. J. (2004). Relative effects of pre- and post-eruption water fluoride on caries experience by surface type of permanent first molars. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 32(6), 435–46.

Singh, K. A., Spencer, A. J., & Brennan, D. S. (2007). Effects of water fluoride exposure at crown completion and maturation on caries of permanent first molars. Caries Research, 41(1), 34–42.

The DMFT ratio for the 11 year old children, who had received fluoridated water in the first 4 years during tooth development, is much lower than 1 (the result expect of fluoridated water had no effect). The difference is statsically significant for 11 year olds, but not the 8 year olds. The data shows a clear beneficial effect of fluoride ingested during tooth development.

*Cho, H.-J., Jin, B.-H., Park, D.-Y., Jung, S.-H., Lee, H.-S., Paik, D.-I., & Bae, K.-H. (2014). Systemic effect of water fluoridation on dental caries prevalence. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology


Skeptical
Skeptical

@linda.and.rosa

The fluoride used for water fluoridation IS RAT POISON!!  It's always been rat poison.  A biocide/pesticide/rodenticide.  Do you think forcing people to consume and bathe in a bio accumulative rat poison throughout their entire lives won't cause ill effects in the vulnerable?  In infants?  In the elderly?  In kidney patients?  Even Harold Hodge new it was rat poison.

"Appointed initially in biochemistry, Hodge pursued dental research including the toxicity of fluoride, as there was a huge stigma against using fluoride for the public health. (It was, after all, a RAT POISON.) "

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/2/157.full

All it takes is a little common sense to see that a bio accumulative rat poison could cause harm to infants, children, the elderly, kidney patients, and others who are vulnerable.  But I do realize common sense doesn't grow in everyone's garden.

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

Dear Skeptical:  You might want to think back to your days in physiology class when you no doubt learned about the mineral nutrient fluoride and how this particular ion has a strong attraction to bone and tooth tissue.  

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

Dear Skeptical:  If you have "rat poison" in your water, you have a problem with your water treatment plant, not with fluoridation.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@DonkeyHotay According to the Physician's Desk Reference, the mucosal lining inside the mouth has an absorption efficiency of over ninety percent. Because of this, fluoride and other contaminants can get into your blood, your brain, and your cells in no time at all.

The most significant flaw in fluoride research is the failure to account for the inhalation, mucosal, and dermal exposure to fluoride compounds.  It invalidates all dosage conclusion based solely on ingestion.  How do you think sublingual Vitamin B-12 and nitroglycerin tablets work?

Skeptical
Skeptical

@DonkeyHotay @CogitoErgoSum 

If you use fluoridated toothpaste, there is no need to fluoridate the tap water.  Fluoride gets absorbed systemically through your mouth without swallowing it.  Studies prove this by checking the amount of fluoride in the urine two hours later.  Check it for yourself.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Skeptical @DonkeyHotay @CogitoErgoSum


What makes you think your "organic" food doesn't have or use pesticides?


Perhaps you prefer ingesting the "pests" Yersinia pestis or E. Coli  ... instead of the trace amounts of the pesticides engineered to kill them?


And once again, tell us who is forcing you to use or drink tap water?



Skeptical
Skeptical

@half 

Prove anyone needs fluoride with lab work.  Where's the science proving anyone needs MORE fluoride?  Simply counting cavities is pseudoscience.

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

The below 2012 study is particularly telling.  It found that individuals in India who are exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride show no difference in thyroid function tests versus control study subjects not exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22509122



Skeptical
Skeptical

@half

No.  Not when it has been PROVEN already that fluoride reduces the function of the thyroid gland.

half
half

@Skeptical @half AHHH the british thyroid assn in 2014 probably has a lot more cred than some research done 60 years ago,by some non quoted source

Skeptical
Skeptical

@half

It was proven back in 1937 and in the 1950's fluoride slows down the thyroid.  Your source isn't very credible.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@linda.and.rosa

 Up through the 1950s, doctors in Europe and South America prescribed fluoride to reduce thyroid function in patients with over-active thyroids (hyperthyroidism). (Merck Index 1968). Doctors selected fluoride as a thyroid suppressant based on findings linking fluoride to goitre, and, as predicted, fluoride therapy did reduce thyroid activity in the treated patients. (McClaren 1969; Galletti 1958; May 1937). Moreover, according to clinical research, the fluoride dose capable of reducing thyroid function was notably low -- just 2 to 5 mg per day over several months. (Galletti & Joyet 1958).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlaX7yn9jGk

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

We want a systemic effect from fluoride which can help very young children have optimally healthy tooth development.  Systemic fluoride, via the saliva, can continually remineralize the thin outer surface of teeth and help them to resist decay. This is the unique action of fluoridation – one  that can't be reproduced with toothpaste, etc.


The British Thyroid Association:  "The available medical and scientific evidence suggests an absence of an association between water fluoridation and thyroid disorders."



davidg17
davidg17

Did that study correct for family income?

Skeptical
Skeptical

@linda.and.rosa Fluoride induces subclinical and clinical hypothyroidism in people who don't get sufficient iodine.  And most people are deprived of iodine because fast foods have MSG instead of iodized salt.  Fluoride used to be used to treat hyperthyroidism.  It worked but they later discovered it could destroy the thyroid gland and cause hypothyroidism. Fluoride is a halogen just like iodine.  Fluoride can interfere with the absorption of iodine even when you are getting enough.  There are iodine receptors in the body and the thyroid gland for iodine.  But there are no receptors in the body for fluoride.  Now subclinical hypothyroidism can delay the eruption of children's teeth which would delay the onset of cavities.  And this is most likely the supposed "benefit" people think they are seeing.  Teeth that haven't yet erupted don't get cavities.  It's nothing more than illusion and isn't statistically significant.  Furthermore you don't have to drink it to consume it.  It's absorbed into your body when brushing your teeth just like sublingual Vitamin B-12 or a nitroglycerin tablet used in heart patients.  If its absorbed into the body that means its systemic.  So why do you also want it in the tap water?  You can get fluoride toothpaste at the dollar store for a dollar and without potentially harming the vulnerable in our population with water fluoridation.

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

Dear Skeptical:  

The studies you cite show "complicated" results, not necessarily a lessening of fluoride effectiveness:  e.g.


"Multiple sources of fluoride besides water fluoridation have made it more difficult to detect changes in the epidemiological profile of a population..."

linda.and.rosa
linda.and.rosa

Dear Skeptical:  When did fluoridation stop?  What communities are you talking about?

There are certain benefits of fluoridation, when exposed to it as a very young child, that can last a lifetime.

Also, people today can be eating/drinking imported products made with fluoridated water. 

There is also the grandmother effect.  A child lives in an unfluoridated area, but spends a lot of time drinking grandma's fluoridated water/food. 

“Effects of Fluoridated Drinking Water on Dental Caries in Australian Adults,” G.D. Slade, et al, Journal of Dental Research, March 1, 2013.  http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/01/0022034513481190

This study in Australia looked a data from nearly 3,800 adults and found that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 21% to 30%.  ***The decay prevention was higher for those who were exposed to fluoridated water for the most years.***


When it has been possible to compared similar communities, with one fluoridating and the other not, fluoridation has been found to reduce cavities 20-40%. 

Skeptical
Skeptical

@linda.and.rosa In Cuba, mouth rinses may have worked better than water fluoridation.  On PubMed.gov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780
"Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation La Salud, Cuba"

"In the past, caries has usually increased after cessation of water fluoridation. More recently an opposite trend could be observed: following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, in contrast to an expected rise in caries prevalence, DMFT and DMFS values remained at a low level for 6-9-year-olds and to decrease for 10/11-year-olds. In the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease."

Skeptical
Skeptical

@linda.and.rosa On PubMed.gov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9758426
"Caries frequency before and after discontinuation of water fluoridation in Kuopio, Finland"

"In spite of discontinued water fluoridation, no indication of an increasing trend of caries could be found in Kuopio. The mean numbers of fluoride varnish and sealant applications decreased sharply in both towns between 1992 and 1995. In spite of that caries declined."

Skeptical
Skeptical

@linda.and.rosa On PubMed.gov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9161076
"New evidence on fluoridation"

"A review of recent scientific literature reveals a consistent pattern of evidence-- hip fractures, skeletal fluorosis, the effect of fluoride on bone structure, fluoride levels in bones and osteosarcomas-- pointing to the existence of causal mechanisms by which fluoride damages bones. In addition, there is evidence, accepted by some eminent dental researchers...that there is negligible benefit from ingesting fluoride..."

Skeptical
Skeptical

@linda.and.rosa Here another case that was in East Germany.  On PubMed.gov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014515
"Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany"

"In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed. This corresponded to the national caries decline and appears to be a new population-wide phenomenon. There is still no explanation for the pattern."

Skeptical
Skeptical

@linda.and.rosa Why didn't dental caries increase when fluoridation ended here in Canada? 

 On PubMed.gov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153562
"Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation" [Canada]

"The prevalence of caries (assessed in 5,927 children, grades 2, 3, 8, 9) decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community."

Dental caries decreased when fluoridation was ended.

choderus
choderus

Especially comment boards.

Skeptical
Skeptical

@half 

Once again, that is simply your personal "opinion".  It's not mine.

half
half

@Skeptical @half well if you quote someone with a shady past in the scientific world ,they lose all credibility and are fair game

Skeptical
Skeptical

@half 

If I want to quote "real people"?  And exactly what is THAT supposed to mean?  Some people aren't "real"?

PLEASE.  I can decide on my own what I consider a valid source.  I wasn't born yesterday.

half
half

@Skeptical @half agreed but if you want to quote real people as valid source I would make sure there is no skeletons in the cupboard first

half
half

@Skeptical @half Hang on, you quoted these people, If they are suspect, then why quote them. not me I  just quote real peer reviewed papers from reliable sources And nothing I have said is not available online

Skeptical
Skeptical

@half 

Are you making stuff up as you go along?  Maybe you should just use character assassination to make your argument for water fluoridation?  That should work.

half
half

@Skeptical @CogitoErgoSum

Dr. Harriet Hall writes:

Flu vaccines containing MF59, a squalene-based adjuvant, have been used in Europe for 10 years, with 22,000,000 doses given; and no serious adverse events have occurred, only mild local reactions. The vaccine does not raise the incidence or titers of anti-squalene antibodies. The World Health Organization (WHO) considers it safe.*

Blaylock claims that squalene "in vaccines has been strongly linked to the Gulf War Syndrome," despite the fact that there was no squalene in vaccines given to Gulf War soldiers.

Blaylock also believes there is a conspiracy by Big Pharma, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. government to trick people into getting vaccinated:

It is obvious that the vaccine manufacturers stand to make billions of dollars in profits from this WHO/government-promoted pandemic.

half
half

@Skeptical @CogitoErgoSum

.Connett makes clear his judgement skills by identifying Yiamouyiannis as a hero of the anti-fluoridation movement. See attached image with excerpt from the 1995 Readings in American Health Care: Current Issues in Socio-historical Perspective. "...Yiamouyiannis announced from Ohio that fluoride caused AIDS--a diagnosis echoed by Dr. John Lee. a Marin County, California, physician active in the West Coast antifluoridation movement."

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

@Skeptical @CogitoErgoSum I see what you're doing. You are simply flooding the comments here with unsubstantiated junk science. Most will see through your tactics for what they are. It's funny that all of your YouTube video posts are more than 20 years old-ish. Wonder why that is? Perhaps because the science in favor of fluoridation is overwhelming. Please put your tinfoil hat away.

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

@Skeptical @CogitoErgoSum At what concentration, because that is the crux of the matter? Anything can be poison at high concentrations.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...