Dove’s ‘natural’ beauty products contaminated with cancer causing chemicals, fake dyes and toxic fragrances

Image: Dove’s ‘natural’ beauty products contaminated with cancer causing chemicals, fake dyes and toxic fragrances
Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
December 7, 2016

Every day we are bombarded by unattainable standards of beauty. Magazines, TV, adverts, and social media all picture perfect models which undervalue the real beauty in ourselves. These beauty advertisements shape our expectation in terms of how we see ourselves.

The desperate need for the perfect body makes us buy the same products these models are promoting in the hopes it will make us flawless and beautiful like them. Unlike most other companies, Dove uses ‘real people’ in their campaigns, which makes us feel much better about the way we look.

This is one of the main reasons why people opt for Dove products that offer real and genuine beauty made from natural components. Or that is what they claim. In truth, Dove isn’t any better than all the other highly promoted toxic beauty products. Their so called ‘real’ or ‘pure’ products are one big scam since Dove, together with all the other companies, uses many toxic ingredients in their products.

What “Real Beauty” looks like

Today, Dove is one of the leading brands of cosmetics generating $2.5 billion in purchases worldwide. With their ‘Real Beauty’ campaign they have lured many insecure, health-conscious people to their side who believe they are buying a ‘pure’ or ‘natural’ product.

Sadly, Dove’s beauty products are one great cocktail of toxic chemicals that have been associated with a wide range of health issues ranging from simple allergies and obesity to more severe problems such as infertility and cancer.

In contrast to its pure messaging, Dove’s foundation product called ‘White Beauty Bar’ is loaded with substances you’d rather not apply to your skin. Marketed as the number one moisturizing product recommended by dermatologists, this traditional soap bar contains chemicals such as stearic acid, sodium tallowate, tetrasodium edta, cocamidopropyl betaine, and synthetic fragrances. Do these substances sound natural or real to you?

Here are just a few examples of harmful chemicals found in most Dove products and what they do to your body.

Methylisothiazolinone

Methylisothiazolinone is a widely-used preservative that has been shown to contribute to allergic reactions, neurodegenerative disorders, and seizures.

Fragrance/perfume

Since the law does not currently require a detailed list of what makes up a fragrance, a manufacturer can hide any substance it wants under the term fragrance or perfume. One of these unlisted chemicals is diethyl phthalate, which is a synthetic liquid commonly used to make plastics more flexible.

Tetrasodium edta

Tetrasodium edta breaks down skin tissue thus letting other chemicals enter the bloodstream more easily. Furthermore, it is made from formaldehyde which is a known carcinogen.

Retinyl palmitate

Retinyl palmitate is a synthetic version of retinol (vitamin A). When applied to the skin in the presence of sunlight, it may speed up the development of cancerous lesions and skin tumors.

Sodium laureth sulfate (SLS)

As reported by Organic and Healthy, approximately 16,000 studies have linked exposure to SLS to irritation of skin and eyes, organ toxicity, developmental and reproductive issues, neurotoxicity, ecotoxicology, endocrine disruption, mutations, and cancer.

These damaging substances are only the tip of the iceberg of the toxic chemicals found in Dove products. The complete list is so overwhelming that it is a surprise that these products are still allowed on the market. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Dove has a whopping 215 different chemicals in their products that range from highly toxic to tolerable and innocuous.

To make sure none of these chemicals mess up your body opt for natural, organic, chemical-free beauty products instead.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

OrganicAndHealthy.org

DailyHealthPost.com

TimeForYouMag.com

Erin Brockovich: Millions of Americans’ tap water poisoned due to EPA standards

Toxic chemicals
Source: NaturalNews.com
Samantha Debbie
August 22, 2016

Twenty years have passed since environmental activist Erin Brockovich first discovered the presence of hexavalent chromium, a known human carcinogen, in the water supply in Hinkley, California.

Brockovich’s journey into environmental activism and the discovery of hexavalent chromium in the water supply was showcased in the popular biographical film “Erin Brockovich,” in which actress Julia Roberts plays the activist.

The toxin was introduced into the water supply by the chemical industry and is known to cause nasal and sinus cancers, kidney and liver damage and irritation to the skin and eyes, according to the National Toxicology Program.

Regulators slow to act to protect public from harmful chemical found in drinking water

Despite the massive awareness generated about the dangers of hexavalent chromium in Americans’ water supply, regulators in various U.S. states have been slow to act, doing little to protect the public from the chemical.

On Tuesday, August 16, Brockovich and the Environmental Working Group penned a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging them to set a federal Maximum Contaminant Level for hexavalent chromium in drinking water.

“We write with deep concern about this continued delay. It is clear that the delay is sowing confusion among state and local regulators, utilities and the public about how much hexavalent chromium is safe in drinking water,” states the letter.

“This confusion is resulting many Americans’ exposure to unregulated levels of hexavalent chromium, which federal, state and independent scientists agree pose health hazards.”

The environmentalists say the government’s “regulation of hexavalent chromium is woefully inadequate” as federal standards for the chemical have not been updated in more than 25 years.

Standards for hexavalent chromium are extremely outdated, say environmentalists

In 1991, the federal government established a MCL for hexavalent chromium of 100 µg/L for total chromium. The letter states that “numerous studies and reviews” show this MCL is “far too high to protect human health.”

Research shows the carcinogen is dangerous to humans at “extremely low concentrations,” the environmentalists say.

“Yet the MCL is only for total chromium, not just hexavalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium or chromium-6 is far more toxic than trivalent chromium, or chromium-3, the other commonly occurring form of the chemical.”

“Setting an MCL maximum level for these two kinds of chromium combined conflates the individual risk of each chemical and allows for legally permissible hexavalent chromium levels that do not adequately protect public health.”

Hexavalent chromium harmful at low concentrations

The letter encourages the EPA to instead set an MCL that’s specific to hexavalent chromium in order to “more accurately reflect the actual level of risk posed” by the chemical.

California is the only state to implement “an enforceable legal limit” for the toxin in drinking water, which is set at 10 µg/L – ten times lower than the federal standard for total chromium.

The level set by California’s Public Health Goal (PHG), which aims to protect against cancer and other diseases caused by a lifetime of consuming harmful substances, is set even lower at 0.02 µg/L.

“The MCL at 10 µg/L is inadequate to protect public health, in light of the 500-fold gap between the PHG and the MCL.7 Nonetheless, the MCL provides unambiguous guidance to regulators, utilities and citizens on the legally acceptable level of hexavalent chromium in drinking water,” the letter states.

The letter comes on the heels of controversy in North Carolina over Gov. Pat McCrory’s effort to withdraw “do-not-drink” warnings for residents whose tap water is likely to be polluted with hexavalent chromium.

The chemical is believed to have entered people’s well water through processes at the nearby Duke Energy coal-burning facilities. The inadequate MCL set by the federal government places citizens at risk for harm in areas such as North Carolina where dangerous industrial byproducts such as coal ash routinely make its way into the water.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NIEHS.NIH.gov [PDF]

EcoWatch.com

CDN.EWG.org [PDF]

Facebook.com

JournalNow.com

New Chemical Bill – Thousands Of Years To Test 64,000 Chemicals For Safety

Toxic Substances
Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
June 21, 2016

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which took effect in 1976, allows high-production volume chemicals to be launched without their chemical identity or toxicity information being disclosed.

It also makes it very difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action against dangerous chemicals. For starters, the act only gives the EPA 90 days to determine if a new chemical poses an unreasonable risk prior to it entering the market.

The EPA states they typically don’t get the toxicity data in time to make such determinations, and as such, the EPA has only regulated five chemicals and requested testing for 200 since 1976. There are about 64,000 chemicals in use right now that are not regulated or tested for environmental repercussions.1

An overhaul of the TSCA is desperately needed and has been for decades, making this month’s Senate approval of an update a monumental occasion. Last month, the House approved the update to the TSCA, and it will now be signed into law.

There are some problems with the update, however — especially it’s timeline. As Bloomberg reported:2

“By the time EPA finishes work on the chemicals it has prioritized, the children of today’s children will have been exposed to them — probably for years.”

TSCA Update: Safety Tests Can Take up to 7 Years Per Chemical

There’s no doubt that the EPA should be testing more chemicals for safety, but the TSCA update doesn’t go far enough to protect Americans.

On the bright side, the new agreement would give the EPA authority to require companies to provide safety data for untested chemicals and also prevent chemicals from coming to market if they haven’t been tested for safety.

It also removes the 90-day limit for the EPA to determine chemical risks and, at least on the surface, eliminates a requirement that chemical regulations had to take into account the cost of compliance. Other notable improvements include:3

  • The EPA will be required to determine whether a chemical meets a set safety standard before it enters the market.
  • The EPA must consider a chemical’s effects on particularly vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women and children.
  • The EPA must quickly review chemicals known to persist in the environment and build up in humans.
  • Companies will no longer be allowed to keep data secret due to “trade secret” and other confidentiality claims.

The EPA has already identified 90 chemicals as high priority, and such chemicals are supposed to take precedence.

However, the bill’s language was created after close work with the American Chemistry Council in order to ensure it would “win the support of industry.”4 As such, while the bill requires the EPA to begin conducting safety tests on roughly 64,000 chemicals, they only have to test 20 chemicals at a time.

Further, each chemical has a seven-year deadline, such that it will be a very long time before potentially toxic chemicals stop being used. As Bloomberg reported:5

“An analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which has criticized the TSCA rewrite as too weak, estimates that EPA needs 28 years to complete risk evaluations on the 90 chemicals in its work plan, 30 years to finalize related regulations on those chemicals, and 35 years to implement the resulting rules.”

States May Lose Ability to Restrict Toxic Chemicals

Congress caved in to industry and allowed a single regulatory system to oversee the industry, and also allowed companies the right to seek a federal waiver from the rules for certain chemicals.

Under the new agreement, states may lose their power to regulate chemicals they deem toxic. In return, language was inserted to allow states to restrict a chemical’s use only if the federal risk review takes more than 3 ½ years. As The Washington Post reported:6

“The EWG’s Scott Faber, the organization’s vice president for government affairs, said the EWG walked away from the bill because it represents ‘only a slight improvement’ on ‘the worst environmental law in the books.'”

Other Glaring Problems With the Chemical Bill Update

The EWG pointed out several other notable failures in the new legislation:

  • State action against chemicals can be suspended for more than three years while the EPA completes its safety review. The EWG reported:7

“States have been the only cops on the chemical safety beat, regulating scores of chemicals and driving marketplace innovation. Any legislation that claims to be better than current law would permit state action until an EPA rule is final.”

  • No adequate funding is required from the chemical industry, which means there’s a good chance the EPA will lack the funding needed to review toxic chemicals already on the market. According to the EWG:8

“To make TSCA better than the status quo, Congress should provide enough funding to review the most dangerous chemicals in a generation — not a century … The compromise only provides about half of what’s needed.”

  • Cost is not fully eliminated from the EPA’s decision-making process, even though it’s purported to have been removed from considerations.

The EWG noted that the bill contains “poison pill provisions that could keep the EPA tied in legal knots” and “negotiators should have at least removed vague requirements that rules be ‘cost-effective.'”

  • The EPA will be able to classify chemicals as “low hazard,” but there is no set definition of what low hazard means. The EWG explained:

“Since the compromise allows the industry to dictate up to half of the chemicals EPA will assess for safety, you can bet a lot of their favorite chemicals will soon be bearing this stamp of approval.”

Many Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Are Unsafe at Any Level

The European Commission is in the process of creating regulations for endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals known to interfere with development and reproduction, and they may cause serious neurological and immune system effects.

The disruptions occur because such chemicals mimic hormones in your body, including the female sex hormone estrogen, the male sex hormone androgen, and thyroid hormones.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals may block hormonal signals in your body, or interfere with the way the hormones or receptors are made or controlled.9 Your normal hormone levels may be altered, or the chemicals may change the way such hormones travel through your body.

They’ve been implicated in a host of diseases from cancer and infertility to obesity and diabetes — and they’re found in countless consumer items such as cosmetics, plastics and pesticides.

In 2009, the European Parliament declared that endocrine-disrupting chemicals would not be allowed on the market, and they enlisted the European Commission to determine criteria to identify these chemicals.

The chemical industries then called for an “impact assessment” to be released before the criteria could be released. Environmental Health News explained the repercussions:10

“National health authorities, industry and NGOs are thus in suspended animation awaiting a decision on these criteria for identification — a regulatory tool that will then enable restrictions or, more radically, prohibitions on the use of certain endocrine disruptors.

Today, seven years later, these criteria still do not exist. This impact assessment, with its highly confidential conclusions (as secret as the location of the fountain of youth), is largely responsible for this delay. It was not originally part of the plan, but industry called for it as a way to weaken the regulation.

[This year] Sweden curtly reminded the Commission that the Court ‘prohibits the use of economic considerations to define criteria.’ So what is the nature of the ‘economic considerations’ contained in the pages of the impact study under lock and key?

In addition to the impact on the industry, will they take into account the cost of diseases related to exposure to endocrine disruptors in Europe, which was estimated by independent studies to be at between 157 billion and 288 billion euros per year?”

For Endocrine Disruptors, Low Doses May Be More Toxic

It’s unknown whether the European Commission or the EPA will take into account the fact that sometimes, low doses of chemicals have the potential for great harm.

Many studies assume a linear dose-response relationship for the chemical and any given effect. That is, they assume that if a chemical causes organ damage at 200 parts per million (ppm), it will cause greater damage at higher exposures and less damage at lower levels.

This is a dangerous assumption, because for many toxins, including some endocrine-disrupting chemicals, harm is exerted even at very small doses. Patricia Hunt, Ph.D., a geneticist at Washington State University, explained that endocrine disruptors like bisphenol A (BPA), which act like hormones, “don’t play by the rules.”

Even low-level exposure — levels to which people are currently being exposed — may be enough to damage developing eggs and sperm, for instance. In one of Hunt’s studies, researchers found disruptions to egg development after rhesus monkeys, which have human-like reproductive systems, were exposed to either single, daily doses of BPA or low-level continuous doses.11

Your Body Is Not a Toxin Dumping Ground

It’s virtually impossible to avoid all of the toxic chemicals in your environment, but that doesn’t mean you have to sit silently by while corporations use your home, your water, your air and your body as a convenient toxin dumping ground. Until change occurs on a global scale, you can significantly limit your exposure by keeping a number of key principles in mind.

  • Eat a diet focused on locally grown, fresh, and ideally organic whole foods. Processed and packaged foods are a common source of chemicals, both in the food itself and the packaging. Wash fresh produce well, especially if it’s not organically grown.
  • Choose pastured, sustainably raised meats and dairy to reduce your exposure to hormones, pesticides and fertilizers. Avoid milk and other dairy products that contain the genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST).
  • Rather than eating conventional or farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury, supplement with high-quality krill oil, or eat fish that is wild-caught and at little risk of contamination, such as wild-caught Alaskan salmon, anchovies and sardines.
  • Buy products that come in glass bottles rather than plastic or cans, as chemicals can leach out of plastics (and plastic can linings), into the contents; be aware that even “BPA-free” plastics typically leach endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are just as bad for you as BPA.
  • Store your food and beverages in glass, rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap.
  • Use glass baby bottles.
  • Replace your non-stick pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.
  • Filter your tap water for both drinking and bathing. If you can only afford to do one, filtering your bathing water may be more important, as your skin readily absorbs contaminants. Most tap water toxins, including fluoride, can be filtered out using a reverse osmosis filter.
  • Look for products made by companies that are Earth-friendly, animal-friendly, sustainable, certified organic, and GMO-free. This applies to everything from food and personal care products to building materials, carpeting, paint, baby items, furniture, mattresses, and others.
  • Use a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter to remove contaminated house dust. This is one of the major routes of exposure to flame-retardant chemicals.
  • When buying new products such as furniture, mattresses or carpet padding, consider buying chemical-free varieties containing naturally less flammable materials, such as leather, wool, cotton, silk and Kevlar.
  • Avoid stain- and water-resistant clothing, furniture, and carpets to avoid perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs).
  • Make sure your baby’s toys are BPA-free, such as pacifiers, teething rings and anything your child may be prone to suck or chew on — even books, which are often plasticized. It’s advisable to avoid all plastic, especially flexible varieties.
  • Use natural cleaning products or make your own. Avoid those containing 2-butoxyethanol (EGBE) and methoxydiglycol (DEGME) — two toxic glycol ethers that can compromise your fertility and cause fetal harm.
  • Switch over to organic toiletries, including shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants, and cosmetics. The EWG’s Skin Deep database can help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates and other potentially dangerous chemicals.12
  • Replace your vinyl shower curtain with a fabric one or use glass doors.
  • Replace feminine hygiene products (tampons and sanitary pads) with safer alternatives.
  • Look for fragrance-free products. One artificial fragrance can contain hundreds — even thousands — of potentially toxic chemicals. Avoid fabric softeners and dryer sheets, which contain a mishmash of synthetic chemicals and fragrances.

    Read More At: Mercola.com

Hundreds Of Cancer-Causing Chemicals Detected In American’s Blood, Urine & Hair, Says Environmental Watchdog Group

Cancer chemicals
Source: NaturalNews.com
Jonathan Benson
June 22, 2016

Concerns about the human health effects of perpetual exposure to environmental toxins often get dismissed or ignored by health authorities on the grounds that such chemicals don’t stick around inside the body long enough to cause problems. But a new report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) – the first of its kind – suggests quite the opposite, and could help explain why rates of cancer and other chronic diseases continue to skyrocket in the developed world.

Researchers from the respected environmental watchdog group spent upwards of a year poring through data compiled from more than 1,000 biomonitoring studies, as well as other research published by leading government agencies and independent scientists, and came to some shocking conclusions. They found that as many as 420 unique chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer, are now being detected in human blood, urine, hair and other tissue samples, demonstrating not only that carcinogens are everywhere, but that they’re also permeating our bodies at an alarming rate.

The bulk of existing cancer research focuses almost exclusively on tobacco, alcohol and sun exposure as the alleged primary causes of cancer, at the exclusion of the literally thousands of chemicals that have been scientifically shown to cause cancer. Even the World Health Organization (WHO) agrees that 20 percent of cancers – or one in five cases – are a result of chemical and/or environmental exposure, not cigarettes, booze and ultraviolet rays.

Reinforcing other ongoing research of a similar nature, like that of the Halifax Project – a collaboration of more than 300 scientists from around the world who are investigating the cancer-causing effects of common chemicals – the new EWG findings are sure to raise some eyebrows within the realm of public health. At the very least, what this research shows is that not nearly enough investigation has taken place with regard to chemical safety, and that the general public faces unknown risks from this lack of proper scrutiny.

“The presence of a toxic chemical in our bodies does not necessarily mean it will cause harm, but this report details the astounding number of carcinogens we are exposed to in almost every part of life that are building up in our systems,” stated Curt DellaValle, author of the report and a senior scientist at EWG.

“At any given time some people may harbor dozens or hundreds of cancer-causing chemicals. This troubling truth underscores the need for greater awareness of our everyday exposure to chemicals and how to avoid them.”

Compounded toxicity, an often overlooked aspect of carcinogenic exposure

Another issue addressed by the report is the lack of safety research on chemicals in combination with one another. The combined toxicity of multiple chemicals in tandem – a common occurrence in many consumer products – is a major unknown when it comes to long-term health effects, especially in developing unborn children still inside their mothers’ wombs.

“Many of the carcinogens this study documents in people find their way into our bodies through food, air, water and consumer products every day. Dozens of them show up in human umbilical cord blood—which means Americans are exposed to carcinogens before they’ve left the womb,” says EWG president, Ken Cook.

“We should focus on preventing cancer by preventing human exposure to these chemicals.”

As we’ve reported in the past, the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in its current form lacks the necessary regulatory teeth required to accurately assess the safety of chemicals, especially the effects of combined chemical exposure. As it stands, thousands of chemicals have been “grandfathered” into use without having been properly safety tested by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a direct result of TSCA’s failed guidelines.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Study Suggests Women are Exposing Themselves to Unsafe Mercury Levels

FDA Guidelines May Need Beefing Up

fishSource: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
April 22, 2016

A study recently published by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) suggests women who eat as much or more seafood as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends for pregnant women may be exposing themselves to unsafe levels of mercury, depending on the types of fish they’re eating.

mercury
Source: The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

The FDA issued draft regulations in 2014 recommending women who are pregnant, nursing, or who might become pregnant consume more fish because they are high in omega-3 fatty acids. It was recommended to choose fish that contain lower levels of mercury as well. The advice also applied to young children.

The agency advised these women to eat 8 to 12 ounces or 2 to 3 servings of various types of low-mercury fish each week.

The EWG doesn’t think that the advice goes far enough, though, and that it could be potentially dangerous for women who eat too much mercury or fish species low in omega-3 fatty acids.

The group says its concerns have been confirmed by its study.

It found that 30% of frequent seafood eaters have mercury levels exceeding the limits established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – 11 times more than those who rarely ate seafood.

For their study, EWG tested the mercury levels of 254 women of childbearing age in 40 states including California who consumed as much or slightly more seafood than recommended by the FDA.

Said Sonya Lunder senior analyst at the EWG:

“We believe the nutrition-based advice for people to eat more seafood is backed up by science. But the science shows that [fish] only provides a benefit when you can keep your mercury levels low.”

Fish are contaminated with mercury through a variety of sources, though mainly through industrial pollution. When mercury winds up in water systems, it eventually travels into the ocean where it is consumed by small organisms. From there it works its way up the food chain in larger and larger amounts. This is why the highest concentrations of mercury are often found in large predatory fish.

Unfortunately, types of fish such as tuna are the ones humans are most likely to eat.

Continue reading At: NaturalSociety.com

The FDA just banned fluorine-based chemicals in food packaging because of their toxicity … but won’t ban fluoride in public water supplies

Fluorine chemicals
Source: NaturalNews.com
Jennifer Lea Reynolds
February 26, 2016

In response to a petition filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Environmental Working Group (EWG), and other environmental groups, the FDA has announced that it will ban a variety of toxic food packaging chemicals and cancer-causing food flavoring chemicals – chemicals they had previously approved.(1)

Specifically, the food packaging chemicals they’re banning are all perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), which belong to a class of coating chemicals associated with causing cancers, neurological problems, hormone imbalances and other serious health problems. Items typically coated with PFCs include take-out food containers, non-stick cookware and pizza boxes.(1)

The organizations final ruling on the matter is stated as follows:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the food additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of three specific perfluoroalkyl ethyl containing food-contact substances (FCSs) as oil and water repellants for paper and paperboard for use in contact with aqueous and fatty foods because new data are available as to the toxicity of substances structurally similar to these compounds that demonstrate there is no longer a reasonable certainty of no harm from the food-contact use of these FCSs.
(2)

So, why isn’t the FDA banning fluoride in public water supplies?

While this is certainly good news, their move still begs the question: if fluorine-based chemicals, “… no longer [show] a reasonable certainty of no harm …” then why isn’t the FDA interested in banning fluoride in public water supplies?

Seriously, just because many people have it in their heads that fluoride builds healthy teeth (cavity prevention), and that it’s not harmful (because the medical professionals say so, because ads say so, etc.), that doesn’t make it true.

Health-conscious people like Natural News readers know this, but the point is that the FDA, which has regulatory oversight regarding tap water quality standards, isn’t on board with the concept that fluoride is unhealthy. In fact, they downright embrace fluoride in the water system; their website states that, “… fluoride is voluntarily added to some drinking water systems as a public health measure to help reduce the incidence of cavities among the population.”(3)

Most fluoride in tap water isn’t naturally-occurring; even some dentists say it’s not safe

The sad reality is that fluoride in water – contrary to what many people think – doesn’t necessarily come from naturally-occurring elements within the earth. Oh no, much of the fluoride that’s added to the public water system comes from industrial waste systems’ dangerous byproducts which haven’t even been tested to gauge safety levels. Needless to say, they certainly don’t do a thing for oral health, let alone other health aspects.(4)

Just ask Dr. Hardy Limeback. He’s a dentist and former head of preventative dentistry at the University of Toronto who used to be in favor of water fluoridation. Today, however, he sings a different tune, one that hones in on the harms of such a method. “The chemical used in over 90 percent of cities in North America are fluorosilicates,” he says. “[Fluorosilicates] are contaminated with cancer-causing arsenic and radioactive particles,” Dr. Limeback explains, “and have never been tested for safety in humans.”(4)

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com