|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Feb 1, 2024 8:56:38 GMT 12
This has been a contentious subject since it was introduced, first in USA in the 40's and (amongst others) NZ in the 60's - main cities since around 1966. There is a new report (heavily peer reviewed) from the US government National Toxicology Programme that confirms a reduction in IQ in children under their study ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2023/may/publiccomm/neurath20230429_bsc_508.pdfThe NTP’s key points:
• 52 of 55 human studies found reduction in IQ from fluoride
• 18 of 19 human studies rated low Risk of Bias by NTP found reduction in IQ from fluoride
“The pattern of results across the 55 studies was consistent; 52 (95%) reported an inverse association”
“Subgroup analyses by sex, age group, study location, outcome assessment type, and exposure assessment type further support the consistent and robust pattern of an inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ”
Havard Public health published this www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/interesting graphs therein of the countries that do and do not fluoridate water at time of publication, most European countries do not, Canada does even though incorrectly noted. We were listening to RCR this morning about this subject, which noted amongst other items, how the original justification for fluoridation in NZ, using a 60's comparison between Hastings (flouridated) and Napier (non fluoridated) was leveraged to produce the desired result. Link here to the RCR report and an exchange with the NZ Dental Association. fluoridefree.org.nz/new-zealand-dental-associations-response-to-new-documentary-proves-no-case-for-fluoridation/a little takeaway from the RCR report is that the Hastings hospital (and maybe others) does not use fluoridated water as it is known to have adverse effects on patients - go figure. An observation is that Fluoride in water is forced medication on the population, as is Folic Acid now being placed in bread, and COVID jabs were effectively forced if you wanted to "remain in mainstream society". Always have to ask the question who is profiting from this all... In the past I have not had strong views on fluoride but do question it more now, even though bit late as have been subject to it most of my life. At least we are on tank water now, better late than never. |
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Feb 1, 2024 8:59:49 GMT 12
They introduced flouride into tap water across the UK many years ago and it had a positive impact on dental health at a population level.
But I don’t recall any discussions about negative side-effects.
And maybe if you brush your teeth 2-3 times a day with a mainstream toothpaste you get enough fluoride in the targeted site of your teeth anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Feb 9, 2024 7:54:04 GMT 12
from RCR realitycheck.radio/alistairs-fluoride-story/excerpts And besides, Fluoride, he repeated, was the most safe, effective, and cost-effective way of dealing with New Zealand’s tooth decay problem. And furthermore, it was claimed at the time, that there was over 60 years of evidence to show there is a 40% reduction in tooth decay in places where fluoride is dosed into our water.
And in truth, when I started making ‘Fluoride on the Brain’, I thought that was probably the uneasy middle ground that the matter would end up settling on.
That yes, there is evidence of lowering IQ. But like the government says, at less than 1 mg/l the dose of fluoride in our water is far too low to cause damage. And besides, everyone just knows it stops tooth decay.
But then I went to the Ministry of Health’s website and looked up the oral health statistics for Kiwi 5-year-olds. Since the statistics were divided into ‘fluoridated’ and ‘un-fluoridated’ categories, I thought maybe we could visualise the difference in graphs so we could show everyone how effective it really is before we tackled the issue of toxicity.
Maybe we could calm everyone’s nerves on the topic.
The only problem was that it didn’t show that at all. Instead, it showed that currently, around New Zealand, there is less tooth decay in 5-year-olds who live in un-fluoridated areas of the country.What I found out in making ‘Fluoride on the Brain’, was quite incredible.Did you know that the fluoride used in New Zealand to dose our water is actually hydrofluorosilicic acid which is a toxic by-product of the fertiliser industry?And did you know that it is so toxic that when they feed fluoride into our water supplies, the people doing the job have to wear full Hazmat suits?And at every station where they might come in contact with the substance, there is an emergency shower so it can be washed off immediately.I couldn’t help but ask myself, why would anyone want to put anything nearing that sort of toxicity into our water?
And why aren’t we looking at our Maori history; which was established by Weston Price in the 1930s when he studied pre-European skulls and found almost zero evidence of tooth decay? Surely we might learn something by studying the traditional Maori diet or lifestyle.
And when we look at that, perhaps we’ll find it has something to do with sugar. Since Maori didn’t have sugar in those days? After all, isn’t the fact that sugar causes cavities the one thing that the WHO and the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and even opponents of fluoride agree on?Safe and effective, haven't we heard that before... |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Feb 10, 2024 11:27:31 GMT 12
Lovin my tank water. No stink, no chemicals and best of all no Nana.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Feb 10, 2024 14:11:05 GMT 12
Lovin my tank water. No stink, no chemicals and best of all no Nana. Crickey, I used one of those showers at the beach the other day to wash the sand / saltwater off. Stunk of Chlorine. I was surprised I would smell it out in the open. Normally expect to smell it in an enclosed indoor shower cubicle. The other day I was at the Osteo so filled my water bottle from their water cooler. Fully gagged - taste was disgusting. I think I'm spoilt with my triple filtered UV sterilised rain water. |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Feb 11, 2024 10:27:14 GMT 12
Triple, nice. I'm assuming one is the UV bug zapper?
We go thru a 20 micron then a 1 micron. The main concern in our area is Gardia and the 1 micron fixes that. We have a kitchenette going in and the water tap will have a UV blaster just before it. That will fix the E-coli should a wayward bird leave us any.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Feb 11, 2024 13:39:02 GMT 12
Triple, nice. I'm assuming one is the UV bug zapper? We go thru a 20 micron then a 1 micron. The main concern in our area is Gardia and the 1 micron fixes that. We have a kitchenette going in and the water tap will have a UV blaster just before it. That will fix the E-coli should a wayward bird leave us any. 20micron, 10, 1 then UV. The 10 was carbon for taste and odour, but they are expensive so I've left it out. In saying that, I have a new set of filters to swap out and the guy at the shop recommended 20, 1, carbon. Makes the carbon last longer apparently, which is logical. I'm just using polyspun on the 20 and 1 so they are cheap as chips. I do like the UV for confidence that everything is fully zapped. Would love to put one on the boat but it's all been a bit too much faffing. Currently have 2 filters on there. Can't remember the sizing. Probably 20 and 1. I know I tried putting a 0.5 micron on and the water pump couldn't deal with the head. I did a bit of digging around the giardia. I'm not convinced 1 micron deals with it very effectively, hence I was keen for 0.5 micron or UV. I certainly wouldn't use anything bigger than 1 micron. For the boat, getting 12v ballast for the UV was the tricky bit. I could get appropriately sized lamps and housing no worries. Could run a 240v ballast via an inverter but that is a bit inefficient. Could set it all up on a flow switch, that was a new rabbit hole to go down. The ultimate would be a 12v ballast on a flow switch. I found one available in Oz, but the price was up there compared to NZ 240v options. In the end I just went with Pour n Go and 2 filters. My ultimate goal for the boat is to be able to take on water from dodgy sources while out cruising and still be able to drink it safely. With the full family we've got 7 days capacity in my current tanks. To be honest it is possibly just easier to put in more tanks. PS, what started me down that rabbit hole was a quick risk assessment if he whole family got a dose of screaming shits while stuck in the confined space of a modest sized cruiser with only 1 small heads. www.hammerhardware.co.nz/products/pour-n-go-water-tank-treatment-2-litre-clear-2 |
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Feb 11, 2024 15:27:08 GMT 12
Fluoride/tooth decay interesting
We were told dont give babies juice due to sugar. At 23 and 21 the boys have probably drunk enough juice/coke etc to sink a barge with the amount of sugars.
Dentist has said on latest visit(3 days ago) perfect teeth.No fillings brush twice a day,last 5 yrs knocked fizzies on the head,dont drink alcohol/vape or smoke.Stopped takeaway foods. Lazy dinner for them is beans on toast. so maybe diet/fluoride in water has been the saviour?
Mum and I have had no fillings since school,40 odd yrs ago,takeaways/alcohol. Who really knows the answer?
"Fish" We all got crook from opua water a few yrs ago,low rainfill and ended up with dregs from tank. And having water bladder.ended up rinsing out with vinager/baking soda flushing bladder and refilled from opunga cove? before tap was turned off. Once home fitted a filter and never had another issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Oct 2, 2024 4:22:56 GMT 12
A Federal Court in USA, after a long case has issued its ruling from the link
As the Court wrote www.foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024.09.24-Opinion.pdf, we have proven “that water fluoridation at the level of 0.7 mg/L — the prescribed optimal level of fluoridation in the United States — presents an ‘unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors.’” As a result, the EPA can no longer ignore the risk and must strengthen its regulations.
These questions have been issued to the NZ MoH
question 4 is particularly significant in that it demonstrates that there is no compelling evidence in of the benefits of fluoridating water in NZ
4. Why are the rates of dental decay so similar in non-fluoridated areas? If fluoridation is ‘demonstrably justifiable,’ why does Canterbury (unfluoridated) have similar rates (ref 6,7) of dental decay as Auckland (fluoridated)? The Cochrane Collaboration stated (ref 8) in 2015, “There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.” Does the Ministry of Health believe they are wrong?
the response to date from MoH has been to "bat it away" the questions
Notable that almost none of Europe fluoridates its water, Spain and UK being the main exceptions
|
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Nov 28, 2024 14:01:14 GMT 12
Looks like the WDC has got some balls
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Nov 28, 2024 16:46:46 GMT 12
Looks like the WDC has got some balls Great news, wish Tauranga Council would show the same level of fortitude. And now Auckland has elevated levels of arsenic detected in its water supply, but of course nothing to worry about....
very glad to be on tank water these days
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 29, 2024 7:18:08 GMT 12
On the arsenic, it is in every water supply all along the Waikato, from Hamilton to Huntly to Mercer.
But the MSM are doing their normal bullshit. The arsenic levels are in the raw water. MSM failed to mention what is in the drinking water, you know, that little but important detail that people need to know. Gets some good clickbait headlines and spreads anxiety so they can repeat the same story and get more clicks.
The whole idea of raw water testing for arsenic is so that when it is detect, you can increase your treatment. The treatment for arsenic costs more (uses more chemicals), so when it is present they need to treat to a higher level.
Being on tank water myself I also feel smug when I read stories like that, but CZ, have you ever had your tank water tested for heavy metals? I have. Just cause your on tank water doesn't mean you don't have heavy metals in it. Luckily you can get filters for most things these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Nov 29, 2024 8:24:35 GMT 12
On the arsenic, it is in every water supply all along the Waikato, from Hamilton to Huntly to Mercer. But the MSM are doing their normal bullshit. The arsenic levels are in the raw water. MSM failed to mention what is in the drinking water, you know, that little but important detail that people need to know. Gets some good clickbait headlines and spreads anxiety so they can repeat the same story and get more clicks. The whole idea of raw water testing for arsenic is so that when it is detect, you can increase your treatment. The treatment for arsenic costs more (uses more chemicals), so when it is present they need to treat to a higher level. Being on tank water myself I also feel smug when I read stories like that, but CZ, have you ever had your tank water tested for heavy metals? I have. Just cause your on tank water doesn't mean you don't have heavy metals in it. Luckily you can get filters for most things these days. Understand where you are coming from and arsenic is nothing new to me in my mining world, often have gold occurring in arsenopyrite mineralisation which we have to deal with in processing. What is curious is why Water (doesn't) Care must have made an announcement about the elevated arsenic levels
So what is the treatment process to remove the arsenic? No, I have not had the tank water analysed for heavy metals, will take up your challenge  . By the way, I understand (seriously) eating lots of garlic has been found to be an effective way to detoxify heavy metals from your body. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 29, 2024 8:43:50 GMT 12
On the arsenic, it is in every water supply all along the Waikato, from Hamilton to Huntly to Mercer. But the MSM are doing their normal bullshit. The arsenic levels are in the raw water. MSM failed to mention what is in the drinking water, you know, that little but important detail that people need to know. Gets some good clickbait headlines and spreads anxiety so they can repeat the same story and get more clicks. The whole idea of raw water testing for arsenic is so that when it is detect, you can increase your treatment. The treatment for arsenic costs more (uses more chemicals), so when it is present they need to treat to a higher level. Being on tank water myself I also feel smug when I read stories like that, but CZ, have you ever had your tank water tested for heavy metals? I have. Just cause your on tank water doesn't mean you don't have heavy metals in it. Luckily you can get filters for most things these days. Understand where you are coming from and arsenic is nothing new to me in my mining world, often have gold occurring in arsenopyrite mineralisation which we have to deal with in processing. What is curious is why Water (doesn't) Care must have made an announcement about the elevated arsenic levels
So what is the treatment process to remove the arsenic? No, I have not had the tank water analysed for heavy metals, will take up your challenge . By the way, I understand (seriously) eating lots of garlic has been found to be an effective way to detoxify heavy metals from your body. Yeah, but garlic is a FODMAP, and anyone with existing IBS, eating a shit tonne of garlic is equivalent to swallowing a hand grenade ;-) I had a bit of lead in my water. Well below the drinking water limits, but present none the less. Surprisingly easy to test your water for all sorts of things. There are plenty of various filters you can get, example to remove flouride and arsenic. They are more expensive than standard filters obviously, and probably should be changed 6 monthly. But you are talking $80-$100 per filter compared to $15 for a standard one, so still very affordable in relation to the value of your health. The one for lead (and most heavy metals) basically used dissimilar metals to create a small electric current which 'attracted' the heavy metal contaminants. Not the correct technical explanation, but close enough for a social media post. They aren't just simple physical particle filters like for bacteria and organics. pumpsonline.co.nz/collections/specialty-water-filtersI went down the lead rabbit hole after doing some sanding and repainting on the exterior of the house. Having been convinced for a decade there is no lead paint on our house, turns out there was. Only on the barge boards on the eves, an undercoat under about 20 other layers of paint. Just happened that that was what I was sanding, while wearing loads of sunblock so the dust stuck to me like shit to a blanket. Experience is what you learn just after you need it. Also turns out you can get lead paint test kits for about $25 from almost every paint retailer. I thought testing for lead paint would be a major ball ache with men in hazmat suits coming to the house (like if you think you have asbestos). Hill Labs can test for lead or any other contaminant in your water, or soil if you want. Have a lab in Remers, or you can courier samples. Was about $30 / sample I think for lead. They can do any test you want, just a matter of cost. Is handy for peace of mind. www.hill-labs.co.nz/contact-us/auckland/ |
|
. By the way, I understand (seriously) eating lots of garlic has been found to be an effective way to detoxify heavy metals from your body.