PDA

View Full Version : Fluoride is poison?



Eleven11
04-14-2012, 09:39 AM
All these 'separate' little statements by the EPA on fluoride might
not raise the alarm for those in denial, but take all these
separate statements and add them up, they amount to an admission
that fluoride is indeed a neurotoxic poison.

This video, put together by Experimental Vaccines, takes us right
down that path by following one statement to another on GOVERNMENT
WEBSITES, it reveals that the American public is exposed to levels
of Fluoride contamination well beyond any reasonable safety
standard.




http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/10141.html

urbanfarmer
04-14-2012, 01:19 PM
Too much fluoride makes your teeth weaker, but just a tiny bit makes them stronger. Also, you're not supposed to eat toothpaste. The kids that are eating toothpaste are already stupid; so, the study is introducing a bias saying that toothpaste lowers IQ... NO, those kids already had a low IQ.

:lol:

Also, my municipal water source does NOT add fluoride to the tap water and actually never has as far as I know. Well water is naturally high in fluoride in some (maybe a lot) of areas.

Eleven11
04-14-2012, 07:58 PM
Interesting topic the more I read about it...

Quote:
Until that time, most people were under the impression that water fluoridation used sodium fluoride, rat poison, a by-product of aluminum manufacturing.

Glasser, however, pointed out that more than 75 percent of the U.S. water fluoridation communities have been using the even more toxic fluorosilicic acid since the late 1970s.

Glasser was the first to stress the excessive toxicity inherent in using the hydrofluorosilicic acid residue that is removed from the industrial pollution control “scrubbers” in the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers.

The chemists refer to this material as silicofluorides and have now conclusively shown that the fluoridation material is linked to other heavy metal toxins that are found in drinking water—lead, arsenic, aluminum and cadmium for example.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/Altern ... ,%20Sa.htm (http://www.americanfreepress.net/Alternative_Health/17_02%20HS%20Fluoride%20Is%20Poison,%20Sa.htm)

urbanfarmer
04-14-2012, 08:16 PM
Does anyone have an EPA consumer report for their local municipal water source that shows what they use these fluoride sources to to fluoridate the water... if they do it at all?

Eleven11
04-15-2012, 05:09 AM
I'll look into it. I wonder where this author got these numbers....

Fighting Fluoride

by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller35.1.html

Quote:
Most Americans, 269 million in a population of 304 million (88.5 %), get their water from public water systems, and 196 million (72.4 %) drink — and bathe and wash their clothes with — fluoridated water. Maryland is the most heavily fluoridated state, where 99.8% of people use fluoridated public water, followed by Kentucky (99.4%), Minnesota (98.8%), North Dakota (96.4%), Illinois (95.4%), and Indiana (94.5%) (The District of Columbia, appropriately enough, is 100 percent fluoridated.) Hawaii (at 10.8%), New Jersey (13.6%), Oregon (27.4%), and Louisiana (28.3%) are the least fluoridated states. These statistics are for 2008, the most recent ones available on fluoridation. That year, in Louisiana, the legislature approved and the governor signed into law an Act that requires all community water systems in Louisiana having 5,000 or more customers (some 110 systems serving 2 million) to fluoridate their water.

Promoters are pushing for mandatory statewide fluoridation in various states, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts among them. In Oregon, a bill (HB2025) is pending that will mandate statewide fluoridation. It would require all municipal water systems serving 10,000 or more customers to add fluoride to their water, for 2.4 million Oregonians, 66 percent of the state's population. Legislators in California passed a state-mandated fluoridation law in 1995 that is contingent on municipalities obtaining an outside, non-state source of funds for it. State officials are putting increasing pressure on California cities, notably San Diego, that have not yet complied with the law. (In 2008, 58.8% of California's public water was fluoridated.)

urbanfarmer
04-15-2012, 05:22 AM
You are looking for the the most recent year, probably the 2011 Water Quality Report for your city.

I just double checked. Mine says 0.021 ppm Fluoride. It does not appear to be added intentionally to the municipal water source during processing.

From what I understand they have moved away from adding fluoride into tap water. This appears consistent in my city. The water report only goes back to 2008, but it's definitely not being added since then.

I think this conspiracy theory gets added to my top 10 worst conspiracy theory list... it's up there with chem trails! The best conspiracy theories are the ones you can't debunk even with evidence. Those are the most fun! :mrgreen:

NWO, law of admiralty, GMO, anything infowars, etc., let's go let's go!!!

Eleven11
04-15-2012, 08:28 AM
The EPA water report from Dec 2010, for my area shows the Max Contaminant Level Goal = 4ppm , Max Contaminant Level = 4 ppm, Compliance Level = 1.5ppm, then it says...

"Your Water"
Low = ND, High = 1.5 ppm, Violation = No

Here's another quote from Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD:
dwm@u.washington.edu


Fluoridation of community drinking water began in Grand Rapids, Michigan on January 12, 1945. It was the brainchild of two people who worked for Andrew W. Mellon, founder of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), Drs. H. Trendley Dean and Gerald J. Cox. Mellon was US Treasury Secretary, which made him (at that time, in 1930) head of the Public Health Service (PHS). He had Dean, a researcher at the PHS, study the effects of naturally fluoridated water on teeth. Dean confirmed that fluoride causes mottling (discoloration) of teeth, and he hypothesized that it also prevents cavities. Cox, a researcher at the Mellon Institute in Pittsburgh, was urged to study the effect of fluoride on tooth-decay in rats. Determining that it had a beneficial effect, he proposed, in late 1939, that the US should fluoridate its public water supply.

Doctors and public health officials did not think sodium fluoride, used commercially as a rat and bug poison, fungicide, and wood preservative, should be put in public water. The Journal of the American Dental Association said (in 1936), "Fluoride at the 1 ppm [part per million] concentration is as toxic as arsenic and lead… There is an increasing volume of evidence of the injurious effects of fluorine, especially the chronic intoxication resulting from the ingestion of minute amounts of fluorine over long periods of time." And the Journal of the American Medical Association" noted (in its September 18, 1943 issue), "Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes." But, as Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson reveal in "Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb," and Bryson in his book The Fluoride Deception, officials in the Manhattan Project persuaded health policy makers and medical and dental leaders, in the interests of national security, to do an about-face and join the fluoridation bandwagon.

urbanfarmer
04-15-2012, 03:01 PM
Yes, they used to put fluoride in water. No, they don't do it now (at least not in my area). It looks like they don't add it to your water either or else you would have posted the amount that is detected in the water (I'm starting to think you WANT to believe this nonsense). :-) Even if there was a conspiracy, it's no more.

On another note, since I was a child my family has never drank tap water and we were taught not to. It's not like someone has a gun to your head telling you to drink from the tap. Filter it or buy water that you know is good, test it yourself. Buy an RO filter, or whatever...

Eleven11
04-15-2012, 03:31 PM
I posted the information that was in the report. Fluoride is listed as a "water additive" similar to chlorine so they do fluoridate the water here. They just didn't list the amount of fluoride that is added.

We have always filtered the water.

This is a pretty important topic that people should be aware of. I'm not sure what you mean by non-sense.

Recommended Reading:

"Water Fluoridation: a Review of Recent Research and Actions," by Joel M. Kauffman, PhD. Published last month in the peer-reviewed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, this well-considered, succinct, up-to-date review would be Exhibit A in a trial against fluoridation. The author brought to my attention the distinction between inorganic fluoride anion and organically carbon-bound fluorine. (J Am Phys Surg 2005;10:38—44.)

"Fluoridation of Water," by Bette Hileman. Published in Chemical and Engineering News in 1988, this "Special Report" by an associate editor of the journal examines the fundamental issues and specifics of fluoridation, which scientists, policy makers, and the public must confront. It shows that the fluoride controversy is much more serious than most people at the time, including scientists, realized. This seminal article gives important examples of how data on fluoride's adverse effects are withheld from the public. (August 1, 1988 C&EN, p. 26—42, with links to the article's four sidebars and to 39 letters published in C&EN about it, including one from Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.)

Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death? by Barry Groves (2001) This thoroughly researched and well written book refutes, one by one, answers the British Fluoridation Society told UK dentists to give to (32) questions people might ask them about Fluoride — questions like "Is fluoridated water safe?" and "Is it true that there is enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a small child?" (The BFS answer to the toothpaste one is: "Used sensibly, fluoride toothpaste presents no risks to children.")

"50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation" by Paul Connett. There are, indeed, 50 reasons. Written by the Executive Director of the organization that held the protest in Chicago.

The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson (2004) A good review of this book can be found here. The author has thoroughly researched the subject and obtained previously unreleased documents on the wartime politics behind fluoridation. He pulls down its façade and lays bare this Potemkin Village.

"A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride." A good compilation of references, arranged by subject. It is 55 pages long.

July 15, 2005

Donald Miller is a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle and a member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and writes articles on a variety of subjects for LewRockwell.com, including bioterrorism. His web site is http://www.donaldmiller.com.

urbanfarmer
04-15-2012, 03:48 PM
Your report should list the amount detected of fluoride in the water. This is required by the EPA and is the whole reason they even put out the report (to show the detected levels). If that's the only numbers you have, that means you have almost 0 fluoride in your water (probably not detectable by testing).

I don't plan on reading or even skimming and of that literature because I'm not concerned with the fluoride in my water because they're not adding any and well... I don't drink it anyway! Here is my logic: IF fluoride compounds (the additives you listed previously) are so horrible they should not be drank, BUT I don't drink the water it is supposedly in AND it is not in my tap water THEN I have nothing to fear nor do most other people in my situation.

However, if this is a widespread problem and I am just one of the lucky few... then municipalities need to be made to stop adding it to the water. I would imagine poor people would be effected the worst without access to any other water sources.

Rather than copy/pasting tons of stuff, do you have any real reason yourself to know this is a real issue?

I hope you don't just say BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! :-D

Eleven11
04-15-2012, 03:56 PM
You can read the report yourself if you want. I says "water additive" next to fluoride.

I'm interested in the topic the same as the people writing books about it and the groups interested in stopping it from being added to public water systems.

If you are not concerned about fluoride then why contribute to the thread?

Baaaaah? what?

urbanfarmer
04-15-2012, 04:10 PM
Under description for my report is says water additive. That's what it is CLASSIFIED AS. It's an old classification that clearly is NOT used in my water source. You stating it is listed under the description doesn't mean that it's being added to your water. So I ask you, what concentration was it detected at? 4? 2? 1.5? 0?

Mine was 0.021 ppm.

It's the government. There are many antiquated laws or regulations that have not been updated. What you listed was the DESCRIPTION of fluoride, the same one is stated in my report. Just because it's there doesn't give proof to your conspiracy theory.


This is on the books today http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42C21.txt

-CITE-
42 USC Sec. 1982 01/07/2011 (111-383)

-STATUTE-
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in
every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof
to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and
personal property.

It's relevant because that's how governments and people work. Things get forgotten and left behind because it's seemingly unimportant. Put your energy and thoughts into ending world hunger or violence or cure AIDS or cancer. But fluoride conspiracies??? They tell you what to think and you can't see the Truth right in front of your eyes? Like I said, it's verifiable with your own hands. Turn on your tap, get your fluoride test kit, and lay this nonsense to rest.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Eleven11
04-15-2012, 04:19 PM
okaaay.... thanks for the input

urbanfarmer
04-15-2012, 04:28 PM
You're welcome :-) I just want to make sure you can see definitively whether you have fluoride in your water or not. There's no reason to believe a conspiracy theory you can debunk so easily.