The panicky claim that ‘a chemical weapon’ (sodium fluoride) is put into public water supplies’ may be the latest ‘Silly Season’ myth – but there’s more to it than just rumour.
By Doug Cross
It’s all gone viral! Hysterical reports are flooding the virtual world with the sensational news that the British government issued export licences to supply ‘a chemical weapon’, sodium fluoride, to the evil Assad regime in Syria. And this was even whilst Assad was actually engaged in a civil war against his own people.
The most excitable newspapers, clearly a little short of educated science writers and having just discovered that the same chemical is considered indispensible in dental products, are now even screaming that ‘Syria is using toothpaste to make chemical weapons!’
Now, with the confrontation building in the Middle East, between America on one side and Russia and China on the other, the propaganda war is really hotting up. Today, The Voice of Russia earnestly assures its readers that “Syria’s ‘chemical weapon’ is regularly dumped into US municipal water!‘ – wonderful, wonderful stuff!
And of course it’s all utter bunk – of course sodium fluoride is not a ‘chemical weapon’. Any first year chemistry undergraduate could have put these frantic media morons right on that.
But before you shrug it all off as just another ‘Silly Season’ media feeding frenzy, a storm in a teacup, just take a closer look at this fabulous fiction: there really is something rather nasty about the chemicals that rogue governments (and that includes ours) DO put in their water supply.
Doug is a Chartered Biologist and Fellow of the Society of Biology, and a Grade 1 Consultant to the European Commission. His detailed CVs can be accessed by clicking HERE
For 25 years year Doug has provided first-hand scientific evidence on the effects of the Camelford Poisoning of 1988, when 20,000 people in his community were poisoned with aluminium in their drinking water. He represented the community for twelve years on an expert panel investigating the incident, under the British governments ‘Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals’. He resigned and walked out last year, before the final report could be published, refusing to be associated with the report. In an article in British Medical Journal he exposed the improper way that the panel had been forced to work, and the Department of Health’s deliberate misrepresentation of the panel’s conclusions. His work with leading specialists in aluminium toxicity has enabled world authorities on human toxicology to obtain crucial new evidence of the role of aluminium in dementia, and is of international relevance.