Communities Succeed in Eliminating Water Fluoridation

English: Putting toothpaste on a toothbrush. The toothpaste is Crest Pro-Health Clean Cinnamon, 0.454% stannous fluoride, 0.16% w/v fluoride ion. Deutsch: Zahnpasta auf eine Zahnbürste auftragen. Русский: Выдавливание зубной пасты из тюбика на зубную щётку (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Dr. Mercola

After generations of misleading propaganda about the benefits of water fluoridation, the truth is finally getting some traction.

According to the former EPA risk assessment scientist, Dr. William Hirzy, water fluoridation still remains a government policy because of “institutional inertia [and] embarrassment among government agencies that have been promoting this stuff as safe.”

Indeed, contrary to popular belief, the science clearly demonstrates that fluoride is a toxic chemical that accumulates in your tissues over time, wreaks havoc with enzymes, and produces a number of serious adverse health effects, including neurological and endocrine dysfunction. Children are particularly at risk for adverse effects of overexposure.

Yet despite the scientific evidence against the practice, the United States lags far behind other nations in acknowledging the mistake and ending this tragic “public health” measure. As usual, the big lie must continue to protect faith in long term public health policies and agencies.

As a result, individual communities around the US have taken up the fight to end water fluoridation in their own local areas. Today, Dr. Paul Connett and I are pleased to report a number of victories, both in the US and abroad.

An 8-Year Long Fight Ends in Victory, Yet Trouble Brews

Dr. Paul Connett, PhD, a chemist and executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is a recognized leader in the fluoride education movement, spearheading the organized efforts to remove fluoride from our water supply in the US and elsewhere.

One of the organization’s past victories took eight years to secure, namely the phasing out of sulfuryl fluoride, which is a toxic fumigant. In the face of defeat, the chemical industry has resorted to blatant political maneuvers to protect their toxic income stream.

“This was a major victory for us after [FAN] was formed in 2000. It took us eight years to get the EPA Pesticide Division to accept our objections to the use of sulfuryl fluoride by Dow AgroSciences as a fumigant on food,”Dr. Connett explains.

The idea of using sulfuryl fluoride as a food fumigant was extremely worrying as it not only leaves toxic residues on food, but can be lethal to humans in its pure gas form—the form in which it is applied to the food. According to Dr. Connett, people have died during the application of the fumigant.

When applied to food, it breaks down into free fluoride. Many American children are already heavily overexposed to fluoride, so this added source of exposure can only worsen matters. (Organic foods do not permit its use.)

FAN argued that the Food Quality Protection Act requires companies who want to market a pesticide to show that the cumulative dose—meaning the dose that will end up on the food as residues, plus already existing exposure from other sources—will not exceed the safe reference dose. Dr. Connett explains what happened in this case:

“We were able to show, very easily, that millions of children are already exceeding the safe reference dose of fluoride from a combination of sources – in the water, toothpaste and other dental products, pollution, and so on. No way should the EPA allow Dow to add more fluoride to the food supply.

Eventually, after going backwards and forwards for many years, and threatening legal action with the help of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Beyond Pesticides, we eventually got the EPA to agree to accept all our objections, and they announced that sulfuryl fluoride will be phased out in three years.”

Again, this was a major victory at the time, but Dow did not back down. Since then, they’ve done everything in their power to stop the implementation of the EPA’s decision—and in a manner that is quite worrying. First, they tried to introduce an amendment to the Farm Bill that would have allowed them to continue using sulfuryl fluoride, which meant subverting the EPA for doing its job.

“The EPA listened to the science. They agreed with us. They said, 'We’re going to phase it out.' But through the back door, Dow tried to get the Farm Bill to get it in.”

Fortunately, they didn’t succeed. Congress kept that amendment out. But, Dow came back again, this time using the 2014 House Appropriations Bill to cut back a lot of EPA’s work, including that relating to sulfuryl fluoride.1 In essence, the bill would prohibit the EPA from obstructing Dow’s use of this pesticide/fumigant!

 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/08/water-fluoridation.aspx  Read more on this story and watch some videos at Mercola.com website.

Related articles

• More Communities Succeed in Eliminating Water Fluoridation, While Chemical Industry Raises the Stakes
• 'Rider' In House Bill Seeks To Let Dow Keep Spraying Fluoride Pesticide On Our Food
• Like Fluoride? Congressman Luetkemeyer Proves We're Living in the Film 'Idiocracy'
• ActivistPost - Melissa Melton - 'Rider'In House Bill Seeks To Let DOW Keep Spraying Fluoride Pesticide On Our Food - 24 July 2013
• Syria's 'Chemical Weapons' Are Sodium Fluoride Used In The U.S. Water Supply (VIDEO)
• "Fluoridated Water Is Public Murder On A Grand Scale" - Dr. Dean Burk

Source of Arsenic in Your Drinking Water

The EPA was directed to set standards for radioactive materials under Reorganization Plan No. 3 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Dr. Mercola

Pure water is one of the most important foundations for optimal health.Unfortunately, most tap water is far from pure, containing a vast array ofdisinfection byproducts, chemicals, heavy metals and even pharmaceutical drugs.Fluoride and arsenic are two prime examples of hazardous water contaminants.

Not only is the level of arsenic in US tap water high due to natural groundwater contamination,1 the most commonly used form of fluoride added to water supplies also tends to be contaminated with arsenic. As reported by the featured article:2

“In early August, the Environmental Protection Agency is set to decide on a petition to change the source of fluoride in US drinking water.

Currently, the source of fluoride in most public water supplies isfluorosilicic acid, according to government records. The petition calls for the EPA to instead require the use of pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride in water fluoridation, which is the addition of fluoride to drinking water for the purpose of preventing cavities.

Fluorosilicic acid is often contaminated with arsenic, and recent research has linked the arsenic from fluorosilicic acid in drinking water to as many as 1,800 extra cases of cancer yearly in the United States...”

The petition3 was submitted by William Hirzy, a chemistry researcher at the American University in Washington, D.C. Hirzy previously worked at the EPA for 27 years.

His team recently published a study entitled: "Comparison of hydrofluorosilicic acid and pharmaceutical sodium fluoride as fluoridating agents – a cost-benefit analysis", in the journal Environmental Science & Policy.4

According to their estimation, switching the type of fluoride used to pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride would reduce the amount of inorganic arsenic contamination in drinking water by 99 percent!

The Health Dangers of Inorganic Arsenic

Inorganic arsenic is a powerful carcinogen that has been linked to an increased risk of several types of cancer. In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) lowered the maximum level of arsenic permitted in drinking water from 50 ug/L to 10 ug/L (or 10 parts per billion (ppb)) due to the established cancer risk.

The Natural Resources Defense Council5 estimates that as many as 56 million Americans living in 25 states drink water with arsenic at unsafe levels. According to the EPA:6

"Chronic inorganic arsenic exposure is known to be associated with adverse health effects on several systems of the body, but is most known for causing specific types of skin lesions (sores, hyperpigmentation, and other lesions) and increased risks of cancer of the lungs and skin."

Other impacts of chronic arsenic exposure include, according to the EPA:

Kidney damage and failure	Anemia	Low blood pressure
Shock	Headaches	Weakness
Delirium	Increased risk of diabetes	Adverse liver and respiratory effects, including irritation of mucous membranes
During development, increased incidence of preterm delivery, miscarriage, stillbirths, low birth weight, and infant mortality	During childhood, decreased performance in tests of intelligence and long-term memory	Skin lesions

Water Fluoridation Chemicals Are NOT Pharmaceutical Grade

While naturally-occurring arsenic in groundwater is one of the most common sources of exposure, hydrofluorosilicic acid—the most commonly used form of fluoride added to water supplies—is a toxic waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry that is commonly contaminated with arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants.

According to the featured research, diluted fluorosilic acid adds, on average, about 0.08 ppb of arsenic to your drinking water.

Most people are shocked when they realize that the fluoride added to their water supply is actually a toxic byproduct from the fertilizer industry, opposed to a pharmaceutical-grade chemical. The source of most water fluoridation chemicals is explained by Michael Miller, a minerals commodity specialist for the US Geological Survey, in the featured article:7

“During the production of phosphate fertilizer, phosphate ore is reacted with sulfuric acid to produce toxic gases. These are taken out of the air after being sprayed with water, which produces fluorosilicic acid... The solution is sold to water systems nation-wide, where it is diluted and put into drinking water. Occasionally, it is treated to create sodium fluorosilicate. Together, these compounds (called silicofluorides) provide fluoride to 90 percent of U.S. drinking water systems that are fluoridated...”

Water Fluoridation May Be Placing Infants at Great Risk

Not only is there mounting evidence that fluoride poses grave health risks to infants and children—including reductions in IQ—arsenic exposure in utero and during early childhood is also particularly problematic, as it can cause lasting harm to children's developing brains, and endocrine and immune systems.

For example:

• A 2006 study8 found that Chileans exposed to high levels (peaking at 1,000 ppb) of naturally-occurring arsenic in drinking water in utero and during early childhood had a six times higher lung cancer death rate compared to Chileans living in areas with lower levels of arsenic in their water. And their mortality rate in their 30s and 40s from another form of lung disease was almost 50 times higher than for people without that arsenic exposure.
• A 2004 study9 showed children exposed to arsenic in drinking water at levels above 5 ppb had lower IQ scores. Earlier studies have linked chronic arsenic exposure to a range of cognitive dysfunctions, including learning disabilities, memory problems, poor concentration, and peripheral and central neuropathies.
• A study10 published in 2011 examined the long-term effects of low-level exposure on more than 300 rural Texans whose groundwater was estimated to have arsenic at median levels below the federal drinking-water standard. It also found that exposure was related to poor scores in language, memory, and other brain functions.

Is It Worth Increasing Cancer Risk for Minimal, if Any, Benefit to Teeth?

Some proponents of fluoridation believe that the large dilution of these fluoridating chemicals that takes place when they are added at the public water works ameliorates concerns about the known contaminants. However, arsenic is a known human carcinogen, for which there is no safe level.

Inevitably, the addition of contaminated hexafluorosilicic acid to the water supply by definition must increase the cancer rate in the US because of the arsenic it contains, and this is exactly what Hirzy’s research shows. Why would any rational government do that to reduce – at best – a miniscule amount of tooth decay? According to Hirzy:11

"We found that the United States as a society is spending, conservatively speaking, $1 billion to $6 billion treating the excess bladder and lung cancers caused by arsenic in the most commonly used fluoridation chemical, fluorosilicic acid... The switch [to pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride] would cost $100 million, but would save billions in reduced cancer costs."

For people living in areas with fluoridated tap water, fluoride is a part of every glass of water, every bath and shower, and every meal cooked using that water. This makes absolutely no sense considering the carcinogenic nature of arsenic—especially in light of the epidemic of cancer.

Hirzy’s study is actually the first risk assessment of arsenic-contaminated fluoride in drinking water. This is particularly shocking considering the fact that fluorosilicic acids have been used since the early 1950s12 (prior to that, sodium fluoride, a byproduct of the aluminum industry, was typically used). Incredibly, while the EPA performs risk assessments for most drinking water contaminants, the agency does NOT oversee the addition of fluoridation chemicals. As stated in the featured article, this policy makes no sense whatsoever.

“Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA has the authority to regulate or ban almost any substance — including fluorosilicic acid — that poses an 'unreasonable risk' to public health, [Hirzy] said.”

Appropriations Bill Would Prohibit EPA’s Phase-Out of Sulfuryl Fluoride

While we’re on the topic of fluoride, a related news item13 is worthy of note. Drinking water is not the only source of fluoride, as I’ve discussed previously. Fluoride also enters the human food chain via fluoridated pesticides. According to a recent report, the House of Representatives Appropriations Interior and Environmental subcommittee has voted to approve an appropriations bill that cuts the EPA’s budget by nearly one-third.

What’s worse, the bill specifically prevents the EPA from enforcing its decision to phase out sulfuryl fluoride—a neurotoxic fumigant that has been linked to cancer and neurological, developmental, and reproductive damage. If it passes once markups by the Appropriations Committee are completed, it will move to a House vote. According to the news report:

“This is an outrageous attempt to circumvent a basic risk assessment calculation that EPA acknowledges puts the public at risk, given current exposure patterns, to a chemical that is especially hazardous to children.”

In response, Beyond Pesticides, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), and the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) submitted a letter14 to the House Appropriation Committee Chairman and Ranking members, urging them to remove the section in question (section 449) from the bill. You can help by writing or calling your state Representative, asking him or her to uphold the EPA’s ability to protect the health of all Americans by removing this hazardous pesticide from our food production. There’s no need for it, as there are many other viable alternatives, including:

• Temperature manipulation (heating and cooling)
• Atmospheric controls (low oxygen and fumigation with carbon dioxide)
• Biological controls (pheromones, viruses and nematodes)
• Less toxic chemical controls, such as diatomaceous earth

Water Filtration – A Must for Clean Pure Water…

If you have well water, it would be prudent to have your water tested for arsenic and other contaminants. If you have public water, you can get local drinking water quality reports from the EPA.15

In general, most water supplies contain a number of potentially hazardous contaminants, from fluoride, to drugs and disinfection byproducts (DBPs), just to name a few. You can get a good idea of what types of contaminants could be in your drinking water right now by viewing this awesome graphic from GOOD Environment16 (reprinted with permission.) It gives you a look at the five most and least polluted water systems in America (in cities with more than 100,000 population), including pointing out the pollutants of largest concern.

 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/13/arsenic-dangers.aspx  Click here for more information on this topic at Mercola.com website.

Good news for Gloucester residents.  Gloucester County, Virginia does not fluoridate it's water supply as stated by one county official we have checked with.  5 Gold stars where the county actually does manage to get something right.

Related articles

• Surprising Source of Arsenic in Your Drinking Water - Will EPA Take Steps to Protect Your Health?
• New Limits on Inorganic Arsenic in Apple Juice.
• Cheese is Chalk If Fluoride is Fluoride Says Hamilton Oncologist
• Arsenic in Apple Juice?

Company questioned after HazMat scare

Updated: Thursday, 18 Jul 2013, 6:48 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 18 Jul 2013, 6:48 PM EDT
Art Kohn

GLOUCESTER COUNTY, Va. (WAVY) - Environmental Inspectors continue to monitor Gloucester company Advanced Finishing Systems after a release of toxic gas Wednesday.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE: VDEM: Nitric acid overheated, vaporized

The Environmental Protection Agency says AFS had a violation back in 2010 -- a violation 10 On Your Side wanted to know more about.

According the EPA, AFS had a state inspection in April of 2009 and a Compliance Evaluation Inspection in September of 2010.

Information on the EPA’s website says the company was cited by the EPA for a, "Significant Non-Compliance" sometime between September and July of 2010, but no where does the EPA explain the nature of that noncompliance, which according to the Government, remains unresolved.

Since that time, the EPA has had very little else to say about that violation or how the company is doing now.

A company executive told WAVY.com that the Environmental Inspectors with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality who visited the facility Thursday morning found no problems and did not cite the company for any violations.

Mike Miller is mowing a neighbor's lawn, but he wonders about the government's interest in one of his other neighbors.

"It may be something minor and it may be something. I hate to see people get into trouble for something that's not necessary, but if it's something that's going to effect the public and the people in the area, then they should know something about it,” Miller said.

But the EPA says policy forbids them from talking about an ongoing investigation -- policy the agency says is in the public's best interest.

"Actually, releasing sensitive enforcement information that may jeopardize settlement negotiations could in fact possibly result in less protection of public health and the environment,” said EPA Spokesperson Terry White on the phone with WAVY.com.

"Three years and they can't tell us anything? Who's doing their investigating?" asked Audrey Lemmon, who lives near AFS, Inc.

Lemmon lives about a mile or less from AFS with her two-year-old grandson and wants the EPA to share information about the violation back in 2010.

AFS released this statement to 10 On Your Side: "As for our community, we are constantly checked on to make sure we are in compliance with the chemicals that we hold in this facility."

10 On Your Side obtained a full copy of the EPA's disclosure policy.

AFS executives told WAVY.com Thursday they want the EPA to go public with the report because it shows their neighbors the original violation was not significant and the issue has been resolved.

Company questioned after HazMat scare

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/company-questioned-after-hazmat-scare  Link back to WAVY TV 10 website where story originated.  

Related articles

• Company questioned after HazMat scare
• Diesel spill flows into Portsmouth lake
• Chemical vapors prompt evacuations

Our Food Supply In Serious Jeopardy Lawsuits Show

Neonics Briefing DSCN1748 (Photo credit: Xerces Society)

By Dr. Mercola

Research has shown that many pesticides are neurotoxic and can cause disruptions to your neurological system and your brain. The reason why neurotoxins still enjoy widespread use on our food supply is really more about the bottom line for farming operations than it is about the science of human health.

Research has clearly and consistently linked pesticide exposure to Parkinson’s disease. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also 

considers 30 percent of insecticides to be carcinogenic.

All of these toxic chemicals are permitted on farms growing conventional and genetically engineered crops, and a large number of them can end up on your plate when you purchase conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables and/or processed foods.

But pesticides also have a dramatic impact on the health of our ecosystem. Neonicotinoids, such as Imidacloprid and Clothianidin, kill insects by attacking their nervous systems. These are known to get into pollen and nectar, and can damage beneficial insects such as bees.

These toxic chemicals have been implicated as one of the primary culprits in the mass die-offs of bees, and have subsequently been banned in some countries. The United States, however, is not among these countries...

But the effects of neonicotinoids do not end there. According to recent research by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the use of neonicotinoids in seed treatments is also responsible for the death of birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates and other wildlife.

Ecosystem Threatened by ‘Gross Underestimate’ of Toxicity of Neonicotinoids

Nicotine-related compounds called nicotinoids were initially introduced as a new form of pesticide in the 1990s, as widespread pest resistance rendered many older pesticides useless. Many seeds are now “pre-treated” with neonicotinoids, which are water-soluble and break down slowly in the environment.

Today, they are the most widely-used pesticides in the world. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find a pesticide that does not contain at least one neonicotinoid insecticide. In California alone, there are nearly 300 registered neonicotinoid products available.

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC), one of the leading bird conservation organizations in the US, is now calling for a ban on the use of neonicotinoids as seed treatments, and wants all pending applications for neonicotinoid products to be suspended pending an independent review of the products’ effects on birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.

As reported by the American Bird Conservancy1:

“It is clear that these chemicals have the potential to affect entire food chains. The environmental persistence of the neonicotinoids, their propensity for runoff and for groundwater infiltration, and their cumulative and largely irreversible mode of action in invertebrates raise significant environmental concerns...”

ABC commissioned the world renowned environmental toxicologist Dr. Pierre Mineau to conduct the research, which resulted in a 100-page report2 titled The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds. Mineau’s report reviews 200 studies on neonicotinoids, including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act.

The report concludes that neonicotinoids “are lethal to birds and to the aquatic systems on which they depend.” Even more disturbing, contamination levels in both surface and ground water around the world are already beyond the threshold found to kill many aquatic invertebrates. According to this shocking toxicology assessment:

• A single kernel of corn treated with this type of pesticide can kill a songbird
• A single grain of wheat or canola treated with the neonicotinoids Imidacloprid can be fatal to a bird
• As little as 1/10th of a neonicotinoid-coated corn seed per day during egg-laying season can affect a bird’s reproductive capability

EPA Accused of Failing to Adequately Assess Environmental Risks

Disturbingly, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not adequately assessed the toxicity of neonicotinoids. Part of the problem, according to the featured report, is that the EPA is “using scientifically unsound, outdated methodology that has more to do with a game of chance than with a rigorous scientific process.” This has led the agency to grossly underestimate the toxicity of these chemicals. Furthermore 33:

 “The report also charges that there is no readily available biomarker for neonicotinoids as there is for cholinesterase inhibitors such as the organophosphorous pesticides. ‘It is astonishing that EPA would allow a pesticide to be used in hundreds of products without ever requiring the registrant to develop the tools needed to diagnose poisoned wildlife. It would be relatively simple to create a binding assay for the neural receptor which is affected by this class of insecticides,’ said Dr. Mineau.”

Dr. Mineau urges the EPA to require pesticide registrants to also provide the diagnostic tools necessary to diagnose cases of wildlife poisonings. So far, neonicotinoids have garnered the most attention and criticism for their role in bee die-offs—a worldwide phenomenon that took off once these newer pesticides became widely used. As stated by ABC4:

“The serious risk to bees should not be understated, as one-third of the US diet depends on these insect pollinators. The ABC assessment makes clear, however, that the potential environmental impacts of neonicotinoids go well beyond bees.”

 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/18/neonicotinoid-pesticide.aspx  Link to the rest of the story on Mercola.com.

Related articles

• Neonicotinoid Pesticides Harm More than Just Honey Bees
• Gross Underestimate of Toxicity of Neonicotinoid Pesticides
• Neonicotinoids harm birds and soil
• Russia Warns Obama: Monsanto
• Russia Warns Obama: Global War over 'Bee Apocalypse' Coming Very Soon