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.

 

Water Fluoridation will NOT kill you.

page: 14
25
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

ATF1886
It was halfies on the web sites but ok , now this is direct from one of your sources...

water.epa.gov...

I can argue with you but I'd rather not bother or waste my time seeing you ask for proof but provide none you attack people but don't like getting attacked you call me junior but your word formulation is that of a two year old have a great night

Thanks for the link confirming my argument!
Although it is from a government site so people won't like that. Do you have another for me?




posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AmenStop
 



You guys are a blast. I dont know if I even believe its a different person, or just another log in.


Well I hope you do not believe anyone who agrees with the OP in this thread is the same person because then you would be paranoid and delusional.


I dont see any pro fluoride peer reviewed papers. Because there are not any, ever. there have only been four paper that say fluoride is good, they have none of them been valid, or done properly.


Heres one

and another this one actually does your job for you and examines negative side effects as well.

here is a bunch of studies done by the EPA.

Please criticize these papers as you please, as long as you have valid arguments.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop
 


You want my proof?

Do something you haven't done then.

Read through the first 3 posts and through all the links. It's all there. If you have questions afterwards, feel free to ask me a direct question. I have no problems answering when people ask me a question.


I read your posts, and there is no proof presented at all.

Proof is a double blind study. But you dont deal in truth, you deal in deception and half truths.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

AmenStop

superman2012

WeAre0ne

superman2012

I will not.

I stand by them.

I have always stated: (underlined so people can't miss it (although I have said it over 20 times))
PROPERLY DOSED WATER FLUORIDATION IS NOT HARMFUL
This was not properly dosed. This was akin to a chemical spill in the water supply.
Not even close to the same thing. Did you know you could get chlorine poisoning too if the levels get too high? Would you call that properly dosed? No. That is why there are MAC's for water treatment.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



Fluoride was used as a drug to treat hyperthyroidism because it reduces thyroid activity quite effectively. This is due to the ability of fluoride to mimic the action of thyrotropin (TSH). Excess fluoride correlates with the other thyroid-related issues such as iodine deficiency. Fluorine and iodine, both being members of the halogen group of atoms, have an antagonistic relationship. When there is excess of fluoride in the body it can interfere with the function of the thyroid gland. Thus, fluoride has been linked to thyroid problems.


Why is the thyroid important?



The thyroid is the major regulator of metabolism and affects all of the bodily functions.


Case and point... This thread is hogwash.


ANY AMOUNT OF FLUORIDE AFFECTS YOUR THYROID.
edit on 5-12-2013 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)

Case and point? No. Not by a long shot.

Do you notice the two words you copied a couple of times? "Excess fluoride"? What is excess? How much more? Also, you may want to read the Conclusion...don't want to?
Here you go:

CONCLUSIONS
Dental treatment modifications may be necessary for dental patients who are under medical management and follow-up for a thyroid condition even if there are no comorbid conditions. Stress reduction, awareness of drug side effects or interactions, and vigilance for appearance of signs or symptoms of hormone toxicity are among the responsibilities of the oral health care provider.


Your argument is hogwash.


LOL. All fluoride except naturally occuring calcium fluoride is excess.

Wait one more time, there is no safe level of sodium fluoride.

I need to see some proof of safety. And you have shown none. Do you not have any?

Oh wait, next you will make some statement without backing it up and then ask me to prove you wrong.

ut thats the rub, I dont have to prove you wrong. You are wrong, you need to prove you are right and you can not. Because sodium fluoride has never been proven to be safe for human consumption, ever.


I know I have to prove it. That's why I have given you all available information to look through along with talking points and links and sources. In case you missed it, here you go.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop
 


Where are your papers? At least I presented my evidence. I have yet to see one listed that hasn't been refuted yet.

Kitchen getting too hot yet?



You have presented NO evidence.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop
 


You want my proof?

Do something you haven't done then.

Read through the first 3 posts and through all the links. It's all there. If you have questions afterwards, feel free to ask me a direct question. I have no problems answering when people ask me a question.


I did #10 was an article written in 1997...



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop
 


You want my proof?

Do something you haven't done then.

Read through the first 3 posts and through all the links. It's all there. If you have questions afterwards, feel free to ask me a direct question. I have no problems answering when people ask me a question.


I read your posts, and there is no proof presented at all.

Proof is a double blind study. But you dont deal in truth, you deal in deception and half truths.

There hasn't been a double blind study done as far as I know. I cited the Newburgh-Kingston study did you read through that? If there is no study that would convince you (double blind only?) why does the lack of it convince you that it is harmful?



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop
 


You want my proof?

Do something you haven't done then.

Read through the first 3 posts and through all the links. It's all there. If you have questions afterwards, feel free to ask me a direct question. I have no problems answering when people ask me a question.


I read your posts, and there is no proof presented at all.

Proof is a double blind study. But you dont deal in truth, you deal in deception and half truths.

There hasn't been a double blind study done as far as I know. I cited the Newburgh-Kingston study did you read through that? If there is no study that would convince you (double blind only?) why does the lack of it convince you that it is harmful?



Duh, thats what I have been telling you. It hasnt been done because it will show the toxicity of the poison they call sodium fluoride.

Sodium fluoride is a toxic waste byproduct of the aluminium production, that had to be taken away and disposed of like toxic waste, before they scammed the US into poisoning the public.

So you have NO proof of safety. stop lying to the people of ATS. You can not show or claim its safe because it has NEVER been shown to be safe.
edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

superman2012

ATF1886
It was halfies on the web sites but ok , now this is direct from one of your sources...

water.epa.gov...

I can argue with you but I'd rather not bother or waste my time seeing you ask for proof but provide none you attack people but don't like getting attacked you call me junior but your word formulation is that of a two year old have a great night

Thanks for the link confirming my argument!
Although it is from a government site so people won't like that. Do you have another for me?


Did you actually read it can you even read???

"What are fluoride's health effects?
Exposure to excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may lead to increased likelihood of bone fractures in adults, and may result in effects on bone leading to pain and tenderness. Children aged 8 years and younger exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride have an increased chance of developing pits in the tooth enamel, along with a range of cosmetic effects to teeth.

This health effects language is not intended to catalog all possible health effects for fluoride. Rather, it is intended to inform consumers of some of the possible health effects associated with fluoride in drinking water."



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop
 


You want my proof?

Do something you haven't done then.

Read through the first 3 posts and through all the links. It's all there. If you have questions afterwards, feel free to ask me a direct question. I have no problems answering when people ask me a question.


I read your posts, and there is no proof presented at all.

Proof is a double blind study. But you dont deal in truth, you deal in deception and half truths.

There hasn't been a double blind study done as far as I know. I cited the Newburgh-Kingston study did you read through that? If there is no study that would convince you (double blind only?) why does the lack of it convince you that it is harmful?



Duh, thats what I have been telling you. It hasnt been done because it will show the toxicity of the poison they call sodium fluoride.

Sodium fluoride is a toxic waste byproduct of the aluminium production, that had to be taken away and disposed of like toxic waste, before they scammed the US into poisoning the public.

So you have NO proof of safety. stop lying to the people of ATS. You can not show or claim its safe because it has NEVER been shown to be safe.
edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)

It has been shown, just not to the level that you demand. I have all links and studies that are out there. Just because something doesn't meet your standards does not mean it is false. And just because this double blind study is not known to me, doesn't mean it doesn't exist nor does it mean that fluoride is harmful. I have said that properly dosed water fluoridation does not harm anyone.

It is not a waste byproduct of the aluminum production either, but if you had read through, you would have known that.

All the proof is there along with the untruths by the anti-fluoride people.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ATF1886
 


Also let me interject to answer the OPs next question.

There is NO safe level of Sodium fluoride for the human body.


NO amount of Sodium Fluoride has ever been shown to be safe for human consumption, ever.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ATF1886
 

Key word: Excessive.

Excessive fluoride also causes lowered intelligence. Properly dosed water fluoridation does not.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop
 


You want my proof?

Do something you haven't done then.

Read through the first 3 posts and through all the links. It's all there. If you have questions afterwards, feel free to ask me a direct question. I have no problems answering when people ask me a question.


I read your posts, and there is no proof presented at all.

Proof is a double blind study. But you dont deal in truth, you deal in deception and half truths.

There hasn't been a double blind study done as far as I know. I cited the Newburgh-Kingston study did you read through that? If there is no study that would convince you (double blind only?) why does the lack of it convince you that it is harmful?



Duh, thats what I have been telling you. It hasnt been done because it will show the toxicity of the poison they call sodium fluoride.

Sodium fluoride is a toxic waste byproduct of the aluminium production, that had to be taken away and disposed of like toxic waste, before they scammed the US into poisoning the public.

So you have NO proof of safety. stop lying to the people of ATS. You can not show or claim its safe because it has NEVER been shown to be safe.
edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)

It has been shown, just not to the level that you demand. I have all links and studies that are out there. Just because something doesn't meet your standards does not mean it is false. And just because this double blind study is not known to me, doesn't mean it doesn't exist nor does it mean that fluoride is harmful. I have said that properly dosed water fluoridation does not harm anyone.

It is not a waste byproduct of the aluminum production either, but if you had read through, you would have known that.

All the proof is there along with the untruths by the anti-fluoride people.



Yes, yes, the current fluorine chemical used is a different form (still not the safe Calcium Fluoride), however water fluoridation has traditionally used sodium fluoride so I do think it is relevant.

Also as you have said youself. There has NEVER been a study done to show the safety of fluoride, a real double blind study, not some paper written by a shill from ALCOA, wait, did you ever work for ALCOA... No I kid..



edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

superman2012
reply to post by ATF1886
 

Key word: Excessive.

Excessive fluoride also causes lowered intelligence. Properly dosed water fluoridation does not.



Well since NO amount has ever been proven safe for consumption , then any amount is excessive.

But you already know all this, I mean , to be this good you must know the truth and work around it.


And dont even get me started On prosac, another fluorine, that dulls the mind, just like fluoride...



edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)



OH wait, its time for your backup......


Here comes his manager to the rescue.
edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

superman2012
reply to post by ATF1886
 

Key word: Excessive.

Excessive fluoride also causes lowered intelligence. Properly dosed water fluoridation does not.


We could make this easy take away positive and negative how about we don't put it in the water no harm no foul i mean I don't see why we need to put it in the water every element put in water to clean or sanitize has a purpose fluoride has no need to be in drinking water we get enough of it in toothpaste and mouth wash now what purpose does it have in drinking water...???



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

AmenStop
reply to post by ATF1886
 


Also let me interject to answer the OPs next question.

There is NO safe level of Sodium fluoride for the human body.


NO amount of Sodium Fluoride has ever been shown to be safe for human consumption, ever.

Sorry for taking so long to respond.

I found the reason why there are no double blind studies:

Studies on the effectiveness of adjusting fluoride in community water to the optimal concentration cannot be designed as randomized clinical trials. Random allocation of study subjects is not possible when a community begins to fluoridate the water because all residents in a community have access to and are exposed to this source of fluoride. In addition, clinical studies cannot be conducted double-blind because both study subjects and researchers usually know whether a community's water has been fluoridated. Efforts to blind the examiners by moving study subjects to a neutral third site for clinical examinations, using radiographs of teeth without revealing where the subjects live, or including transient residents as study subjects have not fully resolved these inherent limitations.

From here.
I knew there had to be a reason. How would you propose they do a double blind experiment when the people live in the town and all pipes leading to the house come from the water plant? The Newburgh-Kingston study is as close as it can possibly get.
To have a double blind study with water fluoridation is not only nearly impossible for long term but I can't think of a single way it could be done.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AmenStop
 


Sorry, I don't have a manager at home. My wife is on holidays!



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

ATF1886

superman2012
reply to post by ATF1886
 

Key word: Excessive.

Excessive fluoride also causes lowered intelligence. Properly dosed water fluoridation does not.


We could make this easy take away positive and negative how about we don't put it in the water no harm no foul i mean I don't see why we need to put it in the water every element put in water to clean or sanitize has a purpose fluoride has no need to be in drinking water we get enough of it in toothpaste and mouth wash now what purpose does it have in drinking water...???


You are 100% correct, and I recommend that you dont use mouthwash, toothpaste or dental treatments with fluoride in them, as it has been proven to lower the intelligence of humans.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ATF1886
 


I agree with you. The government should not be putting it into the water. But the state has always consisted of naive social crusaders and they don't understand that some people hate to be forced to partake in those benefits.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

superman2012

AmenStop
reply to post by ATF1886
 


Also let me interject to answer the OPs next question.

There is NO safe level of Sodium fluoride for the human body.


NO amount of Sodium Fluoride has ever been shown to be safe for human consumption, ever.

Sorry for taking so long to respond.

I found the reason why there are no double blind studies:

Studies on the effectiveness of adjusting fluoride in community water to the optimal concentration cannot be designed as randomized clinical trials. Random allocation of study subjects is not possible when a community begins to fluoridate the water because all residents in a community have access to and are exposed to this source of fluoride. In addition, clinical studies cannot be conducted double-blind because both study subjects and researchers usually know whether a community's water has been fluoridated. Efforts to blind the examiners by moving study subjects to a neutral third site for clinical examinations, using radiographs of teeth without revealing where the subjects live, or including transient residents as study subjects have not fully resolved these inherent limitations.

From here.
I knew there had to be a reason. How would you propose they do a double blind experiment when the people live in the town and all pipes leading to the house come from the water plant? The Newburgh-Kingston study is as close as it can possibly get.
To have a double blind study with water fluoridation is not only nearly impossible for long term but I can't think of a single way it could be done.



So why no bouble blind study today?

Are you saying they cant do one now, its to late. We dont have the technology to do a double blind study?

We dont have the time? the money?


No they (the pro fluoride camp) dont WANT to , because it will prove once and for all that fluoride is poison.

Sure they could do it easily, lots of countries dont fluoridate, infact we are one of the few who still do.

Most of the rest of the world have outlawed disposing of toxic poison in the drinking water, unfortunately we are not there yet.

In 60 years no double blind study??? Hmm, wonder why? We must not be capable.
edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join