Natural News comes out with a load of heavy metal rubbish on fluoride

Heavy-MetalsFRAUD

The web site “Natural News” is a prime source of information for alternative and “natural” health enthusiasts. It promotes a lot of misinformation on fluoridation and is often cited by anti-fluoridation propagandists. So – no surprise to see a recent campaign in social media promoting a Natural News article Natural News exclusive: Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies found contaminated with lead, tungsten, strontium, aluminum and uranium.

The article was dutifully tweeted ad nauseum and of course local anti-fluoride campaigners also dutifully and uncritically promoted it. But no-one actually looked at the data in the article to see if it was in any way meaningful or supported the claims of contamination being made. In fact, it is just another example of the sort of misrepresentation I referred to in the article Fluoridation: emotionally misrepresenting contamination. That is, people getting hysterical about contamination  data which actually show very low levels of contaminants.  Getting hysterical about numbers just because they are numbers without any understanding of what they mean.

Lead researcher – the Health Ranger

Mike Adams, who calls himself the Health Ranger, wrote the article which pretends to be a scientific investigation of contaminants in 6 samples of sodium fluoride obtained from Chinese sources. He reports the maximum and average values of a number of contaminants. Of course he uses parts per billion (ppb) because that gives him larger numbers by a factor of 1000 than the usually used parts per million (ppm). I will convert his values for readers and compare them with values found in Australia and New Zealand for contaminants in fluorosilicic acid, the most commonly used fluoridation chemical (actually fluorosilicic acid is also the most commonly used fluoridation chemical in the USA – so its strange that the “Health Ranger’ didn’t analyse that).

The table below compares “the Health Ranger’s” analytical values with those for fluorosilicic acid reported in my article  Fluoridation: emotionally misrepresenting contamination. Also included are the regulated maximum values for these two fluoridation chemicals. I have included only values for arsenic and lead as these are the only ones of “the Health Ranger’s” list included in New Zealand regulations (see NZ Water and Wastes Association Standard for “Water Treatment Grade” fluoride, 1997).

Arsenic (ppm) Lead (ppm)
Fluorosilicic acid
Regulated maximum 132 132
Range certificates 1.1 – 4.3 <0.001 – <5
Sodium Fluoride – Mike Adams
Regulated maximum 366 366
Maximum – NN 0.14 1.0
Average – NN 0.07 0.3

So, “the Health Ranger” produces hysterical headlines for fluoridation chemicals using figures showing extremely low levels of contamination! They are even low in comparison with the fluoridation chemicals used in New Zealand and they are certainly very much lower than the local regulated maxima. And don’t forget that these concentrated chemicals are diluted millions of times over when added to drinking water.

Yes, I know, there are some people who think any measured value is too much. But put this into context. Even the most pristine water or food will contain (very low) levels of contaminants if we use an analytical method that is extremely sensitive. That is why we should check claims of contamination by comparison with “uncontaminated” material and regulated maximum values. We must put the numbers into context.

Contamination from source water – not treatment chemicals

To put the situation of fluoridation chemicals into further context contribution of contaminants to drinking water from other sources should be considered. In Fluoridation: putting chemical contamination in context I compared the amounts of arsenic contributed from fluoridation chemicals to local drinking water (Hamilton City in the Waikato) to the arsenic already present in the source water from the Waikato River. The figure below shows any contribution from the fluoridation chemicals used is miniscule compared with the natural levels already in the water.

I won’t comment on the other heavy metals “the Health Ranger,” (who describes himself as the “lead researcher” in this pathetic study) mentions as they are not covered by local regulations. However, the certificates of analysis for fluorosilicic acid included in my article Fluoridation: emotionally misrepresenting contamination all reported Uranium at levels  < 2 ppm. “The Health Ranger” reported a maximum of 1.4 ppm and average of 0.2 ppm.  Not so impressive in ppm – you can see why he prefers ppb.

Similarly he makes a song and dance about titanium – despite the fact that he detected it in only 2 of his 6 samples and at concentrations apparently too low to enable “quantitative analysis.”

Conclusion

Cleary another scare-mongering article from Natural news. It is accepted uncritically by anti-fluoride activists and heavily promoted by their propagandists. But it is worthless – some would say fraudulent.

This sort of fraud going on in the “natural” health movement needs to be widely exposed. The ordinary reader has no way of evaluating these claims or the numbers involved. However exposure of these sort of fraudulent articles will help readers  be wary about future claims from these sources.

Similar articles

 

 

About these ads

27 responses to “Natural News comes out with a load of heavy metal rubbish on fluoride

  1. You can try all you like to counter claims of contamination but from a purely commonsense point of view it makes absolutely no sense at all to take the washings from the phosphate fertiliser chimneys (where the system was installed to stop highly toxic gasses from contaminating the air and surrounding countryside ) and then pour it into any water supply for any reason: and certainly not on the fraudulent health claims for fluoridation . . . try again Ken . . . you’ve got a long way to go before you make any sense at all . . . :}

    Like

  2. Chemistry is not your s trong point, is in greenbuzzer?

    Mind you, neither is ethics – you seem to support the fraudulent material form Natural News and Declan Waugh.

    Like

  3. When corrected for dilution, as would be water from the tap, here are some unofficial estimates as to what would be the actual concentrations of the contaminants the “health ranger” misrepresented:

    MAX aluminum: 283,218 ppb / 1,105,000 = 0.25 ppb
    MAX arsenic: 137 ppb /1,105,000 = 0.0001 ppb
    MAX strontium: 9417 ppb /1,105,000 = 0.0085 ppb
    MAX lead: 988 ppb/1,105,000 = 0.0009 ppb
    MAX uranium: 1415 ppb/1,105,000 = 0.001 ppb

    Contrary to antifluoridationist claims that 0.00 is the only acceptable level of arsenic, there is strong evidence that arsenic at this level is a required nutrient for humans.

    “Definition of specific biochemical functions in higher animals (including humans) for the ultratrace elements boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic still has not been achieved although all of these elements have been described as being essential nutrients. Recently, many new findings from studies using molecular biology techniques, sophisticated equipment, unusual organisms, and newly defined enzymes have revealed possible sites of essential action for these five elements. Based on these findings and the response of animals and/or humans to low intakes of these elements, the following speculations have been presented: 1) Boron has a role that affects cell membrane characteristics and transmembrane signaling. 2) Silicon is necessary for the association between cells and one or more macromolecules such as osteonectin, which affects cartilage composition and ultimately cartilage calcification. 3) Vanadium reacts with hydrogen peroxide to form a pervanadate that is required to catalyze the oxidation of halide ions and/or stimulate the phosphorylation of receptor proteins. 4) Nickel is needed for the CO2-fixation to propionyl-CoA to form D-methylmalonyl-CoA. 5) Arsenic has an important role in the conversion of methionine to its metabolites taurine, labile methyl, and the polyamines. If any of these speculations are found to be true, the element involved will be firmly established as having a nutritional requirement because the body obviously cannot synthesize it. Based on animal findings, the dietary requirement is likely to be small; that is, expressed in micrograms per day.”

    —-Nutritional requirements for boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic: current knowledge and speculation.

    Nielsen FH.
    Journal
    FASEB J. 1991 Sep;5(12):2661-7.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  4. You can publish all you want on your Pro F position, but I’ll never change my beliefs……AND IT SHOULD NOT BE FORCED ON PEOPLE THRU OUR PUBLIC WATERS.

    Like

  5. Greenbuzzer, do you even understand that the only substances ingested as a result of fluoridation are fluoride ions identical to those which, in all likelihood, you have been ingesting your entire life, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts that fall so far below maximum mandated levels of safety that it is not even a certainty that those detected aren’t the ones already in the water “naturally”?

    What is it with antifluoridationists that they so readily accept hogwash from “fluoridealert” as being the gospel truth, while refusing to exert the minimal amount of effort that it takes to obtain information which is actually accurate?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  6. No, Joy, I realise that the ethics doesn’t worry you. You are happy to accept fraudulent articles like this and will go to your grave protecting your erroneous beliefs.

    But not with facts.

    Like

  7. Joy, it is highly doubtful that anyone posts comments under the illusion that it will change the mind of you or any other uninformed antifluoridationist, nor probably does anyone care. I know that changing your mind is not even in my train of thought when I post. My purpose is to simply correct the massive amount of ridiculous misinformation posted by uninformed abtifluorifationists, which certainly includes you, such that any intelligent readers of the comments will not mistake antifluoridatinist junk as having any semblance if truth or accuracy.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Liked by 1 person

  8. joy the big problem with the anti fluoridist is no one is forcing anything on anybody, you have choices, if you choose not to follow them, that is your problem not mine. If the people decide to have fluoridated water, if you do not want it get your water from another source.
    The only thing that is not fair, is the way you threaten councils that do not follow the antifluoridist line, then make a big thing about ‘winning’ when it is straight out blackmail

    Like

  9. Great article! I’ve seen constant abuse of people’s ignorance of statistics by websites such as natural news. I don’t understand why supposed “propagators of truth” need to employ such deceptive tactics; on second thought it might be because they don’t have the actual facts or truth to support their claims… Once again great article and I commend you on your effort!

    PS: “Joy” I certainly hope you are being sarcastic. To state that nothing will ever change your mind about any subject is quite possibly the definition of ignorance.

    Like

  10. Pingback: Natural News comes out with a load of heavy metal rubbish on flouride | Illuminutti

  11. And this is from an activist who in part of a group that is supported by the natural health movement
    In the USA Fluoride is controlled by government guideline as to purity and quality, Not like the natural health products that have no such regulation. And is not independently tested or controlled by anyone except the people making it , so any nasty can be included and no one would know’ that’s great for your kids
    And that being the case what do you think is the safest, and it not the natural health products they promote

    Liked by 1 person

  12. designafuture

    I am not a chemist but logic tells me that when a bottle of fluoride tablets labelled as a pharmacy medicine carries a warning that the contents should not be used during pregnancy or given to kids under 3 years of age then there must be some adverse impact if the warning is disregarded.
    Logic also leads me to ask why that warning applies to fluoride tablets but not to fluoride added to community drinking water, which is obviously ingested unrestricted during pregnancy and by under 3 year olds.
    Obviously if fluoride is just fluoride then both scenarios cannot be right.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. I am not a chemist but logic tells me that when a bottle of chlorine carries a warning that the contents should not be consumed during pregnancy or ingested by people of of age then there must be some adverse impact if the warning is disregarded.
    Logic also leads me to ask why that warning applies to chlorine in bleach but not to chorine added to community drinking water, which is obviously ingested unrestricted during pregnancy and by everybody.
    Obviously if chlorine is just chlorine both scenarios cannot be right.

    Way too easy.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Design, I am looking at a label for chewable sodium fluoride tablets at the moment and don’t see any warning of the sort you describe.

    In fact, the information on use for these tablets says:

    INDICATIONS AND USAGE:

    ReNaf Fluoride Chewable Tablets 1.0 mg, 0.5 mg, 0.25 mg are to be used as a dental caries preventive in children. Ingestion of fluoridated drinking water (1 ppm F-) during the period of tooth development results in a significant decrease in the incidence of dental caries. ReNaf Fluoride Chewable Tablets were developed to provide systemic fluoride for use as a once daily supplement in children from 6 months to age 3 years and older living in areas where the drinking water fluoride content does not exceed 0.6 ppm F-.

    This conflicts with what you claim.

    Could you pleae attach an image of the label you refer to in your next comment?

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Design

    Obviously you are simply posting nonsense you’ve gleaned off of an antifluoridationist website.

    In the US, fluoride supplements require a prescription. The reason for this is to ensure that people don’t just purchase and use them without verifying the fluoride content of their primary drinking water source first. Most water, fluoridated or not, contains a certain amount of fluoride. If this level was not first verified, then there would be no way to calculate exposure to fluoride from all sources, thus no way to determine the proper amount of supplement needed for decay prevention or whether it is even needed at all.

    Water is never ingested “unrestricted”. It is restricted by water toxicity to the human body. If too much water is ingested, then death can, and has, occurred. The range of safety between the minuscule amount of fluoride in fluoridated water, and the daily upper limit of fluoride ingestion before adverse effects, is so broad that before this upper limit is attained, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

    And, yes, a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless whether the source compound is NaF, CaF, HFA, or any other. Elementary chemistry.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  16. designafuture

    Ken – the tablets I referred to were purchased from a Hamilton chemist shop last month and are marketed by PSM Healthcare T/a HMG in Auckland. I spoke to two senior people in that company and while they quoted commercial sensitivity to many of my questions they did confirm the tablets were licenced as a medicine. They also informed me the labelling was in the process of being changed in regard to the dosage but wouldn’t provide details. I have tried to post an image of the label but it won’t attach?
    The label reads:
    Pharmacy Medicine 100 Tablets.
    Each tablet contains: 1.1 mg Sodium Fluoride.
    Dosage: 3-5 years 1/2 tab a day
    6-8 years 1 tab a day – 9 years and over 2 tabs a day.
    Tablets should either be chewed or dissolved in drinking liquid.
    For use as a fluoride supplement -Use only as directed – Do not use in areas with more than 0.3ppm of fluoride in the domestic water supply
    Do not use in children under 3 years of age.
    Do not use during pregnancy.
    Batch #23604 Expiry 07 16
    The ReNaf Chewable tablets you refer to come with a disclaimer:
    This drug has not been found by FDA to be safe and effective and the labelling has not been approved by FDA.
    The tablets carry a warning to keep out of reach of infants and children – do not eat or drink dairy products within one hour of fluoride administration. Using along with dairy foods is not recommended and potential adverse reproductive effects in humans has not been adequately evaluated.
    Caution should be exercised when administered to nursing women.
    Not indicated for use in geriatric patients (That’s us out Ken)
    And I expect an apology from Steven D. Slott, DDS for his ignorant remark “Obviously you are simply posting nonsense you’ve gleaned off of an antifluoridationist website”.
    All the above “nonsense” is sourced from the manufacturers of the products mentioned and if they are misleading people then they obviously need to be stopped or perhaps zealots like Steve and Richard should accept that their minds are not as open as they should be.
    Steve: “Most water, fluoridated or not, contains a certain amount of fluoride. If this level was not first verified, then there would be no way to calculate exposure to fluoride from all sources, thus no way to determine the proper amount of supplement needed for decay prevention or whether it is even needed at all”.
    In Hamilton there is no verification of individual fluoride ingestion from all sources and therefore the health authorities have absolutely no way of knowing what proper amount is needed by those individuals to treat or prevent decay. That means our water is being fluoridated on the basis of ‘one size fits all’ and their is no process in place to identify what individuals need or indeed if they need it.
    Surely that is a situation that should cause concern?

    Like

  17. My label.

    Why not upload your image (or send it to me and I will include it in one of your comments).

    Obviously it comes in different doses depending on the child’s age – the higher amounts will not be advised for younger children.

    As they are meant for their systemic effect they of course are not advised for adults – pregnant, geriatric or not. The systemic effect only works for young children. (Personally, during the local period of enforced deprivation in Hamilotn I opted for daily fluoride rinses as being a more rationjal way of protecting existing teeth).

    Of course tablets are marketed as a medicine – and all the warnings and cautions are automatic. It is idiotic to think they apply to fluoride in water at normal optimum concentrations. Just imagine trying to put such a label on your tap. :-) Or on your salt shaker (in the case of Iodine).

    The other thing about tablets is the possibility of taking a excessive dose of them – that goes for any tablet. Of course regulations require warning and caution for child access – but it is impossible to get an excessive dose of F from your tap.

    The fact is that dietitians and diet researchers do estimate intake of all sorts of elements. This means that recommended levels of suchg elleemnts added to salt or water (or milk) take into account the intake from other sources. A beneficial element like F does nto have such a narrow recommended dose that any more differentiation is required. In fact there would be very few things that would require the sort of “verification of individual ingestion” you are demanding for fluoride. Just imagtine the necessity of being individually monitored for Ca, I, Mg, Se, etc., etc. Don’t be silly.

    Except in the case of children where excessive amounts could be ingested when tablets are used uneccesarily because of sufficiently high levels in water. When this happens there is an elevated risk of very mild dental fluorosis. Hence the warning about checking water levels of F before deciding on use of F tablets.

    Our water is not being fluoridated on the basis of “one size fits all” – water consumption is not like shoes or shirts. Neither is your milk or salt being offered as “one size fits all.”

    If you are concerned about F, then don’t forget about the rest of the periodic table.

    You are welcome to take such a silly fanatical approach but don’t impose your fanaticism on others.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. So they are stamped not cetified by the FDA. so basically they have no independant testing for contaminates or quality,
    So what is on the label is not binding, and they could contain any heavy metal or mineral that is around at the time they are produced, in the same enviroment,
    And when you stack that up against fluoride that has to pass independant testing from
    National Santitation Foundation
    .American Nationial Standards Institute.
    American Waterworks Assn.
    And your tablets have nothing. So really what would anyone in their right mind use
    And the crazy thing about this is, Fluoride is made out to be the big nasty

    Like

  19. Some other labels

    https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=1r90agzIaM7H0M&tbnid=hydg6jcmVTaE3M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drugs.com%2Fpro%2Ffluor-a-day.html&ei=8VHoU-aLH4j-oQS0s4KwBg&bvm=bv.72676100,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNGuTn8YwsouTiWuLyRLrkAWY2_U3w&ust=1407818023771164

    The lower concentration tablets and drops do appear to be recommended for children older than 6 months but warnings are still often present because young children oftne have difficulty swallowing tablets.

    Like

  20. I see these are manufactured in Canada and their website makes a plug for the Natural Health Product Regulation in Canada and looking at the label it does not carry an NPN number [natural product number] or a DIN [ drug identification number] to say it has been approved by the [Natural Health Products Regulations: of Canada

    http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/legislation/docs/labelling-etiquetage-eng.php#a1

    Like

  21. Design

    Apology? Uh….no. Warning labels on fluoride supplements and toothpaste, as well as “uncontrolled dose” are standard, irrelevant, cookie-cutter “red herrings” constantly put forth by antifluoridationists as gleaned from antifluoridationist websites.

    From a bottle of Chlorox: “HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS. DANGER: CORROSIVE”

    “IF SWALLOWED”: Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice”.

    Wow!! That chlorine is some scary stuff with which we’re being force medicated! Our water is being chlorinated on the basis of ‘one size fits all’. Surely that is a situation that should cause concern?

    Here’s the thing, you like most antifluoridationists, glean irrelevevant nonsense from antifluoridationist websites and blogs then assume that you’re being “open minded”, all of a sudden in possession of some startling knowledge which hasn’t long since been known, understood, and fully addressed by appropriate healthcare personnel, healthcare organizations and respected regulatory agencies. Do you seriously believe that your “open mindness” has somehow made you more enlightened and knowledgeable than the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare?

    If you would use your web browzer to access legitimate sources of information on fluoridation, you would find that the US CDC, the US EPA, and the US Institute of Medicine have addressed any “dose” questions, decades ago. You would find that yes, the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources can indeed be calculated to a suffient level within the parameters of safety. The validity of this has born out by 69 years of this initiative, hundreds of millions people ingesting fluoridated water, with no proven adverse effects. If you, in all your “open-mindedness” can provide valid, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence to the contrary, then do so.

    In regard to “dose”……..Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter). Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the “dose” of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg. The average daily water consumption by an adult is 2-3 liters per day. So, let’s go to an extreme and double that to an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water consumption per day. This translates to 4.2 mg “dose” of fluoride intake per day from the water. The CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or “dose”, of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from the water. Thus as 4.2 mg is 75% if the total daily intake from all sources, the total daily intake, or “dose” from all sources would be 5.6 mg for an individual who consumed an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water per day. 

    The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg. Thus, even the excessive 6 liter per day consumer of water will still only take in a daily “dose” of fluoride that is slightly more than half the upper limit before adverse effects.

    The range of safety between the miniscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that “dose” is not an issue. Before the UL of 10 mg could be reached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

    http://iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/ULs%20for%20Vitamins%20and%20Elements.pdf

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  22. perhaps zealots like Steve and Richard should accept that their minds are not as open as they should be. designafuture

    Is that all? After laying bare the utter idiocy of your comment for all to laugh at, – that’s all you can come back with?

    What poor sport you are. Even IAN had more fight than you.

    Like

  23. Designafuture I had even given your comment a ‘like’ to encourage you back, The comment section thrives on your sort of input.

    Like

  24. designafuture

    On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, PhD, a former EPA scientist, made this statement: Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time. Impossible? No, it’s not–look at how many years millions of Americans were fooled by the tobacco industries!
    “[T]he political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues.” – Dr. Edward Groth, Senior Scientist, Consumers Union, 1991.
    “Journal editors often have refused for political reasons to publish information that raises questions about fluoridation.” – Chemical & Engineering News, August 1, 1988.
    “We are left with compelling evidence that powerful interests with high financial stakes have colluded to prematurely close honest discussion and investigation into fluoride toxicity.” – Dr. Sheldon Krimsky, Tufts University, August 16, 2004.
    “The Public Health Service, unfortunately, has locked itself into a position where it has made this statement on the record that there is absolutely no hazard to fluoridating public water supplies and the matter is closed. Now, that, of course, is immediately an unscientific approach.” – Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate, 1971.
    It amazes me that the only truth in religion is the word of God and every religion holds fast to that conviction regardless. The comparison between religious zealots and the pro-fluoridationists is obvious.

    Like

  25. Yes, design ,I can also find just as many silly quotes on fluoride alert. But, here’s the thing, have you read any of the articles they comes from? Do you know the context? Or are you just mindlessly repeating what fluoride alert tells you to?

    Why not put your brain to use – have you not heard that of you don’t use it you may lose it?

    >

    Liked by 1 person

  26. William Hirzy and Robert Carton, who were members of the EPA Union, are frequent sources of anti-fluoride writings and pushed for a vote of support from their union. I have found that of their 1,500 union members, there were only 12 present when they passed a resolution to oppose fluoridation, and not all of them voted. Shortly after this vote, the EPA union went out of business, and has since become part of the National Treasury Employees Union 2020, which has no record of a position on fluoridation. Mr. Carton no longer works for the EPA, and Mr. Hirzy is a full-time union representative and no longer has any laboratory duties.
    Dr. Edward Groth, Senior Scientist, Consumers Union, 1991.is a well known activist
    Dr. Sheldon Krimsky, is well known for looking at links between universitys and commerce hence his attack on fluoride
    Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate what does he know about fluoride?

    Like

  27. Actually, Chris, Hirzy is the current paid lobbyist for Connett’s FAN. Carton and Hirzy, both long time antifluoridationists, did a study together a couple years ago in which they concluded that there are enormous costs involved in using HFA to fluoridate, due to the number of cases of cancer they claimed are being caused by HFA. In 2013, Hirzy used this data to petition the EPA to recommend cessation of use of HFA due to these costs. When the EPA reviewers looked at Hirsy’s and Carton’s data they discovered that they, H and C, had made a 70-fold error in their calculations. When the reviewers corrected for this error they found that the data actually demonstrated the exact opposite of what Hirzy and Carton had concluded. When Hirzy was informed of his error and rejection by the EPA, he said he was “embarrassed”. Hirzy and Carton can hardly be considered reliable or objective, by any means.

    Here’s a link to the EPA response to Hirzy’s petition:

    http://www.environmentguru.com/pages/elements/transporter.aspx?id=1297832

    Also part of the little handful of people whom are constantly quoted from the antifluoridationist sites from which “Design” copy/pastes, is Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, also a long time antifluoridationist. I’m surprised “Design” left her out of his latest nonsense. Anyway, in 2013, prior to the EPA review of Hirzy’s petion, Douglas Main, another “Natural News” antifluoridationist propagandist who inexplicably seems to view himself as a journalist, did a story on Hirzy’s petition. Here is a quote from the story in which he quoted Thiessen’s comment about Hirzy’s and Carton’s study:

    “Experts not involved with Hirzy’s study agreed with its findings.”

    “I think this is a reasonable study, and that they haven’t inflated anything,” said Kathleen Thiessen, a senior scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Inc., a health and environmental risk assessment company.”

    —–http://news.yahoo.com/arsenic-drinking-water-costly-change-could-lower-levels-103332699.html

    So, either Thiessen didn’t bother to read the study before commenting on it or she is as incompetent as Hirzy and Carton in failing to recognize the 70-fold error.

    Connett and his cohorts are like the “Keystone Kops”. Truly comical.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

Leave a Reply - please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s