Anthony Gucciardi
Prisonplanet.com / ShatterLimits.com
August 6, 2010

Water fluoridation has come to refer to the addition of over 40 chemicals into the water supply that synergistically come together to wreak havoc on the body and its processes. Paul Joseph Watson and Matt Ryan recently came together to expose what water fluoridation really amounts to: disease. Scientists and doctors around the world are speaking out against water fluoridation, and its effects on the human body.
Real or perceived danger?

If water fluoridation truly is a killer, then why is it still being added to the water supply? The truth is that only about 5% of the world is current fluoridated. Of the 5% that is fluoridated, 50% of them reside in the United States. Other countries have rejected fluoridation due to a wide variety of health concerns, with one primary factor being thyroid damage.

Studies have shown many times over that fluoride really does pose a threat to the body. Even if there were only a few studies proving that fluoride is harmful, then the government should act to protect the people. If the government felt that the studies were conducted improperly, then an independent investigation should be funded. There really is no excuse for not examining the issue further. Supporters of fluoridation would most likely argue that there is no necessity to investigate fluoridation further, and that there is no implication that  fluoride is unsafe for general consumption.

This argument would be somewhat effective if there were not so many studies highlighting the harmful effects of fluoride. In addition to the studies, officials from around the globe have been calling for an end to fluoridation since its inception. The Department of Health in New Jersey found that areas with fluoridated water had between two and seven times higher bone cancer rates than communities that were not fluoridated. In another famous study, neurotoxicologist and former Director of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix found that even moderate levels of fluoride exposure led to varying degrees of brain damage. The damage was caused due to fluoride building up in the brain.

What is more shocking is that even the offspring of the studied animals were affected. While the doses were relatively low, the animals experienced permanent effects to the brain that were similar to ADD symptoms. Other studies throughout the past 50 years have linked fluoride to osteoarthritis, inhibited thyroid function, decreased sperm count, cancer, decreased strength, and much more. One of the most recent studies found that  fluoride may not help teeth at all .

The flagship of chemical pollution

Fluoride is not the only thing in your water. Cocaine was recently  found in the drinking water , along with various hormones. Unfortunately, traces of cocaine may be the least of your worries. Other toxic pollutants are often found in the drinking water across the United States. Even if you do not drink tap water directly, it can also be in many products such as soda or beer. Foods absorb water as well, and your food may be absorbing these pollutants. One of the best options to prevent against exposure to these chemicals is to purchase a high quality water filter, or get your water from a pure source such as a spring. Other pollutants typically found in the drinking water:

• Lead , which can enter the water supply through corrosive pipes or improper water treatment
• Pathogens  that cause disease and are especially crippling to those with weakened immune systems
• By-products of chlorine treatment such as  trihalomethanes  and  haloacetic acids , which have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems
• Arsenic , which may cause cancer, serious skin problems, birth defects and reproductive problems
• Radon , a carcinogen linked to lung cancer

It is important to remember that these pollutants can also be absorbed or inhaled by the body during showering. A high quality shower filter is a necessity for everyone who does not have a house-wide filtration system. Protecting yourself from toxic tap water is very important, but it is vital that the citizens of the world correct the problem the correct way. It is time that water fluoridation comes to an end worldwide. With many nations leading the way in the war against water fluoridation, the proper momentum has been generated. Tell everyone you know about the toxic effects of water fluoridation, and allow them to research the facts for themselves. Through peaceful and intelligent means, water fluoridation can easily be stopped.
Sources:

1. Cohn PD , A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males, NJ Depart. of Health, Environ. Health Service, 1992, 1- 17
2. Cheng YX, IQ of children in areas of high fluorine content,  Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases,  Supplement 1991.
3. J Epidemiol (CL8), 1996 Dec; 6 (4): 184-91
4. Chrischilles E, Shireman T, Wallace R. Costs and health effects of osteoporotic fractures. Bone 1994;15:377-386.
5. Dambacher MA, Ittner J, Ruegsegger P. Long-term fluoride therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Bone 1986;7:199-205.
6. Riggs BL, Hodson SF, O’Fallon WM, et al. Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. NEJM 1990;322:802-809.
7. Kleerkoper ME, Peterson E, Phillips E, et al. Continuous sodium fluoride therapy does not reduce vertebral fracture rate in postmenopausal osteoporosis (abstract) J Bone Miner Res 1989; Res 4 [Suppl]:S376.
8. Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC. Increased incidence of hip fracture in osteoporotic women treated with sodium fluoride. J Bone Miner Res 1989;4:223-225.
9. Avioli LV. Fluoride treatment of osteoporosis. Postgrad Med: a special report, 14 Sept 1987:26-27.

Source: PrisonPlanet.com

HUBER HEIGHTS — A group of 2010 Wayne High School graduates are calling on city council to help their efforts of getting fluoride removed from the city’s drinking water as a matter of public safety.

“We were shocked to see there was a substantial amount of fluoride in the water supply,” said Chase Warden, 18, speaking at Monday’s city council meeting. “Fluoride is a very toxic substance.”

Warden and a group of his friends said their research of independent sources found that the benefits of fluoride are outweighed by the risks, which include fluorosis, a dental condition characterized by cracking, mottling and pitting of the teeth.

The teenagers cited the city’s 2009 Annual Water Quality Report as proof of there being dangerous levels of fluoride in Huber Heights’ drinking water.

The report indicates the city’s drinking water contains between 0.82 to 1.14 milligrams per liter of fluoride.

But according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drinking water is safe as long as it does not reach the maximum contaminant level of 4 grams per litre.

The CDC estimates about 70 percent of U.S. residents who have public water systems receive fluoridated water. The agency said fluoridating public water was one of the 10 greatest public health interventions in the U.S. in the 20th century because of the dramatic decline in tooth decay it helped facilitate.

Jen House, spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Health, said more than 60 years of research shows that fluoridating drinking water is safe and highly beneficial to oral health.

“We certainly believe fluoridation is the single most important step a community can take to improve the dental health of their residents,” House said.

Huber Heights has added fluoride to its drinking water since 1969, when the state passed a law requiring cities with more than 5,000 people to fluoridate their drinking water. It would take an act of the legislature to change the law.

Alexandria Turpin, 18, said her group is seeking exactly that: They want the city’s endorsement before they lobby state officials to change the law.

Turpin said the group expects to meet with council members in August to argue their case against fluoride. She said the chemical can cause bone cancer and other diseases.

Source: Dayton Daily News

Editor’s Note: Everything documented in this detailed article correlates with the ongoing eugenics operations of the Scientific Dictatorship already underway. Humanity is under chemical, biological and psychological attack. Please check out this essential research and share the information with everyone you know. – Alex Jones

Aaron Dykes
Prison Planet.com
August 1, 2010

In a 2008 paper titled, “Fluoride and the Future: Population Level Cognitive Enhancement,” Oxford bioethics professor Julian Savulescu claims that water fluoridation may be key to the “future of humanity.” He argues that “fluoridation may not merely be about tooth decay… [but] the drive to be better.”

Drugging the population’s water supply, Savulescu claims, is a form of “enhancement” that can pave the way to a future where mental abilities and other functions could be improved with drugs. Savulescu writes:

“Fluoridation is the tip of the enhancement iceberg. Science is progressing fast to develop safe and effective cognitive enhancers, drugs which will improve our mental abilities. For years, people have used crude enhancers, usually to promote wakefulness, like nicotine, caffeine and amphetamines. A new generation of more effective enhancers is emerging modafenil, ritalin, Adderral and ampakines and the piracetam family of memory improvers.”

But once highly safe and effective cognitive enhancers are developed – as they almost surely will be – the question will arise whether they should be added to the water, like fluoride, or our cereals, like folate. It seems likely that widespread population level cognitive enhancement will be irresistible.

The dream Savulescu argues for is based upon the lie that fluoridation of the public water supply has been a tremendous human advancement. Supporting that lie is the boasted claim by the Center for Disease Control that water fluoridation ranks among the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th Century. Instead, fluoride has been linked with neurological effects,thyroid problems, bone cancer and even crippling-blindness. What’s more, much of it is not even the common-but-toxic sodium fluoride, but an industrial waste derivative known as hydrofluosilicic acid– in an estimated 2/3 of the fluoridated public water in the U.S. and known to be very deadly.

Savulescu is flawed to hope fluoride can pave the way to an alchemically-”improved” society, especially where forced-medication is involved. The vision is distinctly like that of Brave New World, wherein author Aldous Huxley predicts a future dictatorship where people “learn to love their servitude.” What Huxley terms in the novel “Soma” would most likely come in reality in the form of numerous drugs that would tackle individual happiness, and the larger complacency of the masses at large. Solidified by a Scientific Dictatorship, a pharmacologically-treated population would be rendered very unlikely to ever revolt against the regime in power.

Huxley stated:

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”

A ‘scientific’ form of control doesn’t necessarily imply the rise of enlightenment or technological innovation, but rather the guaranteed control of its population through a tested understanding of human behavior– including breaking point, resistance, anger– and the the ability to systematically stay one-step or many more ahead of what anyone might do.

DRUGS AND CHEMICALS ALREADY IN OUR FOOD & WATER

So could “cognitive enhancers” like Ritalin, Prozac and other chemically-engineered drugs be added to the water supply in the future to make humans better, smarter or faster? Or could they make humans docile, complacent and dangerously subservient?

Such proposals are already underway, and what’s more, whether intentional or not, spiked water supplies are already affecting populations in the U.S. and across the globe.

Kurt Nimmo reported in December 2009 on a newspiece advocating adding lithium to the water supply as a mood stabilizer:

Japanese researchers, according to Georgiou, are “investigating whether trace amounts of lithium can just change the mood in a community enough — in a really positive way without having the bad effects of lithium — to really affect the mood and decrease the suicide rate.”

Moreover, the AP exposed in 2008 that pharmaceutical drugs were found in the majority of the United States’ water supply. According to the AP, at least 46 million people are affected by the issue.

The New York Times sums in ‘There are drugs in the drinking water. Now what?‘ that: “There are traces of sedatives in New York City’s water. Ibuprofen and naproxen in Washington, D.C. Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety drugs in southern California… But how bad is it, exactly?”

The U.S. Geological Survey lists the “emerging contaminants in the environment” and specifically notes what is affecting the water supply. Contaminating compounds range from herbicides to pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors and household chemicals.

New research has also uncovered the presence of chemicals known as Antiandrogens that are finding their way into the water supply. Paul Joseph Watson writes:

Antiandrogens used in pesticides sprayed on our food have also been identified as “endocrine disruptors” that have been “demonstrated to induce demasculinization in rats.”

More shockingly, population control advocates like White House Science Advisor John P. Holdren have advocated adding sterilants to the water supply. He wrote about it alongsidePopulation Bomb author Paul Ehrlich in their 1977 book Ecoscience.

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.”

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Spreading disease, like “enhancements” or sterilization, could be the intention of food or water additives. In 2002, The Melbourne Age reported on Nobel Peace Prize winning microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet’s plan to help the Australian government develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other “overpopulated” countries of South-East Asia. From the article:

Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases. His key advisory role on biological warfare was uncovered by Canberra historian Philip Dorling in the National Archives in 1998.

“Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions,” Sir Macfarlane said.

Alex Jones recently exposed the fact that all the adulterated and dangerous chemical additives in our food and water are put there intentionally as put of a larger eugenics program.

The potential to use food and water as a weapon of mass-medication has long been used in times of war, under the principle of attrition and destabilization. Lord Bertrand Russell has underscored this concept rather bluntly in how it applies to societies living under the scientific age:

“Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” - The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

“Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.“ - Education in a Scientific Society p.251

CHEMICAL LOBOTOMY: ENLIGHTENMENT IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

It’s a brave new world indeed where Oxford professor Julian Savulescu argues for the “Ethics of Enhancement.” In his 2002 paper, “Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings,” Savulesco argues for using gene therapy and drug therapy to make “happier, healthier people.” It could mean adding both mental-boosting and mood-enhancing chemicals to the things everyone eats or drinks.

It is interesting that Savulescu mentions fluoride alongside “cognitive enhancements,” as many critics have pointed towards the use of fluoride in Nazi concentration camps to keep the inmates passive, and questioned whether a docile population is a hidden purpose of the water fluoridation campaigns in the United States and post-war Western world. Further, fluoride is a basic ingredient in both Prozac, which is the leading brand-name for Fluoxetine (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) as well as Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride), which are fundamentally mind-altering substances.

Fluoride isn’t the only controversial substance Savulescu terms as an advance in human civilization. He touts the widespread use of Prozac and points to the use of Modafenil, an amphetamine, to keep Air Force pilots alert during missions in Iraq. Savulescu is also a proponent of most types of genetic-enhancement that have been proposed. He sees experiments like the genetically-engineered “supermouse” as a model for the potentialsupermen of the future.

However, all of these “enhancements” come with risks. Genetically-engineered foods have proved deadly and dangerous; gene-splicing has proved to have unforeseeable consequences; fluorides and pharmaceutical chemicals pose dangers of addiction, brain damage, cancer or other problems.

Savulescu poses the potential to “enhance” a.k.a. “control” behavior: “If the results of recent animal studies into hard work and monogamy apply to humans, it may be possible in the future to genetically change how we are predisposed to behave. This raises a new question: should we try to engineer better, happier people?” p. 7-8

NOT UTILIZING ENHANCEMENTS COULD BE ‘WRONG’

He goes on to argue that while many have raised questions about the moral and ethical dilemmas of biological enhancement, NOT enhancing could be most wrong. In this scenario, not feeding offspring “enhanced” food additives could be considered as an offense:

“First Argument for Enhancement: Choosing Not to Enhance Is Wrong – Consider the case of the Neglectful Parents. The Neglectful parents give birth to a child with a special condition. The child has a stunning intellect but requires a simple, readily available, cheap dietary supplement to sustain his intellect.But they neglect the diet of this child and this results in a child with a stunning intellect becoming normal. This is clearly wrong.”

“But now consider the case of the Lazy Parents. They have a child who has a normal intellect but if they introduced the same dietary supplement, the child’s intellect would rise to the same level as the child of the Neglectful Parent. They can’t be bothered with improving the child’s diet so the child remains with a normal intellect. Failure to institute dietary supplementation means a normal child fails to achieve a stunning intellect. The inaction of the Lazy Parents is as wrong as the inaction of the Neglectful parents. It has exactly the same consequence: a child exists who could have had a stunning intellect but is instead normal. Some argue that it is not wrong to fail to bring about” p. 10

Savulescu’s vision is distinctly “transhumanist” a branch of the eugenics movement which seeks to improve the human species to the point that highly-gifted individuals would transcend into a new & improved proto-human species– becoming godlike creatures with unique creative potential and abilities. Transhumanism was first termed by UNESCO founder Julian Huxley in 1952, the grandson of Charles Darwin’s partner at the Royal Society of Science, T.H. Huxley.

“I believe in transhumanism”: once there are enough people who can truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Pekin man. It will at last be consciously fulfilling its real destiny.
-Julian Huxley, 1957

LIBERAL EUGENICS: “VOLUNTARY” ENHANCEMENTS THROUGH MASS-MEDICATED WATER

That philosophy of Transhumanism, moreover, is necessarily rooted in the Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century that was led by the scientific elite of the Royal Society, which included Charles Darwin, his cousin Francis Galton and Thomas H. Huxley. This circle and their allies floated Utopian visions for a scientifically- and eugenically- engineered society that would be progressive and even transformative, theoretically producing a ‘better’, albeit tightly-authoritarian society (science demands control, in that sense).

Savulescu identifies with much of this “liberal Eugenics,” defensibly separate from Nazi eugenics because there is ‘no belief in only one gene-type’ and because its measures remain “voluntary.”

“What was objectionable about the eugenics movement, besides its shoddy scientific basis, was that it involved the imposition of a State vision for a healthy population and aimed to achieve this through coercion.” p. 21

However, proposals to add medication to the population’s water supply are involuntary, and would violate individual rights. It would be mass-medication, and avoiding the substances treated with it would be costly, burdensome and difficult to do with any finality. Savulescu apparently views compulsory water treatment in the same vein as compulsory vaccinations, and anything else that can be justified on a public health care basis, even when such treatments prove not to be healthy at all.

“Some interventions, however, may still be clearly enhancements for our children and so just like vaccinations or other preventative health care.” p. 27

Additionally, while the figures of “liberal eugenics” which Savulescu looked up to often espoused semi-tolerant “voluntary” proposals, it was always clear that the long-term vision encompassed measures of control ‘for the betterment of all’ that could not function under voluntary or ‘democratic’ conditions. What’s more, eugenical laws passed in the 1920s and 1930s in the United States and Britain– some of which weren’t repealed until the late 1970s– gave the State authority over forcible sterilization and beyond. Thus, these “voluntary” enhancement-visionaries have already crossed the line of trust and betrayed the fact that they mean to control with force.

Advancements and innovations in science, technology and health have obvious potential benefits, but with kind of dangerous ideology driving the science policy, public health is at a serious risk. Worse still, driving the population into that system has been an intentional scheme by certain ideologues. We cannot flirt with ushering a Brave New World knowing its sweet poison is certain despotism.

Writers Note: The following is a lengthy article with links to government documents. In order to fully understand the argument presented, it is suggested the reader save the documents and study them. Keyword searches of the terms presented below will help better understand the dangers of fluoride.

After reading an article entitled Is flouride part of globalist plot?by freelance author and technical writer Phil Elmore posted on the WorldNetDaily website, I was motivated to correct Mr. Elmore’s misconceptions. In order to do this, I have decided to present evidence concerning the health dangers of fluoride.

In order to make his argument about the safety of fluoride, Mr. Elmore cites a 1943 discovery made by Dr. H. Trendley Dean. According to Dean, 1 ppm (parts per million) of naturally occurring fluoride is an ideal concentration “to prevent cavities without staining the teeth.” In addition, the CDC claims that water fluoridation is one of the greatest health achievements of the 20th century. Apologists also make the claim that water fluoridation is beneficial to the dental health of poor children who may not have regular access to a dentist.

Currently there are two types of fluoride most commonly linked to water fluoridation. Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) — the most likely culprit of “Texas teeth” cited by Dr. Dean — and Sodium Fluoride (NaF), a common ingredient found in many pest control products including roach poison.

Sodium Fluoride has two distant cousins — hydrofluosilicic acid H2SiF6 and sodium silicofluoride Na2SiF6, which are more commonly used for water fluoridation. According to a 1992 census of public water systems, hydrofluosilicic acid (63%) is the most popular compound used with sodium silicofluoride (28%). Sodium fluoride, at 9% , follow these two compounds. In is advised you read the linked MSDS sheets for each compound.

Calcium fluoride, also known as fluorite, is a mined substance and therefore more expensive than sodium fluoride, hydrofluoric acid and sodium silicofluoride which are industrial byproducts from the production of aluminum and the phosphate fertilizer industry.

The fertilizer industry has released two toxic gasses into the atmosphere for a number of years — Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) and and Silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4). The industry was eventually convinced to add water scrubbers to plant smokestacks due to the fact this mixture produces hydrofluorosilicic acid.

In June of 2009, Infowars was invited to tour one of Austin’s Water Treatment Plants with a local citizen group. I saw the compounds the Austin Water Utility adds to the public water supply. I can tell you without a doubt that TOXIC WASTE IS BEING ADDED TO THE WATER in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid.

During our plant visit we were allowed to video a presentation of a Q and A session. However, we were asked to turn off our cameras during the actual tour for Homeland Security reasons. Because of this we do not have photos of the two 20 thousand gallon tanks and corroded piping I observed inside a sealed room marked “hazardous,” nor do I have photos of the soft and powdery concrete where the tanks — marked with “Hazardous” warning — link up to corroded pipes feeding fluoride into the storage tanks. I also was unable to capture images of the MSDS Label Code. This code is ranked 4 under the Health Hazard designation and states: “Very short exposure could cause death or serious residual injury even though prompt medical attention was given”.

I did, however, receive an admission from the assistant director of the Austin Plant that the city uses fluorosilicic acid manufactured by the company Lucier Chemical Industries, dubbed “The fluoride specialists”. Lucier is a distribution arm of a large conglomerate called Mosaic which is a partnership between Cargill, Incorporated, and IMC Global Inc. Mosaic’s 2010 annual reportcontains only one reference to Fluorosilicic Acid: “Some of our Florida and Louisiana facilities produce fluorosilicic acid, which is a hazardous chemical, for resale to third parties.” The Austin Water Utility pays Lucier approximately 1 million dollars per year to add this wonder cocktail to Austin’s water supply.

In order to better understand the effects of fluorosilicic acid, consider the following description of an accident on a Florida interstate:

A spill incident of the chemical on an interstate in Florida, covering an area 600 feet long and 60 feet wide, resulted in the visit of more than 50 people to hospitals. Individuals complained of skin and respiratory irritation, including burning in the throat, and headaches. A man riding in a truck with his arm out the window experienced burning on his forearm. The effects of long-term exposure to fluorosilicic acid are changes in bone, corrosivity of the mucous membranes (e.g., ulceration of the nose, throat, and bronchial tubes), coughing, shock, pulmonary edema, fluorosis, coma, and even death. In workers engaged for approximately 30 years in the production of phosphate fertilizers, nine out of the 50 observed workers had increased bone densities. When swallowed, severe irritation of the lungs, nose, and throat can occur, as well as severe damage to the throat and stomach. A probable oral lethal dose of 50- 5000 mg/kg, classified as very toxic, has been reported for doses between 1 teaspoon and 1 ounce for a 150-pound (70-kg) person; a probable oral lethal dose of 5-50 mg/kg, classified as extremely toxic, has been reported for doses between 7 drops and 1 teaspoon for the same individual.

Seven drops of fluorosilicic acid is considered extremely toxic and potentially lethal. Remarkably, around 10 gallons per hour are pumped into Austin’s water supply. The level maintained is approximately 1ppm with the highest level being 4 ppm.

Let’s look at a few of the the safety procedures as defined by the state of Texas for the handling of fluoride-like products.

Page 13 begins with safety procedures and overfeed issues for community fluoridation. Page 17 covers recommendations for fluoride levels in schools, a rate that is more than four times the amount established for communities.

Below is a second source for school fluoride levels from a CDC 1992 survey of all water treatment plants within the United States.

The following table describes what the EPA has established as the Maximum Containment Level (MCL).

The MCL levels set by the EPA directly contradict the CDC recommended optimal levels for setting up fluoridation systems in public schools. Even the EPA’s own employees take issue with these MCL levels set at 2 ppm. A 1986 brief filed on behalf of the Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE ) cites toxicologists, chemists, physical scientists, statisticians, biologists, engineers and attorneys. NFFE acts as the exclusive representative of scientific and technical employees at EPA. The NFFE professionals claim that “serious errors were made by the Agency (EPA) in setting the fluoride Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL).” The NFFE took serious issue with the EPA’s mandates and wrote:

The process by which EPA arrived at the RMCL for fluoride is scientifically irrational and displays an unprofessional review of relevant scientific data. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires that an RMCL must be a reflection of the opinion of health professionals as to the level of a contaminant at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons will occur, and which allows an adequate margin of safety. However, the final RMCL for fluoride does not represent a determination made on the basis of scientific and technical expertise.

Four years later Dr. Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Adviser in EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, was fired in response to a 1990 whistle-blowing memo calling for a review of the cover-up of the National Toxicology Program study that demonstrates fluoride is a “probable human carcinogen [cancer causing agent]“:

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal “trigger” mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 , Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Still think fluoride is safe? Read the back of your tooth paste. I show this to friends who will not believe that water fluoridation is detrimental to human health. Here is a pic of what you will find on all fluoride toothpaste. Sodium monofluorophosphate is pharmaceutical grade and does not have the serious health risks of fluorosilicic acid and yet if you swallow more than a pea sized amount you are told to contact a Poison Control Center.

In order to make the case fluoride is safe, proponents cite 1940s pseudo-science, CDC statistics, and the claim that fluoride is beneficial to the dental health of poor children. The state of Texas has made the same questionable claim. “For thousands of Texans, geography serves as a barrier to oral health care. The problem is presumably worse among poor, uninsured or elderly uninsured residents of medically undeserved areas”. Since Texas fluoridates 76% of the state’s water supply, one can conclude that water fluoridation has done little to improve the dental hygiene of poor Texans and indeed the rest of the country. Regardless, both agencies strongly support expanded fluoridation despite the overwhelming evidence stacked against the practice.

Harvard university inserted itself in the fluoride controversy when one the university’s own “School of Dental Medicine epidemiologists was investigated by federal authorities for burying evidence of fluoride’s link to bone cancer.”

Chester Douglass, editor in chief of the industry-funded Colgate Oral Care Report, claimed he did not find a link between osteosarcoma and fluoride. A closed door panel determined at Harvard stated the professor did not intentionally suppress the findings. His research shows a clear carcinogenic link especially in young boys. Harvard would have us believe that when industry insiders withhold evidence in studies it is not intentional suppression. Harvard has continued to keep the findings and minutes of their investigation a secret.

Many members of the scientific community no longer ignore the facts and because of this the tide is turning against water fluoridation, a fact demonstrated by a 2007 report submitted by hundreds of scientific professionals. “Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.” Eight years since the original brief workers at the EPA remain vocally opposed to water fluoridation. Petitioners have demanded the practice be stopped until Congress initiates an investigation.

An Australian news program todaytonight Adelaide did their own investigation into the fluoridation process.

Time magazine ranks fluoride as 4th in a list of TOP 10 COMMON HOUSEHOLD TOXINS.

The only winners in this paradigm are the aluminum and fertilizer industries working hand in hand with public water works to send a proven toxic waste into the homes of millions across the country. Americans are paying to be force-medicated and to act as bio-filters so multinational conglomerates can dispose of Superfund quality sludge in our bodies. Massive public relations campaigns keep the public in the dark and stifle proper disclosure of the evidence. Unfortunately, many Americans have grown accustomed to this type of cozy relationship between multinational corporations, government regulatory agencies and the elite scientific community.

Fluoride has no business being in our drinking water. Call and write your representatives and demand they outlaw fluoride poisoning.

source: PrisonPlanet.com

Genetically Modified Salmon is the newest proposal from the biotech industry. Many of us here at Justmeans have been weighing the topic of GMOs over the last several months, not just in the Sustainable Food department, but globally across the site.

The consensus still stands that nobody is sure what exactly GMOs will do in the wild or in our bodies. And because we don’t know, this is why there is so much hesitation from the consumer sector. Personally, my fear is less about the immediate damage we can cause on our bodies (though it is still a primary concern), rather, the idea that GMO products can easily cross-bread with non- genetically modified organisms. What will happen if superfoods breed out organic and traditional foods? When so much pesticides are used that the soil won’t fertilize a traditional seed? When, now, salmon overtake the already unstable traditional salmon population? The answers are “we don’t know.” And this is why we should be cautious.

Because if patented “products” are alive, then it is in the best interest of said company to breed out any competition. Then who benefits? Who loses? What happens when we open up the possibility of a monoculture in our food system? Think: Potato Famine of Ireland. They depended on one kind of potato that one season, failed.

The genetically modified salmon is up for serious approval by the FDA. The New York Times reports, “The salmon’s approval would help open a path for companies and academic scientists developing other genetically engineered animals, like cattle resistant to mad cow disease or pigs that could supply healthier bacon.” [1]

The genetically modified salmon is meant to be kept in a farm-raised environment, but studies have shown that farm-raised salmon contains toxic levels of PCBs and other cancer-causing materials. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are mixtures of up to 209 individual chlorinated compounds (known as congeners). There are no known natural sources of PCBs. PCBs are either oily liquids or solids that are colorless to light yellow. PCBs have been used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment because they don’t burn easily and are good insulators. The manufacture of PCBs was banned in the U.S. in 1979 because of evidence they build up in the environment and can cause harmful health effects. However, PCBs persist in the environment. Fish absorb PCBs from contaminated sediments and from their food. [2]

USA Today reported this concern in February:

“PCBs stay in the body for 10 years,” says David Carpenter, one of the study’s authors and director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany in New York. A 10-year-old girl who eats contaminated fish will still have half the contaminants when she’s 20 and would pass them on to her child if she gives birth, Carpenter says. [3]

Moreover, Farmed salmon are “fatter” and PCBs are stored in fat and remain there for an extended period of time, so farmed salmon can potentially contain higher levels of PCBs. So now we want to introduce genetically modified salmon whose sole aim is to get bigger, faster. And because Americans are typically fatter than other populations, these PCBs store in our fat. Nice.

It seems that the American ideal of “bigger, faster, better, more” is really just a side effect of greed. If salmon farmers start using genetically modified salmon, we will likely see an decrease in our already overwhelmingly unhealthy population as salmon is touted a “healthy fish” because of its rich fat laden with omega acids. This is still true for wild salmon, but as farmed salmon has focused more on market profitability rather than the health of the fish (and therefore the clientele) we risk a lot more than just our health: we risk the health of an entire ecosystem of marine life. Why don’t we try a new approach: pay more, eat less. Genetically modified salmon is not the answer.

SANDPOINT — Residents here will no longer be able to gargle with city water to get fluoride on their teeth.

The city council voted 4-2 this week to quit adding fluoride to the municipal water system, which serves communities from Kootenai to Dover, including Sandpoint.

After being tabled for two years, the glass tipped against fluoridation at Wednesday’s council meeting.

More than a dozen people who spoke against fluoridation during the public forum period at the meeting opposed being medicated against their will.

They cited medical reports indicating the negative impact of fluoridation on young children, and cited statistics and reports in support of removing fluoride from public water systems.

Robin Campbell was among more than dozen people to encourage council members to abolish two ordinances that established rules for fluoridation in the city’s water supply.

“Since it’s so readily available, anyone who wants it, can get it,” Campbell said.

From free dental clinics to ubiquitous fluoride products, fluoride, the agent that has been added to water in most municipal water systems for more than 50 years, is no longer a necessary part of municipal water, Campbell said.

In fact, ingested fluoride is not the best way to prevent cavities, she said.

“The topical use of fluoride is most beneficial to teeth,” Campbell said.

Opponents, one at a time said adding fluoride to municipal water systems does more harm to water users than good, especially to young children. They blamed fluoride for bone deficiencies, some forms of cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

Jennifer Ekstrom of Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeepers encouraged council members to stand up for removal of fluoride from city water.

The issue for her was one of personal choice.

Why should a city decide whether or not residents should be medicated, she asked.

“Let people make their own decisions about their medications,” she said.

Heather Seabring, one of the founders of the Sandpoint group Mothers and Fathers For Safe Water said she studied the pros and cons regarding fluoride’s impacts on young children. She was appalled that city government could force fluoridation on its citizens.

“It is time to stop medicating us against our will,” Seabring said.

Councilwoman Jamie Davis, who helped re-work an ordinance that was at the heart of the measure to repeal the former fluoridation laws, said the council’s vote embraced public consensus.

“I think the decision council made to repeal fluoride was a victory for the all Sandpoint water users,” Davis said.

Council members Carrie Logan and John Reuter voted against repealing the city’s fluoridation law.

“I am very saddened,” Logan said after the vote.

“It’s a sad day for the citizens of Sandpoint. I believe very strongly in the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation, and I believe that it’s the best way to accomplish coverage for the community.”

Logan said despite the arguments heard by council in favor of repealing the city’s fluoridation ordinances, the practice is advocated by groups from the Surgeon General to the Center for Disease Control.

She did not believe the statements heard by council were grounded in science.

“People use Google science,” she said.

Although opponents believed that fluoride was easily obtainable, she contended that many families still do not get it.

Logan cited Medicaid statistics showing that approximately 1,200 of 2,000 children enrolled in Medicaid in Bonner County between 2008 and 2009 received dental treatment.

In the five northern counties, 1,005 fluoride treatments were given to children in that timeframe, indicating that despite the availability of treatments, they are underused.

“I see this as a public health issue,” she said.

Sandpoint does not inject fluoride into its municipal water from July 1 to October 1 when the system switches from its Little Sand Creek water supply to the lake system.

That means citizens have not had fluoride in their coffee, water bottles or tap water-prepared orange juice for several weeks.

When the newly adopted anti-fluoridation ordinance is finalized, the trend of no added fluoride will continue indefinitely.

That is good news for many residents, but for others like Logan, it means many residents will not get the fluoride they need.

“My belief is, there is overwhelming valid science that substantiates the safety and efficacy, and I don’t believe opponents of fluoride have that foundation,” she said.

source: Bonner County Daily Bee

A report published in Britain recently recommends Ireland and other countries reverse its decision to follow the American example, and stop putting the poisonous chemical called fluoride in public drinking water and hygiene products.

Published in the peer-reviewed journal Toxicology — the official journal of the British Toxicology Society and the German Toxicology Society – author Dr. Robert Verkerk said “mass fluoridation of the public water supply [must be]stopped immediately. This is borne out by actual data from Ireland which shows that every third child is affected [by a high risk of dental fluorosis].”

Fluorosis is a condition which causes staining on the teeth and indicates unhealthy toxicity in the body.

A recent study has shown that fluoride is responsible for the rise of rare bone cancer in boys. The Harvard School of Dental Health found that young boys exposed to fluoridated tap water from ages 5-10 suffered an increased risk of osteosarcoma–bone cancer–between the ages of 10 and 19.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a respectedWashington-based research organisation made the report public, though it was left unpublished. The EWG now recommends “fluoridation of public water supplies should stop, because risks outweigh possible benefits, especially for infants and young children.”

Europe bans fluoride in drinking water. Most countries in the EUbanned the American practice of fluoridation. With development and education, cavity rates have fallen all across Europe, regardless of fluoride use.

A report of the Oireachtas Joint Health Committee in 2007 called to stop fluoridation to protect children. It states: “The contribution of international expert, Dr. Hardy Limeback was persuasive in this regard when he commented that using the most authoritative international data, the risk of fluorosis far outweighed the benefits of fluoride.”

Ireland took to fluoridation in the ’60s following recommmendations by representatives of the US military, but not before a famous legal fight. In 1960, the Fluoridation Act became Irish law, but was delayed for the High Court to hear the case in 1963 and the Supreme Court, on appeal, in 1964. The High Court case was the longest in Irish history.

There are numerous international scientific studies linking fluoride with serious health conditions such as bone fractures, cancer, osteoporosis, thyroid dysfunction and neurological impairment.

Sodium fluoride is a common ingredient used in rat poison for forty years, and should be avoided, despite all the happy talk about it on TV.

American scientists say the rat poison is harmless and beneficial to humans at 1 part per million.

Moves to ban fluoridation in Ireland have been stopped with bureaucratic paneling by the Minister for Health, Micheál Martin and subsequent Health Ministers.

In 2005, eleven Environmental Protection Agency employee unions in the USA, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals of the Civil Service, called for a halt on drinking water fluoridation across the US and demanded the EPA recognize fluoride poses a serious risk of causing cancer in people.

The Irish Medicines Board declared that fluoride is “not a medicine” and has “never been proven safe or effective for use on humans.”

Still the Irish government follows the example of America, and the advice of dentists who have built careers promoting fluoride with conflicting evidence at best, and reasonable concern about a large-scale danger to Irish (and American) health.

The following is a documentary about the book researched for ten years, by award-winning journalist Christopher Bryson called the Fluoride Deception:

source: The Keane Edge

GMO Salmon Near FDA Approval—Public’s Input Not Wanted

This is a Call to Action! The only thing that can stop this travesty is a massive public outcry.

by Heidi Stevenson

3 July 2010

As the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) nears approval for the first genetically engineered salmon, the public’s views on the issue are not wanted. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will be the first animals approved for food, but the FDA is treating them like veterinary drugs, so the approval process is not open to the public and none of the documentation is available for inspection.

The modified fish, called AquAdvantage^® by their developer, AquaBounty Technologies, grow to market size very quickly. AquaBounty claims the fish can be ready for sale in 16-18 months instead of the usual 3 years for standard farmed salmon.

What We Know…

AquaBounty implanted two genes into the genetically engineered salmon. One is a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon of the Pacific Ocean, and the other is a gene from the pout fish that turns the growth hormone gene on. These keep salmon from turning their growth hormones off when it’s cold, so they continue to grow.

The FDA’s approval process requires submission of seven data sets. The first five have been approved. AquaBounty believes the last two sets are close to approval.

Even more revealing, though, is that the FDA has been discussing whether to require labeling of the GMO salmon—which sounds very much like they’ve already decided to approve AquaBounty’s salmon. As it now stands, the FDA does not require any other GMO food to be labeled, unless it’s significantly different from its natural counterpart or contains an allergen that the natural form doesn’t. There’s a belief that the public is “confused” by being informed.

AquaBounty’s CEO, Ronald L. Stotish, tries to create the image that their purpose is to benefit humanity. He has said that the GM fish would help grow food for the world with fewer resources. Of course, it ignores the massive amount of food the fish will need to grow so fast, the land required to provide the feed for the fish, transportation for getting feed to the fish, and the use of land that might grow vegetables or grass to graze animals for far less efficient food production in the fish. With so little basis in reality on this point, it’s difficult to believe any of AquaBounty’s statements about safety, health, or environmental standards.

…And What We Don’t Know

The method used to transfer genes is not being provided to the public. If a virus was used as a vector to transfer the genes, then the potential for inducing cancer in people who eat the salmon exists. The FDA does not seem to believe that we have the right to know what gene-transfer technique is used.

Gene Transfer?

Gut bacteria, present in everyone and necessary for life, are known to exchange genes. A study by the UK’s Food Standards Agency has shown that horizontal gene transfer can occur with a single serving of food. Is this possible with AquAdvantage salmon? We don’t know, and the FDA asks us to trust them that they’ll make the right decision.

Allergens?

Do the transferred genes produce new proteins that could be allergenic in some people? Again, we have only the word of the corporation that hopes to profit from the sale that a deadly allergen isn’t created by their product.

Nutritional Quality?

The nutritional quality and taste of the GM salmon is supposedly indistinguishable from natural Atlantic salmon. That’s what AquaBounty says—but the fact is that these are not the same as wild fish. They are less mature than the fish normally eaten now. Why should we believe their claims…especially since the FDA won’t show us any documentation to back them up?

Fish Suffer?

Do the fish suffer from abnormally rapid growth? Do they suffer from their altered anatomy? We don’t know. AquaBounty, of course, says they don’t. The FDA doesn’t believe we have the right to know.

There is one fact that we do know about these fish. They’ll be factory-farmed. Fish raised in such conditions generally suffer horribly in extremely crowded conditions eating toxic food, which is then transferred to us when eaten. For years, farmed salmon have been known to be dangerously infested with dioxins, PCBs, and toxaphene, which are known as carcinogens, and several other dangerous chemicals.

Fish Sterile & Unable to Escape?

AquaBounty claims that the fish are sterile females and that they cannot escape from the fish farms. There are two clear problems with these claims. The first is the assumption that the techniques used to make the fish sterile will last. Genetic alterations have been known to reverse, so we don’t know if these salmon would necessarily be unable to breed. The claim that they can’t escape from the farms because they aren’t located near the ocean is belied by the fact that AquaBounty does not intend to raise the fish themselves. Their plan is to sell eggs to fish farms. Are we to believe that they won’t sell to a farmer because he’s located by the ocean?

We do know that farmed fish are already escaping into the wild with devastating effects on the wild salmon. Should we believe the promises of AquaBounty that their fish cannot escape and, if they do, that they cannot breed?

Peter Melcher of the UK’s Soil Association, says

Once you have bombarded an animal with other genes, the DNA is unstable, and there is no guarantee these fish will remain sterile. It poses far too great a risk to wild salmon. A fish that grows so quickly is also likely to lose some of the nutritional benefits. There is no such thing as a free salmon lunch and we will pay the price.

What we do know about these fish is terrible. What we don’t know could be even worse. But the FDA doesn’t think we have the right to know, and AquaBounty is only telling us what they want us to hear.

Who Runs AquaBounty?

When trying to understand the nature of a corporation and its focus, it helps to look at who is on its board of directors. In AquaBounty’s case, it’s very revealing.

Richard J. Clothier is the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board and Chairman of the Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee. His career has put him at the head of agribusiness corporations, including Robinson plc, which makes packaging for supermarket products, and Spearhead International Ltd, which operates factory farms in several countries. Before that, he was a CEO with Dalgety plc, a now-defunct manufacturer of products sold by supermarkets. He retired recently as Group Chief Executive of PGI Group plc, an agribusiness firm involved in tea, flower, and produce production in Africa.

Other key figures with AquaBounty are former officers and executives of major multinational corporations, investment firms, medical device manufacturers, and pharmaceuticals. Stotish, the President and CEO, was previously an officer with a pharmaceutical firm involved in genetic manipulation. Elliot Entis, a board member, specializes in commercial and regulatory issues of biotech food introduction. Another board and audit committee member, Richard Huber, was a chairman and president of the giant health insurer, Aetna.

The collection of men at the helm of AquaBounty is remarkable for their connections with the worst sort of Agribusiness, Big Pharma, and multinational corporations. These are men who are practiced at the art of making money at any cost to the public and environment. It seems that they’ve found the perfect vehicle for their sort of expertise in AquaBounty.

The FDA’s “Public Meeting”

The FDA will probably hold a “public meeting” of an advisory committee in early fall, supposedly for obtaining public input. It’s a standard procedure before final approval of a drug. Limited information, consisting of material, picked by the FDA, that supports the product, is given to the public. It promises to be no more than a show. Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology project director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says that the public is not given adequate time to analyze the data provided.

Take Action!

Belying the true status of GM salmon in the FDA, a government official has stated anonymously, “It’s going to be a P. R. issue.” Let’s hope so!

Here’s what you can do:

Let’s stop Frankenfish!

Growing awareness of mass medication of public with deadly neurotoxin leads to establishment backlash

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The controversy over adding sodium fluoride to water supplies in both the U.S. and the UK is intensifying as two separate stories out of India reveal that children are being blinded and crippled partly as a result of the neurotoxin being artificially added to drinking water.

In the Indian village of Gaudiyan, well over half of the population have bone deformities, making them physically handicapped. Children are born normally but after they start drinking the fluoridated water, they begin to develop crippling defects in their hands and feet.

“Due to the excess fluoride content in drinking water, the calcium intake is not absorbed in the body, causing disabilities and deformities,” said Dr Amit Shukla, a neurophysician.

“Sijara, a 35-year-old woman who is also afflicted, said the problem started around 30 years ago and gradually gripped the entire village,” reports Express India. “Now, you hardly find a person without the deformities. People in the village die at a relatively young age,” added Sijara whose three sons also have physical deformities.”

Government doctors have denied that fluoridation of drinking water is to blame, but have refused to test the water, insisting such tests are “not necessary”.

Meanwhile, in the village of Pavagada, 180 km from Bangalore, children are going blind after being diagnosed with Lamellar Congenital cataract — a condition wherein the eye lens are damaged.

“Alarmed by the pattern in eye diseases among children in Pavagada taluk and the increasing cases of blindness, Narayana Netralaya, in collaboration with Narayana Hrudalaya and Shree Sharada Devi Eye hospital and Research Centre in Pavagada, has begun one of the largest studies on eye disorders involving 29,800 children,” reports the Times of India in a piece entitled, Blinded by tradition and fluoride in water.

The doctors attribute the child blindness to two factors – consanguineous marriages and the “fluoride content” of the drinking water.

Christopher Bryson’s widely acclaimed book The Fluoride Deception includes dozens of peer-reviewed studies showing that sodium fluoride is a deadly neurotoxin that attacks the central nervous system and leads to a multitude of serious health problems. This fact has been covered up by a collusion of government and industry who have reaped financial windfalls while illegally mass medicating the public against their will.

Perhaps the most notable study was conducted by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D., a highly respected pharmacologist and toxicologist, who in a 1995 Forsyth Research Institute studyfound that rats who had fluoride added to their diet exhibited abnormal behavioral traits.

A 2008 Scientific American report concluded that “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift” as new evidence emerged of the poison’s link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.

“Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, including residents of 46 of the nation’s 50 largest cities,” reported Scientific American’s Dan Fagin, an award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

The Scientific American study “Concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid — the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism.”

The report also notes that “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.”

“Epidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Fagin.

Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin.

The study adds to a growing literature of shocking scientific studies proving fluoride’s link with all manner of health defects, even as governments in the west, including the UK, make plans to mass medicate the population against their will with this deadly toxin. Most Americans already drink artificially fluoridated water.

In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys.

“New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma – bone cancer – between the ages of 10 and 19,” according to a London Observer article about the study.

Based on the findings of the study, the respected Environmental Working Group lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the US government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

Cancer rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed with one in three people now contracting the disease at some stage in their life.

The link to bone cancer has also been discovered by other scientists, but a controversy ensued after it emerged that Harvard Professor Chester Douglass, who downplayed the connection in his final report, was in fact editor-in-chief of The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes fluoridated toothpaste.

An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children’s liver and kidney functions.

Growing opposition to fluoridation of water supplies in light of this evidence is contributing to a scaling back of water fluoridation programs, with voters in places like Mount Pleasant calling for the amount added to be reduced.

With awareness about sodium fluoride on the increase, the establishment is now moving to demonize anyone who raises the issue as a dangerous lunatic. In an official press release today, the Fluoride Action Network slams “recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada re-election campaign.”

As we wrote earlier this month, Keith Olbermann sardonically attacked Nevada primary winner Sharron Angle for speaking out against water fluoridation, “because she thinks the fluoride might be poison.”

Amidst his sophomoric jibes, Olbermann failed to explain why, if fluoride isn’t a poison as he claims, the word “toxic” is written on the packaging of bags of sodium fluoride that are dumped into the water supply of many Americans.

Sodium fluoride is a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972. In addition, toothpaste manufacturers are required by law to include the following text on their products, “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”

“FAN’s website http://www.FluorideAlert.org has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective,” states the press release. “In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children.” On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.”

Watch a lecture on sodium fluoride presented by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D.

FACTS ABOUT FLUORIDE

- Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry and it’s also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972.

- Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

- USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950’s that in his post as U.S.-Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to “Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps, to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient.”

- The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)

- 97% of western Europe has rejected fluoridated water due to the known health risks, however 10% of Britons drink it and the UK government is trying to fast track the fluoridation of the entire country’s water supply.

- In Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg fluoridation of water was rejected because it was classified as compulsive medication against the subject’s will and therefore violated fundamental human rights.

- In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water.

- Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluoridated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.

Click here to find out if your water supply is poisoned with deadly fluoride.

Help Stop Water Fluoridation in Sacramento!

Water fluoridation has been one of the most controversial issues in America in the last century. While purported advantages to dental health are questionable, there is overwhelming evidence of overall health risks. The harmful effects of water fluoridation have been linked to cancer, kidney damage, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s and osteoporosis.

With Sacramento’s current fiscal challenges, along with other cost-cutting recommendations, the City is considering the elimination of its water fluoridation program. Not only does Sacramento spend nearly $1,000,000 a year to fluoridate the water, but, as less than 1% of the fluoridated water reaches the target population, this expenditure is not environmentally sustainable nor cost effective. 99% of the fluoridated water is used for washing clothes and cars, watering landscapes, showers, toilets and drains into local rivers, streams and sewers.

Attend the Sacramento City Council meeting on June 22nd, 5:45 p.m. to support Recommendation #45 to stop water fluoridation in Sacramento.

Now is the time to eliminate fluoride from Sacramento’s drinking water once and for all !!

To Help:
Contact (call, write, fax, e-mail, visit) your City Councilmember and/or speak out at the City Council Meeting on June 22nd, 5:45 PM in support of the Citywide Financial and Operational Review Recommendation #45 to eliminate Sacramento’s water fluoridation program. To make your written comment part of the City Council record, go to “eComment” option next to the June 22 agenda (have to wait until after June 15 for June 22 agenda to be listed) athttp://sacramento.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=21. Questions? Contact Brian at BrianL [at] Lambertwebworks.com or 916-475-7685.

New City Hall, 915 I Street, 5th Floor, 95814, front desk: 808-5407, fax: 264-7680 (good to do).
Mayor Kevin Johnson, 808-5300, Mayor [at] cityofsacramento.org
Councilmembers:
Ray Tretheway, Dist. 1, 808-5848, rtretheway [at] cityofsacramento.org
Sandy Sheedy, Dist. 2, 808-7002, ssheedy [at] cityofsacramento.org
Steve Cohn, Dist. 3, 808-7003, scohn [at] cityofsacramento.org
Robert Fong, Dist. 4, 808-704, rkfong [at] cityofsacramento.org
Lauren Hammond, Dist. 5, 808-7005, lhammond [at] cityofsacramento.org
Kevin McCarty, Dist. 6, 808-7006, kmccarty [at] cityofsacramento.org
Robbie Waters, Dist. 7, 808-7007, rwaters [at] cityofsacramento.org
Bonnie Pannell, Dist. 8, 808-7008, bpannell [at] cityofsacramento.org

FLUORIDATION FACT SHEET

• Fluoride, a known toxin, is considered more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic.
• The main product being used to fluoridate Sacramento’s water (fluorosilicic acid) is a toxic waste
byproduct from the phosphate fertilizer industry, and often contains varying levels of lead, mercury, arsenic, uranium, and other heavy metals.
• Disposing properly of fluorosilicic acid as a toxic waste costs chemical companies at least $10,000 per truckload and requires dumping at the highest rated toxic waste dumpsites. The tanks that store the fluoride chemical compounds must be changed every 7-10 years due to corrosion, which may further contaminate public drinking water.
• Fluoride is a medication not usually prescribed or recommended for adults. It is predominantly intended for children.
• The labels on fluoridated toothpaste warn consumers to keep the toothpaste out of reach of children and to contact a poison control center if more than a small amount of fluoridated toothpaste is swallowed.
• The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in water, food, juices, soft drinks, other beverages, and dental products is causing pervasive over-exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population, resulting in an increasing number of children with dental fluorosis and other health issues.
• No scientific double blind studies proving any benefits of water fluoridation have ever been done. The FDA has never tested the fluoride that is being added to our water to ensure its safety or effectiveness.
• Less than one percent (1%) of Sacramento’s fluoridated water is used for drinking. The remainder goes for lawns, car washing, showers, washing machines, dishwashers, and toilets, etc., draining into our sewers and/or rivers and streams, making it an environmental hazard. As the annual cost of water fluoridation for the City of Sacramento is slightly less than $1,000,000, water fluoridation is an inefficient way to fluoridate and not a cost-effective use of taxpayer money.
• The harmful effects of water fluoridation have been linked to cancer, kidney damage, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s and osteoporosis. Therefore, many segments of the population have to find other sources of water in order to avoid fluoride and protect their health.
• Many dentists, doctors, other health professionals, scientists, engineers, and lawyers oppose water fluoridation. Eleven Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unions representing at least 7,000 EPA environmental and public health professionals have spoken out against water fluoridation, calling for a moratorium of fluoridation programs across the country and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people.
• It is unethical to mass medicate the public by adding medication, in the form of fluoride, to our drinking water. Mandatory water fluoridation has taken away the personal freedom and right to choose what we ingest.

source: Indybay