Fluoridation's Early Trials Were Tainted!!

reply to post by adrenochrome


It's not that I support it. It's that people who rail against it have no evidence of their claims that it is harming people on a massive scale. It especially turns me off when they cite myths like the Nazis and Soviets used it to control the masses, that it calcifies the pineal gland which inhibits peoples' spirituality, that it lowers IQ. These claims have no basis in fact. Try finding a source for this other than that Perkins fellow. It's very difficult, if not impossible. And even he states that he was told this by an anonymous IG Farben scientist. Talk about hearsay. Just ask any Holocaust survivor how easy it was to get a drink of water. And how do you measure how much someone's IQ has dropped after they've been given fluoride? Plus, measuring IQ is completely subjective as it is. There are many different tests for it and you'll get a different answer every time you take one. It's just absurd.

They say it causes cancer, skeletal fluorosis, etc, which there is no evidence for, as I pointed out by your own study. And then you say, well, that report is three years old. Yeah, totally outdated LOL.

There are many fluoridated communities in N. America. If it was so bad then these whole communities would be sick. We'd be able to easily point to victims of fluoridation. Yet whenever I say show me the victims, they ignore the question or show a link where some poor sods in Turkey or somewhere are exposed to high levels above 1mg/L, which I admit are bad.

Show me peer-reviewed, published evidence that 1mg/L doesn't do what it claims to do, or that it's harmful. I agree that levels above 1mg/L could be harmful, and as such the maximum levels everywhere should be lowered if they are not already.

Like I said, I've lived in a fluoridated community for 40 years, my parents for over 50. No signs of any of the ailments the fear mongers claim are attributed to fluoride, in my family or anybody I know. According to the fear mongers, I should be able to go to the local hospital at any time and find the emergency room full of fluoride victims. But, they're not.

In all seriousness, if you live in a medium to large city anywhere, the air you breathe harms you far more than fluoride in the water. People die from air pollution and smog every year, yet no one lists air as one of the seven things that is killing you.

That's all. I've made my views clear in all the fluoride threads. I know people will still spout these myths as proof that fluoridation is harmful. And I respect peoples' argument that they should not be exposed to fluoride without their consent. But, to that I say that you cannot get away from it because fluoride occurs in nature. And before anybody claims that natural fluoride is different than that used in fluoridation, once it is put in water the fluorine ion disassociates itself from the compound and becomes the element, which is the same. That is another big half-truth that fear mongers throw around. Any chemist will tell you.

reply to post by TheComte


all you have to do is read the links i'm sending!

there's definitely links to fluoride calcifying glands, especially the pineal gland!
www.fluoridealert.org...
www.fluoridealert.org...
www.icnr.com...

and, you're telling me that fluoride doesn't cause fluorosis?!

what does, then?

oh, and you're right to say that fluoride is found naturally in nature, but that's calcium fluoride, and not the harmful, sodium fluoride, sodium monofluorophosphate, or sodium hexafluorosilicate...

Available literature on sodium monofluorophosphate and sodium fluoride suggests that sodium monofluorophosphate is hydrolysed in fluoride and phosphate ions and the Panel concludes that fluoride bioavailability will be to an extent comparable to the one from sodium fluoride. The most sensitive effect of fluoride exposure in humans is dental fluorosis and conclusions of comprehensive evaluations indicate that genotoxicity and carcinogenicity are not of concern for fluoride exposure in humans. Long-term clinical interventions trials have suggested that monofluorophosphate is better tolerated than other common sources of fluoride such as sodium fluoride. Based on toxicity data from readily soluble forms of fluoride tolerable upper intake levels (ULs) for fluoride have been established in Europe. The proposed supplementation foresees that sodium monofluorophosphate will be added to food supplements to supply between 0.25 and 2 mg fluoride per day, corresponding to approximately 2.5 to 16 mg sodium monofluorophosphate.

fluoridealert.org...

see also:
fluoridealert.org...
www.fluoridealert.org...

...so are you a chemist, then??

if not, i'll choose to believe the doctors, dentists, and all the other professionals in this video instead, which, by the way, i still don't think you have watched yet... ...i hope i'm wrong, though!

[edit on 10-6-2009 by adrenochrome]

well well well...

Fluoridation: Case study

When health chiefs in Southampton decided to demand the fluoridation of water supplies last year, they argued that it was the only way to reduce tooth decay, which leaves four in every ten children in the city with a filling by the time that they start school.

Despite a three-month public consultation, which found 78 per cent of more than 10,000 responses against the proposal, the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) decided to go ahead with the scheme, which is expected to start in 2010.

...

Health managers responsible for Southampton are the first to use new law changes introduced in 2003 that oblige water companies to agree to health authority requests to fluoridate.

Opponents, including the National Pure Water Association, are still considering whether to mount a legal action to try to block the scheme.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

amazing - simply amazing!

if it's like this just in Southampton, i can only imagine how many other places are getting screwed, too!



[edit on 14-6-2009 by adrenochrome]