Fluoride is Natural in Water

reply to post by thefreepatriot


Fluorine is a naturally occurring element and it does combine with other elements in nature to make fluoride. When you say it is not natural that is not just misleading, it's wrong. I don't know but maybe that's why your thread is being deleted.

hinky, thanks for you posts. That is some information I was not aware of.

You are the one that's misleading buddy sodium flouride is not natural ... and thats what is being dumped into the water supplies.. flourine is a component of sodium flouride and flourine is a highly volatile gas ... that does not exist in nature by itself.... The reason my post was deleted was because they wanted me to repond to your post instead. If anyone is misleading its you.So uranium is natural and its good for you? your assumption is that because it exists in nature in some form that its ok to have or use... Your either lying on this issue or the flouride has seriously gotten to your head. Flourine exists as a gas and does not exists anywhere in nature by itself.. please show me where I can find flourine naturally.note freon which is made from flourine is highly dangerous and its eats the ozone layer...... Please stop spilling lies.. If you like flouride so much then go to a doctor and get a prescription stop trying to say that sodium flouride is natural. What are your comments on the stance of the EPA scientists? How about the high cancer rate states in direct correlation to high rates of water flouridation? if you can't add 2 plus 2 then you are in big trouble...

Active ingrediant in PROZAK:
..
Elemental fluorine
Elemental fluorine (fluorine gas) is a highly toxic, corrosive oxidant, which can cause organic material, combustibles, or other flammable materials to ignite
Definition
[edit] Fluoride ion
Main article: fluoride poisoning
Fluoride ions are also highly toxic and must also be handled with great care and any contact with skin and eyes should be strictly avoided.



[edit on 20-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Originally posted by hinky
Several years ago I talked to some Region VII and Washington DC EPA officials about this very subject. It is much more complex than it looks.

To bottom line this, the chemicals used in water treatment are all toxic, hazardous, even poisonous to humans; but used in proper amounts and precautions taken, perfectly safe for what they do.

The problem is the organics present in the water being treated. Trace amounts of everything are present. To just say stop fluoridation and watch cancer rates plummet would be foolish. There is no definitive proof this would happen. The same can be said about any number of other chemicals used from phosphates to ferric sulfate or even lime with excess calcium deliberately left in the water so the water is not corrosive on the water mains.

I was a proponent for fluoridation for years, in my youthful career. As I aged and saw stuff, I learned, not from what you would learn in college, but real life stuff and putting a couple of things together here and there. Asking questions to people who are much smarter and make the rules or regulations for the EPA and then ask for the dumbed down answer. I have talked to industry reps, engineers, and chemists about the different fluoridation treatments from several chemical companies. I even testified before the Missouri House committee on water treatment, fluoridation in particular; back in the early 80's. Went to more than several cities to talk to city councils about voting for fluoridation of water supplies.

I have 4 kids from over 30 to age 18. I cannot look them in the face and tell them I was right about this issue. That's a hard thing to say. Not a manhood issue, but something else. For the most part, they have good teeth. Let's look long term..... Yeah, more studies need to be done. You will not get a counter argument from me.

Interesting. Thanks for the post.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Azurus]

Statement from Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D.

It was 1982 when fluoride was first brought to my attention as a substance in need of investigation. At that time, I was in the Departments of Psychiatry at Boston's Children's Hospital and Neuropathology at the Harvard Medical School. My studies focused on detection procedures for neurotoxicity, and they typically considered a variety of environmental and therapeutic agents, i.e., radiation, lead, amphetamine, phenytoin, nitrous oxide. Dr. John Hein, then Director of Forsyth's Dental Infirmary for Children in Boston, was interested in neurotoxicity studies and invited me to continue this research at Forsyth and to apply it to substances used in dentistry. Fluoride was prominent on his list.

Five years lapsed before our investigations of fluoride began. The delay was due to time spent on technological improvements, specifically development of a computer pattern recognition system for the objective quantification of behavior in an animal model. In early June of 1986, the Forsyth Dental Center was noted for this achievement in the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Herald, and applications of our research grew. The new technology enabled us to study the clinically recognized neurotoxicity associated with the treatment for childhood leukemia. Simultaneously, we started investigations of fluoride, the "safe and effective" treatment for dental caries.

Initially, the fluoride study sparked little interest, and in fact we were quite anxious to move on to something academically more exciting. Using an animal model developed for the study of dental fluorosis, we expected rats drinking fluoride-treated water would behave the same as matching controls. They did not. The scientific literature led us to believe that rats would easily tolerate 175 ppm fluoride in their drinking water. They did not. Reports in the literature indicated that fluoride would not cross the blood brain barrier. But it did. Prenatal exposure to fluoride was not supposed to permanently alter behavioral outcome. It did. Like walking into quicksand, our confidence that brain function was impervious to fluoride was sinking.

Our 1995 paper in Neurotoxicology and Teratology was the first laboratory study to demonstrate in vivo that central nervous system (CNS) function was vulnerable to fluoride, that the effects on behavior depended on the age at exposure and that fluoride accumulated in brain tissues. The behavioral changes common to weanling and adult exposures were different from those after prenatal exposure. Whereas prenatal exposure dispersed many behaviors as seen in drug-induced hyperactivity, weanling and adult exposures led to behavior-specific changes more related to cognitive deficits. Brain histology was not examined in this study, but we suggested that the effects on behavior were consistent with interrupted hippocampal development (a brain region generally linked with memory).

Establishing a threshold dose for effects on the CNS, in rats or humans, was not the intent of this initial investigation. Yet, one fact relevant to human exposure emerged quite clear. When rats consumed 75-125 ppm and humans 5-10 ppm fluoride in their respective drinking waters, the result was equivalent ranges of plasma fluoride levels. This range is observed with some treatments for osteoporosis, and it is exceeded ten times over, one hour after children receive topical applications of some dental fluoride gels. Thus, humans are being exposed to levels of fluoride we know alters behavior in rats.

We concluded that the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans. Confident as we were, the data were only one piece of the puzzle, the overall picture was still emerging. Soon thereafter we learned of two epidemiological studies (Fluoride, 1995-1996) from China showing IQ deficits in children over-exposed to fluoride via drinking water or soot from burning coal. A recent review (International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 1994) listed case reports of CNS effects in humans excessively exposed to fluoride, information that spans almost 60 years. A common theme appeared in the reported effects: impaired memory and concentration, lethargy, headache, depression and confusion. The same theme was echoed in once classified reports about workers from the Manhatten Project. In all, our rat data seem to fit a consistent picture.

Information linking fluoride and CNS dysfunction continues in 1998.

1) A recent study in Brain Research demonstrated that chronic exposure to fluoride in drinking water of rats compromised neuronal (hippocampal) and cerebrovascular integrity (blood brain barrier) and increased aluminum concentrations in brain tissues.

2) Masters and Coplan have reported (International Journal of Environmental Studies, in press) that silicofluorides in fluoridated drinking water increased levels of lead in children's blood, a risk factor that predicts higher crime rates, ADD and learning disabilities.

3) Luke at the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) meeting in August reported that fluoride accumulated in the human pineal gland, as much or more so than in bones and teeth, and the pineal gland's melatonin biosynthesis pathway is affected by fluoride.

4) Also at the ISFR meeting, I reported that the fluorinated steroid (dexamethasone) disrupts behavior in rats to a greater degree than does the nonfluorinated steroid (prednisolone). This finding matched results just completed in a study of children receiving steroids as a part of their treatment for childhood leukemia. Dexamethasone, compared to prednisolone, further reduced IQ, specifically impairing reading comprehension, arithmetic calculation and short-term working memory.

Exposure to fluoride goes well beyond that in our drinking water, toothpastes and mouth rinses. Fluoridation of water dictates that it is in food and processed beverages. Pesticides such as cryolite also increase fluoride content of foods. The trend toward fluorinating pharmaceuticals increases fluoride exposure via medication. Fluoride, in various compounds, plays a heavy role in occupational exposures and for people living in close proximity to industry, i.e., aluminum, steel, brick, glass, petroleum, etc. With exposure so common, we can no longer afford to ignore potential CNS consequences of fluoride.

I would be happy to answer questions about any of the above material.

Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D.

i honestly cannot believe that this thread has gone on for this long. the fact that it has come to light that they are using industrial-grade flouride should really have ended this debate about 6 pages ago, lol. how could anyone logically think that this is something worth defending? in my opinion, the risks far outweight any good that could be done via water flouridation.

reply to post by TheComte


I think the issue is the type of floride used. Naturally occuring floride is in the form of Calcium Floride and is not harmful but more expensive. Sodium floride which is a rat poison and a byproduct of some industries is much cheaper and is what is used in all water floridation and toothpastes.

reply to post by mpriebe81


As you can see the only reason the ops thread is posted on the main page is because of the number of posts.. Notice also the op doesnt even have any stars too his thread... Most of the posts are people trying to show that water flouridation is bad... Not "natural" it is near lunacy to think that water flouridation is good... Considering flouride has almost the same toxicity as lead.... imagine your county announcing that they will start a water lead treatment program.. adding 1 ppm to the water supplies .... people would go mad! well Sodium-Flouride isn't that different just look up the toxicity levels of sodoum flouride to lead.... I have said that if water flouridation is too be done .. that it should be done with calcium-flouride.. as it is nearly non-soluble and will topically apply to your teeth as the water passes... most if not all of it will go back out.. But of course we are not using this natural form of flouride instead we are using one from an industrial waste byproduct... this is crazy!!!!!!!! and the op is seriously wrong to state that all flouride is natural and that "god" is in on the conspiracy... So if god makes lead then it is ok for us to add to the water? please note that god is not adding sodium-flouride to our water supplies humans are..... so no God is not in on the conspiracy... water flouridation is ARTIFICIAL plain and simple.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
Flourine exists as a gas and does not exists anywhere in nature by itself.. please show me where I can find flourine naturally.

Fluorine maybe does not exist 'by itself' because it readily forms compounds with almost all other elements. Compounds that contain fluorine are called fluorides. Organic fluorides contain carbon, inorganic fluorides do not. When you add sodium fluoride to water,

Many fluoride minerals are known, but paramount in commercial importance are fluorite and fluoroapatite. Fluoride is found naturally in low concentration in drinking water and foods. Water with underground sources is more likely to have higher levels of fluoride, whereas the concentration in seawater averages 1.3 parts per million (ppm).[4] Fresh water supplies generally contain between 0.01-0.3 ppm, while the ocean contains between 1.2 and 1.5 ppm.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not going to keep arguing with you on this point. It is a fact that fluorides are natural and is probably the reason your thread is being deleted.

Fluoride additives are not different that natural fluoride.

Some consumers have questioned whether fluoride from natural groundwater sources, such as calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added “artificially,” such as from the fluoride water treatment additives presently used. This allegation is not supported by scientific findings. The ionic speciation study mentioned previously (Finney et.al. 2006) also reported that water treatment additives dissociate to the same ions as present in groundwater.

www.cdc.gov...

The reason the thread keeps going on is that I have to keep going over points that late comers to the thread don't read, skip over, or ignore.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by TheComte]

[
The thread was deleted because there already was a thread on that subject in the general conspiracy section.. It is againts ATS rules to post a thread with a similar subject in the same section.. Instead reply to the post instead.. ATS doesnt delete posts that it thinks are true or not.. this is what makes ATS such a great site.. Beleive me your thread would have been gone long ago ...

quote]Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
Flourine exists as a gas and does not exists anywhere in nature by itself.. please show me where I can find flourine naturally.

Fluorine maybe does not exist 'by itself' because it readily forms compounds with almost all other elements. Compounds with that contain fluorine are called fluorides. Organic fluorides contain carbon, inorganic fluorides do not.

Many fluoride minerals are known, but paramount in commercial importance are fluorite and fluoroapatite. Fluoride is found naturally in low concentration in drinking water and foods. Water with underground sources is more likely to have higher levels of fluoride, whereas the concentration in seawater averages 1.3 parts per million (ppm).[4] Fresh water supplies generally contain between 0.01-0.3 ppm, while the ocean contains between 1.2 and 1.5 ppm.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not going to keep arguing with you on this point. It is a fact that fluorides are natural and is probably the reason your thread is being deleted.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by TheComte

 

I think the issue is the type of floride used. Naturally occuring floride is in the form of Calcium Floride and is not harmful but more expensive. Sodium floride which is a rat poison and a byproduct of some industries is much cheaper and is what is used in all water floridation and toothpastes.

This is what the op fails to grap... there are toxic forms and non-toxic forms.. he somehow thinks that all flouride is the same... You can actually ingest large amounts of calcium-flouride and you will not get poisoned due to it being non-soluble.. sodium-flouride is differnent and it is used as a rat poison... THIS is whats being put into our water supplies not CALCIUM-FLOURIDE..

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by thefreepatriot

 

Fluorine is a naturally occurring element and it does combine with other elements in nature to make fluoride. When you say it is not natural that is not just misleading, it's wrong. I don't know but maybe that's why your thread is being deleted.

You said Flourine is a naturally occuring element show me where I can find it... note FLOURINE is an element.. but it is never naturally occuring in nature.. therefore you cannot say flourine is a naturally occuring element. This is FALSE!

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by TheComte

 

You do realize that there are forms of flouride that are natural and forms that are man made... has that flouride really gotten to your head? I have alreadly stated that CALCIUM-FLOURIDE is harmless instead we are using SODIUM-FLOURIDE.. you do realise that there is a substantial difference in toxcicity to Humans between the two? I suggest you call any chemistry teacher and ask... and FLOURINE IS NOT NATURAL BECAUSE IT IS NOT FOUND IN NATURE.. You really are a knuckle head.. or should I say flouridated head.

This is what happens when ignorant people think they are right. They get angry that you disagree with them and start calling you names. Then when you give them the proof they ignore it.

I suggest you educate yourself.

Fluoride additives are not different that natural fluoride.

Some consumers have questioned whether fluoride from natural groundwater sources, such as calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added “artificially,” such as from the fluoride water treatment additives presently used. This allegation is not supported by scientific findings. The ionic speciation study mentioned previously (Finney et.al. 2006) also reported that water treatment additives dissociate to the same ions as present in groundwater.

www.cdc.gov...

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
You said Flourine is a naturally occuring element show me where I can find it... note FLOURINE is an element.. but it is never naturally occuring in nature.. therefore you cannot say flourine is a naturally occuring element. This is FALSE!

OMG. Are you for real? Do you still think fluoride is not found naturally in water?

[edit on 20-6-2008 by TheComte]

reply to post by TheComte


You are just going to keep posting that arent you? Are you a parrot? it seems that way. You are running away from what I have asked you several times.. You stated flourine is natural.. Please elaborate on this...And i want to to explain how the process works on how flouride ions just happen to come off the element...please explain and elaborate the additive process..

[edit on 20-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by TheComte

 

You are just going to keep posting that arent you? Are you a parrot? it seems that way. You are running away from what I have asked you several times.. You stated flourine is natural.. Please elaborate on this...And i want to to explain how the process works on how flouride ions just happen to come off the element...please explain and elaborate the process..

I can't explain the process because I don't have the training. Even if I could you have shown that you wouldn't understand it. Read the link I just gave you. I even highlighted the relevant passage to make it easier for you.

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
You said Flourine is a naturally occuring element show me where I can find it... note FLOURINE is an element.. but it is never naturally occuring in nature.. therefore you cannot say flourine is a naturally occuring element. This is FALSE!

OMG. Are you for real? Do you still think fluoride is not found naturally in water?

[edit on 20-6-2008 by TheComte]

OMG are you for real? do you still think sodium-flouride and flourine is found naturally in water? wow this sounds like I am back in High School..

reply to post by TheComte


it seems the only source you can come up with is the CDC... and if you don't understand the process or know about it then Don't put it up.. You need to use your head instead of just posting exerpts from a site.. Call your local water utility and ASK THEM if they have this process that safely removes the ions from sodium flouride.. and see what they say.. I suggest you send an email so you can copy the response here.. I myself called our local water manager here in Hallandale Beach .. and he told me it is DIRECTLY dumped into the water at exactly 1 PPM he said they have a state of the art facility... I will post the # here so you yourself cant contact him.. Stop being a parrot.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Here, just for you my friend:

Fluorine is the 17th (McNeely et al. , 1979), or 13th (Anon, 1971) most abundant element in the earth's crust. It is present as a fluoride since fluorine is the most reactive element (McNeely et al. , 1979; Sawyer and McCarty, 1967; and McKee and Wolf, 1963). Detectable fluoride levels occur in almost all minerals (McNeely et al. , 1979; Anon, 1980; and Anon, 1977). The main minerals are fluorspar-CaF2, Cryolite-Na3AlF6 and fluorapatite-Ca10F2(PO4)6 (McNeely et al., 1979; Anon, 1971; Weber, 1966; and Dave, 1984). Fluorapatite is a complex mineral and has several different formulae given in the literature. Topaz-Al2SiO4(F, OH) is also a fluoride mineral (Norrish, 1975). Fluoride in soils ranges from 76 mg fluoride/kg for sandy soils to 2640 mg fluoride/kg for heavy clays (Gisiger, 1968). Most of this is insoluble, especially at the higher concentrations. Soils in British Columbia have not been systematically surveyed and analyzed for fluoride and little is known of the available fluoride concentrations.

The weathering of alkalic and silicic igneous and sedimentary rocks, primarily shales, contributes much of the fluoride to natural waters. Volcanic emissions also supply fluoride (McNeely et al. , 1979; Underwood, 1971) and precipitation may contain up to 1.0 mg/L of fluoride (McNeely et al. , 1979). Most fluorides associated with monovalent cations are very water soluble, 10's of grams per litre; while salts of divalent cations are relatively insoluble, 10's of milligrams per litre. Table 2.1 gives the solubilities of some fluoride salts in cold water (Weast, 1968).

www.env.gov.bc.ca...

I highlighted the relevant passages so you don't have to read the whole thing.

Interesting, I didn't know rain could contain the same levels of fluoride as found in fluoridated water.