DEAD WATER |
To further illustrate the potential risks of sticking one's neck out in favor of fluoridation, lets consider this:
In Canada there is a law, which regulates the use of hazardous materials by business enterprises. It is called Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System WHMIS (introduced in 1988).
WHMIS is similar to the US righttoknow legislation, which was introduced in the mid-80s.
WHMIS legislation requires supplier of hazardous materials to label the material in a proper manner and have it accompanied by a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).
MSDS should contain specific types of information, which would allow implementation of adequate protection measures for those who work with those materials.
WHMIS also covers worker education and requires that all employees be informed about WHMIS and trained in safe handling of hazardous materials.
WHIMS is an information based system that covers the use of hazardous materials in the workplace.
There are six classes of hazardous materials, which are covered by WHMIS:
1. Compressed Gas
2. Flammable and Combustible Material
3. Oxidizing Material
4. Poisonous and Infectious Material
5. Corrosive Material
6. Dangerously Reactive Material
However, apparently it is possible for some manufacturers to produce materials, which are not subject to WHMIS legislation.
I do not know the details of that, but I did stumble on two products like that:
I do not know what to make of it, but overall, there are laws in the books to protect workers from unjustified exposure to dangerous chemicals.
Coming back to the right-to-know legislation in US, I have seen notices on the labels of containers with some toxic industrial chemicals, that the list of ingredients and the description of a process had been placed on file with a certain state regulating agency.
Apparently it is done this way to allow the companies certain protection of their industrial secrets, but they are nevertheless required to go on official record with regards to the toxic substances they use.
It should still be possible to adequately equip the facilities and to train the workers without publicly disclosing all the details of the chemical processes and substances used.
And the State regulating agency may well check if the facilities and procedures are adequate to protect the people, who work with those toxic chemicals.
Any industrial enterprise, which handles dangerous materials, is required to have emergency facilities and procedures in place.
For example, a place which handles mercury should have special "mercury spill kits", with absorbent powders, as well as neutralizing chemicals.
Personnel has to be trained how to use them and refresher training should be conducted on a regular basis.
Here are some specific examples of safety procedures, which were instituted in places where I used to work.
At one warehouse, absorbent materials had to be used to deal even with liquid spills like paints, solvents, laquers, wood stains, tar.
Moreover, the "mixture" of absorbent material and toxic liquid could not be dumped into garbage, but had to be sent to a toxic landfill site!
Every battery station there had an eye-washing station and an emergency shower.
They were using lead-acid batteries, attendant had to check the acid level on a regular basis and refill the batteries, where it was low.
And here is another example of how seriously the public safety is normally taken:
I used to work for a company which was servicing a certain line of material assay equipment that were using radioactive sources.
That equipment is used to determine content of certain elements in various materials.
The radioactive substances in question were in minute quantities, quiite literally in milligrams.
They were in small sealed containers of the size of a watch battery, covered with foil.
The container was welded to a small metal bar, which was used for mouting, as well as handling.
Those sources had to be replaced according to a certain maintenance schedule, which depended upon a half-life of a particular radioactive material used.
The new source had to be brought in and the old one taken out for disposal to an authorized facility.
Those radioactive sources had to be carried in a solid lead container.
The used sources had to be returned for disposal also in a lead container.
Even though the radioactive material was in very small quantities, the company was still required to purchase special insurance coverage to cover the expenses of a clean-up, in case of a radioactive spill, as a result of a road accident.
Periodic "smear tests" had to be conducted underneath the radioactive sources inside the equipment.
If the foil on top of a container is broken, contents would spill out.
In that case some of that radioactive powder would be picked up and detected in a laboratory.
Ordinary Q-tips were being used for that purpose.
I had to to deliver those Q-tips in a special container to a special laboratory. Courier could not be used.
There were also strict rules regarding notification of personnel who was present on premises where equipment servicing was being performed.
Every time a radioactive source had to be removed, everybody had to leave the premises.
They were, of course, asking how is it possible I am handling those sources, but there were certain procedures implemented to give a measure of protection to a technician.
For example, I was required to look at a radioactive source only through a mirror, with a lead plate held between it and my body.
Plus I was required to do it fast.
Before the source is taken out, I had to make sure that all the required tools are within reach; if there was no mirror at the facility, I had to use my own, to attach it in a convenient and secure fashion to some vertical surface, to have an empty container ready, as well as a protective lead plate.
You cannot deny that there were very strict protective measures in place to protect the people who work with those instruments, as well as the general public.
That same company I worked for, was also servicing spectrometers.
Once, as I was servicing equipment, a client said that they had to file charges against one supplier who sold certain fasteners for one critical application that did not conform to specifications.
The steel was analyzed by spectrometer, after having been "digested" in acid and a calibrated solution prepared.
Certain critical parameters of those fasteners were dependent on the content of a certain metal, but the spectral analysis was at odds with the supplied documentation.
Apparently it was important enough to doublecheck the supplier's "documentation".
And here is another example:
In one chemical factory, where I worked for several weeks as a contractor installing electrical equipment, workers were wearing full-body coveralls and respirators even when loading chemicals used to manufacture stuff like shampoo, toothpaste and deodorants.
Once I saw two people there in full-body HERMETIC suits, with a respirator or a gas mask incorporated into a helmet!
One was carrying a container, the other was walking a little ahead, apparently to warn others to give way.
Unless that suit was equipped with some voice communication system, with powerful enough speakers, the only way he could communicate was using hand signals.
I immediately alerted other people, who happened to be around and asked them what could that be.
The answer was - a therapeutic ingredient for a cough syrup.
As we can see, everywhere, without exception, certain safety measures are being implemented when it comes to dealing with dangerous substances.
We can now imagine how a place, where fluorides are actually being handled, is equipped and what kind of protective clothing the workers there wear!
After all, ingestion or inhalation of fluoride dust can cause severe distress, possibly leading to brain damage and even death.
Let's also not forget a very serious risk of a long-term health damage!
It would simply be impossible to ensure that workers at a place like that would not end up absorbing trace amounts of fluorides during every shift.
On top of that, since it is not a pharmaceutical grade product, but a byproduct from smoke stack scrubbers of the smelting and pesticide plants, it contains a wide "variety" of poisons like arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, other heavy metals, pesticides.
Every worker there would certainly be aware of the potential for slow poisoning, when working with such substances!
And yet I have never heard about any labour dispute involving workers at the water treatment facilities!
The garbage collectors go on strike every few years, so do the transit drivers, and yet workers at the water treatment facilities seem to be quite happy with their deal.
As everyone knows, during any labor dispute, workers emphasize the most "revealing" items to illustrate their working conditions and why they believe they deserve more money.
When there was a labor dispute involving caretakers in one funeral home, their labour representative said that their workers are concerned about having to handle corpses of people who died of infectious diseases, he specifically mentioned AIDS.
That was the main reason why they were demanding more money.
And yet those who handle fluorides at the water treatment stations seem to be quite happy with the deal they have got!
Otherwise we would have seen them in picket lines once in a while, giving interviews to the media.
Maybe they have been declared an essential service, which is not allowed to strike? After all, we cannot live without water. And under the same decree the personnel, who is actually involved in fluoridation business had also become essential service.
But even for those who are in this category, we still hear about the labour disputes sometimes, only instead of a work stoppage, they resort to "labor actions", working to rule, for example, allowing non-regulation clothing items, designed to attract attention, etc.
And yet we do not hear even that from those who handle the most toxic industrial waste on water treatment facilities!
Is this an indication that somebody had made sure there would be no unfavourable publicity that may jeopardize this fluoridation racket?
Any way you put it, information about a labor dispute at some fluoridation facility would be very "educational" for the public. Just to imagine the striking workers have decided to stage a real theater by putting on their full-body suits and coming out to the picket lines.
"We have to wear these contraptions eight hours of every day, and breathe through a respirator on top of that. You can imagine what kind of a poison we are dealing with! And what we are getting in return for our troubles?"
Lots of people would have got "educated" after watching a show like that, either "live" or on TV! And they would start asking perfectly natural questions - "What is fluoridation?
Why those people are concerned about negative impact of working conditions on their health?
Why toxic industrial waste is being mentioned in connection with fluoridation?
Why rat poison is also being mentioned?"
To continue this line of reasoning, let's also not forget that every shipment has a bill of lading, which describes the load in detail.
The author of this site is in possession of copies of some bills of lading for ordinary metal shipments, the kind that a small-size machine shop gets dozens per month.
Each of those has a separate document attached, which indicates the results of a chemical assay.
No matter if the metal or alloy comes from US, Canada, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Japan, China, India, Singapore, they all have a sheet with the result of a chemicall assay, with the name of a person in charge of the chemical laboratory at that plant.
This is a legal document. On top of that, each shipment has a note from the dealer's QA lab, indicating that the material did not come into contact with mercury while at the dealer's warehouse.
Here is a text of a typical statement of this kind, which was reproduced verbatim from a bill of lading of one of the metal dealers:
Mercury is not used by us as an alloying material, nor is metallic mercury handled in the vicinity of our processing lines.
Should we become aware of any sources of mercury contamination, our intention is to eliminate it.
We are not presently aware of any mercury contamination.
Melted an manufactured in the USA.
Product complies with all requirements of EU directive 2002.95.EC.RoHS
Material free from mercury contamination.
No weld repair.
Toxic waste from some fertilizer plant or aluminum smelter would also have a bill of lading, which specifies the nature of the material and how to handle it.
It should also have a chemical assay, with warnings that are appropriate for the content.
Theoretically, if terrorists, criminals or pranksters find out that a very potent poison is being shipped through some freight carrier, they might well decide to obtain some.
For them it is probably better than explosives!
If that stuff is being shipped without supervision, without guard, this can be a very tempting target for terrorists.
This is also an easy target, considering that some 60 percent of US is fluoridated at the time of this writing.
If it is shipped under supervision, in sealed, tamper-proof containers, in sealed boxcars, then somebody must arrange for the proper logistics of all that.
But that requires lots of paperwork and lots of money.
All those numerous documents bear signatures of people in positions of authority.
Those people also have to live somewhere, very likely in fluoridated municipalities, and they should be asking themselves simple questions - can all this stuff be that good as dentists and doctors keep saying?
Just look at all those safety precautions and safety warnings!
Even though many rather dangerous chemicals like solvents, wood treatment chemicals, special paints, etc. can be purchased for household use, they cannot be shipped through mail or a courier.
This is because they are dangerous enough to require implementation of emergency measures in case of a spill.
Surely it would be a bit too much to expect a "spill kit", an eye washing station and an emergency shower on a courier vehicle!
It is a very educational exercise to go through a list of goods, which are not allowed to be purchased using online payment companies, like PayPal!
Those who work in industry know, that industrial chemicals can legally be sold only to industrial enterprises and institutions.
Cleaners and degreasers which are used to clean parts and wash floors in factories or other facilities cannot be purchased for household purposes, as they are considered too toxic for uncontrolled use.
But when they are used in industrialized setting, the people using them can reasonably be expected to get some training and supervision.
Plus they can be held accountable for their actions.
Even an ordinary industrial hand cleaner, which comes in a form of a paste cannot be purchased in your neighborhood hardware store!
Sodium fluoride, one of the substances used to fluoridate drinking water, is a very potent poison.
It is listed as poison in the Merck index, which is a database of pharmaceutical chemicals.
You cannot walk into some chemical supply company from a street and hope to buy some.
Its toxicity is comparable to that of arsenic!
As for sodium fluoride pills, which are used as a measure of last resort to treat certain degenerative bone diseases, those can only be purchased with doctor's prescription.
One can imagine that when it comes to arranging shipments of fluoridating agents, lots of papers have to be signed, enough to give food for thought even to the most care-free city bureaucrats - is it really safe to keep pouring toxic industrial waste into municipal water supply?
What if it would backfire one day with a big class action lawsuit with multibillion claim for damages?
Maybe, it would be safer to start phasing it out, under a pretext, for example, of a cost-cutting measure or a "lack of demonstrated improvements".
As for the "constituency", those can switch to fluoride supplements and fluoride toothpaste, if they so desire to make their bones "hard".
We all heard that bureaucracies are inherently inert, preservation of a status quo is the key for survival for those who makes a living in bureacratic structures.
Private enterprises, as a contrast, have to be dynamic in order to survive, and even more so to excel.
They have to venture into uncharted territory, to take risks, to reap the rewards and to bear the consequences!
Would anyone be gullible enough to believe that someone would want to stick his neck out, unless he is being handsomly rewarded for his services?
Or unless there is an entire network of racketeers who cover for it?
You cannot deny that there is a whole class of people who live by that universal principle, according to which, in order to advance your interests you have to cooperate with and to serve the interests of those who can appreciate it and repay you.
As for the "public intertests", those can be "advanced" with declared intentions and plenty of smiles.
The following example was taken from the Fluoride Debate booklet.
The Baltimore Sun reported in a November 1979 story on a fluoridation accident which was caused by a malfunction in a fluoride pump and which resulted in a substantially higher concentration of fluorides in drinking water, than the officially declared value.
"Even though state and county health officials learned of the spill nine days after it occurred, no public announcement was made and the City Council was not told of the situation for six more days ..."
[the article] quoted a County Health officer stating that the delay in notification was because "We didn't want to jeopardize the fluoridation program ... "
Any way you put it, this situation is nothing short of bizarre!
The normally expected subordination hierarchy somehow does not exist here! A medical officer of health acts as if he is not subordinated and thus is not required to report to the City Council!
How else we are supposed to interpret this?
If he had been in that city government long enough to be considered for that position, if he had passed a selection process, if he is not a certifiable idiot, then he should react appropriately to every eventuality in his jurisdiction, especially when it comes to such grave developments, which endanger people's lives.
Moreover, contingency plans for possible adverse developments should be made well in advance, equipment and materials purchased and maintained, personnel trained periodically.
It is one thing to compose a flyer, a booklet, or a text for an Internet site for a dental association, with all kinds of assurances that malfunction in fluoridation equipment is simply impossible, and something completely different to actually run a pumping station and have the most toxic industrial waste in existence being fed at a predetermined rate into the municipal water supply!
Aircraft are designed and built using the most stringent specifications, and yet disasters happen from time to time and people die.
Every airport has a fire brigade, which conducts regular exercises. And if unthinkable happens - everybody will be out there, trying to save lives!
And yet here things somehow work differently!
People are being poisoned because of that spill, nobody can exclude serious health damage as a result of it, nobody can exclude a very big class-action lawsuit, and yet the health officer somehow acts as if he is not afraid that his head would roll after all this finally comes to light!
If he is not retarded, then his actions can only be explained by the compelling pressure to follow the guidelines from his puppeteers, who, he knows, would protect him in case of any adverse developments.
Even if we assume a really bizarre scenario that the people in charge of fluoridation in Baltimore were under so much pressure because of that disaster, that it really affected their thinking, there still seems to be enough evidence of conspiracy in this whole racket.
Consider this:
"Alcoa's Vancouver, Washington plant was found guilty of dumping 1,000 to 7,000 pounds of fluoride poison each month into the Columbia River ... The fluoride contaminated the grass and forage and resulted in injury and death to cattle." (Seattle Times, Dec. 16, 1952)
At Vancouver, disposal of 1,000 to 7,000 pounds of fluoride per month was considered pollution.
Yet, if city officials dump as much or more fluoride into municipal water supplies (5,000 pounds a day in San Francisco) it is called a "health measure."
Those who are officially responsible for implementing fluoridation, cannot possibly be ignorant about such news!
If a legal action against a corporation has been successful, if it was declared guilty of pollution, if it was ordered to pay damages to those who suffered as a result of their actions, shouldn't that make those in charge of fluoridation in every locality think that something like this can also come their way?
And yet somehow they act as if they are immune from any possible unfavourable developments!
Again, if they are not retarded, then their actions can only be explained by the fact that they are sure their puppeteers would protect them.
And here is a yet another observation, which, in my opinion, adds credibility to this whole fluoridation conspiracy theory:
the city of Toronto is in serious financial troubles, there were several increases in property taxes over the last years and on top of that the mayor was pushing for additional taxes - land transfer tax and vehicle registration tax, which met very vocal opposition from the public.
The problems at the Toronto City Hall are probably universal to municipal and other governments - salaries well out of range with the private sector, low productivity, unionized labour holding a virtual stranglehold on city services.
Whatever service can be obtained at the market rates through private sector, is being performed at "City Hall rates" by unionized labour.
There was also a very revealing article in the Toronto Sun of Nov.01, 2007 (p17) about excessive Internet use by city staff. The article was essentially an analysis of the auditor general report on the city's finances. The actual numbers mentioned amounted to 3 million dollars in lost productivity per year, because city workers surf Internet during work, "which could include anything from porn, travel and shopping websites to instant messaging and chat sites" (direct quote from that article). ($40/hr an average city worker salary was mentioned in the article).
But the bottom line to all this is that there is no money to keep that "party" going and so mayor was "suggesting" that serious service cuts are being considered, in particular, closing libraries on Sundays, closing hockey arenas and even a whole subway branch.
I find it nothing short of bizarre, that they are ready to go to such an extent as abandoning several tens of thousands of commuters, who may have no realistic alternative ways to go to and from work, and yet they would not even consider putting an end to this practice of adding rat poison to our drinking water!
We should also keep in mind another important element to this whole racket - its preservation.
In some municipalities water fluoridation was started back in the 50s.
Even if we assume that the people who started it were not a part of any secret societies, not a part of any conspiracies, but were honestly mistaken by all the hoopla and propaganda of those days, there is still a question remains to be answered - who made sure that this racket would be maintained through the decades, after the original architects of it had retired?
After all, when new people assume office, they have to face responsibilities for their actions, and their actions have to be in line with times.
You simply cannot keep dumping the responsibility for bad decisions on those who are no longer around!
Leaded gasoline, lead paints, asbestos, DDT have all been phased out under the pressure of evidence that they are very harmful to humans, wildlife and environment.
It is true that certain preservatives, like nitrates, are still with us, even though some scientists were making bold predictions back in the 60s that they will find a better substitute for this unacceptably dangerous stuff.
But the simple reality is that nothing better had so far been found, and yet people keep buying sausages, smoked meat and fish.
But water fluoridation is still rolling along, allegedly introduced to each municipality by a stroke of a pen of some city bureaucrat who had long since retired!
All this in view of the fact that our level of knowledge about dangers of fluorides is vastly superior as compared to what it used to be when the first municipalities had it imposed on them in the 40s and 50s.
Isn't it a bit too much to expect us to believe that all the subsequent generations of people who were appointed the heads of City Works departments or in similar capacities, more than half of them in US alone, were unanimously, enthusiastically pushing that toxic industrial waste into our water pipes?
In that case it would only be logical to assume that there is an appropriate selection process for all those heads of City Works departments which ensures that only those with a tunnel vision or those with the demonstrated ability to toe the line get appointed.
As was mentioned elsewhere on this site, the fluoridation program in Toronto was challenged in court soon after it was introduced back in 1963.
But it was defeated on a technicality.
It other words, the case was terminated for reasons which had nothing to do with its merits.
There are many informative accounts about the legal challenges to fluoridation on the Internet.
If you read enough of them, you really begin to get a feeling that there is some sort of a conspiracy around this whole fluoridation business.
The refusal of US Supreme Court to even consider fluoridation cases certainly adds to this suspicion.
The refusal by FDA to accept fluoridating agents, when added to drinking water, into its jurisdiction is also "strange", to put it mildly.
And overall, it seems to me that conspiracy is an important ingredient in this whole racket.