Archives

Carcinogen Chromium-6 in Tap Water of More Than 200 Million Americans

Young boy drinking from glass of water.

By David Andrews, Senior Scientist, and Bill Walker, Managing Editor
Environmental Working Group

Excerpts:

In the film “Erin Brockovich,” the environmental crusader confronts the lawyer of a power company that polluted the tap water of Hinkley, Calif., with a carcinogenic chemical called chromium-6. When the lawyer picks up a glass of water, Brockovich says: “We had that water brought in ‘specially for you folks. Came from a well in Hinkley.”

The lawyer sets down the glass and says, “I think this meeting’s over.”

Erin-Brockovich-Chromium-6

But almost 25 years after that real-life confrontation, the conflict over chromium-6 is not over. A new EWG analysis of federal data from nationwide drinking water tests shows that the compound contaminates water supplies for more than 200 million Americans in all 50 states. Yet federal regulations are stalled by a chemical industry challenge that could mean no national regulation of a chemical state scientists in California and elsewhere say causes cancer when ingested at even extraordinarily low levels.

<!–/*
* The backup image section of this tag has been generated for use on a
* non-SSL page. If this tag is to be placed on an SSL page, change the
* 'http://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
* to
* 'https://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
*
* This noscript section of this tag only shows image banners. There
* is no width or height in these banners, so if you want these tags to
* allocate space for the ad before it shows, you will need to add this
* information to the tag.
*
* If you do not want to deal with the intricities of the noscript
* section, delete the tag (from … to ). On
* average, the noscript tag is called from less than 1% of internet
* users.
*/–>

This entry was posted on September 28, 2016, in health News.

Acetaminophen (Tylenol) Harmful for Babies

baby-questioning-eyes-Tylenol

by Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D.
Health Impact News

What if Tylenol is MORE Dangerous After the Baby’s Born?

An article in the New York Times this week warns that prenatal use of acetaminophen—the main ingredient in Tylenol—has been linked to an increased risk of asthma and attention disorders in children whose mothers took the drug.

Acetaminophen is found in over 600 over-the-counter and prescription medications. Petra Arck, professor of fetal-maternal medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, whose rodent experiments have found that acetaminophen stresses the liver and alters the placenta in pregnant mice, told the Times that because it’s so common pregnant women may be taking more acetaminophen than they are aware.

The damage done by acetaminophen seems to be dose dependent—the more a pregnant woman takes, the more serious the effects in her offspring. But since it’s found in so many products, many marketed for babies and children, what if infants, too, are being exposed to damagingly high levels of acetaminophen?

If acetaminophen can harm the fetus during pregnancy, when the baby has the protection of the mother’s liver, as well as the placenta, what if it’s even more harmful when given directly to infants?

Toys-r-us-tylenol-store-shelf

New science has raised troubling concerns about the safety of acetaminophen, the main ingredient in Tylenol, which is nonetheless marketed for pain and fever relief in infants. This photo was taken at a Toys R Us in North Carolina.

The increasing popularity of acetaminophen to treat fever and pain in small children began in the 1980s after it was discovered that aspirin might cause Reye syndrome, a rare but sometimes fatal disorder that causes seizures, liver swelling, and brain swelling. The concern over Reye syndrome back then seemed to justify halting the use of aspirin. But now there is a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting that we inadvertently replaced aspirin with something more dangerous.

In 2008 a team of researchers from UCSD and San Diego State, headed by Stephen Schultz, Ph.D., conducted a survey that found a 20-fold increase in the risk of brain disorders with use of acetaminophen after vaccination, but not with ibuprofen.

Taken out of context, the Schultz study was not enough to sound an alarm. It relied on participants’ recall and did not include independent verification of the amount of acetaminophen toddlers had been given. Another strike against it was that the study size was small (83 brain damaged children and 80 controls). But when you look at subsequent science that supports Schultz’s results, it becomes harder to understand why the medical community has generally ignored the possible harms of acetaminophen to children.

Indeed, a much larger study, involving more than 205,000 children, also published in 2008 (this time in The Lancet) found use of acetaminophen in the first year of life was associated with inflammatory diseases, including asthma and eczema by age six and seven.

Then in 2010, Schultz and Kevin Becker, Ph.D., who trained at Johns Hopkins in Molecular Biology and Genetics and is currently head of a research unit at the National Institutes of Health, hypothesized that the use of acetaminophen in early childhood “may significantly alter subtle immune processes,” and be a possible cause of both asthma and brain dysfunction.

William Shaw, Ph.D., a clinical chemist who had previously worked for the Centers for Disease Control, provides a detailed explanation of how acetaminophen causes damage: acetaminophen depletes the body’s supply of glutathione. Since glutathione is a molecule essential for clearing toxins, the use of acetaminophen can result in essentially a toxic wash of the brain during development.

Scientists now understand even more: acetaminophen derails something called DNA methylation, which is vital in the developmental biology of most life as we know it, from bacteria to humans. Unless you are a single-celled yeast or a tiny roundworm, two organisms that don’t use DNA methylation to control development, acetaminophen can disrupt an essential biological process, one that you need to have a healthy brain and body.

William Parker, Ph.D., an associate professor at Duke University Medical School, who has co-authored of over a hundred peer-reviewed articles and whose career has been dedicated to studying immune function, argues we need to be even more concerned about acetaminophen use in infants than in pregnant women.

“Based on available evidence, small children taking it may be many times worse off than during pregnancy,” Parker tells me. “But nobody knows because it’s never been tested. That should be very scary. Anyone who’s taken the time to read the literature will say, ‘Whoa, this is not safe.’”

With two additional studies coming out in the last three months, the total number of peer-reviewed studies finding associations between long-term neurological problems in children and exposure to acetaminophen from conception to early childhood stands at nine. Not one study has shown acetaminophen to be safe. Nine seems like quite a bit, but the FDA, the NHS, and many medical doctors still seem to be waiting for something more.

The accumulated science is enough for me to invoke the precautionary principle: the idea that an intervention must be proven safe before it can be assumed not to cause harm. New parents, as much as expectant couples and pregnant moms, need to take note. As a science journalist and a mother of four, I’m throwing the baby Tylenol in the trash.

JenniferLookingSideJennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is a science journalist, Fulbright awardee, and co-author, with Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D., of The Vaccine-Friendly Plan: Dr. Paul’s Safe and Effective Approach to Immunity and Health, From Pregnancy Through Your Child’s Teen Years.

Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., will be speaking, along with Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D., at Pure Life Chiropractic in Eugene, Oregon on October 8 from 3 to 4:30 (this event is free and open to the public), giving a keynote speech at the BirthWorks conference in Mount Laurel, New Jersey (near Philadelphia) on October 15, and touring Chicago and Michigan December 8th through 11th. To find out more visit www.JenniferMargulis.net

 

The-Vaccine-Friendly-Plan

Image from Penguin Random House.

 

<!–/*
* The backup image section of this tag has been generated for use on a
* non-SSL page. If this tag is to be placed on an SSL page, change the
* 'http://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
* to
* 'https://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
*
* This noscript section of this tag only shows image banners. There
* is no width or height in these banners, so if you want these tags to
* allocate space for the ad before it shows, you will need to add this
* information to the tag.
*
* If you do not want to deal with the intricities of the noscript
* section, delete the tag (from … to ). On
* average, the noscript tag is called from less than 1% of internet
* users.
*/–>

This entry was posted on September 28, 2016, in health News.

Food Club Members Fight Back: Sue State for Food Rights

Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund

No More Mr. Nice Guy: Food Club Members Seek to Uphold Food Rights

By David Gumpert
DavidGumpert.com

Excerpts:

For years now, farmers have borne the brunt of government efforts to interfere with food rights and consumer access to the foods of their choice.

That may be about to change, as consumers launch actions to take the burden of government harassment off farmers’ backs.

A case in point, and apparently the first consumer to launch a food rights legal action, is Michigan businessman and herdshare member Mike Lobsinger, who a few months ago sued the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) over its seizure of his cream in a June raid of the farm that fulfills his herdshare agreement.  As reported by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, he argues in his suit that the cream is his private property and that the seizure violates the due process clause of both the Michigan and United States constitutions. A hearing on his case is scheduled next month in state court.

Read the Full Article Here.

<!–/*
* The backup image section of this tag has been generated for use on a
* non-SSL page. If this tag is to be placed on an SSL page, change the
* 'http://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
* to
* 'https://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
*
* This noscript section of this tag only shows image banners. There
* is no width or height in these banners, so if you want these tags to
* allocate space for the ad before it shows, you will need to add this
* information to the tag.
*
* If you do not want to deal with the intricities of the noscript
* section, delete the tag (from … to ). On
* average, the noscript tag is called from less than 1% of internet
* users.
*/–>

This entry was posted on September 27, 2016, in health News.

If Only Half of America is Properly Vaccinated, Where are the Epidemics?

Herd of sheeps in mountains on Georgia, Caucasus

While herd immunity may not exist, herd mentality most definitely does. Health authorities, media commentators, and schools and their parent–teacher associations waste no opportunity in perpetuating this myth.

by Gretchen DuBeau, Esq.
The Vaccine Reaction

Excerpts:

In 2014, an outbreak of whooping cough (pertussis) broke out in the San Diego area. Of the 621 individuals who were infected, nearly all of them were completely up to date on all preventive vaccinations. If vaccines are given to protect from disease, how could this happen?

San Diego public health official Dr. Wilma Wooten argued that the cause was related to a decrease in the protection offered by vaccines after the first year. This answer is most revealing, in that it speaks to the actual efficacy of vaccines. It also shows that the concept of herd immunity is largely myth—and completely misunderstood.

The theory of herd immunity states that when a critical mass of the population (usually stipulated at 95%) is vaccinated against a disease, the possibility of outbreaks is eliminated. This is the main argument that is used to shame parents who wish to refuse certain vaccinations for their children: by not vaccinating, they put the health of the “herd” at risk.

However, if vaccines start losing effectiveness after the first year, as Dr. Wooten says, then constant revaccination would be required, since the immunity offered is only temporary for most vaccines. Achieving the required rate of protection is virtually impossible under this paradigm.

Of course, if we look back over the decades and note the lack of rampant epidemics in our nation, while remembering that vaccine protection is in perpetual decline, the myth of herd immunity quickly unravels. Our society has never achieved this level of herd immunity, yet not a single major outbreak of disease has occurred.

While herd immunity may not exist, herd mentality most definitely does. Health authorities, media commentators, and schools and their parent–teacher associations waste no opportunity in perpetuating this myth. Proponents have done such a thorough job of convincing the public that a parent who questions it is treated like someone who thinks the earth is flat or believes climate change is a conspiracy. On the contrary: an unprejudiced view of the science about vaccines, and an examination of history, clearly show that the herd immunity theory is—and always has been—flawed.

Vaccines may have a place in our medical arsenal, but they are not the silver bullet they’re portrayed to be. Year after year the pharmaceutical industry, looking for lucrative new profit centers, churns out new vaccines. They use pseudo-science to convince the public that these products are safe and effective, and they use public shaming to convince the citizenry that non-compliance is a public health threat. This entire racket completely falls apart with a close examination of the herd immunity myth. Until we are honest in our assessment of both the safety and efficacy of vaccines, kids will continue to be hurt, rights will continue to be trampled, and mythology will continue to trump science.

Read the Full Article at The Vaccine Reaction.

Gretchen DuBeau is the executive director of Alliance for Natural Health USA.

Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com.

rising-from-the-dead

Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people. In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine. FREE Shipping Available! Order here.

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

Medical_Doctors_Opposed_to_Forced_Vaccinations_Should_Their_Views_be_Silence_sm

eBook – Available for immediate download.

One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this eBook, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.

Read:

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

on your mobile device!

$0.99

Kindle Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations - Should Their Views be Silenced? Book icon

<!–/*
* The backup image section of this tag has been generated for use on a
* non-SSL page. If this tag is to be placed on an SSL page, change the
* 'http://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
* to
* 'https://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
*
* This noscript section of this tag only shows image banners. There
* is no width or height in these banners, so if you want these tags to
* allocate space for the ad before it shows, you will need to add this
* information to the tag.
*
* If you do not want to deal with the intricities of the noscript
* section, delete the tag (from … to ). On
* average, the noscript tag is called from less than 1% of internet
* users.
*/–>

Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm

dr_andrew_moulden_every_vaccine_produces_harm

eBook – Available for immediate download.

Canadian physician Dr. Andrew Moulden provided clear scientific evidence to prove that every dose of vaccine given to a child or an adult produces harm. The truth that he uncovered was rejected by the conventional medical system and the pharmaceutical industry. Nevertheless, his warning and his message to America remains as a solid legacy of the man who stood up against big pharma and their program to vaccinate every person on the Earth.

Dr. Moulden died unexpectedly in November of 2013 at age 49.

Because of the strong opposition from big pharma concerning Dr. Moulden’s research, we became concerned that the name of this brilliant researcher and his life’s work had nearly been deleted from the internet. His reputation was being disparaged, and his message of warning and hope was being distorted and buried without a tombstone. This book summarizes his teaching and is a must-read for everyone who wants to learn the “other-side” of the vaccine debate that the mainstream media routinely censors.

Read:

Read Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm on your mobile device!

on your mobile device!

$3.99

Kindle Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm Book icon

<!–/*
* The backup image section of this tag has been generated for use on a
* non-SSL page. If this tag is to be placed on an SSL page, change the
* 'http://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
* to
* 'https://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
*
* This noscript section of this tag only shows image banners. There
* is no width or height in these banners, so if you want these tags to
* allocate space for the ad before it shows, you will need to add this
* information to the tag.
*
* If you do not want to deal with the intricities of the noscript
* section, delete the tag (from … to ). On
* average, the noscript tag is called from less than 1% of internet
* users.
*/–>

This entry was posted on September 27, 2016, in health News.

No Evidence for Fluoridated Water to Result in Less Cavities

Screen Shot 2016-09-23 at 9.53.20 AM

by Dr. Mercola

Two-thirds of Americans drink tap water that has added fluoride. Unlike other chemicals added to water, which are intended to treat the water itself, fluoride is intended to treat the people who drink the water, whether they want the treatment or not.

As the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) puts it, “Fluoridating water supplies can thus fairly be described as a form of mass medication, which is why most European countries have rejected the practice.” [1]

In the U.S., many people assume the fluoride in drinking water is beneficial for their teeth, an assumption that has been widely spread by public health agencies.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has partnered with the American Dental Association (ADA) in saying fluoridation is “nature’s way to prevent tooth decay” [2] — a statement that is both misleading and inaccurate.

The Fluoride in Drinking Water Is Not Natural

The CDC and ADA state that “some communities are lucky enough to have naturally occurring optimal levels of fluoride in their water supplies.” [3]

While it’s true that fluoride is naturally occurring in some areas, leading to high levels in certain water supplies “naturally,” naturally occurring substances are not automatically safe (think of arsenic, for instance).

When people are exposed to high levels of naturally occurring fluoride, severe disease can result. Data from India’s Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry indicate that nearly 49 million people are living in areas where fluoride levels in water are above the permissible levels.

The World Health Organization recommends fluoride levels in drinking water stay between 0.8 and 1.2 milligrams (mg) per liter and do not exceed 1.5 mg per liter.

Exposure to levels above this amount may cause pitting of tooth enamel and fluoride deposits in your bones, while exposure to levels above 10 mg per liter may cause crippling skeletal fluorosis, as well as abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, seizures and muscle spasms.

Further, the fluoride added to drinking water is not the naturally occurring variety or even pharmaceutical grade; it’s a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry. FAN explained: [4]

The main chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are known as ‘silicofluorides’ (i.e., hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate). Silicofluorides are not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride products; they are unprocessed industrial by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Since these silicofluorides undergo no purification procedures, they can contain elevated levels of arsenic — more so than any other water treatment chemical.

In addition, recent research suggests that the addition of silicofluorides to water is a risk factor for elevated lead exposure, particularly among residents who live in homes with old pipes.

Evidence Is Lacking That Fluoridated Water Reduces Cavities

The ADA also claims that water fluoridation reduces decay in children’s teeth by anywhere from 18 percent to 60 percent. This, too, is highly questionable however.

The Cochrane Collaboration, which releases comprehensive reviews regarded as the gold standard in assessing public health policies, found water fluoridation may not prevent cavities. [5]

In a review of every fluoridation study they could find, only three since 1975 looked at the effectiveness of water fluoridation at reducing tooth decay among the general population and had high enough quality to be included.

The studies found fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth. [6]

Further, in the two studies since 1975 that examined the effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing cavities in baby teeth, no significant reduction was noted there either. Study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom, told Newsweek: [7]

From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries [cavity] levels in adults.

While they couldn’t prove that water fluoridation is beneficial, they did find that it causes harm. About 12 percent of those living in fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis that was an “aesthetic concern.”

Dental fluorosis is a condition in which your tooth enamel becomes progressively discolored and mottled, and it’s one of the first signs of over-exposure to fluoride.

Eventually, it can result in badly damaged teeth and, worse, it can also be an indication the rest of your body, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, have been overexposed to fluoride as well. It is not only an aesthetic concern.

Tooth Decay Rampant in Low-Income Children Despite Widespread Fluoridation

African American and Mexican American children have significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis, and many low-income urban communities also have severe oral health crises, despite decades of water fluoridation.

The New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF) reported that rates of tooth decay among low-income children are on the rise even though record numbers of these children are exposed to fluoridated water (as well as fluoride from other sources, including dental products and medications).

Data set to be presented at an American Public Health Association Meeting in November 2016 revealed 40 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds living 100 percent below the federal poverty level have tooth decay, along with 69 percent of 6- to 9-year-olds and 74 percent of 13- to 15-year-olds.

Rates of dental fluorosis also rose among this population, with 58 percent of low-income children affected by this condition. [8] Paul Beeber, NYSCOF president, said in a news release: [9]

Claims that poor children need fluoride are without merit or evidence … It’s the dental care delivery system that needs fixing. Low-income Americans need dental care not fluoride.

Dentist David Kennedy, past-president of the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT), also stated: [10]

By focusing on fluoridation instead of diet and dentist-access, organized dentistry allowed a national dental health crisis to occur on its watch and created a new one — dental fluorosis.

Is Water Fluoridation Linked to Cancer?

Fluoride was first linked to bone cancer in the 1980s, prompting the U.S. Congress to have the National Toxicology Program look into the issue. Their study, which was completed in 1990, also found an association, with higher dosages of fluoride leading to bone cancer in rats. [11]

Although the results were widely downplayed, future studies also found fluoride-cancer connections.

In 2006, a study published in the journal Cancer Causes & Control found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma in boys. [12] As Personal Liberty reported: [13]

A World Health Organization study conducted from 1978 to 1992 showed that Americans living in areas where drinking water was treated with what the Environmental Protection Agency deemed was ‘optimal’ levels [of fluoride] had increased risk of cancer in 23 different areas of the body.

Male children exposed to high levels of fluoride may have a 546 percent increased risk of developing osteosarcoma later in life, according research conducted at Harvard.

This study, combined with the NTP study, combined with the studies that prompted Congress to order the NTP study, all add up to hard evidence that fluoride causes cancer.

Why Are Illegal Fluoride Supplements Still on the Market?

A FAN investigation also highlighted the risk of fluoride supplements. Marketing these “supplements” as cavity preventatives violates federal law because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved them for this purpose.

In January 2016, the FDA also ordered one fluoride supplement manufacturer to stop production because the drugs were not FDA approved to be safe or effective. Fluoride supplements continue to be sold by many other companies, however, and are sold by the largest pharmacies in the U.S.

They even continue to be prescribed to millions of U.S. children, which is outrageous because not only have studies failed to find meaningful cavity prevention from swallowing fluoride but also because of fluoride’s toxic effects, especially on children. For instance, in 2012, a meta-analysis, also by Harvard researchers, clearly showed that children exposed to fluoride in drinking water had lower IQ, by an average of seven points, in areas with raised concentrations. [14]

Giving children fluoride supplements and fluoride dental treatments (which children often swallow) in addition to fluoridated water could increase children’s risk of fluoride’s numerous toxic effects, from low thyroid function and bone fragility to learning and behavioral problems.

Natural Cavity Prevention Starts With Your Diet

Cavities are not caused by a lack of fluoride but rather are often associated with dietary and lifestyle factors. Some of the true primary causes of tooth decay cited in the literature include:

  • Consistent use of refined sugar, sugary soft drinks and processed foods in general
  • Children going to bed with a bottle of sweetened drink in their mouth, or sucking at will from such a bottle during the day
  • Poor dental hygiene and poor access to and utilization of dental health services, usually related to socioeconomic status
  • Mineral deficiencies, like magnesium, which can weaken bones and teeth [15]
  • More than 600 medications promote tooth decay by inhibiting saliva

In order to protect your oral health, the key is your diet and proper dental care: good old brushing and flossing. By avoiding sugars and processed foods, and eating fermented vegetables, you help prevent the proliferation of the bacteria that cause decay while promoting protective varieties.

How to Remove Fluoride From Your Drinking Water

If you live in the U.S. and drink water from a public source, there’s a good chance they are fluoridated. If you don’t know if your water is fluoridated, you can find out by contacting your local water department. If you live in the U.S., you can also find out by going to FAN’s State Fluoride Database. One way of avoiding the fluoride from tap water is to purchase a water filter. Not all water filters, however, remove fluoride.

The three types of filters that can remove fluoride are reverse osmosis, deionizers (which use ion-exchange resins), and activated alumina. Each of these filters should be able to remove about 90 percent of the fluoride. By contrast, “activated carbon” filters do not remove fluoride.

If you’re concerned that you’ve been exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride, the mineral selenium may be helpful. Research suggests it has protective effects against fluoride toxicity and may even serve as an antidote agent against fluorosis. [16] Excessive levels of selenium may do more harm than good, however, so use this strategy under the guidance of a holistic health care professional.

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network and visit the links below:

Read the full article at Mercola.com.

Sources and References 

<!–/*
* The backup image section of this tag has been generated for use on a
* non-SSL page. If this tag is to be placed on an SSL page, change the
* 'http://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
* to
* 'https://healthimpactnews.com/openx/www/delivery/…'
*
* This noscript section of this tag only shows image banners. There
* is no width or height in these banners, so if you want these tags to
* allocate space for the ad before it shows, you will need to add this
* information to the tag.
*
* If you do not want to deal with the intricities of the noscript
* section, delete the tag (from … to ). On
* average, the noscript tag is called from less than 1% of internet
* users.
*/–>

This entry was posted on September 23, 2016, in health News.