Fluoride has two sources. It can appear ‘naturally’ in water or it can appear as a toxic waste. Even where it does appear without any help from industry it can cause problems. This leaflet concentrates on some of the possible, if not probable explanations, as to why those industries who produce toxic fluoride wastes are in favour of water fluoridation.
The earliest problems associated with toxic wastes involved those businesses manufacturing aluminium with the resulting waste usually being sodium fluoride. In Britain today, the most frequently used toxic waste product used for fluoridation comes from the phosphate fertiliser industry. However, the principles are the same and what happened in the first half of the 20th century is just as relevant as to what is happening today.
In the 1930′s, the aluminium processing industry faced a serious threat to it’s existence – it’s toxic fluoride wastes were seriously polluting the environment and this resulted in some very expensive litigation settlements. According to George Waldbott’s book, Fluoridation, The Great Dilemma ( published 1978 ), the production of aluminium involves the following process;-
“During the smelting and reduction process, when bauxite ( aluminium oxide ) is dissolved and electrolyzed in molten cryolite, hydrogen fluoride and other volatile fluorides are released into the air, and sodium fluoride remains in the bath” ( source: Davenport, S. J., and Morris, G.G.: US Bureau of Mines. Circular 7687, US Department of the Interior, June 1954, page 8 ).
The latter cannot simply be dumped on the ground because it seriously pollutes grass and other forage. Indeed, in 1950 ALCOA’s ( the Aluminium Company of America ) plant in Vancouver, Washington, was fined for dumping fluorides into the Columbia River, and the airborne fluorides heavily contaminated the grass and forage, “which resulted in injury and death to cattle.” ( Reported by the Seattle Times, Dec.16, 1952 ).”
Waldbott continues with a number of incidents which resulted in damages being awarded against the ‘industry’. The first involved a trout and fish hatchery. “eggs were worthless” and did not hatch properly; the fish also exhibited malformations. “During the weeks after rains, the Meaders were hauling away about a ton of dead fish per day.” So how many hundreds or thousands of parts per million ( “ppm” ) of fluoride caused this? Fluoride levels were no more than between 0.5 and 4.7 ppm in the samples taken from the hatchery. I would take the opportunity at this to remind the reader that our Government want to add 1 ppm of fluoride to drinking water supplies. If you keep goldfish or other tropical fish, or ANY fish and are hoping to breed, then keep this in mind. Waldbott goes on to say that this was not just one in a series of a few incidents. More cases are mentioned which involved $100,000′s being paid in compensation with the total liability running potentially into $1,000,000′s ( or even $1,000,000,000′s ).
The big ‘fluoride problem’. Estimated total atmospheric inorganic fluoride emissions from major industries in the USA ( 1968 );-
Industry Tonnage per year
Steel Industry 40,1000
Combustion of coal 16,000
Ceramics industries 21,200
Nonferrous metal industries 4,000
Phosphate fertilizer & processing industries 18,700
Welding operations 2,700
Aluminium industry 16,000
Why the producers of toxic fluoride wastes had to find another route for their poisons ……
(A cross section of metatarsal bones from cows of same breed, size and age showing normal appearance on the left and severe osteofluorosis on the right ).
An advertisement for ALCOA’s sodium fluoride ‘drinking water supplement’ ).
…… and their solution to this problem was to get ordinary folk to consume it instead.
So how did the fluoride pollution industries get the American Government to turn around and support the disposal of toxic fluoride wastes via the public water supplies? Surely no administration, however evil or corrupt it may be, would endorse such a scheme – would they?
Perhaps if there were another agenda for fluoridation then things may just be different and another use for fluoride would certainly appeal to an unscrupulous Government. Supporting this contention are the well known unprincipled and clandestine experiments carried out on British and American subjects and involving LSD and radiation exposure ( just two examples ). So why not experiment with fluoride as well? This brings us up to the start of World War II and up until this point fluoridation was a non-starter. But during the war another use for fluoride was found and this resulted in a radical change of policy in the USA.
It is the end of World War II and the Allies ( read Americans ) have control of the German I G Farben factories and all of it’s technologies. Enter American Charles Eliot Perkins ( “Perkins” ). Perkins, so the story goes, was a researcher in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology. He and other scientists were put in charge of the Farben industries shortly after the cessation of hostilities but it was Perkins who was informed that the German General Staff adopted the plan of using sodium fluoride to make prisoners-of-war more docile and easier to manipulate and control. There is no surviving evidence to suggest the Germans did actually do this though it was well within their doctrine to carry out such a practice. It is also claimed that the ultimate intention of the Nazis was to fluoridate every country that they occupied and this story, which the Pushers are desperate to ridicule, has gained credibility in recent years for a number of reasons.
So what did Perkins do with the information given to him? Like most other scientists who fear for their job, their future or even their lives, he could have kept quiet. Not Perkins. Even as early as the 1940′s to 1950′s Perkins realised that fluoride could have an undesirable effect on a certain part of the brain – the hippocampus. Before he died, he urged those who would follow him not to let the anti-fluoride cause fail.
This was done in part in 1987 by someone known as Harley Rivers Dickinson ( An Australian Liberal MP ) who raised the issue of fluoridation and its sinister implications in an “Address in Reply to the Governor’s speech in Parliament.” The ‘Address’ forms part of a document compiled by Ian E Stephens and is appropriately entitled the ‘Dickinson Statement’ ( the “Statement” ). The main thrust of the Address was as follows;-
“At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Eliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany. While there he was told of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff. This was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual’s power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotisizing a certain area of the brain and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. Both the Germans and the Russians added sodium fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners-of-war to make them stupid and docile.” ( Reference: [Australian ] Victorian Hansard of 12th August 1987 ).
by:Death Before Disinformation