Call to add fluoride to bottle water

[blackcat]

[ian neal]

Needless to say those wishing to discuss chemtrails, flouride and other exciting, non-9/11 related issues with our critics are of course free to do so in critics corner. There is certainly no party line with which to dissent from when it comes to such issues as chemtrails and flouride. End of problem, no?

[Leiff]

[flamesong]

[ian neal]

Critic = someone who accepts the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 and rejects the need for further investigation.

Non-critic = someone who accepts the need for a further investigation of 9/11.

This forum is primarily for non-critics. Critics are welcome to post in critics corner.

A new section will be created for discussion of non 9/11 issues, but this will be for non-critics only. Those wishing to engage our critics either on 9/11 or non-9/11 issues can do so in critics corner.

Disagreeing with someone else on issues such as chemtrails, global warming or flouride does not make you a critic, no.

[flamesong]

I kinda get what you are saying, Ian but wouldn't it be simpler to allow anybody to post in the proposed non-9/11 section as by its nomneclature participation ought not be dependent on ones 9/11 beliefs.

[blackcat]

ian neal wrote:-

[flamesong]

My humble apologies. And apologies to you, Ian, that I repost my earlier message in order that it is not misconstrued as an attempt to subvert the sense of your statement.

Ahem...

If, as in the case of such issues as chemtrails and flouride, there is 'no party line with which to dissent from', why must critics have to post on non-9/11 issues in critics corner - especially when the topic resides (as this one does) in 'Articles'?

Talk about selective inference!

Can we have a pedants corner too, please?

[ian neal]

[ian neal]

[malcks]

Sunday Mail (scotland) "Reliance Custodial Services" the security firm used to transport prisoners are to hand out bottles of spring water,the bottled water is to be supplied by "Prince's Gate" a family business based in pembrokeshire, wales

[chek]

[flamesong]

Should the corner be owned by a pedant it would then be a pedant's corner. As there are likely to be more than one pedant sharing ownership it would be a pedants' corner.

However if, as in this case, the corner were merely to be occupied by pedants it would be a corner of pedants; hence a pedants corner. If the corner was then given a title it might then be called, 'Pedants Corner'.

[chek]

[flamesong]

Actually, the dictionary defines a pedant as:

One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.
One who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously.
Obsolete. A schoolmaster.

http://www.answers.com/pedant

[Linda]

http://rense.com/general75/cberries.htm

Big Pharma's Lunatic FDA
Says Cherries Are Now DRUGS
From Mary Sparrowdancer
sparrowdancer1@earthlink.net
3-11-7


Jeff - Here's something interesting: according to the FDA, cherries are now drugs.

I've been looking into tart cherry juice concentrates today. I've found that there is one type that contains all sorts of natural antioxidants, plus a bunch of other good stuff, including melatonin and more. This type of cherry is called the Montmorency cherry.

People are taking the concentrate or eating the cherries for pain which about 2/3 of the US now has due to fluoride poisoning...and those savvy to the cherry benefits are discontinuing prescription drugs as a result. They're claiming it's also healing all sorts of things, including cancers, gout, arthritis.

Looking closer, nearly all of the many companies I looked into this afternoon have received WARNING letters from the FDA stating that because of their claims about the healing properties of tart cherries, the cherry juice and/or cherries are therefore considered to be a "drug," and the vendors must file a "New Drug Application." What nonsense is this!!!!!!!!

Big pharma must be very, very scared about tart cherry juice. I am, therefore, going to order some right away.

Here are two examples of FDA letters - note that they specifically cited the suggestion that the consumer can stop taking prescriptions if they will begin taking tart cherries in some form.

Anyway, it appears that as long as food is empty of all nutrients, then it is "food" - but if it has any health-promoting nutrients or benefits at all, then it is considered a new drug in the US, hence a "New Drug Application" must be made.


http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2005/seaquist.shtml
http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2005/overlake.shtml


Here's the list of all of them, dated 2005. The firms are all still advertising the same health benefits on their sites, so I guess they've given the FDA a Bronx raspberry re the Montmorency cherry scandal.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/chrylist.html

[flamesong]

We have even stricter laws in this country.

About ten years ago I helped a friend of mine to research the possibility of importing a line of natural health products from America from a company called Natural Spring. I went through the whole product range and almost half could not be sold in this country so it did not seem viable.

If you look at the labels on products in health food shops you will see that hardly any of them make any claims of efficacy because to do so they must be clinically tested. Soon they may have to be tested for safety.

Yes, we know the pharmaceutical industry and government departments conspire to keep the population on chemical crutches. Natural health products have their own modern lore (yes, I know that looks like an oxymoron) which governments and industry will find hard to silence.

[Linda]

Arsenic in my Fluoride? CDC admits Yes

'Trace amounts of arsenic are found in fluoride chemicals added to drinking water supplies, reports the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) website. (1) Fluoridation is a controversial attempt to reduce tooth decay in tap-water consumers. Fluoridation chemicals - sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid (FSA) – are all derived from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer, reports the CDC.

Trace amounts of unwanted contaminants, such as antimony, barium, beryllium, arsenic and others, are allowed to remain in fluoridation chemicals before flowing through America’s faucet.'

Read more ...

http://www.businessportal24.com/en/Arsenic...Yes_148089.html


The NSF sets the allowable level of arsenic in fluoridation chemicals at 2.5 ppb. The maximum contaminant level (MCL) of arsenic in treated water is 10 ppb, set by the Environmental Protection Agency. But the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of arsenic in drinking water is zero (5) and is based on health risks; however, the actual level permitted (MCL) is above 0, to account for difficulty in removing it or in measuring it. (6)

“No water company should purposely be adding arsenic to water supplies –even when it’s attached to a chemical perceived to be beneficial,” says Beeber.

Trace levels of arsenic in drinking water increase a person's risk of developing cancer, according to a report from the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences. “People drinking water containing just one part per billion of arsenic have an increased risk of developing bladder or lung cancer of one in 1,000,” reports New Scientist magazine. (3)

In an analysis of 25 states, the National Resources Defense Council found about 8,000 U.S. water systems, serving 57,000,000 people, contained arsenic levels at 1 ppb or higher.(4)

“Fluoridation has proven useless in fighting tooth decay in America’s low-income population as the recent unfortunate ‘tooth-decay’ death of a 12-year-old Maryland boy living in a fluoridated area has proven,” says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. “No child is or ever was fluoride-deficient. But many are dentist-deficient,” says Beeber.

“Besides, modern science establishes that fluoridation is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, harmful to health and a waste of taxpayer money,” says Beeber.