Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Fluoride is Natural in Water

page: 15
6
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


Good video here. I tried to embed, but no dice. Get edumacated y'all!

video.google.com...

[edit on 20-6-2008 by RaptureMe2]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by RaptureMe2]




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte

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


Have I been now? Put down the pipe and bring it on, Perfessor. You're on your back and don't even know it.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by RaptureMe2
Have I been now? Put down the pipe and bring it on, Perfessor. You're on your back and don't even know it.


I guess I missed it. Do you plan on adding anything relevant to the discussion? Because if not then I'm going to go watch the end of the soccer game.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
man this thread is so pro flouride.

The benefits of flouride are topical. You could swish the water around in your mouth and get all the benefits without even drinking a drop of it. spit it out its poison dummy. Besides you get plenty of flouride from olmost any toothpaste. so really why put it in the water for any reason other than mind control.

www.scienceblog.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

"We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic."

"The federal maximum contaminant level (MEL) for lead is 15 parts per billion (ppb), 5 ppb for arsenic and 4000 ppb for fluoride."

Most of western Europe has rejected fluoridation on the grounds that it is unsafe. In 1971, after 11 years of testing, Sweden's Nobel Medical Institute recommended against fluoridation, and the process was banned. The Netherlands outlawed the practice in 1976, after 23 years of tests. France decided against it after consulting with its Pasteur Institute and West Germany, now Germany, rejected the practice because the recommended dosage of 1 ppm was "too close to the dose at which long-term damage to the human body is to be expected." Dr. Lee sums it up: "All of western Europe, except one or two test towns in Spain, has abandoned fluoride as a public health plan. It is not put in the water anywhere. They all established test cities and found that the benefits did not occur and the toxicity was evident."

Conclusion? OP has more scientific knowledge than Europe's leading medical research institutes.

Something doesn't smell right here. Anyone else catching a whiff of agenda?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by RaptureMe2
Have I been now? Put down the pipe and bring it on, Perfessor. You're on your back and don't even know it.


I guess I missed it. Do you plan on adding anything relevant to the discussion? Because if not then I'm going to go watch the end of the soccer game.


I'd suggest reading "The Fluoride Deception" and watching the video I linked. If your mind is closed--and I suspect it is--I'm done here.

Good luck with your version of reality. The truth is out there.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by TheComte
 


... the ONLY form of flouride that is SAFE is CALCIUM FLOURIDE ... again THE only form of flouride that is SAFE is Calcium fluride(CAF2) Parrot talk Parrot talk..



Oh really?? Tell that to all the poor folks in the world whose legs looks like spaghetti noodles or whose teeth are rotted black stumps because of all the "safe" calcium fluoride in their groundwater.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I can't believe you guys think I have an agenda, or that I am being closed minded. I could say the same thing about you. And the fact you're the ones getting angry makes my case stronger than yours. I'm sure some of you at least now know something about fluoride that you didn't know before. I know that I learned some things. But I still stand by what I've been saying all along. (Which I won't repeat again, since there are several posts that do so.)

You guys are the ones getting angry when I don't automatically agree with you. And you say I'm being controlled. Wouldn't I just agree with you right away if that was the case? If we're all being controlled, would we even be able to argue this topic? Wouldn't it just be a non-issue?

You guys who get angry disprove your own theory. Like I said before, fluoride must not work too well at controlling people.

Now, I don't consider any of you enemies (though someone has become my foe, I won't name names, but that's ok). But I am stubborn and will argue with you forever and support my opinions as best I can. No agenda here, just friendly debate. Unless you decide to become unfriendly, then I can and will dish it out as well as I take it.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RaptureMe2

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by TheComte
 


... the ONLY form of flouride that is SAFE is CALCIUM FLOURIDE ... again THE only form of flouride that is SAFE is Calcium fluride(CAF2) Parrot talk Parrot talk..



Oh really?? Tell that to all the poor folks in the world whose legs looks like spaghetti noodles or whose teeth are rotted black stumps because of all the "safe" calcium fluoride in their groundwater.


I hope you know that you just quoted thefreepatriot. He's on your side.

This is really becoming farcical now.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by TheComte]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by RaptureMe2

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by TheComte
 


... the ONLY form of flouride that is SAFE is CALCIUM FLOURIDE ... again THE only form of flouride that is SAFE is Calcium fluride(CAF2) Parrot talk Parrot talk..



Oh really?? Tell that to all the poor folks in the world whose legs looks like spaghetti noodles or whose teeth are rotted black stumps because of all the "safe" calcium fluoride in their groundwater.


I hope you know that you just quoted thefreepatriot. He's on your side.

This is really becoming farcical now.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by TheComte]


Dude, just go back to your game, you're acting pretty juvenile for a 40-something. You've become irrelevant on your own thread.

Thefreepatriot: I appreciate your sentiments for the most part, but you're mistaken about the calcium fluoride being harmless. That's all. I highly recommend a fluoride orientation at www.fluoridealert.org.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
The OP's from Ontario? Let's hear what a University of Toronto dentistry professor and leading Canadian fluoride expert has to say:


After surveying the growing evidence, a high-profile advocate has second thoughts about the safety of fluoride

By Michael Downey, 
Special to The Toronto Star,
April 25, 1999

...Dr. Hardy Limeback is a leading Canadian fluoride authority who is often cited by health officials in their defense of fluoridated water. He is also a long-standing consultant to the Canadian Dental Association and a professor of dentistry at the University of Toronto.

But in an interview last week, he conceded that fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth and our overall health. Although he still believes fluoride in toothpaste is effective against tooth decay, he says it doesn't need to be added to our water and we may be taking unnecessary risks by doing so.

"There is no point swallowing fluoridated water. The only benefit comes with direct contact with the teeth."

Limeback is currently studying fluoride buildup in the body, and his results, like those of other studies, are worrisome.

[snip]

Contrary to popular belief, there is no proof that fluoride fights cavities. In the U.S., the government recently ordered toothpaste manufacturers to stop claiming it does until they could prove it. None bothered to try.

Studies have shown that children in B.C., where most water is not fluoridated, have better teeth than children here, where it is.

And while it's true there's no absolute proof that fluoride, at established levels, isn't safe, there is also no proof, as Limeback points out, that it is.

Absolute proof may be hard to come by, but the evidence is abundant and compelling.
A U.S. congressional subcommittee announced after hearings in 1977 that it could no longer assure the public that fluoride doesn't cause cancer; later tests, which it ordered, showed a link to bone and liver cancer.

The U.S. National Research Council reported that fluoride is dangerous to health and that "reductions in fluoride in drinking water would be easier to administer, monitor and evaluate" than reductions in foods, beverages and dental products.

A half dozen studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association show more hip fractures in fluoridated areas - up to 300 per cent more, according to one report.

Appearing on a recent Canadian television show, a former scientist with the Environmental Protection Agency called fluoridation "the biggest fraud of the century."

Ladies and gentlemen, how about a big round of applause for TheComte! Not many have managed to stubbornly defend "the biggest fraud of the century" for 15 pages!



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


I trade the forex markets. I apologise if I have been a bit of an ass, I can just see the cancer rates state by state and compare it to the rate of flouridation... and it really upsets me. People are dying because of this, the stats clearly show this trend. Check out the CDC stats on cancer rates state by state and compare to the state rank on % of water flouridation.. Tell me what you think of it.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RaptureMe2

Dude, just go back to your game, you're acting pretty juvenile for a 40-something. You've become irrelevant on your own thread.



I'm acting juvenile. I've become irrelevant. Look in the mirror, my friend.


Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Ladies and gentlemen, how about a big round of applause for TheComte! Not many have managed to stubbornly defend "the biggest fraud of the century" for 15 pages!


And thank you for helping. It couldn't have been 15 pages without you.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by TheComte
 


I trade the forex markets. I apologise if I have been a bit of an ass, I can just see the cancer rates state by state and compare it to the rate of flouridation... and it really upsets me. People are dying because of this, the stats clearly show this trend. Check out the CDC stats on cancer rates state by state and compare to the state rank on % of water flouridation.. Tell me what you think of it.


Oh, I thought you meant like a journeyman trade. Forex is cool, though, I guess that explains how we can sit here all day and post on ATS.

I will try to find the stats you speak of and let you know what I think.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by TheComte]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by RaptureMe2
 


Well in comparison to sodium flouride it does look harmless, Not that I would ever want it in my water.. I am just trying to find a middle ground so that proponents of water flouridation get what they want.. And the people that don't want it can get a much less toxic version. CAF2 is nearly non-soluble and most of it will go back out.. I am not saying I want this.. I am just saying that why aren't we using this much less dangerous form of flouride? Instead we get the extremely toxic kind that comes from pollution scrubbers and other nasties... my take is since CAF2 is non-soluble it doesn't do the job that sodium flouride does to the brain... since most of it goes right back out. Note we keep 50% of sodium flouride.. and that 50% accumulates in our body..... I completly agree with you we should not even be doing it period!... But just trying to find a middle ground.. yet the op won't even admit there are extremely toxic kinds of flouride and mildly toxic...



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 





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.


I don't know if all counties have voted against flouridation when put to a vote. But I do know that in my county it was put to a vote 3 times. Each time the public voted an overwhemingly no. The water district then decieded that they were going to add it anyway.



I am against the conspiracy angle of fluoridation. I don't believe it is added to control us.


I don't know why the insistence of adding fluoride to the water. It does concern me greatly. It just doesn't make sense that on the one hand the government is so concerned about dental health but so unconcerned about any other kind of health. Chlorine is added to the water as well and as far as I know there isn't even a debate as to it's toxicity. As a result when I listen to both sides of the debate I do have to wonder as to what the motivation is behind fluoride. Dental health, to me, is not an acceptable answer.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Ladies and gentlemen, how about a big round of applause for TheComte! Not many have managed to stubbornly defend "the biggest fraud of the century" for 15 pages!
And thank you for helping. It couldn't have been 15 pages without you.

Any thoughts on Dr. Hardy Limeback's research?

Or are you just past caring what anyone thinks?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


Ya again I am sorry about being such an ass, I know somebody that just died from cancer.. and the whole family suspects this is the reason, the person was 28 years old in excellent shape and there was never a history of cancer in the fam.. So the emotions run high. again my apologies. But seriously look at the cdc stats on state rank on cancer and water flouridation . I posted the link on a few pages back.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
yet the op won't even admit there are extremely toxic kinds of flouride and mildly toxic...


Dude, come on! Now that's just an outright lie. I admitted many times fluoride was toxic in high doses. And I had to convince you about the different compounds, and how some of them are used as medicines.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


I am sorry to hear about your loved one. This is an example of why we need to error on the side of caution. Something is causing this epedemic of cancer. Let us not accept the belief that our government is infallibile. To prove that point all one needs to do is look to the FDA's list of retractions on substances previously deemed safe.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join