Fluoride - WOW!
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
Fluoride is used as a pesticide. It is a byproduct of phosphate ore. It has been added to water for many, many years as a means to get rid of a growing problem of disposal of the toxic waste stream.
It will cause problems. Some problems related to FLUORIDE:
1. Skeletal fluorosis.
2. Discoloration of teeth.
3. Nerve damage.
4. Gastrointestinal damage.
Causes many other issues. As mentioned it is a very good pesticide, and has been used in fertilizer for that purpose. It would be best for you and your family to limit your amounts of intake of the substance. Of course you will have those that disagree with this. I welcome them to do the research.
It will cause problems. Some problems related to FLUORIDE:
1. Skeletal fluorosis.
2. Discoloration of teeth.
3. Nerve damage.
4. Gastrointestinal damage.
Causes many other issues. As mentioned it is a very good pesticide, and has been used in fertilizer for that purpose. It would be best for you and your family to limit your amounts of intake of the substance. Of course you will have those that disagree with this. I welcome them to do the research.
Hi all,
I believe to recall that fluoride may not only lower the IQ in children, but it may have also shown to shrink the testes in adult males.
To crinkles: You claim to be content as long as the allowed maximum level of water contamination is not exceeded. Please ask yourself who sets these limits based on what factors. Consider there are other contaminants in drinking water. The effect of multiple contaminants is compounded. Keep also in mind that water is only one source of the contaminants that you ingest.
Cheers,
-J
I believe to recall that fluoride may not only lower the IQ in children, but it may have also shown to shrink the testes in adult males.
To crinkles: You claim to be content as long as the allowed maximum level of water contamination is not exceeded. Please ask yourself who sets these limits based on what factors. Consider there are other contaminants in drinking water. The effect of multiple contaminants is compounded. Keep also in mind that water is only one source of the contaminants that you ingest.
Cheers,
-J
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
What am I supposed to do? The water in many parts of Colorado Springs is naturally fluoridated. OH NO!
Well what is the concentration?
.2 mg/L
Thankfully our city council voted not to artificially fluoridate water. It's about the only good decision they've made.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
What am I supposed to do? The water in many parts of Colorado Springs is naturally fluoridated. OH NO!
Well what is the concentration?
.2 mg/L
Thankfully our city council voted not to artificially fluoridate water. It's about the only good decision they've made.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
What am I supposed to do? The water in many parts of Colorado Springs is naturally fluoridated. OH NO!
Well what is the concentration?
.2 mg/L
Hi Drew,
0.2 mg is 20 times the 0.01 mg fluoride per day limit the FDA sets for babies up to an age of 6 months. That means a baby could drink "safely" 1.7 oz of your tap water.
How much fluoride do you ingest when looking at your total daily food intake?
Cheers,
-J
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
What am I supposed to do? The water in many parts of Colorado Springs is naturally fluoridated. OH NO!
Well what is the concentration?
.2 mg/L
Hi Drew,
0.2 mg is 20 times the 0.01 mg fluoride per day limit the FDA sets for babies up to an age of 6 months. That means a baby could drink "safely" 1.7 oz of your tap water.
How much fluoride do you ingest when looking at your total daily food intake?
Cheers,
-J
Originally Posted By: Amkeer
Fluoride is used as a pesticide. It is a byproduct of phosphate ore. It has been added to water for many, many years as a means to get rid of a growing problem of disposal of the toxic waste stream.
"Disposal of the toxic waste stream" sounds like a good thing to me. Turning a waste product into something useful should be encouraged, not discouraged. Of course, dosage is the major concern here, but it seems unlikely that many adults would exceed it from what I've read. I would keep babies away from it though.
Quote:
1. Skeletal fluorosis.
From Wikipedia: Symptomatic skeletal fluorosis is almost unknown in the U.S., with about a dozen cases reported.
Doesn't sound like a modern-day scourge.
Fluoride is used as a pesticide. It is a byproduct of phosphate ore. It has been added to water for many, many years as a means to get rid of a growing problem of disposal of the toxic waste stream.
"Disposal of the toxic waste stream" sounds like a good thing to me. Turning a waste product into something useful should be encouraged, not discouraged. Of course, dosage is the major concern here, but it seems unlikely that many adults would exceed it from what I've read. I would keep babies away from it though.
Quote:
1. Skeletal fluorosis.
From Wikipedia: Symptomatic skeletal fluorosis is almost unknown in the U.S., with about a dozen cases reported.
Doesn't sound like a modern-day scourge.
Quote:
Turning a waste product into something useful should be encouraged, not discouraged.
Sure, as long as it actually does something positive. It's interesting how no positive studies have been posted yet.
Turning a waste product into something useful should be encouraged, not discouraged.
Sure, as long as it actually does something positive. It's interesting how no positive studies have been posted yet.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Lots of Bottled water and the big jugs you can buy for dispensing machines contain 0% fluoride at least up here they do so you could do that.
0% = < 0.5% = < 5000 PPM, could be as high as 4999 PPM.
Fluoride levels in drinking water is 0.6 PPM to 1.2 PPM.
If you put it in % then all drinking water is 0%.
Lots of Bottled water and the big jugs you can buy for dispensing machines contain 0% fluoride at least up here they do so you could do that.
0% = < 0.5% = < 5000 PPM, could be as high as 4999 PPM.
Fluoride levels in drinking water is 0.6 PPM to 1.2 PPM.
If you put it in % then all drinking water is 0%.
I wonder if that is just a U.S. allowable to call it 0 and if it's the same up here...
Originally Posted By: crinkles
no you see it must be a conspiracy to poison us all progressively so we can cost them 1,000,000 more in health care and burdening than the flouride did.
Hi crinkles,
Certain you are aware that you, the taxpayer, is paying for healthcare, whether it is socialized, private, or else. To be blunt, who exactly will profit from turning you into a future patient?
Cheers,
-J
no you see it must be a conspiracy to poison us all progressively so we can cost them 1,000,000 more in health care and burdening than the flouride did.
Hi crinkles,
Certain you are aware that you, the taxpayer, is paying for healthcare, whether it is socialized, private, or else. To be blunt, who exactly will profit from turning you into a future patient?
Cheers,
-J
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Lots of Bottled water and the big jugs you can buy for dispensing machines contain 0% fluoride at least up here they do so you could do that.
0% = < 0.5% = < 5000 PPM, could be as high as 4999 PPM.
Fluoride levels in drinking water is 0.6 PPM to 1.2 PPM.
If you put it in % then all drinking water is 0%.
I would imagine they actually report 0 ppm, not 0%. So it's probably allowed to actually be up to 0.5 ppm and report "0". But I'd be interested to see if any actually do say 0%.
I'm neither an apologist nor naysayer on this. I encourage everyone to get informed. But I'm a chemist. Chemicals don't scare me, in the proper dosage. Don't eat toothpaste... too much fluoride. But I'm not worried about 1 ppm in my water.
(Though actually this thread prompted me to check and our tap water apparently isn't fluoridated. Hooray?)
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Lots of Bottled water and the big jugs you can buy for dispensing machines contain 0% fluoride at least up here they do so you could do that.
0% = < 0.5% = < 5000 PPM, could be as high as 4999 PPM.
Fluoride levels in drinking water is 0.6 PPM to 1.2 PPM.
If you put it in % then all drinking water is 0%.
I would imagine they actually report 0 ppm, not 0%. So it's probably allowed to actually be up to 0.5 ppm and report "0". But I'd be interested to see if any actually do say 0%.
I'm neither an apologist nor naysayer on this. I encourage everyone to get informed. But I'm a chemist. Chemicals don't scare me, in the proper dosage. Don't eat toothpaste... too much fluoride. But I'm not worried about 1 ppm in my water.
(Though actually this thread prompted me to check and our tap water apparently isn't fluoridated. Hooray?)
Originally Posted By: StevieC
After the filtration and the R.O. unit I know there is nothing in the water. I have a test from the local lab to prove it.
Go poke the bees nest somewhere else.
If you're still using reverse osmosis filtration for drinking water, perhaps you should reconsider:
http://www.historyofwaterfilters.com/reverse-osmosis-pc.html
Quote:
Reverse Osmosis - Pros and Cons
The semi-permeable membrane used in reverse osmosis contains tiny pores through which water can flow. The small pores of this membrane are restrictive to such organic compounds as salt and other natural minerals, which generally have a larger molecular composition than water. These pores are also restrictive to bacteria and disease-causing pathogens. Thus, reverse osmosis is incredibly effective at desalinating water and providing mineral-free water for use in photo or print shops. It is also effective at providing pathogen-free water. In areas not receiving municipally treated water or at particular risk of waterborne diseases, reverse osmosis is an ideal process of contaminant removal.
The reverse osmosis process contains several downsides which make it an inefficient and ineffective means of purifying drinking water. The small pores in the membrane block particles of large molecular structure like salt, but more dangerous chemicals like pesticides, herbicides, and chlorine are molecularly smaller than water (Binnie et al, 2002). These chemicals can freely pass through the porous membrane. For this reason, a carbon filter must be used as a complimentary measure to provide safe drinking water from the reverse osmosis process. Such chemicals are the major contaminants of drinking water after municipal treatment.
Another downside to reverse osmosis as a method of purifying drinking water is the removal of healthy, naturally occurring minerals in water. The membrane of a reverse osmosis system is impermeable to natural trace minerals. These minerals not only provide a good taste to water, but they also serve a vital function in the body’s system. Water, when stripped of these trace minerals, can actually be unhealthy for the body.
Reverse osmosis also wastes a large portion of the water that runs through its system. It generally wastes two to three gallons of water for every gallon of purified water it produces. Reverse osmosis is also an incredibly slow process when compared to other water treatment alternatives.
BTW, to keep this response on-topic, I thought news report is questionable.
After the filtration and the R.O. unit I know there is nothing in the water. I have a test from the local lab to prove it.
Go poke the bees nest somewhere else.
If you're still using reverse osmosis filtration for drinking water, perhaps you should reconsider:
http://www.historyofwaterfilters.com/reverse-osmosis-pc.html
Quote:
Reverse Osmosis - Pros and Cons
The semi-permeable membrane used in reverse osmosis contains tiny pores through which water can flow. The small pores of this membrane are restrictive to such organic compounds as salt and other natural minerals, which generally have a larger molecular composition than water. These pores are also restrictive to bacteria and disease-causing pathogens. Thus, reverse osmosis is incredibly effective at desalinating water and providing mineral-free water for use in photo or print shops. It is also effective at providing pathogen-free water. In areas not receiving municipally treated water or at particular risk of waterborne diseases, reverse osmosis is an ideal process of contaminant removal.
The reverse osmosis process contains several downsides which make it an inefficient and ineffective means of purifying drinking water. The small pores in the membrane block particles of large molecular structure like salt, but more dangerous chemicals like pesticides, herbicides, and chlorine are molecularly smaller than water (Binnie et al, 2002). These chemicals can freely pass through the porous membrane. For this reason, a carbon filter must be used as a complimentary measure to provide safe drinking water from the reverse osmosis process. Such chemicals are the major contaminants of drinking water after municipal treatment.
Another downside to reverse osmosis as a method of purifying drinking water is the removal of healthy, naturally occurring minerals in water. The membrane of a reverse osmosis system is impermeable to natural trace minerals. These minerals not only provide a good taste to water, but they also serve a vital function in the body’s system. Water, when stripped of these trace minerals, can actually be unhealthy for the body.
Reverse osmosis also wastes a large portion of the water that runs through its system. It generally wastes two to three gallons of water for every gallon of purified water it produces. Reverse osmosis is also an incredibly slow process when compared to other water treatment alternatives.
BTW, to keep this response on-topic, I thought news report is questionable.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
I wonder if that is just a U.S. allowable to call it 0 and if it's the same up here...
Bottled water is technically a food product which actually allows for far more chemicals in higher concentrations than municipal tap water... It also gets tested far less often or maybe not at all for what's actually in it, in terms of trace chemicals, than municipal water.
I wonder if that is just a U.S. allowable to call it 0 and if it's the same up here...
Bottled water is technically a food product which actually allows for far more chemicals in higher concentrations than municipal tap water... It also gets tested far less often or maybe not at all for what's actually in it, in terms of trace chemicals, than municipal water.
Originally Posted By: crinkles
no you see it must be a conspiracy to poison us all progressively so we can cost them 1,000,000 more in health care and burdening than the flouride did.
I'm not talking a conspiracy.
I really would like to known why people WANT others tampering with their (and my) water, when as you've quite rightly pointed out, there's way higher levels in toothpastes, and in toothpaste, they are applied topically, where they do benefit.
Medication is usually supplied in a doseage.
In water, it's not.
Like folate in bread, my children are recieving 3-4 times the dose per slice of my Mrs and I.
As to diseases that were abolished decades ago, check out the rate of rickets in NSW, due to people following the sun-dumb message
no you see it must be a conspiracy to poison us all progressively so we can cost them 1,000,000 more in health care and burdening than the flouride did.
I'm not talking a conspiracy.
I really would like to known why people WANT others tampering with their (and my) water, when as you've quite rightly pointed out, there's way higher levels in toothpastes, and in toothpaste, they are applied topically, where they do benefit.
Medication is usually supplied in a doseage.
In water, it's not.
Like folate in bread, my children are recieving 3-4 times the dose per slice of my Mrs and I.
As to diseases that were abolished decades ago, check out the rate of rickets in NSW, due to people following the sun-dumb message
Originally Posted By: Vilan
Originally Posted By: Amkeer
Fluoride is used as a pesticide. It is a byproduct of phosphate ore. It has been added to water for many, many years as a means to get rid of a growing problem of disposal of the toxic waste stream.
"Disposal of the toxic waste stream" sounds like a good thing to me. Turning a waste product into something useful should be encouraged, not discouraged. Of course, dosage is the major concern here, but it seems unlikely that many adults would exceed it from what I've read. I would keep babies away from it though.
How could adding toxic waste to municipal drinking water sources be a good thing? There is a reason why it is TOXIC.
Quote:
1. Skeletal fluorosis.
From Wikipedia: Symptomatic skeletal fluorosis is almost unknown in the U.S., with about a dozen cases reported.
Doesn't sound like a modern-day scourge.
Actually, if you do the research you will find the modern day term is Rheumatoid Arthritis. I would so Rheumatism is a little more than unknown.
Originally Posted By: Amkeer
Fluoride is used as a pesticide. It is a byproduct of phosphate ore. It has been added to water for many, many years as a means to get rid of a growing problem of disposal of the toxic waste stream.
"Disposal of the toxic waste stream" sounds like a good thing to me. Turning a waste product into something useful should be encouraged, not discouraged. Of course, dosage is the major concern here, but it seems unlikely that many adults would exceed it from what I've read. I would keep babies away from it though.
How could adding toxic waste to municipal drinking water sources be a good thing? There is a reason why it is TOXIC.
Quote:
1. Skeletal fluorosis.
From Wikipedia: Symptomatic skeletal fluorosis is almost unknown in the U.S., with about a dozen cases reported.
Doesn't sound like a modern-day scourge.
Actually, if you do the research you will find the modern day term is Rheumatoid Arthritis. I would so Rheumatism is a little more than unknown.
- Status
