[Noisebridge-discuss] Faucet Warning Sticker

[Garrett Smith]

On 7/8/13, Gopi Flaherty <gopiballava at gmail.com> wrote:
> You say that no long term studies have been done. But your sticker states
> harm as a fact. If the harm is as definite as you state, why do you
> reference the lack of studies, since the conclusion from that would be "we
> don't know if it's dangerous"
> 
The idea of informed consent -- namely that the that fluoride, a drug,
has been added to the tap water has been explained on the
fluoridealert website that is mentioned on the sticker design.

I will explain a bit, from memory, explain some of the problems.

However, keep in mind that those who believe that systemic ingestion
of either hexafluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride prevents tooth
decay and that doing so is completely safe must bear burden of
evidence. And that mainstream attempts to do, particularly by the CDC,
 have been fraudulent (like lead science and tobacco science, which
were incidentally both propagandized by Edward Bernays).

The kidneys excrete a variety of toxic waste substances, so they're a
good place to start. The kidneys excrete fluoride, but eventually have
more difficulty dealing with the fluoride, as they become damaged by
it, thereby causing more fluoride to accumulate in the bones, brain,
arterial walls and other parts of the body, as it binds to other
minerals such as calcium.

It should therefore be unsurprising that fluoride is contraindicated
for renal patients.

Speaking of brain, fluoride binds readily to aluminum, and allows both
to cross the blood brain barrier easily where both work
synergistically to impair neurological function. This has been proven
in rat studies and it has been shown that in humans, fluoride
accumulates in the pineal gland.

Meta studies that can show correlation, however, like studies on lead,
they cannot effectively measure the dose, nor can they prove safety of
chronic, long term exposure (because of migration). This is a major
failing of prominent CDC studies, such as conducted by Susan O.
Griffin, a meta study, which concludes efficacy of random doses. was
also paid to conduct another metastudy to justify the economics of
community water fluoridation (see "An Economic Evaluation of Community
Water Fluoridation"). Whatever fits the bill.

And we know it's bad for babies, so the CDC now recommends against
that. We have David Kennedy to thank for selflessly fighting that
struggle.

We also know that means by which fluoroapetite is formed is topical
and not systemic.

All of this information is on the fluoridealert website. Please do
some research.

> Also, why do you call the fluoride industrial? What are the implications or
> conclusions to be made? Doesn't "industrial" refer more to the size and type
> of container?
>
The fluoride used in most municipal water supplies, including that of
San Francisco, is an industrial byproduct, primarily hexafluorosilicic
acid from of the phosphate industry. Now some will say that this does
not matter because the fluoride mostly dissociates in water, along
with the lead and arsenic and other crap that may inadvertently end up
in governments' imported low-cost Chinese industrial fluoride waste.

The point of all of this fuss with the sticker is so that people can
become informed of what is in the water and then make the decision for
themselves, their children, their pets, etc.

>
> Thanks,

You are welcome.
-- 
Garrett
Twitter: @xkit
personx.tumblr.com