Your body doesn't need fluoride for any messenger chemicals or any tissues whatsoever. People will point out that chlorine is a poison and compare it to fluoride. Guess what, your body does use chlorine. It's in your stomach acid and it's in the salt your body uses. The thing about fluoride that makes it so bad is that it accumulates in your tissues and bones and alters functions. If you get too much in your bones it causes dental and skeletal fluorosis. It deforms teeth and bones and weakens them at higher exposures. Just type those two terms into google images and you'll see the typical effects of high fluoride exposure. Most of the time when we see such negative effects from substances that our bodies don't use whatsoever, we declare them poisons.

When it comes to fluoride we instead declare it the only medicine worthy of administration through the municipal water supply, which causes uncontrollable doses for those who drink the water and consume the food products grown and made from that water. It sure was convenient for the phosphate industry and other industries to declare their toxic, corrosive waste product a medicine that can be put into the public water supply. We don't just dump it directly into the water bodies, that might be bad for the wildlife. It's added at the water treatment plant at 1 part per million. There are reports of cheap fluoride from china containing residues of other substances that clog up the machines that administer it. This is not pure medical grade stuff, but often is waste from industry. Some of these toxic waste soups also contain heavy metals, other elements that harm us which our bodies don't use whatsoever.

I'd like to know more about the behavioral effects of the stuff myself. I've seen a good documentary where they visit Chinese villages with natural fluoride in their water that greatly exceeds the 1 ppm we put into ours. They had a community with 4 ppm and another with 9 ppm. The elementary kids at the schools they visited showed heavy dental fluorosis and there were cases of crippling skeletal fluorosis in those communities. The way the kids behaved compared to other kids in the documentary from communities with lower ppm of fluoride was shocking to me. They didn't rhetorically elaborate in the documentary about the behavioral effects. I looked at their eyes and their attentions. The kids from the 9ppm community looked very disconnected from the environment around them. They didn't look like stimulated youth looking around for novelty as much as idle, vacant minds. We need more studies on the effects of fluoride on the brain. We're not being told the truth about this substance. It could be more than just a convenient way to dispose of toxic waste, but to kill two birds with one stone, a way to make the population disconnected from the reality around them, more docile and accepting of authority.

Fluoride makes children retarded, often reducing childrens IQ's by more then ten points. Harvard study is the one I think you're referring to with regards to China, as well the Medical Journal the Lancet has classified Fluoride as a neural toxin. So definitely something you do not want to have in your body, as well its something you should as the women in Houston Texas did, try to get your city council to stop city fluoridation, but probably under a cost effect analysis, a lot of people aren't aware of this basic information and would likely defensively stone wall otherwise, unless of course they're privy to its effects.

Also we have to thank the corrupt U.S. government for water fluoridation, as they manufactured all this fluoride bull crap to stop lawsuits against the military industrial complex who were at the time manufacturing atomic bombs(fluoride is a key element in atomic bomb development).

Harvard Study

ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/

Manhattan Project and the government concealed birth of water fluoridation

http://fluoridealert.org/articles/wastenot414/

And thanks to very shitty schooling, the kids can't afford a loss of 10 points. They are dangerously close to mental retardation levels. Killing their own workforce in the process. It shows exactly how desperate they are.

You talk about villages in China where the flouride greatly exceeds 1 ppm, but that is the point here. Flouridation is regulation of levels and can include reduction of flouride. At the levels found in flouridated tap water, it is not harmful.

I suggest you do a bit more research on where our fluoride comes from. You may be a bit shocked by the answer.

I don't really care where it comes from, it's still fluoride. Are you shocked that it is naturally occurring in water and that fluoridation can actually mean reducing the amount of fluoride in the water to bring it to the regulated levels for public consumption? Seems a strange thing to do if the aim is to poison everybody.

Now I never suggested that anyone was intentionally poisoning anyone. That's a straw man argument and not at all related to my statement. Naturally occurring fluoride salts are present in some water supplies, but that isn't the issue either. The fluoride salts that we use (it isn't really fluoride anymore in most municipalities, it's hexafluorosilic acid or similar compounds) are NOT naturally occurring at all. They are in fact byproducts of phosphate mining and tin manufacture that would in any other context be considered toxic waste that would require expensive and difficult procedures to dispose of it properly. Disposing of fluoride any other way could be considered an act of terrorism due to its high toxicity. Do some reading on industrial fluoride pollution and just how harmful it was to plant and animal life near to phosphate mines. Now they use wet scrubbers to collect the fluoride salts from the phosphate gas and repackage it as industrial fluoride to be added to municipal water supplies. You become their toxic waste dump. As far as this being done intentionally to keep people stupid and docile, that is outside of the scope of my points, although I do concede that some powerful people may know and would like it to stay this way. Education is dangerous to those who wish to maintain the status quo.

Didn't answer my question. And you still don't seem to be getting the fact that fluoride is the same molecule wherever it comes from. Even if this isn't quite accurate, and I don't pretend to be an expert, there just isn't the evidence to suggest that fluoride is harmful at the levels that we consume it.

Education is dangerous to those who wish to maintain the status quo.

"A little intelligence can be a dangerous thing."

And you still don't seem to be getting the fact that fluoride is the same molecule wherever it comes from.

This is simply 100% false. Patently false.

there just isn't the evidence to suggest that fluoride is harmful at the levels that we consume it.

"I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There you might save 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 lives a year, cancer lives. That is an awful lot of lives a year." Dr. Dean Burk Ph.D. (34 years at the National Cancer Institute). Judicial hearing, January 14, 1982. Safe Water Foundation vs. City of Houston, District Court of Texas, Harris County, 151st Judicial District, 80-

http://www.whale.to/a/burk_h.html

Quoting someone with a PhD doesn't prove your point. It's quite ironic don't you see, since I could quote hundreds of PhDs that disagree with that, a completely fringe and discredited claim in the scientific community. This is a long dead issue, which is probably why you had to go back to 1982 for this quote.

Quoting someone with a PhD doesn't prove your point. It's quite ironic don't you see, since I could quote hundreds of PhDs that disagree with that, a completely fringe and discredited claim in the scientific community.

You said there isn't any evidence to suggest that fluoride is harmful at the levels we consume it. Thing is, there absolutely is, and the number of doctors/Phds that are talking about this issue is actually growing, not fringe or discredited whatsoever.

This is a long dead issue, which is probably why you had to go back to 1982 for this quote.

I only used that quote because the doctor had 34 years at the national cancer institute. Someone that works for so long with that kind of experience isn't something to scoff at. And like I said, the doctors that share his view have been increasing over the course of time.

If it's such a long dead issue, how come there are referendums every year with states and communities stopping fluoridation across the country? Why are more doctors concerned about this more than ever?

Also, two month old account with all submissions to /r/conspiratard? How lovely.

If it's such a long dead issue, how come there are referendums every year with states and communities stopping fluoridation across the country? Why are more doctors concerned about this more than ever?

If this is true, probably because of idiots. I have to work now but look forward to reconvening later.

Yes, total idiots. Harvard deciding to do studies on the issue while simultaneously the Lancet, one of the worlds most respected medical journals decides to use said studies to publish a report and classify it as a neurotoxin.

Total idiots those guys at Harvard and the Lancet. Someone should have told them only conspiracy nuts believe this crap, it's long been a dead issue clearly.

You have clearly misunderstood the harvard study, or simply believed what you have been told by the anti-fluoride lobby. Try reading it for yourself, it says something quite different to what you think.

This is a great page about fluoridation with some links... I don't expect you to take it for granted, look into what it says. I'm certainly no expert as I've admitted.

http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/dangers-of-fluoride/fluoride-iqs/

You said there isn't any evidence

No, I said there isn't the evidence, by which I mean there isn't sufficient evidence to draw that conclusion.

EDIT: Again I can't reply to the below since I'm banned. But in response...

I have read it myself, many times.

Then you need to work on your english comprehension skills, and learn more about the scientific method.

The consensus of those trying to refute the study...

Those who conducted the meta-study (I'm going to assume you know what that is, and the inherent limitations) have distanced themselves from the conclusions you are trying to draw from it, and have themselves highlighted problems with some of the studies used, many of which were not properly controlled or blinded and would never have passed american or european standards. Other factors affecting IQ were not considered, socio-economic, parental IQ etc, nor the possible presence of other contaminants like lead. What's more, and the harvard team did not seem to initially realise this, the variations found in IQ fell within the expected margin of error for IQ testing! So it was not a statistically significant result in any case.

Conclusion: you will have to find another excuse.

Yet another EDIT

I refute all of his ridiculous defenses of fluoride

You have comprehensively failed to do so, have not addressed any of my points. The study does not prove anything about water fluoridation! Show anyone where it does...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

why the lancet would use this study considering it being THE most respected neuroscience journal

It's a medical journal, not neuroscience. Really showing your ignorance and lack of reading.

the fact the study was done on the natural version of fluoride

Exactly, at much higher concentrations, compared to low concentrations like that in your tap water. As can be seen in table 1 if anyone actually wants to read the study. I doubt it.

HIGHLY toxic silicate and sodium fluorides

Just a false scare story.

Happy reading folks.

Try reading it for yourself, it says something quite different to what you think.

I have read it myself, many times. The consensus of those trying to refute the study is basically that they used higher levels of fluoride than those found in U.S. water supplies. Which is not only NOT completely true, but is mostly irrelevant to the point.

http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/dangers-of-fluoride/fluoride-iqs/

The studies concluded that even levels of calcium fluoride slightly higher than the levels we use in the U.S. water supply are more likely than not damaging to IQ. What makes this worse is that although we do not use such high levels, we use MUCH more toxic fluoride, silicate fluorides and sodium fluorides. That link you gave happens to leave out the fact that we use fluorides that are MUCH more toxic than those that the study was done on.

It's a neurotoxin that slowly causes organ damage amongst other things over a long period of time. FDA levels used in US water supplies are just low enough to not cause serious immediate damages but are still enough to cause long term harm because of the nature of the types of fluoride they are using.

If the harvard study is such faulty science (ironic considering it's harvard, but perhaps it's true) then why is it THE most prestigious neuroscience medical journal on the planet used it's study to release an in depth report on fluoride?

If it's so irrelevant and there isn't enough evidence on the topic to be worthwhile, how come the Lancet is so concerned about the topic?

EDIT: My reply to your edit reply

Those who conducted the meta-study (I'm going to assume you know what that is, and the inherent limitations) have distanced themselves from the conclusions you are trying to draw from it, and have themselves highlighted problems with some of the studies used, many of which were not properly controlled or blinded and would never have passed american or european standards. Other factors affecting IQ were not considered, socio-economic, parental IQ etc, nor the possible presence of other contaminants like lead. What's more, and the harvard team did not seem to initially realise this, the variations found in IQ fell within the expected margin of error for IQ testing! So it was not a statistically significant result in any case. Conclusion: you will have to find another excuse.

Clearly they will distance themselves from foregone conclusions as any smart scientist will, that doesn't mean the research doesn't support such things though. In addition, you still have no reply for why the lancet would use this study considering it being THE most respected neuroscience journal in the world? Also...no response on the fact the study was done on the natural version of fluoride and still found it to be at least mildly harmful yet we put HIGHLY toxic silicate and sodium fluorides in our water supply? No thoughts on that?

Thanks for arguing with that idiot, I can't see how anyone can be so excited about flouride in their water that they would jump through so many bad-logic hoops to make their case, it's a little wierd.

Keep it up, thanks for your work.

Thanks, and I do it just for the people that may happen to be on the fence about these issues. I know hes something that rhymes with krill (can't call someone a shill now, it's against the rules) but I refute all of his ridiculous defenses of fluoride because of the many people that view these threads and would otherwise just ignore the issue if no one stands up to these scumbags and points out the facts.

We can be friends.

This is simply 100% false. Patently false.

Explain yourself.

http://fluoridedetective.com/types-of-fluoride/

Sodium Fluoride is used in most toothpastes, mouthwashes, dental varnish, dental preparations and nutritional supplements. This same form of fluoride is used as an insecticide and pesticide, as a preservative in glues, as a growth inhibitor for bacteria, fungi and mold. Sodium fluoride is also used in making steel and aluminum products. Added to molten metal, sodium fluoride creates a more uniform metal. Other industrial uses for sodium fluoride include glass frosting and wood preservatives. Sodium Fluoride is also used in the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons. Although this form of fluoride can be used for water fluoridation, the next two forms listed are almost always used due to cost. Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) is compound of calcium and fluorine which occurs naturally as the mineral fluorite – also called fluorspar. Most of the world’s fluorine comes from calcium fluoride. Fluorides in general are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered the least toxic, and even relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. Moreover, calcium is a well-known antidote for fluoride poisoning. When an antidote exists in combination with a poison, it makes the poison far less toxic to the body. Calcium fluoride is the form of fluoride commonly found in natural, untreated waters. Cryolite or Sodium Aluminum Fluoride is commonly used for aluminum smelting, though is also a pesticide often applied directly to field crops, resulting in permitted fluoride residues in and on fresh fruits and vegetables. For more information on cryolite. (For more information on cryolite.) Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is commonly used for water fluoridation. This form of fluoride is a toxic liquid by-product, acquired by scrubbing the chimney stacks of phosphate fertilizer manufacture. Other names for it are hexafluorosilicic, hexafluosilicic, hydrofluosilicic, and silicofluoric acid. The CDC approximates that 95% of our water is fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid. (http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm#1) Sodium Fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) is primarily added to public drinking water as a fluoridation agent. This same compound is also used as an insecticide and a wood preservative. It is a classified hazardous waste by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture which, if not put into our drinking water, must be disposed of at hazardous waste facilities. Other names for it are Sodium Fluosilicate and Sodium Silica Fluoride. Stannous Fluoride is the popular name given to Tin (II) fluoride. Stannous fluoride is an additive to many toothpastes because it does not become biologically inactive in the presence of calcium, as sodium fluoride does. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin%28II%29_fluoride) Sulfuryl Fluoride is applied as a gas fumigant to kill insects and rodents. Using sulfuryl fluoride around food products was not allowed due to its toxicity. In 2004 the EPA reversed this policy (following long lobbying efforts by the manufacturer) and allowed its use on food. This opened the doors for food processing companies nationwide to fumigate their facilities with sulfuryl fluoride, leaving high levels of fluoride in and on foods and even food packaging. It has become acceptable for sulfuryl fluoride fumigations to produce fluoride residues of 70 ppm “in or on” processed foods and 130 ppm “in or on” wheat. There have been no labeling requirements for foods treated with sulfuryl fluoride, meaning that consumers have had no way of knowing which foods are treated. (For more information on sulfuryl fluoride.) In January 2011 this decision was reversed and in about 3 years this fumigation of food reportedly will stop. (Order to cease sulfuryl fluoride fumigation of food products.)

I can further elaborate if you would like. Note in particular that calcium fluoride (the natural version) is not what is used nearly 100% of the time when we are talking about water fluoridation and dental fluoridation or most other types. So for people saying that "its natural we evolved with it", that applies to calcium fluoride which is hardly toxic. However we are fluoridating water supplies and other things with highly toxic silicate fluorides and sodium fluorides.

So no...fluoride isn't the same molecule wherever it comes from. Not even close.

Downvoted for simply sourcing facts and answering questions? Shills are hard at work on this one, as usual.

The CDC link there is dead.

This one however (linked from this article) states that, of systems that were fluoridated, 63% (by population) were fluorosilicic acid (page xvii). And since that only counts the fluoridated systems, accounting for only 62% of the population (page ix), that means that 39% of the water by population uses fluorosilicic acid.

Yes, only 40% of the country uses the highly toxic silicate fluorides. The other 60% that's fluoridated (most likely) uses the sightly less toxic sodium fluoride, a byproduct of aluminum manufacturing and primary ingredient in rat poisoning.

Amount of country that uses natural calcium fluoride for water supply fluoridation? Probably less than 3%.

Either way, I feel I have proven my point very clearly.

You sir addressed almost none of what I have said. What about hexafluorosilic acid? What are it's long term health benefits or risks? How much water should a small child drink to get optimum fluoride? Adults? How can you even justify mass medicating a population with any drug? How do you control the dose? You cannot. If they really wanted to help our health by mass medicating the populace there are actual beneficial minerals and vitamins that would be much better and safer. But you know, those aren't toxic byproducts that need to be disposed of at a tidy profit. You know the difference between intelligence and education? Education requires hard work, and diligence and the ability to recognize that you don't know everything and still have more to learn. Sounds to me like education is a bit too hard, so instead you adopt the hive mind mind opinion like a good little worker drone. I'm sick of armchair intellectuals telling me I'm ignorant because I actually researched and did my own homework. Drink your toxic waste for all I care.

As for your "evidence":

http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/nrc/

http://fluoridealert.org/issues/water/fluoridation-chemicals/

http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-facts/

Flouridealert is an extremely biased and unreliable source, not where I would choose to get my info, so don't waste your time linking it again. A huge wealth of scientific evidence is against you, sir.

Sounds to me like education means reading fringe websites and watching dodgy youtube videos, with a large dose of confirmation bias.

On June 29th, 2000, Dr. William Hirzy was invited to give testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) Chapter 280 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Headquarters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViNNIwmzTzI

Hardly biased, Hirzy is a contributer along with other scientific minds at fluoride alert.

I don't really care where it comes from, it's still fluoride.

Actually it's not. Depending on how it was formed, different types of the same base chemical can react very differently in the body. Natural fluoride is not nearly as harmful as the stuff created in the byproduct of aluminum manufacturing, and even that stuff isn't as bad as the most common fluorides made today...silica fluorides.

So you're dead wrong in more than 2 ways on this one.

Shills are not interested in such inconvenient facts. They kill any and all arguments they have for the forced application to all citizens, regardless of informed consent. The fools that cheer their own demise. Those who know are still exposed to a poison that makes them docile and dumb.

Anyone else find it interesting that as fluoride exposure increases, there is a direct decrease in the number of people who stand up and protest the unjust treatment? But it's for the kids! Think of their cavities! The side effects are worth the minimal decrease of cavities. As this poison kills them, it also kills some of the bacteria. Coincidentally fluoride is actively used as a industrial poison. To kill pests. But he'll, let's put it in our water supply.

In Europe, where certain locations have banned the fluoridation of water, they then force fluoride out in their milk supply.

Until the people wake up and demand water without poison added, this poisoning will continue.

Pleeeeeeease say you are calling me a shill. You are aren't you? Thanks that's a first for me :)

I can't technically say hes a shill under /r/conspiracy rules, but let's just say he has ulterior motives. 2 month old account, every submission is in /r/conspiratard, and most comments are in /r/conspiracy defending the usual shill topics.

That's just not perceptually honest at all, we're exposed to several sources of fluoridation on a daily basis where our exposure is well above acknowledged toxicity levels. Fluoride is derived from pesticides, which is on virtually everything we consume, fresh or processed, to beverages to cleaning chemicals, to that cheap Chinese garbage we import, its just outright exposure to pollution. I don't know how you or anyone else can come up with the backwards logic that a neuro toxin is safe at any level.

Anything is toxic at certain levels. For example if you drink too much water, flouridated or not, you will die. It is not backwards logic but opinion based on a huge wealth of scientific research.

Flouride is naturally occurring in water anyway. You are right it is everywhere, and we have been surviving, even evolving with it, since year dot.

Can you not bend anything backwards with such logical gymnastics?

Harvard study, Fluoride a neuro toxin that retards children

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

Medical Journal the Lancet classifies Fluoride as a neuro toxin

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/19/best-known-peer-reviewed-medical-journal-officially-classifies-fluoride-as-a-neurotoxin/

if you drink too much water, flouridated or not

Water doesn't make you retarded though, pound for pound you'd die way faster drinking fluoride then water.

not backwards logic but opinion based on a huge wealth of scientific research.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/esp_salud34.htm

http://fluoridealert.org/articles/wastenot414/

You mean the fictitious "science" made by the government during A-bomb development to shield the military industrial complex from litigation and public exposure of the Manhattan project?

Flouride is naturally occurring in water anyway. You are right it is everywhere, and we have been surviving, even evolving with it, since year dot.

Fluoride does occur naturally, where it does it retards children and causes severe scoliosis, your comments are continually ignorant of the fact of the damaging effects of fluoride. We lived and evolved with it? I don't think so, that crap is still very harmful to our health.

Well yes we lived and evolved with it, since it is naturally occurring in water and present in many foods. You ref the same old discredited harvard study, as if this has more relevance than the overwhelming body of evidence that says fluoridation is perfectly safe. Yawn.

Discredited, by whom? overwhelming science? You mean the science shown in any history book the American government made up to stop litigations? That's a tall claim as I'm not seeing any links to anything credible, F.Y.I. opinion is not fact.

The Harvard study is accurate for 4+ mg/L fluoride exposure levels, exposures which I should note are higher then the F.D.A.'s or the other fed groups recommended 1.2mg/L maximum safety level, and levels we're continually exceeding here in north American thanks to the usage of pesticide by big agro businesses like Monsanto to make a buck of a known poison.

F.Y.I. if you live in America all your plastics will have B.P.A. a known estrogen mimicker, a chemical being banned in all other G7 nations except America, because hey, a near absolute, corrupt government is a trust worthy source of "science".

The harvard study, a meta-analysis in fact, compares water within the recommended level of fluoride, i.e. the same as fluoridated water or less, to that with excessive, very high amounts of fluoride. It is based mostly on chinese studies where large amounts of fluoride are sometimes naturally present in the water table and have been thought to cause problems. Again, this could be solved by fluoridation because the amount of fluoride would be reduced to safe levels. The harvard study does not even necessarily imply that water fluoridation is dangerous, and certainly draws no strong conclusions about anything.

Try reading a bit deeper and not just accepting press releases from special interest groups at face value. FYI.

You mean the science shown in any history book...

No I mean the science in science books.

EDIT: Well since I now seem to be banned I can't reply to the reply below but seems I can still edit my own comments. Seems only fair I should be able to respond so tommytanker...

The study said that more studies are needed at lower levels in the U.S. to adequately determine fluoridation safety, but that's for the suckers who want to wait for the corrupt government to give them the ok to believe an obvious truth.

This just shows you are not interested in the scientific approach. Contrary to what the study said, the study you brought up as evidence, you have now decided it's an obvious truth. Even those who carried out the study have distanced themselves from the conclusions that you are trying to draw from it, and have cast doubts on the quality of the studies on which this meta-study is based. What's more, according to them, the difference in IQ points falls within a reasonable margin of error for IQ testing. IQ tests, like meta-studies, are things that need to be understood in context and not always something you can draw direct conclusions from.

At least you are getting the fact that the study related to very high levels of fluoride naturally occurring in water, not the much lower amounts introduced to your water, and not the cheap chemical byproduct you are so scared of. And if you did have those super-high levels in your water, your supplier would be obliged to filter it out until it was safe. Hooray for fluoridation. Now where's that cheque...

You also seem to concede that the study does not in fact suggest fluoridation of water is harmful, so respect for that, we got there in the end even if I was banned in the process. Enjoy your circle jerks everybody. He said bitterly :)

EDIT2:

There have been already people who've blown the whistle on the nonsensical baloney at the EPA, one of them being Dr. William Hirzy who testified before congress on the issue in 2000.

Sorry but must clear up this Bill Hirzy issue. He's a paid political lobbyist for the anti-fluoridation goons. Hardly a credible 'whistle-blower'. See this page and links if interested...

http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/tag/hirzy/

That's all she wrote.

The Harvard study focused only on high concentratons of fluoride and excluded lower concentration studies because there were not enough studies to form a conclusion from them, the Harvard paper focused on fluoridation levels above 4mg/L to 11mg/L.

Again, this could be solved by fluoridation because the amount of fluoride would be reduced to safe levels. The Harvard study does not even necessarily imply that water fluoridation is dangerous, and certainly draws no strong conclusions about anything.

Did you and I read the same study?, the study concluded with a causal link between lower IQ's and water fluoridation in rural Chinese communities where most sources of fluoridation were naturally occurring. The study said that more studies are needed at lower levels in the U.S. to adequately determine fluoridation safety, but that's for the suckers who want to wait for the corrupt government to give them the ok to believe an obvious truth.

There have been already people who've blown the whistle on the nonsensical baloney at the EPA, one of them being Dr. William Hirzy who testified before congress on the issue in 2000.

Well yes we lived and evolved with it, since it is naturally occurring in water and present in many foods.

http://fluoridedetective.com/types-of-fluoride/

Sodium Fluoride is used in most toothpastes, mouthwashes, dental varnish, dental preparations and nutritional supplements. This same form of fluoride is used as an insecticide and pesticide, as a preservative in glues, as a growth inhibitor for bacteria, fungi and mold. Sodium fluoride is also used in making steel and aluminum products. Added to molten metal, sodium fluoride creates a more uniform metal. Other industrial uses for sodium fluoride include glass frosting and wood preservatives. Sodium Fluoride is also used in the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons. Although this form of fluoride can be used for water fluoridation, the next two forms listed are almost always used due to cost. Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) is compound of calcium and fluorine which occurs naturally as the mineral fluorite – also called fluorspar. Most of the world’s fluorine comes from calcium fluoride. Fluorides in general are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered the least toxic, and even relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. Moreover, calcium is a well-known antidote for fluoride poisoning. When an antidote exists in combination with a poison, it makes the poison far less toxic to the body. Calcium fluoride is the form of fluoride commonly found in natural, untreated waters. Cryolite or Sodium Aluminum Fluoride is commonly used for aluminum smelting, though is also a pesticide often applied directly to field crops, resulting in permitted fluoride residues in and on fresh fruits and vegetables. For more information on cryolite. (For more information on cryolite.) Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is commonly used for water fluoridation. This form of fluoride is a toxic liquid by-product, acquired by scrubbing the chimney stacks of phosphate fertilizer manufacture. Other names for it are hexafluorosilicic, hexafluosilicic, hydrofluosilicic, and silicofluoric acid. The CDC approximates that 95% of our water is fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid. (http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm#1) Sodium Fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) is primarily added to public drinking water as a fluoridation agent. This same compound is also used as an insecticide and a wood preservative. It is a classified hazardous waste by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture which, if not put into our drinking water, must be disposed of at hazardous waste facilities. Other names for it are Sodium Fluosilicate and Sodium Silica Fluoride. Stannous Fluoride is the popular name given to Tin (II) fluoride. Stannous fluoride is an additive to many toothpastes because it does not become biologically inactive in the presence of calcium, as sodium fluoride does. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin%28II%29_fluoride) Sulfuryl Fluoride is applied as a gas fumigant to kill insects and rodents. Using sulfuryl fluoride around food products was not allowed due to its toxicity. In 2004 the EPA reversed this policy (following long lobbying efforts by the manufacturer) and allowed its use on food. This opened the doors for food processing companies nationwide to fumigate their facilities with sulfuryl fluoride, leaving high levels of fluoride in and on foods and even food packaging. It has become acceptable for sulfuryl fluoride fumigations to produce fluoride residues of 70 ppm “in or on” processed foods and 130 ppm “in or on” wheat. There have been no labeling requirements for foods treated with sulfuryl fluoride, meaning that consumers have had no way of knowing which foods are treated. (For more information on sulfuryl fluoride.) In January 2011 this decision was reversed and in about 3 years this fumigation of food reportedly will stop. (Order to cease sulfuryl fluoride fumigation of food products.)

I can further elaborate if you would like. Note in particular that calcium fluoride (the natural version) is not what is used nearly 100% of the time when we are talking about water fluoridation and dental fluoridation or most other types.

So for people saying that "its natural we evolved with it", that applies to calcium fluoride which is hardly toxic. However we are fluoridating water supplies and other things with highly toxic silicate fluorides and sodium fluorides.

So no...fluoride isn't the same molecule wherever it comes from. Not even close.

Dr. William Hirzy & EPA Union on Fluoridation giving testimony in 2000 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) Chapter 280 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Headquarters.

Well yes we lived and evolved with it, since it is naturally occurring in water and present in many foods.

Do you realize the difference between silica fluorides and natural fluorides?

Flouride is naturally occurring in water anyway. You are right it is everywhere, and we have been surviving, even evolving with it, since year dot.

The type of fluoride naturally occurring in water, and the types we add to the water are very different. And have highly varied levels of toxicity, with the natural ones being close to nontoxic at most levels, and the added ones being far more toxic.

There are plenty of things that are toxic at high doses but an important beneficial part of our diet. I'm not making any comment on fluoride here but to suggest that because something may be toxic, we shouldn't take it is incorrect.

Zinc, Iron and Vitamin B are all toxic at high doses, but I wouldn't try and achieve a diet free of all 3.

Backwards logical gymnastics, a is not z here, fluoride is a known neuro disruptor which you are exposed to on a daily basis, as well you're not exposed to the stuff from just water either. Anything sprayed with pesticide leeches fluorides, which is essentially in all foods/ that are not organic and or unprocessed, its in cosmetics, its in all that cheap garbage manufactured in China, well, with that its not just fluorides you have to worry about...

ANY.EXPOSURE.IS.HARMFUL.EXPOSURE. Which should be avoided at all costs. It's like exposure to radiation. All exposure should be avoided when possible. And when n it possible, exposure should be as limited as possible. Your body does not heed fluoride. It is not effective at preventing anything when consumed. It is ONLY effective, to a small degree, with topical allocation to the teeth.

The dose makes the poison.

It's like exposure to radiation. All exposure should be avoided when possible.

What if I were to tell you that you're being exposed to radiation basically all the time?

And sadly it's all doing damage and should have been avoided. Alpha? Beta? Electro magnetic? The latter will soon enough come into its own.

Electro magnetic

Obviously you want to avoid the higher-energy EM waves like microwaves, but... you do know that light is an EM wave, right?

Circling back on responses late. Correct. A property of such. But weren't you going to specify which you were referring to?

Right on man, well said.

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/

Here is Fluoride-journal, 45 years of fluoride research that medline/pubmed doesnt index, because of reasons.

Fluoride is not needed for any biological process in the human body. It is not prevalent in the large majority of peoples water supplies. It's actually quite rare to encounter in the wild. Your ancestors did not consume fluoride.

This poison has no valid purpose being forced in our water supply. It was first given to prisoners to quell any questioning or uprising for Christ sake. Who cannot see the absolutely evil reason fluoride is forced on them. The people who cheer their own demise are quite interesting to watch. As they attempt to claim that it's there to help then. The mental gymnastics required to believe...insane.

But the thing that scares me the most -how can I make sure I don't ingest any fluoride when at the dentist? Don't they use it in all their cleaning pastes? And last time I was at the dentist they said the only way to clean my teeth properly was with a fluoride cleaning - I told them yeah....no thank you.

There is an optional coating. Most insurance companies don't cover. And it typically costs the patient $15-30. Do not allow them to do it.

Wash your mouth out afterwards. Be wise about exposure. Minimize or eliminate all fluoride exposure. As much as physically possible.

OP - Please try not to take medical advice from anonymous people on the internet.

http://fluoridealert.org/articles/wastenot414/

Welcome to reality, Medical journal the Lancet has already classified fluoride as a neuro toxin as well Harvard study also came to the same conclusion. Basic jist of it, the U.S. government created bull crap studies to prevent litigation from farmers during a Manhattan project where there was a spill of fluoride, which killed cattle, trees and damaged the psychical health of local farmers in the area, who all settled out of court.

A neurotoxin that doesn't kill anyone? How bizarre! I'm not familiar with the Lancet one you're talking about, but I suspect that site is twisting their words as usual. And the much-quoted here Harvard study doesn't back you up anyway, because anyone whose actually read any of it can see that they're talking about much higher levels than are used in domestic water supplies, and it's based on information from China, who aren't exactly the writers of the most robust studies on a good day.

Also, you may have forgotten that this isn't Planet USA. It might surprise you to learn that other governments don't really give a shit if some farmers in the US were accidentally poisoned, so some small local issue you guys had would have no effect on the rest of the world.

Ah, I've just taken a look at the Lancet study - another one based in China. Actually... no. It's the same studies!

Here's the only reference to it, by the way.

“A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44 Confounding from other substances seemed unlikely in most of these studies. Further characterisation of the dose–response association would be desirable.”

Their sole reference – 44:

Choi, AL; Sun, G; Zhang, Y; Grandjean, P. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 2012; 120: 1362–68.

19 of those 26 reports are less than three pages long. Now I'm all for being concise, but if you've read many scientific papers they tend to be a bit longer than someone's curriculum vitae.

Also, 8 of the Chinese papers were translated into English by Paul Connett’s "Fluoride Alert" (FAN) activist group. Oh dear! No bias there, I'm sure.

Your criticisms are noteworthy of the studies, the studies also only point to fluoride concentrations of 4+ mg/L in the water table as being toxic to human health.

Also, you may have forgotten that this isn't Planet USA. It might surprise you to learn that other governments don't really give a shit if some farmers in the US were accidentally poisoned, so some small local issue you guys had would have no effect on the rest of the world.

Glossing over history isn't a benefit to anyone, especially if we're doomed to repeat the same stupidity all over again. The litigations are significant because it shows us the base research conducted by the government was done fraudulently and that the safety of fluoridation is founded on fictitious "science" to shield then A-Bomb development and the military industrial complex and the government. If you bothered to read the entire Harvard study out you'd know there's no recent information with regards to testing of fluoridation to see if it is truly harmful. Maybe those anonymous internet researchers aren't so stupid after all.

4+ mg/L

That is a huge amount. Absolutely no way there is that much fluoride in anyone's water.

Actually, the EPA's maximum standard, as exposed by the Harvard fluoridation study is maxed out at 4mg/L presently. We also are estimated to ingest around 6-9 mg/L of fluoride daily due to our exposure to pesticides/insecticides which are present in non GMO foods and products, a majority of which comes from China. The Chinese in the Harvard study had exposure levels up to 11mg/L which caused retardation and scoliosis in children within rural communities.

Edit:1 With regards to retardation, the term is not accurate in phrasing the effects found by the Harvard study, the children exposed to high concentration of fluorideh showed more then a 10 point drop in tested I.Q.

A neurotoxin that doesn't kill anyone? How bizarre! I'm not familiar with the Lancet one you're talking about, but I suspect that site is twisting their words as usual.

The lancet is one of the most respected medical journals in the world.

A neurotoxin that doesn't kill anyone? How bizarre!

It actually contributes heavily to a decline in bodily function. Something can be neurotoxic and not instantly kill you. Mercury or lead for example, can be ingested for years without any noticeable side effects.

Also:

"I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There you might save 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 lives a year, cancer lives. That is an awful lot of lives a year." Dr. Dean Burk Ph.D. (34 years at the National Cancer Institute). Judicial hearing, January 14, 1982. Safe Water Foundation vs. City of Houston, District Court of Texas, Harris County, 151st Judicial District, 80-

http://www.whale.to/a/burk_h.html

The lancet is one of the most respected medical journals in the world.

Unless it retracts a certain Mr. Wakefield's paper, and then it's sold out to Big Pharma?

Also, whale.to is a terrible source. Dr. Dean Burk is the same guy who claimed laetrile was an effective cancer treatment, which it isn't. It's clear that after the end of his career (around 1979) his reliability plummets, for unknown reasons.

Unless it retracts a certain Mr. Wakefield's paper, and then it's sold out to Big Pharma?

What does that have to do with it's credibility? I said it was a credible source, Andrew Wakefield is another topic... You're using strawmen here.

Also, whale.to is a terrible source.

It was merely a good source for a nice summary of Dean Burks opinions on fluoride.

Dr. Dean Burk is the same guy who claimed laetrile was an effective cancer treatment, which it isn't.

Based on the research at the time it seemed perfectly reasonable given the fact studies supported laetrile until they were later discredited to varying degrees.

Also...more strawmen arguments.

Take tumeric supplements daily

It counteracts fluoride

I've been having more vivid dreams since I started supplementing with turmeric after seeing the story a few weeks ago. Wonder if* it's just the placebo effect.

no, i don't think so.

One of the major alterations to my consciousness after a few months off flouride was way more vivid dreams and the ability to lucid dream during meditation.

i haven't gotten a single person I know to believe me or even try it, but then again, once you practice insight you get hypersensitive, or what i would call the basic state of human existance, which is exactly what people in charge do not want.

fl makes people more callous to just about everything, so no wonder they are ok with a few wars going on and paying for them and watching pictures of them. Between that and anti depressants, all during an alleged war on drugs, yeah the rabbit hole goes that deep if you just look.

May I ask for some insight? I used to have very vivid dreams & lucid experiences during meditation. But ever since I've taken measures to hopefully enhance this - buying a fluoride filter, non fluoridated toothpaste, & the fermented oil - they've all gone away. I can't get a lucid during meditation any more & I dream very rarely now. I haven't stopped or started anything else, really. In fact, I had these awesome experiences when I wasn't eating very healthily (lots of fast food & sweets). Ever since I've made measures to improve the lucid experiences gradually went away.

In my experience, if you're not thinking about lucid dreaming during the day, you probably won't be doing it at night. You need to be reading about it, writing about it, immersed in it.

I have no idea if body fluoridation is a measurable factor or not.

Fluoride most certainly is. It accumulates in your body, poisoning your brain. Limiting its natural abilities. Very easily seen with your quality and frequency of dreams.

There are exactly zero valid reasons for forcing fluoride on the entire population.

Everyone is different, there are a lot of factors in your diet and everyone's, all I can say for sure is if you want to be scientific, you have to set controls.

I didn't even know there was such a thing as a flouride filter, you mean reverse osmosis?

I don't know anything about oils or detox stuff, I just let my system tell me what was going on over a few months.

I also use holosync in my meditation, it's a pretty wonderful aid although I don't know what the buddha would think.

As always, the best you can do is to continue looking for insights and when in doubt, of course, simplify.

Fluoride is insanely difficult to remove from water with a filter. I believe there is one substance it partially binds to, but from what I've seen, only RO (partially) and distillation work to remove all fluoride.

How are you filtering fluoride out of your water? Remember, your daily hot shower or bath imparts more fluoride than the water you drink by many magnitudes. It's absorbed by the skin, wreaking havoc in your body. Truly, a poison in every single sense.

Who knows. It really is proven to stop fluoride damage though. So that's good

And it's really good for you

Turmeric is a great addition to anyone's daily intake. Props on the sharing of this with everyone.

I've been having more vivid dreams since I started supplementing with turmeric after seeing the story a few weeks ago.

As you may know, turmeric contains curcumin, a reversible MAO inhibitor. Due to its potential to increase 5-HT (serotonin) indiscriminately across all 5-HT subreceptors, it is possible the vivid dreams you're experiencing may be due in part to this mechanism of action, in particular with regards to it indirectly increasing activity on the 5-HT2A & 5-HT2C receptors via MAO-A inhibition.

Good call, sir. It helps with the chellation of fluoride and heavy metal poisons in the body.

Surely if fluoride can be secretly added to our water supply then it can also be secretly added to those supplements? How do you know you wouldn't just be giving money to some sham company trying to profit off this?

It counteracts fluoride. Even if it has fluoride in it.

You could also just buy raw turmeric root and eat that

Flouride isn't bad for you unless you ingest it in high quantities. If your not eating 5000+ calories a day and drinking equivalent amounts of water it has negligible effects on you. Just watch this video and look at the sources the guy provides, a lot more reliable than "flouridealert.org"

I think you forgot to hyperlink the video. Just saying.

wow i did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAXwv7j_jbY

On June 29th, 2000, Dr. William Hirzy was invited to give testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) Chapter 280 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Headquarters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViNNIwmzTzI

Fluoride is garbage, it would've been scrapped if not for the corrupt EPA.

Brushing your teeth with fluoride is good. It helps to protect them. Just don't swallow it and you'll be fine.

Fluoride can be absorbed through the gums.

Well it's good thing you don't have to worry about it since you're a shark.

Could I see sources for the detrimental effects of fluoride?

I like how you are being downvoted for asking for a source

ikr

[deleted]

[deleted]

peace.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html

Huffington post is hardly a credible source.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

How about the Harvard School of Public Health?

Its funny because that doesn't back up what you guys are claiming. No one read it

Go on.

Well did you read it?

Yes. Can you make your point directly please?

Much better.

[deleted]

Yah that was my only point. Not saying the claims aren't true, but just trying to get people out of the habit of linking to blogs, opinion pieces, or clearly biased sources like HuffPo when making scientific claims.

Harvard Study

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/

Origins of the bull crap science behind Fluoride, a means to shield the military industrial complex during A-Bomb development

http://fluoridealert.org/articles/wastenot414/

The Medical Journal the Lancet has already classified fluoride as a neuro toxin, the article I've found so far is still gated in the journal, if you find a link, please send a link to it.

Just from a quick glance at the Harvard data, it should be noted that in all but one (I think, definitely most) of the studies in the meta analysis were comparing levels of fluoride exposure between a high and a control, where the control was usually within the range we currently set in the US, and the high group was an order of magnitude higher, from natural fluoride sources.

They specifically say that this analysis cannot establish a dosage, and didn't attempt to specify anything about a particular dose, just a comparison.

One interesting thing I saw in the report --

Still, each of the articles reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious ones, that limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

It goes into some details, but I'm not sure how significant they were, considering this paper was published anyway.

And they explain that most of the studies were almost never cited or even available to the US because of 1980's China's policies on scientific papers being allowed out of the country.

• It should really be noted, that in many cases, the government's fluoride program's purpose was to reduce the naturally occurring amounts of fluoride down to safe levels.

• It should also be noted that fluoride was definitely identified as a neurotoxin a long time ago, but this review is specifically about risks from amounts lower than those that ARE SAFE for adults. So if you are an adult, fluoride (EDIT: at the levels established as safe, obvs) is GRAS. This review doesn't call those studies into review.

EDIT: Just want to be clear, the two bullet points are for emphasis, they aren't quotes from the article/study.

I agree with most of your analysis, with exception to fluoride being safe in lower levels to adults, the Harvard study said there was no concurrent data to analyze in the U.S., as such it called for studies on low amount of fluoride exposure in humans in the U.S. It should be noted that we do not always have low levels of water fluoridation here, depending on a number of factors from water treatment, where fluoridation levels can be higher then, I think its 1mg/L? Then there are also sources of exposure such as from foods sprayed with pesticides, beverages, processed foods, and almost everything we buy now comes form a country with no comparable health or safety standards to that of North America.

[deleted]

[deleted]

LOL, bigots. (NSFW)

Why do you have such a hatred for us? Stick to your own sub. This is like a NY giants fan coming into a NY jets sub to down vote and say jets fans are retards. You are just ridiculing and making fun. If you really thought conspiracies were harmful and we are sick, you wouldn't berate or downvote us but have a discussion. I am not for this fluoride conspiracy. But, all you are is an asshole who gives nothing to a community.

Where did u find the fluoride filtered shower head?

Here you go.

http://www.amazon.com/Omica-Organics-Shower-Filter/dp/B0059EMIFW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1399834546&sr=8-1&keywords=omica+shower

Also, Op meant Fermented Skate Liver oil. It helps decalcify the pineal gland.

<3

Floride is in a lot of prosessed foods and drinks. So cutting out prosessed and prepackaged food and drinks. Your tooth paste and water

Sadly it's also quite prevalent in fruits and vegetables. As fluoride is used as an INSECTICIDE and POISON. Wash your veggies well, folks. This also helps with the Monsanto variety of human poisons.

[deleted]

Ooh 7 upvotes in an hour, what an enlightening comment.

I guess I'm immune to fluoride cause I've been drinking water and brushing my teeth for a quarter century and I'm as healthy as can be.

Sucks for you guys

Says is immune to fluoride's effects....proves he's not in the same sentence.

What? I don't have fluorosis, I'm not a depressed zombie, I am intelligent, I can enjoy DMT, I know that the illuminati controls the planet, I haven't even been sick in years except for getting yellow fever in Africa... If you're dumb or depressed I feel bad for you son, i got 99 problems but covert chemical manipulation of my psyche ain't one

PS: I'm also immune to chemtrails! Maybe I'm some kind of high powered mutant O_o

None of this is evidence of lack of fluorides harmful effects. For all you know you would be 20% more intelligent if it weren't for fluoride ingestion.

I never claimed it was. I'm just letting you guys know how special I am. Maybe there are others who are evolving to become resistant to its effects. Jesus I feel like a superhuman upon learning how bad water is for you. I seriously drink like 2 liters a day!

your third eye will thank you

So will your intelligence quotient. The effects of removed fluoride are plenty at the 2nd and 3rd month. There are herbs that can help remove th fluoride buildup from years of exposure to the poison. Turmeric is one that I've found helpful in chelation of the poison out of your body.

hmmmm deleted account and the showerhead thing, which doesn't exist, this may be troll post.

It does exist. Someone else posted a link in the comments.

OP: "But seriously: You need to ask yourself if you really want your pineal gland to start functioning again, causing you to wake up in a world in which you no longer belong. Ignorance is bliss."

this is so true - it's possible you could lose some of your friends

Good luck eating food that isn't already loaded with it.

I found this article to be helpful. It talks about both benefits and dangers, who is for and against it and provides good examples of places that do and do not contain fluoride. Then it urges you to look into your local fluoride amounts to see if you need/want to adjust accordingly.

Stop eating white sugar and white flour.

Tea has a lot in it iirc

aside from that eat fresh non-processed food

Don't know how true it is; but I've read that fluoride already bound to calcium, as is the case with tea, creates a molecule too big for the body to absorb, and it's really free flouride that is useful as a poison; that's why they inject the flouride mixed with a strong acid; it keeps it from binding to the calcium carbonate in the water, and lining the pipes.

Hmm, interesting I've never heard that. Tea is the one thing i can't give up anyway :o

White tea has significantly less than the others.

Looking up stats now, i have a ton of different loose leaf in my stash right now. Love white tea though

Wait tea has high levels of flouride?

Make your own, watered with non fluoridated water. Rain water works well for my small garden. Q few years back, I began using only collected rain water to water my garden. The quality of food increased drastically. It was incredible to watch.

Of you were able to grow your own herbs for tea, you could remove that one large bucket of poison from your plate daily.

Isn't it high in tea because they are using the mass prior to adding water for calculations? Granted, any amount is too much, but I believe that explains the high quantity.

That actually makes sense too...not sure

all green teas naturally collect fluoride from the environment no matter where they are grown, organic or not. and white tea is less old green tea and black teat is old green tea. so its all the same as in the sense they naturally contain fluoride

http://fluoridealert.org/issues/sources/tea/

Damn.

I love yerba mate. I highly recommend it to anyone looking to get off of black tea

Acquired taste?

Maybe. It's different. It has a much more earthy-plant taste to it. I don't sweeten it or add anything to it.

werd, nothing else "natural" really compares that i've found

Tea is the highest contributor to the fluoride poisoning of most. Hundreds of times higher concentration than other sources. Water included.

I've found it's in a lot of 'pure' and 'spring' water, most of that is just tap water.

In richer neighborhoods you can get infant 'non-flouridated' drinking water, otherwise icelandic and fiji have been ok, although of the two icelandic i'm certain about.

the more processed something is, the more fl is going to be in it.

anything boiled is just going to concentrate the fl more, which is bad, so coffee, tea, yeah, it's a double dose, if you started with fl water of course.

How have you determined pure & spring waters are tap?

"And in fact, an estimated 25 percent or more of bottled water is really just tap water in a bottle -- sometimes further treated, sometimes not."

http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qbw.asp

I also get headaches, over the next 12 hours something is just off. In the absence of sane science and regulation, that's all i've got to go on. I hope to get more precise with my bodily intakes over time.

Bottled water is tap water. Some of them are reversed distilled or whatever but bottled water IS tap water 9 times out of 10

Both Pepsi and Coke bottled waters are filtered "tap" water last I heard.

for those that are looking into filtrating or purifying your own water, the only 2 methods right now to get rid of fluoride and other crap they put on the water is by either using a reverse osmosis water system (97%+ reduction) or using a water distiller (99%+), both generally run for about 200 to 300 dollars.

Do you have any links on those distillation stats? If so, can you share? Thanks in advance...I have been looking everywhere and can't find anything substantive, so many contradictions. One place says reverse osmosis removes more fluoride and medications, the other says distillation, another says both don't really do much. It's frustrating getting information. What I should do is just get the water tested...thanks in advance for sharing any info you might have. (Also, you can get a distiller cheaper than $200, but it does take time/electricity.)

thank you for letting me know about these issues. I got most of my stats straight from manufacturers product claims and other articles but you are right, there is a lot of conflicting information on the issue of removing fluoride, mainly there are people that claim the water needs to be de-ionized before it goes thru a reverse osmosis system in order to successfully remove flourides . more info here(http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&amp;Number=62526). It all depends of what the manufacturer of the system claims. this company claims their new water filtration system removes about 99% of fluoride, again thats their claim. In my opinion if you are buying a RO system make sure you can return it if it does not remove the amount of fluoride they claim as well as to test the water before and after the filter you bought. Also note RO system get rid of minerals in the water(unless system has mineral filter to add minerals back) as well as distillers and if you are drinking only this type of water and your diet is poor in vegetables your body will start to suffer from lack of minerals. Also note RO system generally come with a water tank to store water in advance. I personally dont trust what these tanks are made of and can add other chemicals after you filter the water. If you are going for the RO system, i would research more about said tank or just skip the tank and filter straight to a different container.

In my personal opinion. I would go for a distiller, yes it takes time to filter and uses electricity but distillers, as best as i know, are the best water purification processes that get rid of the most contaminants including fluoride. If you are going with this, I would also add to your diet minerals in the form of a pill or add a daily 8oz of the so called "green juice" from the "gerson therapy" to help your body get the minerals you removed.the green juice will replenish your body with lots of minerals and vitamins as well as other beneficial elements and will clean and keep your body healthy. well just eating healthy and exercising will keep you healthy. Anyway hope this helps, if you dig up anything else let me know too, i like staying up to date.

Grazie mille - if i get this stuff tested, will let you know what I find. I was able to get a distiller that goes so far as to have a glass spigot, from China no less. Still don't really know how much better it is, but our tap water smells like a barnyard, even through a fridge filter, so I figure any bit of offset I can do is better than not doing anything.

cool. also forgot to mention, distillers turn water acidic, so make sure you level that ph too. lime or lemon juice in the water will turn alkaline once you drink it. you can also add a bit of watermellon and make watermellon flavored water. you can also add a touch of bakin soda but try going natural. hope the distiller works great for ya. also would it be 2 much to ask for a link to said distiller? having a glass spigot sure sounds good.

It's a Megahome. You can get them with glass receptacles, too. Looks like you were right and I was wrong on the price, though - looks like 180-200. For some reason, I thought it was cheaper.

cool, grazie man

Relevant

I've done the same. Here is a tip for everyone. Their local Costco or Sam's Club will offer a local water delivery company. For $20/month or less, you too can have distilled water delievered to your house weekly. In large 5 gallon jugs. They gave me an office type water dispenser for free for signing a cancellable at any time water delivery contract. Worth every single penny to me. And yes, I be noticed massive benefits after getting off fluoride. Seen first at the 2 month mark, and growing from there.

If you need help ordering, or have any questions, shoot them over to me.

Third account ive made after two shadow bans. This is one of the filters for my reverse osmosis unit. This is after about 7 months.(supposed to last a year). Toronto tap water BTW.fucking disgusting, the second filter was also darkbrown\red smelly.

Picture - http://m.imgur.com/S8XQ5Jq Edit- the filter is supposed to be WHITE

the best water to drink is distilled water. it is the purest water you can get. and it also removes all the mineral build ups from drinking spring water/tap water/natural water that have collected over all the years.

Isnt that...like....a really bad idea?

no its not, your body doesnt digest rocks

Actually, your body does need minerals.

Alright alright no need to be obtuse about it! I just remember somebody saying distilled water was somehow a bad thing to ingest...although i can remember thinking that logically it would be the absolute best thing to ingest. Ho hum.

sorry i though it would turn into anther bash me for drinking clean water kind of thing.

the idea is that there are inorganic and organic minerals. inorganics minerals are rocks, things that are not alive. organic minerals are found in fruits, they are alive. your body has no use for inorganic minerals (rocks) but can only process organic minerals (doesnt matter if the fruit itself is organic or conventional, its the minerals im talking about). also drinking minerals even organic isnt the save all drink. its better to eat clean and drink pure (distilled) water.

hope it clears some thoughts up.

But but but...

Some of the inorganic "rocks" in your dirty water are things like Calcium (apparently not one of these organic minerals), I don't know about YOUR body, but mine uses Calcium for some pretty important things (Like Locomotion, chief amongst those).

Are you saying that eating minerals in a solid form is ok, but drinking them in a solution is detrimental?

I only ask because that's insane.

I'm sure your body has all kinds of uses for the other dissolved stuff in water...

Also, if the water you are drinking is TOO pure it will kill you.

Not that many people would drink that water... but if mineral-depleted water can leech the vital minerals from your body, I would imagine that water that is merely mineral-low would also do some of it's own leeching.

In short: Hard water is shitty to bathe in, but is best to drink.

you dont get calcium your body can assimilate from a rock. you get calcium you can actually use from a food source.

where do you think minerals in the water comes from? rocks in the natural spring? or they are dumped in by the water company?

and how can pure water kill you?

Well being that I work for "the water company" I can honestly say that minerals in your water come from both the environment of the source water as well as the treatment process within the plant.

The calcium ion one would get in solid food is the exact same ion you woukd get out of tap water, and both are processed in your stomach, and from there the calcium goes into the bloodstream and then to the bones and other various necessary parts... the vector the calcium uses is essentially irrelevant.

Water is a solvent, and it really really wants to have stuff dissolved into it, really pure water has nothing dissolved into it, and so will strip your body of vital nutrients because it really wants to have stuff dissolved into it. Without said nutrients you will not survive

well since you work for the water company doing who knows what, your knowledge is lacking in the subject. distilled water strips you of inorganic mineral deposits not the organic ones that your body need. would you rather clean your body with water thats already holding inorganic minerals, or wash your body with water with the capacity to hold inorganic minerals and take them out of your body. you need to learn the difference between organic and inorganic minerals and how they effect body of a living thing.

If water is going to strip minerals out of you it will not discriminate between one type or another.

Washing with purer water is probably a good idea as it will more easily take up impurities on your skin, making for a better clean. Washing with hard water, soft water or even pure water will not have any effect on the chemistry inside your body. Skin is impermeable and water can't leech anything through it.

Well, if I am to learn the difference between organic and inorganic minerals could you provide some links on the subject? You seem like you've done your research...

this was the closest i can find to a pdf http://www.wlake.com/water/page2.htm which is the same as the book "the choice is clear" its only 40 pages, because the knowledge in the subject is fairly straight forward. the book can be bought of amazon for 2 bucks, sometime i buy it just to break the free shipping barrier so i got a bunch of them at home i let people borrow and stuff like that.

water that is distilled holds a different charge then regular water. i believe its negatively charged which means when it passed through you body it collect all the positive charged stuff which is like bacteria and living things in you. the other reason why they gave the scientest gave it the unappleaing name "distilled" as a pose to what it is "pure" is because in a water its all charged the same(negative) so its always repelling itself, so it is never still. there is also less drag in distilled water(its all trying to be apart from it self anyways), it boils quicker(because you have no minerals to heat up in the process), and feels smoother to drink(because of the repelling nature).

video i just found while looking for one, never saw it before but his stuff is on point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCWTx5Dy1Gg

Certainly makes sense. So its better for you as a hydration option than mineral water as marketed by the likes of Evian or volvic for example?

distilled water is the best hydration. the only reason its not marketed is because they would all taste the same and be the exact same. no company "special blends" or nonsense gimmicks.

Y'know....I see a gap in the market!

Smart Water brand water is distilled. They add electrolytes to restore flavor.

electrolytes = minerals

Here's a research about flouride and the pinael gland by Jennifer Luke (1997):

http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/pineal-gland/

I work in Water Treatment, and the Municipality I work in is not the one I live in. My own Municipality does not Fluoridate its water, but the one I work in does. I bring about 2 litres of my own water every day, and if I run out I fill up my bottles from points in the treatment plants prior to the addition of the Fluoride.

There is no reason for Fluoride to enter the bloodstream, I know there are concerns of neurotoxicity and other forms of brain damage, but there is a lot of mud in the water about that topic right now. I am against Fluoride because of what it does to our bones.

The Fluoride ion will displace the Calcium ions in your skeleton, this will change your bones from structures with a strength akin to concrete, into something that more resembles glass. Both are hard, but one is brittle and will break very easily.

It is good when it hits our teeth, the Fluoride bonds with our tooth enamel and forms a hardened barrier around our teeth. Teeth don't (normally) sustain forceful impacts so the brittleness is not a factor, bones on the other hand, undergo a lot more strain, stress and impact, and thus having them reinforced with Fluoride becomes a risk.

OP I commend you for attempting to remove Fluoride from your life, but it DOES have its use, maybe grab some Fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash and remember to spit and rinse each time.

It really is beneficial for your teeth, just don't let it into your bloodstream.

Edit: Spelling

http://fluoridealert.org/

Print flyers. Spread local awareness. Tell your friends and family.

Various locales are banning mass fluoridation, perhaps your action may spark the change needed to make your community the next.

Borax has been used effectively to treat fluoride poisoning by the Chinese. Also a great source of boron, which many people who rely on industrialized agriculture are deficient in anyway.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/boraxconspiracy03jul12.shtml

But seriously: You need to ask yourself if you really want your pineal gland to start functioning again, causing you to wake up in a world in which you no longer belong. Ignorance is bliss.

Do you have any links to borax supplements? I kind of waat to have dreams, I can almost never recollect anymore.

If you live in the US, just go to the supermarket and buy some borax in the detergent section; it's 99.99% pure. I don't think you can do that in the EU though; you might have to buy it from a chemist there. Article gives the protocols the Chinese doctors use for detox, as well as boron supplementation for good health; though I think that part is a little conservative. If an organic apple has 20mg boron, why do they have us supplementing @ 3mg per day. I upped mine to 12mg per day, and am doing fine.

your pineal gland to start functioning again, causing you to wake up in a world in which you no longer belong

Exactly what do you think the pineal gland does?

Even if he could somehow de-calcify it, and if he's under 30 it probably won't be, he's not going to turn into Professor-X or something.

Try DMT, then tell me your pineal gland isn't important.

No thanks. And why has OP deleted this?

At minimum, it is responsible for melatonin production which is required for sleep and the circadian rhythm. How important is sleep to you?

Have you established that people in fluoridated areas have an issue with sleeping?

Because that would actually be a reasonable objection. Not all this "third eye" crap I read here.

Source that fluoride turns off your pineal gland? That is a patently false claim.

It calcifies your pineal gland, turning it practically into stone.

I'm simply asking if there is any evidence that fluoride at the levels used in tap water "turns your pineal glad into stone". I don't see how that is possible as the pineal gland is an essential gland and with it not working a person would be really fucked up.

Ask google. I just found 3 published papers that were behind paywalls. Maybe if you dig in for an hour or so you'll find one for free.

Or maybe you're just a typical reddit-sketpic here to say anything that goes against the popular opinions of the hive mind is "patently false" like a fucking moron.

I swear reddit is virtually a digital, CIA/Illuminati MK Ultra, so many people are so behaviorally trained like a pack of mindless monkeys. The very notion of an idea that threatens that artificial behavior causes them to almost immediately shut down and act like a bunch of mindless automatons.

I agree, people just believe random claims on the Internet like that fluoride turns tour pineal gland to stone without using any critical thinking to determine if that is in fact the case or just a common Internet myth.

You are the one who made the ridiculous claim that the calcification of the pineal gland due to exposure to flourish results in it turning basically to stone. The burden of proof is on you.

Depends on if you seek answers or arguments.

I seek answers which is why I've asked for them, but instead I keep getting comments like this which don't answer the question which is "Why do you people believe this ridiculous claim when no one seems to only have any evidence whatsoever that it's true."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html

LOL, bigots. (NSFW)

Harvard Study

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/

Origins of the bull crap science behind Fluoride, a means to shield the military industrial complex during A-Bomb development

http://fluoridealert.org/articles/wastenot414/

The Medical Journal the Lancet has already classified fluoride as a neuro toxin, the article I've found so far is still gated in the journal, if you find a link, please send a link to it.

I like how you are being downvoted for asking for a source

Why do you have such a hatred for us? Stick to your own sub. This is like a NY giants fan coming into a NY jets sub to down vote and say jets fans are retards. You are just ridiculing and making fun. If you really thought conspiracies were harmful and we are sick, you wouldn't berate or downvote us but have a discussion. I am not for this fluoride conspiracy. But, all you are is an asshole who gives nothing to a community.

Depends on if you seek answers or arguments.

I don't really care where it comes from, it's still fluoride. Are you shocked that it is naturally occurring in water and that fluoridation can actually mean reducing the amount of fluoride in the water to bring it to the regulated levels for public consumption? Seems a strange thing to do if the aim is to poison everybody.

Shills are not interested in such inconvenient facts. They kill any and all arguments they have for the forced application to all citizens, regardless of informed consent. The fools that cheer their own demise. Those who know are still exposed to a poison that makes them docile and dumb.

Anyone else find it interesting that as fluoride exposure increases, there is a direct decrease in the number of people who stand up and protest the unjust treatment? But it's for the kids! Think of their cavities! The side effects are worth the minimal decrease of cavities. As this poison kills them, it also kills some of the bacteria. Coincidentally fluoride is actively used as a industrial poison. To kill pests. But he'll, let's put it in our water supply.

In Europe, where certain locations have banned the fluoridation of water, they then force fluoride out in their milk supply.

Until the people wake up and demand water without poison added, this poisoning will continue.

None of this is evidence of lack of fluorides harmful effects. For all you know you would be 20% more intelligent if it weren't for fluoride ingestion.

It does exist. Someone else posted a link in the comments.