Fluoride endgame approaches....

jh79 wrote: »

So why dodn't we add flourine to our water supply using calcium flouride and both sides could be happy?

I am happy without swallowing poison.

I ask the question, why is our society so hellbent on putting flouride into our bodies? People have been campaigning for decades to get it out of our water supply and yet we still have cooperate state government bodies advocating it. Where are the morals here? Where is free will? Where is justice for these crimes on our people.

RossFixxxed wrote: »

I'd be happy if you could show me a few proper medical papers, that you have read and understood (which I'm dobuting at the minute, hence my replies).

Maybe 3 - 5 papers, independent, double blind studies, controlled, peer reviewed etc. Scientific basically. Don't post a huffpo link as most of AH does. I want the actual medical documents, not something off wiki.

This all seems like a psychological issue of your own. Remember the 'apples give you cancer' thing for years back? They can, if you eat about 500 daily.

I want proof, not melodrama please and I'll stop posting 'tinfoil hat' stuff. Thanks.

Can you show me all the people who have illnesses/died due to this. Directly as a result of this, on the death certificate.

Or we can continue being hysterical. I'm NOT educated on this, I'm not saying flouride is amazing, let's all have it. You could convince me. You won't with no evicence though.

Ah, you believe in psychics etc. Never mind, forget what I said.

I will leave you with this: there are people on boards FAR more educated and far smarter than most of us, and they will research this, and they will demand proper facts. They will tear you apart if you keep posting such OTT stuff with no backup. Good luck!

Will do that.;)

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Will do that.;)

Cool, will be away from computer for a bit now but I'll check in. I'll pass them on to a few doctors etc I know and we will have a read. (How sad is that?)

Oops: Now I know you're commenting on the bolded bit, since I reread your post in a browser that isn't showing this in plain text, so I will say this: SHOW SOME PROOF. Otherwise you are another crackpot raving away about the governement etc.

If you can't address the actual point in what I said you are dead in the water. (See what I did there.)

Anyway I'll leave the rest of the logical world to tear you to shreds. Perhaps you don't get the scientific method, but big claims on an Internet forum are not the way to go.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Natural flouride vs added sodium flouride by chemical means. Flouride is harmful, and adding more would suggest what? Tea has naturally occurring calcium flouride, and the flouride added to our water supply is sodium flouride.

Ireland is one of the most flouridated counties in the world that drink the most tea and alcohol per capita. That should tell us something about the state of the nation.

.

Please explain why calcium fluoride should be any more or less harmful than sodium fluoride at the levels commonly seen in irish tap water?! IT's not like the added sodium ions in tapwater are much more harmful. Bottled water naturally has far more sodium in the water than would be added by using sodium fluoride.

I was thinking about how the govt never looked at the prevailing levels of fluoride intake from alternative sources, but we could make a crude deduction from NI data at least? If background levels were high throughout the island and fluoridation of water took place only in the republic, there would be more signs of fluoridosis and different kinds of dental problems resulting from high F levels than would exist in NI. But that appears not to be the case.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Please explain why calcium fluoride should be any more or less harmful than sodium fluoride at the levels commonly seen in irish tap water?! IT's not like the added sodium ions in tapwater are much more harmful. Bottled water naturally has far more sodium in the water than would be added by using sodium fluoride.

I was thinking about how the govt never looked at the prevailing levels of fluoride intake from alternative sources, but we could make a crude deduction from NI data at least? If background levels were high throughout the island and fluoridation of water took place only in the republic, there would be more signs of fluoridosis and different kinds of dental problems resulting from high F levels than would exist in NI. But that appears not to be the case.

I hadn't had any tooth decay or cavities in 9 years. I have stopped drinking flouridated water for 7 years now. Hadn't had a cavity since.

Flouride does not protect your teeth. The best form of mind control, is repetition. Just keep drilling adverts out there stating flouride is good for you and people will believe it. There is absolutely no truth in having poison to protect your teeth. Even if it had any benefit to our teeth the risks would still far outweigh any "good" it allegedly does have. It not only damages your physical body but your mental body too.

The old argument is that flouride strengthens teeth enamel. Not entirely true either, only at direct contact to the teeth. But so does many other chemicals. So what's the case for flouride then? Swallowing flouride causes harm to our bodies and swallowing it won't save your teeth either. If you want to strengthen the enamel of your teeth. They are far better ways of doing so. Do your research and I am sure you will find that you don't have to swallow poison just because the "government" said so .


So in conclusion, this all ultimately means flouride further has no use for us to intake whatsoever. And I am just waiting for someone to actually state that the government or state bodies care about our teeth. I think the idea is to look after your own teeth and not to have some state body to look after them. It would be certain that they really do not care about your teeth, and why should they?

If we allow flouride in our bodies, then I don't think our teeth health is the issue here, it's a mental health issue. Ironic too, since flouride is the main cause of mental illness to our society today. Gee, wonder how that is. It's just ludicrous to think they do and that people support this. It's an actual crime against humanity to put flouride in our water supply.


Look after your own teeth and stop depending on some state body to protect your teeth and poison your water supply.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Bottled water has sodium, but it's not sodium flouride.:rolleyes:

You can buy bottled water that has low sodium content in which I do has no sodium flouride in it. Why on earth would I want to put poison in me. It's hard enough in this day and age to try avoid all these chemicals in our foods let alone having it in our water supply.

Why is calcium fluoride safer than sodium fluoride? And where has this been demonstrated?

Also, it's very unfortunate to claim that fluoride is the main cause of mental illnesses in our society today. Mental illness can result from a variety of things and for those who have mental illness and who have always drunk well water with a confirmed low level of fluoride (less than 0.5 ppm) or bottled water throughout their lives (like a relation of mine) could nonetheless become paranoid about their treatments from statements like that, trusting to air filtration and water filtration and monitoring rather than the advice of their psychiatrist. You should reconsider how your point is being worded.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

What's more unfortunate, it's a reality.

It's not going to be a cause of every case of mental illness. While you haven't said that it is a cause of every case, phrasing it like that could jeapordise the treatment of mental illness sufferers were they to mistakenly apply that conclusion to their own condition.

So why is calcium fluoride safer than sodium fluoride?

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

It's not going to be a cause of every case of mental illness. While you haven't said that it is a cause of every case, phrasing it like that could jeapordise the treatment of mental illness sufferers were they to mistakenly apply that conclusion to their own condition.

Does it have to be the cause of every mental illness for people to suddenly realise it's harmful? I think it's suffice to say that it causes enough serious harm to show enough awareness to everyone that it should be something we should NOT be putting in our water supply and food products. It's well up there as one of the biggest contributors to mental illness in our society today. It's causes people to be docile, dopey and just simply weak minded. Thus this then leads to other mental health issues because of that. Which is why flouridation needs to be removed permanently from our drinking water. It's completely immoral and barbaric.

The people advocating it and (who are aware of what flouride does to people) are truly elitist and want the human population to be docile,, herded and controlled. Awareness is a great thing too.

The mind is a very powerful thing as well, and to have, use and share knowledge is what a free society should be built upon. Sadly that is now how it works. Especially when you can overwhelmingly see in plain sight with people on this forum supporting flouridation.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

i've explained this already.
Calcium flouride occurs naturally in plants and some water supplies. It's natural and yes it's posionous in high to moderate doses. Sodium flouride is chemical waste dumped into our water supply. Tea and especially green tea has calcium flouride. another product that mass advertized, gee wonder why. So add that to what's already in our water, with sodium flouride and you are certainly taking a lot of flouride that's enough to brain damage you. It's obviously working on us.

If I took a gram of CaF or a gram of NaF, would the outcome be any different? I don't see why Calcium Fluoride would be safer if I drunk it from tea rather than if it was added to my water supply. I.e. I can't understand why Fluoride from tea is in any way safer than if it were manually added by man to water supplies. CaF is not very soluble in water but it seems we've no way of knowing that a 1.0 ppm level of CaF dissolved in water is any safer than 1.0 ppm of sodium fluoride.

And what counts as a moderate to high dose anyway? In toxicology studies a lethal dose for example is typically expressed as the mass of poison per kg of animal mass to kill on average 50% of the population of poisoned animals.

I'd also like to clarify that nearly all my life has been spent drinking mineral well water instead of fluoridated water supplies

Sarky wrote: »

Speak for yourself.

That I do rather well

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

You had said that Calcium Fluoride is a safer version as it is naturally-occurring. I wish you'd just explain why CaF is safer than the same amount of NaF. I think this point is crucial to this vital discussion.

I've explained to you.
Yes it's crucial to defer the point isn't it. Defer from the crucial point to this whole thread, I am well aware of that. Just want to let you also know that isn't working. I don't have flouride posioning so I can see exactly what you're doing.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I've explained to you.
Yes it's crucial to defer the point isn't it. Defer from the crucial point to this whole thread, I am well aware of that. Just want to let you also know that isn't working. I don't have flouride posioning so I can see exactly what you're doing.

It's important to know how the different Fluoride salts may harm human health. I've asked this a few times now as you brought up the naturally-occurring Calcium Fluoride issue yourself. I have made no other points except to ask you to be careful in how you word the link between Fluoride and mental health. You said that CaF was safer but I want to know why, as I think we as Irish people should know just how safe or not it is to drink tea!

Sarky wrote: »

Not really. You're big on rhetoric, but you've got buggerall going on in the facts department. And you kind of need those if you want anything you say to be taken seriously. All your posts are repetitions of things that were torn apart ages ago. Give us something new, and back it up with evidence, or you're just another run_to_da_hills.

Now accuse me of being a close-minded sheep and pawn of Big Pharma/Monsanto/The Elites, you have a reputation to build.

Have anything constructive or intelligent to add to this conversation without going at me personally? This thread isn't about me, it's about flouride and for people to debate about it.

I speak for myself,

Perhaps you should speak for yourself
See how I mirror it back to you?

I can't understand why this is being argued. The only benefit that fluoride has on human health is caries prevention. That does not justify putting it into the drinking water. Why don't they also dose the water with Vitamin D, for the benefit of those people who sit at home in front of their TVs/game consoles all day and barely see any sunlight?

There's a very simple solution to this... Get rid of the fluoride in the water, and let people that are worried about their teeth use mouthwash. If they feel they need to ingest it, let them suck on fluoride tablets.

Very little evidence exists about the safety of water fluoridation. Most of the studies are specific to dental caries. Fluoride in general, however, is known to be toxic. The dose and long-term effects may come into question, but why take the completely unnecessary risk?

Here's a quote from the EU Public Health website:

The estimates [tolerable fluoride intake] are more difficult for children under 15, because data are hard to come by. The main difference is how well children learn to spit out toothpaste, rather than swallow it, and at what age.

The very youngest are at greatest risk of exceeding fluoride limits. The estimated tolerable limit for children under 1-6 years old is 1.5 mg/day, which should produce less than 5% of moderate dental fluorosis. This is exceeded if they drink more than 1.0 L water containing 0.8 mg F/L and they use a normal amount of regular fluoridated toothpaste. If they drink 1.5 L of water they go over the limit even without the toothpaste.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/l-2/4.htm#0

If I'm not mistaken mg/L is roughly about the same as PPM. If the Irish water supply contains between 0.8 - 1.0 ppm of fluoride (depending on the local authorities and whether or not the actual person in charge of dosing the water measures accurately), then it sounds to me like there should be a concern here, especially when boiling water increases the concentration of fluoride. Most of us boil the water that we give to infants. We also boil it for tea/coffee and for cooking.

In any case, there's it's wrong, imo, to mix fluoride into the drinking water. I'm sure that most (or at least a lot of) people aren't even aware of this fact. People also might not be aware that healthy kidneys can only eliminate about 50% of daily fluoride intake; the rest is absorbed and retained, not just in teeth, but also in the bones. Furthermore, some studies suggest or even prove that fluoride also accumulates in parts of the brain and can cause vascular calcification.

I'll leave you with a couple of links...
http://www.enviro.ie/Rebuttal_June_2012.pdf
http://www.enviro.ie/correspondence/21.11.2012/Communication%20on%20Fluoride%20Exposure%20and%20Periodontal%20Disease-Waugh%202012.pdf
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/21/fluoride-health-hazards.aspx