Anyone use a fluoride filter on tap water?

Been listening to a lot of Alex Jones latley and thinking about picking up a propur water filter.

 

Looks pretty good for what it takes out.  https://propurusa.com/

EvilMaster will school you on them. Get a reverse osmosis filter on amazon. They range from like $220-480 Phone Post

Even if you have your head in the sand and don't understand what fluoride is doing to you- You can at least understand a nice water filter saves you a ton of money on bottled water. Phone Post

BrentP - I've been using Brita. Change the filter once a month.....is that good enough? Phone Post
Nope. Need reverse osmosis. Phone Post 3.0

Nope

That site is a scam. It doesn't look like "Propur" is associated with "Pur", just riding off the name. Activated carbon filters don't remove fluoride from tap water, at least not for very long (http://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-74/issue-5/443.pdf). I don't see that the site technically makes the claim that its filters work in that regard. And they are using Alex Jones' name to sell their product.

OP living up to his screename

How about a Berkey water filter?

This is a water fluoridation chart by U.S state if you're interested. Luckily the water where I live in the UK generally isn't fluoridated.

In for getting schooled on the subject. Phone Post

Nothing, very little, or a lot depending on who you believe.

Here's one view:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925001/

Here's another:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

More than four out of five dentists agree that fluoride will reduce cavities. But non-dentists are kind of split.

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral used to fight tooth decay in children and also used to poison rats. This is the sort of juxtaposition that gets people upset.

The defenders of fluoridation, the practice of adding a small amount of fluoride to drinking water in order to fight tooth decay, are forced to respond to comments about these contradictory uses of fluoride by explaining that it's a matter of dosage. The amount of fluoride used to fight cavities is very small, you see, whereas the amount of fluoride in rat poison is very large.

This isn't exactly the most viscerally satisfying response. A concerned parent wants to hear "we are NOT adding rat poison to your children's drinking water," but instead they're being told "we're not adding too MUCH rat poison to your children's drinking water."

It also raises the question: Why fluoride? Why not have make it mandatory to add Vitamin C to drinking water? Or Vitamin B-12? Or calcium? Or zinc? All of these things are theoretically good for people. In fact, most of them are arguably more important to good health than fighting cavities.

Unlike vitamin C, calcium, or zinc, there are actually rather a lot of valid concerns regarding fluoride in the diet. The major worries regarding fluoridation include:

One, there isn't any scientific body of work that examines how much fluoride is in the environment and food supply of the average American. That means there's no way of knowing just how much fluoride the average American are is ingesting on any given day.



Two, the EPA's professional union (including scientists and engineers) is on the record opposing the fluoridation of water. According to their statement, “Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children. As the professionals who are charged with assessing the safety of drinking water, we conclude that the health and welfare of the public is not served by the addition of this substance to the public water supply."



Three, according to one anti-fluoride researcher, Dr. John Lee, "The goal of our public water facilities should be to provide water that is as pure and safe as possible and not as a vehicle for universal pharmacological treatments regardless of age, the health status of the individual, or the presumed benefit, which, in the case of fluoride, is highly questionable, to say the least." In other words, shouldn't water just be water?


Lastly, there's the way that fluoride was discovered. Around the dawn of the 20th Century, a dentist noticed that the people of Colorado Springs all had miserably ugly stains on their teeth. It was eventually discovered that this was caused by high levels of fluoride in their water supply, which was causing a mild disease due to overexposure. But at the same time, it was noted that the people of the area had much fewer cavities than the norm.

This led to the conclusion that smaller doses of fluoride could prevent tooth decay without causing the discoloring, but the fact is that fluoride was first discovered due to its negative effects.

When dentists learned about this new technique, there was a rush to get the "benefits" of fluoride out to the American public. With a very short span between the early 1940s and the late 1950s, fluoridation flooded into American communities, often with very little public debate.


It's not like fluoridation is universally accepted worldwide; and it's not just poor and underdeveloped countries that have rejected it. Nations in Asia and Africa have adopted fluoridation programs at the insistence of Western science, with often mixed or decidedly negative results, including in China, India and South Africa. Among other governments rejecting it are Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Austria and France.

But hey, what do the Swiss know, right?

Interesting ^^ thanks for posting Phone Post 3.0

Can anyone suggest a better filter approach.

The propur is what they sell on Alex's site. Phone Post

Sub for info Phone Post

Theres no way the Brita does next to nothing. We have really hard water where I live, and using a Brita dramatically effects the taste.

Not saying it's purified as can be, but it's certainly helping.

crazydave - 

Can anyone suggest a better filter approach.

The propur is what they sell on Alex's site. Phone Post



Brita is crap, propur isn't much better.



http://www.amazon.com/TMAFC-Artesian-Contact-Water-Filtration/dp/B005A3WM6C/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1371266219&sr=8-2&keywords=reverse+osmosis+water+filtration+system

The pro pur is basically a berkey with silver impregnated in it. My brother in law and mother in law both have the berekey with the PF2 filter on them and I could taste the difference after they were installed in their systems. I have well water so I did not add the PF2 to my berkey set up. Reverse Osmosis will get roughly 95% of the Fluoride out, and the PF2s are supposed to be somewhat better. If anything get a dehumidifier and run it through a berkey/propure that way.

This is the water quality report in my home town

http://www.cfu.net/webres/File/CCR_2013.pdf

please not the source of the Fluoride which is, "Additive to promote strong teeth; discharge from fertilizer

and aluminum factories; erosion of natural deposits
Nitrate [as N] (mg/L) 2012 No 10 9.4 <1-9.4 10 Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from septic tanks,
sewage; erosion of natural deposits."  
 
The runoff from aluminum plants would be sodioum fluoride.
 
and here is the MSDS for Sodioum Fluoride.  http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927595
 
Then use your brain.

We use a Berkey with fluoride filter Phone Post 3.0