damned fluoride again!

that's awesome about the public speaking venue. congrats! what is it about vit c that causes the body to shed the fluoride?

 

odon, it seems to me that you're not quite getting the point of the broad toxicity of fluoride. just because she's MORE sensitive doesn't mean it's not doing anything to rest of the populace. I'm guessing quite a few modern illnesses could be linked to the things we put in our water.

 

wow...just wow. so your opinion is that someone who gets sick because a toxic substance is added to the water by a government agency should just be quiet about it? because if they say, hey you're poisoning me, could you stop please...they're what?...being irrational? i don't get it. the person who gets sick soonest is just the canary in the mine shaft. you better believe the miners pay attention when the canary dies, because they're next!

 

i'm not sure if it's the only mechanism, but i know that vitamin C is a free radical scavenger. but like i said, we can only excrete half of the fluoride that gets into us. the rest we're stuck with.

 

one thing many people fail to consider is that fetuses, infants and young children are extremely susceptible to the neurotoxicity of fluoride.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqMmoQgnXnA&eurl=http://www.fluoridealert.org/

 

I've read a lot about fluoridisation and the natural flouride found in water.
As it (Fluoridation) is being done to my water I took some time to look into it.
But, the truth is, it was done a long time before I was aware of it (too young).
There was a big debate about this here (check the link I provided).
Since then there has been no public outcry about fluoridation.
Like with anything new people debated it and had concerns.
Those concerns have been broadly belayed by time and acceptance.
Trust me if there were any significant public health issues surrounding this where I live, I'd know about it.
There is not.

I'm not saying don't have any concerns but It does seems like, Lady of the Freaks, concerns surounding the debate is coloured by her sensitivity.
I could be wrong.

"Your'e guessing"?
Like to look into that honestly and come back to us about that?

 

Where did I say be quiet about it?
I did not say stop.
I don't think you are being irrational.
I just said it seems your sensitivity is colouring your views and you seem to be oneside on the subject.
I could be wrong.

 

i don't understand. if i had a government official pull out a gun and shoot me, and i objected...would you have a problem with that too? why do you keep saying i'm one sided because i don't like being poisoned? i truly do not understand where you're coming from. and you know, just because there's no outcry in a particular fluoridated area doesn't mean much. most people are unaware of the fluoride in their water altogether, and even if they are suffering from fluoride related illness may never connect it to the water. that doesn't mean it won't harm them. you don't have to be aware you're being poisoned to be poisoned. that's why rat's can eat sodium fluoride (AKA rat poison) and die...awareness is not required for a poison death to happen.

 

I'll repeat.
I don't have a problem with you having concerns.
I say you are one sided because there is another side to this debate.
One that we don't seem to be seeing in this thread.
One certainly not within your posts.

"In respect of its effects on the general public, it is the health effects of exposure to the finished product - fluoridated water - that is relevant, and this has been studied exhaustively for over 50 years.

The question of the safety of water fluoridation has been answered to the satisfaction of reputable scientific bodies (examples include the World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association) who are convinced by the evidence from the many studies conducted worldwide over a period of at least 50 years that fluoridated drinking water reduces tooth decay and has no adverse health effects. "

http://www.bfsweb.org/

Just in case you think that is biased.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water/en/index.html

 

then why does this EPA toxicologist call for congress to do epidemiology studies in light of more recent research which indicates that we are getting too much fluoride and that it is causing disease and death? is he one-sided too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLz4a7lDVM&feature=related

 

Lady Of The Freaks,

From what little I have read it appears that there are a number of reputable scientists calling cessation of added flouride to municipal water supplies; simply on the grounds of protecting an individuals right to choice this makes good sense. Do you think the overt response [the illness] could be due to chloramine or other compounds in the water ?

P/L,

23

 

No. But it is one side of the debate.
That was all I am saying.
I've read about this on the very same site that had info about where I live.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm
We also have a debate about ADHD here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7090011.stm
It seems to come back in the news every year or so.

Dr. J. William Hirzy, raised his concerns over a decade ago.
Do we go by 10 year old info?
I'd hope not.

 

i certainly wouldn't say that other toxic chemicals could not exacerbate the illness caused by fluoride, but yes i am certain that my symptoms are caused by fluoride exposure. it's an easy enough thing to put to the test. believe me, when i first learned that fluoride was the culprit, i wasn't happy about it. i didn't want to believe it anymore than anyone else would. but i've proved to myself time and time again that i cannot tolerate fluoride.

 

are you saying that a study that was done ten years ago that indicted fluoride as a disease causing poison is no longer valid? interesting. well, you may be interested to know that the profluoridationists are citing studies a hell of alot older than that to justify continuing fluoridation. really inadequate studies too. studies with serious methodological defects. look into it. it's your life.

 

Pretty much.
If someone had come swinging in here talking about a study done a decade ago that was pro flouride, i'd be saying the same thing to them too.
I have seen people use outdated pro info on this.

 

uh...i didn't come 'swingin in here'. i've been around for awhile, dude.

you do realize that hirzy is a qualified toxicologist who works for the EPA right? in other words, he knows the science (he has a PhD in chemistry for god's sake) and it's his job to protect the american people from exposure to toxic substances. he's just trying to do his job. his work has been ignored by political appointees who run the EPA and make the final decisions, but that makes it no less scientifically valid.

if you're going to be fair about this, you should contact the authorities who have made the decision to fluoridate your water and ask them to quote their sources and make sure the studies they've based their decision on are up to date and methodologically sound.

since you want to see more recent dates, here's an article about a recent Harvard study that links fluoride to cancer. as you can see it lists 14 other studies that have been done over the past six decades that link fluoride to cancer. it's not that the studies haven't been done, and it's not that no recent studies have been done, it's just that the officials ignore any study that does not have a pro-fluoride result.

http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?NewsEntityId=14804

here's studies done in 2007 that link fluoride to problems in the developing brain (read fetuses, babies & young children).

Rocha-Amador D, et al. (2007). Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cadernos de Saude Publica 23(Suppl 4):S579-87.

Wang SX, et al. (2007). Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: children's IQ and growth in Shanyin county, Shanxi province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(4):643-7.

Trivedi MH, et al. (2007). Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence of school children in India. Fluoride 40(3):178-183.

Bera I, et al. (2007). Neurofunctional effects of developmental sodium fluoride exposure in rats. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 11(4):211-24.

Chioca LR, et al. (2007). Subchronic fluoride intake induces impairment in habituation and active avoidance tasks in rats. European Journal of Pharmacology Oct 25; [Epub ahead of print]

Choi A, Grandjean P. (2007). Potentials for developmental fluoride neurotoxicity. XXVII Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research, October 9-12, 2007, Beijing, China.


here's studies done in 2007 that link fluoride to disgnosed arthritis:

Gupta R, et al. (2007). Skeletal fluorosis mimicking seronegative arthritis. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology 36(2):154-5.

Hallanger Johnson JE, et al. (2007). Fluoride-related bone disease associated with habitual tea consumption. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 82(6):719-24.

Whyte MP, et al. (2007). Skeletal Fluorosis from Instant Tea. Presented in part at the 29th Annual Meeting, American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, September 16–19, 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii. (Published online on January 7th, 2008 in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.)


there's a lot more where that came from. the studies keep coming in year after year giving us all valid reasons to question the wisdom of fluoridation. but people who don't want to see them, read them, think about them or even know about them...well, they simply don't.

 

"If someone had come swinging in here talking about a study done a decade ago that was pro flouride, i'd be saying the same thing to them too."

Yes, I know who is.

Where is he now?

2002:
Dr Paul Harrison, acting director of the council's Institute for Environment and Health, Leicester, who chaired the group, said: "There is no reason to think that water fluoridation is responsible for any adverse health effects. But there is a lack of research on some important aspects, which is why we're highlighting the need for more research."

The group found no evidence for associations between fluoridation and other health effects so recommended no specific research, apart from keeping the issues under review.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1169466

Since the 2003 Water Act, water companies are required to add fluoride to supplies when requested—after public consultation—by a health authority in England or the Welsh Assembly in Wales.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/drinking/index.htm
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/335/7622/699

At Severn Trent, we make sure that the most rigorous water quality standards are met. In our region,
99.9% of tap water tested passes the requirements of the UK, EU and other world bodies. The
independent Drinking Water Inspectorate monitors everything. In fact, tests show that drinking water
in our region is amongst the very best in the UK. When you know that UK standards rank alongside
the highest in the world, you get reassurance of just how good our drinking water is, compared with
many holiday destinations.
It’s a record we’re proud of, so we’re working hard to keep it. Our quality inspectors
visit 20,000 homes at random every year to sample and test the water.
We also produce a detailed annual Water Quality Report. Our own results are
checked independently by the Drinking Water Inspectorate, who works as
the Government’s watchdog. Close liaison is also maintained with officials
responsible for public health, particularly the health authorities and local
environmental health departments. It’s worth knowing that some
local health authorities also ask us to add tightly controlled levels
of fluoride to supplies.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach...t+flouride+leicester&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=uk

www.stwater.co.uk.

Thanks for the more current information.

I did not say no questions.
I just said balance.
Perhaps the wrong person to do that.

 

yes, i suppose a person who has already suffered from fluoride poisoning is the wrong person to discuss the supposed 'benefits' of fluoridation with. what is the purpose of spamming my thread with all that crap? are you trying to drown me out? and if so, why?

 

Sorry about that.
I copied and pasted some info but it did not show up.
Clearly it did later several times.

 

Did you scrutinize all the information available at the links you posted here for accuracy and sound methodology, or did you just cut and paste it? Be honest now.

To answer your question, Dr. Hirzy is currently Chemist in Residence & Adjunct Professor of Chemistry, Environmental Protection at American University in Washington, D.C. For 23 years, from 1981 to 2004 he was Senior Scientist, Risk Assessment for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.