It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
what are your views on chlorine toxicity ?
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.
Chlorine isn't added to water to be a medicine, Fluoride is. That's what is the main issue with it.
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.
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 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. ...
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
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)