THE TRUTH ABOUT SODIUM FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER

dontgetfooled

Here's a link to a Portland Tribune article summarizing the findings in a US Independent (National Research Council) assessment of Fluoride in drinking water:

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=34527

Here's a link to the actual report, retailing at $66:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

DGF

Oh and here is an interesting little tit-bit for you:

"At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Elliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany. While there, he was told by German chemists of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff.

"This scheme was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.

"Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain, and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him.

"Both the Germans and the Russians added fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile."

It is interesting that Dr. George Estabrooks, an advisor to the United States Government on hypnotism and psychological behaviour control, later became chairman of the Department of Psychology at Colgate University. Internationally, Colgate was and remains today the most ardent producer and advocate for fluoridated toothpaste. The use of chemicals by the government to modify behaviour of select population groups is not new. During the first two World Wars, bromides were administered to service men to dim the libido in an attempt to inhibit forays into local bordellos.

source: http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/fluoride.htm

You'll never find information such as the above in the MSM, just doesn't happen. We all know who controls them. They may not control each and every Journalist, but they sure as hell control the distribution of the information to the masses.


DGF

Kernel

dontgetfooled wrote: »

They may not control each and every Journalist, but they sure as hell control the distribution of the information to the masses.

Reuters?

themetallifan

Firstly...

Kernel wrote: »

Reuters?

rofl!

Secondly:

OK....that first source, at last something a bit more sound. (Oh and thanks to SFI, I have free access to it!)

That article claims that fluoridation may be implicated in cancer - the report states that it is unknown, but the evidence is "tentative and mixed"

Here's a direct quote about whether it has an effect on other organ systems: "Such effects are unlikely to be a risk for the average individual exposed
to fluoride at 4 mg/L in drinking water."
(Keep in mind here that the guideline amount in the EU is 1mg/ml)

The article says:
"Moreover, it found persuasive evidence that fluoride in water increases bone fractures as well as stiffness in the joints of the elderly, and that it also may be related to Alzheimer’s disease, marginally reduce IQ in children"

But...the report says:
"A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese
populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at
2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail
for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations,"

It's often that Chinese studies are unreliable, as they are not overlooked by a governing body.

The article claims that fluoridation is implicated in bone-weakening.

The report says otherwise:
"no conclusions could be drawn about fracture risk or safety at 2 mg/L."
"more evidence is needed to conclude
that bone fractures occur at an appreciable frequency in human populations
exposed to fluoride at 4 mg/L"
"more research is needed to address uncertainties
associated with extrapolating data on bone strength and fractures from
animals to humans."

The article says: "Specifically, it said that levels of the cavity-fighting substance currently allowed under federal water-safety rules cause a harmful variety of dental fluorosis, a mottling of the tooth that in its more severe form actually can cause cavities."

The report says: "Thus, more research is needed to clarify the relationship between
fluoride ingestion, fluoride concentrations in bone, and stage of skeletal
fluorosis before any conclusions can be drawn."
(This appears to be a contradiction)


Perhaps the most hilarious thing about this study and which people fail to see is (and this is a quote from your source):

"Fluoridation is widely practiced in the United States to protect against the development
of dental caries; fluoride is added to public water supplies at 0.7 to 1.2
mg/L. The charge to the committee did not include an examination of the
benefits and risks that might occur at these lower concentrations of fluoride
in drinking water."

So the risks are low to none at 4 mg/ml.....and they haven't looked at lower levels. Consistently, the phrase "more research is needed" etc arises. This report proves nothing, it just calls for more research....more mindless extrapolations that have been plucked by people unfamiliar with science.

dontgetfooled

Irish Independent (alby in 2000)

http://www.nofluoride.com/irish_independent.htm

Smell anything fishy going on there?

And now we have HA, which hasn't even been tested.

I wonder why they switched to an untested chemical? Hmmmmm.

Under pressure from the public the Minister for Health backs down and carries out his report, which naturally is what I would consider to be a white-wash.

http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/background/fluoridation_forum_summary.pdf

ie. "Nothing to see here folks, move along, everything's fine....."

DGF

themetallifan

Interesting article albeit from a non-scientific source.

dontgetfooled wrote: »

Here's a link to a Portland Tribune article summarizing the findings in a US Independent (National Research Council) assessment of Fluoride in drinking water:

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=34527

Here's a link to the actual report, retailing at $66:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

DGF

I'm sure you noticed that this article is from 2000, whereas, the very report you linked me to in your post above is from 2006 (the one I have read and talked about in my previous post).

Now, to trust an Irish independent article from 9 years ago or to trust one from the EPA from 3 years ago?...hmmmm...what to think of this?

dontgetfooled

themetallifan wrote: »

Interesting article albeit from a non-scientific source.




I'm sure you noticed that this article is from 2000, whereas, the very report you linked me to in your post above is from 2006 (the one I have read and talked about in my previous post).

Now, to trust an Irish independent article from 9 years ago or to trust one from the EPA from 3 years ago?...hmmmm...what to think of this?

Yes, of course I noticed it.

Public pressure builds from early 1990's to circa 2005 when this report was undertaken.

Why do you think this was carried out? What do you honestly think they would say?

Sorry guys, your right, we've been pumping you full of harmful unlicensed sh*t for 40 years?

Hell no! A report that confirms the official story (see Irish report) and another that finds "some evidence" but warrants further investigation.

Without public pressure these reports would never have been written. And they were written for one purpose only:

To shut people up, tell them to go back to their lives and trust us, the water is safe.

The walls the guy in the Indo report came up against is surely a sign of this.

DGF

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

First off Goodwins!

OK, I have to call Kernel's law here too.

Didn't have an opinion on this as such, I generally avoid tap water anyway because it's recycled crap. After reading this, I'd believe that adding sodium flouride to water is of no benefit to anyone, therefore I'd like it not to be added. K.

themetallifan

Ok, I can sort of see your logic now...

Basically, I have pointed out, in every source you've given me, that there is little (I didn't say none!) evidence to the assumption that fluoridation is harmful.

Your stance is that everytime they confirm that there is little evidence suggesting any harmful effects, this just makes it seem more like a conspiracy?

If I am to comment on whether fluoridation is harmful, I can confidently say that the supporting literature, so far, says it's not.

If I am to comment on whether I think this is all one big conspiracy...well actually I wouldn't comment on that, because I can't. You can't either. Unless you have reliable evidence.

Kernel

themetallifan wrote: »

If I am to comment on whether I think this is all one big conspiracy...well actually I wouldn't comment on that, because I can't. You can't either. Unless you have reliable evidence.

According to the charter he can. Ah I love charters. And easter eggs.

themetallifan

On the contrary

The main source that DGF has linked us, concludes the very opposite - that at the moment the benefits outweigh the non-proven risks.

The government's main stance that support fluoridation is that in Ireland, visitng the dentist and proper dental hygeine is a very middle to upper class thing (stems from before the celtic tiger). By fluoridating the water, those in the lower socio-economic groups get some protection from tooth decay.

Oh and with reagrds to charter and commenting....I meant in an argument, not in this thread. And besides...the charter...tl;dr.

Kernel

themetallifan wrote: »

On the contrary

The main source that DGF has linked us, concludes the very opposite - that at the moment the benefits outweigh the non-proven risks.

It does? Apologies, I didn't read this one. Is this a study from DGF that you take as a valid source?

themetallifan wrote: »

The government's main stance that support fluoridation is that in Ireland, visitng the dentist and proper dental hygeine is a very middle to upper class thing (stems from before the celtic tiger). By fluoridating the water, those in the lower socio-economic groups get some protection from tooth decay.

I would be more of a traditionalist with relation to chemical additives. I naturarally distrust adding a chemical to something natural. I'm not saying that flouridation is bad or good, and I'm far from an expert on the subject (last I heard on mainstream documentaries, however, there were no noticeable benefits comparing tooth decay in flouridised and non-flouridised?). If the chemical is (as far as current data can suggest) neither good not bad, then I would rather not have it added to something.

Veni Vedi Vici

Kernel wrote: »

If the chemical is (as far as current data can suggest) neither good not bad, then I would rather not have it added to something.

An astounding piece of logic. I think a few folk around here are overlooking this.

themetallifan

Yep, it's a valid source, made sure it was indexed in National Library of Medicine before I read it. The main argument concerning this source was that the newspaper report that is linked below 'summarized' when actually they completely got it wrong. (See my post where I quote and compare them)

With regards to the chemical additive stuff, that's cool. Personally I'm not pushed either way on whether it's added or not.
I'm just trying to show that people too often take scientific papers out of context to benefit their own arguments. It bugs me that lack of research, or cherry-picking information can lead to people taking misinformation as fact...that's all.

Below is DGF's original link fyi (the two contradict)

dontgetfooled wrote: »

Here's a link to a Portland Tribune article summarizing the findings in a US Independent (National Research Council) assessment of Fluoride in drinking water:

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=34527

Here's a link to the actual report, retailing at $66:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

DGF

themetallifan

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

An astounding piece of logic. I think a few folk around here are overlooking this.

Read the paper DGF linked...it says that the benefits outweigh the risks.

dontgetfooled

themetallifan wrote: »

Read the paper DGF linked...it says that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Read my OP.

You stated in an earlier post that you didn't see this as a conspiracy.

If this isn't I can't see what is.

The US Government conspire against some New Jersey farmers who bring a lawsuit against them regarding Fluoride exposure. In response they, according to their own secret memo's, deem that if they can convince the public that exposure to Fluoride has benefits as well as negative effects, they can wipe out the NJ Farmer's legal stance and continue their weapons program. (All about money Folks)

A Dr Hodge proposes the idea of lecturing on the benefit of Fluoride to human teeth.

Then to back up this claim, HE (without mentioning his connection to the military) heads up the research team that low & behold arrives at the findings above. (very convenient)

They then, without consent or notice, pump SF into the water supply of thousands of citizens, using them as human test subjects - without consent! Testing them over a 10 year period.

Now the key question, what else did they find over those 10 years that led the US Government and others to expand this program of SF water filtration?

Then in the 1990's a new research team investigates Fluoride, who do the US Government send over to "help" - DR HODGE. Again, he never cites his US Military credentials, or his previous experience with The Manhattan Project, Fluoride testing & research.

I think the intent there is pretty obvious.

READ MY OP CAREFULLY.

Then, by definition, if this is NOT conspiring, which would make it a Conspiracy, then what is?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

I naturarally distrust adding a chemical to something natural.

But why? Arsenic is 100% all natural but I doubt you'd want that added to water, and probably would want it lessened in water supplies.
And of course you know water is by definition a chemical.

It's the old "natural = good chemical = bad" nonsense you get in alternative health stores.

Veni Vedi Vici

Time for an intermission methinks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk

What are each camps thoughts on it? A friendly chap no less but is he well-researched?

Kernel

themetallifan wrote: »

Read the paper DGF linked...it says that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Thanks for clearing that up. But this would worry me, the effect of flouridation on IQ levels:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=205

Reproduction:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=182

And I've only been skimming to get the jist of it.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

But why? Arsenic is 100% all natural but I doubt you'd want that added to water, and probably would want it lessened in water supplies.
And of course you know water is by definition a chemical.

It's the old "natural = good chemical = bad" nonsense you get in alternative health stores.

You missed my point entirely, and indeed it's mildly patronising to put forward your arsenic analogy and "water=chemical". Water is water, and has been as long as humankind have been evolving on this earth, why change it now? I'm no Luddite KM, but I don't see the point in adding chemicals to water or food if they serve no discernible purpose...

dontgetfooled

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Time for an intermission methinks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk

What are each camps thoughts on it? A friendly chap no less but is he well-researched?

Well,

Obviously I agree with him. If it has no benifits then why is it there?

There is a reason, and I will bet my bottom dollar its a bad one.

Think Nazi's, think lower IQ, think Rockefeller's quote:

"I don't want a Nation of thinkers, I want a Nation of workers."

Its a Brave New World.

Just a thought.

Veni Vedi Vici

dontgetfooled wrote: »

Well,

There is a reason, and I will bet my bottom dollar its a bad one.

Think Nazi's, think lower IQ, think Rockefeller's quote:

Just a thought.

If the conspiracy exists then I agree that it's objectives would primarily be concerned with mass control.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

You missed my point entirely, and indeed it's mildly patronising to put forward your arsenic analogy and "water=chemical". Water is water, and has been as long as humankind have been evolving on this earth, why change it now? I'm no Luddite KM, but I don't see the point in adding chemicals to water or food if they serve no discernible purpose...

Yea for the vast majority of the time humankind have been evolving on this Earth the water we drank was fairly dirty and chock full of diseases.

It does have a discernible purpose btw the way.
Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride. Fluoridated water operates on tooth surfaces: drinking it creates low levels of fluoride in saliva, which reduces the rate at which tooth enamel demineralizes and increases the rate at which it remineralizes in the early stages of cavities.

http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t048360372371167/

Veni Vedi Vici

King Mob wrote: »

Yea for the vast majority of the time humankind have been evolving on this Earth the water we drank was fairly dirty and chock full of diseases.

It does have a discernible purpose btw the way.
Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride. Fluoridated water operates on tooth surfaces: drinking it creates low levels of fluoride in saliva, which reduces the rate at which tooth enamel demineralizes and increases the rate at which it remineralizes in the early stages of cavities.

http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t048360372371167/

This is a real 'catch-22' scenario. If skeptics are dismissing the anti-fluoridation research/literature as 'cherry picked misinterpretations' then surely the conspiracy theorists will reject the pro-fluoridation research literature as 'elitist disinformation/propaganda'.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Yea for the vast majority of the time humankind have been evolving on this Earth the water we drank was fairly dirty and chock full of diseases.

And that was natures way. It's what we evolved and adapted to. I'm pretty sure we didn't evolve drinking flouridated water though. Or aspartame ridden diet colas.

King Mob wrote: »

It does have a discernible purpose btw the way.
Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride. Fluoridated water operates on tooth surfaces: drinking it creates low levels of fluoride in saliva, which reduces the rate at which tooth enamel demineralizes and increases the rate at which it remineralizes in the early stages of cavities.

http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t048360372371167/

Any data to compare rates of tooth decay from flouridised countries with non-flouridised?

Veni Vedi Vici

Kernel wrote: »

Any data to compare rates of tooth decay from flouridised countries with non-flouridised?

Therein lies the truth methinks.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

And that was natures way. It's what we evolved and adapted to. I'm pretty sure we didn't evolve drinking flouridated water though. Or aspartame ridden diet colas.

Yea you're right because we had longer life spans when we were using "nature's way."

Kernel wrote: »

Any data to compare rates of tooth decay from flouridised countries with non-flouridised?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation
Most of the stuff there has references.

with studies estimating an 18–40% reduction in cavities when water fluoridation is used by children who already had access to toothpaste and other sources of fluoride.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation#cite_note-FRWG-1

http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Water is water, and has been as long as humankind have been evolving on this earth, why change it now? I'm no Luddite KM, but I don't see the point in adding chemicals to water or food if they serve no discernible purpose...

Water isn't water, in that you will never get pure H2O as a water-supply. Different locations have different trace elements in the water. Not only that, but as a general rule, you don't want to drink untreated water....whether that be tapwater, bottled mineral water, rainwater, or whatever else it is that you choose to drink instead. As a general rule, we mess around with chemicals to add stuff and remove stuff.

Fluoride? Thats one of those perfectly natural trace elements that we find in water.

The entire reason that studies began into fluoride was because people noticed that in areas where there was naturally high fluoride concentrations in the water, there were lower incidents of cavities.

There are valid questions to be asked as to whether or not the dental effects of fluoride are overstated, just as there are valid questions to be aked as to whether or not any of the fringe risks found are, in fact, genuine...but the notion that there is (as you put it) "no discernible purpose" for adding fluoride to water is simply incorrect.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

Yea you're right because we had longer life spans when we were using "nature's way."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation
Most of the stuff there has references.

Who had access to toothpaste. for **** sake......:rolleyes:
The reduction in cavities is because we brush our teeth, not because there is flouride in it.

Btw I use non flouride natural toothpaste, my teeth are famous:D

King mob, your running out of air.:rolleyes:

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

Who had access to toothpaste. for **** sake......:rolleyes:
The reduction in cavities is because we brush our teeth, not because there is flouride in it.

Btw I use non flouride natural toothpaste, my teeth are famous:D

King mob, your running out of air.:rolleyes:

So never heard of a control group then?

mysterious

bonkey wrote: »

Fluoride? Thats one of those perfectly natural trace elements that we find in water.

Then why do the elite/governments are so obsessed about our teeth;) If there is already flouride in water, already flouride in toothpaste(at poisionous levels) and now want to put it in our foods.

Flouride is in tea btw

Do you really think there is an AGENDA here, other than looking after our teeth. Cus my teeth are not a problem and I use non flouride toothpaste.

Also you do know flouride accumalates in the body,

The entire reason that studies began into fluoride was because people noticed that in areas where there was naturally high fluoride concentrations in the water, there were lower incidents of cavities.

Yeah right:rolleyes: I'm sure Hitler thought the same.........

There are valid questions to be asked as to whether or not the dental effects of fluoride are overstated, just as there are valid questions to be aked as to whether or not any of the fringe risks found are, in fact, genuine...but the notion that there is (as you put it) "no discernible purpose" for adding fluoride to water is simply incorrect.

There is no purpose, flouride does not need to be added to our water, for the love of christ, what are you people trying to subject here, keep flouride in our water for the craic.

Good sweet jesus my head hurts................:rolleyes: