It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Fluoride is Natural in Water

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:49 AM

At least 17 incidences of fluoridation equipment malfunction, and their associated deaths and poisonings, have been documented in U.S. newspapers and medical journals.

Perhaps the worst incident in the United States occurred in Hooper Bay, Alaska in 1992. When fluoridation equipment failed, a large amount of fluoride was released into the drinking water supply and 296 people were poisoned; 1 person died,[117] marking the first reported death due to fluoride toxicity caused by drinking water from a community water system.

3 dialysis patients died and 6 were sickened at the University of Chicago Hospitals when the water filtration system failed on July 16, 1993. A hospital spokesperson said that the deaths and reactions “were consistent with fluoride exposure.”

Schoolchildren in Portage, Michigan experienced vomiting and stomach pains when an electrical surge caused excessive amounts of fluoridation chemical to be injected into the school’s well in July 1991.

In June, 2002, 23 employees of Humphry Systems Inc. in Dublin, California became ill after a fluoride pump malfunctioned near the business. All of the affected workers had drank from the water fountains, and experienced vomiting and nausea.

34 restaurant diners became sick after a fluoridation equipment malfunction caused an acute outbreak of fluoride poisoning in August 1993, in Poplarville, Mississippi. Severe gastrointestinal illness was reported by 34 out of 62 customers in a 24 hour period.

A dialysis patient died from fluoride overdose in Annapolis, Maryland when 1,000 gallons of excess fluoride chemical spilled into the drinking water on November 11, 1979. 7 others became critically ill. Brain damage, a heart attack and many other illnesses resulted


Google around and found mountain water run off has some flouride in it and the place with the most concentrate was pikes peak. Other wise not all water has it in it.

I don't drink tap water because I do not trust water management since they can be sloppy in handling process's. We had an incident here where some lazy bum(s) failed to clean a pump and instead increased concentrations of chemicals to the drinking water where by it smelled horrible and tasted nasty. The water here comes out cloudy. I drink bottle water.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by nexusmagazine
reply to post by TheComte

12 Reasons to Reject Fluoridation!

For over 100 years, science and medicine have understood the poisonous nature of fluoride. In the 1930’s and 40’s, giant US companies, e.g. ALCOA, were sued for millions of dollars due to toxic fluoride waste belching from factory smokestacks killing crops and livestock. ALCOA’s owners (Mellon) figured that if people could be persuaded fluoride isn’t poisonous but is good for teeth, profits could be protected. So, to introduce water fluoridation, they hired the brilliant ‘father of propaganda’ Edward L. Bernays. Joined later by other fluoride polluting industries (e.g. nuclear) and the multi-billion dollar sugar, toothpaste, confectionary and soft drink industries, they became strong financial supporters of dental associations that supported fluoridation. One such support group, the Dental Health Education & Research Foundation, was founded in Australia in 1962. DHERF’s Governors, Members and donors have included key representatives from Coca-Cola, CSR, Kelloggs, Colgate-Palmolive, Wrigleys, Arnotts, Scanlens, Cadbury Schweppes, etc.

TheComte can drink all the fluoridated water he/she/it wants - I will however continue to rigorously oppose the fluoridation of water supplies - because what we are drinking is completely different to the 'fluoride' that occurs naturally in ground water, and because it is an accumulative toxin in the human body.


Mod Edit: to apply external quote code and SOURCE, please review this link
Mod Edit: Posting work written by others, please review this link

[edit on 16-6-2008 by DontTreadOnMe]

It's true that to this day, Edward L. Bernays is responsible for the mass public confusion surrounding this topic not to metion the credible medical proponents of it as well. (And the misconception that fluoride added to water is the same as natural compounds)

He did say, "those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
country. Our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, largely by men we have never heard of." Bernays represents another connection to Germany and would be essential in the fluoride campaign in the United States.

Wrote Bernay's, "if you can influence group leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway." (See Bernay's, 1947, and the fluoride campaign).

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:24 AM
reply to post by TheComte

Thats funny.. is that all you can come up with? Countless professionals are stating that flouride is not good for you.. and many people on this site are backing up what they say... And all you can come up with is this.? If you don't like Conspiracy sites.. then don't come .. no one has forced you to come.. and just to let you know many psychoactive drugs contain some form of flouride... Especially for people suffering hyperactivity disorders... Have you seen a kid on those drugs? they look sick.. unmotivated and don't want to do anything... just look around you.. the effects of flouride are everywhere.. You just have to look.. And if you still can't see the effects or understand or comprehend this... Then it looks like it may be affecting you..

[edit on 17-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

[edit on 17-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by thefreepatriot

Oh, ya, your post is so much better. You know and see all what is best for people. You just know that fluoridation is being used to control us and "chemically lobotomize" us and the proof is all around to see. Oh, but you are immune. No government is going to control you, no. But what do you do about it? Come on here and post a whole lot of nothing and a vid that doesn't work.

Have you written any letters to your municipality, or any level of gov't for that matter, asking them to stop trying to lobotomize you? No. Maybe it's affecting you too.

This is what I'm talking about: the way out there conspiracy theory of brainwashing BS. Don't get me wrong, gov't controls you alright, just not with fluoride. LOL

I won't be coming back to the thread anymore since it seems the new posters are just rehashing what has already been said. To those who provided me with credible links, thank you and I will read them and mitigate my position if I deem necessary. I ask that you all do the same.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:58 AM
reply to post by TheComte

Actually the videos do work... And by the way I am involved in getting the flouride removed from Hallandale Beach, or changed to calcium flouride... I have personally met with all council members and they feel it should be changed.., however the people of Hallandale Beach have to choose themselves so I am starting a campaign...Also even the water plant manager is againts it... he told me its basically medicating the populace againts there will.. And he told me how dangerous it is... I suggest you don't every assume what a person is doing .... The bottom video is the a Dr from the Epa Union... discussing on what there stance on flouride is.. The EPA has asked the ADA to take its name off its endorsment list... If the Epa is not credible enough.. and you still beleive that flouride is good for you.. then go drink more water... and if you want more of the good stuff, then I suggest you go to Home Depot get yourself some Sodium Flouride and put some in your water... And then post your results here... Flouride is a health risk plain and simple..... And I wonder why you are advocating flouride use.... We are by the way a developed country that has plenty of flouride in our toothpaste... Why do we need to drink it if its for the mere prevention of cavaties? Do you care to elaberate on that?

[edit on 17-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

[edit on 17-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:02 PM

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by GoldenFleece

I already acknowledged there was scientific research both for and against. Your study attributes the properties of aging to fluoride. Not exactly definitive. Where's the guy who drank 5 glasses of water in a row and had to go to the ER because he was poisoned?

So you admit this? If there is any question at all of something safety why would you then spend money to add it to the water. Oh ya tooth decay
. Does that make any sense to you? I don't know what flouride does or doesn't do but I do know that due to the controversy I don't want it added to my water. I'll take dentures any day before I take wait many respected professionals claim is being done by flouride.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:05 PM
reply to post by TheComte

they contaminate our food,water,air...that is fact and not fair imo.

research it...find the truth

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:26 PM

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by TheComte

Please show me any valid scientific study that says 1 mg/l of fluorosilicic acid is safe. Fluoride is more toxic than lead and slightly less than arsenic. When lead levels exceed 15 parts per billion, utilities must inform the public, treat the water to make it less corrosive, or in some cases, replace pipes.

If you don't trust Rense, maybe you'll trust the 11 EPA unions who represent over 7000 employees who've been calling for ZERO levels of fluoride for nearly three years:

There are some people here that refuse to listen.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:36 PM
I sent a u2u to the op.. Demanding he post a correction... Sodium flouride is not natural!!!!!!!! .. I hope the op can come in here corrent this mistatement. God did not create sodium flouride.. German Nazi chemists did... And if you associate Nazi's to God's creations then... May god help you!

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:12 PM
I am going to end this silly debate.

Fluoride helps your teeth like sulfuric acid helps your hair.

The key to healthy teeth is mimimzing your sugar intake, gently flossing and cleaning your teeth with a soft abrasive such as baking soda or fluoride and SLS-free toothpaste.

There is a reason why all but a few countries in EU don't fluoridate their water supplies. As another poster intelligently remarked, if fluoride is so imporatant in the water, why not medicate it with vitamins and minerals which are vastly more important? Government is basically saying we're stupid and don't know how to take care of our teeth (that's if you go by the notion that fluoride does help the teeth). Well how about the people who aren't stupid and are capable of thinking for themselves? Why force fluoride down our throats? It's been shown time and time again kids have the same quality of teeth in both fluoridated communities and non-fluoridated communities.

Anyone who doesn't think there is something about fluoridating water that goes beyond "healthy teeth" is a moron, completely dellusional and is living in a world of full of puppy dogs, gumdrops and ice cream cones.

There is a reason why anti-depressants are made with fluoride compounds. There is a reason why thousands of dentists and doctors are calling for the end of water fluoridation and I think they are tad more qualified than the topic starter in making that assessment, I don't care how many articles the TS has read.

There I hope I didn't hurt anyone's ego too much, but it's important to know facts before you start topics on something.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:29 PM

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
I sent a u2u to the op.. Demanding he post a correction... Sodium flouride is not natural!!!!!!!! .. I hope the op can come in here corrent this mistatement. God did not create sodium flouride.. German Nazi chemists did... And if you associate Nazi's to God's creations then... May god help you!

Hold up, everyone, internet police crackdown! He demands I post a correction. Please. LOL I thought I might draw out some real tinfoil hatters with this thread.

I knew I said I wasn't going to come back but 'demands' were made of me; I have to respond. You're all welcome to your own opinions, but that's all they are. I doubt some of you read even the first page of the thread or any of the links. If you did then you simply ignore the scientific evidence I give and insist that your scientific evidence is correct. To each their own. We won't solve this debate here no matter what a previous poster may think.

Have a nice day, everyone.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:43 PM
I love threads like this, because even if the OP is engaged in a disinformation campaign (it's hard to imagine anyone could seriously believe that water fluoridation benefits anyone but the con-artists who actually get to sell their toxic waste), the information that comes out is so overwhelming and persuasive that the thread ends up having the exact opposite effect that the OP intended.

Sometimes I think there's still hope for Americans. At least the ones who visit ATS.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:00 PM
The difference between a poison and medicine is the dose.

Ricin for example is in castor beans. Ricin

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:11 PM
To everyone who says fluoride additives are not the same as natural fluoride.

Fluoride additives are not different that natural fluoride.

Some consumers have questioned whether fluoride from natural groundwater sources, such as calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added “artificially,” such as from the fluoride water treatment additives presently used. This allegation is not supported by scientific findings. The ionic speciation study mentioned previously (Finney 2006) also reported that water treatment additives dissociate to the same ions as present in groundwater.

Or, is the CDC in on the conspiracy?

LOL...Post a correction...indeed....LOL...I demand you delete your post demanding my correction!

[edit on 17-6-2008 by TheComte]

[edit on 17-6-2008 by TheComte]

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:23 PM
For those that argue Flouride is good for your teeth.

I suppose so, but in regards to Flouride in Drinking Water, you're not putting water on your Teeth, you are ingesting it.

Ingesting flouride does nothing for your teeth.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:30 PM
I've been aware of this for many years and have stayed away from public and city water sources for some time. Let me give some reasons that may enlighten you.

First of all, there is no natural "Fluoride" per say. The element is Fluorine and starts out as a gas.

When it is in water, i can be in the form of an ion and becomes a "Fluoride".

Naturally Fluorides form from Volcanoes, wear on rock formations, and other emissions from the earth, but in very small amounts.

One of these in particular is Sodium Fluoride and is the one that you are refering to. It is primarily used in aluminum manufacturing (as some have already mentioned), as well as rock mining for phosporus and in some fertilizers.

This same chemical is added to toothpastes and water in small amounts and is the same ingredient used in rat poison, a main ingredient in Prozac, and even Sarin nerve gas. It has also been shown to create a mild tempering effect and in some cases (especially over time) creates a more docile train of thought.

Most studies done on lab animals show that long term exposure to low levels of Sodium Fluoride promotes a reduction in collegen synthesis, reduction in bone mass, and delayed fracture healing.

What your question should be is this: Who first decided to put Sodium Fluoride in water, and why did they do it?

The past unlocks much about the present.

The answer is: Fluoride was first intentionally added to water by the German Nazi forces to the "ghetto" and prison camps. The main reason was to induce a completely "submissive" population and also affect their sterility.

Was it used in much larger amounts than what is used now for "teeth" purposes in the U.S.? YES

Could it have the same effect on people now? POSSIBLY

The U.S. government claims that only a sustained amount of Fluoride in the bloodstream is effective at preventing tooth decay, but this is primarily because it effects the bones and calcium producing channels of the body.

Children who have too much Sodium Fluoride develop Fluoridosys which causes white patches on the teeth and can weaken bones and cause growth disturbances. This is enough for me to disagree with anyone adding it to water, but this is just the "tip of the iceburg" because any studies which are done on it result in people getting "blasted" or "discredited" so it's a touchy research area for highly trained professionals. Many doctors and dentists claim that the amount of Fluoride added to water in fact does NOTHING for teeth and requires a sustained amount that is much higher than most people get to affect the teeth in a positive way, but the ADA would discredit any dentist that made that claim.

To leave on the MOST important point of the Fluoride issue; The most disturbing thing to me regarding this whole issue is the fact that in different areas, more or less Fluoride is added. In inner-cities where crime rates and unrest are high, the most Fluoride is added. This should be a good indicator that adding Sodium Fluoride (more of a toxin and brain modifier than a positive thing) is added to water for more reason than preventing tooth decay.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by Azurus]

[edit on 17-6-2008 by Azurus]

[edit on 17-6-2008 by Azurus]

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by TheComte

Here we go.. This is the flouride that is put into the water supply...
Sodium fluoride is an ionic compound with the formula NaF. This colourless solid is the main source of the fluoride ion in diverse applications. NaF is less expensive and less hygroscopic than KF.

[modifier] Production
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:

HF + NaOH → NaF + H2O
Using an excess of HF gives the bifluoride NaHF2. Heating the latter releases HF and gives NaF.

HF + NaF ⇌ NaHF2
In a 1986 report, the annual, worldwide consumption of NaF was estimated to be several million tonnes.[1]

[modifier] Structure, properties, Uses
NaF crystallizes in the sodium chloride motif where both Na+ and F− occupy octahedral coordination sites.[2]

Sodium fluoride is sold in tablets for cavity prevention.NaF is used as a cleaning agent, often to remove iron stains. A variety of specialty chemical applications exist in synthesis and extractive metallurgy. NaF is a reagent for the synthesis of fluorocarbons. Representative substrates include electrophilic chlorides including acyl chlorides, sulfur chlorides, and phosphorus chloride.[3] Like other fluorides, NaF finds use in desilylation in organic synthesis.

This is BAD flouride.. and is the one commonly used in water flouridation..
you claim God made this flouride.. This is not true..... again B. A . D flouride.

Calcium fluoride (CaF2) is an insoluble ionic compound of calcium and fluorine. It occurs naturally as the mineral fluorite (also called fluorspar), and it is the source of most of the world's fluorine. This insoluble solid adopts a cubic structure wherein calcium is coordinated to eight fluoride anions and each F− ion is surrounded by four Ca2+ ions.[1] Although the pure material is colourless, the mineral is often deeply coloured due to the presence of F-centers.

[ Source of HF

Naturally occurring CaF2 is the principal source of hydrogen fluoride, a commodity chemical used to produce a wide range of materials. Fluoride is liberated from the mineral by the action of concentrated sulfuric acid:

CaF2(s) + H2SO4(l) → CaSO4(solid) + 2 HF(g)

The resulting HF is converted into fluorine, fluorocarbons, and diverse fluoride materials. As of the late 1990s, five billion kilograms were mined annually.[2]

[edit] Other applications

Calcium fluoride is commonly used as a window material for both infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths, since it is transparent in these regions (about 0.15 µm to 9 µm) and exhibits extremely weak birefringence. Furthermore the material is fairly inert chemically so that these windows are not attacked. Nevertheless, at wavelengths as low as 157 nm, which are interesting to semiconductor manufacturers, the birefringence of calcium fluoride exceeds tolerable limits. This problem with birefringence can be mitigated through optimised growth process. It is particularly important as an ultraviolet optical material for integrated circuit lithography. Canon also uses artificially-crystallized calcium fluoride components in some of its L-series lenses to reduce light dispersion. As an infrared optical material, calcium fluoride is sometimes known by the Eastman Kodak trademarked name "Irtran-3," although this designation is obsolete.

Uranium-doped calcium fluoride was the second type of solid state laser invented, in the 1960s. Peter Sorokin and Mirek Stevenson at IBM's laboratories in Yorktown Heights (US) achieved lasing at 2.5 µm shortly after Maiman's ruby laser.

It is also used as a flux for melting and liquid processing of iron, steel and their composites. Its action is based on its similar melting point to iron, on its ability to dissolve oxides and on its ability to wet oxides and metals.

[edit] Safety

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
And this is the flouride that is Natural.. and should be instead used in our water supply (but not) .As you can see God created the bottom form of Flouride..

Calcium Flouride which isnt bad .. and the top Man has created... you claim there is no difference or very little.. but you are sorely mistaken.. Now that the difference has been shown, I highly suggest you stop your propaganda..and admit that natural flouride(calcium flouride( is not sodium flouride at all!! one is very toxic.. and the other isn't...

[edit on 17-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

[edit on 17-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:31 PM

Originally posted by mOOmOO

The difference between a poison and medicine is the dose.

And sometimes it's all poison. Do you want to know what else goes into your water besides fluoride? (actually FSA or SFS.) Excerpts from a letter written to the U.S. Congress by a supervisor who worked in the phosphate fertilizer industry for 21 years:

Dear Congressman or Senator:

I worked in the phosphate fertilizer industry for about twenty-one years, my last position was supervising one-third of the evaporation and purification processes at the Occidental Chemical Corporation, Swift Creek Chemical Complex. That position required a thorough knowledge of almost every facet of producing phosphoric acid for fertilizer and animal feed supplement.

...Both fluorosilicic acid (FSA) and sodium fluorosilicate (SFS) are derived from pollution scrubbing operations from phosphoric acid production.The pollution scrubber liquor is a unique product derived from a specific process with unique toxicological characteristics. The presence of chlorides, amines, diesel fuel, kerosene, sulfides, reagents, heavy metals (including arsenic, lead, aluminum, uranium-238 and its decay rate products), phosphorus, oil based defoamers (possibly containing dioxins), petroleum products, napthalene and other toxic reactants create a specific product in which FSA is the active ingredient. FSA only comprises about 23% of the total pollution concentrate. It is a highly corrosive acid which can react with most organic and inorganic substances to form many different complexes and possibly very toxic fluorides. I state again, not one safety study has been done with these particular products.

...Although it is more convenient for scientists to believe the pollution scrubbing is discriminate, it is not. One scrubber catches all, including pollution from tank farms and other processes. Also, the more efficient the scrubbing operation, the more contaminants will be concentrated in the scrubber liquor.

Sulfuric acid is produced at these facilities,and the spent vanadium pentoxide catalyst, production sludge and waste water are dumped into the evaporation (settling) ponds. Evaporation ponds are the catch-all for almost all toxic wastes: radioactive scale from reaction vessels and filters, phosphoric acid sludges, radioactive fluorosilicates chipped from scrubbing pads and chambers and general toxic wastes are tossed into the mix.

To make matters worse, evaporation pond water is always used in the pollution scrubbers because there are strict regulations regarding fresh water usage in Florida. Most of the waste water, sludges and waste chemicals from the analytical labs are dumped into the evaporation ponds which is reused in production and/or to make the FSA for water fluoridation.

At this point, I believe it is evident that we are not dealing with a simple, pure, reagent grade SFA/SFS purchased from the chemical supply house as most researchers/chemists find it convenient to believe and predicate their hypotheses and research upon. If the captured pollution had no fluorides present, it would be dangerous to put in the water, but with the complex chemical reactions and possible reactions with both organic and inorganic compounds...

...The most frightening aspect is that no two batches are the same, and the toxic effects can vary from batch to batch. There would also be a variance from company to company supplying the product because of the type/grades of chemicals, quality of the phosphate rock, processes and what kind of solvent extraction method is used to produce phosphoric acid (solvent extraction is not commonly used anymore unless uranium is being extracted from 23-34% phosphoric acid,the Synspar flux method is preferred today.)

Gary O. Pittman
November 18, 1998

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by Azurus

Azurus, nice post. Well thought out and you give some good points. Can you link some sources to those studies in Florida? I would like to have a look at them.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by thefreepatriot

No, I don't claim that there is no difference. The CDC claims it. Did you not see my post? Are you ignoring it. Here it is again:

Fluoride additives are not different that natural fluoride.

Some consumers have questioned whether fluoride from natural groundwater sources, such as calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added “artificially,” such as from the fluoride water treatment additives presently used. This allegation is not supported by scientific findings. The ionic speciation study mentioned previously (Finney 2006) also reported that water treatment additives dissociate to the same ions as present in groundwater.

If you disagree with the CDC, then that's fine. But don't try to convince me you're right.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by TheComte]

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in