FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

Residues also left in food. All as means to sell a poison

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Do you believe water companies have the right to put Fluoride, a medication, into your mains water?

Yes
33
56%
No
23
39%
Sometimes, & I'll explain why in my post
3
5%
 
Total votes : 59

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#101  Postby Scot Dutchy » Aug 15, 2011 4:27 pm

Dont bother SD I have already done it.

You have a strange view of what is a majority.



Austria has never implemented fluoridation.[12]

Belgium does not fluoridate its water supply, although legislation permits it.[12]

Czech RepublicCzech Republic (Czechoslovakia respectively) started water fluoridation in 1958 in Tábor. After six years, 80% reduction of decay was asserted[citation needed]. This led to widespread introduction of fluoridation. In Prague, fluoridation started in 1975. It was stopped in 1988 there and subsequently in the whole country too. Currently (2008) no water is fluoridated.[21] Fluoridated salt is available.[22]

Croatia does not fluoridate its water.[23]

Denmark does not fluoridate its water, although the National Health Board is in favour.[12]

The Finnish government supports fluoridation, although only one community of 70 000 people was fluoridated, Kuopio.[12] Kuopio stopped fluoridation in 1992.[24]

France fluoridates salt.[12]

Drinking water is not fluoridated in any part of Germany. The GDR used to fluoridate drinking water, but it was discontinued after the German reunification.[1]

In the Republic of Ireland the majority of drinking water is fluoridated; 71% of the population in 2002 resided in fluoridated communities.[25] The fluoridation agent used is hydrofluosilicic acid (HFSA; H2SiF6).[26] In a 2002 public survey, 45% of respondents expressed some concern about fluoridation.[27]

In 1957, the Department of Health established a Fluorine Consultative Council which recommended fluoridation at 1.0 ppm of public water supplies, then accessed by c.50% of the population.[28] This was felt to be a much cheaper way of improving the quality of children's teeth than employing more dentists.[29] The ethical approval for this was given by the "Guild of Saints Luke, Cosmas and Damian", established by Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid.[28] This led to the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960, which mandated compulsory fluoridation by local authorities.[29][30] The statutory instruments made in 1962–65 under the 1960 Act were separate for each local authority, setting the level of fluoride in drinking water to 0.8–1.0 ppm.[31][32] The current regulations date from 2007, and set the level to 0.6–0.8 ppm, with a target value of 0.7 ppm.[33]

Implementation of fluoridation was held up by preliminary dental surveying and water testing,[34] and a court case, Ryan v. Attorney General.[35] In 1965, the Supreme Court rejected Gladys Ryan's claim that the Act violated the Constitution of Ireland's guarantee of the right to bodily integrity.[35][36] By 1965, Greater Dublin's water was fluoridated; by 1973, other urban centres were.[37] Dental surveys of children from the 1950s to the 1990s showed marked reductions in cavities parallel to the spread of fluoridation.[38]

Water was fluoridated in large parts of the Netherlands from 1960 to 1973, when the High Council of The Netherlands declared fluoridation of drinking water unauthorized.[39] Dutch authorities had no legal basis adding chemicals to drinking water if they will not improve the safety as such.[4] Drinking water has not been fluoridated in any part of the Netherlands since 1973.

Spain Around 10% of the population receives fluoridated water.[40]

Sweden In 1952, Norrköping in Sweden became one of the first cities in Europe to fluoridate its water supply.[41] It was declared illegal by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court in 1961, re-legalized in 1962[42] and finally prohibited by the parliament in 1971,[43] after considerable debate. The parliament majority said that there were other and better ways of reducing tooth decay than water fluoridation. Four cities received permission to fluoridate tap water when it was legal.[41]:56-57 An official commission was formed, which published its final report in 1981. They recommended other ways of reducing tooth decay (improving food and oral hygiene habits) instead of fluoridating tap water. They also found that many people found fluoridation to impinge upon personal liberty/freedom of choice, and that the long-term effects of fluoridation were not sufficiently known. They also lacked a good study on the effects of fluoridation on formula-fed infants.[41]:29

In Switzerland since 1962 two fluoridation programmes had operated in tandem: water fluoridation in the City of Basel, and salt fluoridation in the rest of Switzerland (around 83% of domestic salt sold had fluoride added). However it became increasingly difficult to keep the two programmes separate. As a result some of the population of Basel were assumed to use both fluoridated salt and fluoridated water. In order to correct that situation, in April 2003 the State Parliament agreed to cease water fluoridation and officially expand salt fluoridation to Basel.[44]

United Kingdom Around 10% of the population of the United Kingdom receives fluoridated water[40] about half a million people receive water that is naturally fluoridated with calcium fluoride which is different to sodium fluoride, and about 6 million total receive fluoridated water.[45] The All Party Parliamentary Group on Primary Care and Public Health recommended in April 2003 that fluoridation be introduced "as a legitimate and effective means of tackling dental health inequalities".[citation needed] The Water Act 2003 required water suppliers to comply with requests from local health authorities to fluoridate their water.[45]

The following UK water utility companies fluoridate their supply:

Anglian Water Services Ltd
Northumbrian Water Ltd
South Staffordshire Water plc
Severn Trent plc
United Utilities Water plc
Earlier schemes were undertaken in the Health Authority areas of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Birmingham, Black Country, Cheshire, Merseyside, County Durham, Tees Valley, Cumbria, Lancashire, North, East Yorkshire, Northern Lincolnshire, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Trent and West Midlands South whereby fluoridation was introduced progressively in the years between 1964 and 1988.[46]

The South Central Strategic Health Authority carried out the first public consultation under the Water Act 2003, and in 2009 its board voted to fluoridate water supplies in the Southampton area to address the high incidence of tooth decay in children there.[45] Surveys had found that the majority of surveyed Southampton residents opposed the plan, but the Southampton City Primary Care Trust decided that "public vote could not be the deciding factor". A judicial review has been initiated.[47] Fluoridation plans have been particularly controversial in the North West of England and have been delayed after a large increase on projected costs was revealled.[48]

The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in two small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years. By 1999, fluoridation ceased in those two areas, as well. Scotland's parliament rejected proposals to fluoridate public drinking water following a public consultation.[citation needed]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country
Myths in islam Women and islam

“Emotional excitement reaches men through tea, tobacco, opium, whisky, and religion.” — George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950)

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Suspended User
 
Posts: 20864
Age: 65
Male

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#102  Postby byofrcs » Aug 15, 2011 4:34 pm

Silly poll - "Do you believe water companies have the right to put Fluoride, a medication, into your mains water?"

Of course not.

The poll should be "Do you believe water companies have the obligation to provide mains water according to government standards, even if this standard demanded fluoridation ?"

Or how about "Do you believe councils should ignore public opinion on the fluoridation of mains water if evidence supports the provision ?"

I imagine that this costs money in some way and for profit sake I'd imagine that the water companies don't really want to do this anyway.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7903
Age: 50
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#103  Postby redwhine » Aug 15, 2011 4:43 pm

orpheus wrote:My doctor prescribed calcium and several vitamins for me; these are certainly medicinal.

Were you forced to take them?

orpheus wrote:And they are found naturally in lots of foods. Should we remove them from foods (if that's even possible?)

We're discussing additives, not subtractions.
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 5903
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#104  Postby redwhine » Aug 15, 2011 4:48 pm

Should jo witnesses be forced to accept blood transfusions when medically advised, against their beliefs, because everybody else has them?

Just asking.
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 5903
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#105  Postby HughMcB » Aug 15, 2011 5:11 pm

redwhine wrote:Should jo witnesses be forced to accept blood transfusions when medically advised, against their beliefs, because everybody else has them?

Just asking.

No, why? Are you being forced to take something?
"Call Kenny Loggins...'cuz you're in the Danger Zone" - Archer
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 18233
Age: 29
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#106  Postby Galaxian » Aug 15, 2011 5:18 pm

Moridin wrote:Let us take a look at Galaxian's answers to our questions.

Is that a Royal "us" & a Royal "our" ?
Moridin wrote:
No I don't. There's nothing in the FUA that members MUST respond to stupid questions. Or to ANY question.
If you want to appear rational and credible, you need to respond to criticism with a rational defense that include scientific arguments. This has nothing to do with the FUA.

As I said further down: I don't give a tinker's toss how I appear to you. You really need more humility.
Moridin wrote:
1- The Flynn Effect is not a measure of fluoride ingestion. Remember that most of the world doesn't have fluoride added to its water. Also there are other factors influencing intelligence, such as nutrition & education.
This does not refute my argument. If water fluoridation reduces IQ as much as you say it does why is the average intelligence rising, even if we limit ourselves to places where water fluoridation exists?
It totally demolishes your argument, as others have also pointed out.
Moridin wrote:The article you are referring to is published in a journal with an impact factor of 1.6. Compare this with the impact factor of, say, Nature (~31). If this is such a scientific breakthrough, why was it published in an obscure journal with an impact factor usually associated with journals that are either completely crank or relatively unimportant?
No you don't. I don't accept that only an American journal is bonafide knowledge. Criticize the article & the research, not where it happened to be published...which could have been due to several reasons unknown to you.
Moridin wrote:
2- Yes, the degree of toxicity for most things is dosage dependent. Obviously a bucketful of fluoride would kill you instantly. But that doesn't mean that a gram is good for you. It's simply less toxic.
This shows that you have not understood the point. Toxic effects are dependent on dose, so relatively low concentrations are, for all intents and purposes, not toxic. In some case, such as water, it is vital.

This shows that you didn't understand my response. a) toxicity for most things is dosage dependent. b) I wrote "a gram" which is actually quite high. You're seriously telling me that if I came across 1 molecule, I think it's toxic? :lol:
Moridin wrote:
3- Do YOU think it is intellectually honest to distinguish fluoride (F-) with fluorine (F2), when in the body they are processed from one to the other during metabolism?
Now, they are not processed "from one to the other". Fluorine (F2) is a corrosive gas, so you breathe it in. It does not go through your digestive system at all. You would have failed an introductory university course in inorganic chemistry.

You really need a good helping of humility. It's the failure of all bright sparks who think they now have the sum of all knowledge. YES, fluorine DOES go through the intestines: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... fTHpEugvUA
Why do I have to do your references for you? Because you assume too much. You assume that there is NO metabolic pathway between fluoride & fluorine. You assume that we KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about metabolic pathways in organisms, because you did a few hours at uni, where they told you so. Since you're unlikely to be interested in my links, as you poo-pooed the Chinese research links, here's the quote from above:
"Fluorine enters the bloodstream through the intestines and lungs.". But of course they wouldn't pass a university entrance test, would they? But wait; there's more: http://www.jbc.org/content/241/23/5557.full.pdf That was just one pathway. Here's another: http://www.poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/html/prozac.html Oops, & yet another: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... VK-JVEnkCg
You think that because something is a gas, the organism has no way to use it & its derivatives in a bio-chemical reaction in the body? You've heard of red blood cells exchanging oxygen for carbon dioxide via the iron pathway? No? Never mind.
Moridin wrote:
4- Are you competing with byofrcs in silliness? I was not speaking of going on hunger strike. It is 'forced' on us because we have to pay for fluoridation (an involuntary medicine) whether we like it or not. In other words, to clear the crap out we have to either get a) an expensive treatment device at our home, which still doesn't clear it when we are elsewhere. Or b) We always have to carry around bottled water which is far more expensive.
Being "forced" to pay (and even that is debatable), not forced to drink. You are also forced to pay for water purification and having your fecal waste separated from the drinking supply. Do you want to stop doing that too? The point is that it is reasonable to assume that people in general will consent to whatever a reasonable person who knew all the facts and where reasoning without fallacies or biases would consent to. Furthermore, bottled water also contain fluoride, so that point is moot.

You haven't even begun to understand this thread. Read my earlier posts. WE don't have to drink it, but we have to drink something. Bottled water is 50 times the price. And as the Chairman & Strontium have pointed out, there's a lot of inconvenience & you have to shower in the stuff, breathing in the droplets. But all YOU have to do is take a friggin' fluoride tablet if you're desperate. Or brush your teeth with the stuff.
Moridin wrote:
5- The facts were never made available to the people. The only things that the social manipulators & industrialists have ever said is that "fluoride is good for your children's teeth". The crap was then foisted on to us by dictat.
Most municipal water treatment facilities do have public tours or leaflets. The detailed facts about fecal waste from the water supply is not made generally available to people either. There are also detailed scientific evidence supporting some kind of water fluoridation.

This is too weird. What the hell does sewage treatment have to do with forced medication? There's lots of scientific evidence AGAINST fluoridation. AND, I don't care if they put strawberries in the water. If it is not to do with water purity, it should NOT be there. If I want fluoride then I can take tablets. I can even suicide on it. But it is ILLEGAL to force it on to people.
Moridin wrote:
6- Don't play silly buggers & sophistry. Non-maleficence and benevolence are done in situations of duress.
No, they are not; both principles are applied routinely in all areas where bioethics is applied, regardless of duress or not.
You don't grab someone off the street & force them into hospital because you want to save them from themselves. The route you're proposing is towards totalitarianism.
Rejecting autonomy as a context-free absolute and showing that trade-offs have to be made with other principles, such as benevolence and non-maleficence is the exact opposite of totalitarianism.

Big, bombastic words, but meaningless. The situation is straightforward. Some fuckwit is forcing me, unless I go to the trouble of carrying bottled water everywhere, forcing me to drink an additive, specifically put in as a medication. I don't care if it makes me live forever, or grow bigger breasts. It is MY fuckin' choice, NOT yours!
Moridin wrote:
7- I don't give a tinker's toss whether you like my debating style or whether you or anyone else agrees with the points I make. You evidently disagree with anything I say. Well, if you want to cut off your nose to spite your face, then so be it.
Stop acting like a baby. If you actually read my posts, you will see that I did in fact agree that there is reason to change the current system and that the drive for personal freedom is a good one. We just disagree about methods to achieve these goals. You did not actually respond to my question: If you are genuinely interested in a free society, why are you peddling conspiracy theories that actively standing in the way of the drive towards individual freedom because it makes people take your position less seriously?

As I said; you use your methods to bring about a free society, & I'll use mine. And if it doesn't come about, I won't even give a shit. The whole world can become a goddam gulag for all I care. Plenty more fish in the sea.
Moridin wrote:
This is truly a fucked up world when the most obvious human right, such as consent to medication, is a matter for ridicule & obfuscation. When the day comes that some authoritarian figure decides that YOU should be forcefully medicated, or life made complicated if you refuse, then you remember your attitude here. :coffee:
Consent to medication is not a human right according to the UN.In fact, it may be argued that water fluoridation is a human right under Article 25: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." Furthermore, as I have carefully explained to you earlier, consent is not an absolute, but has to be balanced against other values and principles and that no one is forcing you to drink the tap water.

I work in a realm above the United Nations. The highest form of liberty is that which belongs to the sentient being. Not to society, not to corporations, not to government, not to the UN. But the sentient being. Look at the track record of the UN & its sycophantic, pen pushing "general secretary". The UN is a tool of hegemonic powers, a 'front', a smoke & mirrors distraction. It's better than nothing, but only just. It certainly has no precedence over the widely encompassing mind.
Moridin wrote:Well done Galaxian, you did not actually respond to any of the critical questions. Instead, you just repeated already debunked arguments and compared the principles of bioethics with communism.

Well done Moridin. You keep leading from behind. Galaxian will keep leading from the front. :coffee:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment_Sam Nejad


This world of sheeple has no hope .... Nor does it deserve any! -Galaxian
User avatar
Galaxian
Suspended User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1238

Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#107  Postby redwhine » Aug 15, 2011 5:26 pm

HughMcB wrote:
redwhine wrote:Should jo witnesses be forced to accept blood transfusions when medically advised, against their beliefs, because everybody else has them?

Just asking.

No, why? Are you being forced to take something?

Yes if "something" is added to my water supply.
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 5903
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#108  Postby HughMcB » Aug 15, 2011 5:31 pm

And you are forced to use this supply?
"Call Kenny Loggins...'cuz you're in the Danger Zone" - Archer
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 18233
Age: 29
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#109  Postby mark1961 » Aug 15, 2011 6:15 pm

I think I'd be more convinced of the evidence if the graph looked more like a bell curve. I'd guess the sample group chosen was rather small. I can't easily see how big the sample group is and so therefore there's no way I can easily consult others in regard to whether or not the sample size is statistically usable.

Plus,...well Chlorine commonly is used to treat water as well. I sometimes get a whiff of it in the tap water in my house. Supermarket bread is often also fortified with Vitamin D. This is why I don't get tummy trouble (usually) and never got Rickets.

Although I do have a gut parasite infection called Giardiasis at the moment. Protozoans. You can only see them through a microscope. Saw some pictures of them on Wikipedia. Ugly little bastards. Strangely enough the doctor I just saw didn't bother with any pills since the only real symptom I had- persistent stinky pale diarrhoea that floats and leaves an oily scum in the water on the toilet bowl has subsided in the past 36 hours.

Chez mark1961 is therefore off limits for the time being. Reading further on in the Wiki article it mentioned belches so rank and smelly that it makes some vomit. I don't have them btw and believe me I don't want to give this to anybody else.
User avatar
mark1961
 
Posts: 957
Age: 52
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#110  Postby redwhine » Aug 15, 2011 9:34 pm

HughMcB wrote:And you are forced to use this supply?

The choice is the one afforded by a certain Mr. Hobson. I suppose I could choose to die of thirst instead.
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 5903
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#111  Postby HughMcB » Aug 15, 2011 9:47 pm

redwhine wrote:
HughMcB wrote:And you are forced to use this supply?

The choice is the one afforded by a certain Mr. Hobson. I suppose I could choose to die of thirst instead.

Or choose to use an alternative source of water (paying about as much as the first). :dunno:
"Call Kenny Loggins...'cuz you're in the Danger Zone" - Archer
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 18233
Age: 29
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#112  Postby redwhine » Aug 15, 2011 9:58 pm

HughMcB wrote:
redwhine wrote:
HughMcB wrote:And you are forced to use this supply?

The choice is the one afforded by a certain Mr. Hobson. I suppose I could choose to die of thirst instead.

Or choose to use an alternative source of water (paying about as much as the first). :dunno:

No. I have to pay for the water supply whether I use it or not. (Your flag suggests you are not in England. Perhaps you don't know about our Water Rates...

If you do not have a meter you will pay a set rate for your water based on the rateable value (RV) of your home in England and Wales or your council tax band if you live in Scotland. These rates also include a standing charge to cover customer services such as billing.


http://www.water-guide.org.uk/rates.html )

So if the alternative source cost the same, as in your suggested scenario, then I would have to pay twice as much.
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 5903
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#113  Postby Weaver » Aug 15, 2011 11:50 pm

You have no option to have the water turned off completely?
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 15260
Age: 45
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#114  Postby Galaxian » Aug 16, 2011 1:03 am

Weaver wrote:You have no option to have the water turned off completely?

And bath/shower with bottles of mineral water? Simply because they need to dump the fluoride somewhere? :lol:
Also, most utilities charge the availability fee, soon as it goes past your home. Whether you use the service or not.

In rural Australia some farms have very large rainwater tanks, which they use even for baths/showers. But a suburban house hasn't enough collection storage room for that. And remember, a large enough tank + guttering + pumps, doesn't come cheap!

Here's another problem. Collecting rainwater off your roof is illegal in some places. There were riots in Bolivia when the French multinational that was sold the water rights tried to prosecute the poor over this.
http://www.naturalnews.com/029286_rainw ... water.html
"Many of the freedoms we enjoy here in the U.S. are quickly eroding as the nation transforms from the land of the free into the land of the enslaved, but what I'm about to share with you takes the assault on our freedoms to a whole new level. You may not be aware of this, but many Western states, including Utah, Washington and Colorado, have long outlawed individuals from collecting rainwater on their own properties because, according to officials, that rain belongs to someone else.

As bizarre as it sounds, laws restricting property owners from "diverting" water that falls on their own homes and land have been on the books for quite some time in many Western states. Only recently, as droughts and renewed interest in water conservation methods have become more common, have individuals and business owners started butting heads with law enforcement over the practice of collecting rainwater for personal use."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jjxg8f3Gq0
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jjxg8f3Gq0[/youtube]

It's simple. It really is: anyone who wants fluoride only has to take a cheap tablet now & then :nod:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment_Sam Nejad


This world of sheeple has no hope .... Nor does it deserve any! -Galaxian
User avatar
Galaxian
Suspended User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1238

Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#115  Postby redwhine » Aug 16, 2011 5:54 am

Weaver wrote:You have no option to have the water turned off completely?

Of course I can! Silly question. ;) But I'd still have to pay water rates, based on the rateable value of my house.

So I'd have to contribute for something I don't want through taxation of some kind, pay water rates and pay for an alternative, far less convenient, water supply. Surely it would be much fairer and simpler for those who want fluoride in their water to add it themselves.
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 5903
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#116  Postby Scot Dutchy » Aug 16, 2011 7:36 am

Amazingly in Ireland we dont pay for water. It is free. I think it because there is so much of the stuff there.

Here water is metered. An alternative would be almost impossible. We do not get enough rain to fill tanks.
Our water comes mostly from the river Maas (Meuse) and it pumped firstly on the dunes which act as a natural filter and then it goes to a very modern process plant where it cleaned even further. Chlorine or fluoride plays no part in the process.
Only thing that is added is a trace of calcium but that is so little you never see any traces of it on appliencies.
Myths in islam Women and islam

“Emotional excitement reaches men through tea, tobacco, opium, whisky, and religion.” — George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950)

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Suspended User
 
Posts: 20864
Age: 65
Male

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#117  Postby econ41 » Aug 16, 2011 8:28 am

Scot Dutchy wrote: Chlorine or fluoride plays no part in the process..

Do they use ozone for disinfection?

If not what do they use?
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1212
Age: 72
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#118  Postby Weaver » Aug 16, 2011 9:11 am

Well, it sounds like you in the UK don't have a fluoridation problem - you have a government-fees problem.

Here in the US if you're hooked up to the water mains you pay the local water rates, based on actual usage via a meter.

If you have your system turned off, you pay nothing. So it is quite simple to avoid fluoridated water for those who choose.
Inconvenient? To be sure - but I don't think that anyone anywhere has cited convenience as a human right.

Unless, of course, by "water fees" you refer to the itemized tax sub-section which covers water delivery infrastructure, including piping, purification, pumps, workers, etc. etc. In that case, I would say that it is a role of every citizen to pay a share to support the overall infrastructure. Just as everyone pays out of their taxes for highway maintenance, even though they may be a little old pensioner who only drives in the country on Sundays because he still wants to run over a cow before he dies, he has to pay for the highways.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 15260
Age: 45
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#119  Postby redwhine » Aug 16, 2011 9:17 am

Weaver wrote:Well, it sounds like you in the UK don't have a fluoridation problem - you have a government-fees problem.

Here in the US if you're hooked up to the water mains you pay the local water rates, based on actual usage via a meter.

If you have your system turned off, you pay nothing. So it is quite simple to avoid fluoridated water for those who choose.
Inconvenient? To be sure - but I don't think that anyone anywhere has cited convenience as a human right.

Yet you demand convenience for those who desire fluoride in their water at others' expense.

Double standard, much?

ETA...

So it is quite simple to avoid fluoridated water for those who choose.

...and equally as simple for those who desire fluoridated water to obtain it.
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 5903
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: FLUORIDE. Criminal compulsory medication in water supply

#120  Postby Weaver » Aug 16, 2011 9:27 am

Yep - it's all down to which "side" wins the vote.

And in the case of the US, it's each municipality, with it's duly-elected representative government, which makes the decision and reflects the will of the voters. That's the only way it COULD work in a representative government - otherwise you'd have people refusing to pay for every single little thing they personally disagreed with, and the municipality (or greater) would be so disfunctional you wouldn't dare leave your front door.

I have no double standard - I do not advocate 100% fluoridation for those countries or municipalities that don't want it. But I also don't support forcing areas that currently adjust the fluoride content of their water to be forced to stop due to science that isn't settled, and is typified by more fear-mongering than fact.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 15260
Age: 45
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest