It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Fluoride Linked to #1 Cause of Death in New Research

page: 20
214
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Though acknowledgements of the fluoride cover up are obvious to real research folks, the science illiterate of this tread can't read the truth and admit it. Thus, by continual denials they show their issue is allied with the water poisoners. imho

=====

biostate.blogspot.com...

Declassified documents of the U.S. atomic-bomb program indicate otherwise.

An April 29, 1944 Manhattan Project memo reports: "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride [UF^6] may have a rather marked central nervous system effect.... It seems most likely that the F [code for fluoride] component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor."

The memo --stamped "secret"-- is addressed to the head of the Manhattan Project's Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Colonel Warren is asked to approve a program of animal research on CNS effects: "Since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure...This is important not only to protect a given individual, but also to prevent a confused workman from injuring others by improperly performing his duties."

On the same day, Colonel Warren approved the CNS research program. This was in 1944, at the height of the Second World War and the nation's race to build the world's first atomic bomb. For research on fluoride's CNS effects to be approved at such a momentous time, the supporting evidence set forth in the proposal forwarded along with the memo must have been persuasive.

The proposal, however, is missing from the files of the U.S. National Archives. "If you find the memos, but the document they refer to is missing, its probably still classified," said Charles Reeves, chief librarian at the Atlanta branch of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, where the memos were found. Similarly, no results of the Manhattan Project's fluoride CNS research could be found in the files.

After reviewing the memos, Mullenix declared herself "flabbergasted." She went on, "How could I be told by NIH that fluoride has no central nervous system effects when these documents were sitting there all the time?" She reasons that the Manhattan Project did do fluoride CNS studies --"that kind of warning, that fluoride workers might be a danger to the bomb program by improperly performing their duties--I can't imagine that would be ignored"-- but that the results were buried because they might create a difficult legal and public relations problem for the government.

The author of the 1944 CNS research proposal was Dr. Harold C. Hodge, at the time chief of fluoride toxicology studies for the University of Rochester division of the Manhattan Project. Nearly fifty years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Mullenix was introduced to a gently ambling elderly man brought in to serve as a consultant [and obviously intentionally misleading force and to keep her under surveillance without her knowledge for reporting back to the "floride police state"] on her CNS research--Harold C. Hodge. By then Hodge had achieved status emeritus as a world authority on fluoride safety. "But even though he was supposed to be helping me," says Mullenix, "he never once mentioned the CNS work he had done for the Manhattan Project."

The "black hole" in fluoride CNS research since the days of the Manhattan Project is unacceptable to Mullenix, who refuses to abandon the issue. "There is so much fluoride exposure now, and we simply do not know what it is doing," she says. "You can't just walk away from this."

=====




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
The Fluoride History of continual problems:

====

www.infiniteunknown.net...

1939 On September 29, 1939, Mellon Institute scientist Gerald J. Cox plays a major role in the promotion of fluoridation by saying “the present trend toward removal of fluorides from food and water may need reversal. Water engineers had been recommending a maximum allowable fluoride contaminant level of 0.1 part per million (ppm), maintaining a tenfold margin of safety. (When fluorides were eventually added to water through corporate pressure, that safety factor would be thrown out and the level raised tenfold beyond the engineering recommendations in 1939, when fluoride was properly recognized as a toxic contaminant. Note: Mellon Institute was founded by Andrew and Richard Mellon, former owners of ALCOA Aluminum, plagued by disposal problems of toxic fluoride by products. ALCOA also had a relationship with I.G. Farben in Germany)

---

1942 Germany becomes worlds largest producer of aluminum (and Sodium Fluoride). Fluoride is used in the concentration camps to render the prisoners docile and inhibit the questioning of authority.

---

1944 “Even at 1ppm, fluoride in drinking water poisons cattle, horses and sheep” (Moules, G.R., Water Pollution Research and Summary of Current Literature, 1944.

---

1944 Through 1948. Previously classified documents from Manhattan Project which indicate the government knew the physiological and psycho-behavioral effects of fluorides, as a result of studies connected with determining the effect of uranium hexafluoride processing on workers, as well as studies in defense of litigation against the project by tree growers who experienced fluoride damage from airborne pollutants connected with the project. Ref: Declassified documents from the National Archives published in 1997.

1944 An April 29, 1944 Manhattan Project memo, released in 1997, states “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect, with mental confusion, drowsiness and lassitude as the conspicuous features… it seems that the fluoride component is the causative factor….since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure, if workmen are to be properly protected. This is important not only to protect a given individual, but also to prevent a confused workman from injuring others by improperly performing his duties”. Ref: Previously classified SECRET Manhattan Project Memo, 29 April 1944, declassified and released from the National Archives.

---

1945 An FDA Chief inspector discovers that fluorides are being added to beer by the Commonwealth Brewing Company of Massachusetts (the same state where they did experimental fluoride treatments on institutionalized children). The owner of the brewery was arrested and subjected to a Federal jury trial for poisoning the beer. The indictment charged that the beer contained “an added poison or deleterious poison, fluoride, which was unsafe within the meaning of the statute (Section 301a of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), since it was a substance not required in the production of the beer, it could have been avoided by good manufacturing practice.” The fact was established that the fluoride was added in the concentration of 0.5 ppm. The jury was instructed that fluoride was established to be harmful and poisonous, and that it was unimportant to show how much beer it would take to demonstrate harmful effects. Beer was classified as a food and fluoride as a poison in 1945. The Commonwealth Brewery Company was slapped with a $10,000 fine, and Kaufmann, the owner, was given a 6 month suspended jail sentence and a three year probation period.

----

1945 The government does a public test case of fluoridation, comparing fluoridated Grand Rapids with unfluoridated Muskegon, Michigan. The study is to last ten years. After one year, it becomes obvious to the government that fluorides do not conform to their public propaganda, and the study is terminated. The city of Muskegon is then fluoridated in 1947 to conceal the difference in effect. Other experiments are performed covertly on population areas, without the knowledge of the subjects.

----

1946 Reports from the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the Armed Forces for 1946 and 1947 reveal the dociling effect of fluorides in the water supplies at military bases on American troops.

----

1947 Forrestal appointed Secretary of Defense. Asked to resign in 1949 after noting forces planning the war in Korea. See 1949. Later murdered. Forrestal was very much opposed to the use of fluorides on military bases to keep the troops docile. (York Daily Times, Letters to the Editor from former FBI agent Wesley C. Trollope, Omaha, Neb., March 17, 1967).

----

1948 John McCone becomes Secretary of Defense of the United States. McCone gives contracts to Standard Oil and Kaiser Aluminum, in which he already has financial interests. Aluminum manufacture by-products, fluorides, would be added to the population water supplies to induce submission by damaging the brain and stem resistence to domination by global socialism.

----

1950 The Seventh Annual Report of the Sugar Research Foundation recognizes sugar as the major cause of tooth decay. The SRF furnishes grants to the Harvard Department of Nutrition to “solve the tooth decay problem without restricting sugar consumption”. The result of these grants was the advocating of water fluoridation.

----

1950 The Seventh Annual Report of the Sugar Research Foundation (130 corporations) expresses its “aim in dental research” : to discover means of controlling tooth decay by methods other than restricting sugar intake. Two institutions most aggressive in promotion of water fluoridation, the Dental Schools of Harvard and the University of Rochester, receive large grants for fluoride research from the sugar industry.

---

1952 From 1952 to 1956, the cities on the “fluoridation list” began to fluoridate their water supplies. As the process of water fluoridation continued, the cancer death rate of the fluoridated cities began to far exceed the rate of the unfluoridated cities.

----

1954 Charles E. Perkins, the scientist sent by the U.S. to Germany after World War II to supervise the breakup of I.G. Farben, states, “the real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistence of the masses to domination and control, and loss of liberty.”

----

1956 Maurice Natenburg, medical writer and managing editor of Regent House, publishes a pamphlet entitled The Fluoride Curtain, in which he states “The AMA endorsed fluoridation just after their successful fight against an Ewing-sponsored bill to introduce socialized medicine in the United States. The AMA made a special assessment on its members, spending some $3 million in the battle to defeat the bill. After the battle was over, the AMA suddenly saw the ‘merits’ of water fluoridation.” See 1961 AMA disapproval of fluoridation.

----

1959 Fluorides were used as an enzyme inhibitor in a study by J.D. Ebert that was published in 1959 on the metabolic pathways by which organs in an embryo are formed. In low concentrations, he found that sodium fluoride blocked almost completely the regions destined to form muscle, primarily affecting the heart muscle. In higher concentrations, it caused the entire embryo to disintegrate in a clear-cut pattern, starting with the heart-forming region.

=====


edit on 20-1-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Such a sinister history



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Real fluioride researchers pinpoint the serious problems with fluoride. imho

====

www.fourwinds10.net...


1) Fluoride’s ability to damage the brain represents one of the most active areas of research on fluoride toxicity today.

2) The research on fluoride and the brain has been fueled by 18 human studies from China, India, Iran, and Mexico finding elevated levels of fluoride exposure to be associated with IQ deficits in children. Fluoride’s impact on IQ is exacerbated among children with low-iodine exposure.

3) The impact of fluoride on children’s IQ has been documented even after controlling for children’s lead exposure, iodine exposure, parental education and income status, and other known factors that might impact the results (Rocha-Amador 2007; Xiang 2003 a,b).

4) In addition to IQ studies, 3 studies (Yu 1996; Du 1992; Han 1989) have found that fluoride accumulates in the brain of the fetus, causing damage to cells and neurotransmitters and 1 study (Li 2004) has found a correlation between exposure to fluoride during fetal development and behavioral deficits among neonates.

5) Several recent studies have found that even adult exposures to fluoride may result in central nervous system disturbances, particularly among industrial workers.

5) The findings of neurological effects in fluoride-exposed humans is consistent with, and strengthened by, recent findings from over 40 animal studies published since 1992. As with the studies on humans, the studies on animals have reported an impairment in learning and memory processes among the fluoride-treated groups.

6) The animal studies have also documented considerable evidence of direct toxic effects of fluoride on brain tissue, even at levels as low as 1 ppm fluoride in water (Varner 1998). These effects include:

— reduction in nicotinic acetylcholine receptors;

– reduction in lipid content;

– impaired anti-oxidant defense systems;

– damage to the hippocampus;

– damage to the purkinje cells;

– increased uptake of aluminum;

– formation of beta-amyloid plaques (the classic brain abnormality in Alzheimer’s disease);

– exacerbation of lesions induced by iodine deficiency; and

– accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland. Source

-------

Kidney disease markedly increases an individual’s susceptibility to fluoride toxicity.

The kidneys are responsible for ridding the body of ingested fluoride, and thereby preventing the buildup of toxic levels of fluoride in the body.

In healthy adults, the kidneys are able to excrete approximately 50% of an ingested dose of fluoride.

However, in adults with kidney disease the kidneys may excrete as little as 10 to 20% of an ingested dose – thus increasing the body burden of fluoride and increasing an individual’s susceptibility to fluoride poisoning (e.g. renal osteodystrophy).

The bone changes commonly found among patients with advanced kidney disease closely resemble the bone changes found among individuals with the osteomalacic-type of skeletal fluorosis. This raises the possibility that some individuals with kidney disease are suffering from undiagnosed skeletal fluorosis.

As noted by Dr. Edward Groth, a veteran Senior Scientist at Consumers Union:

“It seems probable that some people with severe or long-term renal disease, which might not be advanced enough to require hemodialysis, can still experience reduced fluoride excretion to an extent that can lead to fluorosis, or aggravate skeletal complications associated with kidney disease… It has been estimated that one in every 25 Americans may have some form of kidney disease; it would seem imperative that the magnitude of risk to such a large sub-segment of the population be determined through extensive and careful study. To date, however, no studies of this sort have been carried out, and none is planned” (Groth 1973; Doctoral Thesis; Stanford University).

Because the kidney accumulates more fluoride than all other soft tissues (with the exception of the pineal gland), there is concern that excess fluoride exposure may contribute to kidney disease – thus initiating a “vicious cycle” where the damaged kidneys increase the accumulation of fluoride, causing in turn further damage to the kidney, bone, and other organs.

The possibility that fluoride exposure can cause direct damage to kidney tissue is supported by a long line of animal and human studies.

In studies on fluoride-exposed animals, kidney damage has been reported at levels as low as 1 ppm if the animals consume the water for long periods of time.

In humans, elevated rates of kidney damage are frequently encountered among populations with skeletal fluorosis. In addition, several case reports suggest that some individuals with kidney disease can experience significant recovery in their clinical signs and symptoms following the provision of fluoride-free water. Source

------

According to the US National Research Council, “several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.”

Fluoride’s potential to impair thyroid function is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that — up until the 1970s — European doctors used fluoride as a thyroid-suppressing medication for patients with HYPER-thyroidism (over-active thyroid). Fluoride was utilized because it was found to be effective at reducing the activity of the thyroid gland – even at doses as low as 2 mg/day.

Today, many people living in fluoridated communities are ingesting doses of fluoride (1.6-6.6 mg/day) that fall within the range of doses (2 to 10 mg/day) once used by doctors to reduce thyroid activity in hyperthyroid patients.

While it may be that the thyroid in a patient with hyperthyroidism is particularly susceptible to the anti-thyroid actions of fluoride, there is concern that current fluoride exposures may be playing a role in the widespread incidence of HYPO-thyroidism (under-active thyroid) in the U.S.

Hypothyrodisim, most commonly diagnosed in women over 40, is a serious condition with a diverse range of symptoms including: fatigue, depression, weight gain, hair loss, muscle pains, increased levels of “bad” cholesterol (LDL), and heart disease.. The drug (Synthroid) used to treat hypothyroidism is now one of the top five prescribed drugs in the U.S.

As recommended by the US National Research Council: “The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States.”Source

=========

The great wealth of information is against fluoridation, but paid disinformation agents keep covering up the obvious, Fluoride is Poison. Nobody needs mass medications of harmful fluoride. Except exploiters of the people and the cover ups of polluters. imho


edit on 20-1-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Real ressearchers pinpoint the obvious fluoride cover up

edit on 20-1-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Disinformation agents denials of reality and science



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Looks like a little ATS item turned up on the disinformation agent theme.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Rather interesting reading. Disinformation games are a large part of what got fluoridation started and the need to dull the mind of the public as a second benefit for polluters and corrupt politicians.


These days the whole disinformation process has moved into the Internet Blog and Discussion Forum areas to attempt to sway information or make information Chaos to cloud up important issues.

Fluoride issues have a huge number of industry paid hacks trying to cover up the health and environmental harm issues of fluoride releases.

The fluoride associated Freon problems came to affect the entire world, and only half truths have been told as to the extent of the problems and who is generally responsible.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


Isn't it always the way when someone is faced with overwhelming evidence that they pull out the "paid disinformant" card? It's the sign of a lost cause.

Everything I've said is true. You, post peoples' blogs.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 





Isn't it always the way when someone is faced with overwhelming evidence that they pull out the "paid disinformant" card? It's the sign of a lost cause


Not in your case apparently, you would rather keep repeating the same thing over and over again, refusing to look at the overwhelming evidence laid out before you, in the hopes that someone new to the thread would think there was still a debate going on.

But at least it keeps the thread moving forward, so you are in fact doing the subject a service



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by TheComte
 





Isn't it always the way when someone is faced with overwhelming evidence that they pull out the "paid disinformant" card? It's the sign of a lost cause


Not in your case apparently, you would rather keep repeating the same thing over and over again, refusing to look at the overwhelming evidence laid out before you, in the hopes that someone new to the thread would think there was still a debate going on.

But at least it keeps the thread moving forward, so you are in fact doing the subject a service


But you are not posting EVIDENCE. That is the problem. I can tell you and list a whole page full of symptoms from eating frogs legs and how would you know anything i wrote is due to frogs legs?

I will post this one more time:

---------------------------------

It is fine to post ACTUAL data that proves your case, you guys dont seem to have any problem posting theories. Since plenty of time has passed since it was first added where are the actual numbers because without those numbers we are not getting PROOF. From what i am reading the numbers dont pan out for you though. Maybe I am wrong, but where are the REAL numbers?

--------------------------------

Should be very simple...only apparently it isn't.

Posting copied page after page about fractures, Pineal Gland (most people you get this info from wouldnt know a Pineal Gland if it was in their soup) with ZERO proof it is due to the minuscule level in drinking water is not helping except to load up these threads with crap we could have just googled. The news flash, for yourself and Magnum Opus, is YES we are aware these pages are out there, have read them or most of them, our computers have google, we can use google....Thank You.

Keep in mind MANY other countries aside from the U.S fluoridate the water yet you dont call them fat as well. Sometimes a good psychiatrist is better than sitting here reading google links.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX

Originally posted by Malcher
Just wanted to add, before you guys go stripping all the minerals from your water you should really read up on it. You drink only water that was stripped of minerals you may be doing more harm than good.

www.live-in-green.com...


That's exaggerated and I'd argue nearly completely false.

If you have a vitamin deficiency, it's not because of the water you drink, it's because your diet is very poor. If you're 'breaking even' on minerals and vitamins because you drink 'tap water', then your diet is irresponsible and unhealthy.

Normally people that take strides in getting clean water, they typically have the rest of their diet in-check, or on the road to do so. They usually lead very different lifestyles by the time they to get to the whole water thing. Water doesn't contain the majority of minerals your body needs. It's water. You get mostly what you need from produce and other proper foods.

Most people in America do not eat proper food. The vast majority of food in America is poor and quality, disgusting, tastes awful and is loaded with preservatives and "faux-ingredients". The animals raised for slaughter are some of the sickest creatures on the planet.

The livestock is typically not properly fed, does not graze, and loaded with antiobiotics, yet they still end up wallowing in their feces and urine, neck-to-neck with other animals. Veritable pits of disease and suffering, then they're slaughtered, sprayed with ammonia, turned into an unidentifiable paste, and then shipped off.

This is why we have so many health problems in America. Obesity, diabetes, everything. It's the food, it's the food, it's the food.
edit on 20-1-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)


Well bring it up with the scientists and doctors who have come to that conclusion.

Are you a doctor? Finish High School by any chance?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


Nice, the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy... Oh I see. Also, you can't do anything in your corner but lash out and attempt to mock people now?

That's nice. Gnash your teeth and wallow in your ignorance, I heard it can be positively blissful at times.

I'll say the same to you. Go argue with the "doctors and scientists" in other countries (far more intelligent and educated, -by a mile-, than the US) that deny adding fluoride to water. Let me know how that works out for you.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by Malcher
 


Nice, the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy... Oh I see. Also, you can't do anything in your corner but lash out and attempt to mock people now?

That's nice. Gnash your teeth and wallow in your ignorance, I heard it can be positively blissful at times.

I'll say the same to you. Go argue with the "doctors and scientists" in other countries (far more intelligent and educated, -by a mile-, than the US) that deny adding fluoride to water. Let me know how that works out for you.


When you respond to posts on an internet forum you should ADD to the discussion. Are you adding to the discussion? Attack the post, not the poster.

That paper i linked to had information from the World Health Organization but i knew that for decades. When water comes from the ground stripped of minerals then you can say "well it was intended that way" BUT this is not the case.

So what does that mean?

It is not natural. If you believe in God you would say "this is not how God intended"



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Note:

I am not telling you what to do. People telling others to strip their water with expensive filters or bottled water (plastic is filling up landfills and causing problems, btw) should be aware that this alone is not very healthy...at all.

Be careful storing it for long periods of time too because it turns acidic, you want alkaline (high PH).



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by Malcher
 


Nice, the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy... Oh I see. Also, you can't do anything in your corner but lash out and attempt to mock people now?

That's nice. Gnash your teeth and wallow in your ignorance, I heard it can be positively blissful at times.

I'll say the same to you. Go argue with the "doctors and scientists" in other countries (far more intelligent and educated, -by a mile-, than the US) that deny adding fluoride to water. Let me know how that works out for you.


When you respond to posts on an internet forum you should ADD to the discussion. Are you adding to the discussion? Attack the post, not the poster.

That paper i linked to had information from the World Health Organization but i knew that for decades. When water comes from the ground stripped of minerals then you can say "well it was intended that way" BUT this is not the case.

So what does that mean?

It is not natural. If you believe in God you would say "this is not how God intended"


Talk about adding to the conversation.




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
@ Magnus Opum

Your opinion that surface water, by and large, is better/safer than well water is pretty preposterous. As an environmental scientist with minors in toxicology/biology, I'm not really sure where to begin.

Rivers are the dumping grounds (and have been since we settled this country) for basically everything. Be it sewage, industrial waste, acid rain runoff, air pollutants, etc - everything ends up in a river. The reason early settlers (and modern civil engineers) use rivers for drinking sources are simple - it's already on the surface. It costs much more to drill, maintain, and service a production/irrigation well. And up until relatively recently in our history, we didnt have the means to drill one in the first place other than 30-40 feet bgs. And don't even get me started on PPCP contaminants (Pharmaceuticals & personal care products). The freshwater river systems in this country are loaded with them - everything from synthetic hormones (birth control pills), synthetic psychotics (anxiety medications), etc that are contained within the medication people take (the average person is on THREE presribed drugs) do not breakdown and are NOT removed via traditional treatment plant processes. The EPA is in the middle of a landmark study concerning these contaminants and the prelim evidence is pretty shocking so far. They've found that levels of even one part per trillion (1 ppt ) can cause birth defects and impaired cognitive development in aquatic life. Everytime someone urinates and flushes it down the toilet, everytime someone dumps their old meds down the drain, these synthetic compounds become part of surficial drinking water supply.

Now...well water - talk about a natural Brita filter - soil lithology and bedrock are the best filtration units you can have. It takes YEARS for water to slowly filter into an underground reservoir/water bearing fracture before it gets to the source. This removes many, many biological hazards and industrial chemicals. Yes, in some areas of the country, natural background concentrations of arsenic and other trace metals are high, but these areas are well known and the filtration/treatment systems are built accordingly. Sulfur content is harmless, other than the taste, which people gradually get used to.

I have well water, my neighbor has well water, everyone in my town has well water. We are not healthier or "less lethargic" than the township next to me that has public supplied water.

If you REALLY want to get up in arms over an actual health effect that is a ticking timebomb in the scientific community, start rallying around PPCPs. These will be the "asbestos" of the 21st century. And the scary thing is, there's very little that can be done about them.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


Don't bait with glorified one-liner posts, with fallacies and insults, if you want to actually "discuss" something.


Originally posted by Malcher
Note:

I am not telling you what to do. People telling others to strip their water with expensive filters or bottled water (plastic is filling up landfills and causing problems, btw) should be aware that this alone is not very healthy...at all.

Be careful storing it for long periods of time too because it turns acidic, you want alkaline (high PH).


I don't advise anyone to go bottled, because I believe the plastic is a problem as well. Also, most bottled water is simply tap-water to begin with, and it's wasteful and defeats the purpose. I don't even really advise anyone to go reverse-osmosis either, because I have no experience with the filtration system myself, but I heard it works well for filtering drinking water. Some people are more elaborate, and they choose to filter their entire home's water supply.

What I do advise? Changing your diet, getting your minerals that way. Access to a tested and maintained clean spring would be nice, though not everyone has access to that. Some properties can setup an artesian well, but not everyone is so lucky.

There are a few drinks you can purchase that have cleaner, natural water. Coconut water for instance. I've been going coco for a few months now as my primary source of hydration. Some other beverages employ reverse-osmosis to their products.

So this is the point of all this. People don't have access to clean, natural water. No one ever said "God intended" this or that, so I have no idea what you're talking about there. God certainly never intended to have ignorant, oppressive Man dumping Sodium Fluoride and other agents into His water supply. So there's that, if you want to go that route.

Most people that argue against fluoride don't "tell" people to do anything. They encourage others to seek the information out themselves, and make a conscious decision on their own. That is what an adult does. Again, people that go this route usually change their lifestyle and diets for the better, drastically.

People that don't go this route.. they typically do not have a good diet or decent lifestyle, in my experience. They also 'appeal to authority' extensively, and advise people to not make any decisions on their own. That is what a child does.
edit on 20-1-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by dtrock78
 


Agreed. "Surface water" is probably not a good idea, and your post is excellent for explaining it.

Private wells are an absolute Godsend, I wish I grew up on a property with a well.. A well is pretty exceptional these days, as most property owners are bundled-up 'suburbia' style, and most land around commercial or industrial focal points is contaminated.

There are options. I only suggest that being conscious of this fact is simply the first step. First of all, it's empowering, and it changes a person. Many people do not even think about what they put in their bodies... and the thing about Fluoridation is it can be stopped. Unlike the pharmaceutical problem you alluded to, it can be stopped in it's tracks and the water lines will flush it out promptly. The point being, once you get a ball like that rolling (healthier, mature lifestyle), it's hard to stop it. It would certainly not end with fluoridation.. people will immediately aim their sights on the PPCP problem and other issues.

Pharma pollutants are another serious problem, probably more serious than Fluoride at this point, but that is one big monster. All it takes for fluoridation to stop.. is legislation, on a local level. Just because it's in place, doesn't mean it can't be ended. I guarantee people's teeth will stay firmly in their skulls.

The thing is, once you get the ball rolling on this, it can't be stopped. People will immediately aim their sights on other issues, like the PPCP problem. Healthier living, and the demand for it is nearly impervious to corruption or naysayers. Once it rolls, it keeps on rolling. Local level is where it needs to start... but that can't happen until enough people are conscious of the problems.
edit on 20-1-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
If their adding fluoride to our water, might as well add some hallucinogens in it to so we can have some fun while were getting poisoned



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 


You are posting information that is inaccurate. This is why it is so important to read from numerous sources and not the ones that agree with you.

I said, paraphrasing: Water stripped of minerals is not the way God (another way for saying NATURAL) intended it to be drank by living beings since no natural water (that i am aware of) is devoid of minerals. That is what RO water does, strips the minerals out and so does distilled, you drink that water ALONE and it is just not healthy, wastes more water than it produces and bottled water uses plastic. Most people put a simple filter on their tap water.

www.waterfiltersguide.net...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


The supposed evidence that drinking RO water is "unhealthy" is shaky at best. I agree it's not "natural" to do so, but neither is adding chemical agents to municipal water supplies. Some people weigh the options, and tilt towards RO systems, or other filtration.

I'll say it again, your diet is how you get your minerals. Drinking "pure" water is not going to "leech" vitamins out of your body. It can't be done, that's ludicrous.

By the way, you can add minerals and vitamins to your distilled/RO water anyway... So there's that, and some people do it.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 





Private wells are an absolute Godsend, I wish I grew up on a property with a well..


That depends. I do have a well, but water quality is not good due to pollution from agriculture, so I cannot use it for drinking and cooking.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sleepingdeath
If their adding fluoride to our water, might as well add some hallucinogens in it to so we can have some fun while were getting poisoned


Fluoride is present in water from the original source, it was there from the start. Some places (many) regulate the levels. This seems to be the problem people are having. Ignoring the fact that it was already there and if places dont add to the water they add it to salt, that is what France and numerous other countries do...Fluoridate the salt.

Sea salt naturally has Fluoride in it.

www.ehow.com...

....
edit on 20-1-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
214
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join