http://bullcitybulletin.com/2014/09/15/does-the-epa-actually-protect-human-health/

9/15/2014 10:06:12 AM

i like how you cited a NRC study that confirmed the CDC's assessment that community water fluoridation is safe and effective for preventing tooth decay

From the link that you cited:

Quote :

"The findings of the NRC report are consistent with CDC's assessment that water is safe and healthy at the levels used for water fluoridation (0.7–1.2 mg/L). CDC reviews the latest scientific literature on an ongoing basis and maintains an active national community water fluoridation quality assurance program. CDC promotes research on the topic of fluoride and its effect on the public's health. CDC's recommendation remains the same—that community water fluoridation is safe and effective for preventing tooth decay. Water fluoridation should be continued in communities currently fluoridating and extended to those without fluoridation."

9/15/2014 10:22:20 AM

9/15/2014 10:27:32 AM

Dtownral you still do a good job demonstrating what an intellectual cretin & paid internet troll you are. Congrats. You should try actually reading the report which is over 400 pages. Or you can see this summation by same source Bill Hirzy.

PRESS RELEASE ON NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT ON FLUORIDE

Bill Hirzy, Vice President, NTEU CHAPTER 280

MARCH 23, 2006

The National Research Council’s (NRC) report, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards,” was released yesterday, and it was a vindication of this union’s expressed concerns about fluoride toxicity dating back to 1986. Link to NRC Statement

When EPA first issued its primary drinking water standards for fluoride in 1986, the union, which then was Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, told the public that the standards were not protective of public health. That is exactly what the NRC Committee of independent scientists said yesterday in its 450 page report. The Committee recommended that EPA lower its standards from 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter (mg/L) to an unspecified lower level.

EPA sets two primary drinking water standards for each regulated pollutant: a non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), based solely on toxicity concerns to protect against any known or anticipated adverse effect on health; and an enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level, set by law as close to the MCLG as feasible. Both EPA standards for fluoride are currently 4 mg/L.

The report calls severe dental fluorosis, which occurs in a significant fraction of people drinking water at 4 mg/L, an adverse health effect, something the union has been saying for twenty years. In contrast, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control, while pushing to increase the public’s exposure to fluoride through nation-wide fluoridation of drinking water supplies, have always referred to the condition as a “cosmetic” effect. The NRC now joins our union in putting the lie to this propaganda ploy by those whose devotion to an out-dated and dangerous policy overrode their obligations to protect public health.

The union got involved in this fight in 1986 as a matter of scientific integrity and to protect the right of EPA employees to live up to their Civil Service oath, which binds them to defend the Constitution. The union believes that in violating the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986 by failing to set the MCLG at a level to protect against the adverse health effect of severe dental fluorosis, EPA management perpetrated an assault on the Constitution.

The NRC Committee also found that it was likely that there is an increase in bone fractures and increased risk of Stage II skeletal fluorosis among people drinking water at the 4 mg/L level. Again, our union has been saying this for years as its representatives have traveled around the United States helping citizens fight off efforts of the ADA and the CDC to add more fluoride to their water supplies and diets.

Furthermore, the Committee expressed concerns similar to those of the union over adverse effects on the brain and central nervous system, as well as endocrine disruption, including effects on thyroid function. The Committee report also cautions against assumptions - put forward by proponents of fluoridation – that there is no evidence that fluoride can cause cancer.

Link to NRC Report

CONTACT: J. William Hirzy, Vice-President 202-885-1780 email: whirzy@american.edu

9/15/2014 1:32:04 PM

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm#four

Quote :

"EPA management perpetrated an assault on the Constitution."

LOL

Also:
Cuyahoga-River-Fire-of-1969

9/15/2014 1:57:02 PM

^^ the report is in regards to water sources with high naturally occurring fluoride, and not about fluoridation of municipal water. the report, in the link that you posted, explicitly states that fluoridation of drinking water is safe. the quote i posted above was directly from the link.

thegoldenrul actually supports fluoridation of municipal water

i'm not sure what this means in regards to his status as a lizard person. lizard people hate fluoride because it iritates their lizard skin, but in this thread he is publicly in support of fluoridation of municipal drinking water.

is this thread a false flag post?

9/15/2014 2:02:28 PM

How many times do you need to be told that you have a flouride thread elsewhere to post in? Go knock yourself out. However asinine, I'm not opposed to the discussion. Well, maybe I am, because somewhere, a brain cell dues with your every keystroke, but ideologically I'm not going to disallow the conversation, for a couple of reasons.

If you post this silly bullshit in here one more time, though, I will suspend your username permanently. Keep it in your original flouride thread.

9/15/2014 5:36:03 PM