Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > Misc > Off-topic
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-16-2011, 04:16 PM   #16
davericher20
black and blue
 
davericher20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 2 storey 3 bedroom 1 car garage
Posts: 3,595


Listerine toothpaste doesn't have flouride listed in it's ingredients. I used 1 tube because of that and will never will buy it again.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by JINT View Post
Some people have serious track experience from the cruise, so what is fast to you, isn't fast to them.
davericher20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 04:56 PM   #17
bmdbley'sBro
wouldu like some tinfoil?
 
bmdbley'sBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in your attic!
Posts: 4,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotcH View Post
Haven't used flouride tooth paste in years, and never get it at the dentist. My grade 12 physics and chemistry teacher had some very strong arguements against it, and he is a pretty smart guy. I believed him, did some of my own research, and decided to cut it out. Of course they still put it in water here in Ottawa, but at least I get rid of what I can control.

This is good news!
it truely is great news. i just assumed they're adding it in ottawa.

i hear ya on cutting out what you can..
aparently from what i've read they now also spray cops with fluoride!

and when they say 'fluoride' its a catch all for phrase for the 100's of chemicals that are aparently in there!


its like you can't escape.





Quote:
Originally Posted by davericher20 View Post
and you're not alone, from what I understand back in the 40's and 50's companies needed to find a new way to get rid of their waste because of the costs associated with the disposal.
Put a bunch of dentists/scientists in your pocket to say flouride is safe and even good for you.......Problem solved. To this day that propoganda has stayed.

I did a thread on here a couple years ago about it.
+1 pretty much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fitter527 View Post
there is going to be a group making a presentation to city council here in London in March to get rid of it.hopefully they will listen.Kitchener/Waterloo did away with it last year i think.
awesome! I hope they're succesful. say if you're on any local boards or know people in the area email or link that youtube vid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartacus View Post
The YouTube video in the OPs post is a serious eye-opener, and scary as hell. I highly recommend you watch all 3 parts of that video. Next time I see my dentist, I'm giving that guy serious sh!t, and never rinsing with flouride again.
you're welcome, and it is angering..then you look into the epa and other things & get angrier. type flouride into youtube, type eugenics & get really freaked out. alex jones isn't full o crap people - an odd ball for sure, but not a liar on these issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HavocSteve View Post
Errrrr.... I drank that for 22yrs >_< I'm so screwed!

On a side note, I bought a brita filter. Does that help? ahahah..
I think we're all a little fk'd from the bio-warfare? Its cumulative, so stopping ingestion Does help.

but i've lost count of the people i've known with cancer (any1 else?)! girl i know is getting her uterus removed in march, might have bowel cancer too. cancer is up like 3000%

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Flyview View Post
Unbelievable! I am SO glad I spent time to watch that video. If you care about your health and medical/scientific deception, I would urge you to watch all three parts of this video! Unbelievable conflict of interest. I'm going to read the book.
as i mentioned a few up you start to see/read more over the years & see that there is a revolving door of ex-pharma, food, etc industry insiders go work at the epa, etc, supposedly regulating the very corps they just came from then they go back to work for them!?

Aspartame as 1 example! donald Rumsfeld working for searl? got it fast tracked, now its even in regular sugared gums..
ontop of being uber bad for you - it is literally the feces of the anthrax bacteria! look it up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZiMMie View Post
Which toothpaste is that, and where can i find it?
I cant find anything on the local shelves that doesn't contain fluoride. Every single toothpaste has it in our local supermarket/pharmacies.

Ontario/Toronto should be next. I cant find the content of fluoride in drinking water put I'm preaty sure that its in there, since every single bottle of water sold down here contains it.
man they even market 'baby - infant water' with fluoride in it.. they don't even have teeth! its crazy






Quote:
Originally Posted by SiR View Post
awesome. hopefully it trickles down to us.

nazis used it...
100% truth .. but Stalin was first!
__________________
bmdbley'sBro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 06:00 PM   #18
arek
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Burlington/Poland
Posts: 582
I shower and drink bottled fresh water from switzerland alps, am I safe?
arek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 06:13 PM   #19
davericher20
black and blue
 
davericher20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 2 storey 3 bedroom 1 car garage
Posts: 3,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by arek View Post
I shower and drink bottled fresh water from switzerland alps, am I safe?
no. You are pretty much f ucked
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by JINT View Post
Some people have serious track experience from the cruise, so what is fast to you, isn't fast to them.
davericher20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 09:45 PM   #20
mkgino
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,719
bmdbley'sBro you dont really know what your talking about.

Low levels of fluoride is protective for teeth while teeth are developing. The low amounts of fluoride in drinking water help teeth become stronger when they are developing. High or severe amounts of fluoride are bad for your teeth, and dangerous for your health. Thats why in the picture you have above shows someone who has normal amounts of fluoride on the top left has relatively normal teeth and the last person with severe fluoride ingestion has "fluorosis" of their teeth. Too much fluoride is not good, but very little is healthy for your teeth.

A similar situation where something in moderation is good for your health but bad in excess is drinking wine. Did you know moderate wine drinkers have lower mortality rates? Heavy or excess wine drinkers/alcoholics have higher mortality rates?

Maybe you can try posting up some evidence based research articles from medical journals that compares long term mortality of fluoridated vs non fluoridated communities? There are thousands of research articles showing the effectiveness of fluoride in promoting healthy teeth and decreasing the cavity rates in people. And I dont know of ANY showing low levels of protective fluoride in drinking water causing cancer, or any other ill effects. And Im talking about research articles, not anecdotal evidence from actors, writers or individual people. It doesnt work that way. Years of research has to show a same conclusion repeatedly to help come to the conclusion that fluoride is harmful that the research just isnt showing that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmdbley'sBro View Post
but i've lost count of the people i've known with cancer (any1 else?)! girl i know is getting her uterus removed in march, might have bowel cancer too. cancer is up like 3000%

man they even market 'baby - infant water' with fluoride in it.. they don't even have teeth! its crazy
See here is an example that you dont really know what you are talking about. You say that cancer rate is up 3000%. From when? 50 years ago? Well, 50 or so years ago people didn't have as much knowledge of the way cancer works. With new ways to detect cancer, and new cancer types being discovered all the time, the amount of cancer we detect is increasing because we are becoming better at finding it and diagnosing it. How about all of the people we saved from cancer because of increases in diagnosis and treatment technology?

Also baby fluoridated water is available because teeth are developing in a baby even though they arent in the baby's mouth yet. Did you know baby teeth develop in an infant when they are still in the mothers womb? and the baby's adult teeth begin to develop when the baby is born (ie at 0 months old), even though they begin to come into the mouth at 6 years old? So if fluoridated water is most effective when teeth are developing and not when they are already formed, wouldnt it make sense to have low levels of protective fluoride ingestion when the teeth are forming?

If you want to really be worried about something, how about the Bisphenol A from the plastic container that holds your bottled spring water? Did you know it is linked to infertility and decrease in sperm quality in men? SO what are you going to do now? Be poisoned by fluoridated water or Bisphenol A? OR just hold your mouth open out the window and hope it rains when you get thirsty?

What do you think of vaccinations? LoL

Last edited by mkgino; 02-16-2011 at 09:58 PM.
mkgino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 10:07 PM   #21
Bartacus
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ottawa, ONT, Canada
Posts: 559
mkgino: ok expert, explain to us how INGESTING flouride, not smearing it on our teeth, helps "protect" your teeth. I think YOU don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Bartacus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 10:38 PM   #22
mkgino
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartacus View Post
mkgino: ok expert, explain to us how INGESTING flouride, not smearing it on our teeth, helps "protect" your teeth. I think YOU don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Yep its pretty easy actually

The protective surface of your teeth called Enamel is formed by crystals called hydroxyapatite [Ca10(PO4)6OH2]. Fluoride substitutes for the hydroxyl ion (the OH in the hydroxyapatite crystal). So enamel with ingested fluoride becomes Fluoroapatite with the fomula [Ca10(PO4)6F2]. This compound is more resistant to acid attacks from bacteria which cause cavities to your teeth. It makes teeth stronger.

Fluoride protects your teeth in two ways.

1. INGESTING FLUORIDE when your teeth are forming allows fluoride to enter the inner surfaces of the enamel of your teeth. So the deeper layers of enamel formed as Fluoroapatite are stronger. This can only be done when teeth are developing, NOT when teeth are already developed. So overall the entire tooth surface after its developed is stronger.

2. Fluoride treatment From a Dentist allows fluoride temporarily in and around your teeth. This can cause remineralization (reforming) of fluoroapatite at the surface of the tooth that switched to the hydroxyapatite crystals that is more prone to bacteria and acid attacks which can cause cavities. So this helps protect the outer surface of teeth and helps to reverse any damage that may have already started.
mkgino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 11:04 PM   #23
SiR
Vtec just kicked in
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: TO
Posts: 2,806
and the anti "nut job" brigade has arrived.
__________________
-||Old Crayons||-
SiR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 11:16 PM   #24
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartacus View Post
mkgino: ok expert, explain to us how INGESTING flouride, not smearing it on our teeth, helps "protect" your teeth. I think YOU don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Actaully Bartacus, he is an EXPERT. Which you are not - even though you think your Wikipedia degree makes you one.

Last edited by sirex; 02-16-2011 at 11:19 PM.
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 02:22 AM   #25
ZiMMie
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: T-Dot
Posts: 9,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkgino View Post
bmdbley'sBro you dont really know what your talking about.

Low levels of fluoride is protective for teeth while teeth are developing. The low amounts of fluoride in drinking water help teeth become stronger when they are developing. High or severe amounts of fluoride are bad for your teeth, and dangerous for your health. Thats why in the picture you have above shows someone who has normal amounts of fluoride on the top left has relatively normal teeth and the last person with severe fluoride ingestion has "fluorosis" of their teeth. Too much fluoride is not good, but very little is healthy for your teeth.

A similar situation where something in moderation is good for your health but bad in excess is drinking wine. Did you know moderate wine drinkers have lower mortality rates? Heavy or excess wine drinkers/alcoholics have higher mortality rates?

Maybe you can try posting up some evidence based research articles from medical journals that compares long term mortality of fluoridated vs non fluoridated communities? There are thousands of research articles showing the effectiveness of fluoride in promoting healthy teeth and decreasing the cavity rates in people. And I dont know of ANY showing low levels of protective fluoride in drinking water causing cancer, or any other ill effects. And Im talking about research articles, not anecdotal evidence from actors, writers or individual people. It doesnt work that way. Years of research has to show a same conclusion repeatedly to help come to the conclusion that fluoride is harmful that the research just isnt showing that.



See here is an example that you dont really know what you are talking about. You say that cancer rate is up 3000%. From when? 50 years ago? Well, 50 or so years ago people didn't have as much knowledge of the way cancer works. With new ways to detect cancer, and new cancer types being discovered all the time, the amount of cancer we detect is increasing because we are becoming better at finding it and diagnosing it. How about all of the people we saved from cancer because of increases in diagnosis and treatment technology?

Also baby fluoridated water is available because teeth are developing in a baby even though they arent in the baby's mouth yet. Did you know baby teeth develop in an infant when they are still in the mothers womb? and the baby's adult teeth begin to develop when the baby is born (ie at 0 months old), even though they begin to come into the mouth at 6 years old? So if fluoridated water is most effective when teeth are developing and not when they are already formed, wouldnt it make sense to have low levels of protective fluoride ingestion when the teeth are forming?

If you want to really be worried about something, how about the Bisphenol A from the plastic container that holds your bottled spring water? Did you know it is linked to infertility and decrease in sperm quality in men? SO what are you going to do now? Be poisoned by fluoridated water or Bisphenol A? OR just hold your mouth open out the window and hope it rains when you get thirsty?

What do you think of vaccinations? LoL

Here is an article from the "National Institute of Dental Research".

Quote:
Data collected by the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) produced the largest and most extensive database ever used to determine whether there is a relationship between fluoridation and tooth decay. Released on June 21, 1988, the $3,670,000 nationwide survey examined 39,207 U.S. school children aged 5-17 from 84 different geographical areas.

Of the 84 areas, 28 had been fluoridated for 17 years or more, 29 had never been fluoridated, and 27 had been only partially fluoridated or fluoridated for less than 17 years. Age-adjusted tooth decay rates for the permanent teeth of children were determined for each of the 84 areas which were then listed in the order of increasing tooth decay rates. The listing showed clearly that there was no relation between tooth decay rates and fluoridation. Ironically, the lowest tooth decay rate reported in the survey occurred in a nonfluoridated area.

The average number of decayed, missing, and filled permanent teeth (DMFT) per child was 2.0 in the fluoridated areas, 2.0 in the nonfluoridated areas, and 2.2 in the partially fluoridated areas. The percentage of decay-free children in the fluoridated, non fluoridated, and partially fluoridated areas was 34%, 35%, and 31%, respectively.

The foregoing results compiled from an analysis of the data gathered by NIDR were neither sought - nor reported in the NIDR release. At the Safe Water Foundation, we extracted these results from the data of the NIDR survey and submitted them to the journal, Comm. Dent. Oral Epidemiol., for publication. After reviewing the manuscript we submitted, Dr. Irwin Bross, the former Head of the Research, Design, and Analysis unit of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, former Director of Biostatistics of the Roswell Park Memorial Institute, and the current President of Biomedical Metatechnology, commented: "The material is clear and well presented. It provides a good demonstration of its main points: There is not much difference in tooth decay rates or in the percentages of decay-free children in the three fluoridation categories."

Getting the data from the NIDR was like pulling teeth. Not only did the Institute drag its feet in sending the data, but when they were sent, the NIDR went out of its way to supply the data in printout form rather than in the computer-readable form requested.

We had requested the data within a week of the report's release. Four months later, on October 13th, we received not the dozen or so diskettes expected, but 2,142 pages of data with approximately 3,000 numbers per page. Instead of spending a matter of minutes to transfer the data onto diskettes, the NIDR spent hours printing out the data with no advantage to the Institute except that they made it almost impossible for us to analyze the data.

To do so, we manually processed 6,348,264 numbers, triple-checking the calculations, before entering the resulting figures into a computer and double-checking the entries. This took three months of round-the-clock work. In addition to the commitment of his own time, thousands of dollars of the author's personal funds were necessary to finance the study. In the dental research field, funding from NIDR is the name of the game. For obvious reasons, we did not apply for funding.

Why would one go through so much trouble to scour such an extensive database not knowing what the results would be? Simple. In the course of writing the book, Fluoride, the Aging Factor (Health Action Press, Delaware, Ohio, 1986), this author had already traced the history of studies claiming that fluoridation reduced tooth decay by 60-70%. That review had shown how the results of these studies, most of which had been funded by the NIDR, were manipulated in an attempt to make it appear that fluoridation was dramatically reducing tooth decay. The data from the survey, released on June 21, 1988, would determine whether the NIDR was lying, exaggerating, or right on target with regard to its claim that fluoridation reduced tooth decay by 60-70%. The author was confident that such a large and extensive database would show no significant difference in tooth decay rates as a result of fluoridation.

Also making this venture less of a gamble were papers from Canada (Gray, A.S., J. Canadian Dent. Assoc. 53, 753-755 [1987]), and New Zealand (Colquhoun, J., Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 13, 37-41 [1985]), which showed that tooth decay in fluoridated areas was the same or slightly higher than in nonfluoridated areas. Both authors were public health officials who had previously been very active in promoting fluoridation. Based on his extensive research, Dr. Colquhoun concluded that fluoridation did not reduce tooth decay. His continuing research has documented many flaws and distortions in earlier studies claiming that fluoridation reduces tooth decay and has led him to take an active role against fluoridation.

Dr. Gray's reaction was indeed curious. In his paper, he stated, "Survey results in British Columbia with only 11% of the population using fluoridated water show lower DMFT [tooth decay] rates than provinces with 40-70% of the population drinking fluoridated water" and "school districts recently reporting the highest caries-free rates in the province were totally unfluoridated." From this he made the absurd conclusion that fluoridation is probably only reducing tooth decay by 25%!

More incredible than Dr. Gray's conclusion are statements in the press release accompanying the announcement of NIDR's dental survey. As noted, the survey contained the data from which the NIDR could determine that fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay in the permanent teeth of school children in the U.S. Nevertheless, NIDR stated, "The NIDR survey did not address the question of what is causing the decline in dental caries, but Institute officials say they believe the widespread use of fluoride - in community water supplies, toothpastes, and other forms - is mainly responsible."

To further confound its audience, the NIDR release stated, "Half the children in the United States have no tooth decay." We found this statement to be false and misleading. Among 17-year-olds, for example, only 14% were decay-free; even among 7-year-olds, a majority had tooth decay. In comparing the results of this survey to another survey completed in 1980, the release claimed that tooth decay rates had declined. It failed to mention that the use of different areas in the 1980 survey precluded them from making a valid comparison.

Whether it is dishonesty, or incompetence, or both, that impels the NIDR to continually make false statements in a zealous promotion of fluoridation, it is certainly time we stop funding these corruptive activities and start an investigation of the Institute for fraud. If this is not done, the NIDR and the other branches of the USPHS will continue to undermine the scientific integrity of dental research.
__________________
#E36-S54 #CSLWannabe
ZiMMie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 09:40 AM   #26
davericher20
black and blue
 
davericher20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 2 storey 3 bedroom 1 car garage
Posts: 3,595
so from what I read^^ that study showed that there was NO benefit to flouridating correct?
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by JINT View Post
Some people have serious track experience from the cruise, so what is fast to you, isn't fast to them.
davericher20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 10:11 AM   #27
HavocSteve
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,892
This shit gots me confused uncle!

ahahaha... I don't believe anybody, I just come to the conclusion that one day ill die, if i have bad teeth, then so be it.
__________________
HavocSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 10:48 AM   #28
Bartacus
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ottawa, ONT, Canada
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex View Post
Actaully Bartacus, he is an EXPERT. Which you are not - even though you think your Wikipedia degree makes you one.
I never claimed to be an expert. I eat so much sugar that flouride is the least of my worries.
Bartacus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 11:13 AM   #29
ScotcH
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkgino View Post
Yep its pretty easy actually

The protective surface of your teeth called Enamel is formed by crystals called hydroxyapatite [Ca10(PO4)6OH2]. Fluoride substitutes for the hydroxyl ion (the OH in the hydroxyapatite crystal). So enamel with ingested fluoride becomes Fluoroapatite with the fomula [Ca10(PO4)6F2]. This compound is more resistant to acid attacks from bacteria which cause cavities to your teeth. It makes teeth stronger.

Fluoride protects your teeth in two ways.

1. INGESTING FLUORIDE when your teeth are forming allows fluoride to enter the inner surfaces of the enamel of your teeth. So the deeper layers of enamel formed as Fluoroapatite are stronger. This can only be done when teeth are developing, NOT when teeth are already developed. So overall the entire tooth surface after its developed is stronger.

2. Fluoride treatment From a Dentist allows fluoride temporarily in and around your teeth. This can cause remineralization (reforming) of fluoroapatite at the surface of the tooth that switched to the hydroxyapatite crystals that is more prone to bacteria and acid attacks which can cause cavities. So this helps protect the outer surface of teeth and helps to reverse any damage that may have already started.
Look, even if the chemistry is correct, and somehow the flouride DID help prevent tooth decay (which as in the article posted, it appears it does not), why the hell would we NEED it?? Keep your teeth healthy by cleaning them and proper diet instead of relying on restructuring the crystals in your teeth for feks sake.
__________________
2007 BMW 328Xi Touring, 6 speed
ScotcH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2011, 11:50 AM   #30
SiR
Vtec just kicked in
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: TO
Posts: 2,806
with how good dental implants are these days... bah who cares if your teeth go bad by the time you are 50?

take that poison out of the water.
__________________
-||Old Crayons||-
SiR is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Maxbimmer Copyright 2001 - 2018