Post link: http://anarchists.tk
whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. – The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independce of the United States, adopted by Congress on July 4th, 1776
Concerning the above police crime stats picture: What I call the Tax and Peace/Crime Paradox (TPP/TPC): Kentucky, with the lowest amount of police crime, has the highest amount of taxes on its citizens, and Vermont, with one of the lowest amount of taxes, has the highest rate! Kentucky is also one of the most polluted states. If that isn’t sad news for the American patriots and the poor, then what is?!
Perhaps anarchy can cleanse the United States and Britain, somewhat, temporarily, of its oppressive governments and their brutish criminal police forces, criminal for supporting their corrupt laws with the consent of most of them. But genuine cleansing that lasts, for those who want peace, will only come from God. Here is some insight on anarchy from Sauvik Chakraverti:
Hobbes’ Mistake – The Rational Case For Anarchy
by Sauvik Chakraverti
Times of India
In his classic “Leviathan”, written in 1651, the English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes established the liberal case for the state. He said that, without the ‘mortall god’ of the state to hold us all in awe, society would disintegrate, there would ensue “a war of each against all” and life would be “nasty, poore, brutish and short”. Since then, liberals in the West have upheld statism – and have encouraged state-building in the Third World. Today, it is seen that almost all the states of the Third World are predatory states, enemies of the people. They are huge kleptocracies which amass and then misuse economic powers and keep people poor. When libertarians talk of the need to do away with states and statism, we are accused, even by our liberal friends, of being anarchists. How do we defend ourselves from this charge?
The fact is: Thomas Hobbes was wrong. Very wrong. The following thought experiment will show how. Carry a tray of ripe bananas before a group of monkeys. What will happen? The monkeys will snatch and steal all the bananas: the Hobbesian war of each against all. Now take another tray of ripe bananas and carry them to a place where there are no monkeys but lots of human beings: Chandni Chowk, Connaught Place, Crawford Market… What will happen? No one will steal your bananas. If they want your bananas, humans will politely ask whether you will offer them in exchange for money. Homo Economicus is a moral creature. Because he has the ability to exchange, which the monkey does not, Homo Economicus does not snatch and steal. He has an inborn morality that respects property rights. In stark contrast, the Constitution of India does not recognise property rights!
Now, hang around in the market a little longer and observe who are the monkeys amongst us. Then you will see the policeman extorting goods for free; you will see the municipal functionary preying on urban commerce. These are the cutting-edge personnel of the predatory state. This clearly shows that: 1) the market is a secular basis of human morality; and 2) power corrupts.
Yet, it is important to note that Thomas Hobbes was a liberal. In Leviathan he does mention that every man would very much prefer to rule himself. We sacrifice some of our freedoms in exchange for the law and order that the state creates. The original cover illustration of Leviathan shows a huge king-like figure wielding a massive sword. A little careful examination reveals that the body of the ‘mortall god’ is completely made up of little people: the citizens. “Leviathan bears the body of the citizenry,” Hobbes says. In predatory states it is obvious that the sword of state is not borne by a ‘mortall god’. Rather, it is in the hands of a huge monkey. And its body is not composed of the citizenry; rather, it is composed entirely of little monkeys. Why should the entire Third World continue to suffer this situation? Will not absolute freedom – anarchy – be better?
The word anarchy has a beautiful meaning: no ruler. It does not mean chaos, as the enemies of freedom would have you believe. It means, quite simply, that the king is dead, and there are to be no more kings. All human beings are free and equal. There is no one to lord over us. There is no one with power. Before dismissing this option outright, let us inquire into what forces within civil society will maintain morality and order in the absence of the state.
Under conditions of anarcho-capitalism – no state – all the people will seek their survival in the free market. Statists believe that under such conditions robbery and thievery will ensue, but are their fears based on reality? After all, in a free market, cheating succeeds only in the short term. Every capitalist knows that, for long-term success, he has to protect his reputation. That is why brand names and brand equity matter so much in assuring us of quality. Only those who satisfy customers will succeed in the long run, and that is why morality will rule.
Secondly, in a completely free market, credit will go only to the creditworthy. Unlike today, when political allocation of credit prompts many to not pay their dues, under anarcho-capitalism, everyone will realise that creditworthiness is something to be cherished and carefully nurtured. Free banking will ensure more moral behaviour than politicised banking.
Thirdly, human beings, apart from being economic creatures, are also sexual creatures. This prompts them to raise families. Without a state that will look after them in times of trouble, under anarcho-capitalism, the family will be the main source of support. Families will be strong. Children will be well brought up. This shows that there are only two secular bases of human morality: the market and the sexual union. Not the state, which is a promoter of immorality.
Some will say that the free market cannot exist without supporting institutions. This is true. There must be courts and justice. But law is also an enterprise. Today, the monopolistic state courts system is hopelessly clogged and does not deliver timely justice. Further, it is based on the socialistic disregard for property rights, which cannot co-exist with the free market. We will need property rights to be enforced; we will need disputes to be settled or adjudicated. All this can happen easily under anarcho-capitalism.
Lastly, we will need some form of policing. This must be done because there will be a few thieves, rapists and murderers amongst us: a free society is not a perfect society. But, throughout history, such plunderers have come from outside the city, and the city people have always organised themselves for their own protection. Today, in our cities of joy, entire communities get murdered with tacit state police support. Tomorrow, with self-policing, we shall surely be safer.
The entire Third World, comprising two-thirds of humanity, is suffering because of Thomas Hobbes’ mistake. We must unitedly reject the notion of Leviathan. Statelessness and anarcho-capitalism will make us rich, moral and safe. We will all achieve our destiny. The path we must take is not to reform the state and its institutions, but to do away with them altogether. What is required is shifting the paradigm from nation-states to associations of free trading cities: limiting politics to the polis. – Source
I was wondering, thinking that anarchy in America at this point would be better then the system we have now, because there are millions of people in jail, sapping the states caring for them all, many of them in there for petty reasons (though I imagine many of these people in jail for petty offenses have done worse and just didn’t get caught, and were pestering others) and police officers offended at people giving them attitude. I know people hate me and Christians for judging them (not as in simply pointing out a person’s sins so they will stop, which the Bible implies not to do, but only if it’s to correct an attacker on Christianity the first or second time you hear their mockery and don’t see anyone else rebuking them, or so that others will learn from their mistakes, or to lead someone to Christ), so, it makes sense that the world would also hate police officers for “playing judge” over them. But it’s obvious that there are many corrupt and mentally ill police officers and judges all over the world who are wasting time and money by locking people away for petty offenses who are not a great danger to society like dealers of hard drugs are, molesters, murderers (that includes abortionists), rapists, prostitutes, people who do sexual acts in public, people who expose themselves in public, habitual thieves, thieves who steal items that can hurt a person’s life badly, robbers of the poor, being severely drunken or disorderly in public (and especially if unprovoked), abusers of children, stalkers, terrorists of some sort, and people who misuse their authority, like judges , police, and corrections officers to harass, interrogate, harm, detain or imprison people unlawfully. Instead, many American jails are filled with people who have offended an officer and charged therefore with “obstruction”, trespassers (people taking shortcuts to get somewhere, and not bothering anyone or damaging anything on their way) and people caught with some drugs, some alcohol, or who were a little drunk or drugged in public. And the time spent on dealing with so many people, moving them around and caring them, is a huge waste of time and money which could spent on people who are already very dangerous, in hiding, or on the prowl. Any many people are in jail on the word of one witness or two, and one witness is doubtable. And many of the rebels in prison are habitual offenders, who should be banished or executed, not lumped in with millions to drain the rest of the country to death of its wealth. Is that just, does this help the supposed goal that the authorities of America have to improve its efficiency, economy, peace, happiness, morality and advancement in science or religious truths? No way.
Now about Sauvik’s writing on anarchy here, I disagree with him about humans necessarily acting better than animals, especially since the Bible, in my opinion, makes animals out to be less sinful (will all monkey’s rob someone walking around with food, or more monkeys vs humans? that all depends on the monkeys and humans doesn’t it?), but, in general, given the huge amount of waste and oppression from the top to the bottom authorities, including the many stupid parents, young adults, and kids that decent to righteous people must struggle with in some way daily, it sure does seem like America and other police states would be better off, again, in general without police, without state governments, or rather, with only state and federal police and only the central governments we have now. And everyone who has been to court or waits on it and who is in jail or prison awaiting justice, knows that it is hardly speedy for most people. Justice for the poor is poor, and the few rich in comparison can and do easily afford justice, even injustice, attacking those they hate through the police and courts or mass media. Some might argue that the poor can’t afford good weapons to defend themselves, and that is why it’s good to have police and a state and national government: but I would argue all the time and money used on police and by them could be freed up by getting rid of them which would then make it available to the poor so that they could defend themselves. And everyone knows the argument that there would be less crime if everyone had their own guns to defend themselves (and I imagine that raising the stakes of making it a life or death situation when attacking someone would also make many gun-owning criminals delay any attacks they plan on making). Further, it is known that police do not hang around to prevent incidents in most cases, but just look around for a while, if at all, or when seeing those who’ve been accused of crimes (and there is evidence of those crimes) make things worse by there mere presence, inspiring the criminals to come up with lies or to take revenge and leave for a while, allowing them to get away with their crime. The current police system is also anti-capitalistic: where is the competition other than between counties and states? Imagine if you had to move to a different town, county or state to get a better product, at some point, unless you were very healthy, had a large family (helpers) and a job that didn’t depend on your location, you’ be worn out and drained of money fast. Can you call one police “company” over another? The only alternative for a weak, defenseless, sick, disabled or disoriented person is some local security, but if the population of the area is small, there may not even be that alternative. And few people are willing to or able to afford to move to go to some place where the police and community friendliness have a high approval rating and the amount of crime is low.
Incarcerated Felon Population in the US by Type of Crime Committed, 1974-2008 (note that there is a very annoying bookmarking panel in the way of the text, but clicking settings on the bottom of it makes it go away, and you must also close the window that pops up when you do that to make this “settings” window go away too)
“The Israelites said to Gideon, “Rule over us—you, your son and your grandson—because you have saved us from the hand of Midian.” But Gideon told them, “I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. Yahweh will rule over you.”” – Judges 8:22-23
“In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.” – Judges 20-21
“locusts have no king,yet they advance together in ranks” – Proverbs 30:27
“When a country is rebellious, it has many rulers, but a ruler with discernment and knowledge maintains order.” – Proverbs 28:2
“A ruler who hearkens to lies will have corrupt officials” – Proverbs 29:12
Post link: http://canadiancode.tk
The Coast to Coast guest idiot of the night tonight was Carmen Boulter, a former professor at the University of Calgary, who “will discuss evidence of levitation, and alchemy being used to construct the numerous pyramids in Egypt, as well as an update on how the current structure of civilization is not conducive to the empowerment of humans.” Can you tell that this is a over-generalizing moron from the last part? I hadn’t read that till just now and was getting ready to point out a statement that pretty much summed up the intelligence of this person. That statement, which she said on Coast to Coast tonight, was, “The Bible says women are whores and prostitutes.” Can anyone say super idiot? How about ignoramus? How about a disgrace of a fool? Not sure what that last part would mean but anyways, wow, dumb, stupid. People who reach adulthood who aren’t living in North Korea or some super impoverished place out in the desert are ignoramuses if they can’t see with their eyes or hear with their ears or read braille with their fingers the obvious and clear evidence that the Bible has given women more freedom and taken them out of greater oppression: http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html, Killing of infants on the rise in Pakistan, Muslims Will Only Repay Half Of Damages to Acid-attacked Muslim, Cuz She’s a Female
Professor of Canadianess Boulter also pointed out with a subtle tone of contempt when she made the stereotype over generalization claim that “Christians” defaced Egyptian statues, and praised (some goddess I’m guessing) that one or more were buried deep in the sand so that when it was found that you could still see the amazing colors (just forget that idolatry is a sign of ignorance and stupidity and has been a massive waste of time and money, and yet this idiot claims that no modern civilization today, not even the massively idolatrous Hindu and Catholic religions (which worship femininity) are conducive to being moral and technological advancement. So, damn the Christians (probably the twisted version of Mary-worshiping Catholics) who defaced idols worth NOTHING except to idolators and obsessives and reduce the most beneficially influential book of all time, thousands of years, best selling, most freely available, translated into the most language, as “says women are whores and prositutes, so bleah yeah pyramids this pyramids that feminine goddess of femininesses is cool. I sell a book on Pyramid Codes and was a professor in Canada at a University and am an expert in what is civizationally correct, and wowy wow Christians are no. Damn all the bazillions of Christianianians for hurting the goddess statues that I wanted to see the noses on and colorful colors of. Oh and so like my advice for you civilization structures of the world is to read my pyramid codes and watch me on history channel tell you about how the egypsums could magically using super tech carve quartz bowls and make awseome coffins and make giant pyramids that last really long in the dessert and to ignore the Christians with their whore book on how women are whores who defaced my statues, I mean the Egypsian statues, yeah, Egyptian, I didn’t really say mine, just a mental slip up. And so, what I was saying, was…” Professor of Pyramid Codes also pointed out that she believed that there was an ancient worldwide disaster that caused the world to lose its advanced technology, but God forbid Canadian girl mention that the Bible already mentions what it was and what led up to it, and why it happened and that every ancient civilization repeats various parts of the Flood of Noah and creation story, some much closer to the Bible then others. Spiritually blind Canadian girl apparently is ignorant that the Bible makes out various nations that disobey him and worship false gods as being like whores and prostitutes, that includes THE MEN and that women who obey God ARE PRAISED and exalted by God, and above men who do not. One famous examples in the Bible are the MARYs, Deborah, Jael, Jeptha’s daughter, the widow who gave all she had unlike her hypocritical male leaders the Pharisees, and the prayerful prophetess Anna. The Bible also says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you [the true church] are all one in Christ Jesus.” That’s a statement talking about the spiritual equality of all saved Christians, not physical. Obviously there are physical differences, including between people of the same race, and the Bible isn’t talking about that as some ignorants might thing.
Ironically, Miss Pretend Archeologist, or rather Bad Archeologist, didn’t mention the status of women in Egyptian, and for a know it all about ancient Egyptians, I would think she would, but no, she’s self-centered, anti-Christian, idol fanatic, and therefore shallow. Supposing she knew, she probably didn’t want to mention it because of her irrational anti-Christian hate, being that the Egyptian civilization, in certain ways, was what liberals like Pyramid Code Prof. would call Christian Extremism. Here’s what I’m talking about:
Marrige was a very important part af ancient Egyptian society. SOme people say it was almost a duty to get married. Compared to today’s world, Egyptian marriages were very different; husbands could marry more than one wife, and people of close relations (first cousins, brothers and sisters, ect.) could also wed one another. For the most part, however, incest was frowned upon, except in the royal family, where incest was used to safeguard the dynastic succession.
There was no age limit as to when people could be married, but generally a girl did not get married until she had begun to menstruate at about the age of 14. Some documents state that girls may have been married at the age of eight or nine, and a mummy of an eleven year-old wife has also been found. Marriage required no religious or legal ceremony. There were no special bridal clothes, no exchange of rings…
Pregnancy was very important to ancient Egyptian women. A fertile woman was a successful woman. By becoming pregnant, women gained the respect of society, approval from their husbands, and the admiration of their less-fortunate sisters and sterile friends. Men needed to prove their “manliness” by fathering as many children as the possibly could, and babies were seen as a reason for boasting. – Source, Cornell University, The Status of Women in Egyptian Society
*Carmen thinks to herself*: Goddess damn those damn Egypums for forcing the divine feminine women to be baby breeders and slaves who didn’t have control of their own bodies! Nah, just don’t mention that part. Damn men to imaginary Hell! I hope I sell more Pyramid Code books, I love being able to afford all the lobster I can eat, especially for my Canadian LGBT friends.
And really Carmen, you think a society that wasted its time making giant pyramids, obelisks and idols is better then one that uses its that labor instead to make shopping malls, apartments, condos, houses, parks, zoos or that spends its time donating and doing charity work, including for the thankless and enemies? Have you heard of any ancient civilization being charitable to another to please any God? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans like that? If so, how many times, which among them were like that to the poor, especially females? Oh and, churches, all church buildings are terrible, pyramids way better, right Carmen? Icky Christians! What good are those pyramids doing? They are monuments of what happens when you use your genius in vain. Where is the Egyptian civilization now Carmen? On Coast to Coast tonight you said over 1,300 years (why that number) moral decay happened which is why peoples’ minds were changed. Well how shallowly insightful. You might as well have said climate changes happens, which is why things change temperature and move. So, infanticide of female babies was moral, or attempting to exterminate Christians, or enslave others, or worship imaginary gods and wate your time carving them from stone and painting them when that time and money could be used to make real advances? Oh and where was the LGBT community of Egypt? I didn’t read anything about a man leaving his house to live with another man, or woman going to live with another woman. How bigoted and shortsighted those Egyptians were! And wow what pedos they were for allowing marriage at any age! Ew nasty dirty old people and nasty preteen bodies ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! So gross so gross so gross ew ew ew must thing about people my age must think about people my age and LGBT and the divine feminine and anti-Christian thoughts and pyramid codes electronics 123 electronics 123 brain overloading bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
What else. Oh, damn those Christians for defacing the colorful Egyptian idols, and enslaving the Israelites and forcing them in the Hellish heat to bake bricks one after another. Damn them for calling the Israelites lazy if they dare took a break under the watch of their idols and animal and sun gods and whatever gods, must whip them to keep them in line, ugh, stupid Israelite slaves, LAZY ISRAELITES! BAKE MORE BRICKS! OH, WHAT, YOU’RE RUNNING AWAY AFTER WE AGREED TO LET YOU GO FINALLY, LET’S CHASE THEM DOWN ANYWAYS AND BRING THEM BACK SO WE CAN SUBJUGATE THEM AGAIN! Oh wait, that was the slaver idolatrous baby-making-tyranny-state of the non-Israelite Egyptians, NOT “THE CHRISTIANS”. In conclusion, may God continue to bless Carmen the Canadian Truth-Defacer till she finally shows genuine thanks and love to the one and only true God.
Tonight on Coast to Coast AM Ian Punnet interviewed Dr. Paul Connett, an anti-fluoride activist who is also a Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University. Paul Connett wrote a book called The Case Against Fluoride. The Coast to Coast AM website says about this show:
Truth About Fluoride
Paul Connett, Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network, joins Ian to discuss the truth about fluoride and how this toxic chemical has no real health benefits whatsoever.
The bio of Paul on Coast says,
Dr. Paul Connett is a graduate of Cambridge University and holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College. Paul is the Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network and has researched fluoride’s toxicity for nearly 11 years. He has given invited presentations to the Fluoridation Forum in Ireland, the Japanese Society for Fluoride Research and the American College of Toxicology.
Another biography of Paul comes from St. Lawrence University, with a picture of him, and says about him,
Professor of Chemistry Paul Connett’s environmental activism goes beyond his classes.
Investigations into the scientific evidence against the practice of water fluoridation has become a family affair for the Connett household. His son Michael ’99 is the research director and Webmaster for the Fluoride Action Network (http://www.fluoridealert.org), and his wife, Ellen, is also involved in researching the topic. All three presented scientific papers at the 26th Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research, held in Wiesbaden, Germany, recently.
Paul Connett has received numerous awards and citations for his work, and frequently participates in community discussions on fluoridation. A graduate of Cambridge University, Connett holds a Ph.D. from Dartmouth College and joined the faculty at St. Lawrence in 1983. Connett’s opposition to incineration as a method of managing solid waste, based on his chemical analysis of the byproducts of the process, has taken him to 49 states, five Canadian provinces and 44 other countries. He has given over 1,700 public presentations, written many articles on dioxin and waste management and co-produced several videotapes on those topics, as a result of that research.
In addition to his passionate interest in environmental chemistry, Connett is also a classical music aficionado, often playing favorite pieces for students in his classes, and hosting a music program on North Country Public Radio.
Connett says that he has devoted a great deal of time and effort to grass-roots environmental organizations during his career, because “that is the place where we can effect genuine change.”
Strangely, Paul is not listed in St. Lawrence’s staff roster nor does he turn up in their search engine, yet his bio is there and it says he’s part of their faculty. I also imagine St. L. U has more faculty then just the few it lists in the roster, so why does it only show a few people?
I’m listening to Paul right now on Coast, and he’s spoken very well against fluoride being forced on the poor and everyone in general by putting it in public water supplies. I didn’t hear him slip up once or show any hint of nervousness. He pointed out interesting things like that fluoride, though not an approved medication by the FDA, is and known to them to be a poison, which they make known on fluoridated toothpaste boxes and tubes, is allowed by them to be put in anything, so long as it is bought, because when you buy a hazardous material, it’s no longer classified as one. Ian Punnet, the host thist night/morning, also pointed out more hypocrisy of the FDA by pointing out that they will go out of their way to ban apparently good drugs, like ibogaine, which negates drug addiction, and yet doesn’t do this with fluoride. My thoughts are also on the EPA: why don’t they point out that fluoride is a major environmental hazard? May God bless him for not giving in to the Mainstream Science Cult‘s peer pressure and strong arm tactics.
Update 7/24/2011 4:06 PM:
I wanted to make sure that I didn’t have a statement based on a assumption when I made that comment about the EPA not speaking out against forced pb water fluoridation, and just found something, not to my suprise, that was just the opposite, and it was not so long ago, the first of this year was a news article that says:
EPA and HHS Announce New Scientific Assessments and Actions on Fluoride / Agencies working together to maintain benefits of preventing tooth decay while preventing excessive exposure (and I just looked at the url again and see it’s from the EPA itself!)
News Releases – Water
EPA and HHS Announce New Scientific Assessments and Actions on Fluoride / Agencies working together to maintain benefits of preventing tooth decay while preventing excessive exposure
Release date: 01/07/2011
Contact Information: HHS Office of the Assistant, Secretary for Health (OASH)–, Public Affairs, email@example.com, 202-205-0143, EPA, Jalil Isa (Media Inquiries Only), firstname.lastname@example.org, 202-564-3226, 202-564-4355
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today are announcing important steps to ensure that standards and guidelines on fluoride in drinking water continue to provide the maximum protection to the American people to support good dental health, especially in children. HHS is proposing that the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water can be set at the lowest end of the current optimal range to prevent tooth decay, and EPA is initiating review of the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water.
These actions will maximize the health benefits of water fluoridation, an important tool in the prevention of tooth decay while reducing the possibility of children receiving too much fluoride. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named the fluoridation of drinking water one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.
“One of water fluoridation’s biggest advantages is that it benefits all residents of a community—at home, work, school, or play,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH. “Today’s announcement is part of our ongoing support of appropriate fluoridation for community water systems, and its effectiveness in preventing tooth decay throughout one’s lifetime.”
“Today both HHS and EPA are making announcements on fluoride based on the most up to date scientific data,” said EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water Peter Silva. “EPA’s new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride.”
HHS and EPA reached an understanding of the latest science on fluoride and its effect on tooth decay prevention, and the development of dental fluorosis that may occur with excess fluoride consumption during the tooth forming years, age 8 and younger. Dental fluorosis in the United States appears mostly in the very mild or mild form – as barely visible lacy white markings or spots on the enamel. The severe form of dental fluorosis, with staining and pitting of the tooth surface, is rare in the United States.
There are several reasons for the changes seen over time, including that Americans have access to more sources of fluoride than they did when water fluoridation was first introduced in the United States in the 1940s. Water is now one of several sources of fluoride. Other common sources include dental products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, prescription fluoride supplements, and fluoride applied by dental professionals. Water fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste are largely responsible for the significant decline in tooth decay in the U.S. over the past several decades.
HHS’ proposed recommendation of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water replaces the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. This updated recommendation is based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects. These scientific assessments will also guide EPA in making a determination of whether to lower the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which is set to prevent adverse health effects.
The new EPA assessments of fluoride were undertaken in response to findings of the National Academies of Science (NAS). At EPA’s request, NAS reviewed new data on fluoride in 2006 and issued a report recommending that EPA update its health and exposure assessments to take into account bone and dental effects and to consider all sources of fluoride. In addition to EPA’s new assessments and the NAS report, HHS also considered current levels of tooth decay and dental fluorosis and fluid consumption across the United States.
Comments regarding the EPA documents, Fluoride: Dose-Response Analysis For Non-cancer Effects and Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis should be sent to EPA at FluorideScience@epa.gov. The documents can be found at http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/fluoride_index.cfm
The notice of the proposed recommendation will be published in the Federal Register soon and HHS will accept comments from the public and stakeholders on the proposed recommendation for 30 days at CWFcomments@cdc.gov. HHS is expecting to publish final guidance for community water fluoridation by spring 2011. You may view a prepublication version of the proposed recommendation at: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html.
More information about the national drinking water regulations for fluoride:
Q&A’s on latest EPA actions on fluoride:
More information on EPA’s fluoride assessment and to comment:
Dangers of Fluoride, by Cathy of Somerset, a dental hygiene student in NH
Nothing new there, but now I really hate Windows. Besides my complaints about Windows flaws being ignored, stupidly, it’s gotten worse. Two days ago while in the middle of writing about the U.S debt crisis, nothing small, the stupid operating system known as dirty broken Windows suddenly without warning me restarted on me, not even popping up a “such and such program won’t close screen” or “are you sure you want to close such and such without saving?” etc. And I had many tabs open in nasty IE, which I stupidly have been using on my little netbook exclusively since I got it, because I was sick of how slow Firefox was regardless of what version is being used. But that was dumb, because Firefox restores or can restore sessions easily, but IE is a pain. Then about 30 mins ago after I told it to postpone updating for four hours, and in less then an hour all the sudden it forces a restart. Thaaanks, idiots. I would love to kick Bill Gates in his face, about 10 round house kicks to his face, bam bam bam bam bam, and also the face of the current CEO of Microsoft, which might actually make him look better since he’s no looker. Ugh. And why does Windows 7 only give you the choice of 10 minutes or 4 hours, why not let us tell your OS how long to wait idiots of Microlost? I would like to puke on Microsoft. I detest you, you are stupid, and dumb, and evil. Look at yourself Microsoft, look in the mirror, you’re idiots. You’ve had Windows 7 out for how long now? Years, and yet whenever you click on a folder on the desktop, if it’s to the left or right edge, suddenly it shifts and you lose your place and have to do it again. Is that sensible? What idiot doesn’t notice that annoyance over and over and over again when trying to save a webpage or look in a folder? Or how about that autosort garbage which suddenly moves a folder you make to sort it in alphebetical order so that you have to go hunting for it if you’ve got many files in the same place already? Can I kick your faces now you stupid company? You can’t even allow the option of autosort? You did you so in Windows XP, in which neither annoyance exited. PLEASE, let me kick your faces!!! And why don’t you include the up button when you know people hate not having it? And why don’t you automatically show the full file path you fools? Why not? If you are doing that bread crumb garbage why not at least show the upper levels, why does it stop short? Morons? And why is there no convenient folder options button? Why did you remove that? Why do I have to go into the help section to find it? Can I kick your faces now? You idiots? You fools who think flooding people with security updates for a shitty childish operating system somehow makes it less annoying when it only makes it endlessly more annoying? I hate you, truly hate you all. I hope your company gets hit with an asteroid. Hopefully ReactOS or AROS will overtake your stupid shitty company that doesn’t want to make basic obvious fixes or options, but only fake “hey we’re giving you another update that’s going to make Windows work better but you’ll never notice how hee hee hah hah let us waste more of your time telling you this over and over till you’re dying to use Windows 8.”
Did I mention that all versions of IE fail to work with wordpress correctly, the most popular CM for bloggers? It repeatedly forces you to jump to the top of the editing box, hellishly annoying.
Update: I found out two or three days ago that I’m the only one who hates Windows for the four reasons I mentioned: