DEAD WATER |
When I read the stuff put out by fluoridation proponents, I get a feeling that they did not do their home work.
Here is a typical excerpt I found on one website:
"A vocal minority aside, most people approve of the addition of fluoride to their toothpaste and drinking water to help prevent tooth decay.
For better or worse, fluoride is ubiquitous, yet many people don't know what that stuff is.
According to a history of fluoridation prepared by the National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research, the understanding of fluoride's role in tooth decay prevention got its start in 1901, when a young dental school graduate named Frederick S. McKay decided to open a practice in Colorado Springs, Colo.
When he arrived, McKay was astounded to find scores of townspeople with brown stains on their teeth.
At the same time, he later learned, the mottled teeth were surprisingly resistant to decay.
McKay's quest to determine the cause of the staining ended three decades later with the discovery that the town's drinking water had high levels of naturally occurring fluoride."
Whether or not the mottled teeth are resistant to decay is not the most important issue one should be concerned about.
The issue is that if one's teeth are affected by fluorides, so is the rest of the skeleton.
It is true that fluoride does indeed makes bones "harder". The medical name to that is bone fluorosis, osteosclerosis.
I also heard the term osteopetrosis.
Osteosclerosis is a replacement of the natural bone mineral hydroxiapatite by the fluoroapatite, which is denser.
And somehow this is sold to the public as beneficial effect of fluoridation!
But the problem is that fluoroapatite does not respond to hormonal stimulation!
For all practical purposes the bone becomes physiologically dead!
Organism keeps trying to do its job of putting minerals, primarily calcium, for storage into the bone and to remove it in times of need, but the bone no longer responds.
The autoregulation goes out of control, the levels of related hormones, primarily parathyroid, rise to the point where pathological conditions result.
In its severest form it is a disabling disease and is designated as crippling fluorosis.
It is a serious and irreversible disease!
Fluoridation proponents prefer not to mention that if an ingested chemical affects teeth, it equally affects the rest of the skeleton!
They claim that the only thing that gets "harder" is dental enamel and they apparently hope that this claim will not be challenged.
They even introduced a new term - "enamel fluorosis", which is a whole notch above in intellectual dishonesty, as compared to a "mere" "dental fluorosis".
The calculation is quite obvious - when people without adequate knowledge of fluoridation issues read it, they, quite naturally, get an impression that only the teeth or the enamel is affected by fluorosis.
And they are more likely to believe that it is a reasonable "trade-off" between intact / "healthy" teeth and a "slight enamel discoloration".
This entire fluoridation racket is essentially built on this claim!
And it is rather amazing that the professional association of people to whom we entrust our dental care is so deeply involved in this brazen intellectual and academic dishonesty!
Now they are polishing the facade of this structure by gradually replacing fluoride from the smoke stack scrubbers with a so-called "pharmaceutical-grade fluoride".
The pure version apparently contains considerably less arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, heavy metals, pesticide residues and dozens of other poisons.
Thanks God, now we are being treated with a pure rat poison! What a relief! Makes me feel so much better!
The article quoted above is a classical example of how the proponents of fluoridation manufacture opinions.
First of all, when one makes certain statements and presents them as facts, it is expected that he names the sources for those claims.
Here the author is clearly engaged in sloganeering, when he uses terms like "vocal minority", "most people approve".
Who did the head count? I do not remember any referenda on the subject of fluoridation!
It is a clear case of manufactured opinion and not an informed consent!
It is true that fluoride is ubiquitous, but in nature it is safely bound to calcium fluoride, which is a type of a crystal, a rock.
When grown in laboratory environment, calcium fluoride crystal can be used in the manufacture of optics for special applications - lenses, prisms, laser windows.
In the form of a rock fluoride is harmless. Just like chlorine is harmless when bound to sodium.
We eat it every day, oceans are full of it, but chlorine gas is highly poisonous!
It was used as poison gas during WWI!
Surely these two kinds of chlorine cannot be treated the same way in terms of their effects on human health!
Ionized fluoride and/or fluorine gas can be released from calcium fluoride under the effects of very high temperature, as is the case of metal smelting.
It can also be released when calcium fluoride comes in contact with certain strong acids.
If you do an Internet search for "Donora", "Donora disaster", "Donora cover-up", you will see lots of materials related to the worst recorded industrial air pollution disaster in US history, which occurred in 1948 in Donora, Pennsylvania.
It killed 20 and left hundreds seriously injured!
It was caused by fluoride emissions from the Donora Zinc Works and steel plants owned by the US Steel Corporation.
And even though disaster in Donora is probably the most "visible" of its kind, the situation around smelting plants is pretty much the same everywhere.
A search on "fluoride disasters", "fluoride pollution", "fluoride contamination", "fluoride poisoning" would produce plenty of documented cases, when people's health, livestock, crops, wildlife have been damaged by many instances of fluoride emissions.
Some of them can certainly qualify to be called "disasters"
The fluoride emission from the aluminum plants near New York-Canadian St. Regis Reservation during the period 1960-75 caused very serious health problem in people and livestock.
The bones of cows were damaged to such an extent that they could not walk, many starved because their teeth became so brittle that they crumbled.
The land around the Canadian city of Sudbury used to resemble a lunar landscape, when the nickel smelters were operational.
Vegetation simply could not survive with so much fluorine gas and vapors containing soluble fluoride salts being released into the atmosphere!
But the vegetation there was perfectly normal BEFORE nickel mining and smelting began there!
To say that fluorides are "ubiquitous", and then perform a substitution of values in favor of fluoridation is an intellectual and academic dishonesty!
Another variation of this same intellectual dishonesty is to push fluorides on us under the pretext that they are "natural".
Of course they are natural! Just like plague is perfectly "natural", syphilis, leprosy or other diseases.
And even though, strictly speaking, this is not academia, the author of the above-quoted article, just like other fluoridation proponents, pretends to be in command of scientifically sound facts.
The simple reality is that fluoride, which is a part of a crystal structure of a rock is not the same as a fluorine gas or a soluble salt of fluoride.
You can fill your back yard with calcium fluoride rocks and nothing terrible would happen.
But a few hundred milligrams of ingested soluble fluoride salt, like sodium fluoride, can cause brain damage due to partial asphyxiation.
Ingestion of just two grams of sodium fluoride is likely to be fatal for an adult!
Obviously, children can be affected by much lower doses!
The amount of a lethal dose is rather meaningless, of course, considering the fact that a person can sustain brain damage from a small fraction of it!
Sodium fluoride is classified as poison in the Merck Index.
Sodium fluoride is rat poison. Nobody in his right mind would voluntarily eat it!
And yet when the same stuff is mixed into our drinking water at the municipal pumping station, then it is somehow "miraculously" becomes a "health measure" and is supposed to be good for us!
Proponents of fluoridation use several arguments to push this poison down our throats.
In addition to the "hard bones", they also try to present this fluoridation issue as an example of care for the "disadvantaged" people in our society.
One of the ways to "protect" those should be to improve their dental health, and this can allegedly be achieved by fluoridation, which, as it is claimed, reduces the rate of dental caries and thus improves the lives of the more "vulnerable" people among us.
It is hard to imagine that one can be so "disadvantaged" that he cannot afford to buy a tooth brush, toothpaste and floss!
I would use a different word for someone who does not wish to devote sufficient time and effort to the most basic hygiene and personal care.
According to the "fluoridationist logic", we must all consume water, which contains one of the most potent protoplasmic poisons, just to allegedly alleviate the plight of the "vulnerable" and the "disadvantaged".
But by the simple extension of the same "logic", why not add birth control medication into our drinking water?
After all, there are some "disadvantaged" who get pregnant out of wedlock, often before the age of 18.
There are also people in our society who have various mental illnesses, some even have to be kept in mental hospitals.
Why not put sedative or some mind control medication into our water supply in order to "help" those?
There are also child molesters in our society, child porn peddlers, drug dealers and drug addicts, paint sniffers, thieves, robbers, criminally insane and plenty of other people who exibit various forms and degrees of "untoward" behavior.
Why not add some medication to our water supply to "help" those, as well?
The biggest pushers of fluoridation are probably the Dental Associations in English-speaking countries - US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
Their websites contain probably the largest collection of materials in favor of fluoridation.
But when you look closer at what is there, it is difficult to find any substance.
Pretty much all you can see is substitution of meanings and sloganeering!
First of all, a misleading term "dental fluorosis", as well as "enamel fluorosis" is used.
This looks like a crude attempt to mask the gravity of this disease and to imply that the effects of fluorides are somehow only limited to teeth.
A correct term is "skeletal fluorosis", this term is used in medical literature.
You can also encounter a term "bone fluorosis".
On top of that, they treat fluorosis as a merely cosmetic condition, whereas it is a serious and irreversible pathological condition.
It is a crippling disease in its advanced form!
I even found a line on at least one website - if you notice a white or dark spot or a streak on your teeth, your dentist can easily fix it!
But it is an irreversible condition! How a dentist can possibly "fix" it?
Is he going to drill out those mottled spots and fill them?
When you see people behaving in a seemingly irrational manner, the first thing that comes to mind is that they either cannot put two and two together, or they get rewarded somehow by doing what they are doing.
For more than a quarter century I lived in communist Russia, till I finally managed to run away.
I can attest that no reasonable person I met over there believes in that most idiotic, most criminal ideology, which is called communism.
The successions of criminal regimes, which were holding on to power in Russia for more than seventy years, were doing it through a virtual genocide, as well as most intense, most pervasive, most wide-reaching mind control one can imagine!
An important tool the regime was using in holding on to power was a network of propagandists, "activists", whose only job was to extoll the "virtues" of communism.
Every workplace, every "collective" had at least one of those.
All that network of propagandists, quite naturally, had to be rewarded for their effort. The more important ones did not even have to work!
Extolling the "virtues" of communism was their full-time job!
And the closer one was to the trough, the louder he was screaming that communism is the best, the most socially advanced, the most caring, the most humane system on this planet.
I cannot help it, but I see parallels to this when I am trying to figure out what can possibly motivate the fluoridation proponents to scream from every corner that rat poison in our drinking water is supposed to be good for us.
I guess, the only question that remains to be answered here is "who orders the music"?
No reasonable person, who took time to study the issue of fluoridation in depth, would voluntarily agree to drink fluoridated water. The problem is that the majority of people nowadays would rather watch the ball and puck games, demolition derbys, sitcoms, fairy-tale movies, follow celebrity gossip, bet on horses or roulette, than to try to educate themselves on issues, which are crucial to their wellbeing.
A crowd like that can easily be taken in "by example" - dental associations support fluoridation, so who are you to tell us that it is bad?
I would like to say this to all those who support fluoridation - if you think that rat poison is good for health, then you are most welcome to eat it with a spoon!
But do not push it on the rest of us!