Fluoride’s Impact On The Brain

Source: Scientific Blogging

New science indicating fluoride’s dangers to the brain and other organs will be presented by prominent fluoride research scientists during back-to-back conferences of the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) and the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) in Toronto August 7-11, 2008.

Fluoride, added to water supplies to prevent tooth decay, is also in virtually all non-organic foods and beverages. Fluoride’s brain effects were never examined prior to water fluoridation.

Recently, because of health concerns, Health Canada recommended that fluoride levels be lowered in Canadian water supplies (0.7 mg/L) , children’s toothpaste and infant formula but claims that “the weight of evidence does not support a link between fluoride and intelligence quotient deficit.”

“It is hard to believe that any “weight of evidence” analysis could possibly dismiss fluoride’s neurological impacts. There have now been over 40 animal studies which show that fluoride can damage the brain, and no less than 18 studies which show that fluoride lowers IQ in children, and only 2 that don’t. I look forward to reading the full report when it is made available,” says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director.

According to ISFR conference organizer, Dr. Hardy Limeback, “Our conference features experts who researched the dangers that fluoride poses to human health. Our keynote speaker, Dr. A.K. Susheela, (Executive Director, Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation, India) probably knows more about fluoride’s toxic effects to the body than any other living scientist. It is important that officials who promote water fluoridation hear what she and others have to say,” says Limeback.

Susheela can also explain to Medical Doctors, often untrained in fluoride toxicology, how to diagnose, treat and reverse early symptoms of fluoride toxicity which mimic arthritis and irritable bowel syndrome. Continue reading

Advertisements

Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming

Oh dear. The house of carbon cards continues to fall…

Source: Prisonplanet

The campaign to force people to accept that “the debate is over” and that man-made CO2 emissions are driving climate change is in deep trouble, with another top global warming advocate – rocket scientist and carbon accounting expert Dr. Richard Evans – completely reversing his position.

Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 and he wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

In an article for The Australian newspaper, Evans highlights why he was so keen to jump on board the man-made explanation without there being any clear conclusion as to what was driving temperature increases in the period from the end of the 70’s to 1998.

“The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?” writes Evans. “Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.”

“But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming,” he concludes.

Evans points out that the “greenhouse signature” that would indicate CO2 emissions are driving temperature increases – “a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics” – which would be evident if climate change was man-made, is simply non-existent.

“If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming,” he writes.

Read the rest of the article at Prisonplanet.

Added to the Global Warming? page.