Some information for you:
Fluoride packaging has warnings!
It is hazardous waste so it can’t be dump into the oceans or into landfills without enormous fines being imposed. However, if you prepare it to be packaged and sell the substance to be placed into the water supply of a city, it becomes a legal water additive.
It is sold as a pesticide! This pesticide with a skull and cross-bone on the packaging is being put into YOUR water. Does that make any sense?
Why, if there are sufficient warnings placed on the packaging, does it continue to be used?
Can it then be considered an absolutely safe practice, without a doubt, from an environmental standpoint to have the city water fluoridated in these circumstances? Pros and cons on this subject can be debated “till the cows come home”, as the expression goes. However, that is a question that may need to be carefully considered, or, in some cases, reconsidered.
Where homes and privately owned properties have direct contact with local rivers, lakes, and waterways and where run-off can/could have environmental repercussions, it may be well to do more research.
Let’s get a bit technical…
Fluoride is a word that has become so accepted in the mainstream. For over 60 years fluoride has been mentioned in the media, in commercials, newspapers, and magazines. It is in products in our stores and used in dentists’ offices, etc. It has become a household word, so no one questions its use. Everyone tells us that it is innocuous or harmless, and beneficial for teeth, so most people never question when this substance is put into the city water supplies in our country.
over a half century? Do you know?
This is what was said about it:
By recovering by-product fluorosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them. (Rebecca Hanmer, EPA, 1983)
Interesting…
Fluoride remains today as one of the largest environmental liabilities of the phosphate industry.
The story started early in the last century. In converting phosphate rock into soluble fertilizer, two very toxic fluoride gases were released-hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride.
These known toxic by-products were once vented from giant chimneys and caused severe, devastating pollution into the air. This became an illegal practice for the manufacturers. It was found to be most harmful to the environment, causing numerous health complaints among the local population. Thousands of cattle suffered severe, crippling fluoride poisoning, and crops, as well as, entire citrus groves were often totally killed off or showed signs of poisoning.To solve this “pollution problem” which was and would continue to be very costly in penalties, fines, and lawsuits if the practice continued, the phosphate industry installed “wet scrubbers” to those chimneys. These scrubbers trapped the fluoride gases to prevent the mass pollution and contain, or capture, the chemical by-products that formerly were generously spewed into the atmosphere, and into the air and water contaminating acres and acres of land and water ways.(Link)
To dispose of this approximate 200,000 tons of hazardous waste material, it would cost approx. $7000.00 a ton. Instead, they choose to profit from this substance.
It is this leftover, collected substance, hydrofluorosilicic acid, that is put into storage tankers, or dried, then sold and shipped to municipal water departments across the country and used in their public water systems.
Are there other components in this fluoride substance added to your municipality water, as well? YES! There is no special processing by the companies to eliminate the other chemicals found naturally in this substance such as mercury, arsenic, lead, and more.
As I mentioned before, what is added to our water supply is NOT your toothpaste fluoride-pharmaceutical grade sodium
fluoride-found in oral hygiene products that people are accustomed to purchasing.
State Rep. Barbara Hull Richardson, D-Richmond said of the contaminants in hydrofluosilicic acid:
There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff.”
~Quote by~
At the time, Dr. Hirzy was serving his sixth term as the Senior Vice-President of the
Union. His presentation that day was, “Why EPA’s Union of Professionals Opposes
Fluoridation.”
This is a video that documents the presentation along with interviews with
Dr. Hirzy where he describes the reasoning behind the professional and official stance of his Union
members in direct opposition to the EPA’s administrative support of fluoridation.–
Quote from the You Tube channel –
which we already receive enough fluoride in a daily diet, so much so,
that even the government agencies show concern.
Question to consider: When something foreign, a known bio-hazard
substance in an un-purified form, is added to city water with even
the slightest potential of delivering lead, mercury, arsenic, and more
to our families-our children, why “mandate” its use?
Additional Info: