Fluoride endgame approaches....

Aquarius34

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.

Dats me

Has anyone here seen Dr. Strangelove? haha!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2bSL5VQgM

Around 1:30 for the fluoridation...

lucernarian

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

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Also, it's very unfortunate to claim that fluoride is the main cause of mental illnesses in our society today.

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

lucernarian

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?

Aquarius34

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

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

I've explained this already.
Calcium flouride occurs naturally in plants and some water supplies. It's natural and yes it's poisonous 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.

Don't forget to brush your teeth, and smoke ciggerettes. We sure do well in the brain damage department.

You'd be amazed at your how well your body and mind starts to pick up after reducing flouride intake

If you want to take flouride, that's your free will. I will just be responsible and would hope others would be more responsible for themselves.

Aquarius34

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.

Sarky

Aquarius34 wrote: »

you are certainly taking a lot of flouride that's enough to brain damage you. It's obviously working on us.

Speak for yourself.

lucernarian

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

Aquarius34

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

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.

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

You're a beating around the bush. I don't mind to make it even clearer to you, on why I am repeating myself. Flouride is posionous to the human body.

It's not just the quality or what food or drink that has accumulated flouride content in it, it's the quantity of just how much you are taking into the body that is causing serious harm. What I am trying to explain to you, is the amount of flouride we ingest is well beyond the line of what is deemed standard-able of flouride intake. There is no reason to take it and that's the point to all of this. If you really sat down and think about it, you would actually realise our society seems to be literally drunk on this stuff. You already will have taken a heavy dose before you even stepped outside of the house the morning to go to work. This is not right at all. It's just totally unacceptable that this is the case and the norms of our society.

flouride is added to alot of processed foods, it's added to alcohol, cereals and ciggerettes. It's even in rat poison and it's the main ingredient in rat poison.

Aquarius34

Sarky wrote: »

Speak for yourself.

That I do rather well

lucernarian

Aquarius34 wrote: »

You're a beating around the bush. I don't mind to make it even clearer to you, on why I am repeating myself. Flouride is posionous to the human body.

It's not just the quality or what food or drink that has accumulated flouride content in it, it's the quantity of just how much you are taking into the body that is causing serious harm. What I am trying to explain to you, is the amount of flouride we ingest is well beyond the line. If you really sat down and think about it, you would actually realise our society seems to be literally drunk on this stuff. You already will have taken a heavy dose before you even step outside of the house the morning to go to work. This is not right at all. It's just totally unacceptable that this is the case and the norms of our society.

flouride is added to alot of processed foods, it's added to alcohol, cereals and ciggerettes. It's even in rat poison and it's the main ingredient in rat poison.

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.

Aquarius34

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.

Sarky

Aquarius34 wrote: »

That I do rather well

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.

lucernarian

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!

lucernarian

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.

In fairness, Monsanto are a shower of B******* with the way they've gone about GMO. Big Pharma has its flaws but I would make a special distinction with Monsanto.

Aquarius34

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?

Aquarius34

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

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!

Again,

I think we should become aware and more careful as to what we put into our bodies without having knowledge as to what it causes or how it effects us don't you think?

I've told you a few times already about calcium flouride and the distinction it has in comparison to the flouride dumped into our water and added to our toothpaste. You are ignoring my responses, so I shall ignore your constant ignorant requests on that issue you have.

jma

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

lucernarian

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Again,...
...I've told you a few times already about calcium flouride and the distinction it has in comparison to the flouride dumped into our water and added to our toothpaste. You are ignoring my responses, so I shall ignore your constant ignorant requests on that issue you have.

That's hardly fair, it's precisely because I'm not ignoring you that I am asking for clarification on that specific thing. You've brushed off the calcium fluoride distinction more than once now. You've stated that it is safer because it comes from natural sources but you haven't explained why natural sources of fluoride would be less harmful than sodium chloride. Like why is a diluted amount of CaF less harmful than the same diluted amount of NaF? I'm not talking about complicated matters here.

I feel that a clarification of this issue is critical to the integrity of the argument.

Aquarius34

jma wrote: »

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?

Very good point.

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.

They have ciggerettes and rat poison already available. Don't
give them more ideas. lol.

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.

Which is precisely why they dump it into our water supply, to get to the brain and cause brain damage and of course to protect teeth.We all know how much the elite love our teeth.

Aquarius34

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

That's hardly fair,

Tell me about it, I don't like state official's dumping toxic flouride into my drinking water.

I feel that a clarification of this issue is critical to the integrity of the argument.

Ok.

lucernarian

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Tell me about it, I don't like state official's dumping toxic flouride into my drinking water.

You said I was ignoring your responses, but that is clearly untrue. Please forgive me if I misunderstood any of your replies but ignore them I did not.

So can you clarify this for me; you talked about Calcium Fluoride being somewhat safer because it was a naturally-available version of fluoride. Can you explain why the fact it originates from things like green tea would make it safer? More specifically, as CaF is barely soluble in water, can you show any evidence for or against the idea that a weak solution (e.g. 0.5 part per million) of CaF is any safer than the same concentration of sodium fluoride?

jma

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

You said I was ignoring your responses, but that is clearly untrue. Please forgive me if I misunderstood any of your replies but ignore them I did not.

So can you clarify this for me; you talked about Calcium Fluoride being somewhat safer because it was a naturally-available version of fluoride. Can you explain why the fact it originates from things like green tea would make it safer? More specifically, as CaF is barely soluble in water, can you show any evidence for or against the idea that a weak solution (e.g. 0.5 part per million) of CaF is any safer than the same concentration of sodium fluoride?

It isn't exactly Sodium Fluoride (NaF2) they're using, it's Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), aka Hydrofluosilicic acid. It's an inorganic by-product. When evaporated, it releases Hydrogen Fluoride (HF), which is also corrosive and toxic. If you look at this International Chemical Safety Card for H2SiF6, you'll see in capitalised writing, "AVOID ALL CONTACT!"
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1233.html

I believe the boiling point of H2SiF6 is about 109°C.

For those who aren't concerned about the health issues, there's also another angle to look at it from. Fluoridation is supposedly used as a preventative measure against dental decay in teenagers. So, the government medicate ~100% of the population for the benefit of a much smaller percentage. Its effectiveness is very questionable at best (kids will still need to get cavities filled; with modern dental advances, fluoridation is most likely neglible). Yet, in 2010 the "brilliant", "competent" HSE spent approximately €4.78 million on fluoridation, of which approximately €1.36 million was spent on sourcing hydrofluorosilicic acid.

Aquarius34

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

You said I was ignoring your responses, but that is clearly untrue. Please forgive me if I misunderstood any of your replies but ignore them I did not.

So can you clarify this for me; you talked about Calcium Fluoride being somewhat safer because it was a naturally-available version of fluoride. Can you explain why the fact it originates from things like green tea would make it safer? More specifically, as CaF is barely soluble in water, can you show any evidence for or against the idea that a weak solution (e.g. 0.5 part per million) of CaF is any safer than the same concentration of sodium fluoride?u

I gave you enough info, and you are an adult you can do the reminder research yourself. I don't have to tell you anything nor do I have to tell you how much calcium flouride is in green tea or whatever question you have lined out next. You have your own mind to use and you can find these things out for yourself. I am not your mother or school teacher. You're very good at asking a lot of questions and dismissing what I've told you. Perhaps you could use this time and show that you actually have interest in these subjects by doing your own research

Be responsible for yourself, just as I said to be responsible and aware for what you put into your own body. it's no one's job to tell you what to do. I've been studying and researching nutrition for most of my adult life. I know what I am taking and ingesting at all times. I think it's time for other grown adults in this nation to start doing the same.

Aquarius34

jma wrote: »

For those who aren't concerned about the health issues, there's also another angle to look at it from. Fluoridation is supposedly used as a preventative measure against dental decay in teenagers. So, the government medicate ~100% of the population for the benefit of a much smaller percentage. Its effectiveness is very questionable at best (kids will still need to get cavities filled; with modern dental advances, fluoridation is most likely neglible). Yet, in 2010 the "brilliant", "competent" HSE spent approximately €4.78 million on fluoridation, of which approximately €1.36 million was spent on sourcing hydrofluorosilicic acid.

Great stuff there. But you do realise, the "government" are not pumping flouride into our water supply to protect our teeth. One has to answer I feel swearing at this point of just how stupid this all is.
Why the obsession with protecting our teeth? Why do people automatically assume the government of this country wants to protect our teeth? Why not focus on nutrition to combat dental decay? No because that's actually doing good for our teeth. The reason we have tooth decay is because of bad nutrition. Why can't people see the reality here?

Flouride is clearly poisonous. It has no benefit to be in our water supply and has no link to stop dental decay. So why even argue the case. There is no case for it. The government is simply not spending that money to care for our teeth. It's been done to assimilate society into a dead, drunk docile, passive nation.

I am not attacking your post; I just think this actually doesn't need to be given so much detail. People need to wake up and face the bigger picture as to what is really going on here. I appreciated the information that you have provided. But I feel people are really missing the point here and most of this info sadly just goes right over people's heads. It needs to be stressed over and over, Flouridation has nothing to do with notion that the government want to protect our teeth. Do we really think a bunch of elites sit around the table to discuss the measures and plans on how to protect our teeth? To then actually come to the only solution, use flouride? It's absolutely disgraceful.

darkhorse

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Great stuff there. But you do realise, the "government" are not pumping flouride into our water supply to protect our teeth. One has to answer I feel swearing at this point of just how stupid this all is.
Why the obsession with protecting our teeth? Why do people automatically assume the government of this country want to protect our teeth. Why not focus on nutrition to combat dental decay? No because that's actually doing good for our teeth. The reason we have tooth decay is because of bad nutrition. Why can't people see the reality here?

Flouride is clearly poisonous. It has no benefit to be in our water supply and has no link to stop dental decay. So why even argue the case. There is no case for it. The government are simply not spending that money to care for our teeth. It's been done to assimilate society into a dead, drunk docile, passive nation.



I am not attacking your post, I just think this actually doesn't need to be given so much detail. People need to wake up and face the bigger picture as to what is really going on here. I appreciated the information that you have provided. But I feel people are really missing the point here and most of this info sadly just goes right over people's heads. It needs to be stressed over and over, Flouridation has nothing to do with notion that the government want to protect our teeth.

I agree 100% with you, Aquarius34, speaking as a man who was very proud of my teeth all my life, brushing when I was supposed to, flossing, visits to hygienest every few years, then lost most of them in my late 40s. I never talked about it openly before, but what else could it have been, considering that I took care of them so well all my life.

Aquarius34

darkhorse wrote: »

I agree 100% with you, Aquarius34,

Thanks

speaking as a man who was very proud of my teeth all my life, brushing when I was supposed to, flossing, visits to hygienest every few years, then lost most of them in my late 40s. I never talked about it openly before, but what else could it have been, considering that I took care of them so well all my life.

Over brushing, flossing and too many visits to the Hygienist and Dentist doesn't mean you're looking after your teeth. If you're teeth fall out prematurely you are obviously not doing something right. Teeth don't just fall out if you look after them.

RossFixxxed

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Proof is a used term, for someone, who can't see the truth right in front of him or who refuses to use's his/her own mind to find results themselves. You have a brain, use it. If you don't want to face or wake up to what is going on around you, fine, that is ultimately your choice. The burden of proof is on you, not me or anyone else.

If it's logical to poison us with toxic chemical waste, then you'll need to explain the logic in that, because it doesn't make any logical sense. Nor does it make logical sense to continue to put it into our water supply when it has no benefit to us at all.

Wrong. Completely wrong and alarmingly uneducated. The burden is on you. You are the one making accusations and being a hysterical alarmist. Not me. You haven't got one iota of evidence or any actual argument.

You've been show up enough already. Please educate yourself and you'll see just how embarrassing you are being. I'm absolutely mortified for you, your friends must be cringing at your antics.

I wish you well. I do. I just want you to grow up. I'm not even commenting on the particular issue here but your general attitude. Best of luck, I can't argue with someone who keeps dropping their trousers in public while they try to make a point and look intelligent.

RossFixxxed

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Thanks




Over brushing, flossing and too many visits to the Hygienist and Dentist doesn't mean you're looking after your teeth. If you're teeth fall out prematurely you are obviously not doing something right. Teeth don't just fall out if you look after them.

Sorry also wrong. There are numerous medical conditions that can cause this. Again ignorance and absolutely no research done by yourself.

lounakin

I am totally floored, I didn't realised when I moved to Ireland 14 years ago I'd be given fluoride behind my back. I am totally opposed to it and never thought Ireland had this stupid practice. I cannot believe I've been ingesting that useless crap for that long!

lucernarian

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I gave you enough info, and you are an adult you can do the reminder research yourself. I don't have to tell you anything nor do I have to tell you how much calcium flouride is in green tea or whatever question you have lined out next. You have your own mind to use and you can find these things out for yourself. I am not your mother or school teacher. You're very good at asking a lot of questions and dismissing what I've told you. Perhaps you could use this time and show that you actually have interest in these subjects by doing your own research

Be responsible for yourself, just as I said to be responsible and aware for what you put into your own body. it's no one's job to tell you what to do. I've been studying and researching nutrition for most of my adult life. I know what I am taking and ingesting at all times. I think it's time for other grown adults in this nation to start doing the same.

How can we have a discussion if you're not willing to back up things you're writing about? I'm asking the same question the whole damn time! I.e. why is CaF safer than NaF in a dilute solution of water?? You haven't answered it yet... The thing is, I have looked this up and have found nothing to answer my specific question. So when you claimed it was safer, I assume you would have some concrete reason for saying it. I've apologised if I'm missing something obvious but nonetheless you've assumed I've done no research. It's an unreasonable approach to take.

jma

lounakin wrote: »

I am totally floored, I didn't realised when I moved to Ireland 14 years ago I'd be given fluoride behind my back. I am totally opposed to it and never thought Ireland had this stupid practice. I cannot believe I've been ingesting that useless crap for that long!

I completely understand what you mean. This was one of my points about fluoridation. Whether safe or not, people should be given the right to choose whether or not they want to subject themselves and/or their kids to this. At the very least, they have the right to know about it.

Toxicity aside, there's no doubt that it's a form of mass medication, and besides ethical issues, there are legal issues as well. I'm pretty sure that EU legislation makes it illegal.

If someone or even a group of people tried to sue the government over this, I'd say they'd have a fairly decent chance! I'm surprised no one has tried... (Disclaimer: personal opionion, I am not a solicitor/lawyer)

Silicofluorides, widely used in water fluoridation, are unlicensed medicinal substances, administered to large populations without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner. Fluoridation fails the test of reliability and specificity, and, lacking toxicity testing of silicofluorides, constitutes unlawful medical research. It is banned in most of Europe; European Union human rights legislation makes it illegal. Silicofluorides have never been submitted to the U.S. FDA for approval as medicines. The ethical validity of fluoridation policy does not stand up to scrutiny relative to the Nuremberg Code and other codes of medical ethics, including the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999. The police power of the State has been used in the United States to override health concerns, with the support of the courts, which have given deference to health authorities.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12749628

jma

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

How can we have a discussion if you're not willing to back up things you're writing about? I'm asking the same question the whole damn time! I.e. why is CaF safer than NaF in a dilute solution of water?? You haven't answered it yet... The thing is, I have looked this up and have found nothing to answer my specific question. So when you claimed it was safer, I assume you would have some concrete reason for saying it. I've apologised if I'm missing something obvious but nonetheless you've assumed I've done no research. It's an unreasonable approach to take.

I wouldn't get too hung up on Sodium Fluoride vs Calcium Fluoride. I think the fact itself that CaF2 is less soluble makes it less toxic. Solubility is one of the factors that influence toxicity. Also CaF2 contains Calcium, which is used to treat Fluoride poisoning, so I guess it works somewhat like an antedote. It is still toxic, though.

What we should remember is that tap water is not the only source of Fluoride. We are exposed to it by various sources, including the sources for natural, organic form.

lucernarian

jma wrote: »

I wouldn't get too hung up on Sodium Fluoride vs Calcium Fluoride. I think the fact itself that CaF2 is less soluble makes it less toxic. Solubility is one of the factors that influence toxicity. Also CaF2 contains Calcium, which is used to treat Fluoride poisoning, so I guess it works somewhat like an antedote. It is still toxic, though.

What we should remember is that tap water is not the only source of Fluoride. We are exposed to it by various sources, including the sources for natural, organic form.

Yes, that much about solubility I've found out. But NaF is only used in low concentrations anyway. So I wanted to know if a solution with only low levels of Calcium Fluoride is any safer than a solution with the equivalent concentration of Fluoride from NaF or indeed hexafluorosilic acid.

I'm getting hung up on that one point though as the poster had brought it up when I couldn't see the basis or justification for thinking natural sources of the same chemical (i.e. fluoride) is somehow safer. Unsubstantiated claims only serve to damage an otherwise worthwhile point of discussion. People should not post anything in this thread without being able to or willing to provide scientific evidence for claims made.

jma

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Yes, that much about solubility I've found out. But NaF is only used in low concentrations anyway. So I wanted to know if a solution with only low levels of Calcium Fluoride is any safer than a solution with the equivalent concentration of Fluoride from NaF or indeed hexafluorosilic acid.

I'm getting hung up on that one point though as the poster had brought it up when I couldn't see the basis or justification for thinking natural sources of the same chemical (i.e. fluoride) is somehow safer. Unsubstantiated claims only serve to damage an otherwise worthwhile point of discussion. People should not post anything in this thread without being able to or willing to provide scientific evidence for claims made.

Well, I can't really answer the question about "safer". That would depend on a number of things - e.g. how low exactly are the concentrations; over what period of time are the solutions ingested; and ultimately, how safe exactly is it to ingest a low concentration of NaF. If it was 100% safe, then I would say that ingesting the same amount of CaF2 is just as safe.

I can say, though, that NaF is more toxic than CaF2. The LD50 of NaF in rats is 52 mg/kg, and the LD50 of CaF2 in rats is about [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Times New Roman]4250 mg/kg[/FONT][/FONT]. So, if it came down to it, I'd prefer to take my chances with CaF2, I think...

lucernarian

jma wrote: »

Well, I can't really answer the question about "safer". That would depend on a number of things - e.g. how low exactly are the concentrations; over what period of time are the solutions ingested; and ultimately, how safe exactly is it to ingest a low concentration of NaF. If it was 100% safe, then I would say that ingesting the same amount of CaF2 is just as safe.

I can say, though, that NaF is more toxic than CaF2. The LD50 of NaF in rats is 52 mg/kg, and the LD50 of CaF2 in rats is about [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Times New Roman]4250 mg/kg[/FONT][/FONT]. So, if it came down to it, I'd prefer to take my chances with CaF2, I think...

The LD50 thing doesn't apply so much here simply because most of the CaF when ingested is not absorbed as it's not soluble. Whereas the chronic effects of trace amounts of CaF appears not to have been studied.

jma

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

The LD50 thing doesn't apply so much here simply because most of the CaF when ingested is not absorbed as it's not soluble. Whereas the chronic effects of trace amounts of CaF appears not to have been studied.

A number of studies have been carried out on chronic effect of long-term Calcium Fluoride exposure, but I'm not really sure about trace amounts. The term "trace amounts" usually means "neglible", afaik.

Dude111

Aquarius34 wrote:

We don't need flouride at all in our bodies.

No we dont!!

However dentists defend flouride like crazy!!!!!!

I have been using Toms toothpaste (NON FLOURIDE) the last month or so because im trying to get that poision out of my system! (Even if you dont swallow it,it absorbs in)

www.amazon.com/dp/B001EJOQAG

It can cause bone problems (pain) (Which i have and which may have been getting worse the last few years due to the flouride usage (I brushed my teeth maybe 4/5 times a day with flouride paste)) and all kinds of things and people ARE IN DENIAL OF IT!!

Trying to tell 99% of dentists this is pointless!!

I recently have found out that the water supply in my area DOES NOT HAVE ADDED FLOURIDE which is a very good thing!

Roadtrippin

Next you're going to tell me that water is radioactive. Oh wait...

People need to stop listening to pseudo-science.

opinion guy

Roadtrippin wrote: »

Next you're going to tell me that water is radioactive. Oh wait...

People need to stop listening to pseudo-science.

And other people need to stop accepting the word of authorities as if it is Gospel.

Answer me this - who appointed dentists as lord and masters of toxicity of things like fluoride. How much toxicology is on a dental degree syllabus ? (really - I'd like to know - I've asked over on the dental forum and the refuse to answer). Whilst there are people in this debate buying into pseudescience - there are equally people on buying into the word of authorities who actually aren't really all that qualified in the thing they have become authorities on

Again on this topic I feel the need to quote Ben Goldacre:

The reality is that anybody making any confident statement about fluoride – positive or negative – is speaking way beyond the evidence.

Source:
http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/foreign-substances-in-your-precious-bodily-fluids/

lounakin

.. thing is, there's so much stuff in tap water, I'm sure fluoride is not the worst! Doses of hormonal birth control pill is one of my favourite...

opinion guy

lounakin wrote: »

.. thing is, there's so much stuff in tap water, I'm sure fluoride is not the worst! Doses of hormonal birth control pill is one of my favourite...

What evidence do you have that that is in our drinking water ?

lounakin

opinion guy wrote: »

What evidence do you have that that is in our drinking water ?

Should have specified: there is evidence of that in France, I don't know about ireland but there's probably some in irish water too because they get thrown and diluted in water.

Solair

My major issue with it is just the lack of choice in the matter and also the fact that authorities, many of whom cannot master the art of pot hole filling, are basically mass-medicating the population.

Considering that one or more of those local authorities have actually managed to allow a situation to develop where cryptosporidium contaminated the water supplies of Galway City, it's amazing that we trust them to dose the supply with fluoride !

There's loads of fluoride in fluoride toothpaste. If you want to use it to protect your teeth, then you can buy it in any shop.

If you don't want to use it, you can buy non-fluoride toothpaste in many places, including Boots.

I also have major issues with the fact that Ireland is way out on its own on this. The rest of the EU (other than a few random UK areas) do not fluoridate water.
I just don't see how Ireland, a very small country with a very limited ability to carry out medical research, thinks it knows more than 26 other countries, quite a few of which have huge medical research communities and far more competent departments of health / public safety agencies than we do.

I would suspect that ultimately this will come to a head when the EU starts to actually impose the law in terms of fluoridated water being classified as a medicine there by eliminating it as a food ingredient and requiring dosages to be monitored / prescriptions to be written etc etc.

The whole thing just strikes me as a very obsolete public health measure from another era entirely.

It's not 'tin foil hat' stuff, rather it's just a matter of freedom to decide what medicines you wish to take yourself and bodily integrity.
I think the Irish Supreme Court got it very badly wrong in that judgement years ago.

opinion guy

lounakin wrote: »

Should have specified: there is evidence of that in France, I don't know about ireland but there's probably some in irish water too because they get thrown and diluted in water.

Are you talking about waste water or dirnking water now - those are two different things

Roadtrippin

opinion guy wrote: »

And other people need to stop accepting the word of authorities as if it is Gospel.

Answer me this - who appointed dentists as lord and masters of toxicity of things like fluoride. How much toxicology is on a dental degree syllabus ? (really - I'd like to know - I've asked over on the dental forum and the refuse to answer). Whilst there are people in this debate buying into pseudescience - there are equally people on buying into the word of authorities who actually aren't really all that qualified in the thing they have become authorities on

Again on this topic I feel the need to quote Ben Goldacre:

Source:
http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/foreign-substances-in-your-precious-bodily-fluids/

I definitely wouldn't consider myself accepting of the authorities as if it is Gospel. But thanks for making assumptions about me.

What I do pay attention to is scientific facts.

The trace amounts of 0.8 mg/l fluoride in Irish water are well below the EU Drinking Water Directive Standard of 1.5 mg/l. Above 1.5 mg/l is where fluoride can have an effect on human health. Have a look at page 8 here:

http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/drinking/Drinking%20Water_web.pdf

The Irish government and water boards are required (e.g. by the EU) to release a yearly water quality report and those aren't written by dentists.

Also, this may be interesting to those that think wells have much better drinking water quality than tap water: The ground water that wells source can contain much higher amounts of fluoride than tap water:
'In groundwaters, however, low or high concentrations of fluoride can occur, depending on the nature of the rocks and the occurrence of fluoride-bearing minerals.'

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43514/1/9241563192_eng.pdf

If I were you, I would be much more worried about the antiquated pipework still in use in Ireland. A lot of lead pipes are still in operation and lead pollution has much worse effects on health. Also, leakage from septic tanks can contaminate drinking water which is a much bigger threat to Irish drinking water quality than fluoride.

lounakin

opinion guy wrote: »

Are you talking about waste water or dirnking water now - those are two different things

Drinking water...

jma

Solair wrote: »

My major issue with it is just the lack of choice in the matter and also the fact that authorities, many of whom cannot master the art of pot hole filling, are basically mass-medicating the population.

Considering that one or more of those local authorities have actually managed to allow a situation to develop where cryptosporidium contaminated the water supplies of Galway City, it's amazing that we trust them to dose the supply with fluoride !

There's loads of fluoride in fluoride toothpaste. If you want to use it to protect your teeth, then you can buy it in any shop.

If you don't want to use it, you can buy non-fluoride toothpaste in many places, including Boots.

I also have major issues with the fact that Ireland is way out on its own on this. The rest of the EU (other than a few random UK areas) do not fluoridate water.
I just don't see how Ireland, a very small country with a very limited ability to carry out medical research, thinks it knows more than 26 other countries, quite a few of which have huge medical research communities and far more competent departments of health / public safety agencies than we do.

I would suspect that ultimately this will come to a head when the EU starts to actually impose the law in terms of fluoridated water being classified as a medicine there by eliminating it as a food ingredient and requiring dosages to be monitored / prescriptions to be written etc etc.

The whole thing just strikes me as a very obsolete public health measure from another era entirely.

It's not 'tin foil hat' stuff, rather it's just a matter of freedom to decide what medicines you wish to take yourself and bodily integrity.
I think the Irish Supreme Court got it very badly wrong in that judgement years ago.

Excellent point! And remember, it's the government that passed the legislation on this, but the responsibility to dose the water is left up to the local authorities; in many areas, it's a single person, locally, who actually doses the water - e.g. a FÁS worker. It's not exactly a controlled process, and where I live, there have been numerous occasions where the water supply was overdosed. In one instance, a few years ago, a double dosage was purposely added because the person responsible with the task went on a 2 week holiday. Sometimes, you can actually see and smell it (at least in the case of Chlorine).

Regarding the EPA report, it's clear that not all water supplies are monitored. In 2011, 34 of the WSZs exceeded the legal amount, but I didn't see by how much. It states that 1 tested WSZ exceeded 1.5 mg/L in 2011. Even more alarming are the THMs. THM is a hazardous chemical formed as a by-product of Chlorine treatment. They are ingested in drinking water and inhaled when showering or bathing.

Also, I think it should be noted that 1.5 mg F/L is NOT a safe dose. Negative health effects have been recorded, especially in younger children, and especially in the case of long-term exposure.

Apart from most of Europe not supporting fluoridation, including Northern Ireland, the following organisations no longer support F as a beneficial additive to prevent caries either...

"...Amidst these negative findings, the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology, the American Academy of Diabetes, the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Kidney Foundation, and the Society of Toxicology have discounted fluoride as a beneficial additive and no longer support its use"
http://toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Fluoride#Fluoride-HealthEffects

Lefticus Loonaticus

Solair wrote: »

My major issue with it is just the lack of choice in the matter and also the fact that authorities, many of whom cannot master the art of pot hole filling, are basically mass-medicating the population.

Its actually much worse than an issue of choice. Letting any organization (whether it be government, state, chemfloc or otherwise) use the public water system to dose the nation is a very dangerous situation.

I think a few of the european countries that banned fluoride in public water did so with this particular issue in mind.

Im sure theres a few heads in power at the moment who have spotted this weakness a long time ago. Perhaps a few greasy barrels of prozac might make budget 2013 slide past all the easier eh?

(Last sentence was a joke, but its somthing to mindful of nonetheless ).