By RT News
If you love the taste of an ice cold soda, you may want to determine whether the flavor is actually worth the risk. Sugary drinks are killing around 184,000 people each year, according to a new study.
The research, published in the American Heart Association’s Circulation journal, points the finger at sugar-laden drinks ranging from sodas to sweetened iced tea, fruit drinks, and sports/energy drinks. (more…)
MEDIA ROOTS– When was the last time you stopped to think about the one thing you can’t live without? I don’t mean the Internet – I’m talking about water. Without clean drinking water, life could not go on. This is why it’s so important that we know what is in our water. For the past sixty-five years, city governments nationwide have been adding a controversial substance called fluoride to municipal water supplies.
You probably recognize the word fluoride from the back of your toothpaste tube or from your visits to the dentist. But the fluoride added to our water is not the same as that in our toothpaste. The chemical added to our water is a fluorine compound called hexafluorosilicic acid that is generated as a by-product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
Phosphates are minerals that are used to make fertilizer, and phosphate mining industry is a giant moneymaker. Fluoride is created by the production of fertilizer as well as in the manufacturing of steel, aluminum, glass, and cement. Previously, the lack of government regulation allowed gaseous fluoride to move through factory smokestacks and straight into our atmosphere. Now, environmental regulations require giant filtration systems called “scrubbers” atop the stacks to keep these toxic chemicals from escaping into the air. Fluorosilicic acid is then extracted from these scrubbers and condensed to a water-based solution which is packaged unrefined and sold to city governments for the purpose of water fluoridation.
By selling the fluoride byproducts for this purpose, companies avoid the huge cost of disposing of these chemicals in the environment safely, and according to regulation. Back in the 1930’s, a band of industrial corporations – including Monsanto, U.S. Steel, Union Carbide, and Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), the leading producer of aluminum – had been cheaply disposing of their fluoride byproducts into the environment for years. This changed when their toxic waste became the target of negative press in the local news. A 1933 toxicology report by the USDA had warned of fluoride’s toxicity, singling out the aluminum industry as the biggest culprit.
The new potential of legal liability due to the exposure of workers and communities to industrial fluoride scared these corporations. Knowing that disposing of industrial fluoride waste safely was expensive, ALCOA employed biochemist Gerald Cox in 1936, to argue for fluoride’s dental benefits through experimentation on rats. Cox, neither a doctor nor a dentist, concluded that fluoride strengthened and protected teeth against decay and began to tour the country promoting water fluoridation on behalf of his employers. Interestingly, Cox’s findings ran contrary to the position originally held by the American Dental Association (ADA) on water fluoridation.
In 1944, the Journal of the American Dental Association published the following statement:
“We do know that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 parts per million of fluoride will cause such developmental disturbances as osteosclerosis, spondylosis, and osteopetrosis, and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances…”
In spite of this warning by the ADA, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first community to fluoridate its drinking water the very next year.
In 1947 Oscar R. Ewing, a paid attorney for ALCOA, was picked to head the Federal Security Agency. In this position he oversaw the Public Health Service or PHS (which is now the Department of Health and Human Services). This enabled him to change the Code of Federal Regulations, and place all control of drinking water fluoridation in the hands of his own department. Making clear his lingering ties to the aluminum industry and their expensive toxic waste, Ewing made fluoridation promotion one of the first official policies of the PHS. Over the next three years, 87 additional American cities began fluoridating their water.
The study that is often referred to in fluoride’s defense was conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) of the United States Public Health Service (PHS). It sought to determine whether there was a relationship between fluoridation and tooth decay. Released in 1988, the multi-million dollar nationwide survey examined 39,000 U.S. school children aged 5-17 from 84 different fluoridated and non-fluoridated geographical areas.
Surprisingly, the study uncovered a declining trend in tooth decay rates in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, mostly due to overall better hygiene. The overriding conclusion from the extensive study was that there is no relationship between tooth decay and fluoride ingestion. Despite this consensus, this study is still commonly cited to link lowered decay rates in fluoridated areas. A seldom-reported fact is that the same trend was found in non-fluoridated areas too.
Fluoride overexposure can bring serious health risks. The most common affliction due to overconsumption is called fluorosis, a condition characterized by a discoloration of teeth or changes in bone density. An excess of fluoride eats away at the enamel of your teeth, causing craters and surface discoloration. Dental fluorosis is the first clear and obvious sign that your body is being poisoned by too much fluoride, and cases can range from mild to severe. This occurs because only 50% of all fluoride taken in by the body is excreted. The remaining fluoride is disseminated throughout the body, accumulating in our bones, pineal gland and other tissues. In Karnataka, India, an excess of fluoride has turned the ground water into a slow poison, crippling at least 10,000 people.
The Director of the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Dr D Nagaraj, says that “due to fluoride concentration in water, many people in districts [in Karnataka, India] like Dharwad and Tumkur have spinal cord diseases. These are progressive diseases, after decades of consumption. People are battling with permanent disabilities.”
Alarmingly, a 1991 study by the U.S. Public Health Service found that the rates of osteosarcoma, a deadly type of bone cancer, were significantly higher in fluoridated communities than in non-fluoridated communities. The Harvard School of Dental Medicine found the same link in study done ten years later. Additional studies have associated fluoride ingestion with other serious health problems, including chromosomal damage, morphological changes to their kidneys and brain, hypo activity (or inactivity), damage to the thyroid gland, skeletal fluorosis, osteoporosis, liver cancer, and fertility problems.
The most distressing findings come from 18 human studies done in China, India, Iran and Mexico that show a substantial lowering of IQ in fluoridated areas. The ingestion of fluoride has been shown to increase the gastrointestinal absorption of aluminum by over 600%, and the absorption of heavy metals like aluminum is speculated to have a direct correlation to Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological brain disorders. Although a direct correlation between Alzheimer’s disease and fluoride ingestion is inconclusive, it is interesting to note that the rate of Alzheimer’s is twice as high in America than in Europe, where many countries have banned fluoridation.
Many countries around the world are skeptical of the benefits of adding fluoride to drinking water. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan and China have all ruled out water fluoridation as a safe and fair practice.
If you want to find out whether you’re drinking fluoridated water, the first thing you can do is access your city’s fluoridation status on the Center for Disease Control’s website in its oral health section.
If your water is fluoridated, it’s not a lost cause. You can speak out in your community or at city council meetings to let your local representatives know your concerns. To remove fluoride from your water you have a couple of options. You can equip your home with water filtration systems like those at Equinox or Burkey. Filters like Pur and Brita do not remove fluoride. If you buy bottled drinking water, reverse osmosis and distillation remove almost all fluoride.
If your city is planning to fluoridate you can stop it! Activists in Pennsylvania have successfully fought off fluoridation legislation since 1987 and they’re at it again. There is still a chance to put a halt to the fluoridation process in your own city.
Whether or not you support water fluoridation, the real issue here is having a choice. No chemical, no matter what its supposed benefits are, should be forced upon the public without their consent. Having access to clean water should be a fundamental right for every human being.
“Water is the lifeblood of our bodies, our economy, our nation and our well-being.” -Stephen Johnson
After numerous attempts to get data from city officials proving the benefits of mass fluoridation, I kept getting referred back to either the respective city’s water website or other government controlled sites. I also attempted to get in contact with Ellie Nadler, the head of San Diego’s Coalition for Fluoridation, but couldn’t find any legitimate website or group presence for that matter. Ellie backed out of any interviews and refused to give a statement.
Written by Abby Martin
Interview I conducted with David C. Kennedy, DDS, and former head of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology about fluoride.
Tooth Decay Trends in Fluoridated and Non Fluoridated Areas
EPA Union Calls for Moratorium on Fluoridation
600 pros urge Congress to Stop Fluoridation
Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Chapter 4.3.2 (pg. 14)
ADA Positions and Statements Interim Guidance on Fluoride Intake for Infants and Young Children
Dr. Kennedy, DDT Speaks out Against Fluoride
Fluoride Information Network
The Fluoride Risk
Citizens Uniting Against Fluoride
9:12am UK, Friday April 23, 2010
Peter Sharp, China correspondent
Health authorities are planning to sterilise nearly 10,000 people in southern China over the next four days as part of a population control programme.
Some of the people in Puning City will be forced to have the procedure carried out against their will.
Amnesty International says forced sterilisation “amounts to torture”.
Reports in the Chinese media say that Puning Health authorities in Guangdong Province have launched a special campaign to sterilise people who already have at least one child in order to ensure local birth control quotas are met.
Chinese newspaper reports say that those who refuse to be sterilised have seen their elderly mothers or fathers taken away and detained.
Hundreds of people in Puning are said to have been locked up.
Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK, said: “It is appalling that the authorities are subjecting people to such an invasive procedure against their will.
“Reports that relatives are imprisoned as a means of pressurising couples into submitting to surgery are incredibly concerning.
“The Puning City authorities must condemn this practice immediately and ensure that others are not forcibly sterilised.”
More than 1,300 people in the city have been held in local government buildings where they were given “lectures” on China’s family planning regulations.
Huang Ruifeng is the father of three girls.
“Several days ago, a village official called me and asked me or my wife to return for the surgery,” Huang told the local paper. “Otherwise they would take away my father.”
His father was later rounded up and detained by the authorities.
According to Puning rules, farmers are allowed to have a second child if the first child was a girl.
March 30, 2010
Fox News has posted a second article today that highlights comments on Infowars.com. “Hundreds of comments were posted in response to an incendiary story on infowars.com, the radical far-right Web site owned by radio host Alex Jones. The story, entitled, ‘The Cost Of Defying Obamacare: $2,250 a Month And IRS Goons Pointing Guns At Your Family,’ focused on the ‘increasing militarization of the IRS’ and its expansion of powers under the new health care law,” writes Jana Winter.
“The federal government is investigating dozens of death threats to IRS employees that have been posted online since the House passed the health care bill,” Winter explains. “The health care law has sparked protests on radical anti-tax and anti-government Web sites and within their private, password-protected e-mail lists and message boards. Some writers have labeled March 21 — the day the House passed the bill – ‘Bloody Sunday,’ and they see it as a call to violent action against IRS workers.”
In addition to creating dozens of new bureaucracies – the Health Choices Administration, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, the Health Insurance Exchange, and others – the Obamacare bill further empowers the IRS.
“Under the Democrats’ health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers,” notesByron York, writing for the Washington Examiner.
In response to this outrageous and unconstitutional power grab by the federal government, millions of people around the country have called and sent emails to Congress and the White House. Thousands of websites have posted articles critical of Obamacare and millions of people have posted comments in opposition. Millions have joined the Tea Party movement. Countless others have promised to not vote for Democrats or Republicans in the mid-term elections, a prospect that horrifies the establishment.
Instead of mentioning the fact Obamacare is vastly unpopular and the is IRS hated and feared by millions of Americans – and that an increasing number of them are no longer shy about expressing their outrage — Fox News would have you believe that anger is confined to a small number of “anti-government” websites, most notably Alex Jones’ Infowars.com. Reading Fox News, the casual reader would arrive at the conclusion that a large number of Infowars.com readers are locked and loaded and ready to attack IRS employees.
In other words, Fox News, owned by the neocon Rupert Murdoch, is disseminating exactly the sort of propaganda the establishment has ordered up to demonize the growing and increasingly vocal opposition. Fox News is a cherished asset of Operation Mockingbird.
Fox News’ mission is to buttress the false right-left paradigm and steer the opposition into the ranks of the Republican party. It has already successful sabotaged the Libertarian Tea Party movement. It must now demonize the remaining opposition.
“While these threats are being investigated, experts doubt there is much that law enforcement can do to predict if any of these commenters actually plan on taking action. The only thing certain is that the online community of anti-government extremists is growing, and it is increasingly being viewed by law enforcement as a threat,” writes Winter.
Fox News, CNN, and other corporate media outlets serving as government propaganda mills are attempting to turn attention on Alex Jones and make him a scapegoat for the isolated actions of a few people who have threatened government officials.
Fox’s own polling reveals a majority of Americans oppose Obama’s authoritarian health care. “The latest Fox News poll finds that 55 percent oppose the healthcare reforms being deliberated on Capitol Hill,” Newsmax reported on March 19. “The 55 percent opposing reform is up from 51 percent in January, and from 47 percent in July. Opposition peaked at 57 percent in December.”
In addition, the poll reported that 75 percent of voters overall believe that the federal government does not represent their views.