Calgary removes flouride from municipal water

[GostHacked]

Do you ever get tired of spewing nonsense on here? Do you ever actually provide any real proof to justify your opinions?

No, actually I don't get tired of it. I was just using your justification for using fluoride (small amounts to make a difference) and applying that to vitamins and minerals.

Its getting rather annoying debunking your claims, and since you tend to make unsubstantiated claims, its not quite fair.

No one is forcing you to debunk/debate. But it does not mean you should be able to force fluoride on everyone who drinks water.

The easiest way to debunk your claim is to point out:

- The cost of fluoridating water works out to roughly $0.50/person/year (see: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm)

- The cheapest multivitamin I found on the Wal-Mart web site is $10.97 for 90 tablets, giving a cost of $44.49/year

So, adding vitamins to the water would be more than 88 times move expensive than adding fluoride.

The only reason that fluoride is so abundant and cheap is because it's hard to dispose of properly. And yet it seems to be just thrown willy nilly into our water.

Of course I'm going to poo-poo the idea. You spout nonsense without ever substantiating your claims.

Here's a question... why do people who believe in non-sense insist on using videos to 'prove' their point? Its the same way with 9/11 conspiracy believers.

OH that always works. Might as well just call me a holocaust denier as well. That always works for those arguments.

If you actually have a valid point, then present it here in this forum. Provide evidence from a mainstream source. It is not up to me to try to listen to some lame biased video to try to find points to pick apart.

Well, even if I did bring up valid points (which I have), you are still going to completely ignore it. So it's not my fault that you don't even want to watch those videos because you just might learn something about what is really in your water.

The video you in fact are poo pooing without even viewing it, has a top renowned chemist who has been studying fluoride in the water for some time. Not to mention he started investigating it all because he was a supporter of fluoridation of the water and wanted to prove it correct. He end up finding the opposite.

http://www.stlawu.edu/faculty/profiles/connett.html

One of those videos you presented is from the "Prison Planet" web site, a conspiracy nut-job site run by Alex Jones (who was involved in the Loose Change 9/11 conspiracy movie). So, keep that in mind when viewing the you-tube fluoride videos: one was made by the same guy who believes 9/11 was a hoax.

Yeah, people will always bash Jones, and that's fine. I am not here to convince you that Jones is on the right track, but I've been listening to him long enough along with many of his guests, and I get a better understanding of what really is going on in the world compared to your CNN or FOX or CBC ect ect ect.

[segnosaur]

Do you ever get tired of spewing nonsense on here? Do you ever actually provide any real proof to justify your opinions?

No, actually I don't get tired of it.

Of course not. Why would you? Not like you actually have to know or understand anything. You just make bizarre unsubstantiated claims and post random you tube videos, without applying any sort of logic or scientific skepticism to what you're seeing.

I was just using your justification for using fluoride (small amounts to make a difference) and applying that to vitamins and minerals.

Well, first of all, you specifically brought up the issue of cost in your claim (i.e. that it would not be expensive.) But as I have pointed out, it would be expensive, and ineffective. On the other hand, its been estimated that every dollar spent on fluoridation saves roughly $38 in dental care. (The link I provided earlier to the CDC goes into details.)

Secondly, this is the type of B.S. I was referring to. You made a claim without evidence that "small amounts of vitamins make a difference". You made a claim, you should support it.

No one is forcing you to debunk/debate.

You're right, nobody is. But then, there may be people who have an interest in the topic who may be unaware of how baseless your arguments are. You may be incapable of using any sort of logic or skepticism, but hopefully others will.

The only reason that fluoride is so abundant and cheap is because it's hard to dispose of properly.

Irrelevant. The reason why it costs so little does not matter. The only thing that matters is "is it safe" (it is) and "does it provide a significant public health benefit for the money spent" (it does).

Here's a question... why do people who believe in non-sense insist on using videos to 'prove' their point? Its the same way with 9/11 conspiracy believers.

OH that always works. Might as well just call me a holocaust denier as well. That always works for those arguments.

Well you are using the same tactics.

If you want to actually demonstrate any real understanding, try actually making your own points, and refer to actual real sources of information: peer reviewed journals, respected news/scientific organizations, etc. But as long as you insist on using biased videos produced by ignorant/non-scientific sources, then you deserve the same amount of respect as those claiming "9/11 was an inside job! Watch this video for proof".

Well, even if I did bring up valid points (which I have), you are still going to completely ignore it.

Uhhh... no I don't do that.

That's YOUR game.

I make it a point in any sort of on-line debate to attempt to address every point that's brought up. I addressed your false claim about "more fluoride exposure from tap water than toothpaste" (hint: I proved you were wrong), I addressed your false claim about vitamins being "cheap and effective to add to water" (Hint: once again I showed you were wrong).

So it's not my fault that you don't even want to watch those videos because you just might learn something about what is really in your water.

I don't want to watch those videos because I recognize the crappy source.

If you think they are making valid points, then write down what you think that point is and post it here. It is not my job to do your research.

The video you in fact are poo pooing without even viewing it, has a top renowned chemist who has been studying fluoride in the water for some time. Not to mention he started investigating it all because he was a supporter of fluoridation of the water and wanted to prove it correct. He end up finding the opposite.

http://www.stlawu.edu/faculty/profiles/connett.html

Actually, no it doesn't. It has Connet, who knowingly associates with quacks like Mercola and Mike Adams. Here's a hint: If your supposed "renowned scientist" is hanging around people who champion homeopathy (i.e. giving placebos to cure disease) then you should question the label "renowned chemist", since obviously his ability to analyze data properly is lacking.

And just out of curiosity, why exactly is he a "renowned chemist" to begin with? After all, St. Lawerence University isn't exactly an ivy league school. (Not that good research can't be done at smaller colleges, but its a fraction of the size of even the largest private colleges). What great scientific break throughs has he made? Or is it just the fact that he spews anti-fluoride claims enough to make him "renowned"?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/12/anti-fluoridation_crankery_how_1960s.php

Yeah, people will always bash Jones, and that's fine. I am not here to convince you that Jones is on the right track

Yet you use him (or material created by his organization) as "proof".

...but I've been listening to him long enough along with many of his guests, and I get a better understanding of what really is going on in the world compared to your CNN or FOX or CBC ect ect ect.

You know, earlier you made a snarky statement about how I might "lump you in with holocaust deniers". But frankly, statements like that actually kind of prove my point.

I'm sure those who deny the holocaust feel the same way.... "I listen to <insert holocaust denier>, and I get a better understanding of what's really going on".

[MapleLeafAlliance]

Cities have centralized water systems. There is no way two companies can compete with that kind of system. It may work for electricity, but it wont work for water distribution, unless you get it bottled and delivered.

There is a way that two companies or more can compete "with that kind of system"...and sure, bottling it and delivering can be an alternative. Or - the current piping, and overall infrastructure can be renovated/updated, built anew, or it can be sold - either to one company or multiple companies.

[Mr.Canada]

Pure fear mongering by Gost and Seg, nice try. I'll keep drinking my RO water. The PPms of my RO water is zero, the chlorine is zero and the Ph is 7(neutral) nothing but pure water.

Out of my tap, we have very hard water out here(well water). The Ph is very high 8.5-9+, the PPms are 300-400 and the chlorine is off the charts up here, there is a lot way more then usual since we had problems with the water supply, people got sick.

No one drinks the water here.

The water might be safer in the city I don't know but you guys shouldn't be making blanket statements.

[wyly]

Pure fear mongering by Gost and Seg, nice try. I'll keep drinking my RO water. The PPms of my RO water is zero, the chlorine is zero and the Ph is 7(neutral) nothing but pure water.

Out of my tap, we have very hard water out here(well water). The Ph is very high 8.5-9+, the PPms are 300-400 and the chlorine is off the charts up here, there is a lot way more then usual since we had problems with the water supply, people got sick.

No one drinks the water here.

The water might be safer in the city I don't know but you guys shouldn't be making blanket statements.

if it's treated properly it should be safe even though it may not taste, smell or look good, in that case I might drink bottled water too...I've drank water from all across canada and europe as well...tap water/city, well water, untreated mountain stream water and I've never been sick(mountain water was a risk though)...but I absolutely drew the line at regina's tap water back in the 80's, brown wasn't my favourite colour for water...

[Bonam]

I used the phrase "may be possible" not because I doubt that people can buy such "premium" waters; I used the phrase because most water purchased is not premium water. Heck, when you go to your local Taco Bell, they probably don't sell "imported glacial water", they'll have water from one of the larger manufacturers who does use municipal water as its source.

Taco bell? The water there is tap water that is filled in front of your eyes from a tap into a cup. Not sure what you're referring to.

Many people complain about tap water because they don't want "chemicals", or want their water to be "natural". But we treat water because what's "natural" is not always safe. (Mmmmm... cholera-tainted well-water.) I would certainly hope that any company selling "premium glacial amazonian water" would take steps to make their products safe. But doing so will itself likely add chemicals. So instead of adding chemicals from one source, you're adding them from another source.

Most brands of bottled water that I have seen do not contain chlorine. That is a significant difference from tap water. There are methods for assuring the cleanliness of water besides the use of chemicals. Irradiating the water with intense UV light immediately prior to bottling comes to mind. Additionally, water that is collected from sufficiently pristine locations is usually safe without any treatments (it should still be tested to assure that it is clean but may not need to have any chemicals or other purification methods applied).

The point is, despite all efforts to make our foot/water "safe", problems will occur. This can happen with both government-sourced tap water and privately produced bottled water. Concentrating only on issues like Walkerton (and slamming tap water over it) while ignoring similar risks inherent in other water sources gives a distorted view of reality.

I don't "concentrate" on issues like Walkerton. I just prefer bottled mountain spring / glacier water, mostly for the vastly different (and in my opinion better) taste compared to tap water. Safety is a secondary consideration if a consideration at all. The chances of getting poisoned by either tap water or bottled water are very low and I have better things to spend my time thinking/worrying about.

I don't necessarily think private companies would always be horrible at policing themselves. But there are benefits and drawbacks to both public AND private food and water inspections.

Agreed. Note that this is a far cry from your earlier statement that implied that government water is safer because there are more government officials involved.

Anyway, getting back to the start of this exchange, my point was simply to highlight and refute the common mythology among opponents of bottled water that "it's just tap water with a fancy label in a plastic bottle". Like wyly's original statement that I quoted, which confidently asserted that bottled water is the "same tap water that the rest of us drink". This is completely and utterly false and so I felt the need to correct it. While you can certainly buy some crap like that, like Dasani water for example, you can most certainly also buy real spring/glacier water like Evian, or cheaper brands like Arrowhead. Like with any product, it's worth doing a bit of research and knowing what you are buying.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Bonam

[Oleg Bach]

Water is a holy life sustaining substance - the less stuff we have in water the better...chlorine for instance assists in the dehydration of human beings..which leads to poor thinking..the more water there is in water the better - no if ands or buts.

[segnosaur]

Pure fear mongering by Gost and Seg, nice try.

Ummm... "fear mongering"?

First of all, you were the one who brought up Walkerton, as some sort of evil bogey man. If that's not "fear mongering", then what is?

Secondly, if you notice, I'm the one that's pointed out that even if there are "risks" in both tap, bottled, and otherwise processed water, those risks are not significant. In other words, its pretty much the opposite of "fear mongering"

I'll keep drinking my RO water. The PPms of my RO water is zero, the chlorine is zero and the Ph is 7(neutral) nothing but pure water.

I assume by RO you mean Reverse Osmosis. Of course, a couple of things to remember:

- Reverse Osmosis does not block out all potential dangers; for example, some pesticides can pass through the membrane used. See: http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/homeowners/pesticides.shtml

- Often water treated with Reverse Osmosis is also subject to the use of Carbon filters to further reduce certain chemicals. Problem is, the carbon can provide a medium for bacteria growth.

Now, this does not mean you should have any significant concerns about the water you drink. But that doesn't necessarily mean that tap water isn't safe either.

[segnosaur]

I used the phrase "may be possible" not because I doubt that people can buy such "premium" waters; I used the phrase because most water purchased is not premium water. Heck, when you go to your local Taco Bell, they probably don't sell "imported glacial water", they'll have water from one of the larger manufacturers who does use municipal water as its source.

Taco bell? The water there is tap water that is filled in front of your eyes from a tap into a cup. Not sure what you're referring to.

First of all, you can buy bottled water at taco bell; you don't have to get 'tap water' there if you'd prefer not to.

Secondly, I used Taco Bell as simply an example of a "common" retailer... one that sells basic bottled water (can't remember if they sell Aquafina or Desani, but I'm pretty sure its one of those 2) but they don't sell "premium bottled water" (e.g. Perrier, etc.) That was my point: many retailers sell only the basic bottled water (made from tap water).

Most brands of bottled water that I have seen do not contain chlorine.

Nope, often time they use Ozone, which can cause significant lung problems in high enough concentrations. Now, Ozone is an unstable molecule and does quickly break down, so you're under no significant risk from any Ozone left in bottled water. But then, you're also not under any significant risk from tap water either.

There are methods for assuring the cleanliness of water besides the use of chemicals. Irradiating the water with intense UV light immediately prior to bottling comes to mind.

You're right, UV light is very effective at sterilizing water. Of course, once treated the water can serve as a growth medium for microorganisms, since the UV treatment doesn't provide any protection past the initial treatment.

The point is, despite all efforts to make our foot/water "safe", problems will occur. This can happen with both government-sourced tap water and privately produced bottled water. Concentrating only on issues like Walkerton (and slamming tap water over it) while ignoring similar risks inherent in other water sources gives a distorted view of reality.

I don't "concentrate" on issues like Walkerton.

You're right, you didn't. It was another poster who brought up Walkerton and claimed they don't trust tap water because of it. That's part of the reason why this thread got sidetracked into talking about water safety.

Anyway, getting back to the start of this exchange, my point was simply to highlight and refute the common mythology among opponents of bottled water that "it's just tap water with a fancy label in a plastic bottle". Like wyly's original statement that I quoted, which confidently asserted that bottled water is the "same tap water that the rest of us drink". This is completely and utterly false and so I felt the need to correct it.

While it may have been inaccurate to say all bottled water is tap water "with a label", consider that the 2 brands with the largest market share (Aquafina and Dasani) are both sourced from municipal water sources. I rather suspect that there are some drinkers of bottled water who haven't touched anything but processed bottled water.

While you can certainly buy some crap like that, like Dasani water for example, you can most certainly also buy real spring/glacier water like Evian, or cheaper brands like Arrowhead. Like with any product, it's worth doing a bit of research and knowing what you are buying.

Unfortunately people very rarely do the one type of research that is really necessary: A double blind study comparing tap with with bottled water.

[pfezziwig]

If fluoride is bad than what is chlorine doing to our bodies and yet they say they need there to kill bacteria and I wonder why they haven't they kept up with the tech world by using other methods. The PUC in our area used so much chlorine , that we have to run the water for 5 minutes to get the smell out and then one here drinkis the water, only bottled. http://www.best-water-filter-guide.com/chlorine-in-drinking-water.html

Chlorine is another legacy of ancient health care standards and reflects Canada's glacial pace of developing new standards of healthcare. UV treated and regular salt water pools are catching on, maybe next century Health Canada will figure that one out too, let's give them another 50 years to figure out the Chlorie issue first, don't want to strain their resources....