Windsor, Canada to stop adding fluoride to water

About time they stop poisoning our water

ok some people delighted flouride is being take out of some water supplies, others not so and lots of quotes and links to whether its great or evil.

What I want to know is : If it is evil and purposely put in by govts - WHY? what do they have to gain from slowly drip feeding poison to us? Do they want us dead by the time we're 80? Is it merely modern day population control? Or are they slowly ramping up the doses until we are totally hooked on it and then they take it away and sell it for like a hundred dollars a tube?

Why is everyone hung up on flouride and where are the conspiracies?

Originally posted by RandyBragg

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Fluoride in water regardless in how small quantities is pointless poison intoxication.

You know its in water naturally right?

Calcium fluoride is naturally created. Sodium fluoride is added and can be potentially harmful ingested.

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by RandyBragg

Originally posted by HIWATT

It costs the city $50,000 a year to add flouride to drinking water for approx. 70,000 people ??!!

That's almost $1,000 PER PERSON

Sure about that buddy? I believe that statement really brings to light so many things.

You have to wonder how much of that $#@ they are dumping into your water... all under the guise of "dental health" when water is something you SWALLOW....

With that logic smoking and coffee wouldn't be bad for your teeth.

Yes I'm sure about it. Those numbers are straight from the horses mouth.

Seriously? Trying to re-frame my point? what are you... a WOMAN?

50,000 dollars a year
70,000 people
70,000 people at 1,000 dollars a person = $70,000,000 ≠ $50,000

Originally posted by Xaphan
reply to post by RandyBragg

 

I thought you said you were done posting here. I was hoping you were serious.

I said i was done with him

reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx


I just joined today but have been reading for a while. This topic is very interesting to me and I have a sibling who works for the local government. I just contacted her about this and if there is anyone I can talk to about getting it removed from the drinking water. I understand that it's an uphill battle and it will have to come to a city wide vote but the city I live in voted against it the first two times back in the late fifties and early sixties. It was passed by the slimmest of margins in the mid 60s.

I am trying to learn more about this and any references or thoughts on what I should present are welcomed. Thanks for always questioning. I am finally starting to wake up and this site and it's subscribers are the main reason.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Only about 3% of towns and cities which have fluoridated water have naturally occurring fluoride in their water. Not to mention naturally occurring fluoride is very different to the stuff they drip into our water supplies.

Do you have something to back this up? Specifically for Canada?

I have never seen a GeoTech report with 0 naturally occurring fluoride.

As far as I have ever seen, all of Canada is getting between 0.025 mg/L - 10 mg/L (this is not a typo), depending on the location.

reply to post by HIWATT


Now thats funny ask your dad to do the math next time

Originally posted by peck420

Do you have something to back this up? Specifically for Canada?

I have never seen a GeoTech report with 0 naturally occurring fluoride.

As far as I have ever seen, all of Canada is getting between 0.025 mg/L - 10 mg/L (this is not a typo), depending on the location.

From what i gather so far, you are supposed to back up all their crazy claims for them. If you don't you are "lazy" and not doing their research.

reply to post by RandyBragg


Naturally occurring fluoride is calcium fluoride. The poison additive that is being dumped in our water is sodium fluoride and its a serious toxin... It affects brain function by lowering iq and it is cancerous, and causes osteoporosis. Fluoride is only effective as a topical agent on your teeth and should not be ingested. Toothpaste costs about 3 bucks a tube. Anybody can afford that. The government doesn't give a fucf about our teeth. This is a straight up scam and a sham and I don't want my tax dollars to be involved in a mass medication of the public. You are a disgrace to the Vandals legacy. You need to change your avatar immediately.

reply to post by erebh


It's an ingenious way for certain industries to discard their toxic waste, and make profit at the same time. It's a scam

reply to post by unknown known
id be more comfortable with free fluoride toothpaste government grants for those that can't afford it. Mass medicating the public for the benefit of a small minority of the people is definitely not a democratic solution.

reply to post by binkbonk

Naturally occurring fluoride is calcium fluoride. The poison additive that is being dumped in our water is sodium fluoride and its a serious toxin

ALL fluoride is toxic to humans.

It affects brain function by lowering iq and it is cancerous, and causes osteoporosis.

I heard it made the unicorn horns fall off too

Fluoride is only effective as a topical agent on your teeth and should not be ingested.

Not true at all.

www.fluoridedebate.com...
After ingestion of fluoride, such as drinking a glass of optimally fluoridated water, the majority of the fluoride is absorbed from the stomach and small intestine into the blood stream.114 This causes a short term increase in the fluoride levels in the blood. The fluoride levels increase quickly and reach a peak concentration within 20-60 minutes.115 The concentration declines rapidly, usually within three to six hours following the peak levels, due to the uptake of fluoride by hard tissue and efficient removal of fluoride by the kidneys.104 Approximately 50% of the fluoride absorbed each day by young or middle-aged adults becomes associated with hard tissues within 24 hours while virtually all of the remainder is excreted in the urine. Approximately 99% of the fluoride present in the body is associated with hard tissues.114

You are a disgrace to the Vandals legacy. You need to change your avatar immediately.

I think you have the vandals confused with someone else
articles.latimes.com...

Click here for more information.

Just to add to my previous post about our 5 stage Reverse Osmosis system.
Along with the system we purchased a fairly expensive ($80.00) digital reader which tests the water for "suspended particles only!"

Our city tap water reads between 135-140 parts per million
The best commercial bottled water reads at 40 parts per million.

Our Reverse Osmosis water here at home reads at 3-4 parts per million.
Now our tester will not test for Fluoride but we did have a sample tested at a lab after installing our system.

The results were good, actually perfect.....Zero Fluoride/copper/lead/Mercury/zinc/ etc etc.

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Iwinder
Just to add to my previous post about our 5 stage Reverse Osmosis system.
Along with the system we purchased a fairly expensive ($80.00) digital reader which tests the water for "suspended particles only!"

Our city tap water reads between 135-140 parts per million
The best commercial bottled water reads at 40 parts per million.

Our Reverse Osmosis water here at home reads at 3-4 parts per million.
Now our tester will not test for Fluoride but we did have a sample tested at a lab after installing our system.

The results were good, actually perfect.....Zero Fluoride/copper/lead/Mercury/zinc/ etc etc.

Regards, Iwinder

Um, that's not actually good.

There is good cause to leave natural minerals and natural fluoride in the water you drink.

Unfortunately the system you are peddling, by your own list of capabilities, is already far outstripped by my civic authorities. They are providing better water to my tap then your system can deliver. (>37 mg/L total).

Any other Canadians interested, check your local water company, they are required to provide water test reports. Most post directly online, all provide upon request.

reply to post by peck420


I realized that people would claim we are lacking natural minerals in our water and stated such further back in this thread.
It is a valid point but we do some supplements to compensate for this situation.

"Unfortunately the system you are peddling, by your own list of capabilities, is already far outstripped by my civic authorities. They are providing better water to my tap then your system can deliver. (>37 mg/L total). "

Forgive me but I must ask you to clarify your numbers?
I am not getting understanding what your above quote is saying?

How do we compare 37 mg/litre to a flat rate of 3/4 parts per million?
Is that for suspended particles?

I am serious and not flaming you I need to understand these numbers in comparison.

Looking for answers and always open to ideas.

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Iwinder
I am serious and not flaming you I need to understand these numbers in comparison.

Sorry, I get a little grumpy concerning the water quality in my area, my wife helped design the system.

Forgive me but I must ask you to clarify your numbers?
I am not getting understanding what your above quote is saying?

How do we compare 37 mg/litre to a flat rate of 3/4 parts per million?
Is that for suspended particles?

You provided the capabilities of the reverse osmosis system as:

Our city tap water reads between 135-140 parts per million
The best commercial bottled water reads at 40 parts per million.

Our Reverse Osmosis water here at home reads at 3-4 parts per million.

You have listed that the water coming into your house is at 135-140 ppm of suspended particles, and that the RO system removes 132-136 ppm of those particles. This is all fine, but you don't specify which particles are removed.

Now, the easiest particles to remove are the biggest, which also happens to be the category that most natural minerals fall into. Most of the really dangerous stuff is very small, or not suspended particles.

I stated that the system is not required in my area because the water we get from tap is >37 mg/L total contaminants. Of that >37 mg/L, a solid 35 mg/L are naturally occurring minerals. So, that leaves 2 mg/L of synthetic additives. Which, is less than the 3-4 ppm that your system delivers.

I reread my initial post, and realised just how confusing that must have been. I left out way too much information.

Finally, for converting:
For a simple comparison, 1 mg/L = 1 ppm.
If you want to get really nitty and gritty, 1 mg/L = 1.001142303 ppm.

For the suspended particles, my number is for total contaminants, so it is everything in the water that is not H20.