vendredi 4 février 2011
Codex Alimentarius Loves Toxic Fluoride, Part 1
Codex Alimentarius Loves Toxic Fluoride, Part 1
Brandon Turbeville
Infowars.com
February 4, 2011
In the previous article, I wrote about the global implications of Codex Alimentarius. I discussed in some detail the oppressive standards recommended by BfR, which have largely been included in the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. However, there is one more provision included in the risk assessment process that even many critics of Codex are unaware of. This is the goal to not only treat nutrients as toxins, but treat toxins as nutrients.
At first, this is not readily apparent. A closer look at the risk assessment provided by BfR provides one with a glimmer of what might one day be a completely Orwellian policy toward vitamins, minerals, and toxins.
The fact that researchers have the audacity to claim that vital minerals like Iron should not be consumed in measurements above 0 mg is disturbing enough. However, there is one more substance added to the findings and, more alarmingly, listed as a mineral that should be just as frightening. That substance is the very toxic chemical known as fluoride.[1]
This chemical poison is listed only in the “moderately high-risk” level of risk categories.[2] Yet the reality is that fluoride is a very dangerous chemical with serious risks of harm to both health and the environment. In truth, there are actually two different forms of what is called fluoride – calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride.
Calcium fluoride appears naturally and is confined, for the most part, to underground water sources and, in some instances, seawater. [3] In this form it is relatively benign, but prolonged exposure has been linked to skeletal and dental fluorosis. [4]
However, sodium fluoride, the form of fluoride that is added to most municipal water supplies, food, and drink, is a very dangerous and toxic chemical. It does not occur naturally and is not even one distinct substance. Rather, it is a conglomeration of many different chemicals that is given the name of sodium fluoride and paraded as a health benefit. It is essentially a mix of waste products from the nuclear, aluminum, and fertilizer industries. It is also used for rat poison and pesticides.[5]
The results of having water supplies contaminated with fluoride reads like a laundry list of health problems: cancer, genetic DNA damage, obesity, thyroid disruption, reduced IQ, lethargy, chronic fatigue, inability to focus, Alzheimer’s disease, accelerated aging, sleep disruption, brain disorders, calcification of the pineal gland, etc. Interestingly enough, sodium fluoride also causes dental fluorosis, a yellowing and hardening of the teeth that causes teeth to break and wear down. This is quite ironic considering that the ADA promotes fluoride as an additive that prevents decay and promotes healthy teeth.[6]
The distinction in BfR’s results between calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride is not readily made and, as is so often the case, the devil is in the details. Throughout the published study, all forms of fluoride are constantly referred to simply as “fluoride” with no delineation as to which form is being discussed, except by contextualization and observation.
Occasionally, a specific form will be mentioned but, for the most part, the umbrella term “fluoride” is sufficient for the purpose of these researchers. This is how the toxin comes to be classified as a mineral and henceforth a nutrient.
This is also where the nutrient group methodology comes into play. Sodium fluoride could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to be a mineral or nutrient on its own. However, by using the nutrient group approach, which lumps all forms of the substance tested into one category, it slips under the radar.[7]
Indeed, in the section which discusses the sources of fluoride intake BfR states, “Fluoride is taken up from solid foods, drinking water, mineral water, black tea, fluoride-containing toothpaste, dental care products, fluoridised table salt and, eventually, from fluoride-containing medicinal products.”[8] There is clearly no distinction here between the different forms of fluoride.
For example, the form of fluoride contained in mineral water (unless sodium fluoride was added) is calcium fluoride, while the fluoride contained in toothpaste is sodium fluoride. Yet there is no distinction given between the two. While BfR does admit potential danger in the use of fluoride, by using the nutrient group approach fluoride is still categorized as a nutrient, thus allowing one foot through the door.
BfR is obviously aware of at least some dangers of fluoride, such as dental and skeletal fluorosis, as well as the more serious health problems. The report states, “There are reports of acute fluoride intoxications in people caused by accidents, attempted suicide, or erroneous fluoridation of drinking water. The symptoms are nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, heavy salivation, cardiac arrest, cramps and coma. Severe hypocalcaemias were observed. An amount of 5-10 g fluoride has been calculated as the ‘certainly lethal dose’ = CLD for adults.”[9]
Bad as they are, these conditions are only a few of the adverse effects related to fluoride. It would seem logical then to place very high restrictions on the amounts of fluoride meant for consumption and subsequently a recommendation for zero intake. Yet BfR comes to a startling and self-contradicting conclusion.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
-
Even after discussing the dangers of fluoride throughout the study, as well as the fact that it is present in many drinking water supplies in the world (especially the United States), “medicinal” products, and other sources, the same strict standards of risk assessment and the Global Expectable Average Daily Diet evidently do not apply. If they were, then Americans would probably be in the red in terms of dietary intake of fluoride.
BfR admits, “This leaves no scope for a safe maximum dose of fluoride in food supplements. BfR believes that a maximum dose for fluoride of zero in food supplements is the only safe management option.”[10]
Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)
Yet in its final analysis, it determines that the Recommended Daily Intake be established at 3.8/3.1 (m/f) for adults and 3.2/2.9 (m/f) for children.[11] So while limits are set on the amount of fluoride in food supplements, it is still concluded that individuals need a certain amount of fluoride in their diet and toxic fluoride is still considered a nutrient.
Notes:
[1] “ Use of Vitamins in Foods: Toxicological and nutritional-physiological aspects,”Domke, A., Grosklaus R., Niemann B., Przyrembel H., Richter K., Schimdt E., WeiBenborn B., Worner B., Ziegenhagen R., Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, p. 18-23, 2005.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Fassa, Paul. “How To Detox Fluorides From Your Body,” Natural News, July 13, 2009. P.1 http://www.naturalnews.com/026605_fluoride_fluorides_detox.html Accessed May 24, 2010.
[4] Fassa, Paul. “A Fluoride-Free Pineal Gland is More Important than Ever,” Natural News, June 2, 2009. http://www.naturalnews.com/026364_fluoride_pineal_gland_sodium.html Accessed May 24, 2010.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] In truth, even Calcium Fluoride should not be considered a nutrient as there is not enough evidence to show that is vital, or even positively linked, to human life and health. Fassa, Paul. “How To Detox Fluorides From Your Body,” Natural News, July 13, 2009. P.1 http://www.naturalnews.com/026605_fluoride_fluorides_detox.html
[8] Use of Vitamins in Foods: Toxicological and nutritional-physiological aspects.” Domke, A., Grosklaus R., Niemann B., Przyrembel H., Richter K., Schimdt E., WeiBenborn B., Worner B., Ziegenhagen R., Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, p. 230, 2005
[9] Ibid. p. 234
[10] Ibid p. 235
[11] Ibid p. 23
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom
Fury Builds Over Blackouts Caused By De-Industrialization Of America
Fury Builds Over Blackouts Caused By De-Industrialization Of America
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
February 4, 2011
Fury is building over rolling nationwide blackouts triggered by the Obama administration’s deliberate agenda to block the construction of new coal-fired plants, as local energy companies struggle to meet Americans’ power demands amidst some of the coldest weather seen in decades.
- As we reported yesterday, four hospitals in Texas reacted furiously after they were hit with planned outages despite being promised they would be spared even as power to Super Bowl venues remains uninterrupted.
- Thousands in New Mexico have been left without natural gas as Gov. Susana Martinez on Thursday declared a state of emergency. “Due to statewide natural gas shortages, I have ordered all government agencies that do not provide essential services to shut down and all nonessential employees to stay home” on Friday, Martinez said after meeting with public safety personnel in Albuquerque,” reports the Associated Press.
- Borderland residents have been asked to limit their use of natural gas as the Texas Gas Service asks that larger commercial facilities voluntarily close their doors to save supplies.
- People in Tucson have been asked to limit their use of hot water and moderate their thermostat levels to save on energy.
- Shortages of natural gas in San Diego County has forced utility companies to “cut or reduce the gas supplied to some of their largest commercial and industrial customers,” reports North County Times.
- In El Paso, “Hundreds of thousands of electricity customers continue to face periodic blackouts, and nearly 900 gas customers still have no heat,” reports the El Paso Times, with El Paso Electric resorting to using generators in a struggle to meet demand while still having to implement forced outages.
Coal-fired power plants are used to convert coal to synthetic natural gas. The Obama administration’s efforts to block the construction of new clean-burning coal plants has massively exacerbated this week’s outages.
Mexico has now announced that it will suspend supplying power to southern US states, underscoring how America has been left completely dependent and desperate as a result of the Obama administration’s war on the coal industry.
Cold weather is not the primary culprit behind the power outages that have hit many areas of the country this week. The real blame lies with the Obama administration’s deliberate war against the efforts of local power companies to meet America’s energy needs by building new plants, the vast majority of which have been blocked by judges, governors and the EPA over the last four years at the behest of the Obama administration in the name of preventing global warming.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
-
State authorities in Texas have been engaged in a long-running battle with the EPA as the feds attempt to block the construction of new plants by enforcing adherence to new clean air permit regulations that cripple smaller companies’ ability to afford desperately needed new energy centers and plants. Twelve states are mounting a legal challenge against EPA restrictions that threaten to bankrupt the entire industry.
But it’s not just in Texas where the federal government has embarked on an all out siege against energy independence.
- Back in July 2008, a Superior Court judge in Fulton County blocked the construction of a coal plant in Georgia, citing global warming concerns and the need to limit CO2 emissions.
- In January 2009, the Obama EPA blocked approval for a coal-fired power plant in South Dakota, claiming the state, “didn’t meet requirements under the Clean Air Act in part of its proposed permit for the plant.”
- As Governor of Kansas, Obama’s current Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius slapped a de facto ban on the construction of all new coal-fired plants across the state.
- Last month, Senators in Obama’s home state of Illinois blocked the construction of a clean-burning coal gasification and power generating plant.
- As a result of the EPA’s recent remand of air permits, Shell Oil announced yesterday that it has “dropped plans to drill in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea this year,” ensuring more shortages and higher energy prices for Americans already laboring under soaring food costs.
The federal government’s siege against independent power companies’ efforts to build coal-fired plants is part of the unfolding agenda to de-industrialize the United States even as China and Mexico build new power plants at ever accelerating speeds.
Global warming alarmists have consistently gone on record to openly voice their agenda to de-industrialize the United States in the name of saving the planet.
In his new book, author and environmentalist Keith Farnish called for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to pre-industrial society. Prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen endorsed Farnish’s book.
The global elite resolved to exploit contrived fears about climate change to de-industrialize the United States back in 1991 when the Club of Rome, a powerful globalist NGO committed to limiting growth and ushering in a post-industrial society, said in their report, The First Global Revolution, “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
In 1969, Dr. Richard Day, the National Medical Director of the Rockefeller-sponsored “Planned Parenthood,” asserted that a move towards a “unified global system” would necessitate the sabotage of American industry.
Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)
“Each part of the world will have a specialty and thus become inter-dependent, he said. The US will remain a center for agriculture, high tech, communications, and education but heavy industry would be “transported out,” Day stated.
In 2008 Obama openly stated his plan to bankrupt the coal industry.