Fluoride is Natural in Water

reply to post by mattguy404

Is the date on that "fluoride/polio monkey serum" poster May 16, 1953?

It's amazingly prophetic. A carcinogenic monkey virus polio vaccine was injected into 100 million people between 1955-1963 and even until the end of the 1990s.

SV40 stands for Simian Virus 40.

SV40 was the 40th virus found in rhesus monkey kidney cells when these cells were used to make the polio vaccine. This virus contaminated both the Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) created by Dr. Jonas Salk and the Oral or "Live" Polio Vaccine (OPV) created by Dr. Albert Sabin.

In 1961, SV40 was discovered by Dr. Bernice Eddy of the National Institute of Health, Division of Biologics when she took the material used to grow polio vaccines and injected it into hamsters. Tumors grew in the hamsters. Her discovery was subsequently validated by Drs. Maurice Hilliman and Benjamin Sweet of Merck.

Upon the discovery that SV40 was an animal carcinogen that had found its way into the polio vaccines, a new federal law was passed in 1961 that required that no vaccines contain this virus. However, this law did not require that SV40 contaminated vaccines be thrown away or that the contaminated seed material (used to make all polio vaccines for the next four decades) be discarded. As a result, known SV40 contaminated vaccines were injected into children up until 1963. In addition, it has been alleged that there have been SV40-contaminated batches of oral polio vaccine administered to some children until the end of the 1990's.

OP, better pay attention to that poster. If it could predict 100 million people getting injected with a carcinogenic monkey virus vaccine, it's right about fluoride.

Sorry, the poster cannot be considered proof of anything. It's a nice piece of propaganda though. Even posting that does nothing to help your cause.

I checked out ShirleysWellnessCafe, a holistic medicine site. Still no historical references to Nazi use of fluoride, but I did google the names of some of your anti-fluoridationist proponents: Dr. John Yiamouyiannis and Dr. Joseph Mercola. Are you ready for the truth about these guys?

Yianouyiannis

John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D. (1943–2000) liked to call himself "the world's leading authority on the biological effects of fluoride." [1] He was for more than 25 years the most active antifluoridationist in the United States. He was very bright—and determined. Had he chosen a positive direction, he might well have made a valuable contribution to science. But he did not. Despite training as a biochemist, he became obsessed with the idea that water fluoridation is dangerous. From 1974 through 1980, he served as "science director" of the National Health Federation, which hired him to "break the back of promoters' efforts to fluoridate more American cities."

Yiamouyiannis used many such ploys, but his most persistent was that fluoridation causes cancer. Experts concluded that his reports were based on a misinterpretation of government statistics. In true "anti" fashion, he compared cancer death rates in fluoridated and nonfluoridated cities but failed to adjust for various factors in each city (such as industrial pollution) that are known to raise the cancer death rate [2]. By 1977, independent investigations by eight of the leading medical and scientific organizations in the English-speaking world had refuted the cancer claims.

www.quackwatch.com...

In August 2000, the water district that serves Yiamouyiannis's home community (Delaware, Ohio) approved fluoridation. A few months later, the Columbus Dispatch reported that he had died "after a long and noble fight with cancer." [8] However, a subsequent report by Peter Barry Chowka indicates that Yiamouyiannis's death was probably hastened by neglect. In September 1999, Yiamouyiannis described to Chowka that about a year earlier, he had begun having bloody stools and went to several Mexican cancer clinics where he was diagnosed with rectal cancer, treated with "IV drips of laetrile, vitamin C, and a whole bunch of other stuff," and advised to have surgery and chemotherapy. However, he decided to reject conventional therapy and treat himself with what he considered to be nontoxic approaches [9]. The prognosis for colorectal cancer depends upon its location at the time it is discovered [10]. If there is no spread beyond the colon wall, the 5-year survival rates with treatment are about 95% for "Duke Stage 1" and 75% for "Duke Stage 2." It would be interesting to know whether Yiamouyannis's antipathy for standard medical care was indirectly responsible for his death.

He died because of his unorthodox view of medicine. This is the guy you're trusting about fluoride.

en.wikipedia.org...

Mercola

He is best known as founder and editor of the website Mercola.com. On his website, he advocates dietary and lifestyle approaches to health. He criticizes many of the practices of mainstream medicine and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), particularly vaccination and the frequent use of prescription drugs and surgery to treat diseases. On the website, he also promotes and sells a variety of products. Mercola has received a pair of warnings from the FDA for marketing nutritional products in a manner which violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.[1][2] He is a member of the politically conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, as well as several alternative medicine-related organizations.[3]

Joseph Mercola's dietary recommendations often put him at odds with mainstream dietary advice. The elimination of grains from the diet goes against the recommendation of the USDA food pyramid, where grains are viewed as a staple food. Mercola, however, points to theories on food intolerances involving gluten, such as celiac sprue[10] and wheat allergy, and the relatively new introduction of grains into the human diet and theories that sugar and starch are associated with hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance.[11]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued two warnings to Mercola related to misleading claims.[41] On February 16, 2005, the FDA sent Mercola warnings on multiple products about misleading claims for products that he advertised on his website.[42][1]

Mercola is a classic example of a modern snake oil salesman.

Your searches don't provide any references. All the results are either blogs, or conspiracy sites. After the first few results there is no mention of fluoride at all. I can't believe I can't find any proof of something so 'well-documented.' I'm looking for historical facts but I can't find any. I respect the possibility that it might be true, but so far facts don't back it up. Still looking though.

Roidrage: Your statements, three of which I have already refuted pages ago, do not constitute facts unless backed up with sources.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by TheComte]

[edit on 19-6-2008 by TheComte]

www.quackwatch.com...

In 1978, Consumer Reports published a two-part series on fluoridation that criticized Yiamouyiannis's work and concluded:

The simple truth is that there's no "scientific controversy" over the safety of fluoridation. The practice is safe, economical, and beneficial. The survival of this fake controversy represents, in Consumers Union's opinion, one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation [3].

A few months later, Yiamouyiannis filed suit for libel, charging that he had been defamed by Consumers Union's report. After a lower court dismissed the suit, Yiamouyiannis appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which upheld the dismissal. The appeals court's ruling, issued in 1980, stated:

It is clear that [Consumers Union] . . . made a thorough investigation of the facts. Scientific writings and authorities in the field were consulted; authoritative scientific bodies speaking for substantial segments of the medical and scientific community were investigated. The unquestioned methodology of the preparation of the article exemplifies the very highest order of responsible journalism: the entire article was checked and rechecked across a spectrum of knowledge and, where necessary, changes were made in the interests of accuracy.

At about this time, Yiamouyiannis had a falling out with other NHF officials, left NHF, and founded the National Health Action Committee, which he described in its brochure as "a union of virtually every effective antifluoridation group in the country." He also founded and operated the Safe Water Foundation. Without NHF support, however, Yiamouyiannis himself became much less effective.

In 1985, a prestigious group appointed by the British Department of Health and Social Security issued yet another review of the cancer charge plus more recent studies from a dozen countries. Agreeing that fluoridation does not cause cancer, the group said, "The only contrary conclusions are in our view attributable to errors in data, errors in analytical technique, and errors in scientific logic." [4]

Benjamin Spock's statement supporting fluoridation:

You might guess that I would be opposed to fluoridation of the water supply (to prevent tooth decay) on several counts. I've been against pollution of the diet of children and adults with extra sugar and salt, and with additives and preservatives. I've always disagreed with those health professionals who assumed, without solid proof, that they knew more than Nature—when, for example, some physicians used to prescribe tonsillectomy on a wholesale basis or tried to change growth patterns of normally short or tall children by means of growth hormones. I'm also against imposing regulations on people in an arbitrary and undemocratic manner.

The fact is that I started out as somewhat skeptical and cautious about fluoridation in the 1940's and early 1950's. But then I became a firm believer as proof was assembled by scientists in the 1950's and afterwards that fluoridation of a water supply will reduce the production of tooth cavities (our most prevalent disease) by 60%, and, just as important, that no disease or defect is caused by this procedure. What particularly allayed my early doubts about adding a chemical to public water supplies was learning that fluoride has always occurred naturally in water supplies—in concentrations from several parts per million in some regions of the southwest to a mere twentieth of a part per million in the northeast. Obviously, it is a natural, though varying, ingredient of water. Because of this, any long-term bad effect could be—and was—searched for in those people who had drunk water with a moderate or high concentration all their lives.

In the late 1950s and the early 1960s, I was chairman of a national committee to educate the public and public officials about the value and safety of fluoridation. As such I received hundreds of letters, some politely explaining that I was mistaken, others abusing me as intentionally evil. (One was an indignant letter from one of my sisters, a vigorous environmentalist and organic farmer.) But I've also received favorable mail, and awards from two national dental associations, so it wasn't all painful. My book Baby and Child Care has advocated fluoridation since the 1950s.

The many endorsements of fluoridation by professional organizations are certainly impressive. After careful review of all scientific evidence, including claims of opponents, fluoridation has been recommended as safe and effective by the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Institute of Dental Research (an arm of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare), the Royal Society of Physicians in Great Britain , and the World Health Organization. In fact, no major health organization or recognized scientific body has ever differed with these conclusions.

The story of how fluoridation's value was discovered is not only fascinating, but should also be reassuring to some doubters since it reveals that the early researchers had no bias, no axe to grind. They were simply looking for answers to certain dental problems. Dr. Frederick S. McKay, a practicing dentist in Colorado with an extraordinary curiosity and dedication to human betterment, spent the first 30 years of this century tracking down the cause of a certain type of tooth stain which has always been prevalent in Colorado and several southwestern states. He first found, strangely enough, that this staining occurred in people whose teeth had a high resistance to decay. He finally discovered, in 1931, that the staining and resistance to decay were both due to the high concentration of fluoride which occurred naturally in that region.

A crucial test was begun in 1945 in Newburgh, New York, to see whether deliberate addition of fluoride to a water supply which had very little natural fluoride would provide the same benefit. Over a 10-year period, the children of Newburgh developed nearly 60% fewer cavities than the children of the comparable city of Kingston, where the water was not fluoridated. Since then, thousands of studies of the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation have been made with consistent results.

The natural occurrence of moderate to high concentrations of fluoride in certain regions has made it possible for scientists to search without delay for possible bad effects by carefully comparing rates for such diseases as cancer, heart disease, birth defects and allergies in regions with high, medium and low concentrations of fluoride. All studies have agreed: the only adverse effect is staining of the teeth when the fluoride concentration is several times as high as that recommended for artificial fluoridation.

You've probably heard the accusations against fluoridation—that it is a poison; that it may cause cancer, heart disease, birth defects, allergies and other diseases; that its use in a public water supply is an invasion of people's constitutional rights unless they consent. Other, wilder, claims are that it is a communist plot to weaken our country (even though the Soviet Union uses fluoridation), or that it is simply a money-making scheme of the aluminum companies who produce the fluoride as a by-product. All adverse claims and accusations which had the slightest plausibility have been scrupulously investigated by scientists and government officials and have been found to be baseless. But nothing seems to keep the more determined opponents from repeating old accusations and making new ones.

Dr. Spock, who retired from his pediatric practice in 1967, was best known for his authorship of Baby and Child Care, which sold 28 million copies between 1946 and 1980. This article was excerpted from the foreword to The Tooth Robbers: A Pro-Fluoridation Handbook, edited by Stephen Barrett, M.D., and Sheldon Rovin, D.D.S, and published in 1980 by the George F. Stickley Co. of Philadelphia.

Hard to argue with that.

reply to post by TheComte



There are some good posts by multiple people here on this thread that provide many good points arguing both sides.

TheComte, I doubt you will find any media reference to the German use of Fluoride. If there was any before, I'm sure it was wiped clean and that rumour dispelled long ago, just as school textbooks tell the side of wars that we want our children to know. If there were proof that they used it, I think people on a large scale would be suspicious.

I find myself slightly agreeing with the OP in the sense that: "Yes, it might not be good for you, or needed by your body, but what harm has it caused me? or others around me? Especially in a small amount of 1 ppm." That would be the side of me that really stands for no principles; a carefree and trusting side of me that kind of has a "screw it, I feel fine, I'll live my life" attitude.

But on the other side, when it comes to the principle of the Fluoride issue, I have many questions that I feel are unanswered, especially considering the cause and process of the whole matter. And that will not let me reach that "carefree" state about this issue:

POINT ONE:

For one thing, adding Fluoride to water is not a cheap thing, and as some already pointed out; It seems suprising that our government would complete a plan so costly and detailed to the point where it is even organized by county throughout the whole nation, just to see a 50% decrease in tooth decay.


POINT TWO:

It almost seems like the history implies that tooth decay was a massive scale epidemic and had become a burden on society. This seems exaggerated to me. How do we know that it wasn't just a promoted awareness about tooth decay which mainly "improved" the statistics? I do know that Fluoride does work in preventing tooth decay and that has been proven. I'm not questioning that. What I question is that why we felt like we needed to jump into a massive scale plan to fluoridate millions and millions of people based one what one guy found in a over-fluoridated area. Why is it that countries like Japan where almost no water is Fluoridated, they have a fine record? And honesty, why would AMA and dentists support a project which would undermine their own profession and create less of a demand for their services? It just seems illogical to me, but whatever.


POINT 3:

Also it seems like every report on Fluoride safety, no matter which one, does not completely dismiss the possibility of Fluoride causing harm. There definitely HAVE been harmful effects of Fluoride in over fluoridated areas. We have proven that. What concerns me is that the studies have been limited to only a few areas of concern "officially". We know that the cancer risk is little to none. We know that you can possibly live a healthy life while drinking 1 ppm fluoride your whole life. But why has there been no "offical" psychological studies? It seems like something on a massive grand scale such as a national project to put a chemical in the water of almost all Americans would require many varied, detailed, and conclusive studies. Yet all we mainly find are small studies done by government rats such as Proctor and Gamble.


POINT 4:

Regardless of ANY of my other points stated above, I feel like no matter what your stance on the issue of Fluoride is, you should agree that having it added to your water against your will is slightly unconstitutional. Even if it was completely harmless and beneficial, I think people should not be forced to only have access to fluoridated water. This is merely the patriot in me that wants to adhere to our constitution and keep my liberties.


I hope these points make sense...



[edit on 19-6-2008 by Azurus]

[edit on 19-6-2008 by Azurus]

Quackwatch?

-Regarding the famed Stephen Barrett and his Quackwatch website...

Frankly, "quackbusting" is a profitable industry, and Stephen Barrett plays it to the hilt.

In a Canadian lawsuit (see below) Barrett admitted to the following:

"The sole purpose of the activities of Barrett & Baratz are to discredit and cause damage and harm to health care practitioners, businesses that make alternative health therapies or products available, and advocates of non-allopathic therapies and health freedom."

Stephen Barrett testifies for money. He claims he's an "expert" in virtually everything. Those "expert witness" fees seem to be a significant part of Barrett's existence.

Barrett, we know, along with his website, is currently named, among other things, in a racketeering (RICO) case in Federal Court in Colorado.

Barrett was cornered in a Federal case in the State of Oregon not long ago, and asked about his income. He testified that over the past two years he made a TOTAL of $54,000.

How then does he afford to carry on fourteen (14) separate legal actions at one time?

If each legal action cost him $100,000, that would come to 1.4 million dollars ($1,400,000).

How do you squeeze 1.4 million out of a $54,000 total income?

And so on.

Azurus and StrangeBrew, you both make some good points.

Continuing my search for corroboration of fluoride use by the Nazis, I found this site that mentions Patton and his refusal to allow the fluoridation of his troops. It alleges that he was killed for this. However, googling Patton and fluoride together don't provide any references.:

www.loveforlife.com.au...

Also, this document that I believe to be a credible account of the concentration camps does not mention fluoride at all. It does point out that water was pumped from a well and that many prisoners did not have ready access to water or toilets. So, it just doesn't seem possible that stockpiles of fluoride were found next to water supplies, as is alleged. Or that prisoners were given fluoride to keep them docile. If that's your intention, wouldn't make sure all prisoners have access to water?

www1.yadvashem.org...

[edit on 19-6-2008 by TheComte]

[edit on 19-6-2008 by TheComte]

reply to post by TheComte

If that's your intention, wouldn't make sure all prisoners have access to water?

To be honest, there are many ways to give someone Fluoride. I'm not sure if it was given through water or what process could have been used to give it to them. I know Fluorine is a gas, but I'm not sure of the effects of it in the non-ionic form.

If the Germans using Fluoride is just a crazy rumour, it seems an odd one to start. Considering they could have come up with many other more interesting chemicals to use against their prisoners. Supposedly their reasoning was clear though: Create docility and affect fertilization.

Ironically, you will never find any modern studies done regarding the possibility that Fluoride effects either of these.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by Azurus]

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by StrangeBrew

 

How do you know this? You wrote a big rant but there is no links. From whom did you first learn that it is all a lie?

I know this because I've done the research required like a lot of other ATS members have. I haven't dabbled. I've literally spent 100+ hours looking into this subject over the past couple of years.


I remember one site I used for historical references was the following:

Chronology of Fluoridation

Of course, anything has to be cross referenced several times to hold weight in my opinion. Use these bullet points as a starting point if you're interested in the history.

For the record, this topic has been exhausted in the past with some stellar research done by others. This thread comes to mind:

Fluoridation: A conspiracy so old, we think it's normal


Ultimately, believe what you want.

Originally posted by Azurus
To be honest, there are many ways to give someone Fluoride. I'm not sure if it was given through water or what process could have been used to give it to them. I know Fluorine is a gas, but I'm not sure of the effects of it in the non-ionic form.

Well, the rumour specifically says that was the first instance of fluoridated water supplies. The one site said stockpiles of fluoride were found next to water supplies when the Allies liberated the camps. It states that when the Allies asked what it was for, they were told it was to keep everyone docile and submissive.

Now, who the Allies asked, and who told them is left unsaid. But, since to my knowledge the camps were deserted by Germans by the time the Allies came through, it seems likely it would have been a prisoner. But would a prisoner know what it would be for? And if they knew, doesn't this seem to indicate that it was not very effective?

Plus, I don't think that it has shown to be sterilizing women in cities that are fluoridated.

If the Germans using Fluoride is just a crazy rumour, it seems an odd one to start.

Not if you want to discredit fluoridation. Link anything to the Nazis and right away there are sinister connotations.

Originally posted by TheComte

Yianouyiannis
Yiamouyiannis used many such ploys, but his most persistent was that fluoridation causes cancer. Experts concluded that his reports were based on a misinterpretation of government statistics. In true "anti" fashion, he compared cancer death rates in fluoridated and nonfluoridated cities but failed to adjust for various factors in each city (such as industrial pollution) that are known to raise the cancer death rate [2]. By 1977, independent investigations by eight of the leading medical and scientific organizations in the English-speaking world had refuted the cancer claims.

Totally false. I have his book. He compared cancer rates in multiple cities across the US before and after they started water fluoridation. A recent Harvard study that was covered up confirmed exacty what Yiamouyiannis claimed, that fluoride increased the incidence of bone cancer in boys.

Who are these "experts" and "8 leading medical and scientific organizations?" Why do you accept vague loaded statements that don't even tell you the identity of these "experts" and precisely what they claim?

Originally posted by TheComte

www.quackwatch.com...

He died because of his unorthodox view of medicine. This is the guy you're trusting about fluoride.

en.wikipedia.org...

Mercola is a classic example of a modern snake oil salesman.

Unbelievable. Barrett's "Quackwatch" and the FDA are trustworthy while Yianouyiannis used "ploys" and Dr. Mercola is a "snake oil salesman."

You're too much.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


I have to give the same reply one of you gave several pages back:

Lies. They're all lies. Lies, I tell you.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Ironically you can check right now on the CDC'S own website..And compare the rate of cancer in correlation to water flouridation and its truly scary many of the states that have a high percentage of water flouridation also happen to be high in Cancer rates... I just started a new thread here and it has the link to the cdc sites showing the facts... www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Thats funny my thread keeps magically disapearing.. Am I againts ATS rules in anyways? this is the 2nd time posting a new thread on the subject and the 2nd time having it deleted.. I will post here instead.. To all mods and ops please elaberate on what rules I have broken so that no I longer break them.
Water Fluoridation is not natural PERIOD!


This is a response to the thread titled “ Flouride in water is natural”


I am getting sick of people claiming that Water fluoridation is natural … most water municipalities use sodium fluoride, which is derived from Pollution Scrubbers and toxic byproduct of Aluminum manufacturing. Here is the Wikipedia definition: NaF is prepared by neutralizing waste hydrofluoric acid resulting from the production of superphosphate fertilizer. It is also generated by treating sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate with hydrofluoric acid, followed by concentrating the resulting solutions, sometimes with the addition of alcohols to precipitate the NaF: Again as you can see, this form of fluoride is not natural at all and this form of fluoride is DIRECTLY dumped in the water supply… For all proponents of fluoride you need to realize that most foods already have fluoride.. as it is naturally bonded to the elements..it is also usually present in many deep water sources. The toxicity of calcium fluoride is also much lower then sodium fluoride... the amount needed for sodium fluoride to kill a 70 KG Human is 5- 10 grams.. That’s it… now the toxicity of calcium fluoride is nearly none due to it being nearly non- soluble here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the toxicity of calcium fluoride: Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is analogous to BaSO4, where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative. The reason for water fluoridation given to us by the government is reportedly due to it helping prevent tooth decay. Now if we look at the European Union. That has mostly banned water fluoridation. It has either the same or better rate of tooth decay then its U.S counterpart. As a matter of fact there is no correlation of where water fluoridation use is high and lower rate of tooth cavities… Instead we see another startling correlation. Cancer rates are actually higher where water fluoridation rates are high!! As an example (source Centers for Disease control) Kentucky the 2nd in rate of water fluoridation to its populace at 99.6% also happens to be the 1st in the rate of cancer. This is not a coincidence. If you go down the list of the states with the highest rate of fluoridation they also happen to be the highest in the list of cancer rates.(DC happens to be #1 in water fluoridation and number 8 in cancer rates which is startling considering DC isn’t even a state and has a much lower population then one.. On to the psychoactive properties of Flouride (Fluorine is in sodium fluoride) we can look at Fluorine which is the major active ingredient in the controversial psycho-active psychiatric drug PROZAC (Fluoxetene Hydrochloride), and also in deadly Sarin military nerve gas, U.S. designation GB. (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl. Anyone who observe someone on a pshycoactive drug such as Prozak can attest to the Zombie like nature of there behavior (I myself was on Prozak) And we can safely assume that since the active ingredient in Prozak is found in sodium Flouride that it will have similar effects.

I suggest to all proponents of water fluoridation self medicate it themselves instead of forcing the rest of us to drink your “medicine “for those that do not want to drink fluoridated water the only way to completely remove it is using distilled water.. No filter in the market completely removes fluoride. Note that most breads contain high concentrations of fluoride due to the use of fluoridated water. You must bake the breads yourself using distilled water (purchase a bread maker). Distilled water is a bit more acidic then tap water (note most minerals in water are non soluble and your body will not ingest it). But the benefits far outweigh the negatives. I hope this puts to rest the notion that water fluoridation is “natural” and that it is “good” for you.
statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov...
www.cdc.gov...
The EPA UNION is heavily againts water flouridation. The EPA asked the ADA to remove the EPA name from its list of endorsers on water flouridation.










[edit on 19-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

[edit on 19-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Originally posted by Azurus


POINT 3:

Also it seems like every report on Fluoride safety, no matter which one, does not completely dismiss the possibility of Fluoride causing harm. There definitely HAVE been harmful effects of Fluoride in over fluoridated areas. We have proven that. What concerns me is that the studies have been limited to only a few areas of concern "officially". We know that the cancer risk is little to none. We know that you can possibly live a healthy life while drinking 1 ppm fluoride your whole life. But why has there been no "offical" psychological studies? It seems like something on a massive grand scale such as a national project to put a chemical in the water of almost all Americans would require many varied, detailed, and conclusive studies. Yet all we mainly find are small studies done by government rats such as Proctor and Gamble.

I have deliberately stayed out of this thread for a couple of reason. I need to say something here. Your point is a little misleading.

The real problem with tracing a cause and effect of disease with fluoride is the very nature of water treatment. Discount the different type of fluoride compounds used, you need to look only at the fluoride ion which is what is measured.

The real rub here is chlorine. You are placing a strong oxidizer, into the drinking water, that reacts with all organics and creates some really cool compounds that no one can for know sure what effect if any it has on the human body.

These organic can be something as innocuous as humic and fulic acid from leaf decay which form trichloramines when chlorine is added. Ammonia is then added in an attempt to keep these compounds at a minimum, but then you have ammonia forming compounds along with chloroorganics.

See the problem trying to trace a health issue to a natural element in low dosage. This is why the studies that are published are so vague. There is more than one root cause, even with treated drinking water, for many of the modern cancers and diseases that are prevalent in modern society.

reply to post by hinky



Good point, and I see your concern about other factors which would be present to complicate testing. So are you agreeing that there should be more studies or are you saying that it would be impossible to effectively study it?

Either way doesn't settle too well really with me.


[edit on 19-6-2008 by Azurus]

Several years ago I talked to some Region VII and Washington DC EPA officials about this very subject. It is much more complex than it looks.

To bottom line this, the chemicals used in water treatment are all toxic, hazardous, even poisonous to humans; but used in proper amounts and precautions taken, perfectly safe for what they do.

The problem is the organics present in the water being treated. Trace amounts of everything are present. To just say stop fluoridation and watch cancer rates plummet would be foolish. There is no definitive proof this would happen. The same can be said about any number of other chemicals used from phosphates to ferric sulfate or even lime with excess calcium deliberately left in the water so the water is not corrosive on the water mains.

I was a proponent for fluoridation for years, in my youthful career. As I aged and saw stuff, I learned, not from what you would learn in college, but real life stuff and putting a couple of things together here and there. Asking questions to people who are much smarter and make the rules or regulations for the EPA and then ask for the dumbed down answer. I have talked to industry reps, engineers, and chemists about the different fluoridation treatments from several chemical companies. I even testified before the Missouri House committee on water treatment, fluoridation in particular; back in the early 80's. Went to more than several cities to talk to city councils about voting for fluoridation of water supplies.

I have 4 kids from over 30 to age 18. I cannot look them in the face and tell them I was right about this issue. That's a hard thing to say. Not a manhood issue, but something else. For the most part, they have good teeth. Let's look long term..... Yeah, more studies need to be done. You will not get a counter argument from me.

dupe post




[edit on 20-6-2008 by GoldenFleece]

I've got a good one that the OP will instantly dismiss, but this thread has transcended him. Former Oak Ridge nuclear scientist Jim Phelps is heir to the Phelps-Dodge mining fortune and one hell of a smart guy. So smart that what he says sounds crazy:

Jim Phelps discovered the causation for aging, cancer, CFS, and HIV at The Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the mid 1980s. He found that Oak Ridge fluoride releases were affecting the Pineal gland's regulation of the night and day signaling that controlled the Pituitary's Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH). Further, that the fluorides combined in the body with aluminum to produce a TSH like G-protein effect that also upset the day-night regulation of thyroid related hormones T-3 and T-4. This chemical damage process kept the cells of the body from powering down at night and caused depletion of the glutathione enzyme (Se-GSH) in the body and brain.

The GSH damage process then allowed toxic metals to build up in the body as the phase I and phase II glutathione clearance was impaired. The loss of the liver bile pathway placed more clearance of metals demand on the kidneys, which set the stage to metabolic acidosis and shift of the blood pH toward acid, which further impaired toxic metal clearance. The rise of the toxic metals caused the cell mitochondria to produce increased rates of free radicals, which required the up regulation of the superoxide dimutase enzymes (Mn-SOD). These enzymes employed all the trace metal manganese, which upset the production of the cytokine interferon (IFN) and the production of effective 2-5A RNase L enzymes.

The high oxidative stress in the cells caused the mutation of the 2-5A RNase L enzyme from its normal 83 kDa MW to an ineffectual 37 kDa MW. This is the prime enzyme within cells that kills viral RNA by cleaving it, sets up cell apoptosis, and calls in the NK and macrophage cells. The mutation of this enzyme is the prime effect that allows cancer viruses to grow, HIV to grow, and CFS problems with EBV, CMV, and mycoplasma to affect long-term health.

When this principle cellular enzyme that controls cell viral and mycoplasma mutates due to the manganese loss, the immune system goes into a Th-2 mode due the interferon cytokine system failing. As the varied viruses and mycoplasma effects proliferate within the cells of organs, they generate their own cytokine factors that cause the growth of blood supplies and uncontrolled cell growth for cancers. In other cases, depending on the genetic pre-dispositions, these viruses just cause increasing rates of cell damage leading to slow and eventual death.

This process of slow damage to the Pineal gland from fluoride is the prime cause for all animal and human aging on planet Earth. It causes a slow shift of thyroid hormones into hyperthyroid and sets off a destructive pattern of toxic metals retention that continues until a large number of cells are no longer protected from internal pathogen infections, this causing death.

Jim Phelps' discovery of this etiology for cancers, aging, and chronic illness caused great problems for the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons plants that used fluoride to produce bomb uranium and slowly poisoned its workers health. The discovery also unlocked that the Ancient Egyptians knew this same process and that is was connected with their reverence toward the Pineal Gland and was represented by the Eye Of Horus icon. The discoveries gave greater insights into not only that the Egyptians found this dominant effect on human health and intelligence, but also showed how religion's Moses was connected with finding a Sulfur Cycle medicinal effect that also determines the weather and cooling of planet Earth.

These web pages are about the key insights into the discoveries that affect everyone on planet Earth, but which have been covered up by Oak Ridge and its corrupted Govt. associations that have taken freedom from the citizens of the US.

Some of the stuff on Phelps' 'DOE Watch' will blow your mind: www.doewatch.com...

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Why can't you debate the issue without taking a shot at me every time you reply? Oh well, I guess I'll just have to be the bigger man and let it go.

Your quote was intriguing until I got to the Eye of Horus thing. That's just New Age mumbo jumbo and doesn't help your credibility, no matter what you might think.

So you honestly believe that without fluoride we wouldn't age? Honestly? Sounds like you are the one doing the transcending: common sense.


[edit on 20-6-2008 by TheComte]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by TheComte]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by TheComte]