Midwest Chick's Place

(A.K.A. Non-Original Rants)

–Co-opting good stuff from all over the ‘Net and maybe some original thoughts—ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

________________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA says: drinking water safety isn't a top priority

 In its review of water fluoridation rules, the EPA has this to say:

 EPA has reviewed the fluoride NPDWR as part of this Six-Year Review and determined that a revision to the NPDWR for fluoride is not appropriate at this time. EPA acknowledges new information regarding the exposure and health effects of fluoride (see Appendix C of the “Six-Year Review 3 − Health Effects Assessment for Existing Chemical and Radionuclides National Primary Drinking Water Regulations − Summary Report” which can be found in the Six-Year Review 3 Support Documents webpage). However, with EPA’s identification of several other NPDWRs for near-term revision, potential revision of the fluoride NPDWR is a lower priority that would divert significant resources from the higher priority rulemakings that the Agency intends to undertake, as well as other high priority work within the drinking water office. 

The EPA acknowledges that there is a possible health problem or problems being caused by putting fluoride in the drinking water of pretty much every municipal system in the US for the past 75 years affecting hundreds of millions of people for generations, but they’ve got other shit to fuck with and can’t be bothered to look at this.

So they’re being taken to court.

The current case has put the spotlight on an unpublished assessment by the federal government’s National Toxicology Program (NTP). It reported “moderate confidence” that drinking water containing fluoride at levels at least twice as high as those recommended by the federal government is associated with lower IQ in children. The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and other groups argue that such data indicate EPA should be regulating fluoride under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

They’ve been dragging ass on getting the assessment published (finally was in March of 2023).

If the plaintiffs win, then the EPA will be forced to treat fluoride like the toxic chemical that it is. It’ll be interesting to see what happens.

I’m just glad I grew up drinking well water.

ETA:  As a side note, they decided to start poisoning our water back when fluoride toothpastes were not available.

Side note 2:  Most, if not all, fluoride for this purpose comes from China.  Think about it.

Midwest Chick's avatar

Posted by:

Midwest Chick

  1. Avatar
    Anonymous

    while in ukraine, i drank only well water

    Like

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Using the anti-Fluoridation folks arguments we should arguably then get rid of Chlorine as well. When you went to public school you got fluoridated water. The Anti Fluoridation folks believe that There Is No Safe Level.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Avraham–Indeed!B–Two different things for two different purposes. The express purpose of putting fluoride in water was to prevent tooth decay. It took them decades to decide on a 'safe' level. I know a girl who's teeth are brown because they misjudged the level in her local water supply. The point being that it's an artifact and isn't necessary. Plus there are studies showing that it causes health problems. And we're getting it from China–what a better way to cause issues than to adulterate the fluoride that municipalities are voluntarily putting in their water.Not to mention that the water tables are also being contaminated. It's an issue and I'm going with the anti-fluoridation folks on this one.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Avatar
    Anonymous

    there is no money in drinking water and they cant tell us we are running out of it.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Avatar
    Anonymous

    As a kid growing up we were warned by the John Birch society that fluoride in out water was a communist plot. It probably was, at least is didn't come from Red China. Guess what, my teeth are in great shape and I'm alive. Thanks for the great article.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Fluoride is a toxic industrial by-product that would cost too much to dispose of properly so “studies” were bought and paid for to “prove” some benefit so they could sell it instead of having to pay to get rid of it.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Avatar
    Anonymous

    while in ukraine, i drank only well water

    Like

    Reply
  8. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Using the anti-Fluoridation folks arguments we should arguably then get rid of Chlorine as well. When you went to public school you got fluoridated water. The Anti Fluoridation folks believe that There Is No Safe Level.

    Like

    Reply
  9. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Avraham–Indeed!B–Two different things for two different purposes. The express purpose of putting fluoride in water was to prevent tooth decay. It took them decades to decide on a 'safe' level. I know a girl who's teeth are brown because they misjudged the level in her local water supply. The point being that it's an artifact and isn't necessary. Plus there are studies showing that it causes health problems. And we're getting it from China–what a better way to cause issues than to adulterate the fluoride that municipalities are voluntarily putting in their water.Not to mention that the water tables are also being contaminated. It's an issue and I'm going with the anti-fluoridation folks on this one.

    Like

    Reply
  10. Avatar
    Anonymous

    there is no money in drinking water and they cant tell us we are running out of it.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Avatar
    Anonymous

    As a kid growing up we were warned by the John Birch society that fluoride in out water was a communist plot. It probably was, at least is didn't come from Red China. Guess what, my teeth are in great shape and I'm alive. Thanks for the great article.

    Like

    Reply
  12. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Fluoride is a toxic industrial by-product that would cost too much to dispose of properly so “studies” were bought and paid for to “prove” some benefit so they could sell it instead of having to pay to get rid of it.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *