Fluoride - There can be no debate

Conspiracy theories are many and varied. Some are well supported whilst others are right outside the box. We come across all sorts on ATS. Sometimes, if we spend too much time on here, it can become harder to draw the line between those that are genuine and those that are not. There are a number of conspiracy theories that I subscribe to, with varying degrees of certainty. However I am probably a little on the gullable side, and to an extent, have fallen victim to the clutches of ATS in regards to sometimes believing everything is a conspiracy. Be that as it may, there are usually many valid arguments both supporting and opposing the conspiracy theories I subscribe to. There is one exception to this - Fluoride. I am yet to come across anyone that can provide even one valid reason why fluoride needs to be added to the water supply.

Now before you dispute this claim with the dental health argument, you need to consider what the advantage is fluoridating the water supply over brushing more often with fluoridated toothpaste. As far as I'm aware, the only advantage to fluoride that anybody claims is that it helps to protect against dental cavaties. Even if we take that as gospel (which I don't believe to be the case), why isn't brushing more regularly with fluoridated toothpaste sufficient?

Below are some of the negative facts and speculation regarding fluoride that I can think of:

* Fluoride is extremely toxic (Fact)
* Fluoride is difficult to filter out of water (Fact)
* Fluoride keeps the population docile (Speculation)
* Fluoride calcifies the Pineal Gland (Speculation)
* Fluoride negatively impacts on the Thyroid Gland (Speculation)

As I mentioned previously, there is only one advantage to fluoride, the speculative theory that it protects against tooth decay. Is the dental health of the population so important that it warrants mandatory exposure to a number of serious health risks for the potential benefit of a nice smile?

So when it comes to mandatory fluoridation of the water supply, there can be no debate. Mandatory fluoridation of the water supply is a 100% conspiracy fact.

/yawn not another fluoride thread....you havent done your homework..look up apatite.
FYI unless you drink water directly from a glacier all water sources contains varying amounts of fluoride

reply to post by minor007


Fluorapatite is found in nature but it's Calcium Fluoride. Sodium Fluoride is what they are using in drinking water. Which is a byproduct of aluminum manufacturing.

Fluorapatite - a mineral consisting of calcium fluorophosphate; the most common form of apatite

apatite - a common complex mineral consisting of calcium fluoride phosphate or calcium chloride phosphate; a source of phosphorus.

Fluorapatite - Dictionary

Originally posted by minor007
/yawn not another fluoride thread....you havent done your homework..look up apatite.
FYI unless you drink water directly from a glacier all water sources contains varying amounts of fluoride

The fluoride in your drinking water is derived from hexafluorosilicic acid and/or sodium silicofluoride. These are not naturally occurring.

Do your homework.

The EPA itself admits that too much fluoride can lead to bone disease and fluorosis. The problem with adding fluoride to drinking water is that you cannot gauge the dose. Additionally, these harmful, manmade versions of fluoride are in everything from your Pepsi to your cantaloupe to your drinking water.

Do your homework.

If these types of fluoride are harmless, why is it illegal to dump them into the environment? Why are we told on every tube of toothpaste to call poison control if it's ingested when a dab of toothpaste contains as much sodium silicofluoride as a glass of water?

Do your homework.


/yawn

Be mindful of well water, canned salmon, sardines, tea, chicken, hot dogs, spam and other "separated meat" products if fluoride intake is a concern.

Fluoride is in so much of what we consume.

I just wanted to post the MSDS on Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicofluoride.

www.sciencelab.com...

www.sciencelab.com...

MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast. May cause damage to
the following organs: kidneys, lungs, the nervous system, heart, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, bones, teeth.

Yeah - totally safe!

Ahem... homework???

Well, I've been researching fluoride evidence on an off for over thirty years. There is no way that I will ever think that the fluoride they put in water is good for us. It has been a deception from the start, especially because of it's compounding action. Why would the dentists back something that lowers their business They don't, that is the answer. Fluoride in nonorganic form is poison. Even in organic form it is poison if it is consumed to much. Sodium fluoride and the other chemical put in water are much more bio-available than calcium fluoride which occurs naturally in water.

Molybdenum will strengthen tooth enamel more than fluoride will. Even too much of that can be a problem.

Want strong teeth? Eat homemade soup made with soupbones at least once a week, it has everything in the right proportions to be healthy.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Why are we told on every tube of toothpaste to call poison control if it's ingested when a dab of toothpaste contains as much sodium silicofluoride as a glass of water?

Do your homework.

It clearly says call poison control only if more than used for brushing is swallowed. They're talking about when kids start sucking it out of the tube.

You can't even get what's on every tube of toothpaste right. Why should I trust your other "facts?"

Can't argue with common sense. S & F. I would play with my regular dentist on questions about fluoride. Mostly because I started seeing signs of dental fluorosis on my front teeth. They would always dismiss me. I didn't push the issue, cause I'm sure they would have thought I was crazy.

Except one dentist. I gave him a deal on some high end home work and he removed the pot marked areas of my teeth. Never drank from the spigot since. My teeth look great.

Come on...dentists don't know that fluoride is dangerous? They have as much access to information we do. I don't get it. Or maybe I do, as dentist do fluoride treatments that cost many dollars.....even at the expense of the dental patients health. Criminal.

Amazingly enough, I don't have any opinion on the subject. I tried, really I did, but all I could come up with was a couple of cliches:

"The poison is in the dose." And "If it's so bad, why aren't we all dead?"

Consider me your control, the part of the population that doesn't have an opinion. As a neutral party, I must say this isn't high on my list of things to worry about. It's not even high on my list of medical things to worry about. Once I get down to about Number 10 on my list of worries, I just give up caring.

Please explain to me why this should be in my top 10. Or, as another poster observed, why shouldn't I yawn.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Why are we told on every tube of toothpaste to call poison control if it's ingested when a dab of toothpaste contains as much sodium silicofluoride as a glass of water?

Do your homework.

It clearly says call poison control only if more than used for brushing is swallowed. They're talking about when kids start sucking it out of the tube.

You can't even get what's on every tube of toothpaste right. Why should I trust your other "facts?"

How much do you use to brush? Is it more or less than I use? Do you brush 3 times a day like I do? If a kid consumes 1.5 times the amount used to brush should I call poison control? How much is normally used for brushed and how much more than that mystery amount is enough to warrant calling poison control? Does this measurement take into account the fluoride I'm getting in my water, fruit, pasta, soda, juice, and pizza sauce?

The other facts are easily verifiable and I even left links. I'm sorry if you're having a hard time verifying them...perhaps it's for lack of trying?

To those doubting the affects of the consumption of sodium fluoride, this link will take you to google images of the affects of Advanced Skeletal Fluorosis.
Not a pretty sight.

reply to post by charles1952


I have to agree with you Charles. Of all the things that give me pause in life the subject of fluoride is not one of them.

Until there is new information saying I should care the subject has had its chance to prove the danger so far those who say it is a danger have failed to prove this.

I am not saying that a large dose wouldn’t be dangerous however just about anything in large enough quantities can be. Too much oxygen is dangerous as an example. Fluoride has many benefits for healthy teeth I have been to countries where it isn’t relevant in water where you can definitely see where the populace would have benefited from it.

reply to post by occrest

I don't know if you're addressing your comment to me, but on the off chance that you are let me offer some uninformed thoughts.

The CDC thinks that flouride in the water is the greatest thing since, well, whatever the most recent greatest thing was. They started flouridating in the 60s with a recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 really tiny bits to a large chunk of water. They have recently reconsidered and believe that 0.7 really tiny bits should be the limit.

I don't know any real reason to doubt them, and I won't accept that the government is in league with the dentists.

As far as the severe skeletal damage, one would have to take lots and lots of really tiny bits to see any effect (as Grimpachi pointed out). It's a problem in China, India, and a dozen or so other countries, but not in the US.

Thanks for encouraging me to look for more information, but I'm just not convinced I should be worrying.

Hey, Grimpachi. When I get down your way for a beer, don't ask if it was brewed with fouridated water, Ok?

Some of you seem to be missing the point. How dangerous it is can be debated. Whether it exists naturally in the water can be debated. How beneficial it is for our teeth can be debated. What cannot be disputed is that there is absolutely no advantage to fluoridating the water supply. We all have access to toothpaste don't we?

It's a real shame I have to spell it out, but the point is that poison should not be added to the water supply when it offers absolutely no benefit. That's right, NO BENEFIT. Brushing with fluoride toothpaste is at least as effective as drinking fluoridated water. This cannot be disputed.

reply to post by -mytym-

Below are some of the negative facts and speculation regarding fluoride that I can think of:
* Fluoride is extremely toxic (Fact)
* Fluoride is difficult to filter out of water (Fact)
* Fluoride keeps the population docile (Speculation)
* Fluoride calcifies the Pineal Gland (Speculation)
* Fluoride negatively impacts on the Thyroid Gland (Speculation)

Hi mytym, You listed 2 "facts" and 3 "speculations", no wonder no-one got the point, you don't have one.

Check out Dihydrogen Monoxide, if you want to see a really dangerous everyday chemical substance.
Facts about DhmO

Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters.

DHMO is a major component of acid rain. (fact)
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions. (fact)
Toxic in large doses (fact),
difficult to filter out of water (fact),
keeps the population docile (speculation)

I now have 4 facts and 1 speculation.

So we shouldn't have a discussion about this either, just accept my opinion.

We should not add DHMO to the water supply, yet they dump that stuff in our reservoirs, rivers and lakes with no regard for the environment or our health.

Tfw.

Flouride just makes people stupid period.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


When dissolved, both sources of fluoride release fluoride ions into the water. The fluoride ions do the work. Therefore, why does it matter if it were originally bonded to say Sodium instead of Calcium? It's like arguing that sulphuric acid is more dangerous than acetic acid even if they were both diluted to the point where the Hydronium ion concentrations are the same... And wouldn't this mean that your real problem is not the negative fluoride ions but the other ions which the fluoride were bonded to?

reply to post by TinkerHaus


I have done my homework

here is some previous threads i made

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

these are just a few threads I have made and lots more do you want me to post every one of them?

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by minor007

 

Fluorapatite is found in nature but it's Calcium Fluoride. Sodium Fluoride is what they are using in drinking water. Which is a byproduct of aluminum manufacturing.

Fluorapatite - a mineral consisting of calcium fluorophosphate; the most common form of apatite

apatite - a common complex mineral consisting of calcium fluoride phosphate or calcium chloride phosphate; a source of phosphorus.

Fluorapatite - Dictionary

edit on 6-4-2013 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)

you have shown how ignorant you really are. The aluminium industry is the biggest user of fluoride as its used in the smelting process.