Editor’s Note:  The article below was written during the dark days following the World Trade Center tragedy. It is reprinted now, March of 2012,  on the occasion of Woody Guthrie’s 100th birthday.-Hardly Waite.

A. J. and Munro

by Gene Franks

When I was young,
They packed me off to school
And taught me how not to play the game
.

–Jethro Tull.

Back in the dark, dark days of World War II when I started to first grade in Okemah, Oklahoma, the town where Woody Guthrie had started to school two and a half decades before me,  I had to make a hard decision on the first day.  On the playground I was told that at Lincoln School  you had to be in A.J.’s gang or in Munro’s gang.  There was no in between.  You were with A. J. or you were with Munro.

The gangs rode imaginary horses,  chased each other around the red brick school building,  and shot at each other from ambush with imaginary guns.  Those were the old, uncomplicated days when a kid could point a finger at another kid and say bang without being turned over to a policeman or a psychiatrist.

Being a greenhorn, I did not personally know either A.J. or Munro, but I learned quickly that A.J.’s gang were the good guys and Munro’s gang were the undesirables.  Of course, I quickly said that I was in A. J.’s gang.   Whenever asked, I said proudly that I was in A. J.’s gang.

I did not know how A. J. got to be leader of the gang, because he was a pretty ordinary kid. But I was proud to be in his gang.

In the ensuing weeks, I caught only an occasional glimpse of Munro.  I was not even sure that the person I saw was Munro.  But I was sure that Munro was dirty and had long,  greasy hair and crooked teeth.   He needed a haircut.  We guys in A.J.’s gang were in the majority.  The big majority.  We had haircuts from the barber shop and good clothes. Our moms made us comb our hair.  Probably Munro did not have a mom, or she did not love him or make him comb his hair. I did not want anyone ever to think that I was in Munro’s gang.

By the time I graduated  from 4th grade at Lincoln School, I was no longer so intent on belonging to A. J.’s gang.  In fact, A. J. and Munro were  gone and a new generation of leaders had replaced them.  The Munros by that time did not look so dark and scary, nor did the A.J.s look so gallant.  As I got older, it got harder and harder to tell the A.J.s from the Munros.

Sprite Shower Filters make you sing better! 

 

I never saw Woody Guthrie.  He had left Okemah and was in California  writing and singing about the Depression before I was born. Woody Guthrie was hated in Okemah, my hometown and his.

My favorite song in my early years was “The Oklahoma Hills Where I Was Born.”  The man who wrote this passionate love song about a state that never treated him very well, Woody Guthrie, the great balladeer of the Depression,  was openly scorned and ridiculed.  I heard ugly, smutty stories about his family. The man who wrote

This land is your land, this land is my land,
From California to the New York Island,
From the redwood forest to the gulfstream waters,
This land was made for you and me

was accused by his country of being a Communist and so was hated in his hometown. In Okemah, the Communists were as feared and as hated as the Jews and the Catholics. Woody had been cast into Munro’s gang, and I caught on that I no longer could stomach being part of A.J.’s.

Now that I am older and the line between the good guys and the bad is blurred,  I am again being told that I have to be in one gang or the other.  In the same words and with the same bravado that were used by the schoolground bullies in 1945,  the President is telling us: You are with us or you are against us.  We are good, they are evil.  If you’re not with us, you are against us.

The problem is, no one seems to know who “we” are or or who “they” are.  We are told that we are at war against “the terrorists.”  Who are the terrorists that I am told that I hate? Are they dark men with crooked teeth whose mothers do not love them?  Am I being told to hate  the Irish terrorists or just the dark-skinned terrorists?   Are we going to hunt down Henry Kissinger?  The Chileans are anxious to “bring him to justice”  for his many and considerable acts of terrorism against their country.  Will we hunt down the killers of the 600,000 Iraqi children under five who have been taken from mothers who loved them by U.S. bombs and sanctions?  If so, will we start chronologically with the President’s father, or work backward from  Madeline Albright and Colin Powell?   Madeline Albright said that killing a half million Iraqi children was “worth it.”   Can anything possibly be “worth” killing half a million children?  Half a million is 150 times the number of people who died on Sept. 11, 2001. Imagine the anguish of the mothers of Iraq.

Now, in October, 2001, people are putting American flags on their homes and their vehicles to tell the world that they belong to A.J.’s gang. I do not have an American flag on my home or my truck. It is not because I do not love America but because I do not want my flag to be mistaken for a vote for vengeance on an ill-defined enemy.

Once, after an act of great violence had killed innocent people,  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. heard the outcry for vengeance and retaliation. He said in a speech: “To retaliate with hate and bitterness would do nothing but intensify the hate in the world. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate.”

Dr. King was a great Christian. Our President does not seem like a Christian to me. He seems more like the bully, bragging in the schoolyard.  “You are with us or against us. We are good, they are bad. We will win. They cannot hide from us.”

The fate of our country may well be decided by how many of us “have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate” and  stand in the middle ground of reason.

This land is your land, this land is my land.

This land does not belong only to the members of A. J.’s gang.

This is Woody. Not Me.


 

Where is Dick Cheney, now that We Really, Really

Need Him?

 

Tiger Tom

The Oil Crisis in the Gulf Rages On. 

    “Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
    A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.”

Editor’s Note:  Tiger Tom wrote this piece smack in the middle of the BP Oil Dilemma in the Gulf.

Dick Cheney has always been there when America needed him.

When we needed someone tortured, Dick Cheney was there.  When we needed to protect our rich from taxation, Dick Cheney was there.  When we needed someone to look after corporate interests and assure that our elite were never inconvenienced by government interference, Dick Cheney was there for us.  Whenever we needed a country bombed, a village torched, or a democratically elected government in a Third World country overthrown, Dick was there to get the job done.

But now, when we have a hole in the Gulf floor that’s spewing oil with the fury of ten thousand galloping horses, Dick Cheney has dropped out of sight.

I, Tiger Tom, ask you if it is reasonable to expect Barack Obama to fix an oil leak.  What does Barack Obama know about oil leaks?

But Dick Cheney has been an oil man all his life.  He was director of Halliburton,  the biggest oil well fixer on earth.  If Dick Cheney can’t fix a leaky oil well, who can?

It is time for America’s hero to do his stuff.

 

Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney Facing The Hole

So I, Tiger Tom, propose that Dick Cheney be flushed out of his hiding place and encouraged by a red-hot poker applied to his slimy ass to dive to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, plunge his snarling puss into the hole in the pipe, and plug the leak with his head.

That’s my plan for fixing the leak.  Do you have a better one?

 

Back to the Pure Water Gazette.

 

Meth Found in Water Filter


Posted March 6th, 2012

Parking Attendant in Jakarta Brings Water Treatment Industry to Its Knees

by Hardly Waite,  Pure Water Gazette

According to an article in the Jakarta Globe, a parking attendant in Jakarta was arrested for receiving a kilogram of crystal methamphetamine from a source in the United Arab Emirates that was delivered via a courier service.

The bad news for the water treatment industry is that the meth was delivered in a water filter. The powder was disguised as filtration medium but was confirmed to be methamphetamine by a lab test.

Given that the level of insanity attained by the War on Drugs is even scarier than that of the War on Terror, water filter shipments will likely be subject to search and seizure. It took only a single nitwit with a bomb in his shoe to force the whole world to remove its shoes at airports.

Pure Water Products Model 77 Countertop

 

Countertop water filters are simple but effective devices. They require little in the way of installation, and they are easily moved from place to place.

The diverter valve (A) replaces the faucet’s aerator. That’s all there is to installation. Screw off the aerator, screw on the filter’s diverter valve and the filter is ready for service.

To operate the filter, turn on the cold water faucet and allow water to run into the sink. Then pull out the small knob on the diverter valve. This diverts water from the sink faucet through the small tube to the water filter housing(B). Inside the housing is a replaceable filter cartridge. Water passes through the filter cartridge, then leaves the filter through the spout (C), from which you fill your container. To turn off the filter, just turn off the cold water faucet. The diverter valve will pop back into place restoring your sink faucet to its normal operation.

More about countertop water filters

The classic countertop style shown above is quite versatile. It can be made into a double or even triple filter simply by attaching single units together.

Now almost all countertop units use replaceable filter cartridges, although a few of the old-style disposable units are still sold.

By far the most common application of the countertop is to provide high-quality drinking water by removing chlorine and other chemicals from city tap water.This is accomplished with a simple replaceable carbon cartridge. However, by providing the proper specialty cartridge a countertop unit can be made to reduce such diverse contaminants as cysts, lead and heavy metals, fluoride, nitrates, and even bacteria.

The countertop unit shown above is the classic style which sits beside the sink and has its own spout.

Double Countertop
Double Countertops offer twice the filtration capacity as well as extended treatment potential.

 

There are other less popular styles. One, which uses the “return” diverter, has two hoses rather than one. The diverter valve sends the water to the filter then a second hose brings the filtered water back to the diverter valve to be dispensed into the user’s container. Go here for a picture of a unit with a “return” diverter.

Technically, the tiny “end of faucet” filters sold in retail outlets and the pour-through pitcher-style filters are also countertops, but being purists, we’re going to confine our discussion to the two main styles described above.

More about countertop water filters.

“Outside of a dog, a countertop water filter is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to drink water.” –Groucho Marx.

 

How Permeate Pumps Work


Posted March 1st, 2012

How Permeate Pumps Work

Permeate Pump

Unlike electric pumps that boost inlet pressure to reverse osmosis units, the unique “permeate pump” enhances performance without actually providing additional pressure for the inlet side of the unit. The permeate pump, instead, greatly reduces the back pressure from the RO unit’s storage tank. This allows the RO membrane to take full advantage of the pressure that it has.

Permeate is water treatment jargon for the product water of the reverse osmosis unit–water that has been treated by the membrane, the water you’re going to drink. Brine is the rinse water, the water that is carrying away the impurities rejected by the membrane, the water that will ultimately go down the drain.

The pump works by storing the hydro power of the brine, the reject water, and using the energy to power the permeate under pressure into the unit’s storage tank.

RO storage tanks in undersink units use air pressure to push water out of the faucet. With standard RO units, the unit must force the water into the storage tank. This robs it of pressure and thus efficiency. With permeate pump units, the pressure from the reject water is used to overcome this back pressure from the tank and to power the permeate into the storage tank.

The result is a quite remarkable increase in unit efficiency. Since the RO unit can fill the tank much faster without the hindrance of back pressure, far less reject water is used and the permeate, or product water, is purer.

Here’s how the flow through the pump works, with reference to the picture above:

Brine In. Black Tube. Water leaves the membrane housing’s brine port and goes to the pump, under pressure.

Brine Out. Yellow Tube. After providing power that is stored in the left side of the pump (think of it as winding a clock spring to store energy for later use), the brine exits and goes to the undersink drain pipe via the yellow tube.

Permeate In. White Tube. The permeate from the RO unit’s membrane enters the right chamber of the pump. There is no back pressure. The permeate collects in this pressure-free chamber until the brine side of the pump releases energy and powers it out of the chamber.

Permeate Out. Orange Tube. Powered by the stored energy from the brine, the permeate water is forced into the unit’s pressurized storage tank via the orange tube.

 

How The Pump Works

For more about permeate pumps from our main website.

See also on the Pure Water Occasional’s  site,“The Amazing Permeate Pump,” by Gene Franks.

 

And, by the way, when you talk about reverse osmosis units, don’t display your lack of understanding by calling the brine “waste water.” It isn’t. The brine is as important a part of the RO final product as the permeate itself. The brine performs the essential function of carrying away the impurities and keeping the membrane clean. It isn’t “wasted” any more than the water you wash your hair or or mop your floor with is wasted.

Say “waste water” once more and you’ll feel this wrench on your knuckles.

The Island of Diego Garcia, B 52s and You and Me

A Letter from Lindsey Colleen to any interested people in Britain and the U.S.A. about injustices elsewhere

Dear people of Britain and the USA,

I write from Mauritius. You may not remember quite where that is. Although, then again “The Overcrowded Baracoon” by V.S Naipaul, especially since he has just won the Nobel Prize for Literature, may just stir a memory, if ever you came across his bitingly accurate travelogue where Mauritius is depicted as a lousy hell-hole of a place. His story was banned by the Mauritian government at the time.

Or the word “Mauritius” may evoke the equally accurate tourist brochures showing luscious green islands, where it never rains of course, a place so perfect for visitors to holiday in, that there are no people actually living there. No factory workers on piece rates, no sugar cane workers in that hot sun, no computer workers linked to satellite, not even hotel workers as human beings. Maybe just as stage props for dreams.

But there are people living here. In all the contradictions. And some of us have a link with you. Through our shared history. That’s how it is that I come to write to you, who vote in and are citizens of Britain or the US? I, who vote here and am a citizen of Mauritius.

It’s all because of an island.

 

Where Is Diego Garcia?

It’s a particular island that you, over there, and us, over here, share responsibility for. Only maybe you don’t know that you share this responsibility. And while we know we do, we can’t do enough about it so long as we are on our own.

This island is being used for waging war.

In Mauritius, it is hard to find anyone who agrees to the island, part of our country after all, being used for B-52’s to set off from to go bombard the cities of Afghanistan. Our hearts ache to see the children in the rubble the next morning. Maybe there is someone here who agrees, but I haven’t met the person yet.

The Mauritius Foreign Affairs Minister did publicly “give assent”. So he agrees. But he only says it in his formal speeches as representative of the state. At a political party rally, he would certainly not try it. The people are too angry with “America”.

I’ll share the story with you, the story about the island. It is a “small story”. But it is one that will perhaps help understand the deepness of the rage felt in so many places against the powers that be in your countries. A rage often wrongly projected on to “Americans” as a whole. A rage that sometimes makes it hard for people world-wide to pardon the ignorance amongst ordinary folk in the US and Britain about the role of their elected governments in “the rest of the world”. (The rest of the world is such a big place.)

And this rage here, and I would think elsewhere in the rest of the world, too, has somehow got mixed up with the horror that spread on the day of the attack on the World Trade Centre, an attack by missiles made up of passengers and aimed at the level of the hearts of the Twin Towers. Causing collapse. And the terrible emptiness left at Ground Zero. Giant in rubble. Enough to cause everyone on the planet insomnia. And yet somehow the recurring image, no matter how much I try to wipe it from my mind, is that of Goliath being felled by the hand-made sling of the new millennium, a carpet-cutter.

And then? As if bombarding Kabul from B-52’s could rout out young men with carpet cutters.

But, I am speaking today, in particular, of an island. The island of Diego Garcia. And the role of the Diego Garcia military base on it. A US base it is, in the Indian Ocean. In the Republic of Mauritius, more specifically. And curiously, just one week before the 11th September came and changed everything, the Bush administration announced that Diego Garcia was being expanded to take in all the hardware and troops from US bases in Europe that, they added, would from then on be gradually phased out.

The story I will tell is so evocative that you may not have believed it, were it not for all the articles in November last year on the High Court in London’s stinging judgment against the British state in a case brought by people from here. The time had come around for a court action for the right of inhabitants to return to the island, when all the relevant facts, after a 30-year period of being held under secrecy laws, were “declassified” in Britain, in 1998.

The story is another story of a terrible emptiness.

In 1965, in the preparation for the Independence of Mauritius, the Harold Wilson Labour Government in Britain decided to act illegally and to cut out part of Mauritius and hold on to it, as a condition for Independence, which was to be “granted” in 1968. This kind of blackmail is against the UN Charter. A colonizing power cannot impose conditions on a part of itself, that is to say, on one of its colonies, in exchange for Independence.

Britain then tagged on some of the Seychelles Islands (Seychelles was still a colony too), and made up a new fiction of a “colony” on 8th  But whatever the price, the US Government is the receiver of the stolen goods.

We want to close this base down.

We want the terrible emptiness of the tarmac runways out! And the concrete docks out! We want the emptiness of all the military hardware out, too. We want to regenerate the coral around these islands. And the palms.

Living life. We want Diego Garcia to be declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site immediately on the closure of the base.

But, more than anything, we want to heal the terrible emptiness in the hearts of a people forcibly removed. We want to heal the tearing apart of a country. We want people to be free to go back home.

There have been UN resolutions, year after year, for the reunification of Mauritius through the return of Diego Garcia and the whole of Chagos. Only the US and UK governments voted against. But these two votes have, so far, been enough.

The 1995 UN “Pelindaba Treaty for a Nuclear-Weapons Free Africa” was signed by all the countries concerned, but on the insistence of the representatives of your two countries, there were the infamous “dotted lines” scribbled in around Diego Garcia.

So Diego Garcia is not “nuclear free”. And nor are Pakistan and India. Which is all the more reason for all of us to say “no” to war. And “yes” to the closing down of the base.

I write to ask if perhaps you could start by writing to your MP’s and Congressmen to inform them that the theft of the islands and the receiving of stolen goods was done without the knowledge of the people of your lands, that the forcible removals of our people were done behind your backs, that your people would never have condoned this ultimate violence, that you want the people of Diego Garcia to return to their homes, that a Court judgment has granted them the right to return, that the base is illegal and must be closed down.

That the base must be closed down in any case.

We ask this to be included as part of the movement towards ending the war. As part of the movement for peace.

And as we all know, peace only comes with justice. And justice only comes when we find out about injustices being committed near and far, and all over the rest of the world, so we can put a stop to them. It is these injustices that sometimes breed the ideas that sometimes breed terrorism.

At other times, the injustices breed rioting. In Los Angeles and in Mauritius. In Harare and in Northern Towns in Britain. In Algeria and in Indonesia. And whether it is terrorism or rioting, it brings in its wake, repression.

So, we need coherent, conscious movements against the war, and for justice worldwide. And justice, as we all know in our hearts, is only born in the movement towards equality. The e-word. You are not allowed to say it in good company anymore. It is only permissible in reference to past revolutions.

But it is, curiously, precisely the e-technology that may help now.

We live in a world of sufficient technological advancement to permit a much better form of democracy than we ever dared dream of before. Democracy at the work place. Democratic control over finance. Where democracy will be much more than casting a vote to choose between two political parties, both financed by private companies, once every five years, where you live or where I do.

Democracy in which human rights in all spheres – political, civil, economic, social, cultural – gain broader and broader definitions through our struggles, wherever we are.

Democracy where human beings gain in dignity. Democracies from which guns and land-mines are not exported to prop up dictatorships in countries unknown, nor to make profits from warring factions in countries elsewhere in the world. We have to inform ourselves and act. Together.

So that dog stops eating dog. And horse horse.

Lindsey Collen, For LALIT, in Mauritius 16th October lalmel@intnet.mu

Lindsey Collen was born in South Africa and lives in Mauritius. She is the author of several novels “There is a Tide”, “The Rape of Sita” and “Getting Rid of it”. “The Rape of Sita” won the Commonwealth Writers Prize for the Africa Region in 1994 and was longlisted for the 1996 Orangeprize. Her latest book is called “Mutiny”. She is a human rights’ activist in Mauritius, active in the women’s right’s movement, in the movement for social housing, in an organisation for adult literacy and in the political organisation, Lalit.

For a brief, Americanized “history” of Diego Garcia, with map, please go tohttp://www.infoplease.com/spot/dg.html.

For a complete and well-documented history of the British/American theft of Diego Garcia, please go tohttp://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=diego_garcia.

Secret US Prison on Diego Garcia

(more…)

The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation

This Practice Is Unethical, Unnecessary, Ineffective, Unsafe, And Inequitable.
Any So-Called Expert On Fluoridation Who Thinks Otherwise Is Invited To An Open Public Debate On This Issue

by Paul Connett, PhD

November 28, 2002

 

Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT was deemed so “safe and effective” that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic tables. One by one all these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.

For over 50 years US government officials have confidently and enthusiastically claimed that

Reverse Osmosis Removes Arsenic, Fluoride, Lead, Sodium,  Nitrates–virtually anything you could want removed from water.

Check it out.

fluoridation is “safe and effective”. However, they are seldom prepared to defend the practice in open public debate. Actually, there are so many arguments against fluoridation that it can get overwhelming. To simplify things it helps to separate the ethical from the scientific arguments.

For those for which ethical concerns are paramount, the issue of fluoridation is very simple to resolve. It is simply not ethical; we simply shouldn’t be forcing medication on people without their “informed consent”. The bad news, is that ethical arguments are not very influential in Washington, DC unless politicians are very conscious of millions of people watching them. The good news is that the ethical arguments are buttressed by solid common sense arguments and scientific studies which convincingly show that fluoridation is neither “safe and effective” nor necessary. I have summarized the arguments in several categories:

Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

1) It violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual’s response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

As stated by the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlsson:

“I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history…Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication – of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day – to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy.”

As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al 2000):

“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ‘ It is a preposterous notion.”

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called “optimal” doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride’s benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly. (See studies)
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children’s blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
8) The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensiveremoval equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry. 
3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don’t want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:

1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called “optimal concentration” of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke’s finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).
6) The CDC’s 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.

The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else’s advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.

Those who pull the strings of these public health ‘puppets’, do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of “authorities” which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy. The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: “Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?”

Motivations – especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers – are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:

a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation’s children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a ‘pollutant.’
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.

So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

However, difficult as it may be, it is nonetheless essential – in order to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm – that the US Government begin to move away from its anachronistic, and increasingly absurd, status quo on this issue. There are precedents. They were able to do this with hormone replacement therapy.

But getting any honest action out of the US Government on this is going to be difficult. Effecting change is like driving a nail through wood – science can sharpen the nail but we need the weight of public opinion to drive it home. Thus, it is going to require a sustained effort to educate the American people and then recruiting their help to put sustained pressure on our political representatives. At the very least we need a moratorium on fluoridation (which simply means turning off the tap for a few months) until there has been a full Congressional hearing on the key issues with testimony offered by scientists on both sides. With the issue of education we are in better shape than ever before. Most of the key studies are available on the internet (http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html) and there are videotaped interviews with many of the scientists and protagonists whose work has been so important to a modern re-evaluation of this issue (see Videos at http://www.fluoridealert.org).

With this new information, more and more communities are rejecting new fluoridation proposals at the local level. On the national level, there have been some hopeful developments as well, such as the EPA Headquarters Union coming out against fluoridation and the Sierra Club seeking to have the issue re-examined. However, there is still a huge need for other national groups to get involved in order to make this the national issue it desperately needs to be.

I hope that if there are RFW readers who disagree with me on this, they will rebut these arguments. If they can’t than I hope they will get off the fence and help end one of the silliest policies ever inflicted on the citizens of the US. It is time to end this folly of water fluoridation without further delay. It is not going to be easy. Fluoridation represents a very powerful “belief system” backed up by special interests and by entrenched governmental power and influence.

All references cited can be found at http://www.fluoridealert.org/reference.htm

Fair Use Statement

CHLORINATION: A LINK BETWEEN HEART DISEASE AND CANCER

by Martin Fox, Ph.D.

 In many parts of the world, people suffer and die from a lack of drinking water. Fortunately, in the United States this is not the case. But, ironically, in the U.S. thousands can die from the chemicals added to the drinking water.

One of the most insidious, dangerous and harmful chemicals is chlorine–the chlorine added to most drinking water supplies.

I believe chlorine triggers the growth of abnormal cells leading to tumor development,  both in athereosclerosis and cancer. The origin of heart disease is akin to the origin to cancer. Both can be linked to chlorine and the production of excess free radicals.

Dr. Joseph Price, a medical doctor, wrote a fascinating book in the late 1960’s entitled, Coronaries/Cholesterol/Chlorine. He states, “The basic cause of athereosclerosis,  heart attacks and most forms of strokes is chlorine. The chlorine contained in processed water.”

To support this position, Dr. Price did a series of animal experiments on chickens. Within a few months, 95% of the chickens drinking chlorinated water developed athereosclerosis. To retest these results, Dr. Price divided the original control group into two groups, conducted the exact same experiment and obtained the exact same results.

Both chickens and pigeons are excellent laboratory models in the study of athereosclerosis in humans. Recently, Richard Bull of the Environmental Protection Agency studied the effects of chlorinated water on pigeons. His findings support Dr. Price’s research and go a step further. Bull found pigeons given chlorinated water with diets low in calcium had serum cholesterol levels 50% greater than the unchlorinated group.

Many people are confused about cholesterol and its relationship to heart disease. Recently, the results of a 10 year government funded research project conclusively linked heart disease to serum (blood) cholesterol levels. Lowering serum cholesterol levels markedly reduces the number of fatal heart attacks. So far so good. But, 70% to 80% of all the cholesterol in our body is produced by the liver regardless of the dietary cholesterol intake. In fact, researchers have shown that serum cholesterol levels in humans are, for the most part, independent of the dietary cholesterol intake. In short, there appears to be no correlation between total dietary cholesterol intake and serum cholesterol levels. I

What caused this tremendous increase in serum cholesterol levels in the pigeons? Obviously, the addition of chlorine played a central role. But what mechanism can explain how chlorine could trigger such an increase in cholesterol levels?

Each cell in the body has a nucleus which contains DNA – the chemical blueprint which determines cell replication. Cells build tissues, tissues build organs. So, if our cells are healthy, we are healthy. If they are malformed, we set the stage for illness.

Now, chlorine and other chemical compounds in our drinking water create what’s called ‘free radicals’. A free radical is a chemical by-product of metabolism that is “looking for an accident to happen.” Free radicals behave like bullets flying indiscriminately and whatever they hit can become damaged or destroyed. If our defense mechanism, our immune system is functioning properly, we can get rid of them. But, if our immune system is overloaded with excess free radicals, like it is when we drink chlorinated water, we can have a very serious problem. Free radicals can attack the cellular blueprint, alter it, change it, to the point that cells will multiply abnormally and then we can get a lump or bump, which can appear in a blood vessel, in the breast, the prostate, the pancreas, wherever.

Chlorine causes excess free radicals. Free radicals lead to cell damage. Once the cells are damaged, we see an elevation in serum cholesterol levels, athereosclerosis, hardening of the arteries and plaque formation. Chlorine can cause all these problems related to heart disease and can also be a cause of cancer. The plaque in athereosclerosis is essentially a benign tumor in the blood vessels.

With cancer, free radicals create malignant cells. In the chlorination process itself chlorine combines with natural organic matter, such as decaying vegetation, to form potent, cancer causing trihalomethanes or haloforms. Trihalomethanes, commonly abbreviated THM’s, collectively include such cancer causing agents as chloroforms, bromoforms, carbontectachloride and many others.

Although the maximum amount of THM’s allowed by law is 100 ppb, a 1976 EPA study showed 31 of 112 municipal water systems exceeded this limit; that’s around 30%. I wonder how many exceed this limit now. Even 100 ppb of THM’s is too much. I believe we should have no more than 10 ppb of these cancer causing agents in our drinking water. The less the better. The safest approach is to have no THM’s at all.

The proliferation of chemicals in our drinking water is staggering. Listen to this. In 1975, the number of chemical contaminants found in finished drinking water exceeded 300. In 1984, less than 10 years later, over 700 chemicals have been found in our drinking water. The EPA has targeted 129 as posing the greatest threat to our health. But, to date, requires only 14 to be tested to see if they are in our water!

This is risky business.

Studies in several locations throughout the U.S. revealed that high levels of haloforms or THM’s in people’s drinking water resulted in higher levels of cancer.

“Chlorine is so dangerous,” according to biologist/chemist Dr. Herbert Schwartz, “that it should be banned.” He states, “Putting chlorine in the water is like starting a time bomb. Cancer, heart trouble, premature senility, both mental and physical, are conditions attributable to chlorine, treated water supplies. It is making us grow old before our time by producing symptoms of aging such as hardening of the arteries. I believe if chlorine were now proposed for the first time to be used in drinking water, it would be banned by the Food and Drug Administration.”

Drinking chlorinated water is hazardous, if not deadly, to our health. It is as simple as that. Chlorine in our drinking water creates THM’s and haloforms. These potent chemical pollutants trigger the production of excess free radicals leading to cell damage. We do not wake up one morning with heart disease or cancer. These degenerative diseases take years of constant insult to injury to develop. Many doctors estimate the formation of plaque and the hardening of the arteries leading to heart disease can take 10 to 20 years, and cancer takes 20 to 30 years to develop. Day by day, we continually drink chlorinated water adding excess free radicals to our bodies which can lead to serious damage to cells and abnormal cellular growth. Eventually, enough cells are hurt and we experience the problems of heart disease and cancer. The origin of heart disease is akin to the origin of cancer. Both can have their basis in free radical dam age.

Many municipalities are experimenting with a variety of other types of disinfectants to replace chlorine or to be used in addition as a way of cutting down on the amount of chlorine added to the water. However, these chemical alternatives can be just as dangerous as chlorine.

What can we do about chlorine, THM’s and other organic chemical com-pounds in our drinking water?

There are two solutions: Buy proper bottled spring water or purchase an effective filter unit.

Many filters on the market that remove chlorine, bad taste and odors from the water are not effective in removing THM’s and chemical pollutants

You need to read lab reports on filters and see if the unit you are considering will really solve your water problem. Proper filter systems installed at your tap in the home and office are available. They can efficiently and effectively remove virtually all the THM’s, organic chemical pollutants like TCE, PCB, etc., in addition to chlorine and still leave the beneficial minerals in the drinking water.

Chemical pollutants can be odorless and tasteless but harmful and deadly. Proper care of a filter unit can result in safe, healthy drinking water. A complete analysis of what to look for in a lab report can be found in my book, Healthy Water For A Longer Life.

In summary, if I had to recommend only one thing that every person should do with regard to their drinking water, I would say: Don’t drink chlorinated water. Just this simple safeguard could save thousands from heart disease and cancer – the two major killers in the United States.

Tiger Tom’s Gallery

Scenes from the Lives of Nature’s Most Disgusting Vermin



 

 

 

 

 

 

(more…)

Thanksgiving: A Native American View

by Jacqueline Keeler

I celebrate the holiday of Thanksgiving.

This may surprise those people who wonder what Native Americans think of this official U.S. celebration of the survival of early arrivals in a European invasion that culminated in the death of 10 to 30 million native people.

Thanksgiving to me has never been about Pilgrims. When I was six, my mother, a woman of the Dineh nation, told my sister and me not to sing “Land of the Pilgrim’s pride” in “America the Beautiful.” Our people, she said, had been here much longer and taken much better care of the land. We were to sing “Land of the Indian’s pride” instead.

 

I was proud to sing the new lyrics in school, but I sang softly. It was enough for me to know the difference. At six, I felt I had learned something very important. As a child of a Native American family, you are part of a very select group of survivors, and I learned that my family possessed some “inside” knowledge of what really happened when those poor, tired masses came to our homes.

When the Pilgrims came to Plymouth Rock, they were poor and hungry — half of them died within a few months from disease and hunger. When Squanto, a Wampanoag man, found them, they were in a pitiful state. He spoke English, having traveled to Europe, and took pity on them. Their English crops had failed. The native people fed them through the winter and taught them how to grow their food.

These were not merely “friendly Indians.” They had already experienced European slave traders raiding their villages for a hundred years or so, and they were wary — but it was their way to give freely to those who had nothing. Among many of our peoples, showing that you can give without holding back is the way to earn respect. Among the Dakota, my father’s people, they say, when asked to give, “Are we not Dakota and alive?” It was believed that by giving there would be enough for all — the exact opposite of the system we live in now, which is based on selling, not giving.

To the Pilgrims, and most English and European peoples, the Wampanoags were heathens, and of the Devil. They saw Squanto not as an equal but as an instrument of their God to help his chosen people, themselves.

Since that initial sharing, Native American food has spread around the world. Nearly 70 percent of all crops grown today were originally cultivated by Native American peoples. I sometimes wonder what they ate in Europe before they met us. Spaghetti without tomatoes? Meat and potatoes without potatoes? And at the “first Thanksgiving” the Wampanoags provided most of the food — and signed a treaty granting Pilgrims the right to the land at Plymouth, the real reason for the first Thanksgiving.


Ultraviolet–Nature’s way to purify water.A clean, safe, and Earth-friendly technology.

 For details.

What did the Europeans give in return? Within 20 years European disease and treachery had decimated the Wampanoags. Most diseases then came from animals that Europeans had domesticated. Cowpox from cows led to smallpox, one of the great killers of our people, spread through gifts of blankets used by infected Europeans. Some estimate that diseases accounted for a death toll reaching 90 percent in some Native American communities. By 1623, Mather the elder, a Pilgrim leader, was giving thanks to his God for destroying the heathen savages to make way “for a better growth,” meaning his people.

In stories told by the Dakota people, an evil person always keeps his or her heart in a secret place separate from the body. The hero must find that secret place and destroy the heart in order to stop the evil.

I see, in the “First Thanksgiving” story, a hidden Pilgrim heart. The story of that heart is the real tale than needs to be told. What did it hold? Bigotry, hatred, greed, self-righteousness? We have seen the evil that it caused in the 350 years since. Genocide, environmental devastation, poverty, world wars, racism.

Where is the hero who will destroy that heart of evil? I believe it must be each of us. Indeed, when I give thanks this Thursday and I cook my native food, I will be thinking of this hidden heart and how my ancestors survived the evil it caused.

Because if we can survive, with our ability to share and to give intact, then the evil and the good will that met that Thanksgiving day in the land of the Wampanoag will have come full circle.

And the healing can begin.

Jacqueline Keeler, a member of the Dineh Nation and the Yankton Dakota Sioux works with the American Indian Child Resource Center in Oakland, California. Her work has appeared in Winds of Change, an American Indian journal.
Reprinted from the Pure Water Gazette.