Posts Tagged ‘of’

In Response to the recent over-fluoridation of the community water supply, the citizens make their voices HEARD!

OWASA is extremely upset and disturbed by the awakening public who has forced their hand in revisiting this longstanding practice.  They are doing all they can to perform damage control and avoid negligence in this costly and dangerous disaster but given the fact that we have notified them as early as 2012, they are in an extremely compromised position!

On September 4, 2014 there were 4 petitions in the Orange County Comissioner’s inaugural meeting, against the government’s policy of drugging the water supply with hydrofluorosilicic acid.  This video which consists of 4 X 3 minute petitions can be seen below:

In response to our petitions, the commissioners forwarded our petition to the County Health Director, a woman named Colleen Bridger.  When I got wind of her reviewing the evidence, I submitted the following letter for her consideration:

Dear Colleen,

My name is Corey Sturmer & I am a 25 year resident of the triangle.  In 2011 I became aware that the city governments of Wake, Durham & Orange county have had a more than 60 year long policy of purchasing waste chemicals (hydrofluorosilicic acid/ silicofluorides, fluorosilicic acid) from fertilizer & aluminum industry & distributing it to the citizens through their water supply, ostensibly to help “prevent tooth decay.”

I happen to know that the propaganda surrounding its efficacy as a preventative health measure came directly from the health & human services department of our federal government, and secondarily through the public health departments of the respective states…Then on downward to each county.  Generally speaking the states’ position has amazingly not changed much in the last 60 years, despite all of the evidence which has come out on the practice since it was first instituted in the late 1950’s.

I was present earlier this month before the board of commissioners of orange county to provide a common sense approach to why this policy should be reversed IMMEDIATELY.  I am e-mailing you because I understand this issue has now been brought to your attention by the commissioners & they are waiting for some advisement from you & the board of health of orange county. 

So I would like you to please consider the following as common sense reasons why this policy should end.

Civil Liberty, Informed Consent, Lack of Licensure

Nobody in the history of public water fluoridation has ever debated the fact that the alleged purpose of the policy is to help prevent tooth decay.

According to the Federal Drug Administration’s code section 201(g)1, definition of a drug, a drug is defined by its INTENDED APPLICATION

Source: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/fdcactchaptersiandiishorttitleanddefinitions/ucm086297.htm

(g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.

If the county wants to apply fluoride to the water for the purposes of preventing tooth decay, then they are legally bound to have it approved by the FDA as being safe and effective for such an application.  Please take notice that Fluoride has NEVER BEEN APPROVED by the FDA: http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/fda/not-approved/
Since it is impossible for any being to deny that fluoridation is de facto drugging of the water supply, we then need to consider what North Carolina general statutes say about distributing (unapproved) drugs without a license.  It is in fact a Class H Felony to do so, which would mean the offending parties in Orange county are guilty of violating North Carolina state drug laws.

See: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_106/GS_106-145.6.pdf

G.S. 106-145.6
§ 106-145.6. Denial, revocation, and suspension of license; penalties for violations.
Adverse Action.
The Commissioner may deny a license to an applicant if the Commissioner determines that granting the applicant a license would not be in the public interest. Public interest considerations shall be limited to factors and qualifications that are directly related to the protection of public health and safety. The Commissioner may deny, suspend, or revoke a license for substantial or repeated violations
of this Article or for conviction of a violation of any other federal, state, or local prescription drug law or regulation. Chapter 150B of the General Statutes governs the denial, suspension, or revocation of a license under this Article.
(b)
Criminal Sanctions.
It is unlawful to engage in wholesale distribution in this State without a wholesale distributor license or to violate any other provision of this Article. A person who violates this Article commits a Class H felony. A fine imposed for a violation of this Article may not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).

Lastly – drugging the water supply in such a manner violates informed consent laws, which require the patient to be informed & to give their explicit consent before accepting a medical treatment like fluoride.  It may also violate certain individual’s freedom of religious expression since some religions forbid consumption of toxins such as fluoride.  If they don’t even know fluoride is added to their water they could be unwittingly committing blaspheme!  

These basic rights should be respected & protected by the county, not deliberately destroyed.

Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.

The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk.

Colleen – There is no scientific consensus that fluoride is harmless.  In fact quite the opposite.

I challenge the board of health to bear the burden of proof that consuming fluoride through the water supply is NOT harmful in any way.  This is a rhetorical challenge because it is impossible for your board of health to do it.  Even the promoters of fluoridation have admitted that drinking fluoride will inevitably cause some degree of dental fluorosis which is the outward manifestation of systemic overexposure.  This is well reported by the center for disease control.  Fluorosis shows up as white spotting & mottling of the dental enamel.  Therefore it can not be refuted that fluoride is detrimental & thus – does not comply with the precautionary principle & should not be a policy!

If dental fluorisis is not enough harm to satisfy you, then please consider these more recent studies which raise enormous doubts about the safety & efficacy of public water fluoridation:

Fluorid deposits in your pineal gland (melatonin center affecting sleep cycles): http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html

I appreciate your consideration to this critical public health issue & would like to offer my contact information if you have any questions or concerns about this inquiry.

Corey Sturmer

Her response, after alleged careful deliberation, is as folllows:

Good afternoon,

I wanted to share with you the information I sent the Board of County Commissioners regarding your concerns about the health effects of fluoride in municipal drinking water.  I’ve attached just a few of the documents I reviewed in making my recommendation for your information.  The key points from this review are:

1)      The preponderance of medical and dental organizations nationally and in North Carolina support community water fluoridation as safe and effective and

2)      Water fluoridation decisions are made by the entities that provide municipal water.  The largest municipal water supplier in Orange County is OWASA and they just this year voted to continue fluoridating their water. 

Therefore my recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (and also my recommendation to the OWASA Board when they asked) is that they support the very important, safe and effective public health practice of fluoridating municipal water supplies. 

Thank you so much for bringing this issue to our attention.  We can miss important health issues affecting our community and need active residents like you to make sure we are always staying on top of the myriad health threats that we face.  I will continue to monitor the emerging research on the health effects of fluoridating municipal drinking water and if I see any reason to revisit this recommendation, I assure you I absolutely will. 

Sincerely,

Colleen Bridger, MPH, PhD

Orange County Health Director

Phone: 919.245.2412 / Cell: 919.612.2053

September 14, 2014

Part I:

During the 5th Annual Citizen’s Conference on Fluoride  I was fortunate enough to get an exclusive 45 minute discussion with world renowned risk assessor & decades long anti-fluoride activist Dr. William (Bill) Hirzy Ph.D. Hirzy is well known in the anti-fluoride circles thanks to his keystone contributions as a whistleblower from within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters.

Hirzy’s most famous contributions to the anti-fluoride movement came when he was acting as senior vice president of the EPA union of scientists and professionals.

According to Hirzy this union was initially organized to protect EPA staff members from unethical pressure by EPA management. In other words – let them do their jobs as risk assessors, etc. properly! They later became aware of the risks of public water fluoridation & began working within the EPA to try & do something about it.

Dr. William Hirzy Former Risk Assessor at the Environmental Protection Agency

Sad to say that such a union would even be necessary in a government agency who makes such bogus & impossible claims that they protect human health & the environment, but unethical pressure from high ranking bureaucrats is no big surprise to us is it? The union, with Hirzy as spokesman, earlier this century appealed to a Senate subcommittee on the reality of fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity & its many other latent adverse health effects, which are negatively affecting the entire daydreaming American public as a result of the government’s 60 year old public water fluoridation policy. Dr. Hirzy’s role as risk assessor, is ostensibly to warn the government of possible financial or criminal risk by evaluating certain policies – yet his advices heretofore have fallen on deaf ears! See Hirzy’s powerful statement below, from the Year 2000:

It is the EPA union’s collective testimony combined with the 2006 National Research Council’s 400+ page report on Fluoridated drinking water which makes the government’s continued inaction on this issue now irrevocably criminally negligent.

As you hear Dr. Hirzy explain his role as risk assessor, we can easily extrapolate that this union behaved almost like an immune system antibody, deployed within an otherwise healthy system to identify & defend against foreign invaders (unethical pressure aka corruption). That would be the traditional roles of each group anyway, if we believe that the EPA was formed to legitimately protect the environment. But what we see over time is an increasingly politicized federal agency, easily manipulated by rank, paygrades & external organizations, constructed hierarchically with a lack of traditional checks and balances . This has obviously motivated the white hats, who actually wish to perform a legitimate civic duty, to organize to better resist the embedded junta bureaucrats.

In America this Union concept can be considered the “check” on power. What we discover through Bill’s testimony however is that the system itself was corrupt & consequently the tables turned! It was the union who was treated like a virus infecting the EPA with truth & Dr. Hirzy walks us through many of the dirty tricks, administrative shifts & railroading attempts to prevent the truth from getting out. Although a valiant effort, the organization was proven not strong enough as we listen to Dr. Hirzy tacitly admit that it only took veto action by an ever changing & growing administrative landscape within the EPA to thwart the Union, which brings us to where we are today – the same place we were 50 years ago after fluoride was successfully implemented in the first place!

This interview however strays far from the minutia of fluoride politics & instead takes on a more personal character as Bill walks us through his own life experiences waking up to the fluoride deception while embedded within big corporate & governmental giants like Monsanto and the EPA. Unbeknownst to me, Dr. Hirzy had previously been arrested for protesting the construction of nuclear power plants in the midwest. This led not only to his ousting from Monsanto & his eventual hiring at the EPA, but the now famous theoretical physicist Michio Kaku had interestingly come to his defense at this time in the 80’s.

Perhaps even more noteworthy is the clear bias Bill describes within the bureaucracy of the EPA, contrasting it with his experiences at Monsanto which would on occasion express the same pattern of promoting & rewarding those who maintain the status quo while shunning those who challenge it. Bill seems to have had a lifetime of struggles due to his predisposition to tell the truth.

It is especially interesting that Bill’s specialty is in risk assessment which is to determine the amount of financial risk a corporate or governmental entity is exposing themselves to by selling or promoting a particular product/policy. This has obvious implications for Monsanto who’s chemical & genetic productions have the potential for vast profits, accompanied by serious financial risk should a product have an unintended detrimental health effect. Big institutions pay Big money for Bill’s intelligence because the cost of his salary pales in comparison to the potential lawsuits they might otherwise be exposed to.

But the nature of Bill’s work from the perspective of the EPA is even more damning of the EPA as an institution, than compared to a profit driven company like Monsanto, given their charter to actually PROTECT human helath & the environment, accompanied by the fiat regulatory power it is able to wield.

One should definitely question the true motives of said agency when someone like Bill, who is trying to save the EPA’s ass as much as he is trying to alert the public, gets completely ignored.

Hence the EPA have, for more than 10 years now, become criminally negligent by refusing to change the maximum allowable contamination level of water supplies with respect to fluoride, which consequently allows the various agencies under the EPA (Health & Human Services, Water Companies, City Councils, Health Boards, etc) to continue adding toxic waste to the public drinking water without criminal or federal legal repercussions.

Actually this was the essence of the 5th annual citizen’s conference on fluoride which culminated in an official petition to the EPA to answer an amalgamation of groundbreaking fluoride science which was presented to them by Dr. Hirzy & an army of other scientists, medical professionals & concerned citizens.

To understand the gravity of Bill Hirzy’s testimony on the dangers of fluoridation and the dark political manifestations which maintain the policy, one first has to fully grasp the true melange of federal, state & local bureaucracies who stand in the way of common sense, civil rights & the science. Given my own personal experience trying to enlighten local politicians on the

The multi-headed hydra that is big government

dangers we face, and thus end fluoridation, I will attempt to break it down as best as I understand it so that you may comprehend what a monumental task it is just to overcome the bureaucracy & generational indoctrination.

By the end, you may agree that the only way to kill this hydra is to make sure we get all the heads.

  1. First – the buck stops with your local city council. Like it or not ultimately the politicians who hold positions there have seized power & are the ones administering fluoride to the population by way of majority vote. Thus – they have the power to end it. But if you challenge them, they will defer to the water management department or some similar agency who is tasked with repeating propaganda hatched by Edward Bernays & the former Federal Security Agency; now known as the Department of Health and Human Services
  2. The water company will claim that they are only following orders from the state department of health and human services, who in the 20th century were the unapologetic propagandists promoting the mass fluoridation policy in the first place & still claim that it is one of the top 10 public health achievements of the last 100 years. They will deny they are violating any laws because they are not over 4 parts per million, EPA’s maximum contaminate level for that substance set originally in the ironically named “Safe Drinking Water Act
  3. If you challenge them on the basis that this constitutes forced medication of the drinking water, they claim it is not a drug, it is a mineral/nutrient & they are only “adjusting” the levels to one that is “optimal” for preventing tooth decay. This is based on the junk science produced in the 1930’s which was funded by the aluminum industry to promote fluoridation.
  4. Depending on your geography, the actual levels of fluoride in the groundwater might be quite low, which provides the impetus for city councils to perform a public service by “bringing up” the concentration level of fluoride to one that the public health department claims is “Optimal” for preventing tooth decay. Luckily, there is a long line of fertilizer & aluminum companies who have excess fluoride they need to dispose of. This is how they get away with adding fluoride while simultaneously not taking accountability for the fact that it is adding for medicinal / preventative purposes
  5. When you challenge the public health board that this is illegal & a crime given all science showing such, they will say they are regulated by the EPA’s 4.0ppm Maximum Allowable Contaminant Level & since they are only fluoridating at .7-1.1ppm, no crime committed!
  6. Rinse, Repeat.

Part II:

When asked what is driving these deliberate obfuscations of the truth by the various corporate & governmental structures, Bill responded, “I don’t go there.”

For More Real News for Real People visit: http://www.bullcitybulletin.com

September 8, 2014

www.bullcitybulletin.com

At the 5th annual citizen’s conference on Fluoride (see: http://www.fluoridealert.org), Eric interviews Henry Lickers regarding the impact of fluoridation on his Native American community, which serves almost as a microcosm of what is now unfolding on a larger scale within American society.

Thanks to the deleterious fluoridation of their land & people by way of nearby Reynold’s Aluminum plants, Henry’s traditionally agricultural society collapsed due the cascading effects caused by its adverse health effects.

First, the live stock experienced crippling skeletal fluorosis which left some unable to do more than crawl on their knees. Their people relied greatly on the natural resources which were unsustainable due to dumping of fluoride in the area.

The population also suffered from a broad, average shift downward in the collective IQ level since fluoridation bio-accumulates & happens to be a human neurotoxin. This lead to a doubling of the number of mentally handicapped dependents & a halving of the number of geniuses present in their community.

These growth stunting factors eventually manifested in a decimated economic situation, which was only exacerbated by the import of crime & ‘black market economies.’

When the situation reached a peak in 1990, devolving into a civil war the government responded by deploying paramilitary police, army, etc since then spending more than 7 billion taxpayer dollars setting up a gulag police state to maintain “law & order.” When pressed on the issue, Reynold’s representatives allegedly blamed the situation on the indigenous being “poor farm managers.” Ironically these people had been farmers for more than 1,200 years.

For the past 29 years, Henry Lickers, of Cornwall, has been Director of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne Department of the Environment. Mr. Lickers has served as Co-Chair of the COSEWIC Aboriginal Subcommittee, Scientific Co-Chair with the Haudenosaunee Environmental Taskforce, Vice President and Board Director of the St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences and the Eastern Ontario Model Forest. He has also served as member of Environment Canada’s Science and Technology Advisory Council, the International Joint Commission Science Advisory Board and the Panel on Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks.

Support Henry: http://hetf.org/index.php/hetf-co-chairs/henry-lickers

Support Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridealert.org

For more Real News for Real People, visit:

http://www.bullcitybulletin.com

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

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.”