I now believe in the fluoride conspiracy.

I think the thread has attracted one of the typical derailing types that toss in non-sense.

For instance, this spin that he introduced to say the phosphate industry removed the fluoride and then put it back in. Such obvious non-sensical thinking and statement is not intelligent and intended only for the purpose of disruption and derailing the theme.

Anyone that knows the phosphate industry knows they mine phosphate in open pit mines, and as mined they have way to much toxic fluoride content to be used agriculturally for plants as used directly it harms the plant's growth.

So, they clean up the phosphate using a kiln process that heats the raw mined phosphate and drives off a portion of the fluoride content, but not even close to all of it. The heating or cooking is expensive and drives up the cost, so they only take the fluoride content down just enough to make it usable. That means they didn't clean out all the fluoride in the phospate, which is then repeatedly added to farming areas and drives up the fluoride content of the soils. So, the plants pick up more fluoride content then the would if phosphate fertilizer methods were not used.

Thus, we see the typical nonsense exposed by this literal non-sense claim of they removed then added fluoride to the phosphate. Such obvious lack of knowledge on fluoride involved industry workings isn't called intelligent or being honest with exposing all the problems.

With this person being exposed for telling falsehoods repeatedly, it is obvious this person seeks not to expose the truth for the topic of fluoride cumulative poisoning effects and seeks to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting public. imho

A ton more of Refs:

www.fluoridealert.org...

www.purewatergazette.net...

www.commondreams.org...

www.thenhf.com...

www.acsa.net...

reply to post by MagnumOpus


i already posted what happens to the apatite but here it is again

Apatite contains between 3 to 7 percent fluoride and is the main source of fluorides used in water fluoridation.

To obtain hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6):
• The fluoride-containing rock is ground up and treated with sulphuric acid producing hydrofluoric acid gas (HF);
(They do this till there is no longer any gas being produced. When no gas is present that means all the flourine has gone from the phosphate)

• The HF gas then begins a purification process involving washing, cooling, condensation, and finally distillation (rectification);

• The HF is then reacted with silica to produce hexafluorosilicic acid with a concentration of 37 to 42 per cent. By neutralising hexafluorosilicic acid with sodium carbonate and precipitating the solid matter, manufacturers can readily convert liquid hexafluorosilicic acid into the powder disodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6).

In the UK and America and Europe the water companies are only allowed to use
Hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) also known as fluorosilicic acid
and Disodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) also known as sodium fluorosilicate.

Notice that apatite only contains 3-7 % fluoride in it. The process takes out all of the fluoride not just some of it



AND another thing It is not fluoride you should be worried about in your water. I be more worried about chlorine

About two years ago, after reading about all the fluoride threads, I discontined it altogether. I didn't even use tap water to make my coffee.

I've always had naturally strong, healthy teeth. In fact, I'd only had one cavity in my entire life. After being completely off fluoride for about six months, I went to the dentist for a routine check up, and I had FOUR cavities.
Yep. FOUR.

Other than that, I noticed no difference in anything.

I still don't want too much, and still drink bottled water, but now use tap water to make my tea and coffee.

My teeth are back to normal.

Just saying.

reply to post by minor007


This isn't the chloine discussion thread, end the disruption and distraction games. You have not supported your apatite claim in truth. imho

Also, I see that you not only appear to support poisoning people with fluorides, but also radiation:

====

www.acsa.net...

The fluorosilicic acid used to make the "fluoridated water" most of us get from our taps is made from various fluorine gases captured in pollution scrubbers during the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers. This fluoride solution put into our water for "strong teeth" also contains radioactive elements from the phosphate extraction.

To grow what the tobacco industry calls "more flavorful" tobacco, US farmers use high-phosphate fertilizers. The phosphate is taken from a rock mineral, apatite, that is ground into powder, dissolved in acid and further processed. Apatite rock also contains radium, and the radioactive elements lead 210 and polonium 210. The radioactivity of common chemical fertilizer can be verified with a Geiger-Mueller counter and an open sack of everyday 13-13-13 type of fertilizer (or any other chemical fertilizer high in phosphate content).

-------

It's a well established but little known fact that commercially grown tobacco is contaminated with radiation. The major source of this radiation is phosphate fertilizer.1 The big tobacco companies all use chemical phosphate fertilizer, which is high in radioactive metals, year after year on the same soil. These metals build up in the soil, attach themselves to the resinous tobacco leaf and ride tobacco trichomes in tobacco smoke, gathering in small "hot spots" in the small-air passageways of the lungs.2 Tobacco is especially effective at absorbing radioactive elements from phosphate fertilizers, and also from naturally occurring radiation in the soil, air, and water.

------

Tobacco smoking has been popular for centuries,11 but lung cancer rates have only increased significantly after the 1930's.12 In 1930 the lung cancer death rate for white US males was 3.8 per 100,000 people. By 1956 the rate had increased almost tenfold, to 31 per 100,000.13 Between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium 210 in American tobacco tripled, commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers.14

Publicly available internal memos of tobacco giant Philip Morris indicate that the tobacco corporation was well aware of radiation contamination in 1974, and that they had means to remove polonium from tobacco in 1980, by using ammonium phosphate as a fertilizer, instead of calcium phosphate. One memo describes switching to ammonium phosphate as a "valid but expensive point."

-----

Attorney Amos Hausner, son of the prosecutor who sent Nazi Adolf Eichmann to the gallows, is using these memos as evidence to fight the biggest lawsuit in Israel's history, to make one Israeli and six US tobacco companies pay up to $8 billion for allegedly poisoning Israelis with radioactive cigarettes.

=========


So, are you proposing poisoning the Jewish and others with fluoride and radiation as good for the health?

reply to post by MagnumOpus


OMFG will you stop with the copy and paste , you know nothng and that is obvious.

To grow what the tobacco industry calls "more flavorful" tobacco, US farmers use high-phosphate fertilizers. The phosphate is taken from a rock mineral, apatite, that is ground into powder, dissolved in acid and further processed. Apatite rock also contains radium, and the radioactive elements lead 210 and polonium 210. The radioactivity of common chemical fertilizer can be verified with a Geiger-Mueller counter and an open sack of everyday 13-13-13 type of fertilizer (or any other chemical fertilizer high in phosphate content).

What you fail to mention here is that the apatite you are referring to for the tabacco industry comes from FLorida and only florida and its only in trace amounts

from wiki

Apatite is occasionally found to contain significant amounts of rare earth elements and can be used as an ore for those metals.[6] This is preferable to traditional rare earth ores, as apatite is non-radioactive [7] and does not pose an environmental hazard in mine tailings. Except some apatite in Florida used to produce phosphate for U.S. tobacco crops contains uranium, radium, lead 210 and polonium 210 and radon.

And please are you arguing the use of fluoride being bad for you then you come across saying they use radioactive apatite to grow tabacco to support your claim? Theres an easy answer to your claim...DONT SMOKE
Also to add give me a geiger counter and i can guarentee i can get it to click just by going almost anywhere.
Also can you get more up to date findings reports or whatever that are recent and NOT 60 yrs old

A survey of phosphate rocks from all major phosphate producing areas of the world showed that phosphate rocks from Florida, the main source of fertilizer phosphates in the United States, ranked relatively high in content of Uranium Radium and Thorium. In areas where crops are fertilised with high rates of phosphate from Florida, the addition of radium and uranium may equal the amounts occuring naturally in the plow layer of the soils but the addition of Thorium would be less than the amount occuring naturally. The radiation hazard, which might result from uptake of radium into food plants, appears negligible

Source

007, It appears that you can't listen to the thread originators comments to you to supply references and preferable peer review ones that deal with fluoride. I've not seen you toss out any references. Handwaving does not count. You have failed miserably. You have been disproven and various points to the point that you seem to want to cut and run into the subject of chlorine to change the topic, so devisive. You've lost when you have to try that.

Also, you appear to not have a clue on the issues of "safe dose" that you keep trying to apply to the toxin that is known to be cumulative in retention in the body. Anyone that even attempts to toss out the use of safe dose for a cumulative toxic effect is all about deceit and treachery.

Everyone sees that fluoride content builds in various organs with age, and the prime examples are the bone and penial gland. Obviously, for persons with age, with already huge levels of fluoride toxic material in their organs, there is not a safe dose. The rule for cumulative toxic effects is there can't be a safe dose level defined. Safe dose levels for a cumulative poison is a sham and foists a lie into the public view. It isn't protective of their health.

The radiation industry fought the same batter with attempting to tell there was a safe dose for radiation, but they had to cave into the issues called ALARA. Radiation is an effect that produces oxidative stress on the cells and body, and for persons with age the margin of added oxidative stress tolerance is much less than for the younger.

The same basic reasoning applies to fluoride exposures, the aged are not protected, and they have already gotten too much fluoride retention and should not be subjected to any more from any sources. Thus, your claims for safe dose criteria applied to fluoride and fluoridation is not protective of the elderly, and quite sinister in intentions to not be protective of them.

Fluoride is a cumulative poison effect and anyone that even tosses of the idea for safe doses for a cumulative poison has sinister intention. imho

The ultimate 007 nonsense to avoid radiation effects from phosphate issues is stop smoking----the next thing he'll tell is the cows need to stop eating and the humans need to stop eating also because the plants have fluoride and radiation uptake. Absolutely insane blundering reasoning with this 007 logic.

007 must be running for PT Barnum methods and selling stuff to suckers. I don't think folks are buying your balogna.

----

Here is an older article on the issues of why phosphate became an issue that dragged in the problems of fluoride pollution in the food chain along with radiation:

pubs.acs.org...

-----

Fluoride recovery in the fertilizer industry:

www.fluoridealert.org...

----

Here are some more readings on the problems with fluoride:

www.just-think-it.com...

----

reply to post by MagnumOpus


I use the same peer reviewed scientific data as the people who say fluoride is bad. Most if not all of the studies showing adverse effects on the body are done using animals and giving them doses way higher than they normally get in their entire lifetime.

After reviewing the collective evidence, including studies conducted since the early 1990s, the committee concluded unanimously that the present MCLG of 4 mg/L for fluoride should be lowered. Exposure at the MCLG clearly puts children at risk of developing severe enamel fluorosis a condition that is associated with enamel loss and pitting. In addition, the majority of the committee concluded that the MCLG is not likely to be protective against bone fractures. The basis for these conclusions is expanded upon below.

Source

Unfortunately, lots of these Panel things are more politcal contrivances to keep industry running and being half way protective of the public and the workers. You appear afraid to discuss the weakness issues or even mention them

Sounds like you agree fluoride levels are too high---since they said so. Do you dare to think for yourself or just follow the leader and not understand the issues and make informed decisions for yourself and even for the protection of your grandparents health and lifespan.

So, take into account the issues of the aged being already loaded up with fluoride in their bodys and how much more should they be allowed to consume since lots of their health effects will already involved fluoride negative effects.

Also, explain carefully all multiple source for fluoride intake into the body and how those were accounted for in the determination for water fluoridation exposures adding directly onto those dozens of other exposures.


IN regard to the dose issue, which is something applicable to toxic materials that have short retention times in the body and don't build up over time in any organ. Show how they accounted for the mechanism of fluoride to accumulate in bone mass, aeorta, pineal gland, ligaments, thyroid disorders, the AlFx problems with thyroid homone, etc.

What are the weakensses in the study and how did they balance the industry requirements on cost containment vs the People Protection.

Account for the issues of HF released from coal burning emissions, the food chain additions of fluoride, those using fluorinated medicines, and those exposed to fluoride industrial emissions due to proximity.

You'll find this is a political document that isn't protective of peoples health, unless they recommend the end of water fluoridation. If they were honest and accurate, they needed to say end water fluoridation. They would then be remiss in addressing the extended fluoride exposure issues from industry's toxic emissions and worker exposures.


Even some of the regulators speak out about the issues of the need to end fluordation totally across America:

====

www.sweetliberty.org...

EPA UNIONS CALL FOR NATIONWIDE MORATORIUM ON FLUORIDATION, CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON ADVERSE EFFECTS, YOUTH CANCER COVER UP

====


Countries, America Especially, often lie to accomodate industry and certainly fluoride is called a Protected Pollutant because of that issue, and it is that issue of failure to explain fully the truth and risks of fluoride due to industry that makes fluoride a huge conspiracy issue working against the health and longevity of those exposed.

All this fluoride mess started in Germany with the Meuse Valley issues and its gotten worse with industry protectism and lies every since. Kettering research shades the truth and plays games just like the protectism on big tobacco.

It is all about the money and how to lie to the public about the harms.


So, lets examine one of the folks on this panel named Kathleen Thiessen, who has seen the fluoride problems associated with the Atomic Energy Projects. What did this panel member say with respect to fluoridation?

====

www.fluoridealert.org...

Dr. Kathleen Thiessen justifies why water fluoridation is dangerous by discussing the damaging effects of fluoride on people who are exposed most to it.

=====

Watch her interview on YouTube:

www.youtube.com...

====

What did she tell a major US city by using Peer Reviewed Science:

www.nofluoride.com...

=====

More associated with Portsmouth:

www.fluoridefreeportsmouth.com...

=====

So, did you bother to think beyond the Govt's political games to protect fluoride industries, when reasonable and logical professionals all around can see and speak to the problems.

After all the intelligent people over half of Europe spoke out against the slow cumulative poison from fluoride.

But not you. 007's are licensed to kill, I guess.

If you are a good person, you might consider apologizing to everyone for being so supporting of something that isn't good for anyone.

Turn over a new leaf 007, become highly informed in place of a sheep like blind follower.

Help turn the world around toward a better health trend by recognition of the problems in place of ill informed denials.


I think that you know you are wrong and all those watching well see it also. So, don't get caught in a situation like cheating on cards and the whole table turns against you. Learn and help others become informed.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


hmm lets have a look at these health issues

Fluoride in drinking water and risk of hip fracture in the UK: a case-control study
Summary:
There is a low risk of hip fracture for people ingesting fluoride in drinking water at concentrations of about 1 ppm. This low risk should not be a reason for withholding fluoridation of water supplies
Source

Community water fluoridation, bone mineral density, and fractures: prospective study of effects in older women
Summary:
Long term exposure to fluoridated drinking water does not increase the risk of fracture.
Source

Study shows "no significant association" between osteosarcoma and fluoride
source

Here is the European Commission scientific review published - May 2011

Medical Research Council report - Sept 02

Chemistry and Bioavailability Aspects of Fluoride in Drinking Water - an authoritative independent review of the chemical speciation and bioavailability of fluoride in drinking water.

Health Minister's comments

Water fluoridation and thyroid disease

The conclusions of these authoritative reviews are mirrored by the experience of specialist doctors diagnosing and treating thyroid disorders in hospitals in the West Midlands, which has had fluoridation schemes in operation since the mid-1960s and which is today the most extensively fluoridated region of the United Kingdom. Around seven out of ten people in the West Midlands now drink water whose natural fluoride content has been topped up to the optimum for dental health of one part of fluoride per million parts of water.

Dr Andy Toogood, a consultant endocrinologist in the Department of Medicine at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, says that he and his colleagues have seen nothing to suggest a rise in thyroid disorder cases resulting from water fluoridation.

Nor have public health officials who monitor trends in disease across the West Midlands detected any impact on the health of local populations drinking fluoridated water - other than a reduction in tooth decay levels which puts children living in the West Midlands among the best in the country for dental health.

Source

Environmental aspects of water fluoridation

Want more peer reviewed papers?

Ah, all these UK references. You have about a thousand to go to keep up with the ones that I've tossed out that run counter to yours. You must be from the UK and you all need lots more fluoride in the water because UK only has 10 percent of the country fluoridated, and you all need 100 percent of the population fluoridated. The USA won't mind at all if the UK folks want to be fluoridated and we'll tell ya to go for 100 ppm per glassfull. Oh course, we will insist the Pubs be closed so you don't get the benefits of Boron in beer and you can get the full dose and have them build over time.

Oh course we know the region data for UK does not fit well with the US studies.

Certainly, the City of London would vote for all of England to have super white frosty teeth, stiff upper lips / body, and lower IQ's. You all tended to like the ideas of slavery, right. Have we got a deal for you, that won't allow you to resist exploitation or know freedom. You must be one of those industry types they pay to tell people that fluoride is great stuff----well, it starts at home with UK first. Fluoridate Buckingham Palace and the Windsors.


Here in the US, the movement to end the nutty idea of fluoride is good for you is on the move and we'll teach the better sciences, save money on water supplies, and we'll enjoy higher brain function in the process of not being made dull of mind by toxic fluoride.

All the intelligent folks from Dr. Mercola to Dr. Connett and tons more will jump on the bandwagon to end the chemical poisoning of Americans.


If you like the poison water, then the rule needs to be an individuals right of choice and not forced into the public's water supplies as more poison for a toxic world.


You have fun drinking your water poisoner's water supplies, but leave the rest of us free of your insanities.


I see you have become the UK "artful dodger" because you can't seem to refute the professional views of Dr. Thiessen, and lots lots more questions put to you. So, since you are into some regionalism issues per fluoride, how about explaining to everyone why the UK Queen doesn't have London Proper fluorided, and how about the City of London too, as they need their long term fluoride dose. These Royals don't want fluoride? Why? How about Switzerland and the Basel area, all those Bankers don't want fluoride in their water? Why? How about in the US at Ft Deitrich and their water isn't fluoridated and it supposed to be so good for you.

Now most folks know there are pleanty of garbage sciences studies on fluoride out there. Such studies go to unfluorinated areas and do short term studies on various problems assigned to fluoride. UK is largely not Fluoridated and studies done in these areas vs areas with fluoride like the US have numerous offsetting factors to consider. Of Couse the longer term problems from low dose exposures won't show up much at all for 1ppm fluoride in water in an area that has never had fluoridation, and were other fluoride exposures are also low. Likewise, studies done in areas like Israel with high Boron levels in their water supplies won't work well with fluoride studies because the Boron counteracts the fluoride retention factors. Studies done with workers that drink lots of beer cause offset factors because of the Boron in beer. Dietary issue matter in these studies.

007, you appear to be doing some slight of hand little tricks with tossing out some of the garbage science studies that are not well designed. Good studies look at 50 years of fluoridation in one area and 50 years of no fluoridation in a nearby area----so all the food factors and industry expsoures are close to being equal. Europe did lots of those studies and found that fluoridation was garbage science instigated.

Other good studies would look at endemic fluoride issues in areas like Ethiopia, where people's teeth get frosty white from all the fluorides getting into the food chain from the East African Rift zone's fluoride emissions factors. In these areas the populations have AIDS run thru them easily. Then take areas of South Africa, where the fluoride levels are low and the AIDS transmissions rates are very low, even when workers like prostitutes are frequently exposed.


Industry often churns out many worthless studies to mislead the population and become artful dodges of responsibilty of harm.

reply to post by angeldoll


You are a bigger liar than John Mccain him self.... do you use toothpaste or no? 4 cavities!! FOUR?

I have been off fluoride for 1 year and 5 months now and still have no cavities and in fact i use reverse osmosis water which is free from lead and arsenic and other contaminants in tap water.

Nice try buddy.

Sodium fluoride is forced on EVERYONE

reply to post by CrazyRaccoon


NVM

reply to post by MagnumOpus


aaah now you are talking out of your backside matey. heres an hint American Intelligence.. 2 words that should never ever be put together.

you must be from the UK and you all need lots more fluoride in the water because UK only has 10 percent of the country fluoridated

and in those areas where theres been fluoridated water theres no difference in health no difference in IQ no adverse affects on the enviornment etc etc. The only difference is healthy teeth and bones.
So the Brits really have proved all your points wrong as none of your counter arguements have any validity when you compare them to those fluoridated areas.

and talking of IQ
www.dailymail.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Birmingham where fluoridated water been going on for 40 yrs or so has one of the highest IQs in the country.

So much for fluoridated water harming the IQ etc etc etc

reply to post by minor007


Okay fine you keep drinking fluoride water with lead and i will drink clean water with anti-oxidants

by the way you never told me why it's given to everyone, since fluoride is a medication

reply to post by CrazyRaccoon


oh right flourine is a medicine now is it?
and i thought you was arguing it was a toxic element that is destroying the human body and mind

reply to post by minor007


A powder does not turn into a gas at room temperature...(some weird powders do) but not sodium fluoride.

Fluorine is not sodium fluoride i checked MSDS... i try to avoid anyone who puts this

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

aaah now you are talking out of your backside matey. heres an hint American Intelligence.. 2 words that should never ever be put together.

you must be from the UK and you all need lots more fluoride in the water because UK only has 10 percent of the country fluoridated

and in those areas where theres been fluoridated water theres no difference in health no difference in IQ no adverse affects on the enviornment etc etc. The only difference is healthy teeth and bones.
So the Brits really have proved all your points wrong as none of your counter arguements have any validity when you compare them to those fluoridated areas.

and talking of IQ
www.dailymail.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Birmingham where fluoridated water been going on for 40 yrs or so has one of the highest IQs in the country.

So much for fluoridated water harming the IQ etc etc etc

=====

Ha, now it is coming out that 007 is a British fluoride promoter. A TV IQ test--how laughable. That is pure nonsenese. Those tests are not normalized or standardized to the national methods of testing IQ. It is a made for TV hype job to make the UK think they are smart.

But 007 can't read or process news articles, as the news article said:

"But it's not all good news. Britain was not only trounced by Germany and the Netherlands, which came top of the heap, but by five other nations including Poland and Italy."

I hate to read the UK's score compared to the Japanese. Monty Python's stereotypical image lives on in the UK and the world makes fun of them.

And since we know that all these other European Countries are not fluoridated and have a lot higher IQ scores than Birmingham. Then we have to consider the London Fogs, you might wanna tell us about how those compare to the Donora Fluoride Fog.

France likely lagged behind because the Wine often has overloads of fluoride, but it is being improved.

Looks like the Brits are not very high IQ. And Monty Python, Benny Hill, and Mr. Bill are teaching school. And the King has no clothes.



Now, if 007 was sharp, which he isn't, he tell this comparison between England and Scotland:

"Adults in England and Wales have an IQ of 100.5, ahead of Ireland and Scotland, both with 97. Residents of London and the South East average 102."

That shows a loss of 5 IQ points between England and Scotland, with England being largely not fluioridated, especially around London, and Ireland is almost all fluoridated. It tends to show a very noticable impact on IQ with Fluoride vs No Flouride areas using the same standardized testing methods hopefully. Scotland couched against non-fluoride areas like Germany gets very embarrasing.


Seems as 007 is not for open disclosure on points that really would matter and he gets caught shading the information every time.

reply to post by minor007


You're a liar or some kind of disinformation agent.

Here is fluorine

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by MagnumOpus


Thank you for backing up my claim that he doesn't know what he's talking about.