Plant officials stop flouridating water... Get put on leave

Here is an article to read, it's source isn't that reliable though. I do have a little more faith in the CDC than the FDA though. It is a recent article, read everything and pay attention to both sides of the content. www.kansas.com... Bone problems from fluoride consumption are acknowledged.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

You said the level of concentration doesn't matter.
You said that the long term effects are the same as those of a massive dose.

No misinterpretation.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
It doesn't matter. If fluoride is indeed cumulative; any amount is a significant amount, because over time it will build up to cause the same problems as one massive concentration at once.

reply to post by Phage


You are deliberately misinterpreting what I said.

I did indeed say that concentration doesn't matter; when it comes to the long-term accumulation of fluoride. Over a long period of time even minute concentrations that accumulated will do as much damage as a massive concentration.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

How about Atherosclerosis for one? Which is caused by the calcium/plaque hardening the soft tissues of the arterial wall..What does fluoride bind to? Calcium...

Please show studies indicating persistent accumulation of fluoride in soft tissues.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

I did not misinterpret anything.

I did indeed say that concentration doesn't matter; when it comes to the long-term accumulation of fluoride.

Well then you'd better tell Iwinder that his RO system isn't doing him any good.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Over a long period of time even minute concentrations that accumulated will do as much damage as a massive concentration.

No. You said that an accumulation of fluoride will produce the same problems as massive dose.

reply to post by Phage


Please provide a logical explanation rooted in fact like I did rebutting my claim or shut up...I'm not in the mood to Google stuff for you when a simple search would have proved what I just said in regards to calcium...

reply to post by Phage


By the way; I'd like to point out that article we talked about with CT scans of fluoride showing up in atherosclerosis patients, answers exactly what you are asking..

What the ... are you really on about?

When I was younger, my friends would come over and complain that I had tap water (my family's house has a well). I never understood it because I honestly barely tasted a difference, I actually enjoy tap water more because it has some minerals in it, which does give it a little flavor and is supposedly good for you. I was later pleased to learn that that also means no fluoride (or so I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong but I would imagine if there was any it would be somewhat naturally occurring). Also I think it is pretty insane that the people of the town actually wanted their water to be fluoridated.

www.fluorideresearch.org...

Fluoride accumulation in bones and teeth as well as its impact on their mechanical properties is well documented by many authors.1-4 More controversial, sometimes even contradictory, are data concerning fluoride disposition in soft tissues.

And

www.fluoridealert.org...

www.fluoridealert.org...

How about these for starters?

Although fluoride does not directly deposit itself into the soft tissues..

lmgtfy.com...

It does so through the bonding to calcium, which does accumulate in soft tissues.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

By the way; I'd like to point out that article we talked about with CT scans of fluoride showing up in atherosclerosis patients, answers exactly what you are asking..

What the ... are you really on about?

Once again...

Fluoride is injected into the bloodstream as a marker. It is temporarily taken up by soft tissues, that is why it is used as a marker. The study found that the uptake of the injected fluoride correlated to calcified arteries. Arteries which were already calcified.

The study does not indicate that fluoride accumulates. The study does not indicate that fluoride causes arteriosclerosis. The study indicates that a CT/PET scan using a fluoride marker may be useful in the diagnosis of heart disease.

I think you guys highjacked this thread..

but some really good debates here..

Carry on!!!!!

reply to post by Phage


You do realize how annoying your willfully obtuse attitude is right? Calcification of the arterial walls, keyword CALCIFICATION, is based upon calcium/plaque buildups..What have I repeatedly stated bonds to calcium?? Fluoride. Thus fluoride would indeed be technically accumulating in soft tissues..

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Yeah. The Pineal gland study. People misinterpret that one a lot. Not exactly bone, not exactly soft tissue.

The pineal gland is a mineralizing tissue. Its calcified concretions range from a few micrometres to several millimetres in diameter. The larger ones are identifiable on skull X-rays, cranial CT and MRI scans. The concretions are composed of hydroxyapatite (HA) [Angervall et al., 1958; Earle, 1965; Mabie and Wallace, 1974; Galliani et al., 1990; Bocchi and Valdre, 1993] whose chemical composition, morphology, and unit cell dimensions are similar to HA in bone and teeth [Mabie and Wallace, 1974; Bocchi and Valdre, 1993].

www.icnr.com...

Kidney disease? Yeah, well kidney disease causes all kinds of bad things to accumulate that shouldn't. Urea, potassium, sulfates, phosphates. If you have kidney disease fluoride is among the least of your problems.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

What have I repeatedly stated bonds to calcium?? Fluoride

Yes, you've stated it.
Now show me evidence of chronic accumulation in soft tissue (which would include vascular). Then show me evidence that it occurs at low levels of ingestion.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

What have I repeatedly stated bonds to calcium?? Fluoride

Yes, you've stated it.
Now show me evidence of chronic accumulation in soft tissue (which would include vascular). Then show me evidence that it occurs at low levels of ingestion.

/facepalm

Do you understand that he's talking about cumulative long term effects? Why do you consistently misconstrue the debate to support your own point of view when there are hundreds of valid points here in this thread? You haven't even acknowledged one of them...

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Do you understand that he's talking about cumulative long term effects? Why do you consistently misconstrue the debate to support your own point of view when there are hundreds of valid points here in this thread?

Why don't you take note of the context. It was claimed that soft tissue accumulates fluoride. I asked for documentation. What is wrong with that?

You haven't even acknowledged one of them...

Incorrect.

reply to post by Phage


Let me put this in the densest explanation I can think of possible.

Stop misconstruing words. It is about whether fluoride accumulates in soft tissues, not whether soft tissue accumulates (or attract in this case, as you would like to spin it) fluoride. Calcium however, DOES deposit and accumulate into the soft tissues with inadequate intake of Vitamin K2, and poor dieting. Which as I said fluoride bonds to. If calcium accumulates in soft tissues; therefore logic would stand that fluoride does as well, simply because of the fluoride bonding to the calcium. That is how the fluoride gets there in the first place, much like it piggybacks it's way into the pineal gland during calcification and similar to how aluminum does the same thing with fluoride crossing the blood brain barrier.

Either quit dancing around, or I will consider you to be trolling in the name of TPTB, and henceforth decide to quit feeding you.

reply to post by Phage


Really? Show me one post of yours in this thread where you have acquiesced to someone else's point of view.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Here is an article to read, it's source isn't that reliable though. I do have a little more faith in the CDC than the FDA though. It is a recent article, read everything and pay attention to both sides of the content. www.kansas.com... Bone problems from fluoride consumption are acknowledged.

I read your link that you provided and this caught my eye right off the bat.

Are there methods I can use to remove fluoride from my drinking water at home? For example, boiling or use of commercially available water filters and units?

"The typical charcoal-based water filtration systems used in most homes do not remove fluoride from water. Boiling water does not remove fluoride. More costly distillation and reverse osmosis are treatment methods that have proven to be effective for removing fluoride to below 4.0 mg/L. If you choose to use home water treatment, make sure that the filter you use is certified to address your concerns."


Reverse Osmosis is not costly at all now and it is almost if not 100% effective in removing this know toxin.

It almost seems like they are discouraging people interested in removing Fluoride before they even finish reading the whole site...

Mind you this is a government site so a good filter system is expensive but yet adding this toxin to all water supplies in North America makes more practical sense to them...

I do realize that not every county in the states or every city in Canada adds this toxin but a good percentage do and will continue to do so.


kind of reminds me of DDT the wonder pesticide, so good for so many eh?

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
reply to post by Phage

 

Really? Show me one post of yours in this thread where you have acquiesced to someone else's point of view.

In this THREAD!?!?!

How about EVER!?!?!?!

I hate to say it.
Especially against someone as beloved and adored on this website as the alknowing "Phage" but.....

YOU GUYS ARE BEING TROLLED!!!

Stop feeding it and it will go away.
YOU WILL NEVER WIN!!!!
If you think I'm wrong then do a simple search if you're not already familiar with his tactics.
I thank you all for the information but you are spinning your wheels and getting nowhere.

It doesn't matter how many google links you provide to how many studies.
Unless they are Government funded,peer reviewed, authorized and approved studies THAT HE AGREES WITH
then you will be wasting your time.

As I said before,
Can any of you honestly say that you have seen Phage entertain the notion of a conspiracy theory????
You know,.............what this site is founded on??????
He has,does and always will come down on the side of government sanctioned authorized and approved version of reality everytime without fail. If I am wrong then prove it to me and I'll gladly eat my own words.

Bottom line here people, is you're being trolled.
All of the brilliant minds here in this thread would be put to better use discussing the reality of this conspiracy and
stop trying to prove something to someone who refuses to look at any evidence othere than the evidence that supports his claim.

But, don't let me stop you.
Carry on.
Maybe THIS will be thread where Phage admits he's............ ..........nevermind.
I almost said the unthinkable.