Feminizing-uranium, fluoride & lithium in US water

I wish there was a site like infowars that was trustworthy.
It be interesting to hear this from anyone else.

well considering that china supplys the us with its flouride
are you surprized they "slipped" something else in ?
what i mean is it "plausable" that this is by accident
china wants less americans to fight against in the future war
and if the ones that are left are cancer ridden and impotent
then its a cake walk

this should be a case of national security to fix the problem
instead its national sexcurity to continue the meds for the sheeps

you trust china with your water?
do you really trust china with your water and your health?

think about it
if china wanted to attack they could spike your water one month in advance
WHY does the us buy it flouride in china?

xploder

Originally posted by SLAYER69



I think people in the US are catching on though...
Bottled water in the United States

The U.S. is the largest consumer market for bottled water in the world, followed by Mexico, China, and Brazil.[3] In 2008, U.S. bottled water sales topped 8.6 billion gallons for 28.9% of the U.S. liquid refreshment beverage market, exceeding sales of all other beverages except carbonated soft drinks, followed by fruit juices and sports drinks

Actually bottled water is nothing other then tap water. So your still getting all those good poisons and mind control stuff.

NRDC conducted a four-year review of the bottled water industry and the safety standards that govern it, including a comparison of national bottled water rules with national tap water rules, and independent testing of over 1,000 bottles of water. Their conclusion is that there is no assurance that just because water comes out of a bottle it is any cleaner or safer than water from the tap.

source

Coca - Cola Admits That Dasani is Nothing But Tap Water

source

reply to post by Whyhi

it's a dental health benefit, that's it.

Not hardly... that is part of the problem -- there was a big health campaign about it a long time ago, and everyone was galvanized... and then nobody cared to look at the long term benefits or the dose amounts.

Brushing your teeth and getting fluoride at the dentist once in a while is just fine.

But fluoride in the water builds up on our pineal gland and is detrimental to fundamental life functions.

Whether its a bona-fide conspiracy, or just another case of gross incompetence and negligence... that is speculation.

Originally posted by RedGolem
Actually bottled water is nothing other then tap water. So your still getting all those good poisons and mind control stuff.

In some cases, yes, but not all. Some bottled water is spring water, or, the type I get, is distilled water.

But thanks for posting that, it's amazing how many people drinking bottled water don't know they are drinking tap water.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Whyhi

 

it's a dental health benefit, that's it.

Not hardly... that is part of the problem -- there was a big health campaign about it a long time ago, and everyone was galvanized... and then nobody cared to look at the long term benefits or the dose amounts.

Brushing your teeth and getting fluoride at the dentist once in a while is just fine.

But fluoride in the water builds up on our pineal gland and is detrimental to fundamental life functions.

Whether its a bona-fide conspiracy, or just another case of gross incompetence and negligence... that is speculation.

Actually there is evidence that fluoride is not even a benefit for your dental health, even some evidence that it actually weakens teeth and there is really no reason for it to be used at all. I think that points to it being a possible conspiracy topic. Why on earth is it promoted so much. I have to specifically tell the dentist not to give my son fluoride, otherwise they will do it automatically. I hate that. My son doesn't use any fluoride products, our municipality does not fluoridate our water, and he has never had a cavity or any dental problems (he is 16). Here's a link that spells out some of the issues with fluoride use. thewomenwarriors.net...

reply to post by Ellie Sagan


Good on you.

I guess it is even more worthless and suspicious than I thought...

Hopefully sometime soon I will be 'briefing' my local city council, or members of it, on this issue. Will have to write up a paper first - there are some good resources for such things.

reply to post by King Loki

No I'm not the one making the claims...

Alright then, you're just playing the messenger. Do you believe what Alex Jones / Jesse Ventura are saying? If so, that would still make my questions addressed to you just as valid.

Anyways, the article has already been discussed / debunked and is just plain misrepresenting the information

Feminizing...

Fertility and birth rates are not mentioned in any of the links in the prisonplanet article.

-uranium, fluoride & lithium in water to be exposed on Ventura TV show

They don't need to be exposed, they've already been discussed and whatnot. It's like saying you're going to "expose" why the earth is round, it's already been covered by people considerably more qualified than Jesse Ventura.

Tonight’s Conspiracy Theory to expose toxins in water...

"Toxins"? Toxicity is measured by effects it will have on an organism, and most importantly, is dose-dependent. Different amounts will produce different results. Water can become "toxic" depending on how much you drink, so can oxygen depending on the concentration etc.

a startling exposé of the dangerous toxins being added to our water by design

Your water supply isn't being irradiated by design, the water suppliers are not being handled effectively.

Source linked from PrisonPlanet.com article

Regulators were informed of each of those violations as they occurred. But regulatory records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or punished by state or federal officials, including those at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has ultimate responsibility for enforcing standards.

In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show.

The E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, this year announced a wide-ranging overhaul of enforcement of the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution into waterways.

“The previous eight years provide a perfect example of what happens when political leadership fails to act to protect our health and the environment,”

However, almost none of those systems were ever punished...The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority.

“But some systems won’t come into compliance unless they are forced to,”...“And sometimes a court order is the only way to get local governments to spend what is needed.”

The majority of drinking water violations since 2004 have occurred at water systems serving fewer than 20,000 residents, where resources and managerial expertise are often in short supply.

I don't have to continue quoting, I think you get the picture and can read further, and it IS being addressed, and most definitely not "by design", it's a failure of enforcement, among others. Also, another portion of another article linked from prisonplanet explains where the radiation is coming from.

While nearly every major city in Texas has no detectable amounts of radiation in their purified water, according to United States Geological Survey officials, the Houston region and surrounding counties are prone to having natural uranium deposits that are near the aquifers that provide well water.

the effects of fluoride, lithium and uranium in drinking water and much more

The effects of all three of these are all documented as already shown by agencies being tasked with regulating such things. He's not giving you a lecture about effects and information, he's sensationalizing and outright lying for an audience, either for money or he actually believes himself, I don't know.

Now, Gov. Ventura’s investigation reveals that foreign companies are stealing water from the Great Lakes, imposing upon one of the American public’s greatest assets

Doesn't give a source, and I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say being are legally purchasing said things. By the way, the great lakes are Canadian too

Already, the scale of schemes to privatize water and make big profit on a clear necessity are astounding

I thought Alex Jones didn't want the government controlling anything? Why does he care about privatizing water supplies? Would he support more effective government regulations of water supplies so they can properly do their jobs?

Moreover, Ventura has uncovered a novel way of siphoning this “blue gold.” Giant floating water bags have been implemented to create huge “water trains” and profiteers are using them to ship America’s fresh water to foreign countries like China

Funny if true, but again, no source.

Now, the right to collect rainwater has been challenged here in the United States as well.

Not in every state, it's hardly enforced, and I doubt anyone will care unless you're capturing massive amounts of rainwater.

Source

Here's what the science says: "just 3% of the rain falling on undeveloped land makes it back into the stream system in a dry year, compared with 15% in a wet year." In other words, if farmers and mega-vegetable gardeners were to store the rain in wet seasons and release it for irrigation in a dry year, the dry ground would soak it up before it got to the ground water; further exacerbating drought conditions.

Source

A ban on rainwater harvesting "makes no sense to people, because rain seems ubiquitous," says Mo McBroom, policy director of the Washington Environmental Council. "They're like, 'Do I have to have an air right to breathe?' " Ms. McBroom responds that one rain barrel won't hurt anyone -- but hundreds of thousands of 5,000-gallon cisterns could threaten the livelihoods of all who depend on the West's mighty rivers.

Could population control through forced mass medication in water be underway?

The article still hasn't mentioned how uranium / lithium / fluoride is effecting birth rates / fertility. Regardless, they are pretty inefficient ways too supposedly control the population, especially considering government agencies have been tasked to regulate water safety and remove said contaminants. Take uranium or fluoride for an example, water is fluoridated at 1 PPM and has negligible effects and uranium isn't even being "added", more importantly, tiny amounts of radiation are a pretty silly way to lower your population, no? Can't the NWO do better?

This form of control was discussed in sitting-White House Science Czar John P. Holdren’s book Ecoscience as far back as 1977.

He really didn't and his quotes are being misrepresented. And my opinion here, but the population level DOES need to be monitored, or at least not be at risk of reproducing faster than our ability to sustain ourselves.

The team learns that male birth rates are dropping all over the world.

Again, this is known, but is still being studied. I don't think his "team" are going to make gigantic leaps in linking the decline to specific causes. Regardless, this isn't evidence of population control any more than the decline being evidence of extremist feminists seeking to destroy the male gender.

Other chemicals including fluoride further raise suspicions about who is controlling what goes into our bodies, and why.

If they haven't figured out why fluoride is added to water supplies, you have some real research to be doing.

Is that why government experts and leading bio-ethicists are advocating adding dose amounts of lithium to municipal water districts?

Links to several large separate article, but the question still stands, if it's beneficial, why would you NOT add it? This of course needs specific examples, and since fluoride has been mentioned, why is adding fluoride a bad thing when it's known to improve dental health?

I am sooo glad I live in the sticks and have a well.
I also dont drink bottled water,. especially in plastic bottles.
I do my best to stay away from the BPA,.

Someone mentioned an increase in low-t commercials,...
BPA, Soy are both testosterone reducers,.
since almost everything people eat today is tainted with soy in some way.
nearly all packaged foods, Canned soups, vegetables and fruits all are at risk of BPA contamination.

Now Uranium?
the only issue I have with believing that is "Infowars"
Not exactly an honorable source.

reply to post by beebs

But fluoride in the water builds up on our pineal gland and is detrimental to fundamental life functions.

Can you provide any literature that supports the theory of fluoridated water at a concentration of 1 PPM is harmful?

PS - How exactly is it detrimental to fundamental life functions?

reply to post by Ellie Sagan

Actually there is evidence that fluoride is not even a benefit for your dental health, even some evidence that it actually weakens teeth and there is really no reason for it to be used at all.

Where is that evidence? I know there is a large, basically overwhelmingly, amount of evidence to the contrary. Hell, it's an Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries

Why on earth is it promoted so much

It strengthens teeth, seems like a basic concept of why it's promoted.

he has never had a cavity or any dental problems

And? I didn't get the H1N1 vaccine and I didn't get sick, this isn't evidence that the vaccine is useless.

Sorry, didn't see your link, but let's go through some of the claims...

Valid basis for growing concern: "Hundreds of papers [have been] published in reputable journals, a ...large bady of evidence of potential hazards."

Indeed, it does have POTENTIAL hazards, as does anything. You can die from drinking too much water. Water fluoridated at 1 PPM is in no way hazardous.

Dental benifit claims questionable: "Reductions in dental caries are just as great in nonfluoridated as in fluoridated areas."

A questionable objection would be to the process that fluoride has on the subjects dental health, not an anecdotal objection which may have other causes.

Unsightly mottling of teeth: "Several studies indicate...that the prevalence of dental fluorisis is rising, particularly at fluoride levels of 1 ppm."

I'd like a specific source for the claim of fluoridated water at 1 ppm is causing fluorosis, and if there any other factors at work there. Regardless, fluorosis only occurs when enamel is forming, which is usually under the age of six.

Early stages of skeletal fluorosis: "Doses as low as 2 to 5 milligrams per day [the amount of two to five liters of one ppm of fluoridated water] can cause the preclinical and early clinical stages." (Page 35.)

I can take a stab in the dark here and guess it's referencing this study which doesn't support that claim.

I'm not going to quote every claim, as they start referencing the Illuminati and such, but I think you get my point here.

Originally posted by WhyhiAnyways, the article has already been discussed / debunked and is just plain misrepresenting the information

LOL wow, um no.

You haven't debunked anything ... if your assuming any of the drivel you have typed here today is debunking then your sadly mistaken and need a course in how to actually debunk something...

You cant just claim you have debunked something ... no one agrees with you, and your wrong. BL try again.

You might wanna go look at the research done by the EPA then come back and try again.

reply to post by King Loki


Care to address any specific portion of my post? Or are you just going to do the "lalalala I can't hear you" response which addresses nothing?

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by King Loki

 

Care to address any specific portion of my post? Or are you just going to do the "lalalala I can't hear you" response which addresses nothing?

I said go look at the EPA research already ... reading is hard right ?, that will address your entire post. I will even hold your hand and baby you to the information you cant be bothered to look for yourself .

And yes when you type I block my ears and say la la la la some one is a lazy troll who only looks at one side of an argument despite highly reputable organizations with mountains of information easily accessible to anyone that isn't a rock and has the ability to move a mouse and use a keyboard.

WHY EPA'S HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION
www.fluoridation.com...

You might wanna get out your "big boy" science kit and try and debunk this now huh ?

Originally posted by RedGolem

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Actually bottled water is nothing other then tap water. So your still getting all those good poisons and mind control stuff.

Actually you misquoted me.

I use a filter.

Well this can actually be a really good thing for future generations of males. If their are 90 females for every 10 males, I really do not see how men could suffer from this at all.

reply to post by King Loki

I said go look at the EPA research already

Yes, I posted in response to nearly every claim in the prisonplanet article and you tell me to "go look at the EPA..." and I'm supposed to know what this means...

that will address your entire post.

It really doesn't.

WHY EPA'S HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

Should be re-worded to why does someone working for EPA referencing studies such as the "Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats." study from way back when which has never been able to be replicated and using basically every silly anti-fluoridation claim oppose fluoridation. Funny that he's only mentioned on anti-fluoridation sites and that the EPA actually disagrees with him. I wonder why...

You might wanna get out your "big boy" science kit and try and debunk this now huh ?

I really don't even need to, the EPA disagrees with your fringe anti-fluoridationist. So now I ask you, why does the EPA disagree with you when you specifically said to check the EPA?

EPA on Fluoride - It has no objections.

CDC statement on review of EPA's standards by the NRC - No objections.

I could go through EVERY claim he makes and link a legitimate study and organization ( Even his own EPA apparently ) that can prove him wrong, why is this?

Originally posted by wiredamerican
Well this can actually be a really good thing for future generations of males. If their are 90 females for every 10 males, I really do not see how men could suffer from this at all.

I see this goofy claim whenever this issue arises but people fail to realise that it not just effects male - female birth rates, it affects male fertility and fetus development. If many of these hormone changing and disrupting chemicals ever persisted that long there would be a majority of males born intersexed, with deformed genitalia, a hermaphrodite, or completely infertile. I know this is not some thing that I would wish on any future generations or great great grandchildren.

Makes you think if tptb are even thinking that they could doom their future kin with these ailments.....sooo dumb they are really dumb, like for real

Wow, interesting.

The funny thing is, since the US started fluordation in 1945ish, the life expectancy of the average American has only increased.

Fluoride is a natural occuring element commonly found in trace amounts in water, food, and soil.

Originally posted by nightbringr
Wow, interesting.

The funny thing is, since the US started fluordation in 1945ish, the life expectancy of the average American has only increased.

Fluoride is a natural occuring element commonly found in trace amounts in water, food, and soil.

edit on 3-12-2010 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

"1945ish" Yeah, quality of living and modern medicine in the U.S. has also skyroketted during those years

The fluoride added to drinking water is not even similar to the kinds found naturally in food and water, come on people at least read into the topic before posting.

I've been looking into getting a reverse osmosis filtration system for some time now.

I'm tired of people telling me drinking fluoride, chlorine, mercury, pharmaceutical waste and hundreds of other lovely 'additives', is normal. Fluoride is poison, it doesn't do anything for dental health. Coupling fluoride toothpaste with fluoridated water actually increases the likelihood of dental fluorosis, which is pitting in the enamel of teeth. It actually damages your teeth and removes enamels which obviously increases your risks to cavities.

Almost everyone in the US has dental fluorosis to some degree. You can see it in everyone's teeth, if you look. Look at your own teeth, and chances are, you'll see "pitting" in the enamel. This is most likely from excessive fluoride.

I'm not even going to get into what fluoride does to the human mind or nervous system. Fact of the matter is, I haven't used fluoride toothpaste in 3 years now, only natural toothpaste. My teeth are great. Next is getting a reverse osmosis system for drinking water. I find it absurd that I would be considered "paranoid" or "misinformed" for wanting to do this, when reverse osmosis is considered the gold-standard for many water treatment plants, and companies who sell beverages. That's fine though. I'll deal with "criticism", and my increased dental health and a sound mind. The naysayers can continue brushing their teeth with fluoride and SLS poisoned toothpaste and drinking their chemical-laden water. Have fun making your children unhealthy with your astounding ignorance.