November 5, 2012

Do You Still Believe Fluoride Is Good For Our Teeth? Read This!

This topic has become so big in recent years that it probably isn’t necessary to state this, but for those that are new to the subject, here goes!

The fluoride used in dental practices and in our water supply is not a chemical made in a laboratory and approved as a safe drug. To understand fluoride further, we can look at it scientifically; technically the name fluoride is scientifically inaccurate. Fluoride is a naturally occurring compound in nature but is not safe for humans in high dosages.

What must now be understood is when we are speaking about Fluoride from here on in this article, is that we are not just talking about a naturally occurring compound, nor is that compound good for our teeth. We are referring to a chemical mixture that is sold under the name of Fluoride that contains a wide array of chemicals, putting this substance in category four of hazardous materials. This is the highest and most dangerous rating a substance can receive. The substance labeled “Fluoride” that we use in dental practices, toothpaste and water fluoridation is the hazardous waste substances caught in the wet scrubbers of the phosphorus industries.

This extremely toxic, hazardous chemical is illegal to dump and would cost companies a hefty price tag to properly dispose of, instead they are SOLD to cities and towns where they are then dumped into water supplies, legally.

Fluoride in our water and its actual chemical content is like many other shocking revelations that no one believed until it became a known fact that we were all being lied to and fooled for so long. It’s only a matter of time until it becomes common knowledge that the use of fluoride is doing nothing more than poisoning our bodies.

Facts:

Note: If these facts challenge your current beliefs on fluoride, then do research about this to see what resonates most. These facts have become very clear, are well documented and now scientifically proven.

The chemical names of the main substances used in fluoridation practices are hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, often referred to as sodium fluoride.

It is illegal to dump the hazardous fluoride waste products hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride into water streams or rivers, it is even considered an act of terrorism to do so, yet it is legal and accepted as safe practice to add it to many of our water supplies under the guise that it is helping with dental hygiene. This theory of helping with dental hygiene is built off of assumptions.

Roughly 99% of the water pumped through municipalities is not consumed through the mouth; most is used for showering, water crops and washing clothes. Given these facts, most of it ends up in streams, rivers and oceans where this hazardous waste is destroying and contaminating our environment. And what is consumed by us does nothing more than harm our bodies.

24 studies have shown a link between fluoride exposure and the lowering of IQ levels. When you really think about it though, is it all that surprising that brain function is hindered by the consumption of an extremely hazardous waste product?

Fluoride is an unapproved drug being used in a highly illegal mass medication scheme. Adding fluoride to the water supply is said to be voluntary for municipalities but the people never get a vote. The drug has not been approved by any drug agency and no one has been assessed for prescriptions.

Fluoride is so toxic and dangerous that it has the ability to eat through metal and concrete. A fluoride spill requires the use of hazmat suits to clean up.

Photographs of Dental Fluorosis by Dr. Hardy Limeback and Dr. Iain Pretty, et al.

Water fluoridation is nothing more than the dumping of industries hazardous waste into people and our environment to avoid having to pay to dispose of the waste. In fact they make a profit instead.

Drinking fluoridated water has never been scientifically proven to reduce tooth decay.

Research has found that fluoride affects normal endocrine function, causes kidney disease, bone weakness, dental fluorosis, cancer, lowering of IQ, calcification of the pineal gland, arthritis, immune deficiencies, skeletal fluorosis and much more.

Below is a video showing hidden camera images inside a fluoride facility.

What Can We Do?

Stop drinking fluoridated water. Use a filtration system in your home that filters out fluoride. Most filters can also remove chlorine which is another harmful chemical.

Educate your doctors and dentists about where fluoride really comes from; the majority of the time those professionals are not trying to hurt you they just don’t know the truth behind the substance. They are limited to what their education taught them and unfortunately the education system is funded and controlled by the companies who benefit from this.

Spread this information with others and your city politicians to put an end to water fluoridation. Be neutral and open as you talk about this information with them so they will take you seriously; too often anger of the issue makes it seem like it’s not something worth looking into.

Watch and share this documentary about fluoride.

Sources:

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2012/08/04/do-you-still-believe-fluoride-is-good-for-our-teeth-read-this/

https://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/11/toxic-fluoride-contaminates-iceland-volcanic-ash-and-is-killing-animals.aspx

https://www.naturalnews.com/030952_CDC_fluoride.html

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/02/05/is-your-dentist-drilling-for-dollars.aspx

https://www.greenfacts.org/en/fluoride/index.htm

https://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

https://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/water/

https://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/dental-products/

https://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/fluorosis/

https://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/caries/

https://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/sources/

8 Eye Opening Reasons to Not Drink Diet Soda

Written by Joe M, edited by Aaron Jackson

Someone orders a meal of food that is loaded with calories, fat, and salt and right at the end they opt for the diet pop; I always get a kick out of that one. If only they realized they were probably doing more harm with the diet pop than if they stuck with just regular. Obviously the best is to avoid those types of drinks all together! Here are a number of reasons why diet pop/soda is not something you want to be consuming.

1. Neurotoxic

While artificial sweeteners may be a zero calorie alternatives to sugar, they are in no way healthier. Diet sodas may use a variety of artificial sweeteners in place of sugar, such as aspartame, which acts as a neurotoxin.

Also known as NutraSweet, Aspartame originally received FDA approval for use in carbonated beverages in1983, and it still remains the most commonly used sweetener in diet soda. Annually, reactions to aspartame result for a majority of the adverse reaction reports made to the food and drug administration.

Made from L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanyl-methyl-ester, Sspartame is 200 times as sweet as sugar and contains negligible calories. Once in the human body, aspartame breaks down into phenylalanine, aspartic acid, and methanol. Methanol is a wood alcohol poison that, when heated above 86 degrees Fahrenheit (the human body temperature is 98.6 degrees), converts to formaldehyde. Aspartame is also an excitotoxin that builds up in the brain, and can excite brain neurons to the point of cell death.

2: Causes Headaches and Other Symptoms

Another artificial sweetener commonly used in diet sodas, Sucralose, may cause a host of health problems including headaches.

Made from a modified sugar molecule, Sucralose is supposed to pass through the body unabsorbed. Because Sucralose is still relatively new in the market, its long-term effects have not been measured. Some evidence suggests Sucralose may cause migraines, gastrointestinal issues, and thymus gland damage. Sucralose may also intensify sugar cravings, increase appetite, and trigger insulin release.

3: Acidifying

Soda is made up of a number of acidic chemicals. It is one of the most acidic substances humans ingest. The acids in diet soda demineralize the bones and teeth, and can lead to fractures and osteoporosis. Acid in the body also can lead to a number of health conditions such as inflammation and corrosion of body tissue. When your body is overly acidic your skin will not be as beautiful or youthful, it will contribute to aging.

4: Caffeinated

Many diet sodas contain caffeine, which is an artificial stimulant and an addictive substance. Caffeine also excessively taxes the liver and can hamper its ability to cleanse and filter toxins from the body. Additionally, caffeine can trigger stress hormones, which can result in chronic stress and weight gain. Caffeine is also a diuretic, which dehydrates the body. It’s best to avoid caffeine in all its forms, particularly diet soda.

5: Increases Risk of Obesity

Studies show that although diet soda has no caloric value (or not much), it may have an impact on insulin similar to sugar ingestion. This is most likely due to the cephalic phase insulin response in the brain. When you taste the sweeteners in diet soda, your body perceives it as sugar and causes the pancreas to release insulin just as it would if you were consuming actual sugar.

Some studies show that drinking diet soda may increase the incidence of obesity and/or prevent you from losing weight. In fact, researchers at the University of Texas Health Center made some startling findings when testing the link between obesity and diet soda.

Obesity risk increased as followed:

26.5 percent for people drinking up to ½ can of diet soda per day, and 24 percent for regular soda drinkers consuming up to one can per day,
54.5 percent for one to two cans of diet soda per day as opposed to 32.8 percent for those drinking the same amount of regular soda,
57.1 percent for people drinking more than two cans of diet soda per day as opposed to 47.2 percent for people drinking the same amount of regular soda.

In other words, diet soda consumption had a higher correlation with obesity rates than consumption of caloric soda containing sugar or high-fructose corn syrup.

6: Increases Toxic Load

There’s not a lot that’s natural in diet soda. Here are just a few of the ingredients you may find:

Carbonated water
Artificial coloring
Phosphoric acid
Potassium benzoate
Citric acid

Doesn’t sound so delicious and healthy, does it! It sounds nasty, and that is because it is indeed a nasty product. Diet soda places a significant toxic load on your liver and can contribute to toxic sludge in your intestines. You are much better off drinking pure, filtered, non-tap water.

7: Increases Risk of Heart Disease

A study at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine showed that people who drank diet soda daily had a 61 percent increased risk of a cardiovascular event. The study followed more than 2,500 participants for about nine years, during which 559 vascular events occurred. Even accounting for age and other risk factors, the risk with diet soda consumption appeared to be at least 48 percent higher. With that kind of risk, why take a chance on diet soda?

8: May Contribute to Metabolic Syndrome

A study at University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health in 2008 linked diet soda to metabolic syndrome, a cluster of metabolic disorders including obesity, high blood pressure, elevated triglycerides and hormone resistance. According to the study, consuming diet soda increased the risk of developing metabolic syndrome by 34 percent, which was higher than the elevated risk from consuming two other unhealthy types of foods – meat (26 percent increased risk), and fried foods (25 percent increased risk).

So there you have it, another item that if we chose to remove from our diet we would see drastic changes in our overall health. Just the Aspartame reason alone should be enough to remove anything containing Aspartame from our diet.

US Teen Invents Advanced Cancer Test Using Google

Originally posted on bbc.co.uk, August 20, 2012

Fifteen-year-old high school student Jack Andraka likes to kayak and watch the US television show Glee.

And when time permits, he also likes to do advanced research in one of the most respected cancer laboratories in the world.

Jack Andraka has created a pancreatic cancer test that is 168 times faster and considerably cheaper than the gold standard in the field. He has applied for a patent for his test and is now carrying out further research at Johns Hopkins University in the US city of Baltimore.

And he did it by using Google.

The Maryland native, who won $75,000 at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in May for his creation, cites search engines and free online science papers as the tools that allowed him to create the test.

The BBC’s Matt Danzico sat down with the teenager, who said the idea came to him when he was “chilling out in biology class”.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19291258

Johnson & Johnson Owns Up To Deadly Formaldehyde-Containing Products In Wake Of Bacteria Scandal

Originally posted by Jonathan Benson on NaturalNews.com, August 22, 2012

After struggling to maintain its image following a barrage of product recalls and safety scares, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has announced that it plans to reformulate not only its entire line of children’s personal care products, but also many of its adult personal care products, to remove a number of chemicals and chemical byproducts that have been the topic of public concern in recent years.

By 2015, virtually all J&J consumer care products will be free of preservative chemicals that release methylene glycol, the alcohol form of formaldehyde, which has been identified as a cancer-causing agent. J&J also plans to remove preservative chemicals that produce 1,4 dioxane, a chemical also linked to causing cancer.

“There’s a very lively public discussion going on about the safety of ingredients in personal care products, (and) it was really important that we had a voice in that,” said Susan Nettesheim, J&J’s Vice President for Product Stewardship. Though Nettesheim insists that the existing chemicals used in J&J products are safe, she also says her company is trying to respond to the concerns of its customers.

J&J has even created a website dedicated to this transition to new product formulations, many of which will take place even sooner than 2015, at least in products designed for children and babies. The site, entitled Our Safety & Care Commitment, explains how the company will eventually phase out phthalates, triclosan, parabens, fragrances, and many other questionable chemicals from its product lines in years to come.

“We’ve never really seen a major personal care product company take the kind of move that they’re taking with this,” said Kenneth A. Cook, President of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), about J&J’s decision to be an industry leader in this particular area. Cook even expressed a bit of surprise that a company as large as J&J has decided to take on the incredible, and quite costly, task of reformulating even its signature formulas, to which many people have grown accustomed.

In the process of phasing out its questionable ingredients, J&J says it plans to conduct extensive research on potential alternative ingredients to ensure their safety. When all is said and done, only a few J&J products will still contain trace levels of formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane, as well as certain fragrance chemicals. Most J&J products; however, will eventually be free of phthalates, triclosan, parabens, and formaldehyde.

“We want to share our policies and plans in a forum that is designed to help consumers better understand what we do to ensure that the products they choose are as safe as can be,” added Nettesheim.

Sources:

https://www.naturalnews.com/036906_Johnson_&_formaldehyde_bacteria.html

https://www.jnj.com

https://www.nytimes.com

https://www.naturalnews.com/034846_Johnson_&_baby_lotion_bacteria.html

Argentinian Study Finds Roundup Ingredient Causes Birth Defects

Originally posted by Elizabeth Renter on NaturalSociety.com, August 17, 2012

A study out of Buenos Aires has found that glyphosate, an herbicide created by Monsanto, and used on GMO soy in Argentina, could cause birth defects in unborn children. The most interesting thing about this revelation is that the herbicide known as glyphosate in Argentina, is also known to be connected with Roundup in the U.S.

Roundup Ingredient Shown to Cause Birth Defects

According to the Latin American Herald Tribune, researchers with the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research conducted the study on amphibian embryos. The lead researcher says their results are “completely comparable to what would happen in the development of a human embryo.”

“The noteworthy thing is that there are no studies of embryos on the world level and none where glyphosate is injected into embryos,” said professor Andres Carrasco, one of the lead authors of the study.

The amounts shown to cause birth defects were said to be much lower than those levels used in fumigations. However, it’s important to note that the glyphosate was injected directly into the fetuses, not administered via food products, as it would be in humans.

Still, it’s possible, because our food feeds our cells, which in turn would feed an embryo, that digestion of foods containing the chemical would have similar, though perhaps not as dramatic effects. And of course this isn’t the only time glyphosate and Monsanto’s Roundup has been shown to cause birth defects.

GMO soy is Argentina’s leading crop. They are the world’s third largest exporter, and they use between 180 and 200 million liters of glyphosate annually. In agricultural regions, where the spraying of this Monsanto chemical is common, numerous cancers have shown up that are being associated with it.

A district called Ituzaingo, outside of Cordoba, has seen about 300 cancer cases in the last eight years. This district houses only about 5,000 people.

“In communities like Ituzaingo it’s already too late, but we have to have a preventative system, to demand that the companies give us security frameworks and, above all, to have very strict regulations for fumigation, which nobody is adhering to out of ignorance or greed,” said Carrasco.

Carrasco, and others, are calling on the government of Argentina to fund more in-depth research into the effects of glyphosate on humans. He says, “The companies say that drinking a glass of glysophate is healthier than drinking a glass of milk, but the fact is that they’ve used us as guinea pigs.”

Sources:

https://naturalsociety.com/argentinian-roundup-ingredient-causes-birth-defects/#ixzz24qrIcFwU

Laht.com

Major advance in generating electricity from wastewater

Improved microbial fuel cell (credit: Oregon State University)

Engineers at Oregon State University have made a breakthrough in the performance of microbial fuel cells that can produce electricity directly from wastewater, opening the door to a future in which waste treatment plants not only will power themselves, but will sell excess electricity.

The new technology developed at OSU uses new concepts — reduced anode-cathode spacing, evolved microbes and new separator materials — and can produce more than two kilowatts per cubic meter of liquid reactor volume — 10 to 50 more times the electrical per unit volume than most other approaches using microbial fuel cells, and 100 times more electricity than some.

This technology cleans sewage by a very different approach than the aerobic bacteria used in the past. Bacteria oxidize the organic matter and, in the process, produce electrons that run from the anode to the cathode within the fuel cell, creating an electrical current.

Almost any type of organic waste material can be used to produce electricity — not only wastewater, but also grass straw, animal waste, and byproducts from such operations as the wine, beer or dairy industries.

The researchers say this could eventually change the way that wastewater is treated all over the world, replacing the widely used “activated sludge” process that has been in use for almost a century. The new approach would produce significant amounts of electricity while effectively cleaning the wastewater, they suggest.

“If this technology works on a commercial scale the way we believe it will, the treatment of wastewater could be a huge energy producer, not a huge energy cost,” said Hong Liu, an associate professor in the OSU Department of Biological and Ecological Engineering. “This could have an impact around the world, save a great deal of money, provide better water treatment and promote energy sustainability.”

Experts estimate that about 3 percent of the electrical energy consumed in the United States and other developed countries is used to treat wastewater, and a majority of that electricity is produced by fossil fuels.

The system also works better than an alternative approach to creating electricity from wastewater that is based on anaerobic digestion that produces methane. It treats the wastewater more effectively, and doesn’t have any of the environmental drawbacks of that technology, such as production of unwanted hydrogen sulfide or possible release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, the researchers believe.

The OSU system has now been proven at a substantial scale in the laboratory, Liu said, and the next step would be a pilot study. A good candidate, she said, might initially be a food processing plant, which is a contained system that produces a steady supply of certain types of wastewater that would provide significant amounts of electricity.

Once advances are made to reduce high initial costs, researchers estimate that the capital construction costs of this new technology should be comparable to that of the activated sludge systems now in widespread use today — and even less expensive when future sales of excess electricity are factored in.

The approach may also have special value in developing nations, where access to electricity is limited and sewage treatment at remote sites is difficult or impossible as a result.

The ability of microbes to produce electricity has been known for decades, but only recently have technological advances made their production of electricity high enough to be of commercial use. OSU researchers reported several years ago on the promise of this technology, but at that time the systems in use produced far less electrical power. Continued research should also find even more optimal use of necessary microbes, reduced material costs and improved function of the technology at commercial scales, OSU scientists said.