Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
Thanks Tree19Thanks

Thread: It's in the Water...

  1. #21
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,207
    Thanks
    12422

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    You are just now learning this?

    We've known about it for years.
    Prove it, or you're a liar!^

    (And okay... now I'm not so sure... )

    Thx

  2. #22
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,805
    Thanks
    2292

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    The reality is that fluoride is one of the many minerals that you do need.

    The ideal in terms of absorption is calcium fluoride. That's what your body uses.

    Sodium fluoride is what most dentists use in rinses and is typically what people talking about fluoride are discussing.

    Now, in terms of adding fluoride to water, there are pros and cons... The biggest con that you can't control dosage.

    What does overdose of fluoride cause? You wouldn't believe it if I just listed it...

    Anyway, that was assuming that water fluoridation was done using fluoride. What gets used is hydrofluorocilisic acid, that is essentially toxic waste that partially gets converted to fluoride in your body... I mean, why pay to deal with toxic waste when cities will buy it and add it to the water.
    Thanks from Thx1138 and Hollywood

  3. #23
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,207
    Thanks
    12422

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Thx1138 View Post
    Yes, in review I probably should have made my position more clear, or just the starter more clear...

    I mean, for all anyone knew, this was a test to see if people will "poo-poo" something without even watching it...

    But I am serious here, there is not enough reason, "health benefits" to warrant something like this, one person described as "mandated medicating."

    And here are a few reasons why...

    1) Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (FDA 2000). As a matter of basic logic, adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay (a non-waterborne disease) is a form of medical treatment. All other water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water’s quality or safety, which fluoride does not do.

    2) Fluoridation is unethical. Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation. With water fluoridation we are allowing governments to do to whole communities (forcing people to take a medicine irrespective of their consent) what individual doctors cannot do to individual patients.


    Put another way: Does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it is against that neighbor’s will)?

    3) The dose cannot be controlled. Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives because people drink different amounts of water. Being able to control the dose a patient receives is critical. Some people (e.g., manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink substantially more water than others.

    4) The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability. According to Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology and one of the scientists who helped keep fluoridation out of Sweden:

    5) People now receive fluoride from many other sources besides water. Fluoridated water is not the only way people are exposed to fluoride. Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with fluoridated water (Kiritsy 1996; Heilman 1999), fluoridated dental products (Bentley 1999; Levy 1999), mechanically deboned meat (Fein 2001), tea (Levy 1999), and pesticide residues (e.g., from cryolite) on food (Stannard 1991; Burgstahler 1997). It is now widely acknowledged that exposure to non-water sources of fluoride has significantly increased since the water fluoridation program first began (NRC 2006).

    6) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease, not even tooth decay, is caused by a “fluoride deficiency.”(NRC 1993; Institute of Medicine 1997, NRC 2006). Not a single biological process has been shown to require fluoride. On the contrary there is extensive evidence that fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes. Fluoride interferes with numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978). In combination with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with signals from growth factors, hormones and neurotransmitters (Strunecka & Patocka 1999; Li 2003). More and more studies indicate that fluoride can interfere with biochemistry in fundamental ways (Barbier 2010).

    7) The level in mothers’ milk is very low. Considering reason #6 it is perhaps not surprising that the level of fluoride in mother’s milk is remarkably low (0.004 ppm, NRC, 2006). This means that a bottle-fed baby consuming fluoridated water (0.6 – 1.2 ppm) can get up to 300 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby. There are no benefits (see reasons #11-19), only risks (see reasons #21-36), for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).

    8 ) Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60% of the fluoride ingested each day (Marier & Rose 1971). The remainder accumulates in the body, largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland (Luke 1997, 2001). Infants and children excrete less fluoride from their kidneys and take up to 80% of ingested fluoride into their bones (Ekstrand 1994). The fluoride concentration in bone steadily increases over a lifetime (NRC 2006).

    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.”

    Fluoride Action Network | 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation

    That's the first ten of 50 reasons.^

    Now these seem like credible HC professionals, it would be nice if someone here could refute this on a scientific level.

    I guess I'm past the point of just going along with something because it is established and because "everyone says so"... industry says so, and it is not like it is something that is not a part of our daily lives... we consume this substance, I can't think of any more close relationship than that.

    So, perhaps I didn't make it abundantly clear enough: serious inquiries welcome, I'll set another thread for making sport of the concept some other time...

    Thx
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    The reality is that fluoride is one of the many minerals that you do need.

    The ideal in terms of absorption is calcium fluoride. That's what your body uses.

    Sodium fluoride is what most dentists use in rinses and is typically what people talking about fluoride are discussing.

    Now, in terms of adding fluoride to water, there are pros and cons... The biggest con that you can't control dosage.

    What does overdose of fluoride cause? You wouldn't believe it if I just listed it...

    Anyway, that was assuming that water fluoridation was done using fluoride. What gets used is hydrofluorocilisic acid, that is essentially toxic waste that partially gets converted to fluoride in your body... I mean, why pay to deal with toxic waste when cities will buy it and add it to the water.
    Yes, thank you, much of which was covered in post #10.^

    Did you see the documentary in the OP?

    What they use is obtained from China... and a portion of it won't dissolve in the water...

    And did you see that vid of the giant sink hole on page #2?

    They talk about it in the vid.

    This is industrial waste from the fertilizer, aluminum and nuclear industries...



    One said that it would cost a million dollars a ton to process it responsibly...

    Thx
    Last edited by Thx1138; 21st October 2017 at 03:09 AM.
    Thanks from bmanmcfly

  4. #24
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    45,985
    Thanks
    13352

    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
    Naturally occuring fluoride is in all water at concentrations ranging from 100 to 12,000 ppb depending on the source. The concentration of fluoride in fluoridated drinking water is adjusted to approx 1000 ppb (1 ppm). It has been proven repeatedly to have significant beneficial effects when it comes to preventing tooth decay. Some communities that have swallowed the same bullshit you seem to be believing and removed it saw as much as a 200% increase in tooth decay among children and gone back to putting it in their water. It does not concentrate in your system and is excreted by your kidneys. In order to get a toxic dose at the prescribed levels in water you need to drink about 20 gallons a day over an extended period of time. In some places where the naturally occurring fluoride in water was as much as 20 times the concentration prescribed in water, had no adverse effects from the fluorides. There is no question that fluoridating drinking water supplies is safe and effective.
    Thanks from NightSwimmer

  5. #25
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    45,985
    Thanks
    13352

    Quote Originally Posted by Thx1138 View Post
    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
    Antigo, Wisconsin, discontinued water fluoridation in 1960. By 1965, 2nd grade children had 200% more tooth decay, and 4th graders had 70% more. Antigo reinstituted fluoridation. Studies in other communities show similar results.

    There have been countless studies. Especially in communities where the natural concentrations were way above what is put in the water, 20x more. In virtually every case they had way less cavities, so much so that some of these were remarkable. They never saw any toxic effects from the fluorides.

    Iodine is a similar compound yet more toxic and we put it in table salt. Many compounds are beneficial at low doses yet toxic at high. just because something is toxic does not mean that its best to not have any of it.

  6. #26
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    45,985
    Thanks
    13352

    Quote Originally Posted by Thx1138 View Post
    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
    Scientific literature does not support the claims that fluoride adversely affects the immune system, collagen, glucose metabolism, the integrity of genetic material, causes, attention deficit disorder, Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, cancer or AIDS, aggravates kidney disease or hypothyroidism.

    Fluoride has been extensively studied for many years and it is right that it is constantly being re-evaluated so we have current data and analyses. Consistently, researchers from numerous different disciplines (physiology, toxicology, medicine, dentistry, public health, nutrition) have lines of evidence and analysis that all come to the same conclusions—fluoride is safe, effective, and cost effective

  7. #27
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,805
    Thanks
    2292

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    Naturally occuring fluoride is in all water at concentrations ranging from 100 to 12,000 ppb depending on the source. The concentration of fluoride in fluoridated drinking water is adjusted to approx 1000 ppb (1 ppm). It has been proven repeatedly to have significant beneficial effects when it comes to preventing tooth decay. Some communities that have swallowed the same bullshit you seem to be believing and removed it saw as much as a 200% increase in tooth decay among children and gone back to putting it in their water. It does not concentrate in your system and is excreted by your kidneys. In order to get a toxic dose at the prescribed levels in water you need to drink about 20 gallons a day over an extended period of time. In some places where the naturally occurring fluoride in water was as much as 20 times the concentration prescribed in water, had no adverse effects from the fluorides. There is no question that fluoridating drinking water supplies is safe and effective.
    You're talking about sodium fluoride... They don't use that anymore.

    Here's the thing though, what is the DOSE that provides that effect? How do you ensure that people are getting that dose and not overdosing?

    Also, while it is safe in the sense that people aren't dying... There's something like a half dozen studies on the effects of fluoride performed by Harvard and other universities and they are not nearly as rosy as the sales pitch used in the 50's (you know, when you might be prescribed cigarettes for your sore throat), that you mostly repeat.

    Remember fluoride IS a needed mineral, your body does use it... If the water is not fluoridated, then it's on you to ensure that you are getting it.

    The places that removed it did not do so for arbitrary reasons, and required a lot of scientific data presented to convince the cities governments. One of the main nuances is that most places are no longer using sodium fluoride, but a byproduct that partly breaks down into fluoride.

  8. #28
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,805
    Thanks
    2292

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    Scientific literature does not support the claims that fluoride adversely affects the immune system, collagen, glucose metabolism, the integrity of genetic material, causes, attention deficit disorder, Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, cancer or AIDS, aggravates kidney disease or hypothyroidism.

    Fluoride has been extensively studied for many years and it is right that it is constantly being re-evaluated so we have current data and analyses. Consistently, researchers from numerous different disciplines (physiology, toxicology, medicine, dentistry, public health, nutrition) have lines of evidence and analysis that all come to the same conclusions—fluoride is safe, effective, and cost effective
    Pay attention to what the fluoride is attached to....
    Similar to with vitamins, what gets studied is the core vitamin, they don't look at the various way these chemicals are bound. While the differences may be minor, it's not necessarily so.
    Thanks from Thx1138

  9. #29
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    32,810
    Thanks
    30342

    From
    United States
    I thought that we had a forum here dedicated specifically to these kinds of topics?

  10. #30
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,805
    Thanks
    2292

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    I thought that we had a forum here dedicated specifically to these kinds of topics?
    Umm... What is the conspiracy theory that you are looking to install in the discussion?

    You do know that a chemical is not a conspiracy, right?

    Chemicals is part of chemistry. Chemistry is science

    Biological effects of chemicals is part of what science studies...

    The only conspiracy here is you and the voice in your head telling you this is a conspiracy taking place... Are the Russians taking over your country again? Relax, let the nurse do her job.
    Thanks from Thx1138

Page 3 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