Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 107

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    sharingwisdom's Avatar
    sharingwisdom
     

    Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    While our county is dealing with administrators who want to dump fluoride in our water, it's nice to know that Project Censored's Media Freedom International is doing their work to investigate what the real background is around this issue.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31568

    While a recent New York Times editorial cites the Center for Disease Control’s claim that fluoridation is one of the top accomplishments in public health over the past century, [1] James Tracy reports that fluoridating the nation’s water supply appears to have been a carefully coordinated plan designed to shield major aluminum and steel producers from liabilities for the substantial fluorine pollution their plants generated. Thus American industrial interests, supported by public relations firms, have been the chief forces behind water fluoridation.

    Tracy describes the fluoridation campaign as “a textbook case of social engineering,” and shows how it demonstrates the “tremendous capacity of powerful interests to reshape the social environment, thereby prompting individuals to unwarily think and act in ways that are often harmful to themselves and their loved ones.”
    Source: James F. Tracy, “Poison is Treatment: The Campaign to Fluoridate America,” Global Research, June 23, 2012,
    Last edited by Barry; 05-17-2013 at 01:07 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by 8 members:

  3. TopTop #2

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Thanks for posting this.
    Among the chilling items in the linked article, I was particularly chilled by this:
    "The National Fluoridation Information Service of the Division of Dental Health of the US Public Health Service, an intelligence-gathering setup operating out of the PHS-controlled National Institutes of Health, was formally established to monitor and create databases on fluoridation critics in the medical professions. Fluoride heretics were subject to flailing in the press or outright expulsion from their professional organizations."

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom: View Post
    While our county is dealing with administrators who want to dump fluoride in our water, it's nice to know that Project Censored's Media Freedom International is doing their work to investigate what the real background is around this issue.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31568

    While a recent New York Times editorial cites the Center for Disease Control’s claim that fluoridation is one of the top accomplishments in public health over the past century, [1] James Tracy reports that fluoridating the nation’s water supply appears to have been a carefully coordinated plan designed to shield major aluminum and steel producers from liabilities for the substantial fluorine pollution their plants generated. Thus American industrial interests, supported by public relations firms, have been the chief forces behind water fluoridation.

    Tracy describes the fluoridation campaign as “a textbook case of social engineering,” and shows how it demonstrates the “tremendous capacity of powerful interests to reshape the social environment, thereby prompting individuals to unwarily think and act in ways that are often harmful to themselves and their loved ones.”
    Source: James F. Tracy, “Poison is Treatment: The Campaign to Fluoridate America,” Global Research, June 23, 2012,
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  5. TopTop #3
    sebastacat's Avatar
    sebastacat
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    And these five people want to do this to OUR water supply?

    Pardon me, but I thought that they were elected to protect us from things that could endanger us.

    How could this be?

    But, wait, I thought that this was "progressive" Sonoma County.......
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  7. TopTop #4
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    A History of Fluoridation Promotion
    By Marlene Lily
    “The days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. To undermine
    scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy.”—President Obama,
    speaking to the National Academy of Sciences in 2009.
    _____________________________________________________________

    Fluoridation promotion came to be at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) via several bureacratic reorganizations.

    The original government entity that did the research on naturally fluoridated communities was the US Public Health Service (PHS). In 1948, the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) was created, as one of the National Institutes of Health. It has since been renamed the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR).

    USPHS and the NIDR had to "prove" that fluoridation was safe and effective, after the surgeon general endorsed it prematurely in 1950, under extreme political pressure from fanatic promotional dentists in several states. (Dentists now make more money in fluoridated communities, in part because of widespread fluoride-caused dental fluorosis.)

    In addition to doing sloppy, biased research, NIDR housed a "political" office for promoting fluoridation, essentially a PR firm that was a resource for proponents around the country, disseminating propaganda and attacking fluoridation opponents.

    One of its major functions was keeping files on opponents--files full of information that could be used to discredit and dismiss individual opponents. Thus, the most slanderous, negative comments from fluoridation proponents who had had trouble with Dr. George Waldbott or Dr. Albert Burgstahler (early fluoridation opponents), or hundreds of others who questioned fluoridation, were collected at NIDR, unchecked for accuracy or fairness, and handed out on request to fluoridation proponents who encountered specific opponents in local campaigns. To state it simply, part of the function of this office of NIDR was to smear opponents--anything to win for fluoridation.

    The political/PR function at NIDR was mostly the work of one man, John S. Small. He was a professional PR guy. When I worked on a very small California newspaper in the 1960s, one of my colleagues, I’ll call him Joe, was writing articles about fluoridation. Someone sent them to John Small, and he called Joe up one night at home, long distance from Washington. Big Brother was watching Joe!

    Small asked Joe all kinds of questions--why was he doing these stories, who was he working with, what was his agenda. Joe says he tried to be evasive and to find out more about who Small was and why he was interested in someone writing for a paper with a circulation of 3,000. (There were no efforts to fluoridate any local communities going on at that time.) That was Joe’s first encounter with NIDR's fluoridation promotion function--which was nasty and political, not scientific. Joe did not think this was an appropriate function of a government agency whose job it was to fund and conduct unbiased scientific research.

    After Joe got his Ph.D and did a post-doc, he moved to Washington, to work at the National Academy of Sciences. Shortly after that, he got a call from John Small, who was apparently still tracking him as a fluoridation opponent. Small wanted to know what kind of threat Joe posed. Joe invited him to lunch, and Small accepted. In Joe’s words, “I looked him in the eye and asked him if he was going to try to destroy my career because he thought I was out to kill fluoridation.” Joe assured him that he had moved on to other issues (it was true) and that Small need not worry about him. He ignored Joe after that.

    A few years later, maybe around 1978, Small invited Joe to lunch. When Joe sat down, Small handed him an expandable file folder, about six inches thick. He told Joe he was cleaning out his office and had a present for him. It was the NIDR file on Joe. It included everything Joe had ever written about fluoride, even college papers (Joe studied biology).

    The file included a couple of very nasty letters written in the 70s by a now-old man—bent over from possible fluoride-caused osteoporosis--who spoke at the Feb. 26, 2013, meeting of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. These letters told how this new and dangerous anti-fluoridationist (Joe) had emerged in California, and someone needed to put a stop to him. Small apparently never read the First Amendment to the Constitution. Congress, which the First Amendment says, “shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” funds the CDC and pays the “Big Brothers” who smear anti-fluoridationists, and try to shut them up. It’s taxpayers’ money being used to tell us lies so we accept being poisoned by fluoride.

    After his meeting with Small, Joe went to see Ralph Nader. Nader had opposed fluoridation starting in about 1970. Joe supplied him with “tons of material.” In his standard speech, for years, Nader questioned fluoridation and asked pointedly whether the audience thought it was OK for the government to keep files on citizens who--gasp!--disagreed with the government's view that fluoridation was wonderful.

    At some point, at least some of the function of promoting fluoridation moved from the NIDR in Washington to Atlanta, to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The websites of the NIDCR and the CDC are linked today, and the bromides about fluorides are still being promulgated at taxpayers’ expense, even though they ignore research and even though President Obama has proclaimed that the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. “The Story of Fluoride,” even now on the NIDCR’s website, is pure PR, and in my opinion has no place on the site of an agency that ostensibly represents science. It’s an example of how well public relations works. Though John Small retired in 1995, the CDC still has an office staffed with people whose job is promoting fluoridation, and the NIDCR is also doing its share.

    They may have dentists on staff, but their function is pretty much what John Small was doing at NIDR: to act as a resource for proponents, nationwide; to disseminate propaganda that touts the benefits and safety of fluoridation; to disseminate negative information about fluoridation opponents, many of them distinguished scientists, to help local pro-fluoridationists win campaigns, and to keep the positive propaganda flowing to Congress and the White House, to keep telling the lie that fluoridation is "one of the ten greatest public health advances of all time," to help shield fluoridation from political attacks. They are not scientists, they are not doing any research, they're just doing their job, which is to promote fluoridation.

    As David Kennedy, DDS, says, in the movie “Fluoridegate,” “It's not a conspiracy, it's a policy,” and these people have been hired to implement the policy. Should the bureaucrats finally be forced to admit fluoridation has been a terrible mistake, they would lose face and perhaps face lawsuits. But that is not a good reason why our water should continue to be poisoned or why we as taxpayers should be funding a PR agency for a toxic waste product that would be expensive to dispose of if it couldn’t be dumped in the nation’s water supply.



    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  9. TopTop #5
    sebastacat's Avatar
    sebastacat
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    WOW!!!Thanks so much, Lilypads, for posting one of the finest posts I have ever read since I have been a member of this forum. This should be required reading for the "supes," who "claim" they are doing the right thing by proposing to add this poison to our precious water supply.Keep writing and speaking out.

    Last week, I talked to a few more citizens of our county and told them of the dangers of this poison, giving them references, the dangerous health effects associated with forced fluoridation and even some scientific data. They were not happy to hear that this is being proposed, and by the time I got done talking with them, they were totally against it.

    Oh, yes, and before I forget, I informed them of the FACT that while Kentucky is the most fluoridated state in the union, they have one of the highest rates of dental disease in the nation -- a fact that our "supes" continue to conveniently ignore! In fact, it is often referred to by doctors and health officials as Kentucky's worst health crisis. Don't belive it? Google it in and see for yourself. It is classic concrete evidence that fluoridating drinking water will not prevent dental disease. Only regular dental checkups and taking responsibility for one's own dental health will.Again, bushels of gratitude!!
    Last edited by Barry; 06-02-2013 at 02:06 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  11. TopTop #6
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Lynn SIlver Chalfin Claims Fluoride is a Necessary Nutrient in New Article--NOT TRUE

    Lynn Chalfin, Sonoma County' Public Health Officer, wrote an article for the June issue of Sonoma Seniors Today in which she claims fluoride is a necessary nutrient: "Like Vitamin A, salt, or many other things, getting none of it is bad for you. . . ." This is NOT TRUE, and this debate was held among top scientists some 15 years ago, as is detailed HERE: https://www.fluoridation.com/fraud.htm Fluoride, like lead and cadmium, is a highly toxic mineral, which accumulates in bone. A doctor who is uninterested in science should not be in charge of the public's health!

    Chalfin's whole article can be seen here: https://councilonaging.com/wp-conten...013-06-Web.pdf Scroll down to page 4.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  13. TopTop #7
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Public Meeting Monday June 3 at SCWA Regarding Fluoridation--Please Come!

    I know it's short notice, but there's a meeting tomorrow morning (Monday, June 3) at 9 am at the Sonoma County Water Agency, 35 Stony Point Rd. Lynn Chalfin will give a report on her fluoridation efforts, and there will be an opportunity for public comment.

    Dr. Chalfin's report is scheduled first.
    ...
    This is a public meeting.

    Location:
    Utilities Field Operations Training Center
    35 Stony Point Road
    Santa Rosa, CA

    It is important to have a good turnout. Please share this message with
    everyone who might be interested.

    Also important:
    In the public comment period AFTER the fluoridation discussion, if answers
    haven't yet been given, Dr. Silver-Chalfin should be asked:

    1. When will the final engineering feasibility study be complete?

    2. When will water fluoridation be coming before the Board of Supervisors
    for a vote?

    If she waffles, those questions should be repeated by others until the
    questions are answered.
    ______________________
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. TopTop #8
    sebastacat's Avatar
    sebastacat
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Thanks, Lilypads, for the reference to Dr. Silver-Chaflin's article.

    So now she's making the fallacious statement that fluoride is a NUTRIENT? And, like Vitamin A, getting none is BAD for you?

    I am in a state of shock. I simply cannot believe this.

    This woman is a physician who was hired by our "supes" to implement this program and she's calling fluoride a NUTRIENT?

    No, Dr. Silver-Chaflin. I will respectfully inform you that fluoride is a by-product of the phosphate-fertilizer industry and contains the heavy metals lead and arsenic, among others too numerous to mention.

    Let us not forget that this is the SAME Dr. Silver-Chaflin who, when asked by Dr. Paul Connett, internationally recognized expert on fluoride and its dangerous effects on the human body, could not answer Dr. Connett's question, to wit: So, Dr. Silver-Chaflin, what is the MODE OF ACTION of fluoride?

    Yes, silence can indeed be deafening.

    I am calling on our supes to pay close attention to this. The foregoing question is so basic that any physician should be able to answer it without hesitation. And certainly, any physician who cannot answer a question so basic should not be placed in charge of placing a poison in our precious Sonoma County Water supply whose deleterious health effects to both young and old are not only well documented, but many of which are supported by scientific evidence derived from numerous studies conducted over the course of several years.

    Note to our supes: Please, do yourselves and the residents of this county a real favor and abandon this misguided proposal once and for all. It does not have widespread public support, is not supported by concrete scientific evidence and will only continue to turn into an even worse public-relations nightmare than it already has.

    And that doesn't even begin to take into account how anti-progressive water fluoridation will be perceived by others in the U.S. and indeed around the world who look to Sonoma County as a bastian of progressive thought and ideas.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  15. Gratitude expressed by:

  16. TopTop #9
    dzerach's Avatar
    dzerach
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Like infants, seniors are a sensitive population. Exactly how much would she like to see in the water for it to become "nutritious"?

    Dr. Silver Chaflin (I underlined a few words): "Your body needs a little bit to maintain optimal health...Fluoride is already naturally present in our water, and water fluoridation simply adjusts the level slightly. "

    Authorities have to first test the drinking water to know the current (fluctuating) fluoride levels before forcibly adding fluoride themselves (and constantly monitor once added).

    "...and water fluoridation simply adjusts the level slightly. " Is this suppose to be a persuasive phrase instead of slimy-speak? She sounds like a used car salesman. It really is infuriating.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by sebastacat: View Post
    Thanks, Lilypads, for the reference to Dr. Silver-Chaflin's article.

    So now she's making the fallacious statement that fluoride is a NUTRIENT? And, like Vitamin A, getting none is BAD for you?

    This woman is a physician who was hired by our "supes" to implement this program and she's calling fluoride a NUTRIENT?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. Gratitude expressed by:

  18. TopTop #10
    theindependenteye's Avatar
    theindependenteye
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Fascinating to follow this issue. When I was a kid, fluoridation was just coming in, and as I recall, it was vehemently opposed by the Right as a Communist plot against the health of America, while enlightened, science-savvy liberals were all for it. Now things shift. Science is implacable, but our capacity to twist and tiddle science toward our own biases is infinite. The more information that can be garnered from the Web, the more baffling it is.

    My own inclination would be to vote against it, if anybody asked me to vote. But I start to cringe at the rhetoric that it's some plot by International Dentistry to grow scabies on our teeth or by mining interests to cover up their sins. Let's look at the scientific references and be confused by those, not by hypotheses of malodorous intent. On rare occasions, people actually do things because they think they're good.

    Peace & joy—
    Conrad
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  20. TopTop #11
    sebastacat's Avatar
    sebastacat
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    It just keeps getting better all the time!

    Dr. Silver-Chaflin: I challenge you to show the people of Sonoma County one study -- just ONE STUDY --
    that says that the human body NEEDS FLUORIDE.

    I eagerly await your reply.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  21. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  22. TopTop #12
    Glia's Avatar
    Glia
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Alas, this is *not* one of those rare occasions where people are doing something because they think it is good.

    Shirlee Zane is doing this because she thinks it will bolster her run for state senate. (the only place Shirlee should be going is back to running a non-profit. She has gone cuckoo and her judgement has gone to hell in a handbasket.) Silver-Chalfin is also doing this to buff up her resume and as an ass-covering move for the "public health" crowd -- which has clearly outlived its usefulness, BTW.

    Legitimate, properly-done studies are making it clear that ingesting fluoride has no effect on reducing dental cavities. It is also clear that ingesting fluoride causes a variety of developmental and physiological problems and abnormalities. Using fluoride as a topical application on teeth already erupted through the gum line does reduce the incidence of cavities on non-molar teeth by a small, but statistically significant, quantity.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye: View Post
    Let's look at the scientific references and be confused by those, not by hypotheses of malodorous intent. On rare occasions, people actually do things because they think they're good.

    Peace & joy—
    Conrad
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  23. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  24. TopTop #13
    dzerach's Avatar
    dzerach
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    I haven't read every single post, but have yet to find anyone on waccobb ascribing evil intent. Her rhetoric is manipulative. It should instead be persuasive. Discovery-based. This sample, in context, made my skin crawl. "...and water fluoridation simply adjusts the level slightly. " Considering her target audience for that article, I think it's reprehensible.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye: View Post
    .... I start to cringe at the rhetoric that it's some plot by International Dentistry to grow scabies on our teeth or by mining interests to cover up their sins. Let's look at the scientific references and be confused by those, not by hypotheses of malodorous intent. On rare occasions, people actually do things because they think they're good.

    Peace & joy—
    Conrad
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. TopTop #14
    Glia's Avatar
    Glia
     

    Re: Lynn SIlver Chalfin Claims Fluoride is a Necessary Nutrient in New Article--NOT TRUE

    So this inaccurate blatant propaganda was distributed in a magazine published by the Council on Aging, where current 3rd District supe Shirlee Zane was the CEO before she ran for supervisor? What are the odds that this is mere coincidence?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by lilypads: View Post
    Lynn Chalfin, Sonoma County' Public Health Officer, wrote an article for the June issue of Sonoma Seniors Today in which she claims fluoride is a necessary nutrient: "Like Vitamin A, salt, or many other things, getting none of it is bad for you. . . ." This is NOT TRUE, and this debate was held among top scientists some 15 years ago, as is detailed HERE: https://www.fluoridation.com/fraud.htm Fluoride, like lead and cadmium, is a highly toxic mineral, which accumulates in bone. A doctor who is uninterested in science should not be in charge of the public's health!

    Chalfin's whole article can be seen here: https://councilonaging.com/wp-conten...013-06-Web.pdf Scroll down to page 4.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  26. Gratitude expressed by:

  27. TopTop #15
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: Lynn SIlver Chalfin Claims Fluoride is a Necessary Nutrient in New Article--NOT TRUE

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Glia: View Post
    So this inaccurate blatant propaganda was distributed in a magazine published by the Council on Aging, where current 3rd District supe Shirlee Zane was the CEO before she ran for supervisor? What are the odds that this is mere coincidence?
    Actually, a couple months ago, I contacted the editor of Sonoma Seniors Today, and offered to write an article about fluoridation. The editor said she would have to present both the "pro" and "con" sides. I contacted the County Health Services Department and they gave the job of writing up the "pro" position to one of Chalfin's underlings. I was the one who initiated this debate.

    I wrote my "anti" piece without ever seeing the "pro" article, and was surprised to see that it had Chalfin's name on it. I think the fact that this is in the Council on Aging's newspaper is excellent, if it gets people questioning the party line on fluoridation. Anyone who reads my article and goes to the Internet will find a huge amount of info just by Googling the names of the people I quoted. SST readers can also get an education by watching the movie "Fluoridegate."

    Shirlee Zane is a strong supporter of fluoridation as a "social justice issue," and I addressed that in my piece also. I doubt she had any input into this process.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  28. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  29. TopTop #16
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: Public Meeting Monday June 3 at SCWA Regarding Fluoridation--Please Come!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by dzerach: View Post
    I'd like to know more about her "current thoughts" on the fluoride procurement source: How / What kind / From Where / From Whom (&why?). Bids?
    This question was asked today, and Chalfin dodged it. She was also asked what type of fluoride would be used, and she answered by saying that any type of fluoride ionizes in water, so it basically doesn't matter.

    She was asked where the fluoride comes from, and she said it comes from "crushed rock." The is another lie, because it is actually the smokestack scrapings from the fertilizer industry, which may make ITS product from crushed rock.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  30. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  31. TopTop #17
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: Lynn SIlver Chalfin Claims Fluoride is a Necessary Nutrient in New Article--NOT TRUE

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Glia: View Post
    So this inaccurate blatant propaganda was distributed in a magazine published by the Council on Aging, where current 3rd District supe Shirlee Zane was the CEO before she ran for supervisor? What are the odds that this is mere coincidence?
    Chalfin gave a (5th-grade level) Power Point presentation to the TAC today, which included the claim that fluoride is, like Vitamina A and salt, a necessary nutrient. I challenged that statement at the meeting, and said that there had been a letter signed by 15 of the nations top scientists available since 1998, which says that fluoride is NOT an essential nutrient. I'm hoping the members of the TAC make the effort to look for that letter. I did a Google search "Is fluoride a necessary nutrient?" and it popped right up at the top of the results list. Here it is if you haven't seen it: https://www.fluoridation.com/fraud.htm
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  32. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  33. TopTop #18
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye: View Post
    Fascinating to follow this issue. When I was a kid, fluoridation was just coming in, and as I recall, it was vehemently opposed by the Right as a Communist plot against the health of America, while enlightened, science-savvy liberals were all for it. Now things shift. Science is implacable, but our capacity to twist and tiddle science toward our own biases is infinite. The more information that can be garnered from the Web, the more baffling it is.

    My own inclination would be to vote against it, if anybody asked me to vote. But I start to cringe at the rhetoric that it's some plot by International Dentistry to grow scabies on our teeth or by mining interests to cover up their sins. Let's look at the scientific references and be confused by those, not by hypotheses of malodorous intent. On rare occasions, people actually do things because they think they're good.

    Peace & joy—
    Conrad
    Here's one of the best scientific references I've seen, the story of how thePrincipal Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand, learned that fluoridation does NOT reduce tooth decay, and changed from being avidly pro-fluoridation to anti-fluoridation. He is both a dentist and a Ph.D.

    https://www.slweb.org/colquhoun.html
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  34. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  35. TopTop #19
    sebastacat's Avatar
    sebastacat
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    dzerach:

    I agree with you. To my knowledge, there has not been any abscription of evil intent to anyone.
    If there had been, perhaps it would have alleviated some of the frustration felt by many of the
    anti-fluoridationists, for then we would have been able to better understand just exactly what is
    driving the "supes" to go forward with such an anti-progressive and outdated policy.
    As things stand now, we are left wondering why they remain so hell-bent and unwavering on carrying out this
    rather scary proposal.

    However, in Sebastacat's opinion, personal political aspirations are being put ahead of the greater public good.

    The proposal to fluoridate our county's precious water supply runs counter to our progressive ideas and values.
    In fact, when you stop and consider the numerous accompanying dangers which are associated with public water fluoridation, it's downright REgressive!

    Sonoma County has long been known as a bastion of progressive ideas, politics and thought. But if this unpopular, unprogressive proposal is passed and implemented by our elected officials, that reputation will surely suffer.

    I submit that accepting unsubstantiated junk-science over professionally conducted studies and proven scientific facts is doing a major disservice to the residents of this county. And to spend taxpayer money studying the subject of injecting this chemical into our water supply in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

    Accordingly, I offer the following for your consideration:

    1. It is not progressive that our county elected officials are even considering adding a chemical (not a "nutrient")
    to our precious water supply whose dangerous side effects include -- but are not limited to -- increased dental fluorosis, increased susceptibility to fractures in both the young and old, decreased kidney function, interference with treatment by those undergoing dialysis, deposition of toxic substances in bones, decreased I.Q., to name but a few.

    2. It is not progressive that the supes have hired as their chief health officer someone who has resorted to tactics of deception by referring to fluoride as a "nutrient" when no scientific studies or data exist to support
    such an outlandish and unfounded statement. And to add insult to injury, this same chief health officer wrote an article which was published in a publication read by numerous senior citizens in which she states that all water contains fluoride and that adding it will just bring it up to the proper levels! And she conveniently leaves out the dangers to the elderly which can be caused by fluoride.

    3. It is not progressive that the supes and this same chief health officer have closed their eyes and plugged their ears when the anti-fluoridationists have, on several occasions, attempted to provide them with numerous detailed scientific studies which took years to conduct as well as concrete evidence regarding the dangers of fluoride, only to be summarily rebuffed.

    4. And it is not even remotely progressive to propose to mass-medicate thousands of people without their knowledge and consent with an unregulated, uncontrolled dose of a substance containing heavy-metals which is a by-product of the phosphate-fertilizer industry called fluoride!

    Putting one's own personal political aspirations ahead of the common good is no way to run a county.
    Sensitive decisions regarding the public's health must be made free of contaminating politics.

    So far, from what Sebastacat has observed, that isn't what's happening.

    And until it does, you can expect the anti-fluoridation battle to rage on -- and on.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  36. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  37. TopTop #20
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Excellent statement. I hope you will carry your we;ll articulated position to any groups you belong to, so that we can develop a groundswell of opposition before it's too late.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by sebastacat: View Post
    dzerach:

    I agree with you. To my knowledge, there has not been any abscription of evil intent to anyone.
    If there had been, perhaps it would have alleviated some of the frustration felt by many of the
    anti-fluoridationists, for then we would have been able to better understand just exactly what is
    driving the "supes" to go forward with such an anti-progressive and outdated policy.
    As things stand now, we are left wondering why they remain so hell-bent and unwavering on carrying out this
    rather scary proposal.

    However, in Sebastacat's opinion, ....
    Last edited by Barry; 06-04-2013 at 02:30 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  38. TopTop #21
    Glia's Avatar
    Glia
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Glia concurs 100% with Sebastacat.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by sebastacat: View Post
    dzerach:

    I agree with you. To my knowledge, there has not been any abscription of evil intent to anyone.
    If there had been, perhaps it would have alleviated some of the frustration felt by many of the
    anti-fluoridationists, for then we would have been able to better understand just exactly what is
    driving the "supes" to go forward with such an anti-progressive and outdated policy.
    As things stand now, we are left wondering why they remain so hell-bent and unwavering on carrying out this rather scary proposal.

    However, in Sebastacat's opinion, personal political aspirations are being put ahead of the greater public good. ...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  39. TopTop #22

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    The whole excuse is to abate 'tooth decay in underprivileged children"?

    It occurred to me that wherever you stand on the fluoride issue, even if just slightly concerned but thinking a little won't hurt or that it won't matter as much to people living in non-county-water areas like Sebastopol think again.

    If the Sonoma Water Agency adds this toxic waste by-product to most of our backyard metro water supply, consider that it doesn't just get delivered to a kid's mouth in his house:

    1. ALL the restaurants will be preparing food with, washing dishes in and serving you water with this toxin.
    2. Our organic farmers will have no choice but to water their otherwise masterfully tended fruits and vegetables with toxic water.
    3. Our local farmers will be forced to serve toxic water to all their cows, chickens, goats, ducks... that they are otherwise trying so hard to feed and raise in optimal conditions and producing our wonderful organic meat, cheese and eggs.
    4. These toxins will build and build in our soils from the massive amount of water used in our backyard agriculture.
    5. ALL schools will only be able to provide toxic water to drink.
    6. <... everything else I missed.....>

    ..... and it won't do a damn thing to stop the main cause of underprivileged child tooth decay which is the soda, chips, candy - citric acid, fructose and chemicals their parent gives them right after brushing their teeth..... the ingredients in nearly every product off the shelf in Safeway or any big-box/GMO/corporate grocery store.

    More than anything, the bigger and local agendas behind fluoride is scary both that it's still being proposed, and that it means the truth in plain sight is still being ignored or dismissed by many.
    Last edited by Alex; 06-06-2013 at 11:24 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  40. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  41. TopTop #23
    sebastacat's Avatar
    sebastacat
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Alexia: Thanks for your enlightening and informational post.

    What I gleaned from it was that you truly understand the ramifications that enacting this proposal will have on not only the residents of this county and beyond who are current users/consumers of water supplied by the Sonoma County Wager Agency (a.k.a. "supes"), but the dangers that fluoridating water could pose to potential users who may have no choice in the matter and those who think that they are invulerable to such a practice simply because the town or municipality in which they happen to reside does not currently fluoridate its water.

    As I stated in one of my previous posts, should said town or municipality decide to purchase water from the
    Sonoma County Water Agency in the future due to drought, undersupply, contamination or a supply well going dry, just to enumerate but a few reasons, they will most certainly be subjected to fluoridation -- perhaps unknowingly.

    It has been stated that Sebastopol does not currently fluoridate its water supply and has no plans to do so in the future. And I know that the Sebastopol City Council has no plans to enter the anti-fluoridation foray at this time.

    However, I truly believe that the majority of the Sebastopol City Council as well as a majority of Sebastopol residents are concerned about this serious issue and do not want fluoride to make its way into the municipal water supply -- ever.

    Patricia Dines (a.k.a. EcoGirl), who lives just outside of the Sebastopol city limits, wrote an excellent article for her "Ask EcoGirl" column which gets distributed to City of Sebastopol residents in their water bills every month which outlined the dangerous effects associated with water fluoridation. The same article appeared in the April issue, I believe, of the Sonoma County Gazette and is still probably available on that paper's Web site. I urge everyone to take the time to read it.

    Since that time, Patricia has been asked to write several articles on this sensitive health issue, most recently, for a national publication.

    There were a few negative naysayers in the community who tried to "make hay" out of Ms. Dines "Ask EcoGirl" column in which she discusses this issue -- only to have it blow up as egg on their faces.

    Ms. Dines then wrote an outstanding post on this forum refuting the numerous fallacious misstatements of facts and unwarranted criticisms which were freely lobbed at her by these same individuals. And in my opinion, in doing so, she went from being "EcoGirl" to being "EcoHero." Thank you once again, Ms. Dines.

    My point is that we need to follow her example and continue to speak out against the proposal to fluoridate our precious Sonoma County water supply. And we must take her advice and cite solid evidence backed by scientific studies conducted over the course of several years, and not offer up mere falsehoods, which may sound good, or engage in finger-waving and fear-mongering, which is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

    Let's tell them about Dr. Connett and his credentials, for starters, citing those who are really interested to the video posted here on WACCOBB of his outstanding presentation in Santa Rosa at the Glacer Center back in March of this year.

    Let's tell them the real truth: that fluoride is NOT a "necessary nutrient," as Sonoma County's chief health officer said last week, but, rather, a by-product of the phosphate-fertilizer industry which contains lead, arsenic and other heavy metals which are harmful to the human body.

    Let's tell them that once fluoride is introduced into the municipal water supply, it will be absorbed through your skin each and every time you shower or bathe -- whether or not you chose to use it to bruth your teeth!

    Let's remind them that fluoride is very hard on kidney function and can impair the progress being made by those undergoing kidney dialysis.

    Let's tell them about the Harvard University study which links fluoridation to decreased I.Q.s.

    Let's tell them that most countries in the world -- including nearly all of Europe -- do NOT fluoridate their water supplies.

    Let's tell them that once fluoride is introduced into the water supply, there will be NO WAY to regulate the dose which one ingests. It will be a classic case of being medicated against your will -- which is something for which a practicing physician could lose his license to practice medicine.

    Let's tell them that this substance which our supes want to use to IMPROVE our dental health can actually harm teeth by causing a condition known as dental fluorosis, a disease which strips the enamel right off of one's teeth.

    But, wait. I thought that drinking fluoridated water was supposed to IMPROVE one's dental health.

    Finally, let's tell them that that's the biggest fallacy of all.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  42. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  43. TopTop #24
    lilypads's Avatar
    lilypads
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Great post!

    A longtime friend of mine who has been concerned with fluoridation for more than 40 years says that the most effective argument is "forced medication" and the fact that there is no dosage control. Babies are especially at risk for this reason.

    The other thing he says is that it's critical to fight fluoridation LOCALLY, since the pro-fluoride forces are doing everything possible to regionalize their efforts to fluoridate. This was demonstrated Monday, with the presentation by Marjorie Stocks, a lobbyist for the California Dental Association. In the San Diego area and the Bay Area, Stocks made it clear that the pro-fluoridationists are focusing on large areas.

    My friend also pointed out that when fluoridation comes to a vote, 70% of the elections have resulted in NO votes.

    Even though he's a scientist, he says that the powers that be pay no attention to the science.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by sebastacat: View Post
    Alexia: Thanks for your enlightening and informational post.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  44. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  45. TopTop #25
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Alexia: View Post
    1. ALL the restaurants will be preparing food with, washing dishes in and serving you water with this toxin.
    2. Our organic farmers will have no choice but to water their otherwise masterfully tended fruits and vegetables with toxic water.
    3. Our local farmers will be forced to serve toxic water to all their cows, chickens, goats, ducks... that they are otherwise trying so hard to feed and raise in optimal conditions and producing our wonderful organic meat, cheese and eggs.
    4. These toxins will build and build in our soils from the massive amount of water used in our backyard agriculture.
    5. ALL schools will only be able to provide toxic water to drink.
    While Alexia's general point, that you may well be exposed to fluoridated water many places is valid, I want to point out that it's a bit over stated.

    Not "All" restaurants, farmers, backyards, schools will be using fluoridated water. Only those establishmets that are using the county's water supply will be flouridated. The ones in cities that are not fluoridated, such as Sebastopol, will not be affected, nor will farmers and others that use well water.

    That said, there are indeed many places where we will be medicated without our permission!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  46. Gratitude expressed by:

  47. TopTop #26
    sebastacat's Avatar
    sebastacat
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    But Barry, how will an unsuspecting consumer know WHERE the water is coming from? Just because an establishment is located within the city limits of a certain municipality does not mean that they do not purchase their water from the Sonoma County Water Agency nor that their water isn't fluoridated.
    The only way for a consumer to know will be to ASK the owners of the establishment.

    If they answer yes, that their water source is indeed fluoridated, I don't think it's going to be too good for business; and when word of it gets out, their business could potentially suffer.

    Is that what we want for our business owners, who are trying to make an honest living as well as contributing mightily to the Sonoma County economy? I don't think so.

    If this plan is enacted, will I ask the businesses which I patronize where they obtain their water and if the water that they are serving me is fluoridated? You betcha, and I encourage others to do the same.

    If enough people complain, businesses will have to obtain their drinking water elsewhere, thus having an added expense to deal with in an already tough economy.

    Who winds up suffering? The business owner first, since he will have to deal with the headache of now purchasing drinking water, at an added expense; and, second, the consumer, who will now have that added expense added on to the bill.

    The county, of course, will remain relatively unscathed.

    Yes, the debate does indeed rage on.....
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  48. Gratitude expressed by:

  49. TopTop #27
    Glia's Avatar
    Glia
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Your friend is right. The elected officials are, with rare exception, incapable of understanding the science -- as our Board of Supervisors so beautifully demonstrated at the hearing in February. This makes them very vulnerable to the siren song of unethical "authorities" like Silver and her fossil yes-man from UCSF.

    What they do understand is looking like fools and potentially losing their jobs.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by lilypads: View Post
    Even though he's a scientist, he says that the powers that be pay no attention to the science.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  50. Gratitude expressed by:

  51. TopTop #28

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    While Alexia's general point, that you may well be exposed to fluoridated water many places is valid, I want to point out that it's a bit over stated.

    Not "All" restaurants, farmers, backyards, schools will be using fluoridated water. Only those establishmets that are using the county's water supply will be flouridated. The ones in cities that are not fluoridated, such as Sebastopol, will not be affected, nor will farmers and others that use well water.

    That said, there are indeed many places where we will be medicated without our permission!
    The sentence you left off just prior to what you quoted was intended to specify what I was including in the word 'all', which is the overwhelming bulk of our county.
    Quote If the Sonoma Water Agency adds this toxic waste by-product to most of our backyard metro water supply, consider that it doesn't just get delivered to a kid's mouth in his house:
    I'll be glad to change it to
    1. ALL those restaurants.......
    (in all of Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Sonoma, Cotati, Forestville, North Marin, Valley of the Moon, Larkfield, Penngrove, Lawndale, Kenwood, Windsor)

    But ALL Sebastopol restaurants will also be serving many newly fluoride watered and pre-washed fruits and vegetables and meats, cheese and eggs from fluoride fed animals from our backyard.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  52. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  53. TopTop #29
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by sebastacat: View Post
    But Barry, how will an unsuspecting consumer know WHERE the water is coming from? Just because an establishment is located within the city limits of a certain municipality does not mean that they do not purchase their water from the Sonoma County Water Agency nor that their water isn't fluoridated.
    The only way for a consumer to know will be to ASK the owners of the establishment.
    If an establishment is in the Sebastopol city limits, or any other city that does not get their water from the county (anybody have list?) then you be assured the water is not fluoridated. Establishments don't have a choice of where they purchase water from. Either they accept the city's water or they have their own well. There's no valve on your water pipe that you turn to the right to get water from your city and left to get it from the county.

    What I will grant you, however, is that many people are not aware of where the city limits are.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  54. TopTop #30
    sebastacat's Avatar
    sebastacat
     

    Re: Sonoma State's Project Censored discussed real agenda on Fluoride

    Thanks for the reply, Barry.

    However, were you here back in the REAL drought years of 1975-1977? Wells went dry all over this county at an alarming rate, and people had to have water trucked in from outside sources. It could happen again.....

    Also, if a small municipality like Sebastopol had one of its wells go dry and had to make up the shortfall, they may have no choice but to purchase water from the county, since the "Sonoma County Water Agency" controls a huge amount of the salable water supply in this county.

    That said, I think that your idea of a list of cities and municipalities who purchase their water from the S.C.W.A. would be very helpful to all of us. A map could then be created showing just how large an area we are talking about. It certainly would help us to understand the magnitude and scope of the issue which we are now confronting.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-12-2010, 02:44 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-10-2010, 02:52 PM
  3. Project Censored top 10 news stories in 2009
    By sharingwisdom in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 08:07 PM
  4. more civil rights removed-Project Censored 2008
    By sharingwisdom in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-17-2009, 06:52 AM
  5. Project Censored news
    By sharingwisdom in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-23-2008, 01:38 AM

Tags (user supplied keywords) for this Thread

Bookmarks