flouride

[elementcollector1]

http://articles.merc...10812_DNL_art_1

 

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

 

http://rense.com/general93/fluo.htm

 

http://m.naturalnews...C_fluoride.html

 

http://www.fluoridea...ts/toothpastes/

 

Source 1: "While the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) would have us all believe that fluoride is perfectly innocuous and safe, scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity"

So's Aluminum, and you don't see it going out of fashion.

 

Source 2: "This is why most western European nations have rejected the practice — because, in their view, the public water supply is not an appropriate place to be adding drugs, particularly when fluoride is readily available for individual use in the form of toothpaste.".

Interesting.

 

Source 3: "Fluoride can eat its way through a titanium container. Fluoride is converted in the stomach into hydrofluoric acid, an acid so strong that it cannot be stored in a glass container because it will eat the glass."

Fluorine gas, and probably hydrofluoric acid as well can eat their way through a titanium container. Fluoride cannot be converted in the stomach into hydrofluoric acid, as the acid in your stomach is hydrochloric (no reaction, fluoride is the stronger anion). Debunked.

 

Source 4: Fluoride level was apparently decreased to 0.7 mg/L, down from 1.2 mg/L. I'll discuss this a bit farther down.

 

Source 5: "In fact, a single tube of bubble-gum flavored Colgate-for-Kids toothpaste contains enough fluoride (143 mg) to kill a childweighing less than 30 kg. (Whitford 1987a)."

They would likely be choking long before they ingested the entire tube.

 

So, I'll concentrate on Source 4 with a few bits of simple math. Here is what we know:

 

-According to source, the U.S. has either 1.2 mg or 0.7 mg/L of fluoride ions dissolved in potable water.

-The lethal dose for fluoride is 5-10g, with gastrointestinal distress occuring at 0.2-0.3g [src: http://en.wikipedia....uoride_toxicity]

So, if 1.2 mg of fluoride were dissolved in, a person would have to drink 167 to 250 liters of fluoridated water to feel gastrointestinal effects, and 4,167 to 8333 liters of fluoridated water to die from fluoride poisoning.

So, let's assume you drink 3 liters a day, and that the poisonous fluoride does not leave the body (which it typically does through urine). It would take you 56-83 days of drinking 3 liters per day to suffer from gastrointestinal poisoning, and 1389-2778 days for the fluoride levels to reach the lethal limit.

 

In short, sure, fluoride is toxic. The big problem for the fluoride activists is that there is not nearly enough of it to do all that much damage from groundwater alone, so higher-potency sources must be involved.

 

Feel free to check over my math, because I would hate to slip on some calculation and find the results above entirely wrong.

Oh, and thanks for providing sources. Seriously, I know a lot of people who wouldn't do that, and would instead flame the board until they were banned.

 

EDIT: @Phi: ...It's on!

Edited November 8, 2012 by elementcollector1

[John Cuthber]

""In fact, a single tube of bubble-gum flavored Colgate-for-Kids toothpaste contains enough fluoride (143 mg) to kill a child weighing less than 30 kg. (Whitford 1987a).""

A couple of cigarettes contains enough nicotine to kill a child.

That's a reason not to feed cigarettes or toothpaste to children, rather than anything else. It has, quite clearly, nothing to do with the issues of water fluoridation.

 

People are not made of glass. The fact that glass is corroded by HF is totally irrelevant to its toxicity, but it's a good scare tactic.

 

Most Western European countries don't fluoridate water, but that's a political decision based on the moral issue of freedom of choice. It's not a scientific point so it's not relevant to this discussion.

[Phi for All]

http://articles.merc...10812_DNL_art_1

 

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

 

http://rense.com/general93/fluo.htm

 

http://m.naturalnews...C_fluoride.html

 

http://www.fluoridea...ts/toothpastes/

One of the things you must learn to do is look for the fallacious logic. When the issue is low dosage levels of fluoride and the argument against refers to ingesting huge amounts of fluoride, which is clearly a strawman fallacy, it should tell you that the argument is intellectually dishonest.

 

Why would they do that? Part of it is misunderstanding and fear. Another reason is these people have alternative products they want you to buy. Note that while the "natural" movement is telling you how evil chemicals and vaccinations and synthetic products are, scientists, pharmacologists and synthetic manufacturers aren't telling you the same thing about "natural" products. Organics and natural products are perfectly fine, they'll tell you, but they're generally not sustainable for the whole planet. When you start making products for an immense market, you find that you need modern ways of quickly producing what you need. Organics and naturals are meant to appeal to people who are easily frightened of things they don't understand.

 

And believe me, there is A LOT to understand when it comes to science. And the knowledge is all layered, so in order to understand one thing, you have to understand four other things first, and those four things really require a basic understanding of even more things. I get it, it's a daunting challenge to educate yourself in science when it's so much easier and seemingly intuitive to believe the con men handing out candy bits of pop sci "wisdom". They make it very appealing and a lot less time-consuming.

 

People will tell you all kinds of things to sell you on their products and services. They'll tell you they can remove bodily toxins through your feet if you'll buy their Energy Field Osmosis Detox Foot Bath session. Or they'll tell you they can remove built-up earwax using their Holistic Pressure-Differential Ear Candling technique. It's up to you to find out that there are no physiological mechanisms in the body that would draw toxins to a single part (there's really not a consistent definition of toxin; the body needs a variety of chemicals to do what it does). You're the one who has to discover that the Ear Candles are made of cloth impregnated with the very wax that seems to get pulled from your ears.

 

You're the one who has to decide what to believe. We have a whole planet full of a growing population that doesn't seem all that docile or sick from chemtrails or dying from pesticides or fluoride poisoning.

 

 

 

 

 

@ellementcollector1: We have no reliable methodology or equipment for measuring how much of an asshole a person is. I googled "asshole probe" and believe me, it's not what you'd expect.

[elementcollector1]

@ellementcollector1: We have no reliable methodology or equipment for measuring how much of an asshole a person is. I googled "asshole probe" and believe me, it's not what you'd expect.

 

... Were you looking in the right places?

[Phi for All]

... Were you looking in the right places?

I sincerely hope not.

 

I also googled "asshole gauge", and since Gauge is also a semi-popular feminine name, I was similarly disappointed.

 

MIT has had some promising success with an application known as the Jerk-o-Meter *, but its applications are all voice-activated and not at all suited to our internet discussion forum format.

 

 

 

 

 

 

* I sense further elaboration and hilarity in an upcoming installment of Swans on Tea.

[Vignesh Loganathan]

Water supplies for human consumption have been adjusted to contain 1 ppm to prevent dental caries. Fluorine at 1-2 mg/kg in animal rations is considered adequate. The maximal tolerable level varies by species, eg, 40-50 ppm for cattle and horses, and 200 mg/kg for chickens.

 

http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/211000.htm

 

hence i think it may not harm us..for poisoning may be high doses of fluride may be used.

[LaurieAG]

Has anybody done any research on what happens to childrens teeth if they have flourine in the water supply for their first 5 years or so and then the supply of flourine is stopped?

[Dekan]

When politicians are so keen to put fluoride into the public water-supply, the suspicion must arise that there's an ulterior motive. And it's not just a fervent desire to reduce the incidence of dental caries.

 

But perhaps that's too cynical a view.

 

Might the politicians be making us ingest fluoride, because they sincerely wish to make our teeth more healthy. Does that seem likely?

Edited December 29, 2012 by Dekan

[iNow]

Oh, FFS...

 

 

http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org/content/41/5/1.3.full

Today community water fluoridation is under fire from some who claim its health benefits are overblown and that fluoridation creates a higher risk for heart disease and cancer. There is no valid science supporting these claims, said public health officials who spoke with The Nation’s Health, and yet they persist, kept afloat by Internet rumors and misinformation.

Also, "the politicians" chose to make us ingest fluoride because they were tired of having to turn away 15% of enlistees due to bad teeth when we needed them fighting in WWII. The fact that it also helps such a significant portion of the rest of population is just another benefit.

 

But in the 1940s, more than 15 percent of World War II recruits were denied the ability to enlist in the Army because they lacked six pairs of opposing teeth.

[Dekan]

Gerroff. WWII recruits turned away because they lacked six pairs of opposing teeth? What were the recruits expected to do - bite the Germans/Japs to death. Even if a recruit had all false teeth, that wouldn't stop him firing his gun would it?

 

The thing is, iNow, this business of wide-scale introduction of fluoride into water, seems odd.

 

Strangely "off-key" somehow.

 

Anyway, I'll leave it. Thanks.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Dekan

[iNow]

The thing is, iNow, this business of wide-scale introduction of fluoride into water, seems odd.

 

Strangely "off-key" somehow.

The people who buy so readily into such stupid internet rumors also "seem odd" and "strangely off-key," IMO.

[Dekan]

Apologies for an obvious cliched rejoinder but:

 

In 1933, when Hitler had just come to power in Germany, rumours were rife among the Jewish community that Hitler really meant what he said. Some Jewish people heeded the rumours, saw what was coming, and wisely left the country.

 

Others must've said:

 

"Stupid! Do you seriously think, that the legally-elected government of a modern, civilised, Western country, actually plans to exterminate a sizeable portion of its citizenry, for no reason? That the government is going to build concentration-camps and gas-chambers, to wipe us out? Rubbish!"

 

They stayed, and we all know what happened to them.

 

See, you can't trust politicians. So is it wise to dimiss fluoridation as merely a political desire to help us dentally?

Edited December 30, 2012 by Dekan

[iNow]

Wow. I said I find people who accept any stupid shit they read on the internet as true to be odd and off-key, and you Godwin'd the thread. Fascinating.

[Dekan]

Do you drink a lot of tap-water? You should stick to beer. The alcohol neutralises the fluoridated water. The chemically-superactive fluorine rapidly bonds with alcohol, leaving an inert and harmless residue, which is quickly filtered and flushed away by the kidneys.

 

Or drink only rainwater.

 

Above all - never use fluoridated toothpaste. This sticky compound adheres to the gums. Which allows it to remain in our mouths. This gives the fluorine an opportunity to slowly percolate through complex oral tissue. Some of the fluorine gets absorbed and bonded. But enough remains to emerge into the bloodstream. There, it's free to circulate, and pollute our whole body.

 

Our precious bodily fluids should not be made rancid by fluoride! Why can't people see this?

Edited December 30, 2012 by Dekan

[iNow]

Do I look like my name is Mandrake?

 

I'll just repeat this once more since it seems difficult for folks like you to grasp:

 

"Today community water fluoridation is under fire from some who claim its health benefits are overblown and that fluoridation creates a higher risk for heart disease and cancer. There is no valid science supporting these claims."

[Dekan]

What's meant by "valid" science?

 

Is it something which supports the current theory - so that makes it "valid".

Whereas if it doesn't support the current theory - that makes it "invalid".

 

I dunno what that is, circular reasoning, tautology, or something?

 

Continental Drift was invalid until about 1960. Then Plate Tectonics made it valid.

 

Valid, Schmalid! What matters is whether it's true.

 

Unless Science is only a kind of consensus theory. Which actually, when you think about it, may be just what it is.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Dekan

[iNow]

If you do not even comprehend what constitutes "valid science," what makes you think you're qualified to make such stern and absolutist assertions about fluoride and its supposed dangers?

Edited December 30, 2012 by iNow

[otis]

Very interesting forum.

 

I would like to know if bottled water contains Flouride. I'm trying to cut down on my flouride intake as I know it can have negative implications on your health.

 

Q) Does bottled water in the UK contain Flouride and are some brands better than others when it comes to Flouride content?

 

Thanks for your help

[John Cuthber]

I'm trying to cut down on my flouride intake as I know it can have negative implications on your health.

 

 

Why do you think that?

[Strange]

Q) Does bottled water in the UK contain Flouride and are some brands better than others when it comes to Flouride content?

 

Most (all?) bottled water lists a chemical analysis on the label (it is a legal requirement in some European countries, I don't know about the UK). So looking at the bottle in front of me, it say 0.5mg/L.

 

Now what are you going to do with that information? Are you going to drink a water with more magnesium because it has less fluoride? Or are you more worried about the sodium content (hypertension) and so choose the water because of that?

 

And what about your food? Are you going to avoid fish (mackerel has 27ppm) and chicken, eggs, potatoes, butter and cheese as these are all high in fluorine? Most people get 1 or 2 mg a day from food.

 

I think there are more important things to worry about: a mixed, balanced diet and some level of exercise.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Strange

[DrP]

Sorry - ignore this post

Edited January 8, 2015 by DrP

[Harold Squared]

Arsenic occurs naturally in well water, so what is "natural" is not necessarily benign. Paracelsus is credited with first emphasizing that it is the dose that makes the poison.

 

Seaker, the purpose of the forum is to have discussions like this and if everyone agreed they would be very dull indeed. My advice is to disregard the egos involved and, including one's own, and consider the points made each on their own merit.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Harold Squared