Reply
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 51
  1. #1
    Banned Anti_Illuminati's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Age: 43
    Posts: 2,007
    Rep Power: 0
    Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000)
    Anti_Illuminati is offline

    *** The Official Fluoride = Eugenics, & Causes I.Q. Reduction thread *** (serious)

    Committee on Science has concerns about fluoride toxicity
    July 2, 1999

    The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science sent a letter to Carol Browner, the EPA Administrator requesting information about EPA policy in regard to fluoridation and health risks. Following is a copy of the letter. Reference is made to an article published in Salon magazine, "Fear of Fluoride," by Mark Hertsgaard and Phillip Frazer. The article is online at www.salonmagazine.com/news/1999/02/17news.html. "Fear of Fluoride" reviews new scientific evidence of fluoride toxicity and some of the attempts to hide that evidence.

    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin. Chairman, GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California. Ranking Minority Member

    U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

    SUITE 2320 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
    WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301,br> (202) 225-637
    TTY: (202) 226-4410
    http://www.house.gov/science/welcome.htm

    May 10, 1999

    The Honorable Carol M. Browner
    Administrator
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    401 M Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20460

    Dear Administrator Browner:

    The Committee on Science has received a number of letters recently regarding the potential health risk from fluoride in drinking water at the current maximum contaminant level (MCL). According to the enclosed Salon article and other information I have received, the current MCL may harm human health, particularly in certain sensitive subpopulations such as the young, the elderly, diabetics and athletes. In addition, the article states the Clinton Administration's goal to increase the percentage of the population receiving fluoridated water from 62% to 75% by next year.

    I would like to request your agency's response to some questions I have regarding the fluoride:

    (1) I understand that EPA does not endorse water fluoridation. Has the Agency taken any steps to have EPA removed from the list of endorsers of water fluoridation published by the American Dental Association? If you have, have they complied?

    (2) What chronic toxicity test data are there on sodium fluorosilicate? On hydrofluorsilicic acid?


    (3 ) What steps have you taken to address questions related to the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCL[G]) for fluoride in drinking water? If you have not taken steps to address these questions, why not? If not, when will you take such steps? When do you estimate that the work involved in addressing these questions will be complete?

    The Honorable Carol M. Browner
    May 10, 1999
    Page two

    (4) Do you interpret Section 101(b)(4) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 as requiring EPA to set its MCL(G)s at a level that protects all persons, including sensitive subpopulations, such as infants, children, people who drink 4 or more liters of water per day, people with allergies or hypersensitivity to fluoride, and people with renal disease?

    (5) Is the Agency satisfied with fluoride doses delivered to the public via drinking water under and MCL(G) of 4 milligrams/liter (mg/l) when added to the fluoride intake from dental products, pesticide residues, food and beverages will not cause an adverse health effect?

    (6) What is the margin of safety for infants who consume drinking water containing 4 mg/l of fluoride?

    (7) What is the margin of safety for persons receiving kidney dialysis treatment, diabetics or those who have a hypersensitivity or allergy to fluoride who consume drinking water containing 4 mg/l of fluoride?

    (8) Cool Does the incidence of dental fluorosis among at least 22% of American children indicate that, at least among these children, an overdosing is occurring?


    (9) What steps has the Agency taken to address the hazards identified with fluoride exposure in the following publications that appeared since the EPA reaffirmed its drinking water standards for fluoride? These publications include: (a) Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J., Neurotoxicology and Teratology 17 169-177 (1995).
    (b) Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).
    (c) Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W., and Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998). (d) Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B.,Liang, G.H., Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996). (e) Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li. X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O., Fluoride 28 (1995). (f) Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A., Caries Research 28 204 (1994).

    The Honorable Carol M. Browner
    May 10, 1999
    Page three

    Please provide the committee with copies of any EPA publications, studies, reports or memos relating to the fluoride MCL.

    I respectfully request your response to our concerns. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

    Ken Calvert
    Chairman
    Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

    Fluoridation News 1999
    http://sonic.net/kryptox/press/news99.htm


    Lucier Chemical Industries works for NWO - S. NV Water Authority - Fluoride Info

    "In 1999, Assembly Bill 284 was passed by the Nevada Legislature, requiring the SNWA to add fluoride to Southern Nevada's municipal water supply beginning in March 2000. A second bill passed by the Nevada Legislature required that the issue of fluoridation be placed on the November 2000 election ballot to determine whether voters wanted municipal fluoridation to continue. In November 2000, Clark County residents voted to continue fluoridation of their municipal water supply.


    Low levels of fluoride, about 0.3 milligrams per liter (mg/L), occur naturally in Southern Nevada's water supply. Per regulations developed by the Nevada State Health Division, the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) adds 0.5 mg/L of fluoride to bring the level within the required range of 0.7 - 1.2 mg/L in the municipal water supply. These levels are considerably lower than the federal Safe Drinking Water Act limit of 4.0 mg/L and the Nevada secondary standard of 2.0 mg/L.


    Lucier Chemical Industries, a Florida-based company, supplies the fluoride, which is produced specifically for water fluoridation.

    Based upon average monthly water usage of Las Vegas Valley Water District customers, municipal water customers pay an average of about 4 cents per month to cover annual fluoridation costs, which total approximately $350,000."


    Paying for your own IQ reduction and hastened death.


    Las Vegas Valley Water District Water Quality Report
    http://www.lvvwd.com/html/wq_reports.html
    http://www.lvvwd.com/assets/pdf/wq_summary_08_lvvwd.pdf

    Nellis Air Force Base Water Quality Report for 2005
    http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=2&gl=us

    Water Analysis - Alfred Merritt Smith Water Treatment Facility

    Data reported in 2007 was collected in 2006. Units are parts per billion unless otherwise noted.
    http://www.snwa.com/html/wq_reports_ams.html
    FLUORIDE 0.82 ppm

    http://search.snwa.com/cs.html?chars...nwa&n=23&la=en

    Meet Lucier Chemical Industries, the NWO serving company that LOVES you.

    LCI, Ltd. The Fluoride Specialists [Manufacturer]
    http://www.lciltd.com/lciprod.htm

    http://www.lciltd.com/pds%5Cpdssf.htm
    Sodium Fluoride:

    Chemical Analysis Typical

    Purity (NaF) 98.00 % Minimum
    Silica (SiO2 00.50 % Maximum
    Free Alkali (as Na2CO3) 00.50 % Maximum
    Free Acid (as HF) 00.10 % Maximum
    Sulfates 00.30 % Maximum
    Water Insoluble Matter 00.50 % Maximum
    Heavy Metals (as Lead) 10 ppm Maximum

    Containers

    Paper Bags 25 Kg net weight

    Freight Description

    DOT Shipping Name Sodium Fluoride
    DOT Shipping Classification Class 6.1
    UN 1690 Labels and Placards: Toxic
    Packing Group III
    Country of Origin: China

    Properties
    It is a white odorless material available either as a powder or in the form of crystals of various sizes.

    Manufacture
    Sodium Fluoride is produced by neutralizing Hydrofluorosilicic acid with caustic soda (NaOh).

    Uses
    > Commercial laundry. Laundry souring agent
    > Manufacture of vitreous enamels
    > Manufacture of coated papers
    > Wood preservative
    > Water fluoridation


    Sodium Fluorosilicate Na2SiF6
    Sodium Silicofluoride

    Chemical Analysis Typical

    Assay (Na2SiF6) 98.00 % Minimum
    Fluorine (F) 59.43 %
    Moisture as H2O 00.50 % Maximum
    Water Insoluble Matter 00.50 % Maximum
    Heavy Metals, as Lead (Pb) 00.05 % Maximum

    Containers

    Bags 5M2 Multi-wall water resistant paper bags,



    50 lbs net weight (Domestic)
    Super Sacks
    Bulk Hopper Trucks


    Freight Description

    DOT Shipping Classification Class 6.1
    DOT Shipping Name Sodium Fluorosilicate
    UN 2674 Placard: Toxic
    Packing Group III

    Properties
    Sodium Fluorosilicate is a white, odorless crystalline powder.

    Manufacture
    Sodium fluorosilicate is generally obtained by the neutralization of fluorosilicic acid with sodium carbonate.

    Uses
    Water fluoridation


    Fluoridated Chemical Production and Industrial Fluoride Releases & Accidents
    http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals/

    Fluoridation Chemical Accidents
    http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/che...idents-us.html

    See some history:
    CLARK COUNTY QUESTION #1 November 7, 2000 Ballot
    Election Department - Clark County, NV
    CLARK COUNTY QUESTION NO. 1
    Water Fluoridation Question
    http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/ele..._Question1.htm

    Fluoridation is endorsed by all major medical associations in the United States, including the American Medical Association, American Dental Association, American Cancer Society, American Veterinary Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Public Health Service.

    February 29, 2000
    Henderson Begins Fluoridation of Water Supply by March 1st
    http://www.cityofhenderson.com/news/...-02-29-001.php
    Last edited by Anti_Illuminati; 05-02-2008 at 01:14 AM.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Registered User Nasty$al's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2002
    Location: Arizona, United States
    Posts: 0
    Rep Power: 0
    Nasty$al is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Nasty$al is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Nasty$al is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Nasty$al is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Nasty$al is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Nasty$al is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Nasty$al is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Nasty$al is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Nasty$al is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Nasty$al is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Nasty$al is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    Nasty$al is offline

    Thumbs up

    Rated 5 star thread, emailed your post to 120 people in my Gmail list. I salute you and can't give you more reps atm.
    MISC Legend, Decorated USAF Veteran, Life Coach, World Traveler, Entrepreneur, Political Activist, & Hater Hurter Extraordinaire.

    Bio: google.com/profiles/salvadorrusso & linkedin.com/in/salvadorrusso
    Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Banned Anti_Illuminati's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Age: 43
    Posts: 2,007
    Rep Power: 0
    Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000)
    Anti_Illuminati is offline

    Prozac & Paxil are fluorinated drugs called "fluoxetine", & "paroxetine" respectively




    Fluoxetine hydrochloride (Prozac) is an antidepressant of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class. Fluoxetine is approved for the treatment of clinical depression (including pediatric depression), obsessive-compulsive disorder (in both adult and pediatric populations), bulimia nervosa, panic disorder and premenstrual dysphoric disorder.[1] Other indications include hypochondriasis and body dysmorphic disorder. Despite the availability of newer agents, it remains extremely popular. Over 23.1 million prescriptions for generic formulations of fluoxetine were filled in the United States in 2006, making it the third most prescribed antidepressant.

    Prozac is a fluorinated drug called "fluoxetine".

    Paxil is a fluorinated drug called "paroxetine" (also called Seroxat, Aropax). These drugs are designed to inhibit the reuptake of serotonin (serotonin reuptake inhibitors - SSRIs) and hence interfere with the biological actions of serotonin, a neurotransmitter.

    Both drugs contain fluorine and chloride. Fluoride is present as a '4-fluorophenyl' compound, part of the 'active' ingredient.

    Fluorophenyl compounds are found as major metabolites in the human organism from Paxil and Prozac, as well as from pesticides as Flusilazole (Anderson et al, 1999), Fluorbenside; FOE 5043 (Christenson et al, 1996), other drugs such as dexfenfluramine ("Redux"; "Fen-Phen" - now withdrawn) (Kalin et al, 2000); Fluvastatin (Top 200 drugs) (Dain et al, 1993); Flutrimazole (skin cream) (Conte et al, 1992); AD-5423 (an anti-psychotic) (Oka et al, 1993), Bay U 3405 (Braun et al, 1990); Cisapride (also now withdrawn from US market), Leflunamide (Arava) etc...

    Fluorophenyl compounds have shown to disturb thyroid hormone activity in several ways, specifically in the liver and at the hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid (HPT) axis.

    Observations

    In depressed patients receiving paroxetine the T4 level was reduced by 11. 2% (Konig et al, 2000).

    In animals chronic administration of fluoxetine results in a decrease in both T4 and T3 levels. The authors reported that the major effect of the drug "seems to be stimulation of TSH synthesis and release via the inhibition of T4-mediated thyroid-pituitary feedback" (Golstein et al, 1983).

    In rat brain, fluoxetine has also been shown to interfere with local T3 metabolism (Eravci et al, 2000; Baumgartner et al, 1994).

    Liver

    In the 1930s is was first observed that all fluoride compounds, organic and inorganic ones, inhibit thyroid hormones. This was first established in the 1930s by experiments conducted by Prof. Kurt Kraft who exposed tadpoles (bufo vulgaris, rana temporaria) to fluoride compounds including sodium fluoride, fluorotyrosine and fluorobenzoic acid (Kraft, 1937). Numerous fluoride compounds were used subsequently as the first line of treatment for hyperthyroidism in various countries, for several decades.

    1940s experiments on animals were conducted by Euler et al. which showed that all fluoride compounds acted upon liver glycogen, the difference being a matter of amplitude (Euler et al, 1949). Some organic compounds caused identical effects in bone and teeth as inorganic fluorides (Euler et al, 1942).

    In 1996, Christensen et al. tested the experimental herbicide FOE 5043 (4-fluorophenyl-containing) specifically on thyroid hormone function in the liver, after earlier tests had suggested that the observed reduced circulating serum T4 levels were due to extrathyroidal activity.

    "In the liver, the actvity of hepatitic uridine glucoronosyl transferase, a major pathway of thyroid hormone biotransformation in the rat, increased in a statistically significant and dose-dependent manner, conversely hepatitic 5-monodeiodinase [D1] trended downward with dose. Bile flow and bilary excretion of T4 were increased. These data suggests that the functional status of the thyroid and pituitary glands has not been altered by treatment with FOE 5043 and that reductions in circulating levels of T4 are being mediated indirectly through an increase in the biotransformation and excretion of thyroid hormone in the liver."

    Urichuk et al (1997) showed that levels of fluorophenyl metabolites after fluoxetine administration were 10-fold higher in the liver of rats than in brain.

    CNS

    In the 1940s numerous investigators were of the opinion that - besides being active in liver - organic fluorides could also be causing disturbances at the hypothalamus-pituitary (HP) axis, due to their high affinity for the central nervous system (CNS) (Litzka, 1937, May, 1950).

    Later investigations into such compounds as fluoxetine confirmed those suspicions (Jackson et al, 1998; Baumgartner et al, 1994; Golstein et al, 1983).

    In humans fluoxetine treatment reduced TRH-induced TSH release in both normal and obese women (Pijl et al, 1993). In a hypothalamic neuronal culture system fluoxetine decreased TRH levels (Jackson et al, 1998). In other tissue (rabbits - colon) it has shown to enhance TRH activity (Horita & Carino, 1982).

    In humans, fluvoxamine (Luvox) also causes a decreased TSH response in the TRH test, indicating disturbances in the hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid (HPT) axis. It caused decreased basal TSH levels (De Mendonca et al, 1997).

    Fluoxetine has been found to inhibit D2 and D3 deiodinase activities in the rat brain (Eravci et al, 2000; Baumgartner et al, 1994).

    These deiodinases - of which there are three (D1, D2 and D3) - are responsible for T4 to T3 conversion. While D1 is mainly expressed in the liver, kidney and the thyroid, D2 is found in the central nervous system, the pituitary, skeletal muscle and adipose tissue. D3 is responsible for the production of reverse T3 (rT3).

    P450 System

    Fluorophenyl compounds are potent inhibitors of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme system in the liver.

    Prolonged inhibition of P450 leads to thyroid hormone reduction. Thyroid hormones, in turn, modulate the levels of P450 in the liver, where the majority of thyroid hormone synthesis occurs (T4 ->T3).

    Drug Interactions

    Fluoxetine is a known inhibitor of multiple P450 isoenzymes, thus interfering with the metabolism of other substances (Thompson et al, 1997; 2003).

    Fluoxetine thus may potentiate the effects of other drugs manyfold (Daniel et al, 1999a, 1999b). Fluoxetine potently increased (up to 13 times) the concentrations of thioridazine and its metabolites in the plasma (Daniel et al, 1999), due to synergistic pharmacodynamic effects and the influence of fluoxetine on the bioavailability of such compounds.

    Selenoproteins

    Studies in rat liver slices showed intracellular glutathione levels decreased and fluoride ion levels increased in a time and concentration-dependent manner by fluoxetine (Thompson et al, 1997).

    Like the deiodinases, glutathione peroxidase is another selenoprotein-containing enzyme which further modulates iodine metabolism.

    Glutathione peroxidase levels are considered a diagnostic tool in fluoride poisoning - discriminating between mild and severe chronic fluorosis (Guan, 1983).

    Several animal studies show that fluoxetine causes a decline in T3 levels and affects T3 production in various tissue, including brain (Eravci et al, 2000; Lin et al, 1999; Baumgartner et al, 1994; Shelton et al, 1993). .

    Because of their vast effects on the thyroid hormone system, it is of great importance that anybody wishing to get off such medications as Paxil, Prozac, Luvox etc. does so very gradually.

    Other Assorted Prozac Facts

    Infants who were breastfed by mothers taking fluoxetine demonstrated a growth curve significantly below that of infants who were breastfed by mothers who did not take the drug (Chambers et al, 1999). Newborn mouse pups exposed to paroxetine were more likely to have low birthweights (Rayburn et al, 2000). Low birth weight is related to thyroid status of the mother.

    Fluoxetine has been shown to cause severe liver dysfunction such as hepatitis (Cai et al, 1999; Johnston & Wheeler, 1997; Mars et al, 1991; Friedenberg & Rothstein, 1996).

    Fluoxetine has also been shown to cause secondary hyperthyroidism - originating from pituitary dysfunction (Martinez & Ortiz, 1999).

    Visual hallucinations have been found associated with use of fluoxetine (Bourgeois et al, 1998).

    Dyskinesia has been reported with use of fluoxetine. (Duborvski & Thomas, 1996).

    Fluoxetine showed tumor-promoting activity in rat liver , as did fenfluramine, another fluorophenyl-containing fluoride compound (Lin et al, 1999). [Ed: as does PFOS - "Scotchgard")].

    Like other, inorganic fluoride compounds, 4-fluorophenyl shows activity upon TXA2/PGA2 receptors (Marcin et al. 1999).

    Myoclonus

    "A 72-year-old woman developed rhythmic palatal movements, myoclonus, chorea, and possibly dystonia after 2 years of therapy with fluoxetine. On withdrawal of fluoxetine, the movements abated after 5 days and did not recur. A second patient, a 58-year-old man, developed myoclonic jerking and rapid, stereotypic movements of his toes after a year of fluoxetine therapy." (Bharucha & Sethi, 1996).


    http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/...uorophenyl.htm
    Last edited by Anti_Illuminati; 05-01-2008 at 02:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Banned Anti_Illuminati's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Age: 43
    Posts: 2,007
    Rep Power: 0
    Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000)
    Anti_Illuminati is offline

    Prozac 'found in drinking water'

    Prozac 'found in drinking water'
    Many people choose Prozac over other antidepressants



    Traces of the antidepressant Prozac can be found in the nation's drinking water, it has been revealed. An Environment Agency report suggests so many people are taking the drug nowadays it is building up in rivers and groundwater.


    A report in Sunday's Observer says the government's environment watchdog has discussed the impact for human health. A spokesman for the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) said the Prozac found was most likely highly diluted.


    'Alarming'


    The newspaper says environmentalists are calling for an urgent investigation into the evidence. It quotes the Liberal Democrats' environment spokesman, Norman Baker MP, as saying the picture emerging looked like "a case of hidden mass medication upon the unsuspecting public".


    He says: "It is alarming that there is no monitoring of levels of Prozac and other pharmacy residues in our drinking water." Experts say the anti-depression drug gets into the rivers and water system via treated sewage water.


    Prescriptions increase


    The DWI said the Prozac (known technically as fluoxetine) was unlikely to pose a health risk as it was so "watered down". The Observer says the revelations raise new fears over how many prescriptions for the drug are given out by doctors. In the decade leading up to 2001, the number of prescriptions for antidepressants went up from nine million per year to 24 million per year, says the paper.


    The Environment Agency report concluded that the Prozac in the water table could be potentially toxic and said the drug was a "potential concern". The exact amount of Prozac in the nation's drinking water is not known.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3545684.stm


    http://www.just-think-it.com/f-drugs.htm

    Fluorinated Pharmaceuticals

    Note: The links relative to the drugs are not active. The list is what is important here.

    * Ammonium Fluoride/Benzyl Salicylate
    * Ammonium Fluoride/Sodium Fluoride
    * Amobarbital/Trifluoperazine Hcl/Diazepam
    * Bendroflumethiazide
    * Bendroflumethiazide/Amiloride Hcl
    * Bendroflumethiazide/Atenolol
    * Bendroflumethiazide/Mazindol
    * Bendroflumethiazide/Medroxyprogesterone Acet/Meprobamate
    * Bendroflumethiazide/Meprobamate
    * Bendroflumethiazide/Nadolol
    * Bendroflumethiazide/Potassium Chloride
    * Bendroflumethiazide/Propranolol Hcl
    * Bendroflumethiazide/Timolol Maleate
    * Benfluorex Hcl
    * Benzoic Acid (a-Bac)/Sodium Fluoride/M-Fluorophos/Benz Ac
    * Calcium Fluoride
    * Chlorquinaldol/Diflucortolone Valerate
    * Clioquinol/Flumethasone Pivalate
    * Clioquinol/Fluocinolone Acetonide
    * Clioquinol/Fluocinonide
    * Clioquinol/Flurandrenolide
    * Clonidine Hcl/Bendroflumethiazide
    * Corticorelin Ovine Triflutate
    * Desflurane
    * Dexfenfluramine Hcl
    * Dichlorodifluoromethane/Trichlorotrifluoroethane
    * Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
    * Diflucortolone Valerate
    * Diflucortolone Valerate/Salicylic Acid
    * Diflunisal
    * Difluprednate
    * Dimethyl Sulfoxide/Fluorouracil/Salicylic Acid
    * Diphtheria Toxoid,fluid
    * Enflurane
    * Ergoloid Mesylates/Flunarizine Hcl
    * Ethyl Chloride/Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
    * Fenfluramine Hcl
    * Flubendazole
    * Flucloronide
    * Fluconazole
    * Fluconazole/Dextrose-Water
    * Fluconazole/Sodium Chloride
    * Fluconazole/Sodium Chloride 0.9%
    * Flucytosine
    * Fludarabine Phosphate
    * Fludrocortisone
    * Fludrocortisone Acetate
    * Fludrocortisone Acetate/Selenium Sulfide/Hexamidine
    * Flufenamic Acid
    * Flufenamic Acid/Chlorzoxazone
    * Flufenamic Acid/Myrtecaine/Diethylamine Salicylate
    * Fluindione
    * Flumazenil
    * Flumequine
    * Flumethasone Pivalate
    * Flumethasone Pivalate/Detrothyronine
    * Flumethasone Pivalate/Salicylic Acid
    * Flumethasone Pivalate/Salicylic Acid/Coal Tar
    * Flunarizine
    * Flunarizine Hcl
    * Flunarizine Hcl/Calcium Dobesilate
    * Flunisolide
    * Flunisolide/Menthol
    * Flunitrazepam
    * Fluocinolone Acetonide
    * Fluocinolone Acetonide/Emollient
    * Fluocinolone Acetonide/Lidocaine Hcl (anest)
    * Fluocinolone Acetonide/Lidocaine Hcl (anest)/Bis Sg(ptv)
    * Fluocinolone Acetonide/Pramoxine Hcl
    * Fluocinonide
    * Fluocinonide/Emollient
    * Fluocinonide/Procinonide/Ciprocinonide
    * Fluocortolone
    * Fluocortolone Caproate/Fluocortolone Pivalate
    * Fluocortolone/Dibucaine Hcl
    * Fluocortolone/Fluocortolone Caproate
    * Fluorescein
    * Fluorescein Sodium
    * Fluorescein Sodium/Benoxinate Hcl
    * Fluorescein Sodium/Hyaluronate Sodium
    * Fluorescein Sodium/Lidocaine Hcl (anest)
    * Fluorescein Sodium/Proparacaine Hcl
    * Fluoride Ion/Calcium/Multivitamins W-Iron
    * Fluoride Ion/Iron/Vitamins A,c,and D
    * Fluoride Ion/Multivitamins
    * Fluoride Ion/Multivitamins W-Iron
    * Fluoride Ion/Prenatal Multivitamins W-Ca,fe
    * Fluoride Ion/Pyridoxine Hcl/Vitamins A,c,and D
    * Fluoride Ion/Vitamin E/Vitamins A,c,and D
    * Fluoride Ion/Vitamins A,c,and D
    * Fluorometholone
    * Fluorometholone Acetate
    * Fluorouracil
    * Fluorouracil/Epinephrine
    * Fluoxetine Hcl
    * Fluoxymesterone
    * Fluoxymesterone/Ethinyl Estradiol
    * Fluoxymesterone/Vitamin E/Ginseng
    * Flupentixol Decanoate
    * Flupentixol Hcl
    * Fluphenazine
    * Fluphenazine Decanoate
    * Fluphenazine Enanthate
    * Fluphenazine Hcl
    * Fluprednisolone
    * Flurandrenolide
    * Flurazepam Hcl
    * Flurbiprofen
    * Flurbiprofen Sodium
    * Fluspirilene
    * Flutamide
    * Fluticasone Propionate
    * Fluvastatin Sodium
    * Fluvoxamine Maleate
    * Gentamicin Sulfate/Betamet Diprop/Fluocinonide/Sal Acid
    * Hexafluorenium Bromide
    * Hydralazine Hcl/Bendroflumethiazide/Propranolol
    * Hydroflumethiazide
    * Influenza Virus Trivalent
    * Influenza Virus Vacc,specific
    * Isoflurane
    * Isoflurophate
    * Isopropamide Iodide/Trifluoperazine Hcl
    * Methoxyflurane
    * Modified Fluid Gelatin/Sodium Chloride 0.9%
    * Modified Fluid Gelatin/Sodium Chloride/Calcium
    * Modified Fluid Gelatin/Sodium Chloride/Calcium/Lytes/Nitrog
    * Modified Fluid Gelatin/Sodium/Potassium/Magnesium Salt(rep)
    * Monofluorophosphate/Calcium Carbonate
    * Morniflumate
    * Na M-Fluorphosphate
    * Na M-Fluorphosphate/Calcium
    * Na M-Fluorphosphate/Calcium Carbonate
    * Na M-Fluorphosphate/Calcium/Brewers Yeast
    * Na M-Fluorphosphate/Glucose Oxidase/Lactoperoxidase/Muramid
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Flumethasone Pivalate
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Fluocinolone Acetonide
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Fluocinonide
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Fluorometholone
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Flurandrenolide
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Gramicidin/Nystatin/Fluocinolone Acetonide
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Halquinols/Fluprednidene
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Isoconazole Nitrate/Diflucortolone
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Nystatin/Fluocinolone Acetonide
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Nystatin/Fluocortolone
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Polymyx B Sulf/Fluocin Acet/Lido (anest)
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Polymyxin B Sulfate/Fludrocort/Lido (anest)
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Polymyxin B Sulfate/Fluocinolone Acetonide
    * Neomycin Sulfate/Polymyxin B Sulfate/Phenyleph/Fluocin Acet
    * Neomycin/Fluocinolone Acetonide
    * Nicergoline/Flunarizine
    * Niflumic Acid
    * Niflumic Acid/Hexetidine
    * Nortriptyline Hcl/Fluphenazine Hcl
    * Nystatin/Fluocinolone Acetonide/Metronidazole
    * Penfluridol
    * Perfluorochemical Emulsion
    * Pertussis Vaccine,fluid
    * Polymyxin B Sulfate/Fludrocortisone/Lidocaine (anest)
    * Pseudoephedrine/Diflunisal/Azatadine
    * Rauwolfia Serpentina/Bendroflumethiazide
    * Rauwolfia Serpentina/Bendroflumethiazide/Potassium
    * Rauwolfia Serpentina/Flumethiazide/Potassium
    * Rauwolfia Serpentina/Hydroflumethiazide/Potassium
    * Rauwolfia Serpentina/Hydroflumethiazide/Sodium
    * Reserpine/Bendroflumethiazide
    * Reserpine/Hydroflumethiazide
    * Reserpine/Protoveratrine/Hydroflumethiazide
    * Sevoflurane
    * Sodium Fluoride
    * Sodium Fluoride/Ascorbic Acid
    * Sodium Fluoride/Calcium Carbonate
    * Sodium Fluoride/Calcium Carbonate/Vit C/Vitamin D/Vit B6/Ca
    * Sodium Fluoride/Calcium Phosphate/Calcitriol
    * Sodium Fluoride/Calcium Phosphate/Ergocalciferol/Vit B12
    * Sodium Fluoride/Calcium Phosphate/Multivitamins
    * Sodium Fluoride/Calcium/Magnesium Salt(rep)/Ergocalciferol
    * Sodium Fluoride/Cetylpyridinium Chloride
    * Sodium Fluoride/Cholecalciferol
    * Sodium Fluoride/Copper Sulfate
    * Sodium Fluoride/Cyanocobalamin/Pyridoxine/Thiamine
    * Sodium Fluoride/Formaldehyde
    * Sodium Fluoride/Hydrogen Fluoride
    * Sodium Fluoride/Phosphoric Acid
    * Sodium Fluoride/Pyridoxine Hcl/Vitamins A,c,and D
    * Sodium Fluoride/Sodium Acid Phosphate/Phosphoric Acid
    * Sodium Fluoride/Sodium Bicarbonate (alk)/Hydrogen Peroxide
    * Sodium Fluoride/Sodium Biphosphate
    * Sodium Fluoride/Sodium Hydrogen Phosphate/Manganese/Lithium
    * Sodium Fluoride/Sodium/Potassium/Calcium/Magnesium Salt(rep)
    * Sodium Fluoride/Stannous Fluoride
    * Sodium Fluoride/Stannous Fluoride/Hydrogen Fluoride
    * Sodium Fluoride/Vitamin A Palmitate/Ascorbic Acid/Vitamin D
    * Sodium Fluoride/Zinc Chloride (top)/Cetylpyridinium Chloride
    * Spironolactone/Bendroflumethiazide
    * Spironolactone/Hydroflumethiazide
    * Stannous Fluoride
    * Sulfacetamide Sodium/Fluorometholone
    * Talniflumate
    * Tetanus Toxoid,fluid
    * Tetrahydrozoline Hcl/Fluorometholone
    * Tetrahydrozoline/Fluorometholone
    * Trichloromonofluoromethane
    * Trichloromonofluoromethane/Dichlorodifluoromethane
    * Trifluoperazine Hcl
    * Trifluoperazine Hcl/Tranylcypromine Sulfate
    * Trifluoperazine Hcl/Tranylcypromine Sulfate/Diazepam
    * Trifluperidol Hcl
    * Triflupromazine
    * Triflupromazine Hcl
    * Trifluridine
    * Triflusal
    *Yohimbine/Fluoxymesterone/Cyanocobalamin/Strychnine/Minerals
    Last edited by Anti_Illuminati; 05-02-2008 at 01:22 AM.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Banned Anti_Illuminati's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Age: 43
    Posts: 2,007
    Rep Power: 0
    Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000)
    Anti_Illuminati is offline

    History - overt and covert

    History - overt and covert


    Prior to WW2, American industries, eg, the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), and Reynolds Metals, were repeatedly and successfully sued for fluoride damage to humans, animals, crops and waterways. Fluoride is one of the most hazardous global pollutants: among the worst offenders are aluminium smelters, fertiliser factories, foundries, brickworks, potteries, nuclear processing, and other industries. Emission levels are set to take account of "best technology and cost" for industry. Industry resists lower emission standards "which would cost jobs." We believe Government interprets this as "would cost votes" .


    # In 1931 , a chemist identified fluoride, a by product of the aluminium industry, as a harmful pollutant and toxic to children's teeth.


    # In 1934 , American authorities commissioned a Public Health Service dentist to survey those areas of the States where endemic fluorosis was prevalent, so that new restrictive standards for fluoride levels permitted in water could be established.


    # In 1936 , JADA, the Journal of the American Dental Association , (Vol.XXIII, p574) stated:


    "Fluorine is a general protoplasmic poison, but the most important symptoms of chronic fluorine poisoning known at present are mottling of the teeth [fluorosis] and interference with bone formation . . . when the threshold value is exceeded, as it is in drinking water containing one or more parts of fluorine per 1,000,000, detectable signs of toxicity appear."


    # In 1939 , a scientist under contract to the Mellon Institute came up with the inspired suggestion - add fluorides to water instead of taking them out! ( NB. The Mellon family owned the Aluminum Company of America - ALCOA ).


    # In 1942 , a study in The Lancet reported that not only could SEVERE dental fluorosis occur in areas with natural fluoride concentrations of 1 part per million OR LESS, but also appeared to show associated skeletal defects in children with poor nutrition. (Kemp, Murray and Wilson.).


    # As late as 1943 , JADA pointed out: "Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, probably changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzyme systems. The sources of fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1 part per million or more . . . "


    In the summer of 1943, New Jersey farmers began to report that their crops were blighted, poultry had died, horses were sick, cattle were crippled, and workers who ate the produce they picked sometimes vomited all night and into the next day.


    # On 29 April, 1944, a secret memo to Col. Stafford Warren, head of the Manhattan Project's Medical Section, said: "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect . . . It seems most likely that the F [code for fluoride] component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor ." [Emphasis added)


    # In 1944 , an Attorney, Oscar Ewing, was put on the payroll of ALCOA for an annual salary of $750,000. Some months later he joined the Public Service to become Federal Security Administrator, which made him Head of the US Public Health Service at a salary stated to be about $120,000.


    Threats of litigation by farmers shook the Government and SECRET MEETINGS were convened in Washington under the personal direction of Manhattan Project Chief, Major General Leslie R. Groves, with compulsory attendance by scores of scientists and officials from the War Department, the Manhattan Project, the FDA, the Agriculture and Justice Depts., the US Army's Chemical Warfare Service and Edgewood Arsenal, the Bureau of Standards and du Pont lawyers.


    A memo from Manhattan Project Lieutenant, Col. Cooper B. Rhodes, copied to General Groves said that these Agencies "are making scientific investigations to obtain evidence which may be used to protect the interest of the Government at the trial of the suits . . . "


    # In 1945 , the first proposed ten year artificial fluoridation experiment began in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. The control city was Muskegon.


    A secret 1945 memo from Manhattan Project Lt. Col. Rhodes to General Groves stated: "Because of complaints that animals and humans have been injured by hydrogen fluoride . . . although there are no pending suits involving such claims, the University of Rochester is conducting experiments to determine the toxic effect of fluoride." Much of the proof of fluoride's safety in low doses rests on the postwar work performed by the Uni. of Rochester, in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb programme for human injury. They studied workers at a factory producing fluoride for the atomic bomb programme.


    In 1946, a secret memo signed by General Groves said that new tests for fluoride in the New Jersey area would be conducted, not by the Dept. of Agriculture, but by the Chemical Warfare Service because "work done by the Chemical Warfare Service would carry the greatest weight as evidence if . . . lawsuits are started by the complainants." The New Jersey farmers' lawsuits were ultimately stymied by the government's refusal to reveal the key piece of information that would have settled the case - how much fluoride du Pont had vented into the atmosphere during the war. "Disclosure . . . would be injurious to the military security of the United States," wrote Manhattan Project Major C.A. Taney, Jr.


    # In August, 1948 , The Journal of the American Dental Association published a censored version of the Univ. of Rochester study. For example, the secret version reports that most of the men had no teeth left. The published version reports only that the men had fewer cavities and concluded that "the men were unusually healthy, judged from both a medical and dental point of view."


    # In June, 1950 , half way through the Grand Rapids experiment, the USPHS, under its Chief, Oscar Ewing, "endorsed" the safety and effectiveness of artificial fluoridation; and encouraged its immediate adoption throughout the States. The so-called Grand Rapids 'experiment' was scuppered when the control city, Muskegon, was prematurely fluoridated. In another 'experiment', biological samples from Newburgh people were secretly tested without their consent.


    # In 1951 , Ewing persuaded the Congress to release $2 million for the "Promotion of Artificial Fluoridation".


    # In the same year , at a Conference in Washington, every State dental director was lectured to by dentist Francis Bull on: "How to Sell Fluoridation". The American Dental Association was thoroughly on board.


    Did anyone stand to gain financially from fluoridation?


    On 7 July, 1951, an article appeared in the influential publication Chemical Week under the heading: "Water Boom for Fluorides". In part, it read:


    "All over the country, slide rules are getting warm as waterworks engineers figure the cost of adding fluoride to their municipal supplies. They are riding a trend urged on them by the US Public Health Service, the American Dental Association, the State Dental Health Directors, various State and local health bodies and vocal women's clubs from coast to coast. It adds up to a nice piece of business on all sides and many firms are cheering the USPHS and similar groups as they plump for increasing [the] adopting of fluoridation."


    The beneficiaries named in the article included: General Chemical, Harshaw Chemical Company, American Agricultural Chemical Company and the Aluminum Company of America. In 1951, ALCOA ran a series of adverts in the Journal of the American Water Works Association, proclaiming: "Fluoridate your water with confidence, use high purity ALCOA sodium fluoride."


    Promotion of fluoridation


    During the 1950s and 1960s the United States Public Health Service gave MILLIONS of American taxpayers' dollars to Western European countries, (including UK and Eire), and Australia, New Zealand and Canada in a huge push TO PROMOTE FLUORIDATION . Poster campaigns in hospitals, doctors' and dentists' surgeries, libraries, schools, works canteens, etc., proliferated. UK and Eire institutions received AT LEAST the following sums:

    1958 1960 1963
    Eire $19,078 $62,250 $78,730
    UK $232,035 $900,048 $2,751,215

    Currently, Eire is approximately 73% fluoridated and the UK approximately 10% fluoridated - mainly in the West Midlands and the North East.

    On 15 September, 1970 , the British Dental Journal (page 300) advised its readers:

    "Perhaps the greatest deterrent to meaningful political engagement of dentists in the promotion of water fluoridation is the mistaken but widespread assumption that to do so they must have full and complete knowledge of the detailed and voluminous scientific literature on the relationship of water fluoridation to dental and general health. They do not . . . as soon as dentists recognise their responsibility in the politics of fluoridation, their performance will be outstanding. In politics, the emphasis is on propagandising rather than education. "

    Europe

    Most European countries have either stopped fluoridation, or, like France and Italy, never accepted it in the first place. Fluoridation was declared illegal in Holland and it has been abandoned in Belgium, Finland, Germany and Sweden. Apart from UK and Eire, there are only two small plants in Europe - one in Spain and the other in the City of Basle.

    World-wide

    Huge fluoridation "battles" have raged in Canada and in heavily fluoridated America, Australia and N. Zealand. The US is about 60% fluoridated - in many States fluoridation is MANDATED under Police Powers Acts . Since 1990, 54 US and Canadian cities plus Brisbane, have rejected or stopped fluoridation - in some cases after 40 years. Currently, fluoridation is being promoted in South Africa.


    The promoters trumpet that "200 million people worldwide drink fluoridated water." Most of these people are in the United States. Overall, this figure represents only about 2-3% of the global population. Fluoridation is the longest, most disgraceful, most expensive and spectacularly unsuccessful marketing campaign ever to come out of the United States .


    Science

    Scientists around the world were and are appalled at the notion of adding a known cumulative, protoplasmic poison to drinking water. Hundreds of papers have been published in respected peer-reviewed journals showing the harmfulness of fluoride - even at levels LESS than 1 part per million. Damage to humans, animals, plants and aquatic life are well documented in the literature. Scientists insist that fluoridation is scientifically, medically and ethically unsound. Many who have spoken out were intimidated, denigrated and vilified by the promoters. Some have been refused publication in journals. Others have been sacked for speaking out against water fluoridation.


    See NPWA Press Release, 7 June, 1997, which mentions the case of William Marcus, PhD, a scientist in the Office of Drinking Water at the US Environmental Protection Agency. Also Phyllis J. Mullenix, PhD was sacked for publishing her work on the effects of fluoride on the central nervous system (first secretly reported in 1944, but unknown to Mullenix - see p.1 of this briefing). Mullenix' work has subsequently been confirmed (twice) by scientists in China (1995 and 1996) and predictions made by Mullenix confirmed by Varner, et al. (published in Brain Research, 1998). Marcus and Mullenix both sued and won substantial punitive damages from their employers. The EPA was ordered to reinstate Marcus to his job.

    http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/brief3.htm
    Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    Banned Anti_Illuminati's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Age: 43
    Posts: 2,007
    Rep Power: 0
    Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000)
    Anti_Illuminati is offline

    Promotion of fluoridation

    UK political position

    None of the three main political parties has a written policy on fluoridation. Having jumped on the fluoridation bandwagon, the DoH ( whichever Party is in power ) is unable/unwilling to change its stance. They insist that "no scientific evidence has ever been found" showing that artificial fluoridation is harmful to health. They say that "hundreds of studies prove" artificial fluoridation to be safe and effective. BUT, DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS, THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO CITE A SINGLE SCIENTIFIC STUDY FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHICH PROVES ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION REDUCES TOOTH DECAY IN HUMANS.


    The BDA, the British Fluoridation Society (which is funded by the DoH to promote fluoridation) and the BMA have lobbied MPs to change the law to 'force' (sic BDA News , April 1997) water companies to fluoridate when requested by unelected health authorities (HAs are "advised" by the promoters!).


    Legislation


    In 1983, Lord Jauncey declared fluoridation unlawful (Mrs C. McColl v. Strathclyde Regional Council). As the West Midlands and the North East had been UNLAWFULLY fluoridated for more than twenty years, the Government sought to legalise fluoridation via the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985. (The Hansard reports of the outrageous fluoridation "debates" in the House of Commons and the shocking final vote with 399 abstentions are a shameful testament, demonstrating the determination of government to bully the Bill through. Essential reading for serious investigators. ).


    Frank Dobson, Secretary of State for Health, is reported in The Dentist (July/August 1998) to have told officials that he intends to "push forward" with fluoridation in the coming White Paper and, if necessary, to do so by "subtle means" . If the law is changed, those water companies who have refused to fluoridate (because government indemnities to them are insufficient and their customers do not want it) will be forced to comply with health authority requests. Since ALL health authorities "recommend" fluoridation, this will, in effect, constitute MANDATORY FLUORIDATION WITHOUT CONSENT. The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 is now incorporated into the Water Industries Act, 1991.


    Organisations


    Pro-fluoridation: "The National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health" which includes the British Fluoridation Society (whose directors are members of) the British Dental Association (which makes tens of thousands of pounds annually from "accreditation" of fluoride products, e.g. fluoride toothpaste), the British Medical Association, other dental groupings (members of the BDA wearing different hats), Mencap, Help the Aged, The Independent and The Independent on Sunday (whose proprietor owned a phosphate fertiliser business in Eire for 14 years during the 1970s and 1980s.). Against fluoridation: The National Pure Water Association (with a Northern Ireland branch), the Scottish Pure Water Association, North West Councils Against Fluoridation, Northern Ireland Councils Against Fluoridation, National Register of Children with Dental Fluorosis, The Templegarth Trust, Safe Water Information Service, What Doctors Don't Tell You , The Green Network, The Green Party, The Liberal Party, the Scottish National Party, The Soil Association, Friends of the Earth (local branches), etc. etc.


    Various regional groups which interact with NPWA, e.g. North and Midlands Against Fluoridation, Leicester and Rutland Against Fluoridation, Hampshire Against Fluoride, Calderdale Citizens' Protest, Ribble Valley Against Fluoridation, Scarborough Against Fluoride, York Against Fluoride, Staffordshire Against Fluoride, Tandragee Residents Against Fluoridation, etc.


    Public consultations


    Health authorities must hold a three month Public Consultation before requesting water companies to fluoridate. These have been held across the north of England and in Northern Ireland, where fluoridation has been massively rejected by Councils and the people - some on FOUR occasions, described by many as "public harassment" . NEVERTHELESS, health authorities have ALWAYS recommended fluoridation despite the overwhelming rejection by the people and their elected representatives. [ Note: Every single Council in Scotland has rejected water fluoridation.]. Since the 1985 Act was passed, 55 requests from health authorities have been rejected by water companies and NOT ONE new fluoridation scheme has been implemented - angering promoters and delighting local populations.

    Fluoride is ubiquitous in the environment. We ingest it via food, beverages, water, toothpaste, mouth rinses, drops, tablets, gels, medicines (e.g. Ventolin) and psycho-pharmaceuticals, (e.g. Prozac - fluoxetine), anaesthetics, pesticides, herbicides and from the air we breathe. Approximately 50% of ingested fluoride is retained in the body where it accumulates throughout life. Warnings from as long ago as 1953 and from the WHO in 1994 that total fluoride levels in people should be determined BEFORE adding any more are completely ignored by public health administrators and the Department of Health. The NHS has NO laboratory facilities for determining blood and urine levels in humans and cannot know how much fluoride is already being ingested from all the aforementioned sources. Promotion is therefore scientifically and medically indefensible.


    Environmental damage?
    Only about 1% of water is actually consumed. 30% is lost in leaks, and the rest used by industry and for flushing toilets, bathing, washing clothes and cars, watering gardens, etc. No environmental impact study on what happens to all this fluoride when it enters the environment has been undertaken.


    "DO NOT let this chemical [hexafluorosilicic acid - 'fluoride'] enter the environment. Dispose of this product as hazardous waste. Consult the supplier to see if he will take it back." Rhone Poulenc Safety Data Sheet for Hexafluorosilicic Acid.


    "There would appear to be no UK or EC standard for the discharge of fluoride to the environment . . . but it is regarded as a dangerous substance under the EC Dangerous Substances Directive and as such pollution by it must be reduced . . . Research is to be carried out to define acceptable limits for fluoride in the future but when such work would be complete and published is indeterminable." - Department of the Environment, 9 August 1995.


    2 July, 1997 , STATEMENT by W. Hirzy, PhD, Vice-President of NFFE, the Union of government scientists working at USEPA HQ, Washington DC after the Union (more than 1,000 members) voted unanimously TO BAN FLUORIDATION.


    "Our members' review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicates a causal [NB CAUSAL] link between fluoride/ fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology . . . the health and welfare of the public is not served by the addition of this substance (fluoride) to the public water supply . . . for which there is virtually no evidence of significant benefits . . . and substantial evidence of adverse effects."


    The National Pure Water Association agrees with the Union members and has called for a full, independent Public Inquiry so that ALL scientific disciplines - biochemical and toxicological, medical and dental - and legal and constitutional authorities can be brought together to rigorously examine ALL the evidence over the past twenty years, before any attempt is made to change the law or to fluoridate more UK public drinking water supplies. (Government has said that it wants 25% fluoridation in UK by the year 2000. Target areas are West Scotland, NW England, N. Ireland and Inner London. ).


    "Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time."
    - Robert Carton, PhD, scientist, formerly of the US Environmental Protection Agency.


    ". . . the health and welfare of the public is not served by the addition of this substance (fluoride) to the public water supply . . . for which there is virtually no evidence of significant benefits . . . and substantial evidence of adverse effects."
    - Statement by William J Hirzy, PhD, on behalf of the Union of government scientists at the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2 July, 1997.


    " . . . if health authorities were to set air pollution standards for hydrogen fluoride which were harmless, then certain key industries in our technologically-orientated society would almost grind to a halt."
    - Dr Geoffrey E. Smith, in The Secret War, Epeius Publishing Associates, Australia, 1997.


    "[Joel Griffiths in Covert Action] revealed how industries benefited from the promotion of fluoridation. Claims that fluoridation was safe and beneficial to health made it difficult for people to complain when polluting industries belched fluoride out into the air and dumped it into waterways. Such indiscriminate and careless handling of fluoride has allowed companies such as Exxon, US Steel, and ALCOA to make tens of billions of dollars in extra profit at our expense."
    - John Yiamouyiannis, PhD, in Fluoride, the Aging Factor, Health Action Press, Delaware, 1993.


    "Fluoridation is the ultimate triumph of Madison Avenue advertising and public relations 'engineering of consent.' How else could the most educated people on the face of the earth be conditioned to clamor for their daily dose of a cumulative enzyme poison which the US Dispensatory classified as a violent poison to all living tissue?"

    - Gladys Caldwell and Philip E. Zan***na, MD, in Fluoridation and Truth Decay, Top-Ecol Press, Reseda, CA, 1974.


    [To Ms Tessa Jowell on 26 October, 1998]: "You [the Dept. of Health] don't even have a Government laboratory to test fluoride levels in blood and urine. If you don't look for the problems, how can you hope to find them?"

    - Professor Dr A.K. Susheela, Doctor of Medical Science and Senior Consultant to the Indian Government, former President of the International Society for Fluoride Research.


    "No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ' It is a preposterous notion."
    - Dr Peter Mansfield, former President, NPWA.


    The public drinking water supplies in the highly industrialised - and air-polluted - areas of the West Midlands and the North East are further polluted - "fluoridated" - with highly toxic chemical industrial waste from hydrogen-fluoride-polluting industries. The rural isle of Anglesey was also fluoridated. It has an aluminium smelter. Welsh Water plc stopped fluoridation of the island in 1991. Rural West Cumbria was fluoridated and remains so. It is the home of Sellafield and the nuclear processing industry.


    The DoH has never tested people living in those areas to determine their body fluoride levels even before fluoridation, nor does it offer laboratory facilities to enable doctors to test for fluoride levels now. Nor do doctors know that they should. But Dr Peter Mansfield has tested more than 200 volunteers living in the fluoridated West Midlands. SIXTY PER CENT of them are ingesting fluoride up to FOUR TIMES the level considered "safe".

    http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/brief4.htm
    Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Banned Anti_Illuminati's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Age: 43
    Posts: 2,007
    Rep Power: 0
    Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000)
    Anti_Illuminati is offline

    Bibliography:

    Bibliography:

    Fluoridation, The Great Dilemma . G L Waldbot, MD, A Burgstalhler, PhD, H McKinley PhD. (1978), Coronado Press Inc, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

    Fluoridation: Poison on Tap . An indictment of the Victorian Government Committee of Inquiry, Melbourne 1979-1980 into the fluoridation of Australian Water Supplies. Glen Walker, 1982.

    Fluoride in Australia - a Case to Answer. Wendy Varney, 1986. Hale & Iremonger

    The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation. P R N Sutton, DDS, 1996 Kurunda Pty, Australia.

    Fluoridation and Truth Decay. Gladys Caldwell and Philip E Zan***na, MD. 1974. Top-Ecol Press, Reseda

    The Fluoride Question: Panacea or Poison? Anne-Lise Gotzsche, 1975. Stein & Day, New York

    Fluoride, The Aging Factor. John Yiamouyiannis, PhD, 1993, Health Action Press, Delaware.

    The Secret War and the Fluoride Conspiracy. Dr G E Smith, 1997. Epeius Publishing Associates, Australia.

    Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb. Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, 1997. Watershed (Special Edition), Vol 3, No 3, and copies of US declassified documents and NPWA HQ.

    Fluoride: The Freedom Fight. Dr Hans Moolenburgh, 1987. Mainstream Press
    Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    Banned Anti_Illuminati's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Age: 43
    Posts: 2,007
    Rep Power: 0
    Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000)
    Anti_Illuminati is offline

    Prescription drugs found in drinking water across U.S.

    Prescription drugs found in drinking water across U.S.


    (AP) -- A vast array of pharmaceuticals -- including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones -- have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows. To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.


    But the presence of so many prescription drugs -- and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen -- in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health. In the course of a five-month inquiry, the AP discovered that drugs have been detected in the drinking water supplies of 24 major metropolitan areas -- from Southern California to Northern New Jersey, from Detroit, Michigan, to Louisville, Kentucky.


    Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings, unless pressed, the AP found. For example, the head of a group representing major California suppliers said the public "doesn't know how to interpret the information" and might be unduly alarmed.

    How do the drugs get into the water?

    People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest of it passes through and is flushed down the toilet. The wastewater is treated before it is discharged into reservoirs, rivers or lakes. Then, some of the water is cleansed again at drinking water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most treatments do not remove all drug residue.


    And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies -- which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public -- have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.

    A 'growing concern'

    "We recognize it is a growing concern and we're taking it very seriously," said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.


    Members of the AP National Investigative Team reviewed hundreds of scientific reports, analyzed federal drinking water databases, visited environmental study sites and treatment plants and interviewed more than 230 officials, academics and scientists. They also surveyed the nation's 50 largest cities and a dozen other major water providers, as well as smaller community water providers in all 50 states.


    Here are some of the key test results obtained by the AP:


    [b]* Officials in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said testing there discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water, including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems. Sixty-three pharmaceuticals or byproducts were found in the city's watersheds.


    * Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety medications were detected in a portion of the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in Southern California.


    * Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed a Passaic Valley Water Commission drinking water treatment plant, which serves 850,000 people in Northern New Jersey, and found a metabolized angina medicine and the mood-stabilizing carbamazepine in drinking water.


    * A sex hormone was detected in the drinking water of San Francisco, California.


    * The drinking water for Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals.


    The situation is undoubtedly worse than suggested by the positive test results in the major population centers documented by the AP.

    Testing not required

    The federal government doesn't require any testing and hasn't set safety limits for drugs in water.


    Of the 62 major water providers contacted, the drinking water for only 28 was tested. Among the 34 that haven't: Houston, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; Miami, Florida; Baltimore, Maryland; Phoenix, Arizona; Boston, Massachusetts; and New York City's Department of Environmental Protection, which delivers water to 9 million people.


    Some providers screen for only one or two pharmaceuticals, leaving open the possibility that others are present.


    The AP's investigation also indicates that watersheds, the natural sources of most of the nation's water supply, also are contaminated. Tests were conducted in the watersheds of 35 of the 62 major providers surveyed by the AP, and pharmaceuticals were detected in 28.


    Yet officials in six of those 28 metropolitan areas said they did not go on to test their drinking water -- Fairfax, Virginia; Montgomery County in Maryland; Omaha, Nebraska; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Santa Clara, California; and New York City.


    The New York state health department and the USGS tested the source of the city's water, upstate. They found trace concentrations of heart medicine, infection fighters, estrogen, anti-convulsants, a mood stabilizer and a tranquilizer.


    City water officials declined repeated requests for an interview. In a statement, they insisted that "New York City's drinking water continues to meet all federal and state regulations regarding drinking water quality in the watershed and the distribution system" -- regulations that do not address trace pharmaceuticals.


    In several cases, officials at municipal or regional water providers told the AP that pharmaceuticals had not been detected, but the AP obtained the results of tests conducted by independent researchers that showed otherwise.


    Of the 28 major metropolitan areas where tests were performed on drinking water supplies, only Albuquerque, New Mexico; Austin, Texas; and Virginia Beach, Virginia, said tests were negative. The drinking water in Dallas, Texas, has been tested, but officials are awaiting results. Arlington, Texas, acknowledged that traces of a pharmaceutical were detected in its drinking water but cited post-9/11 security concerns in refusing to identify the drug.


    The AP also contacted 52 small water providers -- one in each state, and two each in Missouri and Texas -- that serve communities with populations around 25,000. All but one said their drinking water had not been screened for pharmaceuticals; officials in Emporia, Kansas, refused to answer AP's questions, also citing post-9/11 issues.
    Last edited by Anti_Illuminati; 05-01-2008 at 01:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    Banned Anti_Illuminati's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Age: 43
    Posts: 2,007
    Rep Power: 0
    Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000)
    Anti_Illuminati is offline

    Prescription drugs found in drinking water across U.S.

    Rural, bottled water also unchecked

    Rural consumers who draw water from their own wells aren't in the clear either, experts say.

    Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don't necessarily avoid exposure. Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals, according to the industry's main trade group. The same goes for the makers of home filtration systems.


    Contamination is not confined to the United States. More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in lakes, rivers, reservoirs and streams throughout the world. Studies have detected pharmaceuticals in waters throughout Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe -- even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea.


    In the United States, the problem isn't confined to surface waters. Pharmaceuticals also permeate aquifers deep underground, the source of 40 percent of the nation's water supply. Federal scientists who drew water in 24 states from aquifers near contaminant sources such as landfills and animal feed lots found minuscule levels of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs.



    Perhaps it's because Americans have been taking drugs -- and flushing them unmetabolized or unused -- in growing amounts. Over the past five years, the number of U.S. drug prescriptions rose 12 percent to a record 3.7 billion, while nonprescription drug purchases held steady around 3.3 billion, according to IMS Health and The Nielsen Co.

    Medications not all absorbed

    "People think that if they take a medication, their body absorbs it and it disappears, but of course that's not the case," said EPA scientist Christian Daughton, one of the first to draw attention to the issue of pharmaceuticals in water in the United States.


    Some drugs, including widely used cholesterol fighters, tranquilizers and anti-epileptic medications, resist modern drinking water and wastewater treatment processes. Plus, the EPA says there are no sewage treatment systems specifically engineered to remove pharmaceuticals.


    Veterinary drugs also play a role. Pets are now treated for a wide range of ailments -- sometimes with the same drugs as humans. The inflation-adjusted value of veterinary drugs rose by 8 percent, to $5.2 billion, over the past five years, according to an analysis of data from the Animal Health Institute.


    Ask the pharmaceutical industry whether the contamination of water supplies is a problem, and officials will tell you no.


    "Based on what we now know, I would say we find there's little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health," said microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.


    But at a conference last summer, Mary Buzby -- director of environmental technology for drug maker Merck & Co. Inc. -- said: "There's no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they're at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms."


    Recent laboratory research has found that small amounts of medication have affected human embryonic kidney cells, human blood cells and human breast cancer cells. The cancer cells proliferated too quickly; the kidney cells grew too slowly; and the blood cells showed biological activity associated with inflammation.


    Also, pharmaceuticals in waterways are damaging wildlife across the nation and around the globe, research shows. Notably, male fish are being feminized, creating egg yolk proteins, a process usually restricted to females. Pharmaceuticals also are affecting sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life -- such as earthworms in the wild and zooplankton in the laboratory, studies show.

    Wildlife problems troubling

    Some scientists stress that the research is extremely limited, and there are too many unknowns. They say, though, that the documented health problems in wildlife are disconcerting.


    To the degree that the EPA is focused on the issue, it appears to be looking at detection. Grumbles acknowledged that just late last year the agency developed three new methods to "detect and quantify pharmaceuticals" in wastewater.


    "We realize that we have a limited amount of data on the concentrations," he said. "We're going to be able to learn a lot more."


    So much is unknown. Many independent scientists are skeptical that trace concentrations will ultimately prove to be harmful to humans. There's growing concern in the scientific community, though, that certain drugs -- or combinations of drugs -- may harm humans over decades because water, unlike most specific foods, is consumed in sizable amounts every day.


    Our bodies may shrug off a relatively big one-time dose, yet suffer from a smaller amount delivered continuously over a half century, perhaps subtly stirring allergies or nerve damage. Pregnant women, the elderly and the very ill might be more sensitive.


    "We know we are being exposed to other people's drugs through our drinking water, and that can't be good," says Dr. David Carpenter, who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment of the State University of New York at Albany.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/03/10...er1/index.html

    See Also: "THE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL SYSTEM"
    http://www.industryinet.com/~ruby/po...al_agenda.html
    Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    ♕♕♕ BloodnGuts's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2006
    Location: Mauritius
    Age: 34
    Posts: 1,478
    Rep Power: 1069
    BloodnGuts is a jewel in the rough. (+500) BloodnGuts is a jewel in the rough. (+500) BloodnGuts is a jewel in the rough. (+500) BloodnGuts is a jewel in the rough. (+500) BloodnGuts is a jewel in the rough. (+500) BloodnGuts is a jewel in the rough. (+500) BloodnGuts is a jewel in the rough. (+500) BloodnGuts is a jewel in the rough. (+500) BloodnGuts is a jewel in the rough. (+500) BloodnGuts is a jewel in the rough. (+500) BloodnGuts is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    BloodnGuts is offline
    Subscribed, will read the whole thing later.
    ..,__,
    .(o,o)
    <.....>
    --"-"---
    Reply With Quote

  11. #11
    Banned Anti_Illuminati's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Age: 43
    Posts: 2,007
    Rep Power: 0
    Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000)
    Anti_Illuminati is offline

    Fluoridation Chemicals Have Not Been Safety Tested - Here's the Proof

    The following article pertains to the fluoridation chemicals used in England, a country which is 10% fluoridated. The article provides an important addition to information obtained recently from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to the EPA, the fluoridation chemicals used in the US have, as in England, NEVER BEEN TESTED for safety.




    National Pure Water Association (UK)

    August 2002

    Fluoridation Chemicals Have Not Been Safety Tested - Here's the Proof


    "Recent NPWA investigations revealed that the chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water had "FAILED FORMAL VOTE" in Europe. In January 2002, we exchanged several emails, extracted below, with UK and EU people responsible for setting Standards for water chemicals. We wrote to Dr Guy Franklin of the Water Research Centre, whose website states that they are equipped to test and approve to European Standards (EN), British Standards (BS), International Standards (ISO), UK Water Industry Specifications (WIS) and a host of others.


    We wrote: "Will you please let us have all the details of the testing which your agency or any other has done on disodium fluoro-silicate and Hexafluorosilicic acid on which these chemicals have been adopted in the UK?"


    Dr Franklin replied, copied to Peter Jackson of WRc-NSF:


    "I can not disclose any testing information of disodium fluoro-silicate or hexafluorosilicic acid because any data generated is the property of the commissioning body. This is not an attempt to hide data. In the past data was submitted to the Drinking Water Inspectorate for product approval under Regula-tion 25 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations. Once approval was given the products were added to a list published by the DWI. However, under EC procurement rules, any product with a European Standard can not be subject to equivalent National Regulations. These products are now the subject to first party certification and have been removed for the DWI list."


    We wrote again to Dr Franklin, cc'd to Peter Jackson:


    " I am sure that you will appreciate our increasing concern when relevant information on chemicals which are added to the British public water supply with the intention of treating people are not freely available.


    If you will please furnish the name of the commissioning body for whom the testing of these chemicals was done . . . "

    Here is an extract from Peter Jackson's lengthy reply:


    "WRc-NSF recognises that it has a reputation as a professional organisation which can be relied on to maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive and confidential information and will not act in any way which might prejudice that reputation. The importance of confidentiality between WRc-NSF and its various clients is a topic of high priority within the company. However, I can inform you categorically that WRc-NSF has never tested any samples of disodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid. Therefore in this case we have no test data to release nor names of clients - these simply do not exist.


    Disodium hexafluorosilicate and hexafluorosilicic acid are classified by DWI as "Traditional Chemicals" for which there is no requirement to gain DWI approval for particular commercial products. Therefore individual commercial brands of these chemicals have never been listed or tested by DWI. We have done tests . . . but not in the case of these particular chemicals. The quality of disodium hexafluorosilicate and hexa-fluorosilicic acid suitable for the treatment of drinking water is specified in BS ENs 12174 and 12175 respectively. These standards do not contain any requirement for third-party testing. It is up to the manufacturer to ensure that their product meets the requirements . . .This would be done through in-house quality assurance procedures.


    ENs 12174 and 12175 were produced by CEN TC164/WG9 in which I participate as Principal UK Expert. I am also the Chairman of BSI Committee CII/59 that provides the UK input to this CEN Committee and receives draft standards for comment. I am therefore in a good position to state categorically that no product testing was undertaken in the development of these ENs. No manufacturers of fluoridation chemicals participated in WG9, or in its sub-committee Task Group 4. The specifications in ENs 12174 and 12175 were developed on the basis of existing standards . . . and codes of practice . . .


    In only a very few cases have CEN TC164/WG9 Task Groups undertaken product testing . . not to determine the purity of products per se. In the case of disodium hexafluorosilicate and hexafluorosilicic acid, no testing at all would have been carried out since no manufacturer of these products participated in the work of WG9 or TG4. As noted above, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that a product sold as conforming to a BS EN does in fact meet the specification. TG4 has now been disbanded since its work is complete and all of its members have now retired from their companies."


    HE ADDED:

    "To summarise:
    1. WRc-NSF has not tested these chemicals. WRc-NSF does not have access to any information that NSF International may hold.
    2. No approval or testing by DWI is required or has been carried out.
    3. The BS ENs for these chemicals do not specify any third party test requirements. Quality assurance is provided by manufacturers who operate externally-assessed quality control systems.
    4. No product testing was done in the course of developing the BS ENs."

    SO, NOW WE KNOW.


    http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-testing.htm
    Last edited by Anti_Illuminati; 05-01-2008 at 01:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  12. #12
    Registered User aaronjbc123's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Posts: 7,268
    Rep Power: 1166
    aaronjbc123 is just really nice. (+1000) aaronjbc123 is just really nice. (+1000) aaronjbc123 is just really nice. (+1000) aaronjbc123 is just really nice. (+1000) aaronjbc123 is just really nice. (+1000) aaronjbc123 is just really nice. (+1000) aaronjbc123 is just really nice. (+1000) aaronjbc123 is just really nice. (+1000) aaronjbc123 is just really nice. (+1000) aaronjbc123 is just really nice. (+1000) aaronjbc123 is just really nice. (+1000)
    aaronjbc123 is offline
    The problem with your posts is that no one reads them. If they agree with your ideas they will say he's right, and say those are facts.

    The problem is no one knows if they are, because no one reads them.
    Reply With Quote

  13. #13
    Registered User user1245464's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Posts: 933
    Rep Power: 2300
    user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000)
    user1245464 is offline
    Originally Posted by aaronjbc123 View Post
    The problem with your posts is that no one reads them. If they agree with your ideas they will say he's right, and say those are facts.

    The problem is no one knows if they are, because no one reads them.
    Very true. Sorry Anti-Illuminati, but the only posts of yours I've actually ever took the time to read are those that aren't copy and pasted. Maybe if you spoke like an actual person rather than just pasting **** you'd get a larger audience.
    Reply With Quote

  14. #14
    I Am Misc LegendAmI's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Age: 30
    Posts: 792
    Rep Power: 1500
    LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000)
    LegendAmI is offline
    Originally Posted by diffusion View Post
    Very true. Sorry Anti-Illuminati, but the only posts of yours I've actually ever took the time to read are those that aren't copy and pasted. Maybe if you spoke like an actual person rather than just pasting **** you'd get a larger audience.
    Already told him this. But he won't listen.

    If we want to research we know how to type in searches in google
    ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ The Misc. Mid Rollers ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼


    Owe reps to:user_unknown-J2BIGG-bigmane123
    Reply With Quote

  15. #15
    Banned Anti_Illuminati's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Age: 43
    Posts: 2,007
    Rep Power: 0
    Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000)
    Anti_Illuminati is offline
    Originally Posted by diffusion View Post
    Very true. Sorry Anti-Illuminati, but the only posts of yours I've actually ever took the time to read are those that aren't copy and pasted. Maybe if you spoke like an actual person rather than just pasting **** you'd get a larger audience.
    Originally Posted by LegendAmI View Post
    Already told him this. But he won't listen.

    If we want to research we know how to type in searches in google
    Nice Psy-Op disinfo tactic. I don't have to "speak" whatsoever (it's the same thing as you saying that I have no right to say anything unless I myself had a PH.D, multiple medical degrees, field experience, and did all the tests firsthand before I'm allowed to post), if I had to then that would make learning history, and reading books futile. I have READ every single thing that I posted here, and before I posted it, I vetted it to make sure that it was the truth, extensive work involved, and dozens of hours of time spent, all to warn everyone. Don't like the message, try like hell to kill the messenger.


    Originally Posted by diffusion View Post
    just pasting ****
    Just pasting documented facts that clearly you don't want anyone else to see because you are trying to protect the Govt. from being exposed for implementing this soft-kill weapon. If everything I posted was wrought from my own work, you would discredit it just the same and/or claim that I wasn't the one who really performed the tests. In your world, it's a lose lose situation, because according to YOU, NO ONE is ever ALLOWED to find and disseminate FACTS for public view.
    Last edited by Anti_Illuminati; 05-01-2008 at 03:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  16. #16
    Registered User LunicaAshes's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2004
    Location: Alaska, United States
    Posts: 14,359
    Rep Power: 15967
    LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    LunicaAshes is offline
    Originally Posted by diffusion View Post
    Very true. Sorry Anti-Illuminati, but the only posts of yours I've actually ever took the time to read are those that aren't copy and pasted. Maybe if you spoke like an actual person rather than just pasting **** you'd get a larger audience.
    I agree with this. He also doesn't seem to want to stick around and debate, only post info. In his vaccines = autism thread, I asked why he thought the governemnt would do this, and it was (again) to lower intelligence. When I pointed out that there are forms of autism in which IQ is not lowered, he left and never came back to his thread.
    Reply With Quote

  17. #17
    I Am Misc LegendAmI's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Age: 30
    Posts: 792
    Rep Power: 1500
    LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000)
    LegendAmI is offline
    Originally Posted by Anti_Illuminati View Post
    Nice Psy-Op disinfo tactic. I don't have to "speak" whatsoever (it's the same thing as you saying that I have no right to say anything unless I myself had a PH.D, multiple medical degrees, field experience, and did all the tests firsthand before I'm allowed to post), if I had to then that would make learning history, and reading books futile. I have READ every single thing that I posted here, and before I posted it, I vetted it to make sure that it was the truth, extensive work involved, and dozens of hours of time spent, all to warn everyone.
    Just pasting documented facts that clearly you don't want anyone else to see because you are trying to protect the Govt. from being exposed for implementing this soft-kill weapon. If everything I posted was wrought from my own work, you would discredit it just the same and/or claim that I wasn't the one who really performed the tests. In your world, it's a lose lose situation, because according to YOU, NO ONE is ever ALLOWED to find and disseminate FACTS for public view.
    Title:The evidence for fluoride: is fluoride good for your teeth, or a slow poison? We look at the most recent evidence.(health / FLOURIDE).
    Source:Choice (Chippendale, Australia) (March 2007): p25(3). (2060 words)
    Document Type:Magazine/Journal
    Bookmark:Bookmark this Document
    Library Links:

    *

    Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2007 Australian Consumers' Association

    Beaconsfield, Tasmania, is famous for more than a mine rescue--in 1953 it was the first town in Australia to add fluoride to its water supply. Now every capital city except Brisbane has water fluoridation and, on average, Australians have much healthier teeth than 50 years ago.

    To what extent is this due to fluoride? Health authorities are convinced of its benefits but opponents continue to maintain that fluoride in the water supply does nothing to prevent tooth decay. And you've probably seen claims that it may in fact damage teeth by causing dental fluorosis, often with concerns that it may be adversely affecting our health in other ways (see Fluoride's downside, page 27).

    There have been some substantial new research, analyses and major reviews since our last article on fluoridation in 1997. While still a controversial topic that can arouse strong passions, it's now clear that the dental health benefits claimed for fluoridation are well supported by scientific evidence--and that the risks have been greatly exaggerated.

    Furthermore, fluoridation provides a considerable benefit to consumers through savings in dental costs and reduction in toothache and treatment trauma.

    The case for fluoride

    Most water supplies contain some fluoride naturally (it's the thirteenth most abundant element in the earth's crust). Fluoridation is the process of topping up the natural fluoride content of the public water supply to a level high enough to improve dental health. It's been done, here and overseas, for more than 50 years--long enough to provide reliable information about the benefits (and the risks).

    But research findings in this area have always been controversial. The purity of our water supply is an emotive topic and research findings are sometimes conflicting. But this is a problem common to much of medical research. Humans are complex organisms and, considered alone, individual studies are often only pointers--the way forward comes from systematic evaluation of the evidence as a whole.

    Evidence from the UK

    In 2000, a group of 10 experts (commissioned by the UK National Health Service) conducted a systematic review of the entire body of scientific evidence on public water fluoridation available at the time. Though they found > much of the research lacked rigour, they found the evidence strong enough to conclude that:

    * Fluoridation of drinking water really does reduce the prevalence of decayed teeth, increasing the percentage of children totally free from tooth decay by about 15%.

    * Fluoride in drinking water provides an additional benefit over and above that derived from fluoride in toothpaste and topical applications provided by dentists.


    Further investigation by the UK Department of Health confirmed these findings, examined additional research and highlighted the benefits of fluoridation for adults as well as children. This second report (published in 2002) found evidence that, in general, more adults are keeping more of their own teeth into old age, and having less trouble with them, where there's fluoride in the drinking water. The report also emphasised additional benefits such as reductions in the number of people suffering from toothache or requiring general anaesthesia for dental treatment.

    Australian research

    Many Australian cities have added fluoride to the water since the 1970s, so millions of people have now been supplied with drinking water containing fluoride at the recommended levels for long enough for the benefits to be clearly evaluated from health statistics.

    The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) reviewed the evidence in 1999 and concluded that, "Water fluoridation at optimal levels, varying from 0.6 ppm in subtropical regions to 1.1 in temperate climates, continues to provide significant benefits in the prevention of dental caries for both deciduous [baby] and permanent teeth. The evidence for a protective effect on dental health is strongest in childhood but can also be demonstrated in adults." ('ppm' means parts per million--1 ppm would be equivalent to 2 L of fluoride in an Olympic pool containing two million litres of water.)

    These conclusions are supported by more recent research. In NSW, a major 2005 study that examined the dental records of nearly a quarter of a million schoolchildren aged 3-15 found that those living in areas with fluoridated water were significantly less likely to have decayed, missing or filled teeth than children living in areas without added fluoride in the drinking water.

    Another 2005 study of 973 Australian army recruits showed that those with no exposure to water fluoridation had 40% more filled, missing or decayed teeth than recruits who had grown up with fluoridation.

    Many people are less dependent on getting fluoride from water, though, than in the past. Most people now use toothpaste that contains fluoride, and everyone's exposed to fluoride in foods and drinks manufactured in fluoridated areas, the so-called 'halo effect'. But even though improvements in dental health are now smaller, over the population as a whole they still represent a lot of teeth saved from decay.

    Another plus from widely available fluoridated water is that it helps kids from lower socio-economic groups, who are at the greatest risk of tooth decay. They're less likely to be regularly brushing their teeth, and even less likely to see a dentist.

    How does fluoride work?

    Tooth decay (dental caries) begins when some of the enamel, the outer surface of the tooth, is destroyed by acid. The acid is produced by bacteria that can grow on the surfaces of teeth in a layer called plaque. When your teeth are exposed to foods or drinks containing sugars, the bacteria rapidly convert some of the sugars into acid. The plaque can hold the acid in contact with the tooth surface for up to two hours before it's neutralised by saliva.

    All the time that the enamel is exposed to acid it loses calcium and phosphate minerals into the plaque. Once the plaque acids have been neutralised the minerals can return to the enamel--a process called remineralisation. But the capacity for remineralisation is limited, so if you eat a series of sugary snacks through the day your natural defences don't get enough time to do their stuff before the next assault on your tooth enamel.

    [b]Fluoride helps to protect your teeth in at least three ways:

    * It promotes repair of early damage to the enamel.

    * it improves the chemical structure of the enamel, making it more resistant to acid attack.

    * It reduces the ability of the bacteria on your teeth to produce acid.[b]

    Fluoride's downside

    Fluoride's definitely poisonous if you're exposed to too much of it. A dose of less than a gram of sodium fluoride can cause nausea and vomiting; 5-10 g can be lethal. Not surprisingly, a major criticism of the public fluoridated water program is that it can provide too much fluoride.

    * Too much fluoride can cause dental fluorosis, a condition where the enamel surface of the teeth becomes mottled in appearance. Most dental fluorosis is very mild and doesn't damage teeth, and it occurs only during tooth development in early childhood, so older children and adults aren't at risk. Although it's more common in fluoridated areas, it can occur in other areas as well

    Most fluorosis seems to be associated with kids swallowing too much fluoride toothpaste, or parents giving them fluoride supplements. Fluorosis levels have halved since the early 1990s with the wider use of special low-fluoride children's toothpastes and recommendations that children use only very small amounts of toothpaste. But it's an area that health authorities continue to monitor.

    * It's known that high amounts of fluoride can also cause fluorosis of the bones, increasing your risk of fracture. It occurs most commonly in Countries such as India and Pakistan where the natural concentration of fluoride in the water can be as high as 18 ppm.

    A number of studies have looked for a relationship between exposure to fluoride at about 1 ppm and the risk of bone fracture. The results have varied, but when both of the UK expert reports looked at the results overall they concluded that there's no proven additional risk of bone fracture associated with water fluoridation.

    An Australian review in 2001 looked at 33 individual studies and concluded that fluoride to 1 ppm doesn't have an adverse effect on bone strength, mineral density or evidence of fractures.

    * There have been claims that long-term exposure to levels of fluoride even as low as those found in Australian water may cause bone cancer or birth defects. The two expert reports from the UK found no association between bone cancer and fluoridation. The Australian NHMRC report considered three controlled studies and came to the same conclusion. And there's no sound evidence at all that fluoride causes birth defects. Studies haven't found any increase in their prevalence, even in those areas of India and Africa that have very high levels of fluoride in the water.

    Is this the end of the story?

    There's a continuing need for high-quality research to track any potential harmful effects of fluoridation. But at present the evidence is very strong that it's a safe and effective public health measure.
    Last edited by LegendAmI; 05-01-2008 at 03:19 PM.
    ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ The Misc. Mid Rollers ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼


    Owe reps to:user_unknown-J2BIGG-bigmane123
    Reply With Quote

  18. #18
    Registered User user1245464's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Posts: 933
    Rep Power: 2300
    user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000)
    user1245464 is offline
    Originally Posted by Anti_Illuminati View Post
    Nice Psy-Op disinfo tactic. I don't have to "speak" whatsoever (it's the same thing as you saying that I have no right to say anything unless I myself had a PH.D, multiple medical degrees, field experience, and did all the tests firsthand before I'm allowed to post), if I had to then that would make learning history and reading books would be futile. I have READ every single thing that I posted here, and before I posted it, I vetted it to make sure that it was the truth, extensive work involved, and dozens of hours of time spent, all to warn everyone.
    Psy-Op disinfo tactic? On the info itself I agree with you more than anything else. All I'm saying is no one is really paying attention when you just copy and paste stuff, that's all. You should be more engaging.
    Reply With Quote

  19. #19
    I Am Misc LegendAmI's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Age: 30
    Posts: 792
    Rep Power: 1500
    LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000)
    LegendAmI is offline
    IN A NUTSHELL

    * There's now solid scientific evidence that fluoride added to drinking water helps to protect your teeth from decay.

    * The claims of those who oppose fluoridation are often based on outdated information, questionable research and selectively picking studies that support their case.

    * There's no convincing evidence for harmful effects from fluoride at the levels used in our water supply.

    BOTTLED WATER

    Recent surveys have shown that tooth decay in Australian children is on the increase again. Experts are suggesting this coincides with the rise In popularity of bottled water and sports drinks that don't contain fluoride (sugary juices and soft drinks are also likely culprits), CHOICE and dental exports would like manufacturers to offer people the option of bottled water containing about 1 ppm of fluoride (the same as tap water in fluoridated areas).


    Q&A

    Q: I've heard that where some cities overseas have abandoned fluoridation, their rates of dental decay have continued to decline. Doesn't this prove that fluoridation doesn't work?

    A: Although this is often claimed, the 2000 UK review found that out of 16 studies reporting on what happens if fluoridation is stopped, 12 found that the rate of tooth decay increased again.

    Q: Hasn't fluoridation been banned in Europe?

    A: No, fluoridation is permitted under European Union regulations. In some countries water fluoridation isn't practical because of very complex water systems without a central point to add fluoride. As a substitute for fluoride in water, many countries add fluoride to salt, which is then used in products like bread that most people eat, while others add fluoride to milk.

    Q: I've seen claims that proponents of fluoridation are suppressing scientific evidence.

    A: The UK experts considered this claim from a statistical point of view. They concluded that any missed (or concealed) study would have to be very large and very different from those that they analysed to overturn the overall beneficial result for water fluoridation. In any case, in the internet age any credible research can be brought into the public domain for review and debate.

    Q: Isn't fluoridation unethical? Some people consider it mass medication.

    A: It's more equivalent to fortifying breakfast cereals with vitamins and minerals to help prevent shortages than medication to cure a disease.

    Fluoride toothpaste

    Most toothpaste contains fluoride. Clinical trials have shown that while fluoride toothpaste definitely helps prevent tooth decay, it isn't as effective a public health program as fluoridated drinking water, which provides significant benefits for children and adults over and above those from fluoride toothpaste.

    And fluoride toothpaste isn't suitable for small children because there's a risk that they'll swallow too much of it and develop dental fluorosis (see Fluorides downside, above).

    Experts recommend that:

    * You don't use any toothpaste when cleaning very small children's teeth (up to the age of about 18 months).

    * Children aged between 18 months and five years should use low-fluoride toothpaste (0.04-0.05% fluoride). They should clean their teeth twice a day with adult supervision, use only a pea-sized amount of toothpaste and be taught to spit it out and not swallow.

    * Kids aged six or more should clean their teeth with standard fluoride toothpaste at least twice a day, and not swallow.

    If you live in an area without fluoridated water your kids might need to start using fluoride toothpaste earlier--check with your dentist.

    Source Citation:"The evidence for fluoride: is fluoride good for your teeth, or a slow poison? We look at the most recent evidence.(health / FLOURIDE)." Choice (Chippendale, Australia) (March 2007): 25(3). General OneFile. Gale. Moorpark College Library. 1 May 2008
    <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=ITOF>.

    Gale Document Number:A160590707


    Fluoridation. Liz Swain.
    Environmental Encyclopedia. Ed. Marci Bortman, Peter Brimblecombe and Mary Ann Cunningham. 3rd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003.

    * About this Publication
    * How to Cite
    * Source Citation
    * Translate


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Fluoridation

    Table of Contents: Further Readings

    Fluoridation is the precise adjustment of the concentration of the essential trace element fluoride in the public water supply to protect teeth and bones. Advocates of fluoridation such as the American Dental Association (ADA) and the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (CDC) state that fluoridation is a safe and effective method of preventing tooth decay. Opponents of fluoridation however, such as Citizens for Health and the Fluoride Action Metwork, maintain that the role fluoridation in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt and that more research is required before placing a compound in water reservoirs that could cause cancer, brittle bones, and neurological problems.

    Fluoride is any compound that contains fluorine, a corrosive, greenish-yellow element. Tooth enamel contains small amounts of fluoride. In addition, fluoride is found in varying amounts in water and in all food and beverages, according to the ADA.

    A Colorado dentist discovered the effects of fluoride on teeth in the 1900s. When Frederick McKay began practicing in Colorado Springs, he established a connection between a substance in the water and the condition of residents' teeth. People did not have cavities, but their teeth were stained brown. Dental research started on the substance that was identified as fluoride during the 1930s. Researchers concluded that a concentration of fluoride in drinking water at a ratio of 1 part per million (ppm) prevented tooth decay without staining teeth. In 2000, the ADA stated that a fluoride concentration ranging from 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm was sufficient to fight tooth decay.

    The first community to try fluoridation was Grand Rapids, Michigan. The city fluoridated the community water supply in 1945. Ten years later, Grand Rapids reported that incidents of tooth decay had declined by 60% in the children raised on fluoridated water. During the 1950s, Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Francisco also started to fluoridate their water supply. Cities including New York and Detroit opted for fluoridation during the 1960s. However, not all Americans advocated fluoridation. During the 1950s and 1960s, members of the John Birch Society maintained that fluoridation was a form of mass medication by the government. Some members charged that fluoridation was part of a Communist plot to take over the country. In the decades that followed, fluoridation was no longer associated with conspiracy theories. However, opinion about fluoridation was divided at the close of the twentieth century. By 2000, public water systems served 246.1 million Americans, according to the federal CDC. Of that amount, 65.8% of Americans used fluoridated water.

    In Washington D.C., 100% of the water is fluoridated, according to a CDC report on the percentage of state populations with fluoridated public water systems in 2000. The top 10 on the list were: Minnesota (98.2%), Kentucky (96.1%), North Dakota (95.4%), Indiana (95.3%), Tennessee (94.5%), Illinois (93.4%), Virginia (93.4%), Georgia (92.9%), Iowa (91.3%), and South Carolina (91.2%). At the other end of the spectrum in terms of fluoridated public water usage were: Louisiana (53.2%), Mississippi (46%), Idaho (45.4%), New Hampshire (43%), Wyoming (30.3%), California (28.7%), Oregon (22.7%), Montana (22.2%), New Jersey (15.5%), Hawaii (9%), and Utah (2%). The CDC estimated the cost of fluoridation at 50 cents per year in communities of more than 20,000 residents. The annual cost was estimated at $1 in communities of 10,000 to 20,000 residents. In communities numbering less than 5,000 people, the yearly cost was estimated at $3.

    The CDC reported in 2000 that extensive research during the previous 50 years proved that fluoridation was safe. Fluoridation was also endorsed by groups including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National PTA, and the American Cancer Society. Advocates of fluoridation state that it especially benefits people who may not be able to afford dental care. Opponents however, counter that toothpaste with fluoride is available for people who believe that fluoride fights tooth decay. Furthermore, opponents point out that toothpaste with fluoride contains a warning label advising users to "seek professional assistance or contact a poison control center" if they accidentally swallow more than the amount used for brushing teeth. Lastly, their question the research methodology used to conclude that fluoridation is responsible for decreased tooth decay. Fluoridation critics include consumer advocates Ralph Nader and Jim Turner. Turner chairs the board of Citizens for Health, a grassroots organization that is asking Congress to hold hearings and review fluoridation policy. Citizens for Health belongs to the groups that believe more research is required to determine the risks and benefits of fluoridation.

    FURTHER READINGS

    Resources


    Books
    o American Water Works Association. Water Fluoridation Principles and Practices.Denver: AWWA, 1996.
    o Health Research Staff. Facts You Should Know About Fluoridation.Pomeroy, WA: Health Research Books, 1996.
    o Martin, Brian. Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (Science, Technology and Society).Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1991.


    Source Citation:
    Swain, Liz. "Fluoridation." Environmental Encyclopedia. Ed. Marci Bortman, Peter Brimblecombe and Mary Ann Cunningham. 3rd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Moorpark College Library. 1 May. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T 001&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3018200559&source=gale&src prod=OVRC&userGroupName=moor85003&version=1.0>.
    Last edited by LegendAmI; 05-01-2008 at 03:18 PM.
    ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ The Misc. Mid Rollers ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼


    Owe reps to:user_unknown-J2BIGG-bigmane123
    Reply With Quote

  20. #20
    Registered User LunicaAshes's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2004
    Location: Alaska, United States
    Posts: 14,359
    Rep Power: 15967
    LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    LunicaAshes is offline
    Originally Posted by Anti_Illuminati View Post
    Nice Psy-Op disinfo tactic. I don't have to "speak" whatsoever (it's the same thing as you saying that I have no right to say anything unless I myself had a PH.D, multiple medical degrees, field experience, and did all the tests firsthand before I'm allowed to post), if I had to then that would make learning history, and reading books futile. I have READ every single thing that I posted here, and before I posted it, I vetted it to make sure that it was the truth, extensive work involved, and dozens of hours of time spent, all to warn everyone. Don't like the message, try like hell to kill the messenger.

    Just pasting documented facts that clearly you don't want anyone else to see because you are trying to protect the Govt. from being exposed for implementing this soft-kill weapon. If everything I posted was wrought from my own work, you would discredit it just the same and/or claim that I wasn't the one who really performed the tests. In your world, it's a lose lose situation, because according to YOU, NO ONE is ever ALLOWED to find and disseminate FACTS for public view.
    It's not a matter of whether or not you can paste stuff, or whether or not it's good info. It's just that most people dont come here to read that type of format, so your messages don't get to many people.
    Reply With Quote

  21. #21
    Registered User user1245464's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Posts: 933
    Rep Power: 2300
    user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000) user1245464 is just really nice. (+1000)
    user1245464 is offline
    Originally Posted by Anti_Illuminati View Post
    Just pasting documented facts that clearly you don't want anyone else to see because you are trying to protect the Govt. from being exposed for implementing this soft-kill weapon. If everything I posted was wrought from my own work, you would discredit it just the same and/or claim that I wasn't the one who really performed the tests. In your world, it's a lose lose situation, because according to YOU, NO ONE is ever ALLOWED to find and disseminate FACTS for public view.
    Ok, there's obviously a serious misunderstanding here on your part.
    Reply With Quote

  22. #22
    Banned Anti_Illuminati's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Age: 43
    Posts: 2,007
    Rep Power: 0
    Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000) Anti_Illuminati is a complete loser! (-2000)
    Anti_Illuminati is offline
    Originally Posted by sheduma View Post
    When I pointed out that there are forms of autism in which IQ is not lowered, he left and never came back to his thread.
    I left it at that, I find it interesting that my lack of a response to you regarding that prevented you from furthering your own research and trying to answer that for yourself (or didn't it?), was I obligated to tell you my answer so that you would then file it away and accept it as an answer that sounded "good enough" for you? Don't believe anything I say, go out and prove it for yourself. I'm not trying to garner followers here. Perhaps I will comment later in that autism thread when I have time, I'm not afraid of information.
    Reply With Quote

  23. #23
    Registered User Galt's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Age: 32
    Posts: 719
    Rep Power: 0
    Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Galt is offline
    Hey Anti_Illuminati, when did you become a conspiracy theorist?
    Was it like a definitive "born-again" experience, or did you just gradually become aware of the motivations and trademarks of the NWO?
    Reply With Quote

  24. #24
    Registered User LunicaAshes's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2004
    Location: Alaska, United States
    Posts: 14,359
    Rep Power: 15967
    LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LunicaAshes is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    LunicaAshes is offline
    Originally Posted by Anti_Illuminati View Post
    I left it at that, I find it interesting that my lack of a response to you regarding that prevented you from furthering your own research and trying to answer that for yourself (or didn't it?), was I obligated to tell you my answer so that you would then file it away and accept it as an answer that sounded "good enough" for you? Don't believe anything I say, go out and prove it for yourself. I'm not trying to garner followers here. Perhaps I will comment later in that autism thread when I have time, I'm not afraid of information.
    I wasn't looking for an answer, I just was challenging you because I felt that YOU were the one taking someone else's word and not doing your own research. You didn't even grasp WHAT autism is, and yet there you were, claiming you knew that the government was causing it and why.

    I've done plenty of unbiased research on autism, as I have a form of it myself. I look in peer-reviewed journals for information, because other sources are full of propaganda and their own personal agenda.
    Reply With Quote

  25. #25
    I Am Misc LegendAmI's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Age: 30
    Posts: 792
    Rep Power: 1500
    LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000)
    LegendAmI is offline
    Title:Water fluoridation doesn't influence stillbirths or congenital abnormalities.(BMJ family highlights: what's new this month in BMJ journals)(Author Abstract).
    Author(s):Harvey Marcovitch.
    Source:British Medical Journal 327.7415 (Sept 13, 2003): p583(1). (77 words)
    Document Type:Magazine/Journal
    Bookmark:Bookmark this Document
    Library Links:

    *

    Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2003 British Medical Association

    Two population based registers in the north of England were searched to obtain 10 year prevalence of stillbirths and a selection of commoner congenital abnormalities. Prevalences were compared in people born in areas where water is fluoridated and where it is not, and calculations took into account likely fluoride intake. Stillbirth rates were not different in areas with fluoridation, nor were rates of trisomies, Down's syndrome, neural tube defects, and facial clefts.

    J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:499-500

    Source Citation:Marcovitch, Harvey. "Water fluoridation doesn't influence stillbirths or congenital abnormalities." British Medical Journal 327.7415 (Sept 13, 2003): 583(1). General OneFile. Gale. Moorpark College Library. 1 May 2008
    ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ The Misc. Mid Rollers ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼


    Owe reps to:user_unknown-J2BIGG-bigmane123
    Reply With Quote

  26. #26
    I Am Misc LegendAmI's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Age: 30
    Posts: 792
    Rep Power: 1500
    LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000)
    LegendAmI is offline
    Title:CDC Report on Fluoridation of Public Drinking Water.
    Author(s):Monica Preboth.
    Source:American Family Physician 65.9 (May 1, 2002): p1948. (304 words)
    Document Type:Magazine/Journal
    Bookmark:Bookmark this Document
    Library Links:

    *

    Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2002 American Academy of Family Physicians

    According to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), almost two thirds of people in the United States who get their water from public water systems now receive fluoridated water. The report, "Populations Receiving Optimally Fluoridated Public Drinking Water--United States, 2000," contains the most recent information on water fluoridation by state. For instance, the total number of people who received fluoridated water by the year 2000 was approximately 162 million, up 3.7 percent from 1992.

    The CDC has identified the role of fluoridation in dramatically reducing tooth decay as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. Recent studies estimate that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay in children by 18 to 40 percent. The importance of fluoride in preventing tooth decay was discussed in the first Surgeon General's report on oral health (available at www.surgeongeneral.gov/ library/oralhealth/), issued in May 2000. In addition, the Healthy People 2010 national health initiative set an objective for 75 percent of people in the United States who used public water systems to receive fluoridated water.

    Dr. William R. Maas, the director of the CDC's Oral Health Program, reported that "water fluoridation is the most equitable and cost-effective means we have of delivering fluoride to all members of most communities." He added that while several states have made substantial progress, there is "...considerable need as well as opportunity for additional improvement, particularly in the 24 states that have not yet met the objective of having at least 75 percent of their populations on public water systems receiving fluoridated water."

    The article appears in the February 22, 2002, issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and is also available online at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/ preview/mmwrhtml/mm5107a2.htm. Other information on fluoridation and oral health is available online through the oral health Web site at www.cdc. gov/nccdphp/oh.

    Source Citation:Preboth, Monica. "CDC Report on Fluoridation of Public Drinking Water." American Family Physician 65.9 (May 1, 2002): 1948. General OneFile. Gale. Moorpark College Library. 1 May 2008
    <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=ITOF>.

    Gale Document Number:A85285687
    ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ The Misc. Mid Rollers ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼


    Owe reps to:user_unknown-J2BIGG-bigmane123
    Reply With Quote

  27. #27
    Reggiestored user HoosierBoy's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2004
    Location: Bouvet Island
    Age: 37
    Posts: 12,295
    Rep Power: 2767
    HoosierBoy is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) HoosierBoy is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) HoosierBoy is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) HoosierBoy is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) HoosierBoy is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) HoosierBoy is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) HoosierBoy is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) HoosierBoy is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) HoosierBoy is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) HoosierBoy is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) HoosierBoy is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    HoosierBoy is offline
    Reply With Quote

  28. #28
    Cherchez la femme...Se si KRANE's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2005
    Location: California, United States
    Posts: 41,770
    Rep Power: 82548
    KRANE has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KRANE has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KRANE has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KRANE has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KRANE has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KRANE has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KRANE has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KRANE has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KRANE has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KRANE has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) KRANE has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    KRANE is offline
    Fluoride is the least of your problems in municipal water. I'd be more concerned with the amount of chlorine and ammonia it contains.

    During the rainy season in my county, the chlorine percent is so high you can literally smell it from the tap!

    However, since we all know this--and can switch to bottled water/filtered water--it's not really a conspiracy now is it?

    Now cell phones...well, that's another story!!
    Last edited by KRANE; 05-01-2008 at 05:08 PM.
    🎥
    Site oldest post: [url]https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=172072283&p=1540411941&viewfull=1#post1540411941[/url]

    Filmmaker Thread: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=165304201&p=1534834621#post1534834621
    Reply With Quote

  29. #29
    Here's beer Mr Beer's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Location: In the bar
    Posts: 30,169
    Rep Power: 61208
    Mr Beer has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Mr Beer has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Mr Beer has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Mr Beer has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Mr Beer has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Mr Beer has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Mr Beer has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Mr Beer has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Mr Beer has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Mr Beer has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Mr Beer has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Mr Beer is online now

    Exclamation

    How come your last post was "deadly serious" and this one is only "serious"? Can you please provide us with a list of rankings for the seriousness of your posts? I suggest a sort of coloured warning system. Maybe 'Yellow Alert' for these sort of ongoing lizard-man plans to make Americans stupid through to 'Red Alert' for imminent invasion of Iran and up to 'Infra Red Super Alert' when the NWO storm troopers are kicking your door down.

    This will help assess whether we merely need to save your vital information for later reading or if we need to bug out right now before the Jew lizard-men invade our homes to steal our guns and children.
    Reply With Quote

  30. #30
    I Am Misc LegendAmI's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Age: 30
    Posts: 792
    Rep Power: 1500
    LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000) LegendAmI is just really nice. (+1000)
    LegendAmI is offline
    Title:Fluoride = good oral health.(INDUSTRY FOCUS)(Global Consultation on Oral Health through Fluoride)(Brief article).
    Sourceental Products Report Europe 28.1 (Jan-Feb 2007): p9(1). (226 words)
    Document Type:Newsletter
    Bookmark:Bookmark this Document
    Library Links:

    *

    Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2007 Advanstar Communications, Inc.

    At the Global Consultation on Oral Health through Fluoride, held in November 2006 in Geneva, a panel of experts on fluoride advised governments and influential bodies on the necessity of providing access to fluoride in all countries. The panel consisted of 80 experts from 30 countries and it released a declaration on the urgent need to address the global burden of tooth decay, particularly in disadvantaged regions.

    "The benefits of fluoride for the prevention and control of dental caries have been known to the scientific and public health community for more than 60 years. While fluoride in various delivery systems is widely available in many developed countries, it is estimated that globally only 20 % of the world's population benefit from appropriate exposure to fluoride," said Dr Poul Erik Petersen, Chief of the Oral Health Unit at the World Health Organization (WHO). "Regrettably, particularly people living in developing countries and disadvantaged communities are deprived of fluoride for dental health."


    The consultation, jointly organised by the FDI World Dental Federation, the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), and the WHO, aimed to consider the actions needed to effectively improve oral health on a global scale. The adopted declaration will guide the work of the alliance and various international action groups that were established during the consultation. The full text of the declaration is available at www.fdiworldental.org/public_health/ 3_7fluoride.html

    Source Citation:"Fluoride = good oral health.(INDUSTRY FOCUS)(Global Consultation on Oral Health through Fluoride)(Brief article)." Dental Products Report Europe 28.1 (Jan-Feb 2007): 9(1). General OneFile. Gale. Moorpark College Library. 1 May 2008
    <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=ITOF>.

    Gale Document Number:A160166446

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    Title:Montreal needs fluoridated water.(HEALTH).
    Source:Community Action 23.3 (Oct 15, 2007): p7(1). (126 words)
    Document Type:Magazine/Journal
    Bookmark:Bookmark this Document
    Library Links:

    *

    Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2007 Community Action Publishers

    The Montreal Coalition for Healthy Teeth filed a complaint against the city of Montreal and the Quebec Ministry of Health for failure to add fluoride to the city's water supply.

    The Montreal Children's Hospital reports that since January, 280 children arrived at the hospital's Dentistry Department or Emergency Room in pain because of dental caries or abscesses. Of this number, 121 children (43%) are six years of age or younger.

    The Coalition points to a number of studies that confirm the importance of fluoridated water for dental health. A Government of Quebec study in 1998 on oral health showed that Quebec children had 40% more caries than their counterparts in Ontario and the United States. Those communities in Quebec with fluoridated water had more favourable results.

    Source Citation:"Montreal needs fluoridated water.(HEALTH)." Community Action 23.3 (Oct 15, 2007): 7(1). General OneFile. Gale. Moorpark College Library. 1 May 2008
    <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=ITOF>.

    Gale Document Number:A170507013

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title:Water safety.(REDBOOK handbook: ADVICE, ANSWERS, AND HEALTH NEWS YOU CAN USE.)(Brief article).
    Author(s):Nadeska Alexis.
    Source:Redbook 209.5 (Nov 2007): p111(1). (163 words)
    Document Type:Magazine/Journal
    Bookmark:Bookmark this Document
    Library Links:

    *

    Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2007 Hearst Communications, reprinted with permission of Hearst.

    "I've heard that bottled water can cause tooth decay--is that true?"

    A There's nothing in bottled water that causes tooth decay, but the majority of bottled waters have little or no fluoride, a mineral added to most tap water that protects against tooth-decaying acids and helps reduce cavities by up to 40 percent, says Steven Adair, D.D.S., chairman of the department of pediatric dentistry at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. If you're prone to cavities and prefer bottled water, look for brands that carry the FDA-approved claim stating that "drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of dental decay," such as AquaForte. It and several other brands contain levels of fluoride proven effective and safe. If you drink from the faucet, visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website at apps.nccd.cdc.gov /mwf/index.asp to see if your tap water is fluoridated. No matter the source, be sure that most of the water you drink every day is fluoridated for tooth-protective benefits.

    Source Citation:Alexis, Nadeska. "Water safety.(REDBOOK handbook: ADVICE, ANSWERS, AND HEALTH NEWS YOU CAN USE.)(Brief article)." Redbook 209.5 (Nov 2007): 111(1). General OneFile. Gale. Moorpark College Library. 1 May 2008
    <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=ITOF>.
    ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ The Misc. Mid Rollers ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼


    Owe reps to:user_unknown-J2BIGG-bigmane123
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

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