ARSENIC is only one carcinogen found in the "industrial grade"
fluorosilicic acid that is used to fluoridate drinking water.

Another is BERYLLIUM!!

Dentists and the American Dental Association say that the use of
contaminated, "industrial grade" products to fluoridate our drinking
water
is "ONE OF THE TOP TEN PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES OF THE 20th CENTURY!!"

Arsenic and Beryllium are both Group 1 Carcinogens--(Known to cause
cancer in humans), and are among the other TOXIC surprises found in
the "industrial grade" fluoridation agents.

 See http://www.***.com/ ~gtigerclaw/Stupid.htm .

The maximum contaminant level for Beryllium in drinking water is 4.0
parts per billion, and the proposed standard for Arsenic is 5.0 parts
per billion.

This scenario leaves one to ask:

            1. WHY WOULD ANYONE WITH ANY SEMBLANCE OF SANITY WANT TO
                ADD ANY AMOUNT OF A  KNOWN HUMAN CARCINOGEN TO THE
                DRINKING WATER TO REDUCE TOOTH DECAY?

            2. IS ENHANCING, OR ADDING TO THE RISK OF DEVELOPING KIDNEY,
                BLADDER, LIVER, PROSTATE, LUNG AND LIVER CANCERS TO ANY
                DEGREE WORTH THE SUPPOSED BENEFIT OF REDUCED TOOTH
                DECAY?

Ask your dentists, maybe they have the answer.  After all, when called
upon to promote drinking water fluoridation, it is the dentists who
purport to be the experts--they know every thing there is to know about
the subject.
-----------------------------------------
BERYLLIUM IN DRINKING WATER

Beryllium: laboratory evidence,  Flamm WG, IARC Sci Publ 1985;(65):199-
201

Abstract:

Beryllium-containing compounds have been studied extensively and have
been known to be carcinogenic in animals since 1946. Beryllium salts
and alloys were among the first nonradioactive, inorganic substances
shown to induce osteogenic sarcoma in experimental animals. Beryllium-
containing compounds have been demonstrated to be powerful pulmonary
carcinogens in rats. To date, these compounds do not appear to be
mutagenic, leaving open the question of their mechanism of action.

PMID: 3866748, UI: 86110481

-----------------------------------------

      ARSENIC IN DRINKING WATER

      The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) directs the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to establish Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs)
which are non-enforceable health goals. An MCLG for a contaminant is to
be at a level at which "no known or anticipated adverse effect on the
health of persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety."
Legislative history in House Report No. 93-1185, associated with the
1986 Act, indicated that MCLGs for carcinogens should be zero.

Chronic health effects at low concentrations of Arsenic include
prostate, skin, bladder, kidney, liver and lung cancers. The non-
cancerous effects include skin pigmentation and keratosis (callous-like
skin growths), gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hormonal (e.g.,
diabetes ), haematological, (e.g., anaemia), pulmonary, neurological,
immunological, reproductive/developmental functions.

US Environmental Protection Agency suggested that a reduction in the
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of Arsenic from 50 parts per billion
(ppb) to 5ppb will result in the lowering of the Maximum Allowable
Level (MAL) in the fluoridation product (fluorosilicates derived from
phosphate fertilizer pollution scrubbing operations). The new MAL would
prevent about 20 cases of bladder cancer a year and approximately 5
bladder cancer deaths a year.

The results of tests indicate that the most common contaminant detected
in the fluoridation product is Arsenic. The National Sanitation
Foundation International (NSFI) showed that the average Arsenic levels
in the
fluoridation agent were well above the MAL. The end result will be that
future tests of fluoridation chemicals may result in increased product
failures when the lower Arsenic MCL of 5 ppb is promulgated.

A "classic public health trade-off," increased risk of developing
cancers for a few less cavities.  Ask your dentist if it is better to
lose a bladder/kidney or a tooth.

http://www.***.com/ ~gtigerclaw/wsb/html/Fluorine_Pollution.htm

Sent via Deja.com http://www.***.com/
Before you buy.

Who is adding Beryllium to drinking water?

Keep Beryllium out of drinking water! We agree.

Keep arsenic out too -- unless rats live in the neighborhood -- then
its okay.'

Joel:

The beryllium and arsenic is part of the fluoridation agent--
fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate--it is part and parcel of
the "fluoride" being added to the water which is derived from phosphate
fertilizer pollution scrubbing operations. Check out:
http://home.att.net/~gtigerclaw/Stupid.htm.  Everything is documented
on that site.

They can't afford to use a quality grade of fluoride compounds to
fluoridate the drinking water so, the have to use industrial grade
(commercial grade. The acid runs about $0.30 per gallon--good stuff!!

Ther has never been one study done with the silico fluorides--I also
have documentation on that from EPA and NTP--!

GEO

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Are hydrogen and oxygen (both very, very poisonous) also part of the
H2O?

Nah! The water-fluoridation industry is not out to poison you. Why not
mobilize your forces against some real dangers, such as drunk drivers
going the wrong way on the four-laner, or about rude and agressive
drivers?

That would sure be better than imaginary fears about water
fluoridation!

Cheers,

Joel

-----

Just as the tobacco industry is not out to poison its clients?

So you could continue to spread your nonsense?

Provide me with chronic toxicity study with silico fluorides--lets talk
a little science--real science!  I have heard all the propaganda--!

"It's Pollution Stupid!"  did you read it.  Also try "Death In the Air,"
same stuff they are putting in the water!

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

But they are not Group 1 carcinogens--!  But, I guess you don't care
about that--!  No reason to argue with you--no hope for some
people!!!--mentallyfluorosed!!!!

Best

Geo

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Nope. They lied about KNOWING that nicotine is {*filter*}ive! That is far
different than whether knowing that tobacco use can cause emphysema or
worse. It does. Everybody knows that already.

So fluoride is a far different issue. It is not {*filter*}ive, It is not
known whether 0.5 parts per million (added to other ambient fluoride)
is harmful and in what way.

Do research and stop badmouthing a good treatment regimen!

Cheers,

Joel

---

ADA, CDC, USPHS and yours truly are all in on the {*filter*} -- to
reduce tooth decay! What do you suppose is my motivation here, to sell
more fluoride?

"Provide me . . . ." suggests that I prove a negative. Epistemology
tells us that that is impossible. Now you had better look up the
meaning of epistemology!

EXAMPLE: Prove that ghosts do not exist!

It  cannot be done. So far, no ghosts, but who knows what the morrow
will bring.

fluoridation agent--
it is part and parcel of
is derived from phosphate
Everything is documented
fluoride compounds to
use industrial grade
per gallon--good stuff!!
silico fluorides--I also

in drinking water is 4.0
for Arsenic is 5.0 parts
SEMBLANCE OF SANITY WANT TO
HUMAN CARCINOGEN TO THE
THE RISK OF DEVELOPING
LUNG AND LIVER CANCERS TO
BENEFIT OF REDUCED TOOTH
studied extensively and have
since 1946. Beryllium salts
nonradioactive, inorganic substances
experimental animals.
to be powerful pulmonary
compounds do not appear to be
their mechanism of action.
the neighborhood -- then

SIGNIFICANT CANCER RISKS ACKNOWLEDGED - AND PUTS
DENTISTS AT HIGH RISK - SEE BELOW.

gtigerclaw is absolutely spot on. For
clarification, however, the figures given in his
summary of the recent Senate Hearing, are PER
HUNDRED THOUSAND POPULATION. The EPA wants a
lower Arsenic Standard to prevent several
thousand cancer incidences and cancer deaths PER
YEAR caused by Arsenic. (Readers can do the
sums!). The known cancers attributable to Arsenic
are of the prostate, bladder, kidney, lung and
skin.

NSFI told the Hearing that a lower Arsenic
Standard would bring MORE product failures of the
fluoridating agent. This is an admission that
the "product" does, in fact, contain Arsenic at
HIGHER levels than the present Standard!

Arsenic is a CUMULATIVE poison. It therefore
follows that the Arsenic content in the
fluoridating agent MUST contribute to cancer
incidences and deaths every year.

Beryllium - another known human carcinogen - is
also in the fluoridating agent. It has
significant ADDED risks for dentists. See DENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS, below.

The following is from Parents of Fluoride
Poisoned Children Newsletter, Aug.2000. (Their
website should be part of all medical/dental
school curriculae.
http://www.bruha.com/fluoride/index.htm)

Chronic (long-term) health effects can occur a
long time after exposure to Beryllium Fluoride
and can last for months or years. Toxic effects
may include shortened lifespan, reproductive
problems, lower fertility, and changes in
appearance or behavior.

A single high exposure or repeated lower
exposures can cause permanent scars in the lungs
and other body organs. Symptoms may include
fatigue, shortness of breath, weight loss and
poor appetite. These effects may occur months or
years after exposure. Severe cases develop
disability and even heart failure. Kidney stones
can occur from high or repeated exposure.

Beryllium increases in concentration, or
bioaccumulates, in living organisms as they
breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated
water, or eat contaminated food. It can become
concentrated in the tissues and internal organs
of animals and humans.

Beryllium and its compounds are regulated under
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), which subjects them to reporting
requirements.

Under CERCLA, EPA had proposed reportable
quantities (RQs) of 1 lb for beryllium and 5,000
lb for beryllium chloride and beryllium fluoride.
(Imagine that...5,000 pounds!) The final rule
adjusted the RQs to 10 lb for beryllium and
beryllium dust and 1 lb for beryllium chloride
and beryllium fluoride. (Thank heavens...)
---------------------------------
5) DENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Beryllium containing dental alloys have the
potential to be a significant hazard to the lab
technician, dentist and patient.

In 1949 the maximum tolerable exposure level in
industry was set at only 2 MICROGRAMS per cubic
foot of air over an 8-hour workday. Yet when
dental alloys are ground and polished in an
unvented dental laboratory, the worker is
routinely exposed to from 60 to 160 times the
above safety level set by the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC). Similarly high exposures to
beryllium dust can occur when adjustments or
repairs are made to dental alloys which are still
in the mouth. (Of course, you'll get a fluoride
treatment after...) In industry, beryllium
disease has occurred only six months after
inhaling very small amounts of fumes.

Under current laws (on the books for many years),
dentists and dental assistants MUST abide by OSHA
approved handling standards when simply only
HANDLING such materials. When was the last time a
dentist gave you ANY sort of warnings about
amalgam? Or ANY warning about fluoride? Or
beryllium???
OSHA regulates beryllium and beryllium compounds
as CARCINOGENS under the Hazard Communication
Standard and as chemical hazards in laboratories!
-----------------------
Thanks to gtigerclaw and PFPC for meticulous work.
And to all Deja readers who got this far!
Jane Jones, NPWA (UK).

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

So would you say they sell their stuff to poison people?

Not known? Just as you said the tobacco industry lied about knowing ....
see above ... ?

Thats what Im doing already.

What are you talking about? What good treatment regimen?

DENTAL PROFESSIONALS UNAWARE OF WORKPLACE DANGERS
Dental offices Are Toxic 'exposure chambers' "Dental technicians are
potentially exposed to various occupational dusts and chemicals. Not
surprisingly, occupational related lung diseases have been documented
in this population."*

(*1997 March. 'Lung granulomatosis in a dental technician', Pneumology
Unit, Clinics Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium).

Dental workers are at risk of the same airborne contaminants as
industrial workers.  According to Dr. Choudat of the Department of
Occupational Medicine at Port Royal, Paris, in  a "Tuber Lung Disease"
article: "Dental technicians are exposed to various dusts including
silica, alloys, and acrylic plastics which can induce pneumoconiosis
and probably other occupational lung diseases."

The prevalence of pneumoconiosis among dental workers is very high and
related to the duration of exposure to these airborne contaminants.
Three epidemiological studies have found pneumoconiosis in about 15% in
technicians with 20 or more years' exposure. In addition to
pneumoconiosis, occupational exposure may induce lung function
impairment. Cases of occupational asthma, bronchial cancer and
mesothelioma, and connective tissue diseases have been reported and are
suspected to be work related.

Pneumoconiosis is a frequent risk among dental technicians and,
according to Dr Choudat, compensation should be paid to those suffering
from this work-related disease.

Tony Lees, a UK dentist on the Executive of the National Pure Water
Association, was appalled. "I've never read or heard anything like
this - except for  warnings about beryllium many years ago. I've heard
that the average life expectancy for a dentist is only 55 years - now I
think I'm beginning to see why."

All available information about occupational lung diseases and adequate
technical prevention measures should be provided to protect workers in
general. However, the Health and Safety Executive**  publishes no
safety guidelines relating to dentistry and the dental press is
virtually silent regarding the dangers of breathing silica dusts and
similar airborne contaminants which present health risks for dental
professionals.

(** Telephone enquiry to Health and Safety Executive, Leeds, UK on 27
July 2000).

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Could you site the names and places where the studies you mention can be
found?

Tom

Could you please site the names and places where the studies you mention
where done or a copy can be found?

Tom