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: 24
25
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Artlogic

Daedalus
reply to post by Artlogic
 


you, and the OP are saying "proper dosage"...but i gotta ask "what dosage of poison is proper for daily consumption?"

i think it's the disconnect between what each camp is saying...i think what is being missed is the fact that the fluoride being added to drinking water is industrial waste, and not the naturally occurring type...that, by itself, is a BIG difference..i suppose it changes the context a bit...


1~ A great many things we consume everyday are toxic in large doses, fluoride included. But to answer your question 1mg/l.

2~ I like the wording this guy uses:

One of the fundamental concepts of Chemistry - one of the most important ideas that have advanced science - is that everything is made of atoms. It doesn't matter, chemically, where the atoms come from, they still react the same way. So, from a health perspective, that they are waste products of another process is irrelevant. Reference: Year 8 high school science class.


again, completely missing what i said....this is not an attack, mind you, just a friendly back and forth....

ok, sodiums react differntly than calciums in the body....the industrial waste they put in the water are sodiums, whereas the naturally occuring fluoride is a calcium..that's the distinction...and seriously..it's a frigging neurotoxin, lol...zero miligrams per wtfever is proper..




posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   

59demon

superman2012

I'm getting sick of the people that just decide this is time for personal attacks, or people that don't have the intellectual capacity to not only read the thread, but to argue their point using credible sources.



Maybe these people would have the intellectual capacity if the gubment stopped fluoridating the water...


(Sorry I just had to go there).

LMAO and it got you a star from me, thanks for injecting some humor in here!



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Daedalus
reply to post by superman2012
 


i also asked you, what if the drinker is using a straw? i have a tooth up front that is extremely sensitive to cold, so i drink with a straw, so the liquid gets nowhere near any of my front teeth....so what then? minimal contact with the teeth...doesn't seem like it would do it's job very well....

as far as your other post goes....seriously, what dose of neurotoxin is proper for daily consumption? i can't believe i even hafta ask this, lol the very obvious answer is "none"

Everyone uses straws? Seriously. Then obviously the water fluoridation wouldn't be helping them in the way intended.
What dose is used? Try looking up the MAC's for your area. You would be surprised the levels of some things that are allowed in your water...
Unfortunately, there is just fear over this one item, not realizing the other countless chemicals PROPERLY DOSED into treated water....but then, why look something up when it's easier to pull the blankets over your face so the monsters don't get you.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Artlogic
 


I agree with you. It is redundant and I wish that they could figure out a way to deliver it to people that have very poor knowledge of dental hygiene and no one else.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Daedalus

Artlogic

Daedalus
reply to post by Artlogic
 


you, and the OP are saying "proper dosage"...but i gotta ask "what dosage of poison is proper for daily consumption?"

i think it's the disconnect between what each camp is saying...i think what is being missed is the fact that the fluoride being added to drinking water is industrial waste, and not the naturally occurring type...that, by itself, is a BIG difference..i suppose it changes the context a bit...


1~ A great many things we consume everyday are toxic in large doses, fluoride included. But to answer your question 1mg/l.

2~ I like the wording this guy uses:

One of the fundamental concepts of Chemistry - one of the most important ideas that have advanced science - is that everything is made of atoms. It doesn't matter, chemically, where the atoms come from, they still react the same way. So, from a health perspective, that they are waste products of another process is irrelevant. Reference: Year 8 high school science class.


again, completely missing what i said....this is not an attack, mind you, just a friendly back and forth....

ok, sodiums react differntly than calciums in the body....the industrial waste they put in the water are sodiums, whereas the naturally occuring fluoride is a calcium..that's the distinction...and seriously..it's a frigging neurotoxin, lol...zero miligrams per wtfever is proper..


I appreciate the friendly approach, far more constructive....have a star!

I have something for you to read, this chap seems fairly sharp. As he states at the start of his piece it's not his field of expertise (he's an astrophysicist) but, very thorough and logical. It would seem that too little fluoride is just as bad as too much....

scienceblogs.com...

I maintain my position at this point:
-Not harmful at correct dose in water.
-I would advocate not dosing the water as there are better ways to regulate its application with more accuracy.
-I like turtles.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   

superman2012
reply to post by Artlogic
 


I agree with you. It is redundant and I wish that they could figure out a way to deliver it to people that have very poor knowledge of dental hygiene and no one else.


Education my friend is the key.
If everyone looked after themselves, this thread wouldn't exist....



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   

superman2012
I'm not saying this is 100% proof. All I have said is that there is no proof that "properly dosed water fluoridation" has killed/harmed anyone. Yes. Look it up before you say it. There is a proper dose. *eyeroll*


Isn't half of your thread is missing?

If your going to argue that its not harmful, than shouldn't you argue the health benefits of ingestion?



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Do we have any progression happening yet?

Its not killing us and its not making us better. So begs the question.... Why the support?

There seems to be an aversion to the simple question of why anyone wants fluoride to be legislated to be consumed?

The government has, and still does, the job of recommending an ideal intake of various foods, vitamins, and minerals. Fluoride is one that apparently has a recommended amount for healthy teeth, but as far as I know, its the only thing that has made the leap from "recommended" to "administered".

The facts are already out. I motion to make the leap into a discussion of how and why fluoride is administered instead of recommended.

Pardon me for sounding emotional, ignorant, stupid, or out of line, but I'm simply trying to understand something that nobody on the pro fluoride side seems to talk about. I don't know what to make of it.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Rychwebo
Do we have any progression happening yet?

Its not killing us and its not making us better. So begs the question.... Why the support?

There seems to be an aversion to the simple question of why anyone wants fluoride to be legislated to be consumed?

The government has, and still does, the job of recommending an ideal intake of various foods, vitamins, and minerals. Fluoride is one that apparently has a recommended amount for healthy teeth, but as far as I know, its the only thing that has made the leap from "recommended" to "administered".

The facts are already out. I motion to make the leap into a discussion of how and why fluoride is administered instead of recommended.

Pardon me for sounding emotional, ignorant, stupid, or out of line, but I'm simply trying to understand something that nobody on the pro fluoride side seems to talk about. I don't know what to make of it.


I see nothing emotional or ignorant here, I second your motion.

Surely there is enough fluoride in the various dental hygiene products available, perhaps we should be pushing for more education rather than forced consumption?



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Rychwebo
Do we have any progression happening yet?

Its not killing us and its not making us better. So begs the question.... Why the support?

There seems to be an aversion to the simple question of why anyone wants fluoride to be legislated to be consumed?

The government has, and still does, the job of recommending an ideal intake of various foods, vitamins, and minerals. Fluoride is one that apparently has a recommended amount for healthy teeth, but as far as I know, its the only thing that has made the leap from "recommended" to "administered".

The facts are already out. I motion to make the leap into a discussion of how and why fluoride is administered instead of recommended.

Pardon me for sounding emotional, ignorant, stupid, or out of line, but I'm simply trying to understand something that nobody on the pro fluoride side seems to talk about. I don't know what to make of it.



Bingo, great post my friend.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
It will not kill us in small doses, but it will decrease our intelligence, which is likely the goal.
Here's an October 2012 Harvard abstract by Chinese researchers:


"The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was -0.45 (95% confidence interval: -0.56, -0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.
CONCLUSIONS:

The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children's neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment."




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

The frightful drop in US education status in the past 40 years may be evidence of such.
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

superman2012
If the studies that I showed were just done by the big bad fluoride companies, I could understand your fear. Most of the studies were done by the government, the same people who say that cigarette smoking is harmful to your health. I guess your side just picks and chooses when to listen to the government though, right?


Sure,
The "government" did studies on tobacco but never actually shut down tobacco because it made them so much money.
They also knew how much damage to the environment that fluoride in particular was doing but to acknowledge that would cost the guilty industries and the very wealthy politicians who were supported by those industries a lot of money. It would have also put a LOT of cold war production back because of the massive number of lawsuits that were getting ready to occur.

The government made it all go away.
"Fluoride is good for you. See. We give it to your kiddies for shiny teeth."
"Lawsuits? For Fluoride? Don't be so silly. See how happy the kids are?"

It's not about Nazis or secret mind control. It's even about oral hygiene. It's about big corruption and big money.
You're actually acting as if you think I'm too stupid to know the difference between history and propaganda.

I'm pretty sure you don't want to know about the actual history of the fluoride story. Or you just don't want anyone else to know.

The big bad fluoride companies never existed until the government needed a way to cover up the fact that the entire countries water supplies were already being contaminated with toxic waste like fluoride.
Do you actually think the government would go through all of the trouble of getting fluoride into our water supply just for shiny teeth?

Ask yourself which actually came first?

Fluoride pollution or billions of dollars in propaganda over more than half a century to cover it up?

Seems to me that you are the one who's afraid.
Are you afraid of reading a little history?



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Tusks
 


Yes, but it hasn't been proven to kill anyone.


I'm starting to get a hang of the pro fluoride argument.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Rychwebo
 


It causes heart attacks that kill people - or perhaps you read my post earlier in this thread and chose to ignore it. I have posted in threads such as these before - please feel free to read through them.

Sodium fluoride is a toxic poison - listed on government poisons registers - it makes people very sick in a variety of ways and it also outright kills people, one example is via heart attacks.

Perhaps Rychwebo - you could experiment for the rest of us - by ingesting as much sodium fluoride every day as you possible can - and when it hasn't killed you the rest of us can believe you. Now the most important questions - how much of the discussed poison are you willing to ingest and over how long a period will you ingest that amount on a daily basis?


This is what is recorded on an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet);


Section 3: Hazards Identification
Potential Acute Health Effects: Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye exposure (irritant, corrosive), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive). Severe over exposure can result in death.


Section 15: Other Regulatory Information
Federal and State Regulations: California prop.65: This product contains the following ingredients for which the State of California has found to cause birth defects which would require a warning under the statute...


Please feel free to read further for yourself.


Good luck to every reader as you sift through the information and disinformation.

Much Peace...



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Amanda5
reply to post by Rychwebo
 


It causes heart attacks that kill people - or perhaps you read my post earlier in this thread and chose to ignore it. I have posted in threads such as these before - please feel free to read through them.

Sodium fluoride is a toxic poison - listed on government poisons registers - it makes people very sick in a variety of ways and it also outright kills people, one example is via heart attacks.

Perhaps Rychwebo - you could experiment for the rest of us - by ingesting as much sodium fluoride every day as you possible can - and when it hasn't killed you the rest of us can believe you. Now the most important questions - how much of the discussed poison are you willing to ingest and over how long a period will you ingest that amount on a daily basis?


This is what is recorded on an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet);


Section 3: Hazards Identification
Potential Acute Health Effects: Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye exposure (irritant, corrosive), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive). Severe over exposure can result in death.


Section 15: Other Regulatory Information
Federal and State Regulations: California prop.65: This product contains the following ingredients for which the State of California has found to cause birth defects which would require a warning under the statute...


Please feel free to read further for yourself.


Good luck to every reader as you sift through the information and disinformation.

Much Peace...

Again, as shown MANY times, there is no link to it causing heart attacks in properly dosed water fluoridation. There is fear that people spread...but no facts.

You claim that fluoridated water is more apt to hurt people. Take a town where they fluoridate the water and compare it to a town where they don't. Go by health statistics, they are available on the internet.
There is a reason anti-fluoridation sites don't produce this information. It doesn't come close to proving their fact-light claims.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   

badgerprints

superman2012
If the studies that I showed were just done by the big bad fluoride companies, I could understand your fear. Most of the studies were done by the government, the same people who say that cigarette smoking is harmful to your health. I guess your side just picks and chooses when to listen to the government though, right?


Sure,
The "government" did studies on tobacco but never actually shut down tobacco because it made them so much money.
They also knew how much damage to the environment that fluoride in particular was doing but to acknowledge that would cost the guilty industries and the very wealthy politicians who were supported by those industries a lot of money. It would have also put a LOT of cold war production back because of the massive number of lawsuits that were getting ready to occur.

The government made it all go away.
"Fluoride is good for you. See. We give it to your kiddies for shiny teeth."
"Lawsuits? For Fluoride? Don't be so silly. See how happy the kids are?"

It's not about Nazis or secret mind control. It's even about oral hygiene. It's about big corruption and big money.
You're actually acting as if you think I'm too stupid to know the difference between history and propaganda.

I'm pretty sure you don't want to know about the actual history of the fluoride story. Or you just don't want anyone else to know.

The big bad fluoride companies never existed until the government needed a way to cover up the fact that the entire countries water supplies were already being contaminated with toxic waste like fluoride.
Do you actually think the government would go through all of the trouble of getting fluoride into our water supply just for shiny teeth?

Ask yourself which actually came first?

Fluoride pollution or billions of dollars in propaganda over more than half a century to cover it up?

Seems to me that you are the one who's afraid.
Are you afraid of reading a little history?


Not afraid at all. Not even afraid of thinking critically.

Even if the fluoride came first, it does not change the fact that is has been beneficial in dental hygiene. You think they are afraid of fluoride pollution when they get rid of SO many other pollutants by dumping, hiding, disposing of it? That is more funny then thinking they have spent billions in propaganda.

Afraid? No my friend. Just sad for the people as described here.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Tusks
It will not kill us in small doses, but it will decrease our intelligence, which is likely the goal.
Here's an October 2012 Harvard abstract by Chinese researchers:


"The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was -0.45 (95% confidence interval: -0.56, -0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.
CONCLUSIONS:

The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children's neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment."




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

The frightful drop in US education status in the past 40 years may be evidence of such.
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

That "Harvard Study" was on untreated water with high doses of naturally occurring fluoride. Way over the legal limit in the US.
We have already discussed that study.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Tucket

superman2012
I'm not saying this is 100% proof. All I have said is that there is no proof that "properly dosed water fluoridation" has killed/harmed anyone. Yes. Look it up before you say it. There is a proper dose. *eyeroll*


Isn't half of your thread is missing?

If your going to argue that its not harmful, than shouldn't you argue the health benefits of ingestion?


Those are two different arguments. My thread was about the lies/untruths spread by the fear worshipers.
If all of the arguments are shown to be fake/fraudulent, why do people still hold it up like the Gospel....nevermind, I just answered my own question.

Can't convince a priest that God doesn't exist either.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Artlogic

superman2012
reply to post by Artlogic
 


I agree with you. It is redundant and I wish that they could figure out a way to deliver it to people that have very poor knowledge of dental hygiene and no one else.


Education my friend is the key.
If everyone looked after themselves, this thread wouldn't exist....

Quoted to repeat the truth.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
OP's logic:

Make up a false claim then defeat it.

Disgusting thread.

What are the BENEFITS OP??

Do not give me the "dental hygiene" nonsense either.

I swear this is so blatantly an attack on common sense I have not seen the likes of in some time.

Please change title to

You will drink this fluoride and you will like it.



edit on 11-12-2013 by Signals because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join