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: 9
214
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by Maslo
 


Well it goes on to conclude that sodium fluoride intake may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Yet that's the problem with most official "fluoride studies" isn't it? All the results are compartmentalized and they'll say "not enough risk here", "not enough risk there", but it's separated into neat little packages. When they say "tap levels are safe" for instance, they don't take into account the fact that everything produced and sold for consumption in America is manufactured with the same tap supplies we drink.

Therefore, it's fairly obvious you exceed "safe dosage" because it's in your bread, it's in your juice, it's in your medicine... anything that is produced with the same tap water, will have sodium fluoride in it. Then you whip fluoridated toothpaste in your mouth to top it all off, a rather extreme amount of intake on the 'broad spectrum', in my humble opinion.

Even this study fails to take this into account, and they only apply the test to the mentioned drugs.
edit on 17-1-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)


That is definitely a great assumption, and something our blind eyes failed to see. We forgot to realize that life evolves around water. Without it life is dead. So we depend on it for basic life as well as for production purposes. If water is contaminated with fluoride, not only do we drink it directly from that tap, but we ingest it from baked/agriculture foods as well. The question is, how much are we consuming.

Further note, my future toothpaste will also be fluoride free (if I can find any that still exist)




posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


I have a hard time hopping on the bandwagon here...I guess my main issue is that life expectancy is increasing more and more that I don't see how it can be that big of a risk. I have no idea either way how toxic or damaging this stuff is but jesus smoking and being overweight are so much more damaging than this stuff. We should be getting rid of cigarettes and alcohol and obnoxiously fatty foods first. Once again im not saying flouride isn't bad...we had a debate before which made me do some research which it showed it is toxic if you take too much, but I just don't buy into the whole fluoride is killing us like crazy!



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kokoro
 


I read the study and replied to your post before you edited it. Did you not see my post? All the quotes are taken directly from the study itself.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms


The purpose of this study was to assess fluoride uptake of vascular calcification in various major arteries, including coronary arteries.




Significant correlation between fluoride uptake and calcification was observed in most of the arterial walls, except in those of the abdominal aorta. Fluoride uptake in coronary arteries was demonstrated in 28 (46%) patients and coronary calcifications were observed in 34 (56%) patients. There was significant correlation between history of cardiovascular events and presence of fluoride uptake in coronary arteries. The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients without cardiovascular events.




CONCLUSION: sodium [¹⁸F]fluoride PET/CT might be useful in the evaluation of the atherosclerotic process in major arteries, including coronary arteries. An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.


Taken from the study itself.

www.greenmedinfo.com...




edit on 17-1-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



Yes, fluoride was used as a marker for the imaging. They are then able to watch it absorb into calcified areas. The areas are already damaged and they are wanting to know if this fluoride imaging will show the areas of damage with an accuracy of other imaging studies.

What the results show is that a PET/CT scan with fluoride contrast is useful in diagnosis of early cardiovascular atherosclerotic disease. The fluoride injected had nothing to do with the disease, it is used to diagnose the disease. The correlation between the fluoride uptake and the history of cardiovascular events just shows that the fluoride marker is able to show what they wanted it to show. They do the same thing with various other agents in order to see things more clearly on an MRI or CT scan, the agent used is dependent on what you want to look at and what kind of tissue is there. In this case they wanted to show how a fluoride marker can be used as a diagnostic tool to identify areas of arterial plaque. It has NOTHING to do with fluoride causing disease in any way shape or form.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Tripple_Helix
 


Well water that contains fluoride in calcium floride which is fine. Sodium floride is the one that's bad and the one used in municipal water. You drink bottle water? Here are a few fun facts


Bottled Water



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
reply to post by kokoro
 


I read the study and replied to your post before you edited it. Did you not see my post? All the quotes are taken directly from the study itself.


Keep in mind I am not saying that fluoride doesn't cause disease, I think the jury is still out on that. What I AM saying is that this particular study does not indicate what you think it does and you will be much better served to look at other studies when trying to argue a point about fluoride. The guy who wrote that article clearly did not know what he was talking about and it just makes him look like an idiot when he completely misrepresents medical literature.

Forgive me for using WIKI but if you will scroll down to the section labeled Isotopes for Scanning it has a good pic of a PET scan using F18 Fluoride so you can see what I am talking about.

Isotopes for imaging
edit on 17-1-2012 by kokoro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
ntp.niehs.nih.gov...


Fluorosilicic acid is mainly produced as a byproduct of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers where phosphate rock, containing fluorides and silica or silicates, is treated with sulfuric acid. The gases released, hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride, are sprayed with water in condensing towers or drawn into a series of scrubbers and dissolved in water, forming an aqueous solution of fluorosilicic acid (CSDS, 2001; Farm Chem. Handbook, 2001; NICNAS, 2001). This is the crude form of fluorosilicic acid; the purified form is obtained by distillation of the crude acid or by reacting pure silica with hydrofluoric acid. The compound can also be made by the reaction of sulfuric acid on barium hexafluorosilicate (HSDB, 2000a). Furthermore, fluorosilicic acid is manufactured by the reaction of apatite and/or fluorite (fluorspar) with sulfuric acid (LCI, Ltd., 2000a). Its production from phosphoric acid producers supplements fluorspar as a domestic source of fluorine (Miller, 1995, 1999)



of fluorosilicic acid as a byproduct. Of this amount, 45% was used in water fluoridation, directly or as the sodium salt, while 34% went toward the production of aluminum trifluoride and 20% went toward other uses (Miller, 1995). In 1999, ten plants again reported on the production of fluorosilicic acid as a byproduct from phosphate rock processing; 69,200 metric tons (153 million pounds) was produced, and 69,100 metric tons (152 million pounds) was sold or used. This was an almost 3% increase in output from the previous year. The amount used for water fluoridation was 34, 900 metric tons (51%), while 19,000 metric tons (27%) was used for aluminum trifluoride production, and 15,300 metric tons (22%) was used for other uses such as Toxicological Summary for Sodium Hexafluorosilicate [16893-85-9] and Fluorosilicic Acid [16961-83-4] 10/01 6 sodium hexafluorosilicate production (Miller, 1999). The latest figures are definitely an increase compared to the 1975 and 1976 U.S. production of the acid at 30,000 metric tons (66 million pounds) from phosphoric acid manufacturing. No import data were found (HSDB, 2000a).



The manufacture of phosphate fertilizer in Central Florida releases not only fluorides as a toxic pollutant but also radionuclides. Radium wastes come from the filtration systems. Uranium and its decay-rate products are found in the phosphate rock and fertilizer as well as the byproduct fluorosilicic acid. During the wet-process procedure, trace amounts of both radium and uranium are captured in the scrubbers and therefore are in the fluorosilicic acid. During the acidulation process yielding phosphoric acid, radon gas in the phosphate pebbles can be released and carried into the fluorosilicic acid, while polonium can be captured during the scrubbing process and then can combine with fluoride (Glasser, undated).

.gov source

Hexafluorosilicic acid is the inorganic compound with the formula H2SiF6. It is a product of the production of hydrogen fluoride and the production of phosphate fertilizers. The majority of the hexafluorosilicic acid is used for the production of aluminium metal. Hexafluorosilicic acid is also commonly used for water fluoridation.
edit on 1/17/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/17/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I remember reading a while back that Fluoride consumption reduces free will, or rather, reduces the chance that an individual will resist authority. If this is true then it makes perfect sense that governments would add it to their citizens' water supply.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I've seen a few members already point out the parameters of the information presented by the OP and either nobody is bothering to read or they just don't want to hear the truth.

National Cancer Institute on Water Fluoridation

Fluoride Occurs Naturally in Water


In other words, industrial waste (sodium fluoride) is 85 times more toxic than natural calcium fluoride. Both of them contain fluoride, but they are totally different compounds.


The text below was quoted from the NMC website link to the study.



Sodium [18F]fluoride was injected intravenously at a dose of 10±2 mCi (370±74 MBq). Participants were comfortably seated in a private, quiet, cozy room.


It appears here that participants had fluoride injected directly into their blood stream. That's a little more intense than what anybody might be consuming in their products. There are a lot of sources talking about the negative effects of fluoride but they don't take into account that there are different kinds of fluoride that require different levels of intake in different parts of the body to be harmful. It's easy to want to believe something but you have to meet it with skepticism and check official sources and look at it from another angle.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dystopiaphiliac


It appears here that participants had fluoride injected directly into their blood stream. That's a little more intense than what anybody might be consuming in their products. There are a lot of sources talking about the negative effects of fluoride but they don't take into account that there are different kinds of fluoride that require different levels of intake in different parts of the body to be harmful. It's easy to want to believe something but you have to meet it with skepticism and check official sources and look at it from another angle.


F18 Fluoride is a radioisotope used as a medical marker with CT, MRI, and PET scans and that is why it was given IV. It has a half life of less than 2 hours and is not the same as fluoride in the water. In any case, fluoride toxicity, however, it enters the body was not the question in the study the OP posted. This study doesn't pertain to fluoride toxicity or disease causing capabilities, the OP is mistaken
edit on 17-1-2012 by kokoro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   


Not to discredit you, but there are many toxic chemicals you could ingest daily such as to much salt, to much sugar and to many carbohydrates.. but because they are not in high toxicity it doesn't actually effect your body in a bad way, much like the % of fluorinated water. Is it bad for you? Yes in certain doses, can it be beneficial yes, in certain doses. Hell why don't you guys parade around saying alcohol is drank everyday and is highly toxic and bad for your health and body. Much the same with cigarettes. (they do have warning labels on these both substances) But in certain studies alcohol is actually GOOD for you provided you're responsible and have small doses. Much like fluorinated water, can you show me a study conducted on basic tap water that proves how bad it is to the general populus? Not just how bad the chemical is, in general?
reply to post by SethGecko
 


You hit the nail on the head when you used alcohol and cigarettes as an example. Then said both have warning labels on them. I might point out that fluoride does not. In fact the opposite is true. We are told it is good for us. There is no acceptable dose of poison long term. It's like saying arsenic is good for you in small doses, but long term it will kill you. Only in this case, there is no one saying anything about long term usage, and the official party line is a proven falsehood.

Let me tell you how bad is it to the general populace. Water companies know that a percentage of people will react badly to the chemicals they put in the drinking water. Those people will suffer extreme stomach cramping, headaches, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, possibly vertigo and a myriad of other ailments. The water companies are aware of the reports of sufferers and collate them, do the figures and work out an acceptable percentage ratio.

If say .17 percent of a population of say 24 million suffer these symptoms from the poisonous drinking water that is deemed acceptable. I can assure you as one of that percentage that suffer adverse reaction to poisoned tap water, I do not find those figures in any way acceptable. I find it alarming. I complained to my water company as I feel I should not have to pay for water I cannot drink. I was told it was perfectly safe until I mentioned my symptoms after consuming either a glass of tap water or even a coffee made with boiled tap water. (I was told there was an acceptable percentage level of people who suffered adverse reactions and they were within that tolerance. They gave me the percentage which I cannot recall as it was a few years ago now.) I was just one of those unfortunates.

It was referred to a Company CEO who came to my home and told me the water chemicals were perfectly safe. I went and poured her a glass of water from the tap and insisted she drink it. She looked at me horrified and said, "I can't drink that....I only drink bottled water." She bid a very hasty retreat.

So a representative from the water board refused to drink the product they were trying to sell me yet they do not consume it themselves. Hmmm, not very good advertising. I smell a very big stinking RAT.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
S+F for you!

I believe fluoride causes SO many health issues in people nationwide. I was recently diagnosed at the age of 21 with "Juvenile Diabetes" last March. My older sister was diagnosed at age 9 and my younger sister was ALSO diagnosed at age 9. Our new Endocrinologist is amazed that 3 out 4 ( I have a younger brother) siblings have Type 1 Diabetes. Little known fact: Type 1 Diabetes isn't hereditary, Type 2 is. He doesn't know what the cause could be for the three of us to have it and even more, for me to be diagnosed with JUVENILE Diabetes at age 21.

One of my biggest thoughts has been that Fluoride attributed to my diagnosis of Diabetes. I was/am a healthy and very active/athletic person...We need to ban that chemical from ever touching our water supply again!



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Groundbreaking new research has also come up with the following over the years:

* drinking red wine helps your heart

* Eating too much beef can damage your heart

* Not eating enough meat can be detrimental to your health

* Salt is bad for you

* Salt is good for you

So yeah, anything like reported in the OP gets a big "that's BS" from me and I then ignore it because they'll change their minds in future



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 




Groundbreaking new research has linked sodium fluoride to cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death worldwide. Researchers found that fluoride consumption directly stimulates the hardening of your arteries, a condition known as atherosclerosis that is highly correlated with the #1 killer. Sodium fluoride is currently added to the water supply of many cities worldwide, despite extreme opposition from health professionals and previous studies linking it to decreased IQ and infertility.
This is just absolutely disgusting! The only excuse they have putting it in there is that it helps prevent teeth decay... what kind if BS is that. If I wanted to keep my teeth clean with the help of flouride I would use some god damn toothpaste and a toothbrush! I drink a lot of damn water from my taps, and I don't wish to consume all that flouride, but I have no choice! I recently moved houses and the old house had tank water, it tasted so damn good, so fresh and untainted. Now my new house runs off town water, and let me tell you, it tastes like absolute chemical crap. I don't even feel safe consuming the amount of water I typically consume on a normal day. I can already feel myself getting dumber.

Lets finally accept the facts and stop putting this freaking stuff in our water...NOW!!!!
edit on 17-1-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkKnight76
 



reply to post by SyphonX

Pre-2000 my dental hygiene wasn't very good. I brushed daily, but that was about it.

The dentist patched me up, told me to use a Sonicare toothbrush, and rinse daily with ACT fluoride rinse.

The toothbrush has been good, but I really give all the credit to the fluoride rinse.
well then you're wrong.

No cavities in 10 years.
congrats. you ever seen the footage of the tribal people with killer bright white teeth? they brush theirs with clumps of grass.

Bottom line - I have been drinking flouridated tap water and using a fluoride rinse for 35 years, and I have yet to see, or feel and negative things from it.
your just a frog unaware its being boiled alive...

Yes, in HUGE doses fluoride is poisonous,
small doses aren't good either 'guy'

but like the poster before said, so are alcohol and nicotine.

my dental hygiene sucked so bad I had 16 fillings done last year. thats 16 half hour appointments in the chair.

now my teeth are kick ass and the only difference is that I brush every day. In less then one year and using ONLY natural herb based toothpaste with NO fluoride in it at all...

sure the dentist recommended the 4x strength fluoride toothpaste, even said to leave it on the teeth a while before brushing and rinsing.... I wasn't stupid enough to accept the offer.

You say oh sure blah blah alcohol blah blah ciggarettes. Well I'm quitting ciggarettes and I don't drink anymore...guess I'm not stupid enough to do that # either.

nothing tough, cool or superior about ingesting known poisons to prove the point that the side effects are hard to quantify.

Peace,
-TF
edit on 17-1-2012 by ThoughtForms because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Just more proof that we're immortal and that governments do things to deliberately cause our deaths



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 





The benefits for dental health have been proven over the last 50 years. The negative effects you and your ilk speak of are unsubstantiated by any peer reviewed studies over the same period of time.



Ahhhhh, the voice of reason crying in the wilderness! Bless you. Unfortunately the troll voices are louder and more persistant. It astonishes me how strongly they cling to illusions over reason.
edit on 17-1-2012 by Iamschist because: inserted quote



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SethGecko
 




Much like fluorinated water, can you show me a study conducted on basic tap water that proves how bad it is to the general populus? Not just how bad the chemical is, in general?


Yes I can actually. I think this is what you asked for.

www.nap.edu...



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Well I can contest to the ill affects of fluoride as I have given up all fluoride for the last year
that is not naturally occurring,.
Since I have done so,.
I have more energy
I sleep better
I havnt been sick in a year, used to get colds often
sore throats dont happen anylonger.
My memory is better
My thinking is more precise
and my latest dental check up had my dentist asking me why my gums look
much healthier since the last visit, and my teeth are still hard.

Flouride IS useless unnecessary and a poision.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Well I can contest to the ill affects of fluoride as I have given up all fluoride for the last year
that is not naturally occurring,.
Since I have done so,.
I have more energy
I sleep better
I havnt been sick in a year, used to get colds often
sore throats dont happen anylonger.
My memory is better
My thinking is more precise
and my latest dental check up had my dentist asking me why my gums look
much healthier since the last visit, and my teeth are still hard.

Flouride IS useless unnecessary and a poision.


Care to explain how exactly you measured your thinking so as to determine it's more precise now, and what did you use as a baseline for comparison? For that matter how did you determine any of that is related to fluoridated water in any way?

Oh, nevermind. This proves everything. I've never seen such compelling evidence. Close thread.



new topics

top topics



 
214
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join