Fluoride is Natural in Water

Originally posted by RaptureMe2
We don't need any more studies. That information is as old as the hills fer chrissakes!

All the older studies say it is safe

Fluoride ranks in the same relative toxicity as arsenic and lead. They are ALL toxic in SMALL--repeat, SMALL doses. Dosages in parts per million are too much--even parts per billion are debatable.

If that were true, there would be millions of people around the world physically showing toxic effects. There would be no doubt. But, you don't find that.

Fluoride is also a cumulative poison; it "loves" cartilagenous tissues like joints, the pineal gland and growing bones. Hmmm? Where do we find growing bones? Oh yeah, that's right--the c-h-i-l-d-r-e-n--the same ones we're saving from c-a-v-i-t-i-e-s (Saints preserve us!).

I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, it is absorbed into bones and teeth. Excess fluoride that is not absorbed is flushed from the body within 24 hours. Yes, we are trying to help children, and it's working.

You act as though this issue is a matter of opinion--it isn't. The studies are out there that raise serious issues about the safety of fluoride.

You act like you are getting angry if I don't agree with you. Yes, there are some studies that raise questions. Why do you consider them as fact, when there studies that say it is safe? Plus, the fact that 50 years after it was introduced we have not seen a connection to cancer in the population.

Your own observations, i.e. anecdotal evidence, are not proof by any scientific standard. Did you conduct your own studies to determine the rates of cancer, e.g. osteosarcoma, in your community or did you just kinda look around? "Nope--nobody's got cancer that I can see."

I never said they were proof by a scientific standard. I'm just saying that if it was as dangerous as you make it out to be, why isn't there at least one case of it of all the people I know in this city? And, you mentioned your wife. I'm sorry about her condition but does she exhibit any other effects commonly touted by anti-fluoridationists. Do a lot of people from her community suffer? If so, what percentage can you estimate?

I was raised in the Chicago suburbs (fluoridated) and have 16 cavities. How's that for anecdotal evidence?

Are you saying that fluoride caused your cavities, or just didn't prevent theml? Do you or did you eat a lot of sweets? Do you practice good oral hygiene? There could be any number of reasons why it didn't work too well for you. I'm sorry you have so many cavities.

Going after the straw man ("chemical lobotomy types) does little for your argument either.

Why not? That's the main point I wanted to refute.

reply to post by TheComte


You still think sodium-flouride is natural... There is a certain amount of flouride in water naturally and its called calcium-flouride and its cosidered non-toxic.. why do you completly ignore the fact that there are different types of flourides? some more toxic and some less.. this was the reason I posted all the different uses...

reply to post by RaptureMe2


Very good post. The op seems to be on some type of agenda.. Why are you wasting so much time defending water flouridation? like I said before if you like it so much, go to your Dr and ask him to prescribe it to you.. Just don't try to make us swallow your non-sense\flouride. I myself have been only using distilled water.. I can't even begin to describe how my energy levels have shot up.. There is still the problem with bathing however according to my water manager the plants that produce the stuff is behind.. because there main business is not producing it... there main business is fertilizers or aluminum manufacturing.

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by TheComte

 

You still think sodium-flouride is natural... There is a certain amount of flouride in water naturally and its called calcium-flouride and its cosidered non-toxic.. why do you completly ignore the fact that there are different types of flourides? some more toxic and some less.. this was the reason I posted all the different uses...

LOL...
I believe I have answered this ad nauseum.

Read all of this link. If you feel it is all lies then that's fine. Feel free to post your opinion. No need to get angry at me. And please stop asking me the same questions over and over.

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

Fluorides are naturally occurring compounds. Low levels of fluorides can help prevent dental cavities. At high levels, fluorides can result in tooth and bone damage. Hydrogen fluoride and fluorine are naturally-occurring gases that are very irritating to the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. These substances have been found in at least 188 of the 1,636 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Most of the studies of people living in areas with fluoridated water or naturally high levels of fluoride in drinking water did not find an association between fluoride and cancer risk. Two animal cancer studies were inconclusive. The international Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not classifiable.

When used appropriately, fluoride is both safe and effective in preventing and controlling cavities. Drinking or eating excessive fluoride during the time teeth are being formed (before 8 years of age) can cause visible changes in teeth. This condition is called dental fluorosis. At very high concentrations of fluoride, the teeth can become more fragile and sometimes can break.

No studies have addressed whether low levels of fluoride will cause birth defects in humans. Birth defects have not been found in most studies of animals.

Fluorides, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine are chemically related. Fluorine is a naturally-occurring, pale yellow-green gas with a sharp odor. It combines with metals to make fluorides such as sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride, both white solids. Sodium fluoride dissolves easily in water, but calcium fluoride does not. Fluorine also combines with hydrogen to make hydrogen fluoride, a colorless gas. Hydrogen fluoride dissolves in water to form hydrofluoric acid.

Fluorine and hydrogen fluoride are used to make certain chemical compounds. Hydrofluoric acid is used for etching glass. Other fluoride compounds are used in making steel, chemicals, ceramics, lubricants, dyes, plastics, and pesticides. Fluorides are often added to drinking water supplies and to a variety of dental products, including toothpaste and mouth rinses, to prevent dental cavities.

Tests are available to measure fluoride levels in urine; these tests can determine if you have been exposed to higher-than normal levels of fluorides. The urine test must be performed soon after exposure because fluoride that is not stored in bones leaves the body within a few days. The test cannot be performed in the doctor's office, but can be done at most laboratories that test for chemical exposure. The urine fluoride test cannot be used to predict the nature or severity of toxic effects. Bone sampling can be done in special cases to measure long-term exposure to fluorides.

reply to post by thefreepatriot



I am also confused by the OP's position. Are you debating for the sake of debate? Or is it your position that fluoride should be added to the water. I would have to imagine at this point it is the former. I can't imagine anyone believing that a nation’s water should be contaminated with controversial substances against the peoples will.

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by RaptureMe2

Most pure souces of water contain little to no fluoride (natural or artificial).

You see, that statement is false. Even rain, as I have found out, contains up to 1mg/L, which is the level of fluoridation. Even some bottled water contains fluoride. What I've got in the fridge right now has .3mg/L fluorine ions.

Wow! You make these fatuous sweeping statements about scientific information using exceptions to invalidate the greater truth. So, I reiterate: most sources contain little to no fluoride. You come back with the exceptions. Some bottled water--some [implied] rain. You need to do better than that to invalidate my assertion.

One of the prescribed treatments for hyperthyroidism is to take a fluoride bath. Why? Because the permeable skin is the largest organ on the body and can absorb chemicals quite readily. The fluoridated bath gives the patient a strong dose of fluoride which suppresses the thyroid gland. One of the most prescribed meds in this highly fluoridated country is Synthroid, a medication intended to improve thyroid function. Hmmmm . . . care to connect the dots? [But that might make you a "conspiracy theorist" wouldn't it?]

So, is this another medicine made with fluoride?

What's your point? By the very definition of "medicine", ANY substance--whether a pure element or patented pharmaceutical--administered for the purpose of treating or curing a disease is a "medicine". This also applies to water fluoridation, BTW.

None of the websites quoted offer any legitimate information.

Maybe so, but that includes websites quoted by anti-fluoridationists.

For one thing, you couldn't have possibly gone to and read the information on the website I recently linked. I suspect you're merely gainsaying.

Fluoride does NOT strenghten tooth enamel. It weakens it by replacing the naturally flexible enamel with a brittle, chalky imposter. Teeth are more easily broken after years of consuming fluoride-laden water.

Observations do not bear this out. Why doesn't this occur with everybody then? Of the hundreds of friends and family that live in this community not one, not one single case, of what you describe.

"Observations"? Yours? Are you going to continue to fall back on the pseudo-science of anecdotal evidence? That's not evidence. Fact is, fluoridated humans all have varying degrees of enamel replacement. The science bears this out. Study it--preferably without paradigm paralysis.

The Fluoride Action Network www.fluoridealert.org is a better alternative for solid information about fluoride than the tired old propaganda spewed from the numerous government and trade groups.

That's your opinion.

No, I've studied what the dental and governmental health agencies put out about fluoride. It's more politics than science. Much of it flies in the face of current scientific fact, yet they stubbornly cling to their long disproven factoids--to the detriment of our health.

Most European countries do NOT fluoridate their water and have as good or better teeth than most Americans.

Then why the running joke of the British having bad teeth? Why isn't the joke about North American's having bad teeth?

Jeebus!! So we're falling onto facile cliches to make a point? North Americans? I don't claim to know what others say, but I KNOW that fully fluoridated Kentucky has some of the worst dental decay problems in the country. Same with most fluoridated cities in the U.S.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by TheComte] [/quot

reply to post by TheComte


"I believe I have tried to but failed miserably to answer this ad nauseum."

There! Fixed it for you, Perfessor.

reply to post by TheComte


Your only source seems to be the CDC.. I have posted facts from the CDC showing cancer rates are extremely high in states where water flouridation is high. You tend to ingore data that completely contradicts your claim of flouride being natural and safe. I also posted how the EPA union is againts water flouridation.. You still continue to say Flouride in general is natural., however the evidence is clear that the flouride being added to our waters is sodium-flouride which is not.. If there is a controversy (as this thread has clearly proved) then why are you advocating the general dumping of flouride into our drinking supplies? why not let the individual choose whether he gets this in his water or not? Just look at most of the posts on your thread most (95%) are againts water-flouridation. Also I am sure you have had over 10,000 visitors to your thread .. yet you only have 1 star to your thread?Do you see a trend here? the People do not want there water to be flouridated.You can post all the CDC quotes you want.. it will not change the fact that people do not want to medicated againts there will. Your claims of Flouride being natural in all forms is a fallacy...

[edit on 20-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Originally posted by RaptureMe2
reply to post by TheComte

 

"I believe I have tried to but failed miserably to answer this ad nauseum."

There! Fixed it for you, Perfessor.

This op seems to be on some sort of Agenda... why would he be wasting so much time defending and ignoring common sense conclusions that a even a 5 year old can realise..A Toxic byproduct dumped into water is bad=sick getting sick is not good.. Can you understand this op?

Originally posted by harvib
I am also confused by the OP's position. Are you debating for the sake of debate? Or is it your position that fluoride should be added to the water. I would have to imagine at this point it is the former. I can't imagine anyone believing that a nation’s water should be contaminated with controversial substances against the peoples will.

I never said fluoride should be added to the water. I did state that in most water supplies there is a natural level of fluorides. I do refute the conspiracy that fluoride is purposely being put in the water to control us. I mean, just look at crime rates. I guess it doesn't work too well.

A lot of people are against fluoridation because they believe it is being used to control them. They do not realize that it is likely that their water supply has fluoride in it whether the gov't puts it there or not.

I agree that in high doses it is toxic. I believe that in low doses it is effective in preventing tooth decay. Most studies seem to indicate this, some do not. It has been my experience that this is the case. I concede that more studies should be done on low dose toxicity, and any risks to brain development.

Any clearer?

To show you I'm a good sport, I did find one area that seems to corroborate the position that fluoride affects the pituitary gland. I wasn't going to offer it up to you but seeing as no one brought it up yet. It has to do with the study that determined that mice reached sexual maturity faster with fluoride. In America right now people are questioning why girls seem to be 'maturing' much faster than decades ago. Perhaps more studies need to be done in this area. I'm surprised no one brought this up, seeing how some of you think you are knowledgeable on the subject.

reply to post by TheComte


I do not claim any knowledge on the subject. I am not a scientist nor am I a doctor. I am just curious as to your position. You have not made your position clear in my opinion. Are you in favor of a substance that you have now admitted to be questionable added to the water supply without the peoples' consent? If you are, why? If not why the debate?

I have already stated that calcium flouride isn't so bad and it is found naturally in water(especially from deep wells)Also I already knew that it calcifies the pituitary gland.. which is not good Just look at your average 14 year old girl.. heck most of them look like there about 20-21(always ask for id )Please clarify what your position is on this... Are you againts water flouridation or for it? rememeber water flouridation is ARTIFICIAL... and the flouride found in water and the earth(CAF2) is not., this is natural and non-soluble so your body will not ingest it.. What do want. are you a proponent of water flouridation or are you againts it? Please clarify what your position is..


[edit on 20-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by RaptureMe2

 

Very good post. The op seems to be on some type of agenda.. Why are you wasting so much time defending water flouridation? like I said before if you like it so much, go to your Dr and ask him to prescribe it to you.. Just don't try to make us swallow your non-sense\flouride. I myself have been only using distilled water.. I can't even begin to describe how my energy levels have shot up.. There is still the problem with bathing however according to my water manager the plants that produce the stuff is behind.. because there main business is not producing it... there main business is fertilizers or aluminum manufacturing.

I don't consider it wasted time. I devoted most of 2000-2001 to fighting the "fluoridistas" in my town--and won, BTW.

My take is that the OP is likely either a past, present of future dentist/dental hygienist/health care "professional"/Cargill lobbyist/political apparatchik for some health agency.

I write this primarily for the people with open minds out there who are still undecided and need a bit more information.

The problem with fluoride is that it's everywhere! Give a kid some Grape Nuts for breakfast and some chicken nuggets and a Coke for lunch--you've just exceeded his recommended daily maximum of fluoride.

Like tea? Loaded with fluoride.

Like red wine or grapes? Packed with poison

I could go on. So . . . they want to put MORE of this garbage into our bodies?

reply to post by RaptureMe2


I know... its everywhere, I for one avoid all processed foods, I rarely drink but I am planning on brewing my own beer in the long term future. From what I understand USDA organic foods don't allow the use of flouridated water or products having it.. So you can try that as well.. The only thing I haven't figured out is showering I have looked for filters that take out flouride but have not found any.. I currently have a Vitamic C showerhead filter which removes chlorine which is also bad, but it really affects you when you breath it in so cold showers are a must. I suppose the only alternative is not taking a shower at all

Originally posted by RaptureMe2
Wow! You make these fatuous sweeping statements about scientific information using exceptions to invalidate the greater truth. So, I reiterate: most sources contain little to no fluoride. You come back with the exceptions. Some bottled water--some [implied] rain. You need to do better than that to invalidate my assertion.

Double WOW! OK, that'll be easy.

www.excelwater.com...

Fluoride, a naturally occurring element, exists in combination with other elements as a fluoride compound and is found as a constituent of minerals in rocks and soil. When water passes through and over the soil and rock formations containing fluoride it dissolves these compounds, resulting in the small amounts of soluble fluoride present in virtually all water sources.

What's your point? By the very definition of "medicine", ANY substance--whether a pure element or patented pharmaceutical--administered for the purpose of treating or curing a disease is a "medicine". This also applies to water fluoridation, BTW.

Thank you. I'm surprised an anti-fluoridationist would admit that fluoride can and is used as a medicine.

"Observations"? Yours? Are you going to continue to fall back on the pseudo-science of anecdotal evidence? That's not evidence. Fact is, fluoridated humans all have varying degrees of enamel replacement. The science bears this out. Study it--preferably without paradigm paralysis.

Yes, mine. Who elses? It is evidence, though not proof. Are you saying you see the effects of toxic fluoride poisoning in your community? Again, what percentage of the population suffers, in your estimation?

No, I've studied what the dental and governmental health agencies put out about fluoride. It's more politics than science. Much of it flies in the face of current scientific fact, yet they stubbornly cling to their long disproven factoids--to the detriment of our health.

Oh, you've studied it and determined that it's all lies. Well, ok then I guess it's a fact...wait a minute, no. That is your opinion.

Jeebus!! So we're falling onto facile cliches to make a point? North Americans? I don't claim to know what others say, but I KNOW that fully fluoridated Kentucky has some of the worst dental decay problems in the country. Same with most fluoridated cities in the U.S.

So, most fluoridated cities in the US have bad teeth? Not all fluoridated cities? Kentucky has some of the worst teeth? Can any Americans from fluoridated cities, especially Kentuckians, come on here and corroborate that statement? Would any of them be willing to?

[edit on 20-6-2008 by TheComte]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by TheComte]

Originally posted by thefreepatriot

Originally posted by RaptureMe2
reply to post by TheComte

 

"I believe I have tried to but failed miserably to answer this ad nauseum."

There! Fixed it for you, Perfessor.

This op seems to be on some sort of Agenda... why would he be wasting so much time defending and ignoring common sense conclusions that a even a 5 year old can realise..A Toxic byproduct dumped into water is bad=sick getting sick is not good.. Can you understand this op?

Not to worry. I suspect that the OP is preparing to slink off into the night. Notice the "good sport" moniker? That's a clue.

reply to post by TheComte


The Comte, Please clarify on what your position is.. And while your at it I would also like to know what do you do for a living? I myself trade..Since we are talking so much I think we should get to know each other a bit.

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by TheComte

 

I do not claim any knowledge on the subject. I am not a scientist nor am I a doctor. I am just curious as to your position. You have not made your position clear in my opinion. Are you in favor of a substance that you have now admitted to be questionable added to the water supply without the peoples' consent? If you are, why? If not why the debate?

Wasn't talking about you, harvib, when I said that. You have been courteous for the most part and I hope I have been back to you.

Why do I have to be in favour or not in favour? I am against the conspiracy angle of fluoridation. I don't believe it is added to control us. I don't believe the present levels of fluoride cause any harm. I do believe it prevents tooth decay. That's pretty clear, I think. OK, I abstain from voting on whether or not to fluoridate. Either way, people won't be harmed, it may help poor people have better teeth. Because, it is the poorest people that it is designed to help. Lots of people can not afford to see a dentist.

How do you know it was without people's consent? Do you know what decision process was taken 50 years ago when fluoridation started? Don't you think there was at least a city council vote or even a referendum? I admit I do not know the specifics of that aspect.

reply to post by thefreepatriot


I am self employed. I actually derive most of earnings from playing poker. What trade are you in? My father was a machinist.

Originally posted by RaptureMe2
Not to worry. I suspect that the OP is preparing to slink off into the night. Notice the "good sport" moniker? That's a clue.

Typical response from someone who is at a loss for words. Better to keep silent...You know the rest