CONFIRMED: Fluoride Damages the Brain

a reply to: jinni73

the water companies do not clean the fluoride out of the water so who knows how many parts per million are in there because of the toothpaste

They know actually.

And so can you, your local water supplier should have water test results readily available to the public.

And why aren't you carrying on about chlorine, that too is highly toxic, and is in a lot of water supplies.

originally posted by: jinni73
a reply to: superman2012

And I lost you because you have sold your soul nothing else.

you could not argue any of my points before on your fluoride thread which means you have not researched anything and anyone that takes an amount of time investigating fluoride would come across westendorf's 30 years of research or suttons 20 years research, as well as the Danish study carried out over 10 years saying fluoride has no effects on teeth in fact it says they have an inverse effect.
then you also have pubmeds study which has been going on for the last 9 years in Iowa I think can't remember off hand which has so far yielded only negative results.


so what you are trying to tell everybody is that in your research you incorporated into the fact that nuclear waste is good for our teeth and is in no way harmful.

I've gone over this a dozen times on here and if any of you want to believe that the residue of the chemical fertiliser industry (that is captured in the scrubbers because when it was released into the atmosphere it was killing people) that is called fluoride is safe then you are quite simply delusional and deserve to be drinking the stuff this is one of the MSDS
msds.orica.com...

and the water companies do not clean the fluoride out of the water so who knows how many parts per million are in there because of the toothpaste just because they do not add fluoride in does not mean it is not in there so yes distilling removes it but leaves the trihalomethanes in.

I have come across one system that purifies water which is made by Omnipure this involves osmosis and carbon which is the only way to remove everything and be left with pure water. distilling is way better than the toxic soup they call tap water not perfect as it leaves chemicals with a lower boiling point than water so chloroform which causes lung damage when you take a shower is left in distilled water.

Agartha the reference to the cancer connections is in here if you can't be bothered to look properly then why should I?
I am fully aware of fluoride due to the weeks of studies I have spent researching it as when I say things to people I need to know the truth I'm not like a doctor who just blindly believes what they are taught then do no further research on the subject

and I most certainly do not just disregard a website because it isn't in a pretty colour that I like,

I am assuming that you drink tap water after that statement but of course most people do not care about there lives enough to worry about consuming toxic waste.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Repeating known lies and misquoting studies to make them seem like they are against water fluoridation is not a convincing argument at all.
Speaking as someone who works in a water treatment plant, everything is regulated, everything is tested. If someone tried to get away with not testing or reporting, they would get caught immediately.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: jinni73

the water companies do not clean the fluoride out of the water so who knows how many parts per million are in there because of the toothpaste

They know actually.

And so can you, your local water supplier should have water test results readily available to the public.

And why aren't you carrying on about chlorine, that too is highly toxic, and is in a lot of water supplies.

Dear Lord, don't give the fearful anything else to run with!

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: jinni73

the water companies do not clean the fluoride out of the water so who knows how many parts per million are in there because of the toothpaste

They know actually.

And so can you, your local water supplier should have water test results readily available to the public.

And why aren't you carrying on about chlorine, that too is highly toxic, and is in a lot of water supplies.

Yep I know about chlorine too LOL kills oxygen in the body and the reaction between chlorine and oxygen regenerates the chlorine allowing it to carry on taking oxygen out of our bodies.
chlorine also does not kill all the bacteria, then you have chloroform which causes lung damage when you shower :-)

There is a solution to having clean water but as the governments have sold off the publics companies in their infinite wisdom thinking it would be cheaper for the public it will never happen. the solution would be to replace all of the piping with the plastic they use to sell the hydrogen peroxide in as it does not leach chemicals into the water,

or it may just be cheaper to filter our own water as it comes into our house's but while businesses are allowed to dump their toxic wastes into the water system and not have filters that prevent toxins being sucked back into the water system due to burst water mains it is going to take a revolution, yet even the biggest revolution which happened in 1848 did not remove the real culprits like the rothschilds and their bosses like the oppenheimer's and orsini's

there are 3000 toxic chemicals in our water supply and the regulatory bodies only test for 30

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: jinni73
a reply to: superman2012

Repeating known lies and misquoting studies to make them seem like they are against water fluoridation is not a convincing argument at all.
Speaking as someone who works in a water treatment plant, everything is regulated, everything is tested. If someone tried to get away with not testing or reporting, they would get caught immediately.

known lies so you don't want to answer the points I made and just carry on with the same old BS

what about this study that confirms the link between fluoride and cardiovascular disease www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan for imaging atherosclerosis has not been well documented. The purpose of this study was to assess fluoride uptake of vascular calcification in various major arteries, including coronary arteries.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the imaging data and cardiovascular history of 61 patients who received whole-body sodium [¹⁸F]fluoride PET/CT studies at our institution from 2009 to 2010. Fluoride uptake and calcification in major arteries, including coronary arteries, were analyzed by both visual assessment and standardized uptake value measurement.

RESULTS: Fluoride uptake in vascular walls was demonstrated in 361 sites of 54 (96%) patients, whereas calcification was observed in 317 sites of 49 (88%) patients. Significant correlation between fluoride uptake and calcification was observed in most of the arterial walls, except in those of the abdominal aorta. Fluoride uptake in coronary arteries was demonstrated in 28 (46%) patients and coronary calcifications were observed in 34 (56%) patients. There was significant correlation between history of cardiovascular events and presence of fluoride uptake in coronary arteries. The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients without cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSION: sodium [¹⁸F]fluoride PET/CT might be useful in the evaluation of the atherosclerotic process in major arteries, including coronary arteries. An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk

you work for the industry this means you would of signed a secrecy agreement the amount of information available to read and the studies carried out on fluoride and the small fact that even on the EPA's site it says the fluoride that is put into our water comes from chemical fertiliser factories you do know that chemical fertiliser contains uranium and its decay elements.

Repeating known lies and misquoting studies

so what you are really saying is that you cannot show where any of the mistakes are in the sciences and you cannot argue the points so you try and deflect it

SHOW ME ONE POINT JUST ONE

everything is regulated, everything is tested.

yes by the same people that put the fluoride into the water,
are you trying to tell me that you do not know how this world works how sick the rich people are in our world the efforts they go to in order to protect their wealth.

these people that run our world are the very dregs of our society the only reason they get to the top is because they are willing to do anything including murdering rivals,
they control all the security agencies we know the rothschilds set up NATO and the UN we have proof that NATO was behind all the terrorist groups in europe
they have set up pretty much all of the secret societies
they put their kids into the military as officers which then enables them to control that side, they control the police the politicians they get the security agencies to trap the politicians by setting them up and you think they don't control the regulatory bodies that do the testing LOL

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: jinni73
here is dean burke from the national cancer institute stating how dangerous fluoride is

That was in 1975 and his study was not accepted because his methodology was incorrect as he didn't adjust for important variables.

fluoride has been linked to at least 20 cancers (yet in reality it is responsible for all of them seeing it blocks the uptake of iodine which is what the body uses to kill cancer,) the studies are in the national library of medicine in the US and scientists even wrote to the senators in congress saying 5 ppm of fluoride per kilo of body weight can kill someone with kidney problems.

Please link those studies as I couldn't find them in the National Library of Medicine (US).

and rather than go to the bother of finding the IG Farben files which ARE on the internet there are way more studies that can be proofed

Let see, let's read and analyze your links:

www.infiniteunknown.net...

Quack site, quack as in 'lots of scary statements but no evidence to back them up'.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... This is a Danish study carried out over 10 years you can contact the authors on research gate ( I think) and get the paper for nothing I have deleted the link I had to the paper

I have read the two studies above and they do NOT say fluoride is dangerous. Care to show us where it says that?

and then we have the xrays showing fluoride interacting with the hydrogen Ions in enzymes and the inhibition of ameloblasts as well as the 11000ppm in the pineal gland now that's not going to change anything in the brain is it now

Where are those xrays?

Here
books.google.com.au... kVaEP4H8fyc8V9eUeDBDRwiRM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj79-m88KbOAhVHv5QKHZb-D0IQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=X-ray%20of%20fluoride%20interacting%20with%20hydrogen%2 0ions&f=false

seems a bit funny that you could not just do a simple google search to find out, which would imply that you are more into attempting to discredit others rather than trying to find out the truth.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: jinni73

the water companies do not clean the fluoride out of the water so who knows how many parts per million are in there because of the toothpaste

They know actually.

And so can you, your local water supplier should have water test results readily available to the public.

And why aren't you carrying on about chlorine, that too is highly toxic, and is in a lot of water supplies.

Dear Lord, don't give the fearful anything else to run with!

Better to be fearful than ignorant and advocating genocide

so what about this site archive.org...
all of the information is wrong is it, just lies, so they don't use fluoride in major tranquilisers?

and separate to the document children don't die from eating toothpaste do they its just propaganda to make people feel sad and of course the label on the toothpaste saying that it is poison is a spelling mistake.

I know people only have an average IQ of 80 but most of them can read and they also know what the words mean.

a reply to: jinni73

what about this study that confirms the link between fluoride and cardiovascular disease

Huh? That study says that a radioactive isotope of sodium fluoride can be useful in screening for atherosclerosis risk. Did you even read what you posted? The study showed that those with developing cardiovascular disease may absorb fluoride more readily than those without.

The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients without cardiovascular events.

all of the information is wrong is it, just lies,

Yeah. Pretty much.

originally posted by: jinni73
Here
books.google.com.au... kVaEP4H8fyc8V9eUeDBDRwiRM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj79-m88KbOAhVHv5QKHZb-D0IQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=X-ray%20of%20fluoride%20interacting%20with%20hydrogen%2 0ions&f=false

seems a bit funny that you could not just do a simple google search to find out, which would imply that you are more into attempting to discredit others rather than trying to find out the truth.

You keep on posting outdated information, the book is from 1985. Also, the links in your previous reply to me do not link fluoride with cancer at all. I have read them all.

I have not replied to you again because: how can I discuss science with somebody who believes 'the calcification of the pineal gland is caused by fluoride'? Calcification and ossification happen in many parts of the body as we age, and the material that causes them is called calcium phosphate. Now, if you can, please explain the link between the minuscule amount of fluoride in tap water and calcium phosphate calcification in the human body.

a reply to: jinni73

known lies so you don't want to answer the points I made and just carry on with the same old BS

You have attempted to make zero points that aren't based on fear and lies.

what about this study that confirms the link between fluoride and cardiovascular disease www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Do you just type in "I'm afraid of fluoride and don't understand it, please show me a page that I don't understand that will help me in my confirmation bias regardless of what it actually mean"?
Here is a link that will be a good stepping stone for you to understand what you are posting.

you work for the industry this means you would of signed a secrecy agreement the amount of information available to read and the studies carried out on fluoride and the small fact that even on the EPA's site it says the fluoride that is put into our water comes from chemical fertiliser factories you do know that chemical fertiliser contains uranium and its decay elements.

I work in the water treatment industry. There is no "secrecy agreement", and all information, good or bad, is available to the public anytime you feel the desire to type more than "fluoride/fear" into a google search, or you can request it.
Start by reading the process behind refining the fluoride for water treatment. It is not taken out of a vat round back and dumped into the water...

so what you are really saying is that you cannot show where any of the mistakes are in the sciences and you cannot argue the points so you try and deflect it

SHOW ME ONE POINT JUST ONE

This has been pointed out again and again and in fact, in just this post I showed how you took something you have no sniff about and tried to make it fit your belief.
One point? I could refute everything you can type. Make a list and I will go through them one by one.

yes by the same people that put the fluoride into the water,

Not at all. Independent third party labs are used so that there can be nothing shady in the reporting to the regulatory bodies. Again, another wild guess/claim to make "the pieces fit" into your belief.

I can see by the rest of the body of your post that you belief there is a shadow government controlling everything and everyone. As this have nothing to do with water fluoridation, I won't address your incoherent ramblings.

originally posted by: jinni73

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: jinni73

the water companies do not clean the fluoride out of the water so who knows how many parts per million are in there because of the toothpaste

They know actually.

And so can you, your local water supplier should have water test results readily available to the public.

And why aren't you carrying on about chlorine, that too is highly toxic, and is in a lot of water supplies.

Dear Lord, don't give the fearful anything else to run with!

Better to be fearful than ignorant and advocating genocide

so what about this site archive.org...
all of the information is wrong is it, just lies, so they don't use fluoride in major tranquilisers?

and separate to the document children don't die from eating toothpaste do they its just propaganda to make people feel sad and of course the label on the toothpaste saying that it is poison is a spelling mistake.

I know people only have an average IQ of 80 but most of them can read and they also know what the words mean.

Better to be fearful than ignorant? I can agree with that. Unfortunately, the anti fluoride group is both fearful AND ignorant. As has been shown and explained many many many many many times. That group of people is the living embodiment of confirmation bias, as you have shown.

a reply to: jinni73

there are 3000 toxic chemicals in our water supply and the regulatory bodies only test for 30

Where? Source please. I find that claim extremely interesting and if true, would like to read which ones and why. Thanks in advance!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jinni73

what about this study that confirms the link between fluoride and cardiovascular disease

Huh? That study says that a radioactive isotope of sodium fluoride can be useful in screening for atherosclerosis risk. Did you even read what you posted? The study showed that those with developing cardiovascular disease may absorb fluoride more readily than those without.

The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients without cardiovascular events.

 

all of the information is wrong is it, just lies,

Yeah. Pretty much.

Of course I read what I posted and if you don't read what I post how can we move forward

Fluoride is radioactive

www.bonkersinstitute.org...

Fluorosilicic acid is produced as a co-product in the manufacture of wet-process phosphoric acid and other phosphate fertilizers. The raw material, phosphate rock, contains fluoride and silica and is treated with sulfuric acid, which evolves the gases silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). These gases are passed through scrubbers and react with water to form fluorosilicic acid. This acid is the principal raw material in the production of all silicofluoride salts. It is also used in the ceramic, brewing, paint, and metallurgical industries

scroll down to page 8 table of impurities

www.fluoride-class-action.com... ndard-for-fluorosilicic-acid.pdf

a reply to: jinni73

Fluoride is radioactive

Some fluorine isotopes are, yes. Just as 14C (carbon) is. When doing metabolic testing such things are very useful.
www.nibib.nih.gov...

What's your point? You know fluorine emissions are regulated (as are drinking water levels), right?
en.wikipedia.org...

I have not replied to you again because: how can I discuss science with somebody who believes 'the calcification of the pineal gland is caused by fluoride'?

so you don't understand something and that means I am wrong?

www.icnr.com...

and yes I understand the calcium phosphate balance being wrong causes build up elements within the body, but the damaging of the arteries is caused by xanthine oxidase which scratches the artery walls which then leads to cholesterol being used to protect the damage once the elimination organs start to clog up, then the calcium phosphate is not removed from the body and the synthetic vitamin d then deposits the calcium anywhere in the soft tissues
but as we have proof from the AWWA of the radioactivity of certain fluorides and the separate radioactivity study that shows a marked increase in deposition in the artery walls. as well as Dukes study in reference to the pineal gland

so to do with the cancer lets look at it like this for now

here is the environmental health and safety group and the world bank's policy on chemical fertiliser and the use of scrubbers if you just read the 1.1 Environment section this details what is in fluoride and that it odes indeed contain uranium products and that they even go to the length of extracting the silica
www.ifc.org...

it clearly states that polonium is in fluoride po210 pb210 as matches up with the data I provided in the post above on page 8
web.stanford.edu...

and this does not cause cancer?
a half life in the body of 1200 days for the po210 the constant addition of fluoride is added to almost all beverages we drink, we are meant to drink 1.3 litres of water a day, the use of chemical fertiliser in growing our food as well as the water used to grow the food and provide it to animals add on to the fact that when you boil water it concentrates the fluoride to between 2 - 10 ppm and

a reply to: jinni73

if you just read the 1.1 Environment section this details what is in fluoride

Ok...it's about industrial emissions resulting from the production of phosphoric acid (fertilizer). It doesn't really say anything about "what is in fluoride."

The emissions typically associated with the thermal production process of phosphoric acid include phosphate, fluoride, dust, cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), and radionuclides (Po-210 and Pb-210).

polonium is in fluoride po210 pb210

What is fluoride po210 pb210?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jinni73

Fluoride is radioactive

Some fluorine isotopes are, yes. Just as 14C (carbon) is. When doing metabolic testing such things are very useful.
www.nibib.nih.gov...

What's your point? You know fluorine emissions are regulated, right?
en.wikipedia.org...

regulations written by rich people in order to get rid of their toxic waste

a reply to: jinni73

Can you explain how people are getting rich off fluorine waste?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jinni73

Can you explain how people are getting rich off fluorine waste?

it is one of the most expensive NORM wastes to dispose of, so rather than having to pay for it to be made safe they sell it to the governments at a profit I read that it costs 7000 dollars a tonne to clean it up yet they sell it to the governments for a minimum of 500 dollars a tonne as fluoride.

web.archive.org...://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fluoride/fluoride_phosphates.html

Radium wastes from filtration systems at phosphate fertilizer facilities are among the most radioactive types of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) wastes. The radium wastes are so concentrated, they cannot be disposed of at the one US landfill licensed to accept NORM wastes, so manufacturers dump the radioactive wastes in acidic ponds atop 200-foot-high gypsum stacks. The federal government has no rules for its disposal.

polonium is in fluoride po210 pb210
What is fluoride po210 pb210?

aah I missed a comma but when we get around the problem of the missing comma we are left with the fact that a tiny amount of po210 or pb210 which are uranium decay products will basically lead to an early death,
which means fluoride leads to an early death as they are in the crap they put in your water, even a little amount is bad and this is constantly introduced into your body all through the day yep in little bits but with a 1200 day half life that is a lot of little bits that clearly go over the 6.8 trillionths of a gram.

"Polonium-210, a decay product of bismuth-210, has a half-life of 138 days and gives off intense alpha radiation as it decays into regular lead and becomes stable. Any polonium-210 that might be present in the phosphate concentrate could pose a significant health threat. A very small amount of polonium-210 can be very dangerous, giving off 5,000 times more alpha radiation than the same amount of radium. As little as 0.03 microcuries (6.8 trillionths of a gram) of polonium-210 can be carcinogenic to humans.

this is from a statement to the American senate in the 80s

Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 per cent of America’s children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980's and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.

but of course this information is more than a week old so it is now not relevant according to some.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jinni73

Can you explain how people are getting rich off fluorine waste?

and how much money do the pharmaceutical companies then get for providing medication in order to subdue these diseases that they say they can't cure. the implications are endless an excuse for the governments to illegally tax the public for healthcare when they are causing the diseases in the first place.