Water

As salaam alaikum
Dear Brother John
Thank you very much for your question concerning the water we should drink. While water is essential to life and we must have it, yet there is a tremendous amount of confusion, fear and anxiety on the subject. That is because of the corruption of the world in which we live that seeks to take advantage of a natural human need. They are the generators of the fear and confusion in order to push up sales. They, the corrupt ones, want to put a price on water so that they can wax rich from this natural human need and right. Good clean water is a human right and it should be available to all with no price attached.
God sends water down from the sky in the form of rain and up from the earth in the form of spring water - free of charge. These are the best sources of water and they should be kept free. Anybody with a rain barrel can collect pure rain water at no charge. Most people who own a farm or other valuable property have a spring or a well available to them. The rest of us are vulnerable to the schemers who seek to commercialize on our need.
Most people in the world do not have access to clean pure water. They drink directly from rivers and lakes and other sources that may not be pure. Sometimes they spend many hours of the day collecting water. Their health suffers as a result. The lack of clean water is a human rights violation and should be corrected.
In our part of the world, the so-called developed world, we have the full commercialization of water. Many of us have become water connoisseurs. We know and recognize the individual tastes of fine waters from all over the world. There is nothing wrong with this if you can afford it and enjoy it. But to think that water of a particular type or brand is better than other water is a fact yet to be proven to be a fact. Most often the claims made about a particular type of water are just that - claims. Claims that have an economic motive behind them.
Corrupt politicians, in the name of privatization and global free trade, have been turning control over water supplies over to private businesses. These private interests are doing what corporations are created to do - earn a profit. So if you don't have the money, you can't get a drink of water! How tragic! The most basic common show of human hospitality is to offer a drink of water to the thirsty. Now that basic level civilizing human characteristic is being threatened by market forces that have made water a commodity - rather than a product of Nature and a Universal right. An excellent way to jump-start the global economy would be to launch massive infra-structure projects throughout the world to see to it that every human being on earth has access to sufficient clean water to drink, bathe in and for agricultural and other uses.
Near the top of the economic opportunity pyramid for water is the expensive technology to alter the pH of water. Lately, there has been a lot of claims made for higher pH as being better for health. Alkaline is good, acid is bad - so goes the mantra. Except, the facts of the human body do not agree. If the claims about alkaline water were true, and you actually could alter the pH of the body in a significant way, then such water would be deadly. In the human body, life processes are only possible with in a narrow range of pH, hovering around 7.4. Even the slightest deviation from 7.4 in either direction can have deadly consequences. Acidosis and Alkalosis both produce disease. But luckily, the body has awesome ability to maintain a normal pH, and won't allow an alteration. Changes in pH of body fluids such as urine and saliva are just evidence that the body's ability to buffer itself is intact. Otherwise life would be impossible.
Some body tissues are acidic by virtue of their function. How could the stomach digest and sterilize food unless its pH is down around 1.0 - a very strong acid? What benefit would it be to change that? Bile that gets mixed into the food stream later on may have a pH up to 9.0, as the body is now neutralizing the previously acidified intestinal contents. This is an elegantly balanced system that should not be altered. To alter it is to create possible pathological conditions in the body.
Many painful arthritic conditions are due to hyper-alkalinity in the wrong place leading to calcium deposits that cause pain. So, my advise is to allow the body to care for itself in a natural way. The intelligence that governs the body is greater then that of our poorly educated brains.
So, just get some good clean water, filter it if need be, or boil it and drink it, but not too much, only the right amount. Depending on one's diet, you will need a certain amount of water to produce the digestive juices to digest your food. Keep an eye on the color of your urine. Let it be a light yellow. If it is deep dark yellow, that is a sure sign you are dehydrated. There are other more subtle signs of dehydration. Any time you feel less than well, drink some water. You will be surprised how often that will correct the problem.
Don't fall for the commercial hype about vitamin water, smart water, etc. These are highly refined water products that may be dangerous. Clustered water is available in raw milk - 89%.
Because most people in America eat food devoid of minerals, they probably would do well to avoid distilled water or rain water. Of course they should remedy their diet and they should be using liberal amounts of Celtic Sea Salt that will provide more than 92 different minerals the body and brain need in order to function well. Mineral spring water may contain some of these minerals, as does 'hard water'. Don't buy devices that soften water. Milk drinkers and those who fast - one meal a day- do not need so much water.
Once again thank you for your very important question. I am going to share your question and answer with others.
As salaam alaikum
Bro Alim




Abundant Life Health Attainment Center
12164 Central Avenue
Mitchellville, Md 20721
240 245 4147
Symptom Survey:
www.myabundantlife.me
Blogs:
www.lifeabundantly-alim.blogspot.com
www.originaldialogue.blogspot.com
www.haitianjournal-alim.blogspot.com
www.originalscientist.blogspot.com

Fluoride is a Poison

Is fluoride in drinking water a good idea?

Any form of mass medication is harmful to a lot of people.

This is for the simple reason that we exist as individuals, not as a mass, and we are all individually different. Therefore, we have needs and patterns of needs that are highly individualized. One size cannot fit all.

Mass medication efforts, like fluoride and vaccinations, always violate individual rights and are usually imposed by the force and power of government in a coercive way. With mass medication of a population 'informed consent' goes out the window. An individuals free will is not recognized. The sovereign right to say "No" is ignored. The following article shows some of the terrible consequences of fluoride in the water in India. It should be clear that the same thing is taking place here. Who decided that you needed to be fluoridated and why?

Enjoy. Learn. Share.

Fluoride Poisons Children in Jharkhand, India
2010-03-04


Fluoride poisoning from groundwater in India's eastern state of Jharkhand is causing serious health problems for villagers.

In Chukru village the people are suffering from acute dental and skeletal disorders, and it's been that way for a long time.

Yellowed teeth and bone deformities develop as soon as children reach the age of five.

Ten-year-old Babulal Ram has severe limb deformities.

[Babulal Ram, Child Poisoned by Fluoride]:
"Due to the contaminated water here we are suffering a lot … We want that clean drinking water should be provided to us so that we stay healthy."

Most villagers have discolored teeth and suffer acute joint pain, particularly in the knees.

There's a growing number of physically deformed children being born in the village.

[Sushil Kumar Singh, Villager]:
"For a long time we have been suffering because of fluorosis … This problem is just increasing day by day. We want something done about it but nothing is happening."

Fluorosis is also causing cataracts, premature ageing, calcified spinal ligaments, softened bones, and other degenerative conditions, such as spinal stenosis.

The Chukru village district administration says they've put in a pipeline to the Koel River to supply clearner drinking water.

[Amlendu Kumar, Executive Engineer]:
"The whole village has been affected by fluoride. That is why in Chukru village a pipeline is connected to the river. The river has less amount of fluoride. The pipeline works almost all the time as long as there is electricity."

The fluoride concentration of water samples from Palamu district ranges up to 600% higher than normal levels.



7. Guest 2010-03-05 13:35
Is this village an experiment to see the effects of flouride poisoning run by the CIA, FDA, etc, etc, financed by Soros？ Rockerfeller？ Rothchild？
6. Slipmatwax 2010-03-05 12:02
IdolsHave NoPow - That is a totally ignorant thing to state - I would have to guess you are from the "Western" world where everything you pray for you get and where your "Gods" listen to your prayers
5. richard Lefew 2010-03-05 10:29
I use a good reverse Osmosis filter to eliminate that garbage from my water supply. It works. Cost about 250.00. I'd gladly donate one to this people. I hate fluoride. I can taste it.
7 comments, 3 pages 1 【View All Comments】

Chem Trail Basic Information

Here is a very thoughtful and informative analysis of the chem trail phenomenon, apparently from a Chinese source. The evidence is piling up.

So why don't we hear any new reports about this? Why don't journalists write about this? Why don't politicians mention it in speeches?

What's the position of the Democrats and the Republicans

and the neo-cons or the liberals?

Why do ordinary people go about their business as though they don't see what is right above their heads?

Why don't the preachers preach about what they see right in front of their faces almost everyday?

Where are the outraged parents who are concerned for their children?

What do the school teachers have to say and medical establishment?

Where are the environmentalists who claim they want to save the planet?

Where the hell is Al Gore? For completeness sake, Where the hell are you?

Is everybody drugged? How to you explain such pervasive apathy and silence? How can we tolerate not knowing what is being done to us? Who is going to explain all this to us and who is going to save us from whatever this is?

Tons of questions. No answers.

Fluoride Poisoning of the American People

The following article - lengthy though it is- gives some of the history of how fluoride got into the water throughout the length and breadth of America, poisoning the entire population in one fell swoop. Fluoridation is mass medication of a population and is morally and ethically wrong. People have a right to accept or refuse medication and should be given sufficient information to make a rational choice.

Enjoy. Learn. Share.
DID GOVERNMENT APPROVE CITIZENS AS TOXIC WASTE SITES?
ARE WE BEING POISONED?
"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened."
-Winston Churchill-
It has been a long established joke about not drinking the water in Third World countries. Now it is here in America that the water has been declared unsafe to drink, and it is no joke. Whereas the greatest problem with water in the underdeveloped nations is usually such as amoebic dysentery, serious but reversible, in the U.S. it is rat poison one gets in the drinking water--and it is no accident.
Extensive studies, ignored with a yawn by those who believe they are being served well by the media and various dental associations, have shown that the consumption of fluoride in drinking water and prescription doses is extremely harmful and deleterious in a number of ways.
Reputable researchers from such as Harvard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and numerable other research investigators, have shown that fluoridation of drinking water can result in brain and other physiological damage producing such abnormalities as:
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
Hyperactivity or passive malaise -- depending on whether exposure is pre- or postnatal
Alzheimer's disease or senile dementia
The death of brain cells directly involved in the decision making processes
Cracked, pitted and brittle teeth and bones not being considered as a potential leading cause of osteoporosis
Higher hip fracture rates
Reduction in intelligence and increased learning disability
The list goes on of primary and ancillary defects and damage caused by the addition of a substance used in rat poison.
In a 1997 copyrighted article once seriously considered for publication by The New York Times Magazine, investigative reporter Joel Griffiths followed a convoluted trail of once-secret documents stretching as far back as the Manhattan Project. In a subsequent article entitled, "Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb" Griffiths collaborated with journalist Christopher Bryson to piece together not only the origin of water fluoridation, but its secret rationale and the insidious reasoning behind the introduction into the drinking water of two-thirds of American cities of what is nothing more than a toxic waste product.
Griffiths told The WINDS that The New York Times Magazine had shown great interest in his original article to the point of suggesting specific rewrites resulting even in the submission of a final working draft. Then, according to Griffiths, their interested suddenly disappeared. Later when Bryson joined with Griffiths the two journalists had a similar experience with The Christian Science Monitor who had actually accepted their final co-authored work for publication but never put it in print and finally canceled.
The authors, who have worked for such as the BBC, New York Public Television, The Christian Science Monitor and others, boldly introduced their work by stating, "The following article exposes the biggest ongoing medical experiment ever carried out by the United States government on an unsuspecting population," and continues with meticulously verified sources derived largely from documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. ***
"One of the most toxic chemicals known," they claim, "fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the U.S. atomic bomb program -- both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal." Other revelations include:
"Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide 'evidence useful in litigation' against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show."
Dr. John R. Lee, MD[2], was chairman of the Environmental Health Committee of his local medical association in Marin County, California when he came head-to-head with the fluoride issue. According to Dr. Lee, the county had continually pushed water fluoridation on the local ballot until it passed by a slim one per cent.
"The medical society was receiving a lot of phone calls from people who were wondering what the truth was about the benefit, or lack of benefit, of fluoride. As a result, they turned it over to the Environmental Health Committee."
Dr. Lee was the perfect, unbiased investigator because, "Up until then," he told The WINDS, "I didn't know anything about fluoride, so our committee got the scientific references from both sides of the issue. We studied the references that led to more references--and we tracked it all down and found that the fluoride literature is mostly hogwash.
"Then," he continues, "we asked the medical society if we could do a study to determine how much fluoride there already was in the food--because in Canada they had been monitoring that and found that there was a lot of fluoride in their food chain due to, among other things, processing with fluoridated water.
"Our study of the food that children eat determined that there was plenty of fluoride in it and there was really no reason to add more to the water because it already exceeded what the public health department determined was the maximum daily dose.
"That's when I became aware of what was going on and went to testify at the State Board of Health. It was amazing to see these guys come out with their references that really aren't references--statements taken out of someone else's paper that wasn't based on anything--a kind of circular, self-referencing research. ["Joe said it so now I can quote Joe, even though Joe was just quoting me."] They would take statements made in textbooks that were published before there was any fluoridation and food was not being processed with fluoridated water--and they would just change the dates. We found all these tricks being played with the data. It was then that I discovered that it was not a scientific dispute but dishonest trickery. It was all a sham."
When The WINDS asked Dr. Lee why, according to his research into the controversy, he thought there was so much political force driving the fluoridation movement, the physician/scientist said, "It's a toxic waste product of many types of industry; for instance, glass production, phosphate fertilizer production and many others. They would have no way to dispose of the tons of fluoride waste they produce unless they could find some use for it, so they made up this story about it being good for dental health. Then they can pass it through everyone's bodies and into the sewer." [A novel approach to toxic waste disposal--just feed it to the people and let their bodies "detoxify" it]. "It is a well coordinated effort," Dr. Lee added, "to keep it from being declared for what it is--a toxic waste."
This could cause one to wonder if the public were not already aware of the dangers of radioactive plutonium waste, what means the government would use to dispose of it.
Dr. Lee's argument carries considerable credibility in light of the revelations proceeding from Griffiths' and Bryson's research into the previously classified documents. That research shows, as mentioned previously, that the idea of fluoride being good for people's teeth originated with the atomic bomb's Manhattan Project. That "fact" that fluoride was beneficial constituted the government's cardinal defense against lawsuits stemming from an environmental contamination that took place from the Du Pont chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey in 1944. "The factory was then producing millions of pounds of fluoride for the Manhattan Project, the ultra-secret U.S. military program racing to produce the world's first atomic bomb."
It should be noted here that, without exception, all scientists interviewed during the course of researching this article agreed upon one overwhelming motivation for the government's vigorous promotion of water fluoridation and other dental applications of fluoride--though they've known since the mid 30's of the highly toxic nature of the substance. That unanimous opinion was that it ultimately posed a very tidy solution to the disposal of a very nasty toxic waste. One EPA scientist quoted previously, Dr. William Hirzy, went so far as to conjecture that the red ink that would be produced by the fertilizer industry alone, if it were required to properly dispose of fluoride as a waste product, would exceed $100 million a year. As the legendary New York City Police Detective, Frank Serpico, was once warned, "With that kind of money you don't [mess] around."
The WINDS has obtained a copy of a letter dated March, 1983 on EPA letterhead, written by then U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer. In that document Ms. Hanmer frankly admits that:
In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency [the EPA] regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product [read that: toxic waste-product] fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.
Keeping in mind that the EPA considers a spill of more than twenty-five pounds of common table salt an environmental hazard or "incident", in fairness it must be asked, first, is fluoride really effective in reducing tooth decay and, secondly, at the same time is it safe for drinking water?
The answer to the first question: not according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
...Investigators have failed to show a consistent correlation between anticaries [cavities] activity and the specific amounts of fluoride incorporated into enamel.
...Since the 1970s, caries scores have been declining in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere. ...National decreases have not occurred in all countries, notably Brazil and France where the caries scores have not changed, and Japan, Nigeria, and Thailand where the scores have increased." [3] [Japan & Thailand report high dietary fluoride levels].
A TRAIL OF CASUALTIES
The political and financial forces surrounding the fluoride industry, according to Dr. Lee and others, are vicious and unrelenting in their assaults upon anyone daring to place themselves at odds with it. Dr. Lee briefly outlined cases with which he is personally acquainted where reputable doctors and scientists have had their careers either ruined or severely crippled as the result of trying to introduce truth into this darkness-shrouded global enterprise. Cases in point:
During the time of the election [to decide on whether or not to fluoridate the county's water supply], Lee said the head of the Marin County Public Health Department was claiming "it was beneficial and perfectly safe. After the election, when I discovered all these things, I presented them to her, showing her all the tricks that had been used. She then asked the state public health department if she had the power to stop the fluoridation, realizing she had been mistaken. The next thing I knew," Lee continued, "she had taken early retirement and left for New Orleans to take care of her mother. She told me that if she made any statement about it at all she would have lost all her retirement benefits."

Dr. Allan S. Gray, a British Columbia health officer, did a study of all school children's teeth in that province, which is only about 15% fluoridated. He found that the teeth of those children in British Columbia where there was no fluoridation were in much better condition than in the fluoridated areas. His findings were published in the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, entitled, "Time for a New Baseline?" [4]. So the message was that fluoridation did not provide any benefit to children and for publishing that research the top public health dentist in British Columbia was demoted and sent to Ottawa where he was put in a basement office and ordered to never speak to anybody about the matter again. If he did, he would lose his standing in the public health department of Canada and very likely all of his retirement benefits.

Dr. John Colquhon, an Aukland, New Zealand dental researcher with a prominent university, performed studies on children's teeth and the neighboring towns that were not fluoridated and discovered the children had no difference in cavity rate--they just all had fluorosed teeth [damage done by the presence of fluoride in their drinking water]. When he published his findings he was demoted and lost all of his retirement benefits and was forced to retire. As a Ph.D. he had to take a teaching position--all of the people he had considered his colleagues for thirty years suddenly didn't recognize him any more."

Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., formerly of Harvard University experienced the wrath of the industry when she walked blindly into the fluoride fray as part of her research program with Harvard's Department of Neuropathology and Psychiatry. While holding a dual appointment to Harvard and the Forsyth Dental Research Institute, Dr. Mullenix established the Department of Toxicology at Forsyth for the purpose of investigating the environmental impact of substances that were used in dentistry. During that undertaking she was also directed by the institute's head to investigate fluoride toxicity. That's where, as she puts it, "things got weird."
THE "MIRACLE OF FLUORIDE" -or- A DIRTY INDUSTRY?
"By about 1990 I had gathered enough data from the test and control animals," Mullenix continues, "to realize that fluoride doesn't look clean." When she reviewed that data she realized that something was seriously affecting her test animals. They had all (except the control group) been administered doses of fluoride sufficient to bring their blood levels up to the same as those that had caused dental fluorosis [a brittleness and staining of the teeth] in thousands of children. Up to this point, Mullenix explained, fluorosis was widely thought to be the only effect of excessive fluoridation.
The scientist's first hint that she may not be navigating friendly waters came when she was ordered to present her findings to the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) [a division of NIH, the National Institute of Health]. "That's when the 'fun' started," she said, "I had no idea what I was getting into. I walked into the main corridors there and all over the walls was 'The Miracle of Fluoride'. That was my first real kick-in-the-pants as to what was actually going on." The NIH display, she said, actually made fun of and ridiculed those that were against fluoridation. "I thought, 'Oh great!' Here's the main NIH hospital talking about the 'Miracle of Fluoride' and I'm giving a seminar to the NIDR telling them that fluoride is neurotoxic!"
What Dr. Mullenix presented at the seminar that, in reality, sounded the death knell of her career was that:
"The fluoride pattern of behavioral problems matches up with the same results of administering radiation and chemotherapy [to cancer patients]. All of these really nasty treatments that are used clinically in cancer therapy are well known to cause I.Q. deficits in children. That's one of the best studied effects they know of. The behavioral pattern that results from the use of fluoride matches that produced by cancer treatment that causes a reduction in intelligence."
At a meeting with dental industry representatives immediately following her presentation, Mullenix was bluntly asked if she was saying that their company's products were lowering the I.Q. of children? "And I told them, 'basically, yes.'"
The documents obtained by authors Griffiths and Bryson seem to add yet another voice of corroboration to the reduced intelligence effects of fluoride. "New epidemiological evidence from China adds support," the writers claim, "showing a correlation between low dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children."
Then in 1994, after refining her research and findings, Dr. Mullenix presented her results to the Journal of Neurotoxicology and Teratology [5], considered probably the world's most respected publication in that field. Three days after she joyfully announced to the Forsyth Institute that she had been accepted for publication by the journal, she was dismissed from her position. What followed was a complete evaporation of all grants and funding for any of Mullenix's research. What that means in the left-brain world of scientific research, which is fueled by grants of government and corporate capital, is the equivalent to an academic burial. Her letter of dismissal from the Forsyth Institute stated as their reason for that action that her work was not "dentally related." [Fluoride research--not dentally related?] The institute's director stated, according to Mullenix, "they didn't consider the safety or the toxicity of fluoride as being their kind of science." Of course, a logical question begs itself at this last statement: why was Dr. Mullenix assigned the study of fluoride toxicity in the first place if it was not "their kind of science"?
Subsequently, she was continually hounded by both Forsyth and the NIH as to the identity of the journal in which her research was to be published. She told The WINDS that she refused to disclose that information because she knew the purpose of this continual interrogation was so that they could attempt to quash its publication.
Almost immediately following her dismissal, Dr. Mullenix said, the Forsyth Institute received a quarter-million dollar grant from the Colgate company. Coincidence or reward?
Her findings clearly detailed the developmental effects of fluoride, pre- and postnatal. Doses administered before birth produced marked hyperactivity in offspring. Postnatal administration caused the infant rats to exhibit what Dr. Mullenix calls the "couch potato syndrome"--a malaise or absence of initiative and activity. One need only observe the numerous children being dosed with Ritalin as treatment for their hyperactivity to draw logical correlations.
Following her dismissal, the scientist's equipment and computers, designed specifically for the studies, were mysteriously damaged and destroyed by water leakage before she could remove them from Forsyth. Coincidence?
Dr. Mullenix was then given an unfunded research position at Children's Hospital in Boston, but with no equipment and no money--what for? "The people at Children's Hospital, for heaven's sake, came right out and said they were scared because they knew how important the fluoride issue was," Mullenix said. "Even at Forsyth they told me I was endangering funds for the institution if I published that information." It has become clear to such as Dr. Mullenix et al, that money, not truth, drives science--even at the expense of the health and lives of the nation's citizens.
"I got into science because it was fun," she said, "and I would like to go back and do further studies, but I no longer have any faith in the integrity of the system. I find research is utterly controlled." If one harbors any doubt that large sums of corporate money and political clout can really provide sufficient influence to induce scientists and respected physicians to endorse potentially harmful treatment for their patients, consider the results published in a January 8th article of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)[6]. The Journal revealed their survey of doctors in favor of, and against, a particular drug that has been proven harmful (in this case calcium blockers shown to significantly increase the risk of breast cancer in older women). "Our results," the Journal said, "demonstrate a strong association between authors' published positions on the safety of calcium-channel antagonists and their financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers."
When The WINDS asked Dr. Mullenix where she planned to take her research, she said that she is not hopeful that any place exists that isn't "afraid of fluoride or printing the truth."
The end result of the dark odyssey of Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., and her journey through the nightmare of the fluoride industry is, essentially, a ruined career of a brilliant scientist because her's was not "their kind of science".
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
It has become evident, as the result of the once-secret documents obtained by Griffiths and Bryson that Dr. Mullenix's research was not the first to discover the dangers of fluoride. "The original secret version -- obtained by these reporters -- of a 1948 study published by Program F [the code name given fluoride studies] scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) -- considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies -- for reasons of national security." One would necessarily have to ask what the perceived threat was to national security if fluoride was found to be toxic by the American Dental Association. Did they perhaps perceive a potential threat as proceeding from the American people?
"...Up to eighty percent," the Griffiths/Bryson article continues, "in some cities -- now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure, according to the U.S. National Research Council. (The signs are whitish flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe cases)."
Dr. William Hirzy, an organic chemist and a senior scientist in Environmental Risk Assessment with EPA originally became involved in the fluoride issue "as a matter of professional ethics when one of the EPA scientists came to us and complained that he was being asked to write a Federal Register notice with which he has substantial ethical problems." The scientist protested that "the agency wants me to write this notice that says it's alright to have teeth that look like you've been chewing on rocks and tar balls. I have a real problem with that," he told Hirzy.
To issue a notice of intended regulation in the Federal Register means that after a specified period of time the notice essentially becomes law and is entered into either the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or the United States Code (USC). This process is a much used manner of creating law by circumventing the constitutional process of legislation. It becomes what is called "administrative law."
"At that time," Hirzy said, "EPA was revising its drinking water standards for fluoride and was about to issue a notice that four milligrams per liter was an acceptable level of fluoride for drinking water." The great problem with that, Hirzy explained, "indicated that a substantial number of people who were exposed to that concentration would have teeth suffering from severe dental fluorosis eroded, cracked and pitted and stained....The agency [EPA] was saying that it was not a health effect, it was only cosmetic. Frankly," Hirzy remonstrated, "it doesn't seem to be a very ethical stance for us to say that if your teeth don't work--if they're cracked and pitted and falling out--that it's not a health effect.
"The agency," Hirzy told The WINDS, "was taking that position because of the peculiar wording of the Safe Drinking Water Act which says that EPA has to set standards that protect against adverse health effects with an adequate margin of safety." So they wanted to say, according to Dr. Hirzy, that "severe dental fluorosis is not an adverse health effect." If, in essence, you just say it is not an adverse health effect, you then effectively comply with the law by juggling the definition.
The great problem with the system, Hirzy explained, is that the EPA is not a constitutionally mandated organization and therefore cannot [or is not supposed to] make law but can only advise the executive branch of government. The dilemma arises when whatever administration is in office comes to the agency and says, "We want you to write that the science supports this particular decision, whatever it may be, that's where I draw the line and say 'no dice, we're not going to do that....You can't make us lie about the science.' It makes us complicit in deception. We do not want to have to invoke the Nuremberg defense," (i.e., I was just doing what I was told).
Hirzy said that the EPA, in fact, got away with imposing a standard that effectually ruins the teeth of very many who drink fluoridated water because, though "widely known to cause severe fluorosis at four milligrams per liter, that is the standard in effect to this day."
Of even more ominous portent, Hirzy said, is that, far from being merely cosmetic in effect, "what's going on in the teeth is a window to what's going on in the bones. What fluoride does in the hydroxy-epitite structure in teeth it does to the same structure in bone. It is well known now that fluoride produces faulty bone, more brittle, basically mimicking in the bone what is clearly visible in the teeth." A kind of artificial osteoporosis.
"It's an outrageous situation," the EPA scientist claims, when you have fluoridated household drinking water in such concentration that the agency must inform parents that they "should not be allowing their children to drink four milligrams per liter of fluoride, and if they have that in their water supply they should go to an alternative source." Does it not seem a little strange that the government authorizes the addition of a chemical to ostensibly help children's teeth and then tells parents not to allow their children to drink it? We are most certainly not in Kansas anymore, Toto!
So toxic is the fluoride added to drinking water that, according to Hirzy, if one were to take a dose of it about half the size of that "500 mg vitamin C tablet you take in the morning, you'd be dead long before the sun went down. When you're talking about something with that kind of potent toxicity," he says, "it's unrealistic to think that the only adverse effect it has is death. It must be doing something intracellularly to cause these effects."
As evidence that the government has known for over sixty years that fluoride is a health hazard, Hirzy quoted from an article, "clear back in 1934 in which the American Dental Association plainly treats the subject very matter-of-factly. It calls fluoride a general protoplasmic poison."
Robert Carton, Ph.D., twenty years with EPA and now employed as a scientist with the Army, claims that, on "July 7, 1997 the EPA scientists, engineers and attorneys who assess the scientific data for the Safe Drinking Water Act standards and other EPA regulations have gone on record against the practice of adding fluoride to public drinking water.
Question: if the Environmental Protection Agency possesses the clout to virtually confiscate a man's land because some of it is a little soggy--calling it wetlands--why do they not exercise that power to enforce de-fluoridation of drinking water, which they have declared unsafe? Does money play any role in this?
Dr. Carton informed this office that fluoride itself is not the only major hazard stemming from its introduction into city water supplies. "A very real danger lies in the fact that fluosilicic acid leaches lead from plumbing. "There are a couple of places in the country," Dr. Carton said, "Seattle being one and Thermont, Maryland...that when they stopped adding fluoride to their water the lead levels dropped in half."
The problem with the data used to determine the safety of fluoride, Carton said, is that it is all based on the original figures presented by the chief scientist in charge of the Manhattan Project's fluoride safety, Dr. Harold Hodge. He falsified or "cooked the numbers," as Carton put it, to make his data fit what the government wanted.
In addition to the dental and skeletal damage caused by fluoride, Dr. Carton also cites research that claims that a specific antibody (immunoglobulin - IgM) that is missing from patients with certain types of brain tumors is also missing from the blood of those tested with elevated blood fluoride levels. This is leading many to theorize that such brain tumors are much more likely among individuals consuming fluoride compounds in their diet. Since most juice concentrates and food stuffs are processed with fluoridated water, such blood elevations are becoming much more common.
ENOUGH ALREADY? NOPE, THERE'S MORE--
In a study published last October in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences [7], Dr. Robert L. Isaacson makes a number of astounding revelations about this toxic waste in our water.
"Probably the most startling observation from our first experiment," Isaacson states, "was the high mortality rate in the group of animals that received the lowest dose of AlF 3 [aluminum fluoride]. Different groups of rats had been given one of three levels of AlF3 in double distilled drinking water: 0.5 ppm, 5 ppm, and 50 ppm starting at about four months of age. A fourth group received only the distilled water." The experiment lasted only 45 weeks but, Isaacson stated, "Eighty per cent of the rats in the [lowest concentration group] died before the end of the experiment" which was the highest mortality rate of all. "Not only did the rats in the lowest dose group die more often during the experiment, they looked poorly well before their deaths. Even the rats in the low dose group that managed to survive until the end of the 45 weeks looked to be in poor health. They had much thinner hair than those in the other groups and the exposed skin was bronzed, mottled and flaky. Their teeth and toe nails were excessively dark." Follow-up studies, the scientist said, "showed the same high level of mortality." The study goes on to say that, in subsequent research, low levels of the same kind of fluoride that is added to city drinking water "also allows the enhancement of brain levels of Al."
Another prominent finding by Isaacson's group was the significant reduction on the cells of the hippocampus, that part of the brain that acts like a central processing unit in a computer, telling other parts what to do and how to function. The hippocampus is the primary decision making part of the brain, damage to which causes the victim to become more submissive and less challenging to his environment. One could logically question if this is not a pivotal reason for the government's push for universal fluoridation.
In the brain of his low dose test animals, Isaacson observed a tangling of capillary blood vessels, reduced oxygen uptake along with the peculiar crystalline structures, all of which are identical to those found in Alzheimer's victims. Dr. Isaacson's research indicates that the Alzheimer's-like effects result from the transport of aluminum to the brain and the high death rates from the toxicity of the fluorine.
Aluminum has previously to this, of course, been implicated in Alzheimer's, but how is the link made between fluoridation of human drinking water and the presence of aluminum fluoride? According to Drs. Carton and Burgstahler, fluoride being the most electrochemically active of all the elements, it has a strong propensity to create metallic compounds with itself whenever fluoridated water comes into contact with such things as aluminum cooking vessels. Ergo: there is created aluminum fluoride from cooking with such vessels using fluoridated water and not incidentally, according to Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA scientist, aluminum is used in city water treatment.
"An incidental observation of possible importance must be mentioned," the research paper adds. "Pathologic changes were found in the kidneys of animals in both the AlF 3 and NaF [sodium fluoride] groups." If all this weren't enough, the research team observed a "general impairment in the immune capacities of the treated subjects." They also found that the death rate increased among those animals treated with the aluminum fluoride where stress was elevated due to a training regime.
The research clearly indicates that not only does the presence of fluoride reduce the body's ability to utilize oxygen and nutrients, but actively inhibits the system's ability to rid itself of waste. This creates an apparent synergistic assault upon the health by poisoning the body with its own toxic waste while impairing its effectiveness to use the nutrients that would help in the detoxification process.
In the face of overwhelming data proving that fluoride is not only not beneficial but extremely harmful; the reliable evidence that the government has known of this for over sixty years; the continuing press for fluoridation in the drinking water of American cities, makes all the more believable the portentous claim set forth in the Protocols:
"...We now appear on the scene as apparent saviors of the common worker, saving him from this oppression by enrolling him in the ranks of our various forces fighting for imaginary civil liberties. The upper class, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy and strong. We are interested in just the opposite-in the diminishment, the killing out of the nations. Our power is in the chronic...physical and mental weakness of the worker. What that results in is his being made the slave of our will, and he will not find in the authorities of his own society either the strength or energy to oppose us."

REFERENCES:
1. "Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb", Griffiths & Bryson, 1997. Author Griffiths indicated that this URL contains an accurate reproduction of their article.
2. John R. Lee, MD, article: "The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation", April 15, 1995.
3. "Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks", Department of Health and Human Services, February 1991, p. 7 & p. 31.
4. The Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, Vol. 53, pp 763-765, 1987.
5. "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats", Mullenix, P. Neurotoxicology and Teratology", 17(2), 1995.
6. The New England Journal of Medicine -- January 8, 1998 -- Volume 338, Number 2 [SPECIAL ARTICLE] "Conflict of Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists", Henry Thomas Stelfox, Grace Chua, Keith O'Rourke, Allan S. Detsky.
7. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 825 "Neuroprotective Agents, Third International Conference." Title: "Toxin-Induced Blood Vessel Inclusion caused by the Chronic Administration of Aluminum and Sodium Fluoride and their Implication for Dementia." Robert. L. Isaacson, et al, p. 152-166.
Further reading:

Raw Milk - Purest Source of Water

So study after study is showing the same thing - America's water supply is contaminated. Bottled water is a scam and before long water may be completely privatized and available only to those with the money to buy it at prices that are astronomical. My wife's favorite water sells for no less than $1.39 per liter, and has been known to go as high as $1.89 per liter. That's around $5.60 a gallon! Water is almost twice the price of gasoline with no guarantee that it is safe and pure! What about filters? Some of the ultra filters may be good, but they are also expensive and may be prone to failure over time. Even if you have your own well or spring that does not mean that chemicals and pathogens have not leached into your well from surrounding areas. The government is useless and can be counted on to do just what they are doing - nothing. If Obama really wanted to get people back to work, he could announce a campaign to re-build the water infra-structure throughout the country rather than bailing out the banks. How can the country survive without adequate safe water?

Here's one solution that is very helpful. As a person increases the percentage of the diet that comes from raw milk, the need for water goes down. Raw milk is 89% water! So someone who drinks a quart or more of raw milk is getting most of the water needed for a day. Milk drinkers need less water to begin with because most of the water used everyday by the body is to help dilute food in the intestinal tract and to produce the digestive juices so that what we eat can be broken down and assimilated. Milk is already dilute and basically digests itself. You don't need extra water to do that.

Not only that, but the water that is contained in milk is very pure. The water in milk is the water that was in the grass eaten by the cow. Rainwater falls from the clouds in a very pure distilled form to water the grass. This already pure water is further filtered and purified through the soil and the root system of the growing green grass. After the cow eats the grass the water in the grass undergoes further purification and highly significant energetic enhancement and restructuring as it is processed through the body of the cow and emerges as an ultra-filtrate in the udder as pure milk!

How could Allah in the Holy Qur'an refer to milk as a pure drink unless every component of it is purified, the largest component being its water?

So drink up. Once again milk proves over and over again

that it really is one of God's greatest miracles.

Enjoy. Learn. Share.

What's inside dirty U.S. drinking water?

By WC Douglas MD

A New York Times investigation found that more than 62 million Americans have been exposed to substandard drinking water since 2004. There are hundreds -- maybe even thousands -- of dangerous contaminants in our water, yet only 91 of them are regulated by the government. During the past decade, there hasn't been a single addition to the list of chemicals regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act -- and much of this law has been unchanged since the 1980s. Regulators aren't just asleep at the wheel -- they've driven us off the road, over a cliff and into a filthy reservoir. In one city, the local water department had to abandon 40 percent of all municipal wells in one area because of contamination. This didn't happen in some backwater town, or next door to a single big factory. Nope... according to the Times, this happened in Los Angeles -- our second -- largest city. If these same contaminants were turning up in food, there would be outrage... and probably a Congressional investigation. But since the problems were CAUSED by our own listless government and its big industry pals, you rarely hear a peep about it. Any attempt to cut down on the chemicals in our water is met with aggressive lobbying from powerful industries. The best thing you can do is to buy yourself a reverse-osmosis water filter and install it not at the sink, but where the water enters your home -- because believe me, you don't even want to shower in this stuff. I didn't need the stunning new report in the New York Times to tell me how bad the problem is -- I've been warning my readers about this for years. If you want to read more of the nauseating truth, read my special report on the dangers found in your drinking water.

Who Owns the Water?

We all know the terms, 'globalization' and 'privatization' since they have been bantered about for the last 20 to 30 years. Both terms have policy implications for governments around the world and for all of the people around the world. The principles of globalization and privatization are embraced by both major political parties, and there is no debate. These principles constitute an religious outlook that is above challenge and which are jealously guarded by the 'high-priests' of this new pagan religion, that is also entwined with 'environmentalism'. Thus we have a new trinity of faith that guides action producing a new ethics. But from a practical point of view what these terms mean in reality is corporate ownership and control of all of the resources of the world environment. This includes food, air and water, the key elements upon which human life depends.

A traditional folksong went:

"If heaven was a place that money could buy,

The rich would live and the poor would die."

Drugs in our drinking water
17 January 2010

Acharya S
No, not just fluoride, which is bad enough - much of our drinking water, in the U.S., Canada and U.K. at least, is contaminated with Prozac and a "vast array" of other drugs.
And you wonder why everyone around is sleepwalking and/or sick?
Study Finds Traces of Drugs in Drinking Water in 24 Major U.S. Regions
A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.But the presence of so many prescription drugs — and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen — in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health....
Prozac in Tap Water
Nine different drugs were found in water samples near 20 different water treatment plants across Ontario, Canada. The drugs were "acidic pharmaceuticals", which include ibuprofin and neproxin (painkillers), gemfibrozil (cholesterol-lowering medicine), and prozac (anti-depressant). The area with the highest levels of contamination were from locations near sewage treatment plants, suggesting that the chemicals are getting into our water supply from our own bodily wastes! Areas that tested the lowest were plants whose sourcing water was from groundwater or lakes...
Prozac 'found in drinking water'
Traces of the antidepressant Prozac can be found in the nation's drinking water, it has been revealed.An Environment Agency report suggests so many people are taking the drug nowadays it is building up in rivers and groundwater.A report in Sunday's Observer says the government's environment watchdog has discussed the impact for human health.A spokesman for the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) said the Prozac found was most likely highly diluted....
The following film is not about drugs but about water, per se. A very frightening situation!

America's Dangerous Water - Not Fit to Drink

The mark of a civilized society is its ability to keep its waste (sewage) separate from its drinking water and food supply. Any nation or city that can not do that is putting the health of its citizen at risk and is ultimately putting its own continued existence at risk as well. If the citizens are sickened and weakened by pollution and contamination in the food and water supply then they will not be able to maintain the society. The corrupt economic policies under bankruptcy since the days of the The New Deal has led to nearly complete collapse of public safety infra-structure such as sewage treatment, water treatment and public health. As these converge with increasing environmental pollution and a degraded food chain, then disaster is on the horizon. The following article from the Los Angeles Times reveals the shocking truth about America's water supply and its impact on the health of Americans who drink it. Keep in mind, this is related to the 'privatization' of water as a commodity. Shouldn't clean pure water be a human right? In some instances, bottled water is more expensive than gasoline! Suppose you can't pay? Somebody is getting rich on our natural need for water! Is air next? What would the selling price for air be?

It is mentioned in the lessons, isn't it?

Enjoy. Learn. Think. Share.

That Tap Water Is Legal but May Be Unhealthy

By CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: December 16, 2009
The 35-year-old federal law regulating tap water is so out of date that the water Americans drink can pose what scientists say are serious health risks — and still be legal.
Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet more than 60,000 chemicals are used within the United States, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Government and independent scientists have scrutinized thousands of those chemicals in recent decades, and identified hundreds associated with a risk of cancer and other diseases at small concentrations in drinking water, according to an analysis of government records by The New York Times.
But not one chemical has been added to the list of those regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2000.
Other recent studies have found that even some chemicals regulated by that law pose risks at much smaller concentrations than previously known. However, many of the act’s standards for those chemicals have not been updated since the 1980s, and some remain essentially unchanged since the law was passed in 1974.
All told, more than 62 million Americans have been exposed since 2004 to drinking water that did not meet at least one commonly used government health guideline intended to help protect people from cancer or serious disease, according to an analysis by The Times of more than 19 million drinking-water test results from the District of Columbia and the 45 states that made data available.
In some cases, people have been exposed for years to water that did not meet those guidelines.
But because such guidelines were never incorporated into the Safe Drinking Water Act, the vast majority of that water never violated the law.
Some officials overseeing local water systems have tried to go above and beyond what is legally required. But they have encountered resistance, sometimes from the very residents they are trying to protect, who say that if their water is legal it must be safe.
Dr. Pankaj Parekh, director of the water quality division for the City of Los Angeles, has faced such criticism. The water in some city reservoirs has contained contaminants that become likely cancer-causing compounds when exposed to sunlight.
To stop the carcinogens from forming, the city covered the surface of reservoirs, including one in the upscale neighborhood of Silver Lake, with a blanket of black plastic balls that blocked the sun.
Then complaints started from owners of expensive houses around the reservoir. “They supposedly discovered these chemicals, and then they ruined the reservoir by putting black pimples all over it,” said Laurie Pepper, whose home overlooks the manmade lake. “If the water is so dangerous, why can’t they tell us what laws it’s violated?”
Dr. Parekh has struggled to make his case. “People don’t understand that just because water is technically legal, it can still present health risks,” he said. “And so we encounter opposition that can become very personal.”
Some federal regulators have tried to help officials like Dr. Parekh by pushing to tighten drinking water standards for chemicals like industrial solvents, as well as a rocket fuel additive that has polluted drinking water sources in Southern California and elsewhere. But those efforts have often been blocked by industry lobbying.
Drinking water that does not meet a federal health guideline will not necessarily make someone ill. Many contaminants are hazardous only if consumed for years. And some researchers argue that even toxic chemicals, when consumed at extremely low doses over long periods, pose few risks. Others argue that the cost of removing minute concentrations of chemicals from drinking water does not equal the benefits.
Moreover, many of the thousands of chemicals that have not been analyzed may be harmless. And researchers caution that such science is complicated, often based on extrapolations from animal studies, and sometimes hard to apply nationwide, particularly given that more than 57,400 water systems in this country each deliver, essentially, a different glass of water every day.
Government scientists now generally agree, however, that many chemicals commonly found in drinking water pose serious risks at low concentrations.
And independent studies in such journals as Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Environmental Health Perspectives; American Journal of Public Health; and Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, as well as reports published by the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that millions of Americans become sick each year from drinking contaminated water, with maladies from upset stomachs to cancer and birth defects.