The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!  (Read 19027 times)

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« on: 04/04/2006 10:04:08 »
From My Freind Chris Gupta
The dangers of mainstream edicts is that they are highly ingrained in the population at large. Trying to create awareness on the dangers and the absurdity of some these practices is very difficult.

Dennis Stevenson has put together a single page which can be downloaded here.  This sheet can be handed out at rallies, conferences and other events, at and around shopping centers, or to friends, acquaintances or strangers or as a news release. It can be posted up on community notice boards, shops, offices or at work etc. It can be letter boxed (3 sections with 2 folds). It can be reprinted in newspapers, newsletters, magazines and books. It can be read in Parliament.

It can be distributed to all people within a particular field, eg. Members of Parliament or local government, radio, television and the print media, law enforcement officers, lawyers and court officials, armed forces, scientists, universities, schools, colleges, libraries, at conventions, election rallies, to celebrities, authors, health campaigners, etc etc.

Please print and distribute far and wide as possible

Thanks,

Chris Gupta
http://tinyurl.com/pvzgz
-----------------


12 Reasons to reject fluoridation!

For over 100 years, science and medicine have understood the poisonous nature of fluoride. In the 1930's and 40's, giant US companies, e.g. ALCOA, were sued for millions of dollars due to toxic fluoride waste escaping from factory smokestacks killing crops and livestock. ALCOA's owners (Mellon) figured that if people could be persuaded fluoride isn't poisonous but is good for teeth, profits could be protected. So, to introduce water fluoridation, they hired the brilliant 'father of propaganda' Edward L. Bernays. Joined later by other fluoride polluting industries (e.g. nuclear) and the multi-billion dollar sugar, toothpaste, confectionary and soft drink industries, they became strong financial supporters of dental associations that promoted fluoridation. One such support group, the Dental Health Education & Research Foundation (DHERF) was founded in Australia in 1962. Its Governors, Members and donors comprised key representatives from Coca-Cola, CSR, Kelloggs, Colgate-Palmolive, Wrigleys, Arnotts, Scanlens, Cadbury Schweppes, etc.

The following 12 points require no expertise in fluoride toxicity, just common sense.

1.      Only parents or individuals have the right to decide if they or their children take drugs. This point should end the debate on compulsory fluoridation. (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration show fluoride isn't a food, nutrient or dietary supplement: "Sodium fluoride used for therapeutic effect *[e.g. water fluoridation] would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient." F.D.A. 1963).
2.      Claiming fluoride is natural, as it is found in the Earth's crust or water, is misleading. So is arsenic, mercury and other poisons. The fluoride chemical used for fluoridation in Australia is untreated toxic waste captured inside fertiliser factory smokestacks.
3.      Doctors have legal and medical restrictions in prescribing drugs. A patient's medical history, age, weight, sex, allergic reactions, other drugs taken and illnesses must be determined. After an adequate medical examination, scripts must be for a specific person, drug, duration and dose - never 'take some whenever you're thirsty'. Harmful side-effects must be explained. You have the right to refuse! These 14 safety requirements are vital. All are ignored with fluoridation.
4.      The World Health Organisation's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer, reports sodium silicofluoride [as used for fluoridation in Australia] as, "... an insecticide, fungicide, bactericide and rodenticide [rat poison] ... [and] a fluoridating agent for municipal drinking-water. ... The Commission of the European Communities (1978) requires that sodium silicofluoride be labelled as toxic by inhalation, in contact with the skin or if swallowed." I.A.R.C. Monograph on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, 27-4-82, p 250.
5.      Fluoride deaths. In a 5 month court case of world experts in Pittsburgh 1978, scientists, led by Dr Burk, a US National Cancer Institute founder and its Chief Chemist for 35 years, proved fluoridation **kills 10,000 yearly (cancer), admitted by opponents under cross-examination. In Brisbane, 2 year old **Jason Burton died after taking 6 fluoride pills. His death certificate states, 'Fluoride poisoning'. In New York, 3 year old **William Kennerly died from a 'fluoride rinse' at a dentist. The Court awarded US$750,000.
6.      Fluoridation is undemocratic. We've rejected fluoridation in over 90% of referendums with votes as high as 98% against. Now, referendums are denied us.
7.      Fluoridation does not reduce decay. Few (4%) countries are fluoridated yet nearly all have decades of falling decay rates, including all 10 (unfluoridated) in west continental Europe. WHO (www.whocollab.od.mah.se)1. Also, decay was reducing decades before fluoridation, e.g. NZ school records since 1930 show steep decay reductions for 25-35 years before fluoridation.
8.      Fluoride is so toxic it causes fluorosis, a disease of constant 'whole body' fluoride poisoning. Its first sign is chalky white mottling of teeth called dental fluorosis. Teeth can also fracture, pit or become dark brown. This irreversible, disfiguring tooth decay is the cellular break down of teeth. Australia's three major government fluoridation inquiries (Tas 1968, Vic 1979, ACT 89-91) all reported that up to 10% of children will get mottled teeth if water is fluoridated. In practice, mottling is as high as 48% (UK Govt. York Report, 2000). Dentists make $600-$1,200 per tooth to hide (cover) fluorosis.
9.      Fluoridation aside, most other decay is due to a poor diet of lots of processed carbohydrates, e.g. we average 22 teaspoons of sugar a day. The only reason teeth get badly decayed is they weren't filled early enough as parents often can't pay the high costs charged by dentists (earning up to $500,000 a year).
10.     Australian authorities often make mistakes. Fluoridation is claimed to be safe, but so was Arsenic, DDT, Thalidomide, Dioxin, Asbestos, Agent Orange, the Dalkon Shield, Deildrin, Mercury, Lead and more recently, Vioxx, all shown later to harm or kill people. But at least they weren't compulsory. Fluoridation is!
11.     If someone tried to force us to take a pill every time we drank a glass of water, we'd suggest they go where it's eternally hot. The only real difference with fluoridation is that the pill is dissolved in the water before they make us take it.
12.     Among experts, the controversy rages over fluoridation. Regardless of who's right, if the safety of any drug is so hugely controversial, doesn't common sense demand it not be used at all? Certainly not forced on millions of people for their whole life!

If fluoridation is forced onto any State, deaths and tooth decay will increase (search 'fluoride deaths', 'dental fluorosis' on the internet) and the ecosystem, other life forms and our rights will suffer.
ACTION: 1. Copy this page - as is. 2. Form a team. 3. Letterbox your electorate. 4. Display on notice boards/shops. 5. Tell representatives of your will. For a digital copy, email nofluoridation@aanet.com.au © 2006 Dennis Stevenson (07) 5594 2023 can help with fluoridation interviews, debates, talks, humour, workshops and campaign plans.
Dennis is a former Parliamentarian and Member of the ACT Legislative Assembly 'Fluoridation Inquiry' (1989-91). The majority of inquiry members would not report the scientific, medical, dental and court evidence received in worldwide submissions proving that fluoridation causes disease, deaths, tooth decay and is useless and environmentally destructive. Dennis put this evidence in a 177 page Dissenting Report, part of this major government report, but longer than the 131 page section which attempted to suppress the evidence.

[:(!]
To subscribe / unsubscribe:  chrisgupta@alumni.uwaterloo.ca
List information is at: http://tinyurl.com/2xohw
ARCHIVES: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/archives.htm
Share The Wealth: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/
Communication Agents: http://www.communicationagents.com/
Council Member: Friends of Freedom - http://www.friendsoffreedom.org


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
« Last Edit: 08/04/2006 09:20:39 by Andrew K Fletcher »


 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« Reply #1 on: 04/04/2006 10:05:50 »
The following article yet again shows why Fluoride compounds are a the darling of the drug industry. Hence one can find many drugs rife with fluorides. These include SSRI's (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) all the way to some cholesterol drugs such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa to Lipitor. It appears that the judicial use of this toxin can have many effects all the way from Stupidity...docility to even aggression...

Extracted from: Fluoride To Make Prisoners 'stupid & Docile

"There is a medical problem that affects an estimated 40 percent of people in developed world. It can cause symptoms that vary wildly from exhaustion to killer heart disease, and everything in between. The majority of physicians haven't a clue; they don't know how to diagnose it, they don't know about the 64 diseases it causes, and they don't know a safe and effective way to reverse it. All but the most progressive doctors leave their patients in limbo."

Extracted from: Doctors Are Dangerous

These medical problems stem form thyroid dysfunction for which we have the clueless and pig headed Fluoridationists to blame. Who usurp any attempts to remove this damaging substance form our drinking water.

"The NRC also reported on pages 231 and 236 that fluoride can “stimulate secretion of acid in the stomach…reduce blood flow away from the stomach lining…dilate blood vessels…increase redness of the stomach lining…and cause cell death and desquamation of the GI tract epithelium.” "

Impairing the digestive track is a sure way to ill health as the inability to absorb vital nutrients is the primary cause for disease. The so called authorities continually behave as though we have deficiency of their toxic drugs and the nutrients are just incidental! These are very serious issues and we need to take the fluoride promoters to task as per:

To All Anti-Public Water Fluoridationists In Canada

Not all Fluoride compounds are same. Silicofluorides primarily used in nearly all mass medication through our water systems is even more harmful and will be the subject of a later post.

Chris Gupta
http://tinyurl.com/jehyy

See also: Questions For Water Fluoridation
---------------------------

Fluoride Levels Too High - National Academies
(What the Press Release Did Not Mention)

Copyright 2006 by Mary Sparrowdancer

March 26, 2006 - In what many are regarding as a first step in the long-awaited correction of a 60-year old nationwide medical mistake, a study by the National Academies’ National Research Council (NRC), sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has found that the current maximum levels of fluoride allowed by the EPA in drinking water should be lowered due to concerns over adverse health effects. The current maximum contaminant level of fluoride is 4 mg/L and the secondary maximum contaminant level is 2 mg/L. The NRC found that these levels are too high, “not protective” of the population and the Council urged further studies.

Although the press release of this fluoride report states, “The report does not examine the health risks or benefits of the artificially fluoridated water that millions of Americans drink…” the 576-page report cites numerous studies that describe adverse health effects associated with water fluoridation, and after reviewing this evidence, the committee concluded unanimously that the maximum contaminant level of fluoride in drinking water should be lowered. (1, 2)

The press release makes reference to tooth enamel discoloration as a side effect of excessive fluoride consumption, a risk factor for bone fractures and possibly bone cancer. Again, however, the 576-page report contains numerous studies showing an association between fluoride ingestion and a variety of other health problems that are now prevalent and widespread in The United States, where now two-thirds of the people are exposed to fluoridated drinking water. Among those now-prevalent conditions found in Americans of all backgrounds, are thyroid malfunction and GI problems.

Numerous studies are reviewed in the NRC report that indicate subclinical or malfunctioning thyroid is “associated with increased cholesterol concentrations, increased incidence of depression, diminished response to standard psychiatric treatment, cognitive dysfunction, and in pregnant women, decreased IQ of their offspring.” (Page 198.) Additionally, their study reveals that a number of authors have reported enamel disorders in juveniles suffering from hypothyroidism. Yet, the possibility that dental fluorosis might actually be late-appearing signs of thyroid fluorosis and malfunction has not yet been studied in this country.

The NRC also reported on pages 231 and 236 that fluoride can “stimulate secretion of acid in the stomach…reduce blood flow away from the stomach lining…dilate blood vessels…increase redness of the stomach lining…and cause cell death and desquamation of the GI tract epithelium.”

In referencing a 1961 study pertaining to GI complaints, the NRC tentatively states on page 230, “Perhaps it is safe to say that less than 1% of the population complains of GI symptoms after fluoridation is initiated (Feltman and Kosel, 1961).” The “less than 1%” figure based on the 1961 Feltman and Kosel report does not seem reasonable at the present, however, because we have new and better evidence than in the past of widespread gastric problems including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and acid reflux.

A population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota, published in a 1997 issue of Gastroenterology also decried a lack of available data on GERD. “Gastroesophageal reflux is considered a common condition, but detailed population-based data on reflux in the United States are lacking.” The findings of their study in Olmsted were, “The prevalence per 100 of heartburn and/or acid regurgitation experienced at least weekly was 19.8.” Olmsted County was fluoridated 1959, and according to the CDC’s records, most of Olmsted is now fluoridated at 1.20 mg/L. (3, 4, 5,)

The IMS Health’s list of top ranking pharmaceuticals sales for 2005 also indicates a much greater prevalence of national GI problems. Two drugs that decrease stomach acid, Prevacid and Nexium, were among the top ten bestsellers, with sales for the combined products totaling 9.7 billion US dollars during 2005. The top seller for 2005 according to this report was Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering agent, with sales of 12.9 billion US dollars. (6)

According to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, approximately 27,000,000 Americans have thyroid disorders, but only about half of them are aware of it. In the RxList website’s, “Top 300 Prescriptions for 2004 by Number of US Prescriptions Dispensed,” Synthroid, a thyroid drug, is ranked as the fifth most popular prescription, with a total of 44,056,176 prescriptions dispensed during that year. Lipitor, had the second highest number of prescriptions dispensed, at 69,766,431. The NRC states on Page 2 of their report that in 2000, there were approximately 162,000,000 people receiving water artificially fluoridated at levels of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L. (7, 8)

One report studied by the NRC on page 194 showed “statistically significant changes in TSH concentrations (increased), T3 concentrations (decreased),” following “prolonged consumption of ‘high-fluoride,’” at 2.3 mg/L. On page 195, another study examined children in a high fluoride and low iodine area. The “high” fluoride level in this study was “0.88 mg/L.” The children were found to have a “lower mean IQ,” as well as deviations in TSH and T3 levels. An additional study by Susheela et al. (2005), found “well-defined hormonal derangements” in children with fluorosis from drinking water with “1.1 - 14.3 mg/L” fluoride. On page 196, the NRC states that “studies showing no effect of fluoride on thyroid function did not measure actual hormone concentrations…did not report iodine intakes,” and used lower fluoride doses than other studies.

“Thus,” NRC stated on page 197, “several lines of information” were reviewed that indicated fluoride exposure had an effect on thyroid function. The effects included decreased production of thyroid hormone, disruption of conversion of T4 to T3, and effects on blood transport - the details of which remain unclear. Also mentioned was the fact that some studies were not available in English.

The historic impact of this extraordinary report is immeasurable. I contacted Dr. Hardy Limeback - BSc, PhD, DDS, Associate Professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto - one of the twelve members of the NRC who had co-authored the report. I asked if there were any comments he might have.

His reply was, “I, for one, would look at the graph at the top of page194 and ask, ‘Are undernourished black children in fluoridated cities (1 ppm) more susceptible to thyroid problems than those living in non-fluoridated cities, as that graph might suggest?’ Perhaps. As far as I know, we have no data for this problem in North America.”

Perhaps, indeed, this might explain the pandemic of obesity and type-2 diabetes seen in low-income, ethnic neighborhoods in the United States.

Since current recommendations suggest that babies up to six months of age receive no fluoride at all, Dr. Luise Light, former USDA Director of Dietary Guidance and Nutrition Education, proposed other questions that concerned parents should now ask: “How do we avoid giving babies fluoridated water if it’s in our municipal water systems? Does this mean we have to buy special water to make our babies’ food and drinks? And what about the water we bathe them in?”

Because the EPA has now been advised of the potentially adverse effects fluoride has on the entire body when administered systemically in unknowable doses via drinking water, it would be in the interest of this nation if diligent members of the EPA would now locate and have translated the extensive German studies dating back to the 1930s. That was when German scientists discovered that fluorides could be used as an effective agent to block thyroid function in patients suffering from overactive thyroids. Of particular national interest would be translations of the German studies in which hundreds of patients with overactive thyroids had their thyroid function blocked by being bathed in fluoridated water.

The EPA should call for an immediate moratorium on water fluoridation until scientists and healthcare professionals can determine - at last - what the true health impacts have been and will continue to be as a result of fluoridating a nation of people through their drinking water.

--------------------------------------
Mary Sparrowdancer is the author of The Love Song of the Universe, (2001, Hampton Roads), and is a science and health writer with training in clinical laboratory sciences, including bacteriology, electroencephalography, hematology and microscopic evaluation. www.sparrowdancer.com

Mary co-authors a health newsletter with Dr. Luise Light, author of “What to Eat,” (2006, McGraw-Hill). Luise is former USDA Director of Dietary Guidance and Nutrition Education, and was the creator of the real fruit and vegetable Food Pyramid.
www.luiselight.com
------------------------------
References

1. National Academies Press - “Fluoride in Drinking Water,” Full Report. Table of Contents. March 2006

2. News Release - National Academies - “EPA Standard for Fluoride in Drinking Water Is Not Protective; Tooth Enamel Loss, Bone Fractures of Concern at High Levels” March 2006

3. Medscape - Gastroenterology, 1997, “Prevalence and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota.” March 2006.

4. Rochester, MN - Olmstead Fluoridation record: 1959. March 2006.

5. CDC - My Water’s Fluoride, Olmstead County. March 2006.

6. IMS Health - “Leading Products by Global Pharmaceutical Sales, 2005” - March 2006

7. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists - “Thyroid Awareness Month, 2003.” March 2006

8. RxList - Internet Drug Index - “The Top 300 Prescriptions for 2004 by Number of US Prescriptions Dispensed.” March 2006

GERMAN TRANSLATIONS
9. Schuld, Andreas, Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children -
A. “History of Fluoride” - “Around the same time (1932) Gorlitzer von Mundy, being aware that fluorides also get absorbed through the skin, began fluoride treatments of hyperthyroid patients in Austria by prescribing 20 minute baths containing 30ccm (0.03l) HF per 200 liters of water. He reported on his successful treatment spanning over 30 years and involving over 600 patients at a 1962 symposium on fluoride toxicity…in Bern, also attended by other world-leading experts including…George Waldbott.”
B. Gorlitzer von Mundy V - "Ein neuer Weg zur Behandlung der Thyreotoxikose mit Fluorwasserstoffsäure" Med Klin 21:&17-719 (1932)
(reports on the first successful use of baths containing HF in the treatment of hyperthyroidism)
C. Gautier - Bull Soc Chim 14:241 (1914); cited in: Kraft K -“Beiträge zur Biochemie des Fluors I.Über den Antagonismus zwischen Fluor und Thyroxin.” Hoppe-Seglers Z.Physiol. Chem 245:58 -65 (1937)
D. May W - "Behandlung der Hypothyreosen einschließlich des schweren genuinen Morbus Basedow mit Fluor" Klin Wochenschr 16:562-564 (1937) March 2006
Schuld, Andreas, PFPC

10. Meiers, Peter - (Historian) -
A. “Guenther Schiemann, Wolfgang Winkelmueller, Wilhelm Roselius: ‘Verfahren zur Darstellung von Kondensationsprodukten kernfluorierter Arylaldehyde’, German Patent DE 621,862; filed July 1, 1932; pat. Nov. 14, 1935.” - Patent for fluoride medication used to treat hyperthyroidism.
B. Kurt Kraft, Ferdinand Dengel: “Verfahren zur Herstellung kernsubstituierter Phenylessigsäuren,” German Patent DE 819,696; filed Feb. 3, 1943; pat. Nov. 5, 1951 (A compound similar to fluorotyrosine, i.e. 3-Fluoro-4-hydroxyphenylacetic acid, was patented by Kraft and Dengel of Knoll, pharmaceutical company of Ludwigshafen, and became known under the names of “Capacin,” “Kapacin,” and “Wiflucin” [marketed by Knoll] as a treatment against hyperthyroidism. - s.a. The Merck Index, 9th edition, Merck & Co., Rahway, N.J., 1976) March 2006
Meiers, Peter

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline Hadrian

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2175
  • Scallywag
    • View Profile
Re: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« Reply #2 on: 05/04/2006 18:46:43 »
Yet again you wonder why people just go along excepting process and chemical riddled foods etc into their bodies’ without taking personal reasonability for it. Time after time we are shown that money drives people to take short cuts and do unethical things even if they know it bad for consumers’ health.  Profit before people is the biggest evil we face in the world today.  

What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« Reply #3 on: 06/04/2006 09:23:45 »
Especially when ozone treatment is efficient enough to kill the bugs in drinking water, one wonders why we still use chlorine and here in the U.K. pay the highest prices for water in the world, when we are deluged with the rain, have rivers flowing through the length and breadth of the country, lakes and reservoirs dotted all over the place and now a hosepipe ban in the East?

Perhaps the Great U.K. Water takeaway is revealing that we are not getting what we were hoodwinked into believing to be a fairer deal after all?

What gave the idiotic beurocrats the right to steal our water and sell it to the highest bidder? Water is the most basic necessity to sustain life, and here we have clear evidence that our basic human rights are being abused right under our noses.

It's time us Brits awaken from this nightmare and order the European Union to Intervene on our behalf and give us back our water! Clean Water, not the poisonous chemically altered stuff, but real water!

It's time the greedy Privatised water companies felt the taste of thirst for a change. It's time the people of this country and many more countries realised that the water companies are not in it for the environment, or indeed for our own health!

They are criminally poisoning every single one of us and no one appears to be taking notice?


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline Hadrian

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2175
  • Scallywag
    • View Profile
Re: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« Reply #4 on: 06/04/2006 23:24:21 »
When they were building the London sewage system Cholera was thought to be spread by smell despite the evidence that it was water borne. People went on drinking it because the trusted the politicians who lead them. What changed?  

What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« Reply #5 on: 07/04/2006 23:30:18 »
But in a strange twist of a forum thread, chlorination is a major way of fighting cholera....

The big advantage chlorination has over ozonation or whatever is that it remains as a disinfectant in the water for a few days after it is applied. This means that the water is still potable even if it has sat around in a tank for a while.

When visiting africa I was recommended not to drink any water that didn't smell of chlorine...
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« Reply #6 on: 08/04/2006 09:19:44 »
Hi Dave, good point about Cholera, but once the ozone treated water has entered the piped supply to homes, it never comes into contact with cholera or any other microbial disease.

Let's explore this. When chlorinated water is run through a hose or carried in a pail followed by milk as in a dairy, what happens? "Very tenacious, yellowish deposits chemically similar to arterial plaque" form; with unchlorinated water this doesn't happen.
CBS' "Sixty Minutes" show July 11, 1992, displayed two laboratory rats, both of them eating standard rat chow and drinking chlorinated water. One rat had clear arteries. The other was also drinking pasteurized, homogenized milk. When the animals were sacrificed and cut open, the arteries of its milk-drinking companions were clogged. A scientist in a white coat winked at the camera and said, "He [the rat he was holding] is the only one doing research on that." The researcher didn't say why, but the powerful dairy and chemical lobbies come to mind.

Dairy buckets and hoses, and rats' arteries resist the arterial-wall damage known as atherosclerosis. But what can chlorinated water and milk, particularly homogenized milk, do to the far more susceptible arteries of humans? The arteries of young chickens are about as susceptible to such damage as people's arteries. So as a first approximation, J.M. Price, MD gave cockerels (roosters less than a year old) only chlorinated water. They rapidly developed arterial plaques; and the stronger the concentration of chlorine, the faster and worse the damage. Other cockerels given unchlorinated water developed no such damage.2

The residents of the small town of Roseto, Pennsylvania, had no heart attacks despite a diet rich in saturated animal fats and milk--until they moved away from Roseto's mountain spring water and drank chlorinated water. After that, consuming the same diet, they had heart attacks.2 The Roseto example is dramatic enough, but the needed detailed comparisons and follow-up are not likely to be done.

What's going on here? Highly reactive chlorine is one of the industrial waste products profitably disposed of into us Americans like garbage cans, then on into the environment. Chlorine oxidizes lipid (fatty) contaminants in the water. It thus creates free radicals2 (highly reactive sub-atomic particles lacking an electron) and oxysterols (formed when lipid molecules combine with oxygen molecules).

We require moderate numbers of both free radicals and oxysterols. The immune system employs free radicals to kill cells that its cellular immune mechanism can't handle. A second mechanism using free radicals initiates programmed cell death known as apoptosis. And moderate quantities of oxysterols, like cholesterol itself, serve a protective function. But excess free radicals and excess oxysterols damage arteries and initiate cancer, among many other kinds of harm.

How well does the incidence of heart attacks match the areas where, and times when water is/was chlorinated? Chlorination spread throughout America in the second and third decades of this century, about 20 years before the mushrooming of heart attacks. Light chlorination, we will recall, yielded slow growth of plaques in Price's cockerels; and so chlorination of people's drinking water at the usual low concentration would have been expected to take at least 10-20 years to produce clinical manifestations of atherosclerosis. The timing fits, and the Roseto example fits.

A physician team led by William F. Enos autopsied three hundred GIs who had died in battle in the Korean War. These men, who had passed induction examination as healthy, averaged 22.1 years of age; the doctors wondered what they would find. To their shock and amazement, in seventy-seven percent of the 300 they found "gross evidence of arteriosclerosis in the coronary arteries." In several, one or more heart arteries were partly or completely occluded (blocked).

Although Dr. Enos didn't try to explain his grisly discovery, he assumed arterial clogging had developed gradually. Seeming to support that assumption, almost 20 years later advanced arterial damage was discovered in ninety-six percent of nearly 200 consecutive babies who had died in their first month outside the womb. Two of those babies' coronary arteries were blocked, causing infantile heart attacks.

But did arterial damage in fact develop slowly? The water American soldiers had to drink in Korea was so heavily chlorinated that many could hardly tolerate it. In Vietnam too, autopsies of American solders found heart-artery damage. Again, water supplied to them had been heavily chlorinated.2 Did much of these soldiers' arterial damage develop, not gradually but quickly as in Dr. Price's cockerels? The truth-slow or rapid development of clogging-may never be known.

Industrial chemist J.P. Bercz, PhD, showed in 1992 that chlorinated water alters and destroys unsaturated essential fatty acids (EFAs), the building blocks of people's brains and central nervous systems. The compound hypochlorite, created when chlorine mixes with water, generates excess free radicals; these oxidize EFAs, turning them rancid.
http://www.heart-disease-bypass-surgery.com/data/articles/62.htm




"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline tanian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« Reply #7 on: 13/05/2006 01:33:49 »
As Im sure we all know lead has filled the environment around us ever since the rather dubious discovery that it reduced engine knock when placed into fuel. Lead is of course extremely toxic and is in increasingly high levels all around us. Its even been blamed for the fall of the Roman Empire (they used lead pipes for plumbing- hence the term plumbing, from the latin plumbum, meaning lead). Ironically enough this is directly relevant to water flouridation. Lead metal reacts vigorously with fluorine, F2, at room temperature, creating- you've guessed it- flouride.

Now I wonder what they're doing with all that lead in the atmosphere?
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« Reply #8 on: 13/05/2006 12:04:35 »
Ermmm.... I don't think I follow what you're saying here tanian.
Lead in the environment is a Bad Thing, yes. Fluoride in the water- I wouldn't know. Fluoride is required in the body but too much is damaging, it's all a matter of proportion  (the same applies to most other things, many metal ions for example).
But why are you suddenly diverting onto fluorine? F2 is very, very reactive and reacts violently not only with lead but with most other things. If there's elemental fluorine about its reacting with anything that isn't your body to make fluoride would be a matter for thankfulness!! You're certainly not going to get fluoride reacting the other way to give fluorine.


Oh yes, and...
Chlorine, I rather suspect, is something which may be beneficial but requires proper care, it's a balance of risks- if the water supply system is dodgy it makes sense to accept more unpleasant anti-infection-agents if they're what works best, if there's a significant risk of a worse alternative (water borne infections..).
 

Offline tanian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« Reply #9 on: 13/05/2006 12:57:17 »
Rosy I was simply sewing the seeds. The point Im making is maybe theres a lot of flouride about if theres a lot of lead about. And we know theres a lot of lead about. Maybe its simply a case of flouride getting in the water and the government trying to tell us 'its a good thing, dont worry, were doing it deliberately'. Or maybe its just a way to get rid of some lead. Theres simply not much else lead would react with. And its perhaps preferrable to have huge amounts of flouride in the atmosphere than huge amounts of lead. So maybe the whole argument is here simply because we have so much lead.

Thoughts?
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« Reply #10 on: 13/05/2006 14:46:12 »
F2 will react with most metals vigorously at room temperature to produce flouride.... Chlorine will react with lead to produce lead chloride... does this mean that chloride is a bad thing?? (think table salt)

lead is actually quite reactive, the white surface is lead oxide - in fact lead is dangerous to your body only after it has reacted with something and become soluble....

Flouride is found entirely naturally in some areas, someone did a big study about dental health and found that in these areas people's teeth didn't rot so much... so they thought it would be good for people's teeth to add it to water. They are not adding either lead flouride, or god forbid F2 to the water supply.
« Last Edit: 14/05/2006 00:27:41 by daveshorts »
 

Offline Cut Chemist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« Reply #11 on: 16/05/2006 02:28:35 »
Interesting thread!!

I'm a little skeptical though.  
I'm sure that fluoride ions are toxic to a certain degree, but in what concentration?  And in what concentration are they being added to the drinking water?  It sounds like this goes back to the 1930's so maybe it's time to re-research this.  Someone in acadamia should take on this challenge!!

The theory of chlorinated water and milk causing heart disease and artirial (sp?) buildup is another interesting topic as well.  Heart disease is such a tough disease to connect a cause to since it's related to diet and exercise.  
It seems like the military would be in tip-top physical shape though.  Sounds like a good old uncle sam coverup to me...
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation and Chlorine!
« Reply #11 on: 16/05/2006 02:28:35 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums