Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
Thanks Tree19Thanks

Thread: It's in the Water...

  1. #11
    Above the FRAY Friday13's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    11,184
    Thanks
    13444

    From
    SoCal
    Thanks from Thx1138

  2. #12
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,207
    Thanks
    12422

    From
    aMEEErica
    "CBC: What is your position on fluoride in drinking water?"

    Dr. Dickson: "Putting a toxic chemical like fluoride in the water just to make a small difference and to be affecting so many body systems at the same time is not ethical and is not safe. Fluoridation does not work. It does not work ingested. It's like trying to ingest your sunscreen. Fluoride works topically.

    Even the Centers for Disease Control in the States has said that, they've admitted that. The American Dental Association has admitted that. Health Canada has admitted that. So fluoride does not work ingested, it works topically.

    So let's put it on our teeth. Let's put it on with brushing. Let's put it on at the dentist, if you choose. Let's not put it inside our bodies where it doesn't work and where it causes a lot of harm and a lot of toxicity. It works on the exterior of the teeth. So there's very very little if any effect coming from the inside out. It works topically on the teeth. That's why dentists do it in their offices. They put the fluoride on your teeth, you're very careful not to swallow any there, you spit it out. And then you brush with fluoride. You brush with fluoridated toothpaste and that goes topically as well."

    Yes, those are similar arguments made in the video.

    Why not have unfluoridated tap water and offer fluoridated water in the stores, I know it only works topically, but at least then individuals have a choice...

    https://hsionline.com/2015/01/08/how...-out-of-water/

    Thx
    Last edited by Thx1138; 18th October 2017 at 01:12 AM.
    Thanks from Hollywood

  3. #13
    Above the FRAY Friday13's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    11,184
    Thanks
    13444

    From
    SoCal
    That's the con...did you also read the pro in that CBC debate?
    Thanks from Thx1138

  4. #14
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,207
    Thanks
    12422

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Friday13 View Post
    That's the con...did you also read the pro in that CBC debate?
    Yes I did.

    Dr. Tomkins: "We know that community water fluoridation is safe and effective and it reaches all populations and it prevents tooth decay. So we are very, very much in favour of community water fluoridation. There's a tremendous body of scientific evidence that does show that water fluoridation — in the right amount — is safe and it is effective.

    We have the support of over 90 national and international organizations, such as the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control, Health Canada — they all agree that water fluoridation is safe and effective.

    We all benefit from water fluoridation, because the fluoride that is secreted in your saliva bathes your teeth daily and that helps reduce decay. It's an important adjunct to all of the other things you do to keep your teeth healthy and you do benefit from it at any age."

    __________________________________________________ ____

    I just have to wonder "how we know" when considering points #9 and #10 from my previous post...


    9) No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects. No regular measurements are being made of the levels of fluoride in urine, blood, bones, hair, or nails of either the general population or sensitive subparts of the population (e.g., individuals with kidney disease).

    10) There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. Despite the fact that fluoride has been added to community water supplies for over 60 years, “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation” (Cheng 2007). Randomized trials are the standard method for determining the safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment. In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”

    Thx

  5. #15
    Above the FRAY Friday13's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    11,184
    Thanks
    13444

    From
    SoCal
    No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects.
    Do you know this for a proven fact, or is it just a point in the anti-flouride campaign. Have you verified that these orgs do not "monitor fluoride exposure or side effects"?

  6. #16
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,207
    Thanks
    12422

    From
    aMEEErica
    Look at this...



    This was at a giant hazardous water holding reservoir used by a fertilizer manufacturer, they mention the water is "slightly radioactive," what they don't seem to mention in the piece is that this "pond" has very high in sodium fluoride so acidic that it ate through the limestone!

    Thx

  7. #17
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,207
    Thanks
    12422

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Friday13 View Post
    Do you know this for a proven fact, or is it just a point in the anti-flouride campaign. Have you verified that these orgs do not "monitor fluoride exposure or side effects"?
    I can't find an ongoing study, and the research that has been done often has "mixed results" as far as sodium fluoride and cancer, and they don't mention o0ther health risks...

    Here are some studies that cast doubt on the conclusions.

    In its review published in 1987, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, labeled fluorides as “non-classifiable as to their carcinogenicity [ability to cause cancer] in humans.” While they noted that the studies “have shown no consistent tendency for people living in areas with high concentrations of fluoride in the water to have higher cancer rates than those living in areas with low concentrations,” they also noted that the evidence was inadequate to draw conclusions one way or the other.

    "In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS) Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, published a systematic review of water fluoridation in the year 2000. After searching through the medical literature, they included 26 studies in their analysis, all of which were considered to be of “low” to “moderate” quality. They concluded, “Overall, no clear association between water fluoridation and incidence or mortality of bone cancers, thyroid cancer, or all cancers was found.” However, they also noted, “Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken.”

    "The National Research Council issued an update of its 1993 review in early 2006. While the review included some new data, the results of this report were essentially the same: “On the basis of the committee’s collective consideration of data from humans, genotoxicity assays, and studies of mechanisms of actions in cell systems, the evidence on the potential of fluoride to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, is tentative and mixed.”

    The general consensus among the reviews done to date is that there is no strong evidence of a link between water fluoridation and cancer. However, several of the reviews noted that further studies are needed to clarify the possible link.

    https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer...ncer-risk.html

    Thx

  8. #18
    Wrinkly Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    21,358
    Thanks
    19190

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    This one's only two minutes.

    Last edited by Dangermouse; 18th October 2017 at 02:18 AM.
    Thanks from Thx1138

  9. #19
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,207
    Thanks
    12422

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Thx1138 View Post
    Well, if you are not willing to watch the video, why hazard a guess?

    No, I don't believe it is...

    (And thanks for not making puns about how "absorbing" it was or "Dr. Strangelove" references!)

    But no Ian, I wish they had an abridged version...

    Still, a hazardous by-product from the aluminum industry added to so many households (banned in much of Europe) probably just isn't the kind of thing that can be covered in ten minutes...

    Thx
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangermouse View Post
    This one's only two minutes.

    I already beat you to it in post #4^

    You guys can be just that predictable at times...

    Thx
    Last edited by Thx1138; 18th October 2017 at 02:34 AM.

  10. #20
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,277
    Thanks
    10840

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Thx1138 View Post
    "CBC: What is your position on fluoride in drinking water?"

    Dr. Dickson: "Putting a toxic chemical like fluoride in the water just to make a small difference and to be affecting so many body systems at the same time is not ethical and is not safe. Fluoridation does not work. It does not work ingested. It's like trying to ingest your sunscreen. Fluoride works topically.

    Even the Centers for Disease Control in the States has said that, they've admitted that. The American Dental Association has admitted that. Health Canada has admitted that. So fluoride does not work ingested, it works topically.

    So let's put it on our teeth. Let's put it on with brushing. Let's put it on at the dentist, if you choose. Let's not put it inside our bodies where it doesn't work and where it causes a lot of harm and a lot of toxicity. It works on the exterior of the teeth. So there's very very little — if any — effect coming from the inside out. It works topically on the teeth. That's why dentists do it in their offices. They put the fluoride on your teeth, you're very careful not to swallow any there, you spit it out. And then you brush with fluoride. You brush with fluoridated toothpaste — and that goes topically as well."

    Yes, those are similar arguments made in the video.

    Why not have unfluoridated tap water and offer fluoridated water in the stores, I know it only works topically, but at least then individuals have a choice...

    https://hsionline.com/2015/01/08/how...-out-of-water/

    Thx
    You are just now learning this?

    We've known about it for years.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 23rd April 2016, 07:34 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 19th May 2015, 07:21 PM
  3. Is there something in the water in MI-11, or what?
    By bonncaruso in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 23rd August 2012, 08:04 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 29th November 2007, 08:27 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed