THE TRUTH ABOUT SODIUM FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

So the reason you believe that fluoride is harmful, not because independent verifiable evidence show as much, but rather you read it on a conspiracy website?

governments create conspiracy websites, this proves I'm alot more ahead than most;)

The two lnks I posted were not C.Ts sites. Oh your and your selective reading again.

ATS, don't like me, cus I debunk the crap and fear mongering and war madness on it. ATS want people lost in conspiracy theories. But because ATS hold 100,000s thousands of members, there is a huge news and information source. I've met quite a few interesting people on there.

But just because it's a C.Ts site, doesn.t mean it's any less refutable than another source. I loathe the owners of that site. They are in the middle of censoring your vowels now incase you might say something against a group or people. Hense I won't go into this it's way off topic.

Governments work on these sites. anyhow.

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

governments create conspiracy websites, this proves I'm alot more ahead than most;)

The two lnks I posted were not C.Ts sites. Oh your and your selective reading again.

ATS, don't like me, cus I debunk the crap and fear mongering and war madness on it. ATS want people lost in conspiracy theories. But because ATS hold 100,000s thousands of members, there is a huge news and information source. I've met quite a few interesting people on there.

But just because it's a C.Ts site, doesn.t mean it's any less refutable than another source. I loathe the owners of that site. They are in the middle of censoring your vowels now incase you might say something against a group or people. Hense I won't go into this it's way off topic.

Governments work on these sites. anyhow.

Yea it kind of is more refutable than another source.
For one it doesn't have the fact checking actual news site have.

And those links are to the same article.
And it is from a ct site.

themetallifan

mysterious wrote: »

Oh noooooo?
For someone to tell me that I don't know this topic, guess the fingers comes back to you sir:D

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2009/02/08/eu_food_authority_approves_fluoride_in_supplements_newsgrabs_8_february_2009.htm

http://www.newstin.co.uk/tag/uk/102963537

Apologies, I wasn't aware of this. (This was approved early this year, theres little reason to think it's added to any foods yet.) Still makes no difference to my stance here though. It's the first time in all the posts (alot) that I've overlooked one of the facts. Seems like you tend to do that alot though so I think I'll be ok this one time. And...weren't you the one who said fluoride didn't leave the body?? Hmmm.....

There is hundreds of people posting on there, can't see them imagining it either.

Emm....yes I can. They're all CTs.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

Yea it kind of is more refutable than another source.
For one it doesn't have the fact checking actual news site have.

And those links are to the same article.
And it is from a ct site.

What do you want the **** news stations? Sarcosys mouth waving it's in my breivcase, or the 9/11 commision.

What's your idea of a new souce? I really would like to know. Just recently I've observed your activity on this forum. It seems that every source and link you post. It's perfect, when someone else post their source its lunacy.

I really find your activity with this hilarious. To the point of even of laughing. Why because you posted a wikipeadia page recently. And wikipeadia isn't always reliable either.

But since I think you don't even know what is reliable and what's not or just when you say so it's topjob, I really do question this. This is like a coin maze at this stage, with your views on whats refutable or not:D

Oh this was funny.

themetallifan

I think you'll remember he said that that article was fully referenced in that post. Looking through previous posts for mistakes are we?

mysterious

themetallifan wrote: »

Apologies, I wasn't aware of this. (This was approved early this year, theres little reason to think it's added to any foods yet.) Still makes no difference to my stance here though. It's the first time in all the posts (alot) that I've overlooked one of the facts. Seems like you tend to do that alot though so I think I'll be ok this one time. And...weren't you the one who said fluoride didn't leave the body?? Hmmm.....




Emm....yes I can. They're all CTs.

Wrong again, I don't want to be always pointing you out wrong but..:D

There is actually a fair share of skeptics on that site too. There is a skeptic board. There is actually well known people on that site. There is 100,000s thousands of people from all walks. So to say they are C.Ts.


Is again quite flawed.

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

What do you want the **** news stations? Sarcosys mouth waving it's in my breivcase, or the 9/11 commision.

What's your idea of a new souce? I really would like to know. Just recently I've observed your activity on this forum. It seems that every source and link you post. It's perfect, when someone else post their source its lunacy.

I really find your activity with this hilarious. To the point of even of laughing. Why because you posted a wikipeadia page recently. And wikipeadia isn't always reliable either.

But since I think you don't even know what is reliable and what's not or just when you say so it's topjob, I really do question this. This is like a coin maze at this stage, with your views on whats refutable or not:D

Oh this was funny.

Yea wikipedia has references at the bottom of the page. They are usually more in depth and reliable. The wikipedia article is usually more concise and easier for laypeople to reference.

For example in support of fluoridation people linked peer reviewed paper from reliable sources, posted on neutral sites. On the other side we had non peer reviewed papers from unreliable sources, posted on site that supported ideas like alchemy.

Maybe you lay off the personal stuff.

themetallifan

First you say

The two lnks I posted were not C.Ts sites.

Then you say

just because it's a C.Ts site, doesn.t mean

Now they are the exact same source. The second one just links to an excerpt of the first. Don't like to keep pointing you out as being wrong but

I said "they're all CTs." I was referring to your sources. Did I mention the website users at all???

Anyway, this is losing focus, we were discussing fluoridation in water...I can see this degenerating into a slagging match soon. Back to the current topic.

As far as I can see so far, you've provided no evidence to the harmful effects of fluoride in drinking water, and any points you've raised, we've given a source to prove it wrong.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

Yea wikipedia has references at the bottom of the page. They are usually more in depth and reliable. The wikipedia article is usually more concise and easier for laypeople to reference.

For example in support of fluoridation people linked peer reviewed paper from reliable sources, posted on neutral sites. On the other side we had non peer reviewed papers from unreliable sources, posted on site that supported ideas like alchemy.

Maybe you lay off the personal stuff.

So it has to be a source that you agree with or dissgaree with? So if wikipeadia isn't always reliable, it is immune to be unreliable? This nit picking relly pisses me off.

Whats nuetral. I'm curious, because from where you come from doesn't appear balanced whatsoever. I say this politetly.


How were they unreliable, what does it mean when you state they were reliable. I would like this straighten out, purely because I don't like when people just state it's unreliable mainly because it's becaise they don't agree with it.

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

So it has to be a source that you agree with or dissgaree with? So if wikipeadia isn't always reliable, it is immune to be unreliable? This nit picking relly pisses me off.

Whats nuetral. I'm curious, because from where you come from doesn't appear balanced whatsoever. I say this politetly.


How were they unreliable, what does it mean when you state they were reliable. I would like this straighten out, purely because I don't like when people just state it's unreliable mainly because it's becaise they don't agree with it.

Wow you really can't see irony.

I believe the metallifan already explained how those articles where unreliable.

Teg Veece

mysterious wrote: »

http://www.health.state.ri.us/disease/primarycare/oralhealth/prevention-fluoridation-map.php

The states IQ taken from tickle IQ test not particulary favourable.
North Dakota though is very high in IQ is one of the ones listed that is flouridated. The rest have little to know flouridated water within the top 11.

Massachusetts -- 101.5
2. North Dakota -- 101.4
3. Vermont -- 101.2
4. Montana -- 101.1
5. South Dakota -- 101.1
6. New Hampshire -- 101.0
7. Minnesota -- 100.8
8. Wisconsin -- 100.3
9. Wyoming -- 100.2
10. Iowa -- 100.0
11. Idaho -- 99.9

I wish there was more reliable sources, but this does show that in general the less flouridate states have higher IQs.

There's justn1.6 IQ points separating 11th place from 1st place. That difference is so small considering the dubious accuracy of these average state IQ tests that it's pretty much meaningless.
Hardly proof that the populations are being dumbed down.

mysterious

themetallifan wrote: »

First you say

I did

Then you say

I said with abovetopsecret.com. yes. It's C.T site.

That was not the first two links i posted. Oh you must of choosed not to read my post properly oh geee.

Now they are the exact same source. The second one just links to an excerpt of the first. Don't like to keep pointing you out as being wrong but

Hands a shovel.

I said "they're all CTs." I was referring to your sources. Did I mention the website users at all???

But they are not all C.Ts

Anyway, this is losing focus, we were discussing fluoridation in water...I can see this degenerating into a slagging match soon. Back to the current topic.

Thank goodness you saved yourself.

As far as I can see so far, you've provided no evidence to the harmful effects of fluoride in drinking water, and any points you've raised, we've given a source to prove it wrong.

The IQ links were pretty informative.

Did you watch the video of the dentist showing the amount of poision is in one pea sized amount of toothpaste in comparison to a glass of water. you should watch this with eyes open:D

themetallifan

mysterious wrote: »

I did

The IQ links were pretty informative.

Ah, since you said it that way....:l

Did you watch the video of the dentist showing the amount of poision is in one pea sized amount of toothpaste in comparison to a glass of water. you should watch this with eyes open

Yep I did, I've watched it loadsa times. Seems to be the one thing consistently posted in these types of discussions. Poison though, think I've explained in a previous post where you've gone wrong with the terminology there....whether its poisonous or not depends on the dose. Fluoride in water does not constitute a poison.

You claim we're ignoring your links/arguments, but you seem to be equally ignoring the ones you dont like.....one of the main sources linked by DGF earlier, which apparently showed the evil of fluoride, turned out to conclude the exact opposite. You've linked stuff showing what fluoride's in, you love mentioning 9/11, you've thrown around terms like 'toxin' relating to fluoride, and we're the ones poorly informed????

I think no matter what anyone says, you'll still believe this is a conspiracy? Yes?

6th

Mysterious, you have said that fluoride doesnt leave the body. It has been pointed out to you a number of times that it does. Why are you ignoring this point?

6th

6th wrote: »

Mysterious, you have said that fluoride doesnt leave the body. It has been pointed out to you a number of times that it does. Why are you ignoring this point?

Well?

dontgetfooled

Hey Guys,

The natural occuring Fluoride in water is not Sodium Fluoride, but CALCIUM Fluoride. They are actually quite different.

SF (artifically pumped into our water, classed as a Toxin)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_flouride

CF (naturally occurring, CF is not classed as a Toxin)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride


And this is from the US CODE on Chemical testing, as you can see poisoning and/or controlling people through a chemical such as, say, Fluoride, is in fact legal, the inbolded point 3 on paragraph 2 is a more than adequate loophole for this.

If population control is in fact, the true reason.


TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 32 > § 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents.

(a) Prohibited activities
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(this sounds about right, but then there's this)

(b) Exceptions: Subject to subsections the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

e) “Biological agent” defined
In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.


SOURCE : http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001520---a000-.html

I've also found one source that states that only 50% of Fluoride that is ingested leaves the body, but I'll find another before I post.

6th & Mysterious, you may have to meet half way.....

add correction: - it states 50% of SODIUM FLUORIDE doesn't leave the body, not all classes of Fluoride.

DGF

King Mob

dontgetfooled wrote: »

Hey Guys,

The natural occuring Fluoride in water is not Sodium Fluoride, but CALCIUM Fluoride. They are actually quite different.

SF (artifically pumped into our water, classed as a Toxin)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_flouride

CF (naturally occurring, CF is not classed as a Toxin)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride

That's bull****.
They aren't defined as toxins at all. A toxin is produced by living cells or organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxin
And it has been explained to you that sodium fluoride is only dangerous at high doses. The lethal dose for a 70 kg human is estimated at 5–10 g.

dontgetfooled wrote: »

And this is from the US CODE on Chemical testing, as you can see poisoning and/or controlling people through a chemical such as, say, Fluoride, is in fact legal, the inbolded point 3 on paragraph 2 is a more than adequate loophole for this.

If population control is in fact, the true reason.


TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 32 > § 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents.

(a) Prohibited activities
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(this sounds about right, but then there's this)

(b) Exceptions: Subject to subsections the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

e) “Biological agent” defined
In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.


SOURCE : http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001520---a000-.html

Yep because we see riot cops spray people with sodium fluoride all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mace_(spray)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_gas

And did you know that riot police sometimes use huge quantities of dihydrogen monoxide to quell riots?

dontgetfooled wrote: »

I've also found one source that states that only 50% of Fluoride that is ingested leaves the body, but I'll find another before I post.

6th & Mysterious, you may have to meet half way.....

add correction: - it states 50% of SODIUM FLUORIDE doesn't leave the body, not all classes of Fluoride.

DGF

Care to post this source?

6th

King Mob wrote: »

That's bull****.

No need to be so aggressive.

themetallifan

DGF-

The word toxin means a biologically (e.g. by a plant or animal) produced toxic substance. Fluoride, or any derivative compounds - they're not toxins. To say otherwise is wrong. A simple dictionary lookup will back this up.

You've given these rules, but that does not prove anything; it doesn't provide any evidence for your conspiracy theory. You've no way to say that these rules were written with fluoride in mind!

Lastly, it does leave the body, and that 50% figure...I'd love to see the source, as I've given sources in previous posts that directly contradict this.....

We seem to be re-arguing the same things, even though people have provided evidence in previous posts. That anti-fluoridation side seem to be ignoring key facts like retention, toxicity etc.

dontgetfooled

themetallifan wrote: »

DGF-

The word toxin means a biologically (e.g. by a plant or animal) produced toxic substance. Fluoride, or any derivative compounds - they're not toxins. To say otherwise is wrong. A simple dictionary lookup will back this up.

You've given these rules, but that does not prove anything; it doesn't provide any evidence for your conspiracy theory. You've no way to say that these rules were written with fluoride in mind!

Lastly, it does leave the body, and that 50% figure...I'd love to see the source, as I've given sources in previous posts that directly contradict this.....

We seem to be re-arguing the same things, even though people have provided evidence in previous posts. That anti-fluoridation side seem to be ignoring key facts like retention, toxicity etc.

Ok.

Its a Toxicant, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicant )either way they have the same effect, just different sources.

The quote from the US code shows a legal loophole through which this could be put through, I never suggested it was written with Fluoride in mind, but it would sure come in handy.

And yes we are arguing the same points, as it the same subject and we're on different sides of the fence.

(I had a longer more detailed post, but it got wiped, i'll repost it later)

dontgetfooled

King Mob wrote: »

And it has been explained to you that sodium fluoride is only dangerous at high doses. The lethal dose for a 70 kg human is estimated at 5–10 g.

I never stated it was put into our water to be lethal, however continued ingestion over many years, first in water, now in our food, should be cause for alarm.

The cavity argument has enough counter studies and evidence to put it in the realm of reasonable doubt.

This, in a court of law with a jury, would be sufficient to remove it from our water supply. Until at they very minimum, they cary out the additional research they recommend in the "peer reviewed" report.

There should be a choice in this matter, there is not. That alone deserves questioning and there is a lot more suspicious circumstances that hint at a far more sinister motive.


DGF

dontgetfooled

themetallifan wrote: »

Lastly, it does leave the body, and that 50% figure...I'd love to see the source, as I've given sources in previous posts that directly contradict this.....

Here, 10th paragraph down:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/jun/12/medicineandhealth.genderissues

Also here is the open letter I posted about, have to look into its claims more some of which are new to me:

http://reactor-core.org/dental-health.html

DGF

themetallifan

Thanks for the source DGF...at least your claims are backed up somewhat.

I've a couple of problems with it though:

a) It's a newspaper report...as we all know, journalists aren't the best at reading scientific papers, as many examples in the past have shown.
b) 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.

I also think I see how people are confusing this...the second source says things like:

Over 95% of fluoride in the body is accumulated within the skeleton and teeth.

but non-scientists/people from non-scientific backgrounds fail to read the rest of the reports, where they go on to explain that:

Fluoride is usually eliminated in its unchanged form

The 95% refers only to the miniscule amount absorbed anyway.

Sources (the ones I could relocate)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18514162?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076512?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

dontgetfooled

themetallifan wrote: »

Thanks for the source DGF...at least your claims are backed up somewhat.

I've a couple of problems with it though:

I'm not so keen either, as I said it was the only place I'd seen the claim & so didn't post the source first time round, also no external links to verify etc.

The Author of the 2nd source wrote a book entitled "Good Teeth, From Birth to Death" and is adamantly anti-fluoride, citing numerous damages to your health as stated in his open letter.

Here's a link to his book, you can download it in PDF by clicking "more / download"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12719970/Good-Teeth-From-Birth-to-Death-Judd-Full-Book


DGF

King Mob

dontgetfooled wrote: »

I never stated it was put into our water to be lethal, however continued ingestion over many years, first in water, now in our food, should be cause for alarm.

For what reason should you be alarmed?

dontgetfooled wrote: »

The cavity argument has enough counter studies and evidence to put it in the realm of reasonable doubt.

Not really. Could you provided some peer reviewed papers that would justify this statement?

dontgetfooled wrote: »

This, in a court of law with a jury, would be sufficient to remove it from our water supply. Until at they very minimum, they cary out the additional research they recommend in the "peer reviewed" report.

But there has been tons of research done on it you're just dismissing it out of hand.

dontgetfooled wrote: »

There should be a choice in this matter, there is not. That alone deserves questioning and there is a lot more suspicious circumstances that hint at a far more sinister motive.

So there should be two separate waters supplies because some people believe fluoridation to be a government plot?

The choice argument is the most valid part of the issue as it doesn't have to rely on ridiculous claims of government conspiracy. If people want to argue this why make baseless accusations like "it lowers IQ" as so forth?

King Mob

dontgetfooled wrote: »

Its a Toxicant, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicant )either way they have the same effect, just different sources.

So who actually classes it as a toxicant in that case?

philiy

Anyonw know where the floride that goes into Irish drinking water comes from?

I mean what chemical company is it purchased from?

Also wouldnt the government save allot of money if they didnt have to buy floride to put into the water supply? Wouldnt it go some way in helping the government during this econimic crisis?

There is allot of evidence out there that floride dosnt do anything for teeth and that it infact damages human health and allot of people want it taken out of the Irish water system so why dosnt the government get ride of it and maybe help their popularity somewhat?

feoil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k1RzFsvn7E

You may find this of interest

Slippin Jimmy

I do not see how this is a conspiracy.

espinolman

Duffff-Man wrote: »

I do not see how this is a conspiracy.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055514887

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055383572&highlight=sodium+fluoride

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055488044&highlight=sodium+fluoride