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

a reply to: superman2012

How long is that one glass of water shower? Not everyone showers the same length, just as not everyone drinks the same amount of water.

I grew up in medicine as my parents are a nurse and a physician. We now run a care home for medically fragile children. So I have this ingrained need for precision with dosages, and the need to calibrate them if necessary to the individual. All that is absent from water fluoridation.

As for you comment on her work not using humans..

"The pineal glands and corresponding bone and muscle samples were dissected from I I aged cadavers (7 females and 4 males) in the Anatomy Department, UCL. The mean age was 82 years (range 70-100)."

Fairly sure they were human.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
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.

That's kind of a strange statement for her to make about the pineal gland and blood brain barrier. A few days ago I was looking up info on the pineal gland and it said the blood brain barrier doesn't exist with it.

The tap water where I live is high in calcium it accumulates on the foccets so I wonder if that should be more concerning as far as the pineal gland goes than the affects of fluoride on it.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: superman2012

How long is that one glass of water shower? Not everyone showers the same length, just as not everyone drinks the same amount of water.

I grew up in medicine as my parents are a nurse and a physician. We now run a care home for medically fragile children. So I have this ingrained need for precision with dosages, and the need to calibrate them if necessary to the individual. All that is absent from water fluoridation.

As for you comment on her work not using humans..

"The pineal glands and corresponding bone and muscle samples were dissected from I I aged cadavers (7 females and 4 males) in the Anatomy Department, UCL. The mean age was 82 years (range 70-100)."

Fairly sure they were human.

It is just the average shower. Hell make it two, three, four glasses.
You would notice the effects on your teeth long before it graduated to anything serious.
I work in water treatment so I have this ingrained need for precision with dosages and the need to calibrate them to the water dosage, that is why I called BS on the claim that there is no way to properly dose it when in fact it is properly dosed.

Right, the pineal glands and corresponding bone and muscle samples were from humans (along with the F readings from them) however did you not read that the actual experiment was on gerbils...most decidedly NOT human. Where I come from anyways..

a reply to: Grimpachi

The pineal gland is one of the glands not protected by the blood brain barrier. It's exposed to profuse amounts of blood. That's why she hypothesized it might accumulate in the gland. I might have worded it poorly before... getting tired from sleeping meds.

a reply to: superman2012

I work in water treatment so I have this ingrained need for precision with dosages and the need to calibrate them to the water dosage, that is why I called BS

Another member made that claim but had a much different sentiment on that very issue.

Who's am I to believe?

Anyways, we are going to have to agree to disagree on whatever it is we are doing. Forced medication on the public is unethical to me. That's my view.

Here's the link to the Harvard Study article ( this is only the article...)

Impact of fluoride on neurological development in children

A later follow up is here (this is only an abstract of the study):
“Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study,”

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Here is a multi-billion dollar company that I used to work closely with named ABB Group, they are an international industrial contractor that works in many industrial plants, and have skilled contractors, that can install entire process systems, from auto plants, to paint and steel productions plants.

I sent an email to an old friend there, and this is what he sent me back.

Although these are pretty good process controls systems they still require constant maintenance, and they are only as good as the weakest link. He also told me that many of the water treatment plants still do manual over-rides...wink wink, which actually means they add the chemicals by hand.

ABB has a great pamphlet and flow diagram.

Water Fluoridation System Info - Fluoride Analyzers

Here is what ABB says in their info and pamphlet.

Studies have shown that the addition of low concentrations
of fluoride of 1mg/l can assist in reducing the incidence of
tooth decay. However, the addition of fluoride to water is a
controversial subject, with doses above 1.5mg/l being linked
to medical disorders such as dental and skeletal fluorosis
and osteoporosis.

originally posted by: Tusks

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Tusks
a reply to: Grimpachi

I just tried to watch. Couldn't stand listening to the host. Sorry.

Is this thread now only about the video? Do we have to watch it to comment about fluoridation in this thread?? or can we continue to speak and reason with the written word about the topic?

Did anyone associated with the video read my post about Delta Dental?? follow the links?? If Delta Dental or Renaissance or Interleukin Genetics was mentioned in the video, I will go back and watch it.

Sure, I'll bite.
What exactly is Schedule Y supposed to show?
What is it about his college major that is so interesting that you felt the need to note it?
What does their parent company have to do with your Schedule Y claim?
What does a genetic company have to do with water fluoridation?

One final two part question.

What makes them "one of the biggest pushers for fluoridation" and why did you bring this company into a fluoride conversation?

Thanks

Schedule Y shows the relationship of the MANY different companies under the banner of a "non-profit, charitable" Renaissance. Health Services ---some like Delta Dental with revenues over $6.2 billion with more than 4000 employees. Renaissance claimed earnings of less than $9,999--shown on the link to Renaissance-

Delta Dental was the primary lobbier to get forced fluoridation in my State passed last year.

The credentials of the CEO of a company that has been able to circumvent multiple voter refusals should be of interest--and in this case he has a master's degree in applied behavioral sciences. That really becomes interesting if we're talking about forcing us to take a chemical that we suspect has the potential to alter behavior.

Renaissance has signed a contract with a genetic/DNA testing company, allegedly to get some kind of quick test for periodontal disease---something the dentist can usually tell at a glance. The DNA testing offered by Interleukin is the usual inside the cheek swab---where they can sequence what-ever they want to about you---like who might be a good organ donor for someone else, or who might be susceptible to certain diseases or drugs, etc. Almost assuredly this insurance company will soon require the DNA test to obtain dental insurance. It could well become required on Obamacare, too, and all other health insurance--unless the population becomes too suspicious.

We've got a Jew with a masters degree in applied behavioral science running a $6 billion dollar company twisting arms to get local control of water supplies overturned, tied into a "charitable tax-free" giant insurance company that has signed a contract with a genetic company to develop testing for their enrollees, and no discussion---why is that? No conspiracy there?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: superman2012

I work in water treatment so I have this ingrained need for precision with dosages and the need to calibrate them to the water dosage, that is why I called BS

Another member made that claim but had a much different sentiment on that very issue.

Who's am I to believe?

Anyways, we are going to have to agree to disagree on whatever it is we are doing. Forced medication on the public is unethical to me. That's my view.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
I haven't seen anyone claim that (or stick around to answer what exactly types of work they do on filters) they work in water treatment. That pic of the fluoride bags in the video? Came from me. I had taken it and posted it for Phillipines upon request. If you look closely, you'll see that the pic is actually upside down.
I'm all for people having a choice and if that is what the fuss was all about, I'd make a sign too. Too many people are lying to stir up controversy so they can make money off of this "poison in the water". (cue doom music and evil laugh).

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

So it was based on the raw water data with super high levels of fluoride in it rather than treated water, which commonly takes out excess fluoride and other minerals.

a reply to: Tusks

The real conspiracy is people thinking the government is worried about your tooth decay. I can tell you they don't give a rat's a$$ about your teeth. How about a good dose of VIT C and other vitamins? Something a little more useful?

a reply to: Realtruth

That's most likely why the MAC (maximum allowable concentration) got lowered to 0.7 mg/l. So it was even further from that level. To be honest though, the jumps in levels of disease are not as close as they make it seem in that paragraph. You would notice dental fluorosis waaaay before it got to skeletal fluorosis and so on.

originally posted by: SkipperJohn
a reply to: Tusks

The real conspiracy is people thinking the government is worried about your tooth decay. I can tell you they don't give a rat's a$$ about your teeth. How about a good dose of VIT C and other vitamins? Something a little more useful?

They do, just not for the reasons you think.

Poor dental hygiene usually means poor.
Poor means no money.
No money equals welfare.
Welfare equals government pays.
Poor dental hygiene leads to MANY other serious diseases including heart disease.
Heart disease = hospital stay
No money equals not able to pay.
Not able to pay = government pays
government is sad it loses more money
Government tries to do an easy, cheap fix.

That's where we come to....

Adding Fluoride!!

originally posted by: JudgeThread
a reply to: theNLBS
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)

Actually almost any medical service, including dental, has some government subsidized incarnation. Rural medicine is a particularly subsidized function but in the discussion of fluoridated water rural tax money is moot since they are not using gub'ment water. The financials are not limited to tax money though. There's still the overall financial burden.

a reply to: superman2012

My concern isn't even necessarily specific to fluoride. I'd rather not set the precedent for nonconsensual medical treatments on the public. That's some dystopian stuff right there. Perhaps that's a slippery slope fallacy on my part but I'd rather us not chance that.

a reply to: theNLBS While I'm waiting for this 14 minute BS fest to load, I'll respond to some of the Fluoride issues with my own blog entries. I know some people hate Tumblr, but it's where I write my random thoughts down.

By the way, I used to work as a Wastewater Laboratory Analyst and a Class 3 Wastewater Operator, so I'm not Average Joe off the street. Because of those licenses, the EPA says I know what I'm talking about when it comes to water treatment, and they'd rather I didn't say anything at all.

This first blog I address the complaints about a soapy taste and people claiming Fluoride has no taste. Now before I point this out, in the video he says that Sodium Fluoride isn't used anymore. Actually it's still used in small scale water systems, but that's just splitting hairs. There's 2 components to Sodium Fluoride. There's Sodium. And there's Fluoride. Guess which one we're very familiar with the taste of? Sodium sure doesn't taste like soap. Not even in Sodium Chloride or Sodium Bicarbonate.

www.cdc.gov... The pdf buried at the CDC covers some effects of toxic levels of pesticide additives, including Sodium Fluoride. One of the listed effects is a "Salty, soapy taste". And like I said, it isn't the Sodium part that makes it taste soapy. It's the Fluoride component to that compound.

trihalo42.tumblr.com...

In this next one, I point out that the same Fluoridated water that's meant to strengthen people's teeth is also used to flush your toilet, among other non-teeth-related uses. I believe that taxpayers will ignore any "cost to benefit" explanations and just be generally offended that those tax dollars spent on Fluoridation are being flushed... unless your dog drinks out of your toilet a lot, in which case your dog's teeth might benefit.

trihalo42.tumblr.com...

This next one I try to illustrate that 1ppm is suggested by the EPA, the CDC suggests 2-4 ppm can start to show dental fluorosis, and the WHO shows that 10-25 ppm can lead to skeletal fluorosis. Since some people don't quite get how PPM comes into play and just think "Hey 10 is a bigger number than 1", I try to illustrate it with tiny graphs with little dots filled in.

trihalo42.tumblr.com...

And there's a post I made on slashdot.org about a Pubmed listing for a Fluoride spill affecting serum testosterone levels. Yes it's a "spill" and not just what comes out of your tap, but Fluoride having an effect on Testosterone levels should be taken seriously by any man.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [Effect of fluoride on human hypothalamus-hypophysis-testis axis hormones].

"The concentrations of fluoride in the water, food and soil of the fluoride polluted district were significantly higher than those of control district (P < 0.05), and the concentration fluoride in the air of two district were not found. There was no significant difference of serum level of GnRH between fluoride polluted district and control district (P > 0.05). The serum level of LH in men of fluoride polluted district was significantly higher than that of control group (P < 0.05), and the serum level of T in men of fluoride polluted district was significantly less than that of control group (P < 0.05)."

Water fluoridation conspiracies are the equivalent of anti vaxxers.

Nonsense science, no backing in reality, and absolutely no risks to the public.

The entire anti fluoridation movement, like the anti vaxxer movement, is based on urban myths.

I'm totally against flouride but my city refuses to even address the issue. It sucks that I have to buy special water to not get medicated. What we really should be worried about is the new evil they've been putting in our water, Chloramine. Hardly any filters can remove it and little to no studies on safety.

Does anyone here, on any side of the fence, actually feel they need fluoride in the water for the purpose of dental health? Honestly. Does anyone here feel they lack access to fluoride toothpaste andor fluoride mouth rinse? That stuff is pretty damn accessible isn't it? Isn't it proven to be effective as a topical agent?

originally posted by: atzmaz
I'm totally against flouride but my city refuses to even address the issue. It sucks that I have to buy special water to not get medicated. What we really should be worried about is the new evil they've been putting in our water, Chloramine. Hardly any filters can remove it and little to no studies on safety.

Chloramines have been used by water utilities for almost 90 years, and their use is closely regulated. More than one in five Americans uses drinking water treated with chloramines.

Link
Perhaps, new to you?
Again, RO units would remove it it as would others. It is the addition of ammonia into chlorine.
29 questions and answers about it.
Seems like it is better than just chlorine.