Water fluoridation should be scrapped!

Yawnz

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

when you say accumulative do you mean the soluble forms or the inert insoluble Calcium Fluoride ?

I was referring to the hexafluorosilicic Acid that is used in our water supply. Calcium fluoride is the type that is naturally occurring.

Capt'n Midnight

Yawnz wrote: »

I was referring to the hexafluorosilicic Acid that is used in our water supply. Calcium fluoride is the type that is naturally occurring.

Ionic substances dissociate in water.

When they come out of solution it's usually the most anionic binding to the most cationic in a fractional crystallisation way

Unless there is an insoluble substance or a gas which is removed and the reaction shifts that way

The Solvay process uses these tricks to turn salt into washing soda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_process

podgeandrodge

Trhiggy83 wrote: »

I find it hard to believe nearly half the posters who voted in the poll reckon that fluoridation shouldnt be scrapped. Have i missed something here

I suspect because, while the question asks should the government stop fluoridating the water, a lot of readers are speed reading it and seeing: Flouride.....Water......and saying "No".

Just my guess, I would be amazed if circa 50% agreed with it.

The question should have been posed with 2 positives as to avoid confusion:

1) I want fluoride in my water
2) I don't want fluoride in my water.

blatantrereg

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Ionic substances dissociate in water.

When they come out of solution it's usually the most anionic binding to the most cationic in a fractional crystallisation way

Unless there is an insoluble substance or a gas which is removed and the reaction shifts that way

The Solvay process uses these tricks to turn salt into washing soda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_process

Some fluoride is retained and some is excreted.

Fluoride is retained long-term in hard tissue (bones and teeth). This is not usually a problem, aside from fluorosis. Skeletal fluorosis is very rare.

Fluoride is retained in the short term in soft tissue. This is where the area of concern is. A valid concern is whether fluoride intake exceeds fluoride excretion. The net effect of that is effectively the same as fluoride being retained long term in soft tissue.

Another concern is the effects where kidney function is impaired, and it is not excreted at the normal rate.

All three forms of fluoride are excreted at roughly the same rate (according to studies on rats).

JJayoo

blatantrereg wrote: »

Fluoride is retained in the short term in soft tissue. This is where the area of concern is. A valid concern is whether fluoride intake exceeds fluoride excretion. The net effect of that is effectively the same as fluoride being retained long term in soft tissue.

Fluoride accumulates in the Pineal gland in the brain.

Yawnz

If anybody is interested in ending water fluoridation in Ireland, you can sign this petition.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/cessation_of_fluoridation_of_Irish_public_water/

AnonoBoy

Yawnz wrote: »

If anybody is interested in ending water fluoridation in Ireland, you can sign this petition.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/cessation_of_fluoridation_of_Irish_public_water/

Yes an internet petition is definitely going to change things.

Yawnz

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Yes an internet petition is definitely going to change things.

It'll be presented to judges in the High Court next year. It's just a way of indicating the number of people opposed to the policy.

AnonoBoy

Yawnz wrote: »

It'll be presented to judges in the High Court next year. It's just a way of indicating the number of people opposed to the policy.

I honestly couldn't give two f*cks if it's shot from Mary Harney's vagina at a live-televised event on New Year's Eve. It's still a poxy online petition and will be viewed as such and disregarded by High Court judges because they will look at evidence as opposed to how many people were spammed with a link and couldn't have been arsed reading up or understanding the science behind the subject.

The Girl Against Fluoride is also the Girl Resistant to Properly Understanding Scientific Research in my book.

Capt'n Midnight

JJayoo wrote: »

Fluoride accumulates in the Pineal gland in the brain.

You are missing a step

Calcium accumulates in the pineal gland first

Fluoride binds to places that have calcium in them like teeth and bones and pineal glands that already have calcium in them.

blatantrereg

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You are missing a step

Calcium accumulates in the pineal gland first

Fluoride binds to places that have calcium in them like teeth and bones and pineal glands that already have calcium in them.

How do you stop your pineal gland getting calcified?

Capt'n Midnight

blatantrereg wrote: »

How do you stop your pineal gland getting calcified?

Die young.



I wouldn't bother worrying about decalcifying it as any mechanism that actually worked is likely to decalcify your bones and teeth which is not a good thing

JJayoo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You are missing a step

Calcium accumulates in the pineal gland first

Fluoride binds to places that have calcium in them like teeth and bones and pineal glands that already have calcium in them.

I fail to see your point. Like I said Fluoride accumulates in the Pineal Gland,

"By old age, the average pineal gland contains about the same amount of fluoride as teeth (300 mg F/kg) since dentine and whole enamel contain 300 and 100 mg F/kg, respectively [Newbrun, 1986]."

The Pineal gland is one of the only parts of the brain not protected by the blood brain barrier.

So when we talk about ppm we have to understand that it accumulates over time in our brain.

JJayoo

blatantrereg wrote: »

How do you stop your pineal gland getting calcified?

Vitamin K2 might help. A lot of studies have been carried out on it's ability to decalcify the arteries. Most of the studies come from Japan as Vit K2 is found in Kimchi which is one of the stables of the Japanese diet. But I have never seen anything in relation to the Pineal Gland

Capt'n Midnight

JJayoo wrote: »

Vitamin K2 might help. A lot of studies have been carried out on it's ability to decalcify the arteries. Most of the studies come from Japan as Vit K2 is found in Kimchi which is one of the stables of the Japanese diet. But I have never seen anything in relation to the Pineal Gland

Any peer reviewed ones ?

And doesn't it get banned a lot ?

It's not all it's claimed to be
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2714.htm

On the basis of the data presented, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the dietary intake of vitamin K2 and contribution to the normal function of the heart and blood vessels.

JJayoo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Any peer reviewed ones ?

And doesn't it get banned a lot ?

It's not all it's claimed to be
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2714.htm

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003920170043

"Vitamin K has a key function in the synthesis of at least two proteins involved in calcium and bone metabolism, namely osteocalcin and matrix Gla-protein (MGP). MGP was shown to be a strong inhibitor of vascular calcification"


http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/6/1799.short

"Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is an independent predictor of cardiovascular disease. A preventive role for vitamin K in CAC progression has been proposed on the basis of the properties of matrix Gla protein (MGP) as a vitamin K–dependent calcification inhibitor"

"Phylloquinone(vitamin K1) supplementation slows the progression of CAC in healthy older adults with preexisting CAC, independent of its effect on total MGP concentrations"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021915008005078

"This study shows that high dietary menaquinone (vitamin k2) intake, but probably not phylloquinone (vitamin K1), is associated with reduced coronary calcification. Adequate menaquinone intakes could therefore be important to prevent cardiovascular disease."

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/11/3100.short

"The relative risk (RR) of CHD mortality was reduced in the mid and upper tertiles of dietary menaquinone compared to the lower tertile [RR = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.45, 1.17) and 0.43 (0.24, 0.77), respectively]. Intake of menaquinone was also inversely related to all-cause mortality [RR = 0.91 (0.75, 1.09) and 0.74 (0.59, 0.92), respectively] and severe aortic calcification [odds ratio of 0.71 (0.50, 1.00) and 0.48 (0.32, 0.71), respectively."


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049384807004562

"The results show that the Gla — but not the Glu-peptide inhibited the transformation which provide evidence that the Gla region in MGP is directly involved in the BMP-2/MGP interaction and emphasizes the importance of the vitamin K-dependent modification of MGP. From the data obtained from the microarray analysis, we focused on two quantitatively altered cDNAs representing proteins known to be associated with vessel wall calcification. DT-diaphorase of the vitamin K-cycle, showed increased gene expression with a 4.8-fold higher specific activity in MK4 treated cells. Osteoprotegrin gene expression was down regulated and osteoprotegrin protein secretion from the MK4 treated cells was lowered to 1.8-fold. These findings suggest that MK4 acts as an anti-calcification component in the vessel wall."

Capt'n Midnight

JJayoo wrote: »

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003920170043
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/6/1799.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021915008005078
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049384807004562

Not all of those relate to K2

and unless I've missed something they refer to a preventative role rather than removal of calcium from blood vessels

friedturtle

Parsley wrote: »

EU limits for fluoride ions in water is less than one part per million. Yes, for every million molecules of H2O in your tap water, there isn't even one fluoride ion. This is checked pretty goddamn regularly too. Utterly miniscule from a toxicity point of view, but potentially beficial for teeth.

And as for hydrofluorosilicic acid being manufactured as the waste product of whatever stuff you listed, I worked briefly for the company that makes 95% of the country's water treatment chemicals, in the quality analysis lab, analysing the quality of this compound you seem to think is a load of muck shovelled from reactor beds. There are extremely strict guidelines for the quality/purity/acidity etc. of the samples.

tl;dr - OP doesn't know what's really going on and has been duped by paranoid conspiracy theories. Keep drinking tap water.

I learned that parts per million was milligrams per litre not a ratio of molecules. Google confirmed. Personally I don't think that fluoridation is something to be seriously worried about but I'd definitely support some unbiased research in the area.

podgeandrodge

Research showing it's harmful or it's not harmful aside...should we be medicated without our consent?

JJayoo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not all of those relate to K2

All of those relate to K2

and unless I've missed something they refer to a preventative role rather than removal of calcium from blood vessels

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1728507.html

"It has specifically been discovered that high intake of vitamin K can lead to removal of calcified precipitates from blood vessels that have already been affected by pre-existing calcification. This is a new and stunning discovery with great importance for patients with existing artery disease. Implications for the nutrition industry are that vitamin K-enriched foods and food supplements may be developed."

This is very interesting, seems like a pharmaceutical company has taken a European patient for the "Use of vitamin K for reversing calcification of blood vessels"

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1728507.pdf

Yawnz

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I honestly couldn't give two f*cks if it's shot from Mary Harney's vagina at a live-televised event on New Year's Eve. It's still a poxy online petition and will be viewed as such and disregarded by High Court judges because they will look at evidence as opposed to how many people were spammed with a link and couldn't have been arsed reading up or understanding the science behind the subject.

The Girl Against Fluoride is also the Girl Resistant to Properly Understanding Scientific Research in my book.

That's absolutely perfect and you are completely entitled to sign or not sign this petition as you wish. I merely put a link to the petition site so that those who feel strongly against water fluoridation may sign.

The Girl Against Fluoride does not claim to be a scientist, and to say she is resistant to properly understanding scientific research is unjust and unfair. She has, like many of us, have all read and the scientific research which has presented us with the findings that show fluoride has negative on human health. Unless you have justification to prove such a statement, please do not make it!

No one is being spammed with the link to this petition but if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means please show me.

Like many (of course not all) your aggressive arguments, foul language and disgusting imagery on a public forum do more justice to those who fight for the cessation of fluoride. So, by all means keep up the good work.

To oppose water fluoridation one does not need a science degree, be a scientist or even read a science report. It amounts to an unethical mass-medication without informed consent of the general public.

Three Seasons

I read an interesting article which indicated that calcification causes baldness. I wonder is their a higher rate of baldness in countries with fluoride in their water.

Treora

What about the per capita suicide rate in countries suffering the same degree and rate of change in economic capacity (GDP, unemployment...)

AnonoBoy

Yawnz wrote: »

Like many (of course not all) your aggressive arguments, foul language and disgusting imagery on a public forum do more justice to those who fight for the cessation of fluoride. So, by all means keep up the good work.

Well to be honest I'm not on one side or the other so explain to me how me using foul language (oh boo-f*cking-hoo!) does more 'justice' for you?

To oppose water fluoridation one does not need a science degree, be a scientist or even read a science report.

And where did I say that anyone did? Although interestingly enough anyone I have talked to who has science qualifications and actively work in the field have yet to see any real data that proves all the claims being made by the Sheila O'Fluoride.

But in reality you're just pissy because I mocked the online petition you posted. And let's face it, that online petition is going to do f*ck all good for anyone.

Realistically,

AnonoBoy.

blatantrereg

Does fluoride accumulate in the pineal gland:

-because it is not excreted once it's there?

-or because it is removed from there at a lower rate than it is consumed?

My understanding is that there's uncertainty whether vitamin K2 causes the effects it is associated with, or whether it is a side effect of those effects already taking place. A chicken and egg situation in other words. [Though less obviously solved since chickens evolved from dinosaurs, which lay eggs.]

There are some affordable filters available which claim to remove most fluoride from water - ceramic filters being ones I was looking at specifically. It's not clear to me whether they would work on Irish tap-water though, because most of the research on their efficacy deals with concentrations of fluoride at much higher levels (levels at which it is obviously harmful). There might be other factors such as pH levels or other substances in the water interfering with the filter's effect as well. Does anyone have any info on how well they might work, or other relevant info about them?

JJayoo

blatantrereg wrote: »

Does fluoride accumulate in the pineal gland:

-because it is not excreted once it's there?

-or because it is removed from there at a lower rate than it is consumed?

blatantrereg wrote: »

Does fluoride accumulate in the pineal gland:

-because it is not excreted once it's there?

-or because it is removed from there at a lower rate than it is consumed?

The brain is protected by the Brain Blood Barrier. "Fluoride metabolism in the CNS has not been systematically studied. It is generally believed that F has no effect on the CNS because it is excluded from brain by the blood-brain barrier (Whitford et al, 1979). Whole brain has a low F-content like normal soft tissues elsewhere in the body." luke 2001

But the Pineal Gland is the one part of the brain which is not protected by the Brain Blood Barrier

"The intensity of the toxic effects of most drugs depends upon their concentration at the site of action. The mineralizing tissues (bone and teeth) accumulate high concentrations of F and are the first to show toxic reactions to F. Hence, their reactions to F have been especially well studied. If F accumulates in the pineal gland, then this points to a gap in our knowledge about whether or not F affects pineal physiology. It was the lack of knowledge in this area that prompted my study." Lukw 2001

" we now know that fluoride readily accumulates in the human pineal gland. In fact, the aged pineal contains more fluoride than any other normal soft tissue"

"In conclusion, the human pineal gland contains the highest concentration of fluoride in the body. Fluoride is associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis by prepubertal gerbils and an accelerated onset of sexual maturation in the female gerbil. The results strengthen the hypothesis that the pineal has a role in the timing of the onset of puberty. Whether or not fluoride interferes with pineal function in humans requires further investigation."

Unfortunately there has never been further investigation into this, which I find very odd.

jh79

so in summary, no studies show toxicity at 1ppm and the build up of fluoride in the pineal gland shows no obvious impairment of function.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

so in summary, no studies show toxicity at 1ppm and the build up of fluoride in the pineal gland shows no obvious impairment of function.

There have never been any studies into the impact of Fluoride on human Pineal function. They have done studies on gerbils and found that "Fluoride is associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis by prepubertal gerbils and an accelerated onset of sexual maturation in the female gerbil. The results strengthen the hypothesis that the pineal has a role in the timing of the onset of puberty"

Normaly positive studies on animals are followed by tests on humans but for some reason this isn't the case.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

There have never been any studies into the impact of Fluoride on human Pineal function. They have done studies on gerbils and found that "Fluoride is associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis by prepubertal gerbils and an accelerated onset of sexual maturation in the female gerbil. The results strengthen the hypothesis that the pineal has a role in the timing of the onset of puberty"

Normaly positive studies on animals are followed by tests on humans but for some reason this isn't the case.

Maybe it wasn't the smoking gun they thought it would be and they abandoned the studies? A paper concluding that no real impact on pineal function probably wouldn't be deemed interesting enough to be published.

It is all very vague, how severe was this effect on the gerbils? How did this correlate to the levels of fluoride in the pineal gland? What concentration difference would you expect to see in the pineal gland if the gerbils were given unadulterated water vs that in which fluoride is controlled at 1ppm and how significant an effect would this have on melatonin synthesis / sexual maturation?

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

Maybe it wasn't the smoking gun they thought it would be and they abandoned the studies?

Luke 2001 was the first evidence that fluoride accumulates in the Pineal gland

A paper concluding that no real impact on pineal function probably wouldn't be deemed interesting enough to be published.

A paper concluding that Pineal function isn't impacted by Fluoride would be highly south after once it was established that Fluoride accumulates in the Pineal Gland. When you consider that governments across the world chose to medicate their citizens any study which would show the safety of this practice would be sought after.

On the other hand I doubt there would be much funding available for studies which might show that the addition of Fluoride to drinking water might inhibit the function of the Pineal gland.

It is all very vague, how severe was this effect on the gerbils? How did this correlate to the levels of fluoride in the pineal gland? What concentration difference would you expect to see in the pineal gland if the gerbils were given unadulterated water vs that in which fluoride is controlled at 1ppm and how significant an effect would this have on melatonin synthesis / sexual maturation?

" In conclusion, F inhibits pineal MT synthesis in gerbils up until the time of sexual maturation. Finally, F was associated with a significant acceleration of pubertal development in female gerbils using body weights, age of vaginal opening and accelerated development of the ventral gland. At 16 weeks, the mean testes weight of HF males was significantly less (p < 0.002) than that of the LF males. The results suggest that F is associated with low circulating levels of MT and this leads to an accelerated sexual maturation in female gerbils" Luke 1997

jh79

I don't think the effects of low levels of fluoride is considered much of an issue by the majority of scientists and has been historically seen as belonging to the CT world. This would make funding a study quite difficult. I also believe that the anti-water fluoridation side could fund a study but are afraid of the possible outcome. Previous studies posted here have shown that toxicity is confined to levels well above those seen in fluoridated water. The build up of fluoride in the pineal gland is all they have left. A study showing the effects of fluoride in the pineal gland to be minor would be a massive blow to the movement and leave only an ethical argument for fluoridation to be stopped.

What concentration of fluoridated water were the gerbils exposed? It is meaningless if the concentration is not within levels that humans are likely to be exposed to.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

I don't think the effects of low levels of fluoride is considered much of an issue by the majority of scientists and has been historically seen as belonging to the CT world. This would make funding a study quite difficult. I also believe that the anti-water fluoridation side could fund a study but are afraid of the possible outcome. Previous studies posted here have shown that toxicity is confined to levels well above those seen in fluoridated water. The build up of fluoride in the pineal gland is all they have left. A study showing the effects of fluoride in the pineal gland to be minor would be a massive blow to the movement and leave only an ethical argument for fluoridation to be stopped.

What concentration of fluoridated water were the gerbils exposed? It is meaningless if the concentration is not within levels that humans are likely to be exposed to.

You really are clutching at straws here. I have mentioned two studies numerous times why don't you read them for yourself and find out.

How about I ask you a question in regards to your statement.

I don't think the effects of low levels of fluoride is considered much of an issue by the majority of scientists and has been historically seen as belonging to the CT world

Why did the rest of Europe stop adding Fluoride to their drinking water? Why is the Republic of Ireland, yes the North has stopped, the only part of Europe that still adds Fluoride to our drinking water?

jh79

I couldn't get the paper for free. Also why are these threads always in after hours or the CT forum but never the science forum?

As mentioned numerous times on this thread toxicity is dose dependent. To be relevant to the Irish situation you need to show toxicity at Irish levels.

Do you believe the papers you have linked show fluoride to be toxic at 1ppm?

I have no idea why the Rest of Europe stopped water fluoridation. Could be for financial or ethical reasons.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

I couldn't get the paper for free. Also why are these threads always in after hours or the CT forum but never the science forum?

As mentioned numerous times on this thread toxicity is dose dependent. To be relevant to the Irish situation you need to show toxicity at Irish levels.

Do you believe the papers you have linked show fluoride to be toxic at 1ppm?

I have no idea why the Rest of Europe stopped water fluoridation. Could be for financial or ethical reasons.

The papers I have linked have nothing to do with toxicity of Fluoride. I have never once mentioned the toxicity of Fluoride. The only thing I brought forward was the worryingly lack of evidence on the impact of Fluoride on the Pineal Gland.

The most obvious reason to stop the Fluoridation of our drinking water is because the rest of Europe has done so. Fluoride is added to water to protect out teeth but so far I have heard nothing about the epidemics of tooth decay across Europe

How are the people of France/Germany/Sweden surviving

Or maybe Ireland has the most advanced health system in Europe and our guys are just smarter than those silly Germans/rest of Europe

Plus it costs 4 million a year to add it to our water.

jh79

You mentioned the toxic effects re melatonin it was having on gerbils, I asked how this relates to humans?

There is no evidence to suggest a negative effect on the pineal gland and coupled with the fact that toxicity in rats has only been shown at levels far exceeding 1ppm then there is no evidence of a health risk involved in water fluoridation yet the anti-fluoride movement still insists otherwise.

The rest of Europe gets its fluoride from other sources ie toothpaste.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

The rest of Europe gets its fluoride from other sources ie toothpaste.

If only we had toothpaste in Ireland then our water wouldn't be medicated :rolleyes:

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

If only we had toothpaste in Ireland then our water wouldn't be medicated :rolleyes:

Why is it such an issue given the lack of scientifically proven health risks?

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest a negative effect on the pineal gland

There is no evidence to suggest that Fluoride accumulation doesn't have a negative effect on the Pineal gland. No study has been done. I don't get why this factor is so hard for you to understand.

Your logic was widely used by the pro tobacco camp in the 60's. Tobacco was seen as having health benefits, even bugs bunny was puffing away in cartoons and the pro tobacco lobbyists said exactly what you are saying that there is no evidence that tobacco is bad for you and yes at that moment in time they were 100% correct because there was no scientific evidence available.

If our government is going to medicate our water then the burden of proof should be on them to prove that it is safe.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

Why is it such an issue given the lack of scientifically proven health risks?

Well IMO if the government is going to spend 4 million every year from here to eternity to put something in our water and if I have no choice but to drink it, then I feel that the burden of proof should lie with them to prove that it is safe. Especially when you consider that the rest of Europe has abandoned this process in the 70's/80's.

hooradiation

JJayoo wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest that Fluoride accumulation doesn't have a negative effect on the Pineal gland.

Proving a negative, eh?

Good lad, you'll go far.

JJayoo

hooradiation wrote: »

Proving a negative, eh?

Good lad, you'll go far.

Great contribution unfortunately you have missed the point entirely

Jh79 said

There is no evidence to suggest a negative effect on the pineal gland

By stating

There is no evidence to suggest that Fluoride accumulation doesn't have a negative effect on the Pineal gland

I was not proving a negative I was pointing out that there are actually no studies on the effect of Fluoride in the Pineal Gland. So perhaps it is perfectly safe or perhaps it is bad no one knows.

It might help if you read through the posts before posting. I await your witty reply with bated breath.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest that Fluoride accumulation doesn't have a negative effect on the Pineal gland. No study has been done. I don't get why this factor is so hard for you to understand.

Your logic was widely used by the pro tobacco camp in the 60's. Tobacco was seen as having health benefits, even bugs bunny was puffing away in cartoons and the pro tobacco lobbyists said exactly what you are saying that there is no evidence that tobacco is bad for you and yes at that moment in time they were 100% correct because there was no scientific evidence available.

If our government is going to medicate our water then the burden of proof should be on them to prove that it is safe.

Our exposure to fluoride is quite small coupled with the fact that toxicity in rats is only seen at high levels suggest that risks regarding the pineal gland are small. Water fluoridation has being carried out for 60+ years without any noticeable change in the functioning of our pineal glands. Science involves a certain element of risk as decisions are based on what we currently know.

jh79

The other halogen ions ie Cl- and Br- would be chemically similar to F-. Has the effects of these on the pineal gland been tested, do these accumulate also? Should we stop using table salt in the mean time? NaCl like NaF is toxic.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

Water fluoridation has being carried out for 60+ years without any noticeable change in the functioning of our pineal glands.

Luke 2001 was the first study to show that Fluoride accumulated in the Pineal gland and NO/ZERO/NADA further research has been done on the impact (if any) of Fluoride on the Pineal Gland.

I'm not having a go at you or your opinion. I just haven't seen a single valid argument on why Ireland continues to add it to all our drinking water. In some other European countries manufacturers are allowed to add it to milk and butter. This choice is completely up to the manufacturer and this gives the consumer the choice of buying butter/milk with Fluoride if they want. I would have zero problem with the government doing this as people would have a choice.

Sarky

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Research showing it's harmful or it's not harmful aside...should we be medicated without our consent?

Thank you. I was beginning to give up all hope of an argument against fluoridation that wasn't full of bad science, lies or cries about it being a masterplan of the Elite to keep us [buying things/dumb/docile/unable to see lizard people].

You have single-handedly renewed my faith in humanity for at least the next hour. It'd be nice if the other opponents to fluoridation could stick to this topic, as it's really the only one they can competently argue without looking silly.

jh79

JJayoo wrote: »

Luke 2001 was the first study to show that Fluoride accumulated in the Pineal gland and NO/ZERO/NADA further research has been done on the impact (if any) of Fluoride on the Pineal Gland.

I'm not having a go at you or your opinion. I just haven't seen a single valid argument on why Ireland continues to add it to all our drinking water. In some other European countries manufacturers are allowed to add it to milk and butter. This choice is completely up to the manufacturer and this gives the consumer the choice of buying butter/milk with Fluoride if they want. I would have zero problem with the government doing this as people would have a choice.

My problem is not the idea of ceasing water fluoridation but the misrepresentation of the scientific data out there to suggest that this is a serious health issue, I also suspect that this in some cases is purposely done as a means to an end.

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

The other halogen ions ie Cl- and Br- would be chemically similar to F-. Has the effects of these on the pineal gland been tested, do these accumulate also? .

Not sure. The Pineal gland is made from calcifying tissue and it has been found that there is a direct correlation between Calcium and Fluoride in the Pineal Gland. So perhaps the Fluoride bonds to the calcium ? The tricky thing about Fluoride in the Pineal gland is that the only way to study it is to cut open a brain :eek:

Calcium deposits inside the Pineal gland can be detected with certain types of xrays.

Should we stop using table salt in the mean time?

I wouldn't use table salt as it contains a lot of anti caking crap. Sea salt or ground salt are better options.

jh79

Calcium would form a salt with any of the halogens, the point is we can't test for everything but there is nothing to suggest from what we know that this should be investigated further.

You mentioned earlier that fluoride build up in gerbils led to an early on set of puberty. Do Irish kids reach puberty quicker than European kids given their exposure to fluoridated water?

JJayoo

jh79 wrote: »

You mentioned earlier that fluoride build up in gerbils led to an early on set of puberty. Do Irish kids reach puberty quicker than European kids given their exposure to fluoridated water?

If studies such as this existed then we wouldn't be having this conversation. As far as I can recall there was one study done in the 50's/60's that spanned a 10 year time span. The children in the fluoridated areas hit puberty 6 months earlier than the kids from the non fluoridated areas but I think this entire study was canned as there were too many inconsistencies in it as the towns were only 35 kms apart and both sets of children were drinking fluoridated water up until the age of 3.

Final post on what must be the most exciting AH thread of all time :pac:

I mentioned before that IMO the burden of proof should lie with the government if they decide to medicate us. I don't think this is a crazy thing to ask.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/thurnau-2000.pdf

This is a letter from the Unite States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Professor Roger Masters.

"We have received your letter dated September 27, 2000, requesting empirical scientific data we may have on the health effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride and manganese neurotoxicity.

To answer your first question on whether we have in our possession empirical scientific data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior, our answer is no. Health effects research is primarily conducted by our National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL). We have contacted our colleagues at NHEERL and
they report that with the exception of some acute toxicity data, they were unable to find any information on the effects of silicofluorides on health and behavior."

Fluosilicic acid and Sodium Silicofluoride are two substances used to add Fluoride to water and yet the EPA had zero scientific data on the health effects of it and remember that America started adding Fluoride to water during the 40's so I would imagine they have had enough time to do a few studies.

Dude111

Anyone who wants to help stop flouridation can goto this site/join this group!

http://freemanireland.ning.com/group/remove-the-fluoride

Take a gander at this site of girl who is suing the government over flouride.. www.thegirlagainstfluoride.com