It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Where is the demand for fluoride "ENHANCED" water coming from?

page: 6
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
From the Poison Control Center website (reproduced here in total, because I'm disgusted by the attitude of some here that adding MORE fluoride to EVERYONE'S water supply is sanctioned by ANYONE.) If you like fluoride in your water because you're too effing lazy to brush your teeth, buy some and have at it. But don't put it in MY water, so that I have to SPEND EXTRA TAKING IT OUT.

GODDAMIT!!


The Food & Drug Administration now requires that all fluoride toothpastes sold in the United States bear the following poison warning:

“WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”

The FDA warning is necessary because relatively small doses of fluoride can induce symptoms of acute fluoride toxicity (i.e., poisoning). Early symptoms of fluoride poisoning include gastrointestinal pain, nausea, vomiting, and headaches. The minimum dose that can produce these symptoms is estimated to be 0.1 to 0.3 mg/kg of fluoride (i.e., 0.1 to 0.3 milligrams of fluoride for every kilogram of bodyweight). A child weighing 10 kilograms, therefore, can suffer symptoms of acute toxicity by ingesting just 1 to 3 milligrams of fluoride in a single sitting.

As demonstrated in the table, 1 to 3 mgs of fluoride is found in just 1 to 3 grams of toothpaste (less than 3% of the tube) — including toothpaste that is marketed specifically to children with bubble-gum and fruit flavors.


fluoridealert.org...


IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
edit on Sun Nov 16 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: added source, ex TAGS, trimmed huge quote




posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: elfie
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

We don't have added fluoride in our town's water supply. I think that the amount of fluoride found in toothpaste is sufficient.







Speaking of radioactivity, when one of the wells for the water supply was found to have excessive levels of a radioactive element (through regular testing) it was shut down immediately. The naturally occurring fluoride, though, is well below acceptable levels. If a well was to exceed acceptable levels of fluoride, I'm sure they would shut it down too.


Naturally occuring fluoride is 1000x less toxic than sodium fluoride.


I agree with you on the sodium fluoride, actually.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The problem is that we aren't quantifying your "substances." I avoid those products myself, but apple juice isn't just apple juice. It could be organic, non-organic, GMO, non-GMO, or a small percentage apple juice with added sugar. It's a very generalized argument you're making.

The point isn't what's worse, some unnamed chemical or fluoride, the argument is, should we be consuming fluoride, period? Comparing it to other things that may or may not be in your food is at best a slippery slope fallacy.


Please. You are purposely being obtuse to further your claims, which in and of themselves aren't very strong.


originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
sodium flouride is bad for you....anything that is a waste product from chemical fertilizers simply cannot be good...


Your logic isn't sound, even if you come to the correct conclusion, and I am not saying you have come to the correct conclusion.



originally posted by: Neocrusader
Erm ....you are aware tap water is fluoridated as is many bottled waters


So the crux of the argument rears its head. Like I said, you aren't forced to drink it. I can go to the supermarket and buy distilled water without fortification. I can buy a still and make my own. What you folks seem to want is for super low cost public water to be made available in locations that have decided that they aren't interested in providing that service as a community.

Either you folks want to live in a democracy, or you don't. That's the bottom line here. The rest of us are -just fine- with drinking fluoride, regardless of whether or not it is poison. As a society, we have decided that we like it and find value in it. You are welcome not to consume what society has decided to afford you, and you are also welcome to try to change it. What you are not welcome to do is demand it be changed and then to cry because you feel you are being forced to take part in a system that literally NO ONE is forcing you to take part in.

Don't like it? Don't turn on your water, change it by vote, or move. Those are your options.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: signalfire


Relax, my friend. Just a friendly exchange of information going on here, nothing to get upset over. This whole fluoride thing isn't new. Most people have already made up their minds. You won't be able to convince some people that fluoride is unsafe, just as they won't convince you that it is.

As for me, I'll stick to my distilled water, even though some other thread here on ATS said it wasn't healthy. That thread had good reasons and information I wasn't aware of, but given the choice between distilled and fluoridated ...



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
If you can show me where we voted for blanket fluoridation then I'll shut up
I also pay water rates , so your suggesting that I incite greater expense for a product I'm already paying for ?
I'm sorry but you've already displayed your ignorance of the subject
Imagine argueing about the choice of fluoride when you don't know your tap waters medicated with it
Now come on
a reply to: AgentShillington



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Neocrusader
If you can show me where we voted for blanket fluoridation then I'll shut up
I also pay water rates , so your suggesting that I incite greater expense for a product I'm already paying for ?
I'm sorry but you've already displayed your ignorance of the subject
Imagine argueing about the choice of fluoride when you don't know your tap waters medicated with it
Now come on
a reply to: AgentShillington





what the old saying "never argue with an idiot,they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: signalfire

From the Poison Control Center website (reproduced here in total, because I'm disgusted by the attitude of some here that adding MORE fluoride to EVERYONE'S water supply is sanctioned by ANYONE.)

Why did you lie? Here is your source in total:
fluoridealert.org...



There is no "Poison Control Center website", they are local services. Here's what a sampling of them have to say:

Philadelphia:

Fluoride helps prevent tooth decay, strengthens tooth enamel, and reduces the harmful effects of plaque.


Medicines are involved in more than 40 percent of poisonings among children and adults. Keep these items out of children's reach:

Medications
Aftershave lotions
Mouthwashes
Cleaning supplies
Deodorizers/sanitizers
Shampoo/hair products

www.chop.edu...
 


Well, actually it's pretty hard to find anything on any Poison Control Center websites about eating toothpaste, but I did find this:

What should I do if my child eats toothpaste with fluoride from the toothpaste tube?

Give your local poison center a call at 1-800-222-1222.
Based on the amount possibly ingested and the development of any symptoms, the center will give you advice on whether you can safely stay home or go to the ER with your child.
If you can be watched at home, they will most likely recommend that you give your child some milk.

kidemergencies.com...

More:
www.babycenter.com...





edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I'll skip the fluoridated water. I have done much research on it over the years and have come to the conclusion it is not good for us to consume it on a regular basis. I'll get my fluoride from coffee or tea or parsley.

If you discount all the research that is against fluoridation because it is being used by anti-fluoride people, then all you have left is research from people who are either profiting from it or are pushing it as healthy. I am not going to fall for that. A lot of real research discrediting fluoride in the water supply is out there, much stemming mostly from lots of other countries that have a lot of good scientists in them.

I am not limited to believing pro-fluoride people just because they have some evidence that is just a comparison between communities. Diet and habits vary widely between people and even the natural source of minerals in the water varies. Harder water is better for teeth than soft water high in sodium. Water supplies minerals vary greatly from community to community, even well to well that are a few miles apart.

Those comparison studies are usually tossed out by science if the variables aren't considered.

If someone wants fluoridated water, they can add it themselves. Almost all natural water has fluoride in it to some extent and it is better to brush your teeth with fluoridated tooth paste than consume water on a regular basis containing extra fluoride. Fluoride can cause brittle bones in old people, what good is having good tooth enamel if you keep breaking your bones. Disregard any evidence that contradicts your desire, don't old people have rights too?



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: elfie

I agree with you on the sodium fluoride, actually.
Why? Here is the MSDS for "natural" calcium fluoride:

Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans:
May affect genetic material (mutagenic). May cause adverse reproductive effects and birth defects (teratogenic) based on animal test data.

Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans:
Acute Potential Health Effects: Skin: May cause skin irritation. Eyes: May cause eye irritation. Inhalation: Causes respiratory tract irritation. Ingestion: May cause gastrointestinal irritaiton with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, salivation, thirst, abdominal pain, fever, labored breathing (respiratory depression, apnea, dyspnea). Exposure to fluorides may also cause disturbed color vision, hypocalcemia, hyperkalemia, and hypomagnesemia, and may result in systemic toxic effects on the heart/cardiovascular system (hypotension, tachycardia, arrhythmia, weak pulse, cardiovascular collapse), liver (hepatic enzymes increased), and kidneys (abnormal renal function, renal damage). It may also affect behavior/Central Nervous System (CNS depression - headache, dizziness, weakness, somnolence, ataxia, loss of conciousness). Other neurological symptoms of acute fluoride ingestion may include muscle weakness, difficulty speaking, fitfulness(hyperreflexia), tetany, numbness or tingling of the extremities. Chronic Potential Health Effects: Skin: Prolonged or repeated skin contact may cause dermititis. Inhalation: Prolonged or repeated inhalation may cause bronchitis, asmtha, silicosis, increase in respiratory infections, pulmonary lesions. Ingestion: Prolonged or repeated ingestion cause diseases of the blood, teeth, bones and other organs (osteosclerosis, fluorosis). (Fluorisis is characterized by vomiting, diarrhea or constipation, weakness joint stiffness, loss of appetite, anemia).
And let's not forget this part:

Severe over-exposure can produce lung damage, choking, unconsciousness or death.

www.sciencelab.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Here's a tid bit
Baby formula can contain 3000% more fluoride than mothers milk
Do you believe in 50 years we've perfected baby formula to the point that we believe that millennia of evolution and mother nature got it 3000% wrong?
a reply to: Phage



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Neocrusader
I think breast feeding is best.

However I think a source for that 3000% claim would be in order.


edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Fun fact: most bottled water has fluoride added anyway, and always has.

It's part of the "minerals added for flavor" or whatever the little disclaimer is. If it's not distilled or DI, and it's marketed as 'drinking water', in the US if it's sold across state lines it's going to have been fortified with fluoride.

Send off a sample from your favorite supposedly-non-fluoridated "drinking water" to an water analysis lab that can measure fluoride ions. You'll see.

If it really bothers you, get a RO filter.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
My math may have been a little off meh that's memory for you but here
Do the math
fluoridealert.org...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
a reply to: Phage

Admittedly not the best of sources but best I could pull up at short notice
Do me a favour
Watch the vid previously posted and debunk him ....Please
edit on 16-11-2014 by Neocrusader because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Actually not "all" bottled water contains flouride:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: XL5
I think this is about the costs of removing the fluoride, not that people want it in there. Its probably tap water that was put through a cheap filter.


Flouride in drinking water is added, it is the toxic waste from chemical fertilizer.

It cannot be removed from drinking water without a relatively high end water filtration system, and to my knowlege, it cannot be entirely removed.

My dentist, who I trust, seems to think it helps but thinks good hygiene is a better method of preventing caries.

It's an issue of profit and one of mass medicating the population without consent.

the meta-analysis phage quotes is only about it's use in adults, he leaves out the studies following children which show 40-50% of Children show flourosis which is caused by 'over-exposure' to flouride. (iadr.confex.com...)

Here is an interesting (unsourced) anecdote from an article titled "Flouride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb that I'd not heard before and will track down futher:

www.holisticmed.com...




Much of the original proof that fluoride is "safe" for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents reveal.

Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water - conducted in Newburgh, New York from 1945 to 1956. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F," they secretly gathered and analysed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of State Health Department personnel.

The original "secret" version - obtained by these reporters - of a 1948 study published by Program F scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of the adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) - considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies - for reasons of national security.


I go hunt for source docs now.

I think people should be able to choose/decide what they put in their bodies. Informed consent requires knowing, understanding and weighting the possible benefits versus the harm done.

I will close with another quote from the article:




"Information was buried," concludes Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990's indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin, and might adversely affect human brain functioning, even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995, in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.

During her investigation, Mullenix was astonished to discover there had been virtually no previous U.S. studies of fluoride's effects on the human brain. Then, her application for a grant to continue her CNS research was turned down by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), where an NIH panel, she says, flatly told her that "fluoride does not have central nervous system effects."

Declassified documents of the U.S. atomic-bomb program indicate otherwise. An April 29, 1944 Manhattan Project memo reports: "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect.... It seems most likely that the F [code for fluoride] component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor."



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I'm going to add this to my above post, as a sourced document. It is a lettler from Dr. Phyliss Mullenix (see above post) to BSA Environmental Services in response to a request from them regarding water fluridation specifically at certain military MEDCOM commands.

The letter is dense with information (cited):




My investigations of the neurotoxicity of fluoride started in 1987. Using a new computer pattern recognition system capable of a sensitivity and objectivity other behavioral measures did not possess, we studied an animal model first developed for the study of dental fluorosis. Frankly, we expected to find nothing. The results from the first experiment we thought must be wrong, so we kept repeating the study with more animals, different doses, sexes, ages and methods of administration. Like quicksand, every effort we made sank us further into the realization that brain function was impacted by fluoride. Scientific integrity dictated that we publish our results (2,3), but employed at a dental research institution made us weak in the knees to do so.


In our 1995 paper (2), we reported that brain function was vulnerable to fluoride, that the effects on behavior depended on the age at exposure and that fluoride accumulated in brain tissues. Rats exposed as adults displayed behavior-specific changes typical of cognitive deficits, whereas rats exposed prenatally had dispersed behaviors typical of hyperactivity. Brain histology was not examined, but the behavioral changes were consistent with those seen when hippocampal development is interrupted and memory problems emerge. Overall, we concluded that the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans.



She goes on to 'rebut' criticisms of their study:

...


These criticisms are without merit because our doses in rats produce a level of fluoride in the plasma equivalent to that found in humans drinking 5- 10 ppm fluoride in water, or humans receiving some treatments for osteoporosis. This plasma level is exceeded ten times over one hour after children receive topical applications of some dental fluoride gels.
...




Soon after our study was published, we learned of two epidemiology studies from China showing IQ deficits in children over-exposed to fluoride via drinking water or soot from burning coal (4,5). Next, we found a literature review that assembled case reports spanning 60 years on neurological effects in humans exposed to fluoride (6). A common theme in these reports was that fluoride exposure impaired memory and concentration and that it caused lethargy, headache, depression and confusion. The depression is not something to ignore because suicide occurs more frequently than expected in populations of fluoride workers (7).


All referenced... at the bottom of the letter.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd
Here's that 1995 paper:

Weanlings received drinking water containing 0, 75, 100, or 125 ppm F for 6 or 20 weeks, and 3 month-old adults received water containing 100 ppm F for 6 weeks.

Holy crap. That's a lot of flouride! Especially when you're talking about a mousey.

Oh, her "rebuttal":

These criticisms are without merit because our doses in rats produce a level of fluoride in the plasma equivalent to that found in humans drinking 5- 10 ppm fluoride in water, or humans receiving some treatments for osteoporosis.
Holy crap. That's a lot of fluoride! You might find that level in a private well but not in a public water system.







edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
great so not only is sodium fluoride a nightmare it is being imported from china...and this begs the question what else is in that poison mix



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join