To Fluoridate or Not, The Topic of Debate
Opinion250 - April 3, 2011
Prince George, B.C. - Approximately 50 people attended a two-hour public forum hosted by the Prince George Safe Water Coalition this afternoon to debate the issue of drinking water fluoridation.
Coalition Founder, Marilyn Judd, wants fluoride removed from the drinking water in Prince George and to that end, invited Dr. James Beck to the city to speak at today's forum at CNC, and to go before city council tomorrow evening.
Dr. Beck is the author of, "The Case Against Fluoride." He's a medical doctor and biophysicist who was asked to delve into the issue in Calgary a decade ago, while a prof at U of C.
In introducing Beck, forum moderator, Dave Fuller, outlined the situation in Prince George, where back in 1998, city council received an exemption from the provincial government to introduce fluoride into several new areas in the city without the required referendum.
Dr. Beck said, "The issue of fluoridation is really multi-faceted and when you bunch it all together and say, 'Should we have fluoridation or not?', it's kind of overwhelming."
To manage it more easily, he divided it into three issues: Is it effective? Is it safe? Is it ethical? Dr. Beck read and evaluated numerous research papers to draw his conclusions, "So I'm not basing what I tell you on personal clinical experience, but I'm basing it on 10 or 11-years of study of the scientific literature on fluoridation."
The biophysicist detailed a number of studies showing little or no difference in tooth decay between jurisdictions with fluoridated water and those without. He said one of the better studies of 39-thousand children in 84 communities showed a minimal difference of (.6 of one tooth surface) less decay with fluoridation. But he pointed out that, when weighed against research showing the known and possible harmful health effects associated with fluoride, that minimal benefit was not worth it.
Local dentist, Dr. Richard Wilczek, was in attendance at the forum and said, after 30-years of practising in the city, he seen the difference fluoride makes in preventing dental caries in children. He said we live in a society where general measures taken for the overall wellbeing of all are acceptable. Many in attendance disagreed. Werner Kesseling said, "I'm concerned that I have less rights than people who demand fluoride in the water - I demand water without fluoride."
Dr. Beck said this is where the medical ethics issue comes into play, about imposing a substance on people without the option to cease taking it, to control the dosage or monitor the effects on individuals. He said often a compelling point in the fluoridation debate is that it's necessary for the children of low-income families who can't afford dental or proper nutrition, but pointed out what a few in the room raised, that when the City of Calgary voted by a 13-to-2 margin to remove fluoride from the drinking water, it also passed an amendment to take the money spent on that system and put it into dental education programs.
Northern Health declined an invitation to send a representative to the forum, but in a position statement submitted by Medical Health Officer, Dr. David Bowering, he wrote that, "Water fluoridation provides a fair way to ensure that everyone is protected, regardless of income, education and financial ability to seek dental care. People benefitting the most from water fluoridation are those most susceptible to tooth decay - typically, these are the poorest and most disadvantaged members of our community."
Read the original article.
Academic Trio Add Substance to Fluoride Debate
Dominion Post - March 30, 2011
An international trio of academics has lent substance to the sometimes-hysterical lobby against fluoridated water supplies with their book The Case Against Fluoride.
One of the three, Paul Connett, former Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology at St Lawrence University in New York, visited Upper Hutt's Orongomai Marae on Monday to promote his cause and the book.
A Ministry of Health spokeswoman said Professor Connett has spoken of the perceived risks of water fluoridation, while ignoring the public consequences of dental decay. Professor Connett's co-writers were James Beck, Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics at the University of Calgary, and also a doctor of medicine, and Spedding Micklem, Professor Emeritus in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. Professor Connett said he never wanted to get involved in the fluoride lobby, but felt compelled to after his wife pressured him into reviewing research into the subject.
He was teaching environmental chemistry and providing consulting services in waste management at the time.
``I certainly didn't need a third issue that would stigmatise me in the US, an issue that would paint me as looney-tunes,'' he said.
That was 15 years ago and he has been advocating against fluoridation of water supplies ever since.
He has four main arguments against public water fluoridation.
The demonstrable benefits from fluoridation of water supplies are very small, he said.
At age 12 the average child is better off by about one fifth of one tooth surface if they live in a community with fluoridated public water supplies compared with a child who does not.
"Teeth have been in the mouth for a shorter amount of time," he said.
They are therefore exposed to less sugar.
"The benefit is completely eliminated by a one-year delay of eruption of the tooth."
His second argument is that fluorides are demonstrably toxic, causing brittle bones in later life, elevated rates of cancers and some studies are now suggesting that, even at very low levels, ingested fluorides inevitably cause lowered IQ in populations which receive it. A study in China led by Professor Quanyong Xiang published in 2010 found for every one part per million of fluoride in the blood, the average intelligence quotient (IQ) was lower by 0.59, Professor Connett said.
The third point is that compulsory mass medication is unethical. Professor Connett said any doctor who administered a drug to a single patient without fully informing him of the likely effects, and monitoring those effects would inevitably be struck off for malpractice.
Furthermore, compulsory mass medication is poor medical practice, he said.
"Once you put medicine in people's water you can't control the dose you can control the concentration, but you can't control the dose, and you can't control who gets it."
How much any individual received would depend on how much they drank.
"The naturally-occurring level in mother's milk is 0.004 parts per million, which means a bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated community is getting 250 times more fluoride than a breastfed baby," Prof Connett said.
Ministry of Health chief dental officer Robyn Haisman said the ministry is aware of some dissenting opinions on the merits of fluoridation of drinking water, including those of Prof Connett. However, the ministry regularly scans international literature to ensure its policy takes account of significant scientific findings.
"Professor Connett significantly downplays dental caries as a population disease and the real improvements that fluoridation has on the whole community, especially those most at risk of dental decay," she said.
"Dental caries affects 41 per cent of children aged two to 11 years in their primary teeth, 39 per cent of children aged five to 17 years in their permanent teeth and 77 per cent of the 18-to-24 years age group."
Results from the New Zealand Oral Health Survey, strongly support data from other recent studies that dental decay is an ongoing and progressive disease.
"Simply to say that it [water fluoridation] only prevents 0.6 of a tooth surface of decay is simplistic and misleading," Dr Haisman said.
"Fluoridation has an ongoing effect on reducing the impact from a disease which is progressive throughout life." Prof Connett raises risks of fluoridation but fails to talk about the pain and suffering which will be caused through increase dental decay by removing water fluoridation, she said.
"Fluoridation is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce dental decay in communities.
"The financial costs of treating dental disease are high, while the costs of water fluoridation are relatively low."
Upper Hutt regional councillor Paul Swain said the council has expertise in water treatment and distribution.
"It doesn't have expertise in oral health. For that we take guidance from the Ministry of Health.
"The current advice is that fluoride, dosed in accordance with the drinking water standards, is safe and effective," he said.
Read the original article.
Fluoridation debate bubbling up
The U.S. Center for Disease Control calls it one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, but in recent months two Canadian municipalities made national news for taking a second look at public water fluoridation. Concerned about its safety and effectiveness, Calgary decided last month to remove fluoride from its water supply and the Cape Breton Regional Municipality is considering doing the same.
Fluoride is added to municipal water to control tooth decay.
“I’m convinced that the amount that’s in Peterborough’s water is a perfectly safe dose,” Peterborough’s Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Rosana Pellizzari, told Arthur. The Peterborough County-City Health Unit supports fluoridation and as head of that agency, Pellizzari said the practice is a “safe,” “effective” and “ethical” way to promote oral health....
For Pellizzari, the benefits of fluoridation are evident. She stated that there is a lower rate of tooth decay in the City of Peterborough than in non-fluoridated regions of Peterborough County.
Opponents, like University of Calgary biophysicist and co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (2010), James S. Beck, question these alleged benefits.
In his book, Beck argues that in the last 50 years, declines in tooth decay have been observed both in countries that fluoridate their water and in those that do not. Beck and other opponents contend that declines in tooth decay are linked to other factors like topical fluoride treatments and dietary improvements....
Read the original article.
Anti-fluoride talk draws a full house
There was standing room only in the Wolf Performance Hall at the Central Library on March 2 as Londoners heard “The Case Against Fluoride” – a presentation by Paul Connett PhD, executive director of the US-based Fluoride Action Network.
Speaking to the 370-strong crowd, Connett called the fluoridation of London’s drinking water “unethical” and said Canada’s health authorities continue to ignore research that links fluoride consumption to health problems including brain damage, lowered thyroid function, bone diseases like arthritis and lowered IQ in children.
“There is no adequate margin of safety for known health effects from fluoride,” said Connett.
Read the original article.
Don't Drink the Fluoride: Get the F Out.
Journal of Living Food and Healing - March 4, 2011
As an environmental professional in industrial controls, one of my assignments in 1976 was to prepare an engineering assessment and an air pollutant control techniques document for the phosphate fertilizer industry under an EPA contract. Little attention was paid to the high fluoride content in the stack-gas scrubber waste water, the same gasses that killed cattle in a wide area around the plants in Florida. I later learned these concentrated and toxic fluoride wastes were to be sold to municipalities to discharged directly into public water supplies while the public was being sold the idea of their supposed health and dental benefit package. I have had to live with that for 35 years, so tonight I come out of the closet and introduce you to my new professional affiliation with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). I joined to help FAN the flames of freedom from fluoridation, as it has been banned in nearly all of Europe for many years. In December, with compliments of the publisher Chelsea Green, I received a copy of a new book which is the probably the most comprehensive treatment of this fascinating topic. It is written Paul Connett, PhD, James Beck MD, PhD, and H.S. Micklem DPhil.and it is called The Case Against Fluoride–How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There.
Read the original article.
Scientists discuss fluoridated water at Hamilton's Colgate Bookstore
HAMILTON — The Colgate Bookstore will host a discussion and book-signing with Dr. Paul Connett, co-author of the book, “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There” on Wednesday, March 9 at 4:30 p.m. at 3 Utica St. This event is free and open to the public.
Although many countries have rejected the practice, many cities and towns across the United States continue to fluoridate their water supply and the Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association continue to endorse it.
In “The Case Against Fluoride,” the authors take a new look at the science behind water fluoridation and argue that just because the dental and medical establishments endorse a public health measure doesn't mean it's safe. The book brings new research to light, including links between fluoride and harm to the brain, bones, and endocrine system, and argues that the evidence that fluoridation reduces tooth decay is surprisingly weak.
Connett is a graduate of Cambridge University and holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College. From 1983 until his retirement in May 2006, he taught chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y. where he specialized in Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology.
Over the past 26 years his research on waste management has taken him to 49 states and 55 countries, where he has given over 2000 pro bono public presentations. Ralph Nader said of Connett, “He is the only person I know who can make waste interesting.”
Connett has researched the literature on fluoride’s toxicity and the fluoridation debate for 15 years. He helped found the Fluoride Action Network and has spoken on the dangers of fluoridation to legislative and research bodies in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the UK and the US. That latter has included presentations to both the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Research Council.
The Colgate Bookstore is Central New York’s largest independent, downtown bookstore; it is proudly and operated by Colgate University.
Read the original article.
Drinking Toxic Waste - Culture Change
By Daniel Zengel - February, 7 2011
Every day, tens of millions of Americans will be medicated without their consent. The medication will be administered in unrestricted amounts, even to those who are at the greatest risk of succumbing to its toxic side effects. This medicine is called fluoride. Fluoride is a naturally occurring element which is today artificially added to the drinking water of over 72% of American homes. This practice is nothing new. Water fluoridation was originally developed by the Nazis. Nazi scientists added sodium fluoride into the drinking water of concentration camp prisoners in order to study its toxic side effects. One may ask why this horrifying practice was then adopted by the United States in 1950 and is today declared to be one of the "ten great public health achievements of the twentieth century" by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Many assume it was to prevent cavities. The facts, however, suggest a less wholesome truth.
Dr. Paul Connett is a professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University and has been researching water fluoridation for over 14 years. He is an anti-fluoridation activist who released his newest book, titled The Case Against Fluoride, in October 2010. Dr. Connett is at the forefront of a growing movement of medical professionals who are attempting to end water fluoridation in this country. "We have a statement," Connett claims, "signed by over 3,160 medical professionals, including doctors, dentists, and chiropractors, which calls for an end to fluoridation." Connett calls water fluoridation a "terrible mistake" and claims that today there is no difference in rates of tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated states. He says, "Studies show that fluoride, if it works at all, works topically." Connett also believes that water fluoridation puts certain groups at great risk, and points out that when babies consume formulas made with fluoridated water they receive 250 times more fluoride than is naturally present in breast milk.
Read the original article.
Echo News Chemistry professor talks fluoride
Professor Paul Connett is giving fluoride talks.
When Professor Paul Connett was a young academic teaching environmental chemistry and toxicology at St Lawrence University in New York, he was reluctant to get involved in the fluoride debate for fear of being labelled a “loony”.
But on July 6, 1996, all that changed when he read a research paper and he realised “the people had been betrayed”.
“My wife gave me a cup of tea and these research papers and, as soon as I started reading them I thought ‘Oh my God people have a right to be concerned’,” he said. “There were several things there that gave the game away, but one thing that stuck with me was how incredibly low fluoride is in mother’s milk. If it was necessary for children’s teeth you’d expect it to be in mother’s milk… it’s as low as 0.004 parts per million and that’s 250 times less than what we add to water. I have a great respect for nature’s chemistry and biochemistry and I felt that nature wouldn’t screw up on this.”
He said as a university chemistry teacher he felt he had shirked a very important responsibility for not getting involved in the debate earlier.
“I had succumbed to the prevailing nonsense in the States that the people against fluoride were a bunch of crazies, and many people fear to get involved in the anti-fluoride movement because they don’t want to be tagged as loonies,” he said. “When I had a look at the issues I realised fluoridation is a massive betrayal of the public’s trust and I felt embarrassed I hadn’t got involved before as someone who taught environment chemistry and toxicology.”
Now retired, Professor Connett has written a book, The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics, and is coming to Lismore and Ballina next week to give two public talks. ...
Read the original review.
Top News New Zealand - February 10, 2011
There used to be a time when Professor Paul Connett preferred to just teach environmental chemistry and toxicology at St Lawrence University in New York and never paid any heed to the hot fluoride debate going on.
But it had to change one day when his wife gave him some research papers along with a cup of tea. After reading those papers, he realized the gravity of the issue. He was shocked to know that how incredibly low fluoride is in mother’s milk as if it was necessary for children’s teeth then it should have been there in mother’s milk which is as low as 0.004 parts per million.
Showing his great belief and respect for nature’s chemistry and biochemistry, he added, “I had succumbed to the prevailing nonsense in the States that the people against fluoride were a bunch of crazies, and many people fear to get involved in the anti-fluoride movement because they don’t want to be tagged as loonies”.
Professor Connett, the writer of “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics” stated that there is hardly any difference between fluoridated countries and non-fluoridated countries and the evidence related to reduction of dental cavities is weak in itself.
He blames it all on political hegemony and says that it’s his 14 years of frustration which made him write this book.
Read the original article.
Mercola.com - February 11, 2011
To learn more, I highly recommend Dr. Connett's book, The Case Against Fluoride. You can also download my free report on water fluoridation for more information on the bad science and political agendas that got this toxic chemical in our drinking water and, at least for now, are keeping it there.
Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water
There's no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Interestingly enough, according to the findings of a groundbreaking study published in the journal Langmuir, even the benefits of topical application of fluoride appear to be questionable at best!
At least when it comes to topical application, you have a choice. You can easily buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash. But you're stuck with whatever your community puts in the water, and it's very difficult to filter out of your water once it's added. Many do not have the resources or the knowledge to do so.
The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Earlier this year I joined forces with Dr. Paul Connett to do just that. The Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation in both Canada and the United States.
Our fluoride initiative will primarily focus on Canada since 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. If we can get Calgary and the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow. The most pressing Action Item is to flood the US DHHS with our comments regarding their recommendation to lower the recommended level of fluoride to 0.7 ppm. Remember, the deadline is February 14.
Read the original article.
Fluoride in Drinking Water Should Be Capped, HHS Says
January 07, 2011 - Business Week - By Michelle Fay Cortez and Alex Wayne
(Adds fluorosis data starting in second paragraph.)
Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Fluoride in the U.S. water supply should be limited because the additive is damaging children’s teeth, federal officials said in announcing the first restrictions in almost 50 years.
Drinking water should contain the lowest amount of the mineral recommended as the Environmental Protection Agency reviews the maximum level allowable, the Department of Health and Human Services said today. The change stems from rising rates of fluorosis, discoloration and damage of tooth enamel now found in more than one in three American children.
At the start of the 20th century, most Americans lost a majority of their teeth by the time they were 40 years old, according to the National Institutes of Health. Today, the CDC calls fluoridated water one of the 10 greatest public health advances of the 20th century, along with vaccination, birth control and the recognition of tobacco as a health hazard.
About 100 million Americans don’t have access to fluoridated water, the CDC says.
“Our kids are being overexposed,” said Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, an advocacy group based in Canton, New York. “They are getting four times more fluoride than the original promoters of fluoridation intended.”
Only nine countries in the world, including Australia, Ireland, Singapore and Colombia, provide fluoridated water to the majority of their people, Connett said. Most European countries don’t provide any supplementation, and their cavity and tooth decay rates are as good as those in the U.S., he said in a telephone interview. More studies are needed, he said.
Read the original article.
Government Advises Less Fluoride in Water
January 8, 2011 - Wall Street Journal - By Timothy W. Martin
The federal government lowered its recommended limit on the amount of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in nearly 50 years, saying that spots on some children's teeth show they are getting too much of the mineral.
Fluoride has been added to U.S. water supplies since 1945 to prevent tooth decay. Since 1962, the government has recommended adding a range of 0.7 milligrams to 1.2 milligrams per liter.
But federal officials said Friday they would move the recommended limit to 0.7 milligrams per liter, or the bottom end of the current range, because people are getting more fluoride these days from other sources, such as toothpaste, mouthwash, prescription fluoride supplements, and fluoride treatments given by dentists.
A study conducted between 1999 and 2004 by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 41% of children between the ages of 12 and 15 exhibited signs of dental fluorosis, a spotting or streaking on the teeth. That was up from nearly 23% found in a study from 1986 and 1987.
The CDC believes the increase is due mostly to children swallowing toothpaste with fluoride when they brush their teeth.
The American Dental Association commended the new federal recommendations for preserving fluoridation.
"Water fluoridation is one of our most potent weapons in disease prevention," ADA President Raymond F. Gist said in a statement.
Federal health officials have called fluoridation one of the 10 great public-health achievements of the 20th century, saying it significantly cuts the rate of cavities and saves money.
But for years, some groups have called for an end to fluoridation, arguing that it poses serious health dangers, including increased risk of bone fractures and of decreased thyroid function. Friday's announcement did little to appease such critics.
"The only rational course of action is to stop water fluoridation," said Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, a nonprofit advocacy and fluoride-education group.
Read the entire article.
CDC Adjusts Fluoride Poisoning of America's Water Supply to a Lower Level
January 8, 2011 - Natural News - Mike AdamsFluoride is still a poison
It's so rare to find any agency of the federal government actually doing anything that even resembles a good decision these days that the CDC's decision deserves some level of kudos. Even though it doesn't end the destructive practice of poisoning the water supply with fluoride, it's a step in the right direction. But it doesn't go nearly far enough, say industry watchdogs.
"It' a good start that they've finally recognized that after 65 years they needed to lower the 'optimal' level of fluoride," Professor Paul Connett told NaturalNews. He's the executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (www.FluorideAlert.org), which is spearheading the fight against water fluoridation in the United States. "It should have happened years ago."
Connett goes on to explain why the CDC's decision doesn't go nearly far enough:
"The bad news is that the CDC and ADA are still trying to maintain that the only issue of concern is dental fluorosis [while] they are trying to ignore all the other health concerns. If they were really serious about reducing dental fluorosis, they would stop fluoridated water altogether. But short of that, if they were really serious, then the next best thing would be to warn parents in fluoridated communities not to use fluoridated tap water to make baby formula. That's the most practical thing to do."
It is unknown how many children in America and around the world have been poisoned by infant formula made with fluoridated tap water, but that number continues to grow each day that water fluoridation continues.
Is the announcement a P.R. stunt?
About the CDC's motives for this announcement, Connett characterizes it as a bit of a P.R. stunt:
"All that's happening here is really a P.R. exercise to make it look as if they are addressing the public's concerns without really doing anything substantial. [They] give the message that they're going to choose a level which would allow the water fluoridation program to continue. That's a travesty of science and another example where these Washington based agencies are more interested in protecting a policy than in protecting the health of the American people."
"They've completely ignored all the IQ studies and the notion that fluoride damages the brain," Connett explains.
Read the entire article.
The emergence of Fluoridegate
January 10, 2011 - Questions Unanswered - Ben Nelms
“The illiterates of the 21st century will not be those who can’t read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.” –Alvin Toffler
As Americans, we have been taught from birth to love and respect our country. This is good. In America, many people have long-believed that the federal government was one their side. That view has eroded somewhat in previous decades and even more lately. What continues to amaze me is that so many citizens, while appropriately castigating a President and Congress, don’t seem to think the federal government itself (and in particular the agencies that formulate, implement and enforce policy after Congress passes laws and the President signs them) plays any role in their discontent.
Also in America, as elsewhere, we tend to put out of our minds the things we believe we cannot change, the things over which we believe or are told we have no control. And like obedient little children we dutifully shrug our shoulders and go on to the next order of business as we live out our days. If all you know and believe about matters directly affecting your life and that of your family is contained in what the government agencies, corporate spokespersons, politicians, establishment academics and the mass media tell you, then you know precious little.
An issue facing us all is the longtime problem with the two sides of the coin called healthcare. On one side is the provision of healthcare bolstered by doctors, hospitals, insurance plans (public or private), pharma/chemical companies and medical device manufacturers. On the other side there is a question that few ask: while proficient at treating (not curing) disease, why are we seeing a rise in so many diseases and medical conditions that now contribute to, for example, more than 25 percent of the children in this country being prescribed medications on a regular basis (Wall Street Journal 12/28/10)?
There are many reasons why a number of diseases and conditions continue to increase and many of them deal with the more than 80,000 industrial chemicals we drink, eat, breathe and absorb into our bodies every day (Presidents Cancer Panel report – April 2010). We wouldn’t need as much healthcare if we could keep the poisons out of our bodies.
For example, let’s pick an obvious and wide-ranging set of diseases: cancer. Beyond the complicity of the chemical/pharmaceutical industry and its Congressional and federal regulatory minions, I believe the reality is that cancer is too big to fail.
Yet we’ve raised money for years for the American Cancer Society, for example, to help fund “research” for the “war against cancer” through local Relay for Life efforts; all for an organization that uses less than 10 percent (that’s right) of the money it raises for cancer research (Dr. Devra Davis, 2007, xv).
And in April when the President’s Cancer Panel essentially blasted the chemical industry for its links to numerous cancers via many of its industrial chemicals that we’re exposed to, guess who came out bad-mouthing the 150-page, heavily documented study. That’s right, the American Cancer Society that uses less than 10 percent of its money for cancer research (Dr. Devra Davis, 2007, xv).
Yet there is one chemical element that is exceedingly toxic that also ends up in hundreds of other compounds. That element is fluorine, and it has a special significance. And while it has been the darling of industry since the 1940s and is a killer whose nature has been denied by industry and government for six decades, it is also added to your drinking water. The reason is no mystery. This is the foundation of Fluoridegate.
Fluoride has been added to drinking water of increasing water systems in America since the late 1940s. And though the Center for Disease Control and the American Dental Association have long supported its use there are a growing number of scientists, physicians, dentists and attorneys who are speaking out against the practice due to the insidious nature of the fluorine atom and its remarkably devastating effect on so many organic and inorganic compounds, including those found in our bodies.
Fluoride in water is the very important tip of a huge iceberg, but one that should be addressed first because everyone has to drink water since it is essential to life itself.
There is much to be said about water fluoridation and the endless fluorine compounds present in the foods and drinks we consume and the medicines we take. And the number of scientific studies performed worldwide on fluorine is exhaustive. They are divided into two camps: those singing its praises and those concerned about its consequences. To begin this abbreviated journey let’s start with a trip to the doctor.
Let’s say you have come down with some kind of illness. You visit your doctor, she confirms the illness and prescribes a medication. Already aware of the synergistic effects with any other drugs you make be taking, she hands you the script and you’re on your way to the pharmacist. Once there, you’re handed your meds along with a detailed print-out of information that you are responsible for reading so that you give “informed consent” by which you have been informed of the benefits and risks that may be associated with the medication and you consent to the treatment.
But what if your doctor tells you the medicine she wants to prescribe has never been through any random clinic trials, no double-blind studies and that neither she, nor the pharmacist, can provide you with information by which you can agree to informed consent . Would she prescribe it or would you take it. For most people the answer is ‘no.”
As a matter of disclosure, the American Dental Assocation and the CDC have, and continue to be, the main proponents of water fluoridation (to date 70 percent of the U.S. population is fluoridated, as is 98.5 percent of Georgia, according to CDC). And CDC has called water fluoridation one of the 10 great public health achievement of the 20th century. Yet for some unknown reason CDC will not provide me with the names and job titles of its managers responsible for informing the public on matters pertaining to water fluoridation. You would think they would be proud of their claim.
The fluoride used in U.S. drinking water is often either sodium fluorosilicate or hydrofluorosilicic acid that come directly from the phosphate fertilizer industry (as a toxic waste byproduct) to your tap.
I think the reality is that CDC (along with growing number of government agencies, professional organizations and corporations) knows the days are numbered for dumping a neurotoxin in our drinking water (Mullenix in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 1995, Murphy, 2008 and another 80 animal and biochemical studies cited in Connett, Beck and Micklem, 2010).
The following, from about a decade ago, is from the Union of Scientists at the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.
This group of 1,500 scientists, engineers and lawyers came out in opposition to water fluoridation after they refused to parrot EPA’s official position brought on by “external political pressure” that EPA was “unable or unwilling to resist.” The scientists decided not to keep the issue “within the family.” Here’s what they said after several years of opposing EPA’s position (http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm). I hope you read this carefully:
“Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposure to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic (low doses of fluoride ingested over a period of years, like with drinking water) toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”
“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear,” the scientists concluded. “Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method of controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”
Bottom line, you have been lied to for 60 years about a product said to be safe yet is insidious in its ability to cripple, maim and kill. Fluoridegate in years to come will be known not only for the cover-up that continued for decades, but for the disease, suffering and death that could have been prevented.
The handwriting is on the wall. The unwillingness of government, corporations and elected officials to stand with and for the people is legion. Juxtaposed to that unwillingness are 215 million plaintiffs (70 percent of the U.S. population) and counting.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. ” – Edward Bernays, the “father of public relations” (the opening words in Propaganda, 1928)
If there’s no problem with fluoride then why is the warning label on you tube of toothpaste? Unless you use fluoride-free toothpaste you are supposed to call your doctor or poison control if you, or your child, swallows more than a pea-sized amount. The reason: fluoride is a poison.
The accepted level of daily fluoride intake was set by federal government agencies nearly a half-century ago at .7-1.2 parts per million (that’s about a milligram in 33 ounces of water). Meantime, the Maximum Contaminant Level is four parts per million (per EPA in April 2010). That means if you drink four liters of water or drinks made with fluoridated water (not to mention the many foods, medicines and consumer products containing it – like Teflon) you will have reached the MCL.
And let me get this straight. Whether the daily dosage or the MCL, the dosage is the same for a 50-pound little girl and a 250-pound man? That’s right, according to our “leaders” at the CDC, EPA and the American Dental Association.
And just last Friday, many of you know that, for the first time in nearly a half-century, an agency of the federal government (EPA) recommended reducing the daily dosage of fluoride to the pre-established minimum of .7 ppm/day. It only took about 50 years.
Below are just a few of the problems with the fluoride compounds in drinking water and the fluorine in general.
-The U.S. is one of only 30 countries in the world that use any fluoridation and only one of eight where more than 50 percent of the population is fluoridated (Connett, et al, 2010). And while CDC and ADA say fluoridation has reduced the rate of tooth decay, the research says different, indicating that tooth decay is decreasing over time in fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries and with the most dramatic decreases coming in countries that do not fluoridate (Nature 322:125-129; World Health Organization, 2004 at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html; Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93, etc.)
-Fluorine is highly toxic and it’s the most reactive element found in nature. As such it chemically binds with endless other elements to form new compounds that have delighted industry and consumers for decades (like Scotchguard and Stainmaster).
-The fluoride compound added to your water is a drug, according to the FDA (http://www.fluoridealert.org/re/fda.letter.to.calvert.dec.2000.pdf). This drug, which has never been subjected to clinical trials, is one for which you cannot give informed consent. Yet for decades the “leading authorities” have supported and promoted fluoridation in defiance of medical ethics.
-Due to its chemical nature, about 50 percent of the fluoride that enters your body stays there (bioaccumulates) and builds up in bone, bone marrow, the thyroid gland, the pineal gland in your brain and likely in other organs and brain centers (Murphy, 2008).
“Recent information on the role of the pineal gland in humans suggests that any agent that affects pineal function could affect human health in a variety of ways, including effects on sexual maturation, calcium metabolism, parathyroid function, post menopausal osteoporosis, cancer and psychiatric disease (National Research Council, 2006).
-There are concerns that fluoride is linked to some cancers, including bone cancer in young males (Bassin, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, 2001).
-The CDC in 1999 acknowledged that fluoride’s predominant mechanism of action is “topical,” not “systemic.” Hence, it may work on the surface of teeth but not from inside the body (Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 48, no. 41, Oct. 22, 1999). Yet, for some unacknowledged reason CDC and ADA continue to support adding fluoride to our waters supplies, even though such a route bypasses our teeth (topically) and goes straight into our bodies (systemically) where it can be absorbed into our bones, thyroid gland, brain and other areas.
-And perhaps as potentially devastating as any of the above are the studies show indicate a link to lowered IQ (brain damage) in children. There have been a number of studies in this area. One of the most recent “indicated that fluoride in drinking water was highly correlated with serum fluoride, and higher fluoride exposure may affect intelligence among children.” (Environmental Health Perspectives, Dec. 2010 and Zhang, et al, 2010)
Here are a few heavily documented resources for those who are interested in the fluoride topic: The Case Against Fluoride (2010-comprehensive and easy to read), The Fluoride Deception (2004-documents the government/industrial interests in fluoridation), The Devil’s Poison (2006-written by an Illinois orthodontist and, though heavy into biochemistry, it’s easily the most disturbing book I’ve ever read). Other resources include the exhaustive website Fluoride Action Network (www.fluoridealert.org), Daniel Stockin’s website http://spotsonmyteeth.com/ and the Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children at http://www.poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/ that includes symptoms of fluoride poisoning, contents of fluoride in foods and medications.
Three huge questions, for which space does not permit adequate answers, are why was fluoride introduced, who benefitted and why do powerful groups like CDC and ADA continue to support it. The answer to all three is one word: the benefits to industry and profits, not to workers and citizens.
“Up until about 1940, fluorine’s effect on life was always deemed poisonous. It was determined to be altering enzymes used by a living organism to carry out a multitude of tasks. Around World War II, sporadic then increasingly more common articles were appearing that fluorine ‘might’ be good for teeth and even bones. The change in direction is profound and a researcher cannot miss the abrupt about-face.” (Murphy, p.8)
Decades ago, fluorine was a toxic byproduct of the aluminum industry (with lawsuits piling up beginning in the 1930s), then it was used to enrich uranium in the nuclear industry and now it’s a waste byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry. And from there is goes straight to public drinking water.
Bryson in The Fluoride Deception (p. 148) notes the work of the Paley Commission, set up by President Truman in 1950 (William Paley was head of CBS television.) Fluoride had been declared a strategic and critical material. The commission called fluoride “an essential component of enormously vital industries. Without this little known mineral … little or no aluminum could be produced; steel production would be reduced substantially; the output and quality of important chemical products such as refrigerants, propellants for insecticides and plastics would be significantly reduced.” Essentially, “We the People,” citizens and employees, were expendable.
And finally, there was (Forsyth Dental Center-Harvard University) toxicologist Phyllis Mullenix, the developer of the Computer Pattern Recognition System. She was the scientific sweetheart of giants like 3M, Exxon, Colgate-Palmolive, DuPont, NutraSweet and Procter & Gamble until she discovered the truth about fluorine’s effects on the central nervous system, including cognitive problems leading to confusion and (does this ring a bell) indifference.
“I thought how odd,” Mullenix said of her presentation at the National Institutes of Health, one of her last acts before being dropped by academia and industry. “It’s 1990 and they’re talking about the miracle of fluoride, and now I’m going to tell them that their fluoride is causing neurotoxicity that’s worse than that induced by some cases of amphetamines or radiation.”
The “weight of evidence” principle that has long been used to condone the use of fluoride turned on its head many years ago. But it was federal agencies and professional organizations that would not budge. As a result lives were crippled, lives were lost. And average citizens across this land had no way to stand against those powers. But perhaps this time will be different.
The agencies supporting fluoridation were able to pull it off in the late 1940s and 1950s when we were busy with new jobs and making babies after the World War II. They were able to pull it off in the 1960s and 1970s when we were busy with the “cultural revolution,” Vietnam and aspiring to join that country club. They pulled it off in the 1980s and 1990s and since 2000 when we were busy making money, being “environmental,” buying more golf clubs, watching our favorite sitcom and “fighting terrorism.”
But all during those decades there were scientists researching the issues on fluoride, amassing what has now become a “weight of evidence” that has overwhelmed the myth of the safety and efficacy of fluoride. And it is that weight of evidence that the supporters of
fluoride know is out there. Some of the longtime supporters have already
started backing off. Others will likely soon follow, albeit incrementally.
And as for “We the People” or least some of us, if all you can do is parrot the diminishing number of government, academic and corporate supports of fluoridation then you have a lot less to bank on than you think.
Bottom line, your federal government has failed you miserably and knowingly for generations on this side of the healthcare issue. I think we’re so dumbed-down that we’re content to keep taking chemo and other meds for our ills without ever asking about the causes of those ills.
That said, the tide has turned on fluoride and what is soon coming will be the beginning of a series of events that will likely make the deleterious health issues involving tobacco, lead and asbestos combined pale in comparison. What is coming is Fluoridegate. If you’ve done the research you won’t be surprised. If you haven’t, you may laugh or you may mock, but just make sure you remember where you heard it.
Read the original article.
Natural News - Urgent action needed to help stop fluoridation of New York City and San Diego
Jan 6, 2011
There’s good news on the fluoride front in New York City this week, but your help is needed there (and also in San Diego). Councilor Peter Vallone is introducing a bill to the New York City Council that would end fluoridation in NYC. We need help from all our New York City readers to support this effort
to protect the safety of the NYC water supply and remove this toxic chemical from the tap water there.
If you live in NYC, please sign this petition from the Fluoride Action Network:
Fluoride is a poison
As you may already know, the fluoride that’s dumped into the water supplies in cities like NYC is actually derived from the toxic byproducts of the phosphate mining industry. Twenty-four studies have now been publishing linking fluoride to low IQs in children, including a recent study that showed water fluoridation strongly correlated to a statistically significant reduction in children’s IQs (http://www.prisonplanet.com/fluorid…).
Also, if fluoridated tap water is used to create infant formula, this can cause a toxic overdose of fluoride in infants, delivering up to 200 times the fluoride level of breast milk and causing fluoride poisoning (http://www.naturalnews.com/030123_f…). This can lead to cancer, tooth discoloration and neurological harm, among other side effects.
Oppose fluoride in San Diego
The city of San Diego is right now threatening to add fluoride chemicals to another section of the city, affecting 1.4 million residents there. If you live in San Diego, please help us oppose this fluoridation plan by taking action now with this petition (urgent deadline, please act today):
These petitions are being organized by the Fluoride Action Network (www.FluorideAlert.org), where the executive director professor Paul Connett leads a science-based effort to eradicate fluoride chemicals from our water and thereby protect the health of our families and children.
He’s the author of The Case Against Fluoride – How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There (http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-…).
This book is packed with information, citations and the scientific evidence on why fluoride is extremely dangerous for humans to ingest in the quantities currently being used in municipal water supplies. Highly recommended reading.
Watch for more news about fluoride here on NaturalNews.com, where we are working to support grassroots efforts to stop the chemicals that are poisoning our world and harming our people: GMOs, fluoride, mercury fillings, pharmaceuticals, chemotherapy, vaccines and more.
Read the original article.
Research shows fluoride is IQ-killer for children while CDC calls it 'safe and healthy way to effectively prevent tooth decay'
World Net Daily - January 3, 2011
Adding fluoride to city water systems, hailed by the Centers for Disease Control as "one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century," actually becomes an IQ-killer for children, according to a new report.
A Chinese study has been reported by the Fluoride Action Network that found a startling difference between children in two cities with significantly different levels of fluoride in their water systems.
The study involved 512 children between 8 to 13 years old in two Chinese villages that were about 50 miles apart. Wamaio had 2.47 milligrams per liter of fluoride and the village of Xinhuai had 0.36 milligrams per liter of fluoride.
The test showed the city with the higher fluoride had children with IQ scores 5-10 points lower.
The reports said the study rated 28 percent of the children in the low-fluoride town of Xinhuai as "bright, normal or higher intelligence," while only 8 percent in the high-fluoride Wamaio were in that category.
Further, it said 15 percent of the children in the high-fluoride city had scores indicating mental handicaps, while only 6 percent had the same results in the low-fluoride city. St. Lawrence University Chemistry Professor and environmental activist Paul Connett says the two towns studied were remarkably similar in demographics and infrastructure. And he said the Chinese study is only the latest in a long list of studies that have produced alarmingly similar results.
"This is the 24th study which has found a relationship between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ. They come from China, India, Iran and Mexico," Connett stated.
But he says this study is different from the others.
"The difference with this study which makes it more important is that not only do they find a relationship between fluoride in the water, but they brought it closer to individual exposure," Connett explained.
"They showed a relationship between lowered IQ and the fluoride levels in the blood," Connett further explained.
"When you adjust and look at the fluoride levels in the serum, in the blood, then you are closer to individual exposure which strengthens this study," Connett added.
University of Ulster microbiologist and epidemiologist Dr. Vyvyan Howard says that fluoride is harmful for several reasons.
"It could be a direct toxic effect or secondly and I think it's more likely personally that it may be an indirect effect. It reduces the level of thyroxin, which is thyroid hormone in the body. Thyroid hormone is absolutely essential for the normal development of the brain," Howard said.
"If you have no thyroid hormone you get a condition called cretinism, which leads to the brain failing to develop normally. What they found is that for women who are in the normal thyroid range, you can detect small changes in the IQ's of children of mothers who were in the top end of that normal range," Howard explained.
Howard says the relationship between fluoride and the thyroid has been used to control thyroid imbalances.
"Physicians knew decades ago that you could prescribe fluoride to control overactive thyroid typically in young women. It was a