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.

 

Plant officials stop flouridating water... Get put on leave

page: 10
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Amanda5
 


From 1972 to 1974 the number of heart attacks in Antigo, Winconsin doubled in a year, following the addition of fluoride to the water systems. Because of this, they took the fluoride out and the heart attack rate came down.
Can you provide the statistical study for those findings? Thanks.




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


By your own admission, you suggest we shouldn't consume over fluoridated water, yet you present numbers to skew the facts in such a way as to suggest fluoridated water supplies are ok despite the mountain of evidence that has been put before you and the flaws which have been pointed out in your own arguments?
I said high concentrations of fluoride may be harmful. No evidence has been "put before me" that low levels can be harmful.


If an individual drinks an average of 2.5 L of tap water a day, and brushes their teeth 3 times a day (minimum), and said tap water is 1ppm as per your claim, what will the average intake of fluoride be in that persons body?
Did that, back a few posts.


If we know fluoride is detrimental to our health, and we know it is only reasonably beneficial to our dental health (and is already included in our tooth paste, which dentists with far more experience than you have decided is MOST beneficial when applied topologically), WHY is it necessary to include it in our drinking water, and do the risks involved outweigh the benefits?
We know fluoride can be detrimental in high concentrations. Yes, direct application of fluoride is most effective, that doesn't mean that fluoridated water is ineffective (see study linked in a previous post). The risks of low concentrations of fluoride are outweighed by the benefits.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


You realize your whole argument falls flat on its face when you realize that if it was true; there would be no chance of toxicity right? When clearly the cumulative effect of fluoride would clearly infer that it is or can be toxic.

No. I realize that you don't really seem to understand the difference between concentration and dose and what the implications are.


Aka the cumulative effects of fluoride would obviously indicate that eating 8 servings of 1 ppm, would result in a total accumulation of 8 ppm.
How can 1 part per million be the same as 8 parts per million?


1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 1... Did I get that right?
Not exactly you left something out the "per million". This is the formula you want. (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)/(1000000+1000000+1000000+1000000+1000000+1000000+1000000+1000000)= 8/8,000,000 = 1/1,000,000


edit on 8/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


they average everything together and testing from all locations is not done.
Testing of each water supply is done.


Looks like they don't need to fluoridate water to me, not if it is for tooth decay.
Fluoridation is recommended if natural levels are below 0.7ppm. If levels are above 4.0 ppm the water must be treated to reduce levels.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I apologize that you are under attack from multiple people here. I really do respect you (and respect the fact that you have taken the time to address us each individually)

To address you:




I said high concentrations of fluoride may be harmful. No evidence has been "put before me" that low levels can be harmful.


The problem is that you refuse to address the added issues which INCREASE the fluoride intake of the average person as a direct result of fluoridated water. You wish to cook the numbers to fit within 1ppm to fit your data (which is conveniently, according to your own math, the number which does not produce any adverse effects, again, according to your own bias)




Did that, back a few posts.


No, you did not. You insisted the variables I'd suggested that you had not considered were "unreasonable".




We know fluoride can be detrimental in high concentrations. Yes, direct application of fluoride is most effective, that doesn't mean that fluoridated water is ineffective (see study linked in a previous post). The risks of low concentrations of fluoride are outweighed by the benefits.


You will notice how I don't selectively edit your responses as you have done to mine in this thread, yet you have still yet to answer the one simple question (beyond reproach). I think it's safe to say you are playing devil's advocate at this point.

To refresh your memory:

"If we know fluoride is detrimental to our health, and we know it is only reasonably beneficial to our dental health (and is already included in our tooth paste, which dentists with far more experience than you have decided is MOST beneficial when applied topologically), WHY is it necessary to include it in our drinking water, and do the risks involved outweigh the benefits?"



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Could you provide some evidence to this history?

I'm surprised that with all the research you've done that you wouldn't be aware of the history of it.

He recalled from reading McKay's and Black's studies on fluorosis that mottled tooth enamel is unusually resistant to decay. Dean wondered whether adding fluoride to drinking water at physically and cosmetically safe levels would help fight tooth decay.
www.nidcr.nih.gov...



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Could you provide some evidence to this history?

I'm surprised that with all the research you've done that you wouldn't be aware of the history of it.

He recalled from reading McKay's and Black's studies on fluorosis that mottled tooth enamel is unusually resistant to decay. Dean wondered whether adding fluoride to drinking water at physically and cosmetically safe levels would help fight tooth decay.
www.nidcr.nih.gov...





posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Regardless of what people say, Fluoride has no purpose in our water supply, mostly the type that is a byproduct of industrial processes.

Get it out.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


The problem is that you refuse to address the added issues which INCREASE the fluoride intake of the average person as a direct result of fluoridated water. You wish to cook the numbers to fit within 1ppm to fit your data (which is conveniently, according to your own math, the number which does not produce any adverse effects, again, according to your own bias)

What numbers have I "cooked"? The 1 ppm figure is the typical level of fluoridation. I quite clearly stated that consumption of more tap water would result in greater consumption of fluoride, as would the consumption of more toothpaste and other fluoride supplements. That's quite obvious.


No, you did not. You insisted the variables I'd suggested that you had not considered were "unreasonable".
I don't remember saying that. But I do remember saying that it would be difficult to figure out exactly how much fluoride would be ingested from other sources because of the variables involved. How much toothpaste swallowed. What foods, etc.


You will notice how I don't selectively edit your responses as you have done to mine in this thread, yet you have still yet to answer the one simple question (beyond reproach).
How can I edit your responses?


To refresh your memory: ...

I answered it. You quoted my answer right before you claimed I edit your responses.



edit on 8/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph




What a great contribution to the discussion that is.
You asked about the history. I provided a link to that history. Did you read it? Do you have something to dispute about it?
edit on 8/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by DeadSeraph




What a great contribution to the discussion that is.
You asked about the history. I provided a link to that history. Do you have something to dispute about it?
edit on 8/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Your link is .gov, first of all.

Secondly, you haven't provided adequate rebuttals to any of the major questions posed.

Third: You have dismissed my question AGAIN.

Please answer this question COMPLETELY:

"If we know fluoride is detrimental to our health, and we know it is only reasonably beneficial to our dental health (and is already included in our tooth paste, which dentists with far more experience than you have decided is MOST beneficial when applied topologically), WHY is it necessary to include it in our drinking water, and do the risks involved outweigh the benefits?"



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Your link is .gov, first of all.

I see. You just don't like the source. Did you read it? Can you find fault with the history as described?


Secondly, you haven't provided adequate rebuttals to any of the major questions posed.
Your confirmation bias prevents you from considering the points I have raised. You have not responded to my "rebuttals", you have ignored them.


Please answer this question COMPLETELY:
I did. But since you seem to have trouble understanding what I said I will make it simple.
1) Your claim that fluoride is detrimental to our health at low concentrations is not "known".
2) We know it is signficantly beneficial to our dental health. It has been shown to be especially beneficial for groups which do not practice good oral hygiene and it has been shown to provide significant benefits to those who do.
3) Perhaps you should ask those who choose to have artificial fluoridation why they think it is necessary.
4) No, the risks of low concentrations of fluoride do not outweigh the benefits.

edit on 8/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

4) No, the risks of low concentrations of fluoride do not outweigh the benefits.


So I assume you're lobbying your city to get fluoride put in the water supply, since you said it isn't already in there? I wonder who else is with you on this, if anybody. Nobody wants to be forced to ingest poison, when the only alternative is to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on filtration systems to remove it. In case you didn't know, homeowners pay for their water, and they don't expect chemical concoctions of what the government thinks they should be ingesting. Once you contaminate water it is no longer water, so to any logical person, that is considered false advertisement by the water companies.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hold on just one moment please... Why don't the 51 per cent go out and buy their own fluoride to add to the water; that way they can poison themselves all they want. Why should we have to ensure counter measures like wasting money on a purifier that actually removed fluoride, when most dont? Quit dancing around and answer me why they have not added boron or vitamin k2 to water, when both have been shown to be 10x more effective than a neurotoxin. I mean did you miss in your quote where's they said mottled teeth were shown to be resistant to decay... Ever heard the expression teeth are the windows to your bones? Then if it does this to your teeth, what do you think your bones look like.


Regardless of however you 'add' the 1 ppm, whenever you accumulate that 1 ppm from various sources you are intaking more than just that 1 ppm. Just because they say 1 ppm is safe doesn't mean that you can ingest several 'concentrations' and not suffer any side effects. Whether its 8 parts per 8 million or 8 ppm, it is still cumulative. Why can you not understand this? 1 ppm beig safe is not the same as saying you can take as much as you want as long as you never take more than that 1 ppm concentration?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


I think Phage intentionally wants to mislead readers from the point you, DeadSeraph and Screwed are making.

He's stuck with concentration and those above and others are talking dose.

I think all here agree with him on the ratio aspect of concentration, but the point made is in another direction of dose. That is the strong disagreement.

It is completely straightforward to explain how 1 ppm concentrated water can end up dosing double, and upwards of that.
edit on 27-8-2012 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Before I head off for the night can I comment on dose and concentration? Dose with regards to sodium fluoride in water is the main problem - there is no method for dosing unless the responsibility for dosage is in the hands of the person who will ingest.

This is why some activists state very clearly that placing sodium fluoride in water systems is mass medication - without the express consent of many of that mass (population).

Concentration - well that depends entirely on the origin of the sodium fluoride and the gas that is given off in the processes that create the sodium fluoride. I know I carp on about the documentary Fire Water but it explains the science/creation of the actual chemical being discussed in this thread well within the first 20/30 minutes.

Concentration will depend entirely on the products used in the creation - well - unless you are the chemical engineer employed by the company from where the sodium fluoride emanates - then - take a guess or take a sample from each and every Council Water Department.

Much Peace...
edit on 27-8-2012 by Amanda5 because: Grammar



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You realize how much your post is seriously lacking in logic, right? Don't get me wrong, I think you are a wonderful contribution to the science aspect of the forums in regards to space, ufo's, and etc. Forgive me, but I don't think your knowledge on medicine or the effects of chemicals on the human body is on par.

Let me explain..




He recalled from reading McKay's and Black's studies on fluorosis that mottled tooth enamel is unusually resistant to decay. Dean wondered whether adding fluoride to drinking water at physically and cosmetically safe levels would help fight tooth decay.


Now, why did I specifically point out the mottling of tooth enamel?

www.thefreedictionary.com...




Medicine / Pathology) fluoride poisoning, due to ingestion of too much fluoride in drinking water over a long period or to ingestion of pesticides containing fluoride salts. Chronic fluorosis results in mottling of the teeth of children.


Now I highlighted the specific areas for you of interest particularly..




Chronic fluorosis results in mottling of the teeth of children.


www.thefreedictionary.com...




Spotted or blotched with different shades or colors.


So basically the same mottling of the teeth that is the basis for "fluoride strengthens your teeth" is the exact same sign of chronic fluoride poisoning..Now how about that?

Not to forget this nifty little article that mentions that the rates of fluorosis have gone up by at least 40% since fluoridation of water supplies started.

www.fluoridation.com...

It even has a nice little graph to explain what I was saying before about the presence of fluoride in much more than just your water and toothpaste..

fluoridation.com...

Now this all really begs the question of : How do uninformed voters have the right to dictate the treatment that the informed object, but are subject to?

Let me make an analogy: Say 50 million Americans believe in the benefit of Vitamin C or some other substance and are advocates of it's consumption. What do they do? They go to the store and buy it on their own. Why not add it to the water? It would be good for all of us. However, there are others that don't willingly or purposely choose to do so. In a nut shell; if Vitamin C advocates have to go to the store to buy something that is beneficial to us; why shouldn't the pro-fluoride nuts do the same thing? Why is it that us, the people who are informed and object to it; are made to pay for a public water bill for contaminated water that we don't want, buy fluoride filters that are expensive, etc etc? Why don't they just go out and buy their own fluoride that way those who want to poison themselves may do so without the infringement of the rights of others...That's some kind of neo-nazi thinking you got going on there...That's like all of the Roman's voting to throw the Christian's to the Lion's and the Christian's are objecting. The ignorance of the dangers of fluoride from yourself and others, are not validated to dictate my life and health care thank you.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I would also like to add, that the single reason water is fluoridated is in the namesake of dental health; here is 50 reasons why it should be opposed...You like to 'crunch' those numbers so much, surely you realize that 50 detrimental reasons outweighs any benefit of a singular explanation of dental health.

www.fluoridealert.org...

Should you be able to concede to this point, that would only beg one last question of why the hell you are here bandying about the Pro-fluoride propaganda, when you neither lead by example, and believe that the benefits do not outweigh the risks..I'm sorry, but mottled teeth that are 'resistant' to decay does not outweigh the risk of increased risk of cardiovascular disease, thyroid disruption, neurotoxicity/IQ loss, skeletal fluorosis, forced control of mood, increased sexual infertility, cancer, and the list goes on.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The comment I made was relevant to fluoride levels in food. It had nothing to do with fluoride in water. I was trying to show that fluoride is present in many foods. The organic version of fluoride is not bad for a person. It naturally calms people. Anything in excess or anything consumed each and every day can be bad for our health because it can cause a buildup in the body throwing off natural balances.

I don't like adding fluoride to the water because it winds up in things where it does not belong. Calcium fluoride naturally in water is a better source of fluoride than Sodium fluoride or Hydrofluoric acid. I hold the opinion of opposing fluoride being added to water because of it's negative effect on half of the population. People who drink tea have an increased chance of getting too much fluoride, I do not have a desire to see our English descendant people being over fluoridated because of their traditions. Some of these people are pillars of our country. I am not going to say, well fine, who cares, I'm a Finn and I don't drink tea, I am going to say they are people also and they have the right to keep their traditions.

When I drink too much coffee, I get a burny feeling at the top of my stomach. This burny feeling is caused by the effect of the stomach acid on the fluoride in the coffee. The Hydrofluoric acid that is created can cause a degradation of the valve at the top of the stomach and allow the hydrofluoric acid to go into the esophagus. This can cause a problem called acid reflux disease which in turn increases the chance of esophageal cancer. Does this mean coffee is bad for you. No, I shouldn't have drinken so much coffee. Adding fluoride to water increases the fluoride in the coffee and makes the situation worse.

I drink fluoride every day, in coffee, and I am not scared of it. I drink my coffee weak so I can drink more of it. I live in the country and any fluoride from the well is in the form of calcium fluoride because of the limestone layer at the bottom of my well. I shouldn't care about fluoride being added in town because I don't live there. My daughter and grandchildren along with my friends live in town though. It concerns me that they could be effected. Just because they do not know how to recognize fluoride overload symptoms doesn't mean they deserve to have health problems. The intelligent in this world are supposed to look over the not so intelligent to steer them in the right direction. I am no better than the friends I have chosen just because I am smarter than them, I feel I have a responsibility to help them learn. Trouble is I was too busy trying to make a living in the past and supplying work for my workers so I didn't have much time to learn about these things in the past. I don't have that excuse anymore.

If there is a nuclear accident containing radioactive Iodine it may be beneficial to drink more coffee or tea. This is something I have been thinking about. If fluoride attaches to the thyroid it keeps Iodine from attaching. Same thing applies to the pineal gland and the primordial region of the brain. Trouble is that if too much fluoride is consumed prior to this the body will lack in iodine.

I look at the good and bad in everything to try to figure things out. I see people don't investigate both sides of things and then things get messed up. My opinion remains to get the added fluoride out of water. Teach people how to utilize the properties of natural organic fluorides instead of shoving the fluoride down their throat. Fluoride is an antidepressent and it's effects calm people if it is done right. There are other ways to calm people too without forcing fluoride on people. They don't need to add propanolol to the water supplies either or chemicals that have antidepressant properties in foods. People will automatically choose foods that have these things if they want to be calm. For the few people that like to cause problems they dope up the whole population which in turn makes people with a lower metabolism sick and fat and cranky because their sickly. Funny thing is the people who like to be riled up avoid anything that settle them down, they buy bottled water.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


This is why I took such offense when he went on about how it was supposedly beneficial to heart disease patients; As a young man who has a father that has drank and continues to drink his gallon of Sweet tea every 2-3 days, I know better...I found it highly insulting and hurtful, because I assure all of you, I have a great deal of vested interest in such effects, and am well versed on the material. You can not tell me, that it is beneficial when I have a father who is dying from it's effects..



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join