Why Is The Media Ignoring America’s Drinking Water Crisis?

[ramus]

Why Is The Media Ignoring America’s Drinking Water Crisis?

29 May 2017 Posted by Derrick Broze

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/top-news/media-ignoring-americas-drinking-water-crisis/


America has a looming water health crisis and no one seems interested in talking
about it.

Over the last year many Americans have likely heard of the lead poisoning
affecting the drinking water of Flint, Michigan. We have heard the horror
stories of children being sickened due to the failure of Flint’s bureaucracies
and failing infrastructure. However, a new report from the Natural Resources
Defense Council reveals that Americans in every state are suffering because of
failing infrastructure, under-reporting of violations, and lax enforcement of
drinking water standards. The NRDC is an environmental advocacy group based in
New York City.

The report, “Threats on Tap: Widespread Violations Highlight Need for Investment
in Water Infrastructure and Protections,”found close to 80,000 violations of
drinking water standards in every state in the U.S. “Very small systems found in
rural or sparsely populated areas account for more than half of all health-based
violations, and nearly 70 percent of all violations,” the NRDC writes.

Rural towns with smaller water systems are often unable to cover the financial
and technological burden required to upgrade infrastructure which could reduce
the amount of contaminants in the water.

The report concludes that nearly one in four Americans receive their drinking
water from systems which fail to meet federal health standards. This failure is
exacerbated by a lack of reporting these violations, as well as a lack of
enforcement when violations are reported. The council’s report indicates that
water contamination is not exclusive to Flint, but rather, Flint is
representative of a national water crisis.

“America is facing a nationwide drinking water crisis that goes well beyond lead
contamination,” said Erik Olson, Health Program Director at NRDC and a report
co-author. “The problem is two-fold: there’s no cop on the beat enforcing our
drinking water laws, and we’re living on borrowed time with our ancient,
deteriorating water infrastructure. We take it for granted that when we turn on
our kitchen tap, the water will be safe and healthy, but we have a long way to
go before that is reality across our country.”

Of all the states with health-based violations, Texas comes in at number one,
followed by Puerto Rico, Ohio, Maryland, and Kentucky. The authors believe the
problem will only get worse under the Trump administration amid calls for
cutting the budget of the EPA.

The council analyzed data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This
data found some 27 million people are using water-distribution systems which are
responsible for around 12,000 health-based violations. These violations involve
amounts of contaminants in the water supply well above federal health and safety
standards. The contaminants include lead, nitrates, and pesticides.

Related Reading: 6 Flint Residents Arrested At Town Hal For Protesting Water
Crisis – Yeah, That’s Still Happening

The NRDC report comes on the heels of a multi-part investigation published by
USA Today in March of this year. The investigation found almost 2,000 water
systems in all 50 states with excessive levels of lead contamination. “The water
systems, which reported lead levels exceeding Environmental Protection Agency
[EPA] standards, collectively supply water to 6 million people,” according to
reporters Alison Young and Mark Nichols.

The full impact of these reports can be understood when compared to a recent
study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study,
“Association of Childhood Blood Lead Levels With Cognitive Function and
Socioeconomic Status at Age 38 Years and With IQ Change and Socioeconomic
Mobility Between Childhood and Adulthood,” concluded that children with elevated
levels of lead in their blood at age 11 were likely to grow into adults with
lower cognitive function and lower-status jobs than their parents. The
researchers followed around 1,000 children born in Dunedin, New Zealand in the
early 1970s. The children who tested positive for lead in 1983 were more likely
to have lower IQs and lower socioeconomic status three decades later. The
researchers accounted for the children’s IQs, their mothers’ IQs and their
social-economic background and still found the negative associations.

Despite these studies and a fairly obvious crisis at hand, the average American
seems to be completely ignorant to the issue. A quick search regarding the NRDC
shows only one article from The New York Times. Why is there an absence of
reporting on an issue so vital which obviously affects all Americans? Mae Wu, a
senior attorney with the council’s health program, told the Times the data is
“not sexy,” making it difficult to motivate lawmakers to fund new infrastructure
and improve drinking water standards.

Whether the data is sexy or not, this is one issue that should be on the
forefront of every single person’s mind. Without clean water we die. Water
literally is life. Let’s do our work to spread this information and call for
improved drinking water.
----------------------------------------------------------

HERE IS A WEB SITE THAT YOU CAN BUY FOOD GRADE 1/2 MICRON WATER FILTERS,

.5 MICRON TAKES OUT: VIRUSES, LEAD, CHLORINE, FLUORIDE, BACTERIA,

CHEMICALS,DIRT, SAND, YOU GET THE PICTURE. RUN YOUR WATER IN THE FILTER INTO

A GLASS CONTAINER, IT'S EASY.

http://www.dudadiesel.com/search.php?query=.05+MICRON+FILTERS

[Noelle]

It should be the front-page story all across the land. I wonder how many Americans even read their city's annual water quality reports to see what comes out of their taps. People are too busy on social media or reading about sports, celebs and other diversions.

[ramus]

Thinning the heard is easier than one would think.. The filters are about $6.00 apiece, it's a shame no one cares.

[AutumnW]

But Trump is going to make America great again! It said so on his hat.

[Satori]

Because the mainstream media is controlled and owned lock, stock, and barrel by the very people responsible for polluting the drinking water and everything else that we hold dear.

[enigma3]

I hooked up a .5 micron whole house filter under the kitchen sink years ago. Plumbed it to a bar faucet that went in the extra sink hole where the soap dispenser usually goes. I get the filters at my local Ace hardware store and change it out twice a year. each filter will treat 500 gallons. Cooking and drinking water come from that. A .5 micron filter takes out all sorts of nasties.

[Bob]

Hi Ramus and the group -

I am a bit concerned about just using a 0.5 micron water filter and to assume that it takes out chemicals by that large size of the pore (the mechanical opening which allows molecules through while holding back larger particles), and assuming that it take out all viruses...

Here is the first piece of data to comprehend - 1 Micron = 1000 NanoMeters (a very small fraction of a meter in size/length), the "filter" described in the OP says will stop particles larger than 500 nanometers in size, or 0.5 (1/2 of a) micron.


There are chemicals than can form molecules much smaller than 0.5 microns, and then those chemicals make it through the filter, and are not removed. (some Bromine compounds used in water sterilization for instance, as does some compounds of Lead).

Viruses span the size of 0.005 through 0.3 microns in size (passes through a pore size of 0.5 microns) i.e. Hepatitis A, rotavirus, Norwalk virus

Pesticides and Herbicides typically have particle sizes around 0.001 microns in size - they make it through a filter with a pore size of 0.5 microns

Here is a link to a University Guide to water purification and some of the particle sizes above are discussed in the article (and can be search on the Net for more data) - http://www.princeton.edu/~oa/manual/water.shtml



A bottom line - There are viruses and dangerous chemicals that can make it through the 500 nanometer pore sized filter allowing potential for harm to happen on ingestion of such. Chemical filtering is recommended then as well as evaporative distillation after the chemicals have been removed, using high temperature boiling water.


Biologically Contaminated vs. Toxic Water

Biologically contaminated water is water that contains microorganisms such as Giardia (a common microorganism that, if not killed, leads to intestinal disorders), bacteria, or viruses that can lead to infections (see Gastrointestinal Infections, page 316).

Toxic water sources contain chemical contamination from pesticide runoffs, mine tailings, and so on. Boiling, filtering, or chemically treating water can remove or kill microorganisms, but it will not remove chemical toxins. This is also the case when using a solar still

The university report also says this:

"there are water purifiers, like the PUR Scout, that pass the water through both a filter and an iodine compound that kills any smaller organisms that have passed through the filter. These purifiers kill all microorganisms down to 0.004 microns; however, the filter should not be used by people who are allergic to iodine."

In short 0.5 microns is not really useful for contaminated water where chemicals and viruses are potentially present.

Some companies are claiming that 0.5 micron activated carbon block filters will remove heavy metals and chlorine bromine and fluoride(s).

The best chemical filter is what is called an ion resin membrane filter, which captures and holds within the filter the desired pollutant. A set of such filters (in-series with each other and the water flow) for each toxic material would be reliable extraction system.

Pure Water describes some of these multi-stage filters here: http://purewateroccasional.net/occasionalundersink.html

Ultra-Violet sterilizers are used also as the final stages in mechanical forms of water filtering (water bottling plants frequently use this method in the water chain). I personally use UV sterilizer pens on filtered water (even on commercial bottled water in 3 world countries).

[Curious77]

Erin Brockovich for president .... !!!

[neutronstar]

Thinning the heard is easier than one would think.. The filters are about $6.00 apiece, it's a shame no one cares.

Those filters don't work very good. I use a counter-top distiller and it did wonders for my health. I noticed the difference in my workouts within days.

[Daozen]

More to the point... why is the alt-media ignoring the water crisis? Are they any better?

Lots of good ideas here. As Bob says, the key to powerful purification is multiple-stages.. There are devices for every budget. I even saw them use limestone in Cuba.

I've been taking Activated Charcoal recently. It won't cure everything, but it's an under-rated purifier...

[conk]

Media makes all decisions based on corporate bottom lines. Does the story/news enhance or harm the profit line? Sometimes it's not about profit, but propaganda and misinformation. No matter the subject.

[amor]

Dear Nutronstar: Can you tell us where you got that counter-top distiller? I would like to get one but have not had luck with Google on this. Perhaps the computer address on the label of the distiller and any address information with it. Thanks.

[Praxis]

Because the mainstream media is controlled and owned lock, stock, and barrel by the very people responsible for polluting the drinking water and everything else that we hold dear.

Then where is ZeroHedge Breitbart or what ever alt site you go to? Why are they not championing america first? Flint is america yes? You are aware that an alt news site man has the ear of the president?

[neutronstar]

It should be the front-page story all across the land. I wonder how many Americans even read their city's annual water quality reports to see what comes out of their taps. People are too busy on social media or reading about sports, celebs and other diversions.

You don't need to read the reports. To filter water all they do is pore the water threw sand and then they add chlorine and fluoride. Now just think of all the crap that pollutes our rivers and aquifers. All the chemicals, even the drugs people take that they pee in their toilets. There are some 70,000 different chemicals in the US water supply. It varies depending on the location.

Every time I refill my distiller I get a good look at what is in there. It stinks of chemicals and sediment. It is usually a dark tea color, but I have had it as dark as coffee before.

[neutronstar]

Dear Nutronstar: Can you tell us where you got that counter-top distiller? I would like to get one but have not had luck with Google on this. Perhaps the computer address on the label of the distiller and any address information with it. Thanks.

http://www.h2olabs.com/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwmcTJBRCYirao6oWPyMsBEiQA9hQPbkL48O1B66dEsKc8iWUWbF-0yXgGICmfYxm7Fn5YsH4aAsTa8P8HAQ

I got the model 100. It works great for me. I drink a gallon a day, so I fill it once a day. After about 2 weeks I have to clean it out with citric acid because the water is so bad scrubbing it out doesn't work any more.

200 dollars for the distiller and about 15 dollars added to my electric bill a month. It comes out to about 25 cents a gallon. Cheaper then buying it at the store.

[onawah]

THE Best article on fluoridation I've seen so far
Movement to Remove Fluoride From US Water Supplies Continues
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/06/11/petition-to-end-water-fluoridation.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20170611Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM147488&et_rid=2039570529


Story at-a-glance

While water fluoridation is purported to decrease your risk of dental cavities, fluoride needs to be applied topically for this to work. It doesn’t benefit your teeth when swallowed
Swallowing fluoride displaces iodine from your thyroid, as iodine and fluoride are both halogens. Without iodine, you cannot make active thyroid hormones, raising your risk for hypothyroidism
Fluoride is a mitochondrial poison that sabotages your mitochondria’s ability to create cellular energy in the form of ATP, and an enzymatic reactor, meaning it reacts with enzymes in your body
Remembering the World’s Oldest Person: Objects She Left Behind
How to Cook Salmon Like a Pro
By Dr. Mercola

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has declared water fluoridation one of the top 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. But is it really?

It would actually be more accurate to say that fluoride is one of the most pernicious toxins in your water supply. To kick off our annual Fluoride Awareness Week, Dr. Bill Osmunson, a dentist in the Seattle area, highlights some of the dangers associated with this practice.

Fluoride — A Dubious Anticaries Solution
Osmunson, who has been a dentist for over 40 years, was a longtime proponent of water fluoridation, as are most dentists. That all changed after he listened to a presentation by Dr. Hardy Limeback, a dentist, Ph.D., researcher and professor emeritus of the University of Toronto Dental School.

"[He's] very credible," Osmunson says. "He [gave] a presentation that showed fluoridation did not improve or lower dental caries. It was a real shock to me … I started looking at more of the fluoride [research] because I have a master's in public health (MPH). As a practicing dentist, fluoride is part of both of my professions.

I felt it was my responsibility to really look into this in more detail. That's how I started in on the fluoridation. I got involved with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and a few other groups in trying to reduce the amount of fluoride that people are ingesting."

Does Fluoridated Toothpaste Reduce Caries?
c2A29i3jOaY
According to Osmunson, research shows topical fluoride helps reduce radiation caries (caries resulting from excessive head X-rays for cancer) and rampant dental caries (resulting from excessive sugar and junk food intake combined with a lack of dental hygiene). As noted by Osmunson:

"People use fluoride in their toothpaste because they think it's going to really have a great benefit. It will some, but not much. The problem is we swallow too much of it, especially infants."

Still, while it may reduce cavities a bit, topical fluoride will not prevent caries or stop it in its tracks. True prevention requires addressing your diet, because caries develops in response to an abnormality in your oral microbiome. Moreover, since your mouth is part of your gut, it's also a gut microbiome issue.

Fluoride Is a Toxin
While water fluoridation is purported to decrease your risk of dental cavities, the evidence supporting this practice is flimsy at best, since fluoride needs to be applied topically for this to work. It doesn't benefit your teeth when ingested and absorbed systemically.

A major downside of drinking fluoridated water is that it displaces iodine from your thyroid, as iodine and fluoride are both halogens. Without iodine, you cannot make active thyroid hormones. Women are already at high risk for hypothyroidism, and drinking fluoridated water will further increase this risk.

Fluoride is also a mitochondrial poison that sabotages your mitochondria's ability to create cellular energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and an enzymatic reactor, meaning it reacts with enzymes in your body.

When fluoride is added to the water system it also leaches lead out of old pipes, increasing the neurotoxic effects of fluoride. A year and a half ago, the National Toxicology Program, Office of Health Assessment and Translation began evaluating fluoride after FAN nominated it for evaluation.

At present, they're doing animal studies to fill in some of the gaps. After that, they'll move on to evaluate studies on humans. So far, they've confirmed that animal research suggests neurotoxic effects. This is no surprise, considering 50 studies have linked fluoride with reduced IQ in children.

Americans Are Overexposed to Fluoride
Part of the problem with water fluoridation in particular is the fact that this strategy medicates people without regard for age, weight or medical status. Infants drinking fluoridated water can get a dose100 times higher than maximum recommended limits, even by conservative U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommendations.

The EPA has done both a dose-response analysis and a relative source contribution analysis, and this data shows that at the 90th percentile, a third of children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years are getting significantly more fluoride than what they should.

Bear in mind that the EPA does not even aim to protect 100 percent of the population, only 90 percent. Infants are excluded altogether because they end up getting such a toxic dose. Infants receiving formula made with fluoridated water are getting hundreds of times more fluoride than breastfed babies.

"The latest research we have that was put out by Dr. William Hirzy [a former risk assessment scientist at the EPA] shows a safe dose to protect against a 5 IQ point loss is 0.045 mg F/day and many should only be getting about 0.001 milligrams (mg) per kilogram per day. That's the same as mother's milk. We should be reducing the amount of fluoride that we're getting. [That's] very important," Osmunson says.

"Unfortunately, the EPA, when the National Research Council in 2006 said the maximum contaminant level was too high … instead of lowering it … they raised it because they realized that [water] fluoridation would stop [as] there are too many sources of fluoride …

The latest research shows there's a 5 IQ point drop in the United States with fluoridated water and the fluoride sources that we're getting. We're getting far too much and it is harming our brains."

Status Update on Petition to End Water Fluoridation in the US
lXmNPczfxbI
Last year, FAN filed a petition with the EPA to stop water fluoridation nationwide. It was denied. One of the reasons given for the denial was that FAN had not done a comprehensive analysis of all the uses of fluoride.

"That's setting the bar so high it's impossible to abide by the law or file a complaint by the law … [Fluoride is] used in so many areas, like pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, medications, dental products, water, toothpastes — all these different sources.

To do a comprehensive analysis of all sources is virtually impossible," Osmunson says. "The EPA has never done it. They're saying, 'Well, we're not going to agree with you because you haven't done it.'"

FAN has now filed a lawsuit and the court will evaluate the information de novo. This means FAN and EPA will stand on equal footing, and the court will not have to give deference to the government, which is typically the case. Osmunson is hopeful the court will see reason.

In the case of water fluoridation, it's quite clear the EPA has not only failed to protect public health, but is actively sabotaging the health of bottle-fed babies everywhere there's water fluoridation.

Nearly 6 in 10 Adolescents Have Signs of Fluoride Overexposure
One of the most visible consequences of fluoride overexposure is dental fluorosis, those white specks and mottling of teeth that now affect 58 percent of children and adolescents. Dental fluorosis, while considered a mere cosmetic issue, is a warning sign that more harmful, invisible metabolic effects are taking place. As noted by Osmunson:

"We're getting too much fluoride. When fluoridation first started, we were assured by public health authorities that only 10, maybe 15 percent, of the public would get dental fluorosis … A few years ago, the federal government came on out with a survey. They found 41 percent of children and adolescents had dental fluorosis. The most recent one that we know of … [shows] 58 percent have some degree [of dental fluorosis].

[W]hat we're even more concerned about is that 20 percent have moderate dental fluorosis, which is a sign of way too much [fluoride], and 2 percent have severe dental fluorosis in the United States. [Water] fluoridation is contributing to that.

The EPA says, 'Well, you know, we're only worried about 90 percentile.' There are 2 percent that are having severe dental fluorosis. That's a huge number. That is something we must stop. The best [way] of stopping it is to stop fluoridation of public water."

Water Fluoridation Is Unregulated
Interestingly, there's no federal agency in charge of regulating water fluoridation. The EPA merely permits fluoridation. EPA is prohibited by Congress from adding anything to water for the treatment of humans, so they don't add fluoride to water. They just allow it to be done, and they keep the maximum allowable contaminant levels high enough so that it's possible to do it.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) really should regulate fluoride, seeing how it's a drug, yet the agency has continuously deferred regulatory action. The ultimate decision to add fluoride to water is made at the local level by your city's water district.

"[I]t's the local people who are supposed to do all the scientific research," Osmunson says. "Now, think about that for just a second. You have people in the water districts who are — maybe they run a store, maybe they run a business, maybe they're a lawyer, maybe they're a scientist …

They don't typically have a science background, and yet we're asking them to evaluate the science on something that's given to everyone without freedom of choice. They're making this decision for you of whether that drug is safe and effective. In fact, they're doing the FDA's job …

But who are they relying on? The CDC, to a large extent. Who does the CDC rely on? The American Dental Association. What is the American Dental Association supposed to do? Protect dentists. Now, dentists make a significant amount of money on fluoride.

When this was brought up to me at first, I was rather defensive, saying, 'Well, I don't really make any money on fluoridation. It prevents decay.' It probably doesn't prevent decay, No. 1. No. 2, if you add up all the money used on fluoride in the dental office, it's a significant amount of money.

Your fluoride topical applications are significant. Of course, then, the water fluoridation companies have to get rid of that toxic substance somehow — by putting it into the water. Pollution is the solution. It's not really the right way to go, but that's what's happening …

[Fluoride in water] is taken and given to us without individual consent. No doctor could do that. As a dentist, I can prescribe fluoride for my patients on record, but I can't do it for everybody. Yet the water districts, who are not legally able to prescribe, do that."

Fluoride Is an Unapproved Drug
Interestingly, while fluoride supplements in the form of drops, tablets and lozenges have been on the market since the 1950s, they've never received approval by the FDA, as the scientific evidence for safety and effectiveness was found lacking. This remarkable situation came to light in 1992, when John Kelly, a New Jersey General Assemblyman, started looking into the fluoride issue after reading a study showing higher rates of bone cancer in fluoridated communities compared to nonfluoridated areas.

Since only 17 percent of New Jersey communities had fluoridated water at the time, dentists frequently prescribed fluoride supplements instead. In light of the study's findings, Kelly "felt it was prudent to obtain the studies supporting the claims of safety and effectiveness for these prescription fluoride products."

First, he contacted the American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Dental Pediatrics. All initially said they'd provide him with studies, but after checking their records, they confessed they didn't have any.

He was then directed to the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), which promised to have the studies promptly sent out. None came. After six weeks, NIDCR confessed no studies could be found in their files and suggested he contact the FDA, since it had approved the drugs. To quote Kelly:1

"Six months later I was stunned when I was informed by the FDA that they had no such studies and that the products in question, which had been prescribed to millions of infants and children since the 1950s, were not approved by the FDA."

Kelly petitioned the FDA to remove these unapproved fluoride products in 1993. No action was ever taken. Last year, FAN and the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology again petitioned the FDA to remove them from the market.2

The petition was filed after the FDA issued a warning letter to Kirkman Laboratories, a fluoride supplement manufacturer, to immediately discontinue marketing of fluoride products as they have never been approved as safe and effective. How is it an unapproved drug, for which warning letters are sent out to manufacturers, is being added to drinking water?

Fluoride Is Very Difficult to Filter Out Once Added
Fluoride is a very small molecule, making it tremendously difficult to filter out once added to your water supply. Any simple countertop carbon filter, like Brita, will not remove it.

If you have a house water carbon filtration system that has a large volume of carbon, then it may reduce the fluoride as fluoride removal is in direct proportion to the amount of fluoride and the time it's in contact with the media. It's just not going to get it all. Among the more effective filtering systems for fluoride removal are:

Reverse osmosis (RO). The drawback is that it will remove many valuable minerals and trace elements as well. RO systems also need frequent cleaning to avoid bacterial growth. So, use a tankless RO system with a compressor
Water distillation which, like RO, gets everything out, including beneficial minerals. You then need to restructure the water
Bone char filters and biochar. We're currently in the process of developing a filter that combines biochar with activated charcoal
Clearly, the simplest, most effective, most cost-effective strategy is to not put it in to begin with.

2017 Fluoride Conference
Since 2010, 220 communities have rejected water fluoridation. If you want to learn more about how you can get involved to prevent or end water fluoridation in your community, join FAN's fluoride conference in Washington D.C. September 16 and 17, 2017. It's open to anyone who's interested. Bookmark FAN's website, FluorideAlert.org and check back for more information about this conference.

"My biggest concern is freedom of choice. Fluoridation of water adds too much fluoride to many individuals, most of us, all of us. It's done without freedom of choice … America stands for freedom. We need to have freedom and allow people to not have fluoride.

Some people are being harmed and they don't want the fluoride. I have one lady whose son has real problems with fluoride. He can't even take a shower or a bath in fluoridated water because he's so chemically sensitive. He's autistic. What do you do for this young man?

For a while, they tried to find out if he was having problems with the fluoridated water. She would take bottled water and heat the bottled water on the stove to give him a bath. He's about 6 foot tall. He's 230 pounds. He's 25 years of age and she's having to heat water on the stove. Why?

Because we aren't giving freedom of choice … This is ridiculous. It's insane. It's a toxic crime against humanity. We're getting too much fluoride. It's probably not beneficial. It's causing serious problems to the developing brain … We know that it's lowering IQ. It's a tremendous expense when you start lowering IQ …

Two hundred million people in the United States are on fluoridated water. At about $1,000 per IQ at 5 IQ points lost, that's $1 trillion a year negative economic impact on our country. We can't afford it. We need to stop fluoridation," Osmunson says.

Fluoride Is a Mitochondrial Poison That Sabotages Health
Once you understand that fluoride is a mitochondrial poison, you'll realize that not only is it contributing to lowered IQ and thyroid problems, it's also contributing to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity and neurodegenerative disease. We have a tsunami of Alzheimer's coming, and fluoride is an issue even though there are no studies currently connecting it to Alzheimer's. Few understand the molecular biology involved and therefore haven't made that connection yet.

In the future, that will probably come to pass, but we simply do not have the time to wait. The good news is you can do something about this problem. If you are passionate about this, as I am, then please support FAN. During Fluoride Awareness Week, I will match your donations dollar for dollar, so please, get on board and help support this important project, because it's something that will help all Americans.

RPdcyHKyu8M
The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the FAN and visit the links below:

Like FAN on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/FluorideActionNetwork follow on Twitter https://twitter.com/FluorideAction and sign up for campaign alerts. http://fluoridealert.org/take-action/join-fan-movement/
10 Facts About Fluoride: http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/10-facts/ Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion about whether to fluoridate water. Also see 10 Facts Handout (PDF). http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/10facts.pdf
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/ Learn why fluoridation is a bad medical practice that is unnecessary and ineffective. Download PDF. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/50-reasons.pdf
Health Effects Database: http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/health_database/ FAN's database sets forth the scientific basis for concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of ingesting fluorides. They also have a Study Tracker http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/ with the most up-to-date and comprehensive source for studies on fluoride's effects on human health.
FDA/Fluoride Files: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/ The documents in this section show the FDA has never approved fluoride supplements as safe and effective.
Together, Let's Help FAN Get to the Finish Line

This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! So I am stepping up the challenge. I'm proud to announce for the seventh year in a row now, a portion of sales up to 25,000 will be donated to Fluoride Action Network. Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

[onawah]

The latest from Fluoride Action Network email newsletter
JULY 24, 2017
http://fluoridealert.org/news/



Latest Fluoride-Free Victories
Battlefield, Missouri (June 21)– The water district board voted unanimously to end fluoridation for the town of 6,000 due to corrosion caused by the chemical, and because of the availability of safer and more effective alternatives to reduce decay. The dental lobby and regional health officials who have received grants to promote the practice have vowed to fight the vote, despite the significant health risks to residents, the water infrastructure, and water employees.
Nipawin, Saskatchewan (July 13)-- After months of consideration and a presentation by public health administrators, the Mayor and Council in Nipawin, Saskatchewan (pop. 4,401) voted 4-1 to reject a proposal by the Saskatchewan medical health officer to fluoridate the drinking water. As one councilor said, “It’s not our job to supply medication.” The Mayor also voted against the proposal because she felt the decision should be made by residents via a ballot referendum, not by councilors.
Johnstown, Pennsylvania (July 21)– The Greater Johnstown Water Authority voted unanimously (11-0) to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water. The vote was influenced by significant opposition to the practice by water consumers, which was highlighted by the results of a customer survey on the issue in which 70% of respondents opposed fluoridation.
The Greater Johnstown Water Authority serves an estimated population of 52,657. In Cambria County: the City of Johnstown (19,712), Brownstown Borough (700), Dale Borough (1,160), Ferndale Borough (1,600), Lorain Borough (714), Westmont Borough (4,876), East Conemaugh Borough (1,145), Franklin Borough (300), Southmont Borough (2,150), Conemaugh Township (2,000), Middle Taylor Township (800), Stonycreek Township (2,000), Lower Yoder Township (2,500), Upper Yoder Township (5,000) and West Taylor (6,000). Also included is Conemaugh Township in Somerset County (2,000).

FAN Senior Advisor and chemist, Paul Connett, PhD, was recently in Pennsylvania for a public debate against retired Florida dentist and fluoridation propagandist Johnny Johnson, DDS. Click here to watch the 90-minute debate.

Residents and campaigners in Pennsylvania have supplied steady wins for our movement, and have made it one of the most active states for fluoridation votes and decisions. Here are the additional Pennsylvania victories since 2011:

In 2016, Guilford & Greene Township, with a combined population of 26,000
In 2015, Bellefonte with a population of 6,224
In 2015, Brackenridge Borough with a population of 3,240
In 2015, Schuylkill Haven with a population of 5,340
In 2014, Ford City with a population of 3,000
In 2014, Bucks County with a population of 385,000
In 2013, Tyrone with a population of 5,500
In 2012, West Manheim with a population of 8,000
In 2012, Myerstown with a population of 3,500
In 2011, Pottstown with a population of 15,500
In 2011, Schuylkill Haven with a population of 5,500

New Fluorosis Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmM2Rrx0Vo
Do your teeth, or your child’s teeth have white spots, white streaks, cloudy splotches, brown stains, or pitting? If so, you or your child may be among the millions of Americans who now have a condition called dental fluorosis.

Fluorosis is a defect of tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride intake during the first 8 years of life, and in the U.S. fluorosis rates have increased by 600% in just the last 60 years.

Watch this new short video to learn more, and please share our Facebook and Twitterposts on the video to help warn others via social media. You can also visit our webpage on dental fluorosis to learn more.

2017 Chilean review: fluoridation is ineffective & harmful

A team of experts from Chile--including doctors, biologists, a lawyer, a civil engineer, a toxicologist, an environmental expert, and a chemist--have published a damning review of water fluoridation in the Medical Journal of Chile, February 2017. The review was financed by the Medical College of Chile.

Chile is considered a pioneer in the fluoridation of drinking water, starting in 1953 when Curico was fluoridated. By 1958, nearly 60% of the country was fluoridated, and constant expansion has led to a current rate of 82.5%.

Despite the long history of national support for the practice, the article entitled, "Consequences of Fluoridation of Drinking Water on Human Health," concludes that artificial fluoridation of drinking water and milk has not only been ineffective at reducing dental decay in children, but is likely harmful to health. According to the researchers:

"A) The effects of fluoride intake pose risks of various diseases in the asthmatic-skeletal, neurological, endocrine and skin systems. Dental and skeletal fluorosis are signs of chronic and excessive ingestion of fluoride.

B) Infants, children and adolescents are at high risk of diseases due to over-intake of fluorides, through drinking water and / or fluoridated milk, as the deterioration of health is proportional to the dose and the time of exposure .

C) The fluoridation of drinking water does not significantly impact on caries prevention. For their effectiveness is rather a topical and non-systemic effect, as demonstrated by countries that do not fluoride drinking water, and do not use milk or fluoride salts, decreasing dental deterioration at the same rate as those that fluoride drinking water."

The research team based their analysis on a review of all available studies that included control of confounding variables. They discuss fluoride's ability to cause bone, thyroid, neurological, and skin damage. There is also in indepth analysis of WHO data that shows, "fluoridation of drinking water and salts have no incidence at all in reducing dental [decay]."

There was also a brief discussion on the legal aspects of water fluoridation, which found the following:

"The fluoridation of drinking water in Chile forces citizens to involuntarly consume a chemical they do not require. For decade the majority of the Chilean population has been overexposed to this potentially unhealthy element, transgressing constitional guarantees."

In response to their findings the research team made the following recommendations:

" 1. To amend Decree No. 735 of November 7, 1969, updating it with Supreme Decree No. 131 of 2006, and the Regulations for Services for Human Consumption of 2007, to avoid fluoridation of drinking water and avoid fluoridation Of milk, in all regions of the country.

2. Prioritize the use of dental hygiene products containing the necessary, but minimal, amounts of fluoride to maintain dental health, strengthen education for better dental care and better nutrition.

3. Educate health and education professionals about the adverse consequences of fluoride intake.

4. To carry out epidemiological studies in Chile, to evaluate the adverse effects on health, through ingestion and use of fluorides, for decades."

READ THE FULL STUDY
http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872017000200012&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
FAN's Fluoride Conference in September

If you missed July’s International Fluoride Free Teleconference, the audio is now available to download or stream. During the call, Paul and Ellen Connett made some exciting announcements about the upcoming 6th Citizen’s Conference on Fluoride in Washington, D.C. from September 16th through 18th.

The three-day Conference will focus on Science (Saturday, Sept 16), Strategy(Sunday, Sept 17), and Action (Monday, Sept 18), with two days of speakers followed by a day of lobbying and sightseeing on Capital Hill.
Hotel rooms are available at significantly discounted rates, but availability is limited and rooms will return to full price on August 24th, so CLICK HERE
http://fluoridealert.org/articles/6th-annual-citizen-conference/
to make your arrangements before it’s too late. 


To listen to July’s teleconference audio and register for next month’s call, CLICK HERE.
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1101350735405&ca=de986d0a-14c3-4a27-8a3c-da5ca6ac2650

Latest Fluoride News:

-Public Takes Out Fluoride Frustration at Meadville Council Meeting (Pennsylvania)
-Some Businesses and Individuals Plan to Remove Fluoride (Pennsylvania)
-Northern Tasmania: Fluoride Could Be Put to the People (Australia)
-Tasmanian Council Says Towns Should Decide What is Added to Water (Australia)
-Jonesborough Fluoride Battle Continues as Town Ends Addition (Tennessee)
-Lead, Arsenic, Fluoride Found in Water Under Memphis Power Plant (Tennessee)
-11.5 Million People in India at High Risk of Fluorosis Due to Water (India)
-In Some Areas, Fluoride Debate Rages (Indiana)
-Dentist: Water Fluoridation – Reduce or Eliminate? (Ohio)
-Port Angeles City Council Candidates Debate Fluoridation (Washington)
-Fluoride as a Ballot Measure in Sheridan (Wyoming)
-Fluoridation to Appear on Petersburg Ballot (Alaska)
-Kidney Calamity Caused by Fluoride in Water (Vietnam)
-Franklin, Windsor, and Courtland City Have High Fluoride Levels (Virginia)
-Actress Olivia Munn Cut Fluoride From her Diet to Clear Acne (USA)
-Eau Claire Fluoridation Debate (Wisconsin)
-Sheridan Still Mulling Fluoride Options (Wyoming)
For more fluoride related media, please visit FAN’s News Archive.



Sincerely,
Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network
http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

[onawah]

DRINKING WATER AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH
7/26/17
By Sonya Lunder, Senior Analyst
Enironmental Working Group
http://www.ewg.org/research/drinking-water-and-children-s-health?utm_source=201708ChildrenTapWater&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=201708ChildrenTapWater#.WYjJiYjysdU


Toxic pollutants in drinking water are particularly hazardous for children. Compared to adults, children drink more water per pound of body weight, resulting in greater exposure and greater risk. They’re also more vulnerable to harmful contaminants because their bodies are still growing and toxic chemicals cause more harm to developing organs and tissues.

EWG set out to find which tap water contaminants pose the greatest risks for children in America today. We reviewed drinking water reports from nearly 50,000 water companies or utilities nationwide, collected between 2010 and 2015, and compared test results to science-based health guidelines.



According to EWG’s Tap Water Database, drinking water supplies for millions of American children and adults have higher amounts of 90 contaminants than scientists consider safe, even if the water gets a passing grade from the federal government. This number doesn’t account for the exposures of the more than 40 million people who drink water from private wells, which are not routinely monitored for contaminants.

Some drinking water contaminants are more harmful when exposure occurs during critical windows in a child’s development. These exposures can have serious effects on health that continue for a lifetime, or their impact on health may surface decades later. Overall, the data show:

More than 250 detected contaminants – and the more we test the more we find;
93 chemicals linked to cancer;
78 chemicals linked to brain and nervous system problems;
63 contaminants that can harm development of the fetus or young child;
38 contaminants linked to human fertility problems; and
At least 45 contaminants linked to hormone disruption.
For some chemicals, researchers don’t know if or how exposure can affect a child’s development or harm the finely balanced hormonal system because subtle alterations can be hard to detect. The data collected by EWG may be an underestimate of the full range of health concerns for drinking water contaminants.

Tap water and bottle-fed babies

Water contamination is especially concerning for bottle-fed infants.

A baby fed exclusively powdered formula mixed with tap water drinks the most water for its small size of any age group. Tap water can be 85 percent of a formula-fed baby’s diet, and this period of intense exposure can last four to six months, until parents start supplementing formula with food.

Here are five contaminants to watch out for:



Lead

A potent neurotoxin, lead is particularly harmful during pregnancy and early childhood. Old, corroded lead pipes and plumbing are common sources of lead in drinking water, and additional exposures come from paint, soil and contaminated household dust.

Under the federal Lead and Copper Rule, if lead concentrations exceed an action level of 15 parts per billion, or ppb, in more than 10 percent of sampled homes, the water utility must apply measures to control lead leaching from the pipes. However, there is no amount of lead exposure scientists consider safe.

Recent Environmental Protection Agency modeling suggests that lead concentrations in excess of 3.8 ppb could boost some children’s lead exposure above acceptable levels. Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration limits lead in bottled water to 5 ppb, and California has set a public health goal of 0.2 ppb lead in tap water to protect children’s’ brains and prevent the loss of IQ points.

The data collected by EWG show that more than 19,000 U.S. water utilities have reported some residences with lead levels exceeding 3.8 ppb between 2010 and 2015. Lead levels vary from house to house based on the presence of lead in pipes and solder. Tests performed in your city might not reflect specific lead risks in your home. If you are pregnant or have young children, consider having your tap water tested for lead.

Read more about lead in drinking water.



Nitrate

The federal government allows up to 10 parts per million, or ppm, of nitrate in

water, but EWG recommends that nitrate levels should not exceed 5 ppm, based on emerging evidence that nitrate causes problems during pregnancy and could increase risks of cancer. In excess of 10 milligrams per liter, nitrate can block the blood’s ability to carry oxygen, which can severely harm bottle-fed infants.

EWG data show that in 2015, 7 million Americans drank water with nitrate levels at an average of 5 ppm or greater, exceeding the level the National Cancer Institute research shows increases the risk of cancer. Additionally, many Americans drink nitrate-contaminated water from private wells, which are not routinely monitored for contamination.

Read more about nitrate in drinking water.



Atrazine

Atrazine, an herbicide linked to hormone disruption, is found in the water supplies of at least 30 million Americans. Federal laws allow up to 3 ppb of atrazine in treated tap water, but human epidemiological studies suggest that federal standards for atrazine are inadequate to protect public health.

In agricultural areas, atrazine and nitrate are frequently present together in drinking water, and the mixture of the chemicals could have a cumulative effect. Researchers from the University of Illinois reported a statistically significant association between the presence of atrazine in drinking water and preterm births. The average concentration of atrazine in the study was one-seventh of the federal legal limit. The same research team found that the effect may be exacerbated by the simultaneous presence of nitrate.

Scientists don’t know exactly how atrazine affects the developing fetus or infant, but the risks from even low levels of exposure are clear. In 1999, scientists in California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment set a public health goal of 0.15 ppb for atrazine in drinking water. EWG recommends people filter drinking water if it contains atrazine concentrations above this amount.

Read more about atrazine in drinking water.



Manganese

Manganese is a naturally occurring metal, found in food and water, and may be added to food supplements. It leaches from rocks and soil into drinking water. Several recent studies show lower IQ scores, and lower verbal and behavioral performance scores in children who live in areas with higher concentrations of manganese in water. Scientists remain puzzled by the fact that manganese also occurs naturally in food, but food doesn’t seem to be associated with the same harmful effects.

EWG supports the state of Minnesota’s guideline that formula-fed babies not drink water with more than 100 ppb of manganese. Manganese in excess of this level is found in water served to more than 10 million Americans.

Read more about manganese in drinking water.



Fluoride

Unlike other chemicals monitored by water systems, fluoride is intentionally added to drinking water, even though research clearly shows that fluoride is most effective when used topically in toothpaste and not ingested.

In 2011, responding to a lawsuit by EWG and other advocacy groups, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended that water utilities reduce the amount of fluoride added to water to 0.7 ppm – down from the previous federal recommendation allowing up to 1.2 ppm fluoride in drinking water. This new recommendation took effect in 2015.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that if infant formula is mixed with fluoridated water, the baby’s teeth might be affected by dental fluorosis, which appears as white spot markings on the teeth.

EWG recommends that baby formula be mixed with fluoride-free water, especially for infants whose diet is exclusively powdered baby formula.

Federal drinking water regulations do not protect children

EWG believes that federal drinking water regulations must give special consideration to the exposure and toxicity of drinking water contaminants for young children. Yet, many existing national drinking water standards have been developed for an adult weighing 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds – not for a child or an infant. That’s why we published our own EWG Standards, which are limits drawn from the best scientific research that put children’s health first.

What can I do to protect my kids from tap water contaminants?

The best way to reduce your children’s exposures to harmful chemicals in drinking water is to install an effective in-home filter. Look to the EWG Water Filter Guide to find the right filter to remove the specific contaminants in your water and fit your budget.

For atrazine and lead: Even a simple countertop pitcher with a carbon filter can work.

See filters for atrazine.
See filters for lead.
For fluoride, manganese and nitrate: Reverse osmosis is the most reliable system for removing these contaminants. Click here to see reverse osmosis filters.

And after you get a filter for your home, don’t stop there. Reach out to local, state and federal officials to ask them hard questions about water quality, and hold them accountable for making sure all American children have safe water in their homes. Click here to see EWG guide, “7 Questions to Ask Your Elected Officials About Tap Water.”

Look out for future research from EWG on tap water

In the coming months, EWG will publish a series of reports for parents, future parents, and everyone interested in children’s health and drinking water. Look for advice on drinking water during pregnancy and nursing, information on contaminants to avoid, the latest research on chemicals in water such as hormones and hormonal disruptors, and how we can make children’s health a priority in national drinking water policy.