Fluoride, Makes us Docile and Passive? Thoughts??

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

?

Reverse Osmosis is a pretty straightforward filtration system that's been around in principle for a few hundred years. Actually the university im at operates a decently sized one in a village down in Haiti to supply clean water from a river. It's basic principle is just a system of progressively finer filters.

Sorry, I meant more the home unit type things sold to remove fluoride to people where safe drinking water is typically available:
http://www.berkeyfilters.com/berkey-water-filters/fluoride.html

This common practice is now becoming more controversial to say the least. New reports and studies about the harmful effects of adding fluoride to drinking water are emerging.

Overheal

dubious marketing but the efficacy of R.O. systems is pretty well established. Just a "fluoride filter" I'd steer away from, especially when a full osmosis system costs about 4x that of a single filter, more economic to get the whole kit.

Forbearance

Fluoride has more neuro toxins than mmda, it is known to effect the pineal gland in the brain making it smaller ( pineal gland is also known as our third eye which control our perceptions and lateral thinking ability )

King Mob

Forbearance wrote: »

Fluoride has more neuro toxins than mmda, it is known to effect the pineal gland in the brain making it smaller ( pineal gland is also known as our third eye which control our perceptions and lateral thinking ability )

Literally none of this is true.

Fluoride does not contain more neurotoxins than anything, it's a stand alone compound that doesn't contain anything but itself. I think you are trying to claim that it's more neurotoxic than Mmda, which I doubt is true.
It is not know to effect any part of the brain in the levels present in drinking water and it is not known to shrink the pineal gland.
The pineal gland is not an eye and it is referred to as a third eye by newage people only, not neuro-scientists. The term has no meaning.
It does not control perceptions or lateral thinking.

Please provide something to support your claims.
Particularly I would like to see any evidence to show that Fluoride in concentrations present in drinking water is able to do anything to any part of the brain.

Forbearance

Get some stats from Germany as to why they stopped using it and revert

Forbearance

King Mob wrote: »

Literally none of this is true.

Fluoride does not contain more neurotoxins than anything, it's a stand alone compound that doesn't contain anything but itself. I think you are trying to claim that it's more neurotoxic than Mmda, which I doubt is true.
It is not know to effect any part of the brain in the levels present in drinking water and it is not known to shrink the pineal gland.
The pineal gland is not an eye and it is referred to as a third eye by newage people only, not neuro-scientists. The term has no meaning.
It does not control perceptions or lateral thinking.

Please provide something to support your claims.
Particularly I would like to see any evidence to show that Fluoride in concentrations present in drinking water is able to do anything to any part of the brain.

Fluoride Officially Classified as a Neurotoxin in World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journal By Waking Science | February 10, 2016

Look up the Lancet 14/02/2014

Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, FLOURIDE, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.

That should be enough evidence to support my claim, now please do not post further on a subject in an authoritative manner when you obviously have not got a clue what you are talking about.

That

King Mob

Forbearance wrote: »

That should be enough evidence to support my claim, now please do not post further on a subject in an authoritative manner when you obviously have not got a clue what you are talking about.

That

No, your claim was: "Fluoride has more neuro toxins than mmda"
This is not supported by the article you just quoted.

How many neurotoxins does fluoride have exactly? How many does MMDA have?

Fluoride is neurotoxic, no one is saying otherwise. However the distinction is that the level of fluoride in drinking water is not neurotoxic.

Also, it is not banned in Germany. That is a common lie repeated by anti-fluoride campaigners.

Forbearance

The lancet does not list the compound metylenedioxymethyamphetamine ( mdma) as containing any neurological toxin but I'm afraid it does list fluoride, hey but maybe the lancet is wrong and you are correct. In your previous post you suggest that fluoride contained no neurotoxicity and is completely safe. It is not.

Also in relation to the effect of fluoride on the pineal gland, do a bit of research, you will be surprised what you find.

In the 1990s, a British scientist, Jennifer Luke, discovered that fluoride accumulates to strikingly high levels in the pineal gland. (Luke 2001). The pineal gland is located between the two hemispheres of the brain and is responsible for the synthesis and secretion of the hormone melatonin.

Maybe that why a lot of people suffer from depression.

King Mob

Forbearance wrote: »

The lancet does not list the compound metylenedioxymethyamphetamine ( mdma) as containing any neurological toxin but I'm afraid it does list fluoride, hey but maybe the lancet is wrong and you are correct.

Your claim was that Fluoride contains more neurotoxins than Mdma. You have yet to substantiate this or explain what exactly you mean by it since the claim does not actually make sense.

So again, please be specific and support your answer:
How many neurotoxins does fluoride have? How many Neurotoxins does Mdma have?
Did you actually mean to say that it was more neurotoxic?

Also, are you now claiming that Mdma is now completely safe because it's not mentioned in this one paper?

Forbearance wrote: »

In your previous post you suggest that fluoride contained no neurotoxicity and is completely safe. It is not.

Nonsense. I do no such thing. Please read my post again more carefully.

The level of fluoride in drinking water is not neurotoxic.

Forbearance wrote: »

Also in relation to the effect of fluoride on the pineal gland, do a bit of research, you will be surprised what you find.

In the 1990s, a British scientist, Jennifer Luke, discovered that fluoride accumulates to strikingly high levels in the pineal gland. (Luke 2001). The pineal gland is located between the two hemispheres of the brain and is responsible for the synthesis and secretion of the hormone melatonin.

Maybe that why a lot of people suffer from depression.

So first, this "discovery" is not a comprehensive study.
It is a small PhD dissertation (which calls into question your appeal to authority). It is not published in any journal and only seems to be linked on various anti-fluoride propaganda sites.
It does not study humans. It does not use fluoride at levels present in drinking water. It does not conclude anything about any physical or psychological effects in humans and very specifically states that in it's conclusion.
And most importantly it does not support your claim that fluoride shrinks the pineal gland.

You are now claiming that fluoride causes depression, which is not true and not supported by evidence.

Additionally, the paper you are referring to contradicts your claims about the function of the pineal gland, which you have yet to support.
Also you have not supported your claim that it is banned in Germany.

Forbearance

My pineal gland is to calcified by fluoride to argue with you, but I do know that mdma is used to treat depression and anxiety, ironic or what ?

Overheal

fluoride is just a monotomic substance made entirely of fluorine atoms. It can't "contain" neurotoxins, it either is a neurotoxin or it isn't (like lead). This requires an understanding of fundamental chemistry.

That study/paper you mentioned is more of an article than a paper, and uses as it's mention for Fluoride 1 source from another not-a-paper here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

Which didn't specify what fluoride levels it was really testing, it just assumed they were higher than what you would see even in the US safe drinking levels (and Irelands fall below that):

Multiple epidemiological studies of developmental fluoride neurotoxicity were conducted in China because of the high fluoride concentrations that are substantially above 1 mg/L in well water in many rural communities, although microbiologically safe water has been accessible to many rural households as a result of the recent 5-year plan (2001–2005) by the Chinese government.

Which would hold little relevance, as Irish levels are 0.6-0.8 mg/L and these findings are based on levels "substantially above 1 mg/L" And the entire study itself is compounded by the possibility of other factors, like lead concentrations in the drinking water:

Although official reports of lead concentrations in the study villages in China were not available, some studies reported high percentage (95–100%) of low lead exposure (less than the standard of 0.01 mg/L) in drinking-water samples in villages from several study provinces (Bi et al. 2010; Peng et al. 2008; Sun 2010).

Couple that with the fact that this is an article, not a paper, and doesn't include its data, its calculation, its statistical modeling, or anything one would need to verify its veracity, but even when you assume that's all in check, these just indicate that fluoride is toxic in levels substantially higher than one would have to worry about typically.

If you're really worried about fluoride, you should really be worried about what else is in your water: like, you know that they normally put out boil notices during heavy rain, because agricultural waste (fecal matter, pesticides, fertilizer, etc) seep into the water table, and end up in the water supply? Not to mention 'acceptable levels of lead' and other contaminants. Those are doing a lot more harm than fluoride. Just invest in home filtration and move on.

Maudi

ScumLord wrote: »

The conspiracy market is a big earner these days. They'll make a documentary about anything these days.

The Fluoride one was put to bed definitively this year by the Australians. There is no science to back up the fluoride conspiracy.

Really?have you aer a link

el diablo

Maudi wrote: »

Really?have you aer a link

Wonder who sponsored the research? Colgate?