|
Toronto Bans Bottled Water Sales
|
View this Thread in Original format
| culorut |
Toronto Bans Bottled Water Sales, but Junk Sodas Remain Legal
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say. And to prove it, the city of Toronto has decided to outlaw the sale of bottled water in all municipal buildings, including local arenas.
But rather than being an example of smart, progressive action to protect the environment, this decision is actually just a timely example of the tyranny of good intentions. Here's why:
For starters, the decision was made by city leaders who say their TAP WATER is what people should be drinking, not bottled water. Oh really? Did these people bother to educate themselves about chlorine or fluoride chemicals? Without question, the tap water in Toronto has far greater toxicity than bottled water, even considering the Bisphenol-A effect.
But that's a debatable issue. Here's something that's not debatable: While banning bottled water, the city of Toronto did NOT ban diet soda and soft drink beverages.
Huh? So now selling water is illegal, but selling carbonated SUGAR water is perfectly legal?
Gee, the soda companies must be laughing their heads off on this one. They were trying to muscle out bottled water for years (before they came up with their own water brands), and now it turns out the goofs at City Hall are doing it for them!
Whatever happened to the idea of giving citizens healthy choices in beverages? Toronto, in all its short-sighted wisdom, has now granted the soda companies a virtual monopoly on beverages sold at the local arenas. With no bottled water available, what do they think people are going to drink instead? Soda, of course. Loaded with phosphoric acid (causes osteoporosis), high-fructose corn syrup (diabetes) and maybe even aspartame (neurological disorders).
Welcome to the Toronto municipal arena. Please enjoy the show if you haven't yet gone blind from drinking diet soda.
I know I'm going to get hate mail for this, but it deserves to be said: Some of the people serving on city councils are the dumbest human beings walking this earth. I know this because I've argued with these people over issues like fluoridation, and I can tell you that, at least in my experience, the kind of people who end up on many city council boards are so intellectually challenged that I've often wondered if they all take the short bus to the meetings. (No insult meant to those taking the short bus. It's less bumpy, anyway.) My apologies to the smart minority who reside on these boards, but you'll no doubt agree with me that the people sitting next to you need a little intellectual remediation, right?
I haven't met the Toronto council members, so I can't say if they're thoughtful but short-sighted, or just plain stupid. But I suspect a majority are just plain stupid, and they managed to overrule the thoughtful ones who were asking things like, "Well, gee, why are we denying people the ability to buy water at public events?"
If the BOTTLE is the problem, then they should have banned ALL bottles, not the water inside the bottles!
Water = Illegal; Sugar Water = Legal
Okay, okay, okay... so let me get this straight:
If I sell a bottle with water in it, I'm a criminal.
But if I add 16 teaspoons of sugar in the water, suddenly that's legal!
And if I add dangerous chemical sweeteners, phosphoric acid that rots away kids' teeth, and any number of chemical additives, then that's all perfectly fine with the Toronto city council!
Ok, so now I get it.
Water = bad
Sugar water = good
Thanks, Toronto, for clarifying that.
Maybe instead of banning plastic bottles, Toronto should ban stupidity from the city council!
Ban the soda cans, too, while you're at it, and save the world from excessive aluminum trash. I agree that throwaway beverage containers are a huge problem, and Toronto is usually an intelligent city that thinks ahead, but in this case they've demonstrated why liberal tyranny can be just as threatening to your freedoms as conservative tyranny.
Yes, my own government in America may be tapping my phone lines, reading my email and X-raying my UPS packages, but at least I can still buy a bottle of water here! Sure, it's probably contaminated with Bisphenol-A and made from nothing but filtered tap water, but at least it's filtered! Toronto citizens now have to drink from the tap, like house pets.
So the citizens of Toronto are now being offered the same quality of water that their dogs get when drinking from the toilet bowl.
How wonderful. Can I have a lemon with that, please?
Click to read:
Toronto Bans Bottled Water Sales, but Junk Sodas Remain Legal
From Thestar.com: Mayor David Miller also defended the city's moves to push bottled water out of its own facilities, arguing that the city produces its own high quality water. "I don't believe as Canada's largest purveyor of tap water we should be selling water in our facilities," he said....
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/547375 |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| the new dogma. feel the sensation! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
For starters, the decision was made by city leaders who say their TAP WATER is what people should be drinking, not bottled water. Oh really? Did these people bother to educate themselves about chlorine or fluoride chemicals? Without question, the tap water in Toronto has far greater toxicity than bottled water, even considering the Bisphenol-A effect. |
let me guess, you subscribe to that ancient conspiracy theory, that adding fluoride to the water supply is a means of mind control? :haha: |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
let me guess, you subscribe to that ancient conspiracy theory, that adding fluoride to the water supply is a means of mind control? :haha: |
Easy there, PKC, let's not turn this into something it isn't. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Easy there, PKC, let's not turn this into something it isn't. |
ok, maybe not mind control. but why mention fluroide at all if its not another kooky bunch of BS? fluoride has a demonstrable benefit to our health at tiny amounts (ie the amounts found in tap water) so what exactly is the article trying to say? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Think Progressive! :rolleyes:
/Toronto chooses the lasy ass way of setting an example for all recycling everywhere...
//Don't even get me started on HAVING to pay for a recycling bin and garbage bin for my house distributed by the same yahoos in city hall.... |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
ok, maybe not mind control. but why mention fluroide at all if its not another kooky bunch of BS? fluoride has a demonstrable benefit to our health at tiny amounts (ie the amounts found in tap water) so what exactly is the article trying to say? |
Dental grade fluoride when applied to the teeth, not consumed has a slight benefit to your teeth. However, sodium fluoride is a different story altogether, and yes, sodium fluoride is what is commonly found in our drinking water. My city just removed it from the water supply, because it's ing horrible for you. :wtf:
MSDS Information
1. Product Identification
Synonyms: Floridine; sodium monofluoride; disodium difluoride; natrium fluoride; Florocid
CAS No.: 7681-49-4
Molecular Weight: 41.99
Chemical Formula: NaF
Product Codes:
J.T. Baker: 3687, 3688, 3689
Mallinckrodt: 0467, 5309, 5325, 7636
2. Composition/Information on Ingredients
Ingredient CAS No Percent Hazardous
--------------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------
Sodium Fluoride 7681-49-4 100% Yes
3. Hazards Identification
Emergency Overview
--------------------------
DANGER! MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED OR INHALED. AFFECTS RESPIRATORY SYSTEM, HEART, SKELETON, CIRCULATORY SYSTEM, CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AND KIDNEYS. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. IRRITATION EFFECTS MAY BE DELAYED. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Dental grade fluoride when applied to the teeth, not consumed has a slight benefit to your teeth. However, sodium fluoride is a different story altogether, and yes, sodium fluoride is what is commonly found in our drinking water. My city just removed it from the water supply, because it's ing horrible for you. :wtf:
MSDS Information
1. Product Identification
Synonyms: Floridine; sodium monofluoride; disodium difluoride; natrium fluoride; Florocid
CAS No.: 7681-49-4
Molecular Weight: 41.99
Chemical Formula: NaF
Product Codes:
J.T. Baker: 3687, 3688, 3689
Mallinckrodt: 0467, 5309, 5325, 7636
2. Composition/Information on Ingredients
Ingredient CAS No Percent Hazardous
--------------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------
Sodium Fluoride 7681-49-4 100% Yes
3. Hazards Identification
Emergency Overview
--------------------------
DANGER! MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED OR INHALED. AFFECTS RESPIRATORY SYSTEM, HEART, SKELETON, CIRCULATORY SYSTEM, CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AND KIDNEYS. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. IRRITATION EFFECTS MAY BE DELAYED. |
there are plenty of substances that might prove fatal if swallowed or inhaled if the dose is high enough. the whole anti-fluoride campaign is nothing but nonsense junk science. when one consumes fluoride, unless you're consuming it through your ass it comes into contact with your teeth ;)
there hasn't been a single reputable study that indicates the tiny levels of fluoride added to water is hazardous to your health, but there's been plenty that shows it is beneficial to your fangs. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
ABSTRACT
The efficacy of communal water fluoridation in reducing dental caries has been reviewed based on surveys conducted in the last decade of caries prevalence in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities in the United States as well as in Australia, Britain, Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand. The efficacy is greatest for the deciduous dentition, with a range of 30–60 percent less caries in fluoridated communities. In the mixed dentition (ages 8 to 12), the efficacy is more variable, about 20–40 percent less caries. In adolescents (ages 14–17), it is about 15–35 percent less caries. Current data on caries prevalence in adults and seniors are extremely limited and include several populations living in communities with higher than optimal fluoride levels. For these adults and seniors, a range of 15–35 percent less caries would also apply. Viewed in toto, the current data for children, adolescents, adults and seniors show a consistently and substantially lower caries prevalence in fluoridated communities. For an accurate measurement of the efficacy of water fluoridation in reducing dental caries, it is essential that only persons with a record of continuous or long-term residency in fluoridated versus nonfluoridated areas be included in such assessments. Because of the high geographic mobility in our society and the widespread use of fluoride dentifrices, supplements, and other topical fluoride agents, such comparisons are becoming more difficult to conduct. Accordingly, the effectiveness (rather than the efficacy) of water fluoridation has decreased as the benefits of other forms of fluoride have spread to communities lacking optimal water fluoridation. |
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/...ETRY=1&SRETRY=0 |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
there are plenty of substances that might prove fatal if swallowed or inhaled if the dose is high enough. the whole anti-fluoride campaign is nothing but nonsense junk science. when one consumes fluoride, unless you're consuming it through your ass it comes into contact with your teeth ;)
|
There is brief contact with your teeth, indeed. However, when you receive fluoride treatment at a dentist's office, it is administered very carefully, and under supervision, and you most certainly don't swallow it. ;)
| quote: |
there hasn't been a single reputable study that indicates the tiny levels of fluoride added to water is hazardous to your health, but there's been plenty that shows it is beneficial to your fangs. |
The initial p.p.m value in the 60s was around 20ppm. Before removing it from the [London's] water supply, Health Canada suggested the level be around 0.7ppm or less, if my memory serves me correctly. Incidentally, there have been quite a few studies and its effects. Moreover, there have been no conclusive studies on the effectiveness of fluoride. Toronto, a fluoridated city, has a higher tooth decay rate than Vancouver, which has never administered the waste product to their water supply.
http://www.fluoridation.com/brain.htm < a good overlook on most or quite a few studies, many references.
http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/cgi...tract/126/3/713 It also makes a great rat poison.
| quote: |
Sodium fluoride is a white, crystalline, water-solublepowder used in municipal water fluoridation systems, in various dentalproducts, and in a variety of industrial applications. Toxicology andcarcinogenesis studies were conducted with F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice ofeachsex by incorporating sodium fluoride into the drinking water in studies lasting14 days, 6 months, and 2 years. In addition, genetic toxicology studies wereperformed with Salmonella typhimurium, with mouse L5178Y cells, andwithChinese hamster ovary cells.
14-DayStudies:
Rats and mice received sodium fluoride in drinking water atconcentrations as high as 800 ppm. (Concentrations are expressed as sodiumfluoride; fluoride ion is 45% of the sodium salt by weight.) In the high-dosegroups, 5/5 male and 5/5 female rats and 2/5 male mice died; one female ratwasgiven 400 ppm in the drinking water also died before the end of the studies.No gross lesions were attributed to sodium fluoride administration.
6-MonthStudies:
Rats received concentrations of sodium fluoride in drinking water ashigh as 300 ppm, and mice as high as 600 ppm. No rats died during thestudies;however, among the mice, 4/9 high-dosemales, 9/11 high-dosefemales, and 1/8 males in the 300 ppm group died before the end of thestudies.Weight gains were less than those of controls for rats receiving 300 ppm andmice receiving 200 to 600 ppm.
The teeth of rats and mice receiving the higher doses of sodium fluoride werechalky white and chipped or showed unusual wear patterns. Mice and maleratsgiven the higher concentrations had microscopic focal degeneration of theenamel organ. Rats receiving 100 or 300 ppm sodium fluoride had minimalhyperplasia of the gastric mucosa of the stomach, and one high-doserat of each sex had an ulcer. Acute nephrosis and/or lesions in the liver andmyocardium were observed in mice that died early, and minimal alterations inbone growth/remodeling were observed in the long bones of mice receivingsodiumfluoride at concentrations of 50 to 600 ppm.
The sodium fluoride concentrations selected for the 2-yearstudies in both rats and mice were 0, 25, 100, and 175 ppm in the drinkingwater. These concentrations were selected based on the decreased weightgainof rats at 300 ppm and of mice at 200 ppm and above, on the incidence ofgastric lesions in rats at 300 ppm in the 6-monthstudies, and on the absence of significant toxic effects at sodiumfluoride concentrations as high as 100 ppm in an earlier 2-yearstudy.
Body Weights and Survival in the 2-YearStudies:
Mean body weights of dosed and control groups of rats and miceweresimilar throughout the 2-yearstudies. Survival of rats and mice was not affected by sodium fluorideadministration. Survival rates after 2 years were: male rats-control, 42/80;25 ppm, 25/51; 100 ppm, 23/50; 175 ppm, 42/80; female rats-59/80;31/50; 34/50; 54/81; male mice-58/79; 39/50; 37/51; 65/80; female mice-53/80;38/52; 34/50; 52/80.
Neoplastic and Nonneoplastic Effects in the 2-YearStudies:
The teeth of rats and mice has a dose-dependentwhitish discoloration, and male rats had an increased incidence of toothdeformities and attrition leading on occasion to malocclusion. The teeth ofmale and, to a lesser degree, female rats had areas of microscopic dentinedysplasia and degeneration of ameloblasts. Dentine dysplasia occurred inbothdosed and control groups of male and female mice; the incidence of this lesionwas significantly greater in high-dosethan in control male mice. Osteosclerosis of long bones was increased infemale rats given drinking water containing 175 ppm sodium fluoride. Noothersignificant nonneoplastic lesions in rats or mice appeared related to sodiumfluoride administration.
Osteosarcomas of bone were observed in 1/50 male rats in the 100 ppmgroup andin 3/80 male rats in the 175 ppm group. None were seen in the control or 25ppm dose groups. One other 175 ppm male rat had an extraskeletalosteosarcomaarising in the subcutaneous tissue. Osteosarcomas occur in historical controlmale rats at an incidence of 0.5% (range 0-6%). The historical incidence is not directly comparable with the incidencesobserved in this study because examination of bone was morecomprehensive inthe sodium fluoride studies than in previous NTP studies of other chemicals,and the diet used in previous studies was not controlled for fluoride content.In the current study, although the pairwise comparison of the incidence in the175 ppm group versus that in the controls was not statistically significant,osteosarcomas occurred with a statistically significant dose-responsetrend, leading to the conclusion that a weak association may exist between theoccurrence of these neoplasms and the administration of sodium fluoride. Noother neoplastic lesions in rats or mice were considered possibly related tochemical administration.
Genetic Toxicology:
Sodium fluoride was negative for gene mutationinductionin Salmonella typhimurium strains TA100, TA1535, TA1537, and TA98withand without S9. In two laboratories, sodium fluoride was tested for inductionof trifluorothymidine resistance in mouse L5178Y lymphoma cells; resultswerepositive both with and without S9. Sodium fluoride was tested for cytogeneticeffects in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells in two laboratories. In the firstlaboratory, the sister chromatid exchange (SCE) test was negative with andwithout S9, and the chromosomal aberration (Abs) test was positive in theabsence of S9; in the second laboratory, the SCE test was positive with andwithout S9, but no induction of Abs was observed. The laboratory thatreporteda negative result for Abs tested at doses below that shown to be positive atthe other laboratory. Similarly, the positive SCE result was obtained at ahigher dose and longer harvest time than used by the laboratory reporting thenegative SCE response.
Conclusions:
Under the conditions of these 2-yeardosed water studies, there was equivocal evidence of carcinogenicactivity of sodium fluoride in male F344/N rats, based on the occurrence ofa small number of osteosarcomas in dosed animals. "Equivocal evidence" is acategory for uncertain findings defined as studies that are interpreted asshowing a marginal increase of neoplasms that may be related to chemicaladministration. There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity infemale F344/N rats receiving sodium fluoride at concentrations of 25, 100, or175 ppm (11, 45, or 79 ppm fluoride) in drinking water for 2 years. There wasno evidence of carcinogenic activity of sodium fluoride in male orfemale mice receiving sodium fluoride at concentrations of 25, 100, or 175ppmin drinking water for 2 years.
Dosed rats had lesions typical of fluorosis of the teeth and female ratsreceiving drinking water containing 175 ppm sodium fluoride had increasedosteosclerosis of long bones. |
|
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
There is brief contact with your teeth, indeed. However, when you receive fluoride treatment at a dentist's office, it is administered very carefully, and under supervision, and you most certainly don't swallow it. ;)
The initial p.p.m value in the 60s was around 20ppm. Before removing it from the [London's] water supply, Health Canada suggested the level be around 0.7ppm or less, if my memory serves me correctly. Incidentally, there have been quite a few studies and its effects. Moreover, there have been no conclusive studies on the effectiveness of fluoride. Toronto, a fluoridated city, has a higher tooth decay rate than Vancouver, which has never administered the waste product to their water supply.
http://www.fluoridation.com/brain.htm < a good overlook on most or quite a few studies, many references.
http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/cgi...tract/126/3/713 It also makes a great rat poison. |
And on comes the statistics! in their purest bastardized form.....
I would hazard an educated guess (this is a hypothesis) that toronto has a much larger population of un-insured, new imigrant residents who cant afford dental care. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
there are plenty of substances that might prove fatal if swallowed or inhaled if the dose is high enough. |
Including non-fluorinated water. OH ... it's a conspiracy! |
|
|
|
|
