Sunday, March 8, 2009

General Jack D. Ripper had a point....

A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

General Jack D. Ripper
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb


Ah, March madness.

I recently suggested that beer in moderation may be better for my health than milk. My first responder, Mr. Anonymous, lumped me together with "the anti-vaxxers, & anti-fluorides."

OK, I confess--I oppose fluoridation of my local water supplies.

Please read that carefully. I am not opposed to the use of medical grade fluoride applied by a dentist. I am not opposed to prescribing medical grade fluoride for use by a child so long as an adult in the home can carefully follow directions.

I do, however, oppose fluoridation of the water that comes out of my tap, especially if the fluoride used comes from industrial waste.



In regard to the use of fluosilicic (fluorosilicic) acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use 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.

Rebecca Hanmer, 1983
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, EPA, back then


I'm sure Ms. Hanmer is a decent person. She's the former director of the Chesapeake Bay Program, she's won the President’s Distinguished Federal Executive Award, and she's a wonderful advocate for clean water.

Still, she advocated putting industrial waste into my water supply. That's the way it was done a quarter century ago. That's the way it's done today.

Florida has a few lucrative industries, and not all of them are Mickey Mouse. Florida produces tons of phosphate fertilizer. It also produces tons of hazardous waste. Fluorosilicic acid, a mixture of waste products from pollution scrubbers used during the processing of phosphate fertilizer, is shipped all over the country.*

Yes, it's diluted over 100,000 times when used for fluoridation. Yes, it helps prevent dental cavities.

No, I don't want my government deliberately dumping toxic waste into my water supply.

No, really.

And it's not just because I own a tinfoil hat.



*Yes, you can buy this stuff--Lucier Chemical Industries will sell it to your town. Yes, it's Lucier, not Lucifer.

25 comments:

doyle said...

Dear nyscof,

OK, OK, we get the point--but flooding a post with an armload of articles is not going to persuade people.

I'd be much obliged if you reposted that with "a" tags and less white space.

I know the sky is falling, I'm on your side, and even I get repulsed by mounds of information.

I'd be glad to share your sources--a little editing goes a long way.

Paul said...

Misrepresentations of the research aside, is there any actual scientific evidence suggesting that community water fluoridation is dangerous? (Note that, for example, that is not what the linked WHO report in the first comment says, or is even about.) Saying "this chemical comes from industrial waste" seems like a little bit of a dodge, scientifically speaking.

Meanwhile, the evidence that fluoridation helps prevent tooth decay, particularly in poorer communities, is pretty overwhelming.

doyle said...

Dear Paul,

Not sure how I misrepresented any research there, but I'll get out my fine-toothed comb in a moment. I have already sent a letter to the first commenter via email to see if they might clean up that post a bit (though I might be talking to a bot). In the meantime, I can only defend my post.

I would argue that the burden of proof falls on the side of the folks adding the industrial pollutant to my water. Calling it a "dodge" does not change the truth of the statement. While I admit that phrasing it the way I do would be a grievous error in a scientific journal, consider the medium--this is a blog. I aim to teach and entertain.

Having said that I believe that the precautionary principle should be followed anytime we're dealing with basic needs such as water.

Fluoride itself can cause problems, even the medical grade variety, though I do agree that carefully titrated fluoride via supplements or dental treatments are a splendid idea. One of the big problems with putting it in water is that it becomes impossible to titrate.

Fluoridation does prevent tooth decay--that's why I said "please read that carefully." I'd argue that universal dental care and access to adequate pediatric services are a far better way to improve dental hygiene than dumping industrial waste into my water.

Yep, "dumping industrial waste" is a provocative phrase--it is a provocative act. Consider me provoked.

nyscof said...

No, I am not a "bot" and I don't know what "a" tags means. So we'll just talk.

Yes, the fluoride chemicals that are used for water fluoridation are industry's contaminated waste. Trapped in and scraped from the smokestacks of phosphate fertilizer production plants, because fluoride air emissions have killed crops and cattle, silicofluorides are trucked as hazardous waste to your local water supply and injected unpurified.

NSF International is the governing body over water additives and you can see what toxins they allow in the silicofluorides

http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet.pdf

The first experimental study that set out to "prove" fluoridation safely reduced tooth decay is actually the first study to show that fluoridation is, in effect, harmful to health.

You can see a write up about that here:

http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2008/01/1945-human-experiment-predicted-current.html

People need to scrutinize the science of the fluoridationists before they blindly accept that their science is valid.

In March 2006, the National Research Council released a report by a panel of experts that reviewed current fluoride/fluoridation toxicology research. They revealed that fluoride, even at the low levels added to water supplies can be harmful to some people - especially babies, kidney and thyroid patients and high water drinkers.

After the NRC issued its report, both the American Dental Association and The Centers for Disease Control advised that fluoridated waters should not be mixed into infant formula. The Academy of General Dentistry issued the warning years before them.

Also after the NRC report the National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation support and replaced it with this warning “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.”

You can learn more about fluoride's health risks here
http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health

Sorry about the first hastily posted item. Often only the Blogger reads them and it's a current news release and thought he would be interested in it.

And there really is no valid evidence to show that fluoridation reduces tooth decay. See http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com

In fact, Burt and Eklund,two prominent dental researchers, in their dental textbook, Dentistry, "Dental Practice and the Community," admit that fluoridation's benefits are based on belief

And the Centers for Disease Control says:

"Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted..."

"The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries .

This means swallowing fluoride does not make it get into the the enamel which, in effect, negates the need for fluoridation, in the first place

doyle said...

Dear nyscof,

Thanks for the new version of your response. For those jumping in late, Paul's comments followed nyscof's original post, which has been modified to ease reading.

Sorry about pondering whether you were a bot--I've been fooled before.

(The "a" tag is a lovely way to bury long url addresses into the body of your message. For instance, you can read how here. It allows for more succinct messages with the same clout of authority, an important tool for any advocacy group using the web.)

Welcome aboard! Paul is extremely bright, well-read, and thoughtful--I hope the two of you engage in a productive discussion here.

Kate T said...

Ah, doyle - I'm a child of well water who lives with the effects of no fluoride in my early childhood's water supply. Again, I'm conflicted. Would I wish the fillings and crowns in my mouth on anyone? Nope. And yes, I know that improved dental care and the dentist applied fluoride helps my kids, but again, it's not inexpensive.

doyle said...

Dear Kate,

Cost is a huge factor in a lot of social policy decisions.

We can afford to subsidize fluoride drops in this country. The drops cost less than 50 cents per day.

It's not needed before 6 months of age, nor beyond 6 years, and only then if your water does not already have naturally occurring fluoride in it.

Now $130/year is not cheap for most families. Children are not cheap.

Still, I'd rather subsidize children directly than subsidize phosphate fertilizer companies by giving them a convenient way to dump their wastes.

I really do not wish dental caries on anyone. If nothing else, I hope my discussions on milk, fluoride, and (soon, I hope) vaccines show people that the either/or style of discourse does not work.

Paul said...

Sorry, Doyle - to clarify, I don't think you were misrepresenting any research in your post. Rather, nyscof was misrepresenting some research. My objection to your post was precisely that it didn't present any research in the first place. Rather, it just objected that industrial waste/byproducts were being added to drinking water.

But saying that something is "industrial waste" actually tells us basically nothing relevant to the question at hand, namely whether the additives are dangerous. I've seen no evidence that they are. (It's certainly true that hyperfluoridation can be quite bad, but that's not the same question.)

Wikipedia has a very good rundown of the evidence of water fluoridation's effects (good for people of all ages) and its dangers (which consist mostly of psychological effects of fear of fluoride.)

Anyway, Doyle, I think a good contrast is with your milk post. I thought that post made a similar mistake at first - "it's from another species" is no more informative than "it's industrial waste" - but then went on to mention actual, documented dangers associated with milk consumption. That's a good thing to do, and it didn't happen in this post.

(To see why the "it's industrial waste" argument doesn't work, think about an analogy with greywater or blackwater recycling systems that turn dirty water (even sewage) into drinkable water. Those things are great! But does it mean "our drinking water will be coming from sewage"? Well, sort of, but not in a really interesting way. It's drinking water from sewage that's also safe to drink.)

And thanks for the gracious introduction, by the way.

doyle said...

Dear Paul,

I do not dispute that the fluoride ion ionizes once dissolved in copious amounts of water; it's the rest of the stuff that worries me.

Grey water, even sewage, do not worry me as much as heavy metals, though, to be fair, I'm not losing much sleep over fluoridation.

Expedient solutions, however, do worry me--and dumping 23% fluorosilicic acid into the water supply without adequate studies does worry me. We have enough recently rising childhood illnesses with as yet unidentified causes to warrant the precautionary principle--autism, ambiguous genitalia, brain cancer, etc. I'm am not saying that fluorosilicic acid causes any of these--I'm just asking that we look hard before using it in our water.

If you want to make a case for using medical grade fluoride without the rest of the soup found in the phosphate fertilizer waste, well, that I would consider. That gets real expensive, though, and I'm not sure that much fluoride would be available.

Why not just supplement with fluoride drops? Better yet, why not feed children a diet that does not leave them prone to dental caries?

Again, the onus is on the folks dumping the stuff into our water.

illusion9 said...

Hello Paul, perhaps we need allot more science to prove that it is safe for all and the environment, because currently fluoridation has not been proven safe or effective.

This link www.pauapress.com/fluoride/files/1418.pdf accesses information about adverse health effects from fluoridation that The Establishment claims do not exist.

Via this link you can access, free, Dr Bruce Spittle's book "Fluoride Fatigue" that is sub-titled "Fluoride Poisoning: is fluoride in your drinking water and from other sources making you sick?"

Please turn to page 76 and read about the author who has received numerous medical awards and prizes.

Dr Spittle is the Managing Editor of "Fluoride" the official journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research and has meticulously referenced "Fluoride Fatigue" for the doubting Thomases who still think that fluoridation is safe for all.

Paul said...

Doyle - I think it'd be great if getting rid of fluoridated water would get people to dramatically change their lifestyles or child-rearing habits. I see no reason to suppose that would happen, however. Thus, eliminating CWF means increasing tooth decay. That's the choice, since the alternatives aren't terribly plausible. I'm open to being persuaded that there's a viable alternative to CWF.

As for the precautionary principle, given the well-documented benefits of CWF for lots of people, and the lack of evidence of harm, I don't see that the principle applies in the way that you suggest. Withholding treatment on the off-chance that the treatment could have some adverse effects is not "precautionary". Just the opposite - we know doing so would cause harm in the form of greater tooth decay.

illusion9 - That brochure is pretty unimpressive. I'd like to see some peer-reviewed research suggesting that existing CWF programs are making people sick. That brochure offers none. (Again, nobody denies that people can get too much fluoride, but this is uninteresting. The same is true of water itself.) The author of the brochure can claim all of the prizes he likes, but science is not done (correctly) by appeal to authority, it is done by appeal to evidence. A (brief) scan of the Google Scholar records suggests that not only has Spittle ceased publication in reputable refereed journals, but also that his earlier publications on the dangers of fluoridation have since been reviewed and debunked.

As a general rule, when individuals and groups have set up elaborate self-publication schemes, it is not because "The Establishment" is censoring them, it is usually because their output is of inferior quality.

illusion9 said...

Sorry for taking up more space, but i need to say some more. Considering dose is the issue with regards to toxins, I would like to see someone try to demonstrate how an individuals dose of fluoride chemical can be controlled when fluoride is distributed through our water supply, both to avoid any toxic effects and to gain the so called benifit per day; perhaps a 14 yr old child for example or a 8 month old baby.
All other possible daily fluoride sources such as; food intake, medications, toothpaste, what they inhaled, what they absorbed through dermal absorption would need to be considered.
Also existing individual fluoride levels are unknown and ignored as well as an individuals health status, perhaps immune deficiencies, nutritional deficiencys, allergy/intollerences, kidney problems,thyroid issues, cancer,diabeties, existing bone diseases.
An individuals dose can never be calculated so this in itself makes artificial fluoridaton simply illogical and dangerous.
As long as artificial fluoridation violates laws and peoples freedom and remains to be proven safe and effective, I think it would be more reasonable for people who want these chemicals at unnatural levels to pay for and provide it for themselves, although I personally would advise against it.
To much fluoride is dangerous maybe this is why the majority of fresh water surfaces on the planet are naturally low in fluoride, 0.2 to 0.3 ppm.

doyle said...

Dear Paul,

I'm assuming "CWF" means fluoridating water supplies with fluorosilicic acid, though I'm not sure where the initials come from.

An alternate possibility is providing families with access to medical grade fluoride via drops.

It's not an either/or choice. I also do not presume that tooth decay is the default position. A reasonable diet designed for nutrition and good health (as opposed to selling stuff) would go a long way towards preventing caries.

I'm not sure what you do with families unable or unwilling to provide fluoride if they do not want to give it to their kids, but I would not advocate adding it to the water supply simply for that reason. Following that reasoning, we'd eventually have some sort of soup of minerals and vitamins added to our water.

Paul said...

Yeah, sorry: "community water fluoridation". That is, I just discovered today, one of the standard ways of referring to the practice of fluoridating drinking water.

But to repeat, while I can imagine a world in which we could get rid of CWF and individuals would just pick up the slack to prevent greater tooth decay, there's no reason to think that would happen. (And, in fact, many reasons to suppose it wouldn't.) If it were true that people would just reliably take care of their teeth on their own, we wouldn't have seen such a dramatic benefit from the fluoridation in the first place. The current practice is so cheap and so effective, why adopt more expensive, less effective techniques?

I'm also not sure I understand the point about a "soup" of vitamins and minerals. If it were cheap and helped kids (especially poor kids), why wouldn't we add those things to the water? (And there is, in fact, evidence that giving poor kids multivitamin supplements boosts their school achievement, although that doesn't seem to hold for more affluent kids.)

Rambling Rose said...

Paul,

Can I assume that you are the type of person who thinks force is okay to determine whatever outcome you wish to see attained?

I assume you are in favour of force medication seeing as force is what is used to medicate tens of millions of people, via public water supplies, with the toxic wastes that are fluoridating agents - wastes that contain arsenic and other heavy metals such as mercury, lead, aluminium, cadmium, chromium etc. and that can, at times, even include uranium 238!

What happened to people's rights to choose what they take into their bodies?

What happened to parents' rights to choose the very best health regimes possible for their children?

Perhaps it is time for a sheriff's deputy to call at your home thrice daily - for your lifetime - to administer to you and your loved ones a dose of accumulative poison regardless of whether or not you all want to ingest it, because only then might you see that the hypothetical deputy sheriff's actions wouldn't be much different from the actions of others who are responsible for toxins being delivered to other people via their kitchen taps.

illusion9 said...

"Paul, I challenge you to name one peer-reviewed and published scientific study that substantiates the safety of water fluoridation."

Neil said...

Paul.. you statement about the efficacy of Fluoride in treating dental caries in children from poor countries or lower socio-economic groups within our own countries has been proven incorrect. Eminent scientist & Nobel prize winner( discovery of streptomyicin)Dr. Albert Shatz studied the affects of fluoride on the poor children in Chile from 1962 to 1965 after they started in 1953. The infant mortality and child deaths were directly atributed to fluoride in the water.
http://www.fluorideinbeds.org/FIB/albertschatz.asp
To say that science is in the evidence & not in lobbying or running to authority is rediculous as those with vested interests & the Governments ear don't want to see evidence contrary to their agenda. Besides that the examples are in front of your face here in Australia. The figures/data given to Politicians by their pro-fluoride bureaucrats are huge distortions of the truth. The longest fluoridated state in Australia...Tasmania has the highest levels of adult tooth decay. They have been drinking it most of their lives ... why don't they have the lest decay? Open your eyes.

Neil said...

"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time"

Dr Robert Carton, a scientist who spent 20 years working for the US Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.aislingmagazine.com/aislingmagazine/articles/TAM26/Fluoridation.html

The evidence is there and has been mounting thoughout all the years that govt.s & local authorities have been forcing this mass medication on whole communities. For God's sake the Industrial waste byproduct used is not natural ... it's a S6 toxin ..... look up your DANGEROUS Goods Guide.

Anonymous said...

I read a few comments pro Water Fluoridation.

I refer to the one mentioning Wikipedia as a trusted source of information to conclude that Water Fluoridation is safe and another one saying that ceasing water fluoridation would mean increasing tooth decay in the population.

Well, I read about 400 independent scientific studies (not “emotional” studies) and since I speak Italian, Spanish, French and English I read studies published by researchers of 4 different countries. I read the “original” studies and I cross examined such studies with the NHRC Review on Efficacy and Safety of Water Fluoridation 2007 and some WHO documents such Fluoride in Drinking Water.

My personal conclusion is that there is abundant scientific and legal evidence that Water Fluoridation is connected to birth defects, neural illnesses, cancer and finally dental and skeletal fluorosis.

Amazingly, whilst the Australian NHMRC denies even the existence of dental fluorosis in water fluoridated populations and cites the York Review 2000 to support the false assumption that water fluoridation is safe, Prof. Sheldon, Chair of the Department who produced the York Review, says in a public letter that his researchers found diffused and very concerning fluorosis in the population exposed to water fluoridation and the research did not investigate enough the fluoride related health hazards.

Saying that ceasing water fluoridation would lead to a greater cavity incidence is false too. It is false because dental data -unless chosen selectively- do not show any beneficial effect of water fluoridation.

I mention the Queensland Child Dental Survey 2002 by the Adelaide University: children in Townsville (40 years water fluoridation) have similar of worse teeth than children in Brisbane North (only 0.01 ppm fluoride in water) and for certain age band they are worse than in Rockhampton, another city without any natural fluoride in drinking water. Finally Tasmanians have worse teeth than Queenslanders although Tasmania has been fluoridated since 1970s.

How can we explain a greater cavity incidence in some Australians?

Let’s exclude Aboriginals from my analysis: according “Dental Public Services in Australia, whose responsibility?” 30% of WA Aboriginals do not own a toothbrush. Unfortunately, none from John Howard to Kevin Rudd wanted to acknowledge this fact and simply invest $ 1.00 per Aboriginal to send their home a toothbrush with toothpaste and the how to use manual.

In reality, the explanation –that no Government wants to hear – is very simple and comes from a simple query via postcode and National Pollutant Inventory database.

Where we have cavities, we have more environmental pollution. The incriminated chemicals are lead, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acid. In fact, there are several thousand tons of these chemicals on offices and houses and the population is breathing acidic air.

An abnormal presence of heavy metals in drinking water cannot be excluded too.

In general, laboratory experiments proved that enamel’s hydroxiapatite became very soluble in acidic saliva when calcium atoms were replaced by sodium, molybdenum and lead atoms through spontaneous redox reactions.

Hydrofluoric acid is a powerful bone etchant and -who knows why- people develop erosions in their enamel when they move from Brisbane North to Gladstone, a city affected by dental erosion but also skin allergies, asthma and probably cancer (for some specific locations). When people are back from Gladstone, the problem of dental erosion stops.

I remind to everybody how people thought to fight the black plague in 1400s: being unaware of the fact that such a disease was transmitted by bacteria carried by mice’s flees, they used to spread excrements on their skin to prevent the infection. They stank, they got more infections and at the end they died but they did not prevent any diffusion of the disease.

I do not certainly deny that at minimal germicidal concentration a fluoridated toothpaste prevents tartar because fluoride kills bacteria but I find simply ridiculous thinking that the addition of a pesticide to the drinking water can prevent aluminium smelters and charcoal power generation plants from emitting toxic chemicals in the air. Eventually, this action will contribute to increase the chemical pollution of our food chain…..


Kind regards,

Dott. Marco Conti, BS Economics and Commerce (Hons).

Anonymous said...

I read a few comments pro Water Fluoridation.

I refer to the one mentioning Wikipedia as a trusted source of information to conclude that Water Fluoridation is safe and another one saying that ceasing water fluoridation would mean increasing tooth decay in the population.

Well, I read about 400 independent scientific studies (not “emotional” studies) and since I speak Italian, Spanish, French and English I read studies published by researchers of 4 different countries. I read the “original” studies and I cross examined such studies with the NHRC Review on Efficacy and Safety of Water Fluoridation 2007 and some WHO documents such Fluoride in Drinking Water.

My personal conclusion is that there is abundant scientific and legal evidence that Water Fluoridation is connected to birth defects, neural illnesses, cancer and finally dental and skeletal fluorosis.

Amazingly, whilst the Australian NHMRC denies even the existence of dental fluorosis in water fluoridated populations and cites the York Review 2000 to support the false assumption that water fluoridation is safe, Prof. Sheldon, Chair of the Department who produced the York Review, says in a public letter that his researchers found diffused and very concerning fluorosis in the population exposed to water fluoridation and the research did not investigate enough the fluoride related health hazards.

Saying that ceasing water fluoridation would lead to a greater cavity incidence is false too. It is false because dental data -unless chosen selectively- do not show any beneficial effect of water fluoridation.

I mention the Queensland Child Dental Survey 2002 by the Adelaide University: children in Townsville (40 years water fluoridation) have similar of worse teeth than children in Brisbane North (only 0.01 ppm fluoride in water) and for certain age band they are worse than in Rockhampton, another city without any natural fluoride in drinking water. Finally Tasmanians have worse teeth than Queenslanders although Tasmania has been fluoridated since 1970s.

How can we explain a greater cavity incidence in some Australians?

Let’s exclude Aboriginals from my analysis: according “Dental Public Services in Australia, whose responsibility?” 30% of WA Aboriginals do not own a toothbrush. Unfortunately, none from John Howard to Kevin Rudd wanted to acknowledge this fact and simply invest $ 1.00 per Aboriginal to send their home a toothbrush with toothpaste and the how to use manual.

In reality, the explanation –that no Government wants to hear – is very simple and comes from a simple query via postcode and National Pollutant Inventory database.

Where we have cavities, we have more environmental pollution. The incriminated chemicals are lead, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acid. In fact, there are several thousand tons of these chemicals on offices and houses and the population is breathing acidic air.

An abnormal presence of heavy metals in drinking water cannot be excluded too.

In general, laboratory experiments proved that enamel’s hydroxiapatite became very soluble in acidic saliva when calcium atoms were replaced by sodium, molybdenum and lead atoms through spontaneous redox reactions.

Hydrofluoric acid is a powerful bone etchant and -who knows why- people develop erosions in their enamel when they move from Brisbane North to Gladstone, a city affected by dental erosion but also skin allergies, asthma and probably cancer (for some specific locations). When people are back from Gladstone, the problem of dental erosion stops.

I remind to everybody how people thought to fight the black plague in 1400s: being unaware of the fact that such a disease was transmitted by bacteria carried by mice’s flees, they used to spread excrements on their skin to prevent the infection. They stank, they got more infections and at the end they died but they did not prevent any diffusion of the disease.

I do not certainly deny that at minimal germicidal concentration a fluoridated toothpaste prevents tartar because fluoride kills bacteria but I find simply ridiculous thinking that the addition of a pesticide to the drinking water can prevent aluminium smelters and charcoal power generation plants from emitting toxic chemicals in the air. Eventually, this action will contribute to increase the chemical pollution of our food chain…..


Kind regards,

Marco

Bruce Spittle said...

Paul Bruno (8 March) describes Fluoride Fatigue as a brochure but it is really a book with a ISBN, a bound cover and 84 pages. He suggests I am relying on authority rather than evidence in presenting the material but the book has numerous references from peer reviewed literature. In stating there are no peer reviewed references to studies showing that fluoridated water leads to sickness he overlooks the double-blind studies quoted by Waldbott and Grimbergin. He suggests I am no longer publishing in peer reviewed journals whereas my last publication was in Fluoride 2008;41(1):89-92. He considers my concerns about fluoride safety have now been debunked whereas the 2006 NRC report on Fluoride in drinking water referred to my 1994 paper on the Psychopharmacology of fluoride and the importance of the area was underlined by the publication in Fluoride in 2008 of translations into English of 19 Chinese studies linking fluoride to impaired brain functioning.
Bruce Spittle

Charlie Roy said...

I find all of this intriguing. The more I read the more I want to move somewhere pleasant and grow my own food and raise my own animals for meat. Maybe that isn't such a bad idea after all.

doyle said...

Dear Charlie,

No need to move right away--start small on your patch of land. A few basil seeds, maybe a tomato plant or two.

Throw a few potato eyes under the earth and forget about them until the sun heads south again.

It really is an amazing, miraculous world. Food comes from water and light and our breath.

And I can teach that in science class.

lynx said...

Your headline photo is not of General Jack Ripper, but rather of General Buck Turgedson, played by George C. Scott. General Ripper was played by Sterling Hayden.

doyle said...

Dear lynx,

Ouch--I do believe you're right. I'm going to need to change the photo.