In Our Age of Information, Information About Fluoride and IQ in Children Is Hard to Find

by Hardly Waite, Senior Editor

An October 2012 publication of research done at the Harvard University Department of Environmental Health   surveyed numerous previous studies and reached the conclusion that ingesting fluoride has an effect on children’s neurodevelopment and that, in fact, “. . .children in high­ fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low­ fluoride areas.”

The sad thing about the finding is that you probably aren’t going to read about it in your local paper or hear about it

on the evening news.  And what’s doubly sad is that it isn’t news at all.  The Harvard researchers  (Anna L. Choi, Gufian Sun, Ying Zhang, and Phillippe Grandjean) made no startling discovery on their own.  They simply reviewed the findings of many, many previous studies that have shown similar results but have also failed to be reported on the evening news.

Fluoride Action Network had identified at least 36 previous studies that came to the same conclusion.  Michael Connett and Tara Blank write:

As of September 2012, a total of 42 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and a total of 17 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 36 of the 42 human studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ, while 16 of the 17 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and memory capacity of animals. The human studies, which are based on IQ examinations of over 11,000 children, provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure during the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain.

The relationship between fluoride and the dumbing down of children isn’t new and it isn’t secret.  It is surprising, though, how few people are aware of it.  The next time your dentist speaks out for fluoride, ask him if he’s aware of the Harvard research showing that fluoride has a demonstrable bad effect on the neurodevelopment of children.  If he says that the Harvard research is part of a commie plot to ruin America’s teeth, look for another dentist.

As Water Grows Scarcer by the Day, The Texas Legislature Finally Promises Action

Texas has just experienced a year of extreme drought.  Added to that, economic growth, with its ensuing demand for water, has been strong. At long last, the Texas legislature seems ready to make some tough decisions.

In 2011 Texas experienced the worst drought in its history.  The realization has come that the state isn’t ready for another drought of of that magnitude.

Texas’ strong economy has led to predictions that the state’s population will grow from 25 million in 2010 to 55 million in 2050.  Water, clearly, will be in demand.  The short-term forecast is for an 18 percent increase in demand coupled with a 10 percent drop in supply.  More people and more industrial activity also use more electricity which uses more water.

The Texas Water Development Board  predicts that failing to take action now to assure a sufficient water supply could lead to a loss of 1 million jobs and $115.7 billion in business by 2060.  The board has a $53 billion plan that includes  new reservoirs, dams, pipelines and wells over the next 50 years to meet the growing demand for water, but so far the Legislature has not appropriated a penny to fund any of this.

Those skeptical or unhappy with the ambitious development plans (which address only increased supply and seem to ignore conservation) include the Environmental Defense Fund, residents and industries whose land may be lost to eminent domain purchases,  timber companies, fishermen, and many cities.

Another troublesome issue that the legislature needs to tackle is a hopelessly out of date law that was upheld last year by the Texas Supreme Court.  The law gives landowners the right to all groundwater under the land.  It’s a concept that goes back to medieval Europe, but it is still in force in Texas, greatly complicating the state’s ability to manage water.

Groundwater levels are  dropping fast in Texas, and climatologists are warning of another drought in 2013. Texas lawmakers have their hands full.

Reference:  CBS Local.

A Case of Health of Many vs. Wealth of a Few: A Hard Look at Horizontal Fracking

Editor’s Note.  The following description of the practice of fracking, excerpted from Why the War Against Fracking May Be Our Most Crucial Conflict, by Ellen Cantarow, underlines the seriousness of  the practice of horizontal fracking.

Developed in 2008 and vastly more expansive in its infrastructure than the purely vertical form of fracking invented by Halliburton Corporation in the 1940s, high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing is a land-devouring, water-squandering technology with a greenhouse gas footprint  greater than that of coal. The process begins by propelling one to nine million gallons of sand-and-chemical-laced water at hyperbaric bomb-like pressures a mile or more beneath Earth’s surface. Most of that fluid stays underground. Of the remainder,  next to nothing is ever again available for irrigation or drinking.  A recent report  by the independent, nonpartisan U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded that fracking poses serious risks to health and the environment.

New York State’s grassroots resistance to fracking began about four years ago around kitchen tables and in living rooms as neighbors started talking about this frightening technology. Shallow drilling for easily obtainable gas had been done for decades in the state, but this gargantuan industrial effort represented something else again.

Anthony Ingraffea  of Cornell University’s Department of Engineering, co-author of a study that established the global warming footprint of the industry, calls this new form of fracking an unparalleled danger to the environment and human health. “There’s much more land clearing, much more devastation of forests and fields. . . thousands of miles of pipelines. . . many compressor stations [that] require burning enormous quantities of diesel. . . [emitting] hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.” He adds that it’s a case of “the health of many versus the wealth of a few.”

Against that wealth stands a movement of the 99% — farmers, physicists, journalists, teachers, librarians, innkeepers, brewery owners, and engineers.  “In Middlefield we’re nothing special,” says Kelly Branigan, a realtor who last year founded a group called Middlefield Neighbors. “We’re just regular people who got together and learned, and reached in our pockets to go to work on this. It’s inspiring, it’s awesome, and it’s America — its own little revolution.”

Read more about the grassroots struggle of the many against the apparently overwhelming wealth and power of the few.

Fifteen Million Americans Now Suffer From Food Allergies: Pesticides in Tap Water May Be the Cause

Editor’s Note:  The following is excerpted from an excellent article by Sarah Glynn published in Medical News Today. We would add that the persistent presence of dichlorophenols in tap water provide a strong argument that every home should have an effective carbon drinking water filter. — Hardly Waite.

The finding was published in Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the scientific journal of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI), and came from a team of experts led by Elina Jerschow, M.D., M.Sc., ACAAI fellow and allergist.

According to the researchers, high levels of dichlorophenols, a chemical used to chlorinate water and also used in pesticides, is linked to food allergies when it is found in a person’s body.

Dr. Jerschow explained:

Our research shows that high levels of dichlorophenol-containing pesticides can possibly weaken food tolerance in some people, causing food allergy. This chemical is commonly found in pesticides used by farmers and consumer insect and weed control products, as well as tap water.

Data of 10,438 people from the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2006 was analyzed for purpose of the study. Dichlorophenols was found in the urine of 2,548 subjects, but 2,211 were further observed.

Results showed that 411 of the 2,211 analyzed had a food allergy, and 1,016 had an environmental allergy.

Dr. Jerschow said:

Previous studies have shown that both food allergies and environmental pollution are increasing in the United States. The results of our study suggest these two trends might be linked, and that increased use of pesticides and other chemicals is associated with a higher prevalence of food allergies.

Although drinking bottled water may seem less risky for developing an allergy than drinking water from the tap, the results from this research indicate that making the switch to bottled water may not be effective in preventing allergies.

“Other dichlorophenol sources, such as pesticide-treated fruits and vegetables, may play a greater role in causing food allergy,” added Dr. Jerschow.

Between 1997 and 2007, food allergy increased by 18%, according to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

A previous report, published in Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, found that 7.5 million Americans have at least one food allergy, and young black children seem to be at the highest risk.

The most frequently reported food allergens are:

• peanuts
• tree nuts
• wheat
• milk
• eggs
• soy
• shellfish
• fish

Full Article.

Gazette Fair Use Statement

Would You Rather Be Cremated in  a Factory or Buried Under a Christmas Tree?  An Introductory Note by Hardly Waite.

Daily we face  environmental dilemmas  that have no clear answer.  Paper or plastic at the grocery store is a good example. The Christmas tree dilemma discussed in the article below has already been aired in the Gazette.   We first printed Real Christmas Trees Are Second Only to No Tree At All, which was quickly answered by staff writer Tiger Tom in his snarling essay called “In Defense of Phoney Plastic Christmas Trees.”

When all the arguments are in, I’ll confess that although I don’t know why anyone would want a Christmas tree,  I side with the real tree people.  I feel this way for the same reason that I think cemeteries aren’t such a bad thing.  A friend who prefers cremation to burial as a more environmentally  sound way of getting rid of  dead people  feels  that cemeteries are a waste of land.  May be, but would the land be better used if we instead put up parking lots or convenience stores?  Cemeteries, after all,  usually have trees and plants and peace and quiet and don’t produce a lot of noise or light pollution.  The world would be a nicer place with more cemeteries and fewer freeways.   Same with Christmas tree farms, I say.  A tree orchard is better use of  land than a factory.

The piece below,  by Arlington, TX-based writer Teresa McUsic, is reprinted here from an email newsletter published by Green Source DFW.

 

 Real Christmas Trees Are the Green Choice

by Teresa McUsig

The holidays are a time for lots of buying decisions, which makes it a perfect time to go green.    What better way than to start with the tree.

Many consumers still face the annual question of whether it is better for the planet to cut down a real tree or buy an artificial one. But Will McClatchey, vice president of research at the Botanical Research Institute in Fort Worth, said there is little room for debate—real trees are better.  “Absolutely, for lots of reasons,” said McClatchey, who has his PhD in evolutionary biology.

Artificial trees come in packaging, are generally shipped from China and eventually end up in a land fill, McClatchey said. The whole cycle leads to a higher carbon foot print, and a bigger mpact on the environment.       In contrast, live Christmas trees come from sustainable farms and are “completely recyclable,” McClatchey said.     “Those trees are planted for that purpose and in some cases the farms are on land not terribly good for much else,” he said.

McClatchey’s assessment is backed up by several studies, most notably one from Canada that shows consumers must hold onto a fake tree for 20 years before it equals the environmental impact of a real tree. Unfortunately, North Americans keep their fake trees for just six years, according to the study by Ellipsos, a sustainability development consultant in Montreal.  Using the six-year framework, the amount of carbon dioxide emission is much higher for artificial trees.

“The hot topic these days is climate change,” the study reads. “When looking at these impacts, the natural tree contributes to significantly less carbon dioxide emission (39%) than  the artificial tree.”  The study can be read here.

More than 30.8 million trees will be cut for Christmas trees this year, according to the National Christmas Tree Association. Natural trees sales outpace artificial trees 3 to 1, the association said.      And most consumers—31 percent–buy their trees at local farms, according to a survey by the association.

But in North Texas you better act fast. The 2011 drought has still reduced the number of trees available and many households have already been out buying.  Jim Wilson, owner of Main Stay Farms in Cleburne, said he has sold almost all of the 400 trees tagged to be cut this year from his farm of 6,000 trees.      “We had hordes of families here the weekend after Thanksgiving when we first opened,” he said. “We’re down to our last 10 percent of trees available to cut.”

Wilson said he still had some Virginia Pine and Leyland Cypress available, as well as around 300 of the 550 Frasier firs he had shipped from North Carolina. Next year, he will begin selling a new tree for cutting, a white-barked Arizona Cypress.

“I ordered 1,400 of the trees for planting and they’ll be ready next year,” he said. “The tree is really pretty and doesn’t take as much water to grow.”

The 2011 drought slowed down some of his tree production, which usually allows for around 700 trees to be available each season, he said. It takes about six years to grow a tree to the holiday size, he said.To find a local farm for your Christmas tree, put your town or zip code into a directory available by the Christmas Tree Association at www.ChristmasTree.org   Wilson advises buying a tree that does not sit out in the Texas sun after being cut. After buying, cut ½ inch off the trunk and soak in water. Once inside your home, water daily and keep always from heat vents.

Gazette Fair Use Statement

Simple, Inexpensive Tools and Supplies for RO Service.  You Already Have Most of These.

Undersink reverse osmosis units sometimes look frightening to those unfamiliar with them, but once you catch on to how they work you’ll find they’re pretty easy to take care of.  As with most self-care items, having a few basic tools makes things easy.  Opening a can is a complicated job without a can opener,  but it’s very simple if you have one.  A few simple tools make RO maintenance as easy as opening a can of soup.

Most RO units come with a filter wrench.  For most systems, you’ll need the wrench to open and tighten the filter housings when you change filter cartridges. Best source:  Online water treatment websites. Make sure you get one that fits the housings on your unit. Many new RO units have easy-to-remove disposable filters and for these you won’t need a wrench.

Owning a TDS tester isn’t essential, but a good TDS meter is a very important diagnostic tool.  For one thing,  it can tell you when the RO membrane needs to be replaced.  Owning a simple hand-held tester can  save you money because it takes the guess work out of assessing the condition of the membrane.  Membranes often last for many years, so simply following the manufacturer’s suggested change schedule can lead to lots of unnecessary expense. (There is never an reason to replace an RO membrane that is performing well.) The tester tests the TDS, “Total Dissolved Solids,”  of the RO water, which is the most practical way to assess the performance of the membrane. Best source:  Online water treatment websites.

A bicycle pump,  or the equivalent,  is an almost essential tool.  You will need periodically–once a year is a good rule of thumb–to add air to the RO storage tank.  A small compressor will work, but a hand pump works better. RO tank bladders aren’t as hardy as auto tires, and they are often ruined by adding air too fast.    The bicycle pump is a perfect tool for the job. A related tool is a low pressure air gauge.  You need a gauge that  accurately measures pressures below 10 psi.  Most regular “tire gauges” aren’t accurate at these pressures.  Best source: Your local hardware store or an online hardware  merchant.

Common items that you already have are also effective tools.  A towel placed under the unit  before  you work on it will catch drips and keep your floor dry.  A flashlight is the best leak-finding tool known.  And when you finish your service job, looking over you unit’s fittings with a bright flashlight will let you find small leaks you might otherwise miss.

More Information:

Using a TDS Tester to Test Your RO Membrane

A good source of parts and RO tools.

As Carbon Dioxide Increases, Oceans Become More Acidic. The State of Washington Has Decided to Take Action.

The oceans have long acted as a sink for carbon emissions.  Now they are being asked to absorb more than they can handle.

The result is every increasing acidification.  Seawater is steadily becoming more corrosive.  Many coral reefs have already been destroyed and in many areas of the ocean the entire food chain is threatened.

The State of Washington is particularly concerned about growing ocean acidification because increasing acidity is a major threat to the state’s important shellfish industry.  Shellfish, especially oysters, are prevented from developing shells by an acidic environment.

The only long-term solution for acidification is for the world to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, but since this is clearly not going to happen overnight, Washington is attempting to “buy time” by slowing the process.

Here is how the plan works:

The first step will be to monitor ocean acidity with greater breadth and accuracy and to create an acidity budget — an assessment of just how much acidity is contributed by whom. Next it will seek to reduce carbon pollution from land-based sources, including agricultural and urban runoff. There will also be practical, site-based steps to offset carbon, like planting sea grasses (which themselves are endangered globally) in shellfish hatcheries. And there will be an extensive campaign to educate the public, business leaders and policy makers about the risks of increasing acidification.

The state has set aside $3.3 million to begin the effort (much more will be required down the line), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will help with its laboratories.

The important thing about the program is that it is a start. Waiting for the world to change is not a practical strategy.

Reference:  New York Times

 The Role of  Reverse Osmosis in Removing Chloramines from Water for Aquariums

The water disinfectant chloramine that is being used increasingly by  municipal water treatment plants is bad news for aquarium owners.  Chloramines kill fish,  so there is much interest in removing it from water for aquariums.

Reverse osmosis (RO) has been a favorite of aquarium owners over the years for providing superb-quality water for fish.  There is some concern, however, about RO’s ability to provide chloramine-free water.  The following is an attempt at a non-technical explanation of how RO deals with  chloramine.

First, there is much misinformation,  some of it provided by anti-chloramine groups, that indicates that chloramines are virtually impossible to remove from water.

The fact is, chloramine is removed from water with the same methods that remove chlorine–especially filtration through carbon.   Chloramine reduction just takes longer, which in many cases means that it requires a larger carbon treatment bed and/or greatly reduced flow of water through the bed.  Some carbons, called catalytic carbons, are manufactured especially to treat chloramine and they work much faster than standard carbons.

Chloramine is made by combining chlorine with ammonia.  The removal process involves breaking the bond between chlorine and ammonia then converting the chlorine to harmless chloride. The carbon prefilter of an RO unit (which handles the water very slowly) does a good job of getting rid of the chlorine.  The part that often disturbs people is what happens to the ammonia, since, theoretically, RO membranes aren’t very good at ammonia reduction.

The remaining ammonia can be removed easily by cation exchange,  provided by common water softener resin. There are pH and hardness requirements, however, so that not just any water can be run through a water softener with the assurance that ammonia will be removed.  The reverse osmosis membrane, however,  prepares the water so that  leftover ammonia can be easily removed by cation resin placed after the RO membrane.  Post-RO water is low in hardness and pH,  so a simple and inexpensive cation resin postfilter added to a good RO unit should produce water that is essentially chloramine free.  All filters must be kept fresh to assure success.

Another option is an RO unit with a deionizing (DI) post filter.  The process is the same.  The RO unit’s carbon prefilter breaks down the chloramine and converts the resulting chlorine to chloride.  The RO membrane reduces the total dissolve solids greatly, leaving the DI postfilter free to polish off the ammonia.

Either RO followed by a cation cartridge or a deionizing cartridge should assure excellent, chloramine-free water for fish (or for people, since the same strategies work with undersink drinking water RO units).

References —

Removing Chloramine and Ammonia from Aquarium Water.  (This article provides references to excellent Resin-Tech sources.)

Chloramine and the Reef Aquarium.