Ireland has the sickest population in Europe

Aquarius34

jh79 wrote: »

Sodium Fluoride gives Na+, F-
Calcium Fluoride gives Ca2+, F-

The F- is the same in both cases with the same properties.

Calcium fluoride is less toxic than sodium fluoride. That's also something you need to understand. Calcium fluoride would at least be better at strengthening our bones whereas Sodium fluoride does not. Also swallowing Sodium fluoride does not protect our teeth or bones it actually causes dental flourosis, pineal gland calcification, brain damage, brittle bones, cancer, aging and many other aliments.

If Calcium fluoride has the same properties and role as Sodium fluoride then why is it added to our water on top of Calcium fluoride. There is simply no argument or case for fluoridation. It's banned in 98percent of Europes water supply for a reason. People should not have posion dumped in our water

Anyone who supports fluoridation is quite simply evil.

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Sssshhhh..... science and facts don't work on him.

You are very selective on what you want to accept as facts.

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

The way you're discussing the issue is a laughing matter.

Facts and science are your friend when you want them to be aren't they? If something backs you up you're all for it but when it's clearly proving you wrong suddenly "Scientists don't know everything". That's how it works with you and that's why you're so hilarious to read.

Been the class clown doesn't make your case standing, But do keep laughing, it's working well against you.

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Neither does merely posting something in bold or claiming that your lizard DNA intuition told you something but yet you still do both. :rolleyes:

Now now.

Of course you're right not to trust me. I'm a shill for the elite, paid vast amounts of money to try and discredit you on the internet in case your dangerous truths get out to the world and people of earth (our slaves!) manage to free their minds from our enslavement.

I don't even believe you have to pay to talk as you do. You certainly sound like someone who has no morals anyway so it wouldn't surprise me to see you support fluoridation and other crimes against humanity.

jh79

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Calcium fluoride is less toxic than sodium fluoride. That's also something you need to understand. Calcium fluoride would at least be better at strengthening our bones whereas Sodium fluoride does not. Also swallowing Sodium fluoride does not protect our teeth or bones it actually causes dental flourosis, pineal gland calcification, brain damage, brittle bones, cancer, aging and many other aliments.

If Calcium fluoride has the same properties and role as Sodium fluoride then why is it added to our water on top of Calcium fluoride. There is simply no argument or case for fluoridation. It's banned in 98percent of Europes water supply for a reason. People should not have posion dumped in our water

Anyone who supports fluoridation is quite simply evil.

Yes Calcium Fluoride is less toxic because it isn't as soluble as Sodium fluoride nothing to do with one being natural, the fluoride they release is the same!

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

You are very selective on what you want to accept as facts.

I accept things as facts that have evidence backing them up.

You on the other hand have shown yourself time and time again to have long since cut your ties with reality.

I'm open to listening to people who deal rationally with a topic at hand and who listen to and can provide actual evidence as opposed to people who rant wildly about 'the elite' and how anyone who opposed to their point of view is 'evil'.

Here's the one clear fact I can take from this: People like you do more harm than good to the anti-fluoride campaign.

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

You certainly sound like someone who has no morals anyway so it wouldn't surprise me to see you support fluoridation and other crimes against humanity.

Really? And what 'evidence' do you have for this?

Is your lizard DNA letting you read my mind? :rolleyes:

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Really? And what 'evidence' do you have for this?

Is your lizard DNA letting you read my mind? :rolleyes:

I loved the rolls eyes bit.

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I accept things as facts that have evidence backing them up.

But yet you are in denial about many facts.

You on the other hand have shown yourself time and time again to have long since cut your ties with reality.

Not at all.

I'm open to listening to people who deal rationally with a topic at hand and who listen to and can provide actual evidence as opposed to people who rant wildly about 'the elite' and how anyone who opposed to their point of view is 'evil'.

Here's the one clear fact I can take from this: People like you do more harm than good to the anti-fluoride campaign.

You're not been rational on this issue, yourself.

Daithi 1

WHY TOXICITY IS IMPORTANT
Hexafluorosilicic acid is classified as a health, physicochemical and/or
ecotoxicological hazard, according to the National Occupational Health
and Safety Commission (NOHSC) Approved Criteria for Classifying Hazardous
Substances.
Safety standards for hexafluorosilicic acid and its derivative compounds are
very important as little data is available examining the toxicological effects
such compounds have on human health or the environment. What
information that is available from limited clinical studies clearly demonstrates
that 1 ppm of hexafluorosilicic acid ingested orally is the equivalent of 25ppm
calcium fluoride.
The EU drinking water standard for naturally occurring calcium fluoride is
1.5ppm however the vast majority of drinking water in continental Europe is
below 0.3ppm. The newly revised optimal fluoride level in the USA,
recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is
0.7ppm. The Irish limit for artificially fluoridated water is 0.8ppm. The natural
background level in surface and groundwater in Ireland is generally below
0.1ppm.

The drinking water standards were established for the much less toxic calcium
fluoride which is listed as a moderately toxic compound compared to
hexafluorosilicic acid, which is categorized as extremely toxic.Page 5of 9
All synthetic fluorides are toxic, and naturally occurring calcium fluoride is
benign in comparison (in trace amounts of course,since too much of a good
thing is no longer a good thing). Sodium fluoride is the most expensive
synthetic fluoride, and is used the least to treat in water supplies. It is no longer used in Ireland. In the late 1990’s Ireland sourced its Hexafluorosilicic acid from Holland where it was derived from a byproduct waste from the
phosphate fertilizer industry when phosphate rock is processed. It is now
sourced from Fluorspar mineral rock.
The chemically synthesised more toxic substance is used in the treatment of
drinking water due to cost. Even though sodium fluoride is the least toxic
synthetic fluoride, this type has been studied extensively, and associated with many adverse health problems. It is well established that there is incomplete toxicological data available on Hexafluorosilicic Acid products used for water fluoridation.


http://www.enviro.ie/correspondence/Hexafluorosilicic%20Acid%20as%20an%20ingredident%20in%20Fluoridation%20of%20Drinking%20Water_WAUGH_2012.pdf

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

But yet you are in denial about many facts.

Just because you claim something is a fact does not make it so.

You're not been rational on this issue, yourself.

Show me where.

Daithi 1

HEXAFLUOROSILICIC ACID BANNED AS A BIOCIDAL
PRODUCT IN THE EU.
Hexafluorosilicic acid is used for many industriesincluding the textile,
ceraminc,steel industry and as a biocidal product.
The same active chemical substance used for water fluoridation was banned
as a biocidalsubstance by the EU in 2006 under Directive 98/8/EC.
Hexafluorosilicic acid can no longer be used due to a lack of environmental
and toxicological data to demonstrate that it issafe for humans or the
environment.
Detailed information wassought by the EU on the toxicology of the substance
to include toxicological and metabolic studies, ecotoxicological studies,
reproductive toxicity, medical data including medical surveillance data,
epidemiological studies on general population,skin sensitivity studies and
allergenicity studies, carcinogenicity studies, mutagenicity studies,sub
chronic toxicity studies and measures to protect humans and the
environment.
No information was provided to the EU. The substance was subsequently
removed as an authorized biocide within EU. The phase out date wasset as
01/09/2006. The product remainsin use in Ireland as the active substance for
water fluoridation of drinking water supplies.

http://www.enviro.ie/correspondence/Hexafluorosilicic%20Acid%20as%20an%20ingredident%20in%20Fluoridation%20of%20Drinking%20Water_WAUGH_2012.pdf

AnonoBoy

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Sodium fluoride is the most expensive
synthetic fluoride, and is used the least to treat in water supplies. It is no longer used in Ireland.

So what you're saying there Daithi is that Aquarius34 is rabbiting on about sodium fluoride even though it's not actually used in fluoridation in Ireland any more?

So he doesn't even know that what he's against has actually changed to something else?

Way to keep up with your campaign there buddy! :pac:

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So what you're saying there Daithi is that Aquarius34 is rabbiting on about sodium fluoride even though it's not actually used in fluoridation in Ireland any more?

So he doesn't even know that what he's against has actually changed to something else?

Way to keep up with your campaign there buddy! :pac:

I'll requote this incase you missed the facts.

All synthetic fluorides are toxic, and naturally occurring calcium fluoride is
benign in comparison (in trace amounts of course,since too much of a good
thing is no longer a good thing). Sodium fluoride is the most expensive
synthetic fluoride, and is used the least to treat in water supplies. It is no longer used in Ireland. In the late 1990’s Ireland sourced its Hexafluorosilicic acid from Holland where it was derived from a byproduct waste from the
phosphate fertilizer industry when phosphate rock is processed.


I am aware it's actually called hexafluorosilicic acid.
The bottom line it's the fluoride that poisionous and what they add now is no different in effect to what they put in before hand. What needs to be understood is, it's poison and it's not added to drinking water in Europe anymore for all the obvious reasons.

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Just because you claim something is a fact does not make it so.



Show me where.

Good thing I don't swallow fluoride and tolerate make believe facts.

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

The bottom line it's the fluoride that poisionous and what they add now is no different in effect to what they put in before hand.

Well actually from what Daithi posted it would seem that what they're using now is WORSE than what they used before.

Why aren't you pointing this out?

You seem very out of touch with this cause. I'm beginning to doubt your commitment to it to be honest.

Are you one of this fair-weather band-wagon jumping campaigners?



I'm beginning to think that you might be a New World Order shill on a mission to discredit the campaign. J'ACCUSE!!!!

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Well actually from what Daithi posted it would seem that what they're using now is WORSE than what they used before.

Why aren't you pointing this out?

You seem very out of touch with this cause. I'm beginning to doubt your commitment to it to be honest.

Are you one of this fair-weather band-wagon jumping campaigners?

I am shocked that you're are pointing it out yourself. But I thought you're all for it, yeah? Poisoning our own species is the only way right?

celica00

ManMade wrote: »

To sum this up.
In Ireland we drink tap water. We get our fluoride through this.
On the continent they don't drink water. Therefore adding it would be pointless. They add it to their salt.

Want a sneak peak of the sh*te to come:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056884572&pp=15&page=1

There is nothing wrong with our fluoridated water. Why would the government give people cancer only to pay for the expensive chemo. It's a conspiracy theory at best. At worst it's scaremongering.

must write something to that now!

Why should the government do that?
For the same reason as in every other EU country as well:

MONEY
the pharma industry would be very pissed off if people would know how you can treat cancer. And not with chemos. that would only take money away of them.
and its a fact, not some theory.

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I am shocked that you're are pointing it out yourself.

The fact of the matter is that I had to point this out to you. You don't know enough about this subject. Hence I believe that you are a New World Order shill who has set out to discredit the movement

But I thought you're all for it, yeah? Poisoning our own species is the only way right?

I never said any such thing. But then again when did facts get in your way?

If you read my post in this very thread here you'll see I'm quite open to the fact that fluoride could be harmful - just need to see the science that proves it is all.

Aquarius34

Slowing killing us is good business to them. It's really good to have a docile, obedient, easily controlled ill herd of people who keep their heads to the ground working all their lives.

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that I had to point this out to you. You don't know enough about this subject. Hence I believe that you are a New World Order shill who has set out to discredit the movement

Again, I am very aware AnonoBoy Very aware

I never said any such thing. But then again when did facts get in your way?

If you read my post in this very thread here you'll see I'm quite open to the fact that fluoride could be harmful - just need to see the science that proves it is all.

Really you are? you don't sound like it or come across like you do.

Ziphius

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Slowing killing us is good business to them. It's really good to have a docile, obedient, easily controlled ill herd of people who keep their heads to the ground working all their lives.

Ah! So that explains our low unemployment rate compared to the rest of, non-fluoridated, Europe.

Daithi 1

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Well actually from what Daithi posted it would seem that what they're using now is WORSE than what they used before.

Why aren't you pointing this out?

You seem very out of touch with this cause. I'm beginning to doubt your commitment to it to be honest.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So what you're saying there Daithi is that Aquarius34 is rabbiting on about sodium fluoride even though it's not actually used in fluoridation in Ireland any more?

So he doesn't even know that what he's against has actually changed to something else?

Way to keep up with your campaign there buddy! :pac:

Way to keep up with YOUR campaign there buddy! :rolleyes:

Robbo

It's still as refreshing as a lovely cool glass of NWO mandated Fluorowater to see that those who refer to Ryan -v- AG appear to have not read the judgment.

AnonoBoy

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Way to keep up with YOUR campaign there buddy! :rolleyes:

My campaign to take the p*ss out of people who believe it's all a plot by the elite to control our minds?

It's going really well. I'm winning it as nobody is opposing me.

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Really you are? you don't sound like it or come across like you do.

Yes I am. It's just that I actually require facts and studies before I start weighing in behind something.

But I know your opinion of science so I know that you really can take it or leave it and decide which 'facts' you want to believe on a whim basically.

Daithi 1

AnonoBoy wrote: »

My campaign to take the p*ss out of people who believe it's all a plot by the elite to control our minds?

It's going really well. I'm winning it as nobody is opposing me.

Cool, as long as you keep bumping the thread i'm happy.

Aquarius34

Ziphius wrote: »

Ah! So that explains our low unemployment rate compared to the rest of, non-fluoridated, Europe.

We don't have a low un employment rate and your point is?

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Yes I am. It's just that I actually require facts and studies before I start weighing in behind something.

But I know your opinion of science so I know that you really can take it or leave it and decide which 'facts' you want to believe on a whim basically.

But you can't see the obvious facts. I know. Lets hope other's know too and see how dysfunctional your posts are at this point.

Ziphius

Aquarius34 wrote: »

We don't have a low un employment rate and your point is?

Of course we do! Why else would the elite be pumping fluorine into our water if not to make us into docile worker drones?

Aquarius34

Ziphius wrote: »

Of course we do! Why else would the elite be pumping fluorine into our water if not to make us into docile worker drones?

Obedient workers. Penny drop yet?

Ziphius

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Obedient workers. Penny drop yet?

Ziphius wrote: »

Ah! So that explains our low unemployment rate compared to the rest of, non-fluoridated, Europe.

Kinda feels like I'm going round in circles here!

I'm starting to thing you were sent by the New World Order!

Solair

The variation between Western Countries is actually very small, Denmark actually has the highest detected cancer rate in the world, Ireland is #2 but not miles away from other wealthy, developed countries too.

I'd guess our skin cancer rate probably puts us through the roof and that's down to being unable to handle sunlight due to a large % of the population being skin type 0 coupled with foreign travel and popularity of having a tan (impossibility for many irish people)

http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops

I'm not in favour of fluoridation because I strongly believe in informed choice.

Also, this is out of whack with practise in other EU countries. I don't think we've the resources to adequately study its implications and the US isn't always the best model to follow for public health.

Aquarius34

Solair wrote: »

The variation between Western Countries is actually very small, Denmark actually has the highest detected cancer rate in the world, Ireland is #2 but not miles away from other wealthy, developed countries too.

I'd guess our skin cancer rate probably puts us through the roof and that's down to being unable to handle sunlight due to a large % of the population being skin type 0 coupled with foreign travel and popularity of having a tan (impossibility for many irish people)

Despite the contrary, sunlight does NOT cause skin cancer. It is over exposure of radiation that reacts to the chemicals and toxins in our skin that triggers the cancer melanoma.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops

I'm not in favour of fluoridation because I strongly believe in informed choice.

Also, this is out of whack with practise in other EU countries. I don't think we've the resources to adequately study its implications and the US isn't always the best model to follow for public health.

It shouldn't be in our water in the first place. It says on toothpaste do not swallow for a reason.

jh79

celica00 wrote: »

must write something to that now!

Why should the government do that?
For the same reason as in every other EU country as well:

MONEY
the pharma industry would be very pissed off if people would know how you can treat cancer. And not with chemos. that would only take money away of them.
and its a fact, not some theory.

How ?

AnonoBoy

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Cool, as long as you keep bumping the thread i'm happy.

Just to clarify Daithi, I have no problem with people such as yourself who are genuinely worried about the health effects of fluoridation. Now I'm pretty much on the fence as regards that and would like to see more studies about it.

However when people start making claims that fluoridation is a mind-control tool of the elite that's when I cannot help but take the p*ss because those sort of claims are f*cking bat-sh*t nonsense.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

How ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3x-Uj4yAMY

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

But you can't see the obvious facts. I know. Lets hope other's know too and see how dysfunctional your posts are at this point.

Which are the obvious facts oh scaly one?

Daithi 1

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Just to clarify Daithi, I have no problem with people such as yourself who are genuinely worried about the health effects of fluoridation. Now I'm pretty much on the fence as regards that and would like to see more studies about it.

However when people start making claims that fluoridation is a mind-control tool of the elite that's when I cannot help but take the p*ss because those sort of claims are f*cking bat-sh*t nonsense.

I got you first time..

jh79

Sum it up can't watch at the moment.

Anything not from youtube? Hardly the greatest source.

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

Sum it up can't watch at the moment.

Anything not from youtube? Hardly the greatest source.

Well it's a news report which states cancer is cured in Canada but big pharma decided against it as it was not profitable enough for them to mass manufacture it.

the_syco

celica00 wrote: »

MONEY
the pharma industry would be very pissed off if people would know how you can treat cancer. And not with chemos. that would only take money away of them.
and its a fact, not some theory.

Link? And no, the fruit foes not cure every single cancer. Heck, it barely only treats one very specific cancer.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Well it's a news report which states cancer is cured in Canada but big pharma decided against it as it was not profitable enough for them to mass manufacture it.

Cured with what?

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

Cured with what?

Dichloroacetic acid. I don't think it fully cured, but it was believed to have the potential to cure it.

edit:

Potential cancer applications

Cancer cells generally express increased glycolysis, because they rely on anaerobic respiration that occurs in the cytosol (lactic acid fermentation) rather than oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondria for energy (the Warburg effect), as a result of hypoxia that exists in tumors and malfunctioning mitochondria.[10][11] Usually dangerously damaged cells kill themselves via apoptosis, a mechanism of self-destruction that involves mitochondria, but this mechanism fails in cancer cells.
A phase I study published in January 2007 by researchers at the University of Alberta, who had tested DCA on human[12] cancer cells grown in mice, found that DCA restored mitochondrial function, thus restoring apoptosis, allowing cancer cells to self-destruct and shrink the tumor.[13]
These results received extensive media attention, beginning with an article in New Scientist titled "Cheap, ‘safe’ drug kills most cancers".[12] Subsequently, the American Cancer Society and other medical organizations have received a large volume of public interest and questions regarding DCA.[14] Clinical trials in humans with cancer have not been conducted in the USA and are not yet final in Canada, emphasizing the need for caution in interpreting the preliminary results.[14][15]

Jimoslimos

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Dichloroacetic acid. I don't think it fully cured, but it was believed to have the potential to cure it.

Pretty much everything has the potential to 'cure cancer' in a test tube.

Problem is applying it in-vivo to human patients.

the_syco

Daithi 1 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3x-Uj4yAMY

It's not clear which cancer it cures?

Daithi 1

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Pretty much everything has the potential to 'cure cancer' in a test tube.

Problem is applying it in-vivo to human patients.

Yeah, pretty much everything except hexafluorosilicic acid...

Daithi 1

the_syco wrote: »

It's not clear which cancer it cures?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Yeah, pretty much everything except hexafluorosilicic acid...

If you already know how to cure cancer then what does it matter.

Aquarius34

Ziphius wrote: »

Kinda feels like I'm going round in circles here!

That is true, and chasing your tails too!