EPA Scientists Admit They Are Poisoning/Medicating Tap Water

 

EPA Scientists Admit They Are Poisoning/Medicating Tap Water

This toxin is in the water and in the food grown with the water and in food cooked with the water.....in Tennessee there is a movement underway to stop it!

 See video at  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAasMtT411E

 

"This toxin cannot be filtered by any conventional means. The size of the molecule is much to small, it slips past even the most expensive, top of the line water filters.

 

Fourteen of the most senior members of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency Have admitted that they are forcing medication and poison on the citizens without choice by adding it to your drinking water and toothpaste.

 

The skin is the most porous organ in your body and absorbs everything it touches. When you shower, swim, bathe, steam, drink water etc. your body is absorbing 100% of the toxins that the EPA has admitted to putting in the tap water.

 

Every 60 seconds of water immersion is the same as drinking 8 ounces of unfiltered, toxic water. You have no choice in this matter. You are being medicated and toxified every day since the moment you were born.

---

What is the best way to stop this?  The fed, state or county level?  Does one guy determine the flouride amount in the city water? If so where does he get the flouride?  I should kick this guy in the pants if I ever find him.     

Now that explains why at least half of the Country lost their collective minds and why we have 3 moron candidates.  No joke.

---

HOW TO TAKE ACTION TO STOP BEING POSIONED WITH FLUORIDE

http://www.fluoridealert.org/action.htm

 

Write to Congress Today!

Send an Online Message to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement Calling for an End to Water Fluoridation and a new Congressional Hearing. To send your letter, click here.

 

Put a Free "FluorideAlert.Org" bumper sticker on your car!

Thanks to the generous support of Maureen Jones, FAN is now offering free bumper stickers. To order your free copies, send an email to Maureen at: maureen@fluoridealert.org

 

Ask Wal-Mart to Stop Selling Fluoridated "Nursery Water" for Infants

On November 9, 2006, the nation's leading fluoride advocate, the American Dental Association (ADA), issued an alert advising parents to avoid fluoridated water when reconstituting infant formula. According to the ADA, babies consuming fluoridated water are at high risk for developing dental fluorosis (a tooth defect that can result in staining and sometimes corrosion of enamel). The advice, however, has gone largely unheeded. Nursery Water, the nation's leading fluoridated water for babies still markets its product nationwide at Wal-Mart and other major retailers. Help us stop this unsafe practice by signing this online letter to Wal-Mart.

 

Write a letter to your local newspaper

Writing a letter to your local newspaper is an invaluable way of informing your community of the health and ethical concerns surrounding water fluoridation. Let the readers of your favorite paper know that there is no need to swallow fluoride; that fluoride is the only chemical added to water that does not treat the water itself; that 98% of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation; that the fluoride chemical used for fluoridation is an unprocessed industrial waste product; that most people are already receiving too much fluoride from their toothpaste and diets; that recent research has linked fluoride to serious health problems including arthritis, hip fracture, alzheimers disease, and cancer; and that readers can learn about the issue for themselves at www.fluoridealert.org.

 

Ask your local bookstore/library to carry "The Fluoride Deception"

In May of 2004, the much-anticipated book The Fluoride Deception by Chris Bryson was released. The book, published by Seven Stories Press, is an eye-opening, page-turning, and meticulously researched expose of the history and politics of fluoride. A must read for anyone interested in fluoride issues. Order a copy for yourself and request your nearby bookstore/library to order copies as well. (NOTE: Due to shortage of funds, some libraries may not be able to purchase the book. If this is the case in your area, please consider donating a copy to the library. It would certainly be a wonderful contribution to your community.)

 

Tell your friends and family

There should be no underestimating the power of word-of-mouth communication. Tell your friends and family about what you have learned concerning fluoride. Let them know that the benefits have been greatly exaggerated and the risks ignored; that the vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation and yet has experienced the same decline in tooth decay as the US; that the scientists and professionals at EPA's Headquarters Union in Washington DC have recently called for a "national moratorium" on fluoridation; and that more than 70 US communities have rejected fluoridation since 1999. Let them also know about the Fluoride Action Network!

 

Find out if your own community's water is fluoridated

Call up your local water utility or your local Department of Health and ask if your community adds fluoride to the water. If it does fluoridate, write a letter to the paper, tell your friends, start a group, and start thinking of creative and effective ways to inform your community about the unnecessary hazards posed by water fluoridation.

 

Begin a Ballot Initiative in Your Town

One way of stopping fluoridation in your town is to start a petition drive to get the issue of water fluoridation on the local ballot. For unfluoridated areas, this can be an effective means of ensuring that fluoridation never begins in your area. Sample ballot initiatives -- used successfully by various communities across the United States -- can be accessed online at the following website.

 

Ask your local grocery stores to provide a non-fluoride toothpaste alternative

Many grocery stores and pharmacies these days only carry fluoridated toothpastes. This in turn deprives many consumers of the choice to not use fluoride.

Ask your local grocery stores and pharmacies to provide a non-fluoride alternative. If the store at first ignores your request, start a customer petition. The more customers a store hears from the greater likelihood they will change their policy.

 

Become a Member of FAN!

Help support and sustain the educational and campaign efforts of FAN by becoming a member today!

 

For more information see, The Fluoride Action Network, http://www.fluoridealert.org/ an international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures.

Along with providing comprehensive and up-to-date information on fluoride issues to citizens, scientists, and policymakers alike, FAN remains vigilant in monitoring government agency actions that may impact the public's exposure to fluoride.

---

The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation

http://www.fluoridealert.org/absurdity.htm

Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT was deemed so "safe and effective" that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic tables. One by one all these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.

For over 50 years US government officials have confidently and enthusiastically claimed that fluoridation is "safe and effective". However, they are seldom prepared to defend the practice in open public debate. Actually, there are so many arguments against fluoridation that it can get overwhelming.

To simplify things it helps to separate the ethical from the scientific arguments.

For those for whom ethical concerns are paramount, the issue of fluoridation is very simple to resolve. It is simply not ethical; we simply shouldn't be forcing medication on people without their "informed consent". The bad news is that ethical arguments are not very influential in Washington, DC unless politicians are very conscious of millions of people watching them. The good news is that the ethical arguments are buttressed by solid common sense arguments and scientific studies which convincingly show that fluoridation is neither "safe and effective" nor necessary. I have summarized the arguments in several categories:

Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

As stated by the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlsson:

"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy."

As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al 2000):

"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ' It is a preposterous notion."

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
8) The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:

1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).
6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.

The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.

Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets', do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"

Motivations - especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers - are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:

a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation's children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a 'pollutant.'
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.

So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

However, difficult as it may be, it is nonetheless essential - in order to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm - that the US Government begin to move away from its anachronistic, and increasingly absurd, status quo on this issue. There are precedents. They were able to do this with hormone replacement therapy.

But getting any honest action out of the US Government on this is going to be difficult. Effecting change is like driving a nail through wood - science can sharpen the nail but we need the weight of public opinion to drive it home. Thus, it is going to require a sustained effort to educate the American people and then recruiting their help to put sustained pressure on our political representatives. At the very least we need a moratorium on fluoridation (which simply means turning off the tap for a few months) until there has been a full Congressional hearing on the key issues with testimony offered by scientists on both sides. With the issue of education we are in better shape than ever before. Most of the key studies are available on the internet and there are videotaped interviews with many of the scientists and protagonists whose work has been so important to a modern re-evaluation of this issue.

With this new information, more and more communities are rejecting new fluoridation proposals at the local level. On the national level, there have been some hopeful developments as well, such as the EPA Headquarters Union coming out against fluoridation and the Sierra Club seeking to have the issue re-examined. However, there is still a huge need for other national groups to get involved in order to make this the national issue it desperately needs to be.

I hope that if there are RFW readers who disagree with me on this, they will rebut these arguments. If they can't than I hope they will get off the fence and help end one of the silliest policies ever inflicted on the citizens of the US. It is time to end this folly of water fluoridation without further delay. It is not going to be easy. Fluoridation represents a very powerful "belief system" backed up by special interests and by entrenched governmental power and influence.

Paul Connett.

All references cited can be found at http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html

 

---