Rob Dew and Kurt Nimmo
GCN Live.com
July 29, 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: The following is a lengthy article with links to government documents. In order to fully understand the argument presented, it is suggested the reader save the documents and study them. Keyword searches of the terms presented below will help better understand the dangers of fluoride.

After reading an article entitled Is flouride part of globalist plot? by freelance author and technical writer Phil Elmore posted on the WorldNetDaily website, I was motivated to correct Mr. Elmore’s misconceptions. In order to do this, I have decided to present evidence concerning the health dangers of fluoride.

In order to make his argument about the safety of fluoride, Mr. Elmore cites a 1943 discovery made by Dr. H. Trendley Dean. According to Dean, 1 ppm (parts per million) of naturally occurring fluoride is an ideal concentration “to prevent cavities without staining the teeth.” In addition, the CDC claims that water fluoridation is one of the greatest health achievements of the 20th century. Apologists also make the claim that water fluoridation is beneficial to the dental health of poor children who may not have regular access to a dentist.

Currently there are two types of fluoride most commonly linked to water fluoridation. Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) — the most likely culprit of “Texas teeth” cited by Dr. Dean — and Sodium Fluoride (NaF), a common ingredient found in many pest control products including roach poison.

Sodium Fluoride has two distant cousins — hydrofluosilicic acid H2SiF6 and sodium silicofluoride Na2SiF6, which are more commonly used 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%). Sodium fluoride, at 9% , follow these two compounds. In is advised you read the linked MSDS sheets for each compound.

Calcium fluoride, also known as fluorite, is a mined substance and therefore more expensive than sodium fluoride, hydrofluoric acid and sodium silicofluoride which are industrial byproducts from the production of aluminum and the phosphate fertilizer industry.

The fertilizer industry has released two toxic gasses into the atmosphere for a number of years — Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) and and Silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4). The industry was eventually convinced to add water scrubbers to trap the gasses because the result produces hydrofluorosilicic acid.

In June of 2009, Infowars was invited to tour one of Austin’s Water Treatment Plants with a local citizen group. I saw the compounds the Austin Water Utility adds to the public water supply. 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 presentation of a Q and A session. However, we were asked to turn off our cameras during the actual tour for Homeland Security reasons. Because of this we do not have photos of the two 20 thousand gallon tanks and corroded piping I observed inside a sealed room marked “hazardous,” nor do I have photos of the soft and powdery concrete that results from the small spillage that occurs when the 18 wheeled trucks — marked with “Hazardous” warnings — link up to corroded pipes feeding fluoride into the storage tanks. I also was unable to capture images of the MSDS Label Code. This code is ranked 4 under the Health Hazard designation and states: “Very short exposure could cause death or serious residual injury even though prompt medical attention was given”.

I did, however, receive an admission from the assistant director of the Austin Plant that the city uses fluorosilicic acid manufactured by the company Lucier Chemical Industries, dubbed “The fluoride specialists”. Lucier is a distribution arm of a large conglomerate called Mosaic which is a partnership between Cargill, Incorporated, and IMC Global Inc. Mosaic’s 2010 annual report contains 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 approximately 1 million dollars per year to add this wonder cocktail to Austin’s water supply.

In order to better understand the effects of fluorosilicic acid, consider the following description of an accident on a Florida 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 of fluorosilicic acid is considered extremely toxic and potentially lethal. Remarkably, around 10 gallons per hour are pumped into Austin’s water supply. The level maintained is approximately 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 for the handling of fluoride-like products.

Page 13 begins with safety procedures and overfeed issues for community fluoridation. Page 17 covers recommendations for fluoride levels in schools, a rate that is more than four times the amount established for communities.

Below is a second source for school fluoride levels from a CDC 1992 survey of all water treatment plants within the United States.

The following table describes what the EPA has established as the Maximum Containment Level (MCL).

The MCL levels set by the EPA directly contradict the CDC recommended optimal levels for setting up fluoridation systems in public schools. Even the EPA’s own employees take issue with these MCL levels set at 2 ppm. A 1986 brief filed on behalf of the Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE ) cites toxicologists, chemists, physical scientists, statisticians, biologists, engineers and attorneys. NFFE acts as the exclusive representative of scientific and technical employees at EPA. The NFFE professionals claim that “serious errors were made by the Agency (EPA) in setting the fluoride Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL).” The NFFE 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 Adviser in EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, was fired in response to a 1990 whistle-blowing memo calling for a review of the cover-up of the National Toxicology Program study that demonstrates 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 the serious health risks of fluorosilicic acid and yet if you swallow more than a pea sized amount you are told to contact a Poison Control Center.

In order to make the case fluoride is safe, proponents cite 1940s pseudo-science, CDC statistics, and the claim that fluoride is beneficial to the dental health of poor children. The state of Texas has made the same questionable claim. “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”. Since Texas fluoridates 76% of the state’s water supply, one can conclude that water fluoridation has done little to improve the dental hygiene of poor Texans and indeed the rest of the country. Regardless, both agencies strongly support expanded fluoridation despite the overwhelming evidence stacked against the practice.

Harvard university inserted itself in the fluoride controversy when one the university’s own “School of Dental Medicine epidemiologists was investigated by federal authorities for burying evidence of fluoride’s link to bone cancer.”

Chester Douglass, editor in chief of the industry-funded Colgate Oral Care Report, claimed he did not find a link between osteosarcoma and fluoride. A closed door panel determined at Harvard stated the professor did not intentionally suppress the findings. His research shows a clear carcinogenic link especially in young boys. Harvard would have us believe that when industry insiders withhold evidence in studies it is not intentional suppression. Harvard has continued to keep the findings and minutes of their investigation a secret.

Many members of the scientific community no longer ignore the facts and because of this the tide is turning against water fluoridation, a fact demonstrated by a 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 the original brief workers at the EPA remain vocally opposed to water fluoridation. Petitioners have demanded the practice be stopped until Congress initiates an investigation.

An Australian news program todaytonight Adelaide did their own investigation into the fluoridation process.

Time magazine ranks fluoride as 4th in a list of TOP 10 COMMON HOUSEHOLD TOXINS.

The only winners in this paradigm are the aluminum and fertilizer industries working hand in hand with public water works to send a proven toxic waste into the homes of millions across the country. Americans are paying to be force-medicated and to act as bio-filters so multinational conglomerates can dispose of Superfund quality sludge in our bodies. Massive public relations campaigns keep the public in the dark and stifle proper disclosure of the evidence. Unfortunately, many Americans have grown accustomed to this type of cozy relationship between multinational corporations, government regulatory agencies and the elite scientific community.

Fluoride has no business being in our drinking water. Call and write your representatives and demand they outlaw fluoride poisoning.

Mike Adams
NaturalNews
July 29, 2010

The President’s Cancer Panel (PCP) recently released its yearly report to the President outlining the status of cancer in America. This year’s report focuses primarily on environmental factors that contribute to cancer risk. According to the report, pharmaceutical drugs are a serious environmental pollutant, particularly in the way they continue to contaminate waterways across the country (and the world).

Many reports have recently appeared about pharmaceutical contamination of water supplies, rivers, lakes and other waterways, but spokespersons from the drug and chemical industries have denied that this pollution poses any risk whatsoever to the environment. But this report, issued directly from PCP, provides a stunning indictment of the dangers associated with pharmaceutical pollution.

The executive summary of the PCP report includes the following statements:

“[P]harmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown.”

It’s important to note that PCP is required by law to assess the National Cancer Program and offer a truthful evaluation of the various things it finds to be responsible for causing cancer. The panel is a division of the National Cancer Institute itself, so its findings hold fairly considerable weight in the scientific world (or they should, if the reaction wasn’t so politicized).

The report itself is quite extensive, evaluating everything from the environmental and health impacts of drug and pesticide pollution to cell phone radiation and nuclear testing residue. But the section on pharmaceutical drugs is especially interesting when considering the fact that numerous reports have shown that drugs and drug residue that ends up in water supplies typically isn’t filtered out by municipal treatment plants.

No laws exist to protect the public from pharmaceuticals

Many chemicals are highly regulated because they are known to negatively affect human and environmental health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with regulating exposure to these chemicals, but pharmaceuticals are not included in its regulatory scheme. Despite years of prodding by environmental scientists, the EPA has given very little attention to the dangers posed by widespread pharmaceutical contamination.

According to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study conducted back in 2002, antidepressants, blood pressure and diabetes medications, anticonvulsants, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy drugs, chemotherapy drugs, antibiotics, heart medications and even codeine are all showing up in the water supplies of American cities. This study was the first national-scale evaluation of pharmaceutical drug contamination in streams, and roughly 80 percent of the streams tested were found to be contaminated as well.

In 2008, an AP investigation found that at least 46 million Americans are drinking water contaminated with trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. Even though every city tested has its water treated and “purified” prior to being delivered to the public, trace amounts of pharmaceutical drugs are making their way through to the tap. (Since not all major metropolitan areas were tested, the number of people affected is likely far higher than what was reported by AP.)

In spite of all this, water quality reports don’t disclose the levels of pharmaceuticals found in tap water. Since the EPA and FDA have failed to establish any proper guidelines for drug contamination in water, most people have no idea that their water contains a dangerous cocktail of prescription medications.

Hospitals, consumers and drug companies are all responsible

None of this is surprising if you consider that unused and expired drugs cannot be legally returned to the pharmacies where they were purchased. Many people just flush them down the toilet because the drug labels actually encourage patients to dispose of them this way (and they probably don’t know what else to do with them).

People who take prescription and over-the-counter drugs will excrete them as well, contributing to the drug overload being found at wastewater treatment plants. (Drugs are not necessarily “broken down” by your digestive system.)

It is also regular protocol for hospitals to flush millions of pounds of unused medications every year, a practice that contributes significantly to water contamination.

And let’s not forget the drug companies that dump large amounts of their own pharmaceuticals into water supplies. The same AP investigation found that more than 270 million pounds of pharmaceutical compound residue is dumped every year into waterways nationwide, many of which serve as drinking water for millions of people.

The U.S. isn’t the only place where Big Pharma is dumping its waste, either. In 2009, researchers found that India’s rivers are full of dangerous pharmaceuticals, too.

One Indian river where 90 different pharmaceutical companies dump their waste tested positive for over 21 active drug ingredients. In one river alone, there was enough ciprofloxacin (a strong antibiotic) being dumped every day by drug companies to treat 90,000 people! (And scientists detected this in water that was supposedly purified by the drug companies before being released into the environment).

The drug contamination levels found in India’s rivers were 150 times the detected levels found in the U.S. These findings prove that drug companies couldn’t care less how much drug residue they dump in water as long as they can get away with it. They don’t even believe that pharmaceutical contamination is a threat to the environment.

“Based on what we now know, I would say we find there’s little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health,” explained microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, in a Dallas Morning News article about the AP investigation. This is similar to BP’s CEO saying, after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, that the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico was “tiny” compared to how big the ocean is.

Studies show drug residue cocktails actually do cause harm

Though the chemical and drug industries deny any danger from exposure to drug residue in the water, science (and common sense) says otherwise.

A 2006 study conducted by researchers from the University of Insubria in Italy simulated drug-tainted water by creating a low-level mixture of various drug residues and testing it on embryonic cells. They discovered that, even at low doses, the drug residues actually stopped cells from reproducing.

Even though current water contamination levels are measured in parts per million or parts per billion, there is no way to know just how much exposure people are actually experiencing. People drink contaminated water, shower in contaminated water and cook with contaminated water, so it’s illogical to suggest that there’s no harm being caused by widespread exposure, even at “low” doses, especially when the exposure is a combination of dozens of different drugs that have never been tested in combination.

People are not the only beings that are affected by pharmaceutical contamination, either. The world’s aquatic ecosystems (and the plants and animals that belong to them) are all being negatively impacted.

Drugs are being found in fish

According to an MSNBC report back in 2009, all kinds of drugs are being found in the bodies of fish near major U.S. cities. Researchers found drugs for high cholesterol, allergies, high blood pressure, bipolar disorder and depression in the livers and tissue of fish.

Researchers are in agreement that aquatic species of all types are being harmed by continuous exposure to water contaminated with pharmaceuticals. Even though wastewater is treated in the U.S. before entering waterways, most treatment facilities do not have the proper filtering technology to remove dangerous drug residues from wastewater before it gets dumped.

Many fish are experiencing reproductive problems as a result of exposure, as is explained in the following report:

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23504633/)

Beyond having their sperm damaged, some fish are actually changing sexes. Males are becoming females and females are becoming males as a result of drug exposure in the water. Other water creatures are experiencing things like organ failure and the inability to grow. It makes a reasonable person ask “How long until these effects start to hit humans?”

Or have they already?

“We have no reason to think that this is a unique situation. We find pretty much anywhere we look, these compounds are ubiquitous,” explained Erik Orsak, an environmental contaminants specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to the findings.

And it’s not just near American cities where fish are turning up with all kinds of drugs in their bodies. As of 2008, more than 100 different pharmaceutical compounds have been detected around the world, affecting fish and wildlife everywhere. These are chemicals that simply do not belong in our environment. And yet they are there, dumped into our waters by the pharmaceutical industry and its hospitals, pharmacies and consumers.

Why we need more research on the toxicity of pharmaceutical contaminants

Many animal studies have been or are being conducted on pharmaceutical exposure, and they are indicating that these drugs are causing widespread harm. But very few official human trials have been conducted, prompting many to push for increased efforts.

If drug residue is building up in animals and wildlife, then of course it’s building up in humans as well, posing the risk of significant harm. Reproductive failure, thyroid dysfunction, cancer, osteoporosis — all of these diseases and more may be caused, at least in part, by prolonged exposure to low levels of all sorts of drugs in the water supply.

Many states pushing for drug waste legislation

Because the truth about drug contamination in water is no longer a secret, many states have begun enacting legislation to regulate drug disposal. Last August, Illinois passed the Safe Pharmaceuticals Disposal Act, which restricts hospitals from flushing drugs down the drain.

California has a similar law in place, and New York is working on one as well, according to a recent report:

(http://www.westfaironline.com/hudso…)

The same report indicates that there have been five bills introduced to regulate drugs at the federal level.

While this addresses the hospital waste problem, there’s still the human and drug company waste problems. No matter how you look at it, pharmaceutical drugs are going to continue making their way into the water supplies because they will pass through the bodies of consumers first!

Drug companies must be held responsible for their wastewater

Since it’s already been revealed that drug companies are failing to properly treat their wastewater before dumping it into rivers (even though they claim to be treating it), U.S. regulatory agencies need to step up and correct the problem. Regular monitoring of wastewater contaminant levels is the only way to halt the chemical contamination of waterways.

And if U.S. companies are polluting water supplies in other countries (such as India), they should be held accountable for their actions. There’s no excuse for U.S. companies to pollute anywhere in the world just because they’re operating outside domestic borders.

Wastewater treatment plants should be retrofitted

State and local legislators would do well to put forth their own legislation to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities so they can properly filter out pharmaceuticals (and dispose of them safely). Since there’s no way to stop human elimination of pharmaceuticals (apart from slowly educating the masses to stop swallowing dangerous pharmaceuticals), municipalities need to do their part to prevent these dangerous toxins from getting into water supplies in the first place.

Together, these measures would help to drastically reduce the amount of pharmaceutical waste entering our environment.

It’s the environment, stupid!

The careless disposal of toxic pharmaceuticals is proving to be highly destructive, despite reassurances by some that it’s not that big of a deal. The health of the planet and all of its amazing biodiversity is now threatened by the steady poisoning of toxic chemical pharmaceuticals.

And it’s not just pharmaceuticals, either. Chemical byproducts and waste from many different industries are polluting our environment at unprecedented rates. Mercury (from dental fillings), fluoride (dripped into the public water supply on purpose, if you can believe that!), and all sorts of other chemicals and heavy metals are showing up in food, water and the global environment.

Haven’t we poisoned our planet enough already?

Plants, animals and even humans can only take so much of this. That’s why we need to keep fighting against the corporations that are causing this harm and force them to stop destroying the world in which we hope to raise our children.

After all, if we keep poisoning the planet at this rate, there won’t be much left to offer future generations except a toxic stew of patent-protected chemicals that all the corporations pretend pose no problem at all.