 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / July 2005Fluoride Causes Bone Cancer
New York - June 28, 2005 -- Newly available research, out of Harvard University, links fluoride in tap water, at levels most Americans drink, to osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer (1). The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a highly-regarded Washington DC-based organization, urges that fluoride in tap water be declared a known or probable cancer cause (2), based on this and previous animal and human studies. Elise Bassin, PhD writes, in her April 2001 Harvard doctoral thesis, "...for males less than twenty years old, fluoride level in drinking water [about 1 part per million] during growth is associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma." Further, EWG charges that Bassin's lead advisor, Chester W. Douglass, DMD, PhD signed off on her research; but told federal health officials there is no cancer link to fluoride, according to the Boston Herald (2a). Douglass is also editor-in-chief of the Colgate Oral Care Report, a newsletter that goes to dentists and is supported by toothpaste manufacturer Colgate Palmolive. "It appears Douglass violated federal research rules, according to the group's complaint, which they plan to file with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences," writes the Boston Herald. According to EWG, "Research dating back decades, much of it government funded, has long suggested that fluoride added to drinking water presents a unique cancer risk to the growing bones of young boys." (3) Citing a strong body of peer-reviewed evidence, including the Bassin study, EWG urges an expedited review of fluoride for inclusion in a U.S. government report of substances known or feared to be cancer-causing in humans. (2) Richard Wiles, EWG's Sr. Vice President, told the British newspaper The Observer, "I've spent 20 years in public health trying to protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you don't have the consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as you now have with fluoride." (4) High-quality epidemiological studies show a strong association between fluoride in tap water and osteosarcoma in boys, reports EWG. EWG's Wiles writes, "The safety of fluoride in America's tap water is a pressing health concern....the weight of the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that millions of boys in these [fluoridated] communities are at significantly increased risk of developing bone cancer as a result." "The Harvard dissertation...obviously had merit because Bassin was awarded her doctorate," writes The Observer. Fluoride is added to water supplies in a questionable attempt to reduce tooth decay. Pro-fluoridation studies are outdated and flawed as revealed in British (5) and U.S. reviews of the literature (6). Because osteosarcoma usually develop from osteoblasts (the cells that manufacture growing bone), it most commonly develops in teenagers who are experiencing their adolescent growth spurt. Boys are twice as likely to have osteosarcoma as girls, and most cases of osteosarcoma involve the bones around the knee. (7) More about fluoride and bone cancer here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/osteosarcoma.html http://www.ewg.org/issues/siteindex/issues.php?issueid=5030 References: (1) "Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Osteosarcoma for Children and Adolescents," A Thesis Presented by Elise Beth Bassin, April 2001 http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/bassin-2001.pdf (2)June 6, 2005 letter from Richard Wiles, Sr. Vice President, Environmental Working Group to Dr. C. W. Jameson, National Toxicology Program, Report on Carcinogens http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20050606/petition.php (2a) "Claim: Doctor fudged fluoride findings,"By Jessica Heslam,, June 28, 2005 http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=91857 (3) Environmental Working Group News Release "Government Asked to Evaluate the Cancer Causing Potential of Fluoride in Tap Water," June 6, 2005 http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20050606/index.php (4) "Fluoride water 'causes cancer'," by Bob Woffinden, June 12, 2005, The Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1504672,00.html (5) The University of York, Centre for Review and Dissemination "What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found," Originally released: 28 October 2003 http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm (6) National Institutes of Health, News Release concerning Consensus statement regarding Diagnosis and Management of Dental Caries Throughout Life, March 26-28, 2001,Vol. 18, No. 1 http://consensus.nih.gov/news/releases/115_release.htm ("... the (NIH) panel was disappointed in the overall quality of the clinical data that it reviewed. According to the panel, far too many studies were small, poorly described, or otherwise methodologically flawed" (over 560 studies evaluated fluoride use).) (7) http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/cancer/cancer_osteosarcoma.html ---------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20050627/index.php Harvard Fluoride Findings Misrepresented? Environmental Working Group (EWG) has obtained documents suggesting that the Chairman of the Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine falsified reporting to the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Chester Douglass has received several years of large federal grants to study the possible relationship between bone cancer in boys and drinking fluoridated water. Reporting on the findings of this funding, he told federal officials unequivocally that there was no relationship, but the grant-funded publication he cited found exactly the opposite. In fact, the research was done by a former doctoral student of Douglass's and was the most rigorous study of its kind to date. Douglass has made the same assertion to the National Academy of Sciences panel now reviewing the safe ty of fluoridated drinking water. He is the publisher of a Colgate-funded fluoride journal. EWG has filed an ethics complaint against Douglass with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=91857 Claim: Doctor fudged fluoride findings By Jessica Heslam Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - Updated: 05:00 AM EST An environmental watchdog group plans to file a complaint today with federal medical authorities claiming a Harvard doctor is fudging research findings. The Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group said Dr. Chester Douglass reported no link between fluoride and bone cancer in boys, contradicting extensive research done by one of his doctoral students. Douglass, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, has been given grant money, possibly more than $1 million, by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to research whether there is a link between fluoride and bone cancer in boys, the non-profit group alleges. One of his dental doctoral students, Dr. Elise Bassin, did an extensive study that found a link between fluoridated tap water and bone cancer in adolescent boys, the group said. Douglass was the lead adviser on her doctoral thesis and signed off on her research, the group claims. Despite his student's findings, Douglass told federal health officials in his grant report that there is no correlation, according to the group. Douglass did not send the NIEHS the student's research but summarized it himself. Douglass is the editor-in-chief of the Colgate Oral Care Report, a newsletter that goes to dentists and is supported by toothpaste manufacturer Colgate Palmolive. Douglass could not be reached for comment last night. Bassin's research has never been published and access to it is restricted by Harvard, the group said. ``It sure seems pretty outrageous,'' said EWG spokesman Mike Casey. ``We're absolutely perplexed.'' It appears Douglass violated federal research rules, according to the group's complaint, which they plan to file with the NIEHS. > New York - June 28, 2005 -- Newly available research, out of Harvard > University, links fluoride in tap water, at levels most Americans > drink, to osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer (1). > > The Environmental Working Group (EWG), [snip crap] How many billions of man-years of 1 ppm fluoride drinking water exposure have accumulated worldwide since the 1960s? What is the claimed excess incidence of osteosarcoma? What is the incidence of kids drinking fluoridated water getting dental caries vs. natural fluoride levels? Idiot. Enviro-whiner spew demands CRT computer monitors need an expensive extra three pounds of bullshit to actively suppress fluctuating nanotesla magnetic fields that cause CANCER! Take a magnetometer into the New York City subway system and watch them gauss hump their bad a.ses. If a Hall effect transducer is your anti-christ, take along a (cheap) magnetic compass instead and watch its needle fly. Ditto in the E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C car or hybrid automobiles. You don't slop around 400 ampere currents and not get fat magnetic fields associated. Uncle Al demands every electric vehicle, forklifts to Prius to every subway system in America, have at least 1000 lbs of magnetic shielding/passenger compartment added to SAVE OUR CHILDREN! It is a large price to pay for a small illusory gain, and so is the perfect Liberal solution.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf > > New York - June 28, 2005 -- Newly available research, out of Harvard > > University, links fluoride in tap water, at levels most Americans [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > kids drinking fluoridated water getting dental caries vs. natural > fluoride levels? Idiot. ... You may be 50-some years behind the times on this one, Uncle Al. But you're by no means alone. The systematic distortion of fluoride health research after WWII has yet to be overcome. Bone cancer rates in young males seems likely to be but a small part of the legacy. In the US at least, fluoride continues to be "the protected pollutant". Very truly, Steve Schulin http://www.nuclear.com See February 6, 2005 entry on home page -- it's about fluoride, and is titled "The worst aspect of nuclear weapons" >> > New York - June 28, 2005 -- Newly available research, out of Harvard >> > University, links fluoride in tap water, at levels most Americans [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >males seems likely to be but a small part of the legacy. In the US at >least, fluoride continues to be "the protected pollutant". Possibly. But how many of these cases are there ? What is the real risk ? For myself, I have never heard of a single case of bone cancer ... and I know a lot of peopel who have very few fillings in their teeth because of fluoride. Seems to me the rewards far outway the risks ... but I'm prepared to look at the data. Give us some numbers. Bruce ------------------------------------- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - George Bernard Shaw Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. - Ambrose Bierce Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups (if there were any) In article <rRjwe.11007$U4.1418839@news.xtra.co.nz>, bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote: > >> > New York - June 28, 2005 -- Newly available research, out of Harvard > >> > University, links fluoride in tap water, at levels most Americans [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > to look at the data. > Give us some numbers. Well, I'd like to stress that, if you want fluoride benefits, topical application on teeth is an option. As to the bone cancer numbers: The Harvard doctoral thesis discussed in the press release which started this thread is partly transcribed and available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/ -- It cites Link and Eilber,1997 in pegging the incidence rate of osteosarcoma at 5.6 per million per year for Caucasian children under 15 years old. Other studies are cited as indicating that males are affected 1.5 to 2 times as frequently as females. "Although osteosarcoma is very rare, it is the most common tumor of bone and one of the principal malignant neoplasms in children, adolescents and young adults ..." As to the contribution of fluoride to these numbers, there's a variety of relevant studies and reviews variously described and excerpted at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/osteosarcoma.html One thing these excerpts do not mention is how difficult it is to get a good control group when it comes to fluoride studies in US, since so much processed food comes from outside local area. A link there -- http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/fan-nrc.part2.pdf -- does go into methodological matters. --- And finally, I'd like to stress that I've never seen anybody who claimed that cancer was the biggest detriment from fluoride exposure. Stuff like arthritis and hip fractures and heart disease and neurological problems are considered much bigger burdens. The importance of the osteosarcoma finding is that it would trigger regulatory prohibition against adding this pollutant to water supply. Very truly, Steve Schulin http://www.nuclear.com [sci.environment restored] > Bruce > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups > (if there were any) >In article <rRjwe.11007$U4.1418839@news.xtra.co.nz>, > bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair) [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >of relevant studies and reviews variously described and excerpted at >http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/osteosarcoma.html Actually, that site gives only one side of the issue, and you ought to know that. >One thing these excerpts do not mention is how difficult it is to get a >good control group when it comes to fluoride studies in US, since so [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups >> (if there were any) >Well, I'd like to stress that, if you want fluoride benefits, topical >application on teeth is an option. Which is how my dentist did it when I was a kid, since we didn't have fluoridated water in my community. >And finally, I'd like to stress that I've never seen anybody who claimed >that cancer was the biggest detriment from fluoride exposure. Stuff like >arthritis and hip fractures and heart disease and neurological problems >are considered much bigger burdens. Only if true. The fracture risk, when I last researched it, was far from cut and dried. Some studies showed an increase, some didn't, one even showed a decrease. So who the hell knows? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe The Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns." -- Steve Martin > >> > New York - June 28, 2005 -- Newly available research, out of Harvard > >> > University, links fluoride in tap water, at levels most Americans [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. > - Ambrose Bierce They don't even add fluoride to the water here in Florida, it naturally occurs at a level above what is needed . In fact, it was my understanding that in much of the U.S. it naturally occurs above needed levels. I guess I will die, in about another 50 years or so. SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov Commies are trying to poison our precious body fluids with fluorides! No, wait, it is the imperialists poisoning us now. Btw, do you know that the actual dioxin-laced ingredient of Agent Orange was not made in US but was manufactured in communist Czechoslovakia and sold to US for a bargain price to be sprayed on Vietcong? > Commies are trying to poison our precious body fluids with fluorides! > No, wait, it is the imperialists poisoning us now. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Czechoslovakia and sold to US for a bargain price to be sprayed on > Vietcong? No, I was convinced it was produced by Boehringer Ingelheim in Germany. This is curious: > Harvard University Maybe this is mystery solved right here, but we look further. > links fluoride in tap water, at levels most Americans > drink, to osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer (1). It says here "most Americans", thats about 300,000,000 people Thats a lot of people. A whole country full, in fact. Then it says "a rare form", well how rare can it be? Well, what is it? Are you causing cancer in 300,000,000 people or aren't you. More curious, if you are using "most Americans" in the experimental group, where did you find a control group large enough for statistical significance wrt a very infrequent event? Or maybe it is enough to shout "CANCER, THE CHILDREN", and "MORE STUDY NEEDED!" to rake in the grant money today? What has come of science today? Cheers, Tony >This is curious: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >What has come of science today? The science is fine ... there just seems to be a lot of non science gibberish and scaremongering that is getting the same or more air play. Does no one teach risk assessment anymore ? ... and if so, why don't journalists take the course ? :) Bruce ------------------------------------- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - George Bernard Shaw Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. - Ambrose Bierce Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups (if there were any) > Does no one teach risk assessment anymore ? ... and if so, why don't > journalists take the course ? :) I remember a professor in grad school commenting that journalism is one of the only fields in which you can get a graduate degree without ever having to take a statistics class. That is not really true, of course, but it is still a good line and makes a good point. > This is curious: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Cheers, > Tony [EL] An excellent reply. :) EL > > This is curious: > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > An excellent reply. :) > EL I can imagine circumstances where the reply might deserve praise, but in this case, we're talking about a product being purposefully added to public drinking water. And it's not even pharmaceutical-grade fluoride. 90% of fluoridated public water supplies in the US today use industrial-grade silicofluoride scrubbed from the smokestacks of the Florida phosphate industry (Ref: Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, 2004, p. 224). Very truly, Steve Schulin http://www.nuclear.com >> > This is curious: >> > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >Florida phosphate industry (Ref: Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride >Deception, 2004, p. 224). Maybe. But feel free to provide data on the benefits and risks associated with this practice. If you start to shout "cancer" without any data, you will hopefully be ignored. :) There are risks and rewards with everything. Bruce ------------------------------------- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - George Bernard Shaw Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. - Ambrose Bierce Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups (if there were any) >> > This is curious: >> > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >this case, we're talking about a product being purposefully added to >public drinking water. Like chlorine. Or vitamin D to milk. >And it's not even pharmaceutical-grade fluoride. Is there such a thing? >90% of fluoridated public water supplies in the US today use >industrial-grade silicofluoride scrubbed from the smokestacks of the >Florida phosphate industry (Ref: Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride >Deception, 2004, p. 224). So what? Waste from sewage plants is used as fertilizer for the foods you eat. >Very truly, > >Steve Schulin >http://www.nuclear.com [snip] > >I can imagine circumstances where the reply might deserve praise, but in > >this case, we're talking about a product being purposefully added to > >public drinking water. > > Like chlorine. Or vitamin D to milk. Chlorine is out - too cheap, too acutely benign, too many decades of safe and effective use - at the insistence of Enviro-whiners. The Official darling of water purification is chloramine, H2NCl. Chloramine will very handily kill fish in an aquarium or your granny on kidney dialysis. It's more expensive, too. Irvine, CA water runs chloramine most of the year, then switches to chlorine while the water board repairs damage to infrastructure. I guess that pretty much makes chloramine perfect. > >And it's not even pharmaceutical-grade fluoride. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So what? Waste from sewage plants is used as fertilizer for the foods you > eat. Milorganite. Amazingly fine turf fertilizer for golf courses. You can imagine the Enviro-whiner stink that eructated when it was discovered calcined activated sludge could be sold for a nice profit instead of buried in a landfill at great cost. Milorganite was finally attacked with "UNKNOWN HAZARDS!" Kinda hard to argue against that one. It's back in landfills leaching into your drinking water, providing known hazards. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf >> >I can imagine circumstances where the reply might deserve >> >praise, but in this case, we're talking about a product >> >being purposefully added to public drinking water. [Parker] >> Like chlorine. Or vitamin D to milk. [Al] > Chlorine is out - too cheap, too acutely benign, too many decades of > safe and effective use - at the insistence of Enviro-whiners. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > chlorine while the water board repairs damage to infrastructure. I > guess that pretty much makes chloramine perfect. [Steve] >> >And it's not even pharmaceutical-grade fluoride. [Parker] >> Is there such a thing? [Steve] >> >90% of fluoridated public water supplies in the US today use >> >industrial-grade silicofluoride scrubbed from the smokestacks of the >> >Florida phosphate industry (Ref: Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride >> >Deception, 2004, p. 224). [hanson] Na-, Sn-, or Mg-silicofluoride, Sodium Fluoride, or -"Fluophosphates" etc. are the active ingredients in the toothpastes you use. See label. letting you or your kid swallow Fluoride and at MUCH much higher concentrations then drinking the F in the tap water... ahahaha... To boot Apatite is part of your natural tooth enamel. This Apatite = Ca5(PO4)3(OH,F,Cl), Calcium (Fluoro, Chloro, Hydroxyl) Phosphate chemistry was the original reason for the apparently still going on huff. To little Fluoride = cavities galore.... Add some Fluoride to prevent it and all the little green idiots are whining until the green sh.ts and green turds can extort money in form of permit charges and user fees for the fluoride addition to the water.... and then when the green fees are in place and the little green idiots happily pay... ... suddenly no more bone cancer..... or perhaps an other new reason to levy an additional permit charge and user fee on to top... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... [Parker] >> So what? Waste from sewage plants is used as fertilizer for >> the foods you eat. [Al] > Milorganite. Amazingly fine turf fertilizer for golf courses. You > can imagine the Enviro-whiner stink that eructated when it was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > water, providing known hazards. > Uncle Al [hanson] Re: "UNKNOWN HAZARDS!", if so, sure it is not only hard to argue against, it is impossible to argue against and it gives EPA the exclusive right to make an EMOTIONAL judgment as to whether a product should be approved or not. Does anybody know the legal definition of this "UNKNOWN HAZARDS!" enviro clause? hanson <snip> >> So what? Waste from sewage plants is used as fertilizer for the foods >> you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that one. It's back in landfills leaching into your drinking water, > providing known hazards. I thought that the problem with Milrganite was heavy metals present in the sludge. It's been quite a few years since I heard that though. Is there something new? Maybe not - looks like it's still being sold: http://www.milorganite.com/ Interesting that it's been on the market since 1926. Dear Mike Henry: > <snip> >>> So what? Waste from sewage plants is used as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I thought that the problem with Milrganite was > heavy metals present in the sludge. That (heavy metal) is from drinking water facilities. The fertilizer is from waste water faciliteis. David A. Smith "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Hfkxe.3852$Qo.1355@fed1read01... > Dear Mike Henry: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > David A. Smith I've no doubt that plenty of localities have a problem with heavy metals in their drinking water source, but am pretty sure that Milorganite also had that problem and that it created a problem in marketing the product for a time. Here's a link from a quick search. http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/hortnews/1995/6-9-1995/milorg.html Mike > >> > ... > >> > Well, what is it? Are you causing cancer in 300,000,000 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Like chlorine. Or vitamin D to milk. Yes. > >And it's not even pharmaceutical-grade fluoride. > > Is there such a thing? Yes. > >90% of fluoridated public water supplies in the US today use > >industrial-grade silicofluoride scrubbed from the smokestacks of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So what? Waste from sewage plants is used as fertilizer for the foods you > eat. I'm glad you bring up food crops. Damage to New Jersey peach crop in 1944 was the initiating event for the longstanding government-industry effort to persuade the public that fluoride is good for you. By 1946, FDA was considering embargo on some New Jersey produce. The Manhattan Project was very concerned at the national security implications of anything that might impede fluoride production. I highly recommend the book by Christopher Bryson -- he reviewed material which apparently has never before been discussed in public forums. There was a famous fluoride study published in 1948 in Journal of the American Dental Association. The study reports that fluoride workers at Harshaw plant had fewer cavities than did unexposed workers. But the published study was quite misleading in even mentioning this. The original, then-classified version of the study, states that mot of the men had few or no teeth; they were "in large proportion edentulous [toothless] or nearly endentulous." This information was left out of the published version. After comparing the two versions of the study, neurotoxicologist Phyllis Mullenix told Bryson "This makes me ashamed to be a scientist." Here's a relevant excerpt from p. 90 of Bryson's book: "The published Harshaw study helped to shift the national medical debate over exposure to industrial fluoride. Several studies during the 1940s had already shown that acid in an industrial environment hurt workers' teeth, and Dr. Priest's experience at Columbia University suggested that the same was happening with wartime fluoride workers. Now, said Phyllis Mullenix, instead of blaming fluoride for eroding teeth, with the help of 'a clever editing job' the published study became a piece of dental propaganda that 'buries the American fluoride worker.'" "'It totally changes the viewpoint," Mullenix told me. "This makes me ashamed to be a scientist.'" As to your "so what?" question, I am also glad you ask. As best I recall, you were critical of Bush administration holding back a proposed rule on tightening the regulation of the amount of natural arsenic allowed in drinking water. When I said that bjlapen's comment earlier in this thread might be appropriate under certain circumstances, it was your kind of arsenic argument which I had in mind. The phosphate industry's waste product, which is directly added to water supplies as fluoridation, also includes arsenic. > >Very truly, > > > >Steve Schulin > >http://www.nuclear.com > This is curious: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > What has come of science today? Science has become a MONEY bag for green crooks! ALL this paranoia is because of the hordes of class 3 enviros, who provide fat pensions for the class 1 enviros and the grand profiteering for/by the class 2 enviros. = Pure politics is driving dozens of public health issues, notably = global warming, tobacco and other green sh.t. Great lies do = service for/in/of a "noble cause" which now trump truth & fact. ahahaha... ahahahanson PS: Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications: (1) Green sh.t(s): ...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize, institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, and being responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING! (2) Green turd(s):... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly. (3) Little green idiot(s):.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do something for the "environment", when in fact they are only the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the green $$$ that (1) has extorted. >> This is curious: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Science has become a MONEY bag for green crooks! I think you'll find it's the same right-wing, anti-goverment wackos that believe protection of the environment is a commie plot and there is no global warming who are behind the "fluoride is bad" hysteria, not environmentalists. >>> This is curious: >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>> >>> What has come of science today? [hanson] >>Science has become a MONEY bag for green crooks! [Parki-pooh] > I think you'll find it's the same right-wing, anti-goverment wackos that > believe protection of the environment is a commie plot and there is no > global warming who are behind the "fluoride is bad" hysteria, not > environmentalists. [hanson] Parki-pooh, you are (A) a typical class 1 citizen and (B) one who can only see issues from the Left and/or the Right. Green sh.t crosses any and all party lines just like money, which is the real green thing. Environment is only the gimmick to make green backs! Get it git, git it, git it, git.... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHA... = Pure politics is driving dozens of public health issues, notably = global warming, tobacco and other green sh.t. Great lies do = service for/in/of a "noble cause" which now trump truth & fact. ahahaha... ahahahanson PS: Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications: (1) Green sh.t(s): ...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize, institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, and being responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING! (2) Green turd(s):... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly. (3) Little green idiot(s):.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do something for the "environment", when in fact they are only the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the green $$$ that (1) has extorted. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.