Friday, August 30, 2013

Baths, Children, & Fluoridated Water

Most children love to take baths. They will play for quite sometime in a bath. All the while they're enjoying that lovely warm water, their skin is absorbing what they are sitting in. So, do you know if your child is sitting in a chemical soup or not? It's a good thing to find out.

Depending on whether a child has eaten, or if there is residual food in the stomach, about 20-50 percent of chemical contaminants are metabolized when foods or beverages are consumed. With dermal exposure and inhalation, however, virtually 100 percent of the contaminants are absorbed directly into the bloodstream.

As one EPA scientist put it, "a shower cubicle can be considered an 'exposure chamber.' Exposure to volatile contaminants absorbed via the lung would be about double the same amount from drinking water. In the bath, underarms [axilla], scrotal and vaginal areas as well as the groin absorb far greater amounts than in the normal unwashed forearm test."

The percentages for absorption of parathion are as follows in bathing:

* scalp (32 percent)
* ear canal (46 percent)
* forehead (36 percent)
* plant of foot (13 percent)
* forearm (9 percent)
* palm (12 percent)
* scrotum (100 percent)

Studies done by Brown, Bishop and Rowan in the early 1980s showed that an average of 64 percent of the total dose of waterborne contaminants is absorbed through the skin. A study by British researchers at the Health and Safety Laboratory in Sheffield published in the February 19, 2000 issue of Human Experimental Toxicology suggests that toxicants such as fluorides can be stored in the skin and released over a period of time. The most popular fluoridation agent is fluorosilicic acid, a toxic by-product of phosphate fertilizer production.


On May 10, 1999, US Rep. Ken Calvert, who serves on the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, asked the EPA to answer a simple question: "What chronic toxicity test data are there on sodium fluorosilicate? On hydrofluorosilicic acid?"


A review of nearly 40,000 research papers listed on National Institutes of Health and other U.S. government Internet sites has failed to discover a single study addressing water fluoridation and dermal absorption.

On June 23,1999, EPA Assistant Administrator J. Charles Fox replied that the "EPA was not able to identify chronic studies for these chemicals."


On September 5, 2000, in response to an inquiry from the US House Committee on Science, EPA Assistant Administrator Charles Fox admitted "there are no water quality criteria for fluoride either for the protection of aquatic life or for the protection of human health."


The EPA earlier confirmed that water fluoridation puts "at risk" 52 million older Americans with calcium, magnesium and vitamin ~ deficiencies. People with cardiovascular and kidney disorders, also, may experience severe "dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis" from excessive exposure to fluorides.

The health threat from using fluorosilicates to fluoridate drinking water goes beyond bathing and drinking the treated water. The substances in the fluorosilicates do not magically vanish. All the pollution released from washing clothes and household items, evaporation from clothes dryers and dishwashers remains in the home. Water fluoridated with phosphate scrubber liquor becomes a vehicle to carry hazardous air pollutants directly into your home.

While this secondary contamination of children from fluoridated water is significant, it has never been investigated by the EPA or the US Public Health Service - although both agencies are aware that pollution scrubber liquor is being used to fluoridate municipal water supplies.

A study by British researchers at the Health and Safety Laboratory in Sheffield published in the February 19, 2000 issue of Human Experimental Toxicology suggests that toxicants such as fluorides can be stored in the skin and released over a period of time.

A review of nearly 40,000 research papers listed on National Institutes of Health and other U.S. government Internet sites has failed to discover a single study addressing water fluoridation and dermal absorption.

All dosage recommendations developed by EPA are based on ingestion alone. The EPA and Centers for Disease Control have never commissioned studies on the dermal absorption of fluoridated water and refuse to do so.

Know the water in which your precious children and grandchildren are bathing. If it is city water that has been mandated to have fluoride, then you may wish to consider a whole house purifying system that removes fluoride.

Content contains excerpts from the edited version of a report to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on June 13, 2000, and,  Is your bathtub a toxic dump?

Windsor, Ontario Removes Fluoridation in "2013"

Many communities, over the last few years, stopped fluoridation in the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Recently, both Wichita, Kansas and Portland, Oregon rejected fluoridation 60% to 40%. Hamilton, NZ, councilors voted 7-1 to stop 50 years of fluoridation after councilors listened to several days of testimony from those for and against fluoridation. 

Windsor, Ontario, stopped 51 years of fluoridation! 
Sixteen regional councils have halted or rejected fluoridation in Queensland since mandatory fluoridation was dropped there in Nov. 2012. Meanwhile, New York City Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr. continues in his effort to halt fluoridation in NYC.
From Here

Is your community in the process of adding fluoride. Or, if they have it already, are they in the process of removing it? It is time to find out. 

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/08/08/5099424/israel-will-end-fluoridation-in.html#storylink=

Fluoride Removed from Many Water Supplies

As summarized by the New York Times:

 “For decades, the issue of fluoridated water remained on the fringes. . . . But as more places, like Fairbanks and parts of Canada, take up the issue in a more measured way, it is shifting away from conspiracy and toward the mainstream. The conclusion among these communities is that with fluoride now so widely available in toothpaste and mouthwash, there is less need to add it to water, which already has naturally occurring fluoride. Putting it in tap water, they say, is an imprecise way of distributing fluoride; how much fluoride a person gets depends on body weight and water consumed.”

Since 2010, over 70 communities have rejected the practice, including over 30 communities like Calgary, Alberta (pop. 1.3 million people) and Albuquerque, New Mexico (pop. 500,000) that have voted to end their longstanding fluoridation programs. Read More:  Communities that have removed Fluoride from their water supply.

Communities and Dates of Fluoride Removal in US and other countries:

Woodland, Washington state- 5,625, August 19, 2013
Lismore, New South Wales, Australia, 31,600, August 13, 2013
Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia- 23,000, August 13, 2013
Parkland, Washington, 35,800, June 2013
Hamilton, New Zealand- 145,600, June 5, 2013
Portland, Oregon 900,000 May 21, 2013
Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia- 61,700, May 14, 2013
Kenton, Tennessee- 1,525 May 8, 2013
Southwest Harbor, Maine- 2,000, May 7, 2013
Innisfail, Queensland, Australia- 1,075, April 23, 2013
Whitsunday Regional Council, Queensland, Australia- 37,000, April 9, 2013
Au Gres, Michigan- 890, March 2013
Charters Towers, Queensland, Australia- 9,573, March 2013
Tyrone, Pennsylvania- 5,500, March 2013
Cloncurry, Queensland, Australia- 2,800, February 25, 2013
Olivehurst, California- 14,000, February 22, 2013
Plumas Lake, California- (affected by decision of the Olivehurt Public Utility) 6,000 February 22, 2013
Smithville, Missouri- 8,500, February 22, 2013
Fraser Coast, Queensland, Australia- 102,000, February 21, 2013
Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia (Fraser Coast)- February 21, 2013
Maryborough, Queensland, Australia (Fraser Coast)- February 21, 2013
Tiaro, Queensland, Australia (Fraser Coast)- February 21, 2013
Burdekin, Queensland, Australia- 18,192, (2006 estimate) February 12, 2013
Ayr, Queensland, Australia (Burdekin area)- 9,000 February 12, 2013
Home Hill, Queensland, Australia (Burdekin area)- 3,050 February 12, 2013
Brandon, Queensland, Australia (Burdekin area)- 900 February 12, 2013
Bundaberg region, Queensland, Australia- 100,000, February 12, 2013
Bargara, Queensland, Australia (Bundaberg region)- 7,000 February 12, 2013
Childers, Queensland, Australia (Bundaberg region)- 1,700 February 12, 2013
Gin Gin, Queensland, Australia (Bundaberg region)- 2,000 February 12, 2013
St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin- 2,126, February 2013
Balsam Lake, Wisconsin- 1,000, February 4, 2013
Cairns, Queensland, Australia- 153,000, January 29, 2013
Mossman, Queensland, Australia (Cairns area)- 1,740 January 29, 2013
Port Douglas, Queensland, Australia (Cairns area)- 3,200, January 29, 2013
Windsor, Ontario, Canada- 279,000, January 28, 2013
La Salle, Ontario, Canada (affected by Windsor vote)- 29,000, January 28, 2013
Tecumseh, Ontario, Canada (affected by Windsor vote)- 24,000, January 28, 2013
Doomadgee Aboriginal Council- 1,300, January 2013
Biggenden, Queensland, Australia (North Burnett area)- 690, January 2013
Eidsvold, Queensland, Australia (North Burnett area)- 630, January 2013
Gayndah, Queensland, Australia (North Burnett area)- 1,800, January 2013
Monto, Queensland, Australia (North Burnett area)- 1,300, January 2013
Mount Perry, Queensland, Australia (North Burnett area)- 500 January 2013
Mundubbera, Queensland, Australia (North Burnett area)- 1,050, January 2013
South Burnett, Queensland, Australia- 28,191, January 2013
Blackbutt, Queensland, Australia (South Burnett)- 1,055, January 2013
Nanango, Queensland, Australia (South Burnett)- 3,083, January 2013
Kingaroy, Queensland, Australia (South Burnett)- 7,620, January 2013
Wondai, Queensland, Australia (South Burnett)- 1,402, January 2013
Murgon, Queensland, Australia (South Burnett)- 2,131, January 2013
Pine Island, Florida- 13,000 water customers, December 11, 2012
Atherton, Queensland, Australia (Tablelands Regional Council)- 7,300, December 2012
Mareeba, Queensland, Australia (Tablelands Regional Council)- 10,200, December 2012
Kuranda, Queensland, Australia (Tablelands Regional Council)- 3,000, December 2012
Malanda, Queensland, Australia (Tablelands Regional Council)- 2,100, December 2012
Kirkland Lake, Ontario, Canada, 8,133, December 2012
Milton, Florida- 7,000, November 2012
Romulus, New York- 400, November 2012
Wichita, Kansas- 385,000, November 6, 2012
Harvard, Nebraska- 1,000, November 6, 2012
Crescent City, California- 14,000, November 6, 2012
Pulaski, New York- 2,367, October, 2012
Lake View, Iowa- 1,300, October 19, 2012
Cassadaga and Lily Dale, New York- 900, October 17, 2012
Waipukurau, New Zealand- 4,000, September 28, 2012
Orillia, Ontario, Canada- 40,000, July 17, 2012
Cunnamulla, Queensland, Australia- 1,217, August 9, 2012
Rosetown, Saskatchewan- 2,300, July 16, 2012
Santa Fe, New Mexico- 68,642, July 11, 2012
Argos, Indiana- 1,700, June 6, 2012
Walkerton, Indiana- 2,200, Spring 2012
North Liberty, Indiana- 2,000, Spring 2012
Lakeville, Indiana- 800, Spring 2012
Bassett, Nebraska- 600, May 15, 2011
Palisades, Colorado- 3,000, May 15, 2012
Pevely, Missouri- 6,000, May 1, 2012
Okotoks, Alberta, Canada- 25,000, April 23, 2012
Curacao- 140,000, April 22, 2012
Albequerque, New Mexico- 500,000, April 11, 2012
West Manheim, Pennsylvania- 8,000, April 8, 2012
Bourbon, Indiana- 2,000, March 20, 2012
Amherstburg, Ontario, Canada- 20,000, February 7, 2012
Bolivar, Missouri- 11,000, February 7, 2012
Myerstown, Pennsylvania- 3,500, January 13, 2012
Hartland Township, Michigan - 14,800, December 20, 2011
Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada - 140,000, December 19, 2011
Dieppe, New Brunswick, Canada - 20,000, December 12, 2011
Grantsburg, Wisconsin- 1,300, December 12, 2011
Lake Cowichan, British Columbia, Canada- 3,000, November 19, 2011
Williams Lake, British Columbia, Canada- 11,200, November 19, 2011
Amesbury, Massachusetts- 16,500, November 8, 2011
Lakeshore, Ontario, Canada- 33,000, October 31, 2011
Lawrenceburg, Tennessee- 11,000, October 18, 2011
Churchill, Manitoba, Canada- 1,000, October 18, 2011
New Plymouth, New Zealand- 50,000, October 13, 2011
Palmer, Alaska- 8,400, October 11, 2011
Welsh, Louisiana- 3,500, October 4, 2011
Spencer, Indiana /BPP Water- 10,500, September 30, 2011
College Station, Texas- 100,000, September 22, 2011
Slave Lake, Alberta, Canada- 7,000, September 12, 2011
Hohenwald, Tennessee- 4,000, September 6, 2011
Pottstown, Pennsylvania- 15,500, August 16, 2011
Spring Hill, Tennessee- 30,000, August 15, 2011
Taber, Alberta, Canada- 6,500, July 20, 2011
Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada- 5,000, July 4, 2011
Taumarunui, New Zealand- 5,000, June 30, 2011
Fairbanks, Alaska- 80,000, June 6, 2011
Naples Village, New York- 1,070, May 18, 2011
Mount Clemens, Michigan- 17,300, May 16, 2011
Holmen, Wisconsin- 6,200, April 27, 2011
Lago Vista, Texas- 6,500, April 21, 2011
Mechanicsville, Iowa- 1,200, April 17, 2011
Marcellus, Michigan- 1,100, March 17, 2011
Independence, Virginia- 1,000, February 16, 2011
Calgary, Alberta, Canada- 1,300,000, February 8, 2011
Yellow Springs, Ohio- 3,200, February 7, 2011
Verchères, Québec, Canada- 5,240, February 7, 2011
Schuylkill Haven, Pennsylvania- 5,500, January 19, 2011
(First announced Feb 4, 2010) Sparta, North Carolina- 2,000, November 15, 2010
Tellico, Tennessee- 900, November 4, 2010
Athabasca, Alberta, Canada- 2,600, November 1, 2010
Waterloo, St. Jacobs and Elmira, Ontario, Canada- 103,000, October 25, 2010
O’Fallon, Missouri- 80,000, October 5, 2010
Red Bay, Alabama- 5,000, September 15, 2010
Napa, California- 78,000, August 17, 2010
Sandpoint, Idaho- 7,500, July 24, 2010
Kaikohe, New Zealand- 4,000, May 17, 2010
Kaitaia, New Zealand- 5,500, May 17, 2010
Crete, Nebraska- 7,000, May 11, 2010
Dakota City, Nebraska- 2,000, May 11, 2010
Franklin County, Nebraska- 3,500, May 11, 2010
Norfolk, Nebraska- 25,000, May 11, 2010
Wahoo, Nebraska- 4,500, May 11, 2010
Gatineau, Québec, Canada- 266,000, May 5, 2010

If this is a concern to you, find out what your city is doing.
Be Aware: Stay Alert.

Fluoride: Now Banned from the Water Supply in Israel!

On July 29, 2013 , the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that new regulations require Israel to stop adding fluoride chemicals into public water supplies in one year, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Izun Hozer Association for Dissemination of Health Education and Yaacov Gurman petitioned Israel 's highest court, November 12, 2012, demanding that the Ministry of Health order the cessation of fluoridation because it presents health dangers and its benefits are no longer widely accepted.  A 1974 regulation mandated fluoridation throughout Israel. But in April 2013, the Minister of Health, Yael German, created a new regulation removing that mandate.

 "It must be known to you that fluoridation can cause harm to the health of the chronically ill," including "people who suffer from thyroid problems," German wrote in a letter addressed to doctors opposed to ending fluoridation. The court ruled that the new regulations will not only bring an end to mandatory fluoridation in Israel in 2014 but will also put an end to any fluoridation -- mandatory or voluntary. See translation of the Court's ruling at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/israel_supreme_ct_july2013.pdf

Israel's decision to ban fluoridation follows a vote to preclude the practice in Portland, Ore., and Wichita, Kan. It was also recently overturned in Hamilton, the fourth most populous city in New Zealand. 

Read more Here.


Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director, says, "Zealous fluoridation promoters try to convince the American public that 'everyone drinks fluoridated water.' But the opposite is true. An overwhelming number of countries do not fluoridate, including 97% of the European population. In fact, over half the people in the world drinking fluoridated water live in the US. We are the odd ones out."



"Fluoridation is an outdated, unscientific, failed public health blunder," says Connett. "What I find remarkable here is that Health Minister German has been able to escape the unscientific belief system on fluoridation that traps so many public health bureaucracies in fluoridated countries."

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

99% of Western Europe Refuses Fluoride!

There are states that are still adding fluoride to their water supply, and yet, the statistics show over-whelming refusal to add this substance or ordinances to remove it in many instances in so many countries.

On a chart displayed on this  web site says: 

Despite dental pressure, 99% of western continental Europe has rejected, banned, or stopped fluoridation due to environmental, health, legal, or ethical concerns
Only about 5% of the world population is fluoridated and more than 50% of these people live in North America. 

The Danish Minister of Environment recommended against fluoridation in 1977 because "no adequate studies had been carried out on its long-term effects on human organ systems other than teeth and because not enough studies had been done on the effects of fluoride discharges on freshwater ecosystems."

"In 1978, the West German Association of Gas & Water Experts rejected fluoridation for legal reasons and because 'the so-called optimal fluoride concentration of 1 mg per L is close to the dose at which long-term damage [to the human body] is to be expected.' "

Quotes from: Hilleman B, "FLUORIDATION: Contention won't go away," Chemical and Engineering News, 1988 Aug, 66:31 (The [ ] brackets were in the original article)

Have a great day....
   

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Is Your City Getting Ready to Add Fluoride?

In this modern world of information and technology, a substance that has been shown to have affects on kidneys, thyroid, bones, etc., is still being added to municipal water supplies. Only 8 countries around the world fluoridate 50% of their water: United States, Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Malaysia, Israel, Singapore, and New Zealand.
England only fluoridates 10% of their water supply. 

We have several videos by the esteemed Dr. Connett on this blog. He states:

"The sad irony here is that the FDA, which does not regulate fluoride in drinking water, does regulate toothpaste," Connett says, "and on the back of a tube of fluoridated toothpaste… it must state that "if your child swallows more than the recommended amount, contact a poison control center."
The amount that they're talking about, the recommended amount, which is a pea-sized amount, is equivalent to one glass of water.
The FDA is not putting a label on the tap saying don't drink more than one glass of water. If you do, contact a poison center. So you got this tweedledum and tweedledee…
There is no question that fluoride -- not an excessive amount -- can cause serious harm. There have been examples of children who swallowed the gel that is used for topical treatment and they died as a consequence. So fluoride is extremely toxic."
"We're not talking about killing people outright with drinking water," Connett says.
"What we're concerned about is the chronic exposure… It's poisonous."

You can watch his videos on this blog and determine for yourself whether or not there is at least a need to weigh both sides in this controversy. In areas where there is a large population of seniors and retirees, there is an even greater need to side with caution.

Thyroid problems and kidney failure are common among this demographic. It is vital to consider this risk when thinking about adding fluoride to city water. Adults drink far more water than children do. When we put this age group at a potential risk from a substance that is added to our water supplies, we must consider the consequences to a decision that will affect everyone-not just children. I have yet to find a study that shows how much plain water the average child drinks.

You just don't drink city water, you bathe in it. What you bathe in is absorbed through your skin. That will add to the burden on bodies exposed to fluoridated water. Will cities who are wanting to add fluoride plan on providing special water filtering systems for everyone with a health concern that may be affected by adding fluoride to their water? Since through bathing we absorb what is in our water through our skin, will those filtering systems be whole house systems? Are they adding that expense into the city budget?

Most everyone is making an effort to stay as young as possible with lotions, potions, and even surgeries. Yet, there are many books that point out how "aging" fluoridated water is to the body. If people were aware of that potential, perhaps more would at least look into this subject, and if impressed and compelled by what they've read, object!

I won't go on anymore at this time. But be aware of this:  Once added to the water system, it is that much more difficult to remove it.

Keep water as pristine as humanly possible wherever you live. You can't live without it. You are 70%+ water. It makes up every single cell in your body. Think about the additives already added. Do you really need one more?

If it is for the benefit of children as we are told, then does it make sense to make the whole population ingest it when there could be viable, potential health risks? It is so simple to give children, if their parents request it, inexpensive tablets. Or, they are able to get fluoridated bottled water from the store-nursery water. Parents would then know exactly how much fluoridated water their child drinks without question.

However, it is a known fact that there are so many foods and drinks containing fluoride which are ingested everyday that when combined in the natural course of day, exceed the daily quota for fluoride that experts say children should have. This is in addition to tooth paste which has a warning label on it as discussed by Dr. Connett above.

If this be the case, why add fluoride to a city's water supply that everyone-no matter what their age-will be forced to consume whether it be drinking water, making meals, or bathing and showering? 


THINK ABOUT IT........

Have a great day-

Chinese Fluoride Used in US?

In view of the sources from which many many municipalities are getting their fluoride which is a by-product of industrial waste, some cities, such as reviewed in the following article, as well as San Diego CA, are questioning this practice and expressing their concerns on the matter publicly. 


Fluoride is being purchased cheaply from China which has a huge surplus of fluoride from industrial manufacturing. In the video which I posted under the heading at the top of the page "More Videos," it briefly explains how we come by this substance that is added to our country's city water. The story is an interesting one.


When we purchase this substance from foreign sources, it very often contains an inordinate amount other substances such as mercury and arsenic which makes the addition of fluoride in our city water of even more grave concern to its citizens. 


Read the following article, and do some research yourself about what is being used in your city water system:





Chinese fluoride is a homeland
security matter

February 28, 2010 — The Pure Water Committee of Western Maryland Inc. was formed in 1960 as a grass roots network of citizens with a 50-year-old mission to educate the public of the complete fraud of the practice called water fluoridation.

Recently, it has come to my attention in an engineering report for the city of Boulder, Colo., that they did an evaluation of fluoridation chemicals and sources and found that much of the fluoride chemicals used for water fluoridation are now coming out of China with arsenic and lead levels of 50 and 40 milligrams respectively per bag and non-existent regulatory monitoring of the salt or acid compounds from these imports.

This type of trade from a country with a track record of lead paint on toys to antifreeze in cough syrup medicine is completely unacceptable.

After visiting the Frostburg Water Filtration Plant on Feb. 23, it has come to my attention that Frostburg has sodium fluoride bags with no source or import information on them.

Only after I asked for the certificate of analysis from Solvay fluorides through Univar USA, which is the chemical supplier for the Frostburg Water Plant, did I receive the certificate of analysis from Shanghai Mintchem Development Co., LTD., the Chinese manufacture of the sodium fluoride.

The material safety data sheets from Solvay fluorides shows that a teaspoon amount of 5 grams of sodium fluoride can be fatal to an average size man of 70kg.

In toxicological information section, chronic toxicity by oral route may cause skeletal and dental fluorosis, thyroid, testes, kidney, liver, ambiguous carcinogenic and mutagenic effects, fetotoxic and fertility effects.

I have asked now for two years for the Frostburg Mayor and Council to put in the water bill for area residence the ADA warning to not to use fluoridated water when making infant formula, but to no avail.

I have showed them the 2003 sixth edition PDR special warning section for Luride (sodium fluoride in pill form) that children under the age of six should not be taking the same equivalent dose that municipalities add to the drinking water.

I asked them why they would continue this practice when the PDR states that not even a dentist or doctor should be administering this equivalent dose to a child under the age of 6.

I have explained to them that the warning label on fluoride toothpaste states, that if you swallow more than a pea size amount of paste or .25 milligrams of fluoride, which is the equivalent dose of 8 ounces of fluoridated water, you should contact the poison control center immediately.

 We can no longer trust our local governments to do the right thing for its citizens. I find it so ironic that the same federal government that is demanding small communities under the clean water act, like Mount Savage to join to the Frostburg Regional water supply, because of an overt concern over possible ground water contamination, then allows this toxic waste byproduct from China to enter this country and be added to this same regional water supply.

Are we insane?

Instead of the city of Frostburg being honest with me over this imported chemical use and stopping this harmful practice, they seem more concerned over my visit to the water plant to obtain this information.

This is a serious homeland security matter for Frostburg and many other fluoridated communities, including Cumberland. Please contact both Frostburg and Cumberland elected officials and ask for this practice to be halted immediately.

Bernard W. Miltenberger

Frostburg