ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Closed Thread
Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 160
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    13,064
    Thanks
    9,846
    Thanked
    12,967
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week

    Default Fluoride in tap water

    Steve I don't mean to be rude but there ms a lot of "umms", "ifs", "not sure" & "maybes" in your post so I stopped reading.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to VicPark For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (26-02-2013)

  3. #82
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,005
    Thanks
    1,052
    Thanked
    3,525
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts

    Default Fluoride in tap water

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve533 View Post
    [SIZE=2]
    kezanazz, I am here to warn people about fluoride, but I'm not a troll. I think some people here are probably wondering what you and Atropos are doing on this forum, given that you are saying they and their children should continue to be forcibly poisoned.
    Ummm, melodramatic much? And no, none of us wonder why they are here.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kw123 For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (26-02-2013),kezanazz  (27-02-2013)

  5. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,800
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts

    Default Fluoride in tap water

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve533 View Post
    Little Smile, the "fluoride" which is used for artificial water fluoridation has always been toxic industrial waste. It's true that there has been a shift from sodium fluoride to silicofluorides, though sodium fluoride is still used in some places, but not South Australia according to the government. I'm not aware of sodium fluoride being used currently in Australia, but I can't rule it out. My understanding is that the sodium fluoride comes from alumina refineries, whereas silicofluorides come from phosphate fertiliser factories. I don't know why sodium fluoride is used less these days, but maybe as fluoridation became more common there wasn't enough to go around. Apparently some of the toxic waste which is used in Australia and the US is imported from China. Phosphate rock mining and processing in Florida is not as big as it used to be. I think Australia is the most fluoridated country in the world, with the possible exception of Singapore. Fluoridation is also prevalent in Ireland, the US, Canada, and New Zealand. Approximately 10% of the populations of the UK and Spain receive fluoridated water, but Europe is 97% free of fluoridation. It is also not practised in Japan or most of the rest of the world. About 350 million people worldwide have fluoridated water, which is about 5% of the world's population.
     

    "SA Water uses high quality hydrofluorosilicic acid purchased from a certified and accredited company to fluoridate drinking water supplies."
    http://www.health.sa.gov.au/pehs/fluoridation-facts.htm
    The claim of "high quality" is meaningless PR. If it actually had a high level of purity, they would say that it's reagent grade or pharmaceutical grade, and provide test results. No doubt it's just the same toxic industrial waste contaminated with arsenic and other toxins which is used everywhere else.
     

    kezanazz, I am here to warn people about fluoride, but I'm not a troll. I think some people here are probably wondering what you and Atropos are doing on this forum, given that you are saying they and their children should continue to be forcibly poisoned.
     

    Atropos, fluoride is a parenting issue. The first thing I did on this forum was to start a thread on fluoride and babies. The NRC report I have referred to contains information about how children are a group at higher risk of fluoride toxicity. If anyone wants to ask me a question about the effect of fluoridation on them or their children, they can do so. You have still not provided a single study which demonstrates that fluoridation is safe, despite claiming that there are numerous such studies.

    Your claim that "You can opt out at any time" is extremely arrogant. Reverse osmosis filters cost around $300 or more, and then there's the ongoing cost of replacing spent filter cartridges. They produce filtered water quite slowly, which is not very convenient, and they aren't suitable as shower filters. As I've already said, studies have not been done on the rate of fluoride absorption through skin. They also don't filter out all of the fluoride or other toxins. 95% fluoride removal is the best you're likely to get. Then there's the contamination of processed foods and drinks, food cooked in restaurants or other people's homes, food grown using fluoridated water, and the natural environment. You claim that "The fact remains that it has been shown to be safe and beneficial", but that isn't a fact, it's a lie. The fact is that fluoridation is dangerous and useless, and most of the rest of the world realised that a long time ago. I had already read some of the NHMRC report before I joined this forum. To mention just a couple of things, it tries to give the impression that the reduction in the rate of dental cavities during the period of fluoridation in Australia proves the beneficial effect of fluoridation, which is a blatant non sequitur, and it claims that toxic waste is not used, which is a lie. You claim that the other link is "CSIRO on fluoride", but the article doesn't look like it was written by anyone from the CSIRO. It's in the New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, and there is no mention of the CSIRO. I haven't found any evidence anywhere that the CSIRO supports fluoridation. Anyhow, that article is a laughable two-page puff piece from 20 years ago.
    You can buy a 4 stage reverse osmosis filter on eBay for $99 so it's hardly unattainable.

    The study I linked earlier here: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/eh41a shows the safety and efficacy of fluoride in water and was done in 2007- not twenty years ago. But apparently that's propaganda. You are yet to explain WHY a government would put fluoride in water if its so terrible? Can you answer that? Because you've evaded it each time I've asked.

    I actually find it supremely arrogant to come onto a parenting forum and tell parents and pregnant mums they are poisoning there families by using tap water. Especially with nothing but a handful of conspiracies to back you up.

  6. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    16
    Reviews
    0
    VicPark, there are plenty of hard facts in my last post and in previous posts, but I'm not going to pretend I'm sure about something I'm not sure about. Apparently you prefer the invented "facts" which are confidently proclaimed by proponents of fluoridation.

    kw123, no, it's not melodramatic, and you wouldn't be saying that if you knew more about the subject. I suggest you have a look at the work Irish environmental scientist Declan Waugh has been doing recently, and the Fluoride Action Network website, for a start. Did you see the abstract I posted earlier about the arsenic which comes with the silicofluorides which are used for fluoridation, and its carcinogenicity? Silicofluorides have also been found to increase the uptake of lead. Fluoride itself has been linked to a huge range of health problems, including cancer, heart disease, dental fluorosis, arthritis and other musculoskeletal disorders, lowered IQ, ADHD, and other neurological disorders, hypothyroidism, infertility, miscarriages, SIDS, obesity, diabetes, chronic fatigue, depression, insomnia, gastrointestinal disorders, skin disorders, asthma, allergies, gum disease, and mouth ulcers. Some of these are at epidemic levels in Australia and other countries with high rates of fluoridation, and the health authorities don't have any answers.

    Atropos, the "4 stage reverse osmosis filter on eBay for $99" may not actually be a reverse osmosis filter. If it is, it's unlikely to be good quality. Evidently your standards for products are not any higher than your standards for information. You have also ignored the impossibility of completely avoiding fluoridation chemicals without moving to an unfluoridated area. Even then, it can be difficult. The NHMRC report does not and cannot show the safety and efficacy of fluoride in water, because no high quality study has ever shown that fluoridation is either safe or effective. Pharmaceutical drugs are routinely required to undergo large-scale randomised controlled trials before they are put on the market. 68 years after people were first forced to consume toxic industrial "fluoride" waste, which has since been imposed on hundreds of millions of people, no such trial has ever been conducted on fluoridation chemicals. That fact alone is enough to set off alarm bells in the minds of those with an understanding of medical science.

    Your incredulity that a government would do anything terrible shows a remarkable degree of political naivete and historical ignorance. Fluoridation is not the only terrible thing the Australian government has done. Australia has one of the world's highest rates of greenhouse gas emissions, despite having abundant renewable energy resources. Our current government pretends it is tackling climate change, while shipping out as much coal as it can. Incidentally, coal burning is a significant source of fluoride air pollution. The invasion of Iraq was illegal and based on a lie. Locking up refugees is illegal and inhuman. I don't have any inside information, and I'm not a mind reader, so I don't know exactly what the politicians were thinking in each case. I can put together plausible explanations in each case, but what difference does it make? Politicians act on incomplete information, depend on corporate donations to fund their election campaigns, don't like to admit their mistakes, and are sometimes influenced by public opinion, which is influenced by the corporate media, so it isn't difficult to understand how things can sometimes go very wrong. There is also excessive American influence in Australia. I have already said that if someone wants to better understand the politics and history of fluoridation, they should read The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson and watch the interview with John Colquhoun.

    You are making things up when you say that I am telling parents and pregnant mums they are poisoning their families by using tap water. It isn't parents and pregnant mums who are guilty, it's politicians, professional fluoridationists, and any corporate interests which are pushing fluoridation behind the scenes. I would have thought that was obvious. I recently communicated with a woman whose young son has only one kidney. People with impaired kidney function are at higher risk of fluoride toxicity, because fluoride is excreted predominantly through the kidneys. Her son's health has been badly affected by fluoridation, but I don't think she is a bad mother. She actually worked out what was happening much more quickly than what it took me to identify my problem with fluoride. When she asked, I just did what I could to help her and her son understand the situation a bit better.

    Your reference to "a handful of conspiracies" is more make-believe. You probably think that my reference to corporations indicates a conspiracy theory, but it's really just the way the system operates. Politicians are continually lobbied, and some of the lobbyists represent powerful interests. That isn't a secret, and everyone who is paying attention is well aware of it. I don't think fluoridation is a plot to make people obedient or to depopulate the world, or anything like that. It's just another case of greed and criminal negligence.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Steve533 For This Useful Post:

    Hootenanny  (01-03-2013),Phony  (28-02-2013),spoon  (07-03-2013)

  8. #85
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    13,064
    Thanks
    9,846
    Thanked
    12,967
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    I read the first few sentences then couldn't bring myself to continue.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VicPark For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (27-02-2013),kezanazz  (27-02-2013),Mod-DJ Nette  (27-02-2013)

  10. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,800
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Condescension doesn't win people to your cause, neither do gross assumptions. You still have yet to explain why the government want to apparently poison us- surely this would place a massive burden on the health system- which is government funded. Sorry, Steve, your arguments are not making sense. If you don't want an eBay filter, don't buy one. The option is there for those that do, you should actually go and read up on them before telling people they are "probably" no good. Or, wait, is it because you sell the $300 ones??
    Last edited by Atropos; 27-02-2013 at 05:47.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    kezanazz  (27-02-2013),Mod-DJ Nette  (27-02-2013)

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    16
    Reviews
    0
    Atropos, your whole post is sheer fantasy. Firstly, I have never said that "the government want to apparently poison us", as you put it. I have already said that most politicians probably don't understand what they are doing with respect to fluoridation. Not everyone suffers under the illusion that politicians are Gods who know the consequences of all of their decisions. There is very good reason to believe that fluoridation does place a very large burden on the health system, but even if politicians did realise that, what makes you think they would necessarily care very much about it? Is it news to you that the money for the public health system comes from taxpayers, not the pockets of politicians? I'm not going to buy an eBay filter because I already have a filter, which I bought years ago. Reading up on a filter isn't going to do you much good if what you receive isn't what was advertised. And no, I don't sell the $300 ones, or anything else. As I recall, it was you who brought up the whole subject of water filters. $300 is actually the low end of the price range, and you can pay much more than that. I have researched the subject, which is how I know that a $99 "reverse osmosis" filter is likely to be dodgy.

    You are clearly trying to avoid the real issue, which is your complete failure to back up your claim that there are numerous studies which demonstrate the safety and efficacy of fluoridation.

    If anyone suspects they are suffering from the effects of fluoride, apart from reducing your exposure you could have a look at the book Fluoride Fatigue by Bruce Spittle, which can be downloaded for free at the Fluoride journal website. Also, AK Susheela is an author of scientific papers to look out for, because AFAIK she is the world's top expert on diagnosing and treating fluoride toxicity.
    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/ISFR/files/ISFR.htm

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Steve533 For This Useful Post:

    spoon  (07-03-2013)

  14. #88
    Pegasus's Avatar
    Pegasus is offline and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,650
    Thanks
    1,738
    Thanked
    1,738
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    I hadn't been reading this thread as I live in Western Australia, and so have never experienced any drinking water without flouride (except for when travelling interstate or when I lived in the NT for two years).

    Apparently the levels in Western Australian drinking water are between 0.7 and 0.9mg/L and the safe levels are deemed to be below 1.0mg/L

    I've never heard of any problems ever (and my age is in my signature) of issues with flouride in Western Australian drinking water. In fact, I believe the statistics show a lower level of caries in Western Australian children when compared to children of other states.

    I can't seen a reason (if the same levels are adhered to) that flouride is not added to drinking water.

  15. #89
    Pegasus's Avatar
    Pegasus is offline and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,650
    Thanks
    1,738
    Thanked
    1,738
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    I've just read back through other posts, and am wondering now regarding peoples seeming fear of additives to our water supply.

    Adding flouride is not mass medicating people. Flouride is not a medication. It's a chemical element. Of course to be added to water, it is in a compound form (like NaFl (sodium Flouride))

    Adding chlorine to water does not add a smell. It is sanitising it. When you smell "chlorine" at a local pool - it is not the chlorine - it is ammonia breaking down. Chlorine is odourless.

    I shudder to wonder at the bacteria which would be present in water which has not had chlorine added at some point of it's treatment. (on this point, I'm interested in reading more about the water supply where a pp wrote that they'd only had chlorine added since 2010 - I suspect they used another chemical to sanitise it prior to this, and would be interested to know what it was).

    Unless you have gone to a freely running stream and retrieved your water from there, or you have had a completely clean receptacle to retrieve rain water directly from the clouds, you most likely need some sort of water treatment to keep it free from bacteria. (I'm not saying flouride treats water from bacteria), just that there seems to be a lot of people worried about chemicals in their water which are actually required chemicals to treat it to make it safe to drink.

    People who are not on scheme water, deal with their water in different ways, so I'm not including them in this post. How they deal with their water would be completely different, but when you have water running into dams, which have had animals drink from, defacate in, plants grow in etc, then to run through pipes which are years and years old, the water needs treatment - here I'm talking about people on scheme water.

    Chemicals are all around us. We breathe Nitrogen and Oxygen everyday and exhale Carbon Dioxide.

    All chemicals are harmful in large doses, but we do not need to be afraid of chemicals. We need chemicals to survive.

    I've now read more since my previous post re: caries and flouride not necessarily decreasing the levels of caries in adults, however, by the time we reach adulthood, I think there are too many outside variants. Such as the fact that I drink (on top of about 3 or so litres of tap water a day) a lot of carbonated drink (about a litre a day). So I don't think that comparing adult levels of caries carries as much weight as comparing childhood caries.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Pegasus For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (28-02-2013),kezanazz  (28-02-2013),LifeInShadesOfGrey  (28-02-2013),yvona  (08-08-2013)

  17. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,800
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve533 View Post
    Atropos, your whole post is sheer fantasy. Firstly, I have never said that "the government want to apparently poison us", as you put it. I have already said that most politicians probably don't understand what they are doing with respect to fluoridation. Not everyone suffers under the illusion that politicians are Gods who know the consequences of all of their decisions. There is very good reason to believe that fluoridation does place a very large burden on the health system, but even if politicians did realise that, what makes you think they would necessarily care very much about it? Is it news to you that the money for the public health system comes from taxpayers, not the pockets of politicians? I'm not going to buy an eBay filter because I already have a filter, which I bought years ago. Reading up on a filter isn't going to do you much good if what you receive isn't what was advertised. And no, I don't sell the $300 ones, or anything else. As I recall, it was you who brought up the whole subject of water filters. $300 is actually the low end of the price range, and you can pay much more than that. I have researched the subject, which is how I know that a $99 "reverse osmosis" filter is likely to be dodgy.

    You are clearly trying to avoid the real issue, which is your complete failure to back up your claim that there are numerous studies which demonstrate the safety and efficacy of fluoridation.

    If anyone suspects they are suffering from the effects of fluoride, apart from reducing your exposure you could have a look at the book Fluoride Fatigue by Bruce Spittle, which can be downloaded for free at the Fluoride journal website. Also, AK Susheela is an author of scientific papers to look out for, because AFAIK she is the world's top expert on diagnosing and treating fluoride toxicity.
    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/ISFR/files/ISFR.htm
    Your whole post is sheer condescension. Again. I'm not a moron. I know where the governments money comes from!! Why would the government care? Um, because, according to you, they are spending money on fluoride to poison our water which then costs them more money in the health system. This makes no logical sense. If there were as much evidence to support your argument as you hint at, things would be changing. No government wants to be seen to be throwing money away or poisoning its citizens! Where exactly did I say politicians were godlike? Oh, that's right, I did not. Please stop attempting to twist my words or put words in my mouth, it's tiresome.
    Where is YOUR evidence that fluoride places a burden on the health system? Where is YOUR evidence that fluoride does any harm other than dental fluorosis- by evidence I mean peer reviewed evidence such as that accepted by respected bodies like the csiro? I posted that- you deny it but its there , published by the csiro, not some random blog. You haven't shown any real evidence at all! Smug condescension, assumption and guesswork, ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your argument... It's getting old.

    Did you know about the Finnish study done in the late 1990's? The one that showed that fear of fluoridation may actually have a psychological affect? With loads of symptoms as well, and whether or not there was fluoride present in the water didn't seem to matter. Food for thought.

    There are several documents available on the WHO page that are worth reading if anyone is concerned with fluoridation- just as an aside, fluoridation is endorsed by the WHO, the NHMRC, the CSIRO, the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Australian Debtal Association.

    The 2007 review here: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/eh41a (Steve claims this review is some sort of propaganda put out by the National Health and Medical Research Council but has provided zero evidence or reasoning for this beyond that it does not fit his conspiracy theory)

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (01-03-2013),kezanazz  (28-02-2013)


 
Closed Thread
Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. when did u start using fluoride toothpaste?
    By SoThisIsLove in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30-11-2012, 10:29
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20-03-2012, 07:15
  3. Added Fluoride to water linked to infertility
    By posative in forum Conception & Fertility General Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-01-2012, 14:24

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

FEATURED SUPPORTER
Green Kids Modern Cloth NappiesGreen Kids manufactures gorgeous washable and reusable modern cloth nappies in Oz plus a full range of super absorbent ...
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›

ADVERTISEMENT