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

Typical stereotyped persons here... indeed!!

Some just CANT understand it exist forces (people) whoever you call them ...
That are doing things some of your minds cant handle, Ever heard about?? "Cant handle the truth" ??

Some member here "page" or something...seems like he cant handle the truth about this poison the country is spewing out...
Its just fine cause i get fine teeth...YOUR ONLY ARGUMENT IT SEEMS.., really?

Members who contributed to this thread, are using all of their energy!! here...! i understand ! i really do!! but UNDERSTAND TO! some people tend to choose their faith and ignore the stuff that makes their comfort zone shake or whatever.

Some are just wired so damn tight into the "machine"... don't bust a nut... over it. its just how it is for the older generation... CAUSE REALLY?! in this world THIS TIME! its we the young who are the teachers.

Its funny to see members here throw facts at each other! and just picks and reads the stuff that could be wrong, for the argument sake or whatever...

it looks like some arguments and statistics here!! are people agreeing on but not directly.... strange that is... only focusing on finding flaws?? The energy in this thread is directed only into "brainwashing" everyone in echoing each other.

But whatever..

reply to post by Iwinder


Everybody assured my Dad that DDT was perfectly safe, showing him all sorts of approvals by the government. I was with him on the tractor spraying DDT on the potatoes and other crops with a handkerchief over my face.. He told the people he sold his potatoes to that the government says it is safe. Three years later he was distressed because he had lied to the people he had befriended and sold his farm off very cheap because the DDT takes so long to break down. That was forty years ago, the land is probably pretty well recovered by now. He died of brain cancer a few years after selling the farm. I doubt if that was from the DDT, I am still alive. I have huge lymph glands, or whatever they are called, in my lungs though.

Finding the ways to neutralize the fluoride is the important part. If you have milk allergies it makes it harder. A little milk in the coffee or tea can help dampen the fluoride's effect. some organic sulfur compounds help but also effect the iodine absorption also. Instead of complaining it is better to research how to survive and enjoy life. Hypothyroidism is not a good condition to have. Calling it a disease makes the person who has it feel defective when in reality it is a condition created by people with credentials who teach us the wrong things.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Iwinder

 

Everybody assured my Dad that DDT was perfectly safe, showing him all sorts of approvals by the government. I was with him on the tractor spraying DDT on the potatoes and other crops with a handkerchief over my face.. He told the people he sold his potatoes to that the government says it is safe. Three years later he was distressed because he had lied to the people he had befriended and sold his farm off very cheap because the DDT takes so long to break down. That was forty years ago, the land is probably pretty well recovered by now. He died of brain cancer a few years after selling the farm. I doubt if that was from the DDT, I am still alive. I have huge lymph glands, or whatever they are called, in my lungs though.

Finding the ways to neutralize the fluoride is the important part. If you have milk allergies it makes it harder. A little milk in the coffee or tea can help dampen the fluoride's effect. some organic sulfur compounds help but also effect the iodine absorption also. Instead of complaining it is better to research how to survive and enjoy life. Hypothyroidism is not a good condition to have. Calling it a disease makes the person who has it feel defective when in reality it is a condition created by people with credentials who teach us the wrong things.

It's things like this which make me want to create a thread of all items the government once was was "safe", and later retracted their stance once they couldn't (further) cover up the damage that was done. The same "shifting goalposts" is used for science and countless other things in life as well.

Because the government/"scientist" says something is safe for something does not always make it so. Especially when that something the government deems safe SHOULD go against common sense and a natural way of living (besides having natural fluoride in your drinking water, which I still have issues about, such as first being able to find the study by HT Dean online somewhere.)

I'm sorry I didn't catch this thread earlier, so I had to read all these pages of nonsense arguing about concentration and how harmless fluoride is. WTF is wrong with some people logics?

Let me put it in most simple way: if the concentration is potent enough to affect the teeth, by "accumulating in it and therefore preventing cavities "it makes sense that will affect the rest of the body by accumulating in it also? The answer it's obvious. Hope that this is common sense enough to everyone so I'll not be asked for a "source".

Secondly, it's being sad that 1 ppm or lower it's harmless, so it's ok to drink it, all the while conveniently ignoring the word "cumulative".
Now let's imagine we add salt to our drinking water, in a harmless concentration, you pick a number. It will be the same logic. Salt is healthy, is essential to human body. But in our drinking water? Is it right to assume that in a few years it will accumulate and destroy your kidneys, liver, heart and whatever else because it will accumulate? How stupid would that be to drink salty water, no matter how low the concentration?
So how come we even consider fluoridating the drinking water, when fluoride is so much harmful than salt?

Yes, it's right, drugs are beneficial in low concentration, and harmful in big doses. But how come we forget that drugs are prescribed in limited quantities, for a limited period of time, therefore administrated in a controlled manner, so the dose remain specific? Nobody gives you two pounds of ibupofren to dump it in your water reservoir and drink it for the rest of the year. But I guess that some people would be ok with that too, as long as the statistics looks right to them.

1 ppm is harmful, maybe. But is in everything we drink and eat. When everything that we eat and drink is eliminated from the body, and the 1 ppm fluoride remains, then we take some more, and then again we get some more of it, for years, can someone tell me what is the concentration now?

And finally, I wish I wouldn't say that, but how come someone who openly admits "there is no fluoridated water where I live" " I try not to swallow tooth paste" even dare to preach the benefits of this poison for the rest of us? Are you kidding me? Why people even waste their time arguing with someone like this?

Agreeing that fluoride is harmful to swallow, but endlessly arguing that in drinking water is for our own benefit... Doesn't that sounds familiar?

He achieves his goal... if we are on here formulating responses to his insane posts then we are distracted - just typing responses in cyberspace while we could be out there actually physically doing something.

reply to post by jeantherapy


That or forever increasing our knowledge.

Knowledge is good and I've spent a lot of time accumulating it but that's sort of the problem. Many people gather information only to never use it. We know this stuff shouldn't be in our water, the question becomes "What are we going to do about it?" Hopefully your posts have influenced some of the open minds but this Phage guy is revealing himself to be a real waste of time, I believe intentionally on his part.

I understand that ingested fluoride is dangerous. But the fact of the matter is that the citizens voted it in, it is not up to the discretion of one guy to decide for an entire community.

If he had added something you didn't like, you would be calling for his head and accuse the government of trying to poison the people.

Fluoride does work topically, it does prevent tooth decay. Many baby boomers like my parents are constantly at the dentist, getting work, root canals, bridges, etc. and have mouths full of fillings.

I have a single cavity.

It is just not good when you ingest it.

But it is not up to a waterplant operator to dole out treatments unknowingly to people.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Iwinder

 

I didn't know you wanted a review of the entire article and I'm still not sure what you're trying to point me to but I'll try to figure it out from the quote you provided.

 

Regarding the "very little difference in tooth-decay rates". I found the article by Martin Mittlestaedt about that.

Quebeckers have more cavities than people in Ontario, but the difference is slight. Among children 6 to 19, considered the most decay-prone part of the population, the rate in Ontario was lower by less than half a cavity per child.

In the 6-11 age group, Ontario kids have 3.5 per cent fewer cavities than those in Quebec: 1.7 cavities compared to 1.76 in Quebec.

In the 12-19 age group, Ontario youths have 15.8 per cent fewer cavities than those in Quebec: 2.35 cavities compared to 2.79.

www.theglobeandmail.com...

The study spanned 2 years (2007-2009) so all of the children had grown up while drinking water with fluoride in it. Presumably it had some effect on the development of their teeth during that time. It might be more instructive to look at cases where fluoridation was never in use.

Comparisons of communities where water is fluoridated and communities where water remains unfluoridated show a reduced prevalence of dental caries in the range of 18-40 % when fluoridation is used (4). A recent study established the rate of caries reduction at 25 % (23). It is postulated that this estimate is more conservative than those reported in the past because the general population now enjoys the benefits of fluoride from other sources,
such as fluoride-enriched toothpaste and vitamin supplements.

www.inspq.qc.ca...

 

Regarding the 7 year old boys? The ones exposed to "high levels" of fluoridated water? Here's what the primary member of the team says about it:

In a letter to the editor of the journal Cancer Causes Control,13 Chester
Douglass, principal investigator of the Harvard study, advises readers to be
cautious when interpreting the findings, noting the following reasons:
• The preliminary findings from the overall analysis of the cases identified between 1993 and 2000 (second set of cases) do not show an association
between osteosarcoma and fluoride in drinking water.

www.ada.org.au...


Did I miss anything?

Sorry about that chief, usually when a link is posted it is expected that the people commenting on it read it in full.

I overestimated your reading skills this time around, I do apologize and will be sure to put a disclaimer on the link that all 500 words must be read before replying.

It was only one page and a quick read at that.

Perhaps you didn't like the idea of a case study with 10 million people as subjects......
You never know as stranger things have happened and continue to do so.

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I understand that ingested fluoride is dangerous. But the fact of the matter is that the citizens voted it in, it is not up to the discretion of one guy to decide for an entire community.

If he had added something you didn't like, you would be calling for his head and accuse the government of trying to poison the people.

Fluoride does work topically, it does prevent tooth decay. Many baby boomers like my parents are constantly at the dentist, getting work, root canals, bridges, etc. and have mouths full of fillings.

I have a single cavity.

It is just not good when you ingest it.

But it is not up to a waterplant operator to dole out treatments unknowingly to people.

edit on 29-8-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

Could not agree more with you, the same goes for our undereducated city council deciding that 100 thousand people will ingest this known toxin.

They refused a vote on the issue but have no problem with the crap in our water here.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder


Phage in that post seems to not have the info or if he had, not posted - that Chester Douglass was Editor-in-Chief of one Colgate periodical(Colgate Oral Care Report).

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
reply to post by Iwinder

 

Phage in that post seems to not have the info or if he had, not posted - that Chester Douglass was Editor-in-Chief of one Colgate periodical(Colgate Oral Care Report).

And I'm still waiting on the response from Phage to prove his water is not fluoridated. He said he is not drinking fluoridated water, as did I (to the best of my knowledge since it's spring water.) So Phage, how do you know your water is not fluoridated? You brought up the subject, and asked me the same question, so here it is back at ya.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by golemina

 

I advise you to look further. Your minerals and nutrients are supposed to come from your food; not your water supply. Distilled water has 0 contaminants because it literally is pure H20. Tap water and spring water is so laden down with those inorganic minerals and nutrients that it has no room to pick up the contaminants in your body and filter them out. By the process of capturing the steam and condensing it back down to water; you ensure that water is the only thing you get.

www.aquariusthewaterbearer.com...

Blinded by Science!

Nah. You're the one that needs to look further.

(Sorry... There is no polite way to put this... Your boys are morons! )

Try reading someone that actually has a clue about water...

Schauberger

>"no room to pick up the contaminants in your body and filter them out."

You got some kind of OCD?

Apparently, in your neighborhood, SPRING WATER and tap water are the same thing?



What's that you say? It's CDO? (they have to be in alphabetic order?)

I talked some REALLY old guy into switching to SPRING WATER. The color came back to his hair and he pretty much quite wearing his glasses.

Dude, you OBVIOUSLY know way more than I do...

Just keep drinking your OCD water.

It will just leach those pesky 'inorganic' 'nutrients' from your body...

Kind of a Darwinian thing my (OCD) armchair warrior.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by golemina

 

You are not understanding why I said; I said that the minerals and nutrients of spring water are inorganic, not the water itself. Those minerals and nutrients come as runoff from the surrounding rock beds; your body can not use them.

edit on 26-8-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

I understood EXACTLY what was said.

Your 'understanding' of water (and the 'minerals' and 'nutrients') is primitive.

I'll say it again REEEAAAALLLL SSSLLLOWWWLLLYYYY!

Water is ALIVE. And NOT inorganic.

Those 'minerals' and 'nutrients' (in SPRING WATER only) are biologically entrained.

And thus QUITE available (as needed) by the 'body'.

Hint: You won't find that on Wikipedia.

calcium flouride is less soluble in the body; it's safe to drink; found in spring water etc.

SODIUM FLOURIDE is POISON - a very dangerous poison - it's a byproduct of industrial waste...

is very soluble in the body. it doesn't occur naturally in spring water...

the difference is massive but people are too confused to understand the difference.

sodium flouride is what is going in water and toothpaste.

reply to post by golemina


The nutrients and minerals already present are NOT from the water; it came from the rocks...

Here are a few links and information uncovered by my wife and she gets all credit I am just posting it here.
As most detectives will tell you there is no such thing as a co-incidence when investigating a possible crime.

There is some mind boggling co-incidences here please read the links in full and you will get an idea of what is going on here.

In a nut shell the countries that have banned Fluoride have the lowest obesity rates and have the highest IQ rates.

Graphs and data are to be found in the links for the serious.

These sites show rates of obesity, oddly enough the country's with the lowest levels of obesity are also those who now shun the use of fluoridated water.

topforeignstocks.com...

www.hivehealthmedia.com...

These sites rank countries by IQ levels, most of the higher rating ones have stopped fluoridating water supplies. Not all sites agree on this.

www.iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com...

www.targetmap.com...

Fluoride and Thyroid disorders

articles.mercola.com...


Looking for any and all comments on this as it is most interesting indeed.

Regards, Iwinder

I'm glad to see this thread is still garnering interest. I was going to post a new thread on this, but this seems to be an appropriate place to post about it:

www.bbc.co.uk...

an excerpt:

Scientists found that coconut oil which had been treated with enzymes stopped the growth of Streptococcus bacteria - a major cause of tooth decay. Tooth decay affects 60% to 90% of children in industralised countries. Speaking at the Society for General Microbiology's conference, the Irish researchers say that coconut oil also attacks the yeast which causes thrush. The research team from the Athlone Institute of Technology in Ireland tested the impact of coconut oil, vegetable oil and olive oil in their natural states and when treated with enzymes, in a process similar to digestion. The oils were then tested against Streptococcus bacteria which are common inhabitants of the mouth. Only the enzyme-modified coconut oil showed an ability to inhibit the growth of most strains of the bacteria. Continue reading the main story “ Start Quote It is important that we turn our attention to new ways to combat microbial infection” Dr Damien Brady Athlone Institute of Technology It also attacked Streptococcus mutans, an acid-producing bacterium which is a major cause of tooth decay.

So now we know that a far less dangerous and toxic substance which occurs naturally in nature, is possibly MORE effective at fighting tooth decay than fluoride. I repeat: the fluoridation apologists haven't got a leg to stand on.

I'm hoping phage will be back to answer some of the questions posed to him and to offer his counter arguments for the criticisms leveled at his "data". I'd be perfectly content to accept his further absence from the thread as an admission of ignorance on the issue.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

I'd be perfectly content to accept his further absence from the thread as an admission of ignorance on the issue.

You tease, you.