[UtahFACS] [UCE] important information on fluoride exposure and children's health

J. Maree Simmons bydayornight at gmail.com
Thu Aug 15 09:17:51 MDT 2019

As educators on subjects relating to child development, I thought that some
would find this valuable.

A 12 year multi-million dollar study sponsored by the U.S. National
>> Institute of Health (NIH) found that the measured levels of FLUORIDE
>>> in Mexican mothers during pregnancy was proportional to a 1 to 6 point
>>> drop in IQ scores when their children were tested at age 4 and then
>>> again between the ages of 6 to 12.
>>> Unknowingly, pregnant women in Utah are ingesting FLUORIDE at levels
>>> equivalent to mothers in this Mexican study.  In Utah, numerous
>>> sources of swallowed fluoride include partially swallowed toothpaste
>>> and mouthwashes, fluoride based pesticide residues, pharmaceuticals
>>> which contain fluoride, certain nonstick cookware, tea - and one of
>>> the easiest sources to eliminate -  FLUORIDATED WATER. When a pregnant
>>> woman ingests a toxin her unborn child will also be exposed to that
>>> toxin. For years it has been known that tobacco, alcohol and narcotics
>>> are extremely harmful to unborn children. FLUORIDE has now been added
>>> to this list of dangerous prenatal toxins based on the combined
>>> research efforts of the following North American Universities:
>>>                   Harvard - School of Public Health – Boston,
>>>                   Indiana - Purdue,
>>>                   Michigan - Ann Arbor,
>>>                   McGill – Montreal,
>>>                   Toronto - Toronto,
>>>                                           and
>>>                   Icahn School of Medicine – (“A Leader in Scientific &
>>> Medical Training and Education”
>>>                                       since being chartered in 1963 by
>>> Mt Sinai Hospital), New York City, New York
>>>                                           with:
>>>                   Instituto Nacional de Perinatologia – Mexico City, and
>>>                   Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica - Morelos, Mexico.
>>> For more information on this multi-university study with an
>>> introductory video by Dr. Paul Connett (emeritus Professor of
>>> Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, St. Lawrence University, New
>>> York) as well as a graph (mid-webpage) comparing elevated
>> "Range of fluoride in mothers in U.S." with
>> Lowered "Child's IQ at age 4 yrs."                   please go to:
>>> http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-exposure-in-utero-linked-to-lower-iq-in-kids-new-study-says/
>>> This email has been sent to multiple Utah news agencies, school
>>> districts, all Utah State Senators and Representatives, the Salt Lake
>>> and Davis County Health Departments, multiple medical, religious and
>>> civic organizations, state, county and city government staffs,
>>> councils and elected officials as well as numerous Utah citizens.
>>> Please forward this email to as many government officials, educators,
>>> school boards, government and private organizations and Utah citizens
>>> as possible.    If possible please post this email on your webpage.
>>>       Thank you,
>>>                  Pure Water Utah
>>>                  purewaterutah at gmail.com
>>> For more research summaries on the multiple ways that water fluoridation
>> harms children and adults please read all of the following:
>>> Besides lowering a child’s IQ, a study, conducted by York University
>>> in Toronto Canada, found a link between water fluoridation and ADHD.
>>> This study which was first published in the scientific journal
>>> Environmental Health “found that states with a higher portion of
>>> artificially fluoridated water had a higher prevalence of ADHD. This
>>> relationship held up across six different years”. Research
>>> psychologists Christine Till and Ashley Malin studied U.S. states
>>> which had artificial water fluoridation programs that began in 1992 by
>>> examining government health records years later to determine the
>>> number of diagnosed cases of ADHD among children who had been
>> raised in these fluoridated areas.
>>> Dr. Malin, currently at Icahn School of Medicine, stated that “States
>>> in which a greater proportion of people received artificially
>>> fluoridated water in 1992 tended to have a greater proportion of
>>> children and adolescents who received ADHD diagnoses [in later years],
>>> after controlling for socioeconomic status”. Poor children are more
>>> often diagnosed with ADHD so in this study they were careful to adjust
>>> their data to account for family income. After doing so, the “Water
>>> Fluoridation/ ADHD” link still help up. Delaware and Iowa have
>>> relatively low poverty rates but their state drinking water is widely
>>> fluoridated.  Their children, ages 4 to 17, also have high levels of
>>> ADHD, with more than one in eight (12 percent) being diagnosed ADHD.
>>> For more information on this ADHD study please read the following
>>> Newsweek report:
>>> https://www.newsweek.com/water-fluoridation-linked-higher-adhd-rates-312748
>>> Adjusting for socioeconomic status is extremely important because if
>>> this is not done, a water fluoridation study could be skewed to
>>> suggest that water fluoridation is actually good for children. An
>>> excellent example of this mistake or possibly even intentional
>>> misrepresentation can be seen in a recent pro-water fluoridation study
>>> conducted in Korea. The January 12, 2012 Korean Herald newspaper
>>> reported:
>>> “A research team from Wonkwang University studied 9,000 elementary
>>> school students divided into two groups, one group living in areas
>>> with fluoridated tap water and the other living in areas without it.
>>> They found that those living with fluoridated tap water had a cavity
>>> average of 0.54 per child, compared to an average of 0.91 for children
>>> in non-fluoridation areas.”
>>> “For a demographic pool of 8-year-olds, the cavity prevention rate
>>> stood at 61 percent in fluoridated areas, according to the research,
>>> compared to 48 percent for those living in non-fluoridated areas.”
>>> Using this Korean study’s claimed benefits, we can take 0.91 and minus
>>> 0.54 which yields a claimed benefit of a 0.37 reduction in a cavity –
>>> slightly more than only a third of one cavity prevented during the
>>> early lifetime of an 8 year old child. This minor reduction in tooth
>>> decay is represented to be the result of ingesting the proven
>>> neurotoxin fluoride in their drinking water. If some children truly
>>> did average about 1/3 of a cavity more solely because they were not
>>> swallowing fluoride, then a standard visit to the dentist can quickly,
>>> easily and permanently alleviate this harm. However, how can any
>>> intelligent society believe that a claimed temporary benefit of
>>> preventing 1/3 of a cavity can override the carefully measured 1 to 6
>>> point drop in IQ and the resulting lifetime of harm to which water
>>> fluoridation is now known to contribute.
>>> We can also take 61% and minus 48% to “discover” there was also a
>>> claimed 13% improvement in “the cavity prevention rate” of Korean
>>> children simply by putting this neurotoxin in their drinking water. It is
>>> interesting to note that this is basically half of what the ADA
>>> (American Dental Association) claims on its website, which is
>>> “fluoride in community water systems prevents at least 25% of tooth
>>> decay in children and adults”. So who has the correct “scientific”
>>> results? Is it WonKwang University at 13% or the ADA at 25% or higher?
>>> By reading just a little further into the conclusions of the Korean
>>> study we can begin to understand the reasons for widely varying
>>> percentages in the "scientifically" CLAIMED benefits of water
>>> fluoridation. The WonKwang University team also stated:
>>> “The wealthier and more educated the children’s families were, the
>>> more effective the tap water fluoridation was.”
>>> This is a breathtakingly ridiculous and completely unsupportable
>>> claim. To make such a claim with no data to back it up or even a
>>> reasonable explanation as to how this could even be possible is
>>> grossly negligent. When fluoride gets swallowed by, and then into
>>> the bloodstream of a more affluent 8 year old Korean kid, how could
>>> those fluoride molecules become more activated because they are
>>> inside a rich kid to do a better job of preventing that claimed one
>>> third of a cavity? What conceivable mechanism could more fully
>>> “activate” fluoride molecules to more effectively prevent that one
>>> third of a cavity in a rich kid than in a poor one?
>>> Increased socio-economic status has been the one factor that can be
>>> directly tied to improved oral health. If the Korean researchers would
>>> have carefully accounted for socio-economic status during the
>>> collection and evaluation of their data they most likely would have
>>> immediately realized that the average one third reduction in a cavity
>>> was not due to fluoridation but instead to more affluent and better
>>> informed parents being more attentive to insuring their children
>>> properly brush daily, visit the dentist regularly and consume a
>>> healthier diet with fewer tooth decaying sweets.
>>> To read the complete newspaper article please go to:
>>> http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20120112001105
>>> Instead of making the necessary adjustments for socio-economic status
>>> like the valid York University study which revealed the link between
>>> water fluoridation and ADHD, the Korean study used magical thinking
>>> “science” and simply claimed water fluoridation was more effective for
>>> rich kids from more highly educated families than it was for poorer
>>> kids from less educated families. Faulty reasoning like this has enable
>>> harmful water fluoridation programs to continue for decades here in
>>> the United States.
>>> One of the fraudulent ways in which “research” has historically been
>>> conducted to produce pro-water fluoridation results was exposed
>>> decades ago by Dr. John Colquhoun, the former Principal Dental Officer
>>> for Aukland New Zealand. He had been his country's leading
>>> “fluoridationist” and was even chairman of the National Fluoridation
>>> Promotion Committee - tasked with seeing “that all of New Zealand was
>>> fluoridated as soon as possible.” Later through New Zealand’s
>>> "official information legislation" or freedom of information act, he
>>> was able to uncover the stunning and blatant fraud in his country’s
>>> water fluoridation trials. He describes his discovery as being “one of
>>> the biggest surprises in my life.” Please go to minute 34:00 in the
>>> following 1998 interview to learn how research data was falsified:
>>> http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/colquhoun/
>>> Hastings New Zealand began fluoridating city water systems in the
>>> early 1950s in what was advertised to be an experimental trial.
>>> However, dentists who were evaluating children for dental decay were
>>> “instructed to change their method of diagnosing tooth decay” right
>>> after the drinking water was fluoridated. Before fluoridation, a
>>> cavity would be counted as soon as there was – in New Zealand terminology
>>> - “a catch in the enamel” or a pitting in the enamel surface. After
>>> the drinking water had been fluoridated, for the follow-up dental
>>> evaluations the dentists were instructed to “not call it a cavity
>>> until it pierced through the enamel”. This change in methodology would
>>> immediately allow for the miraculous reporting of an essentially
>>> instantaneous “70% to 80% reduction in tooth decay after the
>>> introduction of fluoridation” – and this is exactly what the
>>> “researchers” did.
>>> So what percentage reduction in cavities should be CLAIMED when
>>> attempting to justify the addition of a neuro-toxin to our drinking
>>> water? Is it 13%, 25%, 70% or 80%?
>>> The most accurate and honest answer is irrefutably proving to be ZERO
>>> In this same taped interview, Dr. Colquhoun explained how he
>>> discovered that water fluoridation was not effective and might be
>>> harmful. His large scale population studies in New Zealand even showed
>>> that 5822 children evaluated in Christchurch (a city with
>>> non-fluoridated water) actually had slightly better overall dental
>>> health than the 11,464 children evaluated in Auckland (a fluoridated
>>> city). To view Dr. Colquhoun findings in these two cities move the
>>> scroll bar to 40:45 (minutes:seconds) in his video interview:
>>> http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/colquhoun/
>>> According to data from the World Health Organization (WHO) there is no
>>> discernible difference in tooth decay between countries that
>>> fluoridate their drinking water and those that do not.  The WHO Table
>>> (Fact #2 on following webpage) demonstrates that dental decay has
>>> significantly dropped in all western countries from 1970 to 2010 with
>>> no correlation to water fluoridation:
>>> <http://fluoridealert.org/issues/caries/who-data/>
>>> http://fluoridealert.org/articles/teeth-facts/
>>> Because children should never ingest fluoride it is important that
>>> parents are aware of all of the following common potential sources of
>>> fluoride:
>>> Tea plants absorb significant amounts of fluoride from the soil. In
>>> many Asian countries and even Great Britain where tea is popular among
>>> all ages, children can have their teeth emerge with moderate to severe
>>> dental fluorosis. The disease is caused by elevated fluoride levels in
>>> the bloodstream and characterized by light or dark markings on teeth.
>>> In severe cases, fluorosis results in general discoloration, pitting
>>> and disfigurement of teeth. It is just common sense that if a poison
>>> circulating in a young child’s bloodstream can damage tooth-forming
>>> cells, then fluoride is almost certainly causing other permanent
>>> tissue damage during the earliest stages of that child’s life.
>>> The 1975 “Full & Parkins” study found that boiling water in Teflon
>>> cookware for just 15 minutes increased fluoride in the water up to 2
>>> parts per million (ppm). So depending on the amount of time boiling,
>>> Salt Lake and Davis County drinking water that is already being
>>> artificially fluoridated to about 0.6 ppm could easily have fluoride
>>> levels raised to 1.0, 1.5 or even as high as 2.6 ppm. Imagine a
>>> mother’s shock when she finally learns that by boiling our fluoridated
>>> tap water in a Teflon pan to reconstitute dry baby formula she has
>>> unknowingly been exposing her child to elevated levels of this
>>> neurotoxin. Besides immediately terminating all water fluoridation
>>> programs, we should be relentlessly warning the public that all
>>> mothers-to-be should avoid all sources of ingestible fluoride.
>>> Incredibly, much of the fluoride that children ingest is coming from
>>> kid “friendly” sources. Fluoride based pesticides are used primarily
>>> on grapes (a kid favorite), walnuts and some other tree nuts to more
>>> effectively target the specific pests which threaten these crops. For
>>> foods that are processed in areas with fluoridated drinking water, the
>>> added fluoride does not boil off with the steam. For this reason,
>>> cooking during processing causes fluoride levels to further
>>> concentrate in foods. Fluoridated water and fluoride based pesticides
>>> are so common in America that even farm animals and poultry have
>>> elevated fluoride levels in their bone. The widespread use of highly
>>> efficient de-boning machinery results in so much bone material being
>>> scraped or rubbed off with the meat, that kid favorites like chicken
>>> sticks and nuggets can have fluoride concentration as high as 3.6
>>> parts per million. This is about 6 times higher than our artificially
>>> fluoridated drinking water.
>>> For more information please go to:
>>> http://fluoridealert.org/content/chicken/
>>> For more information on ways to avoid ingesting fluoride please go to
>>> the following 3 webpages:
>>> http://fluoridealert.org/content/top_ten/
>>> http://fluoridealert.org/content/formula/
>>> http://fluoridealert.org/content/grocery_guide/
>>> For decades the ADA and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) have
>>> proclaimed that water fluoridation is “safe and effective” “safe and
>>> effective” “safe and effective” – as if repeating a dangerous myth
>>> enough times can magically turn it into the truth. However the rapidly
>>> and forcefully emerging truth is that water fluoridation is absolutely
>>> not safe and not effective.
>>> The ineffectiveness of water fluoridation has been known for decades.
>>> Trevor Sheldon, the former Dean of the Hull York Medical in the United
>>> Kingdom led a advisory board in 2000 that conducted a systemic review
>>> of water fluoridation. After the study Sheldon made the following
>>> comments:
>>> "I had assumed because of everything I'd heard that water fluoridation
>>> reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of
>>> evidence... My prior view was completely reversed...  There's really
>>> hardly any evidence [the practice works] and if anything there may be
>>> some evidence the other way." Sheldon also warned, "despite the poor
>>> data quality and lack of evidence from the past 40 years…
>>> pro-fluoridation beliefs are entrenched and will not easily change.”
>>> This is why the professional medical community needs to actively step
>>> in and assist the professional dental community in rapidly coming to
>>> terms with the toxic truth and harmful consequences of ingesting
>>> fluoride. Instead of promoting fluoridation and even prescribing
>>> fluoride tablets to be consumed by young children, medical and dental
>>> professionals need to work together for the immediate and complete
>>> termination of all water fluoridation programs. They also need to
>>> actively work together in warning the public about the fluoride that
>>> is hidden in our diets.
>>> We have all seen how a new drug will appear on the market with a lot
>>> of advertising hype and nationwide doctors will immediately prescribe
>>> it for their patients. Then overnight this new “wonder drug” will be
>>> banned because of dangerous side effects. Often toxicity was
>>> discovered during preliminary clinical trials when the same severe –
>>> sometimes even life threatening - side effects were observed. However,
>>> because of looming economic pressure or to maintain professional
>>> reputations or business interests, the research data and facts were
>>> “spun” or the truth was completely covered up and the drug was pushed
>>> out on to the market.
>>> Because doctors have already lived through this “wonder drug to poison”
>>> cycle so many times they are familiar with the drill. They generally do
>>> not keep
>>> prescribing, defending and promoting toxic medical treatments when the
>>> truth becomes obvious. Now ADA, CDC and dental healthcare professionals
>>> need to learn from these numerous examples from the history of general
>>> medicine and stop promoting the addition of fluoride to our drinking
>>> water.
>>> Five years ago, in March 2014, Harvard University’s School of Public
>>> Health published the following warning in the prestigious medical
>>> journal “LANCET NEUROLOGY”:
>>> “Neurodevelopmental disabilities… affect millions of children
>>> worldwide… Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are
>>> among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. [Previously]
>>> identified neuro­toxins [include] lead, methyl-mercury… arsenic,
>>> and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented…
>>> additional developmental neurotoxicants – maganesse,
>>> FLUORIDE...[emphasis added] and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. To
>>> control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a
>>> global prevention strategy.”
>>> In line with Harvard’s imperative to completely prevent our children,
>>> born and unborn, from being harmed by this specifically identified
>>> neurotoxin we must stop fluoridating our drinking water immediately !
>>> In 2000 when citizens in Salt Lake and Davis Counties voted to add
>>> fluoride to drinking water we did not have all the information that is
>>> now available on fluoride’s extreme toxicity. However as early as 2001
>>> the
>>> CDC was aware of the harm that fluoride was causing to young children
>>> and issued this statement: “Manufacturers are encouraged to develop a…
>>> child-strength toothpaste with a fluoride concentration lower than
>>> current products.” Unfortunately this crucial warning received very
>>> little press coverage.
>>> Young children are not yet in control of their swallowing reflex.
>>> Children up to 4, 5 and even 6 years old typically swallow a
>>> significant portion of their toothpaste. Now many parents are
>>> opting to keep their children’s baby teeth healthy with regular
>>> dental exams, nontoxic dental sealants, and “fluoride free” children’s
>>> toothpastes. If the CDC had been more forthcoming in their 2001
>>> warning to reduce children’s exposure to fluoride from toothpaste
>>> perhaps even more parents would have already adopted this
>>> neurotoxin-free approach to their children’s early dental health.
>>> In spite of all of this new information on neurotoxicity, public
>>> service broadcasts and even government websites such as
>>> http://www.babyyourbaby.org/infants/baby-teeth.php
>>> are still encouraging parents to smear rice sized amounts of fluoride
>>> toothpaste on their baby’s teeth as soon as they emerge and continue
>>> to do so on until the age of 3. Because it is extremely difficult to
>>> prevent 4, 5 and 6 year olds from swallowing some toothpaste every
>>> time they brush, how can it be anything but a public disservice to
>>> encourage parents to repeatedly smear fluoride on their infant’s
>>> teeth.
>>> In 2006 even ADA advised parents to use “water that has NO or LOW
>>> levels of fluoride” when reconstituting dry baby formula. Their only
>>> stated reason for this warning was to prevent “dental” fluorosis, even
>>> though by 2006 research from China was already strongly demonstrating
>>> that fluoride exposure was harmful to children’s developing brains and
>>> lowered their IQ. With subsequent studies the momentum of that truth
>>> continues to lead us to an even deep understanding of the severe
>>> multifaceted harm caused by ingested fluoride.
>>> An infant’s developing kidneys should never be forced to remove any
>>> intentionally introduced neurotoxin. So of the two recommended options,
>>> NO FLUORIDE in water used to reconstitute dry baby formula is a much
>>> healthier choice than LOW FLUORIDE water. To fully protect mothers and
>>> babies during pregnancy as well as the babies who will be consuming
>>> reconstituted dry formula, all Utah water fluoridation programs must be
>>> immediately terminated.
>>> More people are getting the facts and are not drinking our fluoridated
>>> water. Some are using expensive reverse osmosis water filters.
>>> However, Salt Lake and Davis County’s fluoridated public drinking
>>> water is still used for cooking and processing foods for sale in
>>> stores, restaurants and schools outside of these two counties.
>>> Fluoride bonds with the food and water and does not boil off. Instead
>>> fluoride increases in concentration as steam is boiled off. So this is
>>> not just a Salt Lake and Davis County issue. It is a statewide issue
>>> and the Utah State Legislature needs to act immediately to ban water
>>> fluoridation statewide.
>>> PLEASE warn all pregnant women in Salt Lake and Davis Counties to not
>>> drink their tap water and not to use it later when mixing dry baby
>>> formula. Also they need to be informed as to the multiple sources of
>>> ingestible fluoride which are listed above. To view several short
>>> videos on how fluoride harms children and adults go to:
>>> http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/
>>> Caucasians, due to genetics, can more effectively counter fluoride’s
>>> toxic effects, so water fluoridation is actually more harmful to
>>> minority populations. For this reason the NAACP is officially opposed
>>> to water fluoridation. To understand why PLEASE watch “FLUORIDEGATE
>>> An American Tragedy” starting at 23 minutes and viewing to 41 minutes
>>> in this video:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_vlwJPcYW8
>>> Some other points made by this video are controversial but
>>> this 18 minute segment on the greater harm caused to minority
>>> population by water fluoridation is not.  Even prominent civil rights
>>> leaders are now calling for an immediate nationwide end to water
>>> fluoridation:
>>> https://fluoridealert.org/articles/civil-rights01/
>>> If all of the above information is not enough to convince every Utahn
>>> of the need to immediate terminate all of Utah water fluoridation
>>> programs here are “50 Reasons to Oppose Water Fluoridation” concisely
>>> presented and expertly explained:
>>> https://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/
>>> The Odd History of Water Fluoridation
>>> In the early 1900s many children in Colorado Springs had teeth that
>>> were disfigured or discolored - some to the point of appearing to be
>>> coated in dark chocolate. The cause of "Colorado Brown Stain" remained
>>> unknown for several years.  When other isolated America communities began
>>> to have similar problems research revealed fluoride in their drinking
>>> water at
>>> extreme levels from 2.0 to 15.0 ppm. These high concentrations were
>>> causing noticeable hardening of tooth enamel with "a singular absence
>>> of
>>> decay". They were also causing very noticeable mental impairment.
>>> After making such a discovery it made sense that more ethical
>>> manufacturers
>>> of personal care products would develop toothpastes with fluoride - and
>>> warn
>>> their customers not to swallow any.
>>> A more positive "well intentioned" view of water fluoridation's flawed
>>> history
>>> can be read on this Ohio State University website:
>>> <
>>> https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-transformation-industrial-waste-public-health-miracle/page/0/1
>>> >
>>> https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-transformation-industrial-waste-public-health-miracle/
>>> The following is a summary of fluoridation's history from the
>>> perspective corporate greed:
>>> Fluoride is a byproduct of aluminum production and other industrial
>>> processes. In the mid-1900s metal manufacturers had a lot of waste
>>> sodium fluoride, so big profits could be made (and an unwanted waste
>>> disposal problem solved) if they could only convince the public that
>>> they
>>> should intentionally drink fluoride in water as had been occurring
>>> accidentally
>>> in Colorado. Government and corporate research departments were tasked
>>> with determining the quantity of this poison that could be “safely”
>>> added to
>>> our nation’s drinking water to cause desired enamel hardening without
>>> the
>>> toxic side effects. Because ingested fluoride is now known to be toxic
>>> at any
>>> level, this was a fool’s errand. At that time immediate poisoning
>>> symptoms
>>> were undetectable from repeated low daily dosing in water at 1 part per
>>> million (ppm). So Trendley Dean (a dentist and chief scientist in the
>>> Dental Research Section of the National Institute of Health) in
>>> concurrence
>>> with corporate researchers decided 1 ppm would be the “safe and
>>> effective” level at which to fluoridate all U.S. public water systems.
>>> From here fluoride became a poison and “hardener” with an extremely
>>> well orchestrated PR history. Depending on how you want to view it (or
>>> Google it) this more negative history of water fluoridation is filled
>>> with ignorance, incompetence or just plain corporate greed - devoid of
>>> concern for public health. The marketing approach has been that
>>> because it hardens enamel - and it actually has been proven to do this
>>> when used in toothpaste - imagine how much money could be made if
>>> people started swallowing it in their drinking water.
>>> In 1947, Oscar Ewing an attorney who had worked for ALCOA was
>>> “transferred”
>>> to the Federal Security Agency (FSA), which later became the U.S.
>>> Health,
>>> Education and Welfare Department.  He became a director at FSA which
>>> oversaw the newly formed Public Health Service (PHS) with its primary
>>> purpose being to *Get America Fluoridated As Soon As Possible !*
>>> For data collection or marketing purposes, Grand Rapids,
>>> Michigan was selected for an experimental 10 to 15 year water
>>> fluoridation study. However, an impatient PHS began its aggressive
>>> national fluoridation “push” when those trials were only two years
>>> old. No significant data was available or even possible.
>>> Edward Bernays, the “Father of Public Relations” was hired to design
>>> the national PR campaign for fluoridation. Bernays was known for his
>>> unethical advertising. In his work to overcome social taboos against
>>> women smoking cigarettes for the American Tobacco Company he
>>> hired women to march while alternately smoking then holding up
>>> their “torches of freedom” in New York’s 1929 Easter Sunday Parade.
>>> Bernays also taught his corporate clients that people instinctively
>>> trust their medical professionals. The most infamous “Bernays-ian”
>>> marketing ads were those with doctors in white lab coats extolling
>>> the virtues of their favorite cigarette. So of course, dentists would
>>> be recruited to promote water fluoridation.
>>> “The PR wizard specialized in promoting new ideas and products to the
>>> public by stressing a claimed health benefit,” explains journalist
>>> Christopher Bryson, who interviewed Bernays in 1993 on his 1950s water
>>> fluoridation PR campaign.
>>> “’You can get practically any ideas accepted,’ Bernays told me,
>>> chuckling. “If doctors are in favor, the public is willing to accept
>>> it, because a doctor is an authority to most people, regardless of how
>>> much he knows, or doesn’t know … By the law of averages, you can
>>> usually find an individual in any field who will be willing to accept
>>> new ideas, and the new ideas then infiltrate the others who haven’t
>>> accepted it.’”
>>> Bernays called this process "Engineering Consent". In the early 1900s
>>> dentists were not interested in promoting fluoride because it was known
>>> to be toxic. Dr. Trendley Dean was the man who would champion the
>>> fluoridation cause and initiate that infiltration process. By 1950, 89
>>> cities
>>> were fluoridated, despite no credible evidence demonstrating its
>>> effectiveness or safety. ALCOA touted the purity of its sodium
>>> fluoride which in reality was and is just industrial waste. Other
>>> manufacturing and mining companies that had it, began shipping
>>> it to all American cities that could be convinced to put it in their
>>> drinking water.
>>> Hydrofluorosilicic acid, a generally cheaper and more readily
>>> available industrial waste from fertilizer production, is now used
>>> instead of sodium fluoride in many areas.  It is taken directly from
>>> the pollution control "scrubbers" at the bottom of smokestacks. It
>>> often contains arsenic and significant levels of other contaminants.
>>> Because it is so caustic it tends to leech lead out of pipes in older
>>> water systems and is often the cause for lead contamination in public
>>> drinking water.
>>> The abundance of water fluoridation programs in America and other
>>> English speaking countries is a result of well funded and expertly
>>> orchestrated Bernays style PR campaigns. In countries where rigorous
>>> research and open debates determine public policy, water fluoridation
>>> was and still is being soundly rejected.
>>> Dr. Arvid Carlsson (2001 Nobel Prize Winner in Medicine for
>>> discovering the neurotransmitter dopamine and its function in the
>>> brain) played a key educational role in defeating two attempts in the
>>> 1970s to fluoridate Sweden's drinking water. He strongly advocated
>>> that because the enamel surfaces of the teeth are "readily available"
>>> and fluoride in toothpaste can be directly applied to these surfaces
>>> so why swallow the poison ?
>>> Please view (at least twice) this expert testimony by one of the world's
>>> leading scientists on the profound absurdity of ingesting toxic fluoride
>>> :
>>> https://fluoridealert.org/content/carlsson-interview/
>>> Water fluoridation has been completely banned in 15 out of the 18
>>> western European countries. Only 3% of Western Europeans still drink
>>> fluoridated water. Israel used to have one of the most widely
>>> fluoridated public water systems in the world until the Israeli
>>> Supreme Court upheld a nationwide ban on water fluoridation in the
>> Summer of 2014. Only 1% of Japan’s population still drinks artificially
>>> fluoridated tap water.
>>> Many organizations that once endorsed fluoridation are no
>>> longer doing so. They include the Alzheimer’s Association,
>>> American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology,
>>> Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumers Union
>>> (Consumer Reports), National Association of Social Workers,
>>> National Down Syndrome Congress, National Down Syndrome
>>> Society and National Kidney Foundation.
>>> The removal of the endorsements of these national health,
>>> safety and medical organizations is profoundly important.
>>> They have become part of a growing scientifically driven
>>> movement against water fluoridation:
>>> http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/leaflet.world-wide-movement-1.2019.pdf
>>> While much of the world has acknowledged the overwhelming
>>> scientific findings on fluoride’s toxicity, here in Utah we refused
>>> to wake up. Instead we continue to methodically and senselessly
>>> poison ourselves and our children.
>>> Fluoride adversely affects the brain’s pineal gland that produces
>>> melatonin for controlling our natural sleep cycle. It also interferes
>>> with the function of other endocrine glands including the thyroid that
>>> regulates metabolism, parathyriod that regulates calcium levels in the
>>> bones and blood and pancreas that produces insulin.
>>> https://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/endocrine/
>>> EPA was not releasing these and other scientific findings on the long
>>> term harmful consequences of drinking fluoridated water, so concerned
>>> EPA Scientists quit their government jobs to get the true water
>>> fluoridation toxicology information out to the public. This report is
>>> technical but extremely important:
>>> fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/hirzy/
>>> In this email, many of the statements on fluoride from the ADA, CDC
>>> and major universities have been quoted word for word so that they can
>>> easily be GOOGLE searched. If you are skeptical of anything, PLEASE
>>> self-verify that information because any good citizen’s natural first
>>> reaction after reading all this should be complete denial because
>>> surely something this absurd could not be happening. However,
>>> impulsive denial allows our ridiculous Salt Lake and Davis County
>>> water fluoridation programs to continue while the rest of the world
>>> gets smart and eliminate theirs.
>>> To understand how for decades the wholesale distribution of a toxin
>>> across our nation and even into our homes could be tolerated we
>>> only have to look at the prolonged history of lead additives. If you
>>> can find access, the video "Cosmos: The Clean Room: Inside Look"
>>> with Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson provides excellent insights into how
>>> "authoritian science" can be used to obscure the truth.
>>> Back in the scientifically enlightened era of the 1950s and 60s when we
>>> were sending men to the moon and developing the miniature computer
>>> technologies that would eventually evolve into our smart phones, we
>>> were ignorantly burning leaded gasoline and painting our houses,
>>> furniture and even baby cribs with leaded paints. Lead molecule levels
>>> in aerosol form were at disastrously high levels at busy city
>>> intersections as idling cars waited for traffic lights to chance.
>>> Although we cringe at our willful ignorance now, back then no one
>>> would have given a second thought to a baby teething on crib railing
>>> coated in lead paint. Back when science was going to easily, even
>>> magically, solve all our problems why not solve the very serious problem
>>> of tooth decay? This same “incapable of harm” science would almost
>>> demand
>>> that we do something on a massive scale like putting a neurotoxin in
>>> our
>>> drinking water and then collectively will it to only harden our teeth
>>> and
>>> never harm us in any way.
>>> With a wide range of imaginary percentages at our disposal that could
>>> be generated from pliable fraudulent "science"  - to not take advantage
>>> of a 13%, 25%, 60% or 70% reduction in childhood tooth decay would
>>> have been unscientifically ignorant.
>>> Today, while Western Europe, Japan and Israel have rejected flawed
>>> science, the ADA is clinging to their pro-water fluoridation rhetoric.
>>> Hopefully
>>> this stubborn attempt to save face will lead to open discussions and
>>> debates. The only possible outcome will be that no one, especially
>>> pregnant mothers and young children, should ever be placed at risk of
>>> swallowing fluoride from any of the previously mentioned sources.
>>> With all the mounting evidence against it, the only reasons for
>>> continuing to promote water fluoridation appear to be psychological
>>> and emotional ones. After dental health professionals and even public
>>> health
>>> departments have been wrongly promoting a harmful practice for so
>>> long, it may have just become too overwhelmingly difficult to make the
>>> needed
>>> policy correction.  After all, the best way to convince oneself that
>>> we haven't just been needlessly distributing a neurotoxin with zero
>>> benefits to every man, woman and child in Salt Lake and Davis Counties
>>> for the last 17 years is to keep poisoning everyone indefinitely into
>>> the future.
>> This style of thinking falls into the general human reasoning catagory of:
>> "We haven't been wrong and to prove it we are going to keep on being
>>> wrong!"
>>> On the other hand, continuing to promote water fluoridation might be due
>>> to
>>> the more laid-back reasoning that "All my life I've been taught how
>>> wonderful
>>> water fluoridation is and now my brain is full and I can't learn
>>> anything more
>>> about it."
>> To have both sides of water fluoridation argument presented -
>>> on August 12, 2019 when this email was first distributed -
>>> the pro-water fluoridation rhetoric could be easily accessed
>>> by simply changing the   “.org” in fluoridealert.org to “.com”
>>> In other words go to…
>>> fluoridealert.com
>>> …to read the rapidly failing rhetoric that is still being pushed by
>>> the American Dental Association. When an organization seeks to limit
>>> access to opposing information by taking control of a similarly named
>>> website in hopes that people will be so used to typing in  .com
>>> instead of  .org  that they will never find that information,
>>> it is a clear indication that even the ADA knows the only
>>> way to keep water fluoridation going is to prevent the public
>>> from discovering the full truth.
>>> For years to come along the Wasatch Front we will struggle to clean up
>>> our often dangerously unhealthy air. It will be difficult for many to
>>> give up the convenience of commuting one-driver-per-vehicle and start
>>> to ride TRAX, buses and bicycles or join car pools. People will have
>>> to pay to make their homes, schools and commercial buildings more
>>> energy efficient by improving insulation, installing solar panels and
>>> converting to other renewable energy sources.
>>> Cleaning up our air will be a slow, difficult and expensive process.
>>> In the spring of 2019 with $29 million being allocated by the Utah
>>> legislature to improve Utah’s air quality, we now have some
>>> preliminary estimates on the cost to begin this clean up.
>>> In stark contrast, cleaning up our drinking water will be quick, easy
>> and relatively inexpensive. To start all we have to do is permanently
>> remove the fluoride pumps that are slowly and incessantly poisoning
>> our water.
>>> We also need to pass laws that will insure that nothing but chlorine gas
>> will ever be added to public drinking water. It is estimated that about 1
>> in 5 water systems in America have converted from chlorine gas to
>> chloramine. Unlike chlorine gas, chloramine does not readily dissipate
>> out of drinking water if it is allowed to sit out for several minutes.
>>> Until a much better solution comes along, chlorine gas seems
>>> to be the best option. It has served us well for decades by preventing
>>> any outbreaks of serious water borne diseases in our communities. When
>>> Utah lawmakers eliminate fluoride from all public drinking water,
>>> measures need to be taken to also insure that nothing but chlorine gas
>>> will ever be added to our water.
>>> There may not be any current research available on whether a lifetime
>>> of swallowing chlorine gas in drinking water has any measurable
>>> harmful human effects. However, chlorine gas is obviously and
>> thankfully harmful to some living organisms like the bacteria that
>>> cause cholera, giardiasis,  hepatisis A and Legionnaires' disease to
>>> name just a few.
>>> However, because it is never necessary to ingest any bactericide, even
>>> chlorine gas, Pure Water Utah requests that information in time table
>>> form be required biannually on all water bills for chlorine gas
>>> dissipation rates  (possibly for 60, 80 and 100 percent dissipation)
>> at the average elevation for the billing area and at the
>>> following three common household temperatures:
>>>       room temperature
>>>       boiling temperature
>>>       35 degrees (standard refrigerator temperature)
>>> Cleanly delivered through public water systems with no added fluoride
>>> – and then with chlorine gas removed through natural dissipation
>> for those who wish to do so -
>>> Utahans across the state will hopefully be able to enjoy water
>> as pure as it was when it fell from the sky.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Pure Water Utah
>>> Advisory Board
>>> Steven Winters                   Matthew Peterson
>>>  Michael Whitten
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.uen.org/pipermail/utahfcs/attachments/20190815/07277f87/attachment.html>

More information about the UtahFCS mailing list