This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Fluoride

Jump to new


No need to be rude.
Freedom of choice is overrated. The choice is often wrong. This will be caused by lack of knowledge or will power or money to make the correct decision.
 
Knobby

I agree my comment may have been somewhat rude. Sorry.

I normally restrain myself.
In this instance, my interpretation of the poster was that they were being condescending. I may be wrong.

Your comment:
The choice is often wrong.
Click to expand...


Wrong in whose opinion?

Right and wrong is coloured by the time period you are living in, your culture, society and a myriad of things.

For example, slavery was once legal and acceptable in a variety of countries.
Why was it legal?
My guess is that one major factor for the practice of slavery was that people in power were making money from it.
Just cause it was legal didn't make it right. Or did it ??????

All the best.
_______________________________________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeUz9zoZrc4&feature=related
_______________________________________________________
 
Braceface, I am having a bit of trouble with the credability of your arguement.

You say you have a stong scientific opinion and I can't let some of the flase and misleading claims go by without comment. Hmmm.

You say that fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health issue... and for the greater good.

  1. Isn't it the truth that fluoride is only found on the earths crust in minisqule amounts, that is until industry started mining the earth?

  2. Isn't it the truth that fluoride was originally added to town water supplies in the US via industrial pollution?

  3. Isn't it further the truth that the first study ever done into fluoride in town water supplies was by the US industrial polluters (in the face of law suits) to determine how much fluoride people could tolerate without sustaining obvious damage to peoples health?

  4. Isn't it true that industry scientists were the first to promote the use of fluoride as a protection of young childrens teeth as a means of leaving most of the fluoride toxic waste in the enviornment, particularly finding it's way into water supplies... and to make the opponents appear like quacks and lunitics?

  5. Unlike other elements like chlorine that rise out of boiling water with steam... fluoride concentrates in the remaining water. So we have higher levels of fluoride in any food made from water particularly boiling water and particularly baby foods!

  6. Fluorine is a very volatile substance readily reacting with all but two elements on earth. The salts of fluorine are among the most toxic natural poisons along with arsnic and lead.

  7. Fluoride is polluted into the atmosphere ending up on our crops and in our food and water by numerous industries including coal fired power plants, oil refineries the superphosphate industry, aluminum smelters, zinc smelters, brickworks, ceramic works and steel mills.

  8. Fluoride is a persistent and non-degradable poison that accumulates in soil, plants, wildlife, and humans.

  9. Unlike many other elements fluorine is not essential for any living thing on earth! It is not naturally incorporated in the necessary building blocks of any living thing!

Given the history of fluoride, one good reason why not many doctors or dentists speak out publicly against fluoridation is simply because they rely on the patronage of the pharmacutical industry who rely on other industry. Speak out and risk being blacklisted out of a job.

And conversely many of the strongest advocates of fluoridation are on the payroll or kick-back list of the polluting industries.

What in amongst all those facts, particularly no 9, says fluoridation of the water supply is in the greater public health benefit let alone necessary for good teeth?

I would like to hear you in your responsible 'scientific' hat, agree or dissagree point by point.
 
BraceFace said:
I do not feel that I need to state my qualifications , but my forum nickname might give you a clue.

Julia information on Fluorosis is not part of a secret dentist's club.
Click to expand...
Brace - just remembered another of those Colgate ads ...
"This man is a dentist, so we're not able to show you his face " >>..??

why not? lol

quick quiz .. See if you can pick which of these is the dentist
 

Attachments

  • chad morgan.jpg
    12.8 KB · Views: 170
In Tas, there used to be a lot of fluoride coming out of the Bell Bay smelter. They had (from memory) 2 groups of stacks per line so 6 groups in total. They weren't very high, 20 metres maybe, and had this white smoke coming out 24/7.

The air used to smell somewhat unusual - best way I could describe it is "fresh" but in an artificial, chemically contaminated sense like how laundry powder smells "fresh".

They've since cleaned it up a lot - no visible emissions now and it's all sucked through a massive duct and fan system (about 4.5 MW to run the fans from memory) that was basically built literally on top of the plant and a chemical reaction system to strip it out of the air.

Not sure what they do with what they are recovering. Presumably that's sold for use in water treatment?

Anyway, it caused lots of problems with the bones on cattle in the area. Apparently they go "chalky" with the constant fluoride exposure. That ought to be a warning that it may not be too good for humans either.
 
BraceFace said:
Yes, we also have added Iodine in our table salt to so we don't develop thyroid hormone deficiencies.
Click to expand...
Yes, but we can still choose to purchase salt without added Iodine.
You cannot offer this as a comparable argument to something added to our water supply.
 
Thank you, 2020. Any statements by either the pro fluoride lobby or government can hardly be considered balanced in view of their complete refusal to accept or acknowledge any concerns from citizens about the addition of fluoride to the water supply.

When this was first discussed a couple of years ago, on the advice of my local Council (who were opposed to the addition of fluoride and still are)
I wrote to the Director General of Qld Health. It took three months for them to write back, a basic form letter, saying that they accepted the benefits of fluoride and not the disadvantages. In other words - go jump.

So, thousands of people could write to the government and it would make no difference. Once again the Qld Labor Party takes no account of any public opinion other than that which suits their decisions. Off topic, but, despite a majority of Queenslanders wanting daylight saving, the government has decreed it will not happen. Ah, democracy.
 
BraceFace said:
I do not feel that I need to state my qualifications , but my forum nickname might give you a clue.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Now I know which part of the lobby group you represent.

Julia information on Fluorosis is not part of a secret dentist's club. Just do a google search or even Wikepedia search or go down to your local Medical/Dental library and have a read.
Click to expand...
I have, of course, done this. There is just as much information available which discredits the use of fluoride as that which promotes it.
I have at no stage taken a position on its effectiveness or otherwise in terms of dental health. Selfish creature that I am, I simply do not want to have brown teeth again. And, Braceface, if you say once again that this is merely a "cosmetic" problem I shall feel like doing you an injury such as will require you to seek the assistance of your own profession. It is arrogant of you to assume that rotten looking teeth are of no consequence.

The one firm I have today found who makes reverse osmosis filtration systems in this area seems unclear about whether or not it will remove fluoride. Cost, installed, about $1000. This is an unfair imposition.

Braceface, if you would be so kind, could you please address the question of why so many countries who previously fluoridated their water supply, have now withdrawn it. I don't need to repeat the long list of countries.
Are all these governments being simply uncaring and frivolous?

And one more question: We undoubtedly have a problem with tooth decay.
I would suggest this is at least in part due to the withdrawal of any government dental scheme. i.e. what would happen to the general health of many people should Medicare cease to function? How much undiagnosed hypertension, cancer and many other diseases would kill people rather than as at present being diagnosed in time for remedial action to be taken?

Just as great a problem (in my opinion much greater) as dental health is obesity. What is the government doing to address this?

Hypertension and depression are also of significant proportions.
Should we therefore add anti-hypertensive and anti-depressant drugs to the water supply?
Yes, I have raised these questions before, but you have not chosen to address them. Your comments would be appreciated.
 

Julia,
I mean asking them to remove it (fluoride) seems reasonable to me.
It's not like you are asking them to remove the "chemicals" from recycled water for instance (a la the Toowoomba referendum lol) .

But - in that instance, the council would just accuse you of taking the piss I guess
 
Julia said:
And, Braceface, if you say once again that this is merely a "cosmetic" problem I shall feel like doing you an injury such as will require you to seek the assistance of your own profession.
Click to expand...


:321:

The one firm I have today found who makes reverse osmosis filtration systems in this area seems unclear about whether or not it will remove fluoride. Cost, installed, about $1000. This is an unfair imposition.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.


In the early nineties the EU forced the US to lower the flouride levels from 3ppm to 1ppm in their food exports to the EU. I believe the US exporters are now attempting to absolutely minimise flouride residues to hold the trade.
 
I think you'll find Julia, that in the past, a lot of funding earmarked for Queensland health has been on the condition that they add fluoride. So it's perhaps a movement they've tried to get going for a while.

I prefer to listen to people more informed than me about it. The bro who has a post grad degree in public health doesn't have a problem with fluoride. He says the only real side effect is upset stomachs. The real problem appears to be that authorities are so cautious about adding fluoride, that the levels they add may not actually meet therepeutic levels.

The dad, who is an industrial chemist, has no problem with it and says people would be petrified about a lot of consumables if they actually knew the chemical processes involved.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I'm more worried about the stuff the water picks up along the way through the copper pipes etc. I know I need more iron in my diet, but I'm not sure drinking rust is the right way to go about it.

From a philosophical perspective, anti-fluoridationists are in a bit of a double bind here. Either, they accept that fluoride causes side effects, one of those side-effects being the changing chemistry of teeth make up, lowering the pH dissolverability, plus other things. Or, they argue it does nothing at all.

It doesn't appear to accumulate in soft tissue, only bone. Which apparently isn't an issue so long as your calcium intake is ok. Doesn't mean it doesn't act on mental function though. My anti-dep, prozac has a fluoride compound in it. But this begs the question, how come if Queenslanders don't have fluoride, then *insert generic Queenslander insult*?

Another thing about countries that don't have fluoridisation, they are generally all hard core lefty socialist types. Countries with fluoride are generally apathetic and conservative politically. I'm sure it's a position Julia doesn't want to be in: opposing fluoride, and having wave upon wave of socialist government. :
 
Effects of fluoride poisining - by Geofrey Nochimson, MD, a member of the American College of Emergency Physicians

 
2020hindsight said:
But - in that instance, the council would just accuse you of taking the piss I guess
Click to expand...

Ahahaha!

While we are on the subject of dangerous beverages and such, this is one for you Wayne:


 
wayneL said:
Yes, simply a choice of which incompetent autocracy to make us miserable for the next x years, but I digress...
Click to expand...

i'm with you on the cynicism here wayne, but as far as fluoride goes, it is supported by the australian medical association and the australian dental association. while i have little to no faith in our politicians and bureaucrats, i do at least respect the education, professionalism and opinions of the AMA / ADA. if they recommend this policy then its because the lead board of doctors and dentists in this country think its the best thing for society. accusations of money trails and corruption cast a bad light on these professionals.
 

A formal education will only teach you what is taught by the educators. We should always investigate and think for themselves and not take as absolute what is said by anyone. While the intentions of the educators and professions might be good, often the outcomes can be disastrous. Have a look at the link below of previously accepted medical practices that I imagine would have only stopped because people challenged the common held beliefs of the time. Looking back these things look ridiculous. How many years from now will others look back and think the same about the things we do now.

The 10 Most Insane Medical Practices in History
http://www.cracked.com/article_15669_10-most-insane-medical-practices-in-history.html

This article below shows some statistics from America but I am sure Australia or any other country wouldn't be to different.

http://www.heart-disease-bypass-surgery.com/data/articles/52.htm
This week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.

"This information is a follow-up of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.

The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she describes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

* 12,000 -----unnecessary surgery 8
* 7,000 -----medication errors in hospitals 9
* 20,000 ----other errors in hospitals 10
* 80,000 ----infections in hospitals 10
* 106,000 ---non-error, negative effects of drugs 2

These total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!

What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.

Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting these numbers:

* First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
* Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
* Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.1

If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).

Another analysis 11 concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings, with:

* 116 million extra physician visits
* 77 million extra prescriptions
* 17 million emergency department visits
* 8 million hospitalizations
* 3 million long-term admissions
* 199,000 additional deaths
* $77 billion in extra costs

The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.

However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.

An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.2

This might be tolerated if it resulted in better health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison,3,4 the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the US on several indicators was:

* 13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
* 13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall 14
* 11th for postneonatal mortality
* 13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)
* 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males
* 10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males
* 10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males
* 7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males
* 3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males
* 10th for age-adjusted mortality

The poor performance of the US was recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used different data and ranked the United States as 15th among 25 industrialized countries."


"These estimates of death due to error are lower than those in a recent Institutes of Medicine report, and if the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.

Even at the lower estimate of 225,000 deaths per year, this constitutes the third leading cause of death in the US, following heart disease and cancer.

Lack of technology is certainly not a contributing factor to the US's low ranking.

* Among 29 countries, the United States is second only to Japan in the availability of magnetic resonance imaging units and computed tomography scanners per million population. 17
* Japan, however, ranks highest on health, whereas the US ranks among the lowest.
* It is possible that the high use of technology in Japan is limited to diagnostic technology not matched by high rates of treatment, whereas in the US, high use of diagnostic technology may be linked to more treatment.
* Supporting this possibility are data showing that the number of employees per bed (full-time equivalents) in the United States is highest among the countries ranked, whereas they are very low in Japan, far lower than can be accounted for by the common practice of having family members rather than hospital staff provide the amenities of hospital care.

Journal American Medical Association Vol 284 July 26, 2000

COMMENT: Folks, this is what they call a "Landmark Article". Only several ones like this are published every year. One of the major reasons it is so huge as that it is published in JAMA which is the largest and one of the most respected medical journals in the entire world. I did find it most curious that the best wire service in the world, Reuter's, did not pick up this article. I have no idea why they let it slip by.

I would encourage you to bookmark this article and review it several times so you can use the statistics to counter the arguments of your friends and relatives who are so enthralled with the traditional medical paradigm. These statistics prove very clearly that the system is just not working. It is broken and is in desperate need of repair.

I was previously fond of saying that drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in this country. However, this article makes it quite clear that the more powerful number is that doctors are the third leading cause of death in this country killing nearly a quarter million people a year. The only more common causes are cancer and heart disease. This statistic is likely to be seriously underestimated as much of the coding only describes the cause of organ failure and does not address iatrogenic causes at all.

Japan seems to have benefited from recognizing that technology is wonderful, but just because you diagnose something with it, one should not be committed to undergoing treatment in the traditional paradigm. Their health statistics reflect this aspect of their philosophy as much of their treatment is not treatment at all, but loving care rendered in the home.

Care, not treatment, is the answer. Drugs, surgery and hospitals are rarely the answer to chronic health problems. Facilitating the God-given healing capacity that all of us have is the key. Improving the diet, exercise, and lifestyle are basic. Effective interventions for the underlying emotional and spiritual wounding behind most chronic illness are also important clues to maximizing health and reducing disease."


Author/Article Information
Author Affiliation: Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Md. Corresponding Author and Reprints: Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Room 452, Baltimore, MD 21205-1996 (e-mail: bstarfie@jhsph.edu).
 
The ADA also has no problem with people getting a mouth full of Mercury Fillings that many people have to get rid of years later.

And the AMA has no problem with Vaccines that have Mercury and Formaldehyde in them.

Here's a web site with some of the lovely ingredients found in Vaccines:

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/ingredie.html

Me personally, I'm not going to get anymore vaccines, half the time the Vaccine infects you with the disease which then causes an outbreak anyway.

If I did get one of the diseases which is highly unlikely if you are on a Raw Food Diet and getting proper nutrition, I'd hit it with Dr Schulzes Plague Tonic. I hade a sore troat the other day, I gulped down some of his Plague Tonic which I made myself and the sore troat was gone within a couple of hours.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Deception: use + abuse of information by governments + terrorists
Replies
2
Views
5K
reichstag911
R
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
R
New York Times GOLD article
Replies
3
Views
9K
Mofra
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...