Water purity testing in Waterford?

changeling

jh79 wrote: »

Look fluorine is an element on the periodic table. Fluoride is the ionic form of it. It has the formula F-. It would have the same chemical properties regardless of its source. There is no such thing as natural and synthetic fluoride.

The link you previously provided suggests that sodium fluoride dissociates quicker than calcium fluoride leading to a higher concentration of fluoride. This newly introduced fluoride is not more toxic than the so called "naturally" occurring fluoride you just have a higher concentration of an known toxin.

The bit in bold says the "naturally" occurring is toxic, what I am saying is that there is no distinction between the two. It is whether the addition of sodium fluoride increases the fluoride concentration to a dangerous level is the issue. The EPA recommends a level below 4ppm, Waterford has 0.7ppm.

changeling wrote: »

http://www.nofluoride.com/Irish_fury_over_fluoride.cfm

some more food for thought on this issue in the link above

http://www.fluoridefreewater.ie/

i GIVE UP ,jh79 I suggest you detoxify your pineal gland as you are showing significant inability to think for yourself:mad:

jh79

changeling wrote: »

i GIVE UP ,jh79 I suggest you detoxify your pineal gland as you are showing significant inability to think for yourself:mad:

Still waiting for your explanation on the differences between the two or does your ability to discuss the topic begin and end at cutting and pasting links?

I have asked a direct question ? how can there be two different types of fluoride when it is an element?

changeling

jh79 wrote: »

Still waiting for your explanation on the differences between the two or does your ability to discuss the topic begin and end at cutting and pasting links?

I have asked a direct question ? how can there be two different types of fluoride when it is an element?

I've news for you , this isn't a chemistry class

spankmemunkey

jh79 wrote: »

Still waiting for your explanation on the differences between the two or does your ability to discuss the topic begin and end at cutting and pasting links?

I have asked a direct question ? how can there be two different types of fluoride when it is an element?

This is what your arguement has resorted to? trying to find someway of getting one over on the other poster?

jh79

spankmemunkey wrote: »

This is what your arguement has resorted to? trying to find someway of getting one over on the other poster?

The fact that links the two of ye have provided make such silly statements should ring alarms bells regarding the integrity of these websites

spankmemunkey

jh79 wrote: »

The fact that links the two of ye have provided make such silly statements should ring alarms bells regarding the integrity of these websites

They seem silly to you cos you against our arguement!



You never asnwered my question why was the practice of adding Fluoride to Water BANNED or if you prefer stopped in most all European Countries?

Oh yeah it was because they knew that it wasnt completely safe so they stopped it! that is the ONLY reason they stopped it, but you know better than the governments and scientists of the majority and europe.

Theres campaigns in plenty of other countries to stop it australians for one are also campaigning against it, so all of these people have nothing better to do and are deluded i guess????

I cant see why your so pro for something that doesnt really do anything for you? your super concerned about having to get a filling? dont you have tooth paste and a tooh brush at home?

This costs 4 million a year to do 4 million that could be used on something else instead of being used on helping peoples teeth!

Cop on this is a pointless excercise!

ManMade

spankmemunkey wrote: »

They seem silly to you cos you against our arguement!



You never asnwered my question why was the practice of adding Fluoride to Water BANNED or if you prefer stopped in most all European Countries?

Oh yeah it was because they knew that it wasnt completely safe so they stopped it! that is the ONLY reason they stopped it, but you know better than the governments and scientists of the majority and europe.

Theres campaigns in plenty of other countries to stop it australians for one are also campaigning against it, so all of these people have nothing better to do and are deluded i guess????

They add it to their salt. We add it to our water. It's not at dangerous levels. The idea that it is ,
is a conspiracy theory. Why the hell would they pay to add something that makes us ill only to pay for the hospital treatment. The EU sees nothing wrong. The EPA sees nothing wrong. Irish scientists see nothing wrong. No alarm bells are ringing.

Can you give an international reputable organisation that is worried/distressed at the quality of our water?

Also please stop SHOUTING.

jh79

spankmemunkey wrote: »

They seem silly to you cos you against our arguement!



You never asnwered my question why was the practice of adding Fluoride to Water BANNED or if you prefer stopped in most all European Countries?

Oh yeah it was because they knew that it wasnt completely safe so they stopped it! that is the ONLY reason they stopped it, but you know better than the governments and scientists of the majority and europe.

Theres campaigns in plenty of other countries to stop it australians for one are also campaigning against it, so all of these people have nothing better to do and are deluded i guess????

I cant see why your so pro for something that doesnt really do anything for you? your super concerned about having to get a filling? dont you have tooth paste and a tooh brush at home?

This costs 4 million a year to do 4 million that could be used on something else instead of being used on helping peoples teeth!

Cop on this is a pointless excercise!

The statement that there are two types of flouride goes against the laws of chemistry ask any chemistry teacher / student.

Flouride has not been banned, water flouridation has been deemed unnecessary which was pointed out earlier in the thread. Flouride containing toothpaste is still available isn't it?

The cost of water flouridation vs its benefits is a more valid reason to see it stopped.

Scientific advisors to the government don't agree with your stance. A level of <1ppm is not deemed a health risk by the majority of scientists. You are living in an area where the concentration of flourode is well below that deemed to be a risk. I just can't understand how people get so worked up over this issue.

Are you a believer in the more extreme views around water flouridation ?

changeling

jh79 wrote: »

Still waiting for your explanation on the differences between the two or does your ability to discuss the topic begin and end at cutting and pasting links?

I have asked a direct question ? how can there be two different types of fluoride when it is an element?

by MALCOLM HARRIS Ph.D. (Wales), B.Pharm. (Wales), FPS, FSS, FRSH.

Originally printed in The Probe (October 1976)

FOR the purposes of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, a poison (including the ingredients of many dispensed medicines) is defined simply as any substance in the Poisons List issued by the Home Secretary.

The Poisons List is divided into two parts. A Part I poison may be sold or supplied to the public fly by an authorised seller of poisons, i.e., a pharmacist in general practice, while a Part II poison may be sold by either a pharmacist or a "listed seller of poisons" such as a registered seed merchant.

At the moment the poisons regulations are in a state of transition. Within a few months the 1933 Act is to be repealed. Poisons which are medicinal products will then come under the new Medicines Act, 1968, and non-medicinal poisons will come under the new Poisons Act, 1972.

Calcium fluoride (caF2), which occurs naturally, is not included in the Poisons List. This is because natural fluoride is not very soluble in water. Substances used in the artificial fluoridation of the public water supply are *sodium fluoride (NaF), sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6), and hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6). These artificial fluorides are highly soluble in water (References 1 and 2) see Table 1, and are highly toxic substances.

*NB. Sodium fluoride is no longer used in the UK

Cabaal

spankmemunkey wrote: »

This is also one of the ingredients in Rat Poison.

So?
You'll likely find dehydration monoxide is too or at the very least used in the making of it, should we ban it?

Just because something is an ingredient in something thats not good for you does not automatically mean it in itself is bad for you.

Now your just grasping at straws

changeling

jh79 wrote: »

The statement that there are two types of flouride goes against the laws of chemistry ask any chemistry teacher / student.

Flouride has not been banned, water flouridation has been deemed unnecessary which was pointed out earlier in the thread. Flouride containing toothpaste is still available isn't it?

The cost of water flouridation vs its benefits is a more valid reason to see it stopped.

Scientific advisors to the government don't agree with your stance. A level of <1ppm is not deemed a health risk by the majority of scientists. You are living in an area where the concentration of flourode is well below that deemed to be a risk. I just can't understand how people get so worked up over this issue.

Are you a believer in the more extreme views around water flouridation ?

Why do people bother posting in threads without at least reading some of the previous posts?
For the umpteenth time, it's the build up of the toxins in the body that is causing problems, and of course the government are going to have to legitimise its use of flouride by quoting scientists who are in favour of it, who are also in the employ of the government, so are not independent and thus are not biased.
Again the point to this is choice. There is a growing concern from a large section of the poplulation who do not want this in their water supply.

jh79

changeling wrote: »

by MALCOLM HARRIS Ph.D. (Wales), B.Pharm. (Wales), FPS, FSS, FRSH.

Originally printed in The Probe (October 1976)

FOR the purposes of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, a poison (including the ingredients of many dispensed medicines) is defined simply as any substance in the Poisons List issued by the Home Secretary.

The Poisons List is divided into two parts. A Part I poison may be sold or supplied to the public fly by an authorised seller of poisons, i.e., a pharmacist in general practice, while a Part II poison may be sold by either a pharmacist or a "listed seller of poisons" such as a registered seed merchant.

At the moment the poisons regulations are in a state of transition. Within a few months the 1933 Act is to be repealed. Poisons which are medicinal products will then come under the new Medicines Act, 1968, and non-medicinal poisons will come under the new Poisons Act, 1972.

Calcium fluoride (caF2), which occurs naturally, is not included in the Poisons List. This is because natural fluoride is not very soluble in water. Substances used in the artificial fluoridation of the public water supply are *sodium fluoride (NaF), sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6), and hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6). These artificial fluorides are highly soluble in water (References 1 and 2) see Table 1, and are highly toxic substances.

*NB. Sodium fluoride is no longer used in the UK

Look I'll admit to being a bit pedantic on this, but the above doesn't back up your previous posts.

Calcium fluoride and Sodium Fluoride are two different sources of fluoride. The fluoride they produce is the same, one happens to be more efficient at introducing it into water.

It doesn't matter on the source it is the concentration. For example a pint of beer and a bottle of whiskey both contain the toxic substance, alcohol. You can down a pint of beer in one without any ill effects yet downing a bottle of whiskey in one go would lead to a trip to hospital. The same applies here, the fluoride level is well below the 4ppm limit in Waterford.

Are there any scientific papers showing acute or long term toxic effects of fluoride at 4ppm or less per litre?

changeling

Cabaal wrote: »

So?
You'll likely find dehydration monoxide is too or at the very least used in the making of it, should we ban it?

Just because something is an ingredient in something thats not good for you does not automatically mean it in itself is bad for you.

Now your just grasping at straws

I think it is your self that is grasping at straws here, the point is that the flouride being added by the government is against a lot of people's wishes , if people want to use it then buy flouridated toothpaste, flouridated salt, whatever they want, just don't impose it on those that don't.

changeling

jh79 wrote: »

Look I'll admit to being a bit pedantic on this, but the above doesn't back up your previous posts.

Calcium fluoride and Sodium Fluoride are two different sources of fluoride. The fluoride they produce is the same, one happens to be more efficient at introducing it into water.

It doesn't matter on the source it is the concentration. For example a pint of beer and a bottle of whiskey both contain the toxic substance, alcohol. You can down a pint of beer in one without any ill effects yet downing a bottle of whiskey in one go would lead to a trip to hospital. The same applies here, the fluoride level is well below the 4ppm limit in Waterford.

Are there any scientific papers showing acute or long term toxic effects of fluoride at 4ppm or less per litre?

You're not being pedantic , you're being deliberately obstructive to the obvious

jh79

changeling wrote: »

Why do people bother posting in threads without at least reading some of the previous posts?
For the umpteenth time, it's the build up of the toxins in the body that is causing problems, and of course the government are going to have to legitimise its use of flouride by quoting scientists who are in favour of it, who are also in the employ of the government, so are not independent and thus are not biased.
Again the point to this is choice. There is a growing concern from a large section of the poplulation who do not want this in their water supply.

Show me a paper that backs this up?

Are you saying the government are part of some conspiracy , I don't get what you think the government has to gain from water fluoridation?

Cabaal

changeling wrote: »

I think it is your self that is grasping at straws here, the point is that the flouride being added by the government is against a lot of people's wishes , if people want to use it then buy flouridated toothpaste, flouridated salt, whatever they want, just don't impose it on those that don't.

But that doesn't make sense,

Its a poison and its toxic so it shouldn't be added to water, but its ok in everything else? Your either for or against it here, if its so dangerous why are you not looking for a all out ban?

If it builds up in the body like you claim then regardless of how its taken into your body its still just as dangerous.

Your arguing if people want to use it they should buy the products that contain it,

But given the people that don't want it are very much in a minority then surely it makes more sense for those people just to source water without it rather then affecting everyone else

Of course those people may then have to fight the fight against BPA :pac:

ronaneire

Still being discussed I see :rolleyes:

changeling

Cabaal wrote: »

But that doesn't make sense,

Its a poison and its toxic so it shouldn't be added to water, but its ok in everything else? Your either for or against it here, if its so dangerous why are you not looking for a all out ban?

If it builds up in the body like you claim then regardless of how its taken into your body its still just as dangerous.

Your arguing if people want to use it they should buy the products that contain it,

But given the people that don't want it are very much in a minority then surely it makes more sense for those people just to source water without it rather then affecting everyone else

Of course those people may then have to fight the fight against BPA :pac:

Going by your logic then I should be fighting for a ban against alcohol , cigarettes
in fact everything and anything that is 'bad for you', I notice you completely ignore the word 'choice', I do not choose to have this poison in my tap water, if you don't care one way or another then good luck to you, but it is not my choice, me and by the way a growing number of people who have taken the time to investigate this practice, do not want it in our water, why should we be forced to accept it in our tap water?

jh79

changeling wrote: »

Going by your logic then I should be fighting for a ban against alcohol , cigarettes
in fact everything and anything that is 'bad for you', I notice you completely ignore the word 'choice', I do not choose to have this poison in my tap water, if you don't care one way or another then good luck to you, but it is not my choice, me and by the way a growing number of people who have taken the time to investigate this practice, do not want it in our water, why should we be forced to accept it in our tap water?

You are using the word "poison" without really understanding its meaning in a scientific context.

What rate of exposure to fluoride would be necessary to see a build-up sufficient to cause a toxic effect?

changeling

jh79 wrote: »

Show me a paper that backs this up?

Are you saying the government are part of some conspiracy , I don't get what you think the government has to gain from water fluoridation?

Less-known to the public is that fluoride also accumulates in bones – "The teeth are windows to what's happening in the bones," explains Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University (N.Y.). In recent years, pediatric bone specialists have expressed alarm about an increase in stress fractures among U.S. young people. Connett and other scientists are concerned that fluoride – linked to bone damage by studies since the 1930's – may be a contributing factor. The declassified documents add urgency: much of the original proof that low-dose fluoride is safe for children's bones came from U.S. bomb program scientists, according to this investigation.
Now, researchers who have reviewed these declassified documents fear that Cold War national security considerations may have prevented objective scientific evaluation of vital public health questions concerning fluoride.
"Information was buried," concludes Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990's indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin, and might adversely affect human brain functioning, even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995, in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Fluoride Causes Disease

Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 ppm fluoride concentration can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA can't repair damaged cells, we get old fast.
Fluoride prematurely ages the body, mainly by distortion of enzyme shape. Again, when enzymes get twisted out of shape, they can't do their jobs. This results in collagen breakdown, eczema, tissue damage, skin wrinkling, genetic damage, and immune suppression. Practically any disease you can name may then be caused.
All systems of the body are dependent upon enzymes. When fluoride changes the enzymes, this can damage:
- immune system
- digestive system
- respiratory system
- blood circulation
- kidney function
- liver function
- brain function
- thyroid function

Tbh I don't get what the govt gets out of continuing this practice either, except that it has been going on since 1964 and they are possibly afraid to stop as it may be seen as an admission of culpability and thus opening the floodgates to a plethora of lawsuits.
All I know that it has been proved time and again that our govt doesn't give a s*** about its electorate

After reviewing the memos, Mullenix declared herself "flabbergasted." She went on, "How could I be told by NIH that fluoride has no central nervous system effects when these documents were sitting there all the time?" She reasons that the Manhattan Project did do fluoride CNS studies – "that kind of warning, that fluoride workers might be a danger to the bomb program by improperly performing their duties--I can't imagine that would be ignored" –but that the results were buried because they might create a difficult legal and public relations problem for the government.

Cabaal

changeling wrote: »

Going by your logic then I should be fighting for a ban against alcohol , cigarettes

Yes actually, they have proven peer reviewed research showing that they are bad and cigarettes cost the HSE 2 billion euro a year. But they only take in 1.5b in tax.

There is a reason why the government has banned smoking in workplaces, pubs etc and why it has brought in the new images. its all a aim to stop people smoking.

If your not against the likes of smoking given the massive and proven health affects it causes then you'd be a fool especially if you are fighting against fluoride for claimed health affects,.

in fact everything and anything that is 'bad for you', I notice you completely ignore the word 'choice', I do not choose to have this poison in my tap water, if you don't care one way or another then good luck to you, but it is not my choice, me and by the way a growing number of people who have taken the time to investigate this practice, do not want it in our water, why should we be forced to accept it in our tap water?

Ok, so your all about choice then yeah?

Should you not have choice about being saturated with EM fields from electrical wiring, radiation from mobile phone masts and what about wifi hotspots? Wifi itself is even dangerous! - http://www.safespaceprotection.com/electrostress-from-wireless-routers.aspx

Lots of people against both those things claiming ill-affects to health and lots of sudo-science reports backing them up as well.

Where's your choice with those? Should the government be providing you with a grant for a faraday cage or should they just turn off all transmitters?

What about in dublin with all those new wifi hotspots? Where's your choice if you go to dublin and walk around?

spankmemunkey

ManMade wrote: »

They add it to their salt. We add it to our water. It's not at dangerous levels. The idea that it is ,
is a conspiracy theory. Why the hell would they pay to add something that makes us ill only to pay for the hospital treatment. The EU sees nothing wrong. The EPA sees nothing wrong. Irish scientists see nothing wrong. No alarm bells are ringing.

Can you give an international reputable organisation that is worried/distressed at the quality of our water?

Also please stop SHOUTING.

The EPA have done a report on it and said that it is having a negative effect.
Scientists have come out and said its bad time and time again.
Not everybody uses Salt its a choice we have no choice about drinking water with Fluoride added to it. You are the first person to speak about conspiracy theories so please stop in your attempt to discredit our arguement.
The EU must see something wrong with it if most of the EU members have Banned it in their water supply, I can guarantee you many more millions will take it in their system through water than through salt

Im typing not speaking so how can i be SHOUTING if i write something? if i write in block its because i want to highlight something not shout!

4 million a year to give us better teeth? comon how stupid is that, weve had garda stations closed cos their isnt enough money yet they are willing to spend 4 million a year to give us better teeth?

The fact that most countries in europe stopped the practice tells you that enough people must have been concerned to stop the practice

You tell my why they stopped this practice then??you give me scientific evidence and find me the paper work as to why they stopped it? just on a whim like? nobody has come up with a good arguement as to why other countries in europe stopped this practice, if there was nothing wrong with it why did they stop it?

jh79

RE: Law suits, nobody has really been able to prove a direct link between water fluoridation and any illness at the concentrations used. It is all circumstantial evidence. So law suits wouldn't be successful. The levels are well below current scientific opinion.

More than likely they see it as an non-issue.

That is all very vague regarding the enzymes, at moment the evidence doesn't show direct links. Why hasn't anybody done an animal study with doses similar to that in the water supply? The IQ thing could be due to a number of other factors including genetics etc.

jh79

spankmemunkey wrote: »

The EPA have done a report on it and said that it is having a negative effect.
Scientists have come out and said its bad time and time again.
Not everybody uses Salt its a choice we have no choice about drinking water with Fluoride added to it. You are the first person to speak about conspiracy theories so please stop in your attempt to discredit our arguement.
The EU must see something wrong with it if most of the EU members have Banned it in their water supply, I can guarantee you many more millions will take it in their system through water than through salt

Im typing not speaking so how can i be SHOUTING if i write something? if i write in block its because i want to highlight something not shout!

4 million a year to give us better teeth? comon how stupid is that, weve had garda stations closed cos their isnt enough money yet they are willing to spend 4 million a year to give us better teeth?

The fact that most countries in europe stopped the practice tells you that enough people must have been concerned to stop the practice

You tell my why they stopped this practice then??you give me scientific evidence and find me the paper work as to why they stopped it? just on a whim like? nobody has come up with a good arguement as to why other countries in europe stopped this practice, if there was nothing wrong with it why did they stop it?

The EPA in which country. The US EPA reckon 8ppm is bad, 4ppm while not necessarily dangerous should be monitored and anything below this is safe.

Governments represent the people, they carried out the wishes of their electorate, that doesn't mean water fluoridation is a health risk. Some people see this as an ethical issue rather than an health issue. They teach creation science in the USA and the Giants Causeway tourist info promotes a creation science viewpoint to appease the unionists, governments don't always follow their scientific advisors. Stopping water fluoridation in Europe doesn't by default prove it is an health risk.

changeling

jh79 wrote: »

RE: Law suits, nobody has really been able to prove a direct link between water fluoridation and any illness at the concentrations used. It is all circumstantial evidence. So law suits wouldn't be successful. The levels are well below current scientific opinion.

More than likely they see it as an non-issue.

That is all very vague regarding the enzymes, at moment the evidence doesn't show direct links. Why hasn't anybody done an animal study with doses similar to that in the water supply? The IQ thing could be due to a number of other factors including genetics etc.

That info was from a scientific peer reviewed paper on effects of flouridation on enzymes, and you are saying it is ''all very vague'' LOL

You are drinking unprocessed, industrial waste-product from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry

good luck to you it's a complete waste of time trying to educate some people

spankmemunkey

jh79 wrote: »

The statement that there are two types of flouride goes against the laws of chemistry ask any chemistry teacher / student.

Flouride has not been banned, water flouridation has been deemed unnecessary which was pointed out earlier in the thread. Flouride containing toothpaste is still available isn't it?

The cost of water flouridation vs its benefits is a more valid reason to see it stopped.

Scientific advisors to the government don't agree with your stance. A level of <1ppm is not deemed a health risk by the majority of scientists. You are living in an area where the concentration of flourode is well below that deemed to be a risk. I just can't understand how people get so worked up over this issue.

Are you a believer in the more extreme views around water flouridation ?

Why has it been deemed unnecessary? Why? you dont have to buy tooth paste with fluoride in it you can buy tooth past without in any shop.

Yeah all chemicals are good for us and our government never does anyting thats bad for us. 4 million a year for clean teeth? As you say its in tooth paste already so why are they adding it to water? were getting it in toothpaste Water and mouthwash?

Theres no need for it to be addeed to water this day and age, 50 years ago when nobody had toothpaste or toothbrushes maybe but no need for it today! and yes it costs alot of money!

jh79

spankmemunkey wrote: »

The EPA have done a report on it and said that it is having a negative effect.
Scientists have come out and said its bad time and time again.
Not everybody uses Salt its a choice we have no choice about drinking water with Fluoride added to it. You are the first person to speak about conspiracy theories so please stop in your attempt to discredit our arguement.
The EU must see something wrong with it if most of the EU members have Banned it in their water supply, I can guarantee you many more millions will take it in their system through water than through salt

Im typing not speaking so how can i be SHOUTING if i write something? if i write in block its because i want to highlight something not shout!

4 million a year to give us better teeth? comon how stupid is that, weve had garda stations closed cos their isnt enough money yet they are willing to spend 4 million a year to give us better teeth?

The fact that most countries in europe stopped the practice tells you that enough people must have been concerned to stop the practice

You tell my why they stopped this practice then??you give me scientific evidence and find me the paper work as to why they stopped it? just on a whim like? nobody has come up with a good arguement as to why other countries in europe stopped this practice, if there was nothing wrong with it why did they stop it?

Why do you keep saying it is banned when you know full well it has not. Fluoride toothpaste has not been banned in Europe!

spankmemunkey

jh79 wrote: »

Why do you keep saying it is banned when you know full well it has not. Fluoride toothpaste has not been banned in Europe!

Theres plenty of toothpaste that comes with no Fluoride go to any good health store!

Show me the papers to say it hasnt been BANNED!

jh79

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Theres plenty of toothpaste that comes with no Fluoride go to any good health store!

Show me the papers to say it hasnt been BANNED!

You said it is banned are you saying fluoride toothpaste is not sold throughout Europe?

spankmemunkey

jh79 wrote: »

You said it is banned are you saying fluoride toothpaste is not sold throughout Europe?

People have a choice what toothpaste they buy and i know in Germany and France there are alot of brands without Fluoride so people have choice!

Show the scientific journal that says fluoride in water has not been BANNED in europe!