Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 88 of 88

Thread: Chinese made fluoride damages Mass. town's water supply machinery

  1. #61
    Gee how simple is this one?

    If you want flouride then buy a flouride dispenser.

    I'm sure a company could accommodate this one.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Gee how simple is this one?

    If you want flouride then buy a flouride dispenser.

    I'm sure a company could accommodate this one.
    Toothpastes, mouth rinses, additives can give you all the fluoride you want, if you so desire.

    Government should not be in the business of pumping medicines or poisons or, in this case, god knows what, into the water supply.
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 08-20-2010 at 10:47 PM.
    There are only two things we should fight for.
    One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. - Smedley Darlington Butler

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by VegasPatriot View Post
    Of course its in the dose. But IF there are any benefits from fluoride... they are from topical treatment, not systemic treatment. So drinking fluoride to protect your teeth... is like drinking your sunscreen to protect your skin... or eating your hat to protect your head from the sun.
    http://www.vitamins-nutrition.org/vi.../fluoride.html
    Fluoride is absorbed in the stomach and small intestine. Once in the blood stream it rapidly enters mineralized tissue (bones and developing teeth). At usual intake levels, fluoride does not accumulate in soft tissue. The predominant mineral elements in bone are crystals of calcium and phosphate, known as hydroxyapatite crystals. Fluoride's high chemical reactivity and small radius allow it to either displace the larger hydroxyl (-OH) ion in the hydroxyapatite crystal, forming fluoroapatite, or to increase crystal density by entering spaces within the hydroxyapatite crystal. Fluoroapatite hardens tooth enamel and stabilizes bone mineral.
    http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fluorid...exposure.htm#5
    When fluorides are ingested by humans or laboratory animals, they are absorbed in the stomach and/or the intestine. Fluoride from soluble fluorides is almost completely absorbed (either as HF or F-, depending on stomach acidity). However, when fluoride is bound to aluminium, calcium etc., its release and subsequent absorption may be reduced because this combination is less soluble. When fluorides in gaseous or particulate form are breathed in, the respiratory tract, they are partially or completely absorbed depending on how soluble they are or on how big the fluoride-containing particles are.

    Fluoride is then rapidly distributed in tissues. In humans and laboratory animals, fluorides mostly build up in bones and teeth, which retain about 99% of the total fluoride body burden.

    Fluoride is eliminated from the body primarily through the urine. Infants retain 80 to 90% of fluoride ingested, while adults retain approximately 60%.

    However, the balance of fluoride in the body (i.e. the difference between the amount of fluoride ingested and the amount excreted) can be positive or negative. This physiological balance is determined by earlier fluoride exposure, the degree of accumulation in bone, the rate at which it is released from bone and the efficiency of the kidneys in excreting fluoride. When fluoride intakes are low excretion through urine can exceed intake.

  5. #64
    ///
    There are only two things we should fight for.
    One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. - Smedley Darlington Butler



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65

    Yea, but... Arthritis has skyrocketed in the US. Flouride?
    The American Dream, Wake Up People, This is our country! <===click

    "All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man, let the annual return of this day(July 4th), forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
    Thomas Jefferson
    June 1826



    Rock The World!
    USAF Veteran

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    ///
    Why do you keep harping on this?

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Why do you keep harping on this?
    Cuz' I've got another bee in my bonnet over Chinese "Free Trade".
    There are only two things we should fight for.
    One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. - Smedley Darlington Butler

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Cuz' I've got another bee in my bonnet over Chinese "Free Trade".
    and bump.

  11. #69
    How can this thread be 7 months old and 7 pages long on the subject of communist flouridation of the US water supply and not contain the following reference is completely blowing my mind!

    YouTube - General Ripper: Precious Bodily Fluids
    I compiled a "brief" history of events since October 2008 that are defining the global currency war and the role that gold is playing:

    Tin Foil Hats, Economic Reality and the Total Perspective Vortex

    Also, have you contacted your Congressional Rep and asked them co-sponsor Ron Paul's Rep. Paul Broun Jr.'s HR 1098 77: Free Competition in Currencies Act?

  12. #70
    I was thinking fluoride was a byproduct of some process we;

    OOh gees.

    It was the manufacturing of aluminum that I was thinking of, and why would we need to import it?.

    Google search offers up a few more sources for the stuff.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fluoride+was+a+byproduct

  13. #71
    I have always wondered what all of this fluoride is doing to the water after it leaves the sewage disposal plants. What does it do to the fish and other marine animals? Are the concentrations in the lakes growing to the point where it will cause environmental damage?

  14. #72
    bump
    There are only two things we should fight for.
    One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. - Smedley Darlington Butler



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Wow.. and they're using sodium fluoride!!

    Literally rat poison. No seriously. Go get a bottle of rat poison, the main ingredient is likely sodium fluoride.
    Just because something is the major ingredient (first ingredient listed is the largest by percentage) in a compound, doesn't mean it is the main actor.

    Take any insecticide or insect repellent. The active ingredient (the stuff that does the killing) is a TINY percentage of the volume of the chemical- almost always less than 3%, and often only a tiny fraction of a percent. Most of the ingredients are there as dilutants, fillers, to improve flow, etc.

    So just because you found some rat poison with sodium fluoride listed first (the "main ingredient") does not mean its the chemical that does the killing.

  17. #74
    Since it's in the news, time to revisit this classic on fluoridation from Rothbard in 1993.



    Fluoridation Revisited

    by Murray N. Rothbard

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard85.html

    This essay originally appeared in the January 1993 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

    Yes, I confess: I'm a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of "right-wing kooks and fanatics." It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry "cancer" even more absurdly than the boy cried "Wolf," who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation's water supply.

    First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

    The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

    (1) Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.

    What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as well as idiotic.

    (2) Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.

    (3) Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9?

    (4) Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits of fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their kids fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly proportionate to the kids' thirst; and/or, as we all know, they can brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about freedom of individual choice?

    (5) Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation's socialized water supply every year. The days of private water companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, although the market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of increasingly popular private bottled water even though far more expensive than socialized free water.

    Nothing loony or kooky about any of these arguments, is there? So much for the general case pro and con fluoridation. When we get to the specific ills of fluoridation, the case against becomes even more overpowering, as well as grisly.

    During the 1940s and 50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the pro-forces touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). OK, but the antis raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics. Oh?

    Why were these and later problems and charges ignored and overridden, and why the rush to judgment to inflict fluoridation on America? Who was behind this drive, and how did the opponents acquire the "right-wing kook" image?

    THE DRIVE FOR FLUORIDATION

    The official drive began abruptly just before the end of World War II, pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service, then in the Treasury Department. In 1945, the federal government selected two Michigan cities to conduct an official "15-year" study; one city, Grand Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left unfluoridated. (I am indebted to a recent revisionist article on fluoridation by the medical writer Joel Griffiths, in the left-wing muckraking journal Covert Action Information Bulletin: "Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy?" [Fall 1992], pp. 26–28, 63–66.) Yet, before five years were up, the government killed its own "scientific study," by fluoridating the water in the second city in Michigan. Why? Under the excuse that its action was caused by "popular demand" for fluoridation; as we shall see, the "popular demand" was generated by the government and the Establishment itself. Indeed, as early as 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities fluoridated their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by 1950.

    A key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head of the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet office of Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left's backing of fluoridation – in addition to its being socialized medicine and mass medication, for them a good in itself – was that Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed proponent of socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation's central organization of "anti-Communist liberals" (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks). Ewing mobilized not only the respectable left but also the Establishment Center. The powerful drive for compulsory fluoridation was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the nation's establishment organizations of dentists and physicians.

    The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the "father of public relations." Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called "The Original Spin Doctor" in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator's 100th birthday in late 1991. The fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society correctly called fluoridation "creeping socialism" and blamed Soviet Communism as the source of the fluoridation campaign (no, not Bolsheviks, guys: but a Menshevik-State Capitalist alliance, see below) was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the opposition.

    As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed opponents of fluoridation "in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan." (Bette Hileman, "Fluoridation of Water," Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the "mechanism which controls the public mind," which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country...our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of..." And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, "either with or without their conscious cooperation," will "automatically influence" the members of such groups.

    In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that "it is wholesome to eat bacon." For, Bernays added, he "knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians." (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add "dentists" to the equation, and substitute "fluoride" for "bacon," and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

    Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.

    After the 1950s, it was all mopping up – the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and two-thirds of the nation's reservoirs were fluoridated. There are still benighted areas of the country left however (California is less than 16 percent fluoridated) and the goal of the federal government and its PHS remains as "universal fluoridation."

    DOUBTS CUMULATE

    Despite the blitzkrieg victory, however, doubts have surfaced and gathered in the scientific community. Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which, in people, accumulates in teeth and bone – perhaps strengthening kiddies' teeth; but what about human bones? Two crucial bone problems of fluorides – brittleness and cancer – began to appear in studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental agencies. As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many premalignant bone defects in young males in Newbergh as in unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly dismissed as "spurious."

    Oddly enough, despite the 1956 study and carcinogenic evidence popping up since the 1940s, the federal government never conducted its own beloved animal carcinogenicity test on fluorides. Finally, in 1975, biochemist John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Berk, a retired official of the federal government's own National Cancer Institute (NCI), presented a paper before the annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists. The paper reported a 5 to 10 percent increase in total cancer rates in those U.S. cities which had fluoridated their water. The findings were disputed, but triggered congressional hearings two years later, where the government revealed to shocked Congressmen that it had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress ordered the NCI to conduct such tests.

    Talk about foot-dragging! Incredibly, it took the NCI twelve years to finish its tests, finding "equivocal evidence" that fluoride caused bone cancer in male rats. Under further direction of Congress, the NCI studied cancer trends in the U.S., and found nationwide evidence of "a rising rate of bone and joint cancer at all ages," especially in youth, in counties that had fluoridated their water, but no such rise was seen in "non-fluoridated" counties.

    In more detailed studies, for areas of Washington state and Iowa, NCI found that from the 1970s to the 1980s bone cancer for males under 20 had increased by 70 percent in the fluoridated areas of these states, but had decreased by 4 percent in the non-fluoridated areas. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, but the NCI set some fancy statisticians to work on the data, to conclude that these findings, too, were "spurious." Dispute over this report drove the federal government to one of its favorite ploys in virtually every area: the allegedly expert, bipartisan, "value-free" commission.

    The government had already done the commission bit in 1983, when disturbing studies on fluoridation drove our old friend the PHS to form a commission of "world-class experts" to review safety data on fluorides in water. Interestingly, the panel found to its grave concern that most of the alleged evidence of fluoride's safety scarcely existed. The 1983 panel recommended caution on fluoride exposure for children. Interestingly, the panel strongly recommended that the fluoride content of drinking water be no greater than two parts per million for children up to nine, because of worries about the fluoride effect on children's skeletons, and potential heart damage.

    The chairman of the panel, Jay R. Shapiro of the National Institute of Health, warned the members, however, that the PHS might "modify" the findings, since "the report deals with sensitive political issues." Sure enough, when Surgeon General Everett Koop released the official report a month later, the federal government had thrown out the panel's most important conclusions and recommendations, without consulting the panel. Indeed, the panel never received copies of the final, doctored, version. The government's alterations were all in a pro-fluoride direction, claiming that there was no "scientific documentation" of any problems at fluoride levels below 8 parts per million.

    In addition to the bone cancer studies for the late 1980s, evidence is piling up that fluorides lead to bone fractures. In the past two years, no less than eight epidemiological studies have indicated the fluoridation has increased the rate of bone fractures in males and females of all ages. Indeed, since 1957, the bone fracture rate among male youth has increased sharply in the United States, and the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. In fact, a study in the traditionally pro-fluoride Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), August 12, 1992, found that even "low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly." JAMA concluded that "it is now appropriate to revisit the issue of water fluoridation."

    Clearly, it was high time for another federal commission. During 1990–91, a new commission, chaired by veteran PHS official and long-time pro-fluoridationist Frank E. Young, predictably concluded that "no evidence" was found associating fluoride and cancer. On bone fractures, the commission blandly stated that "further studies are required." But no further studies or soul-searching were needed for its conclusion: "The U.S. Public Health Service should continue to support optimal fluoridation of drinking water." Presumably, they did not conclude that "optimal" meant zero.

    Despite the Young whitewash, doubts are piling up even within the federal government. James Huff, a director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded in 1992 that animals in the government's study developed cancer, especially bone cancer from being given fluoride – and there was nothing "equivocal" about his conclusion.

    Various scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have turned to anti-fluoridation toxicologist William Marcus's warning that fluoride causes not just cancer, but also bone fractures, arthritis, and other disease. Marcus mentions, too, that an unreleased study by the New Jersey Health Department (a state where only 15 percent of the population is fluoridated) shows that the bone cancer rate among young males is no less than six times higher in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated areas.

    Even coming into question is the long-sacred idea that fluoridated water at least lowers cavities in children five to nine. Various top pro-fluoridationists highly touted for their expertise were suddenly and bitterly condemned when further study led them to the conclusion that the dental benefits are really negligible. New Zealand's most prominent pro-fluoridationist was the country's top dental officer, Dr. John Colquhoun.

    As chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee, Colquhoun decided to gather statistics to show doubters the great merits of fluoridation. To his shock, he found that the percentage of children free of dental decay was higher in the non-fluoridated part than in the fluoridated part of New Zealand. The national health department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish these findings, and kicked him out as dental director. Similarly, a top pro-fluoridationist in British Columbia, Canada, Richard G. Foulkes, concluded that fluoridation is not only dangerous, but that it is not even effective in reducing tooth decay. Foulkes was denounced by former colleagues as a propagandist "promoting the quackery of anti-fluoridationists."

    WHY THE FLUORIDATION DRIVE?

    Since the case for compulsory fluoridation is so flimsy, and the case against so overwhelming, the final step is to ask: why? Why did the Public Health Service get involved in the first place? How did this thing get started? Here we must keep our eye on the pivotal role of Oscar R. Ewing, for Ewing was far more than just a social democrat Fair Dealer.

    Fluoride has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements found in the earth's crust. Fluorides are by-products of many industrial processes, being emitted in the air and water, and probably the major source of this by-product is the aluminum industry. By the 1920s and 1930s, fluorine was increasingly being subject to lawsuits and regulations. In particular, by 1938 the important, relatively new aluminum industry was being placed on a wartime footing. What to do if its major by-product is a dangerous poison?

    The time had come for damage control; even better, to reverse the public image of this menacing substance. The Public Health Service, remember was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and treasury secretary all during the 1920s and until 1931 was none other than billionaire Andrew J. Mellon, founder and head of the powerful Mellon interests, "Mr. Pittsburgh," and founder and virtual ruler of the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), the dominant firm in the aluminum industry.

    In 1931, the PHS sent a dentist named H. Trendley Dean to the West to study the effects of concentrations of naturally fluoridated water on people's teeth. Dean found that towns high in natural fluoride seemed to have fewer cavities. This news galvanized various Mellon scientists into action. In particular, the Mellon Institute, ALCOA's research lab in Pittsburgh, sponsored a study in which biochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridated some lab rats, decided that cavities in those rats had been reduced and immediately concluded that "the case (that fluoride reduces cavities) should be regarded as proved." Instant science!

    The following year, 1939, Cox, the ALCOA scientist working for a company beset by fluoride damage claims, made the first public proposal for mandatory fluoridation of water. Cox proceeded to stump the country urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded scientists trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati.

    During World War II, damage claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in proportion to the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. But attention from these claims was diverted, when, just before the end of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory fluoridation of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of water accomplished two goals in one shot: it transformed the image of fluorine from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen every kid's teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary demand for fluorides to dump annually into the nation's water.

    One interesting footnote to this story is that whereas fluorine in naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, the substance dumped into every locality is instead sodium fluoride. The Establishment defense that "fluoride is fluoride" becomes unconvincing when we consider two points: (a) calcium is notoriously good for bones and teeth, so the anti-cavity effect in naturally fluoridated water might well be due to the calcium and not the fluorine; and (b) sodium fluoride happens to be the major by-product of the manufacture of aluminum.

    Which brings us to Oscar R. Ewing. Ewing arrived in Washington in 1946, shortly after the initial PHS push began, arriving there as long-time counsel, now chief counsel, for ALCOA, making what was then an astronomical legal fee of $750,000 a year (something like $7,000,000 a year in present dollars). A year later, Ewing took charge of the Federal Security Agency, which included the PHS, and waged the successful national drive for water fluoridation. After a few years, having succeeded in his campaign, Ewing stepped down from public service, and returned to private life, including his chief counselship of the Aluminum Corporation of America.

    There is an instructive lesson in this little saga, a lesson how and why the Welfare State came to America. It came as an alliance of three major forces: ideological social democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the State. In the fluoridation saga, we might call the whole process "ALCOA-socialism." The Welfare State redounds to the welfare not of most of society but of these particular venal and exploitative groups.
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 01-07-2011 at 07:50 PM.
    There are only two things we should fight for.
    One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. - Smedley Darlington Butler

  18. #75
    Lithium in the water bump

  19. #76
    Pottstown bump

  20. #77
    I plan on going to my local water board

  21. #78
    Just a comparison, in the US the recommended level is 0.7-1.2 mg/L

    In Finland they don't add fluoride, and the natural level is around 0.1mg/L in Helsinki.

    If you think you're getting too much fluoride try to swallow less toothpaste :P
    Last edited by Diurdi; 08-19-2011 at 03:13 AM.

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Thanks
    And mercury can help children pay attention in school.

    Also, when fluoride came to my town, people actually DEMANDED it, saying it's not fair for the children, because they aren't getting that fluoride to help their teeth. People demanding to be poisoned! I'm just glad it's only 1 mg/l or whatever, compared to the 1.3-1.5 mg/l in some towns in New Jersey. This is the same state that makes vaccinations mandatory for your children to attend school, and if you children don't attend school, the state will take your kids away, catch 22. Just attending college without taking 4 new shots was like pushing a boulder up a mountain, but I managed to get away with it, scum bags.

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/200...ears_bill.html

    Three top officials for the New Jersey Dental Association strongly urged the committee to support the bill for the good of all children and even adults.
    Last edited by Warrior_of_Freedom; 08-19-2011 at 07:15 AM.
    A savage barbaric tribal society where thugs parade the streets and illegally assault and murder innocent civilians, yeah that is the alternative to having police. Oh wait, that is the police

    We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
    - Edward R. Murrow

    ...I think we have moral obligations to disobey unjust laws, because non-cooperation with evil is as much as a moral obligation as cooperation with good. - MLK Jr.

    How to trigger a liberal: "I didn't get vaccinated."

  23. #80



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    flouride destroys metal, better go drink a cup
    A society that places equality before freedom with get neither; A society that places freedom before equality will yield high degrees of both

    Make a move and plead the 5th because you can't plead the 1st

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I'm getting another article ready for posting that states the DPW foreman had been unable to get accurate readings of the amount of flouride that was pumped into the system.

    More than 4 mg/l in water renders it UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION according to EPA.

    Fluoride. Many communities add fluoride to their drinking water to promote dental health. Each community makes its own decision about whether or not to add fluoride. EPA has set an enforceable drinking water standard for fluoride of 4 mg/L (some people who drink water containing fluoride in excess of this level over many years could get bone disease, including pain and tenderness of the bones). EPA has also set a secondary fluoride standard of 2 mg/L to protect against dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis, in its moderate or severe forms, may result in a brown staining and/or pitting of the permanent teeth. This problem occurs only in developing teeth, before they erupt from the gums. Children under nine should not drink water that has more than 2 mg/L of fluoride.

    When I lived in Texas, the level of fluoride in the ground water was so high you could tell the poor kids from the rich kids by the color of their teeth. Rich kids had Moms that cooked and drank bottled water, so their teeth weren't mottled brown. Kids that had to depend on well water in the house....well, they had really bad teeth.

  27. #83
    blimp
    There are only two things we should fight for.
    One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. - Smedley Darlington Butler

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    blimp
    China has been waging a stealth war against us with their products.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    China has been waging a stealth war against us with their products.
    Yes they have.
    There are only two things we should fight for.
    One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. - Smedley Darlington Butler

  30. #86
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #87
    Of course. The role model of the modern day “Democratic Socialists” and the left establishment. Totalitarian control, crony kleptocracy at the top. And when they take control, the “democrat” part will be dropped. No vote or representation for the mundanes.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  32. #88
    There are only two things we should fight for.
    One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. - Smedley Darlington Butler



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-19-2011, 05:58 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-14-2011, 03:27 PM
  3. GOPer Angle Spoke Out Against Fluoride In Water Supply
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 06:51 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-14-2010, 03:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •