Why is the US Importing China’s Toxic Waste?

nuclear-2082637_1280

It shouldn’t be surprising that a nation as populous as China would use large amounts of fertilizer to grow crops. Lots of food to grow.

It also probably shouldn’t be surprising that Chinese companies produce an abundance of industrial waste while manufacturing the phosphate fertilizer used on Chinese farms.

And, of course, no one should be surprised to learn that this industrial waste – a noxious potpourri of toxic chemicals and heavy metals known as fluorosilicic acid – is treated as a pollutant unfit for disposal in natural water ways, and certainly unfit for human consumption.

It should, however, be very surprising – if not horrifying – to know that tons of this pollutant are shipped out of China and into the United States every year for a healthy Chinese profit.

Why, you may ask, would the US purchase toxic industrial waste from Chinese fertilizer manufacturers? Too put it in our drinking water, of course!

What a triumph of efficiency! Not only are we helping prevent the pollution and degradation of our natural environment, but we get ourselves some fancy sets of shiny, white, decay-resistant chompers on top of it!

It’s really nothing to joke about. The fluorosilicic (also hexa- or hydrofluorosilicic) acid produced in these industrial processes is not approved or regulated as a food or drug. In fact, independent studies have shown wide varieties of non-fluorine substances in various samples of the product. Researchers commonly find toxic substances like arsenic, lead, tungsten – even uranium in the same fluorosilicic acid compound that is being added to the majority of Americans’ water supplies.

To be clear, this isn’t intended to criticize the import of Chinese waste products when we have perfectly good fertilizer production right here in the US (incidentally, most of the fluorosilicic acid used for water fluoridation came from US sources until recently, as Chinese companies have been able to offer lower prices).

It is meant more as a question like: What the hell are we doing – and are we sure there’s not a better way?

Advertisements

Can We Thank the Manhattan Project for our Fluoridated Drinking Water?

atomic-bomb-966008_1280

Thanks to our sparkling white smiles, it seems not many people question the efficacy of adding a toxic chemical compound to approximately 70% of American citizens’ drinking water. Of course, there are large numbers of loons and conspiracy nuts who have tried to sound the alarm about fluoride and its’ dangers but why would we listen to them? After all, if we ran headlong into every rabbit hole we stumble across, we’d hardly have any time left for football games and ‘Dancing with the Stars’.

As it turns out, a flurry of recent articles is shining a light on some declassified documents that were released back in 1997, suggesting that the early research that supported municipal water fluoridation were not fueled by an altruistic desire to promote public health (surprise!), but were in fact inspired by a much more predictable desire of the federal government to cover its collective ass in the face of litigation from private citizens and military defense contractors who were injured by the fluoride used in the U.S. nuclear weapons program back in the 1940s.

In fact, these documents indicate that a secret government program (Program F) was launched to surreptitiously collect blood samples from citizens of Newburgh, NY – one of the first fluoridated cities – in an effort to gather medical evidence that would help defend the government from lawsuits filed by the many people they had poisoned during the Manhattan project.

If this is news to you, don’t be surprised. The research that discovered these facts nearly 20 years ago was funded by the Christian Science Monitor, and was never actually published by them. Go figure.

The word is spreading, though, and many cities are now refusing to fluoridate their water due to public pushback. Much of the pushback may be due to false narratives and baseless anti-fluoride propaganda, but at least cities are making what seems to be the right choice – even if it may not be for all of the right reasons.

This video provides a good survey of the situation: