Demonstration of Contaminants and Fluoride in Melbourne, Victoria Water SupplyRyan Smyth, Contributor First, though, Id like to start with a little introductory video. Its about 8 minutes long, but goes over a few things that Ill get into greater detail on below. So, the first obvious problem is that the water coming out of the tap is horribly contaminated with obvious sediment, dirt, and other crap. You can clearly see in the video that the compressed carbon block filter is initially almost completely clogged up as the water flow takes an exceedingly long time to fill the glass.When the filter is removed from the casing, and I scrub it, you can see the normal white colour of the filter compared to the brown/dark-beige colour of the filter due to the contaminants in the water.If thats not damning, I dont know what is. In order for the filter to get that dirty takes about 3-4 weeks. So, every few weeks, I have to clean the filter like just like you see there in the video.But the horrors of the water in Melbourne only begin there. The tap water tastes gritty, but the flavour of the water is very far from just being due to dirt. Simple filtering with only a carbon block filter will only remove large contaminants, such as particulate matter or dirt. It does not remove smaller contaminants, such as fluoride. Now, Ive talked a lot about fluoride as a toxin, and would like to explain a bit more about that for those that are not familiar. Ill include references where I remember, and a quick note where I dont. Melbourne Water is Fluoridated and Toxic The Melbourne Water Company poisons the water supply with fluoride in accordance with the Health (Fluoridation) Act 1973 (source).This requirement is supported by state and federal health authorities, the Australian Dental Association, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the World Health Organization. First off, who supports it is almost irrelevant. The question is whether it is safe or not. The Nazis supported killing Jews. Just because someone supports something, doesnt make it a good thing. That the criminal World Health Organization supports water fluoridation should be clue enough to figure out that something is deeply wrong here. But lets dig down into the Fluoridation Act and find out a bit more (cue sinister laughter ~ Muahahahaha~!) From section 2, Definitions, in Health (Fluoridation) Act 1973, we read: fluoride includes any compound of fluorine; That literally means that any compound that contains a fluorine molecule may be considered as fluoride. An example of a fluorine compound is sarin gas. Sarin, or GB, is an organophosphorus compound with the formula [(CH3)2CHO]CH3P(O)F. It is a colorless, odorless liquid, used as a chemical weapon owing to its extreme potency as a nerve agent. It has been classified as a weapon of mass destruction in UN Resolution 687. Production and stockpiling of sarin was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 where it is classified as a Schedule 1 substance. So the Act allows for the addition of chemical weapons to the water supply. Theres no debate there. Its clearly stated in the definitions section of the Act. Section 4 of the Act forbids anyone from seeking damages against the criminals and their thugs that are responsible for poisoning the water supply. Heres the complete section as it is referred to later on in the act as well. (Yes, it gets worse.) Health (Fluoridation) Act 1973 SECT 4 Protection from rights of action 4. Protection from rights of action No person has any right of action against- (a) a water supply authority; or (b) a member of a water supply authority; or (c) a person acting under the direction of a water supply authority; or (d) a person acting on behalf of a water supply authority under a contractmade between that authority and the person in respect of anything done in regard to the fluoridation of a public watersupply in accordance with the provisions of this Act. That literally means that even if they add chemical weapons (that contain fluorine) to the water supply, nobody can sue them or charge them with a criminal act. They are immune from any kind of prosecution. Just what part of the Rule of Law was unclear? This act places people above the law, as paradoxical as that sounds. But ask yourself, why would they need protection if fluoride is safe? The obvious conclusion is that fluoride is not safe, and that most likely it is harmful. There is no reason to need protection otherwise. This indicates that the people who wrote the Act knew full well that fluoride is indeed a neurotoxin, and harmful to people. But the insanity doesnt stop there. Section 12 and 13 of the Act prohibit the Supreme Court of Australia from striking down section 4. Health (Fluoridation) Act 1973 SECT 12 Supreme Court-limitation of jurisdiction 12. Supreme Court-limitation of jurisdiction It is the intention of this section to alter or vary section 85 of theConstitution Act 1975 to the extent necessary to prevent the Supreme Courtfrom entertaining an action of the kind referred to in section 4. Section 12 of the Act not merely prohibits the Supreme Court from taking punitive action against the thugs responsible for poisoning the people of Australia, but it also alters the Constitution! Section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 is Powers and Jurisdiction of the Court. But it doesnt end there. Section 13 further amends the Constitution to allow for the legal poisoning of people. Health (Fluoridation) Act 1973 SECT 13 Supreme Court-limitation of jurisdiction 13. Supreme Court-limitation of jurisdiction It is the intention of section 4, as it applies with respect to water supplyauthorities within the meaning given to that term by this Act as amended bysection 43 of the Water Acts (Further Amendment) Act 1997, to alter or varysection 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. The language is clear. It is the intention of section 4 to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. So there is no legal recourse for the harm caused by poisoning the water supply. These laws are utterly insane. But perhaps you are wondering about that section 43 stuff You can find that here (PDF); it updates water supply authority in the definitions section of the Health (Fluoridation) Act 1973 from: water supply authority means- (a) the holder of a water licence, water and sewerage licence or waterheadworks licence issued under Division 1 of Part 2 of theWater Industry Act 1994; or (b) an Authority within the meaning of the Water Act 1989 that has a waterdistrict; or (c) a council performing water supply functions under theLocal Government Act 1989; or (d) Melbourne Water Corporation. To: water supply authority means a) the holder of a water licence,water and sewerage licence orwater headworks licence issuedunder Division 1 of Part 2 of theWater Industry Act 1994; or (b) an Authority within the meaningof the Water Act 1989 that has awater district; or (c) a council performing watersupply functions under the LocalGovernment Act 1989; or (d) Melbourne Water Corporation. But thats enough of the legislation. The key points are: At this point you may be wondering if fluoride really is toxic. If you watched the video, then you heard me talk about how it was used by the Nazis and how it is an industrial waste by-product of aluminum and uranium refining. Is that enough of a clue as to whether or not it is toxic? But if you really want to push further and find out for yourself, I recommend you visit the Fluoride Action Network. Heres a link to information on toxicity:http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/acute.html Perhaps later Ill get back to posting a bit on fluoride toxicity and the origins of the fluoride is good for your teeth myth. Ryan Smyth is a Canadian expat currently living in Australia. He works in software, but is passionate about many current issues and the impending demise of freedom and privacy. He can be found blathering on (and sometimes ranting) at his blog, Cynic.me. linkwithin_text=Related Articles: 