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.
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)