How to prove to anyone that Water Fluoridation is Bad for us

Originally posted by adeclerk
Can anyone give us a verified death of a human being from consuming fluoridated water?

The plan isn't to kill us, although I'm sure a lot of caner patients would not wanna be drinking fluoridated water, and I think Cancer the #2 killer in the USA right now.

But, kill us? Nah, there are other nasty things fluoride can do without killing us

Originally posted by boncho
The OP of the thread is equating toothpaste to rat poison.

Read a thread before you post in it.

I read it. The OP would actually be kind to the fluoride in water to compare it to rat poison. The rat poison with fluoride in it that I've seen uses sodium fluoride. The fluoride in water is unpurified toxic waste, unprocessed by-products of the nuclear, phosphate and aluminum industries.
When you say equate", do you mean that he compared them in a sense that water-soluble fluorine compounds are, in general, toxic (they are), or are you trying to say that he said they were exactly the same?

Why would they tell you that vitamins are bad, and only a chemical can help your body?




You quoted something that says: legally, only drugs can be claimed as a cure. But it did not say that vitamins are bad or not used for treating conditions....

I think he needs to watch this

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by adeclerk
Can anyone give us a verified death of a human being from consuming fluoridated water?

The plan isn't to kill us, although I'm sure a lot of caner patients would not wanna be drinking fluoridated water, and I think Cancer the #2 killer in the USA right now.

But, kill us? Nah, there are other nasty things fluoride can do without killing us

edit on 22-5-2011 by Swills because: (no reason given)

A little funny that no one is going to the hospital with any of those "nasty ailments" from fluoridated water, isn't it?
Cancer can be caused by many things, blaming fluoridated water would be absurd.

Have a read here on the history of this controversy/conspiracy.

I really hate that movie Dr. Strangelove... Not that it wasn't a masterpiece but it gave a whole lot of people the idea that any argument against fluoridation originated from the mind of a crackpot.

It is just a movie people. Movies and medical facts, are two different things. Especially films from Kubrick, where you find yourself in a schizophrenic like headspace during the viewing.

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by boncho
The OP of the thread is equating toothpaste to rat poison.

Read a thread before you post in it.

I read it. The OP would actually be kind to the fluoride in water to compare it to rat poison. The rat poison with fluoride in it that I've seen uses sodium fluoride. The fluoride in water is unpurified toxic waste, unprocessed by-products of the nuclear, phosphate and aluminum industries.
When you say equate", do you mean that he compared them in a sense that water-soluble fluorine compounds are, in general, toxic (they are), or are you trying to say that he said they were exactly the same?

That's a bold claim after giving us a link stating that 95% of FSA used in water supplies in the US comes from phosphates. The chemical processes listed hardly result in "unprocessed" fluoride, heck it's water based. Are you trying to deceive us for an ulterior motive?

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by adeclerk
Can anyone give us a verified death of a human being from consuming fluoridated water?

The plan isn't to kill us, although I'm sure a lot of caner patients would not wanna be drinking fluoridated water, and I think Cancer the #2 killer in the USA right now.

But, kill us? Nah, there are other nasty things fluoride can do without killing us

edit on 22-5-2011 by Swills because: (no reason given)

A little funny that no one is going to the hospital with any of those "nasty ailments" from fluoridated water, isn't it?
Cancer can be caused by many things, blaming fluoridated water would be absurd.

Have a read here on the history of this controversy/conspiracy.

I'm just saying that if I have cancer I would Not want to drink fluoridated water, is all. Do you, but in fact, I wouldn't

www.healthy-communications.com...

4. Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body’s own tissues, and increases the tumor growth rate in cancer prone individuals.

Alfred Taylor and Nell C. Taylor, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumor Growth,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol. 119, p. 252 (1965); Sheila Gibson, “Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Function,” Complementary Medical Research, Vol. 6, pp. 111-113 (1992); Peter Wilkinson, “Inhibition of the Immune System With Low Levels of Fluorides,” Testimony before the Scottish High Court in Edinburgh in the Case of McColl vs.

Strathclyde Regional Council, pp. 17723-18150, 19328-19492, and Exhibit 636, (1982); D. W. Allman and M. Benac, “Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 55 (Supplement B), p. 523 (1976); S. Jaouni and D. W. Allman, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride and Aluminum on Adenylate Cyclase and Phosphodiesterase Activity,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p. 201 (1985)

That and many European nations are dead set against it. So I'm with them and your with the USA. Agree to disagree I suppose

reply to post by sliceNodice


It remains (the film) a testament to the ridiculous nature of "conspiracy theories" and their genesis.

Funny how, as already pointed out several times in this, and many other threads on this topic, there seem to be recorded cases of Human injury from fluoridated water.

I grew up in a major metropolitan area (greater Los Angeles) where the tap water supplies were certainly fluoridated...through the late 1950s, and the whole decade of the 60s and 70, and onward. My toothpaste was Crest, or Gleem, or any of the popular name brands available at the time, and in that era.

Yet, I have NO ill effects of any kind. My mother has lived in LA her entire life, she's 77. There simply is no medical data to support these claims.

Fear mongering paranoia, and is driven by...who? I'd follow the money...as in, people who rake in the cash by writing/speaking/blogging about such topics, to earn a living...

reply to post by adeclerk


They only test for fluoride content.

www.sonic.net...

reply to post by adeclerk


I suggest you and weedwhacker and boncho get all the fluoride coming to you. I can suggest some sources for you. Get all you can. It's really, really good for you. Really!

It is interesting that Dr. George Estabrooks, an advisor to the United States Government on hypnotism and psychological behaviour control, later became chairman of the Department of Psychology at Colgate University. Internationally, Colgate was and remains today the most ardent producer and advocate for fluoridated toothpaste.

members.iimetro.com.au...

Dr. Estabrooks: en.wikipedia.org...


I got this info maybe in less than a minute.

Originally posted by grizzle2
reply to post by adeclerk

 

They only test for fluoride content.

www.sonic.net...

So what I'm getting from that source is that the byproducts in the fluoride are what is dangerous, not the fluoride itself. Interesting.

Originally posted by adeclerk
So what I'm getting from that source is that the byproducts in the fluoride are what is dangerous, not the fluoride itself. Interesting.

Well, that's not true, but whatever you wish to derive from it. I was answering your statement that the fluoride used in water was some pure chemical. It's not. It's toxic waste.

Originally posted by Mactire
reply to post by adeclerk

 

You defend the fluoride agents like you're being paid.

Why would anyone trust in fluoridation when $h!t like this goes down every day.

Harvard Professor investigated after trying to hide a link between Fluoride and Cancer

edit on 22-5-2011 by Mactire because: (no reason given)

Did you miss this part?

Among males, exposure to fluoride at or above the target level was associated with an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma. The association was most apparent between ages 5-10, with a peak at six to eight years of age

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by sliceNodice

 

It remains (the film) a testament to the ridiculous nature of "conspiracy theories" and their genesis.

Funny how, as already pointed out several times in this, and many other threads on this topic, there seem to be recorded cases of Human injury from fluoridated water.

I grew up in a major metropolitan area (greater Los Angeles) where the tap water supplies were certainly fluoridated...through the late 1950s, and the whole decade of the 60s and 70, and onward. My toothpaste was Crest, or Gleem, or any of the popular name brands available at the time, and in that era.

Yet, I have NO ill effects of any kind. My mother has lived in LA her entire life, she's 77. There simply is no medical data to support these claims.

Fear mongering paranoia, and is driven by...who? I'd follow the money...as in, people who rake in the cash by writing/speaking/blogging about such topics, to earn a living...

edit on Sun 22 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Somebody better show me the damn money already, and all those other guys who did all the work Seriously, if you had the option to have fluoride in your water what would you choose?


www.cdc.gov...

*
The 2006 NRC Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards*

In 2006, the NRC stated in this report that in developing regulatory standards for high levels of fluoride in drinking water, three adverse health effects warranted consideration: severe enamel (dental) fluorosis from exposure to these high levels between birth and 8 years of age, risk of bone fractures, and severe forms of skeletal fluorosis (a rare condition in the United States) after lifetime exposure.

reply to post by Swills


I believe what you're reading, there on the CDC website, and the NRC reports they are hosting, is discussion of instances where the amounts of fluoride, in local and isolated cases, exceeded acceptable standards of maximum.

Looks to be a call for regulation, and definition of defined standards, and legislation to give teeth to enforcement of those rules. (??) That's how I interpreted it....


>>>editing to pat myself on the back for the unintentional pun... up there .. ^^^^^^^

Originally posted by Swills

The 2006 NRC Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards*

In 2006, the NRC stated in this report that in developing regulatory standards for high levels of fluoride in drinking water, three adverse health effects warranted consideration: severe enamel (dental) fluorosis from exposure to these high levels between birth and 8 years of age, risk of bone fractures, and severe forms of skeletal fluorosis (a rare condition in the United States) after lifetime exposure.

I've been drinking tapwater my whole life and I don't have dental fluorosis or the rare skeletal fluorosis.

What about the risk for people over 8 years of age?

Here is the results of tests on drinking water in my area. I think I have a lot more to be worrying about than fluoride.

On an unrelated note, I typically filter water I drink through two separate filters, hopefully I'm only getting the fluoride (since it isn't removed).

ETA: The filtering isn't for health, I don't like my drinking water tasting like a swimming pool.

www.icnr.com...

"The 'optimal' level of fluoride intake has NEVER been determined scientifically." J. American Dental Association, Vol. 126, p.1625, Dec. 1995.

The FDA has classified fluoride as an unapproved new drug. After 52 years of fluoride's use in municipal water, the FDA does not have one study on file showing fluoride's safety or effectiveness.

In 1986, the EPA raised the level of fluoride allowed in municipal water from 1 ppm to 4 ppm (parts per million). The EPA's union of professional employees (scientists, engineers and attorneys), who are responsible for setting standards, attempted to file suit in federal court to overturn the new standard. They charged that the EPA had ignored scientific evidence of adverse health effects.

Today, less than 2% of Europe is fluoridated where as over 50% of U.S. drinking water is fluoridated. Fluoride is in the food, water, beverages and dental products as well as fluoride-based pharmaceuticals, work place exposure and air emissions.

In 1993, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services stated in its Toxicological Profile on fluoride, "Existing data indicates that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and/or vitamin C and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems."

The University of Iowa published two articles, Risk of Fluorosis in a Fluoridated Population and Infant Fluoride Ingestion from Water, Supplementation and Dentifrice (JADA, Dec. 1995). Researchers have reported that fluorosis has increased in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities at an alarming rate. Their data shows (p.1630) that babies 9 months and younger are over-exposed to fluoride.

In December 1996, The Academy of General Dentistry (AGD) issued a press release warning parents to limit their children's intake of fruit juice, due to over-exposure to fluoride. The study was conducted by the University of Iowa and was reported in JADA (July 1996). The study found that 62% of the ready-to drink juices contain 0.6 - 1.0 ppm of fluoride, which is above the AGD recommended limit of 0.6 ppm. The Iowa study states that due to "the widespread use of fluoridated water, fluoride dentifrice and dietary fluoride supplements and other forms of fluoride ...(there is) an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis , ranging from about 15 to 65 percent in fluoridated areas and 5 to 40 percent in non-fluoridated areas in North America."


"In point of fact, fluorine causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical." Dean Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus at the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

Academy of General Dentistry's Press Release on the University of Iowa Study (December 1996): 62% of 532 ready-to-drink fruit juices (frozen-concentrate and juice flavored drinks) surveyed had fluoride levels greater than 0.6 ppm. This amount is already above the recommended dose of supplemental fluoride which is between 0.3 and 0.6 parts per million.

reply to post by adeclerk


No, I didn't miss that part. I did miss the part about why a professor was busted trying to cover up this little fact. If he's doing it, then others are doing it. Bone cancer is bad enough, but the whole idea about it being used to make the population docile is nothing short of shady.
The government has tried sewing bits of uranium into people's backs, and feeding pregnant mothers on military bases tiny amounts of uranium for their little experiments, and for what? Giggles? Don't even try and preach the "Government would have no such agenda" $h!t with me. I've seen the videos of government experiments on unsuspecting soldiers. That ain't gonna fly with me, Capitan.

Look. Everyone knows everything can kill you if you have enough of it, including water. But if the difference lethal or not is a drop and a table spoon, then it shouldn't be in anything we eat or drink.

ps> you might wanna trim that quote before a Mod comes along and pimp slaps you.

reply to post by Mactire


So the same government that is nefariously poisoning us with fluoride is allowing an agency they own to investigate a man who downplayed the risk of fluoride to children? That doesn't seem right.