Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

Please... anyone have any facts as to why they would want to toxify us with floride?
or why floride is in our drinking water...
the excuse of teeth protection is FLAT WRONG... so whats up wit that?


[edit on 17-3-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

Well look at it this way. Floride makes us passive. Easy to manipulate. Gullable.

Excelent for a government trying to push a hidden agenda, as many have speculated.

Does boiling the water remove it? And does bottled water contain it?

Wow, thanks people for all this info. I'm a mom and nursing major college student. In a recent class the topic of Flouride was covered. During the lecture my professor insisted that despite conspiracy theorists, flouride is perfectly safe.
My question is this: I believe the opposite, I'm not so trusting.....is the Flouride in toothpaste really safe and different from the Flouride in drinking water?
Also, does this last post have any links/evidence to the claim that the Germans used Flouride in concentration camps?
Thanks,
Krissy

Just noticed the links I asked for...missed those.
Thanks,
I've been waiting for this info from sometime now, haven't
got the chance to look.....my four year-old daughter goes to Head Start.
When she had her teeth cleaned there, her teachers looked at me like I was crazy when I instructed for her not to be given a Flouride treatment.
We are so conditioned to this nonsense that we don't even question it- most of us, anyway.....
except a few inquisitive ones, like us.
Krissy

Noticed a Strange thing on a Mental health BB, They imply that anyone who thinks - conspiracy stuff + floride = BAD is crazy.

Ok, I guess I'm crazy.

I use Baking soda to brush with, and salt to strenghten the gums.
Been using R/O water for a while now - seems to taste better...

Wow, this is some great info...
I have a few things i would like to check...

like when did they first begin adding flouride to drinking water? I also wonder if a separate process adds more than usual to prisons, or other forced internment areas (military).

As to how this could be so obvious and so denied by the powers that be... well as you all see, college proffessors have been indoctrinated into a certain belief, and if you tell them the world is round, they will insist it is infact flat (can't you see out your window idgit)... well this is the same thing... they have seen flouride added to water and see it in toothpaste FOREVER...so all must be "fine"

it isn't... and the info is starting to get out, but it wont go far, if enough people start shouting "crazy"...

as to the toothpaste flouride being different... I don't know how different it could be... the purpose seems to be more innocent though... companies that make toothpaste don't have to know it causes bad things...
they only have to know that the competitiors product offers it, and so should they...
the science is sketchy to support the "good for teeth" claim on toothpaste, but that wont ever stop a company from making a buck...

and no one is supposed to swallow toothpaste, like you do with drinking water...

One is intentional, the other more public use is incidental, using the proof from the intentional use as proof of claim...

A=b, so B must equal=a but they aren't quite the same, and the facts are starting to come out... spread the word...
a med journal (a fairly new one) has questioned the good that adding flouride to water can cause, and has stated that evidence seems to support a counter conclusion...

this is big, and with any luck and the wind at our back, we can get the info out there...

I am printing off some of these links and keeping them with me, to have the next time my "peer group" gets together.
SEEING IS BELIEVING...

and the world is NOT flat!

great work everyone... thanks again for the info

I am wondering if reverse- osmosis water is negativly charged.
If this is the case, then wouldn't drinking it leach the minerals from your body, like calcium ect?
Any scientists out there?

Originally posted by Tomorrow
I am wondering if reverse- osmosis water is negativly charged.
If this is the case, then wouldn't drinking it leach the minerals from your body, like calcium ect?
Any scientists out there?

good question, any scientists?

as for me, water has to be "clean" to do your body good in it's efforts to remove the toxins that our kidneys collect... polluted water creates a backlog in your body... yes, someone who drinks nothing but cocacola can still "cleanse" their system, but much less effectivley than drinking clean water...

I would assume under normal conditions that the RO water would aid in the elemination of toxins before it ever got to leeching anything your body was using

Look who is the source for the data in your link:

SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, New York 11804
Paul S. Beeber, President and General Counsel nyscof@aol.com

Somehow I feel that the reports might be just a teensy bit biased, wouldn't you think?

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Look who is the source for the data in your link:

SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, New York 11804
Paul S. Beeber, President and General Counsel nyscof@aol.com

Somehow I feel that the reports might be just a teensy bit biased, wouldn't you think?

Whom are you addressing?

Lucid lunacy, first, let me thank you for using the objective rather than the subjective form of the pronoun; 'who' versus 'whom' has always been a sore point with me, although I no longer try to correct the incorrectible.

My comment was addressed to everyone here who would unquestioningly look at a comment without careful consideration of it. I believe that a person should be informed, not only of what is said, but by whom and (if possible) why.

When I see a post where the points are made by a group whose very name implies subjectivity, I consider that post to be less objective and to be looked at more carefully than if it were posted by an organization without an axe to grind.

For example, one would think the ADA benefits from dental caries in that the more caries there are, the more business there is for their members. Yet the ADA is in favor of fluoridation. Governmental agencies which are charged with paying for indigent health-care are also in favor of fluoridation, and they are the ones who would lose if there were more cases of caries among their clients.

I personally think that, although there are some problems with fluoridation, such as staining in higher doses, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

I also think that many of the anti-fluoridation people seem to rely on urban legends and plain untruths for some of their "evidence". For example, one poster here said that fluoride was first used in "Stalin's concentration camps" to "keep the prisoners docile".

Such a post is pure rubbish; as far back as 1874, Alvaro Francisco Carlos Reynoso, of Paris, France, published work on the efficacy of fluoride compounds in strengthening teeth.

You will also see such anti-fluoridation comments as "fluoride must be dangerous, because fluorine is a deadly poison and is found in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

To anyone who has taken a basic high-school chemistry course, such a comment is silliness; both chlorine and sodium are deadly poisonous elements, yet in compound they make up sodium chloride -- ordinary table salt. There is little correlation between the properties of elements and their compounds; such comments only show the posters' lack of understanding of basic inorganic chemistry.

Again, I do not think fluoridation is a panacaea by any means; but, based on the preponderance of evidence which I consider valid, I conclude it is a cost-effective weapon against dental caries.

More importantly, even if one were to disagree with that conclusion, the important thing is that we should all read any information on such a controversial subject carefully to determine its bias as well as its validity.

To do otherwise would not be denying ignorance; it would be perpetuating it.

[edit on 22-3-2005 by Off_The_Street]