September 30, 2014

EPA Scientists Oppose Water Fluoridation

pin it button EPA Scientists Oppose Water Fluoridation

Fish Skeleton by Erica Hargreave EPA Scientists Oppose Water Fluoridation

Fish Skeleton, by Erica Hargreave (Filter applied)
 

by Heidi Stevenson
Gaia-Health.com 

“I’ve never seen scientific evidence discounted and refused to be looked at the way they’re doing with fluoride.” We’re facing a bottom-line reality. There can be no question that the US government’s policy is that water will be fluoridated no matter how much harm is done to the people. 

In this age of repression on genuine scientific research, we need to take note that scientists free to do open and honest research, and report on it, have often taken stands that dispute their agencies’ officials stances. Nowhere has that been more true than in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the issue of fluoride. Rank and file EPA scientists have strongly opposed water fluoridation.

EPA scientists protected by the National Treasury Employees Union were approached by an employee in 1985. His concern was that he was:

… being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have “funky” teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn’t have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.[1]

A statement issued by EPA scientists stated that they tried to “settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure.” Therefore, they went public with it and filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a public interest group’s suit against the EPA. In their statement, from which the above quote was extracted, the scientists avered that their opposition to fluoridation only grew stronger after that incident.

Studies Showing Fluoride Lowers Intelligence

That article goes on to document research by Phyllis Mullenix, PhD, who had established the Department of Toxicology at the Forsyth Dental Research Institute. She was also involved with a research program at Harvard’s Department of Neuropathology and Psychiatry. That research documented significant neurotoxic effects of fluoride.

Dr. Mullenix described going to a conference of the National Institute of Dental Research, a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to present her findings and realizing, on walking in, that she was in hostile territory. The entry areas were filled with propaganda declaring “The Miracle of Fluoride”. Of her experience at that conference, she stated:

The fluoride pattern of behavioral problems matches up with the same results of administering radiation and chemotherapy [to cancer patients]. All of these really nasty treatments that are used clinically in cancer therapy are well known to cause I.Q. deficits in children. That’s one of the best studied effects they know of. The behavioral pattern that results from the use of fluoride matches that produced by cancer treatment that causes a reduction in intelligence.[2]

On meeting with dental industry representatives afterwards, she was asked if she’d been saying that fluoride lowers children’s IQ. She says, “And I told them, ‘basically, yes.’”[2]

That was the end of her career. She was fired from Forsyth Dental Center and has gotten no related grants since then. Shortly after her firing, Forsyth received a quarter million dollar grant from Colgate, the toothpaste manufacturer. She has since stated:

I got into science because it was fun, and I would like to go back and do further studies, but I no longer have any faith in the integrity of the system. I find research is utterly controlled.

EPA scientists also noted a Chinese study documenting that children between ages 8 and 13 consistently score 5-10 IQ points lower than children subjected to less fluoride.

Fluoride and Cancer

Dr. William Marcus, the chief toxicologist of the EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, was fired for his refusal to be silent about his work on fluoride.

Dr. Marcus was particularly concerned about several studies showing that fluoride causes osteosarcoma (bone cancer), particularly in young men. A 2-year study was conducted by the National Toxicology Program. It documented bone cancer and cancer in other tissues in rats. This coincided with other studies documenting fluoride’s ability to cause cellular mutations, which are associated with cancer, and osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey.

Dr. Marcus called for an unbiased evaluation of these studies. He was vindicated, though it didn’t result in full restitution of his losses, when he won his lawsuit against the EPA, which found that he was clearly dismissed for his anti-fluoride advocacy.

Brain and Kidney Damaging Effects of Fluoride

The EPA scientists then noted a study by JA Varner, KF Jensen, W Horvath, and RL Isaacson[3] that demonstrated as little as 1 ppm (part per million) of fluoride in water causes damage to the brains and kidneys of rats. The scientists referred to this as:

… especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats – rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans.

Most significantly, the EPA considers such doses to be benign.

Pineal Gland and Early Maturation

The scientists reported on a study documenting that fluoride collects in the pineal gland, resulting in early sexual maturation in children. A comparison of girls in two different towns, one with flouridated water and one without, showed that those drinking the treated water matured an average of six months earlier.

Bone Pathology Caused by Fluoride

EPA scientists expressed concerns about crippling skeletal fluorosis. It was ethical deficiencies in the standards-setting process that resulted in them filing the amicus curiae brief discussed above.

Many of the symptoms from dioxin poisoning are indistinguishable from fluoride poisoning, an unsurprising fact, since dioxins usually contain fluoride. It’s probaby the primary reason for dioxin’s devastating effects.

Lack of Efficacy in Preventing Dental Decay

Finally, the scientists pointed to the lack of double-blind studies in support of caries prevention. They pointed out that a study done by dentists of the National Institute of Dental Research, involving more than 39,000 children aged 5-17, documented no significant differences in tooth health among fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and nonfluoridated communities. The study considered decayed, missing, and filled teeth.

They also reported a 50-year study comparing two New York communities, Newburgh and Kingston. It documented no benefit from fluoridation, but showed double the amount of fluorosis in the teeth of children drinking fluoridated water, the first sign of fluoride toxicity.

They cited a publication by John Colquhoun, Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand, titled “Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation”. The article stated that:

Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.

EPA Scientists’ Conclusion

The EPA scientists’ report stated:

For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.

They used the EPA’s own risk control methodology, called the Reference Dose, to determine what an acceptable fluoride dose is. By that method, they determined that the Reference Dose for fluoride is 0.000007 mg/kg of body weight/day.

In Washington DC, they determined that people drinking only one quart from the public water supply each day ingest 0.01 mg/kg a day. That is more than 1,428 times the safe dose of fluoride!

The EPA scientists concluded:

The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

The EPA’s Current Policy

The EPA has set a standard of no more than 4.0 mg/liter of water as a maximum allowed. In minor deference to children, who are at far greater risk, they set a secondary standard of 2.0 mg/liter. They don’t regulate against it; rather, they merely require that communities with fluoridation at that level must be informed.

This is nothing less than a declaration of war on the people, especially those without the funding to protect themselves by drinking bottled water (which carries its own environmental issues) or purifying tap water. It also means that farm animals are at risk for fluoridation, as documented in this video:

 

 

 

The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with protecting the environment and protecting people’s health from environmental contamination. Clearly, the EPA doesn’t take this seriously. Its own scientists, the ones charged with studying issues of environmental health, are ignored and forced to silence on fluoride, a substance that’s been shown to provide none of the claimed benefit for teeth and a host of devastating health effects. Children are losing their full potential in intelligence and health.

In 2005, 11 EPA employee unions representing more than 700 professional environmental and public health officials, officially called for a moratorium on fluoridation.[4] It was based primarily on “an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young boys” by the EPA.

The EPA still hasn’t taken a stand on the dangers of fluoride in the environment or water. They even help in the promulgation of outright lies about its safety. Who does the EPA really represent? It certainly isn’t the people.

As Dr. Robert Carton, former President of the EPA Headquarters Union, stated:

This whole thing is politics. You’re not talking science at all.

Read the full article here: http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-01-31/epa-scientists-oppose-water-fluoridation/

Sources:

  1. Why EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation
  2. Dr. Phyllis Mullenix: The “Miracle of Fluoride” or A Dirty Industry?
  3. Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity.
  4. EPA Unions Call for Nationwide Moratorium on Fluoridation, Congressional Hearing on Adverse Effects, Youth Cancer Cover Up
  5. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats
  6. Fluoride from Municipal Water Supplies is Toxic to Fish
  7. EPA Fluoride Standards Database: Notable Quotes


0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Vaccine Scandals and Criminal Cases Increase in 2014

Vaccine Scandals and Criminal Cases Increase in 2014

Pin It

Criminal activities of pharmaceutical companies are frequently reported on in the mainstream media. The largest criminal settlements in U.S. history are cases against pharmaceutical companies, such as Johnson & Johnson’s $2.2 billion criminal settlement late last year for illegally marketing drugs to the elderly, children and the mentally disabled.

When it comes to criminal activities involved with marketing vaccines, however, there is a near total blackout in the mainstream media. So here at Health Impact News we will highlight a sampling of some of the biggest stories of fraud and criminal activities involved with marketing vaccines so far here in 2014.

Very few of these stories have been mentioned in the mainstream media, because the vaccine market is a multi-billion dollar market, and the vaccine industry does not like losing any market share. They are using their incestuous relationship to the U.S. government to take away personal rights and liberties in medical choices. They would like mandatory vaccine policies in place at the local, state, and national levels, because their products cannot survive in a free market. They need government collusion and coercion for this market to survive. And so far, with the help of the mainstream media generally not reporting on the corruption and criminal activity, they have a willing and compliant public.

The Flu Vaccine War: Healthcare Workers Fight Back

The Flu Vaccine War: Healthcare Workers Fight Back

Pin It

We have already established in previous articles that the flu vaccine is by far the most dangerous vaccine in the United States, injuring and killing many people every year based on settled court cases by the Department of Justice in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

And yet, hospitals across the country are mandating that healthcare workers receive the flu vaccine as a requirement to keep their employment. The main reason for this policy of forcing employees to receive the flu vaccine is not based on solid science that it protects patients (the science actually points towards no patient benefits), but based on funding requirements for medical reimbursements through Medicare and Medicaid, and through the Affordable Health Care Act, that require healthcare facilities to have a high compliance rate of employees receiving the flu vaccine.

Nurses, doctors, and other healthcare workers across the country are fighting back, however.

This week, he Massachusetts Nurses Association sued Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston to block a policy to require nurses to get flu shots as a condition of employment.

And this is not the first lawsuit in the country. Others have also taken action to protect their right to refuse medical treatments that are mandated as a condition to retain employment.

Chili Pepper’s Remarkable Role in Pain Relief and Reducing Tumors

Chili Pepper’s Remarkable Role in Pain Relief and Reducing Tumors

Pin It

Capsaicin, found in chili peppers, helps alleviate pain in part by depleting your body’s supply of substance P, a chemical component of nerve cells that transmits pain signals to your brain. It also works by de-sensitizing sensory receptors in your skin.

Capsaicin has been shown to activate cell receptors in your intestinal lining, creating a reaction that lowers the risk of tumors. Capsaicin has both antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties and has even shown some promise for cancer treatment.

FDA Targets Essentials Oils: Sees EOs as Threat to New Ebola Drugs?

FDA Targets Essentials Oils: Sees EOs as Threat to New Ebola Drugs?

Pin It

The FDA issued warning letters this week to the two largest distributors of essentials oils in the United Sates, Young Living and dōTERRA. The FDA is claiming that their products are being marketed as unapproved drugs. The companies have to remove all health claims and take corrective actions, or face very serious legal action, which can include armed federal marshals coming to their warehouses and seizing all of their inventory.

This is of course not the first time that the FDA has gone after companies selling natural products, products that could never be patented, for making health claims about those products. They have a history of issuing warning letters against the producers and marketers of such things as walnuts, cranberries, elderberry juice, coconut oil, and many more. The FDA requires that companies selling natural products and making health claims get their permission first, by going through a lengthy and costly drug approval process.

These two companies have been around for many years, and the independent distributors have been making health claims for the essential oils for a very long time. So why is the FDA acting now?

Bone Broth—THE Staple of a Gut Healing Diet

Bone Broth—THE Staple of a Gut Healing Diet

Pin It

Eating a high-quality, nutrient-dense diet is one of the most powerful ways to maintain health and prevent disease. Your gut in particular needs proper nourishment in order to allow your health to really flourish.

The Gut and Psychology Syndrome principles (GAPS diet) developed by Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride is often used to treat children with autism and other disorders rooted in gut dysfunction, but just about anyone with allergies or less than optimal gut health can benefit from it, as it is designed to heal leaky gut.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!