The Economics of Fluoridation

Print Friendly

I have questions about the economics of fluoridation.  http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/the-economics-of-fluoridation

 

If fluoridation stopped tomorrow, what would industry do with all the NaF and SiF it now sells to water district?

Is there another use for it? Is the price less for those other uses?

What would be the financial impact to the vendors?

What is the real economic effect of selling NaF and SiF as fluoridation materials?

Fluoridation materials represent what percentage of the chemical companies’ revenues and profits? What is the price the producers and resellers sell their souls for?

Has someone written on this subject?

***

Read this:

NSF tests fluoridation materials only rarely. On April 24, 2000, NSF responded to the State of Florida Department of Public Health[1] stated:

We have compiled test results for fluoride containing products that we bave tested and certified since 1992 (to 2000, an eight year period).There are 77 facilities that either produce or repackage fluoride containing treatment chemicals. . . These products (Hydrofluosilicic and Fluosilicic acid, Sodium Fluoride, and Sodium Silicofluoride) have been tested more than 100 times in our laboratories.

[1] http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/nsf-hazan-letter-to-mendez-april-4-2000-nsf-fact-sheet-fluoride-2000-corrected-version1.pdf

Complete this paragraph:

Let’s do a little math, as Dr. Bill Osmunson suggests in his article on batch testing[1]. Assuming generously that the “more than 100 times” is 200 tests done over an eight year period, there would be an average of only 25 tests per year done nationwide. Given that there are 77 facilities, there would be an average of .32 tests per year done at each facility, or around one test every three years at each facility. Assuming that each of the 77 facilities ships 200 batch tanker loads per year, the likelihood of any one batch being tested would be .32/200 = .00162 = .162%. Thus the likelihood that any tanker load arriving at Seattle or Everett is tested is the inverse of .162%, that is around one in every 617.

Around 180,000 residents of the US drink fluoridated water. The cost of fluoridation materials is $_______ per ton for fluorosilicic acid.

The approximate amount of fluorosilicic acid required to fluoridate water per million people per year is ________ gallons or tons.

The amount spent yearly to purchase fluoridation materials is around $_____________.

(Sources needed, please.)

***

From Aliss:

Hi James,

The research I’ve done indicates that the silicofluorides can be stored indefinitely in huge gypsum stacks. These can be seen on the satellite maps. They don’t have to be turned into bricks and isolated (not like nuclear waste). But selling the stuff for fluoridation does seem to subsidize factory farming practices and cheap toxic food. However, no one gets overtly rich from this, really. Not farmers anyway. Cargill, and ADM and Dean Foods etc. – they get rich from controlling the food supply, and making some profit off the HFSA is one way they can undercut the price of sustainably grown food and control various futures and commodities prices.

I don’t think separating the silica is such a problem – they just add water and the stuff dissociates when it gets to a certain dilution and pH. If water fluoridation ended I honestly think there would be an economic stimulus to find a better way of handling the silicon tetrafluoride gas that is formed from the processing of the raw phosphate ore. But most of Florida’s easy phosphate mining is finished – the deposits are depleted – and there is mounting pressure to produce fertilizers without draining the porous limestone (causes sinkholes and is drying up the Everglades) or the use of natural gas, and that will certainly change the manufacturing process. There is also the inescapable fact that the so called “green revolution” using NPK chemical fertilizers has destroyed topsoil all over the planet on a massive scale, produced resistant weeds and pests, and agricultural yields have plummeted steadily. Supposedly it takes about five years to rehab the organic matter in the topsoil of an acre of chemically fertilized land. The world’s hungry can’t wait for that.

I have been part of a citizen movement to force the Canadian government to develop a national sustainable food production policy that includes preservation and improvement of agricultural lands and watershed protection. These asshole politicians seem to think we will always be able to buy food from the US so what’s the problem with not maintaining our own food production resources.

Aliss

***

From Bill:

Pesticides, teflon, medications, polish, lubricants, nuclear refinement, etc.

But they would have  too much left over.

Bill

2 thoughts on “The Economics of Fluoridation

  1. Pingback: Sham | FLUORIDE, LEAD, ARSENIC, AND MORE IN OUR WATER

  2. Jim

    The gypsum stacks can only hold 2-3 billion gallons of this toxic waste in the ponds on top. then another billion or so saturated in the stack itself. They must be maintained and when a company goes belly up to state must carry the cost. One stack in Tampa years ago sunk into a sinkhole and our groundwater. Opps. Also during the 2004 hurricanes some of the ponds were ready to overflow so ship loads of toxic waste were taken into the gulf and dumped.
    They want in the worst way to use this radioactive waste for road bed as it is just small chunks of rock but radioactive. But then they used to recover uranium from the phosphoric acid but that stopped over 10 years ago when the last plant closed in Lake Wales Fl. Mosaic had mentioned about 5 years ago they wanted to open a new uranium recovery plant in Plant City for 200 million. That was when production and prices were at record highs so it seems dead now. Share price, material price and uranium prices have all fallen.
    The agencies have lied so long they just feel they must keep on lying to protect themselves from looking like fools and screw ups by a official admission. They surely are. About the same for most dentists as the majority are truely clueless and flat even refuse to read the data. They are too superior in their beliefs as the experts. And the ADA tells them to promote fluoridation blindly and avoid reading the science. Just read the talking points and share their beliefs from experience. Less cavities in the rich kids they see.
    Then claim if poor kids just had more fluoride they would have better teeth too. Some lousey safety net for the poor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 × 4 =