Posted on 09/27/2024 12:27:59 PM PDT by nickcarraway
he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been ordered to address how fluoride in water could risk children's intellectual development.
Edward Chen, a U.S. District judge in San Francisco, California, said on Tuesday that although it is unclear if the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ (intelligence quotient) levels in kids, there is increasing research that it could be an unreasonable risk.
Chen ruled that the EPA must take steps to lower that potential risk, but did not clarify what the process would look like. In August, the National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), released a report that stated "with moderate confidence" that there is a connection between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The report marks the first time a federal agency has determined such findings. It was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoride in drinking water alone.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
What authority does a British noble (”judge”) have to “order” that?
The EPA is way too busy faking up Global Warming Climate Crisis to deal with real things
“Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.”
General Jack D. Ripper
Take it out. That’s the only way to eliminate the risk.
When judges rule. Or think they do.
General Ripper was right!
● Silicofluorides are not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride products; they are unprocessed industrial by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Since these silicofluorides undergo no purification procedures, batch samples and certificates of analysis that accompany shipments of fluoridation additives reveal that they’re often contaminated with elevated levels harmful toxins, including lead, aluminum, and arsenic — moreso than any other water treatment chemical.
● Most developed nations in the world have rejected fluoridation, including 97% of western Europe. The United States, which fluoridates more than 70% of its water supplies, is an exception to this rule.
● According to the British Fluoridation Society, there are more people drinking artificially fluoridated water in the United States than all other countries combined.
Flouride is a chemical industrial waste product that is made valuable by gullible and greedy city councils or other city officials needing re-election money or receiving other kick-backs
How very ironic.
You can trust the EPA.
Note:
If you drink bottled water - and you care about this - read the label.
‘Purified’ water is filtered tap water.
Even the RO process can’t remove the tiny fluorine atoms.
I’m not sure this is a problem at all. They help build stronger teeth! For example, Haiti superflourinates their drinking water and Haitians have really strong teeth!
Hows about they take the floride out of the drinking water and I will brush my teeth with floride toothpaste. After brushing, I will spit the toothpaste out like I always do.
Something you almost NEVER hear about is naturally-occurring levels of fluoride in well-water.
IF the hypothesis is true that fluoride and IQ are inversely related, then IQ levels in areas with higher concentrations of fluoride in the water supply must be proportional to a measurable decrease in IQ against a national average/standard.
IOW, there must be a correlation between high Fluoride intake - naturally - and lower IQ. There must be areas of the country where IQ measurements are notably LOWER as the Fluoride level is HIGHER.
I can’t find that information being studied or presented but, admittedly, my google-fu is a bit weak.
My mind isn’t. And I grew up drinking naturally-fluoridated water.
Need to get rid of Chevron doctrine and have a debate. Not by bureaucrats, nor by judges, but by our elected representatives. Fluorine is unquestionably toxic at high enough levels (IIRC some historic volcanic eruptions killed many animals and some people that way), but those are well beyond intended doses from water fluoridation. Affects at lower doses are less clear. But there is the example of lead, once much more widely used until its toxicity at lower levels was realized. But where to draw the line? Lowering accepted levels results in trade offs and other costs. Even if dentists have been exaggerating the benefits I’d be surprised if there were zero dental benefits from it. And even if those dental benefits might be obtainable through other means (perhaps fluoride dental treatments after a certain age, fluoride in adult but not pediatric tooth pastes?) any such alternative likely won’t reach as many nor be as cheap. The EPA apparent default to an order of magnitude between known level causing risk and permissible exposure strikes me as arbitrary and unscientific. There are medications for which the safety margin is known to be less than that, but are still used... carefully. That it’s currently intended to expose virtually everyone to it raises liberty concerns, but that’s not unique. Shall we go down the periodic table and next ban chlorination of tap water? Do people’s touted right to smoke week mean that everyone around them must smell it? Public water, public air? Both are economically “commons” and their usage deserves rational debate. Theories of risk also deserve some prospective and prioritization. Even if current levels of fluoridation DID cause decreased IQ comparable to what we now think past lead exposure did, how does that compare to the amount stupidity caused by teacher’s unions?!!
“Ice cream, Mandrake! Children’s ice cream!”
Who’s laughing now?
I say- Who cares how dumb they are as long as they have good teeth! The fact that even conservatives have been programed by society really shows on threads like these.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.