Originally posted by You Get Served
anyway does any know if they have conducted studies on filtered water and the content level of flouride in it? also mineral water but that may be a
safer zone seeing as govt dont own their companies
I haven't seen any. I did a bit of research on this at the beginning of the year and found that it is chemically possible for fluoride to be removed
with a reverse osmosis treatment, but done on a large scale..I would doubt the effectiveness. Personal Reverse Osmosis filters are a nice chunk of
change, but then you still don't really know.
I even went so far as to look around for a water test that could give me percentages and specifics.....but wouldn't you know it....they don't seem
to be available. Funny that. In my logic, however, I wouldn't expect to see them offered on a commercial scale for the subtle reasons......almost
an implicit admission that water should be checked. What would happen if people became concerned about their water? They may just want to tug on the
threads......which I happen to support......
If anyone here could assist in that regard, the information would be highly prized....I have alot of testing I would like to do.....
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Simple typo? Outright lie? If so, which is the lie? Or is it just semantics? Do they mean the fluoride is not necessary to make the water
drinkable? If that's what they're saying, they're absolutely right. Quite the opposite...
Nice catch, WyrdeOne. You are one hundred perccent correct regarding the seeming audacity of the news release. Really makes me wonder as well. Of
course something like this could just be written off as a typo, to officially appease those literate enough to understand, but I wouldn't be
surprised if the 'typo' was intentional.
I am of the opinion that the major news medias are indeed in the business to control the information outflow for the status-quo. Which is why I find
it ironic that they are usually the only media outlets that are given the stamp of credibility.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The fluoride shortage is also sort of interesting, but the main question I have is the reportage surrounding it.
Actually....now that you mention it...I would think that the reporting of a fluoride shortage is an interesting bit of the 'may-bes'.......In my
estimation, anything reported as being in short supply carries with it an implicit suggestion that it is indeed necassary and it will be procurred
Kind of makes me think that the term "shortage" may be a media buzzword......how many people are going to analyze the news article like we have
here? Especially when the article is
a) Fairly short
b) Full of subtle nuances thaht seem to suggest that fluoride is benefitial and necassary....with the addition of the oft repeated myth that fluoride
helps tooth decay.
Spooky suspicious in my mind, but I do make concession that I am over exaggerating the piece.....despite the fact that I have seen many interesting
articles that suggest fluoride is responsible for the disruption of healthy throidic hormone interaction with the body..(with physical application
towards metabolic rates/assimilation...physical development which in my mind is a red flag since it has the capacity to subtly interfere with the
maturation processes of our youth and in turn affect thier liklihood for mental attenuations...and even mental activity; China conducted a study at
some point showing a decrease in I.Q. with fluoridated children as opposed to a control group.)
This is one of those conspiracies that in my mind is highly underrated. For all intents and purposes, this would count as forced medication. The
inconsistency of the application (how many people come into contact with fluoride/varying levels of fluoride ingestion/differences in metabolic
assimilations) only suggests to me that it is meant as a long-term. But long-term what? Dental Hygiene of the future generations? Yeah...because
the government is really that concerned with our pearly whites.....something is definately going on there in my opinion....