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.

 

CONFIRMED: Fluoride Damages the Brain

page: 11
97
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: jinni73

In chemistry something you do learn is the difference between elements and compounds.

But how much polonium is in Prozac? I'm curious. I don't see a Po associated with the F in the formula provided. I mean, the F is for fluorine. Fluorine is the element, there are various fluorine compounds which can be termed "fluorides" since they contain fluorine anions. Which one are you talking about? I don't see it in the formula. Where's the Po?


edit on 9/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: JefferyBarber
a reply to: Metallicus

Did they mention that prozac and other similar anti depressants are virtually pure Flouride?

One of the detrimental issues of Flouride is that it "corrodes" our pineal gland which is our "third eye" chakra. If you can get yourself free of Flouride and other toxic compounds from your system you can open your third eye actually realize the divine on high. It's kind of a cosmic Bluetooth connection that chemicals in our reality have corroded and closed up.

Another set of chemicals that we are consuming with relish is "electrolytes". The only electrolyte that we need is sodium chloride. Table salt, iodized table salt.

All the potassium and phosphoric stuff is detrimental to our systems as well.


I think I've said this in this thread earlier but I'll repeat it.

Never take advise from someone who can't spell fluoride properly.
Especially one who doesn't know what electrolytes are either.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jinni73

In chemistry something you do learn is the difference between elements and compounds.

But how much polonium is in Prozac? I'm curious. I don't see a Po associated with the F in the formula provided. I mean, the F is for fluorine. Fluorine is the element, there are various fluorine compounds which can be termed "fluorides" since they contain fluorine anions. Which one are you talking about? I don't see it in the formula. Where's the Po?



Here's a nice picture.
No Po.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: jinni73
so where do I see where the atomic weights are


This is where you need basic chemistry. You need to be able to read each element's atomic weight on the periodic table. Then you calculate the total weight for that compound and from there (simple math) you calculate the percentage of each element. You can do it all yourself, periodic tables are available for free on the internet.


yes I know what the etc means but its misleading It reads as if basically 80% of the weight are safe ingredients carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen


It's not misleading, it's the truth. You can do the calculation yourself.


yet you fail to mention the other ingredients I mean how much of the cancer causing titanium dioxide is in it


Titanium dioxide (also known as E171) is used as a colorant. Only trace amounts are in each capsule of Prozac.


or what about the banned in some countries FD and C blue as well as the other toxins


Please rephrase as I don't understand.


And you have studied chemistry do you think they forget to teach you how dangerous the polonium in the fluoride is.


And this is why I always say education is key to eradicate ignorance and quackery.

Polonium is an element. Fluoride is an element. You cannot have one element in another element. Therefore there is NO Polonium in Fluoride. Zero.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The Polonium is in the sodium fluoride they put into the water which causes the brain damage, I did not say that the polonium was in the prozac because I do not know if it is the same as what they put into the water.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jinni73

In chemistry something you do learn is the difference between elements and compounds.

But how much polonium is in Prozac? I'm curious. I don't see a Po associated with the F in the formula provided. I mean, the F is for fluorine. Fluorine is the element, there are various fluorine compounds which can be termed "fluorides" since they contain fluorine anions. Which one are you talking about? I don't see it in the formula. Where's the Po?



Here's a nice picture.
No Po.


and where is the titanium dioxide or the maize starch that is also added into the Prozac, yes I know the formula for fluoxetine and again I did not say polonium was in prozac I am trying to establish the weight of the added ingredients.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha




This is where you need basic chemistry. You need to be able to read each element's atomic weight on the periodic table. Then you calculate the total weight for that compound and from there (simple math) you calculate the percentage of each element. You can do it all yourself, periodic tables are available for free on the internet.


OK isn't this hard work,

I said


Where do you get your percentages from Agartha

I meant percentage of each compound in the prozac pill as i thought your statement is misleading



so where do I see where the atomic weights are

I know how to work out the weights of various compounds I do not know how to work out the weight of each substance that makes up the mass of a single pill this is what I would like to know.

OK so my first statement was trying to refer to your quote that 80% of the weight in a prozac pill is made from carbon hydrogen nitrogen and hydrogen and I said it was misleading because there are other substances in the pill I am trying to find out how much weight of the other ingredients make up the mass of prozac where do you get your percentages from what source are you using, 18.5% of prozac is fluoxetine so that leaves us with 81.5% of what what is the breakdown of each chemical how much maize starch is in the pill, is it 50% its a filler isn't it so if it is used as a filler you are not going to have one molecule of it at a weight of 692.65802 g/mol it is going to be a percentage.


and you said you do not believe fluoride makes children less intelligent and my answer to that is you have studied chemistry and don't know that polonium is dangerous in minute quantities.
sodium silica fluoride contains Polonium did your chemistry teacher not tell you that polonium damages the brain and other organs, or do you not know that polonium is in sodium fluoride even though I have pointed this out in previous posts, are you trying to tell me you have a belief that fluoride is safe and i present evidence that is the opposite to your belief and you decide to ignore what I present to you.


www.frequencyrising.com...


In the response to congressman Ken Calvert, the EPA also concedes that fluorosilicic acid and fluorosilicates, the preferred chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are captured pollution waste products from phosphate fertilizer industry



and here is a statement from the EPA admitting that the fluoride they stick in your water and toothpaste and teflon non stick frying pans was a toxin which was causing air pollution, if you want to go into this further people were dying if they lived within a certain proximity to the fertiliser plants so they forced the fertiliser and aluminium industries to capture the poison and now the corruption that runs our world put it directly into the water supply but its good for your teeth all of a sudden!


In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as the source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride.


there are various statements that we can find like the above one, we know that fluoride comes from the processing of chemical fertiliser which is derived from phosphate rock (as well as uranium tailings but rather than waste my time going through the rigmarole of finding the evidence and letting the scum delete it) all phosphate rock contains between 4 and 400ppm uranium the chemcial breakdown of uranium in fluoride is polonium (Po 210 and another one that is in the fluoride) If people are really that ignorant that they don't think that this residue is not being left in the sodium fluoride then how can we help these people.

and I do not know if sodium silica fluoride is used in prozac but polonium enters the blood cells and will end up either in the brain or against the blood brain barrier and the alpha particles the Po gives off for about 130 days are going to damage whatever it comes into contact with.
edit on 3-9-2016 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-9-2016 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-9-2016 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: JefferyBarber
a reply to: Metallicus

Did they mention that prozac and other similar anti depressants are virtually pure Flouride?

One of the detrimental issues of Flouride is that it "corrodes" our pineal gland which is our "third eye" chakra. If you can get yourself free of Flouride and other toxic compounds from your system you can open your third eye actually realize the divine on high. It's kind of a cosmic Bluetooth connection that chemicals in our reality have corroded and closed up.

Another set of chemicals that we are consuming with relish is "electrolytes". The only electrolyte that we need is sodium chloride. Table salt, iodized table salt.

All the potassium and phosphoric stuff is detrimental to our systems as well.


I think I've said this in this thread earlier but I'll repeat it.

Never take advise from someone who can't spell fluoride properly.
Especially one who doesn't know what electrolytes are either.


This is what ATSers need to look for misdirection of completely irrelevant matters when completely valid points are being presented,
Jennfier Luke's studies on the pineal gland have proven that there is a build up of fluoride and calcium in the pineal inhibiting melatonin production which then leads onto inhibition of ameloblast production which strengthens teeth when our secondary set of teeth are developing as infants meaning fluoride damages teeth not the other way round)
www.icnr.com...

fluoridefree.org.nz...

“It is remarkable that the pineal gland has never been analysed separately for F because it has several features which suggest that it could accumulate F. It has the highest calcium concentration of any normal soft tissue in the body because it calcifies physiologically in the form of hydroxyapatite (HA). It has a high metabolic activity coupled with a very profuse blood supply: two factors favouring the deposition of F in mineralizing tissues. The fact that the pineal is outside the blood-brain barrier suggests that pineal HA could sequester F from the bloodstream if it has the same strong affinity for F as HA in the other mineralizing tissues.”

“Alongside the calcification in the developing enamel organ, calcification is also occurring in the child’s pineal. It is a normal physiological process. A complex series of enzymatic reactions within the pinealocytes converts the essential amino acid, tryptophan, to a whole family of indoles. The main pineal hormone is melatonin (MT). For some reason, young children have the highest levels of plasma MT. They also have higher plasma F levels (recommended from a dental perspective) than they did 50 years ago. An increasing number of children suffer from mild dental fluorosis: evidence that they received too much F during the first few years of life. If F accumulates in the pineal gland during early childhood, it could affect pineal indole metabolism. In much the same way that high local concentrations of F in enamel organ and bone affect the metabolism of ameloblasts and osteoblasts.

edit on 3-9-2016 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-9-2016 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: jinni73
I know how to work out the weights of various compounds I do not know how to work out the weight of each substance that makes up the mass of a single pill this is what I would like to know.

OK so my first statement was trying to refer to your quote that 80% of the weight in a prozac pill is made from carbon hydrogen nitrogen and hydrogen and I said it was misleading because there are other substances in the pill I am trying to find out how much weight of the other ingredients make up the mass of prozac where do you get your percentages from what source are you using, 18.5% of prozac is fluoxetine so that leaves us with 81.5% of what what is the breakdown of each chemical how much maize starch is in the pill, is it 50% its a filler isn't it so if it is used as a filler you are not going to have one molecule of it at a weight of 692.65802 g/mol it is going to be a percentage.


Ok, let me try to make it simpler for you: the ingredients listed in prozac include the outer shell, the active ingredient and the excipients (inactive ingredients).
- The active ingredient is the fluoxetine which is the formula I gave you, which is Prozac. This means Prozac is 18.5% fluoride and 81.5% of all other elements in the formula (carbon, oxygen, etc).
- Then every drug has inactive ingredients called excipients, to facilitate dilution, absorption, etc. They are not part of the formula hence they are not part of the 81.5%. I think this is where you get confused.
- The outer shell (the actual capsule) is made of gelatin, colorants such as titanium dioxide etc. To find out the amounts you need to contact each company as they all vary.

I hope it's clearer now.


and you said you do not believe fluoride makes children less intelligent and my answer to that is you have studied chemistry and don't know that polonium is dangerous in minute quantities.


Polonium and Fluoride are two different elements. Elements are substances that cannot be broken down into smaller substances. This means fluoride is just fluoride, it does not contain another substance such as polonium.

Polonium is dangerous but it has nothing to do with fluoride.


sodium silica fluoride contains Polonium


You are confusing elements with compounds.
Fluoride is an element, hence its formula is F.
Polonium is an element, hence is formula is Po.
Sodium fluorosilicate is a compound, hence its formula is Na2[SiF6].
Compounds are substances made of different elements and can be broken down into smaller elements.

Can you see the difference?



and I do not know if sodium silica fluoride is used in prozac


No, it's not, see the formula for Prozac (fluoxetine).
edit on 5-9-2016 by Agartha because: To make it simpler.........



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Right yes it is now clearer, cheers

and polonium is most definitely a residue found in sodium silica fluoride when it is captured in the scrubbers from the fertiliser plants there are 2 polonium's Po210 and Pb 230

although I don't believe that it is part of the aluminium waste that they call fluoride, the only element they remove from the scrubbers that they then call fluoride is silica when they process it.

Here is an outline from a reputable source showing it is the one ingredient in tobacco that causes cancer on an individual basis when tested on animals, it also shows that the polonium comes from the fertiliser industry due to the uranium in the phosphate, and something the link does not tell us is they use a citrate wash in 50% of fertiliser, one book I came across stated that the citrate enables the roots of the plants to uptake the polonium much easier. Nice of them isn't it. You can see how the decay products of uranium would end up in the scrubbers.
www.lenntech.com...


Health effects of polonium
Polonium is studied in a few nuclear research laboratories where its high radioactivity as an alpha-emitter requires special handling techniques and precautions.

Polonium -210 is the only component of cigarette smoke that has produced cancer by itself in laboratory animals by inhalation - tumors appeared already at a polonium level five times lower than those of a normal heavy smoker.

Lung cancer rates among men kept climbing from a rarity in 1930 (4/100,000 per year) to the No. 1 cancer killer in 1980 (72/100,000) in spite of an almost 20 percent reduction in smoking. But during the same period, the level of polonium -210 in American tobacco had tripled. This coincided with the increase in the use of phosphate fertilizers by tobacco growers - calcium phosphate ore accumulates uranium and slowly releases radon gas.

As radon decays, its electrically charged daughter products attach themselves to dust particles, which adhere to the sticky hairs on the underside of tobacco leaves. This leaves a deposit of radioactive polonium and lead on the leaves. Then, the intense localized heat in the burning tip of a cigarette volatilizes the radioactive metals. While cigarette filters can trap chemical carcinogens, they are ineffective against radioactive vapors.

The lungs of a chronic smoker end up with a radioactive lining in a concentration much higher than from residential radon. These particles emit radiation. Smoking two packs of cigarettes a day imparts a radiation dose by alpha particles of about 1,300 millirem per year. For comparison, the annual radiation dose to the average American from inhaled radon is 200 mrem. However, the radiation dose at the radon "action level" of 4 pCi/L is roughly equivalent to smoking 10 cigarettes a day.


In addition, polunium-210 is soluble and is circulated through the body to every tissue and cell in levels much higher than from residential radon. The proof is that it can be found in the blood and urine of smokers. The circulating polonium -210 causes genetic damage and early death from diseases reminiscent of early radiological pioneers: liver and bladder cancer, stomach ulcer, leukemia, cirrhosis of liver, and cardiovascular diseases.


The Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated that radioactivity, rather than tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking-related lung cancers. The Center for Disease Control concluded "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source."


Cigarette smoking accounts for 30% of all cancer deaths. Only poor diet rivals tobacco smoke as a cause of cancer in the U.S., causing a comparable number of fatalities each year. However, the National Cancer Institute, with an annual budget of $500 million, has no active funding for research of radiation from smoking or residential radon as a cause of lung cancer, presumably, to protect the public from undue fears of radiation.


and the AWWA have also confirmed that Po 210 and Pb 230 are in fluoride, also the sodium fluoride that I think you think is in the water and has had the testing carried out on it is not the pharmaceutical grade but the hexafluorosilicic acid from the fertiliser plants here is a statement from the union of the scientists reference I guess most people would just ignore this as they do not want to know the truth. it is also stated on the EPA's website that the fluoride they put in the water comes from fertiliser and aluminium plants.


www.fluoridedebate.com...

One intriguing and disturbing fact about fluoridation is that over 90% of the agent used in US fluoridation schemes is not pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, on which practically all toxicological testing has been performed, but industrial grade hexafluorosilicic acid obtained from the air pollution scrubbing systems of the superphosphate industry (e.g. Cargill Fertilizer). By law, this waste cannot be dumped into the sea but the EPA allows it to be diluted down with our public drinking water. The union representing scientists at the EPA headquarters in Washington, DC has gone on record as opposing this bizarre form of hazardous waste management




edit on 5-9-2016 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2016 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: jinni73
a reply to: Agartha

Right yes it is now clearer, cheers





posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus
theyve known about fluoride since the Nazi regime and their experiments, its a by product of gold extraction and the govt buys it off them and pumps it into the water. it pacifies the people and keeps them from questioning or rising up against them. the dental industry profits from it as it actually causes fluorosis. more work for them. one has only to study the most powerful psychotropic medications to see that fluoride is a major component.
my children never had fluoride toothpaste..its shows in their teeth and their higher learning capacity

good on you Metallicus
apologies for punctuatin , on tablet



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha
And I didn't even elaborate on my reason to say:

So yes, it's possible to get your politicians to make the right choice...

Which has little to do with what you guys are arguing about but nicely explained on the Dutch wikipedia site as to the reasons that were put forward to discontinue forcing the choice (and medication) upon your citizens regarding something that can be accomplished without having to actually swallow the fluoride; or at least not much of it, such as when you're brushing your teeth or using one of those mouthpieces at the dentist to soak your teeth in fluoride for a few minutes.

Is that last thing not done in the US at the dentist?

Anyway, I didn't even specify what in my opinion the right choice is, I guess it does depend on more factors specific to a country (the possibility of regular dentist appointments for all of the population for example).

Neither did I intend any implications with just listing that top 10. I just needed an excuse to brag about the Netherlands


The post was indeed not focussed on presenting some logical argument, just listing some facts and an opinion about US politics. Perhaps in my subconscious I was curious what kind of debate it would trigger (if I would post something about education after posting something about fluoridation regarding the same country, without adding conclusions or opinions and leaving that to the reader).
edit on 5-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Metallicus
theyve known about fluoride since the Nazi regime and their experiments, its a by product of gold extraction and the govt buys it off them and pumps it into the water. it pacifies the people and keeps them from questioning or rising up against them. the dental industry profits from it as it actually causes fluorosis. more work for them. one has only to study the most powerful psychotropic medications to see that fluoride is a major component.
my children never had fluoride toothpaste..its shows in their teeth and their higher learning capacity

good on you Metallicus
apologies for punctuatin , on tablet

Do you have one reliable source for all the proven lies about fluoride that you are parroting?



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Here are some statistics regarding the claims that fluoridaton of the water supply reduces caries and tooth decay:

Fluoride Action Network | Tooth Decay Trends in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries:

What the CDC failed to mention is that tooth decay rates have “precipitously declined” in all western countries, irrespective of whether the country ever fluoridated its water. Indeed, most western countries do not fluoridate their water and yet their tooth decay rates have declined at the same rate as the U.S. and other fluoridated countries. This fact, which is widely acknowledged in the dental literature (see below), can be quickly demonstrated by examining the World Health Organization’s (WHO) data on tooth decay trends in each country. The following two figures and table, for example, compare the tooth decay trends in western countries with, and without, water (or salt) fluoridation.


I don't know how to link images on webpages, just click the link. There are more statistics there.

Here are some rhetorical questions for everyone, why did the CDC seemingly intentionally and conveniently not share this data as they were propagandizing and marketing in favor of water fluoridation (see the graph they used)? What are they? Lobbyists/politicians or scientists? Who's influencing their stance on the matter?

In my opinion, regarding the subject of whether fluoridation either helps or hurts the fight against tooth decay, the information and arguments I've seen so far are inconclusive either way (and perhaps also dependent on how much of an issue fluorosis is to people, whch does seem like a proven effect of fluoridation). But why even take the risk (or force that risk upon your citizens)?

The Dutch wikipedia site on "fluoridering" that I shared earlier has a couple of deaths listed because of errors in the fluoridation process in the US (causing too much fluoride in the water).

Annapolis - 1979 - 1 death, 7 sick (all kidney patients being flushed with water in the hospital)

Hooper Bay - 1992 - 1 death, 260 sick (waterpump error)

Chicago - 1993 - 3 deaths (all kidney patients being flushed with water)

I would have preferred to make my own choice to take that risk and not have the government do it for me. In an honest world, the families of these victims maybe could have sued the government, cause these deaths really wouldn't have happened without their stance on forcing fluoridation upon their citizens (which you could also describe as forcing chemotherapy on your citizens, with the caveat that we're not talking about the cancer variant of chemotherapy, but just therapy with chemicals; regardless of there already being a certain percentage of fluoride in the water supply before adding more).

Some people at the CDC should be reminded of the Hippocratic Oath:


Original oath

...
I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.
...
"First do no harm"

It is a popular misconception that the phrase "First do no harm" (Latin: Primum non nocere) is a part of the Hippocratic oath. Strictly speaking, the phrase does not appear in the oath, although the oath does contain "Also I will, according to my ability and judgment, prescribe a regimen for the health of the sick; but I will utterly reject harm and mischief",...
Another equivalent phrase is found in Epidemics, Book I, of the Hippocratic school: "Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient".

And then to consider that in this case the choice is made for people who are not properly informed as to what medication they are given. They do not get a choice in the matter or all the information to make an educated choice (unless someone wakes them up and makes them dig for it).
edit on 7-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
So because more people are health conscious about their teeth, the few that aren't educated, or aren't able to (children of parents that don't care to help their kids take care of their teeth) have to suffer because of some irrational fear that fluoride harms your pineal gland/cause heart attacks/keeps people docile/whatever other lie the FAN (Fluoride Action Network) wants to spread so you keep buying their fear and the products they shill for?

Craziness. I know how to treat water so that I don't get sick when drinking it, does that mean that I should be against water chlorination?

Any other guesses about what chemicals go into water treatment? Why all the fuss over a mineral meant to AID health?

I'll never understand fear.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012
As demonstrated in the tooth decay statistics in the countries that don't have water fluoridation, kids aren't notably suffering without fluoridation of the water supply in those countries. If parents don't take care of the health of their kids they're just bad parents, and they exist in every country. My comment has nothing to do with fear since I didn't even bring up "pineal gland/cause heart attacks/keeps people docile/whatever other lie the FAN wants to spread", all I was pointing out were the same statistics they pointed out (for which they aren't the source but the WHO). It's called hearing out both sides of the argument. I'll tell you this though, the CDC's way of presenting this subject seems extremely suspicious to me, no fearmongering intended.
edit on 8-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
Could be that those countries place dental health higher up on their list than other countries making water fluoridation unnecessary. Dental health is directly tied into the health of the whole body. If the teeth rot, it can have a huge negative impact on the whole body. Why not add a mineral ( not medicine, nor anywhere near chemotherapy, that's why I incorrectly assumed you were part of the "crazy" crowd) if the cost is low and can have the potential to help many instead of spending thousands on trying to fix the problem afterwards?

I don't understand people, if the government doesn't get proactive in trying to get a handle on the situation before it happens, they get roasted.
If the government tries to be proactive, rather than being reactive, they get the same treatment.

It may be inches away from being unnecessary in the US and Canada, but that doesn't mean it didn't do any good in the past. Mineral, not medication.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012
I admit, I was exaggerating with the word "chemotherapy" and with the word "medication" I was actually thinking about "medical treatment", as a medical treatment against caries. I don't think I used the word "medicine" though (can't find it at least).

Let's see how google translate translates part of the Dutch wikipediapage on "fluoridering":

The use of fluoride to prevent dental caries began in America in the thirties of the twentieth century. Two facts played a role. Firstly, the fluorine compounds that were released as waste by the steel and aluminum industry. The introduction of these wastes into the environment caused massive fish kills, degeneration of joints in cows and humans headache, abdominal pain, skin problems, eye pain and general malaise. Secondly, people found that children who drank from sources with a high fluoride content of water ugly, discolored teeth were brown. moreover, one had the impression that these teeth were harder. These two facts led brought together ensure that fluoride compounds were generously be used in the fight against caries. Soon, scientists observed health problems (fluorosis) in people who used fluoride, and dosages were reduced.

Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock spent an entire chapter to this phenomenon in his book "Health and Nutrition Secrets" in which he concludes that of virtually all studies conducted worldwide, the results were either neutral or negative for fluorination of drinking water. In contrast, there are several studies available that demonstrate the true toxicity and noxiousness of fluoride.


I just noticed the term "medical treatment" is part of the debate (to me it's not that open to debate, especially if the argument is nuh-uh, followed by a clever spin and play on words, such as a politician saying: "I'm not slandering my opponent I'm just pointing out his flaws").

Israel Bans Water Fluoridation:

Israeli authorities last week unveiled a nationwide ban on the controversial practice of adding the chemical fluoride, labeled a “neurotoxin” by a top medical journal this year, to public water supplies as a medical treatment. The decision by the Health Ministry to ban what critics call a dangerous, involuntary mass-medication scheme drew applause from many medical and some dental experts around the world. However, it also prompted outrage and vicious attacks by proponents of fluoridation, who say the chemical can provide benefits to children’s teeth. The ban is a major blow to supporters of using the water supply to medicate the public.
...
In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Professor Arnon Afek, an expert in pathology and medical administration who serves as director-general at the Health Ministry, applauded the decision and suggested that choice in individual medical matters was key.

“Mandatory fluoridation is medical treatment,” he told the paper, which was widely criticized for its biased reporting on the debate. “Individuals have the right to decide if they want it or not. The question is not if fluoride is beneficial but how it should be delivered. We cannot force people. It is legitimate that experts in the field oppose the health minister’s decision, but we have a policy. The ministry supported it for over 40 years, but this is a new era. The world has changed, and we can educate parents.”

“With fluoridation of tap water, there is no free choice,” Afek added.

I tend to take the words of someone with those kind of credentials quite serious if I don't see clear signs of deception and self-interest (it takes a brave man to stand up to your collegues, or a clique of them, so I'm actually seeing clues of the opposite).

And "industrial chemical" is an appropiate terminology for the fluoride that is used for the fluoridation of the water supply:

Fluorides are important industrial chemicals with a number of uses but the largest uses are for aluminium production, drinking water fluoridation, and the manufacture of fluoridated dental preparations.

Source: Scientific Facts on Fluoride

A medical treatment (or therapy) with industrial chemicals (of indefinite duration, and no money back guarantee if the waterpump messes up the concentration). And again I'd like to remind everyone that it doesn't even need to be swallowed to make your teeth harder. The fluoride you swallow will not go towards your teeth unlike those "fluoridated dental preparations", which are much more effective. The government could pay for those instead of water fluoridation, but that means some people who might have some more clout will lose some of their financial piece of the pie.
edit on 9-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Well, forget about that last sentence.



new topics

top topics



 
97
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join