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.

 

Again government admits to much Fluoride is bad

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein
Why are people living longer then? This argument I see over and over has so many holes it must have been made in Sweden!


Edit: I also thought we were over the "industrial waste" fabrication?

edit on 29-4-2015 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

I used to have good teeth, I went almost ten years without going to the dentist and I only had two small cavities after that amount of time. They did not have added fluoride in our water back then. I like a little sweets occasionally, but never have liked soda or candy much. I would get a sweetroll occasionally, liking cinnamon rolls the best.

My diet is what kept the cavities away, not fluoride in the water. I wound up loosing all my teeth, which I was kind of proud of not having many fillings, from five years taking medicines which caused them to erupt and break. Now, it is rare that this happened, I have genetics which can cause this to happen when I take a class of medicine. It was not cavities that caused my teeth to be destroyed. I took the option of having them pulled instead of thirteen gold teeth layed on top. I would have lost them anyway. I do not need added fluoride in the water for my teeth anymore. Many people in this country have dentures, why do they need added fluoride.


Two thirds of the evidence that is spread by anti-fluoride people is not true. You are right. The other third is real and pertinent to our health though. I examined where the evidence of pro-fluoride people get their science from and find major discrepancies as the basis for their determinations. They use associations as their reasons, they are not examining companion evidence as much as they should. They jumped at fluoride and did not consider there might be other minerals or things to look at. This ballooned out of control, and now it is reality because most people have learned to believe in it. The fact is that they are promoting brushing more now and have improved toothpastes. The educating of people makes the fluoridation look much better than it is. In actuality, eating more green veggies cooked and raw and lowering the sugar consumption to reasonable levels will work a lot better than putting fluoride in water.

Both fluoride and chlorine in water are not good for our gut flora. This flora being balanced is necessary to us being well. You may argue that the little fluoride in water is not worth mentioning, but if it wasn't, then how come it can help teeth. When you add up all the fluoride in the diet, that is what you should look at. Not just what is in water.

The Chlorine in water is bad for us too, but it is necessary in the water to make our type of distribution safe. I do not argue about that because the good outweighs the bad by a longshot. That is not the case with fluoride, they are putting some groups who consume more natural fluoride compounds at risk. There are a lot of medicines containing organic fluorides out there too, and lots of tea and coffee drinkers. The ones who might benefit the most from fluoride in the water are those who eat a diet that is high in processed foods. So the ones who eat right seem to say no to added fluoride, they already have enough. Why make these people who are concerned about eating healthy wind up sick.

I actually read the regulations that drinking water treatment facilities follow as part of my research. I was not impressed with what I saw. The people at these places follow what they are told to do very well, a friend of mine actually did this for a living and he is very responsible. The problem is that I do not agree with how the evaluation is done on existing fluoride in the water. It is ignored in a lot of cases and extra fluoride is added. Because of the way it is bound it is not considered relevant, but the thing is even when it is bound to calcium it can be active if a person does not consume much calcium in their diet. There are flaws in their determination. Even if they average stomach acid levels to form their structure of their determination of safety, half the people have higher levels than that. This is actually a pertinent concern. My stomach acid is below average so the fluoride will not be an issue with me, but many people I know have higher than average stomach acid and this does effect them.

I know quite a bit about fluoride, because it is an important element in our body, but it needs to be consumed in cycles, not throughout the day. This is the problem with adding it to water. I am not arguing that fluoride is not essential to health, but not really for teeth, but I argue that adding it to our water is bad.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein
Why are people living longer then? This argument I see over and over has so many holes it must have been made in Sweden!


Edit: I also thought we were over the "industrial waste" fabrication?


The question I would raise is....Did people from forever ago until what 1950(ish) (can't remember the exact date of the fluoride boom) have no teeth? Did their teeth constantly shatter when eating popcorn or peanuts? If there was a huge tooth issue from "back in the day" why haven't we heard about it? They threw this fluoride in the water for what reason exactly? If there wasn't a global issue, then why the concern for dental health all of a sudden?

You apparently skipped my point about obesity and horrible dieting now-a-days when you said if people eat healthy then fluoride is okay...So what happens when people aren't ok because diets suck with people? Not saying people should be dropping dead from this, but what is the benefit if it takes a good diet for this to be beneficial?



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
So again I know this might be viewed as an ancient conspiracy theory but when its in the news and in our face I feel obligated to say it and shout it. that hey fluoride. And go ahead and call up all the dentist from the ADA (American Dentist Association) I still say Fluoride may not be the best thing.

www.ctvnews.ca... too-much-fluoride-in-drinking-water-causing-splotchy-teeth-1.2346693

www.ctvnews.ca/health/u-s-says-too-muc h-fluoride-in-drinking-water-causing-splotchy-teeth-1.2346693

And people still don't believe you. We admit to much Fluoride is not good for you but go ahead and drink it.


Too much being bad for you doesn't mean that small amounts are bad for you... You are making some weird correlations here. Too much water is bad for you. Would you advocate not drinking water then?



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein
Why are people living longer then? This argument I see over and over has so many holes it must have been made in Sweden!


Edit: I also thought we were over the "industrial waste" fabrication?


The question I would raise is....Did people from forever ago until what 1950(ish) (can't remember the exact date of the fluoride boom) have no teeth? Did their teeth constantly shatter when eating popcorn or peanuts? If there was a huge tooth issue from "back in the day" why haven't we heard about it? They threw this fluoride in the water for what reason exactly? If there wasn't a global issue, then why the concern for dental health all of a sudden?

You apparently skipped my point about obesity and horrible dieting now-a-days when you said if people eat healthy then fluoride is okay...So what happens when people aren't ok because diets suck with people? Not saying people should be dropping dead from this, but what is the benefit if it takes a good diet for this to be beneficial?

Oral hygiene was definitely a concern. Fluoride investigations stated at the beginning of the 1900s. They were trying to figure out why children had brown stains on their teeth. Here is a great link about the history.
If you read that and still have the same questions, please let me know and I will post and link the paragraphs that deal with your questions.

As to my "skipping" your point about obesity, well, they are at a much larger risk of a plethora of problems before skeletal fluorosis would hurt them...assuming they missed the warning signs of dental fluorosis. That wouldn't happen in fluoridated treated water...only in raw water that is high in fluoride. My point was that eating healthy, or unhealthy, treated water with fluoride added in isn't going to hurt them. As to your "coincidence", might want to look at when fast food really became popular, it coincides with your fluoride boom-obesity reach.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse
Water treatment and the adding of chemicals to it has to be an exact science. If there are people not doing their job properly, they will get caught. There are too many levels to not get caught. I can't speak for your friend that worked at that job, but I work in a water plant (no we don't add fluoride here) and there are so many checks and balances. We have remote monitoring of all dosages. All ppms are monitored as well. If one goes out of whack, we get a call and have to respond ASAP. If we don't log our corrective action or report it to the governing body, we will get in big trouble. All tests are reported, chemical and toxicity is tested and made available to the public, so either your friend is no longer allowed to work in that field anymore, or he is long since retired.

When you say the "other third is right", what claims specifically are you talking about?

I'm sorry that you were/are not well and I wish you well, but the amount of people like yourself is a far minority to the people that would benefit from water fluoridation.

Adding up all the fluoride in the diet would still be miniscule. Do you know how much is in each vegetable? Beef? etc.

I will stand by my statement that I don't believe this should be forced on people, just that I understand why it is added to the water.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

He retired from the city he worked at a few years ago and is now heading the water system of a township.

Of course he believes he is not hurting anyone and that he is helping people by putting fluoride in people's water. If I worked doing that I would deny any claims that I was hurting anyone.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse
Yes, agreeing with all available science is an easy thing to agree with, I must admit.

If he's not following the dosages set out, then he should not be doing that job.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: rickymouse
Yes, agreeing with all available science is an easy thing to agree with, I must admit.

If he's not following the dosages set out, then he should not be doing that job.


He put the maximum fluoride he was allowed to put in. The range used to be between 1 and 2.2 or something like that. After all, he was doing the people of his community a service and fluoride is completely safe you know and there are no side effects from it.

If you work in a water facility you know there is a range. You should also know that the minimum added had to be maintained regularly or you can get monetarily penalized for it.

I also know the supervisor running the water supply for another township and they were forced to put fluoride in their water and install meters to qualify to get a new water tower. As soon as they could, they took out the meters and they shut down the fluoride addition which lowered costs for their customers. It seemed that the meters also actually raised the cost of the water because they needed to have a meter reader and they only had about two hundred customers. The manned fluoride station also cost more than they received, also causing a raise in rates. The meters had to be turned into the government when they finished up to be legal.

They cut the rate of their customers in half for their water.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Too much water is bad for you? Surely you're being hyperbolic for the sake of irony or sarcasm?



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: FaceMyBook
I like the video on this thread.



Good job losing all credibility.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: FaceMyBook

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: FaceMyBook
I like the video on this thread.



Good job losing all credibility.

Lol...care to share who I "lost all credibility"? Honestly, I'm not sure why I even bothered to respond to this other than to try and squeeze a little bit more humour for me, at your expense.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: FaceMyBook
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Too much water is bad for you? Surely you're being hyperbolic for the sake of irony or sarcasm?

Yikes! Here you go.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes there is a range, but it isn't usually a guy dumping chemicals into water, it is usually done mechanically.
As long as he was within limits, he was being safe then. Did you ever check out the community health statistics? People dropping dead from fluoride overdoses? High incidences of skeletal fluorosis? If not, why bring it up? If yes, please link so I may read.

Yes updating an outdated system generally costs more money. As regulations change, smaller municipalities struggle to keep up with the new regulations. It seems that past town councils do not raise the rates annually to keep up with costs of the maintenance of equipment or to pay for upgrades for the water treatment plants. That's the cost of supplying clean, healthy drinking water though. If people don't like it, they can vote, move, or set up their own treatment. Where was this, if you don't mind, where they are told to put fluoride in the water, and then decided on their own to stop doing it?



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: FaceMyBook
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Too much water is bad for you? Surely you're being hyperbolic for the sake of irony or sarcasm?


You've never heard of water intoxication?



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes there is a range, but it isn't usually a guy dumping chemicals into water, it is usually done mechanically.
As long as he was within limits, he was being safe then. Did you ever check out the community health statistics? People dropping dead from fluoride overdoses? High incidences of skeletal fluorosis? If not, why bring it up? If yes, please link so I may read.

Yes updating an outdated system generally costs more money. As regulations change, smaller municipalities struggle to keep up with the new regulations. It seems that past town councils do not raise the rates annually to keep up with costs of the maintenance of equipment or to pay for upgrades for the water treatment plants. That's the cost of supplying clean, healthy drinking water though. If people don't like it, they can vote, move, or set up their own treatment. Where was this, if you don't mind, where they are told to put fluoride in the water, and then decided on their own to stop doing it?


To qualify to get money for the tank upgrade they were required to put in the fluoride equipment and also to put in water meters till the match of the grant was payed and a certain period of time lapsed, I think it was five years.

A bigger community can spread out the cost between more people. Chlorination does not require someone there for constant monitoring but the fluoride did require it. One extra salary spread out between few people is a lot of money per household. The township did not want high costs for their people and the people do not want meters again so they are keeping their water consumption down, self moderation. There are a lot of older people there and they can't just go out and work more for income. My friends wife has worked at the township for many years, she is only eighty one years old and she has gone down to three days a week now. The head of the township is in his seventies, so they try to keep costs down. Both are talking about retiring when they die.

Maybe they should put people on Social security in their seventies running this country, our costs will go way down



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
ahh thats poppycock. fluroide is good for you, makes you smart. just roll a fluoride blunt and you'll be fine



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

well Fluoridated water maybe yes. what I am saying is that the government knows that we have to much Fluoride in the water and there basically playing a game with us by telling us to our face Fluoride is not good for you you shouldn't drink it but go ahead and drink it its okay.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: American-philosopher

I drink it every day. It isn't bad for you. And you can get water intoxication in non-fluoridated water as well.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So your saying Fluoridated water is not bad for you? I am speaking of non filtered water




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join