Fluoride Linked to #1 Cause of Death in New Research

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by tigertatzen

 

I believe there will be adverse effects of anything at a high level, including water.

Water is not poisonous. Though it might be if you choose to absolutely drown your insides with it. Sodium fluoride is poisonous, and I challenge you to take a sip of it to see the effects.

Many countries across the globe do not fluoridate their water, because it's considered unhealthy and dangerous. Some nations have used fluoridation in the past, but cut the program after ill-effects were recorded, such as dental fluorosis. Simply put, it's pitting of the enamel on teeth. An effect completely opposite of the desired effects by putting fluoride in the water.

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by SyphonX

 

It may not be killing anyone outright in miniscule quantities but it certainly is killing people slowly. That is far from the biggest problem though, i would count all the other adverse effects more than enough to be worried.

I agree. The notion of "fluoride is killing us" is mostly unfounded, but the other ill-effects being discussed are not unfounded, and that's what is more important, in my opinion.

Some things are worse than "death".

reply to post by SyphonX


Water is very poisonous if used incorrectly.

As is Oxygen.

They key is not to abuse it or use it inappropriately.

And as I've said over and over and over again, I believe that fluoride is not needed in a water supply, so please, read the thread before going off half cocked at someone.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by SyphonX

 

Water is very poisonous if used incorrectly.

As is Oxygen.

They key is not to abuse it or use it inappropriately.

And as I've said over and over and over again, I believe that fluoride is not needed in a water supply, so please, read the thread before going off half cocked at someone.

The point is that there is absolutely no "safe usage" of sodium fluoride in the human body. Excuse me if I view the notion of arguing "water is dangerous" in comparison, as being very immature.

70% of the human body is water. Yes, you can do damage to yourself by using "water". If you don't get enough water you will die.

We breathe oxygen. Oxygen runs through our blood. Pure oxygen is dangerous, yes. You can die from a lack of oxygen, even.

Sodium fluoride is not needed by the body. It's not established as being a required "nutrient" for the human body. You will not die from a sodium fluoride deficiency. In fact you will be exposed to many health-risks if you ingest it.

Some fifty years after governments began adding fluoride to public water supplies to reduce cavities in children's teeth, declassified documents are shedding new light on the roots of that still-controversial public health measure, revealing a surprising connection between fluoride and the dawning of the nuclear age...read more preventdisease.com...

we do not fluoridate the water we supply in the south east of England. However, around 40% of the water we supply in the north east of England is fluoridated. The fluoridated areas include much of Northumberland and Tyne and Wear and north west Durham. Fluoridation began in these areas in the early 1970s at the request of the local health authorities and has continued ever since. It is paid for by the health authorities. dang ..why would they request it?

Luckily they dont poisen my water supply yet, however it should be noted there is a vast amount of different Fluoride type chemicals it derives from Fluorine which in turn derives from the mineral Fluorite. Fluorite is EVERYWHERE, it is found in land, sea and air, in the food you eat. You consume it all the time and it is essential for bone strength. In gas phase it is deadly.

If you consume too much of it, you are dead. But the same goes for Iron, our bodies need Iron but if i ate half a Kilo of Iron filings, i'm dead. Best just cut it out altogether then NO.

What people need to do is find exact formula formula of the Fluoride they add, there many, in what quantities and understand how that may affect populations of millions.

Trouble is wikipedia is down today, and i very much doubt anyone here is a chemist.

reply to post by NeoVain


Aww sweetie, Ive already won but by all means continue to wallow in ignorance.

Originally posted by kokoro
reply to post by NeoVain

 

Aww sweetie, Ive already won but by all means continue to wallow in ignorance.

Great, why don´t you go celebrate with another cup of water then
Edit: Make that a tankard by the way.

Originally posted by tigertatzen


If articles like these were not worded in such a way, they likely would not capture the attention of most people, therefore the catchy wording of the headliner did in fact serve its purpose. It is true that the study itself is not proportionate to the level of alarm that the article implies, but that is journalism for you. They are also very careful to repeatedly use terminology such as "linked to", "may be" and "correlation", because they know that one study is not proof positive that the leading cause of death among human beings can be attributed to something as easily solved as excessive fluoride consumption. Also, it is misleading in the fact that the study was performed by injection of the substance, not ingestion, as everyone is discussing here. I can only assume that this methodology was used to achieve the highest levels of concentration in the bloodstream very quickly to obtain results versus the other option, which would have been to find 61 people who had never been exposed to fluoride and obtaining data on those subjects for however long it would take to reach the same level by ingestion, which is the typical route. I am not sure why the study was done this way, but I am trying to find more info on that. Unless people are submitting to serial PET scans with fluoridated contrast on a routine basis I am not sure what the significance could be to the general public. I can only assume that the researchers were trying to link their study with the only other way people are exposed to high levels of fluoride, which would be through the drinking water that is treated with it. I do know, however, that there are in fact adverse effects of long-term ingestion of high levels of fluoride and that was what got my attention and what I was responding to.

edit on 18-1-2012 by tigertatzen because: oops...had a case of the fat fingas

Uuum no. What kind of medical professional did you say you were again?


The fluoride was a radio isotope and the study was to see if if could be used accurately as a diagnostic tool for heart disease. the fluoride itself as a disease causing agent is not the subject of the study . only its usefulness as a radio isotope. They used F18 Fluoride, pretty standard usage in bone scans so it seemed reasonable to them to try it on calcified arterial plaque.

Originally posted by NeoVain

Originally posted by kokoro
reply to post by NeoVain

 

Aww sweetie, Ive already won but by all means continue to wallow in ignorance.

Great, why don´t you go celebrate with another cup of water then

Edit: Make that a tankard by the way. bottoms up!

edit on 18-1-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)

Even in your snarky comments you cannot help yourself but to slip a strawman in there. I have never said Fluoride in drinking water was harmless. My issue is with your dishonesty in presenting material.

Hey , I have a question for you, wonder why the journal article was published in the Journal of nuclear medicine? Hmmm......Maybe because its about a scanning tool and not fluoride toxicity..

Originally posted by kokoro

Hey , I have a question for you, wonder why the journal article was published in the Journal of nuclear medicine? Hmmm......Maybe because its about a scanning tool and not fluoride toxicity..

edit on 18-1-2012 by kokoro because: (no reason given)

Sigh this again. Either you are being deliberately ignorant, or you seriously need to stop drinking that water dude. That has already been adressed earlier in this thread: REGARDLESS OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE STUDY, CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN IN OTHER AREAS BY THE RESULTS!

This simple logic seems to fail getting through to you time and again.

Maybe an example would serve better to illustrate this point. Say you decide to go to your computer to research michael jackson. You google him, find the wikipedia link and read up on him. At the bottom is a link to his sister Latoya. With your logic, it is impossible to click on this link, since your original intention was to research michael jackson, and therefore nothing else can be learned this session.

See someting wrong with that logic?

Originally posted by NeoVain

Originally posted by kokoro

Hey , I have a question for you, wonder why the journal article was published in the Journal of nuclear medicine? Hmmm......Maybe because its about a scanning tool and not fluoride toxicity..

edit on 18-1-2012 by kokoro because: (no reason given)

Sigh this again. Either you are being deliberately ignorant, or you seriously need to stop drinking that water dude. That has already been adressed earlier in this thread: REGARDLESS OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE STUDY, CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN IN OTHER AREAS BY THE RESULTS!

This simple logic seems to fail getting through to you time and again.

Maybe an example would serve better to illustrate this point. Say you decide to go to your computer to research michael jackson. You google him, find the wikipedia link and read up on him. At the bottom is a link to his sister Latoya. With your logic, it is impossible to click on this link, since your original intention was to research michael jackson, and therefore nothing else can be learned this session.

See someting wrong with that logic?

edit on 18-1-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-1-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)

No I understand that clues to illness can be gleaned from research that is not the subject of study. I understand that very well, this is one way in which researchers find new avenues of study. However, you are still misinterpreting the substance of the article in such a way that you think this possible with this particular article when in fact it is not. Fluoride does not calcify arteries, it attaches to calcifications that are already there in order to light them up for study. You and the author of your article are mistaking this for causation and that is not the case. After the injected fluoride then is degraded by the body and leaves via the kidneys, you can continue to shoot film and watch it do so. No calcification results from the fluoride. I am not failing to grasp any logic, yoiu need to take the fluoride blinders off.

You know what does cause heart disease> cheeseburgers, but I don't see anyone railing about this. If you wanna save some lives maybe you should take on the fast food industry, Id be right beside you.

reply to post by kokoro

Fluoride does not calcify arteries, it attaches to calcifications that are already there in order to light them up for study.

Nowhere in that article or source research paper does it state that it attached to calcifications that are already there. NOWHERE. I have pointed this out multiple times, and again you are being deliberately ignorant. So who is the one misinterpreting? You seem to base your assumptions on other assumptions, none of which is supported by the evidence in this thread.

Excellent topic and support - S&F.

And, what timing - I think you'll agree that this compliments my thread perfectly (as, you've already been on it)

There is Only ONE Conspiracy - Everything Else is Just 'Noise'!

(blocula, SonoftheSun, and I have continued a great discussion starting on Pg3, since you've been by (now, to 4))

__________________________

Additionally, I had put together some information for a buddy on Flouridation - the email came out perfect with linkage, bolding and italicized section, but will not copy/paste over here, correctly (of course), but I will repost here, anyway, because the studies and authors can be Googled:

_______

[Oct 12, 2011] - Hundreds of brave dentists speak out against water fluoridation - "It takes a special kind of humility for a medical professional to admit that something he or she was taught in medical school, and has long since clung to as fact, is actually false. But a growing number of dentists from around the world, many of whom formerly supported water fluoridation, are now boldly speaking out against it as a long-held, unsubstantiated medical dogma purported to prevent tooth decay, but that actually damages health and provides no legitimate oral health benefits."


Petition to President Obama to end all federal involvement in the promotion, endorsement, and funding for fluoridation of the public's drinking water.
[Deadline: October 26, 2011]


[Ongoing] - Flouride Action Network - Over 3,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation: Top Ten Arguments Against Water Fluoridation


[last update: July 2011] THE DAMAGING EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE FOR TEETH ON THYROID AND BRAIN, AND A CURE - By Charles Weber, MS in soil science - this appears, at first, to be a commentary by a single individual, but is actually probably the best sourced, linked, and referenced document I could find. [I would start with this one]: "Fluoride has been added to water in the form of hexafluorosilicic acid (an industrial waste product) in the hope that it would reduce tooth decay. However it is a poison that has some serious side effects, badly affecting almost every organ in the body and does not reduce tooth decay in permanent teeth (has graphs) nor even in first teeth and The decline in tooth cavities has been the same in fluoridated and non fluoridated countries. Europe is only 2% fluoridated but has tooth decay similar to or less than the USA, which is 64% fluoridated. A study showed higher number of cavities in a fluoridated village than in nearby non fluoridated villages in South Africa. [Grobler] Fluoride is more poisonous than lead and only marginally less so than arsenic."

Water Fluoridation: A Review of Recent Research and Actions - by Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Joel is Professor of Chemistry Emeritus at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, 600 S. 43rd St., Philadelphia, PA, 19104-4495. E-mail: [email protected]. His conclusion: "probably does not reduce tooth decay - [there is] no significant benefit. [And] Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation ina manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data. There is evidence that fluoridation increases the incidence of cancer, hip fractures, joint problems, and that by causing fluorosis it damages both teeth and bones. Other medical problems may also occur, including neurologic damage. Fluoridation of municipal water should cease. Defluoridation of naturally fluoridated water down to 0.4 ppm of fluoride should be mandated. Individuals should remove fluoride from their tap water if fluoridation cannot be stopped."

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by kokoro

 

Fluoride does not calcify arteries, it attaches to calcifications that are already there in order to light them up for study.

Nowhere in that article or source research paper does it state that it attached to calcifications that are already there. NOWHERE. I have pointed this out multiple times, and again you are being deliberately ignorant. So who is the one misinterpreting? You seem to base your assumptions on other assumptions, none of which is supported by the evidence in this thread.

that is exactly what it is taking about when it points to a correlation between calcification and uptake of fluoride. The fluoride is taken up by the calcification within the artery wall (that is exactly what heart disease is). Then the MRI, or Ct or whatever method used can identify where the calcifications are by where the image is lit up.
Sheesh! Do not blame me for your misunderstanding of medical literature. Educate yourself, these are basic radiology concepts. More to come after work, gotta go kill me some patients ya know.....

SOS anti fluoride people!

I am a Hungarian anti food tempering campaigner.
Could you help me out, maybe is private, with the following:
Legitimate definition of fluoride, risks, studies
Further clinical studies
Link on these subjects
Facts on this subjects
Basically all info i would use writing a book.
which i actually am doing, although in nutrition, i would like to use these studies, information to further toxicity research...
Thanks in advance

reply to post by kokoro

that is exactly what it is taking about when it points to a correlation between calcification and uptake of fluoride. The fluoride is taken up by the calcification within the artery wall (that is exactly what heart disease is). Then the MRI, or Ct or whatever method used can identify where the calcifications are by where the image is lit up.

More literal legerdemain. How about you actually point to the stuff in the article that you try to "explain" instead of coming up with vague preconceptions based on preconceived assumptions all the time? Even better, why don´t you go pester the author of the article, i noticed he already have 3348 facebook subscriber to that article. Shouldn´t you be concerned he is spreading the "false" message? But of course he gets no flags or stars, so why should you care right?

reply to post by Chadwickus


kokoro is your girlfriend?
pics please

i am having trouble finding toothpaste+mouthwash without fluoride
i live in MN, US.
any brands you guys wanna throw at me, im listening


i have been good at not drinking tap, but i still cook my food with tap, and i even want to cut down on that