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: 17
25
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

superman2012
reply to post by whatsup86
 

It's in the water because we want it on the teeth. Sure if it gets absorbed into the body it comes out in our saliva but it covers your teeth when you drink water. Plus having it directed into your stomach and released at once instead of being in water to be drank thoughout the day might hurt the stomach or cause a reaction as it isn't diluted nor given throughout a period of time. If it was a small amount it might not be strong enough to make it to the saliva.

This is just my best guess as to why they don't give it out in pills. I don't really know.

Edit: There are facts in the first 3 posts. They are made "real" by them being facts.

edit on 5-12-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)


If you put a fluoride pill in a glass of water and let it dissolve and then you drink it? Why do I need to explain this... Pills can dissolve in water right? If you then drink it, isnt that exactly 100% the same as drinking tap water with fluoride?

Indeed you dont know but why dont you question it then. Instead you seem to be blind for other peoples evidence and keep on promoting your OP as the only truth. The lack of info on why a government seems to be wasting millions makes a good point for the anti-fluoride side. Because it seems the only reason they do it is because there is a lot of money to be made from selling fluoride to the government..
edit on 5-12-2013 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2013 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   

whatsup86

superman2012
reply to post by whatsup86
 

It's in the water because we want it on the teeth. Sure if it gets absorbed into the body it comes out in our saliva but it covers your teeth when you drink water. Plus having it directed into your stomach and released at once instead of being in water to be drank thoughout the day might hurt the stomach or cause a reaction as it isn't diluted nor given throughout a period of time. If it was a small amount it might not be strong enough to make it to the saliva.

This is just my best guess as to why they don't give it out in pills. I don't really know.

Edit: There are facts in the first 3 posts. They are made "real" by them being facts.

edit on 5-12-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)


If you put a fluoride pill in a glass of water and let it dissolve and then you drink it? Why do I need to explain this... Pills can dissolve in water right? If you then drink it, isnt that exactly 100% the same as drinking tap water with fluoride?

Indeed you dont know but why dont you question it then. Instead you seem to be blind for other peoples evidence and keep on promoting your OP as the only truth.
edit on 5-12-2013 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)

Not at all. It could work but it would have to be small concentrations and then why even have it if it dissolves why not just have it in water then? Why not hand out a mouth rinse that way there is no ingestion and only topical rinse?
I do question it and it makes no sense. Until someone (including you) comes up with sufficient evidence that makes sense, why would I consider it? My research and readings lead me to write this thread. You don't think I have heard/read most of the "evidence" the anti-fluoride side states?



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

superman2012

whatsup86

superman2012
reply to post by whatsup86
 

It's in the water because we want it on the teeth. Sure if it gets absorbed into the body it comes out in our saliva but it covers your teeth when you drink water. Plus having it directed into your stomach and released at once instead of being in water to be drank thoughout the day might hurt the stomach or cause a reaction as it isn't diluted nor given throughout a period of time. If it was a small amount it might not be strong enough to make it to the saliva.

This is just my best guess as to why they don't give it out in pills. I don't really know.

Edit: There are facts in the first 3 posts. They are made "real" by them being facts.

edit on 5-12-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)


If you put a fluoride pill in a glass of water and let it dissolve and then you drink it? Why do I need to explain this... Pills can dissolve in water right? If you then drink it, isnt that exactly 100% the same as drinking tap water with fluoride?

Indeed you dont know but why dont you question it then. Instead you seem to be blind for other peoples evidence and keep on promoting your OP as the only truth.
edit on 5-12-2013 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)

Not at all. It could work but it would have to be small concentrations and then why even have it if it dissolves why not just have it in water then? Why not hand out a mouth rinse that way there is no ingestion and only topical rinse?
I do question it and it makes no sense. Until someone (including you) comes up with sufficient evidence that makes sense, why would I consider it? My research and readings lead me to write this thread. You don't think I have heard/read most of the "evidence" the anti-fluoride side states?


Well I dont think it is very hard to devide that daily dose over more than one pill... with dissolving i just mean that the pill or tablet or whatever you think is handy melts in the water, so the fluoride will be there. You can then choose yourself if you want to drink the glass of water with fluoride in it or rinse with it. How can this be hard to get, Im just making this up as an example, you really think it would be hard to make even doses of pills out of fluoride? Do I need to make the pills myself as well before you believe that this is relatively easy to make? If you do, thats just plain ignorant excuse me, but it would be.

And I edited: The lack of info on why a government seems to be wasting millions makes a good point for the anti-fluoride side. Because it seems the only reason they do it is because there is a lot of money to be made from selling fluoride to the government. Ever heard of the lobby system? And maybe there are even more dark reasons. Who knows, this is a major point you should be investigating yourself since you are more into this topic than me. Im just pointing out whats wrong with the system of adding fluoride to the water supply.. I use fluoride toothpaste btw, but I can tell when someone is biased and really you are.

Ow and to remind you you were the one who was convinced, not me.


edit on 5-12-2013 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2013 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2013 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsup86
 




Well I dont think it is very hard to devide that daily dose over more than one pill... with dissolving i just mean that the pill or tablet or whatever you think is handy melts in the water, so the fluoride will be there. You can then choose yourself if you want to drink the glass of water with fluoride in it or rinse with it. How can this be hard to get, Im just making this up as an example, you really think it would be hard to make even doses of pills out of fluoride? Do I need to make the pills myself as well before you believe this is pretty easy to make? If you do, thats just plain ignorant excuse me, but it would be.

Did I say that?
I only stated it would be silly to go through the expense of making pills only to dissolve them in water. That is a hell of an extra cost rather then just fluoridating the water and letting people choose then.



And I edited: The lack of info on why a government seems to be wasting millions makes a good point for the anti-fluoride side. Because it seems the only reason they do it is because there is a lot of money to be made from selling fluoride to the government. Ever heard of the lobby system? And maybe there are even more dark reasons. Who knows, this is a major point you should be investigating yourself since you are more into this topic than me. Im just pointing out whats wrong with the system of adding fluoride to the water supply.. I use fluoride toothpaste btw, but I can tell when someone is biased and really you are.

Lobby system works both ways. How many people fear unfluoridated water using myths? How many are buying books about unfluoridated water?
I am biased. I can admit that. I used to be hiding in the caves in fear with you guys. I did research and it changed my mind. I saw that everything I believed was a myth or an outright lie. I covered everything and refuted it all with sources/evidence/links/science in the first two posts of this thread. To say all those studies are wrong because of fear, is just silliness. Research it and come to your own conclusion. Don't believe either side because of someones say so. Come to your own decisions. People are still capable of that aren't they?



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Here are the long term results from the Newburgh study you keep referencing.
fluoridefreecollier.com...
1945 – 1955: The “Newburgh-Kingston Caries Fluorine Study” was conducted between 1945 and 1955. It compared 573 children in Fluoridated Newburgh to 482 children in non-fluoridated Kingston. The study is often cited by pro-fluoride supporters.

1955 Update: In 1955, ten years into the experiment, researchers reported more bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation in children purposely dosed with sodium fluoride-laced drinking water. This is the first, and only, fluoridation human health experiment and it was carried out on the entire population in the city of Newburgh NY. (1956 – Journal of the American Dental Association).

1998 Update: After over fifty years of water fluoridation, the New York State Dental Journal charted the number of Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth (DMFT) between fluoridated Newburgh and never-fluoridated Kingston.

Result: Children in Newburgh have more cavities and more fluoride caused discolored teeth (dental fluorosis) than children in never-fluoridated Kingston.

Ref: Figure 1, Page 41, “Recommendations for Fluoride Use in children” NYS Dental Journal, February 1998 (NYS Department of Health).

1986 Update: A study was undertaken in New York State to determine the changes in dental fluorosis prevalence from 1955 to 1986 in fluoridated Newburgh and non-fluoridated Kingston children. ……. “An analysis of dental caries data revealed that caries prevalence declined substantially in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas“.

2000 Update: In 1999, the United Kingdom Department of Health commissioned CRD to conduct a systematic review into the efficacy and safety of the fluoridation of drinking water. The review specifically looked at the effects on dental caries/decay, social inequalities and any harmful effects. The review was published on the CRD Fluoridation Review website and in the BMJ in October 2000 and is typically referred to as the 2000 UK York Review.

The York review covered 251 studies, including the Newburgh-Kingston Study.

The conclusion of the report regarding “fluoridated water effectiveness” was:

“What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children’s teeth.”

The conclusion of the report regarding “fluoridated water effect on health” was:

“An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down’s syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.”

This was a stinging indictment on the quality of the Newburgh-Kingston Study’s quality of information related to adverse effects of Fluoridated water on human health systems. This indictment confirmed that the Newburgh-Kingston study failed to provide sufficient evidence that fluoridated water was safe. The Newburg-Kingston Study has been discredited ever since the York review was published.



While you are going to say.... See it says it wasn't proven to cause cancer or harm, it also shows it has a negative not positive effect on teeth and bones.


My statement still stands as true. Stop lying to people about the safety of fluoride, it has NEVER been shown to be safe for human consumption.


You can drink stuff and then see if it's safe if you want. I would rather that something have been tested and proven to be safe before having it put in my tap water.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


There are countries that are , have, remove fluoride from their drinking water, I would guess you have some type of Bio- chemistry back ground.
It seems to be a well know fact the German Nazi's used fluorine , fluoride in giving to to their prisoners. What they wanted to make sure the Jew's went to slaughter with good teeth.

People have died from Sodium Fluoride. Plus the weakening of bones would be more related to the fluoride, causing the up take of calcium not to occur, due to involvement with the thyroid gland.

But you need all of the garbage out of your drinking water, but some forms of the chlorine will not out gas with time. Filters get most of this out, still not all, steam distilled is about only way to get pure H2O.
Just for trivia pure water will not conduct electricity, it's a insulator.

Brush your teeth with baking soda and don't get any Silver/Mercury amalgam fillings, you might just as well go suck on a piece of Aluminum.
My dentist tried to give me that crap, I ask what do you have in your mouth, he opened his mouth nothing but Gold, no Mercury.


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



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AmenStop
 


Similar groups of children were selected for long-term observation from Newburgh (fluoridated to 1.0 to 1.2 mg/L in 1945) and Kingston (essentially F-free for the duration of the study). Newburgh and Kingston were chosen because they were well-matched: both were situated on the Hudson River about 35 miles apart with similar upland reservoir water supplies; both had populations of about 30,000 with similar demographic characteristics, social and economic conditions, levels of dental care, etc. In Newburgh, out of 817 children (aged from birth to nine years) who were selected in 1945, 500 were examined in 1954-1955; in Kingston, out of 711 children who were selected in 1945, 405 were examined in 1954-1955.


The medical and dental examinations began in 1944, and were repeated periodically until 1955. An assessment of any possible systemic effects arising from the consumption of fluoridated water was made by comparing the growth, development and the prevalence of specific conditions in the two groups of children as disclosed by their medical histories, physical examinations, and laboratory and radiological evidence. The age of onset of menstruation in girls was used as an index of the rate of sexual maturation.


At the end of ten years, the investigators reported no adverse systemic effects from drinking fluoridated water because no significant differences were found between the results from the two groups. The average age of first menarche was earlier among girls in Newburgh than those in Kingston: 12 years vs. 12 years and 5 months respectively (Schlesinger et al, 1956). Although this difference was not considered important, it does suggest an association between the use of fluoridated drinking water and an earlier onset of sexual maturation in girls. The Newburgh girls had not had a lifelong use of fluoridated water. For the first two years or so, they received unfluoridated water. Furthermore, their only source of F was from the drinking water.

I found no evidence for the "In 1955, ten years into the experiment, researchers reported more bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation in children purposely dosed with sodium fluoride-laced drinking water" claim other then the menstruation claim.
But most importantly you quoted this:

“What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children’s teeth.”

The conclusion of the report regarding “fluoridated water effect on health” was:

“An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down’s syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.”


Doesn't that say anything to you?



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

OOOOOO
reply to post by superman2012
 


There are countries that are , have, remove fluoride from their drinking water, I would guess you have some type of Bio- chemistry back ground.
It seems to be a well know fact the German Nazi's used fluorine , fluoride in giving to to their prisoners. What they wanted to make sure the Jew's went to slaughter with good teeth.

People have died from Sodium Fluoride. Plus the weakening of bones would be more related to the fluoride, causing the up take of calcium not to occur, due to involvement with the thyroid gland.

But you need all of the garbage out of your drinking water, but some forms of the chlorine will not out gas with time. Filters get most of this out, still not all, steam distilled is about only way to get pure H2O.
Just for trivia pure water will not conduct electricity, it's a insulator.

Brush your teeth with baking soda and don't get any Silver/Mercury amalgam fillings, you might just as well go suck on a piece of Aluminum.
My dentist tried to give me that crap, I ask what do you have in your mouth, he opened his mouth nothing be Gold, no Mercury.


It is a well known MYTH that the Nazis used fluoride to give to their prisoners.
Sure people have died from sodium fluoride. They just haven't died from properly dosed water fluoridation.
Mercury is harmful even in small doses, just like lead. There are certain things that are harmful no matter the dosage.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Be back later on...



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

superman2012
reply to post by whatsup86
 




Well I dont think it is very hard to devide that daily dose over more than one pill... with dissolving i just mean that the pill or tablet or whatever you think is handy melts in the water, so the fluoride will be there. You can then choose yourself if you want to drink the glass of water with fluoride in it or rinse with it. How can this be hard to get, Im just making this up as an example, you really think it would be hard to make even doses of pills out of fluoride? Do I need to make the pills myself as well before you believe this is pretty easy to make? If you do, thats just plain ignorant excuse me, but it would be.

Did I say that?
I only stated it would be silly to go through the expense of making pills only to dissolve them in water. That is a hell of an extra cost rather then just fluoridating the water and letting people choose then.



And I edited: The lack of info on why a government seems to be wasting millions makes a good point for the anti-fluoride side. Because it seems the only reason they do it is because there is a lot of money to be made from selling fluoride to the government. Ever heard of the lobby system? And maybe there are even more dark reasons. Who knows, this is a major point you should be investigating yourself since you are more into this topic than me. Im just pointing out whats wrong with the system of adding fluoride to the water supply.. I use fluoride toothpaste btw, but I can tell when someone is biased and really you are.

Lobby system works both ways. How many people fear unfluoridated water using myths? How many are buying books about unfluoridated water?
I am biased. I can admit that. I used to be hiding in the caves in fear with you guys. I did research and it changed my mind. I saw that everything I believed was a myth or an outright lie. I covered everything and refuted it all with sources/evidence/links/science in the first two posts of this thread. To say all those studies are wrong because of fear, is just silliness. Research it and come to your own conclusion. Don't believe either side because of someones say so. Come to your own decisions. People are still capable of that aren't they?


Making pills is a very cheap process. and just handing out pills to people with tap water but no toothpaste will still save you millions because its litterally more than a million times more effective than just pouring it into a watersuply. Obviously..

Id rather be scared(read truth seeking )and right than naive (read trusting) and wrong btw.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Where did they get this mysterious compound from? Industrial waste, aluminum? Also very toxic?

You can believe the lies all you want but everything you brought up is true.

Beneficial? Aluminum filings on your teeth enamel can't help it any, but what it does to the rest of you...
edit on 5-12-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
This is from Redicecreation, Quote

Human Intelligence Is Slowly Declining According To Leading Geneticist
2013 12 03
From: Underground Health




Would you be surprised to hear that the human race is slowly becoming dumber, and dumber?

Despite our advancements over the last tens or even hundreds of years, some ‘experts’ believe that humans are losing cognitive capabilities and becoming more emotionally unstable. One Stanford University researcher and geneticist, Dr. Gerald Crabtree, believes that our intellectual decline as a race has much to do with adverse genetic mutations. But human intelligence is suffering for other reasons as well.

According to Crabtree, our cognitive and emotional capabilities are fueled and determined by the combined effort of thousands of genes. If a mutation occurred in any of of these genes, which is quite likely, then intelligence or emotional stability can be negatively impacted.

PLUS also from Redicecreations Quote

New Report: Unregulated Contaminants Common in Drinking Water
2013 12 05
By Brian Bienkowski | Common Dreams

Traces of 18 unregulated chemicals were found in drinking water from more than one-third of U.S. water utilities in a nationwide sampling, according to new, unpublished research by federal scientists. Included are 11 perfluorinated chemicals, an herbicide, two solvents, caffeine, an antibacterial compound, a metal and an antidepressant.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop
 


Similar groups of children were selected for long-term observation from Newburgh (fluoridated to 1.0 to 1.2 mg/L in 1945) and Kingston (essentially F-free for the duration of the study). Newburgh and Kingston were chosen because they were well-matched: both were situated on the Hudson River about 35 miles apart with similar upland reservoir water supplies; both had populations of about 30,000 with similar demographic characteristics, social and economic conditions, levels of dental care, etc. In Newburgh, out of 817 children (aged from birth to nine years) who were selected in 1945, 500 were examined in 1954-1955; in Kingston, out of 711 children who were selected in 1945, 405 were examined in 1954-1955.


The medical and dental examinations began in 1944, and were repeated periodically until 1955. An assessment of any possible systemic effects arising from the consumption of fluoridated water was made by comparing the growth, development and the prevalence of specific conditions in the two groups of children as disclosed by their medical histories, physical examinations, and laboratory and radiological evidence. The age of onset of menstruation in girls was used as an index of the rate of sexual maturation.


At the end of ten years, the investigators reported no adverse systemic effects from drinking fluoridated water because no significant differences were found between the results from the two groups. The average age of first menarche was earlier among girls in Newburgh than those in Kingston: 12 years vs. 12 years and 5 months respectively (Schlesinger et al, 1956). Although this difference was not considered important, it does suggest an association between the use of fluoridated drinking water and an earlier onset of sexual maturation in girls. The Newburgh girls had not had a lifelong use of fluoridated water. For the first two years or so, they received unfluoridated water. Furthermore, their only source of F was from the drinking water.

I found no evidence for the "In 1955, ten years into the experiment, researchers reported more bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation in children purposely dosed with sodium fluoride-laced drinking water" claim other then the menstruation claim.
But most importantly you quoted this:

“What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children’s teeth.”

The conclusion of the report regarding “fluoridated water effect on health” was:

“An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down’s syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.”


Doesn't that say anything to you?



No, this does “An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down’s syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.”

If you read between the lines, that says; the only reason it's being put in the water is because the chemical companies deceived the public into believing a lie and have been selling us their toxic waist as snake oil.





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



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

Aluminium smelting


Environmental issues of aluminium smelters

The process produces a quantity of fluoride waste: perfluorocarbons and hydrogen fluoride as gases, and sodium and aluminium fluorides and unused cryolite as particulates. This can be as small as 0.5 kg per ton of aluminium in the best plants in 2007, up to 4 kg per ton of aluminium in older designs in 1974. Unless carefully controlled, hydrogen fluorides tend to be very toxic to vegetation around the plants.


www.keepers-of-the-well.org...
FLUORIDES CLASSIFIED AS
HAZARDOUS WASTES
BY CALIFORNIA LAW

en.wikipedia.org...
Aluminium fluoride



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

whatsup86

superman2012
reply to post by whatsup86
 




Well I dont think it is very hard to devide that daily dose over more than one pill... with dissolving i just mean that the pill or tablet or whatever you think is handy melts in the water, so the fluoride will be there. You can then choose yourself if you want to drink the glass of water with fluoride in it or rinse with it. How can this be hard to get, Im just making this up as an example, you really think it would be hard to make even doses of pills out of fluoride? Do I need to make the pills myself as well before you believe this is pretty easy to make? If you do, thats just plain ignorant excuse me, but it would be.

Did I say that?
I only stated it would be silly to go through the expense of making pills only to dissolve them in water. That is a hell of an extra cost rather then just fluoridating the water and letting people choose then.



And I edited: The lack of info on why a government seems to be wasting millions makes a good point for the anti-fluoride side. Because it seems the only reason they do it is because there is a lot of money to be made from selling fluoride to the government. Ever heard of the lobby system? And maybe there are even more dark reasons. Who knows, this is a major point you should be investigating yourself since you are more into this topic than me. Im just pointing out whats wrong with the system of adding fluoride to the water supply.. I use fluoride toothpaste btw, but I can tell when someone is biased and really you are.

Lobby system works both ways. How many people fear unfluoridated water using myths? How many are buying books about unfluoridated water?
I am biased. I can admit that. I used to be hiding in the caves in fear with you guys. I did research and it changed my mind. I saw that everything I believed was a myth or an outright lie. I covered everything and refuted it all with sources/evidence/links/science in the first two posts of this thread. To say all those studies are wrong because of fear, is just silliness. Research it and come to your own conclusion. Don't believe either side because of someones say so. Come to your own decisions. People are still capable of that aren't they?


Making pills is a very cheap process. and just handing out pills to people with tap water but no toothpaste will still save you millions because its litterally more than a million times more effective than just pouring it into a watersuply. Obviously..

Id rather be scared(read truth seeking )and right than naive (read trusting) and wrong btw.




You do know that would be a suicide pill if taken without water.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Realtruth
reply to post by superman2012
 


Always, Always follow the money trail and this will lead to ignorance being denied here on ATS, and elsewhere.

I am going to post some information for ATS members to ponder on.

First I am from Michigan where all this nonsense started back in the 1940's in Grand Rapids, so putting the pieces together is actually quite easy.

Michigan as most of you know was the ultimate hub from making cars for many many years, hence they had many many metal production plants, and close Canadian counterparts, which produced steel, Aluminium, and many other production metals.



Splendid and well done! Also from MI, I know these facts, thank you for enlightening others. 3stars

I gave up posting but am entertained by the posts a few of you are keeping King Fluoride's crusade on the road to.... I don't know.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   

OOOOOO
This is from Redicecreation, Quote

Human Intelligence Is Slowly Declining According To Leading Geneticist
2013 12 03
From: Underground Health

Traces of 18 unregulated chemicals were found in drinking water from more than one-third of U.S. water utilities in a nationwide sampling, according to new, unpublished research by federal scientists. Included are 11 perfluorinated chemicals, an herbicide, two solvents, caffeine, an antibacterial compound, a metal and an antidepressant.


Wow that sounds like some strong stuff. I bet we could bottle it and sell it to the public to get them high, oh wait.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   

superman2012
Be back later on...


Lunch break?

No, I kid... I just don't think it's safe and I don't want to drink it, but I don't want you to drink it either.
edit on 5-12-2013 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
rense.com...
The Use Of Flouridation
For Mass Mind Control


And I read the debunking article and happen to disagree with it. Whatever.

www.reuters.com...
'Second Thoughts about Fluoride,' Reports Scientific American


After 3 years of scrutinizing hundreds of studies, a National Research Council
(NRC) committee "concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function,
especially in the thyroid -- the gland that produces hormones regulating
growth and metabolism," reports Fagin.

Fagin quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at
the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly,
"The thyroid changes do worry me."

Fluoride in foods, beverages, medicines and dental products can result in
fluoride over-consumption, visible in young children as dental fluorosis --
white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. We can't normally see
fluoride's effects to the rest of the body.

Reports Fagin, "a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ."



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
The Truth About 'Fluoride'

(or what every Mother should know)

by A. True Ott
tott@mountainwest.net
© August 2000

See also | Feedback

Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile. Fluoride a key dumbing down ingredient of Prozac and Sarin nerve gas -- poisons of choice for tyrant rats.

First of all, it needs to be stated that the 'substance' referred to as 'Fluoride' is a misnomer - there is no such substance listed in the periodic chart of the elements, nor in the prestigious CRC handbook, nor in the sacred 'bible' of the pharmaceutical industry - the illustrious 'Merck Index'. Instead, we find a GAS called Fluorine - and from the use of this gas in various industries such as aluminum manufacturing and the nuclear industry -certain toxic byproducts are created which have 'captured' fluorine molecules. One such toxic, poisonous 'byproduct' is called sodium Fluoride - which according to the Merck Index is primarily used as rat and cockroach poison and is also the active ingredient in most toothpastes and as an "additive to drinking water". But sadly, there is much more to this sordid tale.

Did you know that sodium Fluoride is also one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin Nerve Gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUORIDE) - (Yes, folks the same Sarin Nerve Gas that terrorists released on a crowded Japanese subway train!). Let me repeat: the truth the American public needs to understand is the fact that Sodium Fluoride is nothing more (or less) than a hazardous waste by-product of the nuclear and aluminum industries. In addition to being the primary ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, it is also a main ingredient in anesthetic, hypnotic, and psychiatric drugs as well as military NERVE GAS! Why, oh why then is it allowed to be added to the toothpastes and drinking water of the American people?

Link www.greaterthings.com...



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join