Our Daily Poison
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
From the World health Organization.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutdemineralized.pdf
I agree with the opinion that if we ate like they did long ago, just plain natural
farm grown or home grown food that would be great, and more healthy for the
body.
The problem back then was having enough of 'everything' we need each day, as
the travel problems were huge, and the spoiling of the food was common.
So, now that we have those problems solved we should eat all naturally grown
organic food, a well balanced assortment, and we live longer now because we
have conquered many of the diseases that killed people long ago, and we are
more educated and aware of why certain foods are good and others are bad.
We have the choice to do it the right way, so the choice is yours.
The more people who insist on eating the 'right' way, will create the country to
grow it the right way, and prepare it the right way, and then the cost will begin
to go down for good organically grown food, and organically prepared food.
Just don't buy the crap, and they won't make any money from it, and they will
discontue producing it, we have the power, and can't blame anyone else. People
love convenience, just open a box/can, pour it in a pot, and heat it up, so as long
as we continue those habits, they will make anything that people will buy because
it is convenient and tastes good.
farm grown or home grown food that would be great, and more healthy for the
body.
The problem back then was having enough of 'everything' we need each day, as
the travel problems were huge, and the spoiling of the food was common.
So, now that we have those problems solved we should eat all naturally grown
organic food, a well balanced assortment, and we live longer now because we
have conquered many of the diseases that killed people long ago, and we are
more educated and aware of why certain foods are good and others are bad.
We have the choice to do it the right way, so the choice is yours.
The more people who insist on eating the 'right' way, will create the country to
grow it the right way, and prepare it the right way, and then the cost will begin
to go down for good organically grown food, and organically prepared food.
Just don't buy the crap, and they won't make any money from it, and they will
discontue producing it, we have the power, and can't blame anyone else. People
love convenience, just open a box/can, pour it in a pot, and heat it up, so as long
as we continue those habits, they will make anything that people will buy because
it is convenient and tastes good.
Most discussions about water purity seem to be directed by those with special interest. There are some misconceptions, inconsistencies, downright inaccuracies and red herrings that should be exposed and cleared up.
1. When discussing the benefits of demineralized water, it should be made clear that the opposite of demineralized, distilled or purified is not “contaminated” water in the sense that most people use that term. While technically correct, the term contaminated carries a negative connotation that tends to cloud the issue.
2. Total dissolved solids is not measurable and the term doesn’t mean as mush as some would tend to believe. It is an estimation based on the conductivity of water. If you take a glass of tap water and measure its conductivity then add two tablespoons of sugar, the conductivity drops indicating a lower level of dissolved solids. I can get into the reasons if anybody is interested.
3. Essentially, the benefits received by drinking water are hydration and hydration alone. Moderately hard water may contain up to 50 mg/L of calcium (depending on whose definition of moderately hard you are using). Two litres/day would give the consumer 100 mg or roughly one third the amount of calcium from one glass of milk. Of course, that is assuming that the 2 litres/day recommended is strictly water that is not mixed with anything (ie soup). There is considerable opinion that organic forms of calcium (citrate) are more readily absorbed than calcium carbonate.
4. Pure water will not leech minerals out of your body. When one considers the contents of ones stomach, the idea that pure water remains pure when it is consumed, borders on the ludicrous. Boiling vegetables leeches out minerals and it doesn’t matter much what level of minerals in the water. If it concerns you, eat raw veggies.
5. When deciding to continue drinking tap water, mineral water, purified water or filtered water it is important to determine what you are looking for. All may be a healthy alternative or neither may be a healthy alternative. Where you live is important (what is the quality of your tap water). What effects you are looking for is important (are you concerned with health or do you just want something that tastes good). Not all bottled water companies are the same. The overwhelming majority of the bottled water companies operating within a 75 mile radius of my house have higher levels of chloroform in their water than I do coming out of my tap.
6. Understanding the reasons behind the chemistry and regulations is important. I read one link on this thread about juice having 300 times the amount of pesticide that is allowed in tap water. The reason for this is twofold. First, water isn't generally sprayed with pesticide like other food products may be so it's not unexpected that the levels would be lower in tap water than in other food stuffs. Secondly, pesticides in municipal waters is an indication of contamination by rural runoff or other sources. It is an indicator of a problem..it isn't necessarily the problem in and of itself.
1. When discussing the benefits of demineralized water, it should be made clear that the opposite of demineralized, distilled or purified is not “contaminated” water in the sense that most people use that term. While technically correct, the term contaminated carries a negative connotation that tends to cloud the issue.
2. Total dissolved solids is not measurable and the term doesn’t mean as mush as some would tend to believe. It is an estimation based on the conductivity of water. If you take a glass of tap water and measure its conductivity then add two tablespoons of sugar, the conductivity drops indicating a lower level of dissolved solids. I can get into the reasons if anybody is interested.
3. Essentially, the benefits received by drinking water are hydration and hydration alone. Moderately hard water may contain up to 50 mg/L of calcium (depending on whose definition of moderately hard you are using). Two litres/day would give the consumer 100 mg or roughly one third the amount of calcium from one glass of milk. Of course, that is assuming that the 2 litres/day recommended is strictly water that is not mixed with anything (ie soup). There is considerable opinion that organic forms of calcium (citrate) are more readily absorbed than calcium carbonate.
4. Pure water will not leech minerals out of your body. When one considers the contents of ones stomach, the idea that pure water remains pure when it is consumed, borders on the ludicrous. Boiling vegetables leeches out minerals and it doesn’t matter much what level of minerals in the water. If it concerns you, eat raw veggies.
5. When deciding to continue drinking tap water, mineral water, purified water or filtered water it is important to determine what you are looking for. All may be a healthy alternative or neither may be a healthy alternative. Where you live is important (what is the quality of your tap water). What effects you are looking for is important (are you concerned with health or do you just want something that tastes good). Not all bottled water companies are the same. The overwhelming majority of the bottled water companies operating within a 75 mile radius of my house have higher levels of chloroform in their water than I do coming out of my tap.
6. Understanding the reasons behind the chemistry and regulations is important. I read one link on this thread about juice having 300 times the amount of pesticide that is allowed in tap water. The reason for this is twofold. First, water isn't generally sprayed with pesticide like other food products may be so it's not unexpected that the levels would be lower in tap water than in other food stuffs. Secondly, pesticides in municipal waters is an indication of contamination by rural runoff or other sources. It is an indicator of a problem..it isn't necessarily the problem in and of itself.
I don't like micro-waved potatoes but other than that, most of our veggies are cooked in the mircro-wave. We only have to add a 1/4 cup of water and no salt.
New Fight to Stop Mass Fluoridation
'Opponents of the mass fluoridation of water will next week try to stop a government drive to add the chemical to supplies used by millions of people in England and Wales.
The verdict on a small scheme covering 200,000 people in Southampton and southwest Hampshire will help shape public attitudes to far bigger proposals countrywide, and the South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision could potentially make ministers rethink plans to implement fluoridation. Authorities in northwest England are among those next in line to bring forward proposals.'
New fight to stop mass fluoridation of water supplies | Politics | The Observer
'Opponents of the mass fluoridation of water will next week try to stop a government drive to add the chemical to supplies used by millions of people in England and Wales.
The verdict on a small scheme covering 200,000 people in Southampton and southwest Hampshire will help shape public attitudes to far bigger proposals countrywide, and the South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision could potentially make ministers rethink plans to implement fluoridation. Authorities in northwest England are among those next in line to bring forward proposals.'
New fight to stop mass fluoridation of water supplies | Politics | The Observer
Good thing? Not a chance. Not that bad a thing? I wouldn't risk my kids to prove it.
Here's a quote form a respected health magazine that should clear things up as far as fluoride is concerned:
The word "poison" on your toothpaste tube is now required by US drug regulators who deny the safety of fluoride, particularly for children. Canada only mandates labels that warn consumers not to let small children eat more than a pea-sized amount daily.
Only slightly less poisonous than arsenic, fluoride is worse than lead but is permitted in toothpaste and much Canadian drinking water. City water often has one part per million–100 times the safety level for lead.
At least half the fluoride we consume fuses permanently with bones and teeth, weakening overall health. Skeletal fluorosis is a widespread problem where high levels naturally occur, as in parts of China, India and Turkey. Apart from bones becoming extremely weak and brittle, fluoride causes premature aging and death, miscarriage, birth defects and other serious illness.
The vast majority of flouride we use is contaminated with additives from Tampa Bay, Florida smokestack scrubbers and are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry, according to University of Toronto dentistry professor Dr Hardy Limeback. He says children under three should never have fluoridated toothpaste or tap water, especially in baby formula: developing bones and teeth are particularly vulnerable. He’s concerned that most of the children he treats in his Mississauga practice suffer dental fluorosis (porous and easily stained teeth) from tap water, ready-made beverages and toothpaste.
Limeback’s studies show residents of Toronto, which has flouridated water for 40 years, have twice the fluoride levels in their hip bones as do those in Montreal, where citizens won the right not to flouridate in the 1980s. Vancouver has never flouridated and has a lower cavity rate. Many Canadian municipalities have opted not to fluoridate. Toronto has recently reduced levels from one to .08 parts per million (still 80 times the lead safety level).
Many brands of health food store toothpaste do not contain fluoride.
Source: Crack in the Fluoride Front :: Environmental and Health Concerns :: Water Pollution :: fluoridation
Respected health magazines don't have ads for fluoride removal systems right beside trashy articles about the dangers of fluoride. Far from clearing things up, the article just muddies the water with more misinformation.
Nothing. It's just that credible mags don't use their stories to sell them.
It's not what I mean but yes, it's obviously not a medical journal
Where does one start? Well, to begin with, using the term poison when referring to fluoride would be a start. There are so many fluoride compounds that, to call it poisonous or toxic is beyond ridiculous. Polytetrafluoroethylene is considered nontoxic while sodium fluorosilicate has caused death in as little as 250 mg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluorosilicatesodium monofluorophosphate is the ingredient found in tooth paste. Water fluoridation occurs at between 0.5 and 1.0 mg/L. At 2 litres per day consumption, this would equal 1-2 mgs of fluoride per day, well below the 1000-10,000 mgs required for a lethal dose (assuming NaF) Water is toxic if you ingest enough.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_true_that_drinking_too_much_water_can_be_toxic
The fluoridation scare is just that...a scare.
Being more specific would confuse many readers not familiar with the chemical components of fluoride. They seem to be using the the term, "fluoride" generically to refer to what is used in drinking water. Outside of that, the article seems to effectively outline most of the problems commonly associated with fluoridation.
I'm no expert but if something in your drinking water *could* harm your children just for the sake of clean teeth (and the article makes reference to the issue of fluoride actually doing the reverse in the long term), then why take the risk?
The toxicity of fluoride in East Asian aquifers has been a cause of concern so I fail to understand the logic of using it if one doesn't have to.
It also wouldn't get the desired affect.
I am. I've been involved in water treatment my entire adult life. I've been involved in municipal systems that have added fluoride, municipal systems that have had to remove excessive fluoride, bottled water companies that promote fluoride free and fluoride added water and all types of systems in between such as desalination plants and type I water systems for surgical suites.
Everything and anything can be toxic. Chlorine gas was used as a weapon yet we put it in drinking water. In fact, as a said before, water can be toxic.
Sodium fluoride, which I alluded to above can be added to water to attain a level of fluoride between 0.5 and 1.0 mg/L. According to the FDA, 5mg of fluoride/Kg of body weight "could" be fatal and that is the reason for the warning on toothpaste. That number, however, is a theoretical potential and the warning has more to do with the litigious nature of our society than science. A fifty pound kid would need to consume 113 mg of Fluoride in order to meet this theoretical potential. A more realistic number in terms of a lethal dose would be in the 25-30 mg/Kg range. The same fifty pound kid would need to ingest over 550 mg of fluoride. If you aren't using fluoridated toothpaste and are only getting this from tap water, that kid needs to drink 120 gallons of water to get a lethal dose (or 275 times the recommended daily amount).
Simply put, the benefits of fluoridation far...and I mean FAR outweigh the negatives. If I'm not mistaken, the CDC calls fluoridation one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. The World Health Organization says fluoridationof water supplies, where possible, is the most effective public health measure for the prevention of dental decay.
The purpose of fluoridation is to prevent a chronic disease which affects children and the poor disproportionally. The poor, also lack access to proper dental care. At a cost of less than one dollar per person per year we have the ability to reduce cavities by anywhere from 18% to 60%
Driving your child to the dentist is inherently more dangerous than drinking fluoridated water. Would you or will you stop taking your child to the dentist just for the sake of clean teeth?
Yes, that is why in some cases, you have to remove it. I mentioned the Milk River aquifer above. The levels of fluoride naturally occurring in that water is three to four times the drinking water guidelines and needs to be lowered.
Your mistake is assuming that if something is toxic in any amount, it is toxic in all amounts. That is not the case.
The article talks about the long-term problems that may arise from exposure to fluoride. You're talking about immediate effects (i.e. in sufficient doses).
I don't understand your comment about toxicity: if something is toxic, it is toxic. Lower amounts may do less damage but that doesn't mean it isn't toxic.
If it's so good for you then why is there opposition to it (i.e. from legitimate sources)?
Here's the wikipedia article on the opposition:
Opposition to water fluoridation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What is you opinion on that?
I don't understand your comment about toxicity: if something is toxic, it is toxic. Lower amounts may do less damage but that doesn't mean it isn't toxic.
If it's so good for you then why is there opposition to it (i.e. from legitimate sources)?
Here's the wikipedia article on the opposition:
Opposition to water fluoridation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What is you opinion on that?
The article gets most of it's information from Dr Limeback. If you want to accept the word of one doctor over the general consensus of the medical community, who am I to argue. The fact is Limeback is, at best, unable to convince the medical community he is right, or at worst, he's an idiot.
Toxicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A central concept of toxicology is that effects are dose-dependent; even water can lead to water intoxication when taken in large enough doses, whereas for even a very toxic substance such as snake venom there is a dose below which there is no detectable toxic effect."
The effects of fluoride (or any other chemical)are dependent of how much is ingested. Even water is toxic so, using your arguments, you should not drink water.
Because there is always misinformation spewed by crackpots like Limeback and there is no shortage of people willing to accept his opinion just because he is a doctor (though for some reason, they don't accept the opinions of all the other doctors). From your wikipedia article...
"During the 1950s and 1960s, some opponents of water fluoridation also put forward conspiracy theories describing fluoridation as a communist plot to undermine public health."
I don't care who ya are, that's funny!
and...
"Health risks are generally associated with fluoride intake levels above the commonly recommended dosage".
Generally speaking, there are two camps that are against fluoridation. The first group are like you in that they don't understand the science behind it and are two willing to accept opinions against fluoride because they want to, not because the opinions are valid. The second group oppose fluoridation on ethical grounds because they view it as mass medicating the public. I can understand that aspect of it, I just don't particularly care. Regulators have decided that chlorinating water protects peoples health and they have also decided that fluoridating water protects peoples health. If you don't like chlorine or fluoride, don't drink tap water.
Toxicity: Yeah but we're adapted to water and it's not the water itself but a backwash effect that it causes when taken in huge amounts (we're not talking millilitres here). What's more we need water, we don't need fluoride.
Opposition: What makes Limeback a crackpot? As for the two camps, I would say there are more like five: the crackpots who think this is all a conspiracy, ignorant people like me who don't trust any manipulation of sources of food/drink, people who oppose it on ethical grounds, medical professionals that choose to make a name for themselves opposing this (not Limeback's case), medical experts/analysts that have found reason to doubt the benefits and even the safety of fluoride to the public.
The wikipedia article: generally speaking, wikipedia entries tend to be conservative/neutral (that's why I used it) and the article states generally that there are legitimate concerns over fluoride. Aside from focusing on the one example of post-war paranoia and siting a brief quote from the oppening line of one of the article's sections, you haven't really addressed the issue of legitimate opposition.
Clearly this is not merely a scare so I'm asking you to clear things up a bit (preferably in a manner that is not insulting to the intelligence of those not in your field).
Opposition: What makes Limeback a crackpot? As for the two camps, I would say there are more like five: the crackpots who think this is all a conspiracy, ignorant people like me who don't trust any manipulation of sources of food/drink, people who oppose it on ethical grounds, medical professionals that choose to make a name for themselves opposing this (not Limeback's case), medical experts/analysts that have found reason to doubt the benefits and even the safety of fluoride to the public.
The wikipedia article: generally speaking, wikipedia entries tend to be conservative/neutral (that's why I used it) and the article states generally that there are legitimate concerns over fluoride. Aside from focusing on the one example of post-war paranoia and siting a brief quote from the oppening line of one of the article's sections, you haven't really addressed the issue of legitimate opposition.
Clearly this is not merely a scare so I'm asking you to clear things up a bit (preferably in a manner that is not insulting to the intelligence of those not in your field).
Yes it is a scare. That is the point. If you can't wrap your head around the concept of toxicity, then there really is nothing to discuss. Don't drink fluoridated tap water.