Joseph M. Price, MD - "Chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times. It is an insidious poison."

Albert Schatz, Ph.D - "Fluoridation  is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has." Professor Albert Schatz, Ph.D. (Microbiology), Discoverer of streptomycin and Nobel Prize Winner

CDC Covering Up Serious Hazards of Water Fluoridation

Dr. Mercola - "In 2005, eleven unions within the EPA publicly called for a ban of water fluoridation, over concerns that it may cause bone cancer. And in 2006, the American Dental Association warned mothers about using fluoridated water to mix their powdered baby formula.  Now, finally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is developing software to try to assess just how much fluoride you’re ingesting, citing new findings that cumulative fluoride intake might lead to painful skeletal fluorosis. Yet despite long-standing, ever-mounting evidence of fluoride's hazard to human health, the CDC still clings to its outdated recommendation to add fluoride to drinking water in order to protect your oral health. Even though it was a lie, right from the start. 

90 percent of the fluoride added to your drinking water is hydrofluoric acid -- a compound of fluorine that is a chemical byproduct of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing. Fluoride is also the active toxin in rat poisons and cockroach powder. It is nothing but a carcinogenic industrial waste product, passed off on the public as a “nutrient” with necessary health benefits, to benefit the nuclear arms, aluminum, and phosphate manufacturers financially, to the tune of about $ 10 billion per year. Aided, of course, by your federal health agencies, controlled by political interest." source

CANCER ON TAP: THE RISKS OF CHLORINATED DRINKING WATER

By Paul Fleckenstein (pflecken@zoo.uvm.edu)

 The History of Water Chlorination: From Harmless to Poisonous

By the early 1920's, cities across the United States were for the first time providing municipal water customers with safe drinking water. This historic achievement was the result of water plant operators mixing in chlorine, a spectacularly powerful killing agent, which eliminated disease causing bacteria, viruses, and other microbes. Today over 200 million people in the U.S. use chlorinated tap water.

As with many novel chemical innovations, however, what was once thought perfectly harmless has turned out to be poisonous. Over the past 25 years, scientists have discovered that while chlorine is killing microbes, it is also reacting with organic matter already in the water to form toxic chemicals called organochlorines. To date, several hundred known organochlorines have been found in drinking water but many times that number are chemically unidentified.

Federal government monitoring programs show that many U.S. cities, including this writer's hometown, Burlington, Vermont, have elevated levels of organochlorines at the tap--concentrations substantially higher than most public water systems. This is especially disconcerting because numerous of these organochlorines (also known as disinfection by-products) are known carcinogens and mutagens. Epidemiological research has also directly linked chlorinated drinking water to cancer and possibly miscarriages.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently enacted marginally stronger regulations to control disinfection by-products that are scheduled to take effect in 2002. There will be new standards for trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids, which are two groups of organochlorines that account for one-quarter to one-half the total organochlorine content of tap water. Regulators use these two easily tested for groups as indicators of total organochlorine concentration. How safe the standards are is unclear, but it is clear that the regulations reflect an accommodating view toward organochlorines.

Drinking water chlorination is a difficult regulatory area because killing waterborne pathogens has huge public health benefits to weigh against harms. But as with the thousands of other organochlorine chemicals released into the environment, from dioxins and dry cleaning solvents to pesticides, however, industry officials and regulators operate with an innocent until proven guilty prejudice. Even though virtually every organochlorine tested has been shown to have one or more toxic properties according to the American Public Health Association, regulation procedes to various degrees with the requirement of proven harms before substantial government action to reduce exposure. The problem is that harms from long-term and/or low level exposure to environmental toxins such as disinfection by-products are very difficult or impossible to conclusively find when they exist.

II. Making New Toxins: How Chlorination Creates Organochlorines

Like most drinking water in the U.S., Burlington's water comes from a surface water source, that is, a lake or river. Vermont's Lake Champlain, like many lakes and rivers, is rich in invisible organic matter produced by decaying leaves and algae. During disinfection chlorine randomly attaches to this organic matter to form thousands of new chemicals called organochlorines. The organochlorine typically found at the highest concentration is the carcinogen chloroform, which is a combination of chlorine and methane. Chloroform is one of several compounds known as trihalomethanes that is formed by adding chlorine to methane.

Chloroform illustrates the salient feature of chlorination or reacting chlorine with organic matter: the organochlorine is toxic. "Chlorination virtually always increases toxicity," explains molecular biologist Joe Thornton author of the recently published book Pandora's Poison on organochlorines in the environment. "Consider the trihalomethanes. Methane is not toxic or carcinogenic or mutagenic. The trihalomethanes are."

For most life on the planet, including humans, organochlorines are new to the environment. According to Thornton, some plants and animals, mostly algae and microorganisms, produce organochlorines. These natural organochlorines generally serve as chemical deterrents to predators and parasites. They virtually always occur in minute amounts and are always produced in tightly regulated processes to prevent toxic environmental effects. Only one naturally occurring organochlorine is known to generally circulate in the biosphere. Our current continuous exposure to thousands of organochlorines is radically unnatural. Free chlorine (as in chlorine gas or laundry bleach) and organochlorines have been produced in massively increasing amounts only over the last 100 years. Though water disinfection accounts for only a few percent of total global organochlorine production, the effect on human health is proportionately greater because exposure to chlorinated drinking water is large and continuous. It is piped right into our homes.

III. The Search for Health Effects: The Art of Risk Assessment

It hardly requires more than a few minutes of browsing EPA documents on disinfection by-products to discover a great shortage of information on health effects. This lack of information would be astonishing to anyone assuming standards for disinfection by-products were set at demonstrably safe levels. The EPA disinfection by-product rule acknowledges that risk assessment "relies on inherently difficult and preliminary empirical analysis." Animal studies are very incomplete. Not a single by-product chemical has been assessed for the range of possible effects, including cancer, reproductive toxicity, neurological damage, and immune system disruption. The animal data available for a handful of chemicals has uncertain relevance for humans. Lastly, the EPA notes that single chemical testing on animals is "insufficient" to characterize the risks from exposure to a mix of thousands of organochlorines in chlorinated drinking water. There is evidence that organochlorines can have synergistic effects in which a combination of chemicals is disproportionately more toxic in a mixture.

Most research attention goes to the identified compounds that occur at relatively high concentrations, like trihalomethanes or haloacetic acids, both of which are toxic in animals. Other hazardous organochlorines in drinking water may be unknown or completely unstudied. One recently discovered compound called MX, which is present at only a fraction (one-tenth of one percent) of the concentration of the trihalomethanes, is a potent carcinogen in rodents. Research suggests that MX may be responsible for up to one-half of the mutagenic effects of chlorinated drinking water.

A growing number of studies have linked chlorinated drinking water to cancer and reproductive harms in humans. The most respected cancer study is a compilation of 10 separate epidemiological studies on chlorinated drinking water and cancer known at the Morris study. It found disinfection by-products in chlorinated water to be responsible for 9% of all bladder cancers and 15% of rectal cancers in the U.S. This translates into 10,000 additional deaths per year for just these two organs, a figure the Morris researchers believe to be an under-estimate.

A 1998 California Department of Health Study found that pregnant women with high exposure to chlorinated drinking water nearly doubled their risk of miscarriage, from a rate of 9.5% to 16%. The at-risk group drank water with greater than 75 parts per billion trihalomethanes (which is in the range of Burlington's water). A part per billion is a grain of salt in a swimming pool. Several other studies have found linkages to miscarriages and also to neural tube birth defects. According to the EPA's Stig Regli at the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, the results of reproductive studies are less convincing than cancer studies. Results have been inconsistent and more studies are needed. There is currently an attempt underway to replicate the California study.

While the EPA denies that there is "conclusive" causation linking chlorinated drinking water and health effects, the point is not reassuring. Strict conclusiveness in which a particular chemical is proved to cause a certain illness is difficult or impossible to achieve. Organochlorines in the water are always present in a complex mixture, so no single chemical can be singled out as responsible for a disease. While the California study linked trihalomethane levels to increased miscarriages, this wouldn't implicate trihalomethanes specifically since the toxic effects may be from other disinfection by-products, or a combination of trihalomethanes and other chemicals. In addition, long-term health effects may take decades or generations to show up. Health effects could also be subtle (for instance, immune suppression, reduced fertility or neurological damage) that may be impossible to consistently clinically identify. Finally, diseases induced by disinfection by-products may arise from other causes as well, so unless the relative contribution of by-product chemicals is very large, it is impossible to detect with confidence. The effect of all the factors (genetic, diet, exposure to other pollutants) in addition to the one under study, such as chlorinated drinking water, tends to obscure causal relationships.

"Epidemiology is a very insensitive measure," according to David Ozanoff, Chairman of the Department of Environmental Health at the Boston University of Public Health. Ozanoff is a member of the EPA rule-making committee that produced the new disinfection by-product standards. The insensitivity of measures to assess health impacts means that there uncertainty about actual risks says Ozanoff and that there is "lots of reason to be concerned at levels around the current [2002] standard."

Joe Thornton sees the regulatory concern with conclusive evidence as misplaced: "To require conclusive epidemiological evidence before we can judge health to be at risk makes sense only if science can provide such evidence whenever damage is taking place." A lack of certainty may reflect inherent limits of assessing health effects as much as whether or not there are health effects.

Another member of the EPA rule-making committee, Erik Olson, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, acknowledges that there may be problems with the current regulatory strategy: "In thirty years we may slap our heads and say we can't believe we didn't do anything about this!" Olson argues that there is already adequate evidence for still lower standards based on a "pretty strong linkage to cancer and a growing indication that there is a connection to birth defects and miscarriages."

According to Thornton, the history of public health standards for lead provides a classic example of over-confident standard setting. In the 1920s toxicologists determined that 80 micrograms per deciliter of blood was a safe threshold for lead contamination. This standard was based on the levels in men with severe lead poisoning. As late as 1968 leading toxicologists stated that 80 micrograms was a safe level. But beginning in the 1970s, as more sophisticated research began to produce more data showing harms, the threshold of safety began to fall. It declined to 60 in the 1970s, to 25 in the 1980s, and to 10 in the 1990's. There is now research indicating that levels below 10 may impair cognitive development and that there may be no safe level of lead in our bodies at all.

Ozanoff argues that there are reasons to think that there is also no threshold of safety for disinfection by-products. He does think that that reducing levels will reduce harms, however, since there is likely a linear relationship between exposure and disease–that is, there are higher and lower risks caused by higher and lower exposure.

In addition, it is important to recognize that the EPA did not set the standard for disinfection by-products in drinking water based only on their health effects. The standard was set based on a balance of factors including health effects, but also including the economic cost to water utilities of reducing disinfection by-products with advanced treatment technologies (potentially large) and the benefits of killing pathogens with chlorine (undeniably substantial).

Olson believes that the decision on standards was overly weighted in favor of chlorination benefits. "It doesn't have to be a trade off between disinfection by-products and microbiological safety. It is no longer accurate to say that decreasing disinfection by-products increases microbiological health risks." He points to new treatment technologies, such as microfiltration and carbon filters to remove organic compounds before disinfection (thus leaving chlorine with less to react with to form organochlorines) and alternative disinfection technologies to kill pathogens like UV light and ozone. He expects that the costs of advanced treatment technologies will drop substantially and that water systems will become more sophisticated in various other operational strategies to reduce disinfection by-products.

IV. Assessing Your Water and Treatment Alternatives

According to the EPA, most exposure (80%) to disinfection by-products occurs through drinking the water (including its use with coffee, tea, juice concentrates, and soups). But people are also exposed through a variety of other activities since disinfection by-products enter the body through inhalation and skin absorption. Additional exposure occurs through bathing and showering, humidifiers, cooking, washing dishes, dishwashers, and swimming in chlorinated pools. Researchers have found greatly elevated levels of the disinfection by-product chloroform in swimmers' blood after leaving the pool.

An effective kitchen sink activated carbon filter, costing between $200 and $300, can remove organochlorines from drinking and cooking water, but other exposures remain. For this reason, it makes a lot of sense not to create organochlorines at the water treatment plant to begin with.

Disinfection by-products in chlorinated water coming from nutrient-rich surface water sources such as Lake Champlain are often relatively high since the source water contains a large amount of organic matter. Over the past three years, annual average disinfection by-products levels in Burlington, for instance, were as high as 70 parts per billion (ppb) trihalomethanes and 61 ppb haloacetic acids. The EPA's new standards for trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids are 80 ppb and 60 ppb, respectively.]

For comparison EPA figures show that most public water systems in the U.S. have lower levels. Surface water systems have median concentrations of 40 ppb for trihalomethanes and 25 ppb for haloacetic acids. For ground water systems, the median values are 10 ppb for trihalomethanes and 5 ppb for haloacetic acids. People drinking non-chlorinated water from a household well or spring would have no trihalomethanes or haloacetic acids in their water.

To obtain the concentration of organochlorines or disinfection by-products in your city's water, contact your local water utility. Test results for many larger cities are available from the EPA at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/icr/icr_query.html.

One of Burlington's water utilities, the Champlain Water District (CWD), provides some examples of steps that can be taken to reduce disinfection by-product levels. CWD has implemented non-chlorine control methods for zebra mussels on intake pipes and reduced the time treated water (continually forming disinfection by-products while waiting to be used) sits in storage tanks before going to the tap. Along with better management of chlorine disinfection at the plant, these steps have steadily reduced by-product levels (both averages and peaks) over the past three years.

One aspect of reducing by-product levels is also reducing seasonal variation. Warm weather levels may be as much as 50% higher. Some possible health risks identified by the EPA such as miscarriages and birth defects may be influenced by seasonal variation occurring during key periods of fetal development during pregnancy.

CWD has also researched switching to ozone for disinfection and is embarking on the development of a 10-year master plan that may include other alternative treatment options such as UV disinfection. CWD treatment practices to date, however, do not include treatment technologies such as microfiltration and carbon filters (for removing organic matter), or disinfectants like UV and ozone that may deliver large disinfection by-product reductions. Twenty large water systems in the U.S. use ozone for disinfection instead of chlorine, but UV and advanced filtration technologies are not commonly used by public water systems.

Many public health officials and water system operators in the U.S. are opposed to no chlorine at all, especially in the distribution system where there is risk of accidental re-contamination. But if small amounts of chlorine were added just to prevent pathogen growth in distribution systems following improved filtration and non-chlorine disinfection, this could contribute to less use of chlorine and a large reduction of organochlorines in our water.

Source

	Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd - "I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd is  the former president of the American Medical Association  Fluoride and fluoridation will go down as one of the greatest controversies of the 20th century. Up until the early 1940's, fluorine's effect on life was always deemed poisonous. It was proven to be altering enzymes used by living organisms to carry out a multitude of essential processes. Fluorine, the most reactive element on the planet, is also the strongest free radical. Scientists in the 1930's and 1940's experimented with this element to create the most deadly nerve gasses, rocket fuel, and radioactive U235 for the bomb. As a wood preservative, rodentcide and insecticide, fluorine compounds are second to none. As an Orthodontist, I began investigating the increasingly prevalent lines and spots that I saw on the enamel of children. Like rings on a tree, they indicate excessive fluorine exposure. I started to ask the question, "How does fluorine cause these marks?" Chronic doses of fluoride, like arsenic and lead, accumulate in our bodies causing a blockage in the way cells breathe and leads to the malformation of collagen. Cancer, diabetes, thyroid and neurological disorders, hormonal imbalances, heart disease, arthritis and osteoporosis have all been linked to chronic fluoride ingestion. We are now exposed to increasing doses of fluoride from toothpaste, rinses, water, food, medicines, showering, bathing, and even the air that we breathe. Our environment has become a literal fluoride dumping ground. This book explores many chronic diseases that plague man today and looks at the scientists that connected these diseases to chronic exposures of fluoride.Read
	In The Fluoride Deception video, Christopher Bryson, an award-winning journalist and former producer at the BBC, discusses the findings of his new book The Flouride Deception. "Bryson marshals an impressive amount of research to demonstrate fluoride's harmfulness, the ties between leading fluoride researchers and the corporations who funded and benefited from their research, and what he says is the duplicity with which fluoridation was sold to the people. The result is a compelling challenge to the reigning dental orthodoxy, which should provoke.Read
	Fluoridation of water has been used for the prevention of tooth decay for over fifty years. During this time little research has been done to ascertain whether it works. The chemicals used are classified as toxic industrial waste, yet no study has ever been conducted into their safety for human consumption. At the same time, research has uncovered serious side effects including deaths, cancer, skeletal fluorosis, osteoporosis, dementia, lowered IQ, kidney damage and even increased dental decay. Strongly opposed throughout the world, water fluoridation is far less widely accepted than its proponents would have us believe. Only two percent of the people of Western Europe have their water fluoridated - almost all of them within Britain and Ireland. Despite all this, the dental organizations lobby governments to compel everyone to ingest fluoride, whether they want it or not and without regard to possible harm. The vast majority of dentists maintain that fluoride is not debatable. However Barry Groves has assembled evidence to refute every single argument made by the dental establishment in favour of fluoridation. His book is particularly timely as the issue of fluoridation enters the political area once again in both Britain and Ireland. The debate will be vigorous and this book will be at its centre. Read
	Fluoride, Thyroid Disease and Iodine Deficiency  Because of the impact of water fluoridation, increased exposure to heavy metal contamination, herbicides, pesticides and  radioactive pollution, as well as low levels of selenium in soil where crops are grown, the need for iodine in the daily diet is crucial.   Two billion individuals worldwide have insufficient iodine intake, with those in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa particularly affected. Iodine deficiency has many adverse effects on growth and development. These effects are due to inadequate production of thyroid hormone and are termed iodine-deficiency disorders. Iodine deficiency is the most common cause of preventable mental impairment worldwide. There is clear evidence that small amounts of fluoride, at or near levels added to U.S. water supplies, present potential risks to the thyroid gland, according to the National Research Council’s (NRC) first-ever published review of the fluoride/thyroid literature.  Fluoride, in the form of silicofluorides, injected into 2/3 of U.S. public water supplies, ostensibly to reduce tooth decay, was never safety-tested.Read
	John Yiamouylannis is a world-leading authority on the biological effects of fluoride, which include mottling of teeth, premature aging, spontaneous abortion, brittle bones and cancer. Learn how fluoride acts as a chronic poison and how to avoid exposure. The author provides a scathing indictment of corporate and government responsibility in promoting the fable of fluoride as a necessary and safe product for human consumption. Fluoride's positive image in the United States may rest in part on the whitewashing of unwelcome research findings and the firing of scientists who dared question fluoride's benefits. Dr. William Marcus, formerly the chief toxicologist for the EPA's Office of Drinking Water, lost his job in 1991 after he insisted on an unbiased evaluation of fluoride's potential to cause cancer. Marcus fought his dismissal in court, proved that it was politically motivated and eventually won reinstatement. Marcus now declines comment on the episode beyond saying, "I was right about fluoride's carcinogenicity, and now we know that." An investigation by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 1991 supported Marcus' charges, documenting that government scientists had been coerced to change their findings and portray fluoride more favorably. Excerpt from salo Dr Robert Verkerk -  “Fluorides are extremely reactive molecules which have been shown to cause considerable harm in biological systems. They continue to be used by health authorities for a specific medicinal purpose, namely the treatment and prevention of dental caries, yet they have never been subjected to the full risk/benefit analysis which is required in order to bring other drugs to the market. Drinking water medicated with fluoride clearly amounts to government-sponsored use of an unlicenced drug. It is staggering that international bodies such as the United Nations’ Codex Alimentarius Commission could have overruled the substantial scientific concerns about fluoride in infant formula raised by several countries in November’s Codex meeting in Chiang Mai, Thailand and that babies, the most vulnerable members of our society, are made the innocent victims” Dr Robert Verkerk, Executive Director of the Alliance for Natural Health. August 2002 - Belgium becomes the first country in the world to prohibit fluoride supplementsFluoride tablets, fluoride drops and fluoride chewing gum, for decades promoted as the crown jewels of dentistry, are going to be taken off the market because they are poisonous and pose a great risk for physical and psychological health. This has been decided by the Federal Minister of Public Health.   November 2005  - Most of Western Europe has now abandoned fluoridation of water due to a lack of evidence as to its effectiveness and concerns about major side-effects. 98% of Europe is now free of fluoridated water.Read
	The worldwide accumulation of chlorinated organic substances, known as organochlorines, are linked to cancer, immune suppression, infertility, and developmental disorders in humans and severe reproductive, developmental, and immunological impairment in wildlife. Organochlorines originate from the production, use, and disposal of chlorine compounds in chemicals, plastics, paper, metallurgy, water treatment, and other industries. Thornton, a biologist and research fellow at Columbia University's Center for Environmental Research and Conservation and a former research coordinator for Greenpeace, describes the global health hazards posed by organochlorines, the causes and dangers of worldwide organochlorine contamination, and some scientific, political, and societal solutions to implement before it is too late. He presents a "risk paradigm" claiming that current strategies for managing, investigating, and disposing of organochlorines have failed. Thornton offers a safer and environmentally sound alternative based upon the principle of "clean production" using chlorine-free technologies. An eye-opener; recommended for all collections.-Irwin Weintraub, Brooklyn Coll. Lib., NY .Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.Read
	Unfortunately, we live in a world full of toxins. From the air we breath, to the water we drink, to the food we eat, we are inundated with toxins that have no business being in our bodies. On hot summer days we hear newscasters warning us about smog advisories. When we look at the nutritional label on the food in our cabinets we see ingredients that we can't pronounce; and when we turn on our faucets, the water barely tastes like water anymore. Everyday our bodies suffer a constant bombardment of toxins, but with the Essential Cleansing for Perfect Health program, we have the choice to fight back.Read

Serious Health Conditions Caused by Fluoride (Flouride)
Osteoporosis and Arthritis: Scientists at EPA in Washington have declared that there is every reason to believe that the increasing numbers of people with carpal-tunnel syndrome and arthritis-like pains are due to the mass fluoridation of drinking water. On July 9, 1998 the Manchester Guardian reported news of fluoride poisoned water in Central India, from untested wells drilled in the 1980s, causing severe arthritic damage to tens of millions of people -- a national disaster. Fluoride is the most bone seeking element known to mankind. The US Public Health Service has stated that fluoride makes the bones more brittle and dental enamel more porous.
Hip fractures: Drinking fluoridated water will double the number of hip fractures for both older men and women. Extremely low levels of water fluoridation 0.1 ppm still produced statistically significant increased hip fractures. (Bordeaux Study JAMA 1994). According to Dr. J. William Hirzy (vice-president of the NFFE LOCAL 2050, the union representing all scientists at the EPA, Washington, D.C.) there have been 5 epidemiological studies done since 1990, in three different countries, all showing a higher increase in hip fractures in fluoridated communities. Some studies have indicated a 87% higher risk of hip fractures to the elderly in areas where water fluoridation was even below 1.5 ppm. 

Cancer: Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program. Further studies by the New Jersey Department of Health have now confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in bone cancer in young males. Earlier studies had found a 5% increase in all types of cancers in fluoridated communities. In 1981, Dean Burk, for many decades Chief Chemist at the US National Cancer Institute, testified at congressional hearings, reporting that at least 40,000 cancer deaths in 1981 were attributable to fluoride. 40,000 cases that could have been prevented simply by NOT putting industry waste into the public water supply. Burk stated that fluoride causes more cancer, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.

Thyroid disorder  Fluoride, Thyroid Disease and Iodine Deficiency

Infertility: Infertilityin women was found to increase with water fluoridation. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists reported a close correlation between decreasing total fertility rates in women between ages of 10 and 49, and increasing fluoride levels. They also reported that a review of all of the animal studies done to date shows that fluoride adversely affects fertility in most animal species.

 Alzheimer Disease There are also several studies linking aluminum with fluoride, showing that the bioavailability of aluminum is increased in the presence of fluorides, causing aluminum in the brain to double in treated animals. According to an October 28, 1992 Wall Street Journal Article about a study conducted by Varnier JA, et al.: "Rats fed the highest doses developed irregular mincing steps characteristic of senile animals.... Post mortem examination of the rat brains disclosed 'substantial cell loss in structures associated with dementia -- the neo-cortex and hippocampus'." (Note: Alzheimer's Disease, first diagnosed by Dr. Alois Alzheimer in 1907, is now the #4 killer for every person over 60 in the US. Every 2nd person over 70 will develop Alzheimer's.) Environmental fluoride is implicated in this. more on Alzheimer disease and natural recovery

Brain damage: Fluorides lower the intelligence capacity of humans, with children, again, especially susceptible to early fluoride toxicity. IQ levels were significantly lower than children not exposed to fluorides in all age groups listed. (Li,X.S.,Zhi,J.L.,Gao,R.O.,"Effects of Fluoride Exposure on the Intelligence of Children", Fluoride;28:182-189, 1995) Further studies proving the neurotoxicity of fluoride in rats have also been conducted by Dr. Phyllis Mullinex. In 1995 Mullenix and co-workers showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma levels fluoride concentrations in humans, suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoiride - as adult animals, as young animals, or thorugh the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Thoses exposed as young animals displayed depressed activity. In 1998 Guan et al. gave similar doses as used by the Mullenix group and found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells, were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not receive fluoride. Partly based on these findings, the union representing all EPA scientists in Washington have now filed a grievance demanding fluoride-free bottled water for their offices. (Note: this also explains a recent University of South Florida study relating fluoride intake during pregnancy to the yearly 1% increase in learning disabilities found in children...) Studies proving that fluorides transfer through the placenta are well known. (Meanwhile, Dr.Weil, Internet's Health Guru, advocates fluoride supplements for pregnant woman in his book "8 Weeks To Optimum Health"...)

 According to Shé D'Montford, Shambhallah, from Australia ‘The human body "WILL HEAL"... If we get out of our own way and allow it, it heals itself. It is our basic nature. Anybody who tells you other than that is trying to sell you something. No matter what you have been told. Don't give up on yourself and don't buy into the lines like ... ‘oh well you've had a good life'... 'at your age'... and the worst of all ...'there's nothing further I can do, I suggest you finalize your affairs'... How dare anyone tell you to give up! So much in society combines to convince us of the propaganda that some things never get better. It's up to you ... do you want to get better? Make things better? It is human nature to make things better, evolve and grow.”

This site  is intended to provide general information only and is not a substitute for medical evaluation or treatment. All matters regarding health or a particular health situation should be supervised by a licensed health care professional.The author and the publisher shall not be held responsible or liable for any harm or loss allegedly arising, directly or indirectly from any information in this site