Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A brief look at water fluoridation and the insanity of it

page: 2
36
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
what are your views on chlorine toxicity ?
Good question. I was going to write a bit about chlorine but decided just to focus on fluoride. I haven't really done much research on chlorine, but it is certainly quite toxic in my opinion, the suffocating bleachy smell alone is a clear indicator of it's toxicity. The thing about chlorine though, is that is does really help to clear up the water from potentially deadly bacteria and stuff like that, and it is designed to evaporate out of the water so by the time it reaches you the water should be fairly good. The problem is imo, that they add way too much (I've read that it comes close to the amount in a public pool) and it doesn't evaporate from the water quick enough, some times I can literally smell the chlorine emanating from my tap water, and it's quite disgusting. I think it's a lot easier to filter out the chlorine though, fluoride is very difficult. I think they should be using safer methods to purify the water, such as UV sterilization. We don't need all these chemicals in our water, it's a freaking chemical soup that comes out of our taps.
edit on 1-2-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Chlorine isn't added to water to be a medicine, Fluoride is. That's what is the main issue with it.

I don't want to be force medicated.
edit on 2/1/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 



Chlorine isn't added to water to be a medicine, Fluoride is. That's what is the main issue with it.
Yes I'm aware of that, however it doesn't matter if they put the chlorine in there to be a medicine or not, because it's still an active chemical that is in our water and consumed by us, so it is 'medicating' us whether it was intended to or not.
edit on 2-2-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I think its scary, its amazing what TPTB can get away with. I wonder if its lead to the stupidity of america, the attitude of no accountability for personal actions, and no responsibility for personal welfare.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
What I've never understood is how more people don't ask "if it's supposed to benefit my teeth, then why am I ingesting it?" We're not advised to gargle it regularly or something. It goes straight past out teeth and into our bodies. What's that all about? People need to wake the fudge up



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bacci0909
What I've never understood is how more people don't ask "if it's supposed to benefit my teeth, then why am I ingesting it?" We're not advised to gargle it regularly or something. It goes straight past out teeth and into our bodies. What's that all about? People need to wake the fudge up
I agree, it's an important thing to consider. The stuff isn't meant to be internalized, it's supposed to be applied topically. I guess they assume that when the fluoridated water is consumed it will come into contact with the teeth, and it will to a degree, but most of it will be ingested and processed by your body. It's just not logical imo, to make all people drink what many consider to be a neurotoxin, based on one flimsy claim that it helps prevent cavities.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
i don't really know what to say anymore.


they keep forcing us into contact with chemicals without our permission.



really weird thought: what if the government are actually the good guys, and the fluoride they are exposing us to is protecting us against a larger threat we can't imagine?


or they just want to protect us against giant walking cavity monsters.

do i REALLY have to take a shower with fluoride!!??!!? Come ON!!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   
hmmmmmmmmm interesting.


"I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation regarding a statement made in my book, The Truth About Water Fluoridation, to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. "In the 1930`s, Hitler and the German Nazi`s envisioned a world to be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. ...


www.rense.com...


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
hmmmmmmmm
yessssss well theres heaps of statements from nazi germany about the fluoride not just this link.more credible ones. honestly doesn't surprise me ay , 1st world country's are f&*$ed man.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Thank you for this excellent thread.

Fluoride added in the water is really something I will never put my head around. If you have a scientific mind and you read the many studies explaining the effects of Fluoride on the body, it seems UNREAL and impossible that so many of us are drinking fluoridated water today.

In 10 years, 20 years, hopefully less, it will be COMMON KNOWLEDGE that Fluoride is a poison, nothing more. It is not a nutrient and should never be in the water.

When will they add "anti depressant" in our water? or other substances?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
This is the most telling site I've found - apologies if it's already been posted. A little late to the game.

S&F, mainly.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Does anyone know if the water used in soft drinks is fluoridated? If not, it might be on the same level of healthiness as tap water.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I don't like that fluoride is added to the water supply.

Still, I have to make a comment...

Have you noticed that people always bag on the teeth of the British, yet Americans overall have nice teeth compared to many others?

What else could it be but the one main difference...the fluoride in the water?

Now how many lives are saved from keeping the teeth healthy?

I don't doubt that it acts as a poison and may cause cancer over time, but do the benefits outweight the consequences? I'm not sure.

Personally, I use a triple stage water filtration system for my faucet, and purchase shower filters as well. I reason that there's enough fluoride in my 3-6 cups of daily loose leaf tea consumption, so I'm good in that department. I also use non-fluoridated toothpaste as well, though am considering switching back, as I believe in the merits of topical application of fluoride for cavity prevention, and optimal health of the teeth.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 




Have you noticed that people always bag on the teeth of the British, yet Americans overall have nice teeth compared to many others?

What else could it be but the one main difference...the fluoride in the water?

No I haven't "noticed" anything which would confirm your assessment backed by nothing but vague feelings and false assumptions that Americans have "nice teeth compared to many others". What I have noticed however is hard scientific data which confirms the exact opposite of what you claim.

edit on 11-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I suggest you reassess the chart which is displayed in your post. The claim you make does not support the data points.

What I see is a decline in all countries for the rate of tooth decay as the years roll on.

I also note that the United States started off with the third lowest rate of tooth decay on the first data point at year 1965.

Last, it would seem this chart could only be of much help if it showed the rate of decay well before and after fluoridation was introduced.

I think there is not enough data to conclude anything which much certainty from this chart, except that all countries mentioned have managed to decrease the amount of fillings regardless of if the water was fluoridated or not.
edit on 13-6-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Hi CO,

Just a quick update really, I'm from the UK (Scotland) and although Scotland and Wales are fluoride free, parts of England Do actually have fluoride in their tap water. (Local councils are "in charge" of the water supplies, and some have taken the decision to add fluoride)

From UK Water Filters Website - UK WATER FILTERS
Using data from The National Pure Water Association (UK)

These districts have naturally-fluoridated water at more than 0.5 ppm:
Durham: DH1, 2, part of 6
Essex: CO1-6, 8-10
Lincolnshire: Part of LN13
Peterborough: PE2, 4
Suffolk: IP1-8, 13, 14, 28 to 30, 33
Teesside: TS27, 28
Tyneside: NE25, 26, 29; part of NE30

These districts have artificially fluoridated drinking water:
Berkshire: RG1, 4-6, 40, 41
Birmingham: B6-11, 13-21, 23-34, 37, 40, 42, 45, 60-62, 65-71; parts of Central Birmingham and B36, 38, 43, 44, 46, 47, 63, 64, 90, 92, 97
Buckinghamshire: Parts of SG18, 19
Chelmsford: CM1
Coventry: CV1-6, 10, 11; parts of CV 7-9, 12, 13
Crewe: Parts of CW1, 2, 5-7, 12, 17
Cumbria: CA24, 25, 27, 28
Dartford: DA1
Derby: DE13-15
Doncaster: DN15, 16, 18-21, 38-40; parts of DN9, 10, 17, 22, 31, 37
Dudley: Parts of DY9, 10
Durham: DH2, 7-9; parts of DH15
Lancaster: Parts of LA19
Leicestershire: Parts of LE10, and 18
Lincolnshire: Ln1, 2, 4-7
Milton Keynes: MK17, 43-46
Nottinghamshire: NG18-20; parts of NG17, 21-24, 31, 32, 34
Oxfordshire: Part of OX9
Sheffield: Parts of S80
Shrewsbury: Parts of SY13, 14
Stoke: Parts of ST7, 8
Tonbridge: TN26
Tyneside: NE1 to 6, 8, 12, 15-18, 21, 23, 25-27, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46; parts of NE9-11, 13, 19, 20, 24, 28, 44, 46-48, 65
Walsall Wolverhampton: WV2, 3, 13, 14; parts of WV6-8
Worcestershire: Part of WR7, 9-11


Hope this helps clarify the situation in the UK?

cheers,
GTD



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
A Chronology of Fluoridation
curezone.com...

This timeline starts with 1855 and continues to 1997. It give a very good panarama of the effects of this poison.

snippet:
""Fluoridation is not a Communist Plot; it is an attempt by industry to camouflage their deadliest pollutant, with government officials and Madison Avenue advertisers beating the drums. The fluoridation empire is like a castle built on quicksand." Gladys Caldwell, author, "Fluoridation and Truth Decay", 1974.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1855 Smelters in Freiburg, Germany first paid damages to neighbors injured by fluoride emissions. (See 1893)

1893 The smelters in Freiburg, Germany paid out 80,000 marks in damages for fluorine contamination injuries and 644,000 marks for permanent relief. (See 1855, 1900, 1907).

1900 The existence of the smelting industry in Germany and Great Britain is threatened by successful lawsuits for fluorine damage and by budensome laws and regulations.

1907 The smelters in Freiburg, Germany (see 1893) are identified as the cause of cripplied cattle in the area since 1877, and fluorides are identified as the culprit.

1916 The first evidence of brown mottling of teeth is reported in the United States, and would be eventually found to be caused by fluorides in water."



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
We run a fairly expensive reverse osmosis filter by hydrologic at the house for drinking water. With 2 stages of filters for sediment and carbon. I had questioned what was still passing through. I have also kept a close tab on the Ph of our "city" water. You would be amazed how much the Ph ranges congruent with seasons and when repairs are being done on water lines. Scares me to death with some of the large spikes in Ph what they could be adding to the water to get such spikes.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I watched that Alex Jones "expose" that you have on your first page...what a joke. The acid ate through the concrete but not the pipes? Please explain.


Fear sells. How much did you pay for it?

See my link in my signature for explanations of untruths and actual science regarding fluoride.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

sefhinny
We run a fairly expensive reverse osmosis filter by hydrologic at the house for drinking water. With 2 stages of filters for sediment and carbon. I had questioned what was still passing through. I have also kept a close tab on the Ph of our "city" water. You would be amazed how much the Ph ranges congruent with seasons and when repairs are being done on water lines. Scares me to death with some of the large spikes in Ph what they could be adding to the water to get such spikes.


The pH will fluctuate according to temperature variations. If you are drinking straight RO water, I imagine the pH would be fairly low, around 5.3 or so?
If it is an RO water treatment plant, they would be adding sodium hydroxide to raise the pH up to neutral levels. Even then, it is still temperature dependent. If it is surface water that will vary the pH even more.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

unityemissions
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I suggest you reassess the chart which is displayed in your post. The claim you make does not support the data points.

What I see is a decline in all countries for the rate of tooth decay as the years roll on.

I also note that the United States started off with the third lowest rate of tooth decay on the first data point at year 1965.

Last, it would seem this chart could only be of much help if it showed the rate of decay well before and after fluoridation was introduced.

I think there is not enough data to conclude anything which much certainty from this chart, except that all countries mentioned have managed to decrease the amount of fillings regardless of if the water was fluoridated or not.
edit on 13-6-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

It's just more fixing of the numbers to make it fit their agenda. Don't get me wrong, both sides are guilty of it. However, there is no proof that properly dosed water fluoridation is harmful.









 
36
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join