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 in drinking water.

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by PtolemyII
 


the fluoride itself ,is toxic ,which I showed ,is nothing like ground water fluoride
Yes. Fluoride is toxic in high concentrations, be it natural or otherwise. That's why natural fluoride is removed when levels are too high.



I don't memorize the numbers
But you were so positive about it. "All" is pretty different from "some" or even "most". You said everyone's water is fluoridated. That's not really the case at all, is it?

edit on 6/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by PtolemyII

Originally posted by Grimpachi
This is just my take on that.

It becomes practically impossible for me to believe subsequent claims when





Water in the USA ,was fluoridated in 1945 .Everywhere


And




Over 2/3rds of the country was flurodated by the 1950s


are being presented as even remotely equal in accuracy.

Sorry but there is only so much BS I can filter through in a day and this is the limit for me.

I will check this thread tomorrow.



Uh ,its the dates that matter in this instance,for sure .

Some person looking at it ,from Australia ,on wiki,knows more than an american citizen who grew up on fluoridated water ,as did most of their friends who grew up here,who are now in their 50s and 60s .
Ask people ,over 50 ,who grew up in the usa ,was your water fluoridated when you were a kid.

And the issue at hand is not when,but now it IS everyone getting it,and its toxic ,and we were being lied to about it.

But yeah yeah ,everything I'm saying is wrong because the wiki says the dates are this this and this .
Go with that .




Why does it matter where they are from or what they use as a source if it has a list of sources at the bottom? If they know their stuff and are unbiased, what does that matter if you're an old man who has been drinking fluoridated water his whole life? I have been breathing oxygen(mixed with other gases) since I was born, am I an expert? No. Unless you are involved in the chemical process making fluoridation for water, are a water treatment plant operator that actually uses the stuff, or are a leading fluoridation scientist, your opinion is just as wanted as the people that you are calling down.

Again, salt is beneficial in small doses. Eat a pound of it and tell me how you feel. This is my outlook on fluoride. ANYTHING can be considered hazardous if you ingest too much of it.




posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Philippines
 





Do you think they are mining villiaumite for use in drinking water?

Nope, ridiculous.



Or perhaps it (sodium fluoride) could be a product of another chemical process, which is sold for money to go to drinking water?

Right, a chemical process, not a waste product as some suggest.

The only reason I showed the villiaumite link was to educate people that sodium fluoride IS a naturally occurring substance, even though it is rare.



So the natural form of NaF (villiaumite) is toxic to humans and should be handled with care. Meanwhile, the drinking water form of NaF (sodium fluoride) -- is safe?
It makes no sense!!


As I stated above, the majority of people have no idea what is going into the water treatment process nor do they understand that in small quantities some chemicals may be beneficial. You eat salt. Try eating a pound of it. Get it?


Sure, I eat salt, but NaCL and NaF are two completely different compounds. I don't use NaF to give my food that salty taste when I cook. Let's look at the MSDS for both and each of their LD50 and toxicity effects:

MSDS - NaCl (table salt)


Toxicity to Animals: WARNING: THE LC50 VALUES HEREUNDER ARE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF A 4-HOUR EXPOSURE. Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 3000 mg/kg [Rat.]. Acute dermal toxicity (LD50): >10000 mg/kg [Rabbit]. Acute toxicity of the dust (LC50): >42000 mg/m3 1 hours [Rat]. Chronic Effects on Humans: MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/ or yeast. Other Toxic Effects on Humans: Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals: Lowest Published Lethal Dose (LDL) [Man] - Route: Oral; Dose: 1000 mg/kg

Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans:
Causes adverse reproductive effects in humans (fetotoxicity, abortion, ) by intraplacental route. High intake of sodium chloride, whether from occupational exposure or in the diet, may increase risk of TOXEMIA OF PREGNANCY in susceptible women (Bishop, 1978)


Compared to the NaF MSDS (sodium fluoride)


Chronic Effects on Humans: CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: A4 (Not classifiable for human or animal.) by ACGIH, 3 (Not classifiable for human.) by IARC. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast. May cause damage to the following organs: kidneys, lungs, the nervous system, heart, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, bones, teeth. Other Toxic Effects on Humans: Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (corrosive), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive). Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals: Lowest Published Lethal Dose: LDL [Human] - Route: Oral; Dose: 71 mg/kg LDL [Woman] - Route: Oral; Dose: 90 mg/kg LDL [Woman] - Route: Oral; Dose: 360 mg/kg LDL [Mouse] - Route: Skinl; Dose: 300 mg/kg Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans: May cause adverse reproductive effects (fertililty, fetoxicity), and birth defects based on animal data. May cause cancer based on animal data. May cause genetic (mutagenic) and tumorigenic effects.


After looking at that info, my advice is to not ingest NaF, and to not have too much salt intake in your daily diet. But hey, it's just an MSDS..



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


My point was(sorry I didn't make it clear enough) was that anything in large doses is harmful. People have died from drinking too much water. People eat salt all the time, hell we need it to live, but, if you eat too much you die. Should we ban salt as well?
All I am saying, and have been saying is that there needs to be more research done on this.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


After looking at that info, my advice is to not ingest NaF,
The dose doesn't matter at all? How about CaF, the "natural" form.

Chronic Effects on Humans:
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Classified Development toxin [POSSIBLE]. May cause damage to the following organs: blood, kidneys, lungs, liver, cardiovascular system, skin, bones, central nervous system (CNS), teeth. Other Toxic Effects on Humans: Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals: Not available. Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans: May affect genetic material (mutagenic). May cause adverse reproductive effects and birth defects (teratogenic) based on animal test data

www.sciencelab.com...

Here's the Special Remarks section for the safe natural Flouride:

Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans: Acute Potential Health Effects: Skin: May cause skin irritation. Eyes: May cause eye irritation. Inhalation: Causes respiratory tract irritation. Ingestion: May cause gastrointestinal irritaiton with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, salivation, thirst, abdominal pain, fever, labored breathing (respiratory depression, apnea, dyspnea). Exposure to fluorides may also cause disturbed color vision, hypocalcemia, hyperkalemia, and hypomagnesemia, and may result in systemic toxic effects on the heart/
cardiovascular system (hypotension, tachycardia, arrhythmia, weak pulse, cardiovascular collapse), liver (hepatic enzymes increased), and kidneys (abnormal renal function, renal damage). It may also affect behavior/Central Nervous System (CNS) depression - headache, dizziness, weakness, somnolence, ataxia, loss of conciousness). Other neurological symptoms of acute fluoride ingestion may include muscle weakness, difficulty speaking, fitfulness(hyperreflexia), tetany, numbness or tingling of the extremities. Chronic Potential Health Effects: Skin: Prolonged or repeated skin contact may cause dermatitis. Inhalation: Prolonged or repeated inhalation may cause bronchitis, asmtha, silicosis, increase in respiratory infections,
pulmonary lesions. Ingestion: Prolonged or repeated ingestion cause diseases of the blood, teeth, bones and other organs (osteosclerosis, fluorosis). (Fluorisis is characterized by vomiting, diarrhea or constipation, weakness joint stiffness, loss of appetite, anemia)


I guess the "natural" kind is OK. At least, those who are against artificial fluoridation seem to think so.

edit on 6/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Philippines
 


My point was(sorry I didn't make it clear enough) was that anything in large doses is harmful. People have died from drinking too much water. People eat salt all the time, hell we need it to live, but, if you eat too much you die. Should we ban salt as well?
All I am saying, and have been saying is that there needs to be more research done on this.


I understand that point, and agree with you on moderation. However, I don't agree with the comparison of salt and sodium fluoride.

Here is the MSDS for Sodium Flouride (NaF) again.

Please note the chronic and long term effects of sodium fluoride:


Potential Chronic Health Effects: CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: A4 (Not classifiable for human or animal.) by ACGIH, 3 (Not classifiable for human.) by IARC. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to kidneys, lungs, the nervous system, heart, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, bones, teeth. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.


And now look again at the chronic long term effects of sodium chloride - table salt:


Potential Chronic Health Effects: CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. Repeated or prolonged exposure is not known to aggravate medical condition.


If you want I can point out the acute effects in section 3 for each one. What else do people ingest besides NaF that has those kind of long term chronic effects? Not NaCl.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines
 


After looking at that info, my advice is to not ingest NaF,
The dose doesn't matter at all? How about CaF, the "natural" form.

Chronic Effects on Humans:
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Classified Development toxin [POSSIBLE]. May cause damage to the following organs: blood, kidneys, lungs, liver, cardiovascular system, skin, bones, central nervous system (CNS), teeth. Other Toxic Effects on Humans: Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals: Not available. Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans: May affect genetic material (mutagenic). May cause adverse reproductive effects and birth defects (teratogenic) based on animal test data

www.sciencelab.com...

I guess the "natural" kind is OK. At least, those who are against artificial fluoridation seem to think so.


Who knows at this point. Maybe it's my spring water dumbing me down because the stuff is in it =D

But I can't verify that claim with my water, I need a fluoride testing device



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


Who knows at this point. Maybe it's my spring water dumbing me down because the stuff is in it =D
Or maybe at low concentrations neither one is harmful at all.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines
 


Who knows at this point. Maybe it's my spring water dumbing me down because the stuff is in it =D
Or maybe at low concentrations neither one is harmful at all.


It could be, but at what concentration and over how long? I know the human body can be quite resilient



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines
 


Who knows at this point. Maybe it's my spring water dumbing me down because the stuff is in it =D
Or maybe at low concentrations neither one is harmful at all.


When I look to section 11 of your MSDS link to CaF -

Section 11: Toxicological Information


Prolonged or repeated ingestion cause diseases of the blood, teeth, bones and other organs (osteosclerosis, fluorosis). (Fluorisis is characterized by vomiting, diarrhea or constipation, weakness joint stiffness, loss of appetite, anemia).


It doesn't say how at what concentrations / amounts that have to be ingested to cause these conditions though =/

Any ideas?



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 

Those would be symptoms of extreme fluorosis. Receiving a high concentration over and extended period. Something that might be encountered by someone with high levels of natural fluoride in their drinking water.

In the US the EPA has set the maximum allowed concentration at 4.0 mg/l. Concentrations this high only occur from natural sources. Artificially fluoridated water is typically brought up to 1.5-1.8 mg/l.

It should be noted that the EPA is reviewing that standard and may lower it.
edit on 6/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines
 

Those would be symptoms of extreme fluorosis. Receiving a high concentration over and extended period. Something that might be encountered by someone with high levels of natural fluoride in their drinking water.

In the US the EPA has set the maximum allowed concentration at 4.0 mg/l. Concentrations this high only occur from natural sources. Artificially fluoridated water is typically brought up to 1.5-1.8 mg/l.

It should be noted that the EPA is reviewing that standard and may lower it.
edit on 6/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Yep, thanks for the info =) Agreed on the lowering the maximum contaminant levels of fluoride in the water.

I'm pretty sure the EPA is looking into this after the report linked below was released. The 12 page summary has good info and clarifies a lot of misconceptions about fluoride in the water... not that I'm for it being artificially added =D

NAP.edu - Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards (2006)

Some copypasta from the report:



After reviewing the collective evidence, including studies conducted since the early 1990s, the committee concluded unanimously that the present MCLG of 4 mg/L for fluoride should be lowered. Exposure at the MCLG clearly puts children at risk of developing severe enamel fluorosis, a condition that is associated with enamel loss and pitting. In addition, the majority of the committee concluded that the MCLG is not likely to be protective against bone fractures. The basis for these conclusions is expanded upon below.

Musculoskeletal Effects
Concerns about fluoride’s effects on the musculoskeletal system historically have been and continue to be focused on skeletal fluorosis and bone fracture. Fluoride is readily incorporated into the crystalline structure of bone and will accumulate over time.

Endocrine Effects
The chief endocrine effects of fluoride exposures in experimental animals and in humans include decreased thyroid function, increased calcitonin activity, increased parathyroid hormone activity, secondary hyperparathyroidism, impaired glucose tolerance, and possible effects on timing of sexual maturity. Some of these effects are associated with fluoride intake that is achievable at fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 4 mg/L or less, especially for young children or for individuals with high water intake.

Maximum-Contaminant-Level Goal
In light of the collective evidence on various health end points and total exposure to fluoride, the committee concludes that EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L should be lowered. Lowering the MCLG will prevent children from developing severe enamel fluorosis and will reduce the lifetime accumulation of fluoride into bone that the majority of the committee concludes is likely to put individuals at increased risk of bone fracture and possibly skeletal fluorosis, which are particular concerns for subpopulations that are prone to accumulating fluoride in their bones.


And in other news, the HHS recommends the EPA lower the amount of fluoride in the water as well, this was in 2011.

EPA - EPA and HHS Announce New Scientific Assessments and Actions on Fluoride / Agencies working together to maintain benefits of preventing tooth decay while preventing excessive exposure

But when I look to the EPA Fluoride page, the limit is still 4 ppm. I wonder why they haven't lowered the MCL limit 2 years later after these findings



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Great posts Phage, I really appreciate your contributions to this thread.


edit on 9/6/13 by Sankari because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


It was just an analogous comparison, it wasn't meant to be a direct correlation between the two.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by icanhearmusic
 


Well a few years ago my sister had to stop drinking tap water because she was getting so much fluoride (from the water, toothpaste and mouthwash) that she was getting spots on her teeth. I actually can not drink tap water because it makes me incredibly sick.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Philippines
 


It was just an analogous comparison, it wasn't meant to be a direct correlation between the two.


I understand, thanks for your participation =)

What I question is what else is in the tap water besides fluoride? Perhaps it is the distraction?



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
.

cu·mu·la·tive (kymy-ltv, -y-l-tv)
adj.
1. Increasing or enlarging by successive addition.
2. Acquired by or resulting from accumulation.
3. Of or relating to interest or a dividend that is added to the next payment if not paid when due.
4. Law
a. Supporting the same point as earlier evidence: cumulative evidence.
b. Imposed with greater severity upon a repeat offender: cumulative punishment.
c. Following successively; consecutive: cumulative sentences.
5. Statistics
a. Of or relating to the sum of the frequencies of experimentally determined values of a random variable that are less than or equal to a specified value.
b. Of or relating to experimental error that increases in magnitude with each successive measurement.


poi·son (poizn)
n.
1. A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means.
2. Something destructive or fatal.
3. Chemistry & Physics A substance that inhibits another substance or a reaction: a catalyst poison.
tr.v. poi·soned, poi·son·ing, poi·sons
1. To kill or harm with poison.
2. To put poison on or into: poisoning arrows; poisoned the drink.
3.
a. To pollute: Noxious fumes poison the air. See Synonyms at contaminate.
b. To have a harmful influence on; corrupt: Jealousy poisoned their friendship.
4. Chemistry & Physics To inhibit (a substance or reaction).
adj.


.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philippines

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Philippines
 


It was just an analogous comparison, it wasn't meant to be a direct correlation between the two.


I understand, thanks for your participation =)

What I question is what else is in the tap water besides fluoride? Perhaps it is the distraction?



It would have to be quite the coordinated conspiracy. You would have to fool the operators of the treatment plant, or have a chemical company along with many people in on it to package, make, distribute, etc. I work in a water plant. I can assure you that nothing nefarious goes on there as the regulations are quite stringent.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by R0CR13
 


Any papers on cumulative poisoning by fluoride through water fluoridation?

(remember to try to find an UNbiased source)

Your fear doesn't make this a fact.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PtolemyII
 

First off let me say, I'm against adding 'anything' to anything the public has to use,
without an informed vote on it first! I hate chlorine too, but that's more of a safety issue!
If people want fluoride in their water let them ad it when they drink it!
I shouldn't have to drink it or pay for it being added if I don't want it!

Kind of like having to pay for all the channels on cable when I only watch certain ones!
(In a perfect world I could set up my own selection...dream on WOQ!)

I can't believe nobody caught this!
Your post said 42 out of 50 of the largest states had fluoride.
I thought, 'of the 50 largest states'????
Umm, the link says 42 out of 50 of the largest CITIES had fluoride.

en.wikipedia.org...

Okay so typo...but it seems to be one of those times when statistics can be tweaked to fit!
(On the map NJ is below 0%! Why are they the only hold out???)

Example:
1)By 2006, 69.2 % of the US population on public water systems are receiving fluoridated water,
2) amounting to 61.5 % of the total US population.
3) As of 2012, 72% of the total US population get their water from public systems that add fluoride.

1) That means 30.8% of the pop on public water are not receiving fluoride.
2) So 38.5% of the total US population are not receiving fluoride or are not on public water.
3) So 28% of total US pop get their water from unfluoridated city water or private sources.

The devil IS in the details!
How many people were mandated to connect to city water when it was extended to the burbs?
But how many use it for laundry, bathing etc, but won't drink it or cook with it,
& get their drinking water from other sources??? (Raises hand! Since 1983 in fact!)
Quite a few people that we know & we're supposedly country sheeple!
So that would skew any count of people who drink fluoridated water,
& studies of fluoridated water's effects too!

But what about the people who don't have it, but are getting it in canned goods,
bottled soda & juices, when they eat out.....
It boggles the mind how any study could be done except under sequestered conditions!
And how anything could be deemed safe without many decades of study,
& taking into account all the myriad of variables!

Kind of like back when I was in grade school.
They used to have a big van come to the school every year,
to give little kids chest x-rays to check for TB!
Cause now years later, we know that was such a safe, brilliant idea!!!

How many things that were done for years
have turned out not to be such brilliant ideas much later???
BPA for can linings is one that comes to mind!

A couple of years ago, there was a mention in our paper,
that people would be required to register their wells & springs,
whether they were in use or not! For what reason???

You can imagine how well that went over!
Even 'blind' people saw a huge rat that time!!!

Were they going to plug them, tax them, map them...
Whatever reasons people could think of...none of them were good!

The devil's in the details & follow the money!
Maybe I'll add that to my signature!!!
WOQ



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join