Posts Tagged ‘fluorosilicic’

9/1/2014

Attention Durham Against Fluoride Readers:

You are officially notified that I  will be attending the 5th Citizen’s Conference On Fluoride, in Crystal City Virginia this coming Friday – Sunday (September 5 – 7).

On this weekend it is here that activists, researchers & hundreds of other transnational truthseekers will convene to collectively raise the global awareness quotient on the most massive public health fraud in human history & certain crime against humanity; public water fluoridation.

As you can see from the agenda details below – in attendance will be a dizzying array of fascinating individuals, of differing backgrounds & from all over the planet who have contributed enormous energies to this cause.   To my estimation this means there is no more seminal a conference taking place anywhere on earth this year, for beings who want to forever unglue a core deception in eugenics based approach to Government, than this one!

Therefore I will contribute my energies in the form of attendance, with Camera & Microphone in hand, to meet, greet, interview, discuss, all the issues of the day regarding Fluoride.  If you recognize me – please don’t hesitate to approach!  I will be accompanied by compatriot Eric B, who appeared with me in a crucial 1 hour dissection of the Sociological Significance of Durham North Carolina & the “Research Triangle Park” in the mass Fluoridation scheme.  Together we will be capturing  audio/video of the different sessions as well as in-person interviews.

To fully grasp this writer’s struggle so far, one only has to browse in chronological order all the posts of this website which first originated in January 2012.

To summarize, DurhamAgainstFluoride.com was re-actively created, in a very disorganized ad-hoc way rather than in some deliberate premeditated manner.  After some self reflection I learn the core reason for this approach; I had way too much trust in my city council to rationally, objectively evaluate the evidence which I first presented to them in December 2011.  Nearly 3 years later I could have initially never imagined how deep & sinister this policy actually went. When I was summarily dismissed after presenting hardcore evidence that should make even the most dumbed down person agree Public Water Fluoridation violates the Precautionary Principle,  my soul was given no choice but to do something.  Combined with a total lack of uncompromised media made for fertile breeding grounds for resistance & this spells the basic genesis of DurhamAgainstFluoride.com

I must admit the local WTVD Channel 11 team later changed this dynamic with their mostly fair 2012 piece, featuring yours truly & entitled “How Safe is Fluoride In Our Water,” but some unknown force has made the media be largely quiet on the issue since then.

Fast forward to today, almost 3 years later & materially nothing has changed in the City of Durham.  I was forcibly removed by deputy Sheriff at one point for exposing the facts in a so-called “public health board meeting”,  a fact WTVD declined to report.  The city government with their vast stolen resources  & copious use of  the CIA plausible deniability tactic have heretofore successfully stifled my efforts to alert the unconscious public. All of this is well illustrated in my 2013 documentary “21st Century Dawes Project.

Therefore the council continues resting on its illegitimate claim to wisdom, continues buying massive quantities of fluorosilicic acid from MOSAIC fertilizer company, and charges you money to dispose of it in your tap water with or without your consent.  Meanwhile America has seen historic coal ash spills in North Carolina & epic public health crimes in West Virginia, all enumerating precisely why our local municipal governments are completely untrustworthy to manage our most precious natural resource; water.

In spirit of resisting these developments I hope to see you in Crystal City.

-Corey Sturmer

http://www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

 

Organizing to protect our children’s brains
from public health policy that demands fluoridation

September 5 – 8, 2014

WHERE: Hyatt Regency Hotel, Crystal, City, Virginia

IMPORTANT NEW DEVELOPMENTS:

Dr. Mercola’s keynote presentation has been moved to 2-3 pm on Sunday, Sept 7.

Jennifer Luke, PhD, will be attending the conference. Dr Luke was the first to study the uptake of fluoride in the pineal gland (1997, 2001). She found the levels in the pineals of elderly cadavers in the UK contained levels of fluoride to be the highest ever recorded in the human, with some exceeding 21,000 ppm. Dr Luke will give a presentation on Saturday to update us on fluoride in pineal research since her study was published followed by a Q & A.

AIRPORT:

Fly into Regan Washington National. Free Shuttle from airport to hotel

ACCOMODATION:

We recommend that you reserve rooms at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Crystal City, Virginia. Call: 703- 418-1234

AGENDA

Go to http://fluoridealert.org/content/conference-agenda/

CONFERENCE FEE:

The Conference fee is $50 for students, $75 for those who are part of a group fighting fluoridation, and $150 for all others. You can pay either by check or online. See the Registration form for more details.

REGISTRATION:

If you plan on attending this conference please fill out this form and return to Ellen Connett (Ellen@fluoridealert.org).

MEALS:

You will be on your own for food, but there are many restaurants and eating-places within a short walking distance of the hotel.

MATERIALS:

This will be a Zero Waste conference. We will email all conference attendees copies of the relevant papers and a list of the attendees and their contact info. Printed copies of the agenda will be available.

See

Agenda

Registration Form

Past conferences

Advertisements

Source: NSNBC International

Jane Nielson, Ph.D (nsnbc) : Steering Committee Member, Sonoma County Water Coalition Board member, Open-space, Water, and Land Preservation Foundation (O.W.L.) I was in the middle of my education as a scientist when I first encountered the fluoridation controversy. I was getting a Masters in Geochemistry from the University of Michigan, and I attended a heated City Council meeting in Flagstaff, Arizona. By the end of that meeting I was convinced opponents of water fluoridation were conspiracy-minded loonies.

For decades I never thought much about fluoridation. I believed the doctors who said fluoride prevented tooth decay, so I gave my two children fluoride drops when they were infants. It wasn’t until the Sonoma County Water Coalition hosted a debate in 2009 that I became aware of different information about water fluoridation. Like that memorable Flagstaff meeting, I thought I’d hear “science” from supporters and “crazy stuff” from opponents. But neither side presented any science at all.

What the Studies Show

Exasperated, I started researching for myself. This was familiar terrain: I had published many papers, so I know what it takes to prove a point

Dental Fluorosis

Dental Fluorosis

scientifically, and the data required to get a paper published. I had performed analyses, plotted data and defended my research and interpretations in public forums. I quickly found World Heath Organization data that stunned me:

  • Tooth decay has plummeted in developed countries worldwide, regardless of fluoridation.
  • Cavity rates are the same — or even lower – in many non-fluoridated countries compared to the U.S.
  • The one clear correlation with water fluoridation is disfiguring “dental fluorosis” (supposedly only a cosmetic problem.)

I then proceeded to review a range of scientific papers, including all the most recent research on actual and potential effects of water fluoridation. In study after study I found that differences in tooth decay rates between areas that have fluoridated water supplies for decades, and those that either never fluoridated or stopped fluoridating, were minimal to nonexistent.

Key U.S. studies confirm that ingesting fluoride does not prevent tooth decay:

  • 1990 National Institute of Dental Research Survey: One of the largest U.S. surveys of tooth decay found no significant difference in tooth decay (less than ½ of 1% of the 128 tooth surfaces in the mouth ) between fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations.
  • Several modern U.S. Studies (1997-2001): Tooth decay did not go up when fluoridation was stopped.
  • The 2009 National Institutes of Health-funded “Iowa Study”: Cavity levels the same regardless of whether children ingested fluoride or not.

Apply It or Swallow It?

In recent years the differentiation between swallowing fluoride and coating teeth with it has become lost in the discussion. But this differentiation is essential. The overwhelming consensus among scientists, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Research Council, is that fluoride works when it’s applied to the tooth surface, NOT when it’s swallowed.

Sonoma County Has provided No Scientific Support for Fluoridation

In 2013, County Health officials provided the Sonoma County Water Coalition with a single study in support of fluoridation by Australian scientists who reviewed worldwide fluoridation studies written in English. But that study is flawed because it failed to compare fluoridated versus non-fluoridated populations, lacked a cavity prevention assessment, and showed an extremely weak correlation insufficient to prove cause-and-effect. Thus far the County has not offered any more definitive data to support its campaign.

How Did the U.S. Get Sold on Water Fluoridation?

In analyzing early research, it’s clear that the U.S. promoted the spread of water fluoridation before completing definitive studies. I’ve met with this practice of promoting innovations that later prove to have negative public health impacts over and over again in< my scientific career. After the debate, I realized that without solid science to back it up, fluoridation could well represent the same dynamic. And now, having examined the research myself, I’ve concluded that water fluoridation is indeed an echo of past mistakes. Improving children’s dental health is a worthy goal. But before Sonoma County considers water fluoridation, the public must demand the County first prove that it works.

Jane Nielson, Ph.D

Editor’s Note: For those of you reading this who currently live in the “Triangle area” of Raleigh, Durham & Chapel Hill North Carolina, I implore you to pay special attention to the historical context presented in this 1993 article by Murray Rothbard. Why? Because one of the main characters highlighted in Rothbard’s excellent essay on the history of water fluoridation in the United States has a particular relevance to your current circumstance, which should not go unnoticed.

Specifically I refer to one, Oscar Ewing, who you will find not only played a critical role in the nationalization of community water fluoridation, but eventually retired to Chapel Hill, NC where he busied himself buying the land which later became Research Triangle Park.  This is a vast subject which deserves its own examination independently of the fluoride issue, one which I intend to dissect at a later time.

by Murray N. Rothbard

This essay originally appeared in the January 1993 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Yes, I confess: I’m a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of “right-wing kooks and fanatics.” It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry “cancer” even more absurdly than the boy cried “Wolf,” who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation’s water supply.

First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

(1) Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.

What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as well as idiotic.

(2) Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.

(3) Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9?

(4) Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits of fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their kids fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly proportionate to the kids’ thirst; and/or, as we all know, they can brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about freedom of individual choice?

(5) Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation’s socialized water supply every year. The days of private water companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, although the market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of increasingly popular private bottled water even though far more expensive than socialized free water.

Nothing loony or kooky about any of these arguments, is there? So much for the general case pro and con fluoridation. When we get to the specific ills of fluoridation, the case against becomes even more overpowering, as well as grisly.

During the 1940s and 50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the pro-forces touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). OK, but the antis raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics. Oh?

Why were these and later problems and charges ignored and overridden, and why the rush to judgment to inflict fluoridation on America? Who was behind this drive, and how did the opponents acquire the “right-wing kook” image?

THE DRIVE FOR FLUORIDATION

The official drive began abruptly just before the end of World War II, pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service, then in the Treasury Department. In 1945, the federal government selected two Michigan cities to conduct an official “15-year” study; one city, Grand Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left unfluoridated. (I am indebted to a recent revisionist article on fluoridation by the medical writer Joel Griffiths, in the left-wing muckraking journal Covert Action Information Bulletin: “Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy?” [Fall 1992], pp. 26–28, 63–66.) Yet, before five years were up, the government killed its own “scientific study,” by fluoridating the water in the second city in Michigan. Why? Under the excuse that its action was caused by “popular demand” for fluoridation; as we shall see, the “popular demand” was generated by the government and the Establishment itself. Indeed, as early as 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities fluoridated their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by 1950.

A key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head of the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet office of Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left’s backing of fluoridation – in addition to its being socialized medicine and mass medication, for them a good in itself – was that Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed proponent of socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation’s central organization of “anti-Communist liberals” (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks). Ewing mobilized not only the respectable left but also the Establishment Center. The powerful drive for compulsory fluoridation was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the nation’s establishment organizations of dentists and physicians.

The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the “father of public relations.” Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called “The Original Spin Doctor” in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator’s 100th birthday in late 1991. The fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society correctly called fluoridation “creeping socialism” and blamed Soviet Communism as the source of the fluoridation campaign (no, not Bolsheviks, guys: but a Menshevik-State Capitalist alliance, see below) was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the opposition.

As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed opponents of fluoridation “in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan.” (Bette Hileman, “Fluoridation of Water,” Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the “mechanism which controls the public mind,” which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that “Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…” And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, “either with or without their conscious cooperation,” will “automatically influence” the members of such groups.

In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that “it is wholesome to eat bacon.” For, Bernays added, he “knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians.” (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add “dentists” to the equation, and substitute “fluoride” for “bacon,” and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.

After the 1950s, it was all mopping up – the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and two-thirds of the nation’s reservoirs were fluoridated. There are still benighted areas of the country left however (California is less than 16 percent fluoridated) and the goal of the federal government and its PHS remains as “universal fluoridation.”

DOUBTS CUMULATE

Despite the blitzkrieg victory, however, doubts have surfaced and gathered in the scientific community. Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which, in people, accumulates in teeth and bone – perhaps strengthening kiddies’ teeth; but what about human bones? Two crucial bone problems of fluorides – brittleness and cancer – began to appear in studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental agencies. As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many premalignant bone defects in young males in Newbergh as in unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly dismissed as “spurious.”

Oddly enough, despite the 1956 study and carcinogenic evidence popping up since the 1940s, the federal government never conducted its own beloved animal carcinogenicity test on fluorides. Finally, in 1975, biochemist John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Berk, a retired official of the federal government’s own National Cancer Institute (NCI), presented a paper before the annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists. The paper reported a 5 to 10 percent increase in total cancer rates in those U.S. cities which had fluoridated their water. The findings were disputed, but triggered congressional hearings two years later, where the government revealed to shocked Congressmen that it had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress ordered the NCI to conduct such tests.

Talk about foot-dragging! Incredibly, it took the NCI twelve years to finish its tests, finding “equivocal evidence” that fluoride caused bone cancer in male rats. Under further direction of Congress, the NCI studied cancer trends in the U.S., and found nationwide evidence of “a rising rate of bone and joint cancer at all ages,” especially in youth, in counties that had fluoridated their water, but no such rise was seen in “non-fluoridated” counties.

In more detailed studies, for areas of Washington state and Iowa, NCI found that from the 1970s to the 1980s bone cancer for males under 20 had increased by 70 percent in the fluoridated areas of these states, but had decreased by 4 percent in the non-fluoridated areas. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, but the NCI set some fancy statisticians to work on the data, to conclude that these findings, too, were “spurious.” Dispute over this report drove the federal government to one of its favorite ploys in virtually every area: the allegedly expert, bipartisan, “value-free” commission.

The government had already done the commission bit in 1983, when disturbing studies on fluoridation drove our old friend the PHS to form a commission of “world-class experts” to review safety data on fluorides in water. Interestingly, the panel found to its grave concern that most of the alleged evidence of fluoride’s safety scarcely existed. The 1983 panel recommended caution on fluoride exposure for children. Interestingly, the panel strongly recommended that the fluoride content of drinking water be no greater than two parts per million for children up to nine, because of worries about the fluoride effect on children’s skeletons, and potential heart damage.

The chairman of the panel, Jay R. Shapiro of the National Institute of Health, warned the members, however, that the PHS might “modify” the findings, since “the report deals with sensitive political issues.” Sure enough, when Surgeon General Everett Koop released the official report a month later, the federal government had thrown out the panel’s most important conclusions and recommendations, without consulting the panel. Indeed, the panel never received copies of the final, doctored, version. The government’s alterations were all in a pro-fluoride direction, claiming that there was no “scientific documentation” of any problems at fluoride levels below 8 parts per million.

In addition to the bone cancer studies for the late 1980s, evidence is piling up that fluorides lead to bone fractures. In the past two years, no less than eight epidemiological studies have indicated the fluoridation has increased the rate of bone fractures in males and females of all ages. Indeed, since 1957, the bone fracture rate among male youth has increased sharply in the United States, and the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. In fact, a study in the traditionally pro-fluoride Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), August 12, 1992, found that even “low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly.” JAMA concluded that “it is now appropriate to revisit the issue of water fluoridation.”

Clearly, it was high time for another federal commission. During 1990–91, a new commission, chaired by veteran PHS official and long-time pro-fluoridationist Frank E. Young, predictably concluded that “no evidence” was found associating fluoride and cancer. On bone fractures, the commission blandly stated that “further studies are required.” But no further studies or soul-searching were needed for its conclusion: “The U.S. Public Health Service should continue to support optimal fluoridation of drinking water.” Presumably, they did not conclude that “optimal” meant zero.

Despite the Young whitewash, doubts are piling up even within the federal government. James Huff, a director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded in 1992 that animals in the government’s study developed cancer, especially bone cancer from being given fluoride – and there was nothing “equivocal” about his conclusion.

Various scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have turned to anti-fluoridation toxicologist William Marcus’s warning that fluoride causes not just cancer, but also bone fractures, arthritis, and other disease. Marcus mentions, too, that an unreleased study by the New Jersey Health Department (a state where only 15 percent of the population is fluoridated) shows that the bone cancer rate among young males is no less than six times higher in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated areas.

Even coming into question is the long-sacred idea that fluoridated water at least lowers cavities in children five to nine. Various top pro-fluoridationists highly touted for their expertise were suddenly and bitterly condemned when further study led them to the conclusion that the dental benefits are really negligible. New Zealand’s most prominent pro-fluoridationist was the country’s top dental officer, Dr. John Colquhoun.

As chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee, Colquhoun decided to gather statistics to show doubters the great merits of fluoridation. To his shock, he found that the percentage of children free of dental decay was higher in the non-fluoridated part than in the fluoridated part of New Zealand. The national health department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish these findings, and kicked him out as dental director. Similarly, a top pro-fluoridationist in British Columbia, Canada, Richard G. Foulkes, concluded that fluoridation is not only dangerous, but that it is not even effective in reducing tooth decay. Foulkes was denounced by former colleagues as a propagandist “promoting the quackery of anti-fluoridationists.”

WHY THE FLUORIDATION DRIVE?

Since the case for compulsory fluoridation is so flimsy, and the case against so overwhelming, the final step is to ask: why? Why did the Public Health Service get involved in the first place? How did this thing get started? Here we must keep our eye on the pivotal role of Oscar R. Ewing, for Ewing was far more than just a social democrat Fair Dealer.

Fluoride has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements found in the earth’s crust. Fluorides are by-products of many industrial processes, being emitted in the air and water, and probably the major source of this by-product is the aluminum industry. By the 1920s and 1930s, fluorine was increasingly being subject to lawsuits and regulations. In particular, by 1938 the important, relatively new aluminum industry was being placed on a wartime footing. What to do if its major by-product is a dangerous poison?

The time had come for damage control; even better, to reverse the public image of this menacing substance. The Public Health Service, remember was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and treasury secretary all during the 1920s and until 1931 was none other than billionaire Andrew J. Mellon, founder and head of the powerful Mellon interests, “Mr. Pittsburgh,” and founder and virtual ruler of the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), the dominant firm in the aluminum industry.

In 1931, the PHS sent a dentist named H. Trendley Dean to the West to study the effects of concentrations of naturally fluoridated water on people’s teeth. Dean found that towns high in natural fluoride seemed to have fewer cavities. This news galvanized various Mellon scientists into action. In particular, the Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s research lab in Pittsburgh, sponsored a study in which biochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridated some lab rats, decided that cavities in those rats had been reduced and immediately concluded that “the case (that fluoride reduces cavities) should be regarded as proved.” Instant science!

The following year, 1939, Cox, the ALCOA scientist working for a company beset by fluoride damage claims, made the first public proposal for mandatory fluoridation of water. Cox proceeded to stump the country urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded scientists trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati.

During World War II, damage claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in proportion to the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. But attention from these claims was diverted, when, just before the end of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory fluoridation of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of water accomplished two goals in one shot: it transformed the image of fluorine from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen every kid’s teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary demand for fluorides to dump annually into the nation’s water.

One interesting footnote to this story is that whereas fluorine in naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, the substance dumped into every locality is instead sodium fluoride. The Establishment defense that “fluoride is fluoride” becomes unconvincing when we consider two points: (a) calcium is notoriously good for bones and teeth, so the anti-cavity effect in naturally fluoridated water might well be due to the calcium and not the fluorine; and (b) sodium fluoride happens to be the major by-product of the manufacture of aluminum.

Which brings us to Oscar R. Ewing. Ewing arrived in Washington in 1946, shortly after the initial PHS push began, arriving there as long-time counsel, now chief counsel, for ALCOA, making what was then an astronomical legal fee of $750,000 a year (something like $7,000,000 a year in present dollars). A year later, Ewing took charge of the Federal Security Agency, which included the PHS, and waged the successful national drive for water fluoridation. After a few years, having succeeded in his campaign, Ewing stepped down from public service, and returned to private life, including his chief counselship of the Aluminum Corporation of America.

There is an instructive lesson in this little saga, a lesson how and why the Welfare State came to America. It came as an alliance of three major forces: ideological social democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the State. In the fluoridation saga, we might call the whole process “ALCOA-socialism.” The Welfare State redounds to the welfare not of most of society but of these particular venal and exploitative groups.

Ed.: See also, from 2005, Fluoride Follies by Donald W. Miller, MD.

Submitted By: Parker Emmerson

CITIZENS AGAINST WATER FLUORIDATION LETTER NUMBER ONE

Dear Town Council Members, OWASA, The Board of Aldermen and Citizens of Orange County, NC,

Parker Emmerson

Parker Emmerson

I hope all is well with you.

I am writing to notify you that there is a toxic, hazardous substance currently added to the Orange County water supply. This substance is fluoride. After repeated inquiries into this matter with the OWASA board members, we have still not been told what kind of fluoride is added to the water. My peers who oppose the addition of the level 3 or 4 health hazard toxin known as fluoride suspect that the kind of fluoride currently added to the water is fluorosilic acid and that, when this kind of fluoride hits one’s stomach acid, it transforms into Hydrogen Fluoride, a level four (4) health hazard as rated by the NFPA fire diamonds seen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fluoride

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_704 (Key to reading NFPA fire diamonds)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride (Level 3 Health Hazard, Toxic, Irritant)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid (Level 3 Health Hazard, Toxic, Corrosive)

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924083 (Level 3 Health Hazard)

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+16961-83-4 (Level 4 Health Hazard)

Fluosilicic Acid: “Agent in water fluoridation, in preliminary treatment of hides and skins, and to reduce reflectivity in glass surfaces; disinfectant for copper and brass vessels; impregnating ingredient to preserve wood and to harden masonary; chem intermediate for aluminum trifluoride, cryolite, and fluorsilicates; electroplating agent for chromium.

Furthermore, Sodium fluoride pills are a prescription drug with NDC (National Drug Code) # 0288-1106-10 and NDC # 68032-382-12 (to name just two) – their primary purpose to deliver fluoride (fluorine) to the teeth through what I consider the pseudo-science of its being beneficial when contained in the saliva and “bathing the teeth” in fluoride continuously throughout the day. At least ten different citizens have challenged the OWASA board’s continued addition of fluoride (a by-product of the aluminum and fertilizer industries by their own admission on their website) with valid, cogent arguments against the addition of this drug into the water supply against their consent.

We got nowhere with the board.

Notably – the recently dismissed “State Dentist” Rebecca King (See:Tense meeting with DHHS leader Wos leads to firing of NC’s top dentist) – gave her “testimony” (“expert” opinion) on the subject in a meeting that was exempt from public comment, and she used a tactic coined by Orwell as “Double Speak” on more than one occasion.  She stated word for word, and I have this on record,

“Fluoride is not a by-product of the fertilizer industry. Fluoride comes from the same phosphate rock that is used to create fertilizer – it does not come from fertilizer.”

So, somehow these two things (phosphate mining and fertilizer production) are not correlated even though fluoride comes from the same phosphate rock used to produce fertilizer? If fluoride were not pumped into the public water supplies of practically every North Carolina township, what would the phosphate mining companies do with all of the fluoride?

They would have to pay to dispose of it as what it is – toxic waste, which they do not want to do.

We confronted the OWASA board about this specific inconsistency in the pro-fluoride argument (position), among many, many others (for emphasis), and each time, they denied it – repeatedly stating that the fluoride they used did not come from the fertilizer and aluminum industries, until finally – Corey Sturmer, an anti-fluoride activist brought out into the open a print out of their own website (water quality report card) that stated their source of fluoride was phosphate rock from byproducts of the fertilizer and aluminum industry.  See:

Finally, they were forced to have one of their operational employees come to the meeting and give a statement about how the fluoride they used actually did come from the by-products of a North Carolina phosphate rock-mining plant which supplied the fertilizer industry. We have all of these encounters on video.

This was just one example of misleading double-speak they used. They also denied direct response to our questions/points and neglected due diligence of researching the facts we presented to them. Otherwise, why would they have come to the decision to continue fluoridating the public water supply? We have them on record stating that it does not have a benefit to the safety of the water that so many people in this town drink.

They are not open about their actions, nor are they forthcoming with information that should be public.   For example, I have asked them numerous times if they use sodium fluoride or a kind of fluorosilic acid, and they have not told me which one they use. I have asked them to address what gives them the right to give out a drug to unwitting people when they are admittedly not health professionals. They are the ones who add fluoride to the water and set the quantity of fluoride added. What are they doing adding fluoride to the water when they are not health professionals? They are not elected, but rather are an ad hoc committee. This goes against the constitution of North Carolina.

I am writing to implore you to re-examine the policies of the OWASA board.

Think about these things, and ask yourself these questions:

  1. The supposed purpose of the water fluoridation is supposedly for hardening the enamel of the teeth through the saliva. Fluoride has an NDC # (National Drug Code Number). Is it ethical to give a drug to everyone – or put otherwise – to discriminate against those who would not like to take the drug fluoride by forcing them to obtain fresh water sources and denying them public water?
  2. If I drink one liter of OWASA water, I would be taking the equivalent of .7 mg of fluoride. If I were to drink to two liters of OWASA water, that means I would get 1.4 mgs of fluoride. The NDC # is relevant to doses of only .25 mg. per day. Think about that. This is huge over exposure if you are just drinking a regular amount of water. The board is drugging the population.
  3. Could the right to freedom of religion be violated by the addition of a toxin to the water supply? Muslims must use clean water, free of toxins for their prayers. Fluoride is a toxin and health hazard.
  4. How can one ethically put a substance in the public water supply that has been linked to decreased bone density and lowered IQ in a Harvard Medical Journal study: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
  5. Has OWASA exceeded their charter in attempting to forcibly (covertly) drug the entire population? YES! OWASA’s charter allows them to provide clean water, not give drugs to the general population.
  6. Fluoride pacifies people and makes them more complacent. This characteristic was used by Hitler, Stalin, and numerous other dictators to pacify the population and coerce them more easily into going along with totalitarian, facist ideologies. Why would we risk this in our own society by fluoridating the public?
  7. WATER FLUORIDATION WAS JUST BANNED BY THE COUNTRY OF ISRAEL, STOPPED IN PORTLAND, OREGON AND IS GAINING MOMENTUM AS AN ISSUE OPPOSED BY AN AWAKENED PUBLIC.

The reality is that there a growing number of concerned citizens believe or at least question not only the validity of fluoride science, but the ethicality, potential of severely harmful side effects (on the human body through accumulation in the environment and over exposure), and true purpose of water fluoridation. We stand against water fluoridation whole-heartedly and believe fluoride should be avoided.

All Our Best,

PARKER EMMERSON AND THE UNDERSIGNED ATTACHED

X__________________________________

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqQkqZKBuV4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyMlwv1pBKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrovKbkEyIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rTevKbkBzs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ8qzDLZTZ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRsWFghoPXM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYOllO4yM1o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFw5_9JdQ14

http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/9070

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFdwgpVCQQw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-0BhD6gebY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouNxYtCL32s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyMlwv1pBKk

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your tireless effort to bring awareness of the effects of water fluoridation to human health. I live in the Triangle area and am also concerned about this issue.

I thought you might be interested in a recently published article in a top level journal that links fluoridated water with ADHD and mental disorders. Here it is :

Neurobehavioral Effects of Developmental Toxicity

Attached is the original Lancet article.

Thanks,

Anonymous

_________________________________________________

Hi,

Thanks for writing & sharing this article, although I am already aware of these studies & have written about them extensively on my website.

One of the most common criticisms of these studies is that the subjects in the studies were drinking water at a much higher concentration level than what is commonly seen in municipal water supplies across America.  However this observation does not negate the fact that drinking fluoride is simply linked to the lowering of IQ, so we naturally should question it’s efficacy & risk/reward.

Also the critics never address or even acknowledge the fact that having control over ‘concentration level’ does not = having control over the dosage of fluoride – which inherently varies from person to person to an extreme degree.

Obviously if we care more about our brains than our dental health then we should be concerned…but what happens when you discover that drinking fluoride ALSO does nothing for your dental health?

I’ll tell you what happens – we expose the fraud!  Which is what I try to do with my website, presentations & other activism.

How long have you lived in the Triangle?  When did you learn about fluoridation?

Would you be interested in speaking out or doing any activism?

Let me know your thoughts,

Corey

_________________________________________________

Hi Corey,

Thanks for your email. The Lancet article is actually a meta-analysis of the effects of industrial chemicals, including fluoride, on brain development.

I am a neurobiologist and my area of interest is sensory processing in the Central Nervous System. Recently I have partly shifted my research focus to study the effects of man-made chemicals on the developing brain.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that the rates of increase of human chronic diseases including neuro-developmental disease (ADHD, autism) and metabolic disease  (diabetes, obesity) parallel the rates of exposure of man-made chemicals in the environment.  Of the >80,000 chemical released into the environment, scientists have documented the safety and health effects of only a very tiny fraction of these chemicals. What’s more, many of the chemicals that are being used in the USA are in effect banned in the EU and other countries.

As a foreign citizen I feel I have no right to outwardly protest or demonstrate against the laws of this country. As a practicing scientist, it is also a risk to my job to speak out about issues which can possibly irk corporate interest (See Tyron Hayes, Ignacio Chapela and many other scientists).

However I do care very much about the citizens’ health and feel strongly that people need to be more aware of the chemicals found in their food or water and what these chemicals can do to their health.

Your perseverance to bring awareness of the fluoride in drinking water issue is an admirable undertaking and is indeed laudable. I apologize for my inability to be more involved, but please know that I support your tenacity and hard work.

Best,

Anonymous

_________________________________________________

Hello,

At the very least, would you allow me to publish this e-mail exchange with your identity kept completely anonymous?
I feel it would be enlightening to the other viewers of the site & I would ensure that you approve of the message before it is published.  I understand your position completely & know you have to work within the confines of your own circumstance to fight the perceived injustices, like we all do equally. I am just trying to suggest some way we can make this exchange productive, even if you are bound not to do anything more visibly.
Thank you for your encouragement & interest in my work, it is always appreciated when someone takes the time to make their thoughts known.
Let me know what you think!
Corey

Related Articles:

Editor’s Note:  I want to share this blurb with you from Time Magazine’s online publication, because it confirms two key points I have maintained since I created 100274-56268-ralph-wiggum_largedurhamagainstfluoride.com, however not been adequately refuted by the bureaucracy responsible for fluoridating our water here in Durham North Carolina.

Namely;

  1. That fluoride (especially in the form Hydrofluorosilicic acid) is an “industrial chemical” and,
  2. That drinking fluoride has the material affect of lowering your intelligence quotient

As you read this casual confirmation in a mainstream publication, just remember that our city website tacitly admits to adding one of the below named IQ stultifying industrial chemicals to your water.   Here is a video of the actual tank which pours this corrosive compound into our drinking water:

Source: Time Health & Family

A new report finds the number of chemicals contributing to brain disorders in children has doubled since 2006

By Alice Parker 2/14/2014

In recent years, the prevalence of developmental disorders such as autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia have soared. While greater awareness and more sophisticated diagnoses are partly responsible for the rise, researchers say the changing environment in which youngsters grow up may also be playing a role.

In 2006, scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai identified five industrial chemicals responsible for causing harm to the brain — lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (found in electric transformers, motors and capacitors), arsenic (found in soil and water as well as in wood preservatives and pesticides) and toluene (used in processing gasoline as well as in paint thinner, fingernail polish and leather tanning). Exposure to these neurotoxins was associated with changes in neuron development in the fetus as well as among infants, and with lower school performance, delinquent behavior, neurological abnormalities and reduced IQ in school-age children.

(MORE: A Link Between Pesticides and Attention Disorders?)

Now the same researchers have reviewed the literature and found six additional industrial chemicals that can hamper normal brain development. These are manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Manganese, they say, is found in drinking water and can contribute to lower math scores and heightened hyperactivity, while exposure to high levels of fluoride from drinking water can contribute to a seven-point drop in IQ on average. The remaining chemicals, which are found in solvents and pesticides, have been linked to deficits in social development and increased aggressive behaviors.

The research team acknowledges that there isn’t a causal connection between exposure to any single chemical and behavioral or neurological problems — it’s too challenging to isolate the effects of each chemical to come to such conclusions. But they say the growing body of research that is finding links between higher levels of these chemicals in expectant mothers’ blood and urine and brain disorders in their children should raise alarms about how damaging these chemicals can be. The developing brain in particular, they say, is vulnerable to the effects of these chemicals, and in many cases, the changes they trigger are permanent.

“The consequence of such brain damage is impaired [central nervous system] function that lasts a lifetime and might result in reduced intelligence, as expressed in terms of lost IQ points, or disruption in behavior,” they write in their report, which was published in the journal Lancet Neurology.

They point to two barriers to protecting children from such exposures — not enough testing of industrial chemicals and their potential effect on brain development before they are put into widespread use, and the enormous amount of proof that regulatory agencies require in order to put restrictions or limitations on chemicals. Most control of such substances, they note, occurs after negative effects are found among adults; in children, the damage may be more subtle, in the form of lower IQ scores or hyperactivity, that might not be considered pathological or dangerous. “Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries,” they write. “A new framework of action is needed.”

In this unprecedented special report from DurhamAgainstFluoride.com, we officially launch our investigation to discover just what exactly the City of Durham has been doing to our tap water.

With the ongoing fracking controversy, recent chemical spill in West Virginia & now the third largest coal ash spill in North Carolina history, water quality concerns should be top of mind for every American citizen in 2014.

That is why we decided to use some of the donations our effort has accumulated to commission an independent analysis of the residual sludge left after more than 7 months of distilling the city of Durham’s municipal tap water.  We are employing the National Testing Laboratories to evaluate a sample of the liquid depicted in the video above.

For more details on what this test will be trying to determine, click here.

Our special report also explains how distillation is the ultimate method of water purification, guaranteed to remove 100% of the fluoride & other toxins that are contaminating our public tap water.

Did you just learn about fluoride & want the only method guaranteed to remove it? You’ve come to the right spot.

Stay tuned on DurhamAgainstFluoride.com for updates as we receive these revealing results from the National Testing Laboratories & report on our findings.

Visit: http://www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

Friend us: http://www.facebook.com/durhamagainstfluoride

widget