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

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Iwinder

 

Thanks for the information posted above from your link you so kindly provided......
Enough said I think.

Your welcome. I always try to provide my sources.

I wonder what "more recent" research Dr. Limeback was talking about. The pieces of research cited in my post are from 2001.

Here's one from 2007:

The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27% (95%CI: 19%–34%). These findings suggest that fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages.

jdr.sagepub.com...
Brushing your teeth with fluoride is a really good idea too. According to the study it prevents the same number of caries as fluoridation. So if you have both you should have more the 50% fewer cavities than someone who doesn't.

Wallowing? Really? I don't see it.

edit on 8/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Wallowing, yes you are sir like it or not you are out of your usual element where dropping links left and right they will not cut the cheese here at all.
There are no fools here but there is a massive amount of information available which refutes each and every one of your statements made on this thread.


I live in Canada the world leader of exporting asbestos, how do I feel about that......******* shamed beyond belief that we still mine this known toxin and export it to anyone with a spare dollar.

How would you feel living right next door to an asbestos mine?
I tell you what the property can be had for a few years life and then your dead.

Back to the point of the thread here, it is a proven fact that Fluoride is a toxin so take that as you will, it is either a safe toxin (which I have never heard of in my life) or it is just that....a Poison.

For christ sakes they were coating children's toys with asbestos and lead paint just to be sure they were not going to burn up or the paint stayed put. That was just a few years ago too.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder

it is either a safe toxin (which I have never heard of in my life) or it is just that....a Poison.

Sure it is, when it is in high enough concentrations. So, any concentration is bad? Do you drink coffee? Tea? Maybe even an occasional soda? Do you drink undistilled water? All of these contain "poisons".

For christ sakes they were coating children's toys with asbestos and lead paint just to be sure they were not going to burn up or the paint stayed put.

Lead paint was banned 35 years ago. The use of friable asbestos (the harmful stuff) was banned in various uses starting in 1973. Encapsulated asbestos (which cannot be inhaled) is allowed.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Iwinder

 

it is either a safe toxin (which I have never heard of in my life) or it is just that....a Poison.

Sure it is, when it is in high enough concentrations. So, any concentration is bad? Do you drink coffee? Tea? Maybe even an occasional soda? Do you drink undistilled water? All of these contain "poisons".

To answer your pop quiz no to all of the above and I am being honest here.
RO Water only here.
Off the coffee for 20 years and still miss it I will admit that.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder

To answer your pop quiz no to all of the above and I am being honest here.
RO Water only here.

Oh come on. No vices? You can tell us.

But RO water is not distilled. There will be low concentrations of those poisons.

reply to post by Phage

"Lead paint was banned 35 years ago. The use of friable asbestos (the harmful stuff) was banned in various uses starting in 1973. Encapsulated asbestos (which cannot be inhaled) is allowed."

Very good for the distraction from the topic but I am as guilty here as you are, Just how much asbestos right now at this moment is say just in NYC alone?

Hmmmmmm probably millions of tons of it and I think I am being generous here.

How many apartments in NYC are coated with layer upon layer of lead paint?

Anything banned 35 years ago is still kicking today, think about it for a minute how do you remove lead paint that has 7 coats of paint over it.
How do you remove asbestos coated walls and pipes? The only solution I see is to demolish the building and then refuse treatment to those who suffer the consequences.

How do you remove the affects of ingesting Fluoride over a life time?
My answer is you cannot.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by golemina


I advise you to look further. Your minerals and nutrients are supposed to come from your food; not your water supply. Distilled water has 0 contaminants because it literally is pure H20. Tap water and spring water is so laden down with those inorganic minerals and nutrients that it has no room to pick up the contaminants in your body and filter them out. By the process of capturing the steam and condensing it back down to water; you ensure that water is the only thing you get.

www.aquariusthewaterbearer.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Iwinder

 

To answer your pop quiz no to all of the above and I am being honest here.
RO Water only here.

Oh come on. No vices? You can tell us.

But RO water is not distilled. There will be low concentrations of those poisons.

edit on 8/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

My health does not allow any vises whatsoever here and I mean that.
By the end of the day my gut just rattles on its own with all the pills dancing around down there.
I told you all I can and believe me or not that is the truth.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by golemina


You are not understanding why I said; I said that the minerals and nutrients of spring water are inorganic, not the water itself. Those minerals and nutrients come as runoff from the surrounding rock beds; your body can not use them.

And Phage here is A source for the fluoride in Prozac... What and how do you think FLUOxetine gets its name?
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Your statement about keywords was both baseless and irrelevant.

reply to post by Iwinder

Anything banned 35 years ago is still kicking today, think about it for a minute how do you remove lead paint that has 7 coats of paint over it.
How do you remove asbestos coated walls and pipes? The only solution I see is to demolish the building and then refuse treatment to those who suffer the consequences.

Paint...you remove all the paint down to the substrate.
Asbestos, you scrape it off.
And you use protective gear while doing so and you treat the stuff with care and isolate the work area. It's expensive but often cheaper than tearing down the building.

How do you remove the affects of ingesting Fluoride over a life time?

What effects? You mean fluorosis? You can't do much about it but it takes drinking water with pretty high concentrations for it to show up. That other stuff? Cancer? Neurological effects? There doesn't seem to be much evidence that it can be blamed on fluoride in water, in particular at the low concentrations which are involved with fluoridation.

reply to post by Phage


This is not true; show me any tests that were conducted for an extended period of time straight; say 10 years, or 20? Or tests that accounted for all the other maximum recommended dosages for fluoride that exist in practically everything you consume...You are wrong and I'm losing patience replying to your propaganda. It wouldn't matter what evidence I put in your face; you are still going to believe the people investigating themselves over anything. Why is it that when 'alternative doctors' find problems with something; the mainstream uses their own sources to discredit. That's like allowing a murderer to be in charge of his own case....

reply to post by Phage


Phage, none of your points have really made a good case for fluoridating drinking water. It's like saying we should put arsenic in our drinking water too, as long as we don't add enough to kill us outright.

Your point seems to revolve around dental health benefits, yet the data you have provided doesn't prove it is beneficial to dental health (in fact there is evidence to the contrary).

So let me ask you this:

If the controversy remains over fluorides dental health benefits (i.e, we assume that too much is bad for your teeth), and we already have it in our tooth paste, what good does adding a neuro-toxin to our drinking water do? Do the benefits really outweigh the risks, when we consider the fact it's already in tooth paste, and that is the primary reason cited for it's use in drinking water?

reply to post by Phage


Phage, still in denial on neurological effects?

The number 1 rank for most evidence on harmful fluoride effects is neurotoxicity.

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin


Ya no doubt. In this backwards world, no good deed goes unpunished.

As for floride, everyone is brainwashed. Just plain common sense would tell a person that you don't add dangerous chemicals to water before you drink it. Common sense would tell us that we need completely pure clean drinking water. But still people are SO STUPID. A lot of my relatives I talked to seem to think the floride is important and is good for you and your teeth. We live in wonderland what can you do.

Dr #1:



Dr #2:



more...

reply to post by DeadSeraph


His common sense fails in all regards when it comes to the fact that you don't even ingest your tooth paste so why in the world would doing so with your water be beneficial?

reply to post by Phage

Ok, I am done for the night here, but before I go people!!!!!!! watch for these certain words and when you see them please take notice.


If
possibly
could
there doesn't seem to be
you get the idea, lots of blabbing with these words included.
A good night to all here and
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by mikellmikell
The point is people paid for Flouride and got none. So where did the money go

Where did the fluoride go that was being delivered to the plant?

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Your point seems to revolve around dental health benefits, yet the data you have provided doesn't prove it is beneficial to dental health (in fact there is evidence to the contrary).

Ah. So you complain about a lack of "proof" that fluouride is beneficial and offer "evidence" as a counterpoint. That's a bit unfair don't you think? The fact is that there is very strong evidence that water fluoridation is beneficial. Did you miss this?

Comparisons of communities where water is fluoridated and communities where water remains unfluoridated show a reduced prevalence of dental caries in the range of 18-40 % when fluoridation is used (4). A recent study established the rate of caries reduction at 25 % (23). It is postulated that this estimate is more conservative than those reported in the past because the general population now enjoys the benefits of fluoride from other sources,
such as fluoride-enriched toothpaste and vitamin supplements.

www.inspq.qc.ca...

And this?

The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27% (95%CI: 19%–34%). These findings suggest that fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages.

jdr.sagepub.com...
Do you consider a 25% improvement (or better) to be insignifant?

what good does adding a neuro-toxin to our drinking water do?

Evidence that fluoride is toxic at the concentrations involved with fluoridation is lacking. There is certainly no proof (you seem to like that word) of it.

Do the benefits really outweigh the risks, when we consider the fact it's already in tooth paste, and that is the primary reason cited for it's use in drinking water?

What are the risks of a concentration of 1ppm of fluoride in drinking water? As the study shown above indicates fluoridated water provides an 27% benefit.

reply to post by Phage

Ah. So you complain about a lack of "proof" that fluouride is beneficial and offer "evidence" as a counterpoint. That's a bit unfair don't you think? The fact is that there is very strong evidence that water fluoridation is beneficial. Did you miss this?

I haven't missed any of the evidence you've provided. I contended in my reply to you that there is evidence on BOTH sides of the argument, thus any "evidence" is contentious at best.

Evidence that fluoride is toxic at the concentrations involved with fluoridation is lacking. There is certainly no proof (you seem to like that word) of it.

No, it is not. It's been provided in spades. You seem to think that only the evidence you provide, is valid.

What are the risks of a concentration of 1ppm of fluoride in drinking water? As the study shown above indicates, the direct application of fluoride results in a 29% percent decrease in caries (in adults). Fluoridated water provided an additional 27% benefit.

Let's assume for a moment that your data is correct. Are you going to tell me that you would be willing to potentially poison your own child, possibly lower his or her IQ, etc etc, all for an additional 29% reduction in CAVITIES? really?

Further, since you like to skew the numbers, you are assuming 1ppm of fluoride is the norm. You are completely disregarding numerous factors:

-Whether or not this number is standardized and if certain drinking supplies are fluoridated over this amount

-How much fluoridated tap water a given individual ingests in a year

-How much of that fluoride is in addition to what the individual already ingests through food, tooth paste, etc

-How these factors (in combination with using fluoridated tooth paste) could lead to excess amounts of consumption of a neurotoxin.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Are you willing to tell me that you would be willing to potentially poison your own child, possibly lower his or her IQ, etc etc, all for an additional 29% reduction in CAVITIES? really?

Not if I thought there was a chance of "poisoning". I don't think there is. Nor, apparently, do the voters of Gilbert and other communities. I wonder if there has been any increase in neurological problems in their children or themselves over the past 12 years.

-Whether or not this number is standardized and if certain drinking supplies are fluoridated over this amount

It pretty much is. In some places it's a bit higher, in some a bit lower. The data is quite readily available for different communities. If natural levels exceed that none would be added.

-How much fluoridated tap water a given individual ingests in a year

Let's say all the water an adult drinks is from a fluoridated water supply. 64 ounces a day would be 690 liters a year. At 1ppm that comes out to 690 mg of fluoride a year. About 3 ibuprofen tablets and of course, not all of that is utilized by the body nor does it occur all at once.

-How much of that fluoride is in addition to what the individual already ingests through food, tooth paste, etc

Well that's a little harder to figure out, an awful lot of variables.

How these factors (in combination with using fluoridated tooth paste) could lead to excess amounts of consumption of a neurotoxin.

At 1ppm concentration artificially fluoridated water would not lead to toxic levels. Of course if you eat a lot of toothpaste that could change. But if you're worried about that and live in a location with fluoride (natural or otherwise) in the water maybe you could just stop using a toothpaste which contains that "neurotoxin" and in order to reduce the risk.

reply to post by Phage


Don't put neurotoxin between quotes when writing about fluoride.

It has been replicated countless times, familiarise yourself with the study that spawned all those papers.

Phyllis J Mullenix was at time of publication from Harvard-affiliated Forsyth.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7760776

Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1995 Mar-Apr;17(2):169-77.

Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats.

Mullenix PJ, Denbesten PK, Schunior A, Kernan WJ.

Toxicology Department, Forsyth Research Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Abstract

Fluoride (F) is known to affect mineralizing tissues, but effects upon the developing brain have not been previously considered. This study in Sprague-Dawley rats compares behavior, body weight, plasma and brain F levels after sodium fluoride (NaF) exposures during late gestation, at weaning or in adults. For prenatal exposures, dams received injections (SC) of 0.13 mg/kg NaF or saline on gestational days 14-18 or 17-19. Weanlings received drinking water containing 0, 75, 100, or 125 ppm F for 6 or 20 weeks, and 3 month-old adults received water containing 100 ppm F for 6 weeks. Behavior was tested in a computer pattern recognition system that classified acts in a novel environment and quantified act initiations, total times and time structures. Fluoride exposures caused sex- and dose-specific behavioral deficits with a common pattern. Males were most sensitive to prenatal day 17-19 exposure, whereas females were more sensitive to weanling and adult exposures. After fluoride ingestion, the severity of the effect on behavior increased directly with plasma F levels and F concentrations in specific brain regions. Such association is important considering that plasma levels in this rat model (0.059 to 0.640 ppm F) are similar to those reported in humans exposed to high levels of fluoride.

PMID: 7760776 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]