Alaska passes ordinance to end its water fluoridation program!

reply to post by Lil Drummerboy


Indeed - and if you add toothpaste it's even better, and if you add fluoride it's better again.

Wow - whodathunkit!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
It is amazing that the research on how bad fluoride is still doesnt get through to you..
I am sorry for your inability to see that..

www.fluoridation.com...

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers2 showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey12 , Washington and Iowa13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

It is amazing that the research on how bad fluoride is still doesnt get through to you..
I am sorry for your inability to see that..

Of course you are - because it means you cannot proceed with your own new world order, where sceince and medicine are whatever you believe it to be.

And what's more more and more people are cottoning onto how much damage junk science is beginning to do to us.

did you know, for example, that fluoride is roughly as toxic as iron....??

Hmm...???

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Get real, if you have nothing useful to put in the conversation, then why put in anything?

If all you can do is make fun of people, then why even be here?

Originally posted by gamesmaster63

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
I doubt many would argue that point - it should be a matter of choice. But if your choice is based on flawed or inadequate scientific proof, that puts a different slant on the whole issue, doesn't it?

Not really, this is his personal choice, not one he can necessarily force on the municipality he resides in.

A personal choice doesn't have to be base on scientific proof, whether adequate or inadequate, a personal choice is based on personal opinion or just how a person feels about any issue. Whether it be municipal water fluoridation or anything else.

It's true you are not obliged to base your choice on anything real, but isn't that what the opponents of fluoridation are accusing the other side of this argument of doing? It cuts both ways. What's the point of deciding in ignorance of the facts about an issue? This goes back to my point that scientific data is morally neutral - fluoride does things, some that we know of, some that we don't. What's needed is as much accurate data as possible, which will enable people to make informed decisions, in whichever direction individuals judge best. I don't understand why that strikes people on this thread as such a radical idea.

reply to post by gamesmaster63



Fluoride is toxic at about 30-60 mg/kg body weigh - iron starts being toxic at 10-20, and is severely so at 50.

Sorry you think that is not important - but hen I guess its actual factual information (go look up iron toxicity...) , and that's something that is toxic to junk science followers!!

Ha, the new mayor of Calgary took fluoride outta our drinking water... Alberta heath was whining and crying over it, but it's what the people wanted.
There's fluoride in your toothpaste. Brush your teeth regularly and you won't have a problem with rotten teeth.

Okay, since being an Alaskan I should put my two sense in.

I watched the news tonight and they discussed the Flouridation issue. I don't know much about this topic. But the there was a few Doctors in Wasilla and Palmer that were not too happy about the reduction of flouride due to the impact of the early stages or development in teeth of young children.. Plus they said that nobody really knew that there was community meetings about this issue and only a few showed up?!

HUH, so I was a little confused, is it good for you or bad? Which is it?

I remember when i was little in the early 80's when I went to the dentist, they would Flouridate my teeth which was a big deal and took awhile. I always had tooth problems, cavities, returning to the dentist 4-5 times a year. I stopped going when I was 20, I am now, hahaha, little bit older and years later I went back for a check up and a cleaning, diagnosis was clean teeth, no cavities. Six months later I return for a cleaning and had multiple cavities and problems. I am one for good health and hygiene but WTF.

How is it that I don't go for years and have good healthy
teeth, get a check up then have this mess in my mouth?

I know that there is a conspiracy that flouride affects the pineal gland, is that true??

If I can stay away from the Dentist I will, its always a unpleasant visit,

Originally posted by AK907ICECOLD

I know that there is a conspiracy that flouride affects the pineal gland, is that true??

Good question. I'm still waiting for the proper investigation to begin. You'd think people on this thread would try and discover some evidence about the properties of fluoride chemicals in the human body, but instead there's been a lot of partisan bickering and what amounts to faith-based statements without any proof.

reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster


Thank you, I will have to look into reasons for use and the causes to the human body. I have read a few things on the internet, but the info is spread all over and there doesn't seem to be a direct source. I know that big city's want it dumped into there water treatment facilities for the reason of (Conspiracy?) and or the affect of flouride has on the Pineal Gland, which is to cause...... I've heard of all of these-

Neutrality, mental illness, attacking your awareness?, things of that nature. As for TPTB their reason, Don't know? I think that its all a crock of crap. Maybe for depopulation, or NWO purposes?

And for those who are trolling, go catch a fish, or stay in school, hehehe! I would think that the under-educated people would at least post thought provocative solutions or post intelligent question that others that may stay on topic intead of insulting those who want the truth. Ahhhh, maybe they had too much flouride

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster

Originally posted by Whateva69
reply to post by Aletheia007

 

The germans knew.
Use of Sodium Fluoride for mass behaviour control in Nazi Germany

That's highly disputed, if not totally debunked. Dragging the Nazis into an argument is a kind of emotional blackmail that does nothing to elaborate the real issues.

What so you think they gave them fluoride for their health?

Originally posted by Whateva69

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster

Originally posted by Whateva69
reply to post by Aletheia007

 

The germans knew.
Use of Sodium Fluoride for mass behaviour control in Nazi Germany

That's highly disputed, if not totally debunked. Dragging the Nazis into an argument is a kind of emotional blackmail that does nothing to elaborate the real issues.

What so you think they gave them fluoride for their health?

I mean that the claim people were dosed with fluorides for that purpose *and it worked* has been debunked. Read the pages of the thread before, there's evidence to challenge the claim.

And besides, if your best card is to yell 'nazis did it'! you don't have a case. It's an emotional blackmail tactic to sow a seed of fear that all governments are basically fascists intent on enslaving their peoples. And there's even less evidence for that.

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster

Originally posted by Whateva69
[

The germans knew.
Use of Sodium Fluoride for mass behaviour control in Nazi Germany

I mean that the claim people were dosed with fluorides for that purpose *and it worked* has been debunked. Read the pages of the thread before, there's evidence to challenge the claim.

It is not so much that there's evidence to dispute the claim - it is that there is no actual evidence to support it in the first place - i is made by someone who claimed to have been told it by "unknown" Germans, and who others have claimed was placed "in charge" of IG Farben after WW2 - the first makes it hearsay, the 2nd is false.

No other evidence has ever been found to support it.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster

Originally posted by Whateva69
[

The germans knew.
Use of Sodium Fluoride for mass behaviour control in Nazi Germany

I mean that the claim people were dosed with fluorides for that purpose *and it worked* has been debunked. Read the pages of the thread before, there's evidence to challenge the claim.

It is not so much that there's evidence to dispute the claim - it is that there is no actual evidence to support it in the first place - i is made by someone who claimed to have been told it by "unknown" Germans, and who others have claimed was placed "in charge" of IG Farben after WW2 - the first makes it hearsay, the 2nd is false.

No other evidence has ever been found to support it.

Cheers for clearing that up It's one of the most depressing aspects of the internet that even when ideas are debunked, they just pop up again in a few months when the goldfish memory of believers has been wiped.