NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/arsenic.cfm

One of the first things Bush did when he took office is lower the standards for drinking water back to what it was in 1942 (reversing Clinton's raising of the standards). Just thought I should remind everyone of this before the election.

We don't have to worry about terrorists poisoning our drinking water - we have a president that does that already.

Nice of him.

Another reason not to give him four more years.

*imitating Ahnuld Schworzenegger's voice*

For Mor Years!
For Mor Years!

*shakes fist*

Oh look. Ultra Right wing Parra is anti right wing Bush? I thought you'd be handing out pamflates to get Bush reelected.

*imitating Ahnuld Schworzenegger's voice*

For Mor Years!
For Mor Years!

*shakes fist*
I heard Anold will star in Terminator 4.

Pamflates...pamflates indeed.

I heard Anold will star in Terminator 4.
It's going to be yet another failure then, just like Terminator 3.

Oh look. Ultra Right wing Parra is anti right wing Bush? I thought you'd be handing out pamflates to get Bush reelected.


ROTFLOL! I never once said I was "ultra right wing" or even right wing for that matter! You assumed that because of some of my previous views on other topics. I've always been against Bush and I always have been.

S'alright I stay away from that recycled crapwater anyway. Isn't flouride industrial waste, also in tap water and one percent off from being arsenic?

S'alright I stay away from that recycled crapwater anyway. Isn't flouride industrial waste, also in tap water and one percent off from being arsenic?
Uh... no

ROTFLOL! I never once said I was "ultra right wing" or even right wing for that matter! You assumed that because of some of my previous views on other topics. I've always been against Bush and I always have been.
People like you tend to be, even if they are against Bush.

People like you tend to be, even if they are against Bush.


People like me eh? Y'all should have know even back then I wasn't typical in my political views....

Uh... no

no what?

Mmm...arsenicy.

People like me eh? Y'all should have know even back then I wasn't typical in my political views....

Tell us you burned the Nazi flags then. If you didn’t, go on, you know you want to.

Didn't you incur the wrath of the mods for something a while back and get deleted anyway?

And who are you voting for?

no what?
Arsenic kills cell metabolism. A bit of fluoride is beneficial to your dental health.

Tell us you burned the Nazi flags then. If you didn’t, go on, you know you want to.

I don't burn flags.

Didn't you incur the wrath of the mods for something a while back and get deleted anyway?

No. My nation vanished due to inactivity.

And who are you voting for?

I haven't decided, but it won't be Bush.

I can't drink bottled water, it has to much sodium in it.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/arsenic.cfm

One of the first things Bush did when he took office is lower the standards for drinking water back to what it was in 1942 (reversing Clinton's raising of the standards). Just thought I should remind everyone of this before the election.

We don't have to worry about terrorists poisoning our drinking water - we have a president that does that already.

Actually, this is one of the few things he's done that I agree with. Because the funding for water treatment facilities is done at a state level, it should be the states setting their arsenic levels, not the federal government. In my area, even clean springwater has higher arsenic levels than that and the retrofits to bring the natural arsenic levels down to the legal limits would have cost tens of millions of dollars (billions nationwide)...money that simply didn't exist, and that the backers of this regulation didn't bother to include in the law.

If the feds want cities across the country to reduce arsenic levels even below the rates they're found in nature, the feds need to PAY FOR IT. Their intentions may have been good, but it was poorly planned and impractical to expect the states and municipal water districts to shoulder the costs of this themselves.

People like me eh? Y'all should have know even back then I wasn't typical in my political views....
Of course Ma'm.

Umm, it wouldn't have cost much more then $12 per person, which is nothing to pay for lowering the amount of cancer in a community (especially where I live, it is getting insane)

I don't burn flags.


But do you own any flags that might even remotely be associated with the German government of 1933-1945? If so, have you considered burning them?

Arsenic kills cell metabolism. A bit of fluoride is beneficial to your dental health.

Flouride is poison if you didn't know. How is it beneficial to your dental health exactly (I've heard this and seen it in toothpaste but never knew how)? Do you know how or so you just think so because you were told?

I have a friend with perfectly healthy teeth but is alergic to the most minute amount of flouride so she gets flouride free toothpaste.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/arsenic.cfm

One of the first things Bush did when he took office is lower the standards for drinking water back to what it was in 1942 (reversing Clinton's raising of the standards). Just thought I should remind everyone of this before the election.

We don't have to worry about terrorists poisoning our drinking water - we have a president that does that already.Now I don't think my Bush hating credentials are in question, but this is a bit spin-heavy. Bush reversed the standards, the water still contains the same level of arsenic.

I don't burn flags.



No. My nation vanished due to inactivity.



I haven't decided, but it won't be Bush.
Anything but Kerry is voting Bush.

Are you registered as a Florida resident still?

Actually, this is one of the few things he's done that I agree with. Because the funding for water treatment facilities is done at a state level, it should be the states setting their arsenic levels, not the federal government. In my area, even clean springwater has higher arsenic levels than that and the retrofits to bring the natural arsenic levels down to the legal limits would have cost tens of millions of dollars (billions nationwide)...money that simply didn't exist, and that the backers of this regulation didn't bother to include in the law.

If the feds want cities across the country to reduce arsenic levels even below the rates they're found in nature, the feds need to PAY FOR IT. Their intentions may have been good, but it was poorly planned and impractical to expect the states and municipal water districts to shoulder the costs of this themselves.
Well, Bush has never had a problem spending money that didn't exist.

But do you own any flags that might even remotely be associated with the German government of 1933-1945? If so, have you considered burning them?


I've already told you that I don't burn flags (and that would be any flag). (Particularly ones that are worth money.)

Flouride is poison if you didn't know. How is it beneficial to your dental health exactly (I've heard this and seen it in toothpaste but never knew how)? Do you know how or so you just think so because you were told?

I have a friend with perfectly healthy teeth but is alergic to the most minute amount of flouride so she gets flouride free toothpaste.
Yes certain people are highly allergic to fluoride. However all living things are damaged by arsenic. So you can't say that fluoride is "1%" off from arsenic because most people aren't affected by it, and there are people deathly allergic to peanuts. That doesn't mean peanuts are "1%" off from arsenic. There are even people who are allergic to water, H2O. But as long as these minorities be careful, then there's no problem.

Chemical bonding properties of halogens (fluorine, chlorine, etc) allows them to strengthen the enamel of your teeth thus protecting against cavities and whatnot, but fluoride is used most often as a dental aid because the other halogens are not practical - for example chlorine can severely burn your linings and skin.

yeah we were worried about the bill for several million dollars that it would cost for a town of 9000 to make the water supply fit the federal guidelines

it wouldnt be so bad if they didnt have good science behind it.

Yes certain people are highly allergic to fluoride. However all living things are damaged by arsenic. So you can't say that fluoride is "1%" off from arsenic because most people aren't affected by it, and there are people deathly allergic to peanuts. That doesn't mean peanuts are "1%" off from arsenic. There are even people who are allergic to water, H2O. But as long as these minorities be careful, then there's no problem.

Chemical bonding properties of halogens (fluorine, chlorine, etc) allows them to strengthen the enamel of your teeth thus protecting against cavities and whatnot, but fluoride is used most often as a dental aid because the other halogens are not practical - for example chlorine can severely burn your linings and skin.

Here are some links and excerpts you might want to check out:

Flouride and Teeth: Recent Findings (http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-teeth.htm)


On April 9, 2003, the city of Basel, Switzerland voted to end its 41-year-old water fluoridation program. The primary reason for the decision was a recent assessment by Basel's Health & Social Commission (GSK) that water fluoridation provided little, if any, benefits to teeth that couldn't be obtained through other measures, such as salt fluoridation. The Health & Social Commission's assessment reflects a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests water fluoridation is ineffective and/or unnecessary. This body of evidence includes the following:

1) A national survey of tooth decay in the US, conducted in 1986-87 by the National Institute of Dental Research.

This survey, the largest survey ever done on tooth decay in the US, found no difference in tooth decay when measured in terms of DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled Teeth). When measured in terms of DMFS (Decayed, Missing, and Filled Surfaces), the survey found an average difference of just 0.6 tooth surfaces, equal to about 0.5% of the 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth. This difference was not shown to be statistically significant (despite being presented by government statisticians).

2) Extensive data, compiled by the World Health Organization.

This data reveals that tooth decay has declined at a similar rate in all western countries, irrespective of the country's water or salt fluoridation status. Today there is no difference in tooth decay between between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries.

3) The failure of water fluoridation to prevent severe levels of tooth decay in poor urban areas of the US.

Despite being fluoridated for decades, these areas have the highest rate of tooth decay in the US



How much arsenic is flouride adding to the public water supply? (http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-arsenic.htm)


Ninety percent of the fluoride we use to fluoridate U.S. water systems comes directly from the pollution scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Recently, there has been some concern among clean water activists about the purity of this industrial grade fluoride, known as hydrofluosilicic acid. As investigative journalist George Glasser has pointed out, this hydrofluosilicic acid contains trace amounts of numerous heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic.

Proponents of fluoridation, however, claim that while heavy metals are found in the acid, they are at such low levels as to be of no concern. As Thomas Reeves of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently stated, “the point I’m trying to make is it’s really not a problem” (Wenatchee World, October 20, 2000).

After a quick look at the numbers, Reeves would seem to be right. After all, the hydrofluosilicic acid is diluted down approximately 240,000 times when added into the public’s drinking water. If, therefore, these heavy metals are in concentrations of parts per million in the undiluted fluorosilicic acid, they will be much lower after being diluted down 240,000 to 1.

However, while this argument sounds legitimate, a careful look at the numbers reveals a different picture.

Take for instance, arsenic.

In a recent letter (July 7, 2000) to Congress, NSF International (National Sanitation Foundation) submitted the results of tests it has conducted on hydrofluosilicic acid over the past few years. According to the NSF, the most common contaminant found was arsenic. (Arsenic was found about 5 times more frequently than any other contaminant and at considerably higher levels).

While not all hydrofluosilicic acid was found to contain arsenic, the NSF states that where found, the average level of arsenic in the acid would lead to arsenic levels in water, after dilution, of 0.43 parts per billion (ppb). (When the "non-detects" are factored in, the average arsenic level would be



Arsenic In Drinking Water - FAQ's (http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qarsenic.asp)


1. What are the possible health effects of arsenic in drinking water?

According to a 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences, arsenic in drinking water causes bladder, lung and skin cancer, and may cause kidney and liver cancer. The study also found that arsenic harms the central and peripheral nervous systems, as well as heart and blood vessels, and causes serious skin problems. It also may cause birth defects and reproductive problems.


2. Does it occur often?

NRDC analyzed data compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on arsenic in drinking water in 25 states. Our most conservative estimates based on the data indicate that more than 34 million Americans drink tap water supplied by systems containing average levels of arsenic that pose unacceptable cancer risks. We consider it likely that as many as 56 million people in those 25 states have been drinking water with arsenic at unsafe levels -- and that's just the 25 states that reported arsenic information to the EPA.

I'm sure the people behind your studies are well intentioned. However I can just as well cite some pro-fluoride research. The problem with a lot of these scientific research is that there is a lot of contradictory evidence. For example, is low carbs good or low fat good? Are eggs good for you or not? There are those who have published scientific articles saying milk strengthens one's bones, and some people claim milk HARMS your bones. Is meat good for you or not? With all this random information, in the end a reader basically makes a more or less arbitrary, gut decision. So I will remain a supporter of fluoride, and you will be anti-fluoride, and there will always be evidence presented by both sides, and neither side will budge. Let's leave it at that.

However, fluoride is far less harmful than arsenic. Fluoride might do strange things in certain situations and elaborate lab studies, but from just a basic biology course you will learn that arsenic stops the electron transport chain in mitochondria. It is a clear cut situation - arsenic present therefore metabolism stops, arsenic absent therefore metabolism (and life) continues. Arsenic is one of the fundamental, deadliest natural poisons in the world. It affects ALL humans, all animals, all plants, all fungi, and many other life forms.

I've already told you that I don't burn flags (and that would be any flag). (Particularly ones that are worth money.)

But that's not really what I asked is it?

Do you own such flags?

Maybe it was somone else (I can't be bothered rooting around to confirm - nice getout I've given you) but I recall someone mentioning that they enjoyed the reaction they got from neighbours when they ran a Nazi flag up the flagpole in ther garden. I suppose that wasn't you, and you'd never do such a thing because Naziism is an abhorent doctrine?

ROTFLOL! I never once said I was "ultra right wing" or even right wing for that matter! You assumed that because of some of my previous views on other topics. I've always been against Bush and I always have been.
Well no. I assumed it cause your a Nazi. :p

Floride in the drinking water is another fine example of the government overprotecting the electorate. The only reason they continue to use it is because they'd lose votes if they said no more floride. But the money spent to flouridate? the water would be much better spent redirected to helping the poor pay for a real dentist instead of a POSSABLE poison in the drinking water, that apparently doesnt do much to help. It also gives the more ignorant and uneducated among us to believe they dont HAVE to brush as often as they should. I'm 24 and so far as I know have always drank water with that crap in it and my teeth are in rough shape, and YES I do brush. I just haven't had the ability to go to a dentist in 10 years. Ahhh American healthcare...kinda an oxymoron.

Floride in the drinking water is another fine example of the government overprotecting the electorate. The only reason they continue to use it is because they'd lose votes if they said no more floride. But the money spent to flouridate? the water would be much better spent redirected to helping the poor pay for a real dentist instead of a POSSABLE poison in the drinking water, that apparently doesnt do much to help. It also gives the more ignorant and uneducated among us to believe they dont HAVE to brush as often as they should. I'm 24 and so far as I know have always drank water with that crap in it and my teeth are in rough shape, and YES I do brush. I just haven't had the ability to go to a dentist in 10 years. Ahhh American healthcare...kinda an oxymoron.
the flouride isnt for your teeth

if i recall correctly, after working a month at a water treatement plant, the flouride is for some other crap

While I remember this being settled as "Clinton enacted that just as he left office so that this exact situation would have to happen," I'm feeling too lazy to dig up a cite.

Instead, I call upon the Encyclopedia of Toxicology, 2nd Edition, one of Bob Kapp's Articles which I had to spell check & edit the format. For reference, the only problem was that he once had "tits" for "its," and for some reason he italicized the hyphen before his name.


The standards put into place in the early sixties were shortsighted in their technological advances- they could not imagine that we would eventually be able to accurately detect parts per billion, or even million. "No measureable traces" mean, at best, less than 1/5000th.
This article went on to say, essentially "don't worry about it. We survived thousands of years eating worse, and the body was designed to take care of itself."
I was supposed to read the one on Arsenic (Russell Barbare?), but stuff about Mycotoxins popped up so I asked the girl I was staying with to take care of it.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/arsenic.cfm

One of the first things Bush did when he took office is lower the standards for drinking water back to what it was in 1942 (reversing Clinton's raising of the standards). Just thought I should remind everyone of this before the election.

We don't have to worry about terrorists poisoning our drinking water - we have a president that does that already.

That is not all that Bush has poisoned...........

But that's not really what I asked is it?

Do you own such flags?

Maybe it was somone else (I can't be bothered rooting around to confirm - nice getout I've given you) but I recall someone mentioning that they enjoyed the reaction they got from neighbours when they ran a Nazi flag up the flagpole in ther garden. I suppose that wasn't you, and you'd never do such a thing because Naziism is an abhorent doctrine?


Lol, no, I don't have a flag pole in my garden (and I never have) and I don't live around were neighbours can see my house. I have all my flags (all sorts, I like to collect old flags) in windows, they make excellent window curtians. :D