Get Adobe Flash player
You are here:FEATURED STORIES > Health Canada supports toxic posions in people

Health Canada, Toxics for the people, hmmm good for you!

Health Canada's propaganda on Fluoride and Human Health, (PDF CANADA) according to their website they say; it all natural and they make it sound like as to not to worry about Fluoride, even if it is toxic to humans.
Health Canada hasn't figured it out yet, or have they for the population control program that the Bilderburg group promote, that harming peoples health and by not telling people the real facts on Fluoride use in water and on your teeth is harmful. 
As you will find further down this webpage, why parents and their children must be better informed, then what the Federal governments are telling you as you can't trust these people anymore.
As they are not always right and many times these issues relate to monies linked to big corperations, making it's big, big, profits off you the Canadian people.
As for the Government of Canada, don't you think they should be looking at this issue more closely, then they really are"

IT IS OUTRIGHT SHAMEFUL!

INFORMATION VIDEO'S FOR THE PUBLIC that Health Canada doesn't tell you!

Professor Paul Connett: Your Toxic Tap Water



STATEMENT OF Dr. J. WILLIAM HIRZY NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 280 BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND DRINKING WATER UNITED STATES SENATE JUNE 29, 2000 Tell me after listening to this statement that Fluoride is just a simple non-toxic chemical!



What Health Canada says:

The Issue

Most Canadians are exposed to fluorides on a daily basis, through the trace amounts that are found in almost all foods and through those that are added to some drinking water supplies to prevent tooth decay.

Background

Fluoride is a natural element that is found in soil, water (both fresh and salt) and in various foods. Fluorides are released into the environment by weathering processes and by volcanic activity. They may also be released by the production of phosphate fertilizers, by aluminum smelting and by chemical manufacturing........






Meanwhile further information will be added to this webpage on your Canadian drinking water,  and Floruide and what the canadian government is really doing about toxics that people are drinknig and using.

But the Truth is: Bone Cancer is on the rise as is other health related issues from drinking and using fluoride, read further to find out why..., 

A significant milestone in the fight against fluoride emerged quietly and without major notice from the mainstream news last week. After decades of ignoring the research about the dangers and hailing water fluoridation as one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th Century (CDC), the government is calling for a reduction in the amount of fluoride it adds to public water supplies, citing its negative effect on teeth (dental fluorosis). For the first time since 1962, the standard for fluoride will be lowered from 1.2 to 0.7 milligrams per liter.

Because fluoride from water builds up over time in the human body, this reduction will not eliminate the dangers of fluoride– which include risk of bone cancer, bone fractures, thyroid disorder, brain inflammation, lowered IQ and mental functions, sterility or reduced fertility and more. However, it is a good sign that the powers-that-be are losing ground on the fluoride debate. Further, the reduction of fluoridation is proof that the warnings from activists, critics and health professionals have been heard after all.

As Alex Jones points out in the video, many of those health professionals who have been blowing the whistle on fluoridation for decades are employees or union contractors of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other governmental regulation agencies. Their objections, based on alarming scientific studies such as the one linking fluoridation with a seven-fold increase in bone cancer for boys, have heretofore been almost wholly ignored, until now. One reason for this government admission, by the way, likely has to do with limiting liability for those harmful effects, or even establishing immunity for districts who adhere to lowering the fluoride standard against future claims to harm.

At the same time, hundreds of other chemicals including many toxic ingredients like lead, arsenic, radium and uranium are also found in public drinking water. Many of these dangerous toxins are put into the water as part of the fluoride-cocktail administered in the many municipalities across the United States and other Western countries, or are leached into the supply via the acidic levels of fluoride. The compound is often not simply sodium fluoride, but a mix of toxic waste byproduct [see chart for hydrofluosilicic acid] created in the process of scrubbing phosphate fertilizer plants and in other high industry applications, such as aluminum.

Furthermore, while fluoride is scheduled for reduction in public water supplies, it is still very common and often dangerously concentrated in many food products at levels of many more parts per million than water and in pesticides used for food production, and in the soils where those pesticides are used.

Though these other fluoride dangers are significant enough that we need to continue educating and informing our fellow friends, neighbors and families, those who have long spoken out about this issue can cherish one victory on the road to taking back our nation, our lives and our health. Now, with this important government admission, we must push for complete removal of added fluoride from public water in our areas.

Further, as advisors to government bodies around the world attempt to argue for forced mass-medication by adding substances like lithium to public water, we must argue against ‘forced consent’ and demand one of our most integral human rights– that no government of man can make a law to force medicate us against our will. We have a human right to say no, especially when we know better.

Because fluoride from water builds up over time in the human body, this reduction will not eliminate the dangers of fluoride– which include risk of bone cancer, bone fractures, thyroid disorder, brain inflammation, lowered IQ and mental functions, sterility or reduced fertility and more. However, it is a good sign that the powers-that-be are losing ground on the fluoride debate. Further, the reduction of fluoridation is proof that the warnings from activists, critics and health professionals have been heard after all.

STATEMENT OF Dr. J. WILLIAM HIRZY NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 280 BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND DRINKING WATER UNITED STATES SENATE JUNE 29, 2000 Tell me after listening to this statement that Fluoride is just a simple non-toxic chemical

As Alex Jones points out in his video, many of those health professionals who have been blowing the whistle on fluoridation for decades are employees or union contractors of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other governmental regulation agencies. Their objections, based on alarming scientific studies such as the one linking fluoridation with a seven-fold increase in bone cancer for boys, have heretofore been almost wholly ignored, until now. One reason for this government admission, by the way, likely has to do with limiting liability for those harmful effects, or even establishing immunity for districts who adhere to lowering the fluoride standard against future claims to harm

At the same time, hundreds of other chemicals including many toxic ingredients like lead, arsenic, radium and uranium are also found in public drinking water. Many of these dangerous toxins are put into the water as part of the fluoride-cocktail administered in the many municipalities across the United States and other Western countries, or are leached into the supply via the acidic levels of fluoride. The compound is often not simply sodium fluoride, but a mix of toxic waste byproduct [see chart for hydrofluosilicic acid] created in the process of scrubbing phosphate fertilizer plants and in other high industry applications, such as aluminum.

Furthermore, while fluoride is scheduled for reduction in public water supplies, it is still very common and often dangerously concentrated in many food products at levels of many more parts per million than water and in pesticides used for food production, and in the soils where those pesticides are used.

Though these other fluoride dangers are significant enough that we need to continue educating and informing our fellow friends, neighbors and families, those who have long spoken out about this issue can cherish one victory on the road to taking back our nation, our lives and our health. Now, with this important government admission, we must push for complete removal of added fluoride from public water in our areas.

Further, as advisors to government bodies around the world attempt to argue for forced mass-medication by adding substances like lithium to public water, we must argue against ‘forced consent’ and demand one of our most integral human rights– that no government of man can make a law to force medicate us against our will. We have a human right to say no, especially when we know better.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CC9321A0B6F3E6F7

 
 
 
 
 

An Untested Type of Fluoride Is Used in the Overwhelming Majority of U.S. Water Supplies - Monday, January 10, 2011

In a recent article in the journal NeuroToxicology, a research team led by Roger D. Masters, Dartmouth College Research Professor and Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government Emeritus, reports evidence that public drinking water treated with sodium silicofluoride or fluosilicic acid, known as silicofluorides (SiFs), is linked to higher uptake of lead in children.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/01/untested-type-of-fluoride-used-in-vast.html

Dartmouth University wrote in 2001:

In a recent article in the journal NeuroToxicology, a research team led by Roger D. Masters, Dartmouth College Research Professor and Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government Emeritus, reports evidence that public drinking water treated with sodium silicofluoride or fluosilicic acid, known as silicofluorides (SiFs), is linked to higher uptake of lead in children.

Sodium fluoride, first added to public drinking water in 1945, is now used in less than 10% of fluoridation systems nationwide, according to the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) 1992 Fluoridation Census. Instead, SiF's are now used to treat drinking water delivered to 140 million people. While sodium fluoride was tested on animals and approved for human consumption, the same cannot be said for SiFs.

Masters and his collaborator Myron J. Coplan, a consulting chemical engineer, formerly Vice President of Albany International Corporation, led the team that has now studied the blood lead levels in over 400,000 children in three different samples. In each case, they found a significant link between SiF-treated water and elevated blood lead levels.

"We should stop using silicofluorides in our public water supply until we know what they do," said Masters. Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency have told Masters and Coplan that the EPA has no information on health effects of chronic ingestion of SiF-treated water.

***

Also requiring further examination is German research that shows SiFs inhibit cholinesterase, an enzyme that plays an important role in regulating neurotransmitters.

"If SiFs are cholinesterase inhibitors, this means that SiFs have effects like the chemical agents linked to Gulf War Syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome and other puzzling conditions that plague millions of Americans," said Masters. "We need a better understanding of how SiFs behave chemically and physiologically."

Here is Masters' scientific paper on SiFs (also called "fluosilicic acid" and "fluorosilicic acid").

STATEMENT OF Dr. J. WILLIAM HIRZY
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
UNION CHAPTER 280
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND DRINKING WATER
UNITED STATES SENATE
JUNE 29, 2000

Tell me after listening to this statement that Fluoride is just a simple non-toxic chemical!
-Alan



Where does this compound come from?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program, reported in 2001:

Sodium hexafluorosilicate is produced by treating fluorosilicic acid with sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, or sodium chloride; alkalinity is adjusted to avoid the release of the fluoride. Fluorosilicic acid is mainly produced as a byproduct of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers where phosphate rock is treated with sulfuric acid.

***
The major use of sodium hexafluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid is as fluoridation agents for drinking water.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey:

An estimated 40,000 tons of fluorosilicic acid (equivalent to about 70,000 tons of 92%
fluorspar) was recovered from phosphoric acid plants processing phosphate rock. Fluorosilicic acid was used primarily in water fluoridation, either directly or after processing into sodium silicofluoride.

The USGS also noted in a 2000 report:

Fluorosilicic acid is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry and is not manufactured for itself alone ...

In other words, even though neither the EPA or any other government agency has studied the effects of long-term ingestion of fluorosilicic acid, it is being used instead of sodium fluoride because it is cheaper.

As Edward Urbansky from the EPA's Office of Research and Development, National Risk management Research Laboratory, Water Supply and Water Resources Division wrote in 2002:

The most common fluoridating agents used by American waterworks are sodium fluoride (NaF), hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), and sodium hexafluorosilicate
(Na2SiF6) as shown in Figure 1.14 Although 25% of the utilities reported using NaF, this corresponds to only 9.2% of the U.S. population drinking fluoride-supplemented tap water. ... The cost savings in using fluorosilicates result in large systems using those additives instead.

***

In the United States, the primary sources of fluoridating agents are rocky mineral deposits containing mixtures of fluorite and apatite; the fluoridating agent itself is produced as a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer manufacture.

***
The EPA is aware of papers positing links between fluoridation agents and lead in the bloodstream or challenging the accepted chemistry. To truly investigate such hypotheses, better chemical knowledge of the speciation is required.

And see this.

Friday, January 7, 2011

Government To Reduce Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water Because Too Much Fluoride Can Cause Health Problems

 Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a reduction in allowable fluoride levels in U.S. drinking water:

HHS’ proposed recommendation of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water replaces the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. This updated recommendation is based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects.

As AP notes:

A scientific report five years ago said that people who consume a lifetime of too much fluoride — an amount over EPA's limit of 4 milligrams — can lead to crippling bone abnormalities and brittleness.

That and other research issued Friday by the EPA about health effects of fluoride are sure to re-energize groups that still oppose adding it to water supplies.

***

In March, 2006, the National Academy of Sciences released a report recommending that the EPA lower its maximum standard for fluoride in drinking water to below 4 milligrams. The report warned severe fluorosis could occur at 2 milligrams. Also, a majority of the report's authors said a lifetime of drinking water with fluoride at 4 milligrams or higher could raise the risk of broken bones.

Late last year, lawyers for the Fluoride Action Network, Beyond Pesticides, and Environmental Working Group threatened legal action if the EPA did not lower its ceiling on fluoride.

In Europe, fluoride is rarely added to water supplies. In Britain, only about 10 percent of the population has fluoridated water. It's been a controversial issue there, with critics arguing people shouldn't be forced to have "medical treatment" forced on them.

Some scientists also have found that fluoride can cause damage to children's liver and kidneys, and to other parts of the body as well.

Here is the 2006 National Academy of Science report discussed above. The report reviews the scientific studies which have been performed on fluoride, and concludes:

It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means. (bottom of page 222).

The NAS report also notes that fluoride may actually impair intelligence, and that more testing should be done in this regard.

Indeed, studies from around the world continue to find that exposure to sodium fluoride - especially in the very young - lowers IQ. See this and this. The same is true for rats exposed to fluoride. See this and this. And see the studies listed here.

Dr. Vyvyan Howard - a PhD fetal pathologist, who is a professor of developmental toxico-pathology at the University of Liverpool and University of Ulster, president of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment and former president of the Royal Microscopical Society and the International Society for Stereology, and general editor of the Journal of Microscopy - said in a 2008 Canadian television interview (short, worthwhile video at the link) that studies done in several countries show that children’s IQ are likely to be lower in high natural water fluoride areas.

He said that these studies are plausible because fluoride is known to affect the thyroid hormone which affects intelligence and fluoride is also a known neurotoxicant. Such studies have not been conducted in countries that artificially fluoridate the water such as the US, UK and Canada, but should be, he said.

And as the International Business Times noted last month on the newest Chinese study on fluoride:
Exposure to fluoride may lower children's intelligence, says a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Fluoride is added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies.

***

About 28 percent of the children in the low-fluoride area scored as bright, normal or higher intelligence compared to only 8 percent in the "high" fluoride area of Wamaio.

In the high-fluoride city, 15 percent had scores indicating mental retardation and only 6 percent in the low-fluoride city. The authors of the study eliminated both lead exposure and iodine deficiency as possible causes for the lowered IQs.

One scientist - Jennifer Luke - alleged in a 2001 scientific article that fluoride accumulates in the brain (specifically, in the structure of the pineal gland) more than it accumulates in our bones. In other words, she implies that fluoride may accumulate more in the brain than in the teeth, doing more harm than good (here's Luke's 1997 PhD dissertation on the topic.)

The 2006 National Academy of Sciences report corroborates some of Luke's allegations:
As with other calcifying tissues, the pineal gland can accumulate fluoride (Luke 1997, 2001). Fluoride has been shown to be present in the pineal glands of older people (14-875 mg of fluoride per kg of gland in persons aged 72-100 years), with the fluoride concentrations being positively related to the calcium concentrations in the pineal gland, but not to the bone fluoride, suggesting that pineal fluoride is not necessarily a function of cumulative fluoride exposure of the individual (Luke 1997, 2001). Fluoride has not been measured in the pineal glands of children or young adults, nor has there been any investigation of the relationship between pineal fluoride concentrations and either recent or cumulative fluoride intakes.
Donald Miller - cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington - alleges:
Fluoride disrupts enzymes (by altering their hydrogen bonds) and prevents them from doing their job of making proteins, collagen in particular, the structural protein for bone and teeth, ligaments, tendons, and muscles. It damages DNA repair enzymes and inhibits the enzyme acetylcholinesterase in the brain, which is involved in transmitting signals along nerve cells. All cells in the body depend on enzymes. Consequently, fluoride can have widespread deleterious effects in multiple organ systems.

***

Studies show that the rates of bone cancer are substantially higher in fluoridated areas, particularly in boys. [See this.] Other cancers, of the head and neck, GI tract, pancreas, and lungs, have a 10 percent higher incidence. Fluoride affects the thyroid gland and causes hypothyroidism, which is also an increasingly frequent disorder in the US. Other studies show that high levels of fluoride in drinking water are associated with birth defects and early infant mortality.

Fluoride also damages the brain, both directly and indirectly. Rats given fluoridated water at a dose of 4 ppm develop symptoms resembling attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. High concentrations of fluoride accumulate in the pineal gland, which produces serotonin and melatonin. Young girls who drink fluoridated water reach puberty six months earlier than those who drink unfluoridated water, which is thought to be a result of reduced melatonin production. People with Alzheimer's disease have high levels of aluminum in their brains. Fluoride combines with aluminum in drinking water and takes it through the blood-brain barrier into the brain. Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD, a neurosurgeon, spells out in chilling detail the danger fluoride poses to one's brain and health in general in his book Health and Nutrition Secrets that can Save Your Life (2002).

Time Magazine notes:

What has also changed is how much toxicologists know about the harmful effects of fluoride compounds. Ingested in high doses, fluoride is indisputably toxic; it was once commonly used in rat poison. Hydrogen fluoride is regulated as a hazardous pollutant in emissions from chemical plants and has been linked to respiratory illness. Even in toothpaste, sodium fluoride is a health concern. In 1997 the Food and Drug Administration toughened the warning on every tube to read, "If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a poison-control center right away."

And see PhD chemist Joel Kauffman's review of fluoride in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Note: While the U.S. is reducing fluoride levels in water, some have proposed adding it to salt and to milk. For example, as the International Dental Journal reported in 2005:
Alternatives to automatic fluoridation by means of water fluoridation are salt fluoridation [and] milk fluoridation ... and the WHO Oral Health Programme is currently undertaking evaluation of demonstration projects in several countries.
(page 358).




Calgary removing fluoride from water supply - Wednesday, February 09, 2011


CBC News | Calgary city council has voted 10-3 in favor of removing fluoride from the city’s drinking water.
February 9, 2011

Calgary city council has voted 10-3 in favour of removing fluoride from the city’s drinking water. Two members of council, Mayor Naheed Nenshi and Ald. Brian Pincott, were out of town during Tuesday’s vote. Earlier in the day, city council considered and rejected by a vote of 8-5 putting the fluoride issue to a plebiscite during the 2013 municipal election. Council also rejected the idea of referring the matter to an expert panel


Calgary fluoride debate delayed to Jan. 26 to allow more input - Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Calgary Herald | Council will delay deciding on the future of fluoride in Calgary’s water system until a public hearing later this month.

Jason Markusoff
Calgary Herald
January 11, 2011

Council will delay deciding on the future of fluoride in Calgary's water system until a public hearing later this month, but one aldermen questions whether members' minds are already made up and that a hearing would be largely ceremonial.

Ten of 15 aldermen had lent signatures to a motion Monday that would have ended Calgary's 20 years of fluoridation without any formal public input.
But amid deluges of hundreds of e-mails and calls from across North America on the divisive issue last week, as well as criticism from the mayor, council decided a Jan. 26 hearing will let experts and residents hash out the debate that mixes health, science and ethics.

As they embraced the idea of a hearing, many aldermen expressed their determination to remove the additive from city water -- a juxtaposition Ald. Gael MacLeod found upsetting.

"What is the point of . . . having a debate if no one is listening?" she asked in council.
"The purpose of having a public hearing is to become informed, and what I hear is a lot of council members saying they have the information they want," MacLeod told the Herald later.

"I don't hear much of anything that sounds like people are open to changing their minds or to getting more information."
MacLeod said last week she's unsure on her stance.

Ald. Jim Stevenson offered a rebuttal to MacLeod, but at the same time signalled he has never been swayed by the medical establishment's steady support of fluoride in water to prevent tooth decay.

"I am open, but I'll tell you that over the last 30 years, nothing has convinced me to change my mind," he said.

Two members, Brian Pincott and John Mar, said council should have decided right away and didn't need to seek public input.

Both strongly oppose fluoride treatment in Calgary's water, and said the provincial authorities who advocate for it should pay for it.

Of the members who weren't behind the anti-fluoride motion, only Ald. Gord Lowe voiced any sort of determined stance to maintain the city's current water treatment.

The debate has lumbered through Calgary politics for five decades, with a string of plebiscites, including the 1989 vote that endorsed fluoridation, and a pitch made by Ald. Druh Farrell in 2009 that failed 7-6 in council.

Farrell delayed her renewed proposal Monday, arguing: "People want the opportunity to express their point of view."
She said the two sides of the debate have stopped listening to each other, but she argued the anti-fluoride forces have become more persuasive and gathered more evidence in recent years.

While the ethical question over mass medication via the water supply has long been a pivotal concern by anti-fluoridation advocates, various medical studies over the years have argued fluoride can cause everything from weaker bones to lower intelligence in children.
Dr. Richard Musto of Alberta Health Services acknowledged such studies exist but noted that countries regularly review the information and always conclude that the low fluoride dosage in water is safe and beneficial.

"You have the appearance of disagreement, the appearance of debate, when in fact all of the major health and dental authorities in the world support it," Musto said. "However, we're all going to get our five minutes."

Mayor Naheed Nenshi, who wasn't among the 10 council members eager to ditch fluoridation, said he'll be at a mayors' gathering in Regina and miss this month's fluoride hearing.

At least one alderman's views have changed: Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart supported keeping fluoride in the city's water in 2009, but she now stands alongside Farrell against it and said Calgary doesn't need it.

Although she said a public hearing is necessary on this hot-button issue, Colley-Urquhart offered a grim view of how it would unfold.
"It will probably be evenly divided, and everyone trashes the others' science," the alderman and registered nurse said.
There's mixed view on a plebiscite, with many aldermen against bringing it to another citywide vote.
jmarkusoff@calgaryherald.com


MORE INFO

Man Dies After House Fumigated With Same Fluoride Compound Sprayed On Food

 

A man found dead in a house in San Jose, California, Monday was believed to have been killed by a toxic fluoride compound used to fumigate the residence, the same fluoride compound that has found its way into many foods with government approval.

Known insecticide toxin was approved for use on fruits, nuts sold to Americans

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Wednesday, Jan 19th, 2011

A man found dead in a house in San Jose, California, Monday was believed to have been killed by a toxic fluoride compound used to fumigate the residence, the same fluoride compound that has found its way into many foods with government approval.

The 45-year-old man, who remains unnamed, was overcome with toxic fumes after breaking into a house covered with a protective tent.

Employees from the exterminator company found the man’s body when they returned to the residence the following morning.

The man had either ignored or missed signs all around the house that warned of the presence of toxic sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2), otherwise known as Vikane, a chemical used to completely rid buildings of pests.

Man Dies After House Fumigated With Same Fluoride Compound Sprayed On Food 190111fluoride

The screenshots above, from a KTVU news report, clearly indicate that Vikane is a deadly poison.

Indeed, the chemical compound is a known human toxin that can cause hypotension, nausea, pulmonary edema, cardiac dysrhythmia, metabolic acidosis, and, as the unidentified man in San Jose unfortunately discovered, even death.

However, despite this common fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knowingly approved the same deadly compound to be used to spray various food items, including nuts and dried fruits, in order to ward off pests.

Vikane was only recently banned following a petition filed by a coalition of activists including the Fluoride Action Network.


The EPA agreed with the groups’ position that the insecticide and food fumigant is a significant public health risk because it exposes children to excessive levels of toxic fluoride, and because it is a known toxin, reports Natural News today.

“This step by EPA is not only significant in regard to the particular pesticide tolerances involved,” said Perry Wallace, professor of law at American University, and contributor to the petition efforts. “As a regulatory confirmation of our positions regarding the potential health effects of fluoride, it also has considerable precedential value for future initiatives to address this major area of concern.”

Last week we highlighted the fact that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has recommended reducing levels of fluoride added to tap water by up to 42%, following intense lobbying from grassroots action groups.

For decades, people who raised concerns about fluoride being added to tap water or food were dismissed as crazy,” said Ken Cook, President of the Environmental Working Group (EWG). “All of a sudden we have two federal regulatory actions, announced just days apart, that tell us what was really crazy all those years: a government bureaucracy that ignored strong scientific evidence and clear warning signs of the threats fluoride has posed to public health all along.”

Think about this. The government knowing allowed these toxic poisons, which are commonly used to exterminate unwanted pests, to be added to food and water. There are many many more that are still being added.



Petitions lead to EPA ban on toxic sulfuryl fluoride

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted a petition filed by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Beyond Pesticides, to stop the commercial use of sulfuryl fluoride in food.


Jonathan Benson
Natural News
Jan 19, 2011

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted a petition filed by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Beyond Pesticides, to stop the commercial use of sulfuryl fluoride in food. The EPA agreed with the groups’ position that the insecticide and food fumigant is a significant public health risk because it exposes children to excessive levels of toxic fluoride, and because it is a known toxin.

The decision follows a similar one made by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reduce recommended maximum fluoride levels in tap water from 1.2 to 0.7 parts per million (ppm), a 42 percent decrease. Together, the two decisions represent a significant landmark victory in helping to rid the food and water supply of toxic fluoride additives.

“For decades, people who raised concerns about fluoride being added to tap water or food were dismissed as crazy,” said Ken Cook, President of EWG. “All of a sudden we have two federal regulatory actions, announced just days apart, that tell us what was really crazy all those years: a government bureaucracy that ignored strong scientific evidence and clear warning signs of the threats fluoride has posed to public health all along

Sulfuryl fluoride had been approved as a replacement for methyl bromide to fumigate various food items, including nuts and dried fruits, in order to ward off pests. But sulfuryl fluoride is a known human toxin that can cause hypotension, nausea, pulmonary edema, cardiac dysrhythmia, metabolic acidosis, and even death.

“This step by EPA is not only significant in regard to the particular pesticide tolerances involved,” added Perry Wallace, professor of law at American University, and contributor to the petition efforts. “As a regulatory confirmation of our positions regarding the potential health effects of fluoride, it also has considerable precedential value for future initiatives to address this major area of concern.”

Sources for this story include:

http://www.ewg.org/release/epa-bar-…

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/ab…

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/…

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/…



Major Agro-Chemical Company Says Removal Of Toxic Fluoride From Foods Actually Threatens Americans’ Health

 

A major agricultural chemical company says it is not in the best interests of Americans for the EPA to ban the use of a toxic fluoride compound in the processing of food supplies

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Jan 20, 2011

A major agricultural chemical company says it is not in the best interests of Americans for the EPA to ban the use of a toxic fluoride compound in the processing of food supplies.

Dow AgroSciences, a subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company, says it is “disappointed” that the EPA has announced a phase out of the use of sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2) as a pesticide, commonly used to fumigate nuts and fruits for US consumption.

Indeed, Dow says that the move will actually detract from US public health goals.

“The Food Quality Protection Act is intended to protect the food supply,” Howell added. “If implemented, EPA’s proposal would actually threaten food quality protection. Surely, we can find a better policy solution for agriculture and public health.”

The Fluoride Action Network would beg to differ, however, after having successfully lobbied the EPA into admitting there is a case that the insecticide and food fumigant is a significant public health risk because it exposes children to excessive levels of toxic fluoride, and because it is a known toxin.

The chemical compound can cause hypotension, nausea, pulmonary edema, cardiac dysrhythmia, metabolic acidosis, and even death.

Yesterday we reported on a case in San Jose where a man was killed through exposure to the chemical, which is commonly used to fumigate buildings. Signs all around the property indicated that sulfuryl fluoride is a deadly poison.

The action groups involved in petitioning the EPA noted that the chemical is part of a bombardment of fluoride based compounds that have been added to food and water supplies.

Last week we highlighted the fact that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has recommended reducing levels of fluoride added to tap water by up to 42%, following intense lobbying from grassroots action groups.

For decades, people who raised concerns about fluoride being added to tap water or food were dismissed as crazy,” said Ken Cook, President of the Environmental Working Group (EWG). “All of a sudden we have two federal regulatory actions, announced just days apart, that tell us what was really crazy all those years: a government bureaucracy that ignored strong scientific evidence and clear warning signs of the threats fluoride has posed to public health all along.”

Of course, it should come as no surprise that Dow is disappointed with the EPA’s decision, given that a large percentage of its profit margin comes directly from the production of insecticides, including sulfuryl fluoride.

When it is not producing weapons grade *****nium with little regard for the environment, or selling napalm and Agent Orange to the US military, the company is also controversially involved in the production and sales of genetically modified plant seeds. Given the company’s history and current activity, why should any sane American believe Dow has his or her best interests at heart when it comes to their well being?