APNewsBreak: FBI Investigates Prison Company

BOISE, Idaho March 7, 2014 (AP)  // http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/apnewsbreak-fbi-investigates-prison-company-cca-22819958

By REBECCA BOONE Associated Press

The FBI has launched an investigation of the Corrections Corporation of America over the company's running of an Idaho prison with a reputation so violent that inmates dubbed it "Gladiator School."

The Nashville, Tenn.-based CCA has operated Idaho's largest prison for more than a decade, but last year, CCA officials acknowledged it had understaffed the Idaho Correctional Center by thousands of hours in violation of the state contract. CCA also said employees falsified reports to cover up the vacancies. The announcement came after an Associated Press investigation showed CCA sometimes listed guards as working 48 hours straight to meet minimum staffing requirements.

The Idaho State Police was asked to investigate the company last year but didn't, until amid increasing political pressure, the governor ordered the agency to do so last month. Democratic state lawmakers asked the FBI to take up the case last month.

Idaho Department of Correction spokesman Jeff Ray confirmed Friday that the FBI met with department director Brent Reinke on Thursday to inform him about the investigation. Idaho State Police spokeswoman Teresa Baker said her agency was no longer involved with the investigation and the FBI has taken it over entirely.

"They (the FBI) have other cases that are tied to this one so it worked out better for them to handle it from here," Baker said.

Baker wouldn't comment on what the other cases entailed. U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson in Boise also declined to comment on the scope of the FBI investigation, but did say the agency was looking into fraud.

"The FBI is investigating CCA and looking at whether various federal fraud statutes were violated and possibly other federal statutes connected with the fraud," Olson said. "They will be working in close consultation with our office. Beyond that I can't comment."

CCA spokesman Steve Owen said his company would cooperate with investigators.

"Our own internal investigation concluded that this was not a criminal matter, and we remain confident in those findings," Owen said in a prepared statement.

The understaffing has been the subject of federal lawsuits and a contempt of court action against CCA. The ACLU sued on behalf of inmates at the Idaho Correctional Center in 2010, saying the facility was so violent that inmates called it "Gladiator School" and that understaffing contributed to the high levels of violence there.

In 2012, a Boise law firm sued on behalf of inmates contending that CCA had ceded control to prison gangs so that they could understaff the prison and save money on employee wages, and that the understaffing led to an attack by one prison gang on another group of inmates that left some of them badly injured.

The Department of Justice requested a copy of a forensic audit done for the Idaho Department of Correction earlier this year. That audit showed that CCA understaffed the prison by as much as 26,000 hours in 2012 alone; CCA is strongly contesting those findings. CCA's Owen has said the company believes the audit overestimates the staffing issues by more than a third.

CCA's contract with Idaho was worth about $29 million a year. In February the company agreed to pay Idaho $1 million to settle the understaffing claims.

Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter initially resisted the suggestion that a criminal investigation was needed and earlier this year, rebuffed a suggestion from Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden that he order state law enforcement agencies to investigate. But on Friday, Otter's spokesman, Jon Hanian, said the governor thought the FBI's involvement was "great."

Merging Man And Machine: Rise of the human exoskeletons

March 7, 2014 Engineers in Italy have developed a wearable robot which they claim is the most sophisticated built in the world to date

On the outskirts of Pisa in a back room of a modern block, a machine is waiting for its operator.

The device has arms and legs and is suspended by ropes from a metal frame. Its only other tether is a thick umbilical cable plugged into its back.
After a few final checks, research engineer Gianluca approaches the machine, turns, and puts his feet on its feet and buckles them in. He straps himself in across his chest and puts his arms into its arms.
With a finger he then presses a button, and the machine jolts into life, lights flashing and joints whirring as he cautiously steers his body suit across the floor.

The Body Extender can lift up to 50kg in each hand

The machine is called the “Body Extender” and has been developed at the Perceptual Robotics Laboratory (Percro), part of the Pisa’s Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna.
It can lift 50kg (7st 12lb) in each extended hand, can exert 10 times the force the user applies to an object, and its makers claim it is the most complex exoskeleton yet built.
“This is the most complex wearable robot that has been ever built in the world,” says Percro’s Fabio Salsedo who leads the project. “It’s a device which is able to track the complex movement of the human body and also to amplify the force of the operator.”
The machine has 22 degrees of freedom each actuated with an electric motor, and is made up of modular components, which means the robot can be easily rebuilt to suit the application, says its designer.
“There are several possible applications. For example if you have to assemble a very complex product like an aircraft, this is a machine which is very flexible. You can lift the panel, rotate it and position it in the right position.”
“Another application is the rescue of victims in case of an earthquake. You need something very flexible in order to intervene rapidly without damaging the victim.”

The ReWalk exoskeleton is designed to enable those with lower limb disabilities to walk upright with the aid of crutches

The Hulc is a hydraulic exoskeleton enabling soldiers to carry weights of around 90kg in the field

Meaning “outer skeleton”, exoskeletons are common in nature. Grasshoppers, cockroaches, crabs and lobsters have exoskeletons rather than an inner endoskeleton like humans, providing both support to the body and protection against predators. Turtles and tortoises have both an inner skeleton and an exoskeleton shell.
Robotic or mechanical exoskeletons could offer humans the kind of protection, support and strength they afford in nature.
The Body Extender is just one of a host of machines now being developed or marketed around the world by researchers and companies.
A subsidiary of Panasonic recently unveiled its Powerloader, which it’s claimed can also lift a total of 100kg and walk at 8km/h (5mph). The plan is to bring the machine to market in 2015 for work on the factory floor or any other application customers can imagine.
Another Japanese company, Cyberdyne, has developed its hybrid assistive limb or Hal system, a range of machines designed for rescue recovery or “back load reduction” in the work place.
The military application of exoskeletons has become quickly apparent. US corporation Raytheon has developed the XOS 2 for combat soldiers in the field, while Lockheed Martin has the Hulc, a hydraulic exoskeleton that provides soldiers with the ability to carry loads of about 90kg.

Dr Edwin van Asseldonk explains what the Lopes rehabilitation device can do

Then there are the medical uses. Israeli company Argo Medical Technologies markets its ReWalk device to help those with lower limb disabilities to walk upright using crutches, while Cyberdyne and Ekso Bionics – which developed the Hulc originally – offer similar devices.
Swiss company Hocoma offers a therapeutic device called the Lokomat, robotic trousers worn by a user on a treadmill designed to help stroke patients and others improve their walking, while a similar device called Lopes has been developed by Dutch researchers.
Prof Chris Melhuish, director of the Bristol Robotics Laboratory, believes exoskeletons will have a place in the future of robotics where it’s deemed humans are still required to steer or control a robotic device or quickly and adaptively respond to environmental hazards or changes.
“It’s a technology which is growing fast and maturing,” he told BBC News. “The type of functionality of the exoskeleton depends on what you want it to do and to what degree you want it to be autonomous.”
“They can have a medical restorative function, or it can extend to augmenting human function and that might be the case for military systems, rescue services or in factories where perhaps large or heavy materials need to be handled.”
He said the three main issues were developing the control systems, the materials and, crucially, the power systems.

Cyberdyne’s Hal range of exoskeletons are designed for the factory floor and for medical use

“If you’re doing this and you don’t have access to sufficient power that’s a problem. If you can plug yourself into the mains it’s absolutely fine but then your movement is limited by an umbilical power supply.
“The evolution of the exoskeleton will go hand in hand with the evolution of batteries or other high density storage systems as well as lightweight structural materials.”
Fabio Salsedo believes the simpler medical devices will become commonplace before the more complex full-body exoskeletons researchers such as he and his team are developing.
“There is still a problem with the overall equilibrium of the [Body Extender] machine so it is very difficult at the moment to guarantee the machine won’t fall down on uneven terrain,” he told BBC News.
“But there are other applications of these kinds of platforms which need a simplified version where not all the articulations are actuated but only a subset. In this case the machine can be lighter and more simple to control.”
Rich Walker, of the London-based Shadow Robot Company, told BBC News: “Exoskeletons have a really important role in keeping older people active and healthy for longer, whether at work or at home. Much of the Japanese effort is focused on delivering systems that can help older people help their spouses without injury.”
But he agrees safety issues will have to be overcome with some of the more complex devices.
“Safety will be vital for ‘on the body’ robotics. There is a new ISO standard covering this, but we haven’t yet seen what happens when an exoskeleton goes wrong.”
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26418358

Transhumanist Religion Deception: New theology for the “religious” posthuman

March 6, 2014 “If a God did not exist, then it would be necessary to invent one.” Voltaire, 1768.  Literally meaning “God from the Machine”- for Euripides and the other ancient playwrights, this could easily mean an actual Olympian stepping into the picture to remedy some calamity that humanity has sewn beyond its own ability to remedy, however, the term refers to any occurrence in which out of seeming chaos and confusion and desperation, there emerges the perfect means to set everything right again.
As an artistic device, it has inspired debate since lo unto its antediluvian origins; many contending that it is a crutch employed by lazy or unimaginative writers who cannot devise a more elegant or subtle means of resolving a conflict.
It might not be surprising that Friedrich Nietzsche was one of the loudest of these critical voices. Even as he argued for the “Death” of God, he implicated the Deus Ex as the decline of drama, imploring of Euripides’ ghost: “Now, once tragedy had lost the genius of music, tragedy in the strictest sense was dead: for where was that metaphysical consolation now to be found?” The “music” he refers to are the intricate and wondrous patterns that can only emerge from pain and horror and hardship- like jazz or the blues; emergent patterns and new forms that can only be borne out of chaos and bedlam.
The Deus Ex Machina, by contrast, is therefore seen as pop music- simple and repetitive drivel that serves to distract and appease us with shallow and false consolation. One doesn’t have to reach very far to see the parallel between this aesthetic issue, and the position taken by Nietzsche, Marx, and many of their contemporaries towards religion- that it is also a false consolation which serves only to numb us rather than to experience in full measure the fear and ignorance and anguish- the “music” of life which could ultimately lead us to real beauty or transcendence.
Plato, by contrast, is a philosopher whose work is often embraced and endorsed by religious scholars and theologians, but he was possessed of an even more militant inclination, contending that all art was a contrivance which could only serve to draw people away from what is real and therefore was inherently evil, begging the question: is it ever possible for a falsehood to bring us closer to the truth? Does wishing for something to be true necessarily stand at odds with acting to make a thing true?
For those of you with an earnest belief in most of the world’s major religions though, there is no higher truth. You have always believed it would be necessary for a higher power to reach into our world and reshape it- for something beyond us to become a part of our lives and allow us to reach our fullest potential- both on an individual level and a species. You pass down stories and traditions that incorporate the ultimate conception of the “Deus Ex”, not out of laziness or simplicity or a lack of creativity, but out of the very earnest, sincere, and not at all irrational assumption that there are some problems endemic to our nature and the nature of the world we live in which cannot be solved by human means alone.
This is an assessment which is shared by many secularists and transhumanists- we only disagree about the form and origins of the powers that will be necessary to save us. Where we see the emergent intelligence of “God from the Machine”, you, the faithful, may just as rightly look on it as Machina Ex Deus- “Machine from God”.
When Charles Darwin laid the foundations of modern biology through natural selection, many accused him of blasphemy- of trying to usurp the power/role/knowledge of God. But now, a great majority of religious people no longer regard this empirical understanding of evolution as any kind of threat to their desire to believe in a benevolent creator at work in the universe. I would humbly urge you simply to approach the promise of the Singularity with the same tact- simply a means to an end. Whether you believe our salvation necessitates our suffering as part of divine providence, or you believe that our suffering necessitates our salvation in the struggle to overcome contingency…. Deus Ex Machina or Machina Ex Deus… should not stop us from working together to make this the shared ending of our very real story- not a lazy, self-gratified flight of fancy, but a solemn promise to ourselves and to each other of a world and a people transformed by our unity with a power greater than ourselves.
Together, regardless of our metaphysical beliefs, we have chosen to embrace the vision of an ending to our shared story that some cynics (secular and religious alike) regard as too good to be true… so rather than fight with each other over the origins of our salvation, let us work together to pursue its fulfillment through our good works. We need not and cannot await permission to do so- for the divine consciousness that one would seek such permission from is waiting to be born, or else waiting to be discovered- and either way, the answer rests within each of us- and surely any benevolent creator we have would want us to reach out and grasp for it, when we’re ready.
See Full Article - http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/yshua20140301

Zombie Apocalypse 2014: Sadhu Prophetic Disease May Link Five Scientific Ways for Zombie Attacks to Occur

By Ryan Inoyori | February 26, 2014 // http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/540628/20140226/zombie-apocalypse-2014-sadhu-prophetic-disease-link.htm#.UxpxQIX4K3v

Indian prophet Sadhu Sundar Selvaraj predicted an upcoming fatal disease starting in Asia which no cure is expected to stop. But is it possible that the predicted disease can cause zombie infestation? Here are scientific ways that zombie-causing illness may actually occur to start the end of the world.

Parasites Inside Your Brain
Science have already discovered several species of parasites which lodge inside the human brain. One of the most horrifying kind is the "brain-eating amoebae" called Naegleria fowleri. It can easily travel from the person's nose and goes all the up to the brain which destroys all brain tissue it can - don't forget that it can be painful when it hits the pain centre of the brain.
Second is Toxoplasma gondii that slows down reaction time and double risking people to traffic accidents. Third one found usually in rainforest and swamps is the Loa Loa eye worm which can cause cognitive losses, memory problems and personality changes.

Since parasites can affect both humans and rats, it is likely a biologically engineered parasite may start such event to be spread by our favourite pest.
Poison for the Brain
Many chemical substances occurring naturally or artificially can affect various brain functions which are called neurotoxins. In philosophical explanation of zombies, beings are under the states of lack in consciousness, sentience or awareness.
Hallucinogen drugs such as Gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid or GHB can alter the state of mind by causing memory, learning and cognitive downtime due to intoxication. Jimson weed is another popular causative agent may lead to delirium and bizarre behaviour such as in trance. Any of the two can chemically induce someone to be in zombie-like state as if under a necromantic spell.
Be Cautious About Prions
HIV affects the immune system but Mad Cow disease in humans called Creutzfeldt-Jakob or vCJD directly disrupts the brain. CJD is caused by human prion disease or misfolded proteins and leads to several unusual symptoms such as dementia, memory loss, personality changes, paranoia, psychosis and hallucinations. Those things are all mental issues which can turn almost anyone into something else, behaviourally speaking.
Medical Reanimation
Don't ignore the advancement of technology for laboratories around the world have access to ways that can manipulate the human body in cellular level. Stem cell therapy which replicates neurogenesis or regeneration of neural stem cells. Neuroplasticity is another scientific method to treat brain damage, vision and learning difficulties.
If an Umbrella-like company in Resident Evil begins on researching, developing, dealing and selling such to warring nations may definitely urge chaos uncontrollable and unforeseen consequences such as zombie apocalypse. "Frankensteining" someone isn't going to bring good results.
Power of Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology aims to manipulate matter in a very tiny scale, smaller than a human cell. In movies, nanobots have been oriented which can clean, fix or even control matter invisible to the naked eye. In mobile devices, nanotech can be used to repair cracked screen, repel dust or take power from sunlight but not yet feasible for commercial use.
Robots under nano scale implanted inside your brain can induce remote control from a server, inject viruses or prions and spread diseases silently but widespread. Unlike pathogens or chemically induced zombie-like state, nanobots may last for eternity since they can manipulate matter and may stay recharged as they keep the person alive under trance. What's more scary is that nanobots can access parts of the brain which can be turn off or on like your electric switch in the living room.
Duration of Zombie Apocalypse
Zombies are classified as undead creatures and if such event happens for real, it won't last forever. Zombies are terrifying and rotting at the same time that determines their timeframe existence.
Unless the disease causing the zombie event spreads in other methods such as air, water, soil, etc, the pathogen will do the killing spree. Even nanobots won't be able to handle the basic needs required by a living being regardless if they shutdown the hunger factor. Without nutrition and food, zombies are going to die eventually.
Zombies are subjected under several environmental factors like any other living organisms which affects their survival.
1.      Effects of decaying process
2.      Bacterial infestation due to decomposition
3.      Heat damage
4.      Humidity effects
5.      Various temperature
6.      Lack of food supply
Whether it is happening sooner or later, you should be prepared not only against zombies but also to other catastrophes which may occur anytime. Some reviews claim places that are safe to various dangers and hopefully they will work against any zombie apocalypse.

ANOTHER ONE FOR THE TRANSHUMANIST SCRAPBOOK: BILLIONAIRE GETTING YOUNGER…& BREAKAWAY SPECULATIONS

Posted on March 7, 2014 by Joseph P. Farrell • Filed Under: Alchemy • http://gizadeathstar.com/2014/03/another-one-transhumanist-scrapbook-billionaire-getting-younger-breakaway-speculations/

Over the course of following the transhumanist phenomenon and movement, many people have noted to me, and I myself have observed, the uncanny longevity of some of the world’s super-wealthy and powerful people. One need only think of H.M. Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom, or of David Rockefeller, and so on. In the case of Queen Elizabeth, this 87 year old lady is the picture of health(at least, from what we know) and does not look her age at all.
I say all this as backdrop, really, to an observation I first made in The Giza Death Star and which was repeated in the book I co-authored with Dr. Scott deHart, Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas. We spent some time in that book discussing Percy Shelley’s Frankenstein, and its wider implications in the context of the GRIN technologies – genetics, robotics, information processing, and nano-technology – touted as life-and-culture changers by the transhumanists. What if, by considered application of any one or combination of those technologies, the human lifespan could be greatly enhanced? As I put it in the Giza Death Star, these technologies seem to be making the potential for the lifespans reported in some ancient texts of hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years a step closer to reality. What if one lived, not a “biblical threescore and ten”, but hundreds of years? one can envision the cultural transition this would effect. Our greatest scientists – famous for one or two major discoveries in their lives, and usually early in their lives – would perhaps rack up tens or hundreds of such discoveries. Individuals could specialize, not in just one narrow disciplinary focus, but several. Information could be learned at an enormously accelerated rate, and passed on to future generations at an equal rate. The transformation of human culture, not to mention an extraordinarily huge leap in scientific progress, would begin to leap almost off the charts, for we would not have to recyle and transmit the sum of human knowledge to new generations every twenty or thirty years, it could be done much faster, to generations that in turn live much longer.
It all depends on that first crucial factor: longevity.
In the course of our musing on this possibility for many years, and especially during the writing of Transhumanism, Dr de Hart and I also talked about that transional period, when such technologies, due to their novelty, are quite expensive, and hence, access is restricted to the wealthy few who could afford it. In such circumstances, one segment of society will begin to pull away from the rest of humanity by dint of its access to technologies that, for all intents and purposes, are hidden or secret from the rest of humanity. Transhumanism, in other words, is but a different name for ufo scholar and research Mr. Richard Dolan’s “breakaway civilization.”
Against all this backdrop, we now have this little confirmation or corroboration of these speculations:
Bahamas: Billionaire claims he is getting younger
Clearly Mr. Nygaard has offered himself as a subject for at least one of the GRIN technologies, genetics, with predictable results. I doubt it is the first such story, but it is significant that the BBC is reporting on it, and we can expect many more such stories in the future. There will inevitably be those who will argue that “the elites” will seek to hoard the technologies of longevity for themselves. If so, I doubt they will be successful. It is the inevitable march of technologies that, as their capability grows, so does their use, but their costs usually decline, and dramatically so. The computer on which I am composing this blog has a memory one million times more powerful than the first computer I used almost twenty years ago, yet it cost me at most a fourth of what that twenty-years ago ancient abacus cost. (And it’s a lot less clunky too).
No. I think the real concern that no one is addressing, save perhaps a fourth century church father by the name of John Chrysostom, is the effect of all this longevity on human moral culture. Will someone hundreds of years old grow so tired and cynical of life that humanity is but a plaything? Will, in other words, there be Adolf Hitlers and Josef Stalins able to “perfect” their evil over a vaster amount of time? or will there be Albert Schweitzers and Mother Teresas doing their good over time? It seems the moral questions, as always, are being left out of the mix, even while the transhumanist express is barreling down the tracks straight toward us. We need to start thinking about them… now.

8 Events That Prove Your Money Is Not Safe In Europe, Or Anywhere

8 Events That Prove Your Money Is Not Safe In Europe, Or Anywhere

Jeff Berwick

Activist Post

As I write this, the European Union has just announced a possible $15b aid package to Ukraine (including 8 billion euros in fresh credit). Everybody has read the headlines about Europe: record unemployment, no end in sight, and so on.

So you might be wondering just where the European Union, and its constituent nations, scraped together the money to propose aid for Ukraine.

Well, wonder no more, because the following eight events might give you an idea of where governments go to get a little extra cash.

1. In March, 2009, Ireland seized €4bn from its Pension Reserve fund in order to rescue its banks. In November 2010, the remaining savings of €2.5bn was seized to support the bailout of the rest of the country.

2. In December, 2010, Hungary told its citizens that they could either remit their private pension money to the state or lose their state pension funds (but still have to pay for it nonetheless).

3. In November, 2010, the French parliament decided to earmark €33bn from the national reserve pension fund FRR to reduce the short-term pension scheme deficit.

4. In early January 2011, $60 million in private retirement funds were transferred to the state's pension scheme in Bulgaria.  They wanted to transfer $300 million, but were denied on their first attempt

5. In the Spring of 2013 Cyprus took it a step further and outright confiscated up to 50% of the funds from bank account holders in that country.

6. In the Fall of 2013 the Polish government announced it would transfer to the state (aka. confiscate) the bulk of assets owned by the country's private pension funds (many of them owned by such foreign firms as PIMCO parent Allianz, AXA, Generali, ING and Aviva), without offering any compensation.

7.  In February 2014, Italian banks were ordered by the Italian government to withhold a 20% tax on all inbound wire transfers. Il Sole reported, "the deductions will be automatic (unless prior request for exclusion), and then it will be up to the taxpayer to prove that the money is not in the nature of compensation 'income.'"

8. The savings of all 500 million Europeans can be stolen by the European Union. Why? Because the financial crisis is not over, according to an EU document. The Commission is looking to ask the bloc's insurance watchdog in the second half of 2014 for advice on how to draft a law "to mobilize more personal pension savings for long-term financing," the document said.

So you see, European governments and institutions have already begun seizing private pension funds, slapping 20% taxes on all incoming wire transfers, confiscating up to 50% from private bank accounts and even stating all the savings of Europe are fair game.  As we've said before, this phenomenom of wealth confiscation won't stay confined to Europe. The US has also taken measures to ensure ease of access to the funds of everyday Americans.

We’ve said for many years now that the US government and almost all Western governments are bankrupt. This means they will try to confiscate as much wealth as possible from people who don't carefully save before the collapse. Mark our words: US 401ks and IRAs will be nationalized in the next four years as well—maybe as soon as the next one or two years.

If you've stayed in tune with the Dollar Vigilante blog, you probably already understood this. If you haven't already, be sure to check into our subscription services to gain access to the intelligence you need to stay ahead of the pack.

Anarcho-Capitalist. Libertarian. Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks. Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante, CEO of TDV Media & Services and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast. Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world’s freedom, investment and gold conferences as well as regularly in the media including CNBC, CNN and Fox Business.

Navy will deploy first ship with laser weapon this summer

Navy’s LaWS will save bullets and missiles—and blind and burn drones and boats.

by Sean Gallagher - Mar 6 2014, http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/navy-will-deploy-first-ship-with-laser-weapon-this-summer/

The USS Ponce, currently in a shipyard for overhaul, will gain the Navy's first laser weapon to protect it from "asymmetric threats"—drones, small boats, and improvised air attacks.

US Navy

After successful testing last year, the Navy is preparing to deploy its first directed energy weapon to the fleet. When it puts to sea this summer, the afloat forward staging base ship USS Ponce will be equipped with the Navy’s Laser Weapon System (LaWS).
LaWS is a system based on a design developed by the Navy Research Lab and engineers at the Naval Sea Systems Command and Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren. Its purpose is not to vaporize enemy ships but to provide a low-cost way for the Navy to defend against drones, small boats, light aircraft, and missiles at ranges of about a mile.

A prototype of the Laser Weapon System (LaWS) at sea in a test in 2013.

While the Navy will still depend on missiles and guns to defend against bigger targets, the LaWS system is designed to cost about a dollar a shot without the fuss and muss of the depleted uranium bullets spewed by the Navy’s Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS). It can be used for a “hard” kill on smaller targets (directing enough energy at the target to set it on fire or explode fuel aboard it) or for a “soft” kill by blinding a drone or missile’s imaging sensors.
“The effects are scalable,” Navy Captain Mike Ziv, the Naval Sea Systems Command’s program manager for directed energy and electric weapons, told the Department of Defense’s Armed With Science blog. “In some cases [the effects are] reversible, and in some cases it can be used for destruction.”
In a test last May, an initial prototype of the system used the CIWS’ radar system to target, blind, and then destroy a drone in flight from the deck of a ship. The video below is a bit misleading—it didn't shoot down one of the multi-million dollar carrier-based drones the Navy is testing.

Laser Weapon System

The Navy’s video showing the test of the Laser Weapon System. You may want to mute the audio.

“One of the advantages of the laser system we’re using,” Ziv told Armed with Science, “is that it’s based on commercial technologies. It’s fairly efficient compared to other lasers, and because of that, it can be powered on a lot of different platforms, using existing power sources.”
The deployment of LaWS aboard the Ponce is the final step before it moves from prototype to an actual “program of record” weapon system. ‘What we really want to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt,” Ziv said, “is that this system is ready to be operated in theater… by our sailors and is ready to transition to be in broader use throughout the fleets. And I think we’re on track to get that done.”
The LaWS is just the first step down the high-energy weapon path for the Navy. Higher-powered directed weapons systems and rail guns are both under development, and the new Zumwalt-class destroyers being built by the Navy have more than sufficient electrical generation capacity to power much larger directed energy weapons than the LaWS.

China’s desperate need for water is forcing the relocation of hundreds of thousands of people

Source: QZ

DANJIANGKOU, CHINA—Once a collection of agrarian villages, Danjiangkou, about 1,200 kilometers (745 miles) south of Beijing, is now a small but bustling town. At night, groups dance on a promenade by the river. Inside the town’s only bar, just opened last summer, young men and women eat popcorn and watch a woman in a black leather tank top and mini-skirt sing “Umbrella” by Rihanna.

Its location on the Han River helped give Danjiangkou the seeming good fortune to be chosen as a keystone in China’s solution to a worsening water crisis. Starting next year, about 9.5 billion cubic meters (335.5 billion cubic feet) of water from the Danjiangkou Reservoir will travel from here to over 100 cities—including Beijing—in northern China, where water is scarcer than in the south. Signs in the town proclaim it to be the “fount head” of the central route of the South-North Water Diversion Project (SNWDP). The project “is giving Danjiangkou a name,” a young owner of a local restaurant says.

A 30-minute drive out of town, the picture starts to change. In Gangkou village, a tan, middle-aged woman with a round face and jet-black hair sits on a short wooden stool, stitching an image of a lake flanked by two mountains, a landscape that decorates many a Chinese home. Gangkou is one of hundreds of government-designed housing units, and the woman is one of at least 345,000 villagers from Hubei and Henan provinces who have been moved here, out of the way of construction for the water transfer system.

This is the largest relocation in China since the Three Gorges Dam, when over a million people were ordered to move. 

Read More @ Source

Fluoride: Killing Us Softly

Documents Reveal that JP Morgan has been Patenting Death Derivatives

By Dr. Gary Null

Global Research, March 06, 2014

Global Research 5 December 2013

Region: USA

Theme: Science and Medicine

 

There’s nothing like a glass of cool, clear water to quench one’s thirst. But the next time you or your child reaches for one, you might want to question whether that water is in fact, too toxic to drink. If your water is fluoridated, the answer may well be yes.
For decades, we have been told a lie, a lie that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and the weakening of the immune systems of tens of millions more. This lie is called fluoridation. A process we were led to believe was a safe and effective method of protecting teeth from decay is in fact a fraud. For decades it’s been shown that fluoridation is neither essential for good health nor protective of teeth. What it does is poison the body. We should all at this point be asking how and why public health policy and the American media continue to live with and perpetuate this scientific sham.
The Latest in Fluoride News
Today more than ever, evidence of fluoride’s toxicity is entering the public sphere. The summer of 2012 saw the publication of a systematic review and meta-analysis by researchers at Harvard University that explored the link between exposure to fluoride and neurological and cognitive function among children. The report pooled data from over 27 studies- many of them from China- carried out over the course of 22 years. The results, which were published in the journal Environmental Health Sciences showed a strong connection between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and decreased IQ scores in children. The team concluded that

“the results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults.” [1]

The newest scientific data suggest that the damaging effects of fluoride extend to reproductive health as well. A 2013 study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology showed a link between fluoride exposure and male infertility in mice. The study’s findings suggest that sodium fluoride impairs the ability of sperm cells in mice to normally fertilize the egg through a process known as chemotaxis. ^[2] This is the latest in more than 60 scientific studies on animals that have identified an association between male infertility and fluoride exposure.[3]
Adding more fuel to the fluoride controversy is a recent investigative report by NaturalNews exposing how the chemicals used to fluoridate United States’ water systems today are commonly purchased from Chinese chemical plants looking to discard surplus stores of this form of industrial waste. Disturbingly, the report details that some Chinese vendors of fluoride advertise on their website that their product can be used as an “adhesive preservative”, an “insecticide” as well as a” flux for soldering and welding”.[4]   One Chinese manufacturer, Shanghai Polymet Commodities Ltd,. which produces fluoride destined for municipal water reserves in the United States,  notes on their website that their fluoride is “highly corrosive to human skin and harmful to people’s respiratory organs”. ^[5]
The Fluoride Phase Out at Home and Abroad
There are many signs in recent years that indicate growing skepticism over fluoridation. The New York Times reported in October 2011 that in the previous four years, about 200 jurisdictions across the USA moved to cease water fluoridation. A panel composed of scientists and health professionals in Fairbanks, Alaska recently recommended ceasing fluoridation of the county water supply after concluding that the addition of fluoride to already naturally-fluoridated reserves could pose health risks to 700,000 residents. The move to end fluoridation would save the county an estimated $205,000 annually. ^[6] 
The city of Portland made headlines in 2013 when it voted down a measure to fluoridate its water supply. The citizens of Portland have rejected introducing the chemical to drinking water on three separate occasions since the 1950’s.  Portland remains the largest city in the United States to shun fluoridation.[7]
The movement against fluoridation has gained traction overseas as well. In 2013, Israel’s Ministry of Health committed to a countrywide phase-out of fluoridation. The decision came after Israel’s Supreme Court deemed the existing health regulations requiring fluoridation to be based on science that is “outdated” and “no longer widely accepted.”[8]
 Also this year, the government of the Australian state of Queensland eliminated $14 million in funding for its state-wide fluoridation campaign. The decision, which was executed by the Liberal National Party (LNP) government, forced local councils to vote on whether or not to introduce fluoride to their water supplies. Less than two months after the decision came down, several communities including the town of Cairns halted fluoridation. As a result, nearly 200,000 Australians will no longer be exposed to fluoride in their drinking water.[9]  
An ever-growing number of institutions and individuals are questioning the wisdom of fluoridation. At the fore of the movement are thousands of scientific authorities and health care professionals who are speaking out about the hazards of this damaging additive. As of November 2013, a group of over 4549 professionals including 361 dentists and 562 medical doctors have added their names to a petition aimed at ending fluoridation started by the Fluoride Action Network.  Among the prominent signatories are Nobel Laureate Arvid Carlsson and William Marcus, PhD who served as the chief toxicologist of the EPA Water Division.[10]
The above sampling of recent news items on fluoride brings into sharp focus just how urgent it is to carry out a critical reassessment of the mass fluoridation campaign that currently affects hundreds of millions of Americans. In order to better understand the massive deception surrounding this toxic chemical, we must look back to the sordid history of how fluoride was first introduced. 
 How to Market a Toxic Waste

“We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic.” ^[11]

These words of Dr. John Yiamouyiannis may come as a shock to you because, if you’re like most Americans, you have positive associations with fluoride. You may envision tooth protection, strong bones, and a government that cares about your dental needs. What you’ve probably never been told is that the fluoride added to drinking water and toothpaste is a crude industrial waste product of the aluminum and fertilizer industries, and a substance toxic enough to be used as rat poison. How is it that Americans have learned to love an environmental hazard? This phenomenon can be attributed to a carefully planned marketing program begun even before Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first community to officially fluoridate its drinking water in 1945. ^[12]  As a result of this ongoing campaign, nearly two-thirds of the nation has enthusiastically followed Grand Rapids’ example. But this push for fluoridation has less to do with a concern for America’s health than with industry’s penchant to expand at the expense of our nation’s well-being.
The first thing you have to understand about fluoride is that it’s the problem child of industry. Its toxicity was recognized at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when, in the 1850s iron and copper factories discharged it into the air and poisoned plants, animals, and people.[13]   The problem was exacerbated in the 1920s when rapid industrial growth meant massive pollution. Medical writer Joel Griffiths explains that “it was abundantly clear to both industry and government that spectacular U.S. industrial expansion – and the economic and military power and vast profits it promised – would necessitate releasing millions of tons of waste fluoride into the environment.”[14]  Their biggest fear was that “if serious injury to people were established, lawsuits alone could prove devastating to companies, while public outcry could force industry-wide government regulations, billions in pollution-control costs, and even mandatory changes in high-fluoride raw materials and profitable technologies.” [15]
At first, industry could dispose of fluoride legally only in small amounts by selling it to insecticide and rat poison manufacturers. ^[16]   Then a commercial outlet was devised in the 1930s when a connection was made between water supplies bearing traces of fluoride and lower rates of tooth decay. Griffiths writes that this was not a scientific breakthrough, but rather part of a “public disinformation campaign” by the aluminum industry “to convince the public that fluoride was safe and good.” Industry’s need prompted Alcoa-funded scientist Gerald J. Cox to announce that “The present trend toward complete removal of fluoride from water may need some reversal.” [17]   Griffiths writes:
“The big news in Cox’s announcement was that this ‘apparently worthless by-product’ had not only been proved safe (in low doses), but actually beneficial; it might reduce cavities in children. A proposal was in the air to add fluoride to the entire nation’s drinking water. While the dose to each individual would be low, ‘fluoridation’ on a national scale would require the annual addition of hundreds of thousands of tons of fluoride to the country’s drinking water.
“Government and industry – especially Alcoa – strongly supported intentional water fluoridation… [it] made possible a master public relations stroke – one that could keep scientists and the public off fluoride’s case for years to come. If the leaders of dentistry, medicine, and public health could be persuaded to endorse fluoride in the public’s drinking water, proclaiming to the nation that there was a ‘wide margin of safety,’ how were they going to turn around later and say industry’s fluoride pollution was dangerous?
“As for the public, if fluoride could be introduced as a health enhancing substance that should be added to the environment for the children’s sake, those opposing it would look like quacks and lunatics….
“Back at the Mellon Institute, Alcoa’s Pittsburgh Industrial research lab, this news was galvanic. Alcoa-sponsored biochemist Gerald J. Cox immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that

‘The case should be regarded as proved.’ In a historic moment in 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made – not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims.” ^[18]

Once the plan was put into action, industry was buoyant. They had finally found the channel for fluoride that they were looking for, and they were even cheered on by dentists, government agencies, and the public. Chemical Week, a publication for the chemical industry, described the tenor of the times:

“All over the country, slide rules are getting warm as waterworks engineers figure the cost of adding fluoride to their water supplies.” They are riding a trend urged upon them, by the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Dental Association, the State Dental Health Directors, various state and local health bodies, and vocal women’s clubs from coast to coast. It adds up to a nice piece of business on all sides and many firms are cheering the PHS and similar groups as they plump for increasing adoption of fluoridation.” ^[19]

Such overwhelming acceptance allowed government and industry to proceed hastily, albeit irresponsibly. The Grand Rapids experiment was supposed to take 15 years, during which time health benefits and hazards were to be studied. In 1946, however, just one year into the experiment, six more U.S. cities adopted the process. By 1947, 87 more communities were treated; popular demand was the official reason for this unscientific haste.
The general public and its leaders did support the cause, but only after a massive government public relations campaign spearheaded by Edward L. Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays, a public relations pioneer who has been called “the original spin doctor,” ^[20]  was a masterful PR strategist. As a result of his influence, Griffiths writes,

“Almost overnight…the popular image of fluoride – which at the time was being widely sold as rat and bug poison – became that of a beneficial provider of gleaming smiles, absolutely safe, and good for children, bestowed by a benevolent paternal government. Its opponents were permanently engraved on the public mind as crackpots and right-wing loonies.” [21]

Griffiths explains that while opposition to fluoridation is usually associated with right-wingers, this picture is not totally accurate. He provides an interesting historical perspective on the anti-fluoridation stance:
“Fluoridation attracted opponents from every point on the continuum of politics and sanity. The prospect of the government mass-medicating the water supplies with a well-known rat poison to prevent a nonlethal disease flipped the switches of delusionals across the country – as well as generating concern among responsible scientists, doctors, and citizens.
“Moreover, by a fortuitous twist of circumstances, fluoride’s natural opponents on the left were alienated from the rest of the opposition. Oscar Ewing, a Federal Security Agency administrator, was a Truman “fair dealer” who pushed many progressive programs such as nationalized medicine. Fluoridation was lumped with his proposals. Inevitably, it was attacked by conservatives as a manifestation of “creeping socialism,” while the left rallied to its support. Later during the McCarthy era, the left was further alienated from the opposition when extreme right-wing groups, including the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan, raved that fluoridation was a plot by the Soviet Union and/or communists in the government to poison America’s brain cells.
“It was a simple task for promoters, under the guidance of the ‘original spin doctor,’ to paint all opponents as deranged – and they played this angle to the hilt….
“Actually, many of the strongest opponents originally started out as proponents, but changed their minds after a close look at the evidence. And many opponents came to view fluoridation not as a communist plot, but simply as a capitalist-style con job of epic proportions. Some could be termed early environmentalists, such as the physicians George L. Waldbott and Frederick B. Exner, who first documented government-industry complicity in hiding the hazards of fluoride pollution from the public. Waldbott and Exner risked their careers in a clash with fluoride defenders, only to see their cause buried in toothpaste ads.” ^[22]
By 1950, fluoridation’s image was a sterling one, and there was not much science could do at this point. The Public Health Service was fluoridation’s main source of funding as well as its promoter, and therefore caught in a fundamental conflict of interest. ¹²   If fluoridation were found to be unsafe and ineffective, and laws were repealed, the organization feared a loss of face, since scientists, politicians, dental groups, and physicians unanimously supported it. [23]  For this reason, studies concerning its effects were not undertaken. The Oakland Tribune noted this when it stated that “public health officials have often suppressed scientific doubts” about fluoridation.[24] Waldbott sums up the situation when he says that from the beginning, the controversy over fluoridating water supplies was “a political, not a scientific health issue.”[25]
The marketing of fluoride continues. In a 1983 letter from the Environmental Protection Agency, then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hammer, writes that the EPA “regards [fluoridation] as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.” ^[26]    A 1992 policy statement from the Department of Health and Human Services says, “A recent comprehensive PHS review of the benefits and potential health risks of fluoride has concluded that the practice of fluoridating community water supplies is safe and effective.” [27]
According to the CDC website, about 200 million Americans in 16,500 communities are exposed to fluoridated water. Out of the 50 largest cities in the US, 43 have fluoridated water. ^[28]
To help celebrate fluoride’s widespread use, the media recently reported on the 50th anniversary of fluoridation in Grand Rapids. Newspaper articles titled “Fluoridation: a shining public health success” ^[29]  and “After 50 years, fluoride still works with a smile”  [30]  painted glowing pictures of the practice. Had investigators looked more closely, though, they might have learned that children in Muskegon, Michigan, an unfluoridated “control” city, had equal drops in dental decay. They might also have learned of the other studies that dispute the supposed wonders of fluoride.

The Fluoride Myth Doesn’t Hold Water
The big hope for fluoride was its ability to immunize children’s developing teeth against cavities. Rates of dental caries were supposed to plummet in areas where water was treated. Yet decades of experience and worldwide research have contradicted this expectation numerous times. Here are just a few examples:
In British Columbia, only 11% of the population drinks fluoridated water, as opposed to 40-70% in other Canadian regions. Yet British Columbia has the lowest rate of tooth decay in Canada. In addition, the lowest rates of dental caries within the province are found in areas that do not have their water supplies fluoridated. ^[31]
According to a Sierra Club study, people in unfluoridated developing nations have fewer dental caries than those living in industrialized nations. As a result, they conclude that “fluoride is not essential to dental health.” ^[32]
In 1986-87, the largest study on fluoridation and tooth decay ever was performed. The subjects were 39,000 school children between 5 and 17 living in 84 areas around the country. A third of the places were fluoridated, a third were partially fluoridated, and a third were not. Results indicate no statistically significant differences in dental decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated cities. ^[33]
A World Health Organization survey reports a decline of dental decay in western Europe, which is 98% unfluoridated. They state that western Europe’s declining dental decay rates are equal to and sometimes better than those in the U.S. ^[34]
A 1992 University of Arizona study yielded surprising results when they found that“the more fluoride a child drinks, the more cavities appear in the teeth.” ^[35]
Although all Native American reservations are fluoridated, children living there have much higher incidences of dental decay and other oral health problems than do children living in other U.S. communities. [36]
In light of all the evidence, fluoride proponents now make more modest claims. For example, in 1988, the ADA professed that a 40- to 60% cavity reduction could be achieved with the help of fluoride. Now they claim an 18- to 25% reduction. Other promoters mention a 12% decline in tooth decay.
And some former supporters are even beginning to question the need for fluoridation altogether. In 1990, a National Institute for Dental Research report stated that “it is likely that if caries in children remain at low levels or decline further, the necessity of continuing the current variety and extent of fluoride-based prevention programs will be questioned.” [37]
Most government agencies, however, continue to ignore the scientific evidence and to market fluoridation by making fictional claims about its benefits and pushing for its expansion. For instance, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

“National surveys of oral health dating back several decades document continuing decreases in tooth decay in children, adults and senior citizens. Nevertheless, there are parts of the country and particular populations that remain without protection. For these reasons, the U.S. PHS … has set a national goal for the year 2000 that 75% of persons served by community water systems will have access to optimally fluoridated drinking water; currently this figure is just about 60%. The year 2000 target goal is both desirable and yet challenging, based on past progress and continuing evidence of effectiveness and safety of this public health measure.” ^[38]

This statement is flawed on several accounts. First, as we’ve seen, research does not support the effectiveness of fluoridation for preventing tooth disease. Second, purported benefits are supposedly for children, not adults and senior citizens. At about age 13, any advantage fluoridation might offer comes to an end, and less than 1% of the fluoridated water supply reaches this population.  And third, fluoridation has never been proven safe. On the contrary, several studies directly link fluoridation to skeletal fluorosis, dental fluorosis, and several rare forms of cancer. This alone should frighten us away from its use.

Biological Safety Concerns
Only a small margin separates supposedly beneficial fluoride levels from amounts that are known to cause adverse effects. Dr. James Patrick, a former antibiotics research scientist at the National Institutes of Health, describes the predicament:

“[There is] a very low margin of safety involved in fluoridating water. A concentration of about 1 ppm is recommended…in several countries, severe fluorosis has been documented from water supplies containing only 2 or 3 ppm. In the development of drugs…we generally insist on a therapeutic index (margin of safety) of the order of 100; a therapeutic index of 2 or 3 is totally unacceptable, yet that is what has been proposed for public water supplies.”[39] 

Other countries argue that even 1 ppm is not a safe concentration. Canadian studies, for example, imply that children under three should have no fluoride whatsoever. The Journal of the Canadian Dental Association states that “Fluoride supplements should not be recommended for children less than 3 years old.” ^[40]   Since these supplements contain the same amount of fluoride as water does, they are basically saying that children under the age of three shouldn’t be drinking fluoridated water at all, under any circumstances. Japan has reduced the amount of fluoride in their drinking water to one-eighth of what is recommended in the U.S. Instead of 1 milligram per liter, they use less than 15 hundredths of a milligram per liter as the upper limit allowed. [41]
Even supposing that low concentrations are safe, there is no way to control how much fluoride different people consume, as some take in a lot more than others. For example, laborers, athletes, diabetics, and those living in hot or dry regions can all be expected to drink more water, and therefore more fluoride (in fluoridated areas) than others. ^[42]   Due to such wide variations in water consumption, it is impossible to scientifically control what dosage of fluoride a person receives via the water supply.[43]
Another concern is that fluoride is not found only in drinking water; it is everywhere. Fluoride is found in foods that are processed with it, which, in the United States, include nearly all bottled drinks and canned foods. ^[44]  Researchers writing in The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry have found that fruit juices, in particular, contain significant amounts of fluoride. In one study, a variety of popular juices and juice blends were analyzed and it was discovered that 42% of the samples examined had more than l ppm of fluoride, with some brands of grape juice containing much higher levels – up to 6.8 ppm! The authors cite the common practice of using fluoride-containing insecticide in growing grapes as a factor in these high levels, and they suggest that the fluoride content of beverages be printed on their labels, as is other nutritional information. [45]  Considering how much juice some children ingest, and the fact that youngsters often insist on particular brands that they consume day after day, labeling seems like a prudent idea. But beyond this is the larger issue that this study brings up: Is it wise to subject children and others who are heavy juice drinkers to additional fluoride in their water?
Here’s a little-publicized reality: Cooking can greatly increase a food’s fluoride content. Peas, for example, contain 12 micrograms of fluoride when raw and 1500 micrograms after they are cooked in fluoridated water, which is a tremendous difference. Also, we should keep in mind that fluoride is an ingredient in pharmaceuticals, aerosols, insecticides, and pesticides.
And of course, toothpastes. It’s interesting to note that in the 1950s, fluoridated toothpastes were required to carry warnings on their labels saying that they were not to be used in areas where water was already fluoridated. Crest toothpaste went so far as to write: “Caution: Children under 6 should not use Crest.” These regulations were dropped in 1958, although no new research was available to prove that the overdose hazard no longer existed. ^[46]
Today, common fluoride levels in toothpaste are 1000 ppm. Research chemist Woodfun Ligon notes that swallowing a small amount adds substantially to fluoride intake. ^[47] Dentists say that children commonly ingest up to 0.5 mg of fluoride a day from toothpaste. [48]
This inevitably raises another issue: How safe is all this fluoride? According to scientists and informed doctors, such as Dr. John Lee, it is not safe at all. Dr. Lee first took an anti-fluoridation stance back in 1972, when as chairman of an environmental health committee for a local medical society, he was asked to state their position on the subject. He stated that after investigating the references given by both pro- and anti-fluoridationists, the group discovered three important things:
“One, the claims of benefit of fluoride, the 60% reduction of cavities, was not established by any of these studies. Two, we found that the investigations into the toxic side effects of fluoride have not been done in any way that was acceptable. And three, we discovered that the estimate of the amount of fluoride in the food chain, in the total daily fluoride intake, had been measured in 1943, and not since then. By adding the amount of fluoride that we now have in the food chain, which comes from food processing with fluoridated water, plus all the fluoridated toothpaste that was not present in 1943, we found that the daily intake of fluoride was far in excess of what was considered optimal.” ^[49]
What happens when fluoride intake exceeds the optimal? The inescapable fact is that this substance has been associated with severe health problems, ranging from skeletal and dental fluorosis to bone fractures, to fluoride poisoning, and even to cancer.
Skeletal Fluorosis
When fluoride is ingested, approximately 93% of it is absorbed into the bloodstream. A good part of the material is excreted, but the rest is deposited in the bones and teeth, and is capable of causing a crippling skeletal fluorosis. This is a condition that can damage the musculoskeletal and nervous systems and result in muscle wasting, limited joint motion, spine deformities, and calcification of the ligaments, as well as neurological deficits.
Large numbers of people in Japan, China, India, the Middle East, and Africa have been diagnosed with skeletal fluorosis from drinking naturally fluoridated water. In India alone, nearly a million people suffer from the affliction. ³⁹   While only a dozen cases of skeletal fluorosis have been reported in the United States, Chemical and Engineering News states that “critics of the EPA standard speculate that there probably have been many more cases of fluorosis – even crippling fluorosis – than the few reported in the literature because most doctors in the U.S. have not studied the disease and do not know how to diagnose it.” [50]
Radiologic changes in bone occur when fluoride exposure is 5 mg/day, according to the late Dr. George Waldbott, author of Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. While this 5 mg/day level is the amount of fluoride ingested by most people living in fluoridated areas, ^[51]   the number increases for diabetics and laborers, who can ingest up to 20 mg of fluoride daily. In addition, a survey conducted by the Department of Agriculture shows that 3% of the U.S. population drinks 4 liters or more of water every day. If these individuals live in areas where the water contains a fluoride level of 4 ppm, allowed by the EPA, they are ingesting 16 mg/day from the consumption of water alone, and are thus at greater risk for getting skeletal fluorosis. [52]
 Dental Fluorosis
According to a 1989 National Institute for Dental Research study, 1-2% of children living in areas fluoridated at 1 ppm develop dental fluorosis, that is, permanently stained, brown mottled teeth. Up to 23% of children living in areas naturally fluoridated at 4 ppm develop severe dental fluorosis. ^[53]  Other research gives higher figures. The publication Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, put out by the National Academy of Sciences, reports that in areas with optimally fluoridated water (1 ppm, either natural or added), dental fluorosis levels in recent years ranged from 8 to 51%. Recently, a prevalence of slightly over 80% was reported in children 12-14 years old in Augusta, Georgia. 
Fluoride is a noteworthy chemical additive in that its officially acknowledged benefit and damage levels are about the same. Writing in The Progressive, science journalist Daniel Grossman elucidates this point:

“Though many beneficial chemicals are dangerous when consumed at excessive levels, fluoride is unique because the amount that dentists recommend to prevent cavities is about the same as the amount that causes dental fluorosis.” ^[54]

Although the American Dental Association and the government consider dental fluorosis only a cosmetic problem, the American Journal of Public Health says that “…brittleness of moderately and severely mottled teeth may be associated with elevated caries levels.” ⁴⁵   In other words, in these cases the fluoride is causing the exact problem that it’s supposed to prevent. Yiamouyiannis adds, “In highly naturally-fluoridated areas, the teeth actually crumble as a result. These are the first visible symptoms of fluoride poisoning.” [55]
Also, when considering dental fluorosis, there are factors beyond the physical that you can’t ignore – the negative psychological effects of having moderately to severely mottled teeth. These were recognized in a 1984 National Institute of Mental Health panel that looked into this problem. 
A telling trend is that TV commercials for toothpaste, and toothpaste tubes themselves, are now downplaying fluoride content as a virtue. This was noted in an article in the Sarasota/Florida ECO Report, ^[56] whose author, George Glasser, feels that manufacturers are distancing themselves from the additive because of fears of lawsuits. The climate is ripe for these, and Glasser points out that such a class action suit has already been filed in England against the manufacturers of fluoride-containing products on behalf of children suffering from dental fluorosis.
Bone Fractures
At one time, fluoride therapy was recommended for building denser bones and preventing fractures associated with osteoporosis. Now several articles in peer-reviewed journals suggest that fluoride actually causes more harm than good, as it is associated with bone breakage. Three studies reported in The Journal of the American Medical Association showed links between hip fractures and fluoride. ^[57][58][59] Findings here were, for instance, that there is “a small but significant increase in the risk of hip fractures in both men and women exposed to artificial fluoridation at 1 ppm.”   In addition, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that people given fluoride to cure their osteoporosis actually wound up with an increased nonvertebral fracture rate. [60]  Austrian researchers have also found that fluoride tablets make bones more susceptible to fractures.[61] The U.S. National Research Council states that the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. [62]

Louis V. Avioli, professor at the Washington University School of Medicine, says in a 1987 review of the subject: “Sodium fluoride therapy is accompanied by so many medical complications and side effects that it is hardly worth exploring in depth as a therapeutic mode for postmenopausal osteoporosis, since it fails to decrease the propensity for hip fractures and increases the incidence of stress fractures in the extremities.” ^[63]
 Fluoride Poisoning
In May 1992, 260 people were poisoned, and one man died, in Hooper Bay, Alaska, after drinking water contaminated with 150 ppm of fluoride. The accident was attributed to poor equipment and an unqualified operator. ⁵⁵   Was this a fluke? Not at all. Over the years, the CDC has recorded several incidents of excessive fluoride permeating the water supply and sickening or killing people. We don’t usually hear about these occurrences in news reports, but interested citizens have learned the truth from data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Here is a partial list of toxic spills we have not been told about:

July 1993 – Chicago, Illinois: Three dialysis patients died and five experienced toxic reactions to the fluoridated water used in the treatment process. The CDC was asked to investigate, but to date there have been no press releases.

May 1993 – Kodiak, Alaska (Old Harbor): The population was warned not to consume water due to high fluoride levels. They were also cautioned against boiling the water, since this concentrates the substance and worsens the danger. Although equipment appeared to be functioning normally, 22-24 ppm of fluoride was found in a sample.

July 1992 – Marin County, California: A pump malfunction allowed too much fluoride into the Bon Tempe treatment plant. Two million gallons of fluoridated water were diverted to Phoenix Lake, elevating the lake surface by more than two inches and forcing some water over the spillway.

December 1991 – Benton Harbor, Michigan: A faulty pump allowed approximately 900 gallons of hydrofluosilicic acid to leak into a chemical storage building at the water plant. City engineer Roland Klockow stated, “The concentrated hydrofluosilicic acid was so corrosive that it ate through more than two inches of concrete in the storage building.” This water did not reach water consumers, but fluoridation was stopped until June 1993. The original equipment was only two years old.

July 1991 – Porgate, Michigan: After a fluoride injector pump failed, fluoride levels reached 92 ppm and resulted in approximately 40 children developing abdominal pains, sickness, vomiting, and diarrhea at a school arts and crafts show.

November 1979 – Annapolis, Maryland: One patient died and eight became ill after renal dialysis treatment. Symptoms included cardiac arrest (resuscitated), hypotension, chest pain, difficulty breathing, and a whole gamut of intestinal problems. Patients not on dialysis also reported nausea, headaches, cramps, diarrhea, and dizziness. The fluoride level was later found to be 35 ppm; the problem was traced to a valve at a water plant that had been left open all night. ^[64]

Instead of addressing fluoridation’s problematic safety record, officials have chosen to cover it up. For example, the ADA says in one booklet distributed to health agencies that “Fluoride feeders are designed to stop operating when a malfunction occurs… so prolonged over-fluoridation becomes a mechanical impossibility.”    In addition, the information that does reach the population after an accident is woefully inaccurate. A spill in Annapolis, Maryland, placed thousands at risk, but official reports reduced the number to eight. [65]  Perhaps officials are afraid they will invite more lawsuits like the one for $480 million by the wife of a dialysis patient who became brain-injured as the result of fluoride poisoning.
Not all fluoride poisoning is accidental. For decades, industry has knowingly released massive quantities of fluoride into the air and water. Disenfranchised communities, with people least able to fight back, are often the victims. Medical writer Joel Griffiths relays this description of what industrial pollution can do, in this case to a devastatingly poisoned Indian reservation:

“Cows crawled around the pasture on their bellies, inching along like giant snails. So crippled by bone disease they could not stand up, this was the only way they could graze. Some died kneeling, after giving birth to stunted calves. Others kept on crawling until, no longer able to chew because their teeth had crumbled down to the nerves, they began to starve….”
They were the cattle of the Mohawk Indians on the New York-Canadian St. Regis Reservation during the period 1960-1975, when industrial pollution devastated the herd – and along with it, the Mohawks’ way of life….Mohawk children, too, have shown signs of damage to bones and teeth.” ^[66]

Mohawks filed suit against the Reynolds Metals Company and the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) in 1960, but ended up settling out of court, where they received $650,000 for their cows. ^[67]
Fluoride is one of industry’s major pollutants, and no one remains immune to its effects. In 1989, 155,000 tons were being released annually into the air,    and 500,000 tons a year were disposed of in our lakes, rivers, and oceans. [68]

Cancer
Numerous studies demonstrate links between fluoridation and cancer; however, agencies promoting fluoride consistently refute or cover up these findings.
In 1977, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis and Dr. Dean Burk, former chief chemist at the National Cancer Institute, released a study that linked fluoridation to 10,000 cancer deaths per year in the U.S. Their inquiry, which compared cancer deaths in the ten largest fluoridated American cities to those in the ten largest unfluoridated cities between 1940 and 1950, discovered a 5% greater rate in the fluoridated areas. ^[69]  The NCI disputed these findings, since an earlier analysis of theirs apparently failed to pick up these extra deaths. Federal authorities claimed that Yiamouyiannis and Burk were in error, and that any increase was caused by statistical changes over the years in age, gender, and racial composition. [70]
In order to settle the question of whether or not fluoride is a carcinogen, a Congressional subcommittee instructed the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to perform another investigation. ^[71]  That study, due in 1980, was not released until 1990. However, in 1986, while the study was delayed, the EPA raised the standard fluoride level in drinking water from 2.4 to 4 ppm. [72]   After this step, some of the government’s own employees in NFFE Local 2050 took what the Oakland Tribune termed the “remarkable step of denouncing that action as political.” [73]
When the NTP study results became known in early 1990, union president Dr. Robert Carton, who works in the EPA’s Toxic Substances Division, published a statement. It read, in part: “Four years ago, NFFE Local 2050, which represents all 1100 professionals at EPA headquarters, alerted then Administrator Lee Thomas to the fact that the scientific support documents for the fluoride in drinking water standard were fatally flawed. The fluoride juggernaut proceeded as it apparently had for the last 40 years – without any regard for the facts or concern for public health.
“EPA raised the allowed level of fluoride before the results of the rat/mouse study ordered by Congress in 1977 was complete. Today, we find out how irresponsible that decision was. The results reported by NTP, and explained today by Dr. Yiamouyiannis, are, as he notes, not surprising considering the vast amount of data that caused the animal study to be conducted in the first place. The results are not surprising to NFFE Local 2050 either. Four years ago we realized that the claim that there was no evidence that fluoride could cause genetic effects or cancer could not be supported by the shoddy document thrown together by the EPA contractor.
“It was apparent to us that EPA bowed to political pressure without having done an in-depth, independent analysis, using in-house experts, of the currently existing data that show fluoride causes genetic effects, promotes the growth of cancerous tissue, and is likely to cause cancer in humans. If EPA had done so, it would have been readily apparent – as it was to Congress in 1977 – that there were serious reasons to believe in a cancer threat.
“The behavior by EPA in this affair raises questions about the integrity of science at EPA and the role of professional scientists, lawyers and engineers who provide the interpretation of the available data and the judgements necessary to protect the public health and the environment. Are scientists at EPA there to arrange facts to fit preconceived conclusions? Does the Agency have a responsibility to develop world-class experts in the risks posed by chemicals we are exposed to every day, or is it permissible for EPA to cynically shop around for contractors who will provide them the ‘correct’ answers?” ^[74]
What were the NTP study results? Out of 130 male rats that ingested 45 to 79 ppm of fluoride, 5 developed osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer. There were cases, in both males and females at those doses, of squamous cell carcinoma in the mouth. [75]  Both rats and mice had dose-related fluorosis of the teeth, and female rats suffered osteosclerosis of the long bones.[76]
When Yiamouyiannis analyzed the same data, he found mice with a particularly rare form of liver cancer, known as hepatocholangiocarcinoma. This cancer is so rare, according to Yiamouyiannis, that the odds of its appearance in this study by chance are 1 in 2 million in male mice and l in 100,000 in female mice.    He also found precancerous changes in oral squamous cells, an increase in squamous cell tumors and cancers, and thyroid follicular cell tumors as a result of increasing levels of fluoride in drinking water. [77]
A March 13, 1990, New York Times article commented on the NTP findings: “Previous animal tests suggesting that water fluoridation might pose risks to humans have been widely discounted as technically flawed, but the latest investigation carefully weeded out sources of experimental or statistical error, many scientists say, and cannot be discounted.” ^[78]  In the same article, biologist Dr. Edward Groth notes: “The importance of this study…is that it is the first fluoride bioassay giving positive results in which the latest state-of-the-art procedures have been rigorously applied. It has to be taken seriously.” ⁷¹
On February 22, 1990, the Medical Tribune, an international medical news weekly received by 125,000 doctors, offered the opinion of a federal scientist who preferred to remain anonymous:

“It is difficult to see how EPA can fail to regulate fluoride as a carcinogen in light of what NTP has found. Osteosarcomas are an extremely unusual result in rat carcinogenicity tests. Toxicologists tell me that the only other substance that has produced this is radium….The fact that this is a highly atypical form of cancer implicates fluoride as the cause. Also, the osteosarcomas appeared to be dose-related, and did not occur in controls, making it a clean study.” ^[79]

Public health officials were quick to assure a concerned public that there was nothing to worry about! The ADA said the occurrence of cancers in the lab may not be relevant to humans since the level of fluoridation in the experimental animals’ water was so high. ^[80]   But the Federal Register, which is the handbook of government practices, disagrees:

“The high exposure of experimental animals to toxic agents is a necessary and valid method of discovering possible carcinogenic hazards in man. To disavow the findings of this test would be to disavow those of all such tests, since they are all conducted according to this standard.” ⁷³   

As a February 5, 1990, Newsweek article pointed out, “such megadosing is standard toxicological practice. It’s the only way to detect an effect without using an impossibly large number of test animals to stand in for the humans exposed to the substance.” [81] And as the Safer Water Foundation explains, higher doses are generally administered to test animals to compensate for the animals’ shorter life span and because humans are generally more vulnerable than test animals on a body-weight basis. [82]
Several other studies link fluoride to genetic damage and cancer. An article in Mutation Research says that a study by Proctor and Gamble, the very company that makes Crest toothpaste, did research showing that 1 ppm fluoride causes genetic damage.[83] Results were never published but Proctor and Gamble called them “clean,” meaning animals were supposedly free of malignant tumors. Not so, according to scientists who believe some of the changes observed in test animals could be interpreted as precancerous. [84]   Yiamouyiannis says the Public Health Service sat on the data, which were finally released via a Freedom of Information Act request in 1989. “Since they are biased, they have tried to cover up harmful effects,” he says. “But the data speaks for itself. Half the amount of fluoride that is found in the New York City drinking water causes genetic damage.” ⁴⁶
A National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences publication, Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, also linked fluoride to genetic toxicity when it stated that “in cultured human and rodent cells, the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that fluoride exposure results in increased chromosome aberrations.” ^[85] The result of this is not only birth defects but the mutation of normal cells into cancer cells. The Journal of Carcinogenesis further states that “fluoride not only has the ability to transform normal cells into cancer cells but also to enhance the cancer-causing properties of other chemicals.” [86]
Surprisingly, the PHS put out a report called Review of fluoride: benefits and risks, in which they showed a substantially higher incidence of bone cancer in young men exposed to fluoridated water compared to those who were not. The New Jersey Department of Health also found that the risk of bone cancer was about three times as high in fluoridated areas as in nonfluoridated areas. ^[87]
Despite cover-up attempts, the light of knowledge is filtering through to some enlightened scientists. Regarding animal test results, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, James Huff, does say that “the reason these animals got a few osteosarcomas was because they were given fluoride…Bone is the target organ for fluoride.”  Toxicologist William Marcus adds that “fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity, and other effects.” [88]
 The Challenge of Eliminating Fluoride
Given all the scientific challenges to the idea of the safety of fluoride, why does it remain a protected contaminant? As Susan Pare of the Center for Health Action asks, “…even if fluoride in the water did reduce tooth decay, which it does not, how can the EPA allow a substance more toxic than Alar, red dye #3, and vinyl chloride to be injected purposely into drinking water?” ^[89]
This is certainly a logical question and, with all the good science that seems to exist on the subject, you would think that there would be a great deal of interest in getting fluoride out of our water supply. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case. As Dr. William Marcus, a senior science advisor in the EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, has found, the top governmental priority has been to sweep the facts under the rug and, if need be, to suppress truth-tellers. Marcus explains ^[90]  that fluoride is one of the chemicals the EPA specifically regulates, and that he was following the data coming in on fluoride very carefully when a determination was going to be made on whether the levels should be changed. He discovered that the data were not being heeded. But that was only the beginning of the story for him. Marcus recounts what happened:

“The studies that were done by Botel Northwest showed that there was an increased level of bone cancer and other types of cancer in animals….in that same study, there were very rare liver cancers, according to the board-certified veterinary pathologists at the contractor, Botel. Those really were very upsetting because they were hepatocholangeal carcinomas, very rare liver cancers….Then there were several other kinds of cancers that were found in the jaw and other places.
“I felt at that time that the reports were alarming. They showed that the levels of fluoride that can cause cancers in animals are actually lower than those levels ingested in people (who take lower amounts but for longer periods of time).
“I went to a meeting that was held in Research Triangle Park, in April 1990, in which the National Toxicology Program was presenting their review of the study. I went with several colleagues of mine, one of whom was a board-certified veterinary pathologist who originally reported hepatocholangeal carcinoma as a separate entity in rats and mice. I asked him if he would look at the slides to see if that really was a tumor or if the pathologists at Botel had made an error. He told me after looking at the slides that, in fact, it was correct.
“At the meeting, every one of the cancers reported by the contractor had been downgraded by the National Toxicology Program. I have been in the toxicology business looking at studies of this nature for nearly 25 years and I have never before seen every single cancer endpoint downgraded…. I found that very suspicious and went to see an investigator in the Congress at the suggestion of my friend, Bob Carton. This gentleman and his staff investigated very thoroughly and found out that the scientists at the National Toxicology Program down at Research Triangle Park had been coerced by their superiors to change their findings.”[91]

Once Dr. Marcus acted on his findings, something ominous started to happen in his life: “…I wrote an internal memorandum and gave it to my supervisors. I waited for a month without hearing anything. Usually, you get a feedback in a week or so. I wrote another memorandum to a person who was my second-line supervisor explaining that if there was even a slight chance of increased cancer in the general population, since 140 million people were potentially ingesting this material, that the deaths could be in the many thousands. Then I gave a copy of the memorandum to the Fluoride Work Group, who waited some time and then released it to the press.

“Once it got into the press all sorts of things started happening at EPA. I was getting disciplinary threats, being isolated, and all kinds of things which ultimately resulted in them firing me on March 15, 1992.” 

In order to be reinstated at work, Dr. Marcus took his case to court. In the process, he learned that the government had engaged in various illegal activities, including 70 felony counts, in order to get him fired. At the same time, those who committed perjury were not held accountable for it. In fact, they were rewarded for their efforts:

“When we finally got the EPA to the courtroom…they admitted to doing several things to get me fired. We had notes of a meeting…that showed that fluoride was one of the main topics discussed and that it was agreed that they would fire me with the help of the Inspector General. When we got them on the stand and showed them the memoranda, they finally remembered and said, oh yes, we lied about that in our previous statements.
“Then…they admitted to shredding more than 70 documents that they had in hand – Freedom of Information requests. That’s a felony…. In addition, they charged me with stealing time from the government. They…tried to show…that I had been doing private work on government time and getting paid for it. When we came to court, I was able to show that the time cards they produced were forged, and forged by the Inspector General’s staff….” 

 For all his efforts, Dr. Marcus was rehired, but nothing else has changed: “The EPA was ordered to rehire me, which they did. They were given a whole series of requirements to be met, such as paying me my back pay, restoring my leave, privileges, and sick leave and annual leave. The only thing they’ve done is put me back to work. They haven’t given me any of those things that they were required to do.”[92]
 What is at the core of such ruthless tactics? John Yiamouyiannis feels that the central concern of government is to protect industry, and that the motivating force behind fluoride use is the need of certain businesses to dump their toxic waste products somewhere. They try to be inconspicuous in the disposal process and not make waves. “As is normal, the solution to pollution is dilution. You poison everyone a little bit rather than poison a few people a lot. This way, people don’t know what’s going on.”
Since the Public Health Service has promoted the fluoride myth for over 50 years, they’re concerned about protecting their reputation. So scientists like Dr. Marcus, who know about the dangers, are intimidated into keeping silent. Otherwise, they jeopardize their careers. Dr. John Lee elaborates:

“Back in 1943, the PHS staked their professional careers on the benefits and safety of fluoride. It has since become bureaucratized. Any public health official who criticizes fluoride, or even hints that perhaps it was an unwise decision, is at risk of losing his career entirely. This has happened time and time again. Public health officials such as Dr. Gray in British Columbia and Dr. Colquhoun in New Zealand found no benefit from fluoridation. When they reported these results, they immediately lost their careers…. This is what happens – the public health officials who speak out against fluoride are at great risk of losing their careers on the spot.” 

Yiamouyiannis adds that for the authorities to admit that they’re wrong would be devastating.

“It would show that their reputations really don’t mean that much…. They don’t have the scientific background. As Ralph Nader once said, if they admit they’re wrong on fluoridation, people would ask, and legitimately so, what else have they not told us right?” 

Accompanying a loss in status would be a tremendous loss in revenue. Yiamouyiannis points out that “the indiscriminate careless handling of fluoride has a lot of companies, such as Exxon, U.S. Steel, and Alcoa, making tens of billions of dollars in extra profits at our expense…. For them to go ahead now and admit that this is bad, this presents a problem, a threat, would mean tens of billions of dollars in lost profit because they would have to handle fluoride properly. Fluoride is present in everything from phosphate fertilizers to cracking agents for the petroleum industry.” 
Fluoride could only be legally disposed of at a great cost to industry. As Dr. Bill Marcus explains,

“There are prescribed methods for disposal and they’re very expensive. Fluoride is a very potent poison. It’s a registered pesticide, used for killing rats or mice…. If it were to be disposed of, it would require a class-one landfill. That would cost the people who are producing aluminum or fertilizer about $7000+ per 5000- to 6000-gallon truckload to dispose of it. It’s highly corrosive.” 

Another problem is that the U.S. judicial system, even when convinced of the dangers, is powerless to change policy. Yiamouyiannis tells of his involvement in court cases in Pennsylvania and Texas in which, while the judges were convinced that fluoride was a health hazard, they did not have the jurisdiction to grant relief from fluoridation. That would have to be done, it was ultimately found, through the legislative process.    Interestingly, the judiciary seems to have more power to effect change in other countries. Yiamouyiannis states that when he presented the same technical evidence in Scotland, the Scottish court outlawed fluoridation based on the evidence.
Indeed, most of Western Europe has rejected fluoridation on the grounds that it is unsafe. In 1971, after 11 years of testing, Sweden’s Nobel Medical Institute recommended against fluoridation, and the process was banned.[93] The Netherlands outlawed the practice in 1976, after 23 years of tests. France decided against it after consulting with its Pasteur Institute⁶⁴   and West Germany, now Germany, rejected the practice because the recommended dosage of 1 ppm was “too close to the dose at which long-term damage to the human body is to be expected.” ⁸⁴Dr. Lee sums it up:

“All of western Europe, except one or two test towns in Spain, has abandoned fluoride as a public health plan. It is not put in the water anywhere. They all established test cities and found that the benefits did not occur and the toxicity was evident.”[94] 

Isn’t it time the United States followed Western Europe’s example? While the answer is obvious, it is also apparent that government policy is unlikely to change without public support. We therefore must communicate with legislators, and insist on one of our most precious resources – pure, unadulterated drinking water. Yiamouyiannis urges all American people to do so, pointing out that public pressure has gotten fluoride out of the water in places like Los Angeles; Newark and Jersey City in New Jersey; and [95]Bedford, Massachusetts. ⁴⁶ He emphasizes the immediacy of the problem:

“There is no question with regard to fluoridation of public water supplies. It is absolutely unsafe…and should be stopped immediately. This is causing more destruction to human health than any other single substance added purposely or inadvertently to the water supply. We’re talking about 35,000 excess deaths a year…10,000 cancer deaths a year…130 million people who are being chronically poisoned. We’re not talking about dropping dead after drinking a glass of fluoridated water…. It takes its toll on human health and life, glass after glass.” [96]

There is also a moral issue in the debate that has largely escaped notice. According to columnist James Kilpatrick, it is “the right of each person to control the drugs he or she takes.” Kilpatrick calls fluoridation compulsory mass medication, a procedure that violates the principles of medical ethics. ^[97]   A New York Times editorial agrees:

“In light of the uncertainty, critics [of fluoridation] argue that administrative bodies are unjustified in imposing fluoridation on communities without obtaining public consent…. The real issue here is not just the scientific debate. The question is whether any establishment has the right to decide that benefits outweigh risks and impose involuntary medication on an entire population. In the case of fluoridation, the dental establishment has made opposition to fluoridation seem intellectually disreputable. Some people regard that as tyranny.” ^[98]

Notes

[1] Brooks, Megan. “Fluoride May Be Neurotoxic in Kids.” Medscape.com. N.p., 23 Aug. 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.scoop.it/t/family-centred-care-practice/p/2524572531/medscape-fluoride-may-be-neurotoxic-in-kids>.

[2] Lu, Z, et al. “In vivo influence of sodium fluoride on sperm chemotaxis in male mice..” Archives of Toxicology Jul 24 (2013). In vivo influence of sodium fluoride on sperm chemotaxis in male mice. (accessed November 20, 2013).

[3] “MALE FERTILITY.” Fluoride Action Network. http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/fertility/ (accessed November 22, 2013).
 [4] Adams, Mike. “PROOF: Chinese Industrial Fluoride Suppliers Openly List Sodium Fluoride as ‘insecticide’ and ‘adhesive Preservative’ in Addition to Water Treatment Chemical.”PROOF: Chinese Industrial Fluoride Suppliers Openly List Sodium Fluoride as ‘insecticide’ and ‘adhesive Preservative’ in Addition to Water Treatment Chemical. NaturalNews.com, 31 Aug. 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.naturalnews.com/037024_sodium_fluoride_insecticide_proof.html>9

[5] Ibid

[6]Alvarez, Lizette. “Looking to Save Money, More Places Decide to Stop Fluoridating the Water – NYTimes.com.” The New York Times . N.p., 13 Oct. 2011. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/us/more-places-change-course-on-fluoride-in-water.html?pagewanted=all>.

[7] Diep, Francie. “Portland, Oregon, Says No To Fluoridation.” Popular Science. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/fluoridation-defeated-portland-oregon (accessed November 21, 2013).

[8] Huff, Ethan. “Israel commits to ending water fluoridation by 2014, citing major health concerns.” NaturalNews. http://www.naturalnews.com/042079_water_fluoridation_Israel_health_concerns.html (accessed November 21, 2013).

[9] Huff, Ethan. “Huge victory against fluoride in Australia.” NaturalNews. http://www.naturalnews.com/038984_Australia_fluoride_involuntary_medication.html (accessed November 22, 2013).

[10]“Statement on Water Fluoridation.” NIDCR Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals-statement.aspx

[11]Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, in interview with Gary Null, 3/10/95. His statement is referenced in the Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, Fifth Ed., Williams and Wilkins.

[12]Joel Griffiths, “Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy,” Covert Action, Fall 1992, Vol. 42, p. 30. 

[13]Ibid., p. 27.

[14]Ibid., p. 28.

[15]Ibid.

[16]McNeil, The Fight for Fluoridation, 1957, p. 37.

[17]Griffiths, op. cit., p. 28.

[18]Griffiths, op. cit.

[19]G.L. Waldbott et al., Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma, Lawrence, XS, Coronado Press, 1978, p. 295.

[20]Paul Farhi, Washington Post, 11/23/91.

[21]Griffiths, op. cit., p. 63.

[22]Longevity Magazine, pp. 7-89.

[23]The Morning Call, 2/7/90

[24]Science, 1/90.

[25]Waldbott, op. cit., p. 255.

[26]Letter, Rebecca Hammer, 3/83

[27]U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, “Policy statement on community water fluoridation,” July 22, 1992, Washington, D.C.

[28]“Statement on Water Fluoridation.” NIDCR Home. http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/OralHealth/Topics/Fluoride/StatementWaterFluoridation.htm

[29]Los Angeles Times. 1/ 26/95..

[30]The Chicago Tribune, 1/26/95.

[31]A.S. Gray, Canadian Dental Association Journal, October 1987, pp. 763.

[32]Letter, Sierra Club to Wm. K. Reilly, EPA, 7/21/89.

[33]John Yiamouyiannis, Fluoride, 1990, Vol. 23, pp. 55-67.

[34]Center for Health Action, 3/30/90.

[35]Clinical Pediatrics, Nov. 1991.

[36]ADA News, 10/17/94.

[37]Chemical and Engineering News, 8/1/88, p.31.

[38]Waldbott, op. cit., p. xvii.

[39]Statement by Dr. James Patrick before Congressional Subcommittee, 8/4/82.

[40]Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, Vol. 59, Apr. 1993, p. 334.

[41]Gary Null interview with Dr. John Lee, 3/10/95.

[42]F. Exner and G. Waldbott, The American fluoridation experiment, 1957, p. 43.

[43]Federal Register, 12/24/75.

[44]Chemical and Engineering News, 8/1/88, p. 33.

[45]Jan G. Stannard et al., “Fluoride levels and fluoride contamination of fruit juices,” The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1991, pp. 38-40.

[46]Waldbott, op. cit., pp. 307-308.

[47]Chemical and Engineering News, 8/1/88, p. 49.

[48]New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, release, 11/89.
 [49]Gary Null interview with Dr. John Yiamouyiannis 4/28/90.

[50]Chemical and Engineering News, 8/1/88, p. 36.

[51]Waldbott, op. cit., p. 38.

[52]F. Exner and G. Waldbott, op. cit., pp. 42-43.

[53]Schenectady Gazette Star, 8/5/89.

[54]Daniel Grossman, “Fluoride’s Revenge,” The Progressive,
Dec. 1990, pp. 29-31.

[55]Gary Null interview with Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, 3/10/95.

[56]George Glasser, “Dental Fluorosis – A Legal Time Bomb!” Sarasota/Florida ECO Report, Vol. 5, No. 2, Feb. 1995, pp. 1-5.

[57]JAMA, Vol. 264, July 25, 1990, pp. 500

[58]Cooper et al., JAMA, Vol. 266, July 24, 1991, pp. 513-14.

[59]Christa Danielson et al., “Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population,” JAMA, Vol. 268, Aug. 12, 1992, pp. 746-48.

[60]New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 322, pp. 802-809
[61] Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 11/94.

[62]U.S. National Research Council, Diet and Health, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1989, p. 121.

[63]“Middletown, Maryland latest city to receive toxic spill of fluoride in their drinking water,” report by Truth About Fluoride, Inc., in Townsend Letter for Doctors, 10/15/94, p. 1124.
 [64]Reprinted by M. Bevis, “Morbidity associated with ingestion/dialysis of community water fluoride,” CDC, Dental Div., 6/11/92, distributed by Safe Water Foundation of Texas.

[65]Townsend Letter for Doctors, 10/94, p. 1125.

[66]Janet Raloff, “The St. Regis Syndrome,” Science News, July 19, 1980, pp. 42-43; reprinted in Griffiths, op. cit., p. 26.

[67]Robert Tomalin, “Dumping grounds,” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 29, 1990; reprinted in Griffiths, op. cit.

[68] “Summary review of health effects associated with hydrogen fluoride acid related compounds,” EPA Report Number 600/8-29/002F, Dec. 1988,

[69]John Yiamouyiannis, Lifesaver’s Guide to Fluoridation, Delaware, Ohio, Safe Water Foundation, 1983, p. 1

[70]John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burk, “Fluoridation of public water systems and cancer death rates in humans,” presented at the 57th annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists, and published in Fluoride, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1977, pp. 102-103.

[71]New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.

[72]Newsday, 2/27/90.

[73]Oakland Tribune, 2/16/90.

[74]NFFE Local 2050, 3/90.

[75]Washington Post, 2/20/90.

[76]The Lancet, 2/3/90.

[77]Center for Health Action.

[78]M.W. Browne, The New York Times, 3/13/90.

[79]Medical Tribune, 2/22/90.

[80]New York State Medical News, 3/90.

[81]S. Begley, Newsweek, 2/5/90.

[82]Safe Water Foundation, 3/4/90.

[83]Mutation Research, Vol. 223, pp. 191-203.

[84]Joel Griffiths, Medical Tribune, 2/22/90.

[85]Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, Vol. 21, pp. 309-318.

[86]Journal of Carcinogenesis, Vol. 9, pp. 2279-2284.

[87]Mark Lowey, “Scientists question health risks of fluoride,” Calgary Herald, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Feb. 28, 1992; in Griffiths, op. cit., p. 66.

[88]Gary Null interview with Dr. William Marcus, 3/10/95.

[89]Center for Health Action, 3/90.

[90]Longevity Magazine, 7/89.

[91]Gary Null interview with Dr. William Marcus, 3/10/95.

[92] Ibid

[93] Yiamouyiannis J. Interview. Mar 10, 1995.

[94]  Longevity. July 1989.

[95]Ibid

[96] Fluoride Action Network. http://www.fluoridealert.org

[97] Yiamouyiannis J. Interview. Mar 10, 1995.

[98] Browne, Malcolm. “Rat Study Reignites Dispute On Fluoride.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/13/science/rat-study-reignites-dispute-on-fluoride.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (accessed November 25, 2013).