- 0 Comment(s)
In a ruling that could have far-reaching consequences for communities that add fluoride to their municipal drinking water, a court in California denied the EPA's request for a protection order that would limit the information courts can view when considering evidence of risks to human health and the environment.
A provision in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) allows citizens to petition the EPA, which is authorized under TSCA to ban harmful contaminants that are risks to health and the environment, to essentially perform the job they are commissioned to do. A citizen lawsuit brought by Food & Water Watch Inc. against the EPA demands that the agency ban the addition of fluoride to drinking water. (Food & Water Watch Inc., et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency.)
A Northern District of California judge ruled against the EPA's request to restrict information used by the courts to make decisions to only info that was used in original agency proceedings leading up to decisions on banned contaminants.
This is a victory for opponents of fluoridation.
Communities all over the world are banning water fluoridation. But there are still many, many that add fluoride to municipal drinking water. According to the CDC, 66.3% of US households use fluoridated water (2014 data). Let that sink in.
If you've got fluoridated water, there are several ways to remove fluoride from your drinking water. We recommend bone char as an effective method. We've just added a category on our web store for all our products that treat fluoride.
Click here to see all our fluoride product.
We are always happy to assist in your product decisions. If you are not sure if your water has added fluoride you can contact us to help find out. Or contact your local water dept.
Email us at email@example.com or call 509-685-0933.
Click here for more info on fluoride in drinking water from a previous blog post by Lorraine Marie (Removing fluoride from drinking water: Is bone char a good alternative?).
Thanks for stopping by!
- 3 Comment(s)
by Lorraine Marie
You’re way ahead of the curve if you’ve decided to remove fluoride from your water. After all, there are still municipalities thinking “hey, let’s be smart and fluoridate the water!” When we peek back at history, the rush to fluoridate public water involved very little thought, just some circumstantial evidence regarding dental health, combined with the too-hasty social fervor to jump on the bandwagon of “science has a solution for everything.”
The science showing how questionable fluoridated water is came later, but too late. The brainwashing had begun. There is reluctance to loosen the grip on tightly held beliefs, apparently…even half a century later.
Now we have a different scenario: when we decide to de-fluoridate, it seems we still don’t have enough answers to make a 100 percent sure choice about the filter we should use to accomplish the task. There are too many variables, such as the level of pollutants in the pre-treated water, pH level, how quickly the water passes through a particular filter system, etc, to allow us to find nice neat little test results that provide an obvious answer.
For example, some will point to activated alumina for fluoridation removal. It is said to be 98 to 100% effective, as long as you get the flow rate just right. There is an additional bonus of also removing arsenic and lead. The fluoride is mostly gone, but now there can be activated alumina to get out of the water.
Reverse osmosis sounds like alumina déjà vu: 90 to 95% of the fluoride can be removed, but it takes two to four gallons of water to capture one fluoride-free gallon. That gallon is basically devoid of life force, requiring the addition of other ingredients to boost it back up to life-supporting status.
Then there is bone char. It is said to be the oldest method of freeing water of fluoride content, with up to a 90% removal rate. How bone char and activated carbon differ may be pertinent to your search for the best water filtering method. Bone char is made with animal bones that are heated to 1,292 degrees F., in low oxygen conditions, which enhances the product’s adsorption abilities. For vegans, it may not be an option. In contrast, activated carbon is similarly processed, and can be derived from animal or vegetable sources.
Dr. Richard Sauerheber, professor of chemistry with University of California, has looked extensively at the fluoride issue, and believes bone char filters are the most effective.
Getting rid of fluoride in your drinking water can also boost your health, since other unhealthy contaminants can be removed via filtering. Activated carbon filter methods can, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (consulted since they are not sellers or promoters of any particular filter brand), rid water of chlorine, disinfecting products, heavy metals [think arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, zinc], parasites, pesticides, radon and volatile organic chemicals, such as dichlorobenzene, methyl tert butyl ether and tricholoroethylene. The Environmental Protection Agency says radio-nuclides can be removed with granular activated carbon. I could not determine for sure if thallium is removed with activated charcoal filtering, but it is used in hospitals for internal poisoning from thallium.
So yes, take action to avoid poisoning yourself. The bone char filters may be the best route. I think about the village in Alaska, Hooper Bay, where the town’s fluoridated water system malfunctioned and 296 residents were poisoned. It was 1992. Most of the victims had severe GI pain as well as symptoms associated with heart malfunction. One person died. Fluoride can be nasty stuff, obviously, and there is evidence it may bio-accumulate in the body.
It’s clear that treated carbon products have an impressive history of service to health and well-being.
Just one more example: if you are dealing with an algae issue, Ohio State University reports using activated carbon, combined with a membrane filter, for “significantly” reducing algae toxins. To truly make the best water filtration choice, it’s wise to invest in a thorough water test and determine what is in your water to start with.
Click here to read our latest blog post: "Fluoride Opponents Win Court Decision".
We now carry Bone Char filters, GAC for Chlorine removal and GAC for Chloramine removal. We also sell bulk Bone Char and GAC by the lb. Bundle up and get added protection from fluoride
and heavy metals.
See all our GAC products here. We've got a variety of counter top and under counter combinations to choose from. Feel free to contact us for more information:
We love to talk about your water treatment needs.
Thanks for stopping by!
- 0 Comment(s)
- 0 Comment(s)
Few debates are as divided as the arguments over whether fluoride should be added to our water supplies to prevent tooth decay. Studies show that in the 3/4 of the country that fluoridate their water, tooth decay is lower. But rural areas where fluoridation doesn't occur also have higher poverty rates, which tend to have higher rates of dental neglect. It's easy to spin the data to justify fluoridating the water. But is it really a good idea?
Without proper regulation, adding fluoride to drinking water supplies can cause physical damage to developing teeth. Fluorosis is a disfigurement of the tooth enamel caused by high concentrations of fluoride given to children ages 3 months to 8 years. For some it is a minor cosmetic blemish. For others it is more pronounced. Fluoride in small doses may be effective in preventing tooth decay, but what are the down sides? Aren't there always down sides?
Part of this debate centers around whether citizens have a right to determine whether their water should be treated. In Portland, OR it seems the city council and the mayor think they know what is best for the people. They don't want to put the decision whether to fluoridate the water to a referendum. They think they know best. They claim they are protecting the poor, who they feel are the ones who suffer from the lack of fluoridation. But couldn't the $5 million dollars they plan to spend, plus almost $600,000 annually for maintenance, be spent of educating everyone on good dental care? How about helping the poor to get dental coverage so they can see a dentist regularly? It just doesn't seem right to impose a mandate to add a known toxin to the water supply.
The only consolation we have is that for those of us who don't want to drink toxins in our water, we can filter most of the bad stuff out. If I had fluoride in my water, I would get a double countertop or undercounter filtering system with a bone char filter and a GAC filter.
Dentists and health advocates may have good intentions, but it's important to put the issue in perspective. Without better research, we really don't know all the possible risks to health that fluoridating our water could pose. Some studies have raised questions about lower IQ's in places where water is fluoridated. This is disconcerting.
I encourage research to make an informed decision about your drinking water.
Read more here: Oregonlive.com
Thanks for stopping by!