Orchestra without conductor?
Or City Hall conspiracy? Pt1
All materials on this website represent the personal opinion of the author.
Please view the Legal Disclaimer
Conspiracy is the kind of a subject people prefer to stay away from.
I would venture an opinion that this attitude has been formed over the years by the media, which spares no resources painting the conspiracy theorists as lunatics.
It especially applies to those areas, where conspiracy theories reach high into the quarters, where, till the age of the Internet, only the mainstream media was allowed with their pre-approved stories.
As for the independent researches who dared to venture into those areas, those could only hope to sell their self-published books through mail order.
No publisher, no bookstore would want to touch them!
Well, we are not 12-year-olds not to know that if a particular fruit is forbidden, then it probably suits some powerful entities to keep it this way.
But Internet had certainly rearranged a few pieces in the area of news and opinion.
It used to be strictly "delivery"; now it is more like an exchange.
Nowadays an alternative news site can well have more hits than that of a television network!
So let's look at this whole fluoridation racket with an eye of a conspiracy theorist.
Obviously, we do not know for sure, but why not examine some scenarious the kept media prefers to ignore?
It is all made to look as if the decision to fluoridate drinking water is made at a municipal level, but when you examine the logistics around this operation, it is hard to imagine that any municipal politician or a bureacrat would want to stick his neck out and to start actively lobbying for fluoridation.
After all, one must be rather ignorant not to know that this is a very controversial subject.
As a matter of fact, an Internet search on "fluoridation" and the related terms is likely to reveal a higher page rank for the sites with a critical opinion of the matter.
What if enough people decide to educate themselves and to look beyond assurances of their sweet-talking dentists, to do some research and to find out what kind of a poison it really is!
You absolutely cannot exclude a potential for a class-action lawsuit!
And this is even more likely in the age of the Internet!
And guess who will be on the receiving end of it!
Here is an example to illustrate this:
When I was doing my practical work (a so-called "steam time") at one of the Toronto-area hospitals, which was a mandatory requirement for getting a licence of a stationary engineer, we had to rinse some empty barrels, which used to contain some chemicals for the boiler, to make water soft.
We rolled them out from storage, opened them and started hosing them with water.
It was outside, next to a boiler building.
Some people, who worked at the hospital, saw it, they called security and demanded that the operation be halted, till the administration is notified and asked to provide assurances that there is no toxic substances being released on hospital property.
That's how normal people react when they perceive an immediate danger to their health!
Imagine now some city bureacrat decided to treat "his" municipality with fluorides.
After all, this is an "officially approved" story for general consumption of how this whole fluoridation thing comes into existence - through initiatives at the municipal level.
This bureaucrat saw in press releases of dental and medical associations that it is a really good stuff, very beneficial, when taken in moderation.
Hoping to advance his career, he arranged a working lunch with some other city bureaucrats and after some opinion exchange they decide to go for it.
Their chemical knowledge is virtually nonexistent, whatever little chemistry they learned in high school thirty years earlier, they forgot a long time ago.
But they heard that doctors and dentists say that fluorides "strengthen dental enamel", thus reducing the rate of tooth decay in the population, which directly transforms into radiant smiles and good health.
Those city bureacrats take it at the face value, after all, why would doctors and dentists lie?
But as the whole process is getting into motion, they begin to find out that there have to be very strict and expensive arrangements to have those fluorides shipped to destination.
They have to be handled by specially trained personnel, in full body hermetic suits, in specially equipped facilities.
On top of that, all paperwork would have to indicate that this is toxic industrial waste and requires ultimate care in handling.
Plus what do you do with empty containers?
It would be reasonable to assume that if those are tamper-proof, then they are not cheap and it would be very wasteful to send them to a landfill.
So they would probably have to be shipped back to that pesticide plant or a smelter, where they have originally been loaded with industrial waste.
Plus unless those containers are thoroughly washed, they would have a sufficient amount of poison left behind and would thus necessitate careful handling and special shipment.
All that, obviously, would add to the overall costs.
At this point any reasonable person would start backpedalling, after all, nobody would want to be at the receiving end of a riot and class-action lawsuits, should enough people find out what kind of a poison is being pumped into their drinking water.
But for the sake of the story, let's assume that those city bureaucrats still decide to go ahead, because, for example, they cannot imagine that doctors and dentists would lie to the public.
At this point city council would have to retain a consulting company to do a study about how to equip the processing facility for those fluorides, what kind of protection gear to buy for the people who will be handling it.
A consulting company would also have to develop training procedures, as well as procedures of how to handle emergencies.
The next stage would be to retain a construction company to build the facilities and an engineering company to install equipment.
And, of course, somebody would also have to authorize spending big bucks on this whole thing.
Water fluoridation equipment is not cheap!
Just imagine the amount of water a treatment facility in a big city pumps into its pipes!
Plus, as the dental associations assure us, fluoridation equipment has some super-duper gadgets to ensure that no malfunction would ever result in excess amount of fluorides being introduced into the system.
Notwithstanding those claims, there were quite a few accidents, when pumps malfunctioned, thus causing elevation of fluoride content, as compared to a so-called "optimally fluoridated" level.
A search on "fluoridation disasters", "fluoridation accidents" would produce plenty of documented horror stories.
Natural water normally has a certain amount of calcium salts in it.
A label on a bottle of natural spring water would show calcium content as the highest of all other ions, as a matter of fact, it is likely to be higher than all other ions combined!
Calcium and fluoride ions have a very strong affinity for each other.
This is the reason for such high toxicity of fluorides!
They bind calcium in blood plasma, as a result of which, nervous impulses cannot propagate and muscles cannot contract, including the diaphragm, which is crucial for breathing.
A few tens of milligrams taken in one dose would cause distress of various degrees of severity.
A few hundred milligrams is likely to be fatal for a child.
Just two grams are likely to cause a very fast death for an adult!
In view of the fact that a small fraction of that amount would make a person brain-damaged, the exact dose, which would cause death is probably of "academic" interest only.
When fluorides are ingested in trace amounts, the effects are not as pronounced, but it still causes a multitude of health problems, which are described in sufficient detail on other pages of this site.
The product of a reaction of calcium and fluoride ions is an insoluble compound.
Calcium fluoride crystal is so hard that it is used in manufacture of optical lenses and laser mirrors for special applications.
Obviously, those crystals have to be grown in a laboratory, under controlled conditions in order to produce a proper crystal structure, but their chemical formula is the same, regardless of whether it is amorphous or has a textbook-type of a crystal structure.
Because of these chemical properties of fluoride ion, ALL calcium ions would have to be bound or "overwhelmed" for the lack of a better word, in order for fluoride ions to start appearing in water.
The levels of calcium would have to be monitored continuously, the required amounts of fluoride would have to be calculated, then all that recalculated into the required amount of a particular scrubber residue, to ensure it is being added at a required rate to a mixing tank.
The concentration of fluorides in the treated water would also have to be continuously monitored.
There is no escape from the fact that it would have to be a very big chemical lab to handle all this!
It was already mentioned several times on this site, that the stuff, which is used to fluoridate water is not pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride or other fluoride compounds.
It is taken from the wet scrubbers from the smoke stacks in smelting, pesticide and fertilizer plants.
When ore is being melted, fluorides, which are a part of certain rock types are being released from it, some of it is caught by scrubbers, together with stuff like arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium and other heavy metals.
This is probably the most toxic industrial waste in existence!
Plus who would give a guarantee that the entire shipment has the same content of fluorides!
Sodium fluoride, sodium silicofluoride, fluorosilicic acid, hydrofluosilicic acid, ammonium fluosilicate are among the compounds used as fluoridating agents.
They can be present in the scrubber residue in various proportions.
But since they all have different atomic weight, the percentage of fluoride ion per unit of weight would also be different.
And overall, every shipment would inevitably have more of one fluoride compound, but less of some others, and so the rate of feed of the scrubber residue being added to the mixing tank would have to be strictly monitored and adjusted to maintain the level of fluorides as close to the so-called "optimal" as possible.
When containers are being filled with industrial waste it is, obviously, come what may.
If during one shift at a pesticide plant three hundred barrels have been filled, I doubt there is someone attaching "time cards" to them to indicate at what time they have been filled, in the hope that those filled one after another are likely to have a similar content of fluorides and thus the chemical labs at the water treatment plants would have less work to do.
And so any given "optimally fluoridated" municipality would inevitably be getting a wide assortment of those containers and there can be no guarantee what is the percentage of this or that fluoride compound.
Plus those fluoride shipments could be coming from different plants, a yet another headache for the chemists at the water treatment plant, who have to continuously keep calculating the feed rate.
The situation with industrial waste byproducts is, obviously, equally unpredictable, but the chemists do not need to keep track of it.
At least I never saw a report from "my" municipal government stating how much arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium, pesticides and other stuff they pumped into the drinking water during the previous month or a quarter.
If a particular shipment is from a smelting plant, then the content of scrubbers would inevitably contain ash from coal, plus other things, which also ended up in the furnace where the ore was being melted.
Drink what we give you and shut up!
As was mentioned above, enough fluorides would have to be added to "overwhelm" naturally occurring calcium in water, because fluoride can show up as ion only AFTER ALL the calcium in water had been bound.
The other fluoride becomes a sediment of calcium fluoride.
It is true that some of this sediment can be filtered out in an industrial wastewater treatment facility, however, it is impossible in municipal water treatment plant because the concentrations are considerably smaller and the water volumes are considerably higher.
This means that all calcium fluoride can only settle in water pipes, water mains, reservoirs and domestic appliances, like water tanks and heaters.
Could that be the reason why the water mains have to be flushed periodically?
The caring people at City Works can even post a schedule on the city website to reduce the inconvenience to the masses to an absolute minimum possible!
It is, obviously, difficult to quantify the additional maintenance expenses because of all that sediment settling in pipes, but one thing is certain - naturally occurring calcium is removed from water by this process, which means the people in fluoridated communities have to drink "dead water", with no calcium in it.
Since extra fluorides have to be added to overwhelm naturally occurring calcium in water, the total amount of fluorides, which is added to water can be considerably higher than 1ppm of the so-called "optimally fluoridated" water.
A label of a natural spring water would list the calcium content, normally it is from 50 ppm to over a 100 ppm.
All that would have to be overwhelmed with fluorides in order for a fluoride ion to start appearing in water.
If water in a particular locality contains 70 ppm of calcium, then roughly 71 ppm of fluorides would have to be added to produce water with 1 ppm of fluoride ion.
This is SEVENTY TIMES MORE than is on the label of a City Works department, which is likely to be construed in a misleading fashion to make the public believe that only 1 ppm is added.
This obviously means that CONSIDERABLY MORE toxic byproducts from those wet scrubbers would be entering our drinking water, stuff like mercury, arsenic, lead, pesticide residue, to name just a few.
Regarding the "final product", the requirements are probably not that stringent, as we are lead to believe.
After all, if on a particular day there happened to be twice, or even three times as much fluoride content in water, than you can read in the city publications, who would possibly have the means to keep checking on a regular basis and who could possibly hope to win damages in court!
Plus what could be the cause of the action?
Breach of contract?
Criminal negligence?
Disregard of the duty of care?
And since according to EPA, water with 4 ppm of fluorides (4 times more than "optimal") is still safe to drink, I just do not think that if on a particular day fluoride concentration happens to be 8 ppm, one would be able to win damages in court.
The reason I think so is because it is normally expected to allow a safety margin for medical drugs of several hundred percent.
The margin of safety of a drug is the difference between the usual effective dose and the dose which produces severe side effects.
And even though fluoride in drinking water is not a medical drug and even though the drug regulating agencies refuse to accept it into their jurisdiction when it is added to drinking water, the fluoridation lobby does a good job in misleading the public that enough research had been done, that the margin of safety is acceptable and that overall all the necessary precautions have been taken to ensure public health and wellbeing.
All these claims are likely be made in an attempt to confuse the court.
Or, we can put it this way - these attempts can be made in an attempt to create an appearance of an impartial decision, to hide the fact that the result of a trial was arranged to be a foregone conclusion.
Coming back to the subject of a drug safety, when it comes to fluorides, the margin of safety is simply not mentioned, the public is apparently "expected" to believe that if fluoride concentration is maintained at a so-called "optimal level" of 1 ppm, then, using the conventional assumption of a margin of safety, only at the levels that are some 100 times higher we can expect adverse health effects.
But that is simply not so, as the water with such a high level of fluorides would produce a severe distress, quite possibly a brain damage for a child or an elderly person!
But overall, there can be no margin of safety in using fluorides, because their effects are cumulative, even when ingested in trace amounts.
A very pronounced case of fluorosis can occur with a prolonged consumption of water, which is fluoridated at 2 to 3 ppm!
It is true that the immediate effects, like breathing difficulties, weakness, blurred vision, diarhhea, are unlikely to start appearing in healthy people at fluoride levels under 20 ppm, but even if one would have enough chutzpa to call that a "margin of safety", it is still far too low, as compared to medical drugs.
Here is an interesting quote by Dr. James Patrick, a former antibiotics research scientist at the National Institutes of Health, which he made to a Congressional Subcommittee on August 4 1982
"[There is] a very low margin of safety involved in fluoridating water. A concentration of about 1 ppm is recommended...in several countries, severe fluorosis has been documented from water supplies containing only 2 or 3 ppm. In the development of drugs...we generally insist on a therapeutic index (margin of safety) of the order of 100; a therapeutic index of 2 or 3 is totally unacceptable, yet that is what has been proposed for public water supplies."
from: The Fluoridation Fiasco by Gary Null, Ph.D.
Continue: Orchestra without conductor? Pt2
This eBook is available from IDLoser.com