Water - Tim O'Shea

Water - Tim O'Shea JoAnn Guest Sep 17, 2005 12:38 PDT

- Tim O'Shea

www.thedoctorwithin.com

 

In This Chapter:

 

Disease or dehydration?

Acid/alkaline

Tap water

Chlorine

Fluoridation

Filters

 

 

 

 

 

Some years before he was cryogenically preserved, Walt Disney made an

educational animated movie with Bell Science Labs called Hemo the

Magnificent. It wasn't shown at movie theaters; it appeared in schools.

Hemo the Magnificent was the story of human blood, a science film for

kids. It was definitely ahead of its time and today would probably be

considered adult level, things being what they are, dumbing us down and

all.

 

At the beginning of the film the question is asked - What substance on

earth does human blood most resemble? We are surprised at the answer:sea

water. And then the story is told about how all life evolved from the

ocean, and then they show primitive life forms like one-celled

creatures, up to the jellyfish, who have sort of a primitive in-and-out

flushing as a precursor of a circulatory system, then gradually getting

into more complex forms who began to have a primitive heart and some

blood vessels. And all this evolves to the mammalian circulatory system.

 

Aeons later, our blood is still over 90% water - though not salt water,

of course. Even though it's the other 10% that makes us human and has

taken ages to evolve, we are still an H2O unit. I think it was Tom

Robbins who said

 

 

 

" Humans were invented by water as a means of transporting itself from

place to place "

 

OK.

THE IMPORTANCE OF WATER

 

 

Without food, most humans will die in a month, if they have water.

Without water, 10 days is about it. Water makes up 75% of the body, 90%

of the blood, and 85% of the brain.

 

An odd little book was published in 1994 that made quite a stir: The

Body's Many Cries for Water, by an MD named Batmanghelidj. A claim is

made by this doctor that the cause of most diseases is simply

dehydration. Dr. B provides the reasoning as well as dozens of case

studies to support the cure of a variety of illnesses by simply drinking

between two and three liters of water per day.

 

Doubting such a theory because of its overwhelming simplicity, the

reader is shown that physiologically, it makes perfect sense. As Dr B

points out, dry mouth is a late sign of thirst. Saliva is produced even

in chronic dehydration, because it is a digestive enzyme. Thirst, or the

need for water on the cellular level is something entirely different.

Chronic dehydration brings its own symptoms, which we have been

conditioned to cover up, either with food or with drugs. Here are a few

examples of dehydration signals:

 

SYMPTOM ------- USUAL REMEDY

 

peptic ulcer

 

antacids

 

craving sweets

 

sugar

 

depression

 

antidepressant drugs

 

allergies

 

antihistamines

 

Dr B reports his successful treatment of 3000 peptic ulcer patients

using water alone. Anecdotal? He explains how ulcer pain is really a

thirst signal. It actually makes sense: if the intestine is too

dehydrated to adequately refresh its mucus lining every time after the

acidic products of digestion have passed by, the lining will become

irritated and painful. The intestine is not protected from digestive

acid like the stomach is. Antacids will only temporarily cover up the

problem. Rehydrating the tract will enable to intestine to form adequate

mucous lining, thus reducing acid irritation. (p31)

 

Similarly with depression, allergies, asthma, arthritis, diabetes, and

addiction to sweets, Dr. Batmanghelidj shows how balancing the

extracellular fluids and lowering the concentration of the blood to a

more normal dilution can bring consistent resolution to these and many

other illnesses.

 

It's almost too simple. But Dr. B takes the reader through the

physiology of each illness. His premise is hard to deny.

 

Obviously such an approach is not going to gain the favor of the drug

cartels; here's a guy telling people they don't need heart medication

and diuretics and insulin and Prozac and Viagra and pain drugs any more.

All they really need is two liters of water per day. What if he's right

and people find out about it? The drug business is the foundation our

$1.5 trillion medical budget. See the dangers?

 

So of course the good doctor ran into some formidable stone walls when

he tried to get attention and funding from the AMA and other mainstream

institutions for researching his theories. He was politely ignored. But

a lot of people are buying the book.

 

DIURETICS? TRY WATER!

 

 

Most people don't seem to know the word diuretic; but they know what a

blood thinner is.

 

Batmanghelidj's views on treating high blood pressure with diuretics

can't really be argued. He explains that the whole mainstream theory is

based on a false premise: doctors say Oh, you have high blood pressure?

Too much blood, too much fluid in the body. Take these drugs to make you

get rid of water, thin out the blood a little. That'll take the strain

off your heart so it won't have to work so hard.

 

Amazingly most people believe this appalling distortion of physiological

reality and take their pills like good little patients. Then they have

their heart attacks on schedule and go in for bypass, like good little

lemmings, keeping heart disease as the #1 killer of Americans for the

past three decades.

 

Batmanghelidj points out the obvious: diuretics increase dehydration.

They make you lose more water. But the original cause of the high blood

pressure in the first place was loss of fluids. The less fluids, the

more the blood vessels close up. Obviously the blood vessels can't leave

room for gas when blood volume is decreased. So the blood vessels

naturally constrict, or close up, with less blood volume. The

constriction is what causes high blood pressure - it's harder to push

water through a thin garden hose than a thick one.

 

Also the less fluids, the more concentrated the blood becomes. And this

triggers the blood vessels to close down a little more, in order to

prevent what? Water loss.

 

By adding more water to the system, the heart won't be so desperate to

hang onto both sodium and water. Increased blood volume, and also making

the blood more dilute, will relax the vessels and open them up wider.

Such a simple method consistently lowers blood pressure, on a long-term

basis.

 

The amazing thing is not that this is so absurdly simple; it's that the

people we entrust our health to could possibly miss something as

fundamental as hydration. What about the complicated stuff?

 

Either Dr. Batmanghelidj is right or the HMO doctors selling Lopressor

and Cardizem are right. Can't be both.

 

 

EVEN GOOD CHOLESTEROL CAN BE BAD IF THE BODY'S DEHYDRATED

 

 

We know that cholesterol has many important jobs. It is necessary for

making hormones, insulation for nerves, and the membranes of all our

cells. But in a condition of chronic dehydration, water is constantly

being pulled out of our cells, for the body's many operations. To

protect the cells from losing too much water, cholesterol is poured

between the cracks of the cells, as a sort of protective sealant between

cell membranes. (Batmanghieldj, p 83) Many people who eat a lot of eggs

can still have normal blood cholesterol, as long as they always have

plenty of water. The body only feels the need to seal off the cell

membranes with cholesterol if there's a reason to conserve water. Thus

high cholesterol. In the hydrated body, there's no excess cholesterol

production.

 

 

THIRST QUENCHERS

 

 

When we're thirsty, we don't drink water. We drink coffee and Coke and

diet Dr. Pepper and ice tea and beer and milk and anything else we've

been conditioned to buy. And we tell ourselves we don't need to drink

water because all these beverages have water in them. Right?

 

Wrong. It's a long story, but the punchline is this: all these drinks

are actually diuretics - they make the cells and the body lose water.

The sugar and caffeine in those drinks pull water out of the cells in

order to maintain the delicate pH and electrolyte balance in the blood.

Result: cell dehydration. Cell dehydration is the #1 cause of aging.

Also a big contributor to degenerative diseases, like arthritis,

hypertension, and diabetes.

 

One way to tell if you're dehydrated is to check the color of the urine.

If it's dark all the time, you're probably dehydrated. It's a good bet

that one of the above drinks is your beverage of choice.

 

Only one solution:

 

 

TWO LITERS A DAY

 

 

It's no picnic. Unless you already have this custom, drinking two liters

of water a day takes effort. That's a least eight large glassesful.

Every day. It takes planning and discipline. But it's cheap and

harmless, and if you have any health problem whatsoever, including

premature crowsfeet, you owe it to yourself to give this self-evident

shotgun approach a try. In the unlikely event that it " doesn't work'

after two months, something else needs to be tweaked. Probably in the

dairy or sugar category. But read some of the testimonials in Dr B's

book, and you'll likely find people with much more serious problems than

yours who totally recovered. Many were on multiple medications.

 

I know - you're thinking you'll be spending your life in the bathroom if

you drink 2 liters a day, right? Funny thing is, the bladder is a

muscular organ. Like any other muscle, it weakens with inactivity and

strengthens with use. The more water you drink, the more the strength

and capacity of the bladder will increase. So very soon you won't have

to make extra trips to the bathroom, even though you'll be drinking more

water.

 

Think of all the people who dehydrate themselves just because they wish

to avoid the bathroom. Where are our priorities? Where is our education?

Water is cell life.

 

Two liters is the intake necessary to maintain normal good health. If

you want to get into anti-aging applications, intake goes up to THREE

liters. Obviously this is something you'd have to work up to. But for

maximum hydration of skin cells, three is the number.

 

 

THE pH OF BLOOD

 

 

 

Everyone has a general idea of pH: acidic means stuff like vinegar, and

Coke, battery acid, and citrus. Basic, or alkaline, means stuff like

soap, and milk, and bran.

 

Acid/base - that's a scale we call pH. The scale goes from 1 to 14. It's

a log scale: that means that pH 6 is 10x more acid than pH 7. The lower

the number, the more acid; the higher the number, the more basic:

 

ACIDIC

1-------2------3-----4-----5-----6-----7------8-----9------10------11------12---\

---13-----14

 

 

 

BASIC

 

All living substances have a pH, and also an optimum range of pH.

 

Any standard physiology text, like Guyton's for example, will state that

the range of blood pH is 7.3 - 7.45 for human life. More acidic than

7.3, we die. More basic than 7.45, we die.

 

Here's an example to show how inventive the body is at protecting

itself. If you pour a glass of Coke into 10 gallons of water, the pH

will drop from 7.8 to 4.6 immediately. (Whang, p 22) Now, we have way

less than half that much blood: only 5 liters. So what prevents one

glass of Coke from killing us by lowering our blood pH below the 7.3

limit? A little trick the body evolved over millions of years:

buffering. Buffering is how the body changes the acidic foods we eat in

order to keep the blood pH always about the same. Two main kinds of

buffering, and you can look them up the next time you decide to get a

medical degree. (Guyton, p 387)

 

For now, the point here is that this constant burden we place on the

body to keep buffering all these Cokes, Johnnie Walker Black, burgers,

tacos, and white sugar treats - uses up the body's stores of minerals,

enzymes, and vitamins. Actually, it wastes them, thereby making the

person age faster. Those stores were supposed to be used for normal life

functions, not for ridding the body of manmade indigestible chemicals

mistakenly called food.

 

Buffering also uses up free oxygen and breaks down cells and tissues by

means of oxidation. And now we're talking about free radicals again. And

aging.

 

When we drink water, we're taking some of the stress off the body by

helping to make the blood more basic (higher number). The pH of tap

water is about 8.4, and of bottled water about 7.8 or so. The more we

can keep the blood closer to the higher number, the 7.45, the slower we

age. Turns out there is a big difference between blood that is pH 7.3

and blood that is pH 7.45. The higher number blood has 64% more free

oxygen than the lower number (Whang, p 21). That's a lot. Over the

years, such a difference in daily stress definitely adds up.

 

Reducing the amount of buffering we require the body to do is another

big reason for drinking a ton of water every day.

 

OK, the importance of water is pretty obvious. The next question is -

does it make any difference what kind of water we drink? Tap water,

spring water, bottled water, filtered water, distilled water, mineral

water, what?

 

 

TAP WATER

 

 

City water, municipal water, tap water - no argument that one of the

main reasons for the eradication of infectious diseases, as we saw in

the Vaccinations chapter, was a controlled water supply. After all those

centuries, it finally dawned on people that they wouldn't die quite so

fast if the water they drank could be uncontaminated with sewage.

 

So in the 1800s, the hallmark of the civilized city, both in Europe and

in America, was a municipal water supply and a sewage system. This one

development was the single biggest health advancement in history.

 

Then politics saw an angle. What if we could convince the people that

industrial wastes needed to be added to the water in order to make it

" safe " ? To the tune of billions of dollars per year? The money would

change hands between the local governments and the chemical industry,

not to mention state and federal government who would need to pass laws

to keep the show on the road.

 

First contestant:

 

 

HOW ABOUT CHLORINE?

 

 

 

Chloride as it exists in nature is an element, a raw mineral that is

actually an essential mineral in human nutrition, as we saw in the

Minerals chapter. We evolved from the salt water of the ocean, which has

natural sodium chloride.

 

Industrial chlorine, by contrast, is another thing altogether.

Industrial chlorine is not a natural compound. It must be manufactured,

by passing an electric current through regular salt (sodium chloride)

The result is a toxic gas which can then be complexed to form many

industrial products. Examples are medicines, plastics, solvents,

sealants, bleach, computer chips, paints, and disinfectants.

(Chlorophiles)

 

From here on out, " chlorine' means the industrial type.

 

Chlorine gas was a weapon used in WWI. This powerful neurotoxin is so

poisonous that it was outlawed by international war codes. Chlorine gas

cannot be screened out by our lungs - it goes in faster than oxygen, and

is immediately absorbed into the bloodstream when it is inhaled. If the

concentration is adequate, death is instantaneous.

 

Europeans remember all this - that's where WWI happened. Swimming pools

in most of Europe are not chlorinated. When European athletes come to

the U.S. to compete in swimming events, they have forfeited events

rather than swim in a chlorinated pool.

 

The problem is that chlorine gas is formed where chlorinated water comes

in contact with air. That's why your nose burns when your put your face

close to the surface of a chlorinated pool. Same thing happens with tap

water, although to a lesser degree.

 

 

WHY IS CHLORINE IN OUR WATER?

 

 

Chlorine has been used in the U.S. as a treatment for water purification

for most of the past century.

 

When added to our water supply, chlorine complexes with free

contaminants like iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide. Any chlorine

left over can kill most bacterials and microorganisms. Chlorine was

definitely responsible for a radical drop in cases of typhoid early in

the century. (Water Review) Same with cholera and amoebic dysentery.

(Rathburn)

 

Cryptosporidium and Giardia are two biologicals resistant to chlorine

because they form protective cysts. But most other living microbes in

the water supply are killed by adding chlorine. Now obviously we don't

want microbugs in our drinking water, so it seems chlorine has some

benefit. The problem comes in with:

 

 

- the amounts of chlorine added

 

- carcinogenic chlorine by-products (organochlorines)

 

Chemicals are measured in water in units called PPM, or parts per

million. The standard amount of chlorine sufficient to kill biologicals

is 0.5 PPM, as agreed by most scientists. This is the recommended dose

for municipal water supplies. The problem arises when scientists don't

have control of the input. Usually it's the local water guy. And this

guy is all over the place as far as consistent levels are concerned.

Some cities have been found to have levels as high as 50 PPM.

 

The second problem is by-products. Chlorine has an annoying habit of

reacting with hydrocarbons (organic matter) to form little devils like

trihalomethanes - THMs. Definitely carcinogenic ( Simmon), THM levels

have been set by the EPA as not to exceed 80 PPB. That's billion, son.

But that figure is really just a guess. Nobody really knows for sure how

much THM is necessary to be taken in with daily tap water in order to

eventually cause a single cell to mutate. All we know for sure is that

some amount of THM can cause cancer.

 

Predictably written at the moron level, 99% of websites about chlorine

present it as a safe but necessary evil. They always say that it's an

economic necessity and that the risk of cancer is dwarfed by the

importance of disinfecting the nation's drinking water, etc.

 

But other people aren't so sure. When you search the word

" organochlorines " a whole different angle emerges.

 

 

ORGANOCHLORINES

 

 

For the past century, industry has benefited from the weird reaction

between chlorine and organic matter. So far about 11,000 different

organochlorines have been created by the chemical industry. Some of them

have great industrial value because they are so stable. They degrade

very slowly. One obvious example is PVC pipe, which has revolutionized

the plumbing industry in the past 15 years. Plastic pipes - easier to

work with than soldering all that old copper stuff. PVC plastic is the

single biggest application of industrial chlorine products, accounting

for about 50% of the total. (How Chlorine Chemicals Are Made). Really

stable.

 

But it is precisely the idea of stability that makes chlorine

by-products so dangerous. Want to learn a new word? Here it is:

bioaccumulative. When these plastics do degrade, the products of that

breakdown last even longer - for decades. That means cumulative buildup

in fatty tissues of living things that are exposed to the same water or

air. In the cells, this can mean trouble:

 

 

 

genetic mutation

 

hormone disruption

 

birth defects

 

infertility

 

low sperm counts

 

cancer

 

neurological damage

- Fackelman, p. 142

 

Bioaccumulative means that these chlorine by-products keep going through

the food chain time after time. The individual living carrier species

die, but the chemicals persist unchanged, decade after decade. The

result is that the levels of PCBs and dioxins found in meat and fish can

today be millions of times greater than the amounts found in nature.

(Chlorine Crisis)

 

Slow breakdown of PVC plumbing, year after year, is one big stand-alone

reason why it's bad to drink tap water, irrespective of the quality of

the water itself. At least copper was an essential trace mineral

nutrient for humans.

 

For extra fun, organochlorines mimic estrogen, and are therefore

included in the xenoestrogens we saw in the HRT chapter

(www.thedoctorwithin.com). Refer to it for a discussion of reproductive

and hormonal chaos caused by chemical pollution.

 

Bleaching paper is another big market for chlorine. America uses a lot

of paper, most of it white. Chlorine is the most popular method of

bleaching. Problem is, 300 different organochlorines are the result.

Guess how much of them gets dumped into lakes, rivers, and oceans of the

world each year. Go ahead, guess. 4 million tons!

(Pulp and Paper)

 

Not to mislead, you know those 300 organochlorines being released into

the water? Those are only the ones we have identified! There are

literally thousands of others whose actions are totally unknown to us.

 

Once in the body, organochlorines are protectively encapsulated in fat

cells - the site most conducive to long-term storage and accumulation.

 

 

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES

 

 

Chlorine bound to carbon is really a good combination for killing pests.

Consider the tons of chlordane, DDT, dioxin, and atrazine that have been

produced over the past 50 years and dumped into our soil and water, both

intentionally and accidentally. No doubt about it: the stuff kills bugs.

 

 

Two Israeli researchers documented a 50% drop in breast cancer incidence

after a ban on chlorine-based pesticides went into effect. (Richter)

They traced it to feed for cows, which then was carried into the milk.

The authors explained the dramatic effect in cancer incidence by the

idea of an organochlorine as a complete carcinogen.

 

That means a toxin that is capable of both initiating a tumor and

accelerating an established tumor.

 

That was in Israel. We never had such a ban.

 

 

OTHER ORGANOCHLORINES

 

 

Also pesticides, epoxy, neoprene, and many other plastics have a

chlorine base. Same reason: slow breakdown. Turns out that only about 1%

of the chlorine produced is used in drinking water treatment.(Chlorine

Crisis)

 

Remember the defoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam? Dioxin was the killer in

Agent Orange. (What Is Dioxin?) Dioxin is a chlorine by-product that is

so indestructible and pervasive that it is even found in the bodies of

whales and polar bears at the North Pole.

 

Always remember that " economic necessity' often means a situation

favorable to big money. With a production of some 40 million tons per

year, since 1990 chlorine is big business. Players like Dow, Bayer,

Olin, and Alezo may not be that concerned with the health effects

resulting from mass chlorination. (Chlorine Crisis)

 

 

CHLORINE AND HEART DISEASE

 

 

In 1990, a medical doctor named J.M. Price came out with a book called

Cholesterol, Coronaries, and Chlorine. The book is hard to find today,

but was promoted and disseminated by Greenpeace. This doctor paints a

noteworthy picture of the physiology and the politics of chlorine.

 

Heart disease has been the number one killer of Americans for decades,

and it certainly doesn't look like that's gonna change any time soon.

Many patients have had heart problems during a great portion of their

lives, with medication and years of diminished physical capacity. But it

seems that there are more culprits besides just a high fat diet.

 

Heart attacks kill hundreds of thousands per year. For about 40%, their

very first symptom is death. Such a weakening of the heart didn't happen

overnight. It may have taken 20 years to evolve. As the arteries that

feed the heart get clogged with cholesterol cement, the same thing is

going on everywhere else in the body, including the brain. If a small

blood vessel in the brain breaks because it is stuffed with deposits,

the person suffers a stroke. Some are mild and hardly noticeable; others

are instantly fatal. The point here is, heart attacks and strokes are

two versions of the same thing: arterial cholesterol buildup.

 

What's that got to do with chlorine? Hang in there - it's coming. A

hundred years ago the term heart attack didn't even exist. The first

clinical description of a heart attack was not made until 1912. (Joseph,

p37) In the 1930s and 1940s, the incidence of heart disease increased

dramatically, until by the 1980s, it was the #1 killer of Americans. Dr.

Joseph makes the point that there is no evidence of atherosclerosis

(clogged arteries) prior to the 20th century, even though many cultures

favored high fat diets.

 

Not until chlorination of municipal drinking water became common did

heart disease begin to skyrocket. (p51). Actually there is a lag of

10-20 years for the progression of clogging arteries that coincides well

enough with increasing chlorination across the U.S. during that same

time period.

 

In both the Korean and the Vietnam Wars, many 20 year-olds undergoing

surgery on the battlefields were found to have advanced atherosclerosis

(cholesterol-clogged arteries) near the heart. (Joseph, p54) The cause

was unmistakable: the drinking water we transshipped contained 10 times

the amount of chlorine that is determined a safe level by the FDA. The

reasoning behind it was characteristically military: our boys needed

protection from all those foreign germs, Vern. They deserve 10x the

protection.

 

 

The mechanism for artery breakdown from chlorine is no theory. It has

been very solidly established that chlorine nicks the inner lining in

the arteries and thereby provides a place for excess cholesterol matrix

to begin its process of stuccoing up the arteries.

 

Joseph ends up by positing that progressive clogging of the arteries

cannot exist unless chlorine is consumed in some excess. He describes in

detail his controlled experiment inducing atherosclerosis in birds, with

the only variable being the presence of chlorinated drinking water -

plain tap water. (p.65) The aortas of 95% of the chlorine group were all

plaqued up with cholesterol in just a few weeks! The birds were

withering and sickly.

 

The popular press goes round and round about cholesterol. One week it's

high fat is not so bad, the next week eggs are definitely out, the next

week butter's in.. That technique is straight out of Edward L. Bernays.

Why is everybody guessing about the #1 cause of death in the U.S.?

 

 

CHLORINE AND DIGESTION

 

 

One thing's for sure - chlorine kills bacteria. Only problem with that

is the three pounds of friendly bacteria that are supposed to be

populating our colon. Their job: the final stages of digestion, as well

as vitamin synthesis. Chlorine is in the same category with antibiotics

- knocks out all bacteria, the good and the bad. The same killing power

that makes chlorine a good disinfectant for drinking water also makes it

a harmful additive. We need our good bacteria, called probiotics. Many

researchers refer to them as our Second Immune System. Although we can

live without probiotics, the digestive system is forced to operate in a

diminished fashion. Over time, our health suffers as a result of

chlorine's attack on probiotics.

 

Today about three-fourths of American cities chlorinate the drinking

water. That's big money. Very hard to rock that boat. Some cities, such

as parts of Los Angeles, have found that ozone purification is cheaper

and non-toxic. Other cities are experimenting with a combination of

titanium cylinders and UV light. (Popular Science) But decades of

payouts, and legislated chlorination - that's an entrenched set-up.

Greenpeace and the chlorine activists certainly are not widely read.

Even the introductory information in this chapter is not commonly

apprehended, though it can be discovered with a little research.

 

 

FLUORIDE

 

 

At least chlorine will evaporate from a glass of water if you let it sit

for an hour or so. No such luck with fluoride. Even cooking, food

processing, filtration, or digestion doesn't remove fluoride. Goes right

up the food chain. Accumulates in fat cells.

 

Fluoride is added to the water supply of most American cities for the

ostensible purpose of dental hygiene. The reader will be amazed to find

out that such a thing is not only unlikely, but actually the reverse of

the ongoing reality.

 

The U.S. has been fluoridating drinking water for so many decades that

we hardly think about it. Very few articles appear about fluoridation in

newspapers and magazines any more.

 

This is no accident.

 

What would you do if you suddenly found out that fluoride was not safe

at all, but was actually a carcinogenic industrial waste? What would you

think if you suddenly found out that fluoride doesn't stop tooth decay

at all, but actually causes teeth to rot and crumble, and by the same

mechanism also causes osteoporosis? And after you found out all this,

would it surprise you that all federal health agencies have known these

facts for years, but have been controlled by the political interests of

the nuclear arms, aluminum, and phosphate manufacturers to keep it a

secret? Why would they do that? So that, in the total absence of

scientific proofs, a toxic industrial waste could be passed off on the

public as a nutrient with necessary health benefits, to the tune of $10

billion per year. Or more.

 

Is a deception of this magnitude possible for the sophisticated,

discerning American public? Perhaps Lance Ito could answer a question

like that.

 

Let's start at the beginning.

 

 

WHAT IS FLUORIDE?

 

 

Fluorine is an element. It is a gas, never occurring naturally in its

free state. In microscopic amounts complexed with other minerals, it is

often listed as a trace mineral, a nutrient for human nutrition. Other

sources disagree, holding that " no experimental work or clinical

observations have proved that fluorine is in any manner essential for

animals or man. " (Alesen, p.5)

 

This has nothing to do with fluoride or fluoridation. The fluoride added

to drinking water is a compound of fluorine that is a chemical byproduct

of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons

manufacturing. Such fluoride is manmade. In this form, fluoride has no

nutrient value whatsoever. It is one of the most caustic of industrial

chemicals. Fluoride is the active toxin in rat poisons and cockroach

powder. (Dustrude)

 

 

" Hydrofluoric acid is used to refine high octane gasoline, to make

fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons for freezers and air conditioners,

and to manufacture computer screens, fluorescent light bulbs,

semiconductors, plastics, herbicides, -- and toothpaste. It also has the

ability to burn flesh to the bone, destroy eyes, and sear lungs so that

victims drown in their own body fluid. "

- Foulkes

 

Once in the body, fluoride is a destroyer of human enzymes. It does this

by changing their shapes. You'll remember from the Enzymes chapter (w

ww.thedoctorwithin.com) that in human biochemistry, thousands of enzymes

are necessary for various essential cell reactions that take place every

second we're alive. (Howell) Without enzymes, we'd die instantaneously.

 

 

CUTS AWAY THE VELCRO STRIPS

 

 

Enzymes trigger specific reactions in the body. One way they do this is

by having the exact shape necessary, like a key in a lock. Fluoride

changes the shape of the enzymes so that they no longer fit. Since

enzymes are proteins, once they've been changed, they're now

foreign-looking. The body now treats them as invaders, even though

they're part of that body. This is known as an autoimmune situation -

the body attacks itself.

 

Another way to look at it: enzymes are long-chain proteins held in

certain shapes. Hydrogen bonds are the velcro strips that hold the

enzyme in a certain shape. Fluoride comes along and hydrolyzes the

enzyme: cuts the velcro strips away. The shape collapses. No more

enzyme; now just a foreign protein.

 

 

STARTING POINT

 

 

The most thorough explanation of the origin, action, diseases, and

politics of fluoride was presented in a book called Fluoride the Aging

Factor by the late John Yiamouyiannis, PhD. This book is the result of

25 years of research and working behind the scenes of the fluoride

phenomenon. Big money generally means big monkey business, you may have

noticed by now, and fluoride is right up there. Dr. Yiamouyiannis was

the science director of the National Health Federation. He then went on

to head the Safe Water Foundation. Dr Y can tell you all about monkey

business. No one can comment intelligently about fluoride in the U.S.

without addressing with the issues raised in his pivotal book.

 

It is simply a review of the literature on fluoride up to 1994. This

chapter quotes freely from Dr Y's book.

 

Dr. Y starts by citing hundreds of international studies of fluoridation

that have been conducted all over the world since the 1930s. After

awhile, there seem to be just two types:

 

- the studies that were really looking to find out about fluoride

 

- the studies that were trying to cover up what had already been

discovered

 

A few examples of the former:

 

Taylor Study, University of Austin: fluoride concentration of 1PPM

(parts per million) increases tumor

growth rate by 25%

 

Fluoride is more poisonous than lead, and just less poisonous than

arsenic

- Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products -- 1984

 

 

" A seven ounce tube of toothpaste, theoretically at least, contains

enough fluoride to kill a small child. "

- Procter & Gamble, quoted inFluoride the Aging Factor p14

 

 

Fluoride supplements should not be given to children under three years

old

- 1992 Canadian Dental Association Proposed Fluoride Guidelines, Dr.

Limeback<

 

 

FLUORIDE AND AGING

 

 

 

 

Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 ppm

fluoride concentration can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA

can't repair damaged cells, we get old fast. (Klein)

 

Fluoride prematurely ages the body, mainly by distortion of enzyme

shape. Again, when enzymes get twisted out of shape, they can't do their

jobs. This results in collagen breakdown, eczema, tissue damage, skin

wrinkling, genetic damage, and immune suppression. Practically any

disease you can name may then be caused. (Yiamouyiannis, Ch.3)

 

All systems of the body are dependent upon enzymes. When fluoride

changes the enzymes, this can damage:

 

 

-

the immune system

-

the digestive system

-

the respiratory system

-

blood circulation

-

kidney function

-

liver function

-

brain function

-

thyroid function

 

 

 

Things wear out too fast - the young body becomes old.

 

 

The distorted enzymes are proteins, but now they have become foreign

protein, which we know is the exact cause of autoimmune diseases, such

as lupus, arthritis, asthma, and arteriosclerosis.

 

 

Collagen is the body's glue. That's not just a metaphor; when collagen

breaks down, tissues simply lose their substance, their framework. As we

saw in the Collagen chapter, this is exactly how we get an enlarged

heart, osteoporosis, atrophy and drooping of muscles, joint destruction,

kidney and liver disease, falling organs, and bad teeth. Fluoride

dissolves the body's glue simply by preventing new collagen from being

formed. (Ishida)

 

Dr Y gives a masterful explanation of fluoride's disruption of collagen.

Not only is the collagen incorrectly formed, it is wrongly mineralized.

Some collagen, like bones and teeth, should be mineralized in order to

give it hardness. Other collagen structures, like ligaments, tendons

and, and muscles, should not be mineralized, in order to keep them

flexible and resilient. Fluoride confuses the two types. Fluoride

mineralizes the tendons, and muscles and ligaments, making them crackly

and painful and inflexible. At the same time fluoride interferes with

mineralization of bones and teeth, causing osteoporosis and mottling or

dental fluorosis.

 

 

FLUORIDE RUINS TEETH

 

 

Wait a second here! I thought that was the whole reason why we

fluoridated water in the first place - to prevent cavities and build

strong teeth, right?

 

Wrong again. And this is where politics and dog-wagging have eclipsed

science. Dr Y gives an exhaustive review of the scientific literature of

the past 40 years proving beyond a reasonable doubt that fluoride

interferes with tooth formation, causing permanent discoloration and

actual crumbling. The reader is referred to Chapter 5 of Fluoride The

Aging Factor. A few excerpts:

 

Tooth enamel is laid down by special cells called ameloblasts. Dutch

researchers found that fluoride at as little as 1 PPM caused these

ameloblasts to malfunction so that they laid down irregular chalky

enamel. (Bronkers)

 

The process whereby teeth are discolored and crumble from fluoridation

is know as dental fluorosis.

 

The U.S. Public Health service has known since the research of its own

Dr. HT Dean in 1937 that as fluoride levels rose, so did the percentage

of children with dental fluorosis, in a study of 15 major American

cities. (Dean)

 

The same findings were evident in a University of Texas study comparing

dental fluorosis in children who lived in fluoridated and unfluoridated

areas of Texas. Dr. Segretto found a 35% higher incidence of fluorosis

in children who drank water with fluorine concentration of 1-1.4 PPM,

compared with those whose water was in the .3 PPM range. This little

study was written up in the Journal of the American Dental Association.

(Segretto)

 

Yiamouyiannis goes on and on, citing one peer-reviewed study after

another, all coming to the same inescapable conclusion: the more

fluoride in the water, the more tooth malformation and discoloration.

 

It's beyond controversy, when you view these studies from all over the

world - New Zealand, India, Denmark, England, Ireland, Italy, Illinois -

same finding. Even with this consistent finding across the board, the

standard level of fluoridation recommended for dental health in the U.S.

is 1 part per million. How is this possible?

 

A major gain for antifluoridation happened in the past few years, which

most people haven't even noticed. The FDA required all toothpaste

manufacturers to print a warning on the label that if more than a

pea-sized amount of toothpaste is swallowed, the local Poison Control

Center should be notified. Check it out! Did we see that on CNN?

 

The American Dental Association and other defenders of fluoride have

testified and continue to insist that dental fluorosis is a " cosmetic

condition " and is not a health issue! You hear it all the time from

fluoridiots. Permanent malformation of the teeth is a little more

serious than cosmetic - but even if it weren't, how can a additive whose

only alleged purpose is to benefit teeth destroy teeth?? In their

current website, the ADA actually challenges this FDA warning on

toothpaste labels, saying that it is unnecessarily strict.

 

In the words of Canadian fluoridation expert, leading consultant to the

Canadian Dental Association, Dr. Hardy Limeback, a University of Toronto

biochemist and dentist:

 

 

 

" Since when is a cosmetic problem not a problem when the patient must

seek dental treatment to fix it? "

 

- Toronto Star 25 Apr. 99

 

 

Paul Connett, PhD explains that spots on the teeth and dental fluorosis

are just an indication of damage to other parts of the body:

 

 

" The teeth are windows to what's happening in the bones. "

- Griffiths, p 39

 

And that brings us to

 

 

FLUORIDE AND OSTEOPOROSIS

 

 

Bone is collagen. We already saw how fluoride disrupts the formation of

enzymes necessary for collagen production. So it's no wonder then that

the thin brittle bones characteristic of osteoporosis are the result of

fluoridation. This is no false claim. Dr Y cites the 1990 study of

541,000 cases of osteoporosis that found a definite connection between

hip fractures in women over 65 and fluoride levels. The study was

written up in JAMA. (Jacobsen) Several other major studies are cited,

massive amounts of research, again all reaching the same conclusion -

the undeniable correlation of fluoridation with osteoporosis and hip

fracture in the elderly.

 

Bone is living tissue. It is constantly being replaced with new cells,

and having old cells removed. Bone building is a finely balanced,

complicated process. Fluoride has been known to disrupt this process

since the 1930s. Dr. Alesen, who was the president of the California

Medical Association, clearly explains what fluoride does to bone

formation. He cites dozens of international scientific studies proving

beyond a shadow of a doubt that fluoride has caused thousands of cases

of osteoporosis, skeletal thinning, fractures, " rubber bones, " anemia,

and rickets. (Robotry and Water)

 

Fluoride also causes osteoporosis by creating a calcium deficiency

situation. Fluoride precipitates calcium out of solution, causing low

blood calcium, as well as the buildup of calcium stones and crystals in

the joints and organs. (Waldbott)

 

Dozens of other studies, like the Riggs study in the 1990 New England

Journal of Medicine, showed that fluoride treatment of osteoporosis in

the elderly actually increases skeletal fragility, i.e., more fractures.

(Riggs) It's the same mechanism at work: incorrect mineralization, as we

saw above. Thin old bones lose calcium; young bones age too rapidly by

over-mineralization. (Aksyuk)

 

Using fluoride as a treatment for diseases like osteoporosis has always

been a particularly dumb idea, because of side effects known beforehand:

 

general arthritis

 

stomach pain

 

nausea

 

vomiting

 

bone spurs

 

bone inflammation

 

kidney fibrosis

 

dental fluorosis

 

 

Other mineral contaminants like lead and strontium-90 are damaging to

human bone just by means of their occupying space where they don't

belong. They are inert. The difference with fluoride is that it is

biochemically active. With all the diseases caused by fluoride, the

common thread is

 

 

" .. virtually all these ill effects can be traced to the effect of

fluoride on enzymes or proteins, as well as a possible direct effect on

the DNA molecule itself. "

 

Fluoride the Aging Factor, p57, 99

 

 

Above we saw how fluoride changes the all-important shape of enzymes,

thereby rendering them not only useless, but actually foreign antigens.

 

 

CANCER AND FLUORIDE

 

 

By now we all know how cancer begins with one cell whose inner blueprint

- its DNA - has been screwed with. Remember those velcro hydrogen bonds?

Guess what other shape they hold together. The double helix - DNA. This

turns out to be the exact mechanism of fluoride as a carcinogen.

Austrian and Japanese researchers both found that a concentration of 1

PPM fluoride causes disruption of the body's ability to repair its own

DNA. Without this most basic cell function, cancer is promoted, and

tumor growth is accelerated. (Klein) (Tsutsui)

 

That's standard fluoride level in U.S. city water: one part per million.

 

On p. 65 of his book, Dr. Yiamouyiannis provides an amazing chart of

some 19 major scientific studies conducted in universities all over the

world, together proving beyond a doubt that fluoride causes genetic

damage. End of story. Except that on p 68, there is another list of

world studies proving the same thing with plants and insects - genetic

alteration from fluoride.

 

Chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk when

confronted with mountains of data, stated before Congress:

 

" In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes

it faster than any other chemical. "

 

- Congressional Record 21 July 1976

 

Can that be misconstrued?

 

Burk and Yiamouyiannis completed a monumental research project in 1977

in which they compared cancer death rates in 10 fluoridated and 10

non-fluoridated U.S. cities between 1940 and 1970. The results are on

p75 of Fluoride the Aging Factor. The unmistakable fact is that the

graph shows that for the first ten years (1940-1950), when none of the

20 cities fluoridated, the average cancer deaths were virtually

identical. But after 1950, there is a major increase in cancer deaths in

every single one of the fluoridated cities, while the nonfluoridated

cities remain clustered together at a much lower level of death.

[sCATTER CHART]

 

They actually put a number on it:

 

" ...30,000 to 50,000 deaths each year from various causes may now be

attributable to fluoridation. This total includes 10,000 to 20,000

deaths attributable to fluoride-induced cancer every year. "

 

 

- Yiamouyiannis. p 90

 

These findings were first confirmed, then denied by the National Cancer

Institute (what a surprise). Finally the research was upheld as valid in

two separate state courts, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Ask yourself, why

are findings of a scientific study being disputed in court? The usual

pattern whenever valid research threatens big money.

 

Another study by the New Jersey Health Dept., cited by Dr. Y, found a

50% increase in bone cancer among young men in fluoridated areas. (Cohn)

 

Dr. William Hirzy, an officer in the EPA explains:

 

" Fluoride is a broad-spectrum mutagen. It can cause genetic damage in

both plant and animal cells. "

 

Once again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of scientific

studies conducted and reported in the most credible universities and

agencies throughout the world for the past 25 years have found an

unmistakable correlation between fluoridation and cancer deaths. Even

the professional opinion makers can't just make all this data vanish.

 

All they can do is what they're trained to do: change the subject. And

keep repeating how safe and effective fluoride is.

 

 

BRAIN DAMAGE = LOW IQ

 

 

Penetrating observation. The earliest reference to brain disruption from

fluoride exposure is found in a recently declassified secret Manhattan

Project memo (1944):

 

" Clinical evidence suggests that C616 [uranium hydrofluoride] may have a

rather marked central nervous system effect with mental confusion,

drowsiness and lassitude. "

 

- Ferry, 29 Apr 44

 

 

Dozens of scientific studies from all over the world have come to the

same conclusion. Just a few examples:

 

Popov, L et al-- " Nervous System Damage in Occupational Fluorosis "

--Chemical Abstracts vol.14, 7 Oct 74

 

Guan, Z et al. " Influence of Chronic Fluorosis on Membrane Lipids in Rat

Brain "

Neurotoxicology and Teratology, vol. 20 no.5 pp.537

 

 

 

How can all these studies be dismissed and ignored? Many of them are

from the most prestigious of scientific journals. And the message has

been consistent for the past 40 years - fluoride is a poison.. What kind

of power can contradict such a cogent, overwhelming body of work? Only

one thing - very good --$$$$$$$$! Got it on your first guess!

 

 

SO THEN WHY ARE WE FLUORIDATING, FOR THE LAST 60 YEARS?

 

 

Unrestricted research into almost any area involving health care is

really a tiresome business - it's the same boring story over and over: A

Toxin in Search of A Market. First a chemical is created, then an angle

is figured out on how to mass market it. Then a disinformation program

is put into place to create a permanent smokescreen for the actual

scientific data. As we saw with ADD, antibiotics, the history of

pharmaceuticals, HRT, heart drugs, chlorination, and now fluoridation -

the pattern is consistent. With billions of dollars in play, the

chemical industry can afford to choreograph its two most willing

marionettes: the media and the medical profession. I didn't make this

up; I wish it were otherwise. It's embarrassing to be a human when you

find out what's been going on.

 

But we digress. Fluoridation. A certified poison, by all the government

agencies and scientific agencies cited above. Where does the money come

in? Toxic disposal. The rise of the EPA since the 1970s. The increase in

environmental consciousness as a political tool for creating the

illusion of safety in recent decades.

 

Here's the short version: fluoride is a toxic byproduct in the

manufacture of nuclear arms, aluminum, cement, steel, and phosphates.

Millions of tons of this poison are produced every year. Imagine the

cost of containing and disposing of those mountains of waste every year.

It's in the billions. But what if lobbyists from these industries could

present " scientific studies " paid for by the industries, and provide for

a continual stream of media presentations about the health benefits of

fluoride, and create unimaginably lucrative positions for " research " and

" education " within the American Dental Association and the AMA, and do

all these things in a consistent and unending way, year after year? What

are the economic advantages of that? Simple: instead of paying money to

dispose of toxic waste, money could now be made by selling fluoride to

the water companies of the nation. They'll use the public water supply

as a sewer for industrial wastes. And now with these new billions added

instead of subtracted, there's plenty to go around, for everyone

involved. Out of the Red, into the Black. Somewhere Machiavelli smiles.

 

 

 

DARK ALLIANCE

 

 

 

Up until 1931, the American Dental Association and the US Public Health

Service recognized that fluoride caused dental problems, and that every

effort should be made to remove such contamination from drinking water.

(Fluoride the Aging Factor, p 140) By 1980, the ADA's tune had changed a

little:

 

" .there is no evidence implicating naturally occurring fluorides as a

health hazard even at eight parts per million. "

- ADA News 24 Mar 1980

 

 

Following this? In the face of all the decades of our best research,

this arrogant and groundless pronouncement, by the profession to whom we

have entrusted our teeth, is saying that our water could have 8 times as

much fluoride as it has now, and still be perfectly safe! That is power,

Sonny Jim.

 

The Players: ALCOA Aluminum, global producer of aluminum, was founded by

Andrew Mellon, who was also appointed Secretary of Treasury, since he

seemed to know something about money. ALCOA funded a top research

facility known as the Mellon Institute. In 1931, a Mellon Institute

report by Gerald Cox suggested that 1 PPM fluoride added to drinking

water would be good for the teeth. That was it. No studies, no

comparisons, no data. All previous research studies had shown that

fluoride was toxic.

 

Stay with me now. The US Public Health Service (USPHS) at that time was

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Treasury - Andrew Mellon, who

also owned ALCOA. The USPHS sponsored some research put out by their own

Dr. HT Dean, manipulating data so that it " proved " that this same figure

of 1 PPM resulted in reduction of tooth decay. So now there were two

studies, one by Cox and one by Dean, both funded by agencies controlled

by ALCOA, both supporting this arbitrary figure of 1 PPM fluoride that

should be added to the water to lower tooth decay.

 

Next problem: sell it to the American Medical Association and the

American Dental Association. This took years. Even in 1943, an article

in JAMA described fluoride as a poison which damaged enzyme systems even

at a concentration of 1 PPM. The article showed concern about 25,000

tons of fluorine released into the atmosphere every year from the

phosphate fertilizer industry. (JAMA, Sept 18, 1943).

 

The following year Journal of the American Dental Association ran

another article warning that fluoridated water caused osteoporosis,

goiter, and spinal disease. They stated that " the potentialities for

harm far outweigh those for good. " (JADA, 1 Oct 1944)

 

So how did fluoridation get started then, with all this information -

thousands of negative scientific papers and only two favorable studies?

ALCOA money, that's how. In 1944, ALCOA hired an attorney named Oscar

Ewing at a salary of $750,000 per year. That same year Ewing was

appointed to the Federal Security Adminisrration. The USPHS was a

division of the Federal Security Association. So now ALCOA's boy was in

a position to control the policies of the Public Health Service.

 

Ewing chose his PR man for fluoridation: Edward Bernays, the nephew of

Sigmund Freud.

 

FREUD, FRAUD, AND FLUORIDE

 

Edward L. Bernays, described by the Washington Post as the " original

spin doctor " was responsible for evolving the pro-fluoridation

propaganda and disinformation machine. How anxious he was to put his

uncle's ideas and methods of persuasion into action. ( Dr. Y, p143)

 

" ... those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an

invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country...our

minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men

we have never heard of. "

- Bernays (Propaganda)

 

Using classical Freudian principles, Bernays maintained that a

well-oiled propaganda machine could make the public believe practically

anything, even the exact opposite of what had been already proven by all

existing scientific research. And this is exactly what Ewing needed in

the case of fluoridation.

 

With help from " experts " of the Manhattan Project, like Harold Hodge,

New York State politicians quickly learned which side their bread was

buttered on. In May of 1945, the city of Newburgh, NY was the first to

" try " fluoridation. The residents were supposed to be monitored by the

state Health Department for ten years. That became the pattern -

fluoride is the first drug in history to be tested on the general

population with no previous research. (Griffiths) Except of course for

vaccines. (The Sanctity of Human Blood)

 

One of the next cities to fall was Grand Rapids, Michigan. In July 1945,

in the face of persistent warnings from the AMA, Grand Rapids succumbed

to Bernays' propaganda machine and began a ten year " test period " of

fluoridation in which tooth decay rates would be monitored. No one asked

the question why the testing was being done on humans in an entire city.

The project was run by HT Dean, using the statistics of Cox's original

1931 paper that arbitrarily claimed that 1 PPM fluoride was a safe level

to prevent tooth decay, with no research to back it up. Dr. Dean almost

single- handedly developed the hypothesis that fluoride could prevent

cavities. He is " the father of fluoridation. " Dean did no research on

his own, and in later years, twice admitted in court that Cox's original

statistics were incorrect! (Foulkes, 1992) But the entire system of

fluoridation of US city water is based on the admittedly unscientific

" findings " of Dean and Cox.

 

Bernays' propaganda machine now went into full swing - ads with smiling

children with beautiful teeth flooded the country's media. All

anti-fluoride studies and articles were systematically suppressed

because they weren't sanctioned by the big lobbyists for the aluminum

and fertilizer industries. Tons of new literature written not by doctors

and scientists but by PR people and psychologists portrayed those

opposing the sacred fluoridation as right- wing wackos. Just like in

Orwell's book 1984, they tried to re-write history, to go back and

change the findings of valid research, not by doing new research, but

simply by new PR. (Miller)

 

" I sometimes wonder if the Aluminum Co. of America... might not have a

deep interest in getting rid of its waste products from the manufacture

of aluminum because these products contain a large amount of fluoride.

....it is interesting to note that Oscar Ewing who now heads up the FSA,

the parent organization of the US Public Health Service, and the firm of

attorneys he deals with.represents the Aluminum Co. of America. "

 

- Congressman A.L. Miller

 

 

 

FLUORIDE AND THE ATOMIC BOMB

 

 

It gets darker. You may want to go for popcorn here. Dovetailing

contemporaneously into all the above activity is some mind-blowing

information that was recently uncovered by two reporters commissioned to

write an article for the Christian Science Monitor. Working from secret

government documents that have just become declassified in the last

three years or so, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson have illuminated a

very scary liaison: fluoride and the Manhattan Project.

 

As we all remember, the Manhattan Project was the WWII secret program

which brought the atomic bomb into existence. Turns out fluoride was a

key component in the production of this bomb, in two main applications:

in the uranium complex itself, and also as a toxic waste material.

(Fluoride & Brain Damage)

 

There was an accident in 1943 that had to be covered up, big time.

DuPont was the chemical company charged with producing millions of

gallons of fluoride for the Manhattan Project. A DuPont facility in

Deepwater, New Jersey dumped so much fluoride into the air and water

that things they couldn't hide started happening in the towns downwind:

 

poultry died

horses got sick and couldn't work

cows became so crippled they could only crawl on their bellies to graze

the peach crop was destroyed

fluoride content of local vegetables was off the charts

abnormally high level of fluoride in the blood of the local people

even the workers at DuPont began to get sick

 

 

Now all this may not seem like a big deal compared with the development

of the most top secret weapon in history, but the farmers in those towns

didn't know nothing about no atomic bomb. Hiroshima hadn't happened yet.

All these farmers knew was that the chemical company was poisoning the

air and the water.

 

The chief toxicologist for the Manhattan Project was a guy named Harold

Hodge. Hodge was the first to notice the horrific effects of fluoride

pollution on the local environment, and alerted his superiors in several

memos, which have now been declassified. In true military fashion,

Hodges' superiors took the warnings seriously and thought them worthy of

investigation, not because of the dangers to human and animal life, but

because of the legal liability to DuPont and the government if the

farmers were successful in a lawsuit. So the head of the Manhattan

Project, Gen. Groves, directed Harold Hodge to research the toxicity of

fluoride spills for one reason: their own legal defense against the

farmers. (Griffiths)

 

Why was this never a movie?

 

Hodge was granted funding to study the nerve effects of fluoride way

back in 1944. (Ferry) It is likely that the research was carried out,

but it is missing from the declassified papers. What a surprise. Not

until 1991 was the there any published research on the neurological

effects of fluoride, when it was discovered that fluoride was a powerful

neuro-toxin that could affect human brain development and functioning,

even at low levels. (Mullenix) Even though Hodge collaborated on

Mullenix's research some 50 years after the Manhattan Project, and it is

almost certain that Hodge was the one who conducted the missing research

in 1944, Hodge maintained a strict silence on the subject.

 

These guys knew how to keep a secret.

 

Here's just one example of the difference between old published versions

of fluoride research documents and secret versions of those same

documents that have recently been declassified:

 

old version, published in Journal of the American Dental Association,

Aug 1948:

 

 

the men who used experimental fluoride had fewer cavities

 

secret version, recently de-classified:

 

 

most of the men had no teeth left

 

- Griffiths & Bryson, p 41

Remember, this was the beginning of the Atomic Age. Hiroshima and

Nagasaki were just the opening act. The game was not world destruction,

but rather atomic bomb production. By 1946 the government and industry

were out to arm the world with atomic, and eventually nuclear, weaponry.

The billions of dollars all that represented, not to mention the balance

of world power (America first) - all this was not going to be derailed

just because a few horses died and the peaches didn't come in one year.

 

 

LAWDOGS GET A BONE

 

 

 

So here's what they did. You've probably guessed it. Whom do you call

when you want to turn water into wine, night into day, black into white?

That's right. Lawyers. But not the local variety. These guys were from

Washington. They wear Armani. They play bridge. They knew that if the

farmers won the lawsuits, it would open the door to a whole storm of

lawsuits, and that could seriously interfere with bomb production.

Fluoride was essential. Bomb production was essential. So they did the

only thing a red-blooded American could do. They lied their heads off.

They proved that fluoride

 

-

was not the cause of all this destruction

-

was totally safe, indeed so safe that -

-

it should be added to the drinking water as a nutrient

 

 

This took some doing. Not only did they have the local farmers to

bamboozle; the FDA started sniffing around. After some masterful

negotiating by Dupont's FDA lawyers, everyone came to realize that the

tremendous liability to which DuPont and the government were both open

could be swept away, delayed, and sidetracked by agreeing that the

fluoride problem needed " research. " And who was charged with doing that

research? The US Army! That should be an unbiased scientific outcome,

right?

 

Ultimately DuPont got away with it. They avoided copping to any serious

liability by claiming that to admit how much fluoride had been released

into the New Jersey environment was a matter of national security!

Without that information, the farmers' case fell apart, and most of them

settled for token sums of a few hundred dollars.

 

One way the bomb-makers diverted attention from the lawsuits was to take

the hint from Harold Hodge's memo:

 

" Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear

of fluoride on the part of the residents.through lectures on F

[fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health? "

 

- Hodge

 

And this is where the bomb-makers found willing allies in industry and

medicine who saw an angle in using public drinking water as a dumping

ground for industrial and military toxic waste.

 

For the whole detonating story, check out Griffith and Bryson's

well-researched " Fluoride, Teeth, and the A-Bomb. " <

 

 

FLUORIDIOTS GAIN POLITICAL MOMENTUM

 

 

Fluoridation gathered momentum, supported by the billions that could be

made from selling a toxic waste to city water providers and the untold

billions behind the arms manufacturers outfitting the world with nuclear

weapons. Gradually, the AMA and the ADA, began to soften their views

toward fluoridation, until they had made a complete 180-degree shift in

their opinion, as cited above.

 

In 1951 a huge pep rally was held for all the state dental directors.

The focus was not to present research pro and con on fluoridation, but

rather, how to get the public to accept the policy from above, the new

religion of fluoridation.

(4th Annual Conference, 1951)

 

 

By 1952, the American Dental Association had turned completely,

publishing the articles of radical fluoridiot Frank Bull in the JADA.

Bull's whole focus was disinformation; avoiding confrontation with

actual studies. As the B in BS, Bull put the propaganda theories of

Bernays into actual practice.

 

 

Next, Procter and Gamble scored big when they got the ADA to endorse

fluoride in toothpaste. Any dentists who spoke out against this ADA

decision were censured, lost grant funding, or were thrown out of the

ADA. (Fluoride the Aging Factor, p147)

 

 

By 1960 the alliance was formed: ALCOA, the US Public Health Service,

the Federal Security Administration, the American Dental Association,

and Procter & Gamble. It was like all the decades of research showing

fluoride as a poison had never existed. Anyone bringing it up was

subject to attack and persecution on any level possible.

 

DOESN'T THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION KNOW THE TRUTH?

 

 

 

You bet it does. Many articles in their main journals, JADA and the

Journal of Dental Research, have proven for years that fluoride causes

dental fluorosis. (JADA, vol 96 p78 (1978); vol.80, p777(1970) and JDR,

vol.17, p.393 (1938); vol 67 p318 ( 1988); vol 96 p1158, (1978), to cite

just a few from Fluoride The Aging Factor.

 

 

But despite all the pertinent studies and years of research, the

American Dental Association is formally in favor of fluoridation! This

position has never changed since its 1979 White Paper on Fluoridation.

Politics eclipses science, as we see in excerpts like this:

 

 

" ... opponents of fluoridation are uninformed or misinformed " or

" self-styled experts whose qualifications for speaking out on such a

scientific issue as fluoridation were practically non-existent or whose

motivations are self-serving.. "

 

or the amazing

" . .. individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be

familiar with scientific reports on fluoridation. "

 

or the ever-present non-sequitur

" .what kind of mentality would reject the opinion of those who are

qualified by education, training, experience.. " and blah, blah, woof

woof..

 

or the old stand-by

" ...numerous studies have shown. " although none are ever named.

 

or the Orwellian

" ... the advice of behavioral scientists should be sought with regard to

realistic, convincing rebuttals. "

Rebuttals? This isn't a high school debate. What about presenting

research?

 

Always remember - the ADA is a trade union, a lobby whose main purpose

is furthering the economic advancement of the dental profession. It

doesn't represent dental health. And in many cases the ADA doesn't

represent the dentists themselves. This is especially true in the class

action suit filed by some 40 dentists against the ADA in a DC Superior

Court. The charges? Ethical breach of the public trust for recommending

fluoridation while failing to inform its members and the public of the

widespread available literature proving toxicity. (Foulkes)

 

The American Dental Association has a website which is a masterpiece of

disinformation: www.ada.org. At the beginning of the Fluoridation

Questions section, we find the standard fluoridiot smokescreen posture

in which natural fluoride compounds that exist in many places in nature

are presented as the same fluoride which is added to municipal water.

This is unmitigated, deliberate, fraudulent misrepresentation. The

fluoride added to water is a toxic industrial byproduct in a form nature

could never have come up with. Once you realize this simple fact, you

will be able to see the rest of the Website Whitewash in its proper

light. While you are reading the sections of this website, just remember

that the ADA is a trade lobby, whose mission is to assure people of the

safety and efficacy of a drug that is not safe and not effective, so

that the interests of its fellow trade lobbies from the chemical

industry are best served. The ADA is a mouthpiece for a huge

constituency. Their website is the modern manifestation of Edward L.

Bernays program of disinformation and crowd control, carrying the dogma

of Cox, Dean, and Bull into the 21st century

 

Dr Y gives a good summary of the liaison between the US Public Health

Service and the American Dental Association, and their control by

salaried employees of the aluminum and phosphate industries, in his

Chapter 17. It's the predictable unholy alliance between big money,

lobbyists, and government agencies who determine policies. Just a quick

glance:

 

THE EPA AND THE ADA SELL OUT

 

 

In 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act. Political forces

cited in the above paragraph caused safe fluoride levels to be set by

the EPA at 1.4 to 2.4 PPM! This is after decades of research showing all

the above diseases could be caused by less than 1 PPM.

 

The American Dental Association's reaction to these new levels? With no

new research whatsoever, the ADA began pressuring the EPA to raise the

maximum level to 8 PPM! Their reasoning? For the past 20 years the ADA

had been using 1 PPM as the recommended level. Now they didn't like the

idea of the EPA doubling the ADA's old recommendation without consulting

them. The ADA wanted to be in control, no matter what the effect on the

public health.

 

The ADA was immediately backed by the entire Fluoridiot Underworld,

because higher levels meant the polluting industries could sell even

more toxic fluoride wastes to municipal water suppliers.

 

Note that the entire controversy for setting the levels of toxicity for

fluoride in US drinking water was not based at all on science, but

entirely on politics. The EPA was maneuvered into contracting a " new

study " of fluoride toxicity to a research group called ICAIR Life

Systems in 1985. Dr. Y cites a few of ICAIR's " findings " :

 

 

-

" dental fluorosis was not an adverse health effect "

 

-

" teeth with fluorosis are desirable "

 

-

skeletal fluorosis has not been found below 4 PPM

 

-

there is no data on fluoride and genetic damage

 

-

there is no data on fluoride as a carcinogen

 

- Fluoride The Aging Factor, p159

This is the kind of shenanigans tax dollars are spent on: lies and

disregard for decades of important scientific research. But the waste of

time and money is secondary to the real issue: these lower primates are

endangering public health for their own political advantage and power

tripping. Big news flash, right?

 

The result of all the hearings, fraudulent reports, and maneuvering was

that in 1989 the EPA tried to raise the maximum allowable level of

fluoride to 4 PPM! (Yiamouyiannis, p 161)

 

Today, the recommended level remains at 1 - 1.2 PPM, with the maximum

allowable level set at 4 PPM by the EPA.

 

Now check this out: 4 parts per million is 4000 parts per billion,

right, math wizards? OK. 4000 parts per billion of fluoride are allowed

in drinking water, according to the EPA. Compare that with the allowable

levels of Arsenic, Lead, and Mercury:

 

 

 

MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL ALLOWED IN U.S. DRINKING WATER:

 

 

ARSENIC _______ 50 PARTS PER BILLION

LEAD___________15 PARTS PER BILLION

FLUORIDE _____4000 PARTS PER BILLION

 

 

source: EPA National Primary Drinking Water Standards ( July 1987)

 

Remember this citation: " Fluoride is more poisonous than lead, and just

less poisonous than arsenic. "

- Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products - 1984

 

What's wrong with this picture?

 

DELAYED REACTION

 

As California Medical Association president Dr. Alesen points out,

concentration in parts per million sidesteps the issue, regarding

something that accumulates in the body year after year. The EPA is

comparing fluorine to vitamins, for which there are minimum daily

requirements. But vitamins are completely used up in a day or less. They

don't accumulate. In addition, setting an arbitrary level of 1 PPM

fluoride in the drinking water provides for a wide variation in

toxicity: some people drink half a glass of water per day, while others

drink two liters. This idea is a very big deal when you're talking about

something that never goes away in the body.

 

 

 

" It is obvious that the important factor is not the concentration of the

fluoride in the water supply, but the total amount consumed. "

 

- Alesen, p.6

 

 

That is why fluoride poisoning can be disguised - diseases like skeletal

fluorosis may take 25 or 30 years to appear, since accumulation of

fluoride in the bones is slow and gradual. (Shortt)

 

WHAT DO THE REAL EXPERTS SAY?

 

 

" When historians come to write about this period, they will single out

[fluoridation] as the single biggest mistake in public policy that we've

ever had. "

 

 

- Paul Connett, PhD, Biochemistry

 

" Water fluoridation is the single largest case of scientific fraud,

promoted by the government, supported by taxpayer dollars, aided and

abetted by the ADA and the AMA, in the history of the planet. "

- David Kennedy, DDS President International Academy of Oral Medicine

and Toxicology " Sodium fluoride is a registered rat poison and roach

poison. It has been a protected pollutant for a very long time. "

 

- William Hirzy, PhD President of the Union of Professional Employees of

the EPA " sodium fluoride is a very toxic chemical, acting as an enzyme

poison, direct irritant and calcium inactivator..It reacts with growing

tooth enamel and with bones to produce irreversible damage. "

 

 

- Granville Knight, MD president of the American Academy of Nutrition

Congressional Record, 31 July 56 (Robotry, p. 22) " I am appalled at the

prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive

poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any

attempt to use water this way is deplorable. "

 

 

- Charles Gordon Heyd, MD, president, AMA

 

" no physician in his right mind would hand to his patient a bottled

filled with a dangerous drug with instructions to take as much or as

little of it as he wished. And yet, the Public Health Service is engaged

upon a widespread propaganda program to insist that communities do

exactly that.The purpose of administering fluoride is not to render the

water supply pure and potable but to contaminate it with a dangerous,

toxic drug for the purpose of administering mass medication to the

consumer, without regard to age or physical condition. "

 

 

- L. Alesen, MD, president of the California Medical Association

Robotry, p14

" Fluoridation is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and

it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has. "

 

 

- Albert Schatz, PhD Nobel Laureate for discovering streptomycin

quoted in Sutton's Fluoridation:The Greatest Fraud

 

" More people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with

fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the

United States. "

 

 

- Dean Burk, PhD National Cancer Institute--Fluoridation:A Burning

Controversy

 

" Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century,

if not of all time. "

 

- EPA scientist, Dr. Robert Carton (Downey, 2 May 99)

 

 

 

Why do we never hear any of this?

 

 

 

IT ISN'T JUST THE WATER

 

Adding fluoride to the drinking water causes bioaccumulation in our

cells, year after year. If fluoride is in the water, it's everywhere:

 

growing vegetables and fruit

 

washing vegetables and fruit

 

in the meat of animals who have drunk fluoridated water

 

in toothpaste

 

in canned foods

 

in processed foods

 

in soft drinks

 

in beer

 

 

A 1998 laboratory analysis done at Sequoia Analytical Labs in California

showed very high concentrations of fluoride in the following foods:

 

 

 

 

-

Dole pineapple, canned

-

Snapple

-

Coke Classic

-

Hansen's soda

-

Minute Maid orange juice

-

Gerber strawberry juice for babies

-

Amstel Lite beer

-

Rice Dream

-

Sunny Delight orange drink

-

Pepsi

 

 

 

Another analysis done in 1998 by Jupiter Environmental Labs in Florida

showed similar findings:

 

 

 

 

food..................fluoride in PPM (parts per million)

 

 

 

Gerber White Grape juice____ 3.5

Gatorade_________________________.44

Diet Coke_______________________1.12

Lipton Ice Tea___________________.58

Sprite___________________________.73

Hawaiian Punch___________________.85

 

 

Last one for now. A study in the Journal of Clinical Pediatric

Dentistry:

 

 

 

food ----------------fluoride in PPM (parts per million)

Welch's 100% Grape juice_____2.6

Ocean Spray Cranapple________1.8

Hi-C Apple-grape_____________1.16

Minute Maid Grape____________1.25

Minute Maid White Grape______3.0

Gerber's White Grape_________6.8

 

 

And it's not just the juices: Froot Loops cereal was found to have 2.1

ppm by Expert Chemical Analysis of San Diego.

 

These are just a few examples of fluoride levels in some common grocery

store items consumed by most Americans. The point is that there's an

notable fluoride content in many, if not the majority of processed foods

in our refrigerators and pantries. That's not mentioning our fruits and

vegetables, even if they're " organic' but grown with city water. We're

taking in a ton of fluoride from ubiquitous sources. It accumulates over

the years in our collagen, bones, and teeth.

 

HIRED GUN BACKS DOWN

In 1973, British Columbia was considering mandatory fluoridation. They

gave the job of researching and reporting the topic to Richard Foulkes,

MD. Foulkes then wrote a 2000 page report and recommended that

legislation begin to make fluoride mandatory in Canada. Based on that

work, Canada began to fluoridate.

 

Then something happened. Little by little, Foulkes found out that the

statistics that his researchers had based their findings on were largely

falsified. It took Foulkes years to run down the truth, but by 1992, he

shocked the country by backing down from his original recommendation:

 

 

 

" I now hold a different view. .the fluoridation of community water

supplies can no longer be held to be either safe or effective in the

reduction of dental caries..Therefore, the practice should be abandoned.

 

"

 

 

- Foulkes, 1992

Foulkes is not some tree-hugger from Santa Cruz. He is one of Canada's

top scientific researchers. Many areas of Canada listened and stopped

fluoridating. Want to read a first-hand story about lies and greed and

disregard for human health and crooked deals between government and

industry? Read Dr. Foulkes stuff.

 

Another pro-fluoride Canadian scientist, Dr. Hardy Limeback, changed his

tune when he learned that 30-65% of Canadian children now have visible

signs of overexposure to fluoride: dental fluorosis. Limeback:

 

 

 

 

" Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink

fluoridated water. "

 

 

 

 

- Toronto Star Michael Downey interview with Limeback

 

 

 

Such research also prompted the Canadian Dental Association in 1992 to

keep fluoride supplements from children of three and under. But

attacking fluoride supplement pills is just a smokescreen to protect

fluoridation of drinking water. Most research has found all the above

ill effects at concentrations even less than the standard 1 PPM that is

in most city water. It's not the supplements that are killing us; it's

the fluoridated water.

 

 

 

 

FLUORIDATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES

 

If fluoridation is as safe and effective as the American Dental

Association says it is, why don't other countries do it?

 

The U.S. is nowhere near the top of any health list which compares other

countries of the world, as we saw in Chapter One. So what are the

healthy countries doing?

 

If fluoride is so great, why have the following countries either never

fluoridated or else stopped when they found out how bad it was?:

 

West Germany

 

The Netherlands

 

France

 

Belgium

 

Finland

 

Sweden

 

Norway

 

Denmark

 

Japan

 

Italy

 

Scotland

 

 

- Smith, G.

- Foulkes (1992)

 

 

Only about 2% of the population of Europe is subjected to fluoridated

water.

 

 

 

 

- Yiamouyiannis, p.208

 

LOCKED IN

 

Three reasons why we're so far down the road of toxic fluoridation, it's

hard to come back:

 

1. To reverse the policy of fluoridation now would be for the ADA, the

EPA, the FDA, and the USPHS, Congress, and all the municipal water

polluters in the US to admit that they made a mistake. Not a good move

for re-election.

 

 

2. To criticize fluoridation as a policy would challenge the billions of

tons of fluoride being released into the air and water by the nuclear,

aluminum, phosphate, steel, glass, cement, and petrochemical industries.

 

3. If fluoridation stopped, a multi-million dollar gravy train of

research grants, propaganda contracts, and sweetheart arrangements

between government and industry would vaporize overnight.

 

FREUD AND THE SLIME FACTOR

 

It may not be a good idea to blind ourselves to the presence of

cold-blooded 24-karat Evil as it exists in the world today. But it's not

like some madman in a James Bond movie with terminal acne, dressed in a

metallic suit, speaking terrible English from his office in a

hollowed-out volcano somewhere, threatening to destroy the world. No,

no. These guys are polite and well-groomed, and have impeccable

credentials. More like Al Pacino where he's the devil in that movie with

Keanu Reeves - likable, urbane, well-traveled, appreciates a fine wine,

knows when to say that one perfect remark to make things work. Or even

Billy Crystal where he's the devil in that Woody Allen movie - very

charming and confident. These are not people to be confronted and

defeated. No, these individuals advance. Their expertise is in how to

get on, pageantry, presentation.

 

 

 

Beneath them, are the ones who do the work. Dr. Y chronicles a group of

low-level bureaucrats and opinion makers whose unsupported,

semi-literate propaganda gets constant media play. Propaganda can't be

brilliant, and doesn't have to be true or make sense. It just has to be

simple and be repeated over and over every day. These same pretenders

and " social scientists " are coincidentally the stable of " experts " who

are continually given extensive media space to criticize anything

alternative or holistic that threatens organized medicine. Doctors of

the evening. Flaccid guns for hire. Their tactics are low-level and

powerful, according to the Bernays formula:

 

- conduct no research

 

- avoid the real issues when possible

 

- never engage in any debate where actual research data will be used

 

- attack the opponent, not the issue

 

- don't try to instruct, or lead through a process of step-by-step

education

 

- persuade; do not inform

 

- use emotional phrases to distract people from the real issues

 

- when confronted, change the subject

 

- cover up the real studies; never refer to them

 

- pretend there is some favorable research by using phrases like

" Numerous studies have shown. " or " Research has proven... " or

" Scientific investigators have found.. " but then never cite anything

 

- always harp on the " superior education and training " of the

fluoridation people, pretending that the most educated doctors and

professionals favor fluoridation, even though Dr Y thoroughly proves

that most of the propaganda has been written by non-science people,

generally with public relations or mass-psychology backgrounds

 

- keep repeating unfounded falsehoods about the safety and effectiveness

of proven poisons

 

- remind people how many decades fluoridation has been going on

 

- favor mandatory fluoridation legislation, removing all opportunity for

free discussion when possible

 

- try to keep all opposing evidence from being seen or considered by any

policy-making agency

 

- omit pertinent data from actual studies

 

Above all, never stop repeating the same falsehoods, over and over.

 

Like him or not, we must respect Freud's grasp of the human mind and

what motivates it. Freud is the father of psychoanalysis, and even

though that profession has largely fallen by the wayside, diluted by a

thousand social servants, his original principles have found a home: the

media. Shaping mass opinion in the " proper " mold - the PC lemmings can

be guided to practically any cliff the controllers can dream up.

 

REALITY CHECK

 

Most people have no opportunity to have the facts of the issues

presented to them, because of the virtual blackout of information in the

media. That's why all this seems so odd. With the help of the colossal

disinformation machine in operation, according to the American Dental

Association probably about 62% of the drinking water in the U.S. is

fluoridated. (www.ada.org) But some courts have shown the other side of

the picture, and beginning to see through the standard shell-games of

the pro-fluoridationists.

 

In a famous legal battle over fluoridation in the 1950s we find the

judge letting us have it:

 

" By [fluoridating the water] the municipal authorities...arrogate to

themselves the sole right to decide what medicine is good for the health

of the water consumers, and thereby the municipal water system becomes a

direct conduit for the transportation of medicine from the apothecary's

pestle to the patient, without the latter's consent. Thus will the

people be deprived of a very important part of their constitutional

liberty under our republican form of government and the police state

will be substituted for the police power of the state. "

 

 

- Justice Donworth in KAUL vs. CITY OF CHEHALIS

from Robotry, p 18

 

 

Two decades later a Pennsylvania Supreme Court judge made a meticulous

review of all available research, both pro and con, before entering his

1979 injunction against fluoridation. His Honor was less than impressed

with the wit of the fluoridationists:

 

 

" The proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impugn the

objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation. "

 

- Judge John Flaherty

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

 

 

Judge Flaherty wrote a letter to the Mayor of Auckland, New Zealand

stating:

 

 

" .In my view the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of

sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is

extremely deleterious to the human body, and.there is no convincing

evidence to the contrary. "

 

- The Arthritis Trust, 1994

 

 

THE LEGAL NOVELTY OF FLUORIDATION

 

Fluoridation is a totally new idea, from a Constitutional point of view.

It's nothing like adding chlorine. Although chlorine has toxic side

effects, it actually does something beneficial to the water - chlorine

purifies the water. Fluoride does no such thing. Fluoride is a drug, a

medication that supposedly has beneficial effects for a small percentage

of the population.

 

 

" The purpose of administering fluoride is not to render the water supply

pure and potable but to contaminate it with a dangerous toxic drug for

the purpose of administering mass medication to the consumer without

regard to age or physical condition. "

 

- Alesen, p 16

 

 

In other words, without consent. And giving drugs without consent is in

direct violation of international codes of war behavior, like Nuremberg

and the Geneva Accords. Commenting on the famous KAUL case above, Judge

Hamley had this to say:

 

 

" What future proposals may be made to treat noncontagious disease by

adding ingredients to our water supply, or food or air, only time will

tell. When that day arrives, those who treasure their personal liberty

will look in vain for a constitutional safeguard. The answer will be :

" You gave the Constitution away in the Kaul case. "

- Robotry, p. 18

 

 

CONVERSATION STOPPER

 

Want to stop a fluoridation advocate in his tracks? Ask him to cite

exact legitimate studies that prove fluoridation prevents tooth decay.

Then find them. Besides the few bogus political documents by Dean and

Cox, cited above, there aren't any. Fluoride research is a huge area.

The fact that most studies have been almost completely suppressed for

the past 50 years mars many illusions about the democratic process.

 

If people want fluoride in their drinking water, let them buy

supplements. Fluoridation of municipal water has nothing to do with

health. It's just politics.

 

A THOUSAND LITTLE BATTLES

 

The fluoridation battle is being waged back and forth in the individual

cities and towns across America. Many districts have never fluoridated.

Many others have recently decided to begin fluoridation. Still another

group of 63 cities, since 1900, which had fluoridated for a long time,

have voted to stop. (Jones) It's an ongoing struggle, with million of

dollars of fluoridiot funding available for presentations, flyers, and

media ads in any community where the issue is coming up for a vote. If

fluoridation is defeated this year, it may appear on the ballot again

the following year if the city is on the Priority Schedule.

 

California's Priority Schedule is a list of 167 communities in

California which are now being targeted by the formidable alliance of

fluoridation interests. (Table 64434-A) Doesn't look like they'll run

out of cash any time in this life: support comes from the slush funds

and lobbyists of the mega industrial polluters who wish to maintain the

public water works as their private sewer. They want to keep this

50-year gravy train rolling, and the best way to do that is marketing

and promotion. Here are the Top Ten of the 1999 Priority Schedule in

California:

 

Helix Water District

Ventura, CA

Daly City, CA

Escondido, CA

Santa Maria CA

Fair Oaks Water District

Manhattan Beach, CA

Sweetwater Authority

Santa Barbara, CA

El Dorado Irrigation District

 

It floors you to realize the immense amount of scientific research and

legal opinion proving the toxicity of fluoride since the 1930s, that has

been ignored and suppressed. Why did all those people do all that work?

With every new city that places fluoridation on the ballot, all the old

arguments are dragged out, as if it's from scratch every time, without

the benefit of input from all the other hundreds of communities that

have gone through this same battle. Divide and conquer - worked for the

Romans.

 

Antifluoridationist information programs are often privately funded

grassroots little organizations, but their influence is being felt

across the nation. With the rise of the Internet, it is getting harder

to keep people from learning the real effects about fluoride. For these

reasons, clean water is very slowing making progress against the

totalitarian forces of mass medications. But the struggle never ends.

 

OTHER CONTAMINANTS

 

Chlorine and fluoride are added on purpose to the water. We haven't even

mentioned the millions of tons of industrial pollutants that sneak into

the earth's water supply every year. To give just one small example,

Congress did a study in 1979 of the extent of industrial pollution

between 1950 and 1970. They verified just a part of what was actually

dumped into America's water supply: the top 14% of industrial polluters

discharged 1.5 trillion pounds of industrial wastes into the water

supply in that 20 year period.

 

What about the other 86%?

 

Think it's improved since 1970? Consider this:

 

The only federal agency for ensuring clean drinking water is the EPA. In

1997, after the cryptosporidium deaths in Milwaukee and Las Vegas,

Clinton tried to upgrade the provisions of the 1986 Safe Drinking Water

Act. But the EPA only regulates some 60 chemicals-there are thousands of

chemical pollutants in the water! And the states are individually

claiming that complying with the restrictions on just those 60 are " too

expensive " because they just don't have the money. Most water systems

are operating on very old designs with inadequate capacity. (Kupua A'o,

p16)

 

As a result, in 1991-1992 alone, the EPA reported over 250,000

violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, affecting more than 100

million Americans. (Natural Resources Defense Council) For those 250,000

violations, guess on how many the EPA took enforcement action. Just

guess. About 600.

 

Looks like we're on our own out here.

 

HOW CAN WE GET PURE, CLEAN WATER?

 

The tap water in this country seems to have a few problems:

 

organochlorines

fluoride

PCBs

THMs

heavy metals

resistant biologicals

 

You'd think that since we created the problem, we could fix it. But even

if Greenpeace or someone took over the government of the world tomorrow

and stopped all further pollution tonnage, it would be years, decades

before the water would be like it was before the Industrial Revolution.

These contaminants will be around for centuries. By now everyone knows

what the concept of half-life means. Different data sources, different

time frames, but one thing is certain: the water cannot be cleaned up in

our lifetime, no matter what is done. Writing a sentence like that is a

shocker. Where is my ninja team?

 

So what can we do?

 

Don't drink the tap water for starters. But does that also mean don't

wash vegetables, make ice cubes, or cook with tap water? Yes, it does,

because heat doesn't destroy fluoride, heavy metals, or other

contaminants. Remember the word bioaccumulative.

 

So the first step is

 

BOTTLED WATER

 

That's right - drag it home from the market every week. Or the 5-gallon

bottle from the water store. Is that safe enough? Maybe. Who knows? You

have to trust two groups of people in order to be sure:

 

- the regulating agencies

- the sellers

 

Water stores sell reverse osmosis water - no minerals. Bottled water is

only as good as the monitoring system in place. Step right up.

 

FILTERS

 

" Buy a filter or be a filter. " That's one company's slogan.

 

Today there is enough grassroots consciousness about the dangers of tap

water that cheap carbon filters are now available in any hardware store

which attach easily to the kitchen faucet. It is likely that such

filters get rid of most of the chlorine - for awhile. But to really get

the resistant biologicals, the fluoride, heavy metals, and other

contaminants, the customer may consider one of the high-end drinking

water filters. These cost between two and four hundred dollars and come

in models for both over and under the sink.

 

Names like Alpine, MultiPure, and Spectrapure are among the dozens of

brand names that have come along during the past 20 years. Multipure

seems to be far out front at this time. Everyone claims to be the best,

of course, but we can find some important similarities in their

advertising. When you begin to compare the better water filters, you

notice common concerns:

 

 

chlorine

THMs

chloriform

chloramines

cryptosporidium and giardia lamblia cysts

fluoride

pesticides and toxic chemicals

heavy metals

minerals

MTBEs

nitrates

 

 

Killing microbials is not a big deal since most of that's been done by

chlorine. Most contaminants are removed by the better filters. The

problem when choosing a filter seems to come down to four main concerns:

fluoride, minerals, THMs, and nitrates. Difficult to find one filter

that does everything: many reverse osmosis filters take out most

contaminants, but also the healthy minerals. Many of the high-end carbon

filters will not remove fluoride or nitrates, but leave the healthy

minerals.

 

Fluoride is obviously a biggie. Find out if the filter you are about to

buy removes fluoride, and what percentage. After what we've learned

about fluoride, we should expect a filter to remove it, wouldn't you

say? Problem is: the demand. Due to fluoridiot propaganda, most

Americans don't even realize fluoride is bad, and therefore don't think

about it when considering a water filter.

 

NSF is a third-party non-profit testing agency that has been rating

water filters for the past 50 years. Always ask - is it NSF-certified?

For what? Don't be fooled if they say " NSF-tested.' Big difference.

 

Minerals is an area of some controversy. You've got the hard water /

soft water debate. Hard water has more minerals in it, which obviously

is better for the bones and teeth, and probably for the heart as well.

That makes sense, although as we saw in the Minerals chapter, elemental

minerals are the least absorbed of all types. Elemental means from

rocks, and that's the kind that would be in spring water, and therefore

in filtered water, except for reverse osmosis. In my opinion, hard water

is better than distilled.

 

Most naturopaths and holistic nutritionists don't like distilled water

because they say it leaches minerals from the bones and teeth. In

general, that seems logical, although Dr. Y says it doesn't make any

difference unless the person is extremely malnourished. The truth is, no

formal studies comparing distilled with mineral water have been done, so

it's all pretty theoretical. But thinking about the Hunzas and their

120-year lifespan that was attributed to the glacial mineral waters they

drank, one can see the value of minerals in drinking water. A high-end

water filter should take this discussion into consideration and give

reasons about the importance or unimportance of filtering out certain

minerals.

 

Comes down to a choice: reverse osmosis or carbon block. With reverse

osmosis you've got no fluoride filtration, no minerals, and wasting

about 4-9 gallons to get one gallon of pure water. (A'o, p72) With most

high-end carbon mesh filters, you can get rid of everything but

fluoride, and you'll still have minerals.

 

These are questions for the filter sales force. Make " em dance for you.

Caveat emptor - only 5 states have any regulations about what water

filter manufacturers can say. On the Internet - it's a total jungle!

 

There is one excellent little book which can save a lot of research

time: Don't Drink the Water. The author goes into great detail in

comparing the attributes and quality of the basic filter units. He

points out the advantages of placing a KDF filter before the carbon

filter in order to insure that bacteria won't begin to grow within the

carbon.

Bottom line in my opinion, if you want to solve the whole filtration

question, just buy a Multipure and put in under the sink. (1 831 763

1967) Next problem.

THE REST OF THE ICEBERG

 

Sorry if this chapter has been Information Overload. The materials cited

really only scratch the surface of the research that has been done in

these areas. The purpose of the chapter has been to acquaint the reader

with some of the basic issues in regard to drinking water, issues which

are systematically hidden from the media, for obvious reasons. Prove

them wrong, if you can; just don't pretend like these problems don't

exist. When you read something that proclaims the purity of tap water or

the importance of fluoride, maybe now you will notice how studies are

claimed but never cited. Look behind what you read and try to see the

persuasive tactics of Freud's nephew. Appreciate the mastery of an art.

 

The physiological importance of hydration has really been glossed over

by doctors and nutritionists, not on purpose, but simply because it's

not taught. The ideas of Dr. Batmanghelidj must be confronted - either

he's right or else there's a major gap in our health information.

 

It's unfortunate that the sludge of politics has to be hauled into a

discussion of water purity. But once you discover how and why our water

got this way, the political influences are like an elephant in the

living room - pretty hard to ignore. Not exactly hot news; politics has

been controlling science ever since they locked Galileo in that

high-rise jail for discovering the earth went around the sun. Which is

why you shouldn't expect much support if you try to discuss or

substantiate what you've just learned in this chapter. Lemmings know

what lemmings are told.

 

The rest of the iceberg is left to you. This chapter is just the

briefest glimpse of the top part. With a little follow-up, perhaps you

won't make the same mistake the captain of the Titanic made: thinking

that there's nothing in the water that can hurt you.

 

 

copyright 2000 NewWest

 

shiloh-

 

REFERENCES

 

 

Batmandjeld, F MD The Body's Many Cries for Water 1994

Global Health Solutions

 

Greenpeace Chlorine Crisis: Time for a Global Phase-out 1990

 

Fackelman, K Hints of a chlorine-cancer connection Science News, Jul11,

1992, p142

 

Price, Joseph M MD Coronaries, Cholesterol, Chlorine 1990

 

Water Review 7,2, 1992 Findings Link Chlorination with Bladder and

Rectal Cancer

 

Rathburn R Potentially Deleterious Effects of Chlorinating Mississippi

River Water for Drinking

U.S. Geological Survey - Circ.#1133

 

Simmon & Tardiff The mutagenic activity of halogenated compounds found

in chlorinated drinking water

Water Chlorination, Environmental Impact and Health Effects p 417

Ann Arbor Science

 

Popular Science June 1996 Water Purity: Chlorine Alternatives

 

 

Greenpeace International, website http://www.greenpeace.org:

 

How Chlorine Chemicals Are Made

 

What Is Dioxin?

 

PVC Plastic

 

Pulp and Paper Briefing 1992

 

Chlorine in the World

 

Chlorophiles website: www.ping.be/chlorophiles

 

Howell, E MD Enzyme Nutrition 1985 Avery

 

Griffiths, J and Bryson, C Fluoride, Teeth, and the A-bomb

Earth Island Journal Winter 1997-98 p. 38

 

Foulkes, R MD Fluoride & Brain Damage: A Secret Revealed

Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition Sep 1998, p.67

 

Foulkes, R MD Fluoridation of Community Water Supplies, 1992 Update

Townsend Letter for Doctors Jun 1992, p 450

 

Foulkes, R MD " Hydrofluoric Acid " Townsend Letter for Doctors July 1993,

p 696

 

 

 

-

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html