12 Replies to "West Seattle doctor's testimony in Congress"

• marco February 5, 2010 (1:58 pm)

  Unfortunately, detox diets do nothing
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4616603.stm

• Dora Keating February 5, 2010 (2:01 pm)

  Dear Dr. Gray, Molly:

  Thank you for speaking on our behalf – from all concerned mothers and their babies/kids. Your testimony was clear and beautifully presented! I commend you on your courage to speak up and your dedication to making the environment a better place for all.

  As the mother of one of your patients, I am reassured to know that my Naturopathic pediatrician is not only concerned but also involved at the national level. Thank you again!

• Greenie February 5, 2010 (5:20 pm)

  It’s about time they started listening. Toxins in many of the products we use, pharmaceuticals in the water supply, fire retardants in mother’s milk, flouride in the water supply (even though we get enough in our toothpaste and there is no benefit to having it in our water other than giving us an overdose of it). This has been my flashpoint of anger for years. I’m glad to see that they are at least holding hearings on it.

• beattoxins February 5, 2010 (11:58 pm)

  We have visited with Molly several times regarding our daughters health. I am glad that she had the opportunity to be a part of this study and speak about it. I agree with ‘Greenie’. This is really just the tip of the iceberg of the toxins that get into our bodies voluntarily or involuntarily.

• Eric February 6, 2010 (1:19 am)

  Let’s also not forget the prevalence and potential lethality of dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO). Right now your body could be feeling the effects of this chemical compound, which has been known to kill people in minutes. DHMO, found in all cancer growths, is the second leading cause of death for children under 12, and yet the corporate owned media still won’t address this threat! For more information: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

• stephanie February 6, 2010 (11:21 am)

  i just found this article with a link to the audio of the hearing and resources to help make changes in your life to reduce chemical exposure. http://blog.saferchemicals.org/2010/02/when-it-comes-to-chemicals-safe-until-proven-harmful-isnt-good-enough-for-my-baby-and-me.html

  note from listening: 16,000 of the 80,000 chemicals listed under the current TOXSA are “confidential”- wow!

• marco February 6, 2010 (9:04 pm)

  @Eric
  I wish the media would respond to these allegations. Why haven’t we heard an official response?

• Eric February 7, 2010 (12:36 am)

  Marco-No doubt the media is afraid to upset major corporate sponsors, such as Coca-Cola and Anheiser-Busch, who have have been putting DHMO into their products for years.

  • WSB February 7, 2010 (12:50 am)

    Dunno if you guys are both in on the in-joke but before this goes on too long again…
    http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_ban_dhmo.htm
    .
    Sorry to throw a bucket of water, so to speak, on it.

• James Day February 8, 2010 (3:51 am)

  I have heard there are professional “bashers” out there who defame postings like this with their vulgar and worthless comments.

  Having completed many years of academic and laboratory work in organic chemistry I can assure everyone that the element fluorine is one of the most toxic out there and all one has to do is open a first year organic chemistry book. It is used in organic synthesis because it is extremely reactive and powerful about how it inserts itself in carbon based compounds. Comparing this widely known toxin to some fictitious name for water is a waste of my time.

  At the very least SPU should send out a warning label with its monthly bill warning pregnant mothers, people with diabetes and kidney disease, hypothyroidism and a list of other illnesses, that they probably shouldn’t drink the tap water since fluorosilicic acid is implicated in these illnesses by epidemiological research.

  Not thinking too far out of the box here, but perhaps someone should look a little harder into allowing CH2MHill to operate the SPU water system for profit. Or at least look twice at who owns them, and what other conflicting interests Thames, a giant German owned company, may have in finding cheap ways to obtain phosphate fertilizer and dispose of this hideous acid waste in our drinking supply. Do they also own pharmaceuticals used to treat kidney disease and hypothyroidism which are exploding in this country?

  The following is extracted from Fluoride Action Network which is most certainly not a drunk UC Davis student writing about water. Since we are now exposed to high levels of sufuryl flouride in the green veggies you buy in those fancy sealed bags, that seem to stay fresh so magically long, we need to consider the cumulative exposure from multiple sources.

  From http://www.fluoridealert.org/

  Sufuryl fluoride UPDATE:

  EPA selected sulfuryl fluoride for a registration review and and has released several new documents, including a new Human Health Risk Assessment for public comment.
  • See FAN’s Submission to EPA on August 24, 2009

  On June 10, Dow AgroSciences petitioned EPA for a 3-year Experimental Use Permit for a first-time use of sulfuryl fluoride as a pre-plant fumigant.
  • See FAN’s submission of July 10.

  — The Sierra Club organized a sign-on petition to EPA to deny the permit on the basis that sulfuryl fluoride has 4,780 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide.

  — July 13: Dow Pitching New Pesticide That Doubles as an Extraordinarily Potent Greenhouse Gas (Press release from Pesticide Action Network)

  The Campaign Against Sulfuryl Fluoride

  Molecular structure of sulfuryl fluoride
  Produced exclusively by Dow AgroSciences

  Three groups -Fluoride Action Network, Environmental Working Group, Beyond Pesticides- are challenging US EPA on its approval of sulfuryl fluoride as a food fumigant (trade name ProFume®). The groups are represented, pro-bono, by Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette’s attorney Perry E. Wallace, Esq., a law professor at American University. The groups have submitted three formal Objections and Requests for an Evidentiary Hearing (2002, 2004, 2005).

  Phosphate Fertilizer & Water Fluoridation
  The primary use of phosphate rock is in the manufacture of phosphatic fertilizer. Phosphate fertilizers are produced by adding acid to ground or pulverized phosphate rock (ref) – either sulfuric or phosphoric acid. Significant quantities of fluoride (hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride) are released in this process due to an estimated 2 to 4% of fluoride in the phosphate rock. These fluorides are captured in the pollution control “scrubbers.” Hydrofluorosilicic acid is the waste product from the “scrubbers” that is used to fluoridate approximately 90% of US public drinkng water systems.

  FYI: “Phosphate rock contains radionuclides in concentrations that are 10 to 100 times the radionuclide concentration found in most natural material. Most of the radionuclides consist of uranium and its decay products. Some phosphate rock also contains elevated levels of thorium and its daughter products. The specific radionuclides of significance include uranium-238, uranium-234, thorium-230, radium-226, radon-222, lead-210, and polonium-210. (Ref). Trace levels of these radionuclides and several heavy metals will be in the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to public drinking water systems. For more info, see phosphate fertilizer industry

  Fluoride Pesticides

  The concern centers on the fluoride ion’s toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation in humans, wildlife, and soil. The main pesticides are:

  •Sulfuryl fluoride is the most immediate and important pesticide issue for the FAN Pesticide Project. This acutely toxic fumigant received its first-time approval for use on stored food commodities (raw and processed) in the US in January 2004. This approval allows the highest levels of fluoride residue levels in food in the history of the EPA. FAN, together with Beyond Pesticides, submitted formal objections to EPA on this approval (see press release). See the food tolerances approved and petitioned for as of July 15, 2005.

• Eric February 8, 2010 (10:32 pm)

  Previous DHMO postings meant only for amusement and was satirical in nature as it was blatantly pseudo-scientific, twisted facts entirely out of context, and used words like “corporation” to emotionally justify a paranoid, scary sounding conspiracy. I am sorry if anyone mistook this for an alternative health treatise. DHMO is another novel name for water, the same as hydroxylic acid (rather than have standard names, chemical compounds follow naming standards). The post in no way was intended to single out any particular viewpoint on a specific foreign substance introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. For the record, the DHMO concept was not formulated by drunken UC Davis students, but by stoned UC Santa Cruz students.

• James February 9, 2010 (12:43 pm)

  In this age of infotainment, I for one would like to think we can get our point across by something other than satire, apology considered. The real shame is the inability of our education system to prepare us for a rational or scientific discussion of very complex issues and environment we live in. While it is boring and requires some critical thinking, if anyone is still reading this, below is the link to a site that specializes in the scientific papers on various problems with fluoride in our bodies:

  http://www.fluorideresearch.org/424/files/FJ2009_v42_n4_p277-285.pdf

  This looks to be following the documentation of fluoridation of drinking water and reduced mental capacity. The dose of fluoride in SPU water is about 1mg/L. Other studies have cautioned that the acceptable dose limited by the EPA as 5mg/L (that is widely documented as having toxic effects) is determined for adults and should be adjusted for young children. Since a child has much less mass, their dose from drinking water is increased accordingly. In other words a small child drinking tap water could approach the toxic levels set by EPA with just one 8oz glass of water. Further, an adult must do the same calculation based on body weight and water intake.

  For those of us that work out strenuously we should dose fluoridated water as the drug that it is. If I drink 4 L of water after a hard days work I am approaching the toxic level of 5mg per day, though I am probably closer since my body mass is probably small compared to whatever EPA used to calculate toxic levels. I can only only guess that EPA figured that the average adult, whatever that is? was only going to drink 1 Liter of water a day to keep the exposure to fluoride to 1mg per day. Don’t forget cooking water, where fluoride is concentrated as its boiled down.

  Other brand new studies (none of them done in the US mind you) listed on the web site above document fluoride action on tumor cells that seems to increase their mobility (aka cancer) in the endocrine system. Most often expressed as breast cancer in women.

Sorry, comment time is over.