6 ms·

From the PDF: "NSF certifies three basic products in the fluoridation category: 1. Fluorosilicic Acid (aka Fluosilicic Acid or Hydrofluosilicic Acid) 2. Sodium

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."

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sslott 12y ago
Again, water at the tap is that which is ingested and otherwise utilized, thus the only water of relevance. This is why NSF Standard 60 certification requirements begin with water at the tap. It makes no difference what additives are used, the process by which these additives are produced, or the location from where they are obtained. If the water at the tap does not meet Standard 60 certification requirements, it is not allowed. If you want to argue with the US EPA about its standards and procedures, feel free. I, personally, have survived just fine with them for 61 years. Steven D. Slott, DDS
- adrianwaj 12y ago
  tl;dr - the bottleneck to alleviating brain toxins right now is informational To me standard 60 is insufficient. I would be happy to pay for extra testing to my water, or rather the additives used. I think many people would. While we're on the topic of toxins for brain, I would also be happy to know more about the emf generated by smart meters, cell phone towers, and wireless equipment. But mainly smart meters. If I had one installed, I'd want very accurate readings of what is being emitted and when. Also vaccines. The message is simple: "government/corporation: feel free to do whatever you want to my air, food, water, emf spectrum and blood that you believe or purport to be in my best interests (you already do).... but I want to know precisely and accurately what it is you're doing, changing and adding to it. I can be driven to do this for no reason, any reason, false reasons or accurate reasons. And whatever reason that may be, you'll have to accept it because you are the one tampering with long-standing internal and external ecosytems to which mine (and others') body and mind have adapted over millenia." From there, I would either want the choice to opt-out, and if I cannot or it is not possible, then I can look for legal, political or economic (boycott) routes to address the problems I find, which could include the need for even greater informational transparency than the ones being offered.
  - sslott 12y ago
    By all means, have your water tested right down to the subatomic level if you so desire. Obsessive demands to search for problems in the absence of valid evidence that any exist, are an integral aspect of antifluoridationist tactics. However, it is not justification to deny entire populations the benefits of a valuable public health initiative such as water fluoridation. You have just exemplified the true root of antifluoridationist objections dating back 69 years to the very beginning of the initiative. It is not based in science, but in ideological distrust of government and authority. Thus, no matter how much valid science is presented to antifluoridationists, as long as it does not agree with this ideology, as it never will, it will be rejected by them. Steven D. Slott, DDS

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sslott 12y ago

Again, water at the tap is that which is ingested and otherwise utilized, thus the only water of relevance. This is why NSF Standard 60 certification requirements begin with water at the tap. It makes no difference what additives are used, the process by which these additives are produced, or the location from where they are obtained. If the water at the tap does not meet Standard 60 certification requirements, it is not allowed. If you want to argue with the US EPA about its standards and procedures, feel free. I, personally, have survived just fine with them for 61 years. Steven D. Slott, DDS

adrianwaj 12y ago
tl;dr - the bottleneck to alleviating brain toxins right now is informational To me standard 60 is insufficient. I would be happy to pay for extra testing to my water, or rather the additives used. I think many people would. While we're on the topic of toxins for brain, I would also be happy to know more about the emf generated by smart meters, cell phone towers, and wireless equipment. But mainly smart meters. If I had one installed, I'd want very accurate readings of what is being emitted and when. Also vaccines. The message is simple: "government/corporation: feel free to do whatever you want to my air, food, water, emf spectrum and blood that you believe or purport to be in my best interests (you already do).... but I want to know precisely and accurately what it is you're doing, changing and adding to it. I can be driven to do this for no reason, any reason, false reasons or accurate reasons. And whatever reason that may be, you'll have to accept it because you are the one tampering with long-standing internal and external ecosytems to which mine (and others') body and mind have adapted over millenia." From there, I would either want the choice to opt-out, and if I cannot or it is not possible, then I can look for legal, political or economic (boycott) routes to address the problems I find, which could include the need for even greater informational transparency than the ones being offered.
- sslott 12y ago
  By all means, have your water tested right down to the subatomic level if you so desire. Obsessive demands to search for problems in the absence of valid evidence that any exist, are an integral aspect of antifluoridationist tactics. However, it is not justification to deny entire populations the benefits of a valuable public health initiative such as water fluoridation. You have just exemplified the true root of antifluoridationist objections dating back 69 years to the very beginning of the initiative. It is not based in science, but in ideological distrust of government and authority. Thus, no matter how much valid science is presented to antifluoridationists, as long as it does not agree with this ideology, as it never will, it will be rejected by them. Steven D. Slott, DDS