Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Plant officials stop flouridating water... Get put on leave

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder


I am anti Fluoride to the nines and with that said I agree with your post above.
It was almost for sure an action that broke some kind of law there in that city.

On the other hand as I mentioned in an earlier post our city refuses to hold a vote on the issue and be sure that a lot of people here in town want a vote...

How do we go about getting a vote on the removal of Fluroide from our water?????

I guess we can push for a vote on it with having a vote on the issue of should we have a vote on it......
And so on and so forth, they (council and Mayor) won't move on it so for now it is a dead issue...
Regards, Iwinder


I am anti flouride, too. I now live in Arizona, back afer the oil spill in the Gulf, since 2010. I had lived in the valley previously, so I am following along with the news about this. Here is an article from the Arizona republic:

www.a... zcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/20120823gilbert-discovers-flouride-withheld-from-water-puts-officials-leave.html


Town voters approved fluoridation 12 years ago after a heated debate on the controversial issue, and the task of adding the cavity-fighting chemical fell to Public Works Director Lonnie Frost, whose wife, Shelley, had led the opposition against fluoride.



Town Manager Patrick Banger could not immediately say whether it was done intentionally or by mistake.[/ex

and this has been going on for a while:


Reports from 2009 and 2010 indicate the fluoride in Gilbert's water varied between 0.42 and 1.1 parts per million, well below the maximum allowable level of 4 ppm. The 2011 report, however, indicates fluoride levels had dropped, ranging from "not detected" to 0.92 ppm.


and on an interesting note:


Flouoride apparently had been withheld from the North Water plant beginning around the time three new Town Council members were elected and sworn in. At least two have direct ties to the conservative "tea party" movement.



Tea-party activists have been vocal opponents of municipal-water fluoridation, and other conservative organizations such as the John Birch Society have opposed it for decades.


hmmmm:


Meanwhile, Councilman Eddie Cook, elected to his first term last spring, has requested that the Town Council discuss eliminating water fluoridation during its annual retreat this weekend. That agenda item is unrelated to the investigation at the North Water Treatment Plant, Banger said.



The Town Council first approved fluoridation in 2000, but a resident referendum forced the issue onto a November ballot. About 54 percent of voters approved the measure, and fluoridation commenced in 2001.


Only 54%????!!!!!

And just to say, that water in the Valley is as precious as gold anyway;


The disclosure of the Gilbert officials' actions marks the second time in a matter of days that water supplies to southeast Valley communities are in the news. Earlier this week, in an unrelated case, some San Tan Valley area residents learned that there were high levels of the E. coli bacteria in tap water supplied by Johnson Utilities.


Convenient, no? The news said that there never really was any threat to the water supply after this!









edit on 26-8-2012 by Sulie because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


This is incorrect. Distilled water is the best in the world to drink; it is completely pure H2O, with no contaminants making it possible to detox your body from the current contaminants. Don't give me that: "You lose minerals and nutrients!" bit. It should be noted that the 'minerals and nutrients' in water are inorganic and your body can not even use them.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
While Fluoridation seems completely un-neccesary, I can understand why these officials were put on leave.

They weren't doing what they were paid to do.. That's not a conspiracy.


Sure, they didn't do their job... but they satisfied their obligation to humanity by making a moral judgement which prevented them from doing their "job", aka poisoning people.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


I've heard that drinking good spring water with the right minerals helps keep your body alkaline for the prevention of accumulating cancers, is there anything to this in your opinion?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sulie

Originally posted by Iwinder


I am anti Fluoride to the nines and with that said I agree with your post above.
It was almost for sure an action that broke some kind of law there in that city.

On the other hand as I mentioned in an earlier post our city refuses to hold a vote on the issue and be sure that a lot of people here in town want a vote...

How do we go about getting a vote on the removal of Fluroide from our water?????

I guess we can push for a vote on it with having a vote on the issue of should we have a vote on it......
And so on and so forth, they (council and Mayor) won't move on it so for now it is a dead issue...
Regards, Iwinder


I am anti flouride, too. I now live in Arizona, back afer the oil spill in the Gulf, since 2010. I had lived in the valley previously, so I am following along with the news about this. Here is an article from the Arizona republic:

www.a... zcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/20120823gilbert-discovers-flouride-withheld-from-water-puts-officials-leave.html


Town voters approved fluoridation 12 years ago after a heated debate on the controversial issue, and the task of adding the cavity-fighting chemical fell to Public Works Director Lonnie Frost, whose wife, Shelley, had led the opposition against fluoride.



Town Manager Patrick Banger could not immediately say whether it was done intentionally or by mistake.[/ex

and this has been going on for a while:


Reports from 2009 and 2010 indicate the fluoride in Gilbert's water varied between 0.42 and 1.1 parts per million, well below the maximum allowable level of 4 ppm. The 2011 report, however, indicates fluoride levels had dropped, ranging from "not detected" to 0.92 ppm.


and on an interesting note:


Flouoride apparently had been withheld from the North Water plant beginning around the time three new Town Council members were elected and sworn in. At least two have direct ties to the conservative "tea party" movement.



Tea-party activists have been vocal opponents of municipal-water fluoridation, and other conservative organizations such as the John Birch Society have opposed it for decades.


hmmmm:


Meanwhile, Councilman Eddie Cook, elected to his first term last spring, has requested that the Town Council discuss eliminating water fluoridation during its annual retreat this weekend. That agenda item is unrelated to the investigation at the North Water Treatment Plant, Banger said.



The Town Council first approved fluoridation in 2000, but a resident referendum forced the issue onto a November ballot. About 54 percent of voters approved the measure, and fluoridation commenced in 2001.


Only 54%????!!!!!

And just to say, that water in the Valley is as precious as gold anyway;


The disclosure of the Gilbert officials' actions marks the second time in a matter of days that water supplies to southeast Valley communities are in the news. Earlier this week, in an unrelated case, some San Tan Valley area residents learned that there were high levels of the E. coli bacteria in tap water supplied by Johnson Utilities.


Convenient, no? The news said that there never really was any threat to the water supply after this!









edit on 26-8-2012 by Sulie because: (no reason given)



I agree, at least they had the chance to vote.
Here I am most confident that a vote would rid us of this crap, why? because of the internet and the young people being more aware of what Government is capable of.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sulie
 


Only fifty four percent of the citizens that voted voted for it. That doesn't mean that it is 54 percent of the population of the area. People who wanted fluoridation were probably pretty aggressive at voting while those who were neutral and trusted in our government probably didn't vote. Sure, that also means those who researched the problems with fluoridation also voted against it. Voting often does not represent the majority only the majority of those who vote. They should have another vote now that many people have been made aware of the problems with fluoridation of water and the reduced recommendations of our federal government on fluoride treatment. 4 PPM is way to high, that had been the threshold limit. 1.5 PPM was the governments recommended average. Now it's recommended PPM is .5 average. I hope I have these figures right, I do them from memory, these coming from a bill that was passed in 2011



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jeantherapy
 


Boron has an extremely high PH level of 9-10. It has been shown to be effective in cases of cancer; due to the fact that cancer can only exist in an acidic body. It can not live in a host or body that has a PH level higher than 7. I would say that distilled would be better than spring due to chemtrails adding aluminum which binds to fluoride and allows it to make it's way past the blood brain barrier and cause Alzheimers.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Sulie
 


Only fifty four percent of the citizens that voted voted for it. That doesn't mean that it is 54 percent of the population of the area. People who wanted fluoridation were probably pretty aggressive at voting while those who were neutral and trusted in our government probably didn't vote. Sure, that also means those who researched the problems with fluoridation also voted against it. Voting often does not represent the majority only the majority of those who vote. They should have another vote now that many people have been made aware of the problems with fluoridation of water and the reduced recommendations of our federal government on fluoride treatment. 4 PPM is way to high, that had been the threshold limit. 1.5 PPM was the governments recommended average. Now it's recommended PPM is .5 average. I hope I have these figures right, I do them from memory, these coming from a bill that was passed in 2011


I agree that we agree on the numbers and that you said the very same thing I was thinking but did not post because of my large quote...
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Shows how uneducated on the dangers of the ingestion of flouride people are....I would be happy if they left out the rat poison. How about instead of forcing us to drink flouride, say they replace it with vitamins? The government is worried about our teeth....right.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Why do you think quoting corrupted corporations and companies lends weight to your statement?
I did not quote a corporation or a company. I quoted the EU Department of Health and Consumer Protection.


These people are in business to make money; not baby sit us and keep us healthy.
What people?


Or else explain to me why at least a 100000 people in the US alone die from prescription pills.
What does that have to do with fluoridation? I would like to see a source for that figure but it probably has to do with drug abuse. Oh wait. It seems you just pulled that number out of someplace dark.


Drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in U.S., data show
Fueling the surge are prescription pain and anxiety drugs that are potent, highly addictive and especially dangerous when combined with one another or with other drugs or alcohol.
September 17, 2011|By Lisa Girion, Scott Glover and Doug Smith, Los Angeles Times

Propelled by an increase in prescription narcotic overdoses, drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the United States, a Times analysis of government data has found.

Drugs exceeded motor vehicle accidents as a cause of death in 2009, killing at least 37,485 people nationwide, according to preliminary data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
articles.latimes.com...


You do realize that ingesting fluoride can only be harmful right?
It can only be harmful? No, I don't realize that. But I do know that in high concentrations it can be harmful.


Not to mention if you read your fluoridated toothpaste it says to call the poison control center if swallowing more than the recommended allotment
Because high levels of fluoride can cause fluorosis and other more serious problems. If your kid eats half a tube of toothpaste (72 mg of fluoride) it would be a good idea to call about it.

Based on the amount possibly ingested and the development of any symptoms, the center will give you advice on whether you can safely stay home or go to the ER with your child.
If you can be watched at home, they will most likely recommend that you give your child some milk.
kidemergencies.com...
BTW, to get that amount of fluoride (72 mg) from a typical fluoridated water system (0.8 ppm) you would have to drink 90 liters of water.


It is to be used topically; not ingested.
Yes, toothpaste is not meant to be swallowed.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Wasn't there another thread on coincidence? I just added to or technically helped you finish your post



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Wasn't there another thread on coincidence? I just added to or technically helped you finish your post


What I was thinking as I posted was that if my Parents were still here they would have voted pro Fluroide without a doubt, I can say that their grandson and granddaughter would today as I type this vote against it, without a doubt because I introduced them to some serious web sites with serious questions.

The above are my Niece and Nephew not our children.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I just want to add my piece from my personal experience with real life. People who have settled villages 500+ years ago knew enough about the land before settling it, including things like: water supply, weather, harvest seasons per year per crop, natural resources, wind protection, seasons, and on depending on locality.

My point is, when I visit villages that have been around 500+ years and are still self sufficient, I see can personally point out some fallacies to most anything dealing with processed water and food. Also vaccinations.

Natural is the way to go. Remove outside influences. Today it is too late for probably most all "civilized" regions. The villages I visit use mountain spring water, no water treatment plant. Also, before settling anywhere the water and land is tested by using waiting/hunting sheds outside of the main village to see if the new location is good to use as an extension of the main village. Do you really think if the water were bad anywhere on Earth (before "civilization") that people would live there. I'm sure there are natural resources that could contaminate an area but a generation would figure that out before settling there, at least before the "civilized" world.

Sorry if I sound like I'm going on a rant, but I don't like to see people argue that man made ideas like adding fluoride to water is a good thing. If it were good, fluoride would have been adapted by the human body as a need. As a human, fluoride is probably not needed except as in trace element forms. As said, everything in moderation.

I say this from seeing people living in their 90's and 100's still walking, talking, and functioning as smart and communicative people, acting fine. In the west these people have been marginalized and confined to retirement centers. Life was fine without "civilization" and especially politicians.

Rant over, but really, life does not need to be this complicated and from my experience is much more enjoyable the more simple it is. Don't be afraid of dying, it's like being scared of breathing - everyone does it!



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


What if the water is coming from a deep underground spring where it may have been there for hundreds or thousands of years, being filtered by the layers of earth, like the Trinity 2.2 spring?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin
 


I think it should be a goal of the water suppliers just to supply the cleanest and purest water that they can. I do understand that fluoride is naturally present in many places including natural water way, so I see no reason to add more to the tap water.

This artificial inclusion of fluoride is sure to cause an excess in certain people's diets which would probably not be good for their general health.

I wish the river nearby was clean enough to drink from daily.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


The villages I visit use mountain spring water, no water treatment plant.
Do you know the fluoride level of that water?


If it were good, fluoride would have been adapted by the human body as a need.
I guess it depends on what you call a "need" but it seems that our bodies work better with it than without it.


The most obvious sign that a person has a fluoride deficiency is the appearance of dental carries, better known as cavities and weakened tooth enamel. Brittle bones which generally are caused by bone demineralization are also a symptom of fluoride deficiency. This situation can lead to a higher likelihood of developing bone fractures and possibly even osteoporosis.

www.healthylivinganswers.com...

edit on 8/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Is the fluoride being added to the drinking water a naturally occurring mineral or is it coming from a different source?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines
 


The villages I visit use mountain spring water, no water treatment plant.
Do you know the fluoride level of that water?


If it were good, fluoride would have been adapted by the human body as a need.
I guess it depends on what you call a "need" but it seems that our bodies work better with it than without it.


The most obvious sign that a person has a fluoride deficiency is the appearance of dental carries, better known as cavities and weakened tooth enamel. Brittle bones which generally are caused by bone demineralization are also a symptom of fluoride deficiency. This situation can lead to a higher likelihood of developing bone fractures and possibly even osteoporosis.

www.healthylivinganswers.com...

edit on 8/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Nice, a fast response! So to quote your source, even though your source has no source:




Although the fluoride mineral is not considered as essential, it certainly plays a significant role in keeping teeth and bones healthy and strong.


Ok. Again, still no correlation between long life and fluoride needed. To get to it, teeth are not needed for life, though they are helpful.

Next:




Fluoride sources are not at all common and the fluoride mineral is not found in many of the foods that we eat. That is why it has been added to toothpaste and some drinking water supplies.


So where the villagers I am talking about (again, oldest village at least 400 years old), probably does not have fluoride in the area, though I cannot say for certain as there are no tests. I can say that dental hygiene is not good. One issue of many overlooked throughout history. However the lifespan and average health compared per 1:1 ratio (1000:1000) is probably much larger than any "civilized" area in the world, but I attribute that mainly to diet (organic mostly), exercise, and a mostly natural way of living (having recently got electricity in the last 6 years, but still no cell phone signal.)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jeantherapy
 

Obviously if it's being added to water systems it means the naturally occurring levels are very low.

But I suppose you are talking about the "differences" between calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride. Not much difference really. In high concentrations they are bad, in low concentrations they can be beneficial. In high concentrations caffeine can be bad in low concentrations it can be beneficial.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


To get to it, teeth are not needed for life, though they are helpful.

Yes, quite helpful. As are bones. We can live without teeth. We can live without strong bones. We can live with all sorts of medical problems and many people do.


One issue of many overlooked throughout history. However the lifespan and average health compared per 1:1 ratio (1000:1000) is probably much larger than any "civilized" area in the world, but I attribute that mainly to diet (organic mostly), exercise, and a mostly natural way of living (having recently got electricity in the last 6 years, but still no cell phone signal.)
"Probably"? Why not do some research and find out?
edit on 8/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join