Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

600 Physicians, Dentists, Scientists and Environmentalists Call for an End to Fluoridation‏

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+11 more 
posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
A statement asking Congress to end water fluoridation in the United States has been released by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). Over 600 professionals, including a Nobel Prize winner, officers in the Union that represents Environmental Protection Agency professionals, and members of the National Research Council panel on fluoride’s toxicology, have signed the statement.




The report urges Congressional members to “recognize that fluoridation is outdated, has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound medical ethics, and denies freedom of choice.” It cites eight recent events that call for an urgent end to water fluoridation.

Among them:

•A 500-page review of fluoride’s toxicology by the National Research Council of the National Academies, published in 2006.
•Evidence from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that found 32 percent of U.S. children have dental fluorosis, which is caused by fluoride.
•The American Dental Association’s 2006 policy change, which recommends not giving fluoridated water to infants for the first 12 months of life.
•A Harvard University study that found a five- to seven-fold increased risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) among young men who were exposed to fluoride between the ages of 6 and 8.
•The CDC’s recognition that fluoride is beneficial in reducing tooth decay when it’s applied topically, not taken systemically. The statement calls for members of Congress to sponsor a new Congressional Hearing on Fluoridation that requires those who continue to support water fluoridation to provide scientific basis, under oath, for their continued recommendations.

According to one of the statement’s signers, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It’s really obsolete.”


Sourc e

It's about time this got stopped. Who knows how much damage has been done already with years and years of exposure to Fluoride. Surely it costs more to pump it into water?

They should just remove it and have done with it instead of it taking years for doctors, etc to come forward and speak out about, hopefully sometime soon, it will all be removed completely.




posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
...even though in some parts it is naturally occurring and they take it out of the water. I agree that people should be given a choice in the matter, and they do, they usually vote on it.

There isn't enough evidence that it does harm in such a small concentration. They need to do much more research on it.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by sarahlm
 





•The CDC’s recognition that fluoride is beneficial in reducing tooth decay when it’s applied topically, not taken systemically. The statement calls for members of Congress to sponsor a new Congressional Hearing on Fluoridation that requires those who continue to support water fluoridation to provide scientific basis, under oath, for their continued recommendations.


This is the one I bring up constantly. Granted, I did stop brushing with fluoridated toothpaste as well with no ill effects, in fact, the first cavity I had was at age 30, about 2 years after switching back to standard paste like colgate or crest.

fluoride is good for your teeth if you brush with it. If you swallow it, not so good, in fact, it's horrifically bad for you. Since it's being pumped into most of the US water supply, you can safely assume the following products have it, even if it's not on the label:

bottled water
soft drinks
prepackaged food
just about anything made in the US that requires water.

Think about that for a second, you aren't supposed to give kids fluoride in the first 12 months. But, the tap water has it, the pre-mixed baby forumula has it, and the bottled water has it. I've even seen the bottled water marketed for babies which contains fluoride.

You simply have no means to measure your intake.

The other side is the stuff they dump into the water system is NOT the same fluoride in your toothpaste, it's a toxic chemical byproduct. You've probably seen the picture, i hope i can find it and like it. A photo of a worker adding the fluoride to the water system, bio-hazard suit and all.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
There is a water treatment plant that I go to, very rarely, where the fluoride is added to the water supply via a mixer. It is the powder form of fluoride and added automatically to get the proper dosage to the water supply. There is no way they are just dumping a bag into the water supply. There are MAC's that people need to follow as set out by the government. How can you measure what you are putting in properly if you are just dumping it? I never had to wear a full suit or even a dust mask while walking by this mixing/dosing unit. If done properly, there should be no dust coming up.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Flouride in toothpaste is at significantly higher levels than in the water supply. What's in the water supply is added to replace what is removed during the decontamination phase of water treatment. They even put it back in lower quantities that what would have been in the untreated water naturally. Flouride isn't just for teeth, it also helps bone density and strength. Your body needs flouride during the process which converts calcium to form your body can actually absorb and use. Without flouride any calcium you ingested would be passed through waste instead of utilized by your body. One of the side effects in places that don't flouridate the water after removing it is osteoporosis on top of increased tooth decay. The levels found in the water supply aren't toxic to the majority of healthy people, it's merely a supplemented necessary nutrient that your body requires to function properly.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Is this your picture?


You should concentrate on this picture:



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


That picture of the worker in the biohazard suit isn't of a worker adding flouride and it wasn't from a drinking water facility. Those are the chemicals used in a reclaimed water plant where they disinfect sewage waste water to be used for watering lawns. Completely different process and that water isn't intended for human consumption which is why it has Sulphur markers added to make it smell like rotten eggs, to deter people from attempting to ingest it. All they do to that water is kill the bacteria and viruses living in it then pump it out to a retention pond to be held for use in a second subsystem of the water infrastructure which only comes out of outside plumbing and sprinkler systems.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Fluoride is also probably what is causing so many babies to be born with autism.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Flouride has been added back to water for decades. Well before the uptick in autism diagnosis. It really only seems like there's a rise in autism because it's more accurately diagnosed than before. It used to be diagnosed as mental retardation or other mental disability instead of what it actually was.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Excellent ! Long overdue that this is challenged before Congress, now the question is.....will they do the right thing and remove it ? The companies that have gotten away with basically being allowed to dump their fluoride waste in the water under the "guise" that's it's good for people's teeth will surely fight this, even topical fluoride treatments can cause damage to teeth if too much is applied, this happened to a family friends little girl and made her teeth look discolored.

Even if it is good for teeth, it is not good to swallow, so it's obscene to continue to put it in water. I will be watching how this unfolds.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Uh, OP? You're about 6 years too late. This is old news. It even says so on the blog:


Sources:
Fluoride Action Network August 9, 2007
Medical News Today August 10, 2007


Didn't you read it?



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


It's added in at 1 part per 1,000,000 parts water and they use the same flouride powder used in the manufacture of toothpaste. Almost all water naturally contains flouride some places as high as 600 parts per million. That's 600x what they are adding and it's naturally there. The only reason they add it to begin with is because it is removed during the RO/DI(reverse osmosis deionization) phase of water treatment. RO/DI removes all nutrients from water leaving it at 0ppm TDS (total dissolved solids) which is anything other than water. They add in several of the key nutrients removed including iron. If you're really concerned you can by an RO/DI filter for your home and have pure water with no nutrients added or natural. Even if you have a well there's a high probability you're getting flouride, above 90%.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by EViLKoNCEPTz
 


It's no use, people are afraid of things that they heard about instead of doing the smallest bit of research.

Link

Is Fluoride great to add to water? I believe so in small doses in areas of high dental neglect. Are there long term effects? I don't know, but, neither does anyone. It could be like anything else though, it affects some people more than others.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
We need to end bleach/chlorine in our water to. Im sure we have come along way to figure out how to get germs out of water without chorline!

They found out men coming back from Nam when they cut them open they had the insides of older men. It aged them profoundly.

Get rid of both would be wonderful... But then maybe the billon dollar water bottle Ind. would no longer make them profits... That is the reason they wont do it. (?)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Sodium Fluoride is a posion, Calcium Fluoride is ok but its Sodium Fluoride that is causing the problems. If you shower with Sodiun Fluoride in your water for 5 minutes its like drinking one gallon of Fluoridated water. The Germans were useing Sodium Fluoride to dum down the POW's and to keep them subdued.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by The only 1 who knows the
 


Sodium Fluoride is a posion, Calcium Fluoride is ok but its Sodium Fluoride that is causing the problems.
Really? Shall we compare? Maybe you can explain why calcium fluoride is ok?

Calcium fluoride:

Potential Acute Health Effects:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Corrosive to eyes and skin.
The amount of tissue damage depends on length of contact. Eye contact can result in corneal damage or blindness. Skin contact can produce inflammation and blistering. Inhalation of dust will produce irritation to gastro-intestinal or respiratory tract, characterized by burning, sneezing and coughing. Severe over-exposure can produce lung damage, choking, unconsciousness or death.
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available.
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Classified Development toxin [POSSIBLE]. The substance may be toxic to blood, kidneys, lungs, liver, cardiovascular system, skin, bones, central nervous system (CNS), teeth. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated exposure of the eyes to a low level of dust can produce eye irritation. Repeated skin exposure can produce local skin destruction, or dermatitis. Repeated inhalation of dust can produce varying degree of respiratory irritation or lung damage.

www.sciencelab.com...



Sodium fluoride:

Potential Acute Health Effects:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant, corrosive), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive). Severe over-exposure can result in death.
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.

www.sciencelab.com...



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sarahlm
 





Charles Perkins, a chemist, wrote the following to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on October 2nd 1954: "…In the 1930's, Hitler and the German Nazis 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 the 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."



Charles Perkins said that repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and "narcotising" a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. He called it a "convenient light lobotomy." The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children's teeth, he said. If this was the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective, he points out. The real purpose behind water fluoridation was to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty. Perkins said that when the Nazis under Hitler decided to go into Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plan to "communise" the world:


"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine- any person who drinks artificially-fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically."


I always wondered as a child why there were so many "dumb pollock" jokes..

their wells were tainted..



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


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."

Hm. Sterility in women. Don't see a lot of that going on. Flouridation has been in use for how long now?


"Charles Perkins, a chemist". Great credentials.
onespeedbikerpolitico.blogspot.com...
edit on 6/17/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Concern over Poland’s low fertility rate because young girls want to put work before a family?

Why are birthrates falling around the world? Blame television.
its cable tv's fault?

and i take it you didn't bother to watch the video..

good solid reporting by Christopher Bryson.

i guess i would be assuming you would be up to speed on population control

papers by the UN, trilateral commission, CFR, etc.. even the Georgia guide stone statements..



seems fluoride fits these plans nicely.. passive people who cant reproduce.. or even perceive there is a problem.





new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join