Water Fluoridation will NOT kill you.

AmenStop

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.

No it hasn't. I assume you are using the Harvard study as your source on that? It has nothing to do with those. It has to do with high levels of NATURALLY occurring fluoride in water and it's long term effects.

reply to post by AmenStop


Sorry my friend, but that's not true.

There are minimum lethal doses for humans, generally speaking its 5-10 grams.

This paper covers it quite well:

www.hpa.org.uk...

For comparison, the maximum allowable level in water set by the EPA is 0.4 grams but most water supplies stick to 0.2 grams.

water.epa.gov...

AmenStop

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.

In 60 years no double blind study??? Hmm, wonder why? We must not be capable.

Why not today? Where? Build a special town that has two set of water pipes coming from the water plant with two different reservoirs?

clinical studies cannot be conducted double-blind because both study subjects and researchers usually know whether a community's water has been fluoridated.

How would you propose they do a double blind study? It isn't feasible. If it were, why don't the anti-fluoride people do one to prove that it is harmful, once and for all? Why? Because all available science points to them being wrong.

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop

 

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

What are you talking about, he showed up only two posts bellow yours. I am psychic.

Who gives a flying pig whether it's good or not that's a waste of time avoid it and by the way I have fluoride free toothpaste have a water filter for that as well but it's not only fluoride that we should be worried about that's the least... How about thymerisol in the vaccinations, or have you ever seen when a person gets a cavity filled with mercury how their mouth starts smoking...

superman2012

AmenStop

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.

In 60 years no double blind study??? Hmm, wonder why? We must not be capable.

Why not today? Where? Build a special town that has two set of water pipes coming from the water plant with two different reservoirs?

clinical studies cannot be conducted double-blind because both study subjects and researchers usually know whether a community's water has been fluoridated.

How would you propose they do a double blind study? It isn't feasible. If it were, why don't the anti-fluoride people do one to prove that it is harmful, once and for all? Why? Because all available science points to them being wrong.

Most of the world does not fluoridate the water, so No you could use a town already built, But you arguments are getting even funnier. You guys are a blast to have around.

reply to post by AmenStop

So how exactly would a double blind study work using two different towns? If you are saying that would work then I have already linked to you the Newburgh-Kingston study which you claimed to read...

ATF1886
Who gives a flying pig whether it's good or not that's a waste of time avoid it and by the way I have fluoride free toothpaste have a water filter for that as well but it's not only fluoride that we should be worried about that's the least... How about thymerisol in the vaccinations, or have you ever seen when a person gets a cavity filled with mercury how their mouth starts smoking...

YES! I am with you here. its not just the thymerisol, but all of the adjuvents used are toxic.

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.

Difference in Fluorides since there are two types.

1) Calcium Fluoride ( Big difference from the stuff the put in our water)

2) Sodium Fluoride ( This is the Toxic byproduct that is, was, and most likely will continue to be dumped in our water supply)

Why did I mention metal production?, well Detroit was mass producing all kinds of Aluminium products ( especially during WWII with planes) and Sodium Fluoride is a toxic byproduct from it's production. The cartel in Detroit had no idea where to put it all since it was killing everything in the streams and areas where they dumped it, so guess what?

Follow the link and view the slides.

wiki.answers.com...

Wait let's take a look at the back of a toothpaste tube also.

"If more than the amount for brushing is swallowed CONTACT POISON CONTROL CENTER RIGHT AWAY!"




Sure go ahead put this stuff in our water since it eats right through concrete too.

Hey if they spill a bit they only need to call in HAZMAT teams.




Now let's look at the people that say it does not cause fluorosis of the bones.

So let's see folowing a basic rule of logic here. Teeth are made of what material? hmmmm bone perhaps

So using superman's logic here.

superman2012
Before you swallow it, it goes all over the mouth making contact with and leaving fluoride on your teeth.

Yes, but we all know that Sodium Fluoride is discriminatory and only coats the teeth, then bypasses every organ, tissue, and last but not least Bone's. smh

en.wikipedia.org...

In the lower doses used for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and is unlikely to represent any real effect on aesthetic appearance or on public health.[16]

While I agree with superman's title everything else is very questionable after that. Deny Ignorance!

Peace out,

RT

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop

 

So how exactly would a double blind study work using two different towns? If you are saying that would work then I have already linked to you the Newburgh-Kingston study which you claimed to read...

So what you are saying is you dont even know what a double blind study is? Wow, I thought you had prepared for this thread ahead of time.

reply to post by superman2012


Your argument is uninformed and idiotic.

Fluoride damages the Thyroid at any dose. No matter what, fluoride will always cause a harmful chemical reaction in your body. You can either slowly damage your body over time with small doses, or damage it instantly in one large dose. No matter what, damage is being done.

Most studies of fluoride usually quote "excess doses" because that is the only time the side effects become obvious, and more notable for study. Keyword SIDE EFFECTS. Your thyroid can be damaged long before you see side effects.

Small doses of fluoride are known to affect the thyroids function. That is why they used it as a medication to reduce thyroid function, because it worked so well with little dose compared to other substances that require higher doses. These are the REAL FACTS.

Learn to study...

superman2012

whatsup86
reply to post by superman2012

 

Well if I worked at Coca Cola I would be easily convinced I'm selling a good product to kids as well. So I understand why you are convinced.

Now tell me again why they cant make pills and hand em out in poor neighbourhoods. Much cheaper unless they are actually dumping toxic waste in the water supplies ofcourse. Not saying it is but then it would make sense.

Well for one, I don't work with water fluoridation so there goes that argument.
I have no idea why they don't hand out pills! As another poster from another country said, they gave them pills. I would think that a mouth rinse would make more sense.
How would dumping toxic waste into the water supply make sense!??!?

The argument actually still stands because it is very obvious your work at the waterplant made you this passionate about convincing yourself and others the water you help distributing in one way or another isnt harmfull.

Assuming the toxic waste would contain fluoride it would be cheaper than handing out pills.

And last time I checked there are pills that dissolve in water....
So your only argument on why it should be in our watersupply falls with that.
Rich people dont need it, they use toothpaste. And it would be easier=cheaper to just hand pills out to poor people for free.

Now you have no reason to promote fluoride tap water anymore. Instead you should be asking yourself why they are wasting so much money on fluorising the water supply.

reply to post by Realtruth

Lots of fear there. Not much science or facts.
I'm still waiting for you explain my contradictory message?

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop

 

So how exactly would a double blind study work using two different towns? If you are saying that would work then I have already linked to you the Newburgh-Kingston study which you claimed to read...

So what you are saying is you dont even know what a double blind study is? Wow, I thought you had prepared for this thread ahead of time.

Yes I do. Do you?

You are saying that the control and the fluoride drinkers should not be located in the same location? Does this work with any other study? Is that not the point? To be drinking the SAME water, one fluoridated, one not? Kingston-Newburgh satisfies that condition.
Nice attempt at a straw man argument though. Pointing out my inadequacies instead of staying on point.

superman2012
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Lots of fear there. Not much science or facts.
I'm still waiting for you explain my contradictory message?

Yes , we can all see that you are very fearful.

But dont worry, its a side effect of fluoride poisoning.

Start drinking distilled water, cut out any soups and beer as most are fluoridated. and the fear will start to leave you soon enough, then you can start to feel love for others, and then you will want to protect others, then you will start looking at the poisons being perpetrated on the public and although in this state you would be fear full, one the fluoride is gone you will be able to think more clearly and you wont be afraid any more.

I am here for you, once your clean.

WeAre0ne
reply to post by superman2012

 

Your argument is uninformed and idiotic.

Fluoride damages the Thyroid at any dose. No matter what, fluoride will always cause a harmful chemical reaction in your body. You can either slowly damage your body over time with small doses, or damage it instantly in one large dose. No matter what, damage is being done.

Most studies of fluoride usually quote "excess doses" because that is the only time the side effects become obvious, and more notable for study. Keyword SIDE EFFECTS. Your thyroid can be damaged long before you see side effects.

Small doses of fluoride are known to affect the thyroids function. That is why they used it as a medication to reduce thyroid function, because it worked so well with little dose compared to other substances that require higher doses. These are the REAL FACTS.

Learn to study...

Fluoride damages the Thyroid at any dose.

Your claim. Prove it.

Most studies of fluoride usually quote "excess doses" because that is the only time the side effects become obvious

Right. Harmful. No side effects in low doses. You are making my argument for me.

superman2012

AmenStop

superman2012
reply to post by AmenStop

 

So how exactly would a double blind study work using two different towns? If you are saying that would work then I have already linked to you the Newburgh-Kingston study which you claimed to read...

So what you are saying is you dont even know what a double blind study is? Wow, I thought you had prepared for this thread ahead of time.

Yes I do. Do you?

You are saying that the control and the fluoride drinkers should not be located in the same location? Does this work with any other study? Is that not the point? To be drinking the SAME water, one fluoridated, one not? Kingston-Newburgh satisfies that condition.
Nice attempt at a straw man argument though.

Pointing out my inadequacies instead of staying on point.

I will do this in my best daffey duck voice for you.

yes you use one town that is NOT fluoridated. then you have all people in the study drink "bottled water" half fluoridated and half not.

Again, once your mind is clear this simple idea would have come to you on your own, dont be sad, if you stop it soon it shouldnt be permanent.

superman2012

WeAre0ne
reply to post by superman2012

 

Your argument is uninformed and idiotic.

Fluoride damages the Thyroid at any dose. No matter what, fluoride will always cause a harmful chemical reaction in your body. You can either slowly damage your body over time with small doses, or damage it instantly in one large dose. No matter what, damage is being done.

Most studies of fluoride usually quote "excess doses" because that is the only time the side effects become obvious, and more notable for study. Keyword SIDE EFFECTS. Your thyroid can be damaged long before you see side effects.

Small doses of fluoride are known to affect the thyroids function. That is why they used it as a medication to reduce thyroid function, because it worked so well with little dose compared to other substances that require higher doses. These are the REAL FACTS.

Learn to study...

Fluoride damages the Thyroid at any dose.

Your claim. Prove it.

Most studies of fluoride usually quote "excess doses" because that is the only time the side effects become obvious

Right. Harmful. No side effects in low doses. You are making my argument for me.

UH no this whole thread is based on your fallacious claim of fluorides safety. You prove it by showing a double blind study, or stop lying to the public.

reply to post by whatsup86

The argument actually still stands because it is very obvious your work at the waterplant made you this passionate about convincing yourself and others the water you help distributing in one way or another isnt harmfull.

Actually no it doesn't. I was on your side before. I did research on my own and discovered there was nothing but people hiding in caves because the Gods were throwing bolts of light at them. Zero science proving their claims or outright lies.

Assuming the toxic waste would contain fluoride it would be cheaper than handing out pills.

Is it cheaper? How much is fluoride for water fluoridation? How much is it in pill form?

Now you have no reason to promote fluoride tap water anymore. Instead you should be asking yourself why they are wasting so much money on fluorising the water supply.

Ahhh...now I see your problem. You are confused. You think I am saying they should do this, when all I am doing is showing that the anti-fluoride side is fraught with lies and fear. That explains it. Now you have no reason to argue, right?

AmenStop

superman2012

WeAre0ne
reply to post by superman2012

 

Your argument is uninformed and idiotic.

Fluoride damages the Thyroid at any dose. No matter what, fluoride will always cause a harmful chemical reaction in your body. You can either slowly damage your body over time with small doses, or damage it instantly in one large dose. No matter what, damage is being done.

Most studies of fluoride usually quote "excess doses" because that is the only time the side effects become obvious, and more notable for study. Keyword SIDE EFFECTS. Your thyroid can be damaged long before you see side effects.

Small doses of fluoride are known to affect the thyroids function. That is why they used it as a medication to reduce thyroid function, because it worked so well with little dose compared to other substances that require higher doses. These are the REAL FACTS.

Learn to study...

Fluoride damages the Thyroid at any dose.

Your claim. Prove it.

Most studies of fluoride usually quote "excess doses" because that is the only time the side effects become obvious

Right. Harmful. No side effects in low doses. You are making my argument for me.

UH no this whole thread is based on your fallacious claim of fluorides safety. You prove it by showing a double blind study, or stop lying to the public.

Read Kingston-Newburgh and come back.