Skip to comments.What’s In The Water?
Posted on 03/24/2011 7:09:25 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Many of us know the warnings that have been put out regarding second hand smoke. We know that if you are in the same room with a smoker that youre being exposed to the risks of lung cancer just like the smoker.
This is also true with the water supply. Water filtration systems are effective in many regards but they are not filtering all dangers from our water.
An article in a last years National Catholic Register discussed what is happening to the fish in our waterways because of the birth controls being used are then seeping into our water.
With all the popular medications like depressants, ED medications, steroids, and antibiotics that people are taking in todays society, and the bodys inability to use up all the medications, the remainder gets expelled into our waters as waste.
Then there are all the reports of fluoride in the water that is supposed to help us now being reported as harmful in many ways. One story reports that fluoride can cause many disorders, affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ .
Another article reports, Sodium fluoride and other poisons are being deliberately introduced into the public water supplies in order to dull the teeth of the freedom movement in this nation (pun intended), make populations more docile overall and to promote sterility.
In a recent video, fluoride is linked to bone cancer, lower IQ, dental fluorosis. A website is also available that discusses dental fluorosis specifically.
And yet another video reveals how the western elites have talked about adulterating the food supply to sicken and sterilize the population for the purposes of eugenics.
Here are even more articles and evidence that this is happening.
Friends, there is so much going on in an effort to limit certain segments of the population through eugenics and its having a devastating effect on other aspects of our lives. Unintended consequences or intentional, either way we must protest it. We need to stay informed and make our voices heard. And in some situations, as in abortion, we need to speak up for those that cannot speak for themselves.
Do you know whats in your water?
This statement is simply not true. Most honest studies of second hand smoke show, if anything, a slight benefit of second hand smoke. (I am not a smoker -I quit 40 years ago. I have simply read the data.)
If your second sentence is untrue, how much of the rest of your rant is also untrue?
“slight benefit of second hand smoke”
Oh please. What utter nonsense you’re spewing. What are you smoking?
But not to be hypocritical, I have recently started smoking again and will absolutely never stop. My smoking has been a benefit to a number of people, as I have sent tasty treats of my mesquite smoked jerky to several friends. They have all encouraged me to continue to smoke. My apologies to you if this is what you meant.
This is satire? Or should I say Sotired?
I have to agree with the premise of this article. There are too many weird things happening. More & more girls are getting the period very early. Boys & men have boobs. All sorts of strange things. Makes me wonder about pharmaceuticals contaminating our water.
I agree about the many chemicals introduced to our bodies via foods, chemicals in so many products we use, etc., could be causing new changes to our body chemistry. It seems we overlook the fact than many very young people for several decades now, have been taking into their bodies substances that we don’t always know about or know exactly what consequences they could have on the ones taking them or on the children they give birth to. No one wants the guilt connected with them, but for the future of mankind we should take the drug generation a little more seriously and not just find old excuses for present events.
“I have simply read the data.”
A compilation of most studies can be found in this posters profile page (little further than half way down the page)
The RR’s just don’t cut it for the scaremongering about second hand smoke.
UK Sunday Telegraph...
Passive Smoking Doesn’t Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998
The world’s leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.
The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people’s smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.
The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.
The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: “There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.” A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings “seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases.”
Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. “If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. “It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk.”
This scientist also got raked over the coal and was fired for his study of second hand smoke, the largest study to date - which found no association of harm. Published in 2007 - it completely shredded and debunked the 2006 SG report on SHS.
Dr James Enstrom: his website
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.