Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Plan (Washington, D.C.)


Len Colby
 Share

Recommended Posts

From Wikipedia:

In Washington, D.C., The Plan is a conspiracy theory regarding control of the city. Theorists insist that whites (Caucasians) have had a plan to "take back" the city since the beginning of home rule in the 1970s, when the city started electing blacks (African-Americans) to local offices.[1][2] The "age-old" theory has quiet, but considerable support.[3]

History

It appears that Lillian Wiggins, a columnist for the Washington Afro American newspaper, was the first to articulate the conspiracy theory. In 1979, she wrote: "Many residents believe that the Marion Barry era may be the last time Washington will have a black mayor. If negative programming and characterization of black leadership are allowed to continue in the city of Washington and especially the black community, there is a strong possibility of the 'master plan' which I have so often spoken about maturing in the 1980s." As with many conspiracy theories, The Plan has some foundation in reality: believers note that the Federal City Council, an organized group of civic and corporate leaders, mostly white, meets in secret and uses its power to influence the city's direction.[1]

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plan_(Washington,_D.C.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Im sure the non minority can get ($ perrie anyone ? ) non fluoridated water.

Fertility Destroying Chemical Added To Tap, Milk, Salt

http://www.activistp...l-added-to.html

Talking With The Guy Who Puts Fluoride in D.C.’s Water

http://www.disinfo.c...in-d-c-s-water/

############o0o0o0o0##############

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn a bunch of questionable mostly anonymous/obscure sources none of whom AFAICT have any medical training. The one exception is the one from the Arkansas Department of Health, but that one contradicts Gaal, proving once again he does not bother to read the links he posts here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

proving once again he does not bother to read the links he posts here. // end COLBY

Proving once again Colby doesnt read the material presented.

Top article in question with scientific citations bottom of article PLUS scientific citations in majority of redden words in said article.

Golly Colby on purpose proving himself a fool ?????? I will cut and paste scientific refs at bottom top article and those who want to see complete fool Colby is go to article link and read scientic citations of reddened words.

Here are the male studies

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right I was careless and should have read everyone of your links with greater care, something which you fail to do yourself. If not having noticed those links makes me "a fool" what does that make you who regularly posts links you haven't bothered to look at? In this case for example you posted a link to the Arkansas Health Dept. that contradicts your thesis. On at least one occasion you even copy and pasted a snippet of text which you obviously hadn't read on 2 or 3 others you accused me of lying based on your misunderstanding what I'd written.

And how valid are these studies to your claims? Lets look at the abstact of the 1st:

"Fluorosis, caused by drinking water contamination with inorganic fluoride, is a public health problem in many areas around the world. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of environmentally relevant doses of fluoride on in vitro fertilization (IVF) capacity of spermatozoa, and its relationship to spermatozoa mitochondrial transmembrane potential (DeltaPsi(m))."

Hmm, "contamination" "problem" this seems to indicate levels above which are intentionally administered.

"Male Wistar rats were administered at 5 mg fluoride/kg body mass/24 h, or deionized water orally for 8 weeks."

This way above what people normally consume, it would work out to 400mg/day for a 80 kilo (176 lbs) human, according to the WHO:

"Based on the previous discussion, it follows that total daily fluoride exposure can

vary markedly from one region to another. However, from several studies, a

rough estimate of total daily fluoride exposure in a temperate climate would be

approximately 0.6 mg per adult per day in an area in which no fluoride is added to

the drinking-water and 2mg per adult per day in a fluoridated area (WHO, 1984)"

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf

The average weight of US males is 88 kilos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_weight#By_country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fluoride ?? There are mistakes in providing floridation from time to time in water supplies. Floride is found in CAN foods and I dont believe the WHO took that into consideration. Yes natural waters have geographic variations on floride level. I have met national leaders of the anti-floride movement at the Cancer Control Sociey Convention Ive attended several times. I can state as a matter of fact that I am fairly well read on this issue. Not as innocuous an issue as you seem to contend.

Sources of Fluoride

"Estimation of the amount of fluoride ingested from all environmental and dietary sources is important so that rational and scientifically sound decisions can be made when guidelines for the use of fluorides are reviewed periodically and modified." (Journal of Dental Research 1992)

OVERVIEW

When fluoride was first added to water in the 1940s as a means of preventing tooth decay, not a single dental product contained fluoride: no fluoride toothpastes, no fluoride mouthrinses, no fluoride varnishes, and no fluoride gels. In the past 60 years, as one fluoride product after another entered the market, exposure to fluoride increased considerably, particularly among children.

Exposure from other sources has increased as well. Other sources include processed foods made with fluoridated water, fluoride-containing pesticides, bottled teas, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, teflon pans, and mechanically deboned chicken. Taken together, the glut of fluoride sources in the modern diet has created a toxic cocktail, one that has caused a dramatic increase in dental fluorosis (a tooth defect caused by excess fluoride intake) over the past 60 years. The problem with fluoride, therefore, is not that children are receiving too little, but that they are receiving too much.

fluorosis_rates_us.jpg

Even advocates of fluoridation advocates have begun to recognize this problem. In January 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) announced its recommendation that water fluoridation programs (which generally add 1 ppm fluoride to water) should lower the levels added to 0.7 ppm. This reduction, however, does little to solve the problem, as many children will continue to ingest more fluoride than is recommended, or safe.

Sources of Fluoride

  • Dental Products: Many dental products now contain fluoride, including over 95% of toothpaste. Studies show that a significant number of children swallow more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is recommended as a total daily ingestion.
  • Processed Beverages & Foods: Even if you don’t live in a community that adds fluoride to its water supply, you will still be exposed to fluoridated drinking water. This is because once fluoride is added en masse to water it winds in almost all processed beverages and foods. In the U.S., studies have shown that sodas, juices, sports drinks, beers, and many other processed foods, including infant foods, now have elevated fluoride levels.
  • Pesticides: Due its toxicity, fluoride is used in some pesticides to kill insects and other pests. As a result of fluoride pesticide use, some food products–particularly grape products, dried fruit, dried beans, cocoa powder, and walnuts–have high levels of fluoride. Read more.
  • Tea Drinks:Tea plants absorb fluoride from the soil. As a result, tea leaves–particularly old tea leaves–contain high levels of fluoride. Brewed black tea averages about 3 to 4 parts ppm fluoride, while commercial iced tea drinks contain between 1 and 4 ppm. As a result of these elevated levels, numerous studies have linked excessive tea consumption to a bone disease (skeletal fluorosis) caused by too much fluoride intake.
  • Fluorinated Pharmaceuticals:Many pharmaceuticals are fluorinated, meaning they contain a carbon-fluorine bond. fluorine.” Although the carbon-fluoride bond in most drugs is strong enough to resist breaking down into fluoride within the body, this is not always the case as research has found that some fluorinated drugs, including cipro, do break down into fluoride and can thus be a major source of fluoride exposure for some individuals.
  • Mechanically Deboned Meat: Foods made with mechanically separated meat (e.g., chicken fingers, nuggets, etc), contain elevated levels of fluoride due to the contamination from bone particles that occurs during the mechanical deboning processed. Mechanically processed chicken meats have the highest levels, with chicken sticks containing an average of 3.6 ppm. Read more
  • Teflon Pans: Cooking food, or boiling water, in teflon pans may increase the fluoride content of food. In one study, it was found that boiling water in a teflon pan for just 15 minutes added an additional 2 ppm of fluoride to the water, thus bringing the final concentration to 3 ppm. Read more (Full & Parkins 1975).
  • Workplace Exposure: Fluoride is a common air contaminant in industrial workplaces. As a result, workers in many heavy industries — including the aluminum, fertilizer, iron, oil refining, semi-conductor, and steel industries — can be routinely exposed to high levels of fluoride exposure. In addition to being a significant risk factor for respiratory disease; airborne fluorides can be a huge daily source fluoride intake.

What Doesn’t Contain Fluoride?

The mass fluoridation of water, and the resulting contamination of processed foods, can make it seem like everything has elevated levels of fluoride. The good news, however, is that most fresh foods and fresh water contains very little fluoride. As a general rule, therefore, one will receive very little fluoride when drinking spring water and eating unprocessed fruit, vegetables, grains, eggs, milk, and meat. While there are some exceptions to this rule (e.g., seafood, tea, water from deep wells, and fresh fruit/vegetables sprayed with fluoride pesticides), it is a good rule of thumb to go by if you wish to reduce your fluoride exposure. To learn more, click here.

How to Reduce Your Fluoride Exposure

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

fluoride ?? There are mistakes in providing floridation from time to time in water supplies. Floride is found in CAN foods and I dont believe the WHO took that into consideration.

And your basis for that is...? This is contradicted by them estimating that "a rough estimate of total daily fluoride exposure in a temperate climate would be approximately 0.6 mg per adult per day in an area in which no fluoride is added to the drinking-water"

Yes natural waters have geographic variations on floride level. I have met national leaders of the anti-floride movement at the Cancer Control Sociey Convention Ive attended several times. I can state as a matter of fact that I am fairly well read on this issue.

1) You repeatedly have demonstrated difficulty understanding what you read (see above)

2) My guess is that you only read material which conforms with your beliefs.

3) even if you are correct about fluoride you've yet to demonstrate it is added to water etc. specifically to target poor people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) You repeatedly have demonstrated difficulty understanding what you read // end Colby

post #4 shows per reading comprehension that the proverbial empty Colby can rattles loudest.

HOW MUCH FLORIDE GOOD FOR YOU ??? ANSWER ZERO !! (GAAL)

New Study on Fluoride Shows No Benefits and Major Safety Issues

By Dr. Mercola

Fluoride, a neurotoxin that has been linked to reduced IQ, impaired neurobehavioral development and brain damage, among many other serious health problems, is sometimes prescribed in supplement form to children ages 6 months to 16 years who live in areas that have non-fluoridated drinking water.

The rationale, which is heavily promoted by government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – or rather its Oral Health Division – and bodies like the American Dental Association (ADA), is that this toxic agent helps reduce cavities – and those children who are “unfortunate” enough NOT to have the poison forced upon them in their drinking water should get their daily dose elsewhere (i.e. in supplement form).

These recommendations now defy rational logic and common sense on two fronts:

1) even promoters of fluoridation now admit that fluoride’s predominant action is on the surface of the tooth and not from inside the body (CDC, 1999) and

2) there are
illustrating fluoride's harm to the brain, plus 25 published studies directly linking fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children! In other words, it doesn’t do much (if any) good to swallow fluoride and doing so could be doing significant harm.

Adding insult to injury, new research has further revealed that ingesting fluoride in supplement form does not reduce cavities in primary teeth – and may in fact cause harm.

Why You Need to Get Informed Before Allowing Your Child to Take Fluoride Supplements

A review of 11 studies involving more than 7,000 children showed that the effect of fluoride supplements on primary teeth could not be determined, with one study showing no cavity-reducing effect. Meanwhile, the study revealed the supplements have only dubious cavity-reducing effects on permanent teeth, and no difference was noted between fluoride supplements or topical fluoride for preventing cavities.

Researchers noted:

"In the review, no conclusion could be reached about the effectiveness of fluoride supplements in preventing tooth decay in young children (less than 6 years of age) with deciduous teeth. Moreover, insufficient evidence exists to show whether or not using fluoride supplements in young children (less than 6 years of age) could mottle teeth (fluorosis), an effect of chronic ingestion of excessive amounts of fluoride."

Adding to the stark lack of supporting evidence, researchers pointed out that 10 out of the 11 trials they reviewed were at "unclear risk of bias," and the 11th was at "high risk of bias" – leading researchers to conclude "therefore the trials provide weak evidence about the efficacy of fluoride supplements."

This is not the first time a study has questioned the use of fluoride supplements. In 2008, researchers reviewed 20 reports from 12 trials and similarly concluded:

"There is weak and inconsistent evidence that the use of fluoride supplements prevents dental caries in primary teeth … Mild-to-moderate dental fluorosis is a significant side effect. The current recommendations for use of fluoride supplements during the first six years of life should be re-examined."

What is so ludicrous about these findings is that fluorosis is associated with the irreversible discoloration of the teeth (yellow and brown spots) – the very aesthetically unappealing symptoms that most people think and are told the fluoride is supposed to prevent! The CDC admitted in 2010 that 41% of American children between the ages of 12-15 had this irreversible staining of their teeth (CDC, 2010) and in 2005 revealed that minority children are disproportionately impacted by this condition (CDC, 2005, Table 23).

ADA Recommends Fluoride Supplements Despite Evidence of Serious Risks

The truth has always been that fluoride is a toxic agent that is biologically active in the human body where it
, wreaks havoc with enzymes and produces a number of serious adverse health effects —including neurological and endocrine dysfunctions (NRC, 2006).

Nearly 10 years ago, Belgium banned the sale of all non-prescription fluoride supplements citing well-documented research indicating that ingested fluoride has "considerable potential" for physical and neurological harm, with little evidence of cavity prevention. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), meanwhile, has not found fluoride supplements to be safe or effective, according to the
, which lists a laundry list of fluoride's effects, including:

Staining of teeth Unusual increase in saliva Weakness Stomach pain and upset stomach Vomiting Diarrhea Rash Salty or soapy taste Tremor Seizures

Not to mention, it's known that over time fluoride accumulates in many areas of your body, including areas of your brain that control and alter behavior, particularly your
, hippocampus and other limbic areas. One particularly striking
showed that fluoride ingestion had a profound influence on the animals' brains and altered behavior. Pregnant rats given fluoride produced hyperactive offspring. And animals given fluoride after birth became apathetic, lethargic "couch potatoes."

This study was particularly powerful because the effects were measured using objective computerized evaluations of behavior, to rule out subjective bias by the researchers observing the animals.

For the past 60 years, pregnant women have ingested fluoridated water and used fluoridated water to reconstitute infant formula for their babies. If the adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure in animals are true for humans as well, we'd expect to see a striking change in human behavior at this point as well.

! One in ten children are now diagnosed with ADHD. While no US agency has funded or attempted to see if this condition has been caused by or exacerbated by fluoride the connection is biologically plausible and worrying. But the attitude of the American health authorities that continue to recklessly promote fluoridation is that the "absence of studies means the absence of harm."

Aside from the animal studies that show that fluoride damages the brain, and the 25 studies indicating lowered IQ associated with modest to high exposure to fluoride, mild reduction of thyroid function in pregnant women has been shown to produce significant neurological problems in their offspring as well.

Outrageously, there is no mention of the risks or lack of efficacy on the American Dental Association's
, other than mild dental fluorosis. Instead they claim the fluoride supplements are "silently at work fighting decay. Safe, convenient, effective..."

Dental fluorosis is only caused by fluoride, and is typically due to ingesting too much during your developing years, from birth to about 8 years of age. Dental fluorosis is not a merely cosmetic problem, as it is usually an indication that the rest of your body has been exposed to too much fluoride as well.

You Can Opt Out of the Supplements, But it's Much Harder to Get Fluoride Out of Your Drinking Water

The only positive side to fluoride in supplement form is that you can make a choice of whether or not to take it. In the case of the fluoride that's added to the water supplies of nearly 75 percent of Americans, you have no choice. It's there whether you like it or not.

China, in contrast, does NOT allow water fluoridation because it's too toxic and causes damage, according to their studies. Instead, the waste product from their phosphate fertilizer industry is shipped to the United States, where we add it to our water supply!

This is a very important point: the fluoride added to your water is
.

It's a toxic industrial waste product, which is also contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. The story gets even more convoluted, as now declassified files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission show that the original motivation for promoting fluoride and water fluoridation in the United States was to
other fluoride polluting industries from liability. In the early days some of the sodium fluoride used to fluoridate water supplies in the U.S. came from Alcoa.

A couple of years later, they switched to the even more hazardous waste product hydrofluorosilicic acid from the phosphate fertilizer industry. But none of the studies on fluoride actually used the far more toxic and contaminated hydrofluorosilicic acid that is added to the water supply. Rather, they use pharmaceutical grade fluoride, which while harmful, is not quite as bad as what's being used for water fluoridation. So, the health hazards are likely FAR worse than any study has so far discerned.

Some proponents of fluoridation believe that the large dilution of these fluoridating chemicals that takes place when they are added at the public water works ameliorates concerns about the known contaminants. However, one of those contaminants is arsenic, which is a known human carcinogen. For the EPA there is no safe level for a human carcinogen. Inevitably, the addition of contaminated hexafluorosilicic acid to the water supply by definition must increase the cancer rate in the U.S. because of the arsenic it contains.

One can argue about how much this cancer risk is increased by, but there is no question that it will be increased. Why would any rational government do that to reduce – at best – a miniscule amount of tooth decay?

For people living in areas with fluoridated tap water, fluoride is a part of every glass of water, every bath and shower, and every meal cooked using that water.

This makes absolutely no sense considering the significant health risks of this toxin -- and the data published online by the World Health Organization showing that 12-year-olds in countries that do not fluoridate their water have similar if not better tooth decay rates than countries that do.

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

In summary it would seem most rational people would conclude you should avoid using fluoride for its "preventive" benefits. You can easily choose not to take fluoride supplements or buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash. But you're stuck with whatever your community puts in the water, and it's very difficult to filter out of your water once it's added. Many do not have the resources or the knowledge to do so.

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation.

Earlier this year I joined forces with Dr. Paul Connett to help put an END to water fluoridation in the U.S and Canada.
has a game plan to do just that. Our fluoride initiative will primarily focus on Canada since 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. If we can get Calgary and the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow. I urge you to join the anti-fluoride movement in Canada and United States by contacting the representative for your area below.

Contact Information for Canadian Communities:

Contact Information for American Communities:

We're also going to address three US communities: New York City, Austin, and San Diego:

A victory there could signal the beginning of the end of fluoridation in the U.S. If you live in the New York area I beg you to participate in this effort as your contribution could have a MAJOR difference. Remember that one person can make a difference.

The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at NYSCOF@aol.com. Please contact her if you're interested in helping with this effort.

  • New York City, NY: The anti-fluoridation movement has a great champion in New York City councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. who introduced legislation on January 18 "prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply."
  • Austin, Texas: Join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: info@fluoridefreeaustin.com or fluoride.info@yahoo.com, or by regular mail or telephone:

    POB 7486

    Austin, Texas 78713

    Phone: (512) 371-3786

  • San Diego, California: Contact Patty Ducey-Brooks, publisher of the Presidio Sentinel at pbrooks936@aol.com.

############################

BEFORE COLBY'S TIME THERE WAS PRESECUTION OF anti- FLORIDE PEOPLE.

WHEN THE ESTABLISHMENTS MAKES NOISE < I INTELLIGENTLY LOOK INTO THE ISSUE> Colby seems only to get into the bowing position.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) You repeatedly have demonstrated difficulty understanding what you read // end Colby

post #4 shows per reading comprehension that the proverbial empty Colby can rattles loudest.

Yes you can keep harping on that one occasion when I didn't look closely at one of your links. I point to numerous occasions when you've posted links that contradicted you and made comments about texts indicating you failed to understand them.

HOW MUCH FLORIDE GOOD FOR YOU ??? ANSWER ZERO !! (GAAL)

New Study on Fluoride Shows No Benefits and Major Safety Issues

By Dr. Mercola

Where exactly did "Dr." Mercola get his medical degree from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where exactly did "Dr." Mercola Colby get his medical degree from ?

Mercola quotes scientific sources just as reporters do from the WashPo/NYT which you worship.

#######################0o0o0o0o#####################

Fluoride Study Rife With Conflicts Of Interest

By Naomi H. Flack,

September 29, 2006

http://www.thecrimso...h-conflicts-of/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When I went to Pharmacy School across the street was Harvard Dental School. Our old old small school would sometimes have a class (Pathology) across the street. Well Golly Golly we had a guess talk from Harvard School of Dentistry fellow and one MD from Harvard Public Health School about the need for floridation. I dont remember who it was ,but I wouldnt be shocked to learn it was the linked above dental man.

***********************************************

#############################

18. Manhattan Project Covered Up Effects of Fluoride Toxicity

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/18-manhattan-project-covered-up-effects-of-fluoride-toxicity/

“The fluoride story is a hangover from the Cold War, when the U.S. media would not abrogate `national security.’ They publicized the official line about fluoride, and that was that. The critical role of fluoride in the production of the atomic bomb and in many of the new industrial processes (rocket propellants, fluorocarbons, plastics, etc.) that made America the world’s leader after World War II was never mentioned. The nationwide damage wreaked by industrial fluoride pollution, and the role and motives of the bomb program and U.S. industry in establishing fluoride’s safety, was not mentioned either.

“At least a dozen mainstream media outlets here and in the U.K. expressed strong interest in our story, but all later declined. The facts were never in question. The 155 pages of supporting documentation are available for the cost of mailing from Waste Not, Tel: (315) 3799200. For further information, contact Dr. William Hirzy, Senior vice-president, National Treasury Employees Union, EPA Headquarters chapter, Tel: (202) 260-4683; or e-mail: hirzy.john@epa. gov. Also Mike Ewall, Pennsylvania Environmental Network, Tel: (215) 7434884; or e-mail: pen@envirolink.org.”

###############################

HOW DOES COLBY POST SO MUCH WHEN HE IS SPENDING SO MUCH TIME ON HIS KNEES GENUFLECTING TO THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA ???

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where exactly did "Dr." Mercola Colby get his medical degree from ?

Mercola quotes scientific sources just as reporters do from the WashPo/NYT which you worship.

I don't claim to be a doctor.

Still waiting for evidence that fluoride is aimed at killing off the poor and/or minorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Healthful" Drink that Can Damage Your Health

June 05, 2011

======================

By The Fluoride Action Network

fluoride-harms.jpg

According to the U.S. Surgeon General, "there are profound and consequential disparities in the oral health of our citizens..." that have resulted in a "silent epidemic" of dental and oral diseases that disproportionately affects low-income and minority populations
.

Unfortunately, not only are these groups afflicted with worse dental health, but are also suffering more extensively from the public health measure carried out under the guise of improving oral health:
water fluoridation
.

The Environmental Injustice of Water Fluoridation

One of the goals of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and particularly of its administrator Lisa Jackson, is achieving Environmental Justice for all Americans. According to the EPA (2011):

"Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation.

It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work."

Unfortunately, the agencies and associations that continue to promote artificial water fluoridation - including the EPA's Office of Water, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Oral Health Division, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the American Dental Association (ADA) - have completely ignored racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences when stating that the level of fluoride used is "safe" for all Americans to consume in drinking water - on a daily basis, and over a lifetime.

A number of groups are particularly susceptible to fluoride's toxic effects.

Fluoridation proponents are finally beginning to acknowledge the susceptibility of infants and children to excessive fluoride intakes, likely because they can no longer deny the obvious effects that fluoride has on the developing teeth, in the form of dental fluorosis.

Nearly 41 percent of adolescents aged 12-15 now have some form of dental fluorosis2, an outwardly visible sign of fluoride over-exposure and toxicity.

However, also included among those that are disproportionately impacted by fluoride are minorities and low-income families. The refusal by government agencies to consider these groups when determining enforceable safety standards or recommended levels for artificial fluoridation is no doubt a form of discrimination, contradicting any assertions by these agencies that they are working towards Environmental Justice for all.

Atlanta Civil Rights leaders Andrew Young and Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley recently requested that Georgia legislators repeal the state's mandatory water fluoridation law, based on the fact that fluoride can disproportionately harm poor citizens and black families.

According to a recent press release3 , the leaders "expressed concerns about the fairness, safety, and full disclosure regarding fluoridation in letters to the state's minority and majority legislative leaders." In his letter to the legislators, Rev. Dr. Durley states,

"I support the holding of Fluoridegate hearings at the state and national level so we can learn why we haven't been openly told that fluorides build up in the body over time, (and) why our government agencies haven't told the black community openly that fluorides disproportionately harm black Americans…"

Minorities Suffer Disproportionate Harm from Fluoridation

African American children have been found to consume significantly more total fluids and plain water, and thus receive more fluoride from drinking water, than white children4 . Additionally, African American mothers are less likely to breastfeed than most other racial groups5 . As breast milk contains very low levels of fluoride6 ), babies fed formula made with fluoridated water could receive up to 200 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby.

Thus, African American infants and children have a higher risk of being overexposed to fluoride.

In fact, it has been known for many decades that African Americans and Hispanics are at an increased risk of developing dental fluorosis, and have a higher risk of suffering from the more severe forms of this condition7.

Data published in CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2005 show that Black and Mexican Americans have significantly higher levels of the worst forms of dental fluorosis than do Whites, as indicated in the following table from Beltrán-Aguilar et al. (2005; Table 23).fluorosis.table.mmwr.gif

Table 23. Enamel fluorosis* among persons aged 6-39 years, by selected characteristics - United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2002. Source: Beltrán-Aguilar et al., 2005.

Factors that Influence Fluoride's Toxicity

Fluoride's toxicity is exacerbated by:
  • Inadequate nutrition, including lower intakes of iodine and calcium8
    Certain racial groups are more likely to be lactose intolerant than others. Included among these are:
    • Central and East Asians (80-100 percent lactose intolerant; de Vrese, 2001)
    • Native Americans (80-100 percent lactose intolerant; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2006)
    • African Americans (75 percent lactose intolerant; de Vrese, 2001), and
    • Southern Indians (70 percent lactose intolerant; de Vrese, 2001)
      The elevated incidence of lactose intolerance may indicate lower rates of milk consumption, and higher consumption rates of water or other beverages, than whites (21 percent lactose intolerant; Scrimshaw and Murray, 1988).
      Thus these groups may be more heavily exposed to fluoride in water and other beverages than are Caucasian Americans, and their calcium intakes may be compromised.

    [*]Kidney dysfunction and diabetes, which are more prevalent among minorities than whites.

    Hispanics are nearly twice as likely9 , and African Americans nearly four times more likely10 , to develop kidney failure than are Caucasians.

    Both African Americans and Hispanics are nearly twice as likely to suffer from diabetes than are whites11.

    [*]Inadequate supplies of vitamin C, vitamin D, magnesium, and selenium may also exacerbate fluoride's detrimental effects12.

Inadequate Nutrition Heightens Fluoride's Health Risks (Minority,Gaal ??)

Poor nutrition has been found to increase the incidence and severity of:
  • Dental fluorosis13 and
  • Skeletal fluorosis14.

The dose of fluoride associated with disturbed endocrine function is also substantially lower if you're deficient in iodine (NRC, 2006). Even modest levels of fluoride in drinking water (0.88 mg/L) have been associated with reduced IQ and increased frequency of hypothyroidism when combined with low iodine, even more so than with iodine deficiency alone (Lin et al., 1991).

As poor nutrition frequently occurs among low-income families, poor children and adults are therefore far more susceptible to the detrimental effects of fluoride exposure.

Low-income families typically consume substantially less fresh fruits and vegetables, and thus more processed foods, than higher income groups. In addition to generally being less nutritious, processed foods - including those containing mechanically de-boned chicken - can also contain relatively high levels of fluoride.

Moreover, the increasing dietary intake of harmful trans fats in the United States, especially among lower income groups, may have negative repercussions in terms of fluoride metabolism. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

"Diets high in fat have been reported to increase deposition of fluoride in bone and, thus, to enhance toxicity"
(HHS, 1991).

Additionally, as with African Americans, low-income children have been found to consume significantly more total fluids and plain water - and thus receive more fluoride from drinking water - than higher-income children, putting them at greater risk for fluoride's toxic effects.

Also of concern is the inability of low-income families living in fluoridated communities to provide low-fluoride or fluoride-free water to reconstitute infant formula. Low-income families are likely not able to afford expensive filtration systems to remove fluoride from tap water, nor are they likely able to afford bottled water containing low or no fluoride.

Thus, bottle-fed infants of low-income families are at an increased risk for suffering from over-exposure to fluoride during this very sensitive developmental period.

Income Level is Strongest Indicator of Tooth Decay, Regardless of Water Fluoridation

According to the American Dental Association (ADA, 2009),

"[L]ow income is the single best predictor of high caries [cavity] experience in children. Analysis of data shows that the amount of tooth decay in children is inversely related to income level."

In 1988, an editorial published in the Journal of Dental Research (Newbrun, 1988) reported that "About 20 to 25 percent of children are at relatively high risk of caries, despite the declining caries prevalence in the 'fluoride generation'." The high-risk children included the poor.

In 1995, it was found that more than 50 percent of U.S. schoolchildren had experienced cavities (Edelstein and Douglass, 1995), when preschoolers and cavities in the primary teeth were considered. According to the authors,

"Minority, low-income and underserved groups continue to experience extensive destruction in both primary and permanent teeth."

Actually, 42 percent of five-year-olds and almost 60 percent of nine-year-olds had cavities in their primary and permanent teeth, according to National Institutes of Dental Research 1986-1987 data.

The most recent oral health statistics (1999-2004) show a direct link with tooth decay and poverty level. For example, the incidence of caries is much higher in children from families with lower income levels (HIW, Undated a-c):

% Caries rate for

3-5 year-olds % Caries rate for

6-9 year-olds % Caries rate for

13-15 year-olds Family Income as % Federal Poverty Limit 48 68 62 <100 36 63 60 100-199 28 46 53 200-399 19 44 51 400-499 11 31 34 >500

In 2008, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the extent of dental disease in children has not decreased, and estimated that 6.5 million children two through 18 years of age on Medicaid suffer with untreated tooth decay (GAO, 2008). In November 2010, the GAO reported "high rates of dental disease and low utilization of dental services by children in low-income families, and the challenge of finding dentists to treat them are long-standing concerns" (GAO, 2010).

A study recently published in the Journal of Dental Research
(also found a significant relationship between tooth loss and state income inequality among adults in the United States, with the risk for tooth loss being about 20 percent greater for those living in economically "disadvantaged" areas.

Despite claims to the contrary by promoters of fluoridation, low-income children still have high rates of tooth decay even when their drinking water is artificially fluoridated.

For example, in Georgia where fluoridation is state-mandated, 44 percent of 2 to 5-year-old Head Start children have tooth decay
. And although fluoridation is required in North Dakota, tooth decay is present in 82 percent of Native American third grade children (who are often from very low-income families) compared to 54 percent of white children
.

In New York City - which is 100 percent fluoridated - 56 percent of low-socioeconomic third grade children have tooth decay, compared to 38 percent of high-socioeconomic third grade children
. Likewise, in Kentucky, with a nearly 100 percent t fluoridation rate, nearly 60 percent of third grade children have experienced tooth decay, yet for nearly 35 percent of these children that decay went untreated
.

More than 60 Oral Health Care Reports from the 50 States reaffirm that low-income people have the worst dental health.

More importantly, these reports present quite an extensive array of data from examinations of school age children, yet all but one of these fail to mention rates of dental fluorosis. This is despite that each and every report strongly advocates water fluoridation
.

State Dental Policies Receive Failing Grades

State dental policies fail one in five children, according to the Pew Charitable Trust
. Even some highly fluoridated states received a grade of "F" from Pew.

Included among these is West Virginia, which is 92 percent fluoridated. West Virginia's tooth decay rate is 66 percent for 15 year-olds. By the time these children graduate from high school, the proportion has increased to 84 percent
.

It is reported that 80 percent of dental caries in children of West Virginia is concentrated in just 25 percent of the child population. West Virginia also ranks first in the U.S. for partial and complete tooth loss among adults
.

The most recent national statistics show that the prevalence of dental caries in primary teeth significantly has increased for 2-5 year-olds, from approximately 24 percent to 28 percent between the 1988-1994 and 1999-2004 recording periods, and has increased from 40 percent to 42 percent for all children 2-11 years old
.

Meanwhile, fluoridation rates in the United States have continued to increase, from 62 percent in 1992 (CDC, 2008) to over 72 percent in 2008!

Proponents of fluoridation would have us believe that as fluoridation rates go up, tooth decay rates will go down. But that hasn't happened.

Instead, oral health continues to decline among children - especially those from lower income families - and symptoms of fluoride overexposure and toxicity have increased to epidemic proportions, as evidenced by the 41 percent of adolescents aged 12-15 now afflicted with dental fluorosis (Beltrán-Aguilar et al., 2010).

The Role of the EPA in Fluoridation

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has declared that achieving Environmental Justice for all Americans is a top priority for her agency.

As fluoride has been shown to disproportionately affect poor and minority Americans, the EPA should be giving special consideration to these groups when determining the level of fluoride in drinking water that is safe for
all
Americans. Unfortunately, the most recent analyses of fluoride by the EPA's Office of Water (EPA, 2010a, 2010b) clearly indicate that the EPA is more concerned with protecting the fluoridation program than protecting the American people.

For example, the EPA's newly proposed reference dose for fluoride (the dose of fluoride that is supposedly safe for everyone when taken every day and over a lifetime) was based on the dietary intake of fluoride recommended by the Institute of Medicine nearly 15 years ago (IOM, 1997) to prevent dental caries.

Since that time, however, it has been well established - and is now widely accepted - that the primary action of fluoride on teeth is topical, not systemic
.

As fluoride is not an essential element (i.e. not necessary for human health), any dietary recommendations for fluoride are therefore illogical and unnecessary.

Thus, EPA's newly proposed reference dose was not based on the latest scientific findings concerning the safety of this level of fluoride, but rather on outdated recommendations by those promoting artificial water fluoridation.

This reference dose will soon be translated to a new Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water. If EPA were to evaluate the
true science
behind fluoride toxicity - free from any interference by those promoting fluoridation - the only rational outcome would be an MCLG of ZERO, effectively ending the practice of artificial water fluoridation.

What You Can Do TODAY!

has a game plan to END water fluoridation in both Canada and the United States. Our fluoride initiative will primarily focus on Canada since 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. If we can get Calgary and the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow.

Please, join the anti-fluoride movement in Canada and United States by contacting the representative for your area below.

Contact Information for Canadian Communities:
  1. If you live in Ontario, Canada, please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at diane.sprules@cogeco.ca.
  2. The point-of-contact for Toronto, Canada is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at aliss@nutrimom.ca.

Contact Information for American Communities:

We're also going to address three US communities: New York City, Austin, and San Diego:

  1. New York City, NY: With the recent victory in Calgary, New York City is the next big emphasis. The anti-fluoridation movement has a great champion in New York City councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. who introduced legislation on January 18 "prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply."
    A victory there could signal the beginning of the end of fluoridation in the U.S.
    If you live in the New York area I beg you to participate in this effort as your contribution could have a MAJOR difference. Remember that one person can make a difference.
    The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at NYSCOF@aol.com . Please contact her if you're interested in helping with this effort.
  2. Austin, Texas: Join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: info@fluoridefreeaustin.com or fluoride.info@yahoo.com, or by regular mail or telephone:
    POB 7486

    Austin, Texas 78713

    Phone: (512) 371-3786

  3. San Diego, California: Contact Patty Ducey-Brooks, publisher of the Presidio Sentinel at pbrooks936@aol.com.

In addition, you can:

  • Comment on the EPA's docket on the proposed ban (just scroll down a bit). It's open for public comment up to July 5, 2011.
    They published the proposed ban in the Federal Register and the deadline for comments were extended due to requests from Dow and their allies in the pesticide world (such as American Farm Bureau Federation, National Pest Management Association, North American Millers' Association, and the California Rice Commission).
    Tell the EPA you expect them to uphold their duty to protect you and your children from this toxic food fumigant.
  • Make a generous tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network, to help them fight for your rights to fluoride-free food and water.
  • Check out FAN's Action Page, as they are working on multiple fronts to rid our food and water supplies of fluoride.
  • For timely updates, join the Fluoride Action Network Facebook page.

REFERENCES:

  • 1 HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2000. Oral health in America: a report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health.
  • 2 Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Barker L, Dye B. 2010. Prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004. NCHS Data Brief No. 53. U.S. DHHS, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics.
  • 3 Stockin DG, Osmunson B. 2011. Civil Rights Leaders Call for Halt to Water Fluoridation. Press Release: April 14, 2011. http://fluoridealert...se.4-14-11.html
  • 4 Sohn W, Heller KH, Burt BA. 2001. Fluid consumption related to climate among children in the United States. J Pub Health Dent 61(2):99-106.
  • 5 CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2010a. NIS Breastfeeding Data.
  • 6 NRC (National Research Council). 2006. Fluoride in drinking water: a scientific review of EPA's standards. National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 507 pp.
  • 7 Russell, 1962; Butler et al., 1985; Williams and Zwemer, 1990; Beltrán-Aguilar et al., 2005; Martinez-Mier and Soto-Rojas, 2010
  • 8 ATSDR, 1993; NRC, 2006
  • 9 American Diabetes Association. 2010. Latino Programs.
  • 10 U.S. Renal Data System. 2005. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD.
  • 11 American Diabetes Association, 2005
  • 12 ATSDR, 1993; NRC, 2006
  • 13 Pandit et al., 1940; Murray et al., 1948; Littleton et al., 1999
  • 14 Pandit et al., 1940; Marier et al., 1963; Fisher et al., 1989; Teotia et al., 1984; Littleton et al., 1999
  • 15 Bernabé and Marcenes, 2011)
  • 16 Levin E, Kanny D, Duval, T, Koskela, L. 2007. Status of Oral Health in Georgia: Summary of Oral Health Data Collected in Georgia. Georgia Department of Human Resources, Division of Public Health, November 2007. Publication Number: DPH07.155WH.
  • 17 ND DOH (North Dakota Department of Health). 2006. The Burden of Oral Disease in North Dakota. Oral Health Program. http://www.ndhealth....blications/Oral Health Burden Overview.pdf
  • 18 NY DOH (New York Department of Health). 2010. Oral Health Indicators - New York County 2002-2004.
  • 19 Hardison JD, et al. 2003. Final Results: 2001 Kentucky Children's Oral Health Survey. Division of Dental Public Health, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
  • 20 Connett E. 2010. Teeth: Oral Health Reports from the 50 States and District of Columbia. Fluoride Action Network.
  • 21 PCT (Pew Charitable Trust), Pew Center on the States. 2010. The Cost of Delay: State Dental Policies Fail One in Five Children.
  • 22 WV DHHR (West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources). 2001.
  • 23CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2010b. National Oral Health Surveillance System.
  • 24 CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2007. Trends in Oral Health Status: United States, 1988-1994 and 1999-2004. Vital and Health Statistics 11, No. 248. National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
  • 25 CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2010c. 2008 Water Fluoridation
  • 26 Featherstone, 1999; Limeback, 1999; Clarkson and McLoughlin, 2000; CDC, 2001; Warren and Levy, 2003; Fejerskov, 2004; Hellwig and Lennon, 2004; NRC, 2006; Pizzo et al., 2007; Cheng et al., 2007
  • ADA (American Dental Association). 2009. Fact Sheet: Children's Dental Disease. Online at http://tinyurl.com/3zpszn7
  • ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1993. Toxicological 47 profile for fluorides, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Online at http://www.atsdr.cdc...p?id=212&tid=38
  • Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Barker LK, Canto MT, et al. 2005. Surveillance for dental caries, dental sealants, tooth retention, edentulism, and enamel fluorosis - United States, 1988-1994 and 1999-2002. CDC, MMWR, Surveillance Summaries, August 26, 2005, vol. 54, No SS-3, pp. 1-44.
  • Bernabé E, Marcenes W. 2011. Income inequality and tooth loss in the United States. J Dent Res. Published online ahead of print April 20, 2011. doi:10.1177/0022034511400081
  • Butler WJ, Segreto V, Collins E. 1985. Prevalence of dental mottling in school-aged lifetime residents of 16 Texas communities. Am J Pub Health 75(12):1408-12.
  • CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2001. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. MMWR 50(RR-14).
  • CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2008. Fluoridation Growth (1940-2006).
  • Cheng KK, Chalmers I, Sheldon TA. 2007. Adding fluoride to water supplies. B Med J. 335:699-702.
  • Clarkson J, McLoughlin J. 2000. Role of fluoride in oral health promotion. Int Dent J. 50(3):119-28.
  • de Vrese M. 2001. Probiotics: compensation for lactase insufficiency. Am J Clin Nutr. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2008;111:1-66.
  • Edelstein BL, Douglass CW. 1995. Dispelling the myth that 50 percent of U.S. schoolchildren have never had a cavity. Pub Health Reports Sept-Oct, Vol. 110.
  • EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Fluoride: Dose-Response Analysis for Non-Cancer Effects. Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Water. 820-R-10-019.
  • EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010b. Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis. Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Water. 820-R-10-015.
  • EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Environmental Justice: Policy and Guidance.
  • Featherstone JD. 1999. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Comm Dent Oral Epid. 27(1):31-40.
  • Fejerskov O. 2004. Changing paradigms in concepts on dental caries: consequences for oral health care. Caries Res. 38(3):182-91.
  • Fisher RL, et al. 1989. Endemic fluorosis with spinal cord compression. A case report and review. Arch Int Med. 149:697-700.
  • GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2008. Medicaid: Extent of dental disease in children has not decreased, and millions are estimated to have untreated tooth decay. GAO-08-1121.
  • GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2010. Oral Health: Efforts Under Way to Improve Children's Access to Dental Services, but Sustained Attention Needed to Address Ongoing Concerns. Report to Congressional Committees. GAO-11-96.
  • Hellwig E, Lennon AM. 2004. Systemic versus topical fluoride. Caries Res. 38:258-62.
  • HIW (Health Indicators Warehouse) a. Undated. Dental caries experience in young children: 3-5 year-olds. U.S. CDC National Center for Health Statistics. Hyattsville, MD.
  • HIW (Health Indicators Warehouse) b. Undated. Dental caries experience in young children: 6-9 year-olds. U.S. CDC National Center for Health Statistics. Hyattsville, MD.
  • HIW (Health Indicators Warehouse) c. Undated. Dental caries experience in young children: 13-15 year-olds. U.S. CDC National Center for Health Statistics. Hyattsville, MD.
  • HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 1991. Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride, Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs.
  • IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1997. Dietary reference intakes for calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D, and fluoride. National Academies Press: Washington, DC. Pp. 288-313.
  • Limeback, H. 1999. A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Comm Dent Oral Epid. 27(1):62-71.
  • Lin FF, Aihaiti HX, Zhao J, et al. 1991. The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. IDD Newsletter 7(3):24-25.
  • Littleton J. 1999. Paleopathology of skeletal fluorosis. A J Phys Anthropol. 109:465-483.
  • Marier JR, et al. 1963. Accumulation of skeletal fluoride and its implications. Arch Env Health 1963:664-67.
  • Martinez-Mier EA, Soto-Rojas AE. 2010. Differences in exposure and biological markers of fluoride among White and African American children. J Pub Health Dent. 70:234-40.
  • Murray MM, Wilson DC. 1948. Fluorosis and nutrition in Morocco; dental studies in relation to environment. Br Dent J. 84(5):97-100.
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 2006. Lactose Intolerance: Information for Health Care Providers. NIH Publication No. 05-5303B.
  • Newbrun E. 1988. Guest editorial: Uses and abuses of the new release/press conference. J Dent Res 67:1442.
  • Pandit CG, et al. 1940. Endemic fluorosis in South India. Ind J Med Res. 28:533-558.
  • Pizzo G, Piscopo MR, Pizzo I, Giuliana G. 2007. Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clin Oral Invest. 11(3):189-93.
  • Russell AL. 1962. Dental fluorosis in Grand Rapids during the seventeenth year of fluoridation. J Am Dent Assoc. 65:608-12.
  • Scrimshaw NS, Murray EB. 1988. The acceptability of milk and milk products in populations with a high prevalence of lactose intolerance. Am J Clin Nutr. 48:1079-1159.
  • Teotia SP, et al. 1984. Environmental fluoride and metabolic bone disease: an epidemiological study (fluoride and nutrient interactions). Fluoride 17:14-22. Online at http://www.fluoridea...teotia-1984.pdf
  • Warren JJ, Levy SM. 2003. Current and future role of fluoride in nutrition. Dent Clin N Am. 47:225-43.
  • Williams JE, Zwemer JD. 1990. Community water fluoride levels, preschool dietary patterns, and the occurrence of fluoride enamel opacities. J Pub Health Dent 50(4):276-81.
  • West Virginia Healthy

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18. Manhattan Project Covered Up Effects of Fluoride Toxicity

http://www.projectce...oride-toxicity/

“The fluoride story is a hangover from the Cold War, when the U.S. media would not abrogate `national security.’ They publicized the official line about fluoride, and that was that. The critical role of fluoride in the production of the atomic bomb and in many of the new industrial processes (rocket propellants, fluorocarbons, plastics, etc.) that made America the world’s leader after World War II was never mentioned. The nationwide damage wreaked by industrial fluoride pollution, and the role and motives of the bomb program and U.S. industry in establishing fluoride’s safety, was not mentioned either.

“At least a dozen mainstream media outlets here and in the U.K. expressed strong interest in our story, but all later declined. The facts were never in question. The facts were never in question. The 155 pages of supporting documentation are available for the cost of mailing from Waste Not,

Though they claim they will mail people the "supporting documentation" none of it was included with the article seldom did they make specific references to the former in the latter. Their principle contention that the idea of fluoridating water only began with the Manhattan project is false.

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

http://media.mercola.com/imageserver/public/2011/June/fluorosis.table.mmwr.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their principle contention that the idea of fluoridating water only began with the Manhattan project is false.

// end COLBY

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOPE, THE THRUST OF THE ARTICLE IS scientific obfuscation

post #4 and now # 13 shows per reading comprehension that the proverbial empty Colby can rattles loudest.

Recently declassified government documents have shed new light on the decades-old debate over the fluoridation of drinking water, and have added to a growing body of scientific evidence concerning the health effects of fluoride. Much of the original evidence about fluoride, which suggested it was safe for human consumption in low doses, was actually generated by “Manhattan Project” scientists in the 1940s. As it turns out, these officials were ordered by government powers to provide information that would be “useful in litigation” and that would obfuscate its improper handling and disposal. The once top-secret documents, say the authors, reveal that vast quantities of fluoride, one of the most toxic substances known, were required for the production of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. As a result, fluoride soon became the leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.

Studies commissioned after chemical mishaps by the medical division of the “Manhattan Project” document highly controversial findings. For instance, toxic accidents in the vicinity of fluoride-producing facilities like the one near Lower Penns Neck, New Jersey, left crops poisoned or blighted, and humans and livestock sick. Symptoms noted in the findings included extreme joint stiffness, uncontrollable vomiting and diarrhea, severe headaches, and death. These and other facts from the secret documents directly contradict the findings concurrently published in scientific journals which praised the positive effects of fluoride.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...