Windsor, Canada to stop adding fluoride to water

I watched this little excert from YT some time back and when informed on where most of the flouride we use comes from and what it is a waste by product of I am glad to try my damndest to not be apart of any community adding it too my water.

Stuff they don't want you too know

Thats just my opinion of course but after watching the YT vid doesn't seem it does much good!!!

SaneThinking

reply to post by R_Clark


If everybody stops, they're going to have to find somewhere else to dump their sodium fluoride. Moving all that HazMat is expensive, and the storage/disposal of even moreso I'm sure. If they won't be able to get paid to dump it into the water supply, how will they profit from disposing of their toxic waste?

Something tells me a new fluoride-based formulation for the useless drug known as Tamiflu, possibly? Or increase the percentage of fluoride in anti-depressant medications? Or baby formula, that seems like a perfectly reasonable idea, seeing how safe and wonderful it is.

All sarcasm aside, I hope this is the start of a movement - I don't care if they're saying they're stopping its use because even though its "good" medicating, they're still medicating against people's will, or if they're doing it entirely to cut out the expense. They can use whatever reason they want, as long as its gone.

I have to say, while our drinking and cooking water is fluoride free, through reverse osmosis filtration, I am jealous that people in these cities will be able to water their gardens with fluoride-free water. I don't know whether the fluoride is added at the municipal level in my town, or if its all done in Chicago (we're tied into Chicagols water system.) either way, I intend to find out, and do what I can to at least try to instigate discussion of the matter. While it would cost less to provide fluoride free water than fluoridated water, I would be willing to pay double for water free of toxic waste. I don't mind the chlorine - I prefer water not swimming with bacteria - and at least that dissipates quickly in the garden, rather than persisting in the foods we harvest from the garden, but fluoridsted water has to be the biggest, worst, cruelest trick played on humanity since the PT Cruiser.

ETA - hazmat transport code for sodium fluoride is UN1690. Hazard Class 6.1 "Poisonous Liquids"

Although I'm starring the OP, the star is really meant for Windsor, Canada.

Originally posted by RandyBragg
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...

While you're right that all fluoride is toxic to humans, pretty much everything is toxic, depending on dosage and absorbability. Calcium fluoride (CaF2) is practically insoluble, and thus presents an extremely low toxicity. Trating eny element the same regardless of it's compund is ridiculous. It would be like saying table 4salt will explode in the presence of water (sodium itself does) and the chlorine part of salt (NaCl) will kill you if you breathe near it.

Your retort to the known effects of fluoridosis that it made the unicorn's horns fall off too is a fine example of having no useful argument and instead resorting to nonsense.

Your retort to fluoride only being beneficial through topical application made no sense to me whatsoever. The fact that sodium fluoride associates with hard tissue doesn't make that a good thing. What it is doing is displacing calcium, which eventually can end up leading to weak bones, even causing hols in bones (and teeth.) those getting off fluoride (through filtration or whatever means) should know to supplement with additional calcium/magnesium, and when the fluoride leeches out of your bones, if not replaced by calcium (as it should be), the result is weakened bones.

Originally posted by peck420

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.

All right then and thanks for your post.....so I gather that by your definition we are getting 3/4 mg/L compared to your 37mg/L

I think we have cleaner water by your definition, If you Google a 5 Stage RO system you might get a better idea of what I am yakking about.

Again thanks for the reply.
Regards, Iwinder

I like my Windsor, Canada with a splash of 7, skip the water please

reply to post by RandyBragg

I don`t think it`s the natural occuring fuoride found in nature that was being added .... naturalnews has a video on where it comes from that is pretty interesting. Something about it forms in the making of phosphate and its the residue from the smokestack scrubbers. They had to remove it from the smoke b/c of the killing of animals and plants in the vicinity of th plants producing phosphates. not sure of the details.

reply to post by RandyBragg


I believe the cons outweigh the pros. I am against water fluoridation.

However, for the sake of the argument let's assume fluoride is effective when ingested in combating cavities.

A few questions arise.

The safe levels are an educated guess based on an average consumption. Do we treat other health issues in this fashion?

You can say there is a safe amount of fluoride parts per million, but you can't safely say Zachary James is going to consume 4 16 ounce glasses of water on average (insert any average). Maybe he's heavy into sports and consumes way more water than average (normal for athletes). What about the people like myself that rarely drink any other beverage than water? Now these types of people are consuming above the safe levels potentially (most likely). What are your thoughts on this?

That's just drinking it.

What about showering. The skin is the largest organ and absorbs water. Does this PPM safe levels take into account showering as well? Let's say it does. Now we meet the same pitfall as before. It would be based on an average. What if I take really really long showers?

What about food production. What about crops that are sprayed with fluoridated water. It's not just the backyard gardeners watering with fluoridated water. But let's continue with the examples and bring back Zachary James.

Zachary James consumes above average water due to being an athlete. He takes especially long showers. He is an avid gardener and eats his own crops. How much fluoride is he consuming?? Of course we don't know that.

Hence the next issue, and in my opinion the biggest point. No control on the measurement.

When you get a prescription for a medication you are given a specified amount to take, and a specified time to take it. Water fluoridation grants neither. With a prescription it's usually further specified by weight, perhaps gender, other factors. Water fluoridation does not.

So essentially water fluoridation is a forced prescription not calibrated to the individual.

How is either of those aspects not absolutely contrary to how medicine is practised in all(?) other applications?

You truly believe this methodology is ideal?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by RandyBragg

 

I believe the cons outweigh the pros. I am against water fluoridation.

However, for the sake of the argument let's assume fluoride is effective when ingested in combating cavities.

A few questions arise.

The safe levels are an educated guess based on an average consumption. Do we treat other health issues in this fashion?

You can say there is a safe amount of fluoride parts per million, but you can't safely say Zachary James is going to consume 4 16 ounce glasses of water on average (insert any average). Maybe he's heavy into sports and consumes way more water than average (normal for athletes). What about the people like myself that rarely drink any other beverage than water? Now these types of people are consuming above the safe levels potentially (most likely). What are your thoughts on this?

That's just drinking it.

What about showering. The skin is the largest organ and absorbs water. Does this PPM safe levels take into account showering as well? Let's say it does. Now we meet the same pitfall as before. It would be based on an average. What if I take really really long showers?

What about food production. What about crops that are sprayed with fluoridated water. It's not just the backyard gardeners watering with fluoridated water. But let's continue with the examples and bring back Zachary James.

Zachary James consumes above average water due to being an athlete. He takes especially long showers. He is an avid gardener and eats his own crops. How much fluoride is he consuming?? Of course we don't know that.

Hence the next issue, and in my opinion the biggest point. No control on the measurement.

When you get a prescription for a medication you are given a specified amount to take, and a specified time to take it. Water fluoridation grants neither. With a prescription it's usually further specified by weight, perhaps gender, other factors. Water fluoridation does not.

So essentially water fluoridation is a forced prescription not calibrated to the individual.

How is either of those aspects not absolutely contrary to how medicine is practised in all(?) other applications?

You truly believe this methodology is ideal?

edit on 31-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

This was an absolutely fantastic post, and I think paints the clearest, most complete picture here of what the big problem is, whether or not sodium fluoride is bad for you or not (for the disbelievers out there)

Star for you for that, and for WHM avatar

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

The safe levels are an educated guess based on an average consumption. Do we treat other health issues in this fashion?

Yes, iodine is added to salt and its not for the flavor. In many countries over in Europe after they took fluoride out of the water they put it in salt.

You can say there is a safe amount of fluoride parts per million, but you can't safely say Zachary James is going to consume 4 16 ounce glasses of water on average (insert any average). Maybe he's heavy into sports and consumes way more water than average (normal for athletes). What about the people like myself that rarely drink any other beverage than water? Now these types of people are consuming above the safe levels potentially (most likely). What are your thoughts on this?

That it is still too low of a number to hurt you. You would die of water toxicity before the fluoride did anything to you.

What about showering. The skin is the largest organ and absorbs water. Does this PPM safe levels take into account showering as well? Let's say it does. Now we meet the same pitfall as before. It would be based on an average. What if I take really really long showers?

Again its too low to really hurt you. Swimmers will be in a pool for hours a day training and drinking water and they are not having problems.
You can go on and on with different examples and it wont change the fact that there is not enough in there to hurt you.

reply to post by dogstar23

Calcium fluoride (CaF2) is practically insoluble, and thus presents an extremely low toxicity.

www.who.int...
Box 2 : Too much natural fluoride in India
Nearly 100,000 villagers in the remote Karbi Anglong district in the north-eastern state of Assam were reported to be affected by excessive fluoride levels in groundwater in June 2000. Many people have been crippled for life. The victims suffer from severe anaemia, stiff joints, painful and restricted movement, mottled teeth and kidney failure. The first fluorosis cases were discovered in the middle of 1999 in the Tekelangiun area of Karbi Anglong. Fluoride levels in the area vary from 5-23 mg/L, while the permissible limit in India is 1.2 mg/L. Local authorities launched a scheme for the supply of fluoride-free water and painted polluted tube-wells red: they also put up notice boards warning people not to drink the water from these wells. (Times of India / UNI, 2 Jun 2000)

en.wikipedia.org...
look at the section of the Colorado brown stain

Originally posted by RandyBragg


"Yes, iodine is added to salt and its not for the flavor. In many countries over in Europe after they took fluoride out of the water they put it in salt."

It's very easy, affordable, and convenient to avoid using salt that contains iodine (and they do not add sodium fluoride to salt in most western world nations, so that's easily avoidable also). There are many options in the stores to purchase iodine free salt. It's also easy to avoid eating at fast food or restaurants. You have a choice. With fluoridated water, it is impossible to avoid it completely. You have no choice.

Your position is astounding to me. Your like a prisoner helping to tighten his own shackles.

edit on 1-2-2013 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2013 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)