| Author |
|
florist Guest
|
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: I am not sure if anyone has posted this about water |
|
|
but thought I would add to this section and especially for new Mother's fixing baby bottles. It is about the fluoide in our water and the harm to babies.
If you go to fluoridealert.org web site, there is a great deal of information, especailly about babies. Also, it gives a list of all the towns in America which have banned fluoride in the water.
Some of the research showed:
Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.
Despite being prescribed by doctors for over 50 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective. Fluoride supplements are designed to deliver the same amount of fluoride as ingested daily from fluoridated water (
The US fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e. to lower dental decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis (mottled and discolored enamel), a condition known to be caused by fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its mildest form) to 10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). A major US survey has found 30% of children in optimally fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis on at least two teeth (Heller 1997), while smaller studies have found up to 80% of children impacted (Williams 1990; Lalumandier 1995 and Morgan 1998). The York Review estimates that up to 48% of children in optimally fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms and 12.5% with symptoms of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000).
The level of fluoride put into water (1 ppm) is up to 200 times higher than normally found in mothers' milk (0.005 – 0.01 ppm) (Ekstrand 1981; Institute of Medicine 1997). There are no benefits, only risks, for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (this is an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).
When complexed with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with many hormonal and some neurochemical signals (Strunecka & Patocka 1999, Li 2003).
Fluoride forms complexes with a large number of metal ions, which include metals which are needed in the body (like calcium and magnesium) and metals (like lead and aluminum) which are toxic to the body. This can cause a variety of problems. For example, fluoride interferes with enzymes where magnesium is an important co-factor, and it can help facilitate the uptake of aluminum and lead into tissues where these metals wouldn't otherwise go (Mahaffey 1976; Allain 1996; Varner 1998).
Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and exposure alters mental behavior in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent (Mullenix 1995). Rats dosed prenatally demonstrated hyperactive behavior. Those dosed postnatally demonstrated hypoactivity (i.e. under activity or "couch potato" syndrome). More recent animal experiments have reported that fluoride can damage the brain (Wang 1997; Guan 1998; Varner 1998; Zhao 1998; Zhang 1999; Lu 2000; Shao 2000; Sun 2000; Bhatnagar 2002; Chen 2002, 2003; Long 2002; Shivarajashankara 2002a, b; Shashi 2003 and Zhai 2003) and impact learning and behavior (Paul 1998; Zhang 1999, 2001; Sun 2000; Ekambaram 2001; Bhatnagar 2002).
Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa , mimic the symptoms of arthritis (Singh 1963; Franke 1975; Teotia 1976; Carnow 1981; Czerwinski 1988; DHHS 1991). According to a review on fluoridation by Chemical & Engineering News, "Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed" (Hileman 1988). Few if any studies have been done to determine the extent of this misdiagnosis, and whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America (1 in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis - CDC, 2002) is related to our growing fluoride exposure, which is highly plausible. The causes of most forms of arthritis (e.g. osteoarthritis) are unknown.
I just copied a few of the studies but there a great deal more and brainman, there was details about the brain I thought you might want to study.
Blessings, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
justme20 New User
Joined: 25 Apr 2008 Posts: 2
|
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: fascinating |
|
|
| this is really fascinating. i never knew they added fluoride to h20. who in their right mind would give fluoride to a baby, but if you don't know it's in the freekin h20!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
brainman Site Admin

Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 3016 Location: Tennessee
|
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: Re: I am not sure if anyone has posted this about water |
|
|
Again, florist, you only give half of the story. Yes, there are problems with fluorine and chlorine usage in our water purification. But for centuries before we used these two in order to purify our water, how many hundreds of thousands of people died due to impure water? You name the "problem" half ways but give us no reasonable alternative.
Fluorine is also in our water to help prevent tooth decay.
Please, do not post anymore of your "alarmist" post and just talk about your own experience with cancer. _________________ Jim
Site Administrator and long-term cancer survivor
1992 Astrocytoma grade 2, left motor strip
2005 Recurrence this time said to be an Oligodendoglioma grade 3, same location.
My Story Part 1: http://cancerforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=7350
My Story Part 2: http://cancerforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=8029
Blog http://jimhawkinsport.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
florist Guest
|
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: Think you are wrong on this one. |
|
|
It is not necessary for purifing and if you really look at the web site I referenced it will give the details.
But Brainman, just like you, I assumed it was the case. More and more large towns are finally removing this drug, which really was suppose to help peoples teeth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Vee Smith Moderator
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 561 Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
florist Guest
|
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject: Vee your post is very interesting |
|
|
The web site you refer too is one by Stephen Barrett, M.D. retired psychiatrist. He received the FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service.
Barrett has become a "lightning rod" for controversy as a result of his criticisms of alternative medicine theories and practitioners. Barrett says he does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be "way outside [his] scope."
I guess if I were one that thought only drugs could heal, I might agree with his oppinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
florist Guest
|
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: One more thing about city water. |
|
|
Now this is a fact as a florist. The reason florists do not use city water with their flowers is they do not last as long. Yes, I know people are not flowers but God does call us a garden.
Anyway, when flowers come in, the first thing is to hydrate them. Make sure the buckets are clean and recut stems so they will drink. Some of my customers would say they got 4 weeks out of my flowers. Now this is an accomplishment for any florist and it did not come about just by what I did but what I taught my customers to do. Recut and place in clean water. NOT TAP WATER - and I did this for the last 20 years.
I did not research to the reason why but I knew from experience that there was something in the water that the flowers did not do well.
By the way, flowers always had to have good food when they began to absorb the water. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
inspire Regular
Joined: 22 Dec 2007 Posts: 10
|
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:22 am Post subject: Re: I am not sure if anyone has posted this about water |
|
|
I was wondering why one person can list their quackwatch website for reference to and other websites are deleted as deemed by the overseer?
I just wonder what is a qualifier for posting a website - it seems like the "overseer of deleting websites " has a bias?
I would not necessarily call her fluoride water post alarmist - but rather another perspective - a dot in the constellation of things that may merit consideration when trying to track out contributing factors or possibilities for this disease .
How do we post things without the judgment and allow for all voices and perspectives to be allowed in the forum?
Cancer is the alarm - as many volunteers in the bucket brigade of bringing any type of answers to the scene is welcome - -
I hope.
Even the quack brigade who many times seems alarming to me...but that is just my sole opinion.. many may differ.. and is that not helpful? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
brainman Site Admin

Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 3016 Location: Tennessee
|
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: Re: I am not sure if anyone has posted this about water |
|
|
Inspire, unfortunately, florist's posts are read by more young people who what to hear from someone they can believe is giving them good information. Florist is providing half truths and at times dangerous information. After being warned multiple times and hearing from many other members expressing their concerns, I have banned her and will lock her topics.
As for why some people can use links while the links used be others are deleted, I reffer you to our "Lynks policy".
http://cancerforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=7121 _________________ Jim
Site Administrator and long-term cancer survivor
1992 Astrocytoma grade 2, left motor strip
2005 Recurrence this time said to be an Oligodendoglioma grade 3, same location.
My Story Part 1: http://cancerforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=7350
My Story Part 2: http://cancerforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=8029
Blog http://jimhawkinsport.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|