7 ms·

Do you think the Chinese toxic waste, aka "manufactured sodium fluoride and byproducts" that is put in public water supplies resembles anything like the calcium

Do you think the Chinese toxic waste, aka "manufactured sodium fluoride and byproducts" that is put in public water supplies resembles anything like the calcium fluoride that the body needs?

XorNot 12y ago
I think you don't actually understand how ionic salts work in solution.
- hderms 12y ago
  The key word in his sentence was "byproducts"
  - XorNot 12y ago
    At which point he's free to show that the government is clearly using contaminated fluoridation equipment for the water. But that doesn't make water fluoridation a bad idea. Conspiracy theorists need to pick one mechanism (and then actually find out about it).
    - adrianwaj 12y ago
      No, the onus of proof is on the government that what they are doing to the water is good, or rather to provide a precise ingredients list of what they are adding to the water, where they are getting it from and how it is created... on a location-by-location basis, and at regular intervals. And that can be cross-checked by third parties if they should wish. If there's a conspiracy, it's the one regarding what is supposedly good for my health and teeth. Who says I need "fluoride" delivered to me in this manner? Why can't I opt-in or at least have the information at-hand to make a decision as to whether I want to avoid tap water? Every water bill should have a precise ingredients list of the "product" being supplied. Why should water be different from any other thing I buy to drink.. especially in such large quantities, and as an ingredient indirectly in so many other foods I eat. It should be labelled as such. And it will never be because the ingredients are toxic - the onus of proof is on the government to accurately label their product to prove me wrong (if that is their goal.) I can say anything I want, but I still don't need to prove or individually "find out" anything. I am not doing the tampering.
      - XorNot 12y ago
        Just because you're too lazy to look up the wide body of literature on the benefits of water fluoridation, processes of water fluoridation, history and methodology...doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. But you know, guess what, you do have choices! It's called not using the municipal water supply and having it trucked in at great expense. Wouldn't be the first market where consumers are under-served due to lack of demand or apathy. I want HBO, but being in Australia can't get it.
        adrianwaj 12y ago
        Have you read the counter-arguments to fluoridation? And speaking of laziness, I would never sit myself in front of HBO. Anyhow, the problem is informational I think right now. What's needed is accurate information on what's being added, where, and how much. Also, who's supplying it. I can read and believe as much as I want, from whatever source I want, but what's harder to dispute are real measurements. This sort of information should've been provided already, and the fact that in this day and age that this sort of information can't or won't be provided makes me wonder why not. In fact, in some respects I'd like to see these type of scientific measurements and ingredient lists provided BEFORE even ending fluoridation (which could serve to hide what has been added) and then people can be held accountable for what they have done in the name of science and health (or rather money and whatever other nefarious motive.) If fluoridation is so great, then let me see measurements on what exactly is being added to the water, and then I can work out the right dose to help me with any teeth problems I MIGHT have otherwise... how is that being lazy?
        maxerickson 12y ago
        If you are in the U.S., it is likely listed on the Consumer Confidence report that your municipal water supplier is required (by the EPA) to provide: http://water.epa.gov/drink/local/ http://water.epa.gov/drink/local/ It's not monthly, but they aren't changing it all the time either. Here's some examples of them: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/YourWater/AnnualWaterQualityReports.aspx http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/YourWater/AnnualWaterQuality... http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=634 http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=634 http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtm...
sslott 12y ago
As groundwater courses over rocks, it picks up the compound Calcium Fluoride from those rocks. Once in the water, CaF releases a certain amount of fluoride ions into the water. These F ions are to what is commonly referred as being "naturally occurring fluoride". The compound most frequently utilized to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). HFA is derived from naturally occurring phosphorite rock as a co-product of the process from which the other co-product, phosphoric acid, is derived. Once HFA is added to water, the pH of that water (~7) causes the immediate and complete hydrolysis (dissociation) of the HFA. The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those which already exist in water as a result of release from CaF, and trace contaminants in barely detectable, minuscule amounts that fall far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. After this point HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is therefore of no concern, whatsoever. EPA drinking water quality standards begin at the tap, as this is the water which is ingested and/or otherwise utilized. Water from the tap must meet the stringent Standard 60 certification requirements of the National Sanitary Foundation, as mandated by the EPA, or it is not allowed. Thus, whether additives come from the US, Mexico, China, or the moon, is irrelevant. If water in which these additives are incorporated does not meet NSF certification requirements at the tap, it is not allowed. It's as simple as that. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless of whether the source compound is CaF, NaF, HFA, or any other. Elementary chemistry. Fluoridated water easily meets all EPA mandated NSF certification requirements. A complete listing of the minuscule trace contaminants in fluoridated water, in their precise amounts is readily available to anyone, on the NSF website: http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-c... A complete listing of the contents of any local public water system are readily available to anyone from the annual water quality report of the utilities departments of the respective localities. Steven D. Slott, DDS
- adrianwaj 12y ago
  From the PDF: "NSF certifies three basic products in the fluoridation category: 1. Fluorosilicic Acid (aka Fluosilicic Acid or Hydrofluosilicic Acid) 2. Sodium Fluorosilicate (aka Sodium Silicofluoride) 3. Sodium Fluoride All three product types dissociate in water to form sodium, fluoride, and in the case of the first two, silicate ions." "The NSF toxicology review for a water treatment product considers all chemical ingredients in the product, as well as the manufacturing process, processing aids, and other factors that have an impact on the chemicals attributable to the products present in the finished drinking water. The identified chemicals of interest are subsequently evaluated during testing of the product.... These tanker trucks, transfer terminals and rail cars are potential sources of contamination. Therefore, NSF also inspects, samples, tests, and certifies products at rail transfer and storage depots...... In summary, the majority of fluoridation products as a class, based on NSF test results, do not contribute measurable amounts of arsenic, lead, other heavy metals, or radionuclides to the drinking water." "The identified chemicals of interest are subsequently evaluated during testing of the product. For example, fluosilicic acid is produced by adding sulfuric acid to phosphate ore." In the table presented, the current chemicals tested for are: Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Radionuclides – alpha pCi/L, Radionuclides – beta mrem/yr, Selenium, Thallium. What else is going to be in the phosphate ore that could come into the water? To me that test range looks too small. How pure is the sulfuric acid used to dissolve the phosphate? Also, what sort of byproducts are going to occur as the fluoride additives and sulfuric acid corrode their containers? I don't live in the USA but these are the sort of questions I'd be asking, and as mentioned elsewhere, I'd want to see realtime and comprehensive information on the additives used - and alerts if something strange or unwanted is found. I think it's going to be more difficult to test tap water itself for such additives, so I'd suggest testing and displaying the actual additives before placed in the water - and from there it's going to be straightforward to determine concentrations. Personally, I wouldn't be accepting the NSF/ANSI Standard 60 as it currently stands... from how I perceive it. It was devised in 1988. This sort of extra testing would have to come on top of it, likely on a small scale by individual plants interested. Finally, I would start thinking about testing air quality... not final air quality... but the actual additives used in chemtrails in a realtime manner, just like with water additives. You can argue about if chemtrails are real or not, I am just asking... "whatever is coming out the back of those planes... I want to know what it contains, because I am inhaling it."

Do you think the Chinese toxic waste, aka "manufactured sodium fluoride and byproducts" that is put in public water supplies resembles anything like the calcium fluoride that the body needs?

XorNot 12y ago

I think you don't actually understand how ionic salts work in solution.

hderms 12y ago
The key word in his sentence was "byproducts"
- XorNot 12y ago
  At which point he's free to show that the government is clearly using contaminated fluoridation equipment for the water. But that doesn't make water fluoridation a bad idea. Conspiracy theorists need to pick one mechanism (and then actually find out about it).
  - adrianwaj 12y ago
    No, the onus of proof is on the government that what they are doing to the water is good, or rather to provide a precise ingredients list of what they are adding to the water, where they are getting it from and how it is created... on a location-by-location basis, and at regular intervals. And that can be cross-checked by third parties if they should wish. If there's a conspiracy, it's the one regarding what is supposedly good for my health and teeth. Who says I need "fluoride" delivered to me in this manner? Why can't I opt-in or at least have the information at-hand to make a decision as to whether I want to avoid tap water? Every water bill should have a precise ingredients list of the "product" being supplied. Why should water be different from any other thing I buy to drink.. especially in such large quantities, and as an ingredient indirectly in so many other foods I eat. It should be labelled as such. And it will never be because the ingredients are toxic - the onus of proof is on the government to accurately label their product to prove me wrong (if that is their goal.) I can say anything I want, but I still don't need to prove or individually "find out" anything. I am not doing the tampering.
    - XorNot 12y ago
      Just because you're too lazy to look up the wide body of literature on the benefits of water fluoridation, processes of water fluoridation, history and methodology...doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. But you know, guess what, you do have choices! It's called not using the municipal water supply and having it trucked in at great expense. Wouldn't be the first market where consumers are under-served due to lack of demand or apathy. I want HBO, but being in Australia can't get it.
      - adrianwaj 12y ago
        Have you read the counter-arguments to fluoridation? And speaking of laziness, I would never sit myself in front of HBO. Anyhow, the problem is informational I think right now. What's needed is accurate information on what's being added, where, and how much. Also, who's supplying it. I can read and believe as much as I want, from whatever source I want, but what's harder to dispute are real measurements. This sort of information should've been provided already, and the fact that in this day and age that this sort of information can't or won't be provided makes me wonder why not. In fact, in some respects I'd like to see these type of scientific measurements and ingredient lists provided BEFORE even ending fluoridation (which could serve to hide what has been added) and then people can be held accountable for what they have done in the name of science and health (or rather money and whatever other nefarious motive.) If fluoridation is so great, then let me see measurements on what exactly is being added to the water, and then I can work out the right dose to help me with any teeth problems I MIGHT have otherwise... how is that being lazy?
        maxerickson 12y ago
        If you are in the U.S., it is likely listed on the Consumer Confidence report that your municipal water supplier is required (by the EPA) to provide: http://water.epa.gov/drink/local/ http://water.epa.gov/drink/local/ It's not monthly, but they aren't changing it all the time either. Here's some examples of them: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/YourWater/AnnualWaterQualityReports.aspx http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/YourWater/AnnualWaterQuality... http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=634 http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=634 http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtm...

sslott 12y ago

As groundwater courses over rocks, it picks up the compound Calcium Fluoride from those rocks. Once in the water, CaF releases a certain amount of fluoride ions into the water. These F ions are to what is commonly referred as being "naturally occurring fluoride". The compound most frequently utilized to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). HFA is derived from naturally occurring phosphorite rock as a co-product of the process from which the other co-product, phosphoric acid, is derived. Once HFA is added to water, the pH of that water (~7) causes the immediate and complete hydrolysis (dissociation) of the HFA. The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those which already exist in water as a result of release from CaF, and trace contaminants in barely detectable, minuscule amounts that fall far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. After this point HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is therefore of no concern, whatsoever. EPA drinking water quality standards begin at the tap, as this is the water which is ingested and/or otherwise utilized. Water from the tap must meet the stringent Standard 60 certification requirements of the National Sanitary Foundation, as mandated by the EPA, or it is not allowed. Thus, whether additives come from the US, Mexico, China, or the moon, is irrelevant. If water in which these additives are incorporated does not meet NSF certification requirements at the tap, it is not allowed. It's as simple as that. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless of whether the source compound is CaF, NaF, HFA, or any other. Elementary chemistry. Fluoridated water easily meets all EPA mandated NSF certification requirements. A complete listing of the minuscule trace contaminants in fluoridated water, in their precise amounts is readily available to anyone, on the NSF website: http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-c... A complete listing of the contents of any local public water system are readily available to anyone from the annual water quality report of the utilities departments of the respective localities. Steven D. Slott, DDS

adrianwaj 12y ago
From the PDF: "NSF certifies three basic products in the fluoridation category: 1. Fluorosilicic Acid (aka Fluosilicic Acid or Hydrofluosilicic Acid) 2. Sodium Fluorosilicate (aka Sodium Silicofluoride) 3. Sodium Fluoride All three product types dissociate in water to form sodium, fluoride, and in the case of the first two, silicate ions." "The NSF toxicology review for a water treatment product considers all chemical ingredients in the product, as well as the manufacturing process, processing aids, and other factors that have an impact on the chemicals attributable to the products present in the finished drinking water. The identified chemicals of interest are subsequently evaluated during testing of the product.... These tanker trucks, transfer terminals and rail cars are potential sources of contamination. Therefore, NSF also inspects, samples, tests, and certifies products at rail transfer and storage depots...... In summary, the majority of fluoridation products as a class, based on NSF test results, do not contribute measurable amounts of arsenic, lead, other heavy metals, or radionuclides to the drinking water." "The identified chemicals of interest are subsequently evaluated during testing of the product. For example, fluosilicic acid is produced by adding sulfuric acid to phosphate ore." In the table presented, the current chemicals tested for are: Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Radionuclides – alpha pCi/L, Radionuclides – beta mrem/yr, Selenium, Thallium. What else is going to be in the phosphate ore that could come into the water? To me that test range looks too small. How pure is the sulfuric acid used to dissolve the phosphate? Also, what sort of byproducts are going to occur as the fluoride additives and sulfuric acid corrode their containers? I don't live in the USA but these are the sort of questions I'd be asking, and as mentioned elsewhere, I'd want to see realtime and comprehensive information on the additives used - and alerts if something strange or unwanted is found. I think it's going to be more difficult to test tap water itself for such additives, so I'd suggest testing and displaying the actual additives before placed in the water - and from there it's going to be straightforward to determine concentrations. Personally, I wouldn't be accepting the NSF/ANSI Standard 60 as it currently stands... from how I perceive it. It was devised in 1988. This sort of extra testing would have to come on top of it, likely on a small scale by individual plants interested. Finally, I would start thinking about testing air quality... not final air quality... but the actual additives used in chemtrails in a realtime manner, just like with water additives. You can argue about if chemtrails are real or not, I am just asking... "whatever is coming out the back of those planes... I want to know what it contains, because I am inhaling it."