Fluoride-From baby food to beer..and bread, and soda, cereal, tea, oatmeal cookies, cheese...

page: 6
72
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Does anyone have a list of bottled water companies that do not fluoridate the water? I have been drinking Poland Spring because I remember reading or hearing somewhere that there is only negligible amount of fluoride in it (naturally occurring, not added). Dasani, on the other hand, does fluoridate the water (why would they do that is beyond me, maybe just bottle tap water to save a buck).

Anyway, does anyone have a list or can comment on what water is safe to buy?




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Flourides can be deadly in large doses, but so can pure water.


I use fluorine as it was used in the different texts. There was no intent to mislead. When I use the term fluorine I am talking about an accumulation of the element in the body without regard to the compound which brought it to the point of being in the body or in a body of water.

Fluorides come in many forms with different poison, carcinogen, neurological,caustic effects. We are primarily talking about fluoride as an intentionally ingested source but it is not harmless. All fluorine compound types and sources are cumulative in the body and the individual effects depending on which compound are.

For instance:
The so called "Sodium Fluoride that is being put into the water supplies is not "Sodiom Fluoride."
90% of it is industrial waste silicon fluoride which is "scrubbed" from smokestacks as a form of pollution in phosphate processing and then dumped directly in our water supplies. It contains lead, arsenic, mercury and a host of other heavy metals and compounds not found in the sodium fluoride that you are defending. It is still legally used to pollute our water sources by virtue of being a fluorine compound.

...works both ways no?


The analogy that you use of fluoride being deadly in large doses just like water is not even close to logic.

Aside from the fact that one is a basic biolocical necessity and the other is in all ways hazardous to life and has no beneficial effects beyond the false conception that is is good for your teeth- (a laughable first put forth by the same corportations that polluted the landscape and their own workers with it) This idea, by the way came from a test done on workers at the nuclear material production facility in Tennesee where hundreds of people had been disabled due to fluoride inhalation. Most of the men in that study had "LOST THEIR TEETH"

How about you go look at the numbers on fluoride consumption. They are out there to be seen.

The EPA has a maximum amount set at 4 mg pF/L in the water supply and also admits that an intake of 10mg per day for a period of 10 years is known to cause acute fluoride toxicity. This doesn't include the fact that the enviroment and our food are riddled with sources of fluorine. If you drink more than 2.5 liters of water a day then you are already on the way even without considering pollution, dental or food sources.

At this point the EPA considers fluoride a secondary pollutant meaning it can kill plants, wildlife, domestic stock and cause physical damage but is ok to force the population to ingest in a water supply. That's right, the exact same pollutants that do enviromental damage are intentionally being ignored but are intentionally concentrated and put into our water supplies.

Back to your assertation:

We have an idea of what is going on with consumption of fluoride and its hazards. The EPA has limits set which we are exceeding in many ways.

I ask you. What is the maximum safe consumption allowed for uncontaminated water over a 10 year period and what are the cumulative effects of exceeding the recommended dose?



edit on 31-1-2011 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


As i said to you before, i don't believe adding any flouride compound is necessary to tap water in first world nations due to our usage of toothpastes which provide plenty of the stuff topically to teeth.

I am saying however that dosage is important, minor doses are not a problem even though compounds can/do build up in body tissues the scare surrounding them is often out of proportion. To use mercury as an example people are terrified of the stuff in vaccines and forget there is more in a serving of tuna fish then all of the childhood vaccines combined.

As for me comparing it to water well you managed to take that quote rather out of context, i was simply making the point that anything in the right dose is a poison. Flouride has been added to water for many years and this has not yet been properly linked to increases in any major disease group.

I find it laughable you care about thsi issue so much when high fat and salt diets are one of the biggest killers out there, along with cigarettes and even poisons like aspartame. Flouride in comparison when added to water appears to be quite safe (again dose dependent) and it would appear beneficial for the oral health of many people. But as i say i think it's unecessary in first world nations, a complete waste of money.

As time goes by we always address dosage issues, sometimes we find they need increasing other times we find thy need reducing, at this point flouride seems fine but i know different places use different doses depending upon their own research. Oh and you also forget that some areas in the world have higher natural flouride levels than other areas where flouride is added to water.

As a side note i was doing some research on this within my own country and discovered the UK doesn't use that much flouride. Only around 6 million people (out of approx 60 million) drink flouridated water here. I was kind of shocked about that.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
As a side note i was doing some research on this within my own country and discovered the UK doesn't use that much flouride. Only around 6 million people (out of approx 60 million) drink flouridated water here. I was kind of shocked about that.


We could go back and forth about dosage but the basic fact is that it is a poison and is not beneficial for your teeth. In the US it is a legalized way to make the enviroment into a pollution free-for-all.

As far as only 10% of the population in the UK using fluoridated water, that's a good thing. The Europeand and UK fought it much longer than the US and their scientists were not silenced as soon as ours were.

Seriously,
If you want to know why this bothers me so much, read "The Fluoride Deception" by Christopher Bryson.
It will not only change the way you look at fluoride, it will change the way you look at government and business when it comes to health.

Regards.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by frozenspark
Does anyone have a list of bottled water companies that do not fluoridate the water? I have been drinking Poland Spring because I remember reading or hearing somewhere that there is only negligible amount of fluoride in it (naturally occurring, not added). Dasani, on the other hand, does fluoridate the water (why would they do that is beyond me, maybe just bottle tap water to save a buck).

Anyway, does anyone have a list or can comment on what water is safe to buy?


If you drink just one 16 ounce bottle of water a day then you are probably throwing money away.

A low cost reverse osmosis water filter system installed in your kitchen will give you better water and pay for its self and service in the first 6 months to a year.

Someone mentioned that RO did not remove all fluoride but it reduces it by about 99% as well as most other pollutants. With a 4mg pF/L limit set by the EPA and multiple sources of fluoride in the enviroment and our food, it makes sense to cut down as much as you can. An under sink RO system will do that and save you a lot of cash.

Interesting note:
The requirements for water quality in canned and bottled drinks like soda and juice are much higher than for bottled water. Where water quality isn't high enough to meet standards for bottling sodas they use reverse osmosis water. The waste water off of these filters is then run through a less effective filter and guess what.....bottled. And you get to pay more for it than for a soda.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



I find it laughable you care about thsi issue so much when high fat and salt diets are one of the biggest killers out there, along with cigarettes


High fat/salt diets are (delicious) personal choice. Cigarettes are also personal choice, I'm sure everyone's aware of their addictive nature.

Mass medication of a poison with only small arguable benefits that is almost impossible to completely escape from is on an entirely different level and completely immoral.

In conclusion:
Choice = good
Forced = bad



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
One victory in the anti-fluoride world:

EPA Proposes to Withdraw Sulfuryl Fluoride Tolerances



The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has re-evaluated the current science on fluoride and is taking steps to begin a phased-down withdrawal of the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride, a pesticide that breaks down into fluoride and is commonly used in food storage and processing facilities. Sulfuryl fluoride is currently registered for the control of insect pests in stored grains, dried fruits, tree nuts, coffee and cocoa beans, and for use in food handling and processing facilities. Although sulfuryl fluoride residues in food contribute only a very small portion of total exposure to fluoride, when combined with other fluoride exposure pathways, including drinking water and toothpaste, EPA has concluded that the tolerance (legal residue limits on food) no longer meets the safety standard under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the tolerances for sulfuryl fluoride should be withdrawn.

Sulfuryl fluoride is an important replacement for several post-harvest uses of the stratospheric ozone-depleting pesticide, methyl bromide. Methyl bromide has been phased-out in developed countries under the Montreal Protocol, and many industries that previously relied on methyl bromide to control insect pests in stored and processed food commodities and in food processing and handling facilities now depend on sulfuryl fluoride. Since sulfuryl fluoride is an important alternative to the ozone depleting pesticide methyl bromide, EPA is proposing to phase out uses of sulfuryl fluoride over a period of three years. EPA will work with users of sulfuryl fluoride to identify potential alternatives.

Link to EPA source


edit on 20-2-2011 by donatellanator because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Does anybody know wether accumulated flouride in the body will reduce and clear, once a person reduces or stops their intake of it?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bargoose
Does anybody know wether accumulated flouride in the body will reduce and clear, once a person reduces or stops their intake of it?


According to what I've read, it takes a human body 7 years on average to naturally eliminate 1/2 of the fluoride present. So from what you have today, in 7 years you will have half that much. Another 7 years, you'll have 1/4 what you do now. 21 years from now, you'll have 1/8 and so on.





new topics
top topics
 
72
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join