EPA's new "Drinking Water Strategy Discussion Forum"

Make your vote by actions! Take part in this nationwide government-level forum to remove toxic materials from our PWSs (Public Water Supplies) everywhere!

(from the EPA, per the linked forum site:)

Today, we are detecting new contaminants in drinking water at a much faster rate than we are addressing them. We have begun efforts to define approaches to address groups of contaminants that will be more efficient and keep pace with the increasing knowledge we have about chemicals in our products, our environment, and our bodies. We are looking for ideas to develop a framework that can be used to address the contaminants as groups. For example, a framework to define groups of contaminants could be based on similar health effects, co-occurrence in the environment or public water systems, comparable analytical methods, and/or related drinking water treatment. Frameworks based on one or more of these examples may be appropriate for different groups of contaminants.

• What are some potential approaches for addressing contaminants as groups?
• If you or your organization has experience addressing groups of contaminants, what factors have you considered that worked and which factors have not worked?
• Have you identified potential group(s) of contaminants and what challenges or questions have you encountered in identifying potential group(s)?
• What are some of the key scientific and implementation aspects that EPA should consider as we move forward?
• Can you provide examples of contaminant groups that may present a meaningful opportunity to protect public health and reduce risk?

You want fluoride out? Say so. Bring the facts.

JADA Study Proves Fluoridation is Money down the Drain

And again! What has the ADA got on this? Nothing but lawyers and misinformation. (they are a company, not a policy leader)

" "Children's cavity rates are similar whether water is fluoridated or not, according to data published in the July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association by dentist J.V. Kumar of the NY State Health Department(1), reports NYSCOF.

In 2008, New York City spent approximately $24 million on water fluoridation ($5 million on fluoride chemicals)(1a). In 2010, NYC's fluoride chemicals will cost $9 million(1b)." "

" "It's criminal to waste taxpayers' money on fluoridation, while exposing entire populations unnecessarily to fluoride's health risks, especially when local and state governments are attempting to balance budgets by cutting essential services," says Beeber." "

Light and Truth.

But hey. The ADA would like to say that "Some individuals mistakenly use the term "artificial fluoridation" to imply that the process of water fluoridation is unnatural and that it delivers a foreign substance into a water supply when, in fact, all water sources contain some fluoride," [when actually], "Silicofluorides never occur naturally in nature, and they are 85 times more toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. Therefore, the effect on the entire body will be different."

European Court Ruling Spells an End to Water Fluoridation.

America is just about to one-up this intelligent decision, of course...

"Fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods. That is the decision of the European Court of Justice, in a landmark case dealing with the classification and regulation of 'functional drinks' in member states of the European Community. "

UK Councils Against Fluoridation (UKCAF)

Fluoride in Tea Weakens Bones

‘‘In our study of people’s health in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, we found that the bones of those who consumed water and beverages containing high fluorine density over a long time could develop a propensity to break,’’ Shimmura said. ‘‘They are not in any immediate risk. However, it is desirable that a standard be set and displayed for tea drinks.’’

Japan Today

Have... some of THIS!

California Victory: Fluoride makes it into the TOP 9 of chemicals to be reviewed under Proposition 65

So pat yourself on the back if you sent in comments to the OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). This was a mighty victory and could well spell the end of fluoridation if the Carcinogen Identification Committee eventually rules that fluoride is a probable carcinogen.

The paper (by the): Environmental Working Group

And more here: Fluoride Action Network

Light and Truth,
Kairologic

What a Tangled Web We Weave

(abstract from: Medical Hypotheses, Volume 72, Issue 5, Pages 501-503; K. Zachariassen, T. Flaten.)

"East African immigrants to Scandinavia are admitted to mental hospitals far more frequently than native Scandinavians. Most of these patients are admitted for psychosis, commonly ascribed to problems adapting to the new culture. However, psychosis is also known to be associated with hyperthyroidism, and the high frequency of psychosis among East Africans in Scandinavia may at least in part be due to hyperthyroidism rather than cultural problems. Large areas in East Africa are notorious for high natural concentrations of fluoride in water and plants. Fluoride inhibits the production of thyroid hormones. To maintain normal thyroxin levels the body increases the capacity for thyroxin production. Goitre is caused by such a compensatory mechanism, and endemic goitre is widespread in many high-fluoride areas, even where dietary access to iodine is adequate. When people from such areas arrive in a low-fluoride area, their elevated capacity to produce thyroid hormones may lead to hyperthyroidism and subsequently to psychosis."

~~~~~~~

I can say from personal experience, as one who was exposed to heavy amounts of sodium fluoride (the standard) throughout his life until 46 months ago, that leaving a F- rich environment, and attempting to remove it completely from the diet by eating 'naturally,' is a surefire way to undergo some interesting mental and physical changes over the course of a couple years. At least. Although far healthier than I've ever been before, I am now incredibly sensitive to the 'fluoride response' when I consume it via the city water, or via inorganic foods which have usually been sprayed by fluoride pesticides (which are the most common). I usually take kelp (for the iodine), calcium (to bond the F-), and iron pills with me whenever I travel. Some fluoride stil enters my diet through groundwater uptake into vegetables, grains, and fruits; and, by way of reconstitution into muscle mass from grazing foods by the animals and animal products I consume. Without those minimal sources, I'd probably have flipped my wig by now, too! I seriously despise the idea of being so biochemically attached to something just because it was a cofactor in my developmental stages -- it is thenceforth my body's expectations to consume it somewhat regularly -- and, that I must wait a total of 7 years to replace bodily cells for a true and complete acclimation to a regimen without it. Akin to quitting smoking (of which I've just hit my 8 year mark). I've been running 4, so far; 3 more to go, but I still haven't removed it completely from my diet. How can I?

And you know, I am not the only one who's had to undergo this genetic engineering experiment:

"Why We Changed Our Minds About Fluoridation: The Fluoride/Thyroid Connection"

The News

Hey "pro" fluoridationists! Save face and read this!

(from Fluoride Journal, by The International Society for Fluoride Research:
Fluoride [Fluoride]. Vol. 41, no. 3, p. 253. Jul-Sep 2008.)

"The US National Research Council (2006) concluded that fluoride is an endocrine disrupter: normal endocrine function or response in humans is altered by exposure to fluoride. The major effects examined to date include alterations of thyroid function, calcium metabolism, pineal function, and glucose metabolism. Both direct and indirect mechanisms of action appear likely, including direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes necessary for activation of a normal hormone. People with reduced thyroid function are at higher risk of clinical hypothyroidism and cardiac disease, among other things. In particular, reduced thyroid function in a pregnant woman, even if asymptomatic, can result in lowered IQ of her offspring. Fluoride exposure results in an increased requirement for calcium and a higher risk for calcium deficiency and consequent problems. Altered pineal function could impact a number of bodily processes or systems, including calcium metabolism, bone growth, and central nervous system function. Fluoride exposure appears to result in increased blood glucose levels or impaired glucose tolerance in some individuals. Also, diabetic individuals often have higher than normal intake of drinking water and consequent higher fluoride exposures. Many endocrine effects are associated with fluoride intakes in the range typically observed in the U.S. In general, adverse effects are more likely in the presence of dietary deficiencies (e.g., iodine or calcium). The increasing "epidemics" of thyroid disease, diabetes, and other health problems in the U.S. warrant examination of the possible role of nearly universal exposure of the population to fluoride. Reference: National Research Council (2006). Fluoride in Drinking water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press."

Hmmmmmm. Not looking good! What happens when people start consulting their health insurance companies and lawyers and OSHA and more? I'd say to change your mind quick.

Oh, and then, straight from the JADA (Journal of the American Dental Association) and the CDC:

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm)

"In the earliest days of fluoride research, investigators hypothesized that fluoride affects enamel and inhibits dental caries only when incorporated into developing dental enamel (i.e., preeruptively, before the tooth erupts into the mouth) (30,31). Evidence supports this hypothesis (32--34), but distinguishing a true preeruptive effect after teeth erupt into a mouth where topical fluoride exposure occurs regularly is difficult. However, a high fluoride concentration in sound enamel cannot alone explain the marked reduction in dental caries that fluoride produces (35,36). The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel (37), and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries (38).

The laboratory and epidemiologic research that has led to the better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental caries indicates that fluoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical and that the effect depends on fluoride being in the right amount in the right place at the right time. Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted, especially when small amounts are maintained constantly in the mouth, specifically in dental plaque and saliva (37). Thus, adults also benefit from fluoride, rather than only children, as was previously assumed."

Might it help much to understand that silico-fluorides are bactericidal? Like regular old saltwater gargle is, in fact?

Mmmmmm... yeah. About that. BEING THAT FLUORIDE IS TOPICAL, one could surmount a gigantic and firestorm argument against proponents of said mass medication (being that, indeed, it is medicinally applied for human consumption), SUGGESTIVE THAT WE ALL SIMPLY BRUSH OUR TEETH REGULARLY.

Wall Street Journal covered this whole problem back in 1998... what the heck is going on???