Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

THE TRUTH ABOUT SODIUM FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER

2456

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    mysterious wrote: »
    King mob if G. Bush told you he planned 9/11 (IMO) you still wouldn't believe it.:pac: I gave you clear evidence. Did you even read the OP post?
    *shakes head*
    No I won't cause I'd still need verifiable evidence.
    You didn't give anything close to clear evidence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yea you really should research DHMO it's the only CT I believe.

    The fact DHMO is in so many different pesticides and used in so many different weapons combined with the amount of deaths it cause makes it hard to deny.

    So what does it take for you to suddenly believe in a conspiracy theory. So I'm led to believe you dont believe in the 9/11 job? am I correct?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    mysterious wrote: »
    So what does it take for you to suddenly believe in a conspiracy theory. So I'm led to believe you dont believe in the 9/11 job? am I correct?
    Well concider the role it plays in cancer: http://www.dhmo.org/cancer.html
    How can a chemical like DHMO be good for anyone?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    King Mob wrote: »
    No I won't cause I'd still need verifiable evidence.
    You didn't give anything close to clear evidence.

    How would you go about gaining evidence? until it screams at you?, or someone has to tell you? or follow the official story? you do sound hypocritical here now.

    There is far more logic to an inside job than there is to 16 hijackers taking over the airspace of America on 9/11 with a pen knife and taking their own lives.

    But thats another topic, funny how you believe the government official report as "clear evidence" when they have literally hidden information and only show what they want to be official.

    This the reason its still a C.T today;)
    So I doubt your statement that you await for clear evidence... You've already decided what you believe before gaining evidence.

    This was the reason I made this example. Same with the argument with flouride your not willing to register the evidence as ypu've already made up your mind on what you believe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭Veni Vedi Vici


    Deleted at KM's request for now...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    mysterious wrote: »
    How would you go about gaining evidence? until it sreams at you, or follow the official story? you do sound hypocritical there is more logic to an inside job than there is to 16 hijackers taking over the airspace of America on 9/11.

    But thats another topic, funny how you believe the government official report as clear evidence when they have literally hidden information and only show what they want to be official.

    This the reason its still a C.T today;)
    So I doubt your statement that you await for clear evidence... You've already decided what you believe.

    Our definitions of reliable evidence apparently differ greatly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    King Mob wrote: »
    Our definitions of reliable evidence apparently differ greatly.

    Oh thats for sure:p


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    mysterious wrote: »
    Oh thats for sure:p

    As in you'd believe an article from a site that promotes alchemy.

    Alchemy for god's sake.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    King Mob wrote: »
    As in you'd believe an article from a site that promotes alchemy.

    Alchemy for god's sake.

    Well I provided evidence, well you.... erm... :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    mysterious wrote: »
    Well I provided evidence, well you.... erm... :D

    No you provided a really shaky correlation and offered a bunch of fallacious arguments in place of supporting evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    Evidence? What evidence?

    If you’ve done your research (and I did), you’ll find that the average acceptable limit of fluoride set by the CDC is 3 mg, and the tolerable limit (i.e. the most you can take before it becomes of concern) is 10 mg. The max they add is 1ppm (part per million). Therefore 1 litre (and keeping in mind this is the most added...so in reality its less!) contains max 1 mg of HFA. You’d need to consume 10 litres of tap water per day to have any chance at adverse effects

    With regards to fluorosis, this is a problem that many people (in non-fluoridated areas too) have and don’t notice. Unless exposed to some sort of contaminant, it is usually, at most, a mildly aesthetic nuisance and not a health problem.

    You mention that it’s toxic, but toxic, by definition, takes into account delivery method, amount, absorption site etc....all of which amount to HFA being less toxic than the phosphoric acid present in soft drinks....

    Mysterious...you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Research DHMO...the dreaded hydroxilic acid, then you’ll be shocked.

    Oh and as for the sept 11 stuff.....pfft.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Evidence? What evidence?

    If you’ve done your research (and I did), you’ll find that the average acceptable limit of fluoride set by the CDC is 3 mg, and the tolerable limit (i.e. the most you can take before it becomes of concern) is 10 mg. The max they add is 1ppm (part per million). Therefore 1 litre (and keeping in mind this is the most added...so in reality its less!) contains max 1 mg of HFA. You’d need to consume 10 litres of tap water per day to have any chance at adverse effects

    With regards to fluorosis, this is a problem that many people (in non-fluoridated areas too) have and don’t notice. Unless exposed to some sort of contaminant, it is usually, at most, a mildly aesthetic nuisance and not a health problem.

    You mention that it’s toxic, but toxic, by definition, takes into account delivery method, amount, absorption site etc....all of which amount to HFA being less toxic than the phosphoric acid present in soft drinks....

    Mysterious...you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Research DHMO...the dreaded hydroxilic acid, then you’ll be shocked.

    Oh and as for the sept 11 stuff.....pfft.

    But it's in toothpaste, water and now food aswell your forgetting this.

    Your aslo forgetting it never leaves the body, so no matter how little it still acumalates, Anything in the body can become a toxin in the body if it can't be exreted out of the body, even vitamins. Have you ever heard of vitamin poisoniong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    Yes ok, it's in toothpaste. Do you make a habit of swallowing that much toothpaste?

    Btw, studies have been done (this is what you do when you want to back things up) and the realistic total fluoride intake of the average individual in a fluoridated community is 2.1 to 2.4 mg per day. Well below 10 mg. This includes toothpaste (two brushes a day) and salt.

    And where are you getting the nonsense that fluoride isn't excreted?

    Max amounts are 30-35% retention over an 18hr period. Over another 18hrs, this is reduced to 9-10% and after 2 days is reduced to below 3%. That little bit of fluoride that accumulates, accumulates in the bone and has even been shown to aid in bone repair (see osteoporosis medicines). And by the way, the safety guidelines above have already taken this into account and it has been agreed by the European Health Council.

    As for vitamin poisoning, thats what these levels I've mentioned are there for...preventing this. The same can be said for any mineral you ingest.

    Oh and fluoride isn't actually a vitamin by scientific terminology


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Mob your DHMO argument is rather disingenuous


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    mysterious wrote: »
    it never leaves the body

    You are wrong on this. Ok?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31 dontgetfooled


    Here is a link to a summary report on the effects of flouride, using animals as test subjects.

    http://www.fluoridation.com/brain.htm

    Here is another summary report from 2003, there is a link to the full report half way down the page:

    http://hills.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jinouy01/fluoride-lowIQ.html


    And as for Hydrofluosilicic Acid, well:

    Hexafluorosilicic acid is a "hazardous waste". It is illegal to dump it at sea. The hexafluorosilicic acid used is also not a pure compound and is contaminated with other poisons such as arsenic and cancer-causing heavy metals like cadmium and even mercury.

    source: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/reports/2004/fluoride%20(1).htm

    And finally here:

    Over 90 percent of the fluoride added to drinking water is industrial-grade hexafluorosilicic acid, which comes from the air pollution scrubbing systems of the fertilizer industry. This form of fluoride is 85 TIMES more toxic than pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride approved by the FDA for topical dental applications. Tests on this latter form of fluoride are the ONLY ones used to provide evidence on the benefits of fluoride.

    Source: http://www.fluoride-osteosarcoma-law.com/fluoride_water.html


    So it seems that there have been ZERO tests on the effects of Hydrofluosilicic Acid in our drinking water - making its presence actually WORSE and certainly more suspicious than the Sodium Flouride of before.

    DGF


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31 dontgetfooled


    I also don't get why people try to reason their way around Sodium Flouride in our water, when its history is very clearly documented in my first post.

    The tests carried out which indicated the substance is good for teeth and bones was biased at best and fraudulant at worst. It is this first research into Flouride and its results that form the basis of the "healthy teeth" argument.

    This was a phony set-up to prevent lawsuits being filed agaisnt the US Government for Flouride exposure to citizens during The Manhatten Project.

    They concocted this front story of it being good for your teeth in small amounts to undermine these suits and free-up further nuclear research, which they badly needed in the 1940's as at that time America were the only ones with the bomb.

    They then pumped Flouride into the water supply without consent and used humans as test subjects! What did they discover when they did this?

    Probably that it can be put to more uses than the mere dodging of a few lawsuits!


    DGF


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31 dontgetfooled


    6th wrote: »
    You are wrong on this. Ok?

    It does leave the body, yes. But its effects (good & bad) are irreversible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Could you list the effects for me?

    Also what would be the benefit to the Gov to put this in our water etc?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Mob your DHMO argument is rather disingenuous

    How so?
    Both arguments are from a poor understanding of chemistry and medicine with a nice bunch of logical fallacies thrown in.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    I also don't get why people try to reason their way around Sodium Flouride in our water, when its history is very clearly documented in my first post.

    The tests carried out which indicated the substance is good for teeth and bones was biased at best and fraudulant at worst. It is this first research into Flouride and its results that form the basis of the "healthy teeth" argument.

    This was a phony set-up to prevent lawsuits being filed agaisnt the US Government for Flouride exposure to citizens during The Manhatten Project.

    They concocted this front story of it being good for your teeth in small amounts to undermine these suits and free-up further nuclear research, which they badly needed in the 1940's as at that time America were the only ones with the bomb.

    They then pumped Flouride into the water supply without consent and used humans as test subjects! What did they discover when they did this?

    Probably that it can be put to more uses than the mere dodging of a few lawsuits!


    DGF


    Firstly, nice scientific sources there....care to give us some actual evidence to your "conspiracy theory." The green party and a law firm are hardly the most reliable of scientific sources. Unless you have scientific sources to back this evidence up, your argument goes nowhere.

    Also I keep seeing the fact that HFA is a waste being mentioned. This is wrong. It is a waste by-product, which is further purified before addition to water. There's a big difference between a by-product of waste and actual waste, and your lack of knowledge in this shows just how sound your arguments are.

    Do you really think that the addition of HFA would continue if any health hazards had been discovered? (If they have - please correct me with proper scientific studies).

    Cheers

    (See I can put things in bold too....)

    Oh and King Mob....good use of the DHMO stuff, been looking for a chance to use it myself:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31 dontgetfooled


    Firstly, nice scientific sources there....care to give us some actual evidence to your "conspiracy theory." The green party and a law firm are hardly the most reliable of scientific sources. Unless you have scientific sources to back this evidence up, your argument goes nowhere.

    First of all this is not a conspiracy theory, this is fact. HA & SL are & were in our drinking water. The history of how SL came to be in any water for human consumption is detailed in my first post, I don't know if you have read it or not.

    Scientific sources are there, linked to the information provided.

    Also you have quoted an entire post of mine and yet counter point a separate post.

    Do you really think that the addition of HFA would continue if any health hazards had been discovered? (If they have - please correct me with proper scientific studies).

    The answer would be yes, of course, the very way SL was still used after the 1997 report, there is a reason its there. Why? I don't know, but its not in good faith. Either way, the info would be suppressed or they would find another substitute substance for the same purpose.

    HFA has not been properly toxicologically tested for human consumption. That (as far as I'm aware) is a fact, I'll go dig out some references for you to confirm or disprove this.

    (See I can put things in bold too....)

    How smart.

    ps. Here's something quick for you while I'm away, not a "smoking gun" by any means, but certainly warrants further questions.

    http://www.voice.buz.org/fluoridation/Fluoride%20Critique.pdf


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31 dontgetfooled


    Fluoride and its effect on human intelligence. A systematic review:

    http://fluoridealert.org/connett.limeback.pdf

    Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environments.

    http://fluoridealert.org/epa08/hong-2001.2008.pdf

    And more on SL here:

    http://fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html

    As for HA, it has not been tested:

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-testing.htm

    I'll dig out more later.

    DGF

    PS. Surely this information alone is enough to raise some very serious questions as to why we are consuming this stuff.

    I'm sure you're all aware the Nazi's fed the Jews SF in their water to pacify them, granted they were very large doses.

    America were the first to introduce SF into the water. This quote from David Rockefeller may be of high importance:

    "I do not want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers."

    Is this the reason for the presence of SF & HA in our water? Think about it, research it, draw your own conclusions based on the evidence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    The tests carried out which indicated the substance is good for teeth and bones was biased at best and fraudulant at worst. It is this first research into Flouride and its results that form the basis of the "healthy teeth" argument.

    Thats incorrect. The Grand Raoids tests were the first controlled tests carried out regarding Flouride and dental health. They were not the first research. The subject had been researched since the end of the 19th century. Indeed, the Grand Rapids tests were carried on the back of studies carried out by the US National Institutes of Health which began in the 30s...long before the Manhattan Project began.
    This was a phony set-up to prevent lawsuits being filed agaisnt the US Government for Flouride exposure to citizens during The Manhatten Project.
    This makes no sense to me. I'll clarify why, and then maybe you can explain to me what I'm getting wrong.

    You're suggesting that studies into low-level, controlled ingestion of a substance were carried out so that people could not fine the government regarding (suppressed) details of exposure to massive quantities of the substance.

    This would be akin to someone showing that eating apple-pips was safe, so that they couldn't be got for killing people by massive exposure to cyanide. (Yes folks...apple pips contain cyanide)...or showing that luminous watch-dials were safe, so they couldn't be gotten for radiation poisoning...or showing that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are safe, so that they couldn't be gotten for CO2 poisoning.

    I hope you get the point I'm trying to get at? Showing that something is harmless in small quantities says absolutely nothing about its effect at high dosages....it is a logical non-squitor.

    Now...you believe otherwise, so I can only assume that you have some insight as to what I'm missing...so could you explain it to me? How does showing that something at low levels is safe / beneficial suggest that high concentrations are also safe?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fluoride and its effect on human intelligence. A systematic review:

    http://fluoridealert.org/connett.limeback.pdf

    Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environments.

    http://fluoridealert.org/epa08/hong-2001.2008.pdf

    And more on SL here:

    http://fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html

    As for HA, it has not been tested:

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-testing.htm

    I'll dig out more later.

    DGF

    So anything from a source not deeply embedded against fluoridation?


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,136 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    The answer would be yes, of course, the very way SL was still used after the 1997 report, there is a reason its there. Why? I don't know, but its not in good faith. Either way, the info would be suppressed or they would find another substitute substance for the same purpose.

    Sorry, but could you clarify this point? You say there is a reason, but you don't know what the reason is. Surely then you don't know there is a reason


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31 dontgetfooled


    Sorry, but could you clarify this point? You say there is a reason, but you don't know what the reason is. Surely then you don't know there is a reason

    Sorry, I mean its not there for the reason given: for healthy teeth. That is a lie, a proven lie.

    SF was first put in water to counteract on lawsuits filed against the US Government, after that was successful not only did they continue, they expanded it.

    So there must be another reason, of which I don't know, but can only guess.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31 dontgetfooled


    King Mob wrote: »
    So anything from a source not deeply embedded against fluoridation?

    The hosting site is anti-fluoride, the actual studies hosted there are independent and from a range of sources and countries.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,136 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Sorry, I mean its not there for the reason given: for healthy teeth. That is a lie, a proven lie.

    SF was first put in water to counteract on lawsuits filed against the US Government, after that was successful not only did they continue, they expanded it.

    So there must be another reason, of which I don't know, but can only guess.

    ah, fair enough. Cheers


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭themetallifan


    Sorry, I mean its not there for the reason given: for healthy teeth. That is a lie, a proven lie.

    Proven...where?

    You are yet to give more than one peer-reviewed scientific publication backing up your statements. You have given one (Hong et al 2001) in one of your links. This is where one of the most prevalent problems with science-related arguments pops up again. People extrapolate information that they think is implied....this paper focuses solely on the COMBINATION of both Iodine and Fl, so you cannot say that the same conclusions (not that there were much to go by, in this extremely obscure paper) can be drawn for fluoride alone, yet for its addition as HFA in drinking water.
    Oh and this is one of several articles from this group, but I see this is the only one that has been translated...hmmm (even though it doesn't support your case, although I could see how you may think it does)


    As was mentioned by other poster(s) please supply us with something from an independent study, i.e. not a review of articles that have been 'cherry picked' and funded solely by those against fluoridation.


Advertisement