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

reply to post by jeantherapy

Oh that's right, sublingual mucosal absorption doesn't occur so there is no way you could ever absorb toxins with your mouth.

Did I say that?

fluoride isn't technically a neurotoxin. It acts as a neuro-suppressant in certain parts of the brain though.. Some sites call it a toxin but in reality it only sets the stage for reduced liver output in people with a low metabolism and that results cause neurotoxicity to rise. All it does to people with high metabolism is to calm them but to people with a hereditarily lower metabolism it can result in problems. Lowering metabolism this way can increase Edema and make people gain weight, especially in people with lower metabolism. To say that Fluoride is a direct neurotoxin isn't right, it can induce neurotoxicity with long term low consumption unless a methyl group is consumed at the same time. Detoxing with a five hour energy may be possible or working up a sweat by exercise or a sauna to raise the metabolism should cause the liver function to increase. Ginger also stimulates the liver function to increase but there are many functions of the liver. I can't find references as to which food chemistry stimulates which sections. I'm sure it's out there somewhere..

Don't argue with each other, spend the time researching antidotes.

Originally posted by Phage
But I don't feel a need to consume fluoride. I try not to swallow toothpaste.

Your body is not absorbing any of the fluoride in the fluoridated toothpaste you use? Now I get it, you're the heir to the Colgate fortune!

reply to post by Phage


Are you being intentionally obtuse? If you consume 8 servings at 1ppm per 1 serving; how is that not consuming 8 ppm? I don't understand what kind of half ass logic you were applying there..

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

If you consume 8 servings at 1ppm per 1 serving; how is that not consuming 8 ppm? I don't understand what kind of half ass logic you were applying there..

I'm not surprised you don't understand. Let me explain it to you.

1 ppm is represents a level of concentration. No matter how much you consume of something with a concentration of 1ppm the concentration will still be 1 ppm. What you are claiming is the equivalent of saying if you have 5 shots of 80 proof whiskey (45% percent alcohol, 450,000 ppm) it becomes 400 proof whiskey.

reply to post by Phage


I can't believe you posted something I actually agree with. One thing I wonder about, though. How did humans ever get by without adding fluoride to their water? I mean, you've proven that it is essential - so humans were fragile boned creatures until sixty years ago?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

If you consume 8 servings at 1ppm per 1 serving; how is that not consuming 8 ppm? I don't understand what kind of half ass logic you were applying there..

I'm not surprised you don't understand. Let me explain it to you.

1 ppm is represents a level of concentration. No matter how much you consume of something with a concentration of 1ppm the concentration will still be 1 ppm. What you are claiming is the equivalent of saying if you have 5 shots of 80 proof whiskey (45% percent alcohol, 450,000 ppm) it becomes 400 proof whiskey.

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

Well for all practical purposes it does. The amount of alcohol in the blood stream would be relatively close to a shot of 400 proof. if your argument had any merit one could consume several shots of whiskey and not get drunk but we all know that is not true. But nice try at obfuscation. The accumulative effect of fluoride is well documented. Your argument falls flat and is really an attempt to avoid the issue that you know damn well is the problem. The more important problem is why the hell 51 percent of the people think they have the right to tell you you must drink poisoned water. If people are so dead set on taking fluoride fine with me but do not force it on me via government force by putting it in the local water supply that is just insanity and it i amazing anyone would defend such BS!

From 1972 to 1974 the number of heart attacks in Antigo, Winconsin doubled in a year, following the addition of fluoride to the water systems. Because of this, they took the fluoride out and the heart attack rate came down.

Because of fluoridation the US has the highest rates of hip fractures in the world and an epidemic of arthritis in 21 million Americans. No one appears to have noticed when, in an obscure paper published in 1979, Dr Hodge quietly admitted his safety figures had been wrong.

More short excerpts from my paper. Enquiries about my paper - please send me a personal message.

Just a comment for the posters who are synthesising fluoride information - during my research I could not find any scientific/medical studies that had been conducted over any specific period of time. Fluoride appears to have been first utilised and added to water during the second world war. It makes sense as the German people who were walking along the street to do their shopping - would routinely witness soldiers shooting people in the street - and - keep right on walking. The water was not just for the internment camps it was also placed in the drinking water of the general populous.Prior to that it is my understanding that NO LONGTERM DOUBLE BLIND STUDIES had been conducted on a scientific/medical level - at least not to determine whether sodium fluoride was safe for placing in or on the human body.

Much Peace...

Originally posted by Phage
Too much of anything is poisonous. To help prevent tooth decay.

You can't be serious, you think it's necessary for the government to force people to protect their own teeth? What's next, you want to government to put liquid soap in the water supply because you think people don't know how to use soap themselves when they take a shower?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

If you consume 8 servings at 1ppm per 1 serving; how is that not consuming 8 ppm? I don't understand what kind of half ass logic you were applying there..

I'm not surprised you don't understand. Let me explain it to you.

1 ppm is represents a level of concentration. No matter how much you consume of something with a concentration of 1ppm the concentration will still be 1 ppm. What you are claiming is the equivalent of saying if you have 5 shots of 80 proof whiskey (45% percent alcohol, 450,000 ppm) it becomes 400 proof whiskey.

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

This is ridiculous. By your own admission, you suggest we shouldn't consume over fluoridated water, yet you present numbers to skew the facts in such a way as to suggest fluoridated water supplies are ok despite the mountain of evidence that has been put before you and the flaws which have been pointed out in your own arguments?

Since you seem to respect numbers so much, crunch these for me:

If an individual drinks an average of 2.5 L of tap water a day, and brushes their teeth 3 times a day (minimum), and said tap water is 1ppm as per your claim, what will the average intake of fluoride be in that persons body? (don't discount absorption through food, as well as fluoride absorbed through the gums by brushing).

You skew numbers as if a prowess in math somehow makes your ineptitude in logic acceptable... You've yet to answer ONE fundamental question:

If we know fluoride is detrimental to our health, and we know it is only reasonably beneficial to our dental health (and is already included in our tooth paste, which dentists with far more experience than you have decided is MOST beneficial when applied topologically), WHY is it necessary to include it in our drinking water, and do the risks involved outweigh the benefits?

reply to post by Phage


You realize your whole argument falls flat on its face when you realize that if it was true; there would be no chance of toxicity right? When clearly the cumulative effect of fluoride would clearly infer that it is or can be toxic..

reply to post by Phage


But as for your metaphor; that's exactly what happens. It is like drinking 2 12 oz cans would be the same as drinking a 24 oz.. Aka the cumulative effects of fluoride would obviously indicate that eating 8 servings of 1 ppm, would result in a total accumulation of 8 ppm. Where on earth did you learn to count? I'm sorry but I have trouble understanding how 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 1... Did I get that right?

If a person wants to introduce fluoride into the body than there are foods that contain fluoride naturally. Keep in mind that the information on this site I am giving you may account for added fluoride from water used in it. It's hard to know all the particulars on their testing along with the natural fluorides present in almost all water. Fluoride is an ion that makes rock. As rock breaks down it gives off fluoride also. A lot of volcanos give off fluoride in their ash so the volcanics in the areas history have a huge impact on the natural fluorides in the water. Here is the site but I question the reputation of the site so I suggest cross checking it with other sites. www.fortcollinscwa.org... Just because it says USDA on it doesn't mean it's true, they average everything together and testing from all locations is not done.

Looks like they don't need to fluoridate water to me, not if it is for tooth decay.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jeantherapy

 

I'm starting to get the idea that you work for a water treatment plant where this stuff is being added because your defense of this poisoning is incomprehensible.

Yes, that's a claim people often make here when someone disagrees with them.

There is no fluoridation where I live.

How do you know? Did you test your water?

I am smiling from ear to ear right now.

It is threads like this which in addition to providing access to thought provoking ideas and links to websites that you may never have come across otherwise, It also gives people enough rope to hang themselves with if they so choose, and that is what has happened here.

Sometimes people can be SOOOOO logical that they forget how to add 1+1.
I'm sure he could find a Google link to get the answer but that's about where it ends.

If anything has come out of this, it is the outing of a fellow ATS member for being a...........HUMAN BEING!!!!
Capable of Critical thinking errors and shortsightedness as well as having an ego so large that it is impossable to admit he's wrong. We've all been there. It isn't a crime but it sure can be frustrating to deal with.

The bottom line is the fact that there is no opt out program in place.
You are basically FORCED to ingest this stuff because they make it all but impossable to avoid.
And STILL no one can give me an explination as to why our government isn't adding vitamins to our water seeing as how concerned they are for our health.

No one will touch that one.

We can ALL provide Google links till we're blue in the face but at the end of the day......this neuro toxin (yes, that's what it is,look it up) is still in our water supply as well as our food supply and vitamins aren't.

WHY!?!?!

We have seen first hand in this thread how it is possible to ignore an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the Government sponsored version of evidence.

The only way for some people to come to terms with fluoride's detramental effects is for a government sponsored study to be done which SHOWS that it has detramental effects. THEN and ONLY then will some people GET IT.

Some of us are Galileo and some of us are the Catholic Church.
Do you know who YOU are?
'Cuz I know who I am.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


If I am understanding the whole ppm thing it is like this.

One part per Million +
One part per Million +
One part per Million +
One part per Million = FOUR parts per FOUR Million

Which is the same RATIO as three parts per THREE Million
and yes even ONE part per Million.

HOWEVER


Since Fluoride ACCUMULATES in our Pineal gland it doesn;t really matter now does it?
It could be 1 part per 100 million and it would still destroy us although much slower.

Due to enquiry I am willing to forward my paper/intellectual property to anyone who is interested. Please send me a personal message with an email address - as as already been done by some.

The paper is my intellectual property and was written strictly as a personal presentation intended for my Local Shire Council. I wrote the paper from the perspective of being a Teacher. I wrote with the intention of sharing information - rather than promoting a campaign fuelled with anger and angst.

I have read widely and deeply with regard to the subject of Sodium Fluoride as well as sharing information with like minded researchers. I provide references with regard to the information that helped me build my intellectual position and that assisted me in the intellectual construction and composition of the paper.

When I forward the paper to interested people I will replace my Local Shire Council name with asterisks - providing the option to insert the appropriate name of the Local Shire Council in which you reside, thereby giving you permission to utilise my intellectual property - should you decide to utilise the opportunity offered. I also make the offer with the understanding that the paper will be read to the Local Shire Council named - bypassing regular administrative services. Human contact is essential when healing problems of a disproportionate dimension - in other words - front up to your Local Shire Council first and start your sharing of information in person - do not share information that is inclined to be subsumed/lost in the convoluted and complex administration systems of government departments. Share information properly not quickly and more power to you.

I will print a screen dump of this post for my records.

Much Peace...

reply to post by jeantherapy

I mean, you've proven that it is essential - so humans were fragile boned creatures until sixty years ago?

Depends. But a lot of water supplies have natural fluoride in them. In fact, that's how the dental benefits of fluoride were discovered.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jeantherapy

 

I mean, you've proven that it is essential - so humans were fragile boned creatures until sixty years ago?

Depends. But a lot of water supplies have natural fluoride in them. In fact, that's how the dental benefits of fluoride were discovered.

Well #... case closed.

Could you provide some evidence to this history?

reply to post by hawkiye

Well for all practical purposes it does.

For practical purposes, no it doesn't. The concentration doesn't change.

The more important problem is why the hell 51 percent of the people think they have the right to tell you you must drink poisoned water.

They don't. Interesting point though. What if your water supply has natural fluoride at 1 ppm (not uncommon)? Why should 49% of the people be able to insist that it be removed? If you don't want to drink tap water you can filter it or buy something else. Ever heard the expression, you can lead a horse to water?