fluoride causes cancer

http://www.naturalnews.com/053953_fluoride_cancer_water_safety.html

Undeniable evidence from numerous studies proves that fluoride causes cancer

Monday, May 09, 2016 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently released a document called Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Fluoride and Its Salts that highlights the many health hazards caused by the consumption of fluoride. And the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) recently submitted a compilation of its own to OEHHA, which is soon to make a final decision concerning fluoride’s toxicity, providing additional evidence that fluoride causes cancer.

FAN has been working for many years to raise awareness about the toxicity of fluoride, with the eventual goal of getting it removed from public water supplies. And its most recent efforts involving OEHHA could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, so to speak, as it has the potential to unleash the truth about fluoride on a massive scale, and spark a revolt against its use.

According to a recent FAN press release, OEHHA’s report was birthed out of an inquiry into the science of fluoride’s toxicity. It is also a prelude to the group’s scientific advisory board Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) meeting to be held on October 12 – 13, 2011, which will make a decision on the status of fluoride as a carcinogen.

The OEHHA report already states that “multiple lines of evidence (show) that fluoride is incorporated into bones where it can stimulate cell division of osteoblasts [bone-forming cells],” an admission that already recognizes fluoride as a cause of bone cancer. The report goes on to state that fluoride induces “genetic changes other cellular changes leading to malignant transformation, and cellular immune response thereby increasing the risk of development of osteosarcomas.”

To add to this, FAN presented OEHHA with additional studies from the National Research Council (NRC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and several esteemed universities that all illustrate a link between fluoride consumption and various cancers, including liver and oral cancers, and thyroid follicular cell tumors.

With this mountain of evidence, the only logical conclusion OEHHA can come to in October is that fluoride is a toxic poison — and just like lead and other known toxic chemicals already are in California, worthy of being publicly identified as dangerous.

“While we understand that there will be tremendous pressure put on the CIC and OEHHA by the proponents of fluoride and fluoridation, we ask that the Committee continue to rely on its high level of scientific knowledge and integrity when deliberating and reaching a final conclusion on the carcinogenicity status of fluoride and its salts,” wrote FAN as part of its official submission.

To read the entire FAN press release, which contains further details about the cancer studies included, visit:

http://www.prnewswire.com

Advertisements

Upcoming HeartThread, Water, Ceremonies

Annual Seed Exchange Tuesday, March 15th @ the Frenchy’s Barn from 3:00 – 6:00 pm

BRING YOUR SEEDS

Jessie Esparza, Parks Project Specialist  505-955-2106

HeartThread Intro evening on wednesday 16th March at Amata Chiropractic, 826 Camino de Monte Rey, Suite A3, Santa Fe  6 – 8 PM . Free

HeartThread Practitioner Training: There will not be a training this coming weekend of the 18th, 19th 20th, March. The next training to become a  HeartThread Practitioner will be held on April 29th, 30th and May 1st in Bernalillo, NM

Equinox Celebration and Ceremony at La Cocina de Balam, 1406 3rd Street, Santa Fe, Sunday, March  20th  2 – 6 PM. Dress warmly bring water, crystal, dirt from your home. Feast provided by donation (505) 316 4913

HeartThread workshop at La Cocina de Balam, Sunday April 24th from 2 – 5 PM $21

Info on any of the above Raphael (575) 770 1228

Fluoride part 2

CHALLENGING THE PRO-FLUORIDATION MANTRA, part 2.
Introduction.

Promoters of fluoridation repeat ad nauseam the mantra that fluoridation is “safe”, “effective” and “cost effective.” In part 2 I discuss the 6 KEY PAPERS that challenge the mantra of fluoridation’s “safety.” Or to be more precise – since there is no question that fluoride is very toxic and damages health – we will demonstrate that there is no adequate margin of safety to protect all citizens drinking artificially fluoridated water (and getting fluoride from other sources) from known health effects.

STUDIES ON THE TOXICITY OF FLUORIDE AND SAFETY OF FLUORIDATION

5. National Resource Council of the National Academies. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.

A landmark report on the toxicology of fluoride is available to read and search for free online. It is one of the very few reviews of fluoride for which the panel was balanced. It contained both pro and anti-fluoridation scientists. The report concluded that the current U.S. maximum contaminant level for fluoride (4 ppm) in drinking water is an unsafe level for human health. The panel recommended that the EPA conduct a new risk assessment to establish a goal for a safe level of fluoride in drinking water (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, MCLG) and thence a new Federally enforceable standard (or MCL). After over 8 years the EPA has not completed this determination and so for 8 years the US continued to operate under unsafe standards for fluoride in water.

BONE DAMAGE. Among many health concerns the panel noted that fluoride damages the bone and accumulates there with a significantly long half-live. The first symptoms of bone damage are indistinguishable from arthritis and with further accumulation (fluoride’s half life in bone is at least 20 years) it makes the bones more brittle and prone to fracture.

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTER. The panel also concluded that fluoride is an endocrine disrupter. It lowers thyroid function and accumulates in the pineal gland (see paper 6 below).

NEUROTOXICIY.  Many animal studies indicate that fluoride can enter and damage the brain via a number of mechanisms. At thetime this review was published only 5 IQ studies were available. Since publication this total has risen dramatically. Including new studies and older Chinese studies that have been translated by FAN, there are now (as of Dec 2014) 49 studies, of which 42 show an association between exposure to fairly modest doses of fluoride and lowered IQ (see papers 7-9 below). For those who want more details of all the animal and human studies on fluoride’s toxicity see FAN’s health database

OSTEOSARCOMA.At the time of publication the NRC panel had been informedbyFAN of a doctoral thesis by Elise Bassin from Harvard, whichindicated an association between exposure to fluoridated water at a critical age range in young boys (6-8 years) and succumbing by the age of 20, to osteosarcoma, a frequently fatal bone cancer. The NRC did not take a definitive position on this study preferring to wait for the study to be published. Bassin’s publication came in May of 2006 (discussed below, see paper 10). However the same edition of the journal also contained a letter from her pro-fluoridation thesis advisor Chester Douglass claiming that his larger study would show that her thesis did not hold. However, he has never published this promised rebuttal of her thesis.

Subsets of US population exceeding EPA’s safe reference dose. While the NRC review did not study fluoridation as such (either its risk or benefits), the authors did provide an exposure analysis (see Chapter 2). The panel showed that several subsets of the population drinking fluoridated water at 1 ppm fluoride (including bottle-fed infants) are exceeding the EPA’s safe reference dose of 0.06 mg/kg/day (see the diagram on page 85). This finding makes nonsense of the claim by both ADA and the CDC that this very important review was not relevant to water fluoridation.

No margin of safety. Based on this review it is abundantly clear that fluoride damages health and that for several end-points (including lowered IQ), there is no adequate margin of safety to protect all individuals in a large population drinking fluoridated water. This critical conclusion is often lost on promoters of fluoridation who confuse concentration with dose. They simplistically compare the concentration of fluoride in the water of the community examined with the concentration of fluoride in artificially fluoridated water. Such a comparison does not provide a margin of safety. For that one needs two things:

First, one has to ascertain the range of dosesin the fluoridated population. This takes into account how much water citizens drink (which can be very large because there is no control on the amount of water consumed) and how much fluoride they get from other sources.

Second, in order to determine a safe dose (sufficient to protect everyone) one also has to take into account the full range of sensitivity to a toxic substance anticipated in a large population. It is the failure to do this that has been the biggest and most reckless mistake of the fluoridation program since it began and fluoridation promoters today.

6. Luke J. 2001. Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland.Caries Research 35(2):125-128. See also Luke’s PhD thesis click here.

Luke showed that fluoride accumulates on the calcified deposits in the human pineal gland and lowers melatonin production in animals. No health agency in any fluoridating country has attempted to repeat Luke’s work despite the fact that melatonin levels have been related to many health problems. For example, Autistic children produce no melatonin.

7. Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen L, et al. 2003a. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36(2):84-94, and Xiang Q, Liang Y, Zhou M, and Zang H. 2003b. Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study [letter]. Fluoride 36(3):198-199.

Of the 42 (out of 49) studies (as of Dec 2014) that have found a relationship between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ, the Xiang study is one of the most important.

In the Xiang study, the authors controlled for key confounding values such as lead, and iodine (and arsenic retrospectively), parental income and educational status. In addition to comparing the mean IQ of children between the high-fluoride and low-fluoride village (a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the whole age range) they also sub-divided the children in the high-fluoride village into 5 groups with mean fluoride concentrations ranging from 0.7 to 4.3 ppm (see Table 8 in their study).

By focusing on one village they eliminated any other environmental differences between the two villages. They found that as the fluoride concentration in the five sub-groups increased two things happened: 1) the mean IQ systematically decreased and 2) the percentage of children with an IQ less than 80 (borderline mentally handicapped) dramatically increased from 0% to 37.5%.

Lowest level where IQlowered. The lowering of IQ is first observed in the sub-group at 1.53 ppm, and bearing in mind the range of fluoride concentration for that sub-group, one has to conservatively assume that some children in this study would have had their IQ lowered at the lower end of the range fluoride concentrations in this group 1.26 ppm.

Such a result leaves absolutely no margin of safety to protect all children in an artificially fluoridated community (fluoride levels between 0.7 to 1.2 ppm) from this serious outcome. Please note there is no margin of safety to protect:

A) Against the full range of exposure, especially when you consider the different amounts of water drunk by children and their exposure to other sources such as toothpaste. It should also be added that in two respects the Chinese children in the Xiang study would have had less exposure to fluoride from two key sources than American children. Children living in rural Chinese villages are less likely to be using fluoridated toothpaste and less likely to be bottle-fed (bottle-fed babies, where the formula is made up with fluoridated water, get about 200 times more fluoride than breast-fed babies).

B) Nor does it protect against the full range of sensitivity expected in a large population (as discussed in 5 above).

The last children that need a further lowering of IQ are children from low-income families, whose IQ has already been compromised by so many other factors (e.g. poorer diet, poorer educational opportunities and more exposure to pollution). Yet it is these children who are the primary target of fluoridation programs.

8. Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P. 2012. Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10):1362–1368.

This Meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies was conducted by a team from Harvard including world-famous neuroscientist Philippe Grandjean (an expert on mercury and author of the recent book, “Only One Chance”). This team acknowledged weaknesses in many of the studies but also noted the remarkable consistency of the finding that IQ was lowered in 26 out of the 27 studies reviewed. The average lowering was 7 IQ points, which is substantial, considering that at the population level even an average lowering of one IQ should be avoided.

9. Choi AL, Zhang Y, Sun G, et al. 2015. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 47:96–101.

This Pilot study in China was carried out at fluoride levels, which overlap levels used in US fluoridation programs. They didn’t measure IQ specifically in this study but reported the results of a very simple test: the child’s ability to repeat a sequence of numbers both forwards and backwards. Even children with very mild dental fluorosis performed less well on this specific mental development test, than children without fluorosis. One of the experts involved in this study was Dr. David Bellenger who is world famous for his studies on lead’s neurotoxicity.

Another co-author was Dr. Philippe Grandjean and in an editorial on his website “Chemical Brain Drain”he used this study to counteract the claim from proponents that the IQ findings were not relevant to the fluoride levels used in water fluoridation. For the children in this study, Grandjean writes:

“Their lifetime exposures to fluoride from drinking water covered the full range allowed in the US. Among the findings, children with fluoride-induced mottling of their teeth – even the mildest forms that appears as whitish specks on the enamel – showed lower performance on some neuropsychological tests. This observation runs contrary to popular wisdom that the enamel effects represent a cosmetic problem only and not a sign of toxicity. At least one of five American children has some degree of mottling of their teeth…Prevention of chemical brain drain should be considered at least as important as protection against caries.” (my emphasis, PC).

10. Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. 2006. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control, May;17(4):421-8.

This is the only study of osteosarcoma (a frequently fatal bone cancer in children), which studied the age at which exposure to fluoride was experienced. The authors write:

We observed that for males diagnosed before the age of 20 years, fluoride level in drinking water during growth was associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma, demonstrating a peak in the odds ratios from 6 to 8 years of age. All of our models were remarkably robust in showing this effect, which coincides with the mid-childhood growth spurt.

The finding that there may a critical window of vulnerability in young men has never been refuted – or even investigated – since Bassin’s paper was published in 2006. The shocking fact is that with this paper comes the possibility that a few young men each year may be dying from osteosarcoma because they have been exposed to fluoridated water at a critical age. Even though this has not been refuted the practice of fluoridation continues to be pushed by health authorities. Where is the precautionary principle here?

Conclusion:

Between them the TEN KEY PAPERS (listed in part 1) invalidate all three claims of the pro-fluoridation mantra.

Fluoridation is not effective.

 The largest US study (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990) and the most precise study of children’s tooth decay (Warren et al., 2010) provide little evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay. Featherstone, 2000 (and others) have provided the probable reason for these problematic results. The predominant (if any) benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic. There is no need to swallow fluoride to fight tooth decay and there is no justifiable reason to force people to drink fluoridated water against their will.

Fluoridation is not safe.

There is no disputing the fact that fluoride damages health but what about fluoridation? The landmark 500-page review by the National Research Council (NRC, 2006) showed that certain subsets of the US public are exceeding the EPA’s safe reference dose for fluoride, including bottle-fed infants. The NRC (2006) reviewed many health impacts for which there is no adequate margin of safety to protect all individuals drinking fluoridated water. These include lowered thyroid function, accumulation in the pineal gland (Luke et al., 2001), bone damage, and lowered IQ (Xiang at al, 2003a,b). Xiang found that some children had their IQ lowered at fluoride levels as low as 1.26 ppm. Xiang’ study was one of 42 studies that have found this effect. A Review by a Harvard team (Choi et al, 2012) found an average lowering of 7 IQ points in 26 out of 27 studies. Choi et al, 2015 found learning disabilities in children with very mild fluorosis, which impacts many US children. Thus fluorosis at any level can no longer be considered merely a cosmetic affect. A study by Bassin et al., 2006 has disturbingly shown that some young boys may be losing their lives each year from being exposed to fluoridated water at 1 ppm in their 6th, 7th and 8th years. This study remains unrefuted.

Fluoridation is not cost-effective.

Lo and Thiessen(2014) have demolished the claim by CDC economist Susan Griffin that for every dollar spent on fluoridation $38 is saved on dental treatment. This claim by Griffin has been used Ad Nauseam by promoters of fluoridation including many state public health officials. Will they continue to do so? 

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network
Co-Author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010)

See Bulletin Online

Fluoride Resource studies


Ten Key Papers that Challenge the Pro-fluoridtion Mantra

Introduction 

Promoters of fluoridation repeat ad nauseam the mantra that fluoridation is “safe”, “effective” and “cost effective” (how many times have unsuspecting legislators been told that for every $1 spent we save $38?). Instead of backing up these claims with any solid scientific evidence, they use a long list of impressive but fairly meaningless (i.e. “science-free”) endorsements. This is not surprising because the science is not there to support the mantra. What is surprising is that public health officials and professional bodies repeat these claims with no sense of embarrassment. I believe that historians will be astounded that so many “respectable” professional associations and health agencies (in the handful of countries that fluoridate) have endorsed a practice, which has such little scientific and no ethical justification. In Orwell’s Animal Farm the pigs rule, in the fluoridated world the sheep rule.

Below is a list of 10 studies (actually nine studies and one review) that invalidate this mantra.  Fluoridation is neither effective, nor safe, nor cost-effective. In addition I give a few words about the first four studies that challenge the mantra of fluoridation’s “effectiveness” and  “cost-effectiveness.”

In part 2 of this article, I will say a few words on the papers that pertain to safety.

Part 1. A Listing of the 10 studies

1. Brunelle and Carlos. 1990. Recent Trends in DentalCaries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation. Journal of Dental Research,69(Special Issue):723-727.

2. Featherstone JD. 2000.The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA), Jul; 131(7):887-99.

3. Warren JJ, et al. 2009. Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes–a longitudinal study. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 69(2):111-15. Spring.

4. Ko L, Thiessen KM. 2014. A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.

5. Luke J. 2001. Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Research 35(2):125-128. See also Luke’s PhD thesis click here.

6. Xiang Q, et al. 2003a. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36(2):84-94, and Xiang Q, et al. 2003b. Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study [letter]. Fluoride 36(3):198-199.

7. National Resource Council of the National Academies. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.

8. Bassin EB, et al. 2006. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control, May;17(4):421-8.

9. Choi AL, Grandjean P, et al. 2012. Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10):1362–1368.

10. Choi AL, et al. 2015. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot studyNeurotoxicology and Teratology, 47:96–101.

A few words about papers 1-4.

STUDIES ON EFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION

1. Brunelle and Carlos. 1990.Recent Trends in DentalCaries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation. Journal of Dental Research,69 (Special Issue):723-727.

This was the largest survey of dental decay in children in the US (the authors studied 39,000 children in 84 communities). The study was organized by the pro-fluoridation National Institute for Dental Research (NIDR). These NIDR authors found an average difference of only 0.6 of one tooth surface between children (aged 5-17) who lived all their lives in a fluoridated community compared to a non-fluoridated community (see Table 6). This result was NOT shown to be statistically significant. The pro-fluoridation bias of the authors becomes apparent in the way they present these unimpressive results in their abstract. They do not report the difference in tooth decay as an absolute value (i.e. 0.6 of one tooth surface) but as a relative % difference. This value of 18% looks more impressive than an absolute saving of 0.6 of about 100 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth (there are 128 when all the teeth have erupted). Nor did the authors admit that they had not shown that this result was statistically significant: it wasn’t! Here is an excerpt from their abstract, which says more about the politics of this issue than the science.

“Children who had always been exposed to community water fluoridation had mean DMFS (decayed missing and filled surfaces, PC) about 18% lower than those who had never lived in a fluoridated communities. When some of the “background” effect of topical fluoride was controlled, this difference increased to 25%. The results suggest that water fluoridation has played a dominant role in the decline in caries and must continue to be a major prevention methodology.” (my emphasis, PC)

Really?

2. Featherstone JD. 2000.The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA), Jul; 131(7):887-99.

In this article, which was a cover story in JADA edition of July 2000, Featherstone reached the same conclusions that many prominent dental researchers had reached over the previous 20 years: Namely, that the predominant mechanism of fluoride’s beneficial action is topical not systemic. The CDC acknowledged the same thing in 1999. In other words you don’t have to swallow fluoride to protect your teeth and therefore there is no need to force it on people who don’t want it via their drinking water. This is probably one of the reasons why, according to the World Health Organizations data online, that tooth decay rates in 12-year-olds have been declining at about the same rates in non-fluoridated as in fluoridated countries since the 1960s (http://fluoridealert.org/issues/caries/who-data/ ). Here are Featherstone’s conclusions:

CONCLUSIONS:

Fluoride, the key agent in battling caries, works primarily via topical mechanisms: inhibition of demineralization, enhancement of remineralization and inhibition of bacterial enzymes.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:

Fluoride in drinking water and in fluoride-containing products reduces caries via these topical mechanisms.

3. Warren JJ, Levy SM, Broffitt B. et al. 2009. Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes–a longitudinal study. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 69(2):111-15. Spring.

If the Brunelle and Carlos (1990) paper was the largest US government funded study, the Warren et al (2009) paper was the most precise. This investigation was conducted as part of the “Iowa study,” which has been examining tooth decay in a cohort of children since birth. Warren et al. examined tooth decay as a function of daily ingestion of fluoride in mg/day (i.e. they examined individual exposure rather than the traditional way of comparing dental decay rates between communities with different concentrations of fluoride in water). The authors could not determine a clear relationship between caries experience and daily dose in mg/day. The authors’ state:

These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.

CONCLUSIONS: Given the overlap among caries/fluorosis groups in mean fluoride intake and extreme variability in individual fluoride intakes, firmly recommending an “optimal” fluoride intake is problematic.

Please note that all three of these studies were carried out by pro-fluoridation dental researchers. Many dentists are oblivious of the fact that research carried out by their own pro-fluoridation colleagues has undermined the effectiveness that they claim. In addition it should be noted that in the 70 years since fluoridation was launched in 1945 there has never been a Randomized Control Trial (RCT) to establish in a scientific fashion that swallowing fluoride lowers tooth decay. This is the gold standard used by the FDA to establish the efficacy of any drug. Considering such a flimsy scientific basis for the effectiveness of this practice it is the height of arrogance to force a known toxic substance on people who don’t want it.

STUDIES ON THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION

4. Ko L, Thiessen KM. 2014. A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.

This paper demolished the claim by Susan Griffin (an economist at the CDC) that for every dollar spent on fluoridation $38 was saved on dental costs. This statement has been used countless times by state dental directors, public health officials and other promoters of fluoridation.  We have provided more details on this in a previous bulletin.

In part 2, I will say a few words about papers 5-10 that challenge the mantra of fluoridation’s “safety.”

Paul Connet, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network

Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies found contaminated with lead, tungsten, strontium, aluminum and uranium – NaturalNews.com

Natural News exclusive: Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies found contaminated with lead, tungsten, strontium, aluminum and uranium

via Natural News exclusive: Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies found contaminated with lead, tungsten, strontium, aluminum and uranium – NaturalNews.com.

Natural News exclusive: Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies found contaminated with lead, tungsten, strontium, aluminum and uranium

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The sodium fluoride added to U.S. water supplies is contaminated with the toxic elements lead, tungsten and aluminum, a Natural News Forensic Food Labs investigation has revealed. Strontium and uranium were also found in substantial quantities in some samples, raising additional questions about the purity of industrial fluoride used for water fluoridation.

These ICP-MS results, shown below, were determined with the very same ICP-MS laboratory instrumentation used by the FDA and various universities. Mike Adams, director of the lab and one of the world’s leading researchers into heavy metals contamination of foods, conducted the research.

Research summary and results

To conduct the research, Natural News acquired “pure” sodium fluoride from six chemical manufacturers in China who export fluoride for use in municipal water supplies and other industrial applications (such as pesticides).

Roughly 500 grams of white crystalline powder was acquired from each of the six companies in China.

From those original samples, approximately 0.5 grams of each sample was carefully weighed in laboratory vials, then digested using high purity “trace grade” acids suitable for ICP-MS analysis.

Following digestion, the samples were normalized using laboratory-grade water (in an acid matrix), then dilution factors were calculated in the ICP-MS control software.

Samples were then run via ICP-MS, following strict quality control procedures including the use of acid blanks, mid-range calibration checks, NIST-traceable standards and verifying the conformity of calibration concentration curves.

The results of the six sodium fluoride samples are shown here in parts per billion (ppb)

MAX aluminum: 283,218 ppb
MAX arsenic: 137 ppb
MAX strontium: 9417 ppb
MAX lead: 988 ppb
MAX uranium: 1415 ppb
MAX tungsten: presence confirmed in 2 of 6 samples but quantitative analysis not conducted on tungsten

AVG aluminum: 69364 ppb
AVG arsenic: 70 ppb
AVG strontium: 1751 ppb
AVG lead: 299 ppb
AVG uranium: 239 ppb

As with everything tested at the Natural News Forensic Food Labs, all samples are held in storage for future validation.

Comments from lead researcher Mike Adams

We now have irrefutable scientific proof that the sodium fluoride used in U.S. water supplies is contaminated with toxic elements, heavy metals and other elements which have radioactive isotopes (strontium and uranium) that are present in the environment at trace levels.

The presence of these elements in water fluoridation chemicals cannot be refuted by any informed person, as the evidence is easily confirmed by any competent laboratory running ICP-MS instrumentation.

We also know that U.S. cities which foolishly engage in water fluoridation almost never test their raw materials for heavy metals contamination. After all, there is no law against dumping toxic heavy metals into public water supplies as long as the bags of powder are labeled “sodium fluoride.” While the EPA does require municipal water suppliers to test their water for overall heavy metals concentrations, in reality the samples acquired for this testing are often acquired upstream from the fluoride insertion point, thereby excluding the fluoride contaminants from the tests.

My laboratory testing shows that metals contamination varies considerably from one source of fluoride to the next. For example, while 988 ppb of lead was found in the sodium fluoride from one source, another source showed as little as 53 ppb. But that low-lead source contained over 1,400 ppb of uranium, a potentially concerning figure considering the amount of lingering radioactive uranium still found on the planet thanks to decades of atomic weapons testing. (The most abundant forms of uranium are non-radioactive, of course.)

The industrial heavy metal tungsten, which I have confirmed exists in imported rice protein products, was also found in two out of the six samples tested (33 1/3rd percent). This indicates a very high likelihood that people who are drinking fluoridated water from municipal water supplies may also be drinking tungsten (which has been linked to increased stroke risk at high concentrations).

Why fluoride advocates are forced to lie about what’s really in the fluoride

Fluoride advocates have always used dishonest language to try to deceive the public about fluoride. I remember seeing an advertisement from a pro-fluoride city which claimed, “Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral. Water fluoridation simply restores the natural level of that mineral in the water to protect public health.” Such a claim, we all know, is blatantly false in both its literal wording and its implied claim.

For starters, just because an element is “naturally occurring” does not make it healthy. Arsenic is also a naturally-occurring mineral in many water wells, but arsenic causes cancer and death. If the argument of fluoride proponents is that all “naturally-occurring minerals” should be “restored” to public water supplies, then by their logic we should also be dumping arsenic into the city water.

Secondly, sodium fluoride imported from China’s industrial chemical factories is not at all the same as a fluoride mineral found in groundwater. There are many different chemical compounds which contain fluorine elements in various configurations. Some are far more toxic than others, and all of them are, by default, labeled “fluoride” for purposes of municipal water fluoridation. This dishonest labeling is of course entirely intentional.

Thirdly, fluoride contamination of water wells around the globe is a very large and widespread problem. This is what gives rise to the epidemic of dental fluorosis, affecting tens of millions of children across the globe. Just because fluoride is found in some wells doesn’t mean it should be added to all other water supplies. The idea is ludicrous, and anyone who argues such an invalid point only admits they are irrational or unintelligent to begin with.

When they push “fluoride,” they don’t tell you about the toxic heavy metals you’re also drinking

The other dirty little secret of the fluoridation industry, we now know for certain, is that when fluoride proponents say children need to drink “fluoride,” they never mention the lead, tungsten, uranium, aluminum, strontium and other elements found in common fluoridation chemicals.

What is the public health impact of millions of children around the world drinking trace levels of lead with fluoride? It can’t be good: lead is well known to damage children’s IQs and impair learning. Even though the levels of lead in public water caused by contaminated fluoride are likely to be very small, they still contribute to other sources of lead exposure such as lead alloys in brass pipe fittings — which are still common in residential plumbing.

Important questions about fluoride and public health

Here are several crucial questions for us all to consider:

1) If water fluoridation is supposed to be about protecting public health, then shouldn’t fluoride be free from toxic heavy metals?

2) Why don’t cities which are engaged in water fluoridation test their raw materials for heavy metals and publicly share the results with residents?

3) Why isn’t there a national law requiring purity minimums for fluoride added to public water supplies?

4) If all the doctors and dentists who promote fluoride claim to be protecting public health, why have NONE of them ever tested fluoride for heavy metals contamination?

6) What are the ethical implications of mandating public consumption of a substance known to be contaminated with toxic heavy metals? Doesn’t making fluoride mandatory in the water supply also mean heavy metals consumption also becomes mandatory when the fluoride is contaminated?

Don’t expect anyone from the mainstream media to answer any of these questions, however. They’re still pretending fluoride is good for you!

See also:
http://fluoridealert.org/issues/fluorosis/

 


JourneySantaFe Collected Works

In the wake of the news that New Mexico’s drought is the worst in the nation, and Mora County’s decision to impose a moratorium on fracking, comes this Sunday’s meeting of Journey Santa Fe at 11 AM at Collected Works Bookstore and Café. This is the first of a series on water in New Mexico.Journey Santa Fe presents:
Overview of Water Law, Water Rights and Water Conflicts in New Mexico
with water law specialist Peter White.

Attorney Peter White will present an overview of water law, water rights, and water conflicts in New Mexico. He will follow up in two or three subsequent Journey Santa Fe gatherings to discuss in more detail New Mexico’s water problems, summing up of his work over the past 40 years.

Co-presenter attorney Denise D. Fort, Professor of Law at the University of New Mexico School of Law and Director of the School’s Utton Center, will discuss her booklet WATER MATTERS.
If you get that water is pivotal to our state’s existence, especially during this drought, you will want to attend. See you there.

Albuquerque Journal:

New Mexico’s drought worst in the country

By on Thu, May 2, 2013

POSTED: 7:54 am
LAST UPDATED: 12:07 pm

New Mexico this morning rose to the top of one of those lists of US states that you don’t want to be on. Drought conditions here are now the worst in the nation, according to this morning’s federal Drought Monitor:

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

The analysts who develop the weekly monitor significantly expanded their designation of “exceptional” drought, their worst category, to include much of the Rio Grande Valley, the state’s most populous region:…

Avoiding Priority Calls for the Right and Wrong Reasons

New post on La Jicarita

Avoiding Priority Calls for the Right and Wrong Reasons

by lajicarita

By KAY MATTHEWS

As April slides into May in the upper Sangre de Cristo watershed I’m thankful for whatever green I get: the pasture grass first, emerging almost overnight into clumps of mixed brome, rye, timothy, and various unidentified shoots. The apricot trees in the orchard are just breaking into bloom, with an intrinsic knowledge that any flower display before the end of April is a fool’s game (and they were indeed zapped last Thursday night). The ornamental forsythia at the front door flaunts this rule but unlike the apricot doesn’t have to prove its worth in fruit; its justification is its persistent yellow beauty. The unrelenting wind makes Eliot’s declaration of April being the cruelest month manifest by threatening to rip the hoop house plastic from its tenuous hold on its PVC frame.

The irrigation water in my first-in-line village starts flowing around the same time, depending on the commissioners’ adherence to formal tradition—the water isn’t released until the acequia is cleaned—or informal tradition—whoever has a direct line to the commissioners gets the water whenever they don’t have it.

Although my village lies only a few miles away from Picuris Pueblo, whose priority date is “time immemorial,” there is no question that we are literally ”first in use” in my valley, as the New Mexico water code defines priority administration of water rights. With a priority date in 1700s this village on the Rio de las Trampas gets the water first as it flows from the high Pecos peaks directly through the pastures and gardens of the village parciantes. We are allotted a certain amount for irrigation, although no meters, only gauges measure the circos that traditionally correspond to shovel widths of water flowing through our three presas, or diversion dams, on the river.

Yet the concept of “priority date” implies that the water we use we own, which is contrary to the way the acequia communities throughout northern New Mexico have always managed their water. José Rivera, in his book Acequia Culture, Water, Land, & Community in the Southwest, quotes from an affidavit submitted by acequia commissioners in the early years of the Taos Valley adjudication to determine priority dates and ownership of water:

“the aforesaid acequias by and through their fully elected commissioners agree that they will continue to follow and be bound by their customary divisions and allocations of water and agree that they will not make calls or demands for water between and among themselves based upon priority dates.”

In accordance with the traditional practice of repartimiento, or water sharing, the acequias did not want to establish a practice whereby a priority call could shut off water to “junior” water rights holders in times of drought.

The Office of the State Engineer (OSE), the agency that administers water rights in New Mexico, has also been reluctant to issue priority calls to junior users but not with such altruistic motives: junior water rights largely belong to urban areas developed after the establishment of Pueblo and Hispano acequia communities and a priority call would generate a political nightmare.

But now the Carlsbad Irrigation District (CIB) has issued a priority call on the Pecos River against the Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District (PVACD) and we’re going to witness a legal process that won’t be as messy as if city wells were being threatened but will provide plenty of action.

This isn’t the first time the CID issued a priority call. As I wrote about in my article “How Not to Manage for Drought in New Mexico” the state paid Texas the big bucks back in the 1980s to prevent the CID from making that call. In that case, which lingered in court from 1974 to 1988 during the infamous State Engineer Steve Reynolds’ tenure, Texas claimed that New Mexico failed to deliver required water under the terms of the Pecos River Compact. Instead of complying with the condition by enforcing the state’s priority system, which would have required acknowledging Carlsbad Irrigation District’s senior water rights by shutting off Roswell area junior wells to get water to the Texas state line, the New Mexico state legislature bought and retired enough water rights to meet the Texas water demand. It cost $100 million.

The CID has late 1800 senior surface water rights as opposed to the Roswell area farmers in the conservancy district with junior groundwater rights that, as the CID claims, are being pumped while the irrigation ditches go dry. The attorney for the CID seems to think that this time around the OSE, instead of the state legislature, is going to come to the rescue. That’s because of the Active Water Resource Management (AWRM) rules (recently upheld in a decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court), which will allow an appointed water master to implement an administrative priority cut-off date. All water rights holders whose priority date is later than the administrative date must stop using the water. This would, of course, cut off water to the PVACD, just as enforcement of the priority system would require, except that AWRM would enforce it more expeditiously and also allow the PVACD to file a replacement plan: the junior water right holder could temporarily use other senior water rights that aren’t being used, assuming it’s hydrologically viable.

When AWRM was first promulgated in 2004 many expressed concern that replacement plans denied the due process of formal water transfer protests and hearings and that it expedited the marketing and leasing of water (acequias and community ditches are expressly exempted from expedited marketing and leasing provisions). According to the OSE, replacement plans “do not adjudicate your water rights but are only an interim determination for administration and can be superseded by the courts.” Replacement plans would be limited to two years, which the OSE claimed would prevent developers from transferring water rights without a full public hearing.

So while the state moves further away from priority administration—although many would say in the wrong direction—the worsening drought continues to count coup on all our efforts at water management and distribution. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) the April streamflows remain dismal. The Rio Grande Basin streamflows range from 57 percent of normal for Rio Lucero near Arroyo Seco, to 11 percent of normal for the Jemez River below Jemez Canyon Dam. At Otowi Bridge, flows are forecast at 30 percent of normal, or 192,000 acre feet (af), and San Marcial is also 11 percent of normal or 53,000 af. March precipitation was 32 percent of normal, drier than 2012. Year to date precipitation is at 60 percent, also lower than last year at this time. While snowpack is below average at 55 percent, a little better than last year, much of the low to mid elevation snowpack has already melted, much earlier than average. Total reservoir storage in the basin is 614,300 af, down from last year’s 974,400 af.

 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association releases graphs showing precipitation outlooks several times a month. Here’s the April 29 to May 5 forecast.

So far our solutions to this extreme drop in participation and surface water storage are to pump more groundwater and import surface water. Texas continues to seek redress in the Supreme Court over alleged violations of the Rio Grande Compact, claiming that New Mexican groundwater pumping below Elephant Butte Reservoir is preventing Texas from getting its required water delivery. All the water settlements thus far negotiated rely on imported water, either San Juan/Chama contract water or transferred rights, usually from agriculture.

What I also see happening, as a member of the Taos County Public Welfare Advisory Committee, which reviews all water transfer applications within or from Taos County, is that as surface waters dry up and irrigation seasons shorten, even small water rights holders are applying to transfer their surface water rights to groundwater so they can continue to irrigate via pumps instead of acequias. It all adds up, folks, and no amount of wheeling and dealing is going to change the fact that we’re in an extreme drought, the planet is warming, and climate change is upon us. I got the water last night to irrigate my field, orchard, and garlic patch, but we’ll see how long it lasts as the summer progresses. You might say my village is a kind of indicator species: when it goes dry up here it’s a sure sign there’s not much hope below.

 

Comment    See all comments