Thread: Fluoridation? Hmm...Why?

Thankyou for editing that post and respecting that i had watched the videos. I am not sticking to one point, i was simply restating it as the discussion didn't seem like it would progress without that point being challenged.

The reason i did not address the other points was because i felt that i didn't need to, where i saw that the majority of the doctor's video was filler. As for the graphs, i read about them and others (admittedly on wikipedia, which i trust, maybe this is a flaw in my argument). The problem with the graphs and comparisons, particularly the one between separate states in the US, is that they fail to take into account differences in age and gender in regards to tooth decay and the potential risks (cancer was incorrectly linked to fluoridation; i would like to bring up the point that our own immune system is the main cause of cancer, and will gladly elaborate on that point if need be). The graphs in the video are simply lines on a moving plane. What I mean by that is that we are not given time to actually read any of the labels on the graph, or to know the sources, and hence we cannot even analyse the graph to decide whether the information is relevant. The doctor is basically waving pretty pictures in our faces. Therefore, the arguments are not sound, hence why i went on my chemistry rampage.

The "How Much Fluoride Is In Our Foods" link, is (sorry to be less civil again) bullshit. References? Links? Anything? Scaremongering!
The other sites have information that is, well, actually information. Referenced, possibly even peer reviewed. I like that. It's a bit more solid. However, that they are so single-minded about fluoride actually scares me.

I would like to question your sources - i did read the quotes, but i find that the site they came from is vehemently opposed to the fluoridation and cannot state any benefits. Obviously this (not stating benefits) is because they are were provided with incorrect information in the form of charts/graphs that did not take into account the variation between states.
On the other hand, yes i did use wikipedia, but i looked at both the risks of fluoridation and the benefits. Now, you may say that there are no benefits according to a number of professionals. My point is that you did not look at a well-balanced site. I checked the amounts found in water and the dose needed to make someone sick. I will gladly explain to you my calculations (i don't mean to be patronising, i just don't know if you quite understand them) but for me they're enough consolation that we're within safe limits of fluoride after 50 years of research on the effects of fluoride on humans.

I would agree with you that opposition from a sound authority would be cause for alarm, however i do not agree with you that these people are sound authority, as i don't find their arguments to be solid. However, you do raise an important question on the ethics of fluoridation. I would say it's fairly ethical because there are no apparent associated risks, however ethics may or may not say that we should still have a choice. I don't know, i haven't studied ethics.

I just read the article on the pineal gland, and once again, i'll have to say it's scaremongering. I will give you the conditions for which fluoride accumulates in the bones, pineal gland and many other parts of the body: fluorosis. You'd have to be regularly swallowing a lot of toothpaste to be getting that condition as an adult; otherwise fluoride poses no risk to your bones or pineal gland, or any other tissue. I'll mention my point on salt again. It's unnatural to add salt to foods or water, but we do it, and we're fine. If you want to add a whole salt shaker full of salt to one glass of water, you're probably going to die, but that's a ridiculous amount in the first place. There are a large number of "unnatural" chemicals (and yes, chemicals can be natural too.. oxygen is classed as a chemical, so are vitamins) in our food there to protect us from toxic bacteria, to make our food look nice and colourful, to keep oil and water mixtures from separating (eg in salad dressings), but there isn't much need to be scared of them. There is the choice not to eat/use them, and there is the choice to buy bottled water if you feel that way inclined.
So in short, there actually is a choice - everyone who goes to school is taught that water is fluoridated, and so they can choose to buy bottled watter. There goes the question of ethics.

Now that we've gone through your points, i would like you to tell me where my original points are wrong, because that is a point of discussion.

Again, even after that break down I haven't seen anything proving the need for fluoridation or proving that any of the articles were simply scare mongering. It's just an attempt to appeal to your own authority which hasn't provided me with anything of substance, and expects one to just turn a blind eye to all the other research that's out there.

I'm not an authority on the subject and neither are you, and I simply don't see any middle ground being met in continuing to show the other the 'light'. I'll pull up some links showing one thing, you'll deny it and perhaps pull up some links saying something else. So, I'm going to nip this argument in the bud right now, because I'm not trying to debate. I just don't get anything out of it. All debates just inevitably goes around in circles, with nothing accomplished other than meeting some personal satisfaction needs to feel justified in thinking a certain way, and to stave off boredom.

I simply don't feel the need to justify myself to anyone. As I said before, the information is out there to make an informed decision, either way, and there clearly is strong debate within the authority... of which we are not. Therefore, debating here is utterly useless. If you think fluoridation is great, that's your decision. Personally, I don't think it's right to force people to have an unnatural chemical, especially one so hotly debated within it's own circle, in their drinking water... and plenty of nobel prize winners agree. And, that's good enough for me...

I have made break downs of your points, some from the same authority, i feel that you're not willing to challenge or accept what i'm saying. I also agree that the information is out there for all to see, and i'm glad we've provided both sides of the argument.

ps. i'll be looking at your arguments against phenylalanine soon

see ya

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Again, even after that break down I haven't seen anything proving the need for fluoridation or proving that any of the articles were simply scare mongering. It's just an attempt to appeal to your own authority which hasn't provided me with anything of substance, and expects one to just turn a blind eye to all the other research that's out there.

I'm not an authority on the subject and neither are you, and I simply don't see any middle ground being met in continuing to show the other the 'light'. I'll pull up some links showing one thing, you'll deny it and perhaps pull up some links saying something else. So, I'm going to nip this argument in the bud right now, because I'm not trying to debate. I just don't get anything out of it. All debates just inevitably goes around in circles, with nothing accomplished other than meeting some personal satisfaction needs to feel justified in thinking a certain way, and to stave off boredom.

I simply don't feel the need to justify myself to anyone. As I said before, the information is out there to make an informed decision, either way, and there clearly is strong debate within the authority... of which we are not. Therefore, debating here is utterly useless. If you think fluoridation is great, that's your decision. Personally, I don't think it's right to force people to have an unnatural chemical, especially one so hotly debated within it's own circle, in their drinking water... and plenty of nobel prize winners agree. And, that's good enough for me...

I think you nailed it. We cant pick and choose data, because science doesn't lie, only humans with agendas do. Is it just a coincidence that the specific type of fluoride used is not a common form but industrial waste? Is it a coincidence that the same can be said for many common household chemicals?

Adam, you referenced the chemical foaming agent, sodium lauryl sulfate, (found in shampoos and soaps), are you also familiar with the extensive studies done by universites that show its extremely toxic, even with day to day use? If you havnt, i have some links for you.

Universities have also discovered a link between fluoride and cancer, among other things.

Harvard Study Shows Fluoride-Cancer link

The whole dental industry and government clearly has a lot to lose by admitting faults with fluoridation (ie. class action lawsuits of unbelievable proportion). Hence, one should tend to lean towards the results of studies proving against it's use rather those dental and government funded studies for it... Of course they'll show bias towards their rashly funded decision to fluoridate 50 years ago. It's funny how the rest of the world doesn't seem to want to jump on the fluoridation bandwagon. I wonder why?

We already know the blatant lies the U.S. government spews with their war on drugs. Why would it be any different in the case to protect their own backside from 50 years of bad science?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

I think you nailed it. We cant pick and choose data, because science doesn't lie, only humans with agendas do. Is it just a coincidence that the specific type of fluoride used is not a common form but industrial waste? Is it a coincidence that the same can be said for many common household chemicals?

One thing i would like to ask is, what is the common form of Fluoride?
Secondly, which other household chemicals are in the form of industrial waste?
I'm simply asking for further information here, not trying to stir you up.
I made a point earlier to say that, while certain chimcals are found in the same form in industrial waste and in our foods, this doesn't mean that they themselves are the dangerous component of the waste. It would be the same to suggest that table salt (sodium chloride) is dangerous because its form in our food is the same as is found in industrial waste. On the other hand, if the chemical is inherently poisonous, then we have a problem.
Chemicals recycled from industrial waste are purified to the point that they are the pure chemical - that is, the fluoride is completely seperated from the other componenets of the waste. This provides a low-energy, cost-effective solution to obtaining pure chemicals. If we didn't do this, we'd have to obtain raw materials at great cost to the environment. Secondly, the calcium fluoride form (natural form) of fluorine is not useful to our bodies, and hence would have no effect other than raising fluorine levels in our water.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Adam, you referenced the chemical foaming agent, sodium lauryl sulfate, (found in shampoos and soaps), are you also familiar with the extensive studies done by universites that show its extremely toxic, even with day to day use? If you havnt, i have some links for you.

I did mention that swallowing it would firstly wreak havoc on a person's digestive system (as it's a foaming agent), and then poison them. That was my point on why swallowing toothpaste would be harmful to a person, as opposed to the fluoride content. However, i'd would be happy to read more on the subject. Thanks.

I'd say that regardless of the current body of evidence on the subject, if its a question between possible tooth decay and a possible cancer risk, I'd choose possible tooth decay. I'm not sure why anyone would subject an entire population to a possibly greater risk for cancer just to lower their chances of developing cavities. It should make you wonder why tooth decay is such an issue that they have to put chemicals in your water supply without your consent to battle it, and it really doesn't take mountains of data or peer reviewal to come to that conclusion.

True it doesn't take mountains of anything to fight a substantiated claim. I am simply looking for substantiation, because a lot of things cause cancer in large amounts.

Let's take an example.. would you have an issue if vitamins were added to the water supply?

I would object only if it's not there when found untouched in nature. Even if doctors recommend we take x amount of vitamins daily, our species have thrived, existed, and evolved without having the need to take a multivitamin every day. So I simply don't see the need to force anyone into taking anything without their consent. Allow them the option of choice. What's wrong with that?

Perhaps, they'll die of cancer younger anyway, or perhaps they'll live to be 88. Who knows? The idea is allowing them the choice to decide what's best for themselves.

You could always argue, that they still have the option of bottled water. But if that's the case, why not just sell fluoridated bottled water and leave public water alone? It doesn't make sense to just decide something for the common good without the common good's consent or knowledge of it. That's where my red flag goes up, because then the risk of foul play and special interests can come in.

We're mostly on the same page here, simply i have a different opinion on the risks (as you mentioned earlier). As we've said, the argument is more on the perceived risks versus benefits of fluoridation. I'm glad we've progressed from the basic point to the ethics.

What about preservatives? They're in the great majority of foods, preventing us from getting sick. Is it wrong that they are forced upon us? And do they also come from the offshoots of another industrial process?

Originally Posted by adam has a dream

One thing i would like to ask is, what is the common form of Fluoride?
Secondly, which other household chemicals are in the form of industrial waste?
I'm simply asking for further information here, not trying to stir you up.
I made a point earlier to say that, while certain chimcals are found in the same form in industrial waste and in our foods, this doesn't mean that they themselves are the dangerous component of the waste. It would be the same to suggest that table salt (sodium chloride) is dangerous because its form in our food is the same as is found in industrial waste. On the other hand, if the chemical is inherently poisonous, then we have a problem.
Chemicals recycled from industrial waste are purified to the point that they are the pure chemical - that is, the fluoride is completely seperated from the other componenets of the waste. This provides a low-energy, cost-effective solution to obtaining pure chemicals. If we didn't do this, we'd have to obtain raw materials at great cost to the environment. Secondly, the calcium fluoride form (natural form) of fluorine is not useful to our bodies, and hence would have no effect other than raising fluorine levels in our water.



I did mention that swallowing it would firstly wreak havoc on a person's digestive system (as it's a foaming agent), and then poison them. That was my point on why swallowing toothpaste would be harmful to a person, as opposed to the fluoride content. However, i'd would be happy to read more on the subject. Thanks.

From an excellent website on the history of water fluoridation:

"As of today, the fertilizer industry has beaten out the aluminum refining industry as the source of fluoride in America’s water supplies, as they provided the fluoride ion more cheaply. Today, 90% of fluoride added to America’s water is in the form of fluosilicic acid, mainly provided by the phosphate fertilizer industry."


"Rohypnol, the notorious drug used in date rapes, is fluorinated Valium, making it more than twenty times as potent as normal Valium. Prozac is another fluorinated drug. In all, there are hundreds of fluorinated drugs, and many have profound mental effects, including memory loss. The primary effect of psychoactive drugs is inhibiting enzyme production, which the fluorine ion is well known to do. In light of other facts surrounding fluoridation, this begins treading frightening territory. Fluoridation promoters and others often laugh off such situations as the workings of hopelessly paranoid minds. In light of declassified memos regarding U.S. CNS experiments of fifty years ago (at nearly the same time the Nazis and Soviets were doing similar kinds of experiments), and the studies that are performed across the world on fluoridation and intelligence, I am not laughing. Recently two studies in China showed a drop in IQ of children exposed to fluoride in the water supply of between 5 and 19 points.[51]

In other unsettling revelations, documents have surfaced which revealed that when the Newburgh New York fluoridation trials were run, testing fluoride’s mental effects on the subject children was planned, and tissue samples were secretly tested at the University of Rochester. The results of those tests have yet to be made public."

I'm not sure what that was meant to tell me, you also didn't link to the article on sodium lauryl sulphate.

Fluosilicic acid is a water-soluble form of sand which reacts with sodium in the water to produce sodium fluoride. The sodium fluoride then undergoes an exchange reaction with your teeth to strengthen the enamel.
Fluorinated drugs are an entirely different matter; they may attest to the effects of fluorinating a psychoactive chemical, but have nothing to do with fluorinating sand.
Hydrogen fluoride is a chemical that scares the absolute shit out of chemical engineers. It is a ridiculously strong acid that not only burns through the skin but soaks into the bloodstream to replace all of the calcium in your body, decaying you from the inside. The final result is a painful death due to your nerves being destroyed by the acid.

I will admit to not having read the whole article yet, nor passing particular judgement on it, as i am extremely tired but can't get to sleep..... so i might read it through when i have loads of spare time again.
However, all i'm trying to point out is your quote doesn't prove anything (to me) as it is trying to compare a number of chemicals that are only linked by the fact that they contain fluoride. That the drugs you mentioned contain fluorine is not the problem, it is their original purpose magnified by the addition of fluorine that makes them dangerous. Rohypnol is a drug for treating ADD, it is not produced as a date-rape drug. Is fluorine to blame for the effects of mis-prescribing Prozac, or is the psychiatrist to blame?

I can summarise the problem in three short statements:
Pure oxygen kills people when inhaled. Water contains oxygen. Adding another molecule to oxygen produces bleach, a corrosive chemical.
Yet we don't go complaining about oxygen.

I knew that it was that poison when i was a small kid, so i thought about why we didn't die by swallowing some tooth past.
I think the reason was that it was not that much flouride in toothpast, just small amount that wasn't much sufficient to make us sick.

Originally Posted by adam has a dream

I'm not sure what that was meant to tell me, you also didn't link to the article on sodium lauryl sulphate.

Fluosilicic acid is a water-soluble form of sand which reacts with sodium in the water to produce sodium fluoride. The sodium fluoride then undergoes an exchange reaction with your teeth to strengthen the enamel.
Fluorinated drugs are an entirely different matter; they may attest to the effects of fluorinating a psychoactive chemical, but have nothing to do with fluorinating sand.
Hydrogen fluoride is a chemical that scares the absolute shit out of chemical engineers. It is a ridiculously strong acid that not only burns through the skin but soaks into the bloodstream to replace all of the calcium in your body, decaying you from the inside. The final result is a painful death due to your nerves being destroyed by the acid.

I will admit to not having read the whole article yet, nor passing particular judgement on it, as i am extremely tired but can't get to sleep..... so i might read it through when i have loads of spare time again.
However, all i'm trying to point out is your quote doesn't prove anything (to me) as it is trying to compare a number of chemicals that are only linked by the fact that they contain fluoride. That the drugs you mentioned contain fluorine is not the problem, it is their original purpose magnified by the addition of fluorine that makes them dangerous. Rohypnol is a drug for treating ADD, it is not produced as a date-rape drug. Is fluorine to blame for the effects of mis-prescribing Prozac, or is the psychiatrist to blame?

I can summarise the problem in three short statements:
Pure oxygen kills people when inhaled. Water contains oxygen. Adding another molecule to oxygen produces bleach, a corrosive chemical.
Yet we don't go complaining about oxygen.

The works already been done.

Google: Sodium Lauryl sulphate effects

Google: Water fluoridation effects

One interesting quote from that last article was by Charles Eliot Perkins, Nazi scientist:

"“However, I want to make this very definite and very positive - the real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children’s teeth…The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty.” Perkins said that putting fluoride in the water supply eventually numbs the brain, making people easily manipulated. Perkins stated “…any person who drinks fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person, mentally or physically.”[49]"

SolSkye...reading through this thread, genuinely has me concerned...why the hell are they fluoridating the water? Why try and re-invent the wheel? No...bad example...why try and make the wheel into a square, telling everyone it'll roll downhill better? This is really messed up...

WHDFXUP

I didn't post this thread to scare people, just hopefully allow them to see how pointless and potentially dangerous it is. I'm in Japan, and have been for 4 years. And, I'm proud to say I've had not one problem with my teeth, and I don't drink fluoridated water or brush my teeth with fluoride toothpaste. There simply is no reason to continue putting a hazardous chemical into drinking water or anything I ingest, if it isn't absolutely necessary...

I dont know why they feel it necessary to make these massive decisions that affect our lives without our knowledge or consent, but the aluminum industry gets paid by the U.S. government to put it in our water rather than dispose of it as the toxic chemical it is.

Remember folks, the original studies done on fluoride ironically came around at the same time, and by the same scientists who did experiments on people claiming the safety of cancer-causing DDT insecticides, lead, and asbestos... and look where those chemicals are today. The difference is... they didn't put those chemicals directly into our drinking water so they were able to more easily own up to their bad science on those...



If you still wonder why they'd feel the need to cover it up. Just imagine the lawsuit the government and the dental industry would be facing if this were taken seriously enough to be believed and reach the mainstream...

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I didn't post this thread to scare people, just hopefully allow them to see how pointless and potentially dangerous it is. I'm in Japan, and have been for 4 years. And, I'm proud to say I've had not one problem with my teeth, and I don't drink fluoridated water or brush my teeth with fluoride toothpaste. There simply is no reason to continue putting a hazardous chemical into drinking water or anything I ingest, if it isn't absolutely necessary...

I dont know why they feel it necessary to make these massive decisions that affect our lives without our knowledge or consent, but the aluminum industry gets paid by the U.S. government to put it in our water rather than dispose of it as the toxic chemical it is.

Remember folks, the original studies done on fluoride ironically came around at the same time, and by the same scientists who did experiments on people claiming the safety of cancer-causing DDT insecticides, lead, and asbestos... and look where those chemicals are today. The difference is... they didn't put those chemicals directly into our drinking water so they were able to more easily own up to their bad science on those...



If you still wonder why they'd feel the need to cover it up. Just imagine the lawsuit the government and the dental industry would be facing if this were taken seriously enough to be believed and reach the mainstream...

When people on the internet claim that such-and-such is fear-mongering, they should first give a motive. To cause fear intentionally would mean there is a plan for what the panicked masses are to do.

When thousands of concerned professionals and experts speak on this issue, independently and for no apparent motive other than public safety, the public should be concerned.

Sorry if this has already been posted:

Professionals' Statement Calling for and End to Water Fluoridation

Also, Adam,what did you make of the Nazi quote? Was that just to scare people?

Overview:

• New research indicates that fluoride damages the brain; that the chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water increase the levels of lead in children's blood; that some humans are accumulating dangerous levels of fluoride in their blood and bone; that fluoride's toxicity in humans is not confined to teeth and bone; and that - according to senior Environmental Protection Agency scientists - the EPA's safe drinking water standards for fluoride are a fraud.
• These, and other findings, were presented by scientists and researchers at the First Citizens' Conference on Fluoride, held on the campus of St. Lawrence University in Canton NY and at the Mohawk Longhouse at Akwesasne near Massena NY, from July 30 to August 3.
• According to Dr. Robert Carton, former President of the EPA Headquarters Union in Washington D.C., "The EPA's safe drinking water standards for fluoride are fraudulent.
• "He told me that the standard was a lie, that he was pressured by EPA administration to alter the science to fit a politically derived conclusion."
• The EPA's current safe drinking water standard for fluoride (4 ppm) exceeds the levels associated with increased uptake of aluminum into the brains of laboratory rats and increased levels of beta amyloid plaques (the characteristic abnormality in Alzheimers disease) (1 ppm); the levels associated with increased uptake of lead into the blood of children from the use of silicofluorides (1 ppm); the levels associated with decreased IQ in Chinese communities (1.8 ppm); the levels associated with a lowering of thyroid activity (2.3 ppm); and the levels associated with impaired fertility (3 ppm).

Source: http://www.enn.com/direct/display-re...A9CC8C71C9C864

if I have to know everything there is to know about science to make an informed decision, then there is no hope for me or any average man for that matter

information needs to be provided by professionals, and is provided. people look at the information and are shocked, that they were not warned ahead of time by these very same people who wrote the facts

I think this is all SolSkye has done, and all anyone can do if they are not a chemist. we cant go around believing the facts presented to us are wrong, that would be paranoia. We have no choice but to view the facts as truth until proven wrong by other facts. and even then, it would not be our fault if we believed in previous facts, it is only our wrong on what decision we make based on what information we are presented.

So I don't see anything wrong with a non chemist making an argument here.

I feel, most of these facts lead to the conclusion that it is a poison and should not be in the water

This is why I eat natural as possible, drink spring water, and stay away from synthetic vitamins, etc etc. Contrary to popular opinion, food comes from the ground, not the store, and water does not come from pipes. People are getting colon cancer at 21 years old now.

The iron in your cereal is actually nail shavings. The vitamins you take are made from sewage sludge, cyanide, and many other things beside. One can of soda depresses the immune system to 50% efficiency for about 6 hours. I can go on for a long time.

Whatever you do, never drink unfiltered tap water. The chlorine itself is like taking antibiotics and wipes out all the beneficial bacteria in your gut; not to mention a myriad of other things that go wrong. So you see, people can argue all they want and say "this chemical is safe", but what about all the other chemicals and their interactions? The body is meant to drink a certain type of water, when you mess with that, trouble is to be expected don't you think?

tell me, does bottled water have fluoride in it?

does the toothpaste we use, if we spit the stuff out, does the fluoride in it get into your body if not ingested?

is there any non fluoride toothpaste? or water, or food?

i drink organic milk and bottled water, no tap, no soda at all, no juices

am i good? i eat organic also

Bottled water is not to be trusted as it is mostly just filtered tap water. The best bet is to get it from a natural spring yourself, and the next best thing is to get the best filter you can and filter your own water.

You must use natural toothpaste without fluoride in it if you wish to avoid it; and yes it does exist. The best water filter in the world does not get out all the added fluoride sadly; but it does get much of it out.

To answer the last question I would say you are doing great, but I would stop drinking milk personally; organic is MUCH better than anything else, but still milk does not do a body good. I am sure everyone would disagree with me though. If you want details let me know. Stick with water and have green tea for a change of pace.

Most importantly, don't worry yourself to death; you cannot win, but you can avoid the folly of stumbling through life oblivious.

You must use natural toothpaste without fluoride in it if you wish to avoid it; and yes it does exist.

Must be a well kept secret. I looked around locally out of curiosity and couldnt find any brand that did not have flouride in it.

To answer the last question I would say you are doing great, but I would stop drinking milk personally; organic is MUCH better than anything else, but still milk does not do a body good. I am sure everyone would disagree with me though. If you want details let me know. Stick with water and have green tea for a change of pace.

A few years ago I started having episodes where my heart would try to beat an extra beat in between beats. I started gradually eliminating foods from my diet. It got down to breakfast cereals and milk. Tried eliminating one then another. It took getting rid of both before the mis beating stopped. So there is something in both of those that screws with my body.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Must be a well kept secret. I looked around locally out of curiosity and couldnt find any brand that did not have flouride in it.




A few years ago I started having episodes where my heart would try to beat an extra beat in between beats. I started gradually eliminating foods from my diet. It got down to breakfast cereals and milk. Tried eliminating one then another. It took getting rid of both before the mis beating stopped. So there is something in both of those that screws with my body.

Milk is hard to find unpolled. But even Baremans is putting "No RBGh hormone" on their labels now. So things are getting better, but still so far behind Europe and Japan.

One thing I heard about green tea though is that it contains like many other teas a high concentration of fluoride. I'm not sure if this is natural, or part of the processing.

All tea leaves contain fluoride; however, mature leaves contain as much as 10 to 20 times the fluoride levels of young leaves from the same plant. In general, the level of fluoride in tea is inversely related to the EGCG contents: the more EGCG, the less fluoride. White tea contains less fluoride than green tea and black tea, because it is made of buds and young leaves only.

The fluoride content of tea depends directly on soil and air pollution; tea plants absorbs this element at a greater rate than other plants. Care in the choice of the location where the plant is grown may reduce the risk.

According to Andreas Schuld of the Canadian "Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children" tea is very high in fluoride content, much higher than the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) set for fluoride in drinking water. Decaffeinated teas have an even higher fluoride content, which is thought to be due to high fluoride levels in the water used in decaffeination. According to Schuld, fluoride could reduce the anti-cancer properties of tea, or even cause cancer (since fluoride is considered a cancer promotor). For instance, Schuld references a 1998 study, which found positive correlation between colon cancer and tea intake. The high fluoride content could also cause neurological and renal damage, especially in the presence of aluminum. Additionally, the high fluoride content could cause osteoporosis, arthritis, skeletal fluorosis and other bone disorders.

Cancers of the digestive tract, which have a higher incidence in Far East countries, have manifold environmental causes and cannot be blamed solely in those peoples' habit of consuming tea.

- Wikipedia

Well now...that's new for me. Not surprising that pollution would once again be a major factor. Stupid humans.

When in doubt stick to pure water