ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY ♲ HEALTH ♲ ANIMAL ADVOCACY
kids play at beach
facebook
fluoride is toxic and unnecessary Cities and towns worldwide have opposed municipal fluoridation and won.

On November 4, 2015 voters in San Marcos, Texas (pop. 45,000), approved a resolution ending and prohibiting the fluoridation of their public water supply with 61% of the vote.

Voters passed the following language into law: “The City of San Marcos shall not add, or direct or require its agents to add fluoride in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid, hexafluorosilicic acid, or sodium silicofluoride to the San Marcos municipal water supply.”

San Marcos has artificially fluoridated the drinking water since 1987, but a major grassroots effort over the past year has brought that to an end. A strong coalition of campaigners, including Fluoride Free San Marcos and Texans for Accountable Government weren’t discouraged by a city council that ignored their calls for an end to the practice. Instead, the multi-partisan coalition moved forward and collected the 1,600 signatures required to get a resolution amending the city charter on the ballot.

Then another obstacle arose. Their referendum petition was illegally invalidated by the City Clerk, who even sued Fluoride Free San Marcos and three of its officers to have a judge void the petition and have the campaigners pay the city’s legal expenses. The judge ruled that the petition was legal, and directed the city to place the question on the ballot.

Majority of the European Union is fluoride free with Ireland as an exception. Australia and New Zealand have nationwide fluoridation. All three countries have towns that have questioned, opposed the policy, and banned the practice.

Many other US towns beyond San Marcos have successfully stopped fluoridation.

Here is a list of more than 200 communities worldwide that have banned municipal fluoridation.

my evil VW TDIWho Can We Trust?
via Steve

It's fall of 2015 and the VW emissions scandal is all over the news. Everyone is outraged including me. I drive a VW TDI 'clean diesel' which I chose in part for its low environmental impact. I've gotten as much as 62mpg on a highway trip, but turns out my high mpg car dumps nitrogen oxide exhaust at an outrageous rate. I was duped, but is VW entirely at fault?

The VW engine and emission system implicated has been in all VW diesels since 2008 yet they were caught cheating by the University of West Virginia, not the Environmental Protection Agency.

All modern cars have an Electronic Control Module (ECM), a computer that determines engine settings and a car 'knows' when it's being tested. Volkswagen tweaked the settings so that the emission test results are very clean when hooked up to testing equipment. When my 2010 VW TDI was tested after the initial new car 4-year grace period last fall, the person who did the test told me the emissions were not high enough to even register on the testing equipment. That was strange. Was it a testing anomaly, or was the car's exhaust really that clean?

In the old days there were no computers to adjust engine settings; whatever gases came out of the tailpipe were essentially the same, whether driving, or stationary at a testing station.

The clever people at University of West Virginia put emissions testing equipment in the back of a VW TDI wagon and hooked it up to the tailpipe so unbeknownst to the car's ECM, the measurements were taken during actual drive time. Nitrogen oxide, another contributor to greenhouse gases is the culprit with diesels, not carbon dioxide.

Is the EPA so ineffectual that they missed this for 7-years, or is there something more duplicitous going on?

In 1951 the US Public Health Service began promoting water fluoridation as a public health initiative to reduce cavities and tooth loss. For 2015 about 75% of US public water supplies are fluoridated. In theory fluoride works topically, binding to tooth enamel by replacing the hydroxl molecule making the tooth more resistant to bacteria. In 1955 Crest added fluoride to their toothpaste and it's been available in many brands ever since. So why do we need it in our water?

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) since fluoridation began tooth decay has declined, but the World Health Organization (WHO) reported countries that don't fluoridate also showed a decline

Fluoride accumulates in the body. Only 50% is excreted, while the rest accumulates in bones and the pineal gland. Infants and children excrete a lower percentage so accumulate fluoride at a faster rate. No authority disputes fluoride is toxic at high concentrations. Fluoride has been linked to negative health effects such as bone fractures, thyroid disorders, and impaired brain development in children. Water we drink is in contact with teeth briefly; proponents claim fluoride somehow activates silva.

The studies from 1945 to 1955 that launched public water supply fluoridation were flawed. A statistician, Dr Arnold at UC Davis said: "The trials are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, and omissions of contrary data..."

Repeat a claim often enough over the long term and eventually it becomes accepted as fact regardless of whether science supports it.

Be an informed consumer. Federal organzations established to protect us might not allways be effective at doing so, especially if their directors have connections with for profit companies. Don't be afraid to state your views and protest.

CONTACT
content ©opyright FAVORITEPLANET