In recent news, the U.S. has decided that they will reduce the amount of sodium fluoride in the drinking water. The reason – fluorosis in children’s teeth that has become prevalent. But that is simply what you see that is wrong with fluoride.
The reason is clear, and the pressure has been on municipalities ever since:
Other critics also worry whether the mineral can impede brain development in children, while still others are against fluoridation because they say it’s unethical to distribute a substance to the masses without their full consent and infringes on their right to choose.
Voters in Waterloo, Ont. voted in a plebiscite last October to bring an end to the water fluoridation practice that had been in place in the community since 1967.
The vote was close, with the “No” side winning by just 195 votes out of almost 31,000. The fluoride taps were turned off at the end of November, with the region pledging to monitor the eventual impact on dental health.
A similar debate has erupted in Calgary. An alderman there has presented a motion calling for the city to scrap its fluoridation program. The city has held six plebiscites on the issue since 1957, finally deciding in 1989 to begin adding fluoride to the city’s water supply, starting the program two years later.
We have recently reported about the water supply in Hamilton, Ontario, after seeing a marketing campaign that suggested Hamilton water is the “clear choice”, and the argument is that bottled water presents a waste issue for municipalities. Thus, the drive to get you to forget the plastic bottles and go to the tap for all your water needs. And, this wasn’t a suggestion, the drive is to ban all forms of bottled water. The campaign even suggested that you pay too much for bottled water, and lots of times it is simply tap water.
Well, we argued that when it says it is from the springs of ________, that this does not sound like tap water. Nor does it sound like tap water when the claim on the bottle is 0 ppm of fluoride. The real choice in deciding on drinking water, is whether or not you will pay to avoid fluoride.
Now, let’s consider the dental issue a little more.
The argument is that if fluoride is in the drinking water, it will bathe the teeth through saliva with fluoride, keeping your teeth in healthy shape. By this admission, the fluoride is circulating throughout your body, and can take root in any organ it chooses. The brown stuff on the teeth in the above photo is simply the chemical damaging the teeth – what else can it do to harm the body?
If you had a fly in your house, and the solution they came up with was to blow the whole house up, would that be a good idea? The argument being, well, we got rid of the fly didn’t we?
So, you can see a person smile, and if dental fluorosis has caused them health problems, what about other issues that you cannot see that are linked?
What about Alzheimers, bone disease, skeletal fluorosis, thyroid issues
(suppression), insomnia, and cancer? These are not as easily recognized and linked to fluoride, but they are a result of fluoride accumulation.
The government in the U.S. has been attacked by fluoride activists requesting action on fluoride in the drinking water at a time when they wanted to include lithium.
Gross negligence to dumb down the populations that is anything but a new idea.
The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)
When are we going to demand action, and force our municipal governments to remove all the fluoride from the water?
It’s causing more harm, and the “good” is debatable.