Fluoride number one cause of death?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Now we just opened another can of worms about how prescriptions are another poison. It's true the dosage determines toxicity, but poison is generally poison and whatever good it does is not always but often is outweighed by the bad.


Not a beer/wine/liquor drinker?


What does that have to do with it? Are you suggesting that low consumption of alcohol might be beneficial to health while large consumption is poisonous? You might have an argument there, but most people don't drink for health reasons.


But some do!
 
smirk.gif


This thread just keeps giving and giving.
 
Originally Posted By: buickman50401
smirk.gif


This thread just keeps giving and giving.



It sure does, I think I'm going to stop posting on it. Too much tinfoil...
 
Originally Posted By: Big_Kat
Originally Posted By: buickman50401
smirk.gif


This thread just keeps giving and giving.



It sure does, I think I'm going to stop posting on it. Too much tinfoil...


Esoteric translation....sheeple, do not even THINK about other possibilities, especially the one where the so called "experts" are flat out WRONG, as they often times are. Go back to taking that rat poison, drinking that fluoridated water, and watching the mindless sports every night in front of the boob tube.
cool.gif
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: Big_Kat
Originally Posted By: buickman50401
smirk.gif


This thread just keeps giving and giving.



It sure does, I think I'm going to stop posting on it. Too much tinfoil...


Esoteric translation....sheeple, do not even THINK about other possibilities, especially the one where the so called "experts" are flat out WRONG, as they often times are. Go back to taking that rat poison, drinking that fluoridated water, and watching the mindless sports every night in front of the boob tube.
cool.gif



I only watch one sport, NASCAR.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: Big_Kat
Originally Posted By: buickman50401
smirk.gif


This thread just keeps giving and giving.



It sure does, I think I'm going to stop posting on it. Too much tinfoil...


Esoteric translation....sheeple, do not even THINK about other possibilities, especially the one where the so called "experts" are flat out WRONG, as they often times are. Go back to taking that rat poison, drinking that fluoridated water, and watching the mindless sports every night in front of the boob tube.
cool.gif



One I don't watch sports, two switching from well water to city water in the 1950s probably saved my fathers life, and three have any of you looked up the requirements to become a water treatment plant tech? I believe are state requires 6 months of experiences shadowing before you can be certified by the DNR. Also I go back on my stance that the OVERALL LIFE EXPECTANCY in the USA has been rising since the 1960's. GO back to the 16th century and try getting help when you have a stroke, or get a virus.

Give this a read: http://www.oralhealthgroup.com/news/paed...ide/1000118049/


FLUORIDE ACCUMULATION IN THE PLAQUE AND THE BACTERIAL CELL

Dental pellicle is formed as a result of the strong affinity of salivary proteins and glycoproteins for tooth surface. These proteins form a layer of pellicle that is poorly organized and is free of bacteria. Further deposition of salivary constituents, food debris, and inorganic compounds strengthen the structure of dental pellicle. This provides a matrix to which microorganisms become attached and release their products into the resultant meshwork. The resultant porous and non-calcified coating on the tooth surface is known as the dental plaque and it harbors oral microorganisms (Anusavice, 1996; Rose and Turner, 1998).

Fluoride application to the porous matrix of dental plaque results in its accumulation (Tatevossian, 1990; Iwami et al., 1995; Spets-Happonen et al., 1998). It has been demonstrated that after rinsing with a chlorohexidine gluconate-sodium fluoride-strontium (CXFSr) solution twice a day for two weeks, the fluoride and strontium content of the plaque remained high for at least three weeks after completion of rinsing (Spets-Happonen et al., 1998). Plaque fluoride accumulates in two pools. Most of it (95%) exists as bound fluoride either inside the bacterial cells or attached to the matrix of the plaque, whereas the remaining 5% is present in the plaque fluid as a free ion (Fig. 4) (Tatevossian, 1990).

Oral bacteria growing in the presence of fluoride accumulates fluoride (Jenkins and Edgar, 1977). The amount taken up by the cells is proportional to the fluoride level in the external fluid phase. Fluoride accumulation in Mutans streptococci occurs due to a concentration gradient of fluoride across the membrane and does not involve an active transport mechanism (Kashet and Rodriguez, 1976; Whitford et al., 1977).

A decrease in external pH, indicating a more acidic environment, also leads to an increase in fluoride accumulation (Whitford et al., 1977). This leads to the conclusion that fluoride was taken up into the cell as hydrogen fluoride (HF) (Fig. 4). A fall in the extra-cellular pH results in the accumulation of more fluoride by the bacterial cell in an attempt to neutralize the acidic environment. The important relationship between the change of pH and fluoride uptake, is known as "F/pH effect", and has been confirmed by other workers (Eisenberg and Marquis, 1980; Vicaretti et al., 1984; Kashket and Preman, 1985).

Subsequent to the transfer of HF across the membrane into the bacterial cell, the more alkaline intracellular compartment results in the dissociation of HF to fluoride and hydrogen ions (Hamilton, 1990). As a result, the continued influx of fluoride and concomitant build up of intracellular protons (H+) acidifies the cytoplasm (Fig. 4) (Guha-Chowdhury et al., 1997).

EFFECT OF FLUORIDE ON THE HOMEOSTATIC PATHWAYS OF THE CARIOGENIC BACTERIA
Accumulation of intracellular protons reduces the intra-cellular pH below the pH threshold for both catabolic and biosynthetic enzymes (Hamilton, 1986). In this way, therefore, fluoride increases the acquisition of protons by cells and results in a reduction in the tolerance of oral bacteria to growth and metabolism in acidic environments (Bender et al., 1986; Bowden, 1990; Spets-Happonen et al., 1998).


So basically the bacteria up take the fluoride to a higher concentration of fluoride outside the cell, active transport is not needed. This up take in the cell causes a pH change causing the bio-molecular pathways and enzymes to quit working, thus killing the organism.
 
Last edited:
@BigKat:

I wonder who sponsors that site and that "study"?
whistle.gif


Still, that has nothing to do with the INGESTION of fluoridated water. Even if fluoride is marginally effective against bacteria in the mouth causing tooth decay it is NO EXCUSE to be inserting the agent in something that is INGESTED when in fact itIS a poison. This calls for TOPICAL treatment if anything.

Think my man, think for YOURSELF!
 
It was more than one study over several decades... Also the levels of flouride are still higher in mouthwash than in tap water. Even rinsing your mouth with it will lead to some absorbtion via gum and cheek cells.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell


Think my man, think for YOURSELF!





In todays world there many who are incapable of this.
 
Originally Posted By: jcwit
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell


Think my man, think for YOURSELF!





In todays world there many who are incapable of this.


No truer words, I guess the 4 yours of college(biology) and attempting to get into optometry school means jack [censored].
 
Originally Posted By: Big_Kat
It was more than one study over several decades... Also the levels of flouride are still higher in mouthwash than in tap water. Even rinsing your mouth with it will lead to some absorbtion via gum and cheek cells.


In other words it was a meta-analysis? Note I'm not knocking it. Meta-analyses are an excellent way to distill accomplished research in a field.

The DNR requirements for a grade 1 operator your (and my) state are 1year of on the job operating experience under a grade 1 or above before you can even take the test.

Quote:

Grade I High school or GED and one year experience
Grade II High school or GED and three years experience
Grade III Two years post high school education and four years experience
Grade IV Four years post high school education and four years experience with two years of direct responsible charge in a Grade III or IV treatment plant

Experience shall be in the same classification for which the applicant is applying. Substitutions for part of the education and/or experience requirements are available. For details, contact the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Water Supply at (515) 725-028
2.

One continuing education unit (CEU) is required biennially for Grades I and II; two CEUs are required for Grades III and IV.


Originally Posted By: Big_Kat
Originally Posted By: jcwit
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell


Think my man, think for YOURSELF!





In todays world there many who are incapable of this.


No truer words, I guess the 4 yours of college(biology) and attempting to get into optometry school means jack [censored].


Naw. Your definition of thinking for yourself just happens to be different. You like myself I presume look at the data on both sides of the issue and then draw a conclusion keeping an open mind at rhe start of our inquiry. If we went in with already knowing "the truth" we could easily cherry pick as well as ignore the veracity of claims made and come up with "data" to reinforce the conclusion we had already arrived at before begining our inquiry.

I can see how the tinfoil crowd is able to draw their conclusions. The diference being I too can play the follow the money game.

But why should we trust the gov't and the scientists that are in its pockets and the pockets of big business they scream.

Well why should I give any weight to "the truth" as presented by allegedly reliable sources who at best have no peer reviewed research to back up their claims and who are often trying to sell me something be it a book, supplements or magic beans.
 
The study, and Kat's link prove the beneficial effects of topically applied fluoride, not fluorosilicates added to water.

It (and my previous links) demonstrate that topically applied flouride chemically combines with the enamel, and exchanges in and out with saliva chemistry, and as Kat's link points out, a couple of weeks of RINSING, provides weeks of protection...it doesn't state that swallowing the stuff is good, nor that fluoride injections work...if it's systemic, then injections would be the obvious choice of prescribed delivery, just like Vit B injections in the case of a medically prescribed deficiency.

Buickman, you approached the issue with a pre-conceived "If it's there, it's safe, prove me wrong". Pointing out that it's a naturally occurring substance doesn't justify adding it, any more than arsenic is.

You have failed to demonstrate why mass medication is preferable over personal responsibility to use fluoride toothpastes, mouthwashes, and dentist visits...particularly when even the proponents only claim a 20-30% reduction in dental caries...not an absence when in the presence of.

As to open mind, all of my fillings (amalgum), I earned while living in fluoridated water zones, taking oral fluoride suppliments...I've spent the last 20 years living in an area without, and haven't had a cavity.

This area has about 0.7ppm naturally occurring fluoride in the river systems that is about to be fluoridated, when we attend children's parties and watch 2yos dragging around a pint of coke, who make up the statistic of rotten teeth before 5. Our dentist is against adding fluoride to water, but pro cutting down childhood acidic drinks, toothbrushing, fluoride toothpaste, and topical prescribed treatments at the surgery.

My interest in the topic had nothing to do with my tinfoil hat (nor the chainmail one I made years ago), but researching how to make asbestos water pipes last longer in an acidic environment, and stumbled across the fact that fluorosylicates (the preferred, cheaper fluoride that's not HF) stripping the calcium from asbestos cement drinking water pipes, and releasing the fibres into the water.

Before you go off into "asbestos does nothing to the stomach/bowel" strawman (which has yet to be seriously looked at...

Having an advanced understanding of chemistry, you are surely on top of chemical equilibrium, and buffering etc. Introducing more chemical species into a system, requires more equilibrium states, and flowing streams across materials does things like introducing trace elements into water in the first place.

It's also responsible for mobilising other nasties in the water transport system...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17420053

There is water safety, which as I've stated before, is necessary, and there's medication through the water supply, which carries with it unintended consequences, which aren't lab tested (like long term effects on 1960s asbestos and lead based infrastructure)...on an element which works topically in the first place.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow

Buickman, you approached the issue with a pre-conceived "If it's there, it's safe, prove me wrong". Pointing out that it's a naturally occurring substance doesn't justify adding it, any more than arsenic is.

That was not a preconceived notion. I did not arrive at that by reading only one side of the issue and basing my decision on that. Rather it was arrived at many years ago examining both sides of the coin.

Quote:

You have failed to demonstrate why mass medication is preferable over...

Still on that old chestnut? It was never part of the discussion until you decided to try to steer it in that direction. The original discussion was the safety of fluoride.

Quote:
As to open mind, all of my fillings (amalgum), I earned while living in fluoridated water zones, taking oral fluoride suppliments...I've spent the last 20 years living in an area without, and haven't had a cavity.

That's some fantastic correlation you have there. How about your diet and general oral hygiene habits during the time ended up with all of your fillings.

Quote:

on an element which works topically in the first place.

Care to revise that statement?
 
I proudly would wear the "tin foil hat" banner because essentially it means that whether you agree with me or not I
DARE to think outside the cage. Something that many sheeple greatly fear.

Far too few people with the ability to think "critically"
AND "independently".

The "experts" often times are either flat out wrong or are unduly influenced by money.

Even most "experts" do not claim that INGESTION of any fluoride compounds is of ANY benefit to dental health and there are studies that indicate it is detrimental to general health.

I say if it isn't there naturally, it shouldn't be there period. Forgive my "foolhardy" horse sense.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom