Other than the harmful effects described by countless health professionals and agencies explained elsewhere on this website, I was curious about what Grand Rapids is paying to add this poison to our water supply. And if the word poison seems harsh, it’s the one component, and at the very root of this controversy, that everyone has to agree on. Please refer to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), complete with skull and crossbones, if that’s still a question in your mind.
But first, I called Key Chemical, the manufacturer of the hydrofluorosilicic acid that’s put into the Grand Rapids water supply, and asked for some information on the chemical they sell to us. I was informed they cannot provide that information directly to anyone but a customer. I explained that I am a customer, their product is being put into my water supply, I’d like to know exactly what’s in it, how it’s manufactured, and its country of origin. Apparently a customer buys the product directly from the manufacturer and will be putting it into a water supply, so by that terminology I am not a customer, and therefore they would not provide any information regarding their product. I was told to contact the CDC, they would provide all the information I requested.
Called the CDC, explained the above. I was told they have no such information directly from the company, but rely on other government agencies for any information regarding hydrofluorosilicic acid. I was told no one at CDC could call the company and ask for the data, so it appears I’m getting the runaround and will probably never obtain the information I requested. So I guess we, the citizens of Grand Rapids, will just have to assume the stuff is a waste byproduct of either the fertilizer or aluminum industry, hopefully contains no lead, mercury, arsenic or radioactive particles, and wasn’t manufactured in China. See http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-acid-origins/ which explains the hydrofluorosilicic acid process in detail. I’d much rather know than assume what’s in ours, but that may not be possible.
Through a different source, I was able to obtain information on how much Grand Rapids spends on hydrofluorosilicic acid. The average annual cost for the years 2008 through 2014 was $98,797.57, for a total cost of $691,583.01.
That is the visible amount paid by the taxpayers to put the substance in. But there is a hidden cost for the many that don’t want to ingest fluoride and have taken measures to take the substance out. I recently spoke before a health oriented group, and they either already knew or quickly understood the problem. The main topic of the Q & A was: what’s the best way to remove it from our water? So let’s head into the hypothetical. According to census data (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2634000.html), there were 72,760 households in Grand Rapids in 2013. Some surrounding localities also use the Grand Rapids water supply, let’s estimate this puts the total households at around 100,000. Let’s assume just 5% of these households are concerned enough about this problem to get filters to take the fluoride out. Let’s assume that each spends a non-recurring $300 to buy a complete filter system, and set the annual recurring cost of filter replacement at $100. Using simple math, that would put the annual non-recurring cost for complete systems at approximately $215,000, and the annual recurring cost for replacement filters at $500,000. So for seven years, that’s $1,500,000 total initial outlay, with $3,500,000 total spent for filter replacement. That’s another $5,000,000 spent regarding fluoride, this time not to put it in, but to take it out. An unintended consequence of a decision made by city leaders 70 years ago still causing ripples today.
When the issue is fluoridation of a public water supply, we are talking about forcibly medicating the general population in an unregulated manner. But there is something called informed consent. If you are informed, and you don’t want to give your consent, and want to drink city water, you are left with only one alternative, and it’s a costly one. Would the people spending money to remove fluoride be happier to spend that money on something else, something they are not being forced to spend it on due to a government action which ignores and overrides their informed consent?
As regards fluoridation of the city water, I want to be mayor of Grand Rapids starting in 2016, and not be a part of a government mentally living in 1945.