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.

 

Next Level BS #38: Water Fluoridation, The Facts, The Crazy, and the Reality

page: 8
60
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I recently visited the West Coast of Canada ... Whilst there I read up on Native American history and thinking
So as to glean an understanding of the history of the place

What I read was this ... Before the white man came ... the rivers and streams were clean and safe to drink from

How far we have fallen in my estimation
edit on 21-2-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo

edit on 21-2-2015 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012




Yes. As it hasn't been shown to cause any harm (at proper levels) and the fear and lies that the anti fluoride people throw out there have been shown to be based just on that, fear and lies. I for one, would welcome the extra protection for my teeth from that water.


According to the NLBS vid a new study does indicate effects on IQ in children exposed to fluoridated water, they even suggest it is probably better to stop adding it.

So you disagree with this?
edit on 21-2-2015 by JudgeThread because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Did you call Jesse Ventura a knucklehead?




As you'll see, we didn't take the easy road, and in fact, modified our conclusions mere hours before shooting the show. Enjoy.


And that 's the problem with the name and concept of this show.

It is presented like everything that is not your conclusion is BS. So what is the BS here? First you call all sorts of claims like "fluoride cause IQ loss" bogus. You were also willing to conclude that the benefits outweigh the negative aspects, in a financial sense(I think this logic is flawed anyway, as far as I know dental care is not payed from tax money), and then when a particular study comes to your attention you actually conclude that it is better to stop fluoridation, because it might cause IQ loss in children.

So was your first conclusion BS then? Are the "bogus" claims of IQ loss BS? Apparently not.


This is the first one I watched and I have to say that besides the problems I lined out, it wasn't something I couldn't stand to watch, so good job there I guess.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: JudgeThread
a reply to: superman2012




Yes. As it hasn't been shown to cause any harm (at proper levels) and the fear and lies that the anti fluoride people throw out there have been shown to be based just on that, fear and lies. I for one, would welcome the extra protection for my teeth from that water.


According to the NLBS vid a new study does indicate effects on IQ in children exposed to fluoridated water, they even suggest it is probably better to stop adding it.

So you disagree with this?

Of course I do.
What were the exposure limits in the studies? I know it says that the "lowest fluoride concentration in well-water was 1.0mg/L" but what was the highest? Was the study an average of them all or was it lowered IQ at the same level all around?? Was it raw water or treated in every case? If raw, it should be noted that water treatment frequently TAKES OUT high levels of fluoride to acceptable limits.
I wonder what they found different then the New Zealand study?
Do I think it is needed anymore? No. That doesn't stop me from seeing through the fear and lies and understanding why it is done, unlike most others.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
What I read was this ... Before the white man came ... the rivers and streams were clean and safe to drink from
How far we have fallen in my estimation.

It depends on the river or stream. Water sources have always been subject to various types of pollution, depending on how many people and animals are living nearby, or what kind of minerals and chemicals the water runs through, such as toxic selenium.

It's not that the white man is evil. It's just that we once again circle back to the fact that there are too many people on the planet, and that one of these days we're either going to have to take control of that, or we'll poison ourselves out of existence. Not that we're not all doomed, anyway, of course.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Darn it all, one person willing to argue their stance (opposite of mine) has left forever. That is the usual MO when science and facts are used though.

NLBS, have any answers for my questions relating to that study you paid for? Are you able to link to it, or share a little more without risk of getting sued?



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
looks like JudgeThread got taken out for not agreeing with the fluoride is good.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkipperJohn
looks like JudgeThread got taken out for not agreeing with the fluoride is good.

Probably not. It is usually behind the scenes shenanigans that get people banned or post banned. Take it from one who has been there. If people can't keep a cool head or threaten in U2U's what choice do they have? He/she can always appeal it or email the owners/admin and apologize.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

Hey bud, I've finally managed to log on and get caught up with this thread. I had an idiotic idea to run another Ragnar race, essentially three 10k's (+/- a few miles) in a 24 hour period with very little sleep.

The reason I came down with such a final conclusion was because of the follow-up study and the progression of chemistry and science in dentistry, including OTC products.

As stated Dr. Trendley Dean spent years trying to find the upper limits of safe water fluoridation. Children were used in the studies, like Grand Rapids Michigan, because of their fresh new teeth, untainted by fluoride.

Children under 6 should be monitored carefully for their fluoride intake. The study looked at 51 children, ages 6-8, Who's current water fluoridation intake was 1 ppm. The study noted the children with Dental Fluorosis and marked them accordingly using the Dean Index

What's interesting in the study was how they measured exposure. First through regular urine samples, the morning after consuming distilled water. Then performing a Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning (WRAML).

Children who had mild or severe fluorosis, were observed to have weakened auditory span and or working memory.... More testing needs to be done obviously but it's a very interesting start.

I think it's great that local communities get to decide if they want to partake in this program. Here in Arizona, the city of phoenix chooses to fluoridate the water to .7mg/l. Yet Scottsdale, right next door, doesn't add anything. It just maintains the current level of .2mg/l

in this thread I also saw, a mention towards water collecting. I believe the term is "Water Rights." In desert areas, Arizona, New Mexico, Neveda there some laws on the books that protect parties in water shortage situations.

Neveda Water Law 101



Nevada water law is based on two basic principles: prior appropriation and beneficial use. Prior appropriation – also known as “first in time, first in right” – allows for the orderly use of the state’s water resources by granting priority to senior water rights in times of shortage. This concept ensures senior water users are protected, even as new uses for water are allocated. A water right permit may only be granted for beneficial uses as provided in Chapters 533 and 534 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.


I remember collecting a Few water right stories and can't seem to find them. One specifically had to do with a car wash that was collecting rain water that was fined hard by the state. Not sure if Nevada or New Mexico.

I'll respond with more tomorrow. I'm going to get some sleep now.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

you know. i just had a good idea.. How about they take it out of the tap water and put it on the shelf and let people decide if they want it. No need to force it on the people.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS


One specifically had to do with a car wash that was collecting rain water that was fined hard by the state. Not sure if Nevada or New Mexico.




posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   
yall know flouride can be used as a pesticide



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

A running theme in the responses seems to be that people are being forced to drink fluoridated water. There is also a notion that it's a tax funded service that somehow grants people a right to water. Both of these are false. There are millions and millions of people on private or limited-use wells. They don't have a right to magic tax water. You have a choice to live somewhere that has municipal water and accept the terms of that provision, live in a location utilizing private wells, or live somewhere that the municipal water is acceptable to you.

As for collecting rain water there are issues with water rights, especially in the western half of the country. I also saw mention of it being illegal to modify plumbing to utilize rain water. This is a separate issue from water rights. Connecting untreated water sources causes the risk of contamination through back-siphonage. While it's a minor risk over a large system people in close proximity could be at risk with old infrastructure. Modern systems have back flow prevention between each distribution point. There are also varying local laws and different levels of enforcement.

Flouride in the municipal water supply concerns me far less than the ever growing problem of contaminated ground water, which is a true shared resource. To me it seems absolutely insane that you can buy property where wells are prohibited because the water isn't safe to drink. I've taken personal responsibility and have planned, though it's required moving my family thousands of miles, for being able to obtain safe water and food on my own property. Within a year we should finally be there.

There are a million reasons why you have to be a slave to government regulations and adulteration of your water. There's only one reason not to be. Personal responsibility. If you don't like your situation where you are you have three choices. You can change the situation, change your location, or you can accept it.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
This is essentially forced medical treatment. Which leads me to my bewilderment...

Why is it so critical the dosage with medicine be calibrated to a specific individual [sex, age, weight, etc, etc] yet with water fluoridation all that is thrown out the window? It's simply added to our water with an educated guess as to what the average consumption will be. How reckless.

I'm already a vigorous water drinker, but you should see me during the summer when temps are consistently above 100 ºF. Now think about someone maintaining cardio fitness in said weather. Lots of water. I seriously doubt the PPM had the likes of me in mind.

Fluoride is sometimes prescribed medically in pill form. Same stuff. Different administration. Why force people to medicate when they can advocate said health benefits and encourage people to go the normal route via a prescription from a physician and subsequently get a measured dosage and some monitoring.




posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift




It depends on the river or stream. Water sources have always been subject to various types of pollution, depending on how many people and animals are living nearby, or what kind of minerals and chemicals the water runs through, such as toxic selenium.

It's not that the white man is evil. It's just that we once again circle back to the fact that there are too many people on the planet, and that one of these days we're either going to have to take control of that, or we'll poison ourselves out of existence. Not that we're not all doomed, anyway, of course.


I am speaking of an historical time ... where industry as we have today did not exist in those areas.
Selenium naturally occurs as do other elements and chemicals
The selenium you refer to is a toxic bi product of Industry ... say with copper

Pollution from animals is different ... The native Americans were smart enough to know to drink upstream from say a dead carcass ...
And animals do not piss or sh/t in streams

I never stated that Man was evil ... those are your words

Too many people on the planet ... Geez here we go again ... This has no relevance to this topic and is highly disputable anyway

Previously ... In another reply to me you said ... Nature will kill us all ... Well yes we all die naturally ... But Humans will kill you quicker by intent or through ignorance ... Humans are their own worst enemy


edit on 22-2-2015 by artistpoet because: typos

edit on 22-2-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy
While I agree with you that adding fluoride is past its time, I would also like to point out that there is not one case of a person being harmed by properly dosed water fluoridation from a treatment plant.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

Properly dosed? I'm curious how that's properly dosed. You mean the PPM is a safe average? The problem with that is it doesn't cater to individuals. I drink 100+ ounces of water every day in the warmer seasons here. Easily.

Either way the lack of consent is sufficient grounds to deem this unethical imo.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: superman2012

Properly dosed? I'm curious how that's properly dosed. You mean the PPM is a safe average? The problem with that is it doesn't cater to individuals. I drink 100+ ounces of water every day in the warmer seasons here. Easily.

Either way the lack of consent is sufficient grounds to deem this unethical imo.


Yes as with all chemicals added to water, it is flow based to maintain an acceptable safe level. They don't just pour it in and hope for the best, just like any other chemical.
You would die from drinking too much water before you would get to the same level (of properly dosed water) of dental fluorosis.
Right, this was never about choice, if this thread was about the lack of choice then it would be over quickly. Obviously people should have a choice and if they don't want it in their water, inform their local government and/or find out the steps to remove it. Making false claims and outright lying about what it does or doesn't do, does not help their cause.


That's only just over 3 litres that you drink in the warmer weather. I live in Saskatchewan and drink at least 4 litres during my ten hour shift at -26.

edit on 22-2-2015 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

100+ The plus was intentional. I was giving my conservative number. I lose track of how many times I refill my 20 ounce water bottle at the gym heh.

Jennifer Luke's Ph.D dissertation was to show whether fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and subsequently what the physiological ramifications would be. She found solid evidence fluoride passes the blood brain barrier and accumulates in the pineal gland.

That's another reason that I personally would rather have the option of drinking fluoride-free water. Especially since I likely get enough from my diet anyways.

I've always been curious about this as well. The PPM is specifically towards oral consumption, right? What about transdermal absorption? Skin is the largest organ and we love our showers.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Jennifer's paper was not about humans, was not anywhere near the doses found in treated water supplies and is another study that they latch onto in order to strike fear in the hearts.
Having a shower, your body absorbs the equivalent of a glass of water.
edit on 22-2-2015 by superman2012 because: grammar



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join