I
wrote and posted this article about eight years ago, and then again six
years ago. It concerns a shocking letter written by an EPA scientist in
1999.
The letter shouldn’t be forgotten.
Here we go:
It’s no surprise that the US government would look the other way when lower IQ and cancer are business as usual.
One of the major agencies that would look the other way is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
---But
suppose scientists within the EPA spoke out, revolted, and issued
official rebukes to their own Agency’s position on fluorides?
Talk
about cognitive dissonance. Contradiction. “We at the EPA know
fluorides are wonderful and safe and beautiful. Of course, our own
scientists disagree. Strongly. But don’t worry, we’re ignoring them. And
we’re keeping their statements out of the press. Our position on
fluorides is administrative. It has nothing to do with science. Anyway,
we support cancer and plummeting IQ. They’re wonderful.”
Case in point, going back 17 years. Buckle up. Here is what the EPA Union of scientists had to say about fluoridation:
Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement---“Why U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists opposes artificial water fluoridation”---written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:
“…our
opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the
scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control
exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from
ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such
ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people
with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene
mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology
and dental fluorosis.”
“In
support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from
China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than
the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about
5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”
“Another
troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's interference
with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces
melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock,
doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has
shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its
production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition
causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in
humans as well in 1956…”
“EPA
fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William
Marcus, who also was our local union's treasurer at the time, for
refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard
the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that
finding---that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the
phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus
won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.”
“…data
showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey,
Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was
his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and
other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent,
unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.”
“Regarding
the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has
not been any double-blind study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries
preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective
publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation,
but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists
trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000
school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in
terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities]
incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated
communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation
experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same
thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two
communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about
twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of
fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.”
“John
Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially
important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the
largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of
fluoridation---until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide
data on fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper
is titled, ‘Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’
In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to
support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S.
and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health
professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.”
“…mutation
studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and
lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present
in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of
the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening
concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.”
“So,
in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the
uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride
that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods,
fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products…For governmental
and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the
face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing
crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible
at best.”
“We
have also taken a direct step to protect the [EPA] employees we
represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water…the union filed a
grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its
employees.”
“The
implication for the general public of these calculations is clear.
Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA's standard
method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate
halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal
sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”
That last sentence lets you know where the fluorides are coming from.
So…an employees’ union of scientists within the EPA has made its position clear.
Quite clear.
The mainstream press has refused to cover this story in any significant way for at least 17 years.
In
2013, the EPA denied a petition from Dr. Hirzy calling for the removal
of fluorides from water supplies. In a pinch, I guess the Agency can
find scientists hanging around bus stations and bars and crack houses
and get them to say what they want them to say and stamp it official.
---Scientists who’ve been guzzling fluoridated water themselves and thus have microscopic IQs.
~~~
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here -- with sources.)
(Follow me on Substack, Twitter, and Gab at @jonrappoport) | 
No comments:
Post a Comment