"But the Government Says It's GOOD For You"

Published on February 8, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

I was reading a book the other day to prepare for raising chickens. One of the things they cautioned against was using city water to water chickens.

Why, you ask? Two reasons: chlorine and flouride, present in many municipal water treatment facilities.

Both agents were added to our water supply on the presumption that they were "good" for us (in fact, in the case of flouride, I remember lining up in school for flouride rinse treatments). In both cases, time has proven that the negative health effects far outweigh any benefits we might have received from them.

Is it any wonder I question the government? With such continual double talk and government funded programs to add "healthy" chemicals to our food and water, we have in essence, subsidized the increase in cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses that plague our country in epidemic rates. Because, we rationalize, if the "government" says it's good for us, it must be so.

First, we must understand that the "government" is no individual person. With just about every "government" sponsored initiative, there has been opposition, occasionally consisting of up to 49% of the voting participants. The government, in short, is only as good or bad as we allow them to be. And with a whole slew of proposed laws sitting on their desks, too often they have little recourse but to rely on the word of their staff or trusted lobbyists and constituents, who have perused the information for them. In the cases of flouride and chlorine, the information passed onto them was probably ultimately backed by manufacturers/distributors of the chemicals, who used only research that favorably considered their proposal and discarded the rest.

And so, it's not the "government" that I distrust as much as it is the individuals who feel compelled to make a God out of the government, considering them to be all knowing, all seeing, and the final word on what is good or bad for us. I attempt to study hard facts and draw a more well rounded conclusion. As such, I have made decisions that many in "the government" would look upon less than favorably. Fortunately, to this point, most recognize my constitutional right to do so.

So, folks, just because the "government" jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?

Comments

foreverserenity

on Feb 08, 2005

"Both agents were added to our water supply on the presumption that they were "good" for us (in fact, in the case of flouride, I remember lining up in school for flouride rinse treatments). In both cases, time has proven that the negative health effects far outweigh any benefits we might have received from them."

Ye Gads! Things that make you go hmmmm? Food for thought Gideon, definately worth looking at again. But no, I wouldn't jump - unless they paid me - kidding!

Kobrano

on Feb 08, 2005

Floride is poison, and has never conclusively been proven to reduce cavities. The reason its used in some municiple water supplies is two fold. One, it was regarded as a "mild" sedative, and years ago it was thought at that adding it to large municiple supplies would reduce crime and violence in the cities. (no, i'm not joking). Another reason its used is money, chemical companies make a fortune out of supplying it to cities, and despite it being proven to be harmful, they continue to add it. One side effect of floride in some people is kidney trouble and recurrent infections of the urinary tract. My sister almost had kidney failure because of the floridated water - and yes, it was isolated to that. Floride does nothing to fight cavities. I haven't used floride toothpaste in over 20 years, and i've never once had a cavity, and my dentist says my teeth never have much plaque. Explain that eh?

Chlorine shouldn't be used in water, instead we should use Ozonation like some cities with modern treatment like Milwakee. Unfortunately, our state would rather use antiquated and dangerously outdated treatment systems rather than update to modern technologies.

I have a household Reverse Osmosis system in my house. Any water we drink or cook with, or ice cubes, is treated using that method. You won't catch me drinking untreated municiple water, that crap is poison. I list florida and chlorine right up there with Aspartame/Nutrasweet and Aluminum in Deodorants... All of that stuff is horribly bad for you and downright poisonous. Its ironic how our government knowingly lets millions of people a year be slowly poisoned to death, and doesn't lift a finger...

Oh wait, I know why.. People in this administration - particularly Rumsfeld, are the people that legalized the Aspartame poison.

http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htmLink

mythgarr

on Feb 09, 2005

Well, chlorine and fluorine are meant to cleanse a municipal water system from harmful microbiological creatures. The reason why they are not supposed to enter livestocks are probably because if you eat their meat, the fluoride would get accumulate on your own biological system.
And I agree with you, don't follow your leader if they act stupid, period.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 09, 2005

People in this administration - particularly Rumsfeld, are the people that legalized the Aspartame poison.

Excellent comparison. Aspartame is yet another one of those "good for you" poisons we've been tricked into swallowing while the government wastes its money trying to ban omega-3 rich hemp oil.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 09, 2005

When I first started reading up on libertarianism, I questioned their stance against government regulations covering health and medical issues. However, how many times does the EPA, FDA, and USDA need to get it wrong before we start wondering if they have any idea what they are talking about in the first place.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 09, 2005

Para,

Precisely. What we have now that we lacked even as recently as 40 yeares ago, is accessibility of information. Businesses will self regulate because to fail to do so will be, in essence, financial suicide.

I have to admit that, as a Libertarian, this has traditionally been one of the dicier positions. But, like you, I am increasingly discovering deliberate deceptions made by our government because they've received payments from the highest bidder (aspartame is a PERFECT example: Nutrasweet remains an "approved" artificial sweetener because of the millions they have paid the government for that status, while stevia, a safer and proven sweetener with a history long predating aspartame, sucralose, OR saccharine, must be labelled as a "food additive" and cannot legally be labelled as a sweetener due to not having spent the money on the process).

Another good example is "Lite ice cream". Once properly labelled "ice milk", they successfully lobbied for the more appeasing "Lite ice cream" despite the fact that there is NO cream in the product.

sqrrldrw

on Feb 09, 2005

There is something bizarre going on with fluoride. WebMd had a listing of side affects for fluoride supplements (not exactly the same thing, but ...). They included weakness, upset stomach and headache. A Fluoride overdose's symptoms are - nausea; vomiting; abdominal pain; diarrhea; increased salivation or drooling; numbness, tingling, or loss of feeling in a body part; painful muscle stiffness; seizures; and possibly death with large overdoses. That sounds really great, doesn't it?

Here's the link if anyone's interested:

http://my.webmd.com/hw/drug_data/d00428a1?orgpath=/hw/drug_data/d00428a1

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 09, 2005

it's never a good idea to trust your government blindly. hopefully, the belief that power is passed to the ruling class by god is over.

still, we DO elect our government, and while the perfect candidate may not have ran during a particular election, it seems silly to not allow the government to perform services.

they do make many mistakes. regardless of whether you are a liberal or conservative, i would guess that programs proposed and instituted by elected officials on either side of the aisle have surprised and dismayed you. i have a whole blackbook of unforgiveable choices made by politicians.

nevertheless, we do elect them. without offering blind support, we have to hope, at least, that they are making the choices we would make in the same situation.

it doesnt always work that way, of course . . . most likely because our candidate options tend to be universally unappealing.

good article.

tbt

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 09, 2005

still, we DO elect our government, and while the perfect candidate may not have ran during a particular election, it seems silly to not allow the government to perform services.

I did not play a part in the election of a candidate from EITHER of the "big two" parties this year. I did not elect them, they do not represent ME, and I have campaigned heartily against them.

So, it's not reasonable to say "we elect them". There are many of us trying to explore more sane options.

KarmaGirl

on Feb 09, 2005

I have an article that is on this same topic:
http://karmagirl.joeuser.com/articleComments.asp?AID=62705

ParaTed2k

on Feb 09, 2005

Unfortunately we only elect a small percentage of the people in government who have a say. The idea that those we do elect oversee those we don't died out in bureaucracy decades ago.

MasonM

on Feb 09, 2005

Hey now, if the government says it's a good thing then it MUST be true!

KarmaGirl

on Feb 10, 2005

Hey now, if the government says it's a good thing then it MUST be true!

That would be more convincing if you could say it with a straight face

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!