PrisonPlanet Forum
May 22, 2013, 07:56:51 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Questions to ask waterworks director  (Read 1747 times)
bAhLK!
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« on: May 13, 2009, 10:32:02 AM »

So i have been doing some research on the whole fluoride shin dig, pretty scary....

Was even more surprised to find out that even in my small town of 5k people in Vermont of all places, are fluoridating the public water.....

I was able to find a consumer report online for my town in 2007, and it had a average of 1.3 ppm which seems high, and a maximum allowed of 4..... And said it was waste discharge from aluminum and fertilizer factories  Huh 

luckily i live a bit in the boonies a bit and drink from a mountain spring

but i decided to email the director and im not too sure what to think about his response...


Good morning,
I was hoping you could provide me with information regarding the public water fluoridation program, if there is one in place.
any info would be great.
thanks
Sean

Sean,
What sort of info would you like and if I may ask for what reason?
Bill

I was hoping you guys could help me give some good questions, because for all i know the guy is completely clueless about the dangers and just doing what he is told, so maybe if he is aware, it will stop in this town at least.

I wanted to cover exactly what and who covers the guideline and regulations of the treatment
exactly what information/research was used to support the start of the treatment in Vermont
What kind of voice from the people was used to start the treatment
And what i have always been the most curious since i even really knew anything about the treatment was, why would someone want to pay money out of there pocket to help the public health, but after seeing directly from a report its aluminum / fertilizer factory discharge, i want to find out exactly if the water plant pays the companies for the fluoride, or do they pay the water treatment to get rid of it.

any help would be great
Logged
Sasha
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,661



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2009, 10:38:23 AM »

RE-EXAMINATION OF ACUTE TOXICITY OF FLUORIDE
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/97-30-2/302-89.htm

Kenji Akiniwa, Tokyo, Japan

SUMMARY: The acute toxic dose of fluoride has been believed to be 2 to 5 mg or 8 mg/kg of body weight. However, acute fluoride poisonings have occurred at doses of 0.1 to 0.8 mgF/kg of body weight in the USA.

In Japan, a school-based anticariogenic program is being carried out with fluoride mouth rinses containing 500 to 2000 ppm sodium fluoride on approximately 158,000 persons, consisting mainly of elementary and junior high school children. Thus the safety problem of this treatment attracts much attention. Fluoride retention is said to be around 15 to 30% in fluoride mouth rinsing. In this paper, on the basis of toxic doses estimated in outbreaks of fluoride poisoning, the potential for acute poisoning by fluoride ingested during mouth rinsing is assessed.

Acute fluoride poisoning is shown to be caused by exposure to lower doses of fluoride than commonly suggested. The toxic dose of fluoride should therefore be re-examined.

Key words: Acute toxicity; Dental fluorosis; Fluoride mouth rinsing; Sodium fluoride.

INTRODUCTION

Excessive intake of fluoride has been re-examined recently in the USA1 and Canada.2 The World Health Organisation has warned of an unexpected increase in the incidence of dental fluorosis, a form of a chronic fluoride toxication, and recommended procedures to prevent excess fluoride intake.3

Promoters of fluoride mouth rinsing set the acute toxic dose of fluoride at 2 mg/kg body weight,4 the Ministry of Health and Welfare of Japan at 2 to 5 mg/kg,5 and some other investigators at 8 mg/kg. However, 0.1 to 0.8 mg/kg of fluoride has been estimated to have caused fluoride poisoning in the USA, resulting from troubles with fluoridated water systems and from ingestion of fluoride- containing products by mistake.7-15

In Japan, however, a school-based program of fluoride mouth rinsing (500-2000 ppm sodium fluoride) was selected as the second best alternative to fluoridation of the water system, involving almost 158,000 elementary and junior high school children,16 with a further recent increase involving children under 6 years of age in kindergarten and nursery schools.17

The safety problem of this treatment has become increasingly important. Fluoride retention after fluoride mouth rinsing is considered to be 15% to 30% of the rinsing water18-21 (that is, ingested fluoride = fluoride in the rinsing water -- fluoride in the rinsing water spat out = fluoride swallowed + fluoride absorbed through the mucus membrane of the mouth). According to the toxic doses estimated in the cases of fluoride poisoning in the USA, this amount of fluoride retention is able to cause acute fluoride poisoning. However there appears to be no clear basis for estimating toxic doses of fluoride currently used.

ESTIMATES OF ACUTE TOXIC DOSE

Table 1 shows signs and symptoms of acute fluoride poisoning. Table 2 shows the minimum toxic dose (MTD),22 probably toxic dose (PTD), safely tolerated dose (STD) and certainly lethal dose (CLD) of fluoride. The toxic dose of 2 mgF/kg body weight is supposedly based on Baldwin's experiment conducted 100 years ago in which he himself ingested sodium fluoride and reported:4

"Merely tasting small quantities produced a slight feeling of nausea with slight salivation. 0.03 gram swallowed with some bread produced no effect. Neither did 0.09 gram taken one hour later, except a little salivation. 0.25 gram, however, taken two days afterward on an empty stomach, produced nausea in two minutes. This gradually increased in severity for twenty minutes when the period of greatest intensity was reached. There was a largely increased flow of saliva and some retching but no vomiting occurred at that time although the desire was very great. The nausea gradually subsided so that luncheon could be eaten (without relish), but vomiting took place immediately on its completion which was two hours after taking the poison. Slight nausea continued throughout the following day but disappeared on the second day" [sic].

The amounts of fluoride he ingested were calculated and are shown in Table 3. He did not mention the toxic dose of 2 mg/kg in his report, as seen in the above. But the threshold toxic dose in this case is estimated to be 0.25 mgF/kg or less.


_____________________________________________________


...use the above link to view multiple charts and a serious in depth scientific annalysis of flouride's effect and a link to the International Society of Flouride Research.
Logged

Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Sasha
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,661



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2009, 10:39:31 AM »

...or, you could get into the numerous threads in this forum that break it all down very well.
Logged

Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Parentsfortruth
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,422



« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2009, 10:41:35 AM »

It took two weeks of having the City Attorney's office dig through old files to find the paperwork from the 1950's where they started adding fluoride where I live. I still have yet to go to one of the meetings for the water authority and present evidence.

Homeschooling here, so it's hard for me to find time to do it, but I have the information I need to do it.
Logged

Matthew 5:37

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.
Sasha
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,661



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2009, 10:47:53 AM »

It took two weeks of having the City Attorney's office dig through old files to find the paperwork from the 1950's where they started adding fluoride where I live. I still have yet to go to one of the meetings for the water authority and present evidence.

Homeschooling here, so it's hard for me to find time to do it, but I have the information I need to do it.

Bravo.  Good citizen, good parent, good person.  Fight on.
Logged

Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Aerioch
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,332



« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2009, 10:58:53 AM »

Learn the difference between the naturally occurring Calcium Fluoride, and the various other chemicals they actually add to the water supply... which are all toxic poisonous by-products.

Quote
Calcium fluoride (CaF2) is an insoluble ionic compound of calcium and fluorine. It occurs naturally as the mineral fluorite (also called fluorspar) and as Blue John, and it is the source of most of the world's fluorine. This insoluble solid adopts a cubic structure wherein calcium is coordinated to eight fluoride anions and each F− ion is surrounded by four Ca2+ ions.[3]

Safety

Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility. The situation is analogous to BaSO4, where the toxicity normally associated with Ba2+ is offset by the very low solubility of its sulfate derivative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride

vs.

The various other poisons they actually add to the water ...


Quote
Fluoridation does not affect the appearance, taste, or smell of drinking water.[1] It is normally accomplished by adding one of three compounds to the water: sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or sodium fluorosilicate.

    * Sodium fluoride (NaF) was the first compound used and is the reference standard.[24] It is a white, odorless powder or crystal; the crystalline form is preferred if manual handling is used, as it minimizes dust.[25] It is more expensive, but is easily handled and is usually used by smaller utility companies.[26]
    * Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is a cheap liquid byproduct of phosphate fertilizer manufacture.[24] It comes in varying strengths, typically 23–25%; because it contains so much water, shipping can be expensive.[25] It is also known as hexafluorosilicic, hexafluosilicic, hydrofluosilicic, and silicofluoric acid.[24]
    * Sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) is a powder or very fine crystal that is easier to ship than fluorosilicic acid. It is also known as sodium silicofluoride.[25]

These compounds were chosen for their solubility, safety, availability, and low cost.[24] A 1992 census found that, for U.S. public water supply systems reporting the type of compound used, 63% of the population received water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid, 28% with sodium fluorosilicate, and 9% with sodium fluoride.[27] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has developed recommendations for water fluoridation that specify requirements for personnel, reporting, training, inspection, monitoring, surveillance, and actions in case of overfeed, along with technical requirements for each major compound used.[28]

The U.S. specifies the optimal level of fluoride to range from 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L (milligrams per liter, equivalent to parts per million), depending on the average maximum daily air temperature; the optimal level is lower in warmer climates, where people drink more water, and is higher in cooler climates.[29] The U.S. standard, adopted in 1962, is not appropriate for all parts of the world and is based on assumptions that have become obsolete with the rise of air conditioning and increased use of soft drinks, processed food, and other sources of fluorides. In 1994 a World Health Organization expert committee on fluoride use stated that 1.0 mg/L should be an absolute upper bound, even in cold climates, and that 0.5 mg/L may be an appropriate lower limit.[6] A 2007 Australian systematic review recommended a range from 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation


These are completely different chemical compounds!!!  Ask you water manager if he knows the difference between the two, and their effects when ingested.

The only safe fluoride is the one not used in our water supply... all others are toxic!
Logged

Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Aerioch
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,332



« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2009, 11:02:23 AM »

Also ask them why Edward Bernays was the driving force behind this fluoridation effort.  The man known for intentional manipulation of mass communication, and manufacturing consent.

Quote
   
* Bernays helped the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) and other special interest groups to convince the American public that water fluoridation was safe and beneficial to human health. This was achieved by using the American Dental Association in a highly successful media campaign.
   
* In the 1930s, his Dixie Cup campaign was designed to convince consumers that only disposable cups were sanitary.

Beyond his contributions to these famous and powerful clients, Bernays revolutionized public relations by combining traditional press agentry with the techniques of psychology and sociology to create what one writer has called "the science of ballyhoo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
Logged

Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
bAhLK!
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2009, 09:46:41 AM »

Howdy! thanks for your input.

I did not receive an email back besides the original "What info would you like to know and if i may ask for what reason"

But for the past 4 years on the villages local water consumer report the list for regulated contaminant / chemical contaminant
-nitrate
-fluoride 1.3 ppm

but this year after my email with no response the 2009 consumer report came out and fluoride is no where to be found??  Huh
this years list included
-nitrate
and for the first time in 4 years iron??

Watcha think this means? did he get rid of fluoride? or just hiding it for now?
Logged
Parentsfortruth
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,422



« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2009, 08:06:44 AM »

Something is going on here, because it was the same in the annual water report for 2009 in the city I live in as well.

Last year, there was a warning not to give children under 9 years old tap water. This year, that warning isn't there.

....


Odd.
Logged

Matthew 5:37

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.
Aerioch
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,332



« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2009, 10:37:23 AM »

Something is going on here, because it was the same in the annual water report for 2009 in the city I live in as well.

Last year, there was a warning not to give children under 9 years old tap water. This year, that warning isn't there.

....


Odd.

It is this simple .. if they don't specifically "test" for fluroide in the water samples, then they don't have to legally report it.
Logged

Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
bAhLK!
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2009, 04:01:41 PM »

ya f**king weird....

I called and spoke with the director this time after my last post and he was very friendly and helpful but obv not very specific.

He "couldn't give me a reason" as to why fluoride was not listed this year but did say they were still treating it.

He confirmed that it is not naturally occurring fluoride and they get the "unspecific" fluoride compound from a chemical company in Vermont

There have been a few towns in Vermont so far to get rid of it and he said he has been waiting for a while for it to come up in this area.

I'm going to be attending to the next couple of water commissioners meetings in stead of jumping right into a petition.

Now how to be able to display the facts to them in a manner that will be effective and actually listen to me since im only 20 and have no real credentials to be giving such a report might be tricky.


Logged
cathiasus
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 733



« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2009, 04:09:03 PM »

Logged

As you sow, so shall you reap.

How do you like your corruption, over easy or sunny side up?
-Protean
xfahctor
Guest
« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2009, 04:11:14 PM »

 may I ask where in Vwermont you live?
Logged
birgit
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,501


A red pill a day- keeps NWO at bay


« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2009, 04:27:25 PM »

ya f**king weird....

I called and spoke with the director this time after my last post and he was very friendly and helpful but obv not very specific.

He "couldn't give me a reason" as to why fluoride was not listed this year but did say they were still treating it.

He confirmed that it is not naturally occurring fluoride and they get the "unspecific" fluoride compound from a chemical company in Vermont

There have been a few towns in Vermont so far to get rid of it and he said he has been waiting for a while for it to come up in this area.

I'm going to be attending to the next couple of water commissioners meetings in stead of jumping right into a petition.

Now how to be able to display the facts to them in a manner that will be effective and actually listen to me since im only 20 and have no real credentials to be giving such a report might be tricky.

  Go here they have everything you coulld use, reports stats, how to's even... Good Luck!

 http://www.fluoridealert.org/
Logged

TRUTH  is  INCONTROVERTIBLE

  Malice   may  attack it
Ignorance  may  deride it
     But in the  end...
             HERE  IT IS ! 
                      ~ unknown
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!