now appears to be adequate evidence that for political and perhaps monetary
reasons, our high paid government and private sector scientists may
be intentionally misleading the public as to the safety of our nation's
nearly perfected process of "killing the messenger" who is
bearing "bad news" is being used on a regular basis to prevent
scientific journals, and subsequently the local news media, from publishing
the results of new studies on environmental health risks, including
our public drinking water.
the last man, scientists who discover cures or who are successful in
implementing various technological advances into making our drinking
water "safe", simply can't wait to rush to the news conference
with this "good news".
has shown that a nearly equivalent and sometimes larger number of studies
on the same subject has resulted in negative conclusions, with dramatic
results that the scientific community would just as soon not present
to the public.
the process of trying to protect "time honored technology"
developed by the scientific community, these same scientists and their
peers are reluctant to allow the public to view the downside results
of studies on so-called "safe and proven" techniques.
a little like listening to an eminent scientist tell us that an American
astronaut has just landed on Mars. We're all rightfully excited and
proud of our great technological prowess.
the scientist leaves out of his briefing is that the astronaut was going
18,000 miles per hour when he landed on the planet's surface.
take chlorination of our public drinking water as an example. It is
no secret that for over 20 years, chlorination of water has been linked
to cancer in test animals. If this is news to you, don't feel left out.
20 years ago, scientists were discovering that chlorine was directly
linked to coronary blockages in test animals. Did you hear about it?
Probably not. Do you realize that there were virtually no coronary problems
in the United States prior to the introduction of chlorine into the
nation's drinking water?
we did hear about was how effective the time-honored technology of chlorination
was in killing microbes that cause typhus and other diseases---so why
should scientists rock the boat with new concerns about possible negative
if one of these carefully conducted studies finally reaches the news
media, "spin doctors" began weaving their magic on the public
with carefully concocted disclaimers intended to remove any public concern
about what may in reality be a major health concern to the average American.
example of this occurred recently when Dr. Thomas Chalmers of the Harvard
School of Public Health concluded a study of chlorination of drinking
water with the results that bladder and rectal cancers were increased
by the use of chlorinated water.
to charges being brought by Dr. Chalmers, his peers in the scientific
community review cycle refused to publish the document because
"...they were uneasy about informing people about this problem".
again? And these are scientists who are tasked with our public health?
U.S. Public Health Service, in response to public and private sector
pressure to determine the efficacy of fluoridation of drinking water,
recently completed a study of 40,000 children nationwide, half of whom
drank fluoridated water, while the others drank water without fluoride.
study was intended to overcome some of the questionable testing procedures
conducted some 40 years ago when fluoride was identified through similar
tests to be advantageous in combating dental caries.
the most recent case, the USPHS study found absolutely no difference
between the number of cavities in children who drank fluoridated water
and those that didn't.
real crime afoot here is that hundreds of studies both here and overseas
have shown that fluoride added to drinking water destroys everything
from bone structure to the immune system.
yet, the public is not told about these potentially disastrous health
problems---even when it is conclusively demonstrated by the Public Health
Service, the organization which initiated fluoridation, that fluoridation
of drinking water isn't doing our children any good in the first place.
how about lead in our drinking water? Pipe and plumbing manufacturers
have for years led efforts to stifle information regarding the presence
of lead in their products(sounds a lot like the tobacco industry to
is a killer, and many scientists get much of their monies(grants) from
various industrial concerns, including the plumbing and pipe industries.
Do you suppose that these scientists are scared to publish the "bad
news" they know about in their laboratory tests because they might
lose some of their precious "grant" monies?
could list a dozen other drinking water problems where similar situations
now occur: asbestos poisoning from water pipes, aluminum additives to
the water contributing to Alzheimer and the list goes on and on.
each and every case we are faced with the same dilemma: a supposedly
"safe" or "proven" or "time honored technology"
is found to be unsafe by an equal or greater number of studies which
were used to initially implement the water treatment process or additive.
we never seem to hear from our esteemed scientific community about the
other 50% of the studies. They killed the messenger who was bearing
the bad news---while letting only the good news get to the public.
I am not a great fan of ex Vice-President, Al Gore, he did have some
interesting observations about this type of this scientific dysfunctional
behavior in his new book, Earth in the Balance.
talks about this process of "killing the messenger", a well-established
form of denial which ironically is being practiced and perfected by
the self same scientific community which has been set up with our tax
dollars to protect us.
destructive, denial process may stem from peer pressure, financial insecurity
or other conditions surrounding the scientific research laboratories
which are tasked with protecting our environment and in particular our
health as it is related to drinking water.
the scientific community can overcome their seemingly compulsive need
to control the natural world(and the inherent hazards therein) without
accountability to the public, they are no different than the street
corner drug addict who acts in denial, both believing that they can
continue to live out their professional or addictive lives at the border
of conscious awareness".
the public understands this denial process which is going on in the
scientific community and demands full accountability from those government
and private institutions which have been responsible for hiding critical,
health-related information from the public for decades, we(the public)
will continue to be the recipients of "censored science" and
suffer more and greater health problems from our polluted air and drinking