What about flouride?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sure they don't consider flouride in any form a contaminant, thus the water can be deemed very safe... notwithstanding the fact that 12 federal and professional employee unions have lobbied for EPA to end flouridation nationwide.

All I have read is one press release saying that happened. You would think all those unions would have their own pages dedicated to fluoride if that is indeed each union's respective policy.

"Go back to sleep chump!"

You never got back to me about how many people have died due to fluoridation. It's been done for over 60 years. There should be a pretty clear body count by now.

[Parker2112]

All I have read is one press release saying that happened. You would think all those unions would have their own pages dedicated to fluoride if that is indeed each union's respective policy.

You never got back to me about how many people have died due to fluoridation. It's been done for over 60 years. There should be a pretty clear body count by now.

I was just trying to be funny with falcor there...

the info is in the videos. check em out. no one dies. thats not the concern. the concern is the toxicity itself. why put toxic crap into the water?

the risks are not death...they are flourosis, weakening of bones in elderly, rotting of teeth in young kids, damage to internal organs from overdosing where that happens, and the fact that the additive is a carcinogen (which you know as well as I there is no way to test the effects).

so my question to you is: why put toxic crap, chemicals that are known to cause disease and degradation of the human body into the water supply if the science on benefits is disputed?

could it be that it is a necessary evil?

[Parker2112]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flouride_controversy

highly suggest you read that chump.

Since 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters' union has expressed concerns about fluoride. In 2005, eleven EPA employee unions, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals of the Civil Service, called for a halt on drinking water fluoridation programs across the USA and asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. [33]
In 1992, speaking on the Canadian television program Marketplace, former EPA scientist Robert Carton claimed that "fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century." The practice was described as the "longest running public health controversy in North America" in the broadcast. [34]
In addition, over 3,038 health industry professionals, including one Nobel prize winner in medicine (Arvid Carlsson), doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers from a variety of disciplines are calling for an end to water fluoridation in an online pe ion to Congress.[35] The pe ion signers express concern for vulnerable groups like "small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics, and people with poor kidney function," who they believe may already be overdosing on fluoride.[35] Another concern that the pe ion signers share is, "The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion."[35] The pe ion was sponsored by the Fluoride Action Network.[36][37][38][39]

an excellent bit on the depths of conspiracy beliefs there as well...

[ChumpDumper]

the risks are not death...they are flourosis, weakening of bones in elderly, rotting of teeth in young kids, damage to internal organs from overdosing where that happens, and the fact that the additive is a carcinogen (which you know as well as I there is no way to test the effects).

so my question to you is: why put toxic crap, chemicals that are known to cause disease and degradation of the human body into the water supply if the science on benefits is disputed?

could it be that it is a necessary evil?

So what are the numbers of all the ills you listed that can be attributed to fluoride?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flouride_controversy

highly suggest you read that chump.

an excellent bit on the depths of conspiracy beliefs there as well...

That's the same press release that is everywhere. If it is truly the position of those unions and not just a few individuals, those unions will say so.

[panic giraffe]

Fluoridation of the water supply is the penultimate threat to the one true America. The Illuminati, through their puppets in the UN, the US State Department, Federal Reserve, Schwinn, and SAWS have made their move to steal the precious bodily fluids of every true American. This must not stand.

Ingesting fluoride in huge quan ies has been proven to predispose individuals to world socialism, enjoying soccer, drinking European beer, and sexuality.

this made me laugh so ing loud.

so when does parker start the vaccine thread? or whatever is next in that 5 hour dvd the other paulite gave me at an art show....

[panic giraffe]

It's funny, when I saw this thread le, I immediately thought of Colonel Jack D. Ripper and this exchange:

when will we find another kubrick?

movies suck nowadays.

[balli]

so when does parker start the vaccine thread?

You get to choose whether or not to get a particular vaccination though. No?

[Marcus Bryant]

It's funny, when I saw this thread le, I immediately thought of Colonel Jack D. Ripper and this exchange:

[LnGrrrR]

20 years from now there will be something bad come up about flouride in the water, and it will be like "oops". Just like how the gov't and health agencies were begging people to use sunscreen in the sun for the past 30 years, and now there is all that news about how 4 out of 5 sunscreens cause MORE skin cancer.

Wtf? I missed this news. Thanks for the headsup; checking out some articles now. Cancer runs in my family and I'm fairly liberal with the sunscreen.

[ChumpDumper]

Wtf? I missed this news. Thanks for the headsup; checking out some articles now. Cancer runs in my family and I'm fairly liberal with the sunscreen.

Looks like it runs along the lines of the saccharin scare of the 70s. Mice are exposed to ridiculous levels of chemicals and wow! Cancer! Who would have guessed?

[Parker2112]

this made me laugh so ing loud.

so when does parker start the vaccine thread? or whatever is next in that 5 hour dvd the other paulite gave me at an art show....

have you ever watched your kid's fever escalate all night after innoculations and waited in fear that eventually he would start convulsing?

Its pretty ing scary.

but no, i wont be starting any of those based on any evidence ive heard so far...

we stage my sons shots when we can. I dont buy the line that all those shots simultaneously are safe. and my pediatrician didnt even believe in giving all the shots recommended. could have had something to do with her two year old daughter and self research...i dont know. but i know the argument on the other side as well, and its just as scary.

But until you see me post it panic, why not just stfu.

[Parker2112]

You get to choose whether or not to get a particular vaccination though. No?

yes, but some areas require the shots to get your kids in school. and in california, where any parent can decline the shots with a signature I think, they are having whooping cough outbreaks, and blaming the vaccination resistance movement. so there may be some backlash soon, even in traditionally progressive areas

[Parker2112]

So what are the numbers of all the ills you listed that can be attributed to fluoride?

That's the same press release that is everywhere. If it is truly the position of those unions and not just a few individuals, those unions will say so.

They did. http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm

National Treasury Employees Union - Chapter 280
May 1, 1999
Why EPA's Headquarters Professionals' Union Opposes Fluoridation
by Dr. J. William Hirzy
Senior Vice President, NTEU Chapter 280
The following do ents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

damn your lazy habits chump

[ChumpDumper]

1999?

Anything in the last decade?

And anything not on an anti-fluoride website?

Thanks in advance.

[Parker2112]

1999?

Anything in the last decade?

And anything not on an anti-fluoride website?

Thanks in advance.

on the union website:
http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/629FINAL.htm

[DarrinS]

Enomologist J. Gordon Edwards used to eat DDT to show it was safe.

Here's a photo of him circa 1971.



He lived to the ripe age of 85.

[Parker2112]

Letter of Concern to EPA Administrator, from the unions, current as of today, along with several other letters to confirm their history of opposition which stands as of 2010.

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...idesummary.htm

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...epa.a.2005.htm

Coalition of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Unions

August 5, 2005

RE: Bone Cancer-Fluoride Link

Hon. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Dear Administrator Johnson:
We, the undersigned representatives of a majority (eleven) of EPA’s employee unions, are requesting that you direct the Office of Water to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking setting the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride at zero, in accordance with Agency policy for all likely or known human carcinogens. Our request is based on the overall weight of the evidence supporting the classification of fluoride as a human carcinogen, including new information from Harvard on the link between fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma in boys that was conveyed to you in a meeting with union officials on May 4, 2005.
We appreciate that the Agency anticipates a report next year from the National Research Council on the propriety of its current drinking water standards for fluoride. But it seems highly inappropriate for EPA to do nothing now that it is in possession of this science, while millions of young boys continue to be exposed unwittingly to the elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer as the Agency waits for the NRC to issue its report, then for the report to undergo peer review, and then for the Agency to undertake its own deliberations.
By issuing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the Agency would inform the public and local health authorities about the results of the doctoral dissertation from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine by Elise Bassin without committing the Agency to a formal rulemaking until all those other steps are taken.

It is noteworthy that when industry becomes aware of important new scientific findings like this, it has (depending on the specific statute) a very brief time to notify EPA. The Agency is then expected to take timely and appropriate action based on the specifics of that notification. In the present case EPA is aware of important new, high quality evidence of potentially serious danger to young boys drinking fluoridated water, and we believe EPA has an ethical duty to send an effective warning immediately about this hazard.

It may in fact be appropriate for you to direct EPA’s Office of Criminal Enforcement to investigate why Dr. Bassin’s study, which was of sufficient quality for her to earn her doctoral degree, remained hidden from EPA for four years. Alternatively, you could request that the Department of Justice undertake the investigation.

As you know, the apparent cover up of the link between water fluoridation and a seven-fold increased risk of osteosarcoma in young boys, shown by the research of Dr. Bassin, is now national news. Major newspapers, including the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have covered the story. The Environmental Working Group has pe ioned the National Toxicology Program to classify fluoride as a human carcinogen based in part on Dr. Bassin’s work. (We recommend EWG’s pe ion as a succinct and authoritative overview of the total weight of peer-reviewed evidence supporting the classification of fluoride as a human carcinogen.) EWG has also caused an investigation of the cover up to be started by Harvard and NIEHS, which funded the research.
The eyes of the nation are on the federal science establishment because of a host of scientific integrity issues. Former EPA Assistant Administrator Lynn Goldman and Roni Neff have just published a paper in the American Journal of Public Health on the cost of delayed adoption of health-protective standards that illuminates the real public health costs of the government’s failure to act on sound scientific evidence.
We believe our Agency can make an important statement about its commitment to scientific integrity and its application to public health protection by taking the precautionary action we are recommending.
We at EPA can be ahead of the curve on this important issue or behind it. We do not think the latter choice is in the best interest of the public, the Civil Service or EPA, and we fervently and respectfully hope that you will agree with us. As a wise man once said, ”The science is what the science is.”
We will be happy to discuss this with you and your advisers at your convenience.


Sincerely,


Dwight A. Welch, President J. William Hirzy, Vice-President
NTEU Chapter 280 NTEU 280
EPA Headquarters EPA Headquarters

/s/Steve Shapiro, President /s/Paul Sacker, President
AFGE local 3331 AFGE Local 3911
EPA Headquarters Region 2 Office, New York

/s/Larry Penley. President /s/Nancy Barron, President
NTEU Chapter 279 NAGE Local R5-55
EPA Cincinnati Laboratory Region 4 Office, Atlanta

/s/Wendell Smith, President /s/Patrick Chan, President
ESC/IFPTE Local 20 NTEU Chapter 295
Region 9 Office, San Francisco Region 9 Office, San Francisco

/s/Henry Burrell, President /s/Alan Hollis, President
AFGE Local 3428 AFGE Local 3611
Region 1 Office, Boston Region 3 Office, Philadelphia

/s/Frank Beck, President /s/Mark Coryell, President
AFGE Local 2900 AFGE Local 3907
Ada Laboratory Ann Arbor Laboratory


cc:
Sen. James Inhofe Sen. James Jeffords
Sen. Mike Enzi Sen. Edward Kennedy
Sen. Saxby Chambliss Sen. Tom Harkin
Sen. Ted Stevens Sen. Daniel Inouye

Rep. Joe Barton Rep. John Dingell
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert Rep. Bart Gordon
Rep. Paul Gillmor Rep. Hilda Solis
Rep. Nathan Deal Rep. Sherrod Brown
Rep. Henry Waxman

your welcome.

glad I could look out for you and yours.

[Parker2112]

Enomologist J. Gordon Edwards used to eat DDT to show it was safe.

Here's a photo of him circa 1971.



He lived to the ripe age of 85.

how many got sick? vs. this 1 guy? your proof of DDT safety is 1 guy vs thousands?

what a jackass...

[ChumpDumper]

on the union website:
http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/629FINAL.htm

2000?

I guess that's better than 1999.

Anything new on that front?

[Parker2112]

Letter of Concern to EPA Administrator, from the unions, current as of today, along with several other letters to confirm their history of opposition which stands as of 2010.

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...idesummary.htm

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...epa.a.2005.htm



your welcome.

glad I could look out for you and yours.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks. Austin's fluoride level is about 1/8 the maximum allowed by the feds, so I'm going to have some tap water now.

[Marcus Bryant]

Will your balls fall off if you drink it?

[Parker2112]

I just drank some myself.

~North Austin.

[Parker2112]

Thanks. Austin's fluoride level is about 1/8 the maximum allowed by the feds, so I'm going to have some tap water now.

looks like san antonio is up theirs to nearly 1/4 the allowed dosage.

http://www.saws.org/our_water/fluoride.shtml

I would be most curious to see where they get it.

Hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is used. The fluoride meets standards set by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), organizations that set standards for potable water.

[Parker2112]

Smoking gun es. flouride used in drinking water is a byproduct of fertilizer production

that didnt take much effort.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm#4

Due to the inevitable liabilities that fluoride pollution presented, and to an increasingly stringent set of environmental regulations, the phosphate industry began cleaning up its act.
As noted by Ervin Bellack, a chemist for the US Public Health Service:

"In the manufacture of super-phosphate fertilizer, phosphate rock is acidulated with sulfuric acid, and the fluoride content of the rock evolves as volatile silicofluorides. In the past, much of this volatile material was vented to the atmosphere, contributing heavily to pollution of the air and land surrounding the manufacturing site. As awareness of the pollution problem increased, scrubbers were added to strip particulate and gaseous components from the waste gas..." (Bellack 1970)

A 1979 review, published in the journal Phosphorous & Potassium, added:

"The fluorine compounds liberated during the acidulation of phosphate rock are now rightly regarded as a menace and the industry is now obliged to suppress emissions-containing vapors to within very low limits in most parts of the world...
In the past, little attention was paid to the emission of gaseous fluorine compounds in the fertilizer industry. But today fluorine recovery is increasingly necessary because of stringent environmental restrictions which demand drastic reductions in the quan ies of volatile and toxic fluorine compounds emitted into the waste gases. These compounds now have to be recovered and converted into harmless by-products for disposal or, more desirably, into marketable products" (Denzinger 1979).