Fluoride endgame approaches....

Water would be undrinkable without the addition of chlorine.. the same can't be said for fluoride.

My point was about medicating* entire water supplies in order to minutely alleviate a problem likely to be faced by a minority of people. The majority already brush their teeth with fluoride toothpaste, and rinse with fluoride mouthwash. Water fluoridation really only is of benefit to those who do not follow a proper and thorough oral hygiene regimen.


*and it is by definition a medication

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Utter rubbish. Someone intelligent knows not to believe in ideas which not only have no evidence for them but have plenty of evidence to the contrary. Contrails, faked moon landing, lizard illuminati.....if someone believes in any of these CTs there's no way I would class them in as intelligent

Otherwise intelligent people buy into faith-based concepts all the time.

CT's are just the latest religion substitute. It seems to be part of the human condition.

seamus wrote: »

Stupidity really only starts to become apparent when someone posesses evidence which shows the exact opposite of what they believe, but they continue to believe regardless. Even then you're fighting against natural cognitive biases, so it can be hard to tell if someone is really incapable of understanding or deliberately misunderstanding.

Believing what you want to believe for no good reason and ignoring evidence to the contrary, yes that's stupid. Obviosuly this doesn't apply to all CTs, but it applies to a whole pile of the,

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm reading what you are writing.

Now let me ask you something - did you even read this new article ?

It's not new, and yes.

It's as I stated earlier - a study of the effects of massive doses of fluoride on an ongoing basis - unlike fluoridation schemes.

Jake1 wrote: »

What do the Rothschilds family have to do with flouride? never heard them mentioned in same sentence as flouride before

That's because the NWO control the media.

You only hear what they want you to hear.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Does the paper indicate what levels of fluoride were shown to cause the problems?

I'm aware of papers that showed serious impact on IQ and other problems in African tribes where fluoride ingestion was very high. The levels of fluoride in their water were several times the level in Irish tap water though

Levels in the report: "concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L"

EU Drinking Water Directive Standard: 1.5 mg/l.

The Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 5th Edition (1984) gives lead a toxicity rating of 3 to 4 (3 = moderately toxic, 4 = very toxic) and the U.S. EPA has set 0.015 ppm as the MCL for lead in drinking water--with a goal of 0.0ppm.

The toxicity rating for fluoride is 4, yet the maximum level for fluoride in drinking water is currently set at 0.8ppm, over 50 times the permissible level for lead.

Camargo in his peer reviewed study of Fluoride toxicity (the only study examined by the EU SCHER scientific committee on environmental risks of fluoride emissions from waste water treatement facilities arising from water fluoridation) demonstrated that fluoride at concentrations of 0.2ppm may have lethal effects of sensitive freshwater fisheries, especially in soft water rivers, similar to many salmonid river systems found in Ireland.

The WHO has stated that effluents from wastewater treatment plants that treat fluoridated water will impact on surface water quality.

Warrington in a study (Ref: Warrington, PD, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Fluoride. Technical Appendix 1990, British Columbia Ministry of Environment) for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment also identified 0.2 mg/ L fluoride as a “critical level” for fresh water species. While the Government of Canada Environmental Protection Act (Ref: Government of Canada 1993, Inorganic Fluorides, Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Priority Substances List Assessment Report)). - estimated adverse effect thresholds (lethal, growth impairment and egg production) are 0.28 mg/L fluoride for fresh water species.

The impact of Fluoride on surface water was also accepted by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry when they found that fluorides from water fluoridation will contribute to surface water directly and will deposit into
sediment, where they are strongly attached to sediment particles. The Agency reported how Fluoride forms stable complexes with calcium and magnesium in natural waters and how Fluorine cannot be destroyed in the environment it can only change its form.

According to Professor Paul Engelking, chemistry professor at the University of Oregon, studies undertaken at their University have found that small amounts of fluoride at 0.1 - 0.2ppm can negatively impact on salmon populations.National Marine Fisheries Service ecotoxicologist, Dr. John Stein who heads the environmental conservation division at the NMFS's Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, Canada has stated that the hazards for inland fisheries would be much greater in soft water, as low calcium water increases the amount of fluoride absorbed by the fish that swim in it. According to Dr. Stein "Fluoride is pretty toxic, and the softer the water, the more toxic it is". The same principle applies to humans.

The toxic action of fluoride on the health resides in the fact that fluoride ions act as enzymatic poisons, inhibiting enzyme activity and, ultimately, interrupting metabolic processes such as glycolysis and synthesis of proteins. The actual mechanism at molecular level by which inorganic fluoride inhibits enzyme activity and interrupts metabolic processes remains unknown but it is the combination of fluoride with calcium and magnesium ions, which in many instances are needed as cofactors by different enzymes, that is believed to be a primary mechanism. People living in areas with very soft waters with low ionic content may be more adversely affected by fluoride pollution than those living in areas with hardwater because the bioavailability of fluoride ions is reduced with increasing water content of calcium and chloride. Therefore you cannot compare 0.8mg/l fluoride in water with a calcium level of >300mg/l with that of <20mg/l. All of the cancer incidence maps for ireland show that the areas with the softest water have the highest prevalence of cancer, as well as neurological illness and cardiovascular disease.

As for tooth decay it is not caused by a lack fluoride, it is caused by a lack of common sense dental hygiene and typically poor sugar saturated diet. If fluoride has any value in preventative dental health, it needs to be applied directly to the teeth. It is extremely inefficient, dangerous and unnecessary to consume fluoride into our bodies where it is transformed into hydrofluoric acid in our stomachs, releases fluoride ions into out blood supply where it acts as a potent enzyme inhibitor and ultimately accumulates in our bones, brain and tissues; the entire population is subsequently affected regardless of their individual health conditions or dietary fluoride intake because a small percentage of children eat too much sugary food and don’t wash their teeth.

You do not drink shampoo to clean your hair or drink hydrogen peroxide to clean a wound so why should every individual be ingesting fluoride in water so that a small percentage of the population may get a little on their teeth. Both the NHS York Review and the EU SCHER review of water fluoridation found that fluoride in water had little is any effect for adults or children under 5 years of age. The Canadian Paediatric Society, representing more than 3,000 paediatricians, state that ingesting fluoride has no medical health benefit and only significantly increases the risk of chronic fluoride overexposure.

Such a policy clearly violates the requirements of informed consent, does not allow for the individual to stop their exposure and gives dentists who advocate this policy absolute power over our health choices, more power bizarrely than your doctor who is the only person qualified to monitor your health. In addition, given the existence of accessible and safe alternatives for preventing cavities, it does not pass the test of the precautionary principle.

Apart from the human health issues we also need to ask why are we treating the entire water supply with this chemical when 99% of the water is not used for the purpose it was intended. A child could see the total lack of practical common sense here and what a waste of resources this is, especially as fluoride is listed as a dangerous substance under EU law that requires prior authorisation before it can be discharged into the environment. Why therefore are we so indiscriminately dumping fluoride into our environment where is accumulates with time. Such a policy is not just unsustainable but futile in the long run as it only degrades our environment for future generations.

Pottler wrote: »

Flouride is an industrial waste that's dumped into the water system. End of. I drilled a well and put in a pump. Stuff your water Mr Man. If you disagree, bite me, I've been through all the Irish water treatment plants as a contractor in the past. I'll give it a miss, thanks.:)

This is the problem I have with anti flouride brigade. You honestly think companies throw the government a few quid to put their industrial waste into our drinking water because there's no other use for it or no other way of disposing of it? :rolleyes:

profitius wrote: »

Theres an interview about this on alchemy radio. Aisling Fitzgibbon is taking the government to court.

http://alchemyradio.podomatic.com/ (Interview number 003)

Aisling Fitzgibbon's alma mater (the source of her 'expertise' and qualification on the subject) and guru on matters fluoride exposed here: http://www.dcscience.net/?p=384