Maybe Terral was right?

[DiveCon]

Why EPA's Headquarters Professionals' Union Opposes Fluoridation

National Treasury Employees Union - Chapter 280
May 1, 1999

Why EPA's Headquarters Professionals' Union Opposes Fluoridation

by Dr. J. William Hirzy
Senior Vice President, NTEU Chapter 280

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. For a history of how drinking water fluoridation began, see "Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb", by investigative reporters Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson.

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it. We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail (1).

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers (2) showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers (3) gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

Why EPA's Headquarters Professionals' Union Opposes Fluoridation


ya you rinse away buddy...then go get yer shot..

WOW
they oppose fluoridation of DRINKING Water
not the use of a rinse
you just don't read what you post, EVER

 

[DiveCon]

not true killing is serious bussiness and the whole sale slaughter of a third of the population might raise a few eyebrows it's not like i am the DC madame...

it wouldnt take killing a third of the population when you only number in the less than 5% range


and "we'd" only have to take out a few of the ring leaders
like "9/11 inside job" would be a waste since all he does is follow you guys around and applaud you
LOL

no you cut off one head.. two grow back..

LOL dream on
but the reason this hasnt happened

there is no "they"

 

[eots]

returning vets and Ron Paul supporters are on terror watch list and there is no they...LOL

 

[eots]

why epa's headquarters professionals' union opposes fluoridation

national treasury employees union - chapter 280
may 1, 1999

why epa's headquarters professionals' union opposes fluoridation

by dr. J. William hirzy
senior vice president, nteu chapter 280

the following documents why our union, formerly national federation of federal employees local 2050 and since april 1998 chapter 280 of the national treasury employees union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at epa headquarters here in washington, d.c.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. For a history of how drinking water fluoridation began, see "fluoride, teeth and the atomic bomb", by investigative reporters joel griffiths and chris bryson.

Then, as epa was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: He said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that epa thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was ok, epa said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this epa position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, epa knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, epa didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it. We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but epa was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against epa by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail (1).

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

In 1995, mullenix and co-workers (2) showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, guan and co-workers (3) gave doses similar to those used by the mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

why epa's headquarters professionals' union opposes fluoridation


ya you rinse away buddy...then go get yer shot..

wow
they oppose fluoridation of drinking water
not the use of a rinse
you just don't read what you post, ever

if you cant drink it I'm not interested in rinsing with it either but you claimed to only oppose it because of cost...moron

 

[DiveCon]

why epa's headquarters professionals' union opposes fluoridation

national treasury employees union - chapter 280
may 1, 1999

why epa's headquarters professionals' union opposes fluoridation

by dr. J. William hirzy
senior vice president, nteu chapter 280

the following documents why our union, formerly national federation of federal employees local 2050 and since april 1998 chapter 280 of the national treasury employees union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at epa headquarters here in washington, d.c.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. For a history of how drinking water fluoridation began, see "fluoride, teeth and the atomic bomb", by investigative reporters joel griffiths and chris bryson.

Then, as epa was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: He said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that epa thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was ok, epa said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this epa position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, epa knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, epa didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it. We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but epa was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against epa by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail (1).

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

In 1995, mullenix and co-workers (2) showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, guan and co-workers (3) gave doses similar to those used by the mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

why epa's headquarters professionals' union opposes fluoridation


ya you rinse away buddy...then go get yer shot..

wow
they oppose fluoridation of drinking water
not the use of a rinse
you just don't read what you post, ever

if you cant drink it I'm not interested in rinsing with it either but you claimed to only oppose it because of cost...moron

you are the moron that refuted my post with something totally UNRELATED

you are the moron

 

[eots]

wow
they oppose fluoridation of drinking water
not the use of a rinse
you just don't read what you post, ever

if you cant drink it I'm not interested in rinsing with it either but you claimed to only oppose it because of cost...moron

you are the moron that refuted my post with something totally UNRELATED

you are the moron

An article opposing fluoridation is unrelated to your question if i oppose fluoridation..how so moron

 

[DiveCon]

if you cant drink it I'm not interested in rinsing with it either but you claimed to only oppose it because of cost...moron

you are the moron that refuted my post with something totally UNRELATED

you are the moron

An article opposing fluoridation is unrelated to your question if i oppose fluoridation..how so moron

wow, you really are stupid

 

[eots]

ya in a sense that's what you people in your denial are like...but instead of kool aid you are lining up for your vaccination

I suppose you feel the same way about polio.

i bet thats also why he opposes fluoridation also

stupid...not relative to you my little retarded friend

 

[DiveCon]

i bet thats also why he opposes fluoridation also

stupid...not relative to you my little retarded friend

you are stupid WAY beyond me since I'm not stupid enough to believe the bullshit you do

 

[eots]

stupid...not relative to you my little retarded friend

you are stupid WAY beyond me since I'm not stupid enough to believe the bullshit you do

blah.. blah.. blah.. huh.?..lol...MoRoN...

 

[DiveCon]

stupid...not relative to you my little retarded friend

you are stupid WAY beyond me since I'm not stupid enough to believe the bullshit you do

blah.. blah.. blah.. huh.?..lol...MoRoN...

wow

 

[Terral]

Hi David:

Maybe Terral Was Right?

Swine flu could kill millions | World news | The Observer

Terral and Dr. Bill Deagle (Nutrimedical Report) and Dr. True Ott (Rense Radio Network) and Dr. Carley (drcarley.com) and many other people (LabVirus.com) are right about the Swine11 Lab-Created Bio-Terror Weapon that has been unleashed on the Global Population. However, your news story is part of the Rothschild/Rockefeller Eugenics/Depopulation Campaign (story) trying to scare people into taking their Bio-Weapon Vaccines! I posted this video from Dr. Lenard Horowitz (website) very early on my Topic . . .

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBeKB7aKzOs"]Many Of You Are Waking Up MUCH Too Late[/ame]

. . . but you guys still have no clue . . .

The H1N1/H5N1 Triple Recombinant Biological Weapon is only the Herald/Carrier Wave that gives people mild symptoms and no symptoms at all in a vast majority of the population. The mutagen to cause the 'Second Wave' . . . IS . . . IN . . . THE . . . VACCINE!!! All of this 'Take The H1N1 Vaccine' Propaganda is aimed AT YOU and making YOU more likely to stand in line at Walmart for your jab, which will make YOU a walking test tube where the virus will transform into a Genocidal MONSTER.

If you are not following the updates on my H1N1 Biological Weapon Topic (here), then YOU have little or no idea about what is really going on . . .

GL,

Terral