What Are the Odds of Dying?

The table below was prepared in response to frequent inquiries, especially from the media, asking questions such as, “What are the odds of being killed by lightning?” or “What are the chances of dying in a plane crash?”

The table has four columns. The first column gives the manner of injury such as motor-vehicle crash, fall, fire, etc. The second column gives the total number of deaths nationwide due to the manner of injury in 1999 (the latest year for which data are available). The third column gives the odds of dying in one year due to the manner of injury. The fourth column gives the lifetime odds of dying from the manner of injury. Statements about the odds or chances of dying from a given cause of death may be made as follows:

• The odds of dying from (manner of injury) in 1999 were 1 in (value given in the one-year odds column).
• The life-time odds of dying from (manner of injury) for a person born in 1999 were 1 in (value given in the lifetime odds column).

For example, referring to the first line of the table below:

• The odds of dying from an injury in 1999 were 1 in 1,805.
• The lifetime odds of dying from an injury for a person born in 1999 were 1 in 24.

The odds given below are statistical averages over the whole U.S. population and do not necessarily reflect the chances of death for a particular person from a particular external cause. Any individual’s odds of dying from various external causes are affected by the activities in which they participate, where they live and drive, what kind of work they do, and other factors.

Source: National Safety Council estimates based on data from National Center for Health Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau. Deaths are classified on the basis of the Tenth Revision of the World Health Organization’s “The International Classification of Diseases” (ICD). Numbers following titles refer to External Cause of Morbidity and Mortality classifications in ICD-10. One year odds are approximated by dividing the 1999 population (272,820,000) by the number of deaths. Lifetime odds are approximated by dividing the one-year odds by the life expectancy of a person born in 1999 (76.7 years).

Odds of Death Due to Injury, United States, 1999

Go here to see the extensive table of death statistics:

Fifty years after it was introduced to prevent tooth decay

Is Fluoride in our Water a Mistake?

by Philip Frazer

White splotches, most noticeable on the front teeth, the enamel sometimes pitted or striped as if with flat white paint. Sometimes the discoloration is brown. If you haven’t seen this on people’s teeth in your neighborhood, your water is probably not fluoridated.

It’s called dental fluorosis and it’s caused by ingesting too many fluoride compounds (usually called simply “fluoride”) while the teeth develop. Someone with this mottling of the enamel could also have suffered bone damage or skeletal fluorosis And a child with these problems will have them forever because fluorosis is irreversible.

How could it be that after fluoride has been promoted for 50 years as a benefit to every one of us, it turns out to be a bad idea? Haven’t the people who question fluoridation been cranks and paranoids?

Today, those lining up against fluoride in tap water and toothpaste include reputable medical and dental researchers and doctors, dentists, public health officials and the governments of most European countries including Sweden, the Netherlands, France and Germany.

Of the nearly 250 million people worldwide who drink fluoridated water, about 130 million are Americans. Out of our 50 largest cities, 41 have fluoridated water.

Does It Work?

Having kids drink fluoridated water was supposed to cut the incidence of dental cavities.Most researchers, politicians and dental professionals say it does just that, but equally qualified people are questioning that conclusion as well as the data gathered over the past 50 years (see, for example, the Health Canada Protective Branch Report, July 2, 1994). While conspiracy theories persist, most critics are raising serious questions such as, whether reduced cavities are due to fluoride or other things, like better education about tooth care.

The establishment and the critics throw epidemiological studies at each other. Fluoride proponents have many more studies, going back to the 1940s, but many reputable scientists have revisited the classic fluoride studies and concluded that they were fatally flawed.

News on Earth does not pretend to have reviewed all the studies, but we believe the fast-rising epidemic of dental fluorosis, coupled with the fact that most countries on Earth have decided against fluoridation, means it’s high time to reconsider fluoridation. Certainly we shouldn’t increase the percentage of Americans getting compulsory fluoridation via tap water from 62% now to 75% by 2000, a stated goal of the Clinton administration.

Though the administration parrots the reassurances of the dental establishment, we found more critical and independent thought coming from the government of a town just outside of Boston.

Last year the town of Natick, Mass. put together a panel of experts with no axes to grind to decide whether the community should add fluoride to its water. Chairman Norman Mancuso, Ph.D., has been a chemical engineer, a postdoctoral fellow at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a project scientist at NASA on the Apollo Program. The other four panelists all had advanced degrees and extensive experience in chemical risk assessment, in three cases, with the US Army.

Their report concluded “unanimously and emphatically” that fluoridation was a bad idea, in part because “there is little or no difference between . . . the incidence of cavities in children [in] fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.”

Worldwide research suggests that tooth decay rates have gone down just as much where there is no fluoridation. Some examples:

British Columbia, with 11% of its population drinking fluoridated water, compared with 40-70% in other Canadian regions, has the lowest rate of tooth decay in Canada.

Many recent studies published in Caries Research and the Journal of Dental Research conclude that dental decay rates in Western Europe, which is 98% unfluoridated, have declined as much as or more than they have in the US. In 1986-87, the National Institute of Dental Research conducted the largest study on fluoridation and tooth decay ever, tracking 39,000 US schoolchildren between the ages of 5 and 17. A third lived in fluoridated areas, a third were partially fluoridated, and a third were unfluoridated. The study, concludes the Natick report, showed no statistically significant differences in dental decay between fluoridated and unfluorfidated areas.

Recently, fluoride proponents have revised their claims: Since 1988, the American Dental Association (ADA) has asserted that fluoridation can only reduce cavities by 18-25%, which is down from its previous claim of 40-60%.

The Natick report cites new research suggesting that any cavity-preventive action of fluoride comes from it being in saliva and not by hardening enamel as was long theorized. That would mean that it should be applied directly to the mouth, not pumped into the body via tap water.

Fluorides Are a Major Industrial Waste Product

Fluoride is a toxic pollutant. It’s part of the smokestack emissions from the manufacture of iron, steel, aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc. It’s released in the production of phosphates (used in all agricultural fertilizers); plastics; gasoline; brick, cement, glass, ceramics and the many other products made from clay. It’s emitted by coal-burning electrical power plants and uranium processing facilities. And fluoride is dumped into waterways by factories producing and processing glass, pesticides, fertilizers, chemicals and metals.

All these industries would have trouble disposing of their waste fluoride if they were not able to dump it or sell it to municipalities for adding to tap water.

The EPA’s 1989 estimate was that at least 155,000 tons a year are released into the air by US industrial plants, and as much as 500,000 tons a year are released into lakes, rivers and oceans. And because fluoride compounds are not biodegradable, they gradually accumulate in the environment, in the food chain and in people’s bones and teeth.

Even so, the EPA still says fluoridation is “an ideal environmental solution to a longstanding problem.” The “problem” is not so much tooth decay, but the huge amount of fluoride compounds produced as waste in industry. “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,” enthuses the EPA.

Fluoride Poisoning

What damage can fluoride do? In the worst case, fluoride poisoning can be fatal:

• In May 1992, 260 people were poisoned, and one man died, in Hooper Bay, Alaska, after drinking water contaminated with 150 ppm [parts per million] of fluoride. The accident was attributed to poor equipment and an unqualified operator at the fluoridation plant.
• In July 1993, three dialysis patients in Chicago died and five experienced toxic reactions to the fluoridated water used in the treatment process.

But these accidents are extreme cases. People at high risk from lower levels of fluoride poisoning include children, the elderly, people with impaired kidney function (including many people with AIDS), people with immunodeficiencies, diabetes and heart ailments, as well as anyone with calcium, magnesium and vitamin C deficiencies.

In nature, fluoride mostly occurs as calcium fluoride while what’s added to water supplies is mostly sodium fluoride or sodium silicofluoride (hydrofluorisic acid). Sodium fluoride is lethal in doses 50 times smaller than naturally-occurring fluoride.

Fluorosis

The ADA and the government consider dental fluorosis only a cosmetic problem. That’s no consolation to people whose teeth are blemished forever. But by designating it merely “cosmetic,” the feds are propping up the fluoridation enterprise. If fluorosis were redefined as an “adverse effect,” as many dental and medical professionals urge, the EPA would have to cut in half the admissible levels and that would radically reduce tap water fluoridation.

Furthermore, the American Journal of Public Health says that “brittleness of moderately and severely mottled teeth may be associated with elevated caries [cavities] levels.” in other words, fluoride can cause the exact problem it’s supposed to prevent.

What it does to bones

About half of the fluoride you drink or eat is absorbed in calcified tissues, like bones and teeth. The National Academy of Sciences and other authorities agree that a lifetime’s accumulation from large daily doses of fluoride can produce crippling skeletal fluorosis. This bone damage is widespread among older people in parts of the world where there are high concentrations of naturally occurring fluorides in the water, but few cases of skeletal fluorosis have been reported in the US. Critics claim we are missing diagnoses of skeletal fluorosis because most doctors in the US have not studied the disease.

The Natick report, several articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and EPA scientists all agree that fluoride increases the rate of hip fracture in people aged 65 or older.

Fluoride makes bones denser, which is why it is used in the treatment of osteoporosis, but it also makes bones more brittle (osteosclerosis).

Cancer

Recent research links fluoridation to a variety of cancers.

In 1977 Congress instructed the National Toxicology Program to investigate fluoride’s effects on lab animals.

But when its report was released in 1990, Dr. Robert Carton of the EPA’s Toxic Substances Division cried foul: “Four years ago, NFFE Local 2050, which represents all 1,100 professionals at EPA headquarters [said] that the scientific support documents for the fluoride in drinking water standard were fatally flawed…. The fluoride juggernaut proceeded as it apparently had for the last 40 years—without any regard for the facts or concern for public health.

“[The] EPA raised the allowed level of fluoride before the results of the rat/mouse study ordered by Congress in 1977 [were] complete….

“[The] currently existing data . . . show fluoride causes genetic effects, promotes the growth of cancerous tissue, and is likely to cause cancer in humans.”

The Natick report concluded that most studies of fluoride and cancer are flawed. . “Given the widespread deliberate exposure of. humans to water fluoridation and the suggestive animal data regarding cancer, especially osteosarcoma, it is incomprehensible why a large case-control epidemiological study. . . has not been initiated.”

Lead and arsenic

Meanwhile, other research has examined fluoride by-products from aluminum and phosphate (fertilizer) production, since the fluoride gets contaminated by lead and arsenic.

On top of that, fluorides in the water supply eat away the protective hydroxide coating in lead pipes in older homes, and then the pipes can and do leach lead.

Today one in nine children in the US under the age of 6 has unacceptably high blood lead levels, which some researchers believe may come from lead contamination in fluoride added to tap water consumed by pregnant women and passed on to their developing fetuses.

The EPA concedes that 10-20% of the lead in children comes from tap water, but that, they say, is too small to be of regulatory concern. Critics again point to its concentration over time in body tissue and the fact that we consume additional fluoride from products processed with fluoridated water.

Enzymes, brains and Alzheimer’s

The Natick report found that fluoride can “seriously disturb the balance of enzymatically activated biochemical reactions,” for example, “the metabolism of a number of common oral bacteria (e.g., Streptococcus mutans)….” The Natick panelists saw this as an area needing new study.

Another such area is damage to the brain or the central nervous system. In a recent article in the peer-reviewed journal Brain Research on the effects of aluminum on brain tissue, researchers reported that it was not aluminum but low levels of fluoride that caused damage to the tissue of the brain similar to the damage found in humans with Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.

An earlier study by Mullenix et al., reported in Nevrotoxicology and Teratology, in 1995, found that animals exposed to fluoride at various stages of gestation suffered either permanent hyperactivity if exposed prenatally, or became “the rat version of couch potato” if exposed after birth, though there was no elaboration of exactly what that is.

The Natick folks say “there is good evidence that fluoride . . . affects the IQ and behavioral patterns of the developing fetus at doses that are not toxic to the mother.”

The International Society for Fluoride Research has also reported studies implicating fluoride in the rising rates of Down’s syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome and sleep disorders.

How much are YOU Consuming

Even though no “optimal” fluoride intake has ever been established, the EPA set a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride in 1986, at 4 mg per liter of tap water. The recommended doses for kids were revised in 1995, downward to 2 mg., and less for infants, to prevent fluorosis. It’s estimated that the average person consumes between 5 and 7 mg. per day in “optimally fluoridated” areas, from drinking water, dental products, and food and beverages made with fluoridated water. But a heavy coffee and tap water drinker, drinking 4 liters a day, is at risk for crippling bone fluorosis after 10 years, according to National Academy of Science figures, or 20 years, says the US Public Health Service.

Children can consume enough to develop fluorosis if their tap water is fluoridated and they drink reconstituted juices. Grape juice, for example, has been tested at almost 6.8 mg. of fluoride per liter..

The Natick report concluded that, if their town water was fluoridated, children under 3 would be likely to ingest “between 2 and 3.5 times as much fluoride as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dental Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians.”

Cooking with tap water can greatly increase a food’s fluoride content, and Teflon- and Tefal- coated items (such as frying pans) transmit very small amounts of fluoride into food.

Today, fluoride levels in toothpaste have risen to 4,000 ppm, and the warnings on the tubes are back, much to the annoyance of the ADA.

Children and adults commonly ingest up to 0.5 mg. of fluoride a day from toothpaste. Small children are now told to use no more than a pea-size amount, but young kids have less control over swallowing, and how many are sticking to the pea rule is impossible to say, especially when they’re enticed by bubble-gum-flavored brands.

Fluoride treatments commonly administered in the dentist’s chair contain between 10,000 to 20,000 ppm and there is no regulated dose requirement. In recent years, several deaths have been attributed to dental office treatments.

Why the juggernaut?

The scientific establishment in the US is largely united in support of fluoridation, but this show of unanimity may come in part from reluctance to admit to a gigantic mistake (the “whoops factor”), and it sometimes comes at a cost to scientific accuracy.

Dr. William Marcus, the dissenting senior science advisor in the EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, says that when the rat studies were released, “every one of the cancers reported by the contractor (Botel Northwest) had been downgraded by the National Toxicology Program.” A congressional investigation found that NTP scientists were coerced by their superiors to change their findings.

Anti-fluoride crusader John Yiamouyiannis believes that government policy is designed, above all, to protect industry, and that the motivating force behind fluoride use is the need of certain businesses to dump their toxic waste products somewhere. “As is normal, the solution to pollution is dilution. You poison everyone a little bit rather than poison a few people a lot. This way, people don’t know what’s going on,” he said in the journal Fluoride.

It would cost companies such as Exxon, US Steel and Alcoa many millions, perhaps billions, of dollars to handle fluoride properly. Marcus says that “it would require a class-one landfill [which] would cost …. about $7,000-plus per 5,000- to 6,000-gallon truckload to dispose of it. It’s highly corrosive.”

As Ralph Nader once said, if they admit they’re wrong on fluoridation, people would ask, and legitimately so, “What else have they not told us right?”

How to avoid it, how to get it out of your system

Public pressure has got fluoride out of the water throughout Europe, as well as in Los Angeles, Newark, Jersey City, and Bedford, Mass.

You can get some of the fluoride out of your tap with either reverse osmosis filters or water ionizers. Check toothpaste labels for fluoride. Dabur, Natures Gate, Weleda and Higher Ideals make fluoride-free toothpaste.

Mottled teeth cannot be repaired except by cosmetic dentistry, but fluoride damage to the soft tissues, such as liver, kidneys and reproductive organs, is reversible with vitamins. When lab mice who had reproductive-organ damage induced by fluoride were given vitamin C and calcium (and no more fluoride), they recovered significantly. In another experiment with mice, vitamins E and D repaired the damage that fluoride did to liver and kidneys.

To see the full Natick Report, go to http://www.cadvision.com/fluoride.

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.

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?

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 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?

Parking Attendant in Jakarta Brings Water Treatment Industry to Its Knees

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 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

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…)

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.