World Net Daily writer says Fluoride is good for you. An open letter to Phil Elmore
World Net Daily writer says Fluoride is good for you. An open letter to Phil Elmore
July 28, 2010
The only winners are the aluminum and fertilizer industries that work hand in hand with public water works to send toxic waste into the homes of millions across our country.
Writers Note: This is a long article with many links to government created documents. Take the time to open these documents and save them to your computer and go over them. Some of these are very long, please do keyword searches. If you value your health and that of your family take this information to heart, then take action it’s time we get this poison out of our drinking water.
After reading a commentary article entitled “Is fluoride part of globalist plot?” I wanted to write a letter to the author Mr. Phil Elmore, hopefully to show him the error of his ways, but I think an open airing of the evidence and facts is the best discourse. We link to many World Net Daily articles so I was a bit surprised to read an article with so little research.
One of the first bit of evidence that Mr Elmore’s cites in his article is a 1943 discovery made by Dr. H. Trendley Dean that 1 ppm of naturally occurring fluoride was an ideal concentration “to prevent cavities without staining the teeth.” This discovery and water fluoridation’s place on the CDC list of 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century are the first bits of pro-fluoridation evidence one finds. There are also claims that fluoridated water is good for the poor children since they are the ones missing out on regular dental visits. Quick side note, 1943 was also the year that LSD was invented by Dr. Albert Hofmann. The inventor thought it would lead to break through in psychiatry, the CIA had other plans.
There are two types of fluoride most linked to water fluoridation. Calcium Fluoride (CaF2), which was the most likely culprit of “Texas teeth” cited by Dr. Dean and Sodium Fluoride (NaF), a common ingredient in many pest control products including roach poison.
Sodium Fluoride has two distant cousins — hydrofluosilicic acid H2SiF6 and Sodium silicofluoride Na2SiF6, which are actually more popular for water fluoridation. According to a 1992 census of public water systems, hydrofluosilicic acid (63%) is the most popular compound used with Sodium silicofluoride (28%) and sodium fluoride 9% bringing up the rear. Please read the linked MSDS sheets for each compound before you continue.
Calcium Fluoride, also known as fluorite, is mined and is therefore more expensive than sodium fluoride, hydrofluoric acid and sodium silicofluoride which are industrial byproducts from aluminum production and the phosphate fertilizer industries.
It is common fact that for years the fertilizer industry put two toxic gasses into the atmosphere — Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) and and Silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4). Eventually they were pressured to add water scrubbers to their smokestacks because this mixture produces hydrofluorosilicic acid.
Infowars was invited to tour one of Austin’s Water Treatment Plants with a local citizen group in June 2009. From a first hand eyewitness account, I saw what the Austin Water Utility puts in the public water supply and I can tell you without a doubt that TOXIC WASTE IS BEING ADDED TO THE WATER in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid.
During our plant visit we were allowed to video a 1 hour presentation with Q and A, but we were asked to turn off our cameras during the actual tour for Homeland Security reasons. Therefore, we don’t have photos of the two 20 thousand gallon tanks and corroded piping tucked inside a sealed room marked “hazardous, nor do I have photos of the concrete that is soft and powdery where the tankers (marked with “Hazardous” signs) link up to the corroded pipes that push the fluoride into the storage tanks, nor the MSDS Label Code which is a 4 under the Health Hazard designation which states: “Very short exposure could cause death or serious residual injury even though prompt medical attention was given“. Notice the MSDS label the fluoride products as a 3 on the health scale yet the AWU sets the level at 4.
I do, however, have the admission from the assistant director of the Austin Plant and she says Austin uses fluorosilicic acid which it receives from the company Lucier Chemical Industries, “The fluoride specialists”. They are merely a distribution arm for a large conglomerate called Mosaic which is a partnership between Cargill, Incorporated, and IMC Global Inc. Their 2010 annual report lists only one reference to Fluorosilicic Acid: “Some of our Florida and Louisiana facilities produce fluorosilicic acid, which is a hazardous chemical, for resale to third parties.” The Austin Water Utility pays Lucier around 1 million dollars a year to add this wonder cocktail to our water supply which must be handled with utmost care.
In fact this is what happens when a truck containing fluorosilicic acid wrecks on the interstate:
A spill incident of the chemical on an interstate in Florida, covering an area 600 feet long and 60 feet wide, resulted in the visit of more than 50 people to hospitals. Individuals complained of skin and respiratory irritation, including burning in the throat, and headaches. A man riding in a truck with his arm out the window experienced burning on his forearm. The effects of long-term exposure to fluorosilicic acid are changes in bone, corrosivity of the mucous membranes (e.g., ulceration of the nose, throat, and bronchial tubes), coughing, shock, pulmonary edema, fluorosis, coma, and even death. In workers engaged for approximately 30 years in the production of phosphate fertilizers, nine out of the 50 observed workers had increased bone densities. When swallowed, severe irritation of the lungs, nose, and throat can occur, as well as severe damage to the throat and stomach. A probable oral lethal dose of 50- 5000 mg/kg, classified as very toxic, has been reported for doses between 1 teaspoon and 1 ounce for a 150-pound (70-kg) person; a probable oral lethal dose of 5-50 mg/kg, classified as extremely toxic, has been reported for doses between 7 drops and 1 teaspoon for the same individual.
Seven drops is reported as extremely toxic even lethal, and it is put in the Austin drinking water at around 10 gallons per hour to it’s water supply to keep it level around 1ppm with the highest level being 4 ppm.
Let’s look at a few of the the safety procedures as defined by the state of Texas when handling fluoride-like products.
Page 13 starts with safety procedures and overfeed issues for community fluoridation. Page 17 goes over recommendations for fluoride levels in schools which are set more than 4X’s the amount for communities.
And here is a second source for school fluoride levels from a CDC 1992 survey of all water treatment plants in the United States.
Here is what the EPA sets as Maximum Containment Level (MCL).
The MCL levels set by the EPA are in direct contradiction to the CDC recommended optimal levels when it comes to setting up fluoridation systems in public schools. Even the EPA’s own employees take issue with these MCL levels that are set at 2 ppm. A 1986 brief filed on behalf of the Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees is made up of “toxicologists, chemists, physical scientists, statisticians, biologists, engineers and attorneys. NFFE is the exclusive representative of scientific and technical employees at EPA.” They claim that “serious errors were made by the Agency (EPA) in setting the fluoride Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL).” The minds at the EPA took serious issue with the EPA’s mandates and wrote:
The process by which EPA arrived at the RMCL for fluoride is scientifically irrational and displays an unprofessional review of relevant scientific data. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires that an RMCL must be a reflection of the opinion of health professionals as to the level of a contaminant at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons will occur, and which allows an adequate margin of safety. However, the final RMCL for fluoride does not represent a determination made on the basis of scientific and technical expertise.
Four years later Dr. Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor in EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, was fired for a 1990 whistle-blowing memo calling for a review of the cover-up of the National Toxicology Program study that shows fluoride is a “probable human carcinogen [cancer causing agent]“:
The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal “trigger” mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 , Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.
Still think fluoride is safe? Read the back of your tooth paste. I show this to friends who will not believe that water fluoridation is detrimental to human health. Here is a pic of what you will find on all fluoride toothpaste. Sodium monofluorophosphate is pharmaceutical grade and does not have as serious health risks compared to fluorosilicic acid yet if you swallow more than a pea sized amount you are told to contact a Poison Control Center.
Water fluoridation proponents trumpet 1940’s pseudo science, a CDC (who-ra list) and the charity “help the poor” claim . Despite the fact that 2000 Surgeon General Oral health states that “Those who suffer the worst oral health include poor Americans, especially children” when around 70% of our national public water supplies were fluoridated. Eight years later the state of Texas echoed the same claims “For thousands of Texans, geography serves as a barrier to oral health care. The problem is presumably worse among poor, uninsured or elderly uninsured residents of medically undeserved areas”. Texas fluoridates 76% of it’s water supplies so one can conclude that water fluoridation has done little to improve the dental hygiene of poor Texans and the rest of the country. Yet both agencies strongly support more fluoridation even though the evidence against this practice is beginning to mount.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Harvard university stepped into the fluoride controversy when one its own “School of Dental Medicine epidemiologists was investigated by federal authorities for burying evidence of fluoride’s link to bone cancer.”
Chester Douglass, who is editor in chief of the industry-funded Colgate Oral Care Report, claimed to find no such link in his initial study between osteosarcoma, and fluoride. Upon investigation from closed door panel, Harvard stated that the professor did not intentionally suppress the findings. His research shows a clear carcinogenic link especially in young boys, but Harvard would have you believe that when industry insiders withhold evidence in studies it’s unintentional suppression. As of this date the have kept the findings and minutes of their investigation a secret.
Others in the scientific community are no longer ignoring the facts and the tide is building against water fluoridation. Read the 2007 report submitted by hundreds of scientific professionals. “Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.” Eight years since their original brief workers at the EPA are still vocal against water fluoridation. Petitioners have demanded the practice be stopped until a Congressional investigation.
An Australian news program todaytonight Adelaide did their own investigation into the fluoridation process.
Even Time magazine ranks fluoride as 4th in it’s list of TOP 10 COMMON HOUSEHOLD TOXINS.
The only winners in this paradigm are the aluminum and fertilizer industries that work hand in hand with public water works to send a bona-fide toxic waste into the homes of millions across our country. Americans are paying to be force medicated and to act as bio-filters so multinational conglomerates can dispose of Superfund quality sludge into our bodies rather than be responsible for the products they create. Massive public relations campaigns keep the public in the dark and stifle proper disclosure of evidence. It’s this type of cozy relationship between multinational corporations, government regulatory agencies and the elite scientific community that Americans have grown accustomed. Fluoride has no business being in our drinking water. Call and write your representatives and demand them to outlaw this form of poisoning.