Can Water Supply Authority Staff be Arrested for Fluoridating Public Drinking Water?

207 Comments

Overview

According to the CRIMES ACT 1958 – SECT 458, a “person found committing offences may be arrested without warrant by any person” in Victoria. The answer to the question, Can Water Supply Authority Staff be Arrested for Fluoridating Public Drinking Water?, is honestly, we don’t know. However, it is a question worth taking seriously and over the years since 2008, AFAM has been asked this question numerous times. Therefore, we offer the following overview for the general consideration of the Victorian public:

Water fluoridation is a treatment for the disease of dental caries. Treating individuals without their informed consent can result in serious charges such as Medical Trespass, Assault or Battery, for medical practitioners who treat patients without consent. However, water departments treat thousands, even millions, of people every day and night with fluoridation chemicals, without consent being originally obtained (or obtained on an ongoing basis).

Thus, it is logical to consider whether members of the public, for whom the right to consent is being regularly violated, have grounds to arrest those violating their rights (in this case, suppliers of public drinking water). In the words of the CRIMES ACT, a person may be arrested in order “to prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of a further offence,” and/or “for the safety or welfare of members of the public” – as long as such arrests are made with beliefs based “on reasonable grounds”.

It seems that the decision to arrest members of water supply authorities would be determined with consideration of:

a) Health risks to individual members of the public, or vulnerable population sub-groups;

b) Ongoing offences of medical trespass, assault or battery against members of the public.

Let’s examine these two categories:

a) Health risks

Proponents of fluoridation do acknowledge the increased risk of dental fluorosis as a side-effect of fluoridation, but they generally deny the potential for health risks beyond this. Nevertheless, research since 1990 has begun to more seriously consider fluoridation’s “undesirable effects… due to the awareness that this element interacts with cellular systems even at low doses” (Barbier et al. 2010). As proposed by Thiessen (2011), even the supposedly “low” concentration of fluoride in drinking water of 0.7 mg/L is “not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups”. We discussed this matter in more detail in a recent post.

b) Informed consent to treatment

Whilst many health concerns may at this point be inadequately studied in fluoridating nations (to determine the full extent of risk), one thing abundantly more clear is the fundamental principle of informed consent to treatment. We invite readers to scroll through our numerous previous posts on this issue to grasp a full understanding of the principle, and fluoridation’s obvious violation of it.

Summary

It could, in principle, be reasonably established that mandatory water fluoridation in the state of Victoria represents a violation of the fundamental principles of informed consent to treatment. In reality, individual doctors could not force a treatment upon any individual in the community without facing serious consequences if they did so, yet water supply authorities do so every day by adding fluoridation chemicals to water supplies as a form of mass treatment (where consent has not and could not be obtained from all members of the public). It could also be reasonably established that the scientific jury is still out on the safety of fluoridation, therefore, it is plausible that the actions of water supply authorities may be harming members of the public. Could these, in light of the CRIMES ACT, be sufficient grounds to perform arrests on members of water supply authorities? It is within the rights of anyone in Victoria to make that call, as an individual. We, of course, recommend seeking professional legal advice before performing such actions.

Advertisements

Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

207 thoughts on “Can Water Supply Authority Staff be Arrested for Fluoridating Public Drinking Water?

  1. Dennis Stevenson, a former Parliamentarian and Member of the ACT Legislative Assembly ‘Fluoridation Inquiry’ (1989-91). The majority of inquiry members would not report the scientific, medical, dental and court evidence received in worldwide submissions proving that fluoridation causes disease, deaths, tooth decay and is useless and environmentally destructive. Dennis put this evidence in a 177 page Dissenting Report, part of this major government report, but longer than the 131 page section which attempted to suppress the evidence.

    For over 100 years, science and medicine have understood the poisonous nature of fluoride. In the 1930’s and 40’s, giant US companies, e.g. ALCOA, were sued for millions of dollars due to toxic fluoride waste escaping from factory smokestacks killing crops and livestock. ALCOA’s owners (Mellon) figured that if people could be persuaded fluoride isn’t poisonous but is good for teeth, profits could be protected. So, to introduce water fluoridation, they hired the brilliant ‘father of propaganda’ Edward L. Bernays. Joined later by other fluoride polluting industries (e.g. nuclear) and the multi-billion dollar sugar, toothpaste, confectionary and soft drink industries, they became strong financial supporters of dental associations that promoted fluoridation. One such support group, the Dental Health Education & Research Foundation (DHERF) was founded in Australia in 1962. Its Governors, Members and donors comprised key representatives from Coca-Cola, CSR, Kelloggs, Colgate-Palmolive, Wrigleys, Arnotts, Scanlens, Cadbury Schweppes, etc. 
The following 12 points require no expertise in fluoride toxicity, just common sense:….

    http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/33574

  2. INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF ORAL MEDICINE AND TOXICOLOGY

    In IAOMT’s ongoing examination of the toxicological data on fluoride, the Academy has made several preliminary determinations over the last 18 years, each concluding that fluoride added to the public water supply, or prescribed as controlled-dose supplements, delivers no discernible health benefit, and causes a higher incidence of adverse health effects.

    This current policy position by IAOMT confirms those earlier assessments and asserts that there is no discernible health benefit derived from ingested fluoride and that the preponderance of evidence shows that ingested fluoride in dosages now prevalent in public exposures aggravates existing illnesses, and causes a greater incidence of adverse health effects.
    Ingested fluoride is hereby recognized as unsafe, and ineffective for the purposes of reducing tooth decay.

    http://iaomt.guiadmin.com/wp-content/uploads/article_IAOMT-Fluoridation-Position.pdf 

    • The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo.[1] They were responsible for the “smoking tooth” video that frequently gets passed around in altie circles. Their main issue is mercury amalgam fillings, which they claim can cause all sorts of neurological illnesses such as Parkinson’s and autism. They sell filling removal kits for “dentists” along with various other nature woo, mostly vitamin supplements. The organization also opposes water fluoridation, claims to put out peer-reviewed “research,” and supports “health freedom.”

      • It’s nice to see, that the so-called Quackwatch: “http://www.quackwatch.com/index.html” has been exposed! 😛
        ℬ⊥ẘ
        http://www.quackpotwatch.org The “quackbuster” operation is a conspiracy. It is a propaganda enterprise, one part crackpot, two parts evil. It’s sole purpose is to discredit, and suppress, in an “anything goes” attack mode, what is wrongfully named “Alternative Medicine.” It has declared war on reality. The conspirators are acting in the interests of, and are being paid, directly and indirectly, by the “conventional” medical-industrial complex.

        The trolls & shills posting here are doing their utmost!!

  3. And you roll out some statement made 30 yrs ago as an argument ,and I see connett rolls him out all the time and he lists him with other suspect therys like Colqohuin and mullinex wow

  4. This says it all:-

    1982 Former NIH (National Inst. of Health) scientist opposed to fluoride

    Statement by James B. Patrick, Ph.D. at the Joint Congressional Committee on Health and Appropriations Against the Inclusion of Fluoridation in the Preventive Health & Health Services Block Grant, Held August 4, 1982.

    Dr. Patrick earned his B.S. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University majoring in chemistry. His experience as Antibiotics Research Scientist was with the National Institute of Health and Lederle Laboratories.

    Dr. Patrick is Senior Professor and Chairman of the Department of Chemistry, Mary Baldwin College, Stauton, Virginia, 1967 to date. He is author of 28 technical papers and holder of 7 U.S,. patents.

    “A number of scholarly volumes and numerous technical articles have been written showing the biochemical and toxicological hazards of deliberately exposing the population to continuous dosages of such a potent chronic toxin as fluoride.

    It is a scientific disgrace that a well organized lobby of the American Dental Association ever managed to stampede American legislators into ignoring the highly technical but very cogent objection to fluoridations.

    http://fluorideinformationaustralia.wordpress.com/research-science-studies/prominent-researchers-scientists/  

  5. To use the drug company scenario again, if a manufacturer was caught basing their health and safety claims on just testing one ingredient and using a surrogate for that ingredient, you can bet there would be criminal charges and executives would be serving prison time. Drug manufactures are required to run tests on the actual product. Fluoridated tap water is no different from a drug on which the manufacturer makes health and safety claims.

    There is absolutely no relationship to reality between the fluoridated water you drink from the tap and the fluoridation research water except the generic “Fluoride Ion” and 99.9% pure H2O. Tap water is a chemical soup. Consequently, no scientist with a modicum of intelligence or integrity would make an unequivocal statement to the effect that tap water fluoridation safety has been proven beyond a doubt – it’s a blatant misrepresentation, if not an outright lie.
    Justifying their positions, the researchers said that fluorosilicates dissociate in water for form silica and fluoride ions. But, I found a 1947 paper, “Silica Free Boiler Water by Ion Exchange,” from Industrial Engineering Chemistry that directly contradicts their myopic and naïve assumptions about fluorosilicates in drinking water dissociating into silica and fluoride ions and fluoride being a “free, non-reactive ion in water.”
    http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fluoridation-dogmatic-science-george-glasser

    • so you quote attoney deal as a qualified piece of research, you might as well quote FANN for as much credibility there is here what a joke

      • You are and a disgrace – all you have got is insulting and defaming the good people who have been trying to stop this chronic poisoning of the population via ‘water fluoridation’ (and hence our food chain, all life and environment).

        Go away and take all in your Pro-fluoride RABID Response Team with you and do something decent for mankind.

        • Ok Diane if your arguments are so watertight .how come you need a legal team to enforce them and take local govts to court because they see through the lies. If the fact were valid they would stand up to public scrutiny on their own

          • The facts DO stand up on their own – which is why SO FEW places in the world fluoridate their water, with no detriment to dental health. (About 4 European countries fluoridate salt, but with that consumers still have a choice, unlike with water which goes through the whole food chain).

            The few countries that do fluoridate are following the bidding of corporations that profit from getting rid of their industrial waste, or from selling products that contain fluoride – and dental associations whose members also profit from using fluoride. Thank heavens I have an enlightened dentist who doesn’t use fluoridated products (nor amalgam fillings).

            • It seems that pro-fluoridationists never even examine the public arguments against their own religious belief in fluoridation | http://youtu.be/FRIdsxT3IGc | They make so many weak points that our side has addressed over and over and over again, yet they still ramble on with the pro-fluoridation mantra.

            • if the facts do stand up on there own, sack attorney Deal the and his bullys, And there are more than 4 countrys using fluoride in Europe salt fluoridation is widely used in Europe. In fact, at least 70 million Europeans consume fluoridated salt, and this method of fluoridation reaches most of the population in Germany and Switzerland. These two countries have among the lowest rates of tooth decay in all of Europe. Fluoridated milk programs reach millions of additional Europeans. A number of areas in Italy have water supplies with natural fluoride levels that already reach the optimal level that prevents decay. This is a major reason why Italy does not have a national program for water fluoridation. Finally, some countries in Europe do elect to adjust fluoride levels in community water systems. Fluoridated water is provided to 12 million Europeans, mostly reaching residents of Great Britain, Ireland, and Spain.

              here we go reason 101 the conspiracy theory big business is controlling fluoride , wow the bottom of the anti barrel must be getting empty now
              Time to sue someone, wheres Deals phone number

          • The fact has always been that it was up to the Water Fluoridation polluters to prove beyond any doubt, that it is safe and effective – this has never been done and never can or will be.

            By the way why don’t you identify yourself, you sound very much like Vegemite Kurt.

            Stop wasting our time, shills are very annoying to decent people and my shocking red raw rashes from the hexafluorosilic acid and co-contaminants (hazardous waste aka ‘water fluoridation’ in everything we eat drink and bathe in) are making me a bit cranky so I don’t want to waste my time on fanatics from the Pro-fluoridation RABID Response Team.

          • Ok Chrissy Baby, please supply the original stand alone published peer reviewed paper that proves calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride and/or for that matter hydrofluorosilicic acid is SAFE AND EFFECTIVE to be ingested in the water supply?

            What dose of fluoride did I have yesterday, what dose of fluoride did you have yesterday Chrissy Baby, what dose of fluoride do aluminium/aluminum die casters have every working day when the temperature in the shade is over 40 degrees C and/or steel workers on the same day for that matter Chrissy Baby?

            https://www.google.com.au/search?newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=sAs&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1440&bih=742&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=aluminum+foundry+workers&oq=aluminum+foundry+workers&gs_l=img.3…97634.99647.0.100436.9.8.1.0.0.0.261.1271.3j1j4.8.0….0…1c.1.32.img..9.0.0.DUglmtFvmrU

            https://www.google.com.au/search?newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=cTX&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1440&bih=742&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=steel+smelting+workers&oq=steel+smelting+workers&gs_l=img.3…64089.65863.0.66380.9.9.0.0.0.0.235.1256.3j2j4.9.0….0…1c.1.32.img..9.0.0.5xvK6IMMOMM

            Some bright spark brought in a thermometer to work one day and we almost went crazy because the temperature outside in the shade was 42 degrees C in the shade and the temperature in the foundry, aluminium foundry, was 60 degrees C and rising and we told him to chuck/throw the thing away.

            Could you even imagine how much fluid we would have to ingest in those sorts of working environments?

            You wouldn’t have a clue Chrissy Baby just like all the rest of us, YOU and ALL YOUR liars at the medical/dental professions to boot.

            “NO-ONE KNOWS” each individuals intake/dose that they are ingesting each and every day of their lives!

            The aluminium/aluminum melts at around 660 degrees C, that’s 1220 degrees F and steel melts at around 1510 degrees C, that’s 2750 degrees F.

            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

            My qualifications for me to be able to comment about this subject is that I used to work with SODIUM FLUORIDE which I used as a FLUX in ALUMINIUM/ALUMINUM DIE CASTING, what’s your qualifications Chrissy Baby?

            I was also FORMALLY DIAGNOSED with SKELETAL FLUOROSIS on July 3rd, 2013 and I live in South Australia where “water fluoridation” was started in 1971.

            Oh and btw Chrissy Baby, I have not been near an ALUMINIUM/ALUMINUM FOUNDRY since 1986 and I am getting worse so don’t give me that BS that hydrofluorosilicic acid, let alone sodium fluoride and caicium fluoride is SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.

            Keep lying Chrissy Baby, your day will come, just keep on eating, drinking and soaking in all that hydrofluorosilicic acid/Schedule 6/7 poison.

            https://www.google.com.au/search?newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=tsr&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&q=hydrofluorosilicic+acid+corrosion&spell=1&sa=X&ei=rqrsUseFBcLfkAWynIGgCA&ved=0CFEQvwUoAA&dpr=1&biw=1440&bih=742

            Now this is for your eyes only Chrissy Baby:

            Please open the link below to page 6/8 and please read:

            Section 11, Toxicological Information and you’ll find there:

            Acute Oral Toxicity LD50 = 200 mg/Kg (guinea pig)

            Acute Inhalation Toxicity LC50 850 – 1070 ppm / 1 hour (Rat)

            Acute Dermal Toxicity 140 mg/kg LDLo (Frog)

            OH LOOK!

            Mutagenesis NO DATA AVAILABLE “WHY NOT???????”

            Target Organ NO DATA AVAILABLE “WHY NOT???????”

            Developmental Toxicity NO DATA AVAILABLE “WHY NOT???????”

            Carcinogenicity NO DATA AVAILABLE “WHY NOT???????”

            CERTIFIED TO NSF / ANSI 60

            “IS THERE SOMETHING TO HIDE Chrissy Baby??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????”

            http://www.mosaicco.com/images/Hydrofluosilicic_Acid_MSDS_03Jan14.pdf

            Cheers Chrissy Baby, “HAVE A NICE DAY” and keep up the great work Diane

  6. Scientific Facts on the Biological Effects of Fluorides

    by Allen Buresz, D.C. http://all-natural.com/fleffect.html

    Fluoride in drinking water was originally added in the 1940s to prevent tooth decay. Studies have now shown that fluoride causes dental fluorosis in 10% of the population. Even more disturbing than the cosmetic impact that fluoride can have on teeth, research is also linking fluoride to increased risk of cancer (particularly bone cancer) gene mutations reproductive problems neurotoxicity (hyper or depressed activity) bone fluorosis (decreasing density). In fact, in 1999, the EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists took a stand opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Read more here. The fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and is considered by the FDA as an “unapproved drug”. The proper use of any drug requires an understanding of how much is too much. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, an estimated total intake of existing fluoride amounts is imperative. Research shows fluoridation is unnecessary since we’re already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association’s recommended daily amount.

    1. Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea.

    A.K. Susheela and Mohan Jha, ” Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous Bone Composition,” IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Vol. 9, No.11, pp. 1021-1022 (1981); Y. D. Sharma, ” Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Collagen Cross-Link Precursors,” Toxicological Letters, Vol. 10, pp. 97-100 (1982); A. K. Susheela and D. Mukerjee, ” Fluoride poisoning and the Effect of Collagen Biosynthesis of Osseous and Nonosseous Tissue,” Toxicological European Research, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 99-104 (1981); Y.D. Sharma, ” Variations in the Metabolism and Maturation of Collagen after Fluoride Ingestion,” Biochemica et Biophysica Acta, Vol. 715, pp. 137-141 (1982); Marian Drozdz et al., ” Studies on the Influence of Fluoride Compounds upon Connective Tissue Metabolism in Growing Rats” and “Effect of Sodium Fluoride With and Without Simultaneous Exposure to Hydrogen Fluoride on Collagen Metabolism,” Journal of Toxicological Medicine, Vol. 4, pp. 151-157 (1984).
    2. Fluoride stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells, but inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood.

    Robert A. Clark, ” Neutrophil Iodintion Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation,” Blood, Vol. 57, pp. 913-921 (1981).
    3. Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis. As little as 0.2 ppm fluoride stimulates superoxide production in resting white blood cells, virtually abolishing phagocytosis. Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below 1 ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents.

    John Curnette, et al, ” Fluoride-mediated Activation of the Respiratory Burst in Human Neutrophils,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 63, pp. 637-647 (1979); W. L. Gabler and P. A. Leong, ., ” Fluoride Inhibition of Polymorphonumclear Leukocytes,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 48, No. 9, pp. 1933-1939 (1979); W. L. Gabler, et al., ” Effect of Fluoride on the Kinetics of Superoxide Generation by Fluoride,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p. 281 (1985); A. S. Kozlyuk, et al., ” Immune Status of Children in Chemically Contaminated Environments,” Zdravookhranenie, Issue 3, pp. 6-9 (1987)
    4. Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body’s own tissues, and increases the tumor growth rate in cancer prone individuals.

    Alfred Taylor and Nell C. Taylor, ” Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumor Growth,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol. 119, p. 252 (1965); Shiela Gibson, ” Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Function,” Complementary Medical Research, Vol. 6, pp. 111-113 (1992); Peter Wilkinson, ” Inhibition of the Immune System With Low Levels of Fluorides,” Testimony before the Scottish High Court in Edinburgh in the Case of McColl vs. Strathclyde Regional Council, pp. 17723-18150, 19328-19492, and Exhibit 636, (1982); D. W. Allman and M. Benac, ” Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 55 (Supplement B), p. 523 (1976); S. Jaouni and D. W. Allman, ” Effect of Sodium Fluoride and Aluminum on Adenylate Cyclase and Phosphodiesterase Activity,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p. 201 (1985)
    5. Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood.

    S. K. Jain and A. K. Susheela, ” Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Antibody Formation in Rabbits,” Environmental Research, Vol. 44, pp. 117-125 (1987)
    6. Fluoride depresses thyroid activity.

    Viktor Gorlitzer Von Mundy, ” Influence of Fluorine and Iodine on the Metabolism, Particularly on the Thyroid Gland,” Muenchener Medicische Wochenschrift, Vol. 105, pp. 182-186 (1963); A. Benagiano, “The Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Thyroid Enzymes and Basal Metabolism in the Rat,” Annali Di Stomatologia, Vol. 14, pp. 601-619 (1965); Donald Hillman, et al., ” Hypothyroidism and Anemia Related to Fluoride in Dairy Cattle,” Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 62, No.3, pp. .416-423 (1979); V. Stole and J. Podoba, ” Effect of Fluoride on the Biogenesis of Thyroid Hormones,” Nature, Vol. 188, No. 4753, pp. 855-856 (1960); Pierre Galleti and Gustave Joyet, ” Effect of Fluorine on Thyroid Iodine Metabolism and Hyperthyroidism,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 18, pp. 1102-1110 (1958)
    7. Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in the body.

    T. Takamorim ” The Heart Changes in Growing Albino Rats Fed on Varied Contents of Fluorine,” The Toxicology of Fluorine Symposium, Bern, Switzerland, Oct 1962, pp. 125-129; Vilber A. O. Bello and Hillel J. Gitelman, ” High Fluoride Exposure in Hemodialysis Patients,” American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 15, pp. 320-324 (1990); Y. Yoshisa, ” Experimental Studies on Chronic Fluorine Poisoning,” Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, Vol. 1, pp. 683-690 (1959)
    8. Fluoride promotes development of bone cancer.

    J.K. Mauer, et al., ” Two-Year Cacinogenicity Study Of Sodium Fluoride In Rats,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 82, pp. 1118-1126 (1990); Proctor and Gamble ” Carcinogenicity Studies with Sodium Fluoride in Rats” National Institute of Environmenrtal Health Sciences Presentation, July 27, 1985; S. E. Hrudley et al., ” Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma,” Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, pp. 415-416 (1990); P. D. Cohn, ” A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and Incidence of Osteosarcoma in Young Males,” New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, New Jersey, Nov. 1992; M. C. Mahoney et al., ” Bone Cancer Incidence Rates in New York,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, pp. 81, 475 (1991); Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton, ” Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride,” Genetics Vol. 48, pp. 307-310 (1963); J. A. Disney, et al., ” A Case Study in Testing the Conventional Wisdom: School Based Fluoride Mouth Rinse Programs in the USA,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Vol. 18, pp. 46-56 (1990); D. J. Newell, ” Fluoridation of Water Supplies and Cancer – An Association?,” Applied Statistics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 125-135 (1977)
    9. Fluorides cause premature aging of the human body.

    Nicholas Leone, et al., ” Medical Aspects of Excessive Fluoride in a Water Supply,” Public Health Reports, Vol. 69, pp. 925-936 (1954); J. David Erikson, ” Mortality of Selected Cities with Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated Water Supplies,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 298, pp. 1112-1116 (1978); ” The Village Where People Are Old Before Their Time,” Stern Magazine, Vol. 30, pp. 107-108, 111-112 (1978)
    10. Fluoride ingestion from mouth rinses and dentifrices in children is extremely hazardous to biological development, life span and general health.

    Yngve Ericsson and Britta Forsman, ” Fluoride Retained From Mouth Rinses and Dentifrices In Preschool Children,” Caries Research, Vol. 3, pp. 290-299 (1969); W. L. Augenstein, et al., ” Fluoride Ingestion In Children: A Review Of 87 Cases,” Pediatrics, Vol. 88, pp. 907-912, (1991); Charles Wax, ” Field Investigation Report,” State of Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, March 19, 1980, 67 pages; George Waldbott, ” Mass Intoxication from Over-Fluoridation in Drinking Water,” Clinical Toxicology, Vol. 18, No.5, pp. 531-541 (1981)
    Other Facts
    The contents of a family size tube of fluoridated toothpaste is enough to kill a 25 pound child.

    In 1991, the Akron (Ohio) Regional Poison Center reported that “death has been reported following ingestion of 16mg/kg of fluoride. Only 1/10 of an ounce of fluoride could kill a 100 pound adult. According to the Center, “fluoride toothpaste contains up to 1mg/gram of fluoride.” Even Proctor and Gamble, the makers of Crest, acknowledge that a family-sized tube “theoretically contains enough fluoride to kill a small child.”
    Fluorides have been used to modify behavior and mood of human beings.

    It is a little known fact that fluoride compounds were added to the drinking water of prisoners to keep them docile and inhibit questioning of authority, both in Nazi prison camps in World War II and in the Soviet gulags in Siberia.
    Fluorides are medically categorized as protoplasmic poisons, which is why they are used to kill rodents.

    The September 18, 1943 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, states, “fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. The exact mechanisms of such actions are obscure.”
    Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate.

    In 1975 Dr. John Yiamouyiannis published a preliminary survey which showed that people in fluoridated areas have a higher cancer death rate than those in non-fluoridated areas. The National Cancer Institute attempted to refute the studies. Later in 1975 Yiamouyiannis joined with Dr. Dean Burk, chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute (1939-1974) in performing other studies which were then included in the Congressional Record by Congressman Delaney, who was the original author of the Delaney Amendment, which prohibited the addition of cancer-causing substances to food used for human consumption.

    Yeah yeah, I got this from the video and there are 10 other links but it’s easy to dismiss evidence as faux, because it’s information again, and it makes sense. Information should be free, unlike what the corporations of TPP push especially when they lobby most of congress in US and Obama is fast-tracking TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership aka a secret trade agreement that makes medicine more expensive, internet surveillance and filtering [Raises alarms as to what they will filter], governments can be sued etc etc)

    Cost Effectively, it costs millions to maintain a Fluoride Plant each year running cost with energy bills, and that’s with it’s highly corrosive nature. What’s not on the news (Don’t call me biased just because I get information from a natural website, information is information regardless) is that plants often failed due to it being unstable and they get machines to add it instead of people. People need to wear hazard masks to add it because it causes, as I quote

    “Irritation to eyes, respiratory system; nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea; salivation, thirst, sweating; stiff spine; dermatitis; calcification of ligaments of ribs, pelvis” from inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact” Sodium Fluoride.

    One can counter argue about it being the case due to it’s high level, but once an amount specified like recommended 0.6 to 1.1 mg (According to the NHRC Australia) would reduce any instances of ‘side-effects’, and because when it goes into water, it’s less toxic. That, combined with the amount makes it safe and effective? Give me a break.

    No one needs anything in the water. Chlorine disinfects the water, yeah sure and it’s effects can be debatable, but nothing is as contravercial as F. And giving the politicians power over whether it can be changed is pure genocide. Especially in a recession where countries are in debt, and our government brainlessly burrows money from a central-bank that’s private (It’s not federal as in the whole state, federal is just a word) and that’s owned by people overseas called Rothschilds, which issues debt as a result.

    First thing is first. Dentists need to get paid less, dental services need to be cheaper and more affordable by the government, Off-the-job Dentists need better support and better transition support to get back into the profession, no power over democracy and limited business.

    Source from the CDC:
    http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0563.html

    Boiling Fluoride concentrates it. Sure, Sodium Fluoride won’t kill you but you can feel it’s effects (In a negative way).

    I sincerely hope that Fluoride, and all educated politicians will turn their back on the money and do what’s right: Get F out of the water and ban it for all time, and not allowing water to ever be modified.

  7. Another kick in the teeth for Fluoridation, Diet actually works in preventing tooth decay thanks to Dr. Mellamby’s work in studies.

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/reversing-tooth-decay.html

    It’s not lack of Fluoridation that’s causing tooth decay. It isn’t a nutrient, or a mineral. It’s an element, and that’s it. It’s the sugars found in white and wholemeal bread, sweets, high-fructose corn syrup and the diet being generally junk food like fish and chips that causes tooth decay, and in addition lack of nutrients and lack of dental hygeine.

    Fluoridation is a lazy idea. While brushing your teeth with it may have benefits, there isn’t any benefits or safety in the water.

    Vitamin D3, K and fat-soluble vitamins also plays a role in giving the body nutrition needed to take care of tasks such as eliminating tooth decay.

    Abstract:
    ‘Rich in animal foods, particularly full-fat pastured dairy products (if tolerated) and bone broths. Also meat, organs, fish, and eggs.
    Fermented grains only; no unfermented grains such as oatmeal, breakfast cereal, crackers, etc. No breads except true sourdough (ingredients should not list lactic acid). Or even better, no grains at all.
    Limited nuts; beans in moderation, only if they’re soaked overnight or longer prior to cooking (due to the phytic acid).
    Starchy vegetables such as potatoes and sweet potatoes.
    A limited quantity of fruit (one piece per day or less), but no refined sweets.
    Cooked and raw vegetables.
    Sunlight, high-vitamin cod liver oil, or vitamin D3 supplements.
    Pastured butter.
    No industrially processed food.’

    That’s a good diet to follow.

    This is the origin of Fluoride, an abstract from ‘The Study of Fluoridation’ http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/oralhealth/topics/fluoride/thestoryoffluoridation.htm

    “In 1909 Dr. McKay (r) persuaded the Colorado State Dental Association to invite Dr. Green Vardiman Black (l), one of the nation’s most eminent dental researchers, to attend 1909 convention where McKay’s findings were to be presented. The two men began joint research and discovered other areas of the country where brown staining of teeth occurred.
    Fluoride research had its beginnings in 1901, when a young dental school graduate named Frederick McKay left the East Coast to open a dental practice in Colorado Springs, Colorado. When he arrived, McKay was astounded to find scores of Colorado Springs natives with grotesque brown stains on their teeth. So severe could these permanent stains be, in fact, sometimes entire teeth were splotched the color of chocolate candy. McKay searched in vain for information on this bizarre disorder. He found no mention of the brown-stained teeth in any of the dental literature of the day. Local residents blamed the problem on any number of strange factors, such as eating too much pork, consuming inferior milk, and drinking calcium-rich water. Thus, McKay took up the gauntlet and initiated research into the disorder himself. His first epidemiological investigations were scuttled by a lack of interest among most area dentists. But McKay persevered and ultimately interested local practitioners in the problem, which was known as Colorado Brown Stain.
    A Fruitful Collaboration

    McKay’s first big break came in 1909, when renowned dental researcher Dr. G.V. Black agreed to come to Colorado Springs and collaborate with him on the mysterious ailment. Black, who had previously scoffed that it was impossible such a disorder could go unreported in the dental literature, was lured West shortly after the Colorado Springs Dental Society conducted a study showing that almost 90 percent of the city’s locally born children had signs of the brown stains. When Black arrived in the city, he too was shocked by the prevalence of Colorado Brown Stain in the mouths of native-born residents. He would write later:
    “I spent considerable time walking on the streets, noticing the children in their play, attracting their attention and talking with them about their games, etc., for the purpose of studying the general effect of the deformity. I found it prominent in every group of children. One does not have to search for it, for it is continually forcing itself on the attention of the stranger by its persistent prominence. This is much more than a deformity of childhood. If it were only that, it would be of less consequence, but it is a deformity for life.”
    Black investigated fluorosis for six years, until his death in 1915. During that period, he and McKay made two crucial discoveries. First, they showed that mottled enamel (as Black referred to the condition) resulted from developmental imperfections in children’s teeth. This finding meant that city residents whose permanent teeth had calcified without developing the stains did not risk having their teeth turn brown; young children waiting for their secondary set of teeth to erupt, however, were at high risk. Second, they found that teeth afflicted by Colorado Brown Stain were surprisingly and inexplicably resistant to decay. The two researchers were still a long way from determining the cause of Colorado Brown Stain, but McKay had a theory tucked away in the back of his head. Maybe there was, as some local residents suggested, an ingredient in the water supply that mottled the teeth? Black was skeptical; McKay, though, was intrigued by this theory’s prospects.
    The water-causation theory got a gigantic boost in 1923. That year, McKay trekked across the Rocky Mountains to Oakley, Idaho to meet with parents who had noticed peculiar brown stains on their children’s teeth. The parents told McKay that the stains began appearing shortly after Oakley constructed a communal water pipeline to a warm spring five miles away. McKay analyzed the water, but found nothing suspicious in it. Nonetheless, he advised town leaders to abandon the pipeline altogether and use another nearby spring as a water source.
    McKay’s advice did the trick. Within a few years, the younger children of Oakley were sprouting healthy secondary teeth without any mottling. McKay now had his confirmation, but he still had no idea what could be wrong with the water in Oakley, Colorado Springs, and other afflicted areas. The answer came when McKay and Dr. Grover Kempf of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) traveled to Bauxite, Arkansas-a company town owned by the Aluminum Company of America-to investigate reports of the familiar brown stains. The two discovered something very interesting: namely, the mottled enamel disorder was prevalent among the children of Bauxite, but nonexistent in another town only five miles away. Again, McKay analyzed the Bauxite water supply. Again, the analysis provided no clues. But the researchers’ work was not done in vain.
    McKay and Kempf published a report on their findings that reached the desk of ALCOA’s chief chemist, H. V. Churchill, at company headquarters in Pennsylvania. Churchill, who had spent the past few years refuting claims that aluminum cookware was poisonous, worried that this report might provide fresh fodder for ALCOA’s detractors. Thus, he decided to conduct his own test of the water in Bauxite-but this time using photospectrographic analysis, a more sophisticated technology than that used by McKay. Churchill asked an assistant to assay the Bauxite water sample. After several days, the assistant reported a surprising piece of news: the town’s water had high levels of fluoride. Churchill was incredulous. “Whoever heard of fluorides in water,” he bellowed at his assistant. “You have contaminated the sample. Rush another specimen.”
    Shortly thereafter, a new specimen arrived in the laboratory. Churchill’s assistant conducted another assay on the Bauxite water. The result? Photospectrographic analysis, again, showed that the town’s water had high levels of fluoride tainting it. This second and selfsame finding prompted Churchill to sit down at his typewriter in January, 1931, and compose a five-page letter to McKay on this new revelation. In the letter, he advised McKay to collect water samples from other towns “where the peculiar dental trouble has been experienced… We trust that we have awakened your interest in this subject and that we may cooperate in an attempt to discover what part ‘fluorine’ may play in the matter.”
    McKay collected the samples. And, within months, he had the answer and denouement to his 30-year quest: high levels of water-borne fluoride indeed caused the discoloration of tooth enamel.”

    Why it was added
    “This finding sent Dean’s thoughts spiraling in a new direction. He recalled from reading McKay’s and Black’s studies on fluorosis that mottled tooth enamel is unusually resistant to decay. Dean wondered whether adding fluoride to drinking water at physically and cosmetically safe levels would help fight tooth decay. This hypothesis, Dean told his colleagues, would need to be tested.In 1944, Dean got his wish. That year, the City Commission of Grand Rapids, Michigan-after numerous discussions with researchers from the PHS, the Michigan Department of Health, and other public health organizations-voted to add fluoride to its public water supply the following year. In 1945, Grand Rapids became the first city in the world to fluoridate its drinking water.The Grand Rapids water fluoridation study was originally sponsored by the U.S. Surgeon General, but was taken over by the NIDR shortly after the Institute’s inception in 1948. During the 15-year project, researchers monitored the rate of tooth decay among Grand Rapids’ almost 30,000 schoolchildren. After just 11 years, Dean- who was now director of the NIDR-announced an amazing finding. The caries rate among Grand Rapids children born after fluoride was added to the water supply dropped more than 60 percent. This finding, considering the thousands of participants in the study, amounted to a giant scientific breakthrough that promised to revolutionize dental care, making tooth decay for the first time in history a preventable disease for most people.”

    They don’t share the findings, and remember, history is made by the victors. It’s all lies, and this is the cover of it. This story has many inconsistencies, like what were the findings, how was the studies conducted, an abstract, why wasn’t the people given consent to vote, what can prove that Fluoride dropped Dental Carries rate by 60 percent, etc.

    Now this site offers a different insite. Sure, it may have conspiracies on it, but it has great sources.
    http://realitybomb.hubpages.com/hub/Water-Fluoridation
    https://archive.org/details/investigationofu193909unit

    Remember, the beaurocrats also probably work for big pharmaceutical companies, who are pretty much like the mafia in the way they conduct business.

    • here we go the conspiracy theory

      • The only ones who are ridiculous about ‘conspiracy theories’ are the Pro-fluoridation RABID RESPONSE TEAM – an extremist bunch of fanatics desperate to keep their ‘water fluoridation ‘agenda’ in place.

        (Water fluoridation = pollution with the hazardous waste hexafluorosilicic acid and co-contaminants from phosphate fertilizer industries…..)

        • So if the research is so sound ,how come you quote a paper that is over 100 years old as evidence

          • *So if the research is so sound ,how come you quote a paper that is over 100 years old as evidence*

            Speaking of ‘old’ studies:

            “18) The studies that launched fluoridation were methodologically flawed. The early trials conducted between 1945 and 1955 in North America that helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960, 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials “are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.” Serious questions have also been raised about Trendley Dean’s (the father of fluoridation) famous 21-city study from 1942 (Ziegelbecker 1981).” | http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

            Also see: http://www2.chem.ku.edu/aburgstahler/KUChemClubFluoridationForum03-27-2013/

  8. You can see why everyone is saying Ken is dishonest. He says that Paul Connett has “packed a sad” when no such thing happened. He has also already been questioned on why he is saying that but has chosen to keep saying it. He is the worst fluoridationist I have ever come across. He also purposely misconstrues (at least I assume it is on purpose, if not the man has no idea about people) everything that is said. He goes on as if he won the debate whereas I think, and everyone opposed to fluoridation reading it thought, he had made himself look terrible.

    • Thanks for the heads up, Mary. We’ll keep a closer eye out for Slippery Ken in the future. 🙂

    • Absolutely Mary, that was very plain to see – these pro-fluoride extremists are all tarred with the $ame Bru$h.

      This is what will make people pay even more attention to the Fluoridation Fraud/Web of Deception; the fact that people like Ken and the other Pro-fluoride Cronies; all they have got is personal attacks and name calling on good honest and ethical Community and National Health Champions such as Professor Paul Connett Fluoride Action Network.

      I shall give the people a little bit more of the disgraceful deception, unprofessional and down right dirty and disgusting tactics by the Pro-fluoride Extremists who are totally unethical and have no care and concern for the rights of the people and especially your right to not be chronically poisoned with hazardous waste known as water fluoridation…… please read on..

      Let us clarify something regarding FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK (Professor Paul Connett) website http://www.fluoridealert.org – FAN seeks to broaden awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds among citizens, scientists, and policymakers alike. FAN not only provides comprehensive and up-to-date information, but remains vigilant in monitoring government agency actions that impact the public’s exposure to fluoride.

      
I am sure many will be disturbed by the actions of the ADA and when this first happened some years ago, it certainly was disturbing to all Truth Seekers; the lengths to which some pro-fluoride fanatics go, in this case, please note that after Fluoride Action Network and the dot org domain was originally secured (fluoridealert.org ) and before Fluoride Action Network could secure the domain name fluoridealert.com – that the American Dental Association (allegedly) deviously many say, swooped in and ‘nicked’ the fluoridealert.com domain name of Fluoride Action Network’s fluoridealert.org

      So to re-clarify this ‘interesting’ piece of pro-fluoride ‘manoeuvering’/deception by the ADA:-

      Fluoride Action Network Professor Paul Connett http://www.fluoridealert.org


      American Dental Association (who allegedly) ‘nicked’ the dot com http://www.fluoridealert.com

      I guess that’s a pretty effective way to impede people and researchers getting truth !

      ~~

      A reminder:

      REPORT: 100% fluoridated Kentucky, USA – Rampant Dental Decay & chronic disease epidemic – DDB        http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rampant-dental-decay-chronic-disease-epidemic-in-100-fluoridated-kentucky-usa-13-aug-2013-ddb.pdf 

      REPORT: Can Dentists & Doctors be trusted when they say Water Fluoridation is Safe & Effective?
      http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/can-dentists-doctors-be-trusted-when-they-say-water-fluoridation-is-safe-effective.pdf

      ~~

      Corruption/Conflicts of Interests – Some Information
      http://fluorideinformationaustralia.wordpress.com/corruption-conflicts-of-interest/

    • In Paul’s last article he finished with a very vague challenge and wrote:

      “If you are not prepared to attempt this challenge in good faith then I will end my participation in this exchange forthwith.”

      I am not accepting the unacceptable, obviously. I interpreted his statement as “packing a sad” and unilaterally ending our exchange.

      However, I specifically gave him a right of reply to my last article and have recieved an extremely brief statement implying that he might take that up. I have yet to recieve anything.

      Paul appears to have been influenced by emails received from NZ – presumably from you Mary.

    • In Paul’s last article he finished with a very vague challenge and wrote:

      “If you are not prepared to attempt this challenge in good faith then I will end my participation in this exchange forthwith.”

      I am not accepting the unacceptable, obviously. I interpreted his statement as “packing a sad” and unilaterally ending our exchange.

      However, I specifically gave him a right of reply to my last article and have received an extremely brief statement implying that he might take that up. I have yet to receive anything so am unsure what he will do.

      Paul appears to have been influenced by emails received from NZ – presumably from you Mary.

    • As the late U.S. Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, Mary, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.”

      • Vegemite Kurt is certainly a funny fellow – when I first ‘heard about him’ – this is what he had said to me:-

        Kurt L Ferré · Dental Director/President of the Board, Creston Children’s Dental Clinic at Retired, but does volunteer dental work.
        ‘You want toxic, Diane, eat one of your frickin’ vegemite sandwiches.’ – how unprofessional of this silly pro-fluoride fanatic.

        Also see:
        KURT FERRE, PORTLAND DENTIST, FLUORIDATIONIST

        Kurt Ferre is a retired dentist in Portland who has been part of sneak attack efforts to impose fluoridation on Portland. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/kurt-ferre

        ~~

        Clean Water Portland Calls for Investigation of Improper Collaboration
        New emails reveal direct involvement by State Health Authority in Pro-Fluoride Campaign
        https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2Y7zHHCABQAazlDWXFGYmdhRzQ/edit

        Did state employees help pro-fluoride advocates on state time?
        | Politics | KATU.com Portland, Oregon http://www.katu.com/politics/Did-state-employees-help-pro-fluoride-advocates-on-state-time-208242221.html?tab=video&c=y

        NO FLUORIDATION FOR PORTLAND, OREGON
        Portland’s Vote Reflects Recent Scientific Findings on Fluoridation’s Risks
        Source: Clean Water Portland: Press Release | May 22nd, 2013 |
        Portland dentist Dr. Jay Levy, DDS, who was active in opposing the Portland fluoridation measure, agreed. “Many dentists I know have the best intentions when it comes to fluoridation, but they just are not aware that the science regarding fluoridation risks has changed so significantly in recent years. For many, the belief that fluoridation is safe is akin to a knee-jerk reflex based on what they learned in dental school, and that’s a real problem when you’re dealing with public health.”
        “Across the country, we are seeing people who once supported fluoridation switch their position after spending some time reading the recent studies for themselves and realizing that a practice they long assumed to be safe is far riskier than they thought,” says Michael Connett, a researcher with the Fluoride Action Network, the nation’s leading organization on fluoridation issues.
        “Portland voters chose to protect children from risky fluoridation chemicals. As a community, we stand on the side of science, which clearly shows growing cause for concern about health risks associated with fluorosilicic acid. Anyone can spend an hour on the internet and read for themselves what the National Academy of Science report has to say about fluoride’s risks,” says Antonia Giedwoyn with the Sierra Club’s Columbia Group, which has opposed the Portland fluoridation measure.
        http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/cwp_may22/

        Photographs from Clean Water Portland http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/portland_photos/
        ~~~~


  9. ┏━┳━━┳┳┳┓
    ┃┗┣┓┏┫┃┃┃
    ┃┏┃┃┃┃┃┃┃
    ┗━┛┗┛┗━━┛
    Bombshell: Syria’s ‘chemical weapons’ turn out to be sodium fluoride used in the U.S. water supply and sold at Wal-Mart!

    http://tinyurl.com/lwlxnvk

  10. I truly believe that any/all rational people would see that this in fact says it all and that all water fluoridation (pollution with hazardous waste) should be banned urgently and irrevocably for all time:-

    THE FLUORIDE DEBATE

    A Response to the American Dental Association’s Booklet Fluoridation Facts

    THIS BOOKLET CONTAINS EVIDENCE THAT …

    Fluoridation is not about “children’s teeth”. Rather, it is about industry ridding itself of crude hazardous waste products, silicofluorides, for a profit. Silicofluorides are 85 times more toxic than naturally-occurring calcium fluoride.

    Fluoride is more toxic than lead and like lead in minute doses, accumulates in and can be damaging to brain/mind development of children, producing abnormal behavior in animals and reducing IQ in humans, especially in conjunction with deficiencies of key nutrients such as calcium, iodine and vitamins. It can also contribute to many disease processes. Because it is almost as toxic as arsenic, fluoride’s ability to play havoc in the human body should surprise no one.

    There is as much, or more, dental decay in fluoridated communities as there is in the non- fluoridated areas; however, the dental costs are higher in fluoridated communities due to dental fluorosis. Drinking fluoridated water may delay decay, but it does not prevent it.

    Dental fluorosis is not simply a “cosmetic effect”. Dental fluorosis is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. Today there is an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15% to 65% in fluoridated areas and 5% to 40% in non-fluoridated areas in North America.

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists, after studying all the evidence, concluded that the public water supply should not be used “as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless … substance.”

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient; it is a prescription drug. Every prescription drug has side-effects, including fluoride. Fluoride has never received FDA approval and does not meet the legal requirements of safety and effectiveness necessary for such approval. Once this drug is put in the water there is no control over individual dosage.

    The American Dental Association supplement schedule shows that fluoride prescription drugs should not be given to infants under 6 months of age. One cup of water per day for children age 6 months to 3 years matches the supplement controlled dose. Therefore, in fluoridated areas, most children under 3 are getting an overdose of this drug via their drinking water, yet the ADA continues to recommend fluoridation.

    The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in our water, dental products, and foods and beverages (grown and processed in fluoridated communities), is causing pervasive over- exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population. Most developed countries have rejected, stopped, or banned fluoridation because there is no margin of safety.

    Fluoride is not just “one of forty chemicals used to treat water”. It is the only chemical added to public drinking water to treat individuals, rather than the water. It is mass medication. This website explains why a good number of leading scientists, doctors, and some dentists are avidly opposed to putting fluoride in our water supply. It also shows that this controversy has existed in the scientific field from the onset.

    http://www.fluoridedebate.com/Download/fluoridedebate.pdf

  11. Should we also add sunscreen to the water because that will protect our skin from UV Rays? It’s the same logic used for Fluoridation. No ifs, no buts, full-stop. If science supports something that doesn’t promote common-sense and supports insanity and a breach of democracy (Forced Medicine), it’s not science.

    And don’t believe the anti-fluoridaters just have that. We have got records of Fluoridation and we got the integrity of studies that validate our claims that adding a co-contaminant to water is unsafe and ineffective.

    If the pro-fluoridators are so confident, why not have a public debate? Because they know they will loose, and that’s why the beaurocratic pro-fluoride chemical shills refuse to debate it.

    The ADA and all other companies that profit from it by saving millions. Usually, without fluoridating the by-products, they have to dispose of it in an environmentally-approved way. There was an idea, and they would save millions by making it a product, setting up a dental corporation and insisting that the chemical is a safe, cost-efficient, and proven way to help combat tooth decay by protecting tooth enamel, and strengthen teeth (Not strengthen bones since bones are the skeletal system including teeth)

    Fluoride is a by-product. They know it will cause problems, so they recommended 0.5 to 1.1 mg added to it to reduce the case of problems. The final nail in the coffin is when the health authorities, government officials, water staff, dental corporations made it illegal to sue or make those that push it or brainwash others to be liable for any damage caused by it.

    Fluoride is the new asbestos pretty much. I welcome debates because I educate myself by looking into both sides.

  12. one thing about this debate you get sick of being linked to FANN sites and hardly ever the source paper, that way it can be edited to make it sound a lot better from the anti point of view

    • You seem to argue that anti-fluoridationists stay away from the primary literature, but there is plenty of reference to primary literature here: https://afamildura.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/paul-affidavit_final_20110408-1.pdf

    • Hi Chris. Here are all the studies.

      FLUORIDE & DIABETES:

      Tokar VI, et al. (1992). Chronic fluoride’s impact on pancreatic islet cells in workers. Gigiena i Sanitariia Nov.-Dec.:42.44.

      Xie Y, et al. (2000). Clinical study of effect of high fluoride on the function of the pancreatic islet B cells. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 19(2):84-86.

      FLUORIDE & ARTHRITIS/SKELETAL FLUOROSIS:

      Bao W, et al. (2003). Report of investigations on adult hand osteoarthritis in Fengjiabao Village, Asuo Village, and Qiancheng Village. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 22(6):517-18.

      Chen X. (1988): Radiological Analysis of Fluorotic Elbow Arthritis. Journal of Guiyang Medical College 13(2):303-305.

      Dai G, et al. (1988). Quantitative epidemiological research on the relationship between fluoride concentration of drinking water and endemic fluoride poisoning. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 7(1):21-26.

      Expert Group of the Ministry of Health for the Study of Tea-Induced Fluoride Poisoning. (2000). The dose-response relationship of tea-induced osteofluorosis and brick tea fluoride intake. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 19(4):266-68.

      Ge X, et al. (2006). Investigations on the occurrence of osteoarthritis in middle-aged and elderly persons in fluorosis-afflicted regions of Gaomi City with high fluoride concentration in drinking water. Preventive Medicine Tribune 12(1):57-58.

      Huang C. (2009). Diagnosis of endemic skeletal fluorois: clinical examination vs. X-rays. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 28(2):194-196.

      Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China. (2008). Diagnostic Criteria for Endemic Fluorosis. WS 192-2008.

      FLUORIDE & FETAL HEALTH:

      Dong Z, et al. (1993). Determination of the contents of amino-acid and monoamine neurotransmitters in fetal brains from a fluorosis-endemic area. Journal of Guiyang Medical College 18(4):241-45.

      Yu Y. (2000). Effects of fluoride on the ultrastructure of glandular epithelial cells of human fetuses. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 19(2):81-83.

      FLUORIDE & THE BRAIN:

      An J, et al. (1992). The effects of high fluoride on the level of intelligence of primary and secondary students. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 7(2):93-94.

      Dong Z, et al. (1993). Determination of the contents of amino-acid and monoamine neurotransmitters in fetal brains from a fluorosis-endemic area. Journal of Guiyang Medical College 18(4):241-45.

      Fan Z, et al. (2007). The effect of high fluoride exposure on the level of intelligence in children. Journal of Environmental Health 24(10):802-03.

      Li X, et al. (2010). Investigation and analysis of children’s IQ and dental fluorosis in high fluoride area. Chinese Journal of Pest Control 26(3):230-31.

      Li F, et al. (2009). The impact of endemic fluorosis caused by the burning of coal on the development of intelligence in children. Journal of Environmental Health 26(4):838-40.

      Liu L, et al. (1995). Brain mapping of mentally retarded children in high-fluoride regions. Journal of Applied Clinical Pediatrics 10(6):333-35.

      Shao Q, et al. (2003). Study of cognitive function impairment caused by chronic fluorosis. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 22(4):336-38.

      Sun M, et al. (1991). Measurement of intelligence by drawing test among the children in the endemic area of Al-F combined toxicosis. Journal of Guiyang Medical College 16(3):204-06.

      Wang X, et al. (2001). Effects of high iodine and high fluorine on children’s intelligence and thyroid function. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 20(4):288-90.

      Xu Y, et al. (1994). The effect of fluorine on the level of intelligence in children. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 9(2):83-84.

      Yao Y, et al. (1997). Comparable analysis on the physical and mental development of children in endemic fluorosis area with water improvement and without water improvement. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 3(1):42-43.

      Yao Y, et al. (1996). Analysis on TSH and intelligence level of children with dental Fluorosis in a high fluoride area. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 2(1):26-27.

      Zhang J, et al. (1998). The effect of high levels of arsenic and fluoride on the development of children’s intelligence. Chinese Journal of Public Health 17(2):119.

      Impact of fluoride on neurological development in children (HSPS (Harvard) and China Medical University, Shenyang)

      http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

      FLUORIDE & MALE FERTILITY:

      Chen P et al. (1997). Effects of hyperfluoride on reproduction-endocrine system of male adults. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 12(2):57-58.

      Hao P, et al. (2010). Effect of fluoride on human hypothalamus-hypophysis-testis axis hormones. Journal of Hygiene Research 39(1):53-55.

      Liu H, et al. (1988). Analysis of the effect of fluoride on male infertility in regions with reported high level of fluoride (endemic fluorosis). Journal of the Medical Institute of Suzhou 8(4):297-99.

      Sure, it shows concentration causes these effects in some studies, but this, combined with how Fluoride is metabolized and how it tricks the body into thinking it’s iodine causes iodine deficiency. Keep water pure, and keep Fluoride as a product that can be optionally bought by the consumer.

  13. The American Cancer Society has also gone on record stating, “Scientific studies show no connection between cancer rates in humans and adding fluoride to drinking water.” But rather than listen to the scientific community, fluoridation opponents prefer to stay in their echo-chamber with select fringe “experts” where they can build their conspiratorial narratives.


    • ┏━┳┳┳┓ ┏━┳━━┳┳┳┓
      ┃━┫┃┃┃ ┃┗┣┓┏┫┃┃┃
      ┃┏╋┓┃┃ ┃┏┃┃┃┃┃┃┃
      ┗┛┗━┻┛ ┗━┛┗┛┗━━┛
      The American Cancer Society is a Rockefeller Created Front Group to Promote Pharmaceuticals⇙

      http://educate-yourself.org/lte/acsrockefellerfront25may11.shtml

    • The last time I checked the American Cancer Society website, which wasn’t long ago, there was no statement in favour of forced-fluoridation. You didn’t get that information from the American Cancer Society, did you chris?

    • 1990 NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM STUDY OF FLUORIDE AND CANCER WAS FRAUDULENT
      DOCTOR WILLIAM (BILL) MARCUS. Bill was the victim of one of the most sinister events you will ever hear about. The following story is taken from ‘The Fluoride Report’, April 1994 edition.
      THE FLUORIDE REPORT, APRIL 1994.
      VICTORY FOR THE TRUTH: LABOR SECRETARY REICH ORDERS EPA SCIENTIST DR BILL MARCUS REINSTATED. EPA Corruption Exposed.
      On February 7, Secretary of Labor Robert B Reich ordered the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reinstate whistleblower Dr Bill Marcus in his former (or comparable) position at EPA. Almost two years after being fired. Dr Marcus has finally emerged victorious over the unsavory individuals who tried to punish him for challenging the falsehoods propagated by his own agency and the Public Health Service about the safety of fluoride. He will receive back pay, legal expenses and $50,000 in damages.
      At a February 10 press conference hosted by the National Whistleblower Center, Dr. Marcus said: “I have finally been vindicated”. He expressed his hope that this verdict ” will serve as the first, albeit small step in bringing responsible science, science undaunted by fears about job security or other reprisals, back to the US Environmental Protection Agency”.
      Although Marcus was ordered reinstated by Administrative Law Judge David A Clark, Junior, on December 3, 1992, the EPA appealed the decision to Labor secretary Reich, delaying Dr Marcus’ reinstatement for over a year. Mr Reich blasted the EPA’s excuses for firing Dr. Marcus. He said, ” the true reason for the discharge was retaliation”. Specifically, Dr Marcus “authored and disseminated a memorandum criticizing a draft report concerning toxicology and carcinogenesis studies, which the EPA contemplated using in regulating fluoride levels.”
      Mr. Reich also noted that an EPA investigator was ordered by a superior to shred evidence gathered during the investigation, and that EPA withheld evidence that would have supported Dr. Marcus in court. Because these acts were perpetrated under the jurisdiction of EPA’s Inspector General, John C Martin, the National Whistleblower Center has asked President Clinton to remove Martin from office.
      Not mentioned by Mr. Reich but recorded in the hearing before Judge Clark, is clear evidence that the EPA tampered with witnesses, threatening EPA employees with dismissal if they testified on Dr. Marcus’ behalf. EPA management also forged some of his time cards, and then accused him of misusing his official time. At the press conference Dr Marcus asserted that his boss, Margaret Stasikowski, committed perjury. Her superior, Tudor Davies, Office Director of Science and Technology, who made the final decision to fire Dr Marcus, was accused by Mr Reich of accepting the report of the Inspector General without validating any or the findings, contrary to accepted practice. Dr Marcus noted that all the officials who participated in his firing are still employed by EPA and ” making decisions about drinking water that affect public health.
      WHY BILL MARCUS WAS FIRED: the “May Day Memo”
      As revealed in the decision by Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, the key to the firing of Dr Bill Marcus was the memorandum he wrote on May 1, 1990, to a superior at the EPA. The memo was a detailed analysis of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Report #393, the long-awaited report of NTP’s animal study conducted to determine if fluoride in drinking water causes cancer.
      Dr. Marcus called the report “disturbing”. Why? Because the NTP termed the results “equivocal”, while the actual data indicated a causal relationship between fluoride and bone cancer in male rats, according to Dr Marcus. In his memo, he pointed out that fluoride accumulates in bone, and this is where the cancers occurred. He noted that the rats had less fluoride in their hones than humans would accumulate in their bones at the EPA’s approved “safe level” of 4 mg/l. He stated, “This is the first time in my memory that [test] animals have lower concentrations of the carcinogen at the site of adverse effect than do humans”. He also criticized the Public Health Service (referenced in the NTP report) for misrepresenting the results of the Yiamouyiannis / Burk study showing 10,000 excess cancer deaths a year from fluoridation.
      Animals used as controls are not supposed to receive any of the chemical given to the treated animals, Dr Marcus’ memo continued. In the NTP study, however, the control animals were given six to seven times more fluoride than humans receive from fluoridated water. When the number of cancers in the controls were plotted according to the amount of fluoride in their feed, they fitted nearly into the dose response relationships seen in the treated group, adding weight to the claim that fluoride is a probable carcinogen.
      Commenting on the genetic toxicology studies included in the back of the NTP report, Dr Marcus stated that “There were three different short-term in vitro tests performed on fluoride and all these tests proved fluoride to be mutagenic. EPA’s own guidelines require that in vitro tests be taken into consideration when positive. In this case, the mutagenicity of fluoride supports the conclusion that fluoride is a probable carcinogen”. One other study was mentioned, the Ames test, which was negative. Dr Marcus dismissed these results because the inventor of the test, Dr. Bruce Ames, has gone on record stating his test is inappropriate for chemicals such as fluoride.
      Dr Marcus then raised the possibility that some of the test results had been altered by a review panel. He cited data showing that a rare liver cancer, hepatocholangiocarcinoma, was found, but then dismissed. There was evidence that other types of tumors were found but were downgraded by a review committee. Consideration of all these factors, Dr Marcus’ memo concluded, changes the ‘equivocal’ findings of the [NTP] board to “at least some evidence, or clear evidence of carcinogenicity”. He asked that an independent panel be convened to re-evaluate the raw test data.
      Here is the actual memo Dr. William Marcus wrote:
      Dr. William Marcus’ May 1 Memo on NTP Bioassay on Fluoride
      ________________________________________
      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
      WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
      ________________________________________
      OFFICE OF WATER

      MEMORANDUM

      DATE: May 1, 1990
      SUBJECT: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report
      FROM: Wm L. Marcus, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, Criteria & Standards Division, ODW (WH-550D)
      TO: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director, Criteria & Standards Division, ODW (WH-550D)

      The conference was held in RTP at the NIEHS headquarters on April 26, 1990. The subject of the conference was a peer review of the NTP draft report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3F Mice (Drinking Water Studies) NTP Report Number 393. Dr. Robert Scala was to chair this meeting but was unable to attend because of ill health. Dr. Michael Gallo appointed acting Chairperson. One of the attenders seated with the panel members was David Rall, Ph.D., M.D., Director of NIEHS. Dr. Rall took an extremely active interest in the proceedings and remained seated for the entire proceedings with only two minor interruptions.

      The most disturbing part of the report was the continual reference to the historical controls as having the same or higher cancers as the test groups. On pages 89 – 90 of the report starting with the last paragraph the authors state the following:

      An important consideration which limits the usefulness of the historical control data base in the current studies is that the diet used in all other NTP studies had not been closely monitored for fluoride content. Fluoride concentrations in typical batches of NHI-07 diet range between 28 and 47 ppm (.7 and 1.2 mg/kg/day)(Rao and Knapka (1), 1987). Assuming a minimum bioavailability of 60% (Tests show 66% absorption page I-18), the historical database animals actually constitute a group receiving sufficient fluoride to place them between the low- and mid-concentration group in the current (the studies reviewed at RTP at the conference). The fact that this fluoride is available for absorption from the standard diet is supported by the levels of fluoride found in the bones of animals maintained on this diet in the six months studies (Appendix I). (The levels in the bones of the rats on the standard NHI chow was ten [10] times the levels of those fed the semisynthetic diet and deionized water, 0.922 vs 0.0901). If the fluoride [is] in fact influencing the “spontaneous ” or background incidence of osteosarcoma in male rats, comparisons with those in the historical database maybe misleading. This forces an even greater reliance on the within-study comparisons, ie., the incidences of the dosed groups compared with the concurrent control, in the interpretation of the results of the sodium fluoride studies. [italics in memo]

      When I plotted a bar graph of osteosarcoma in male rats and placed the historical controls on the graph 0.6% is just where expected. This helps demonstrate a relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoride. The purpose of such graphs is to predict occurrence. Since the historical controls comprise some 6,000 animals, this data point is extremely significant compared to the other three. Osteosarcoma is an extremely rare animal tumor and may be the result of the variable high fluoride content in the feed. In order to demonstrate this, all that need be done is require that the fluoride content of animal chow be lowered dramatically and that fluoride be removed from the water given to the animals under study.

      The dose of fluoride to which the concurrent controls were exposed is 0.2 mg/kg/day. A 70 kg man who drinks 2 liters daily is exposed to 0.03 mg/kg/day. The “control” animals were exposed to an amount of fluoride six to seven (6-7 X) greater. Lois Gold, Ph.D. of the review panel concluded that, “this group of animals therefore, can hardly be termed a control group. It can best be described as a lowest dosed group.” This is an important consideration because as the document reports on page 9, the levels of fluoride in bone are linearly dependent upon dose and length of exposure (“depends upon total intake”) in people. The level of fluoride in ashed samples of bone of 20-30 year old people is 200 – 800 mg/kg compared to 70 to 80 year old people of 1,000 – 2.500 mg/kg. In the document, the authors cited Zipkin (2) who reported on bone fluoride concentrations in four groups of individuals with average ages of 56 to 76 who lived in areas with fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 0. 1, 1, 2.6, or 4 ppm The relationship to bone fluoride concentrations and water fluoride content was linear; bone fluoride ranged from about 800 to 7,000 ppm ash with increasing water fluoride.”

      In the animal studies the levels of fluoride (Appendix I) found in the bones of the animals were the same as or lower than those found in people. The highest dosed level of rats had lower levels of fluoride in their bones (5,470 ppm) compared to people (7,000 ppm) at the MCL of 4 ppm. This can be interpreted as people who ingest drinking water at the MCL have 1.3 times more fluoride in their bones than male rats who get osteosarcoma This is the first time in my memory that animals have lower concentrations of the carcinogen at the sight of adverse effect than do humans. An important toxicologic consideration is that a toxic substance stores at the same place it exerts it toxic activity. This is true of benzene and now for fluoride. Fluoride however, is at twice the concentration in human bones compared to benzene which is 10 to 100 [times] greater in animal marrow. This portends a very serious problem. One would expect to be able to discern a carcinogenic effect in the exposed population when compared to the unexposed population especially if data exist on the populations before fluoridation.

      Yiamouyiannis and Burk published epidemiology studies that have since been revised twice (3), by Burk (former head of the Cytochemistry section at NIH). In these extensively peer reviewed papers, the authors found that about 10,000 deaths a year are attributable to fluoride water treatment. The U.S. Public Health Service (U.S.PHS) criticized the original studies by erroneously asserting that the results reported by the authors were a result of changes in the age, race and sex composition of the sample. The U.S.PHS made mathematical errors and did not include 90% of the data. U.S.PHS method of analysis when applied to the database, confirmed that 10,000 excess cancer deaths yearly were linked to fluoridation of water supplies. This evidence has been tested most recently in the Pennsylvania Courts and found scientifically sound after careful scrutiny.

      There were three different short term in vitro tests performed on fluoride and all these tests proved fluoride to be mutagenic. An Ames test was performed and reported to be negative. Bruce Ames, in a letter to Arthur Upton introduced in the Congressional Record, stated that his test system was inappropriate for fluoride testing based on a number of technical considerations. EPA’s own guidelines require that in vitro tests be taken into consideration when found positive. In this case, the mutagenicity of fluoride supports the conclusion that fluoride is a probable human carcinogen.

      Melvin Reuber, M.D, a board certified pathologist and former consultant to EPA and part time EPA employee, reviewed some of pathology slides and the Battelle report. Dr. Reuber has had his pathologic diagnoses questioned several times in the past. When an independent board together with Dr. Reuber went over the Slides his opinion was always upheld. He first published the work that identified hepatocholangiocarcinoma as a pathologic entity. The report changed Battelle’s board certified veterinary pathologists diagnoses from hepatocholangiocarcinoma to hepatoblastoma and finally to hepatocarcinoma. Dr. Reuber reviewed the pathology slides and stated that these lesions are indeed hepatocholangiocarcinoma. Because Dr. Reuber first identified and published his findings on this tumor, I trust his opinion in this matter. These tumors are extremely rare. Dr. Reuber’s diagnoses would make the liver cancers significant because of their rarity. This changes the equivocal finding of the board to at least some evidence or clear evidence of carcinogenicity. In addition, the oral changes in the report were down-graded from dysplasia and metaplasia to degeneration. Dr. Reuber said that this. change should also be reviewed. The report also down-graded adrenal pheochromocytomas and tumors to hyperplasia. This needs to be reviewed by an independent board. The other liver carcinomas were down-graded to foci by artificially defining a need for 75% compression in the tumor before it was no longer a foci. Using this changed definition carcinomas were down-graded to adenomas and adenomas downgraded to eosinophilic foci. In almost all instances, the Battelle board certified pathologists’ findings were down-graded. It is my suggestion that a board independent of NIEHS should be assembled by ODW consisting of human pathologists (for their experience in diagnosing osteosarcoma), the Battelle pathologist (to defend his original diagnoses), Dr. Melvin Reuber, Dr. Thomas Squires and two other well known independent board-certified animal pathologists. The charge to this board is to meet as a body, review the slides, agree on a pathologic diagnoses and prepare a report to be submitted to ODW for incorporation in our docket for the fluoride regulation.

      The report talks about the efficacy of fluoride and tooth decay. Since the studies were performed to determine the carcinogenicity of fluoride this should not have been addressed. There appear to be at least four different publications from the U.S., Canada, and New Zealand that have reported similar or lower tooth decay rates in nonfluoridated areas as compared to fluoridated areas (4,5,6,7). Therefore, the entire question of the efficacy of fluoridation based on extensive and multiple studies has been called into question. Our job is to set safe levels for fluoride in drinking water based on the scientific evidence.

      The problem with this meeting was the inability of independent reviewers to get to see the slides prior to the meeting. We must perform our own scientific review of the slides and write our conclusions for use in the development of the revised fluoride regulation.

    • More than 50 population-based studies have looked at the potential link between water fluoride levels and cancer. Most of these have not found a strong link to cancer. Just about all of the studies have been retrospective (looking back in time). They have compared, for example, the rates of cancer in a community before and after water fluoridation, or compared cancer rates in communities with lower levels of fluoride in drinking water to those with higher levels (either naturally or due to fluoridation). Some factors are hard to control for in these types of studies (that is, the groups being compared may be different in ways other than just the drinking water), so the conclusions reached by any single study must be looked at with caution.

      And there are other issues that make this topic hard to study. For example, if fluoridation is a risk factor, is the type of fluoride used important? Also, is there a specific level of fluoride above which the risk is increased, or a certain amount of time or an age range during which a person would need to be exposed?

      Osteosarcoma is a rare cancer. Only about 400 cases are diagnosed in children and teens each year in the United States. This means it can be hard to gather enough cases to do large studies. Smaller studies can usually detect big differences in cancer rates between 2 groups, but they may not be able to detect small differences. If fluoride increased the risk only slightly, it might not be picked up by these types of studies.

      http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk

  14. you say fluoride is not a mineral, I suppose you will try and tell me it is a chemical developed in 1843 when the first fert plants were built. in reality is has been around since the big bang and is in everthing we eat breath and touch. And before you lot say it is a diffrent beast to what is in the ground ,it comes from the phosfate rock that is natural
    Freedom to choose ones [sic] own form of medicine” is irrelevant to water fluoridation. Fluoride at the optimal level is not “medicine” , and it is not “forced” upon anyone. Fluoride is a mineral which the FDA must classify as a drug for the sole reason of its stated use in water as a therapeutic rather than as a disinfectant. No other reason. As the EPA regulates all mineral additives to water, it is the EPA, not the FDA, which controls and regulates fluoride in water. Fluoridated water meets all NSF Standard 60 certification requirements as mandated by the EPA. There are no dosage requirements for fluoride, nor is there any need for such, any more than is there any need of dosage requirements of chlorine in water.
    The “forced medication” gambit has been repeatedly attempted in U.S. courts by antifluoridationists. It has been rejected each and every time.
    There are no freedoms affected for you, or your child, in regard to water fluoridation. You are free to drink it or not. No one forces you to do either.
    The mode of action of water fluoridation is both systemic and topical. The percentage of each is irrelevant as the preventive benefit is derived from the consistent bathing of the teeth with a low concentration of fluoride all during the day. This comes directly from the consumption of fluoridated water, drinks made with fluoridated water, and foods prepared with fluoridated water…..and systemically from incorporation of fluoride into the saliva.
    From the CDC:
    “Both drinking water and toothpaste provide important and complementary benefits. The drinking water provides long low-level protection, but the fluoride in toothpaste is at a high enough concentration that it has additional properties. Whether in water or toothpaste, fluoride works in two main ways: by slowing the activity of bacteria that cause decay, and by combining with the enamel on the surface of the teeth to make it stronger and more resistant to decay. Fluoride in the water, although at a lower concentration than in toothpaste, maintains a constant low level of fluoride in the dental plaque and saliva all day. Toothpaste provides a high level of fluoride, but only for 1-2 hours after brushing, so the water exposure during the remainder of the day takes over after that.”
    ——http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cwf_qa.htm#3
    Hexafluorosilic acid (HFA) is the substance most commonly used to fluoridate water systems. There are no requirements, nor is there any need for any studies on the “health effects” of HFA. At the pH of drinking water, HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated). After that point it no longer exists. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. HFA is therefore of no concern, whatsoever. The products of HFA hydrolysis are fluoride ions identical to those which exist in water already, and trace heavy metal contaminants in nearly undetectable amounts that fall far short of EPA mandated safety maximum levels.
    From SCHER:
    “Fluoridation of drinking water is recommended in some EU Member States, and hexafluorosilicic acid and hexafluorosilicates are the most commonly used agents in drinking water fluoridation. These compounds are rapidly and completely hydrolyzed to the fluoride ion. No residual fluorosilicate intermediates have been reported. Thus, the main substance of relevance to be evaluated is the fluoride ion (F-)”.
    ——-SCHER, Opinion on critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water – 16 May 2011.
    There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain drinking water. HFA is certainly no exception to this. As HFA is utilized in a productive manner, to fluoridate eater systems, it is inexplicable as to how you have determined it to be “waste”.

    • Chris, part of your reply is indicative of the mind set of many who care not one twit about the plight of those who cannot afford measures to avoid drinking fluoridated water. Such types also don’t care about the potential for young boys developing the frequently-fatal bone cancer, osteosarcoma, because of their exposure to fluoridated water during their most vulnerable years (about ages 6-8 years). Because something is recommended by some influential body does not make that product safe. Corruption abounds at every level of society.

      • Osteoporos Int. 2008 Mar;19(3):257-68. Epub 2007 Aug 15.
        Effects of treatment with fluoride on bone mineral density and fracture risk–a meta-analysis.
        Vestergaard P, Jorgensen NR, Schwarz P, Mosekilde L.
        Source

        The Osteoporosis Clinic, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism C, Aarhus University Hospital Aarhus Amtssygehus, Tage Hansens Gade 2, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. p-vest@post4.tele.dk
        Abstract

        Fluoride has fallen into discredit due to the absence of an anti-fracture effect. However, in this meta-analysis, a fracture reducing potential was seen at low fluoride doses [< or =20 mg fluoride equivalents (152 mg monofluorophosphate/44 mg sodium fluoride)]: OR = 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1-0.9 for vertebral and OR = 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3-0.8 for non-vertebral fractures.

      • fluoride is put in water by the local authority for the “greater good” of the whole community, It is not practical to monitor supply at the toby and as with any council decision some are for it some against but in the long run hopefully the people decide, unless it is a kangaroo court situation with a tribunal that gets controlled by the activists

        • Greater Good of the Community – that’s absolute hogwash – there is no greater good in chronically poisoning the population, animals, all life and the environment:-

          Drinking, eating & bathing in dangerously corrosive hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, barrylium, etc., known as water fluoridation chemicals is absolutely insane:-

          FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS
          https://afamildura.wordpress.com/fluoridation-chemicals/

          Raw Fluoridation Chemical Analyses – Freedom of Information – South Australia Water Corp. Raw fluoridation chemical analyses of South Australia’s drinking water, listed below. This data has been scanned from original documents provided to Sapphire Eyes Productions by Dr. Andrew Harms and Ann Bressington. These documents show the toxic, heavy metal contaminants contained in the chemicals used to fluoridate your drinking water. These include lead, arsenic, mercury, uranium, and more. ‘FIRE WATER’ FILM SOURCE: http://tiny.cc/9oj4g  
          Source:    http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com/ Watch:  http://www.firewaterfilm.com
          The Chemistry of Water Fluoridation – What is Water Fluoridation? http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-chemistry-of-water-fluoridation.pdf

          Hydrofluoric Acid – Acutely toxic chemical
          http://www-esh.fnal.gov/CourseHandout_Mat/Hydrofluoric_Acid_Safety_Handout.pdf

          Explaining the truth about “water fluoridation” and the phosphate mining industry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZ15m-D_n8&feature=share

          Fluosilicic Acid. TOXNET profile from Hazardous Substances Data Base http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/fluosilicic.acid.toxnet.hsd.htm

          Raw Fluoridation Chemical Analyses
          http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/foi-water-analysesfor-sa-2010.html

          Hydrofluorosilicic Acid Origins http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-acid-origins/

          Dangerous Substances Regulations The Dangerous Substances Regulations 2001, prescribe water quality standards in relation to certain substances in surface waters, e.g., rivers, lakes and tidal waters. The substances include certain pesticides (atrazine, simazine, tributyltin), solvents (dichloromethane, toluene, xylene), metals (arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc) and certain other compounds (cyanide and fluoride). The Regulations give further effect to the EU Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EC) and give effect to certain provisions of the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). http://www.lcc.ie/Environment/Water_Quality/Dangerous_Substances_Regulations/

          Fluoride Class Action http://fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it

          “Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride,” Journal of Environmental and Public Health, vol. 2013, Article ID 439490, 13 pages, 2013. Richard Sauerheber, doi:10.1155/2013/439490. Available online at: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

          • When you go to the real american cancer society ,not some quackery site ,they say there is no link to cancer and fluoride,Freedom to choose ones [sic] own form of medicine” is irrelevant to water fluoridation. Fluoride at the optimal level is not “medicine” , and it is not “forced” upon anyone. Fluoride is a mineral which the FDA must classify as a drug for the sole reason of its stated use in water as a therapeutic rather than as a disinfectant. No other reason. As the EPA regulates all mineral additives to water, it is the EPA, not the FDA, which controls and regulates fluoride in water. Fluoridated water meets all NSF Standard 60 certification requirements as mandated by the EPA. There are no dosage requirements for fluoride, nor is there any need for such, any more than is there any need of dosage requirements of chlorine in water.
            The “forced medication” gambit has been repeatedly attempted in U.S. courts by antifluoridationists. It has been rejected each and every time.
            There are no freedoms affected for you, or your child, in regard to water fluoridation. You are free to drink it or not. No one forces you to do either.
            The mode of action of water fluoridation is both systemic and topical. The percentage of each is irrelevant as the preventive benefit is derived from the consistent bathing of the teeth with a low concentration of fluoride all during the day. This comes directly from the consumption of fluoridated water, drinks made with fluoridated water, and foods prepared with fluoridated water…..and systemically from incorporation of fluoride into the saliva.
            From the CDC:
            “Both drinking water and toothpaste provide important and complementary benefits. The drinking water provides long low-level protection, but the fluoride in toothpaste is at a high enough concentration that it has additional properties. Whether in water or toothpaste, fluoride works in two main ways: by slowing the activity of bacteria that cause decay, and by combining with the enamel on the surface of the teeth to make it stronger and more resistant to decay. Fluoride in the water, although at a lower concentration than in toothpaste, maintains a constant low level of fluoride in the dental plaque and saliva all day. Toothpaste provides a high level of fluoride, but only for 1-2 hours after brushing, so the water exposure during the remainder of the day takes over after that.”
            ——http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cwf_qa.htm#3
            Hexafluorosilic acid (HFA) is the substance most commonly used to fluoridate water systems. There are no requirements, nor is there any need for any studies on the “health effects” of HFA. At the pH of drinking water, HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated). After that point it no longer exists. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. HFA is therefore of no concern, whatsoever. The products of HFA hydrolysis are fluoride ions identical to those which exist in water already, and trace heavy metal contaminants in nearly undetectable amounts that fall far short of EPA mandated safety maximum levels.

            Extensive research has also shown that fluorides change the chemical structure of the living enamel of the tooth, making it a dead chalky substance.

            Proof please ,and not from an activist site

          • I see you are quoting from activist sites ,If your argument is so weak you have to use there lies to back it up it is a waste of time debating with you

      • Sorry, Blossom, Bassin’s PhD thesis doesn’t change public policy or prove anything. Paul Connett and Kathleen Thiessen went before the California Carcinogenic Indentification Committee and shoveled all of their rubbish on cancer to this 7 member committee, all with excellent scientific credentials.

        Guess what? Unanimously voted that fluoride is NOT a carcinogen.

        Pants on fire, Blossom.

        • So what’s causing all the cancer in the good ol’ US of A?
          The cancer rate in America is 1 in every 2 males and 1 in every 3 females and that it is with no respect to age.
          And you won’t answer me KURT about why so many of your ‘brothers in drills’ have turned their backs on fluoride?????

          • So to make a statement about cancer and fluoride you must have checked the cancer rates in fluoride and non fluoride areas in the USA to have enough information to qualify your statement and can prove your theory

            • Chris, with respect take the blinkers off.
              There is this little problem called bio accumulation. Once you put fluoride in the water, what is not consumed as drinking water flows on to be used for a whole host of other things, which transcend geographical borders. Fruit, vegetables, fruit juices wine, beer etc which spike the dose of fluoride to the whole community.

              Having said that Chris, yes I did check the cancer rates and the results would probably surprise both of us.
              See:
              http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/government-and-top-university-studies-fluoride-lowers-iq-and-causes-other-health-problems.html

              Long-lost research linking fluoride to cancer has resurfaced in a Dutch film clip featuring Dr. Dean Burk, who in 1937 confounded the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and headed its cytochemistry department for more than 30 years. In the taped interview, he equates water fluoridation to “public murder,” referring to a study that had been done on the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation compared to the 10 largest without it. The study demonstrated that deaths from cancer abruptly rose in as little as a year or two after fluoridation began. This and other studies linking fluoride to cancer were government-ordered but were quickly buried once fluoride was found to be linked to dramatic increases in cancer.

              And here is the kicker Chris, in the same report:

              World Health Organization Data (2004) –
              Tooth Decay Trends (12 year olds) in Fluoridated vs. Non-fluoridated Countries:

              Guess what………. no difference in tooth decay!!!!!?????????

              By the way, I know this pest control expert in Queensland Australia who as part of his job has to mix up water based termite baits. He has to use non fluoridated rain water because the termites won’t touch the bait if it’s made with fluoridated town water.
              But what would termites know?

              • And to prove your point ,you send me to studies by limeback and colquhuon, wow one is an activist and the other is a liar . And you call that quality peer reviewed proof I know youn guys scape the bottom of the barrel but there are limits

                • So Chris,
                  What is an activist?
                  Is that someone who has a disease like leprosy?

                • I also notice Chris that you pro fluoridationists attack people but never address any of the questions or points raised.
                  You totally ignored the arguments and just attacked the authors………….typical ploy of paid shills

                  • Ive had dealings with Limeback he is a slippery customer and i would not trust anything that colquhuon says his reports are rubbish and full of lies, When you bring out some reliable proof we can look at it

                    • Chris,
                      When the arch vicar of Canadian Dentistry said there is a problem with fluoride?????
                      Besides we can argue for years like Muslims and Christians, the first and foremost problem with fluoride is its origin.
                      Chimney waste Chris, industrial grade, heavy metal containing, radio active CHIMNEY WASTE !!!!!
                      You know it and I know it.
                      Your silence on this point will be deemed as an acknowledgement.

                    • 1. Hydrofluorosilic Acid, the product most often utilized to fluoridate water systems, does not exist at the tap in fluoridated water. It is not ingested and therefore requires no regulating. Water from the tap must meet all EPA mandated Standard 60 certification requirements of the National Sanitary Foundation. Fluoridated water easily meets those requirements.

                      2. Arsenic is so prevalent in the environment that it is difficult to find any food substances that do not contain it. Standard 60 certification requires that no water contaminant exceed 10 % of the EPA maximum safety level for that contaminant (MCL). The MCL for arsenic is 10 parts per billion. Thus the maximum allowable under Standard 60 is 1.0 ppb. In testing fluoridated water, the NSF must use 10 times the manufacturers recommended normal use amount of HFA, in order to be able to detect ANY arsenic. Even at this level, arsenic was still only detectable in 50% of the samples. In those sample in which arsenic was detectable, the maximum level was 0.6 ppb, or only 60% of the maximum allowed by Standard 60, which is only 10% of the EPA MCL. In those samples, the average amount of arsenic detected was only 0.12 ppb. Given that arsenic is so prevalent in the environment within that concentration range, it is not even a certainty that the miniscule amount of arsenic detected in fluoridated water is not that which already exists in the water originally. Clearly, arsenic is not a concern in water fluoridated with HFA.

                      3. The miniscule amounts of contaminants which may be introduced by HFA are not capable of causing any adverse effects. Therefore there is no need for any “defense”.

                      4. In regard to water fluoridation, there is no “doping” occurring.

                      5. Decision makers acting in good faith in what they consider to be in the best interests of their constituencies, in accordance with accepted standards of practice, cannot not be held liable for any adverse consequences, “personally”, or otherwise. With 73% of the United States fluoridated, clearly, water fluoridation falls within accepted standards of practice.

                      6. The public health initiative of water fluoridation has been demonstrated in countless peer-reviewed scientific studies, to be beneficial in reducing dental decay. In its 68 year history, there have been no proven adverse effects. Whether one considers we are already getting “enough” fluoride, or not, is a moot point. It works, with no adverse effects.

                      7. There is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that proves water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm to have ANY effect on “thyroid function”. The only dental fluorosis attributable to water fluoridation is mild to very mild. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is an effect which has no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth.

                      8. Fluoridated water is not “medication” and no one is forced to ingest it. The “forced medication” gambit has been repeatedly attempted by antifluoridationists in US courts. It has been rejected each and every time.

                    • NO CHRIS!
                      1.We ingest hydroflouorosilic acid in Australia: “The NHMRC recommends three compounds for fluoridating drinking water: sodium fluoride (NaF); sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6); and fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6)” (DHSV 2009, p. 9).

                      “Water fluoridation programs in the United States and other countries which have them use either sodium fluoride (NaF), hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) or the sodium salt of that acid (NaSF), all technical grade chemicals… HFSA, a liquid, contains significant amounts of arsenic (As)” (Hirzy et al. 2013, p. 1).

                      2. “The fluosilicic acid brands used in artificially fluoridating Australia’s water supplies are known to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and mercury—major public health hazards for which no safe level exists” (Awofeso 2012, p. 8).

                      “91% of Americans ingesting artificially fluoridated water are consuming silicofluorides. This is a class of fluoridation chemicals that includes hydrofluosilicic acid and its salt form, sodium fluorosilicate. These chemicals are collected from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The scrubber liquors contain contaminants such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and radioactive particles, are legally regulated as toxic waste, and are prohibited from direct dispersal into the environment. Upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”, allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Sodium fluoride, used in the remaining municipalities, is also an industrial waste product that contains hazardous contaminants” (NTEU 2003).
                      3. Where is the peer reviewed long-term safety data to back this claim for ” The miniscule amounts of contaminants which may be introduced by HFA are not capable of causing any adverse effects. Therefore there is no need for any “defense”. Absolutely, we are ingesting and the entire body is accumulating contaminants. DON’T LOOK – DON’T FIND CHRIS!
                      4. Informed Consent to Treatment – we are all being ‘doped’ by force as a ‘medication’ for a so-called ‘disease’!!! Water fluoridation is a treatment for the disease of dental caries. Treating individuals without their informed consent can result in serious charges such as Medical Trespass, Assault or Battery, for medical practitioners who treat patients without consent. However, water departments treat thousands, even millions, of people every day and night with fluoridation chemicals, without consent being originally obtained (or obtained on an ongoing basis).
                      5. As per point 4 above.
                      6. Reducing decay???? No, incorrect: http://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries02/ READ IT ! These are the FACTS !
                      7. Another CLAIM you has not sourced. But, http://www.fluorideresearch.org/384/files/384318-323.pdf

                      8. https://www.facebook.com/notes/anti-fluoridation-association-of-mildura/final-nails-in-the-ethical-coffin-of-water-fluoridation/314696628676056 Informed Consent to treatment – read this.

    • Anyone who has done unbiased/independent research know that there is no credibility left in the CDC / Center for Disease Creation.

      Fluoride, Gingivitis & Oral Cancer 
© 2002 PFPC 
Summary: 
Gingivitis and periodontal disease are the oral diseases requiring most urgent intervention. Over 90% of the U.S. population over 13 is affected. Strong links have been made to heart disease and low birth weight and infant mortality. For heart disease the association with gingivitis is stronger than the one for smoking or high cholesterol. As heart disease is the #1 killer in the US, many efforts are undertaken to reduce this alarming figure. In Canada large pictures of a diseased heart are placed on cigarette packs alerting to the fact that smoking causes heart disease. 
It is of great importance that warning labels and pictures of periodontal disease, oral cancer, diseased hearts, pituitary and thyroid glands, as well as Alzheimer’s brains – just to name a few – are placed on all oral care products containing fluoride. 
Why?
      Patents by the pharmaceutical company Sepracor disclose that concentrations of fluorides from fluoridated toothpastes and mouthwashes activate G proteins in the oral cavity, thereby promoting gingivitis and periodontitis, as well as oral cancer. Incomprehensibly, this vital information is being withheld from the public by all parties involved, including the company, at least two well-known Universities, and numerous oral disease experts. THIS INCLUDES A MUCH-DECORATED ADA SCIENTIST WHO WAS INVOLVED IN SETTING THE CDC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FLUORIDE INTAKE IN CHILDREN, SERVED AS HEAD OF A FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SUBCOMMITTEE THAT DECIDES WHICH DENTAL PRODUCTS TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, AND WHO CHAIRED THE PANEL ON SAFE USE OF FLUORIDE FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL . (CDC, 2001)

      sourced here: http://www.npwa.org.uk/index.php?view=article&catid=37%253Ato-be-categorised&id=96%253Aa-bombshell-to-stop-fluoridation&option=com_content&Itemid=92

      ~~

      Dentists have Controlled CDC’s Water Fluoridation Stance for over 35 Years…
      Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970’s, the dental health professionals in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have completely controlled the agency’s stance supporting water fluoridation.  No CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency’s position.
      The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC’s and EPA’s fluoride safety statements, which appear at odds with current scientific knowledge.
      According to the Fluoride Action Network: “Law firms are now reviewing old and new documents believed to highlight a pattern of attempts to curtail discussions on fluoride toxicity and downplay the importance of professionals personally reviewing scientific reports about fluorides.”
      http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/23/hidden-documents-reveal-cdc-fluoride-support-controlled-by-dentists.aspx

      ~~

      Many allege that the Centers for Disease Creation has about as much ethics and credibility as an Armed Robber seeking employment in a Bank ………..

      Dear CDC, Water fluoridation/pollution with hazardous waste is not safe and not effective – CDC I’m going to say that you have long ago lost respect, credibility, morality, professionalism and ethics particularly for allowing the Fluoridation Fraud/Web of Deception to continue and you must urgently call an immediate and irrevocable ban on all water fluoridation pollution and close those revolving doors from industries to Government………….

      People are absolutely disgusted and sick of those revolving doors between industries and government and the political donation$ from those with ‘agendas to secure’ – take this one example, ‘CDC “recommendations” like these are worth their weight in gold to Big Pharma companies like Merck, and one of the persons making those recommendations was Julie Gerberding, CDC Director from 2002 to 2009. Gerberding resigned her government post and – after a mandatory delay of a year and a day – became President of Merck’s Vaccine Division in January 2010. Before going through the BigPharma/CDC revolving door, however, her “Report to Congress ‘Prevention of Genital Human Papillomavirus [HPV] Infection’ paved the way for eventual approval of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine, guaranteeing billions in profits for her future employer. Perhaps the vaccine presidency is Julie’s reward for cementing the relationship between government and Merck via the CDC, the agency that behaves as the de facto marketing arm of the vaccine industry. Another gift to Merck under Gerberding’s management has been the CDC’s continual denial that there is any link between the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, and autism on the small scale; and vaccinations and autism on the large scale. Recent CDC reports place the incidence of autism at 1 in 110 children, four times higher than previous estimates. A major key to the viability of future vaccines in the pipeline is the tacit denial of any link of autism to the heavy metal, or vaccines in general, now or in the future.”
      http://ironboltbruce.com/2011/11/04/cdc-director-gerberding-gives-green-light-to-gardasil-then-goes-to-work-for-merck-g1a2d0049c1/

      ~~

      Dentists laughing all the way to the bank – more dentists/dental corporations than ever before & one filling will cost you anywhere between $150 & $400 depending on size FOR ONE FILLING !! you can only imagine the rest of the charges that more of the population are unable to afford – & Private Health Insurance becoming unaffordable for more of the population & those who think hazardous waste pollutants & co-contaminants S6, S7 poison Corrosive 8 hazardous waste fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, beryllium etc., known as ‘fluoridation chemicals’ are good for your teeth and brain & body – you need to re-examine your thinking power (and added to this hazardous waste mix is ‘aluminium sulphate’).
      Those on Centrelink at least can get some help at Queensland (Australian) Government dentists but the waiting list is very, very, very long (eight years). The Queensland Government now after five years of fluoridation (Dec. 2008) and dental clinics at some schools, have so many on waiting list for Centerlink that these people can now go to Private Dentists and the Government foots the bill. More proof of the appalling failure and fraud of all water fluoridation ‘schemes‘ in every sense of the word. Australia is in dental crisis after decades of water fluoridation/pollution first commencing in Beaconsfield Tasmania in 1953 & USA in dental crisis after first commencing in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945 – water fluoridation/pollution is a fraud – disposal of dangerously corrosive hazardous waste pollutants and co-contaminants into our drinking water supplies & hence contaminating our food chain has to be stopped for all time, the only answer ever was to provide access to affordable dental health care services for all the population, not the disposal of hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides & co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, beryllium, etc. into our drinking water supplies and hence also contaminating our foodchain.. Chronically poisoning the population, pets & environment on the say so of Pro-fluoridation lobby groups with such political power, clout & control is obscene to say the least.

      REPORT: Can Dentists & Doctors be trusted when they say Water Fluoridation is Safe & Effective?
      http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/can-dentists-doctors-be-trusted-when-they-say-water-fluoridation-is-safe-effective.pdf

      REPORT: 100% fluoridated Kentucky, USA – Rampant Dental Decay & chronic disease epidemic – DDB http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rampant-dental-decay-chronic-disease-epidemic-in-100-fluoridated-kentucky-usa-13-aug-2013-ddb.pdf

      Stop this Monster of Madness called Water Fluoridation

  15. Pingback: AFAM Offline Until Early February 2014 | Research Blog

  16. As always it depends on which evidence you recognise and which you reject…….
    Plus whether you accept, for example, the NZ Health &Disability Commissioner’s Code of Consumer (i.e. patients) rights which includes that no-one may be given any medical treatment without their informed consent. Note INFORMED consent.
    If you approve mass medication – which is what fluoridation of public water supplies is – then you are denying the individual’s right to decide for themselves.
    But – back to the evidence. Having come into the F debate about 20 years ago with no vested interests nor any pre-conceived ideas my reading of the subject brought me to the conclusion that there is no clear benefit from fluoridation but that there are significant risks. So, even aside from such things as the patients code of rights mentioned above, why should anyone force me to have fluoridated drinking water when the public water supply is my only source? I’m not stopping the pro-F lobby from having fluoride tablets or whatever if that is their choice.
    In the end it seems to be a matter of ones democratic rights.
    David Tranter
    Health Spokesman,
    NZ Democrats for Social Credit.

  17. Putting the corrosive toxic waste of fluoride into public water against the majority will and without consent is a crime against humanity for which all rabid proponents will soon be answerable.

    • that depends on the will of the people

      • And 15 million more people think fluoride is a good thing in the USA this year

        CDC has released the latest statistics on community water fluoridation for the nation on its Web site (www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2012stats.htm).

        The latest data show that in 2012, 74.6% of the U.S. population on community water systems, or a total of 210.7 million people, had access to optimally fluoridated water. This is significant progress from the Healthy People 2020 baseline of 72.4% (2008) towards the target of 79.6%. Since 2008, an additional 15 million people have received the benefit of fluoridated water. Evidence shows that the prevalence of tooth decay is substantially lower in communities with water fluoridation.

  18. As a former city councilwoman, I was instrumental in investigating my constituents complaints about the harmfulness of
    water fluoridation. As a result I helped in getting an initiative to the ballot and we successfully voted in a moratorium on Nov 6, ’12 to turn off the toxic industrial waste fluoride (HYDROFLUSOLICIC ACID OR HFSA) because our supplier UNIVAR, (formerly Basic Chemical Solutions) would not provide three things:

    1.) Toxicological report

    2.) Listing of contaminants

    3.) Proof that their product was safe for all water consumers, infants to seniors.

    This absurd practice of adding HFSA is based more on politics than science. Why should a water department be given the power to medicate anyone when they don’t take a health history, they don’t pass out a listing of side effects or monitor the dose. This is tantamount to gross negligence. Water consumers started to send in their payment UNDER PROTEST so that when the class action lawsuits begin they would be covered.

    After adding water fluoridation for 44 years, our town had 70% cavities in our children’s teeth,(this figure was quoted from Dr. Susan Wellman, dentist who is pro-fluoride) high obesity rates and low test scores. Hardly an endorsement for continuing this unethical practice. We were also ranked 34th in the nation for cancer while Brookings, Oregon….. just 25 minutes north of us…. was ranked 765th in the nation for cancer for the same time period and Bookings never fluoridated their water.

    We have high rates of not only cancer, but thyroid, diabetes and kidney disease all with links to HFSA. One constituent ended up in ER with seizures after showering for 10 minutes. Her doctor has subsequently written a letter describing her allergic reaction to water fluoridation. She was on a medication which contained fluoride and that in combination with absorbing this poison transdermaly by showering put her in the Emergency Room.

    New Hampshire Governor Lynch signed into law on Aug 4, 2012 infant warnings concerning mixing fluoridated water with formula because of the high prevalence of fluorosis. Fluorosis is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. Our Enviornmental Protection Agency announced in early 2011 that 41% of our nations teenagers had fluorosis and recommended cutting the parts per million down to .7. Our city council reduced the ppm from 1.2 to .7. That was a step in the right direction but not nearly enough because our EPA is doing nothing to really test or protect the public from this toxic industrial waste product. The only safe level when considering the addition of HFSA to drinking/bathing water is ZERO.

    If you happen to call the NSF (which is not a government agency) and ask them questions about the testing they do on HFSA, they will tell you that they won’t provide that information because of non-disclosure agreements. If you call the manufacturer, distributor or supplier, they will not provide information about the 3 requested docs listed in my opening paragraph above as I already did that back in 2011. I sent out over 40 letters and got zero responses.

    I predict that water fluoridation will become one of the biggest frauds and scams ever perpetrated against the public in the 20th and 21st century. That phrase often quoted by the CDC as being one of the best things since sliced bread was made up by a Public Relations guy. It’s time to stop quoting that drivel. Water fluoridation will be compared to Tobacco science, DDT science, Asbestos science, Thalidomide science, etc.

    It is my opinion based on the research I’ve done which has been extensive these last 5 years, that it’s all about the money. Some brilliant schemers came up with this idea to get rid of toxic industrial waste by saying it was good for children’s teeth. That’s a bunch of baloney. It’s good for the bank accounts of the producers of HFSA because if they had to get rid of their toxic industrial waste legally, it would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. Instead they dupe the politicians with fraudulent science and endorsements which is not science and sell them a product in which humans are utilized to filter this poison through their bodies while 99% goes down the drain. The dumb politicians buy it hook, line and sinker and shut their brains down. They become incapable of independent thought as I witnessed first hand with my fellow council members and other councils I’ve visited. But the HFSA manufacturers, suppliers and distributors are laughing all the way to the bank because they’ve got these municipalities paying them for poison. Plus, I checked out our retirement accounts and lo and behold, the MOSAIC company is one of the funds city employees can invest their retirement money in. Again, as I said, brilliant scheme from start to finish. I just hope to see the day that some of them end up in prison.

    But here’s the part they don’t tell you. In 2011, our city finished a $43.8 million upgrade/expansion on our waste water treatment plant with state-of-the-art technology that utilizes MBR or Membrane Bio-Reactor technology. When I asked our Public Works Director if this gets the fluoride out of the water, he replied, “NO.” So this poison is going into our Pacific Ocean.

    Crescent City, Calif.
    USA

    Poison the public. Poison the oceans. Poison the food and beverages. Because of that, we are all already over-fluoridated.

    Please do your homework.

  19. if you really look at why they are treating the water with fluoride they say they are worried about tooth decay, ok then why do we have toothpaste with fluoride in it, is it because the toothpaste doesn’t work. no it’s because they would have to admit they were wrong all those years ago and would open the government up to law suits because we have become a society that sues at the drop of a hat, the data is incomplete so i don’t think they could be sued. i think they should stop the fluoride as in most of europe they don’t have fluoride in their water as they say it doesn’t prove it is safe because all the data is incomplete and they can’t be sure it wouldn’t harm their people. only about 30 countries around the world use fluoride in their water the rest don’t. also there is the fact hitler used it against the population so it tells you that he done it for a reason. the government say they use safe doses, my question is how do they monitor it and if the dosage is higher than is recommended how do they lower the concentration of the fluoride? water came without fluoride it doesn’t need fluoride so why add it seeing as we have toothpaste with fluoride. you can bring up chlorine is added but the water is stored in dams and reservoirs so the chlorine is a different issue as the water isn’t completely free flowing and the bacteria can become unsafe. take the fluoride out of the water is my recommendation let people have the choice of whether they consume a chemical that have side effects.

    • youn better read up on europe again the reason fluoride is not in water all over europe is
      1 the terrain makes it not a viable way to deliver it
      2 a lot of europe use well water
      3 salt milk are used as well
      3 naural fluoride is found in well water in places
      And i see when you run out of real facts just bring out the old Nazi story, what a load of rubbish

      Careful epidemiological studies show fluoridation provides both systemic and topical benefits. Groeneveld (1990) That Dutch study found cavity reduction on smooth surfaces where upper and lower teeth come together was found to be equally due to systemic and topical effects. Smooth surfaces not touching other teeth benefited mostly (75%) from topical effects. Cavity reduction in the irregular pits and fissures of molars was mostly (66%) from swallowed fluoride during tooth development

      Australian children with optimal exposure to fluoridated water, both before and after tooth eruption had fewest cavities on all surfaces Singh (2004)

      A number of studies have shown that fluoridated water consumed in childhood leads to better oral health as an adult. Okinawan kids who drank fluoridated water on an army base had fewer cavities as adults without fluoridated water. Kobayashi (1992)

      Dental fluorosis in molars prevents cavities, an effect which proves a systemic action. Iida, Kumar (2009)

      Neidell found that lack of community water fluoridation during childhood was related to tooth loss in adults. The tooth saving impact of childhood fluoridation was larger for socioeconomic disadvantaged persons. The systemic effect caused a lasting improvement of economic disparities in oral health Neidell (2010)

      The weight of the scientific evidence supports the overwhelming professional and scientific consensus that community water fluoridation is beneficial and safe.« less

      Read more: http://www.news-star.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131119/NEWS/131119725/1001/NEWS#ixzz2lEMNKOJt

      And see there is no FANN website lies in this reply they are all real peer reviewed papers

      • chris, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Some European countries did previously practise forced-fluoridation, but rejected it decades ago. How the hell does the terrain in European cities make it unviable? Where are you getting this rubbish from? What is FANN?

      • You seriously expect us to believe that world-famous engineers of Germany, who accomplish the most incredible technical/precision engineering projects in their SLEEP, cannot figure out how to build fluoridation plants, ship in some fertiliser by-product and inject it into the water supply?

        You are beyond ridiculous, if that is your position, truly.

      • Chris, Re this cod’s wallop that you wrote – i.e. ‘youn better read up on europe again the reason fluoride is not in water all over europe is 1 the terrain makes it not a viable way to deliver it …’ – you’d best go back to the class room. There are many European cities whose large populations are served with first-class public water supplies which could easily be used as vehicles for administering medical/dental treatments such as the industrial waste (euphemistically called fluoride) which is used in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and some other countries. Your nonsense is an overused, ridiculous claim.

      • Dentists and WHO experts have predicted a very large caries increase (‘a tide of caries’) after termination of fluoridation.49

        Analyses of the data, however, reveal a significant DECREASE in dental caries (caries decline) after suspension of water fluoridation in Japan,49,54 in the Netherlands,55 in Prague,49,56 in the German Democratic Republic,49 and elsewhere.

        Never has any real increase in dental caries been observed after water fluoridation was discontinued.
        Furthermore, many fluoride tablet measures were stopped also.

        In Graz23 (Austria), for instance, the dental caries of children had increased during the fluoride tablet actions in schools since 1956 and decreased after the stop in 1973. Rudolf Ziegelbecker

        Peterstalstrasse 29 
A-8042 Graz; Austria 
From 1998 full information: http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-3/313-171.htm (link now dead)

        +

        Germany – Rejection of Fluoridation of Drinking Water
        http://www.dvgw.de/fileadmin/dvgw/angebote/publikationen/infoschriften/wasserinfo34_e.pdf

        Statements from European Health, Water & Environment Authorities on water fluoridation http://fluoridealert.org/content/europe-statements/

        ~~

        AS THE FIRST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD – BELGIUM PROHIBITS FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS
July 29, 2002
        But the usefulness of fluoride has been doubted worldwide for a long time already. Over the years at least 12 Nobel Prize winners in Medicine and Chemistry have warned of the associated health risks. To make children take fluoride is not only useless against caries, it is plainly dangerous. Tooth and bone decalcification as a result of fluoride even has a name – fluorosis. Fluoride is very reactive and it goes deep into the bones and cells where it is accumulated. Yes, the tooth surface becomes much harder, but the tooth itself becomes more brittle. From a lot of research it seems that fluoride causes joint problems, skeletal deformations, osteoporosis, and that it can even cause bone cancer. Also the brain cannot escape from it. Fluoride has a negative influence on the nervous system and the immune system, and in children it can lead to (chronic) fatigue, a lower IQ, learning disabilities, lethargy and depression.
        Full information: http://www.nofluoride.com/BelgiumBan.cfm

        …..Nevertheless, the industry can still get rid of its toxic garbage: fluoride toothpaste, fluoride mouthrinse, fluoride floss, and even toothpicks with fluoride are not under the scope of the ban. And the dentists are still allowed to smear fluoride onto the teeth of children – how risky this is. The American researcher Dr. Phyllis Mullenix has demonstrated that the same treatment in test animals causes the fluoride levels in the bloodstream to rise to such a degree that the animals within the hour displayed behaviour disturbances. On top of this, there exist all kinds of dental filling materials with fluoride which continuously leaches into the mouth. Dentists use such materials to fill cavities in children’s teeth. It is a hallucinatory practice when you know that fluoride is only slightly less toxic than arsenic.
        http://www.nofluoride.com/Belgium_Health_Minister_Aelvoet_interview.cfm

        ~~

        Australia in dental crisis after widespread fluoridation Australia wide for decades first commencing Beaconsfield Tasmania in 1953 (also in dental crisis and chronically diseased) and USA also in dental crisis after up to 67 years of water fluoridation/pollution first commencing Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945 (also in dental crisis – Kentucky USA l00% fluoridated also in dental crisis and chronically diseased). It’s a no-brainer – dangerously corrosive hazardous waste pollutants & co-contaminants have no place being disposed/dumped into the peoples’ water supplies and hence also contaminating/polluting our food chain. All water fluoridation (pollution) must cease water fluoridation (pollution) must cease immediately & irrevocably for all time.

        FLUORIDE DOES NOT ELIMINATE TOOTH DECAY – Slash stealth sugar intake, dental patients urged
        12th Dec 2013
        Levels of tooth decay are much lower in diets where less than 10% of the calorie intake comes from free sugars, according to research carried out for the World Health Organisation (WHO) by Newcastle in the UK.
The study also found that fluoride does not eliminate tooth decay, citing dietary sugars as the primary cause. People living in areas with fluoridated water and/or using fluoride toothpaste still got dental caries.

  20. No “Randomized Controlled Trials” demonstrating effectiveness
    In the 60 years (plus) of this practice there has never been a study of the quality
    required by the FDA and other national regulatory bodies when approving new
    drugs for efficacy. Such trials require random selection of the individuals tested
    (exposed and unexposed) and examinations should be “double blind.” Double
    blind means that neither the person examining the subject nor the person being
    tested should know whether the substance given is the drug or a placebo. The
    modern terminology for this testing is “Randomized Controlled Trial.”
    The York Review (McDonagh et al. 2000) after an exhaustive review of the
    literature could identify NO “Randomized Controlled Trials” of either fluoridation’s
    effectiveness, or safety.

    • Randomized Controlled Trails simply doesn’t happen in the real-world. Any laboratory study will not have the same wavelengths as people. People are unpredictable, they drink in different times, different variations, body changes etc.

      Using Randomized Controlled Trials as religion is non-sense. No one predicts the health effects of many medications and GMO foods, and yet they are found but largely ignored by the media until journalists are authorized to write that.

      Yes, Journalists are influenced as seen in a town in NSW when council members voted no for Fluoridation and suddenly the media attacks them.

      Why are the proponents so desperate to force it, and even without any tact, just ‘TAKE IT’?

      When can government officials wake up and people in general trust science like a second opinion instead of facts? And to have an open-mind that even though a drug is tested that it still has risks due to it’s nature or what it does.

      We think we can best nature, and that’s the problem of governments and scientists. Rather than creating synthetic drugs, why not study about the benefits of natural products and alternatives?

      Is it because creating problems is profitable than creating solutions? It makes too much sense.

      • The population of Australia have been the lab rats for up to 6 decades and the USA nearly 7 decades.
        Our chronic diseased population and dental crisis proves that water fluoridation is not safe and not effective and the testing on the lab rats population should cease and desist immediately.

  21. Thus, in his re-examination5-9 of Dean’s famous “21-cities study” of caries in
    permanent teeth of 4,425 children, aged 12–14 years, published in 1942, RZ noted
    that Dean had not included caries data from his earlier surveys that would not have
    fitted into his proposed inverse relationship between natural F water levels and
    dental caries. RZ noted that the caries prevalence in more than 650 counties and
    cities was known to Dean at that time,5 covering a range of 1.5 to 9.5 DMFT/child
    in 1933–34, mainly at low F in water, and that some of the 21 cities had undergone
    very different, very large changes until 1941/1942. RZ therefore examined the
    caries prevalence data available in 1981 for the permanent teeth of 48,000 12–14
    year-old children in 136 communities in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, and
    Europe with 0.15 to 5.8 ppm natural F in the drinking water. When he plotted all
    these caries data, including those of Dean’s 21 cities, against F in water
    (heightened by an estimated basic intake from other sources) in a log-normal
    coordinate frame, he found only a flat line—not Dean’s inverse relationship of
    caries with F in the drinking water.6 On the other hand, when he plotted, in the
    same manner, the incidence of dental fluorosis of 12,000 children, 9–14 years of
    age, in 67 communities of the USA and 6 in Denmark against the F content of their
    In Memoriam
    Fluoride 42(3)162–166
    July-September 2009
    Rudolf Ziegelbecker: strength from science
    164 Neurath, Ziegelbecker 164
    drinking water, ranging from 0.4 to 6.6 ppm natural F, he found a highly correlated
    direct relation.6 Further analysis of 10 of Dean’s 21 cities, in the same coordinate
    frame, showed a close direct relationship of caries scores with higher
    Lactobacillus acidophilus levels in the saliva—even at low F water levels.

    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/423/files/FJ2009_v42_n3_p162-166.pdf

  22. FLUORIDE IS NOT A NUTRIENT “Health Canada does not consider fluoride as an essential nutrient.” AG Petition 221, Response # 22 http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_221_e_30308.html Since Health Canada has clearly demonstrated that fluoride is not essential, the reason for adding it to drinking water specifically validates its role as a drug, since the “nutritional” argument does not hold, given that fluoride is simply not an essential nutrient. Health Canada says “Fluoridating drinking water is intended to provide a dietary source of fluoride, a mineral nutrient. Fluoride added to water in the concentrations available in Canada is considered nutritive as opposed to therapeutic. Fluoride is added to drinking water as a public health measure to protect dental health and prevent or reduce tooth decay. Fluoride used in drinking water fluoridation is not considered a drug by Health Canada as per the Food and Drugs Act and is not regulated by the Department as a drug. Health Canada recognizes the importance of protecting all Canadians from possible adverse health effects related to drinking water, including sub-groups at highest risk. Some sub-groups in the population could potentially be more susceptible to fluoride, for example people with kidney problems, osteoporosis, or poor nutrition.” Fluoride is nutritive as per Health Canada, yet they say some sub groups who suffer from poor nutrition are at the highest risk of possible adverse health effects from it. If fluoride was so nutritious then why are people with poor nutrition at the highest risk of possible adverse health effects from it? This claim that fluoride is nutritive is not true as people who suffer from poor nutrition are more prone to fluoride’s toxic effects than people who do not suffer from poor nutrition. Fluoride is more toxic than lead and less toxic than arsenic, Please see the charts below. Fluoride is a Canadian Environmental Protection Agency Schedule 1 toxic substance, please view the link below it is number 40 on their list: http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=0DA2924D-1&wsdoc=4ABEFFC8-5BEC-B57A-F4BF-11069545E434 Do you see any other nutrients on the list there? Overview of the Natural Health Products Regulations Guidance Document definition of a vitamin and mineral Vitamin. An organic substance needed in small amounts to maintain normal health. Mineral. A naturally occurring, solid, inorganic substance with a definite and predictable chemical as composition and physical properties. Health Canada already admitted in their answer to the Auditor General that fluoride was not an essential nutrient so it is not needed to maintain normal health as no disease will occur with deficiency of it. Fluoride is not really a vitamin or a mineral, it is a naturally occurring substance as a gas fluorine is a Group 17 element. Fluorine is the most electronegative and reactive of all elements. It is a pale yellow, corrosive gas, which reacts with practically all organic and inorganic substances. The actual chemicals they put in our water are not naturally occurring but rather they are man made chemicals from the phosphate fertilizer and aluminum manufacturers. Also the chemicals themselves are not stable and always in molecular transition. You can however find Calcium Fluoride naturally. I must now explain to you the different kinds of fluoride so you will see that fluoride is an ion and not a mineral/vitamin. THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FLUORIDE FOUND IN OUR WATER In Winnipeg we use hydrofluorosilicic acid to add fluoride to our water supply. Some cities use sodium fluoride, and others use sodium silicofluorides. Sodium silicofluorides and hydrofluorosilicic acid are almost always used over sodium fluoride because it is cheaper. Around 90% of fluoridated communities use these fluoridating chemicals compared to 10% that use sodium fluoride. Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) occurs naturally in water. Fluoride salts/compounds are constituents of minerals in rocks and soil. Water passes over rock formations and dissolves the fluoride compounds that are present, creating fluoride ions. The result is that small amounts of fluoride ions are present in all water sources, including the oceans. Naturally occurring fluoride in water is present as calcium fluoride, varying in concentration from region to region according to the geology of the environment. Sodium fluoride (NaF) is derived from hydrofluoric acid, which in turn is made by reacting sulfuric acid with fluorspar, a calcium fluoride rich ore. Hydrofluosilicic Acid (H2SiF4) is captured during production of commercial fertilizers and phosphoric acid. Pollution control devices called wetscrubbers used by the phosphate industry capture fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer. In the past, when the industry let these gases escape, vegetation became scorched, crops destroyed, and cattle crippled. Hydrofluosilicic acid is the most corrosive chemical agent known to man. Sodium Silicofluorides (Na2SiF6) comes from the manufacture of super-phosphate fertilizer, phosphate rock is acidulated with sulfuric acid, and the fluoride content of the rock evolves as volatile silicofluorides. In the past, much of this volatile material was vented to the atmosphere, contributing heavily to pollution of the air and land surrounding the manufacturing site. As awareness of the pollution problem increased, scrubbers were added to strip particulate and gaseous components from the waste gas. In the late 1960’s the USEPA became concerned and enforced regulations requiring manufacturers to install pollution scrubbers. At that time, the facilities were dumping the concentrated, acidic pollution directly into waterways leading into other waterways such as Tampa Bay Florida and stacks were belching highly acidic, slightly radioactive pollution into the atmosphere. By 1983, the official EPA policy was expressed by EPA Office of Water Deputy Administrator Rebecca Hanmer as follows: “In regard to the use of fluosilicic (fluorosilicic) acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them. Calcium fluoride is almost insoluble in water and cannot be easily absorbed by the body. Sodium fluoride is easily absorbed by the body because it is very soluble in water which allows the fluoride ion to get free and form complexes with so many ions including a lot of toxic ones, and others that are needed by the body which might help to explain why this unreactive species (in the chemical sense) can be so biologically active and dangerous. Hydrofluorosilicic acid and silicofluorides are said to completely dissolve into SiO2 and fluoride ions. This is disputed, as there are still some silicon fluoride (SiF) complexes left when the water reaches our taps. The main differences are calcium fluoride is natural whereas sodium fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid and silicofluorides are toxic by products of industrial companies. THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FLUORIDE FOUND IN TOOTHPASTES Fluoride was first added to toothpastes in 1914, and was criticized by the American Dental Association (ADA) in 1937. Then when fluoride toothpastes were developing in the 1950s they received the ADA’s seal of approval. Isn’t this very strange how The American Dental Association criticized fluoridated toothpastes and then they praised them! Before Crest, Procter & Gamble’s (P&G) experimental Teel toothpaste with sodium fluoride, actually caused cavities in 1940’s tests. (1) Teel was scrapped in favor of Crest, with stannous fluoride. In 1955, Crest received the American Dental Association’s (ADA) seal of approval generating loads of money for P&G. Since then, even more evidence shows fluoride could cause instead of cure tooth decay. Researchers at the University of Indiana, working with stannous fluoride, found a way to bond the substance to teeth. Then, in 1956, P&G introduced its “Crest” toothpaste with fluoristan and launched an immediate media blitz with the refrain, “Look mom, no cavities.” The timing was right because television was just coming into households throughout the country. Later, the Council on Dental Therapeutics gave “Crest” their seal of approval. Crest was the first oral care brand to secure the ADA seal of approval on fluoride toothpaste, The “Crest” claim that cavities could be reduced by two-thirds has since been modified to about 20-25%. Sodium fluoride (NaF) is the most popular active ingredient in toothpaste to prevent cavities; some brands use sodium monofluorophosphate (Na2PO3F). Nearly all toothpaste sold in the United States has 1000 to 1500 parts per million fluoride ion from one of these active ingredients. Fluoride is available at concentrations of up to 5000 ppm in prescription pastes and gels! Now that you know the differences you can clearly see that this fluoride added to our water is not natural and are man made chemicals. In the Natural Products directorate acceptable substances list it says: Item 3 Acceptable Substances Any of the following vitamins: 1. Biotin 2. Folate 3. Niacin 4. Pantothenic acid 5. Riboflavin 6. Thiamin 7. Vitamin A 8. Vitamin B6 9. Vitamin B12 10. Vitamin C 11. Vitamin D 12. Vitamin E I do not show Vitamin F (fluoride) here so it must not be a vitamin. Item 7 Acceptable Substances A mineral A mineral is a naturally occurring solid, inorganic substance with a definite and predictable chemical composition and physical properties. I couldn’t find it listed here either… They only have the definition of what a mineral is and as I explained already fluoride is not a mineral as it is not naturally occurring and is an ion not a mineral! Also the fluoridation chemicals are not definite or predictable as the radioactive material in them are always in molecular transition How come we never see fluoride in multivitamins? http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/legislation/docs/regula-regle_over-apercu-eng.php You also have to know the history behind how fluoride was considered to be nutritive. Please read the below articles and see the fraud. Declaring Fluoride An Essential Element The Honorable Arlen Specter U.S. Senate Suite 2031 Federal Building Pittsburgh, PA 15222 8 January 1999 Dear Senator Specter, Thank you for your efforts in prompting Bruce Alberts, PhD, and Kenneth Shine, MD, to respond to the letter by Professor Albert W. Burgstahler, PhD, et al., (of which I was a co-signer), regarding the inclusion of fluoride in the Food and Nutrition board’s 1997 report, Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. Because of your efforts, Drs. Alberts and Shine eventually (20 November 1998) wrote a reply of sorts. Because of your interest, I wish to draw your attention to inadequacies and inconsistencies in the reply that might not be noted by the casual reader. The reply acknowledges that fluoride is not an essential nutrient. That means there is no known minimum requirement for fluoride. In that manner, it is similar to lead. Since fluoride is so ubiquitous in nature, there is no way to construct a diet with sufficient nutrients that is, at the same time, void of fluoride. Despite this inability to test zero fluoride intake, the fact is that, no matter how little the fluoride intake is, no deficiency state occurs. Unlike the other items listed in the Food and Nutrition report, there simply is no such thing as fluoride deficiency. Alberts and Shine argue that “Because of its valuable effects on dental health, fluoride is a beneficial element for humans.” There are several things wrong with this statement. Fluoride is not a chemical “element”; fluorine (a poisonous gas at room temperature) is. Fluoride refers to a complex formed of the fluoride ion with some other element or compound, such as calcium fluoride or carbon tetrafluoride. The chemical nature of any fluoride compound is determined not only by the fluorine (or fluoride ion) but also by the element or compound to which it is complexed. For instance, hydrogen fluoride (HF) is considerably different in action than sodium fluoride (NaF) and thousands of times more toxic than calcium fluoride (CaF2) is. Similarly, toxic organochlorines become many times more toxic when converted to organofluorines. Further, there is considerable argument whether or not fluoride is beneficial to dental health. The statement by Alberts and Shine begs the question. I have challenged fluoride spokespersons in numerous debates to provide one valid reference showing any real dental benefit from fluoridation, and none has ever been found. In 1981, the Rand Corporation, in an extensive review of the fluoride literature on this subject, found that Public Health fluoride studies “suffer from poor experimental design and from analysis plans that largely ignore the possible effects of other factors of tooth decay” with the result that they (the studies) “have no relevance to any criterion of public policy-making.” The major error cited by the Rand report was the use of age-related “surfaces saved” or “percent reduction in decay” rather than the rate of decay. Correcting this, the report states, “is a first, necessary step in the development of life-cycle models of treatment effect.” For example, a cavity delayed by a year is not a cavity saved. Unfortunately, this first, necessary step is still lacking. Another way of saying this is that fluoridation is neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent dental cavities. The majority of people exposed to very low water fluoride concentrations have teeth just as healthy as people exposed to higher water fluoride concentrations; and many folks develop dental cavities regardless of the water fluoride concentration. Finally, the statement by Drs. Alberts and Shine that fluoride be included in the Nutrition Board’s actions because it conveys a “beneficial element for humans” is bizarre since that same argument would apply to antibiotics, aspirin, and thousands of other agents not to mention music, prayer, and cotton underwear. Authors Alberts and Shine admit that infants who are exclusively breast fed would have a low fluoride intake, and yet these infants are not at greater risk for dental caries than formula-fed infants are. Because of this, the adequate intake (AI) of fluoride for infants 0 to 6 months of age is set at 0.01 mg/day. If a baby is not breast-fed and the bottle formula used is mixed in fluoridated tap water, the daily fluoride intake would far exceed the recommended daily intake. Drs. Alberts and Shine are surely aware of the studies by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix et al that demonstrated brain damage in newborn rodents exposed to fluoride. Why are they not recommending the use of unfluoridated water in preparing baby formula? The authors further acknowledge that caries incidence has declined in countries without fluoridated water. In fact, the decline is equal to that of the fluoridated countries. They then falsely attribute this decline to national dental hygiene programs and the use of fluoride in school-based programs and fluoridated toothpaste. This is purely an opinion and not a statement of fact. Drs. Alberts and Shine then claim that the majority of animal studies have shown no effect on cancer, birth defects, genetic disorders or bone strength of very high and long-term fluoride exposure. This is an egregious misstatement of fact. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) found significant increases in the incidence of cancer, thyroid tumors, and bone disease in rodents to correlate with fluoride intake that resulted in tissue concentrations in the same range as found in people drinking fluoridated water for several decades. Further, the fluoride compound used in most animal studies is pure sodium fluoride (NF) and purified water, not industrial grade hydrofluorosilicic acid as is commonly used in public water fluoridation. The fluoride compounds used in public water fluoridation are contaminated with a number of toxic chemicals such as lead, mercury, and aluminum which, by synergy, are known to increase the toxicity of fluoride with the potential of brain damage and other health problems. And, since rats are more resistant to fluoride toxicity than humans, it would seem that rat studies using pure NaF rather than the industrial toxic waste used in public water fluoridation are actually designed to obscure the true toxic risk of the fluoride exposure humans face. In discussing fluoride-induced osteofluorosis (osteosclerosis), Drs. Alberts and Shine claim that skeletal fluorosis, even in its earliest stages, has not been shown to occur in the U.S. and Canada where water fluoride concentration is less than 10 ppm (mg/L). This is another slippery statement designed to obscure the facts. Worldwide skeletal fluorosis, and even disabling osteo-fluorosis, is found to occur commonly when water fluoride concentration is less than 4 ppm. The fact that osteofluorosis is rarely reported in the U.S. and Canada is more likely due to three factors: (1) the relatively high calcium intake we enjoy; (2) the poor diagnostic acumen of conventional physicians; and (3) the low expectation of finding it since they are not taught to look for it. When confronted with a patient with osteofluorosis, the usual diagnosis is arthritis and the usual treatment is aspirin or other non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs. Drs. Alberts and Shine conclude that “Given the complexities of the issues the report considers, we are confident that much room remains for further objective inquiry.” Doesnít this strike you as strange, considering that fluoridation has been promoted for 50 years? Isn’t it more reasonable to conclude that because the important health issues have not been resolved in 50 years that perhaps we should avoid fluoridation until they are resolved? How long are the U.S. Public Health agencies going to continue their “objective inquiry”? The majority of advanced countries have seen enough to know that public water fluoridation should be abandoned. The problem (of persistent, egregious fluoridation promotion) is actually quite simple. Fluoride is an industrial toxic waste product. A typical phosphate fertilizer plant, for example, produces about 500 tons per day. Disposal of this toxic waste is strictly controlled by our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the exception of fluoride in drinking water which is under the control (?) of our Public Health agencies. Fifty years ago fluoride promoters gained control of our Public Health agencies. Job security and career advancement within the Public Health agencies are linked to fluoridation promotion. This has led to the prostitution of science in order to maintain this convenient, cost-saving method of toxic fluoride waste disposal. Surely you have seen the same problem (of science data manipulation) in venues such as auto safety, pollution control, and other toxic waste disposal. Senator Specter, does it surprise you that the scientists of the EPA unanimously voted to oppose water fluoridation? Within the EPA, it is only the political administrators that advocate continued water fluoridation. In fact, they punish any scientist employee that publicly expresses any doubt of the wisdom of fluoridation. To whom would you go to find the scientific truth of fluoride exposure the EPA scientists or their political administrators? You have served well in prodding Drs. Alberts and Shine to answer the challenging Burgstahler letter. Now that you observe their disingenuous reply, perhaps you will look further into the problem and join the ranks of intelligent, responsible citizens opposing this unwise practice. Most sincerely yours, John R. Lee, MD FRAUD AT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES? and IS FLUORIDE A NUTRIENT? • Review of “Dietary Reference Intakes Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride”, published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Richard G Foulkes BA MD, Fluoride, 1997, 30:4 • October 15th letter to NAS president by 15 professionals (published in Fluoride 1998;31(3):153-157). • February 4, 1998, another letter was sent because there was no reply to the first (published in Fluoride 1998;31(3):153-157). • NAS finally responds after prompting, November 20, 1998. • NAS fails to respond again! (published in Fluoride 1999;32(3):191-192, January 12, 1999). • NAS fails to respond to Safe Water Foundation (published in Fluoride 1999, 32(3): 193-197). • September 23, 1997 News Release by W.J. Hirzy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientist and senior VP of the NFFE • NAS statement in 1971 on “nutrient” fluoride — still true today • Statement by the National Research Council, the principal operating agency of NAS, on “nutrient” fluoride — 1993 • U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s position on “nutrient” fluoride • U.S. Public Health Services on “nutrient” fluoride –1991 • Canadian federal-provincial subcommittee on “nutrient” fluoride, quoting Health Canada — 1997 DISCUSSION SECTION: Fluoride 1998;31(3):153-157 Two Unanswered Letters The following letter received no reply or acknowledgment: [reply later received – see below] October 15, 1997 Dr. Bruce Alberts, President National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 Dear Dr. Alberts: As you may be aware, the Dietary Reference Intakes report on calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, vitamin D, and fluoride prepared by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and scheduled for publication this month, contains a number of recommendations concerning fluoride that are cause for grave concern over their validity for setting public health policy. This concern has been heightened by statements made by speakers and panel members and their responses to queries at the recent September 23rd workshop on the report held at the National Academy of Sciences. We, the undersigned, regard the problem as so serious that we are requesting you to take immediate steps to delete the fluoride section of the report and to have it re-addressed by a panel that includes members of the scientific community who are not committed to promoting or supporting fluoride use. What follows is a brief summary of the basis for our concern. At the heart of the matter is whether fluorine, as fluoride (F¯), should be ranked with Ca, Mg, P, and vitamin D as an essential nutrient. In fact, there is no known essential biochemical role for fluoride in any animal, including humans. The formation of sound, decay-resistant and caries-free teeth as well as strong, sturdy bones, whether in animal or human populations, does not require fluoride, or at least not in more than minuscule, trace amounts. As acknowledged by sources cited in the report, even when a mother’s fluoride intake is elevated, her milk is extremely low in fluoride, but owing to prenatal accumulation, her baby excretes more fluoride than it ingests from her milk. This fact clearly indicates that any natural physiological need for fluoride, if indeed any exists, must be exceedingly small and certainly far below that being recommended in the report. At the September 23rd workshop, as recorded on videotape, fluoride was repeatedly regarded by speakers and panel members as an essential nutrient. But, toward the end, when challenged on this key issue, Dr. Vernon R. Young, Chair of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, bluntly stated that fluoride should not be considered as an “essential” component of the diet. Instead, without clarifying the distinction, he insisted that it should be viewed as only a “beneficial element.” The fact that fluoride is incorporated into the mineral matrix of bones and teeth does not make it an essential nutrient. Other elements hardly considered essential, such as lead and cadmium, also accumulate in bones and teeth, and they are not regarded as beneficial. Obviously, if fluoride is not essential in human nutrition, any consideration of it in terms of an “adequate intake” is clearly not appropriate and should not be part of a “dietary reference intakes” report. An association of fluoride with reduction in dental caries is cited as the basis for recommending the various intakes of fluoride. At the same time, the report acknowledges that most of the anti-caries effect attributed to fluoride occurs by topical exposure, not through systemic ingestion. Moreover, large, whole-population studies not cited in the report (e.g., in New Zealand) show that declines in tooth decay over the last 40-50 years have been occurring independently of fluoride exposure and use, thereby further challenging current arguments for significant benefit from fluoride. Without question, however, ingestion of even milligram amounts of fluoride during infancy and early childhood can produce the unmistakable toxic effects of dental fluorosis. This disruption of normal enamel formation is stated in the report not to be of “public health significance” if the fluoride concentration in the drinking water is below 2 mg/liter (2 ppm). But reports of disfiguring dental fluorosis with staining and pitting of the enamel in areas with 1-2 ppm fluoride in the drinking water were evidently overlooked, despite the claim at the workshop that the literature review was comprehensive and thorough. Of even greater concern, in relation to public health, is the proposal in the report that only the early stages of skeletal fluorosis are the appropriate criteria for fluoride intoxication. For this purpose a tolerable upper level ingestion limit of 10 milligrams of fluoride per day for 10 or more years in persons age 9 or older is proposed. But this level of intake is not tolerable, and, according to the sources cited in the report, it can and does lead to crippling skeletal fluorosis (Hodge, 1979). For young adults, assuming 50% retention of ingested fluoride in hard tissues, as stated on page 8-2 of the prepublication copy of the report, an absorbed intake of 10 mg/day amounts to a yearly accumulation of 1.8 grams or over 50 grams after 30 years. At this level debilitating skeletal fluorosis was observed by Raj Roholm in his classic studies of cryolite workers. But before this condition is reached, there are various pre-skeletal phases of fluoride intoxication with serious health implications that arise from much lower levels of intake, especially when calcium and magnesium are marginal, an aspect not considered in the report. Among these manifestations are increased hip-fracture among the elderly from deterioration in bone strength and quality (in agreement with long-term laboratory animal studies), increased osteosarcoma in young males (also demonstrated in male rats), chronic gastrointestinal irritation (reversible with decreased exposure to fluoride), and various neuromuscular disorders whose connection with fluoride has been well confirmed in peer-reviewed publications without convincing refutation. Recent studies showing decreased IQ scores correlating with dental fluorosis (again backed up by laboratory animal research) were also omitted from consideration. When questioned at the workshop about these omissions, the speakers and the members of the panel became defensive and were unwilling or unable to explain why such findings had been excluded in setting the upper tolerance level of fluoride at 10 mg/day. From the record of some of the committee members’ past promotion or support of fluoride use, including slow-release fluoride for treatment of osteoporosis (known to produce abnormal bone of inferior strength), these responses, although disappointing, are perhaps not too surprising. But, in such an important matter, should not at least some balance of viewpoint have been represented? As seen in the videotape (a copy of which has been sent to the Academy) the attitude of some of the presenters and panelists toward those who cited contrary data and questioned why such findings were not discussed can only be described as condescending and demeaning. Today, with so many additional sources of fluoride present in processed foods, commercial beverages, and dental care products that were not there when water fluoridation began, the total intake of fluoride, even among children, has increased to as much as 2-5 milligrams or more per day, well above the initially proposed optimum of 1 mg/day (from one liter of 1-ppm fluoridated water). With these higher levels of fluoride intake, dental fluorosis and other toxic effects noted above have also increased. We are sure that you would agree that it is immensely important to both the national interest and the world of science that the publications of the National Academy of Sciences maintain the highest standards of competence, objectivity, and integrity. In our view, unless the section on fluoride is withdrawn from this report on essential nutrients it could seriously threaten those standards. Therefore, we urge you to remove this section, and further request that should the fluoride issue be revisited by the Academy at some time in the future, that you should ensure that the investigating panel includes independent scientists who are fully conversant with the literature on the full range of fluoride’s harmful effects. Sincerely yours, ALBERT W. BURGSTAHLER, Ph.D. (Organic Chemistry and Environmental Fluoride), Professor of Chemistry, The University of Kansas*, Department of Chemistry, 4035 Malott Hall, Lawrence, Kansas 66045. ROBERT J. CARTON, Ph.D. (Environmental Sciences and Risk Assessment), Former Risk Assessment Manager for the Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mailing address: 2455 Ballenger Creek Pike, Adamstown, MD 21710. PAUL CONNETT, Ph.D. (Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology), Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University*, Department of Chemistry, Canton, New York 13617. RICHARD FOULKES, B.A.,M.D. (Physician). Former Consultant to the Minister of Health, Province of British Columbia, Canada. PO Box 278, Abbotsford, B.C., Canada V2S 4N9. J. WILLIAM HIRZY, Ph.D., (Chemistry and Risk Assessment). Senior Vice President, National Federation of Federal Employees*, Local 2050, P.O. Box 76082, Washington D.C. 20013. ROBERT L. ISAACSON, Ph.D., (Neurobehavioral Science). Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychology, Binghamton University*, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000. DAVID C. KENNEDY, D.D.S., (Dentist). Past President of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology*, 3243 Madrid Street, San Diego, CA 92110. HAROLD D. KLETSCHKA, M.D., F.A.C.S., (Cardiovascular Surgeon). Past military consultant in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery to the U.S. Air Force Surgeon General and the Surgeon of Headquarters Command, Washington, D.C. Founder and first Chief of the USAF Cardiovascular Research Center (Parks Air Force Base, CA). Former Chairman, President and CEO of Bio-Medicus, Inc. Mailing address: 1925 Noble Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55422-4158. LENNART KROOK, D.V.M., Ph.D., (Pathology). Cornell University*, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853-6401. RICHARD A. KUNIN, M.D., President, Society for Orthomolecular Health Medicine, 2698 Pacific, San Francisco, CA 94115 JOHN R. LEE, M.D. (Physician), 9620 Bodega Highway, Sebastopol, CA 95472. WILLIAM MARCUS, Ph.D., (Toxicology). GENE W. MILLER, Ph.D., (Biochemistry and Toxicology). Former Head of Biology, Associate I Dean of Science and Dean of Environmental Science, Utah State University*, Emeritus, College of Science, Department of Biology, Logan, Utah 84322-5305. PHYLLIS MULLENIX, Ph.D. (Pharmacology and Neurotoxicology). Former Head of the Department of Toxicology, Forsyth Dental Center*, Boston. Research Associate, Department of Psychiatry, Children’s Hospital*, Boston. Mailing address: P.O. Box753, Andover, MA 0180. ALBERT SCHATZ, Ph.D. Microbiology). Former Professor of Science Education, Temple University*, Philadelphia, PA. *These affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply endorsement of this letter by the institutions involved. ________________________________________ Sixteen weeks later the following letter was sent, also receiving no reply or acknowledgment. Fluoride 1998;31(3):153-157 February 4, 1998 Kenneth I. Shine, M.D. President, Institute of Medicine National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC 20418 Dear Dr. Shine: Last October my co-signers and I sent to Dr. Bruce Alberts the enclosed joint letter concerning the fluoride recommendations in the impending publication by the National Academy Press of the report on Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Although we do not understand why we have not received a reply, we trust that our letter was brought to the attention of the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine for appropriate action. When we submitted our letter we were under the impression that the position of the Food and Nutrition Board on the questions we raised was not yet settled. We have since learned, however, through the publication of the full text of the Summary of the report in the September/ October 1997 issue of Nutrition Today, pp. 182-188, that the upper level intake and other recommendations for fluoride had already been officially submitted for general distribution, even at the time the September 23rd workshop on the report was held at the Academy. Does the appearance of the pre-publication version of the report Summary in that issue of Nutrition Today (which only reached our science library here on November 13) mean that the Food and Nutrition Board still considers an intake of 10 milligrams of fluoride per day (Table S-6) to be a tolerable upper level for persons over age 9 without significant risk of serious adverse health effects? What is especially troublesome about the Board’s position on this matter is that it explicitly and emphatically contradicts the recently published views of the most distinguished and long-time fluoride expert member of the Panel on Calcium and Related Nutrients – Professor Gary M. Whitford of the Medical College of Georgia. In the second, revised edition of his widely-cited monograph on The Metabolism and Toxicity of Fluoride (Karger, Basel, 1996), he states on page 138 (copy enclosed): “Most estimates indicate that crippling skeletal fluorosis occurs when 10-20 mg of fluoride have been ingested on a daily basis for at least 10 years.” With this clinical condition, he notes, “. . . bone ash fluoride concentrations generally exceed 9,000 ppm. Calcification ofligaments often precludes joint mobility and numerous exostoses may be present. These effects may be associated with muscle wasting and neurological complications due to spinal cord compression.” Why do the recommendations of the Food and Nutrition Board on this critical matter contradict these well-considered views of the leading fluoride expert on the Board’s Panel on Calcium and Related Nutrients? Clearly, a fluoride intake level that produces “crippling skeletal fluorosis” can hardly be regarded as tolerable and certainly should not remain uncorrected. Although it is widely believed that”. . . crippling skeletal fluorosis has not been and is not a public health problem in the USA” (Whitford, op. cit., page 137), the same cannot be said of the situation in other parts of the world, e.g., in China, India, the Middle East, and Africa, where crippling skeletal fluorosis is still a serious endemic health problem—even at less than 10 mg/day fluoride intake. Moreover, in the absence of sufficient numbers of contemporary biopsy and necropsy bone fluoride analyses, it is very unwise to assume that little or none of the extensive middle and old-age osteoarthritis that plagues so many people in the United States is not an undiagnosed manifestation of various stages of skeletal fluorosis. In this connection it is important to note that otherwise unexplained intermittent episodes of gastric pain and muscular weakness have been clinically linked in areas of endemic dental and skeletal fluorosis to fluoride intakes as low as 2 to 5 mg/day (ref. 1). These peer-reviewed reports fully validate earlier clinical findings of the occurrence of these very same and related effects in fluoridated communities in the United States and other countries which have been discounted or ignored without scientific refutation (ref. 2). Today, when many officials at all levels in our government seem to have difficulty in being forthright and admitting what is true, it ill behooves us as scientists not to tell the public what is known to be true, whether or not it agrees with what is generally accepted as true. “For truth is truth, though never so old, and time cannot make that false which was once true.” (ref. 3). Because the recommendations of your report on Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride have been released to the public before correction of the serious errors and oversights pointed out here and in previous communications to the Food and Nutrition Board, I presume there is no objection to this letter being made part of the public record. Yours sincerely, Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry Enclosures: Copy of October 15, 1997 letter to Dr. Bruce Alberts Page 138 of the 2nd, revised edition of The Metabolism and Toxicity of Fluoride Copy: Bruce Alberts Gary M. Whitford Co-signers of October 15, 1997 letter to Dr. Alberts References: 1. A.K. Susheela et al. Fluoride Ingestion and its Correlation with Gastrointestinal Discomfort. Fluoride 25:5-22, 1992; Prevalence of Endemic Fluorosis with Gastrointestinal Manifestations in People Living in Some North-Indian Villages. Fluoride 26:97-104, 1993; S. Desarathy et al. Gastroduodenal Manifestations in Patients with Skeletal Fluorosis. Journal of Gastroenterology 32:333-337, 1996. 2. G.L. Waldbott. Incipient Fluorine Intoxication from Drinking Water. Acta Medica Scandinavica 156:157-168, 1956; Fluoride in Clinical Medicine. Supplement 1 to International Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology 20:1-60, 1962; Fluoridation: A Clinician’s Experience. Southern Medical Journal 73:302-306, 1980; 74:519, 1981. 3. Letter of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, May 7, 1603. Cf. William Shakespeare. Measure for Measure, V.1.45-46: “. . . for truth is truth To the end of reckoning.” Discussion Section: Fluoride 1999;32(3):187-198 EDITOR’S NOTE [Professor Albert Burgstahler] The two letters referred to at the beginning of the letter below were published in Fluoride 31(3) 153-157 August 1998. In a separate letter from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), also dated November 20, 1998, James Jensen, Director of the National Research Council Office of Congressional and Governmental Affairs of NAS, replied to an inquiry from Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter on behalf of one of his constituents, who wanted to know why my joint letter of October 15, 1997 to Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of NAS, had not received a reply. In his letter to Senator Specter, Mr. Jensen wrote: “When Dr. Burgstahler’s letter on fluoridation [actually, it was about the proposed Dietary Reference Intake standards for fluoride and only indirectly about fluoridation] arrived at the Academy, a response was drafted but never sent out. There is little excuse for this, but this is what occurred. . . . “Please accept our sincere apologies. There was no intent to show disrespect to your constituent.” The letter below, therefore, although “drafted” earlier, was sent only after prompting from Senator Specter’s inquiry. ________________________________________ NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20418 November 20, 1998 Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D. and others Professor of Chemistry The University of Kansas 4035 Malott Hall Lawrence, Kansas 66045 Dear Dr. Burgstahler: We apologize for the delay in responding to your letters of October 15, 1997 and February 4, 1998, to each of us individually. At the time we had a very large number of inquiries and comments, and while letters were prepared in response to your letter along with the others, for some reason they did not reach you. The letter that we found in our files is reprinted below. We want to thank you and your co-signers for your October 15, 1997 letter to us concerning the Food and Nutrition Board’s (FNB) recent report, Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. The publication of the report represents the initial report of a major new activity of the FNB: the development of a comprehensive set of reference values for nutrients and food components of possible benefit to health, that may not meet the traditional concept of a nutrient. If adequate scientific data exist that support a health benefit from the inclusion of these components in the diet, reference intakes will be established. In replying to your letter, we have consulted with the Committee that produced the FNB report and asked them to review the important points that you raised concerning their report and the associated workshop, as well as to explain why they have reached the conclusions they reached despite the information you cite. First, let us reassure you with regard to one concern. Nowhere in the report is it stated that fluoride is an essential nutrient. If any speaker or panel member at the September 23rd workshop referred to fluoride as such, they misspoke. As was stated in Recommended Dietary Allowances 10th Edition, which we published in 1989: “These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluoride as an essential element, according to accepted standards. Nonetheless, because of its valuable effects on dental health, fluoride is a beneficial element for humans.” Dr. Vernon Young, Chair of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, stated this at the workshop’s conclusion. The adequate intake (AI) of fluoride for infants 0 to 6 months of age is set at 0.01 mg/day. As explained in Chapter I of the report, the average intake of a particular nutrient by full-term infants who are born to well-nourished mothers and exclusively fed human milk has been adopted as the basis for deriving an AI for all nutrients and other food components during the first 6 months of life. Using the human milk-fed infant as the model supports the recommendation that exclusive breast feeding is the preferred method of feeding for normal fullterm infants for the first 4 to 6 months of life – a recommendation shared by the Canadian Paediatric Society (Health Canada, 1990), the American Academy of Pediatrics (1982), and the Food and Nutrition Board’s report Nutrition During Lactation (IOM, 1991). (Infants who are exclusively breast fed for the first six months of life would have a low fluoride intake, and yet scientific evidence showing that these infants are at greater risk for dental caries than formula-fed infants is lacking.) During the second six months of life and thereafter, the AI for fluoride from all sources is set at 0.05 mg/kg/day because it confers a high level of protection against dental caries and is associated with no known unwanted health effects. Although the report acknowledges that most of the anti-caries effect attributed to fluoride occurs by topical exposure, it does not matter whether that exposure is from food, water or dental products. As you state, the prevalence of caries in some countries around the world without water fluoridation has declined over the years. This has been attributed to national dental hygiene programs and the use of fluoride in school-based prevention programs (rinses or tablets), as well as to the use of fluoridated toothpaste. These programs provide both systemic and topical fluoride exposures. In following the model for the development of Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs), as explained in Chapter 3 of the report, moderate enamel fluorosis was considered as the critical adverse effect in children under 9 years of age. As noted by Dean and coworkers some 60 years ago, mild enamel fluorosis was present in some residents of areas where water contained < 2 mg/liter of fluoride. At that time the diet, particularly the water, was the only significant source of fluoride so that the daily intake of fluoride could be estimated with reasonable accuracy. The average intake by children at risk was 0.05 mg/kg/day. The prevalences of both dental caries and fluorosis in these communities was low and there is no reason to expect that level of intake (from all sources) to produce different results today. Compared with Dean’s findings, recent studies have revealed a higher prevalence of dental fluorosis in the United States and Canada, including a few cases of moderate fluorosis. However, analytical epidemiological studies have repeatedly shown that the major risk factors are ingestion due to the early use of fluoride toothpaste and/or the use of dietary supplements. Thus, the total fluoride intake by some children whose water is fluoridated is now higher than in Dean’s time. This is the reason that age-specific intakes for total fluoride, including that from dental products, are based on 0.05 mg/kg/day. To the extent that this intake level is followed, the prevalence of dental fluorosis can be expected to decline while a healthy dentition is maintained. Three recent reviews of the literature, Kaminsky et al., 1990; NRC, 1993; USPHS, 1991, attempted to identify adverse functional effects of fluoride ingestion in adults. Fluoride exposures included those associated with drinking water containing as much as 8 mg/liter of fluoride and the use of dental products. These reviews concluded that evidence linking chronic, high fluoride exposures with adverse effects such as cancer, including osteosarcoma, birth defects, genetic disorders, or bone fractures is either insufficient or highly contradictory. In addition, the majority of animal studies have shown no effect on cancer, birth defects, genetic disorders or bone strength of very high and long-term fluoride exposures. Thus, the primary adverse effects associated with chronic, excess fluoride intake are enamel fluorosis in children through 8 years of age and skeletal fluorosis in adolescents and adults over 8 years of age. In Hodge’s 1979 article, he reported that evidence of crippling fluorosis "was not seen in communities in the United States where water supplies contained up to 20 ppm." In such communities daily fluoride intakes of 20 mg would not be uncommon. Fluoride is continuously taken up by newly formed bone and released from older bone being resorbed. As long as intake remains constant, the concentration in bone tends to increase during life. It is not entirely clear why this happens but it may be due to the preferential resorption of bone crystallites that do not contain fluoride. In any event, in the United States and Canada, it is known that the development of skeletal fluorosis, even in earliest stages, has not occurred, even where the water fluoride concentrations have been in excess of 10 ppm. In reviewing Kaj Roholm’s classic 1937 report of bone changes among Danish cryolite workers, it was noted that Roholm reported no intake data for fluoride, apparently because the researchers were not able to measure air-borne fluoride. On page 279, Roholm states: "It must be admitted that with respect to the important question of dose, that the observations available are sporadic and to some extent contradictory; in most of the spontaneous intoxications the intaken (his word) quantity of fluoride is not known at all." Later on page 319 Roholm states: "In man the disease (he is referring to crippling skeletal fluorosis) is probably caused by 0.20-0.35 mg fluoride daily per kg body weight." The reason for this estimate is not given. It is unfortunate that, in the absence of scientific data, these estimates were ever made. Although we are uncertain about the lower level of intake and time of exposure that causes clinically significant skeletal fluorosis, we do know that, at least for U.S. and Canadian citizens, intakes associated with water fluoride concentrations in excess of 10 ppm do not cause clinically significant skeletal fluorosis. Our study was funded entirely by the governments of the United States and Canada. The funding agencies were the National Institute of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Agricultural Research Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Food and Drug Administration; and Health Canada. We thank you and your co-signers for your careful reading of the report and interest in assuring its accuracy and completeness. Given the complexities of the issues the report considers, we are confident that much room remains for further objective inquiry. We have tried to give you some of the reasons for the Committee’s conclusions. However, we hope that the report will lead to additional research on which to base dietary reference intakes – for both essential nutrients and other dietary constituents with documented health benefits. Once again, we regret that this reply to your thoughtful letter did not reach you much earlier, when it was prepared. Sincerely, Bruce Alberts, Ph.D. President, National Academy of Sciences Kenneth Shine President, Institute of Medicine ________________________________________ National Academy of Sciences fails to respond again! EDITOR’S COMMENT [published in Fluoride 1999:32(3);191-192] On January 12, 1999, the following letter was faxed to Drs. Alberts and Shine: Drs Bruce Alberts and Kenneth Shine National Academy of Sciences & Institute of Medicine 2101 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20418 Fax: (202) 334-2316 Dear Drs. Alberts and Shine, Your letter of November 20, 1998 in response to my letters of October 15, 1997, and February 4, 1998, awaited me on my return late last month from an extended trip to the Far East beginning in mid-November. A related letter dated November 19, 1998, from Professor Gary M. Whitford had also arrived. Next week I plan to attend the workshop scheduled for January 21 at the Academy. Several others who cosigned my October 15, 1997, letter also plan to be there. In view of the gravity of the issues addressed in these letters, would it be possible for some of us to meet briefly with either or both of you before 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 20, at the National Academy of Sciences? I will be leaving Lawrence early Monday morning (January 18), so the favor of your early reply by fax or e-mail (addresses below) would be appreciated. Yours sincerely, Albert W. Burgstahler Professor Emeritus of Chemistry The University of Kansas ________________________________________ There was no reply to the above letter. Upon my arrival at the NAS headquarters in Washington on the morning of January 20, there was still no reply, and no meeting could be arranged with either Dr. Alberts or Dr. Shine. As indicated at the end of my February 4, 1998 letter to Dr. Shine (see Fluoride 31(3) 157 August 1998), I also sent a copy of that letter to Professor Gary M. Whitford of the Medical College of Georgia, who was the ranking fluoride expert on the review panel. Then on February 17, 1998, I again wrote to Professor Whitford, specifically asking why his views, published prominently in the 1996 edition of his monograph, Metabolism and Toxicity of Fluoride (p. 138), that "crippling skeletal fluorosis occurs when 10-20 mg of fluoride have been ingested on a daily basis for at least 10 years," were set aside in favor of suggesting that a much higher level of fluoride intake is required to produce this effect. Nine months later a reply finally arrived from Professor Whitford. Dated November 19, 1998, just one day before the date on the foregoing letter from Drs. Alberts and Shine, Professor Whitford stated in his letter: "During the course of assisting with the development of the DRIs [Dietary Reference Intakes],…I concluded that the literature does not support the liklihood [sic] of advanced skeletal fluorosis in U.S. residents whose daily intake does not exceed 10 mg." This statement, however, is contradicted by the evidence presented in my letter of February 4 to Dr. Shine. It is also of interest that much of the material in Professor Whitford’s letter to me is found in the November 20, 1998 letter from Drs. Alberts and Shine, including the passage from Roholm’s treatise Fluorine Intoxication – A Clinical Hygienic Study, that a daily fluoride intake of 0.20-0.35 mg/kg body weight is likely to cause crippling skeletal fluorosis. But then Drs. Alberts and Shine go on and boldly assert: "…we do know that, at least for U.S. and Canadian citizens, intakes associated with water fluoride concentrations in excess of 10 ppm fluoride do not cause clinically significant skeletal fluorosis." But clearly, the average fluoride intake of an adult drinking water containing more than 10 ppm fluoride will very likely exceed 10 mg/day and therefore, according to Professor Whitford, would create a risk for crippling skeletal fluorosis, even in the United States and Canada. Why residents of these two countries supposedly do not develop skeletal fluorosis from levels of fluoride intake that are well known to cause it elsewhere is deftly shoved aside by citing studies in the U.S. that did not report finding it. Equally disturbing in the Alberts-Shine letter is the unexplained jump of an "adequate" fluoride intake of only 0.01 mg/day for infants up to age six months to 0.05 mg/kg body weight/day for the second six months of life and thereafter. By age six months, a baby weighing 6-8 kg would therefore have an "adequate" fluoride intake of 0.3 to 0.4 mg/day – a 30- to 40-fold increase from the first six months to the second six months of life after birth! No such huge increase is proposed for any other dietary component. As pointed out by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis at the end of the following letter, this 0.05 mg/kg/day figure for fluoride appears to be based on an effort to justify or "sanctify" water fluoridation. Thus, an average daily total fluoride intake of 3.5-mg by a 70-kg adult drinking 1-ppm fluoridated water amounts to 3.5 mg/70 kg/day or 0.05 mg/kg/day. And this is sound "scientific" thinking by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences? In the end, however, all these considerations are moot, since the basis for setting an "adequate intake" of fluoride rests on its alleged ability to prevent tooth decay. But since any such dental benefit from fluoride, to whatever extent it exists, is now known to be largely topical and not systemic (from ingestion), how can there even be a daily "adequate intake"? ________________________________________ Discussion Section continued Fluoride, 1999;32(3):193-198 Safe Water Foundation 6439 Taggart Road, Delaware, Ohio 43015 Bruce Alberts, Ph.D. President, National Academy of Sciences Kenneth Shine, M.D. President, Institute of Medicine 2101 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20418 Dear Drs. Alberts and Shine: A copy of your November 20, 1998 letter to Professor Albert Burgstahler has been sent to me for comment. If you actually believe what you wrote in that letter, I am sure you will welcome the following information. I. In your letter, you cite the 10th edition of Recommended Dietary Allowances as stating that while fluoride cannot be classified as an essential element, [but] "because of its valuable effect on dental health [which you later define as its ‘anticaries effect’], fluoride is a beneficial element for humans." You then state as a fact that the intake of .05 mg/kg/day of fluoride confers a high level of protection against dental caries. Implicit in your letter is the claim that fluoridation of water reduces tooth decay. You then explain that part of the reason for the decline in tooth decay in nonfluoridated areas is due to the administration of fluoride tablets. However, as any informed professional would know, there is a general consensus among experts on both sides of the fluoride issue that swallowing fluoride does nothing to prevent tooth decay. In fact, the only proven effect that swallowing fluoride has on teeth is to poison ameloblasts and odontoblasts, resulting in dental fluorosis, the formation of imperfect or damaged enamel or dentine, respectively, and slowing down the eruption rate of deciduous teeth. Evidence that swallowing fluoride does not prevent tooth decay – In water All the recent large-scale studies taken together show that fluoridation is ineffective in reducing the decay rate of permanent teeth. Earlier studies claiming a reduction in tooth decay have already been discredited by those who have and/or still do promote fluoridation. For example, Dr. John Colquhoun, former Chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand and at one time the President of the Fluoridation Society conducted the largest tooth decay study and found no difference in tooth decay rates in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas in New Zealand. Dr. A.S. Gray, former Chief Dental Officer of British Columbia, found that British Columbia, the province with the lowest fluoridation rate in Canada, also had the lowest tooth decay rate in Canada. And Dr. Elmer Green and Taimi Carnahan, two of the most ardent promoters of fluoridation, coauthored a study with two others that showed that there was no significant difference in the tooth decay rates in fluoridated Newburgh and nonfluoridated Kingston (in 1986) despite the fact that these two cities were used to show that fluoridation reduced tooth decay rate by 70% (from 1945 to 1955) {J.V. Kumar, et al., "Trends in Dental Fluorosis and Dental Caries Prevalences in Newburgh and Kingston, NY", American Journal of Public Health, Volume 79, pp. 565-569 (1989)}. Even Dr. Hardy Limeback, the fluoride expert for the Canadian Dental Association admits that the ingestion of fluoride does nothing to reduce tooth decay. On February 14, 1998, he wrote: You should be glad to know that I no longer take such a profluoride stand. I don’t care if I alienate all my dental public health colleagues anymore on this whole issue and I realize just how much out on a limb I’m climbing in no longer supporting water fluoridation. Putting hydrofluorosilicic acid from smoke stack scrubbers to fluoridate the water for me was the breaking point. Consider me still a pro-fluoride dentist but a converted antifluoridationist who now advocates that we stop putting toxic waste in Canadian water supplies – shame! – In tablet or drop form Contrary to your claims, fluoride tablets have been shown to be ineffective in reducing tooth decay in the Rand report sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Special Report No.2, 1983) and in the scientific literature {H Kalsbeek, et al., Use of fluoride tablets and effect on prevalence of dental caries and dental fluorosis, Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol 20:243-245 (1992)}. II. In your letter, you claim that part of the reason for the decline in tooth decay in nonfluoridated areas is due to the use of fluoride in school-based rinse programs. Contradicting this unsubstantiated claim, a Rand Corporation study {Disney, et al., A case study in contesting the conventional wisdom. school-based mouthrinse programs in the USA, Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol 18:46-56 (1990)} has shown that topical fluoride exposure in school programs does not reduce tooth decay rates. III. You acknowledge that "recent studies have revealed a higher prevalence of dental fluorosis" and claim that this is "due to the early use of fluoride toothpaste and/or the use of dietary supplements." The absurdity of this can be seen by comparing the 1-2 mg per day children get from fluoridated water with the 1/4 mg per day of fluoride these same children get from ingesting toothpaste. While there are many studies showing the fluoridated water causes dental fluorosis, there are no studies showing that fluoride ingestion from fluoridated toothpaste by itself causes dental fluorosis. [This is not to deny, however, that the approximate 1/4 mg/day of fluoride consumed from toothpaste might push the total fluoride intake over the top to cause dental fluorosis in marginal cases]. The fact that fluoridation causes dental fluorosis is obvious from your own NRC, 1993 report. Let’s ask it some questions: Does fluoridation result in dental fluorosis (fluoride-induced tooth damage)? According to page 37 of your report: "…the prevalence of dental fluorosis in optimally fluoridated areas (both natural and added) in recent years ranged from 8% to 51%, compared with 3% to 26% in nonfluoridated areas." Two things are obvious here: (1) we can safely assume that fluoride toothpaste usage is similar in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas and (2) we know that fluoride supplement use is higher in nonfluoridated areas – yet dental fluorosis rates are twice as high in fluoridated areas. As a result, should we stop water fluoridation? According to page 43 of your report: "Indeed, most dental researchers (Horowitz, 1991; Rozier, 1991 Szpunar and Burt, 1992) believe that the best approach to stabilizing the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis is to control fluoride ingestion from foods, processed beverages, and dental products rather than reduce the recommended concentrations of fluoride in drinking water." And on page 44 of your report it is stated: "Fluoride in foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water has long been suspected as a risk factor.…" But how can you control fluoride ingestion from foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water? According to page 48 of your report: "applying such a policy would be formidable; reductions of fluoride in drinking water would be easier to administer, monitor, and evaluate." The mission to fanatically support water fluoridation has apparently allowed you to disregard any form of logic, if necessary, in the production of your NRC, 1993 report. IV. In you[r] letter, you claim to rely on "Three recent reviews of the literature, Kaminsky, et al., 1990; NRC, 1993;, and USPHS, 1991." Enclosed are critiques of Kaminsky, et al., 1990, NRC, 1993, and USPHS, 1991. V. In your letter, you claim "the majority of animal studies have shown no effect on cancer, birth defects, genetic disorders, or bone strength". I have enclosed a list of 10 animal studies that show that fluoride initiates tumors and/or cancer and/or promotes tumor growth rate and/or increases the cancer-causing potential of other carcinogens. Can you come up with 11 negative animal studies? I have enclosed a list of 2 animal studies that show that fluoride has an effect on birth defects. Can you come up with 3 negative animal studies? I have enclosed a list of 22 animal studies that show that fluoride causes genetic disorders. Can you come up with 23 negative animal studies? In your own publication, NRC, 1993, on Table 6-2, you list six in vitro animal studies, five of which deal with the effect of fluoride on genetic disorders (aberrations) and all five of which found that fluoride exposure caused chromosomal damage. In table 6-6, you list four in vivo studies which deal with the effect of fluoride on genetic disorders (aberrations), two of which are listed as showing positive results and two of which are listed as showing negative results. While I don’t have a large number of animal studies regarding the adverse effects of fluoride on bone strength of very high and long-term fluoride exposures, I do have a large number of human clinical and epidemiological studies, for a total of 34 references. Can you provide 35 negative studies? VI. At this point, it must be obvious how preposterous is the statement made in your letter: "Thus, the primary adverse effects associated with chronic excess fluoride intake are [moderate] enamel fluorosis in children through 8 years of age and [crippling] skeletal fluorosis in adolescents and adults over 8 years of age." But this statement not only covers up the well-documented findings that fluoride causes and/or promotes tumors and cancers as well as possibly enhancing the cancer-causing effects of other carcinogens and that fluoride causes genetic damage down to and including the levels proposed in your "adequate intake" re
  23. FLUORIDE IS NOT A NUTRIENT “Health Canada does not consider fluoride as an essential nutrient.” AG Petition 221, Response # 22 http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_221_e_30308.html Since Health Canada has clearly demonstrated that fluoride is not essential, the reason for adding it to drinking water specifically validates its role as a drug, since the “nutritional” argument does not hold, given that fluoride is simply not an essential nutrient. Health Canada says “Fluoridating drinking water is intended to provide a dietary source of fluoride, a mineral nutrient. Fluoride added to water in the concentrations available in Canada is considered nutritive as opposed to therapeutic. Fluoride is added to drinking water as a public health measure to protect dental health and prevent or reduce tooth decay. Fluoride used in drinking water fluoridation is not considered a drug by Health Canada as per the Food and Drugs Act and is not regulated by the Department as a drug. Health Canada recognizes the importance of protecting all Canadians from possible adverse health effects related to drinking water, including sub-groups at highest risk. Some sub-groups in the population could potentially be more susceptible to fluoride, for example people with kidney problems, osteoporosis, or poor nutrition.” Fluoride is nutritive as per Health Canada, yet they say some sub groups who suffer from poor nutrition are at the highest risk of possible adverse health effects from it. If fluoride was so nutritious then why are people with poor nutrition at the highest risk of possible adverse health effects from it? This claim that fluoride is nutritive is not true as people who suffer from poor nutrition are more prone to fluoride’s toxic effects than people who do not suffer from poor nutrition. Fluoride is more toxic than lead and less toxic than arsenic, Please see the charts below. Fluoride is a Canadian Environmental Protection Agency Schedule 1 toxic substance, please view the link below it is number 40 on their list: http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=0DA2924D-1&wsdoc=4ABEFFC8-5BEC-B57A-F4BF-11069545E434 Do you see any other nutrients on the list there? Overview of the Natural Health Products Regulations Guidance Document definition of a vitamin and mineral Vitamin. An organic substance needed in small amounts to maintain normal health. Mineral. A naturally occurring, solid, inorganic substance with a definite and predictable chemical as composition and physical properties. Health Canada already admitted in their answer to the Auditor General that fluoride was not an essential nutrient so it is not needed to maintain normal health as no disease will occur with deficiency of it. Fluoride is not really a vitamin or a mineral, it is a naturally occurring substance as a gas fluorine is a Group 17 element. Fluorine is the most electronegative and reactive of all elements. It is a pale yellow, corrosive gas, which reacts with practically all organic and inorganic substances. The actual chemicals they put in our water are not naturally occurring but rather they are man made chemicals from the phosphate fertilizer and aluminum manufacturers. Also the chemicals themselves are not stable and always in molecular transition. You can however find Calcium Fluoride naturally. I must now explain to you the different kinds of fluoride so you will see that fluoride is an ion and not a mineral/vitamin. THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FLUORIDE FOUND IN OUR WATER In Winnipeg we use hydrofluorosilicic acid to add fluoride to our water supply. Some cities use sodium fluoride, and others use sodium silicofluorides. Sodium silicofluorides and hydrofluorosilicic acid are almost always used over sodium fluoride because it is cheaper. Around 90% of fluoridated communities use these fluoridating chemicals compared to 10% that use sodium fluoride. Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) occurs naturally in water. Fluoride salts/compounds are constituents of minerals in rocks and soil. Water passes over rock formations and dissolves the fluoride compounds that are present, creating fluoride ions. The result is that small amounts of fluoride ions are present in all water sources, including the oceans. Naturally occurring fluoride in water is present as calcium fluoride, varying in concentration from region to region according to the geology of the environment. Sodium fluoride (NaF) is derived from hydrofluoric acid, which in turn is made by reacting sulfuric acid with fluorspar, a calcium fluoride rich ore. Hydrofluosilicic Acid (H2SiF4) is captured during production of commercial fertilizers and phosphoric acid. Pollution control devices called wetscrubbers used by the phosphate industry capture fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer. In the past, when the industry let these gases escape, vegetation became scorched, crops destroyed, and cattle crippled. Hydrofluosilicic acid is the most corrosive chemical agent known to man. Sodium Silicofluorides (Na2SiF6) comes from the manufacture of super-phosphate fertilizer, phosphate rock is acidulated with sulfuric acid, and the fluoride content of the rock evolves as volatile silicofluorides. In the past, much of this volatile material was vented to the atmosphere, contributing heavily to pollution of the air and land surrounding the manufacturing site. As awareness of the pollution problem increased, scrubbers were added to strip particulate and gaseous components from the waste gas. In the late 1960’s the USEPA became concerned and enforced regulations requiring manufacturers to install pollution scrubbers. At that time, the facilities were dumping the concentrated, acidic pollution directly into waterways leading into other waterways such as Tampa Bay Florida and stacks were belching highly acidic, slightly radioactive pollution into the atmosphere. By 1983, the official EPA policy was expressed by EPA Office of Water Deputy Administrator Rebecca Hanmer as follows: “In regard to the use of fluosilicic (fluorosilicic) acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them. Calcium fluoride is almost insoluble in water and cannot be easily absorbed by the body. Sodium fluoride is easily absorbed by the body because it is very soluble in water which allows the fluoride ion to get free and form complexes with so many ions including a lot of toxic ones, and others that are needed by the body which might help to explain why this unreactive species (in the chemical sense) can be so biologically active and dangerous. Hydrofluorosilicic acid and silicofluorides are said to completely dissolve into SiO2 and fluoride ions. This is disputed, as there are still some silicon fluoride (SiF) complexes left when the water reaches our taps. The main differences are calcium fluoride is natural whereas sodium fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid and silicofluorides are toxic by products of industrial companies. THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FLUORIDE FOUND IN TOOTHPASTES Fluoride was first added to toothpastes in 1914, and was criticized by the American Dental Association (ADA) in 1937. Then when fluoride toothpastes were developing in the 1950s they received the ADA’s seal of approval. Isn’t this very strange how The American Dental Association criticized fluoridated toothpastes and then they praised them! Before Crest, Procter & Gamble’s (P&G) experimental Teel toothpaste with sodium fluoride, actually caused cavities in 1940’s tests. (1) Teel was scrapped in favor of Crest, with stannous fluoride. In 1955, Crest received the American Dental Association’s (ADA) seal of approval generating loads of money for P&G. Since then, even more evidence shows fluoride could cause instead of cure tooth decay. Researchers at the University of Indiana, working with stannous fluoride, found a way to bond the substance to teeth. Then, in 1956, P&G introduced its “Crest” toothpaste with fluoristan and launched an immediate media blitz with the refrain, “Look mom, no cavities.” The timing was right because television was just coming into households throughout the country. Later, the Council on Dental Therapeutics gave “Crest” their seal of approval. Crest was the first oral care brand to secure the ADA seal of approval on fluoride toothpaste, The “Crest” claim that cavities could be reduced by two-thirds has since been modified to about 20-25%. Sodium fluoride (NaF) is the most popular active ingredient in toothpaste to prevent cavities; some brands use sodium monofluorophosphate (Na2PO3F). Nearly all toothpaste sold in the United States has 1000 to 1500 parts per million fluoride ion from one of these active ingredients. Fluoride is available at concentrations of up to 5000 ppm in prescription pastes and gels! Now that you know the differences you can clearly see that this fluoride added to our water is not natural and are man made chemicals. In the Natural Products directorate acceptable substances list it says: Item 3 Acceptable Substances Any of the following vitamins: 1. Biotin 2. Folate 3. Niacin 4. Pantothenic acid 5. Riboflavin 6. Thiamin 7. Vitamin A 8. Vitamin B6 9. Vitamin B12 10. Vitamin C 11. Vitamin D 12. Vitamin E I do not show Vitamin F (fluoride) here so it must not be a vitamin. Item 7 Acceptable Substances A mineral A mineral is a naturally occurring solid, inorganic substance with a definite and predictable chemical composition and physical properties. I couldn’t find it listed here either… They only have the definition of what a mineral is and as I explained already fluoride is not a mineral as it is not naturally occurring and is an ion not a mineral! Also the fluoridation chemicals are not definite or predictable as the radioactive material in them are always in molecular transition How come we never see fluoride in multivitamins? http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/legislation/docs/regula-regle_over-apercu-eng.php You also have to know the history behind how fluoride was considered to be nutritive. Please read the below articles and see the fraud. Declaring Fluoride An Essential Element The Honorable Arlen Specter U.S. Senate Suite 2031 Federal Building Pittsburgh, PA 15222 8 January 1999 Dear Senator Specter, Thank you for your efforts in prompting Bruce Alberts, PhD, and Kenneth Shine, MD, to respond to the letter by Professor Albert W. Burgstahler, PhD, et al., (of which I was a co-signer), regarding the inclusion of fluoride in the Food and Nutrition board’s 1997 report, Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. Because of your efforts, Drs. Alberts and Shine eventually (20 November 1998) wrote a reply of sorts. Because of your interest, I wish to draw your attention to inadequacies and inconsistencies in the reply that might not be noted by the casual reader. The reply acknowledges that fluoride is not an essential nutrient. That means there is no known minimum requirement for fluoride. In that manner, it is similar to lead. Since fluoride is so ubiquitous in nature, there is no way to construct a diet with sufficient nutrients that is, at the same time, void of fluoride. Despite this inability to test zero fluoride intake, the fact is that, no matter how little the fluoride intake is, no deficiency state occurs. Unlike the other items listed in the Food and Nutrition report, there simply is no such thing as fluoride deficiency. Alberts and Shine argue that “Because of its valuable effects on dental health, fluoride is a beneficial element for humans.” There are several things wrong with this statement. Fluoride is not a chemical “element”; fluorine (a poisonous gas at room temperature) is. Fluoride refers to a complex formed of the fluoride ion with some other element or compound, such as calcium fluoride or carbon tetrafluoride. The chemical nature of any fluoride compound is determined not only by the fluorine (or fluoride ion) but also by the element or compound to which it is complexed. For instance, hydrogen fluoride (HF) is considerably different in action than sodium fluoride (NaF) and thousands of times more toxic than calcium fluoride (CaF2) is. Similarly, toxic organochlorines become many times more toxic when converted to organofluorines. Further, there is considerable argument whether or not fluoride is beneficial to dental health. The statement by Alberts and Shine begs the question. I have challenged fluoride spokespersons in numerous debates to provide one valid reference showing any real dental benefit from fluoridation, and none has ever been found. In 1981, the Rand Corporation, in an extensive review of the fluoride literature on this subject, found that Public Health fluoride studies “suffer from poor experimental design and from analysis plans that largely ignore the possible effects of other factors of tooth decay” with the result that they (the studies) “have no relevance to any criterion of public policy-making.” The major error cited by the Rand report was the use of age-related “surfaces saved” or “percent reduction in decay” rather than the rate of decay. Correcting this, the report states, “is a first, necessary step in the development of life-cycle models of treatment effect.” For example, a cavity delayed by a year is not a cavity saved. Unfortunately, this first, necessary step is still lacking. Another way of saying this is that fluoridation is neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent dental cavities. The majority of people exposed to very low water fluoride concentrations have teeth just as healthy as people exposed to higher water fluoride concentrations; and many folks develop dental cavities regardless of the water fluoride concentration. Finally, the statement by Drs. Alberts and Shine that fluoride be included in the Nutrition Board’s actions because it conveys a “beneficial element for humans” is bizarre since that same argument would apply to antibiotics, aspirin, and thousands of other agents not to mention music, prayer, and cotton underwear. Authors Alberts and Shine admit that infants who are exclusively breast fed would have a low fluoride intake, and yet these infants are not at greater risk for dental caries than formula-fed infants are. Because of this, the adequate intake (AI) of fluoride for infants 0 to 6 months of age is set at 0.01 mg/day. If a baby is not breast-fed and the bottle formula used is mixed in fluoridated tap water, the daily fluoride intake would far exceed the recommended daily intake. Drs. Alberts and Shine are surely aware of the studies by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix et al that demonstrated brain damage in newborn rodents exposed to fluoride. Why are they not recommending the use of unfluoridated water in preparing baby formula? The authors further acknowledge that caries incidence has declined in countries without fluoridated water. In fact, the decline is equal to that of the fluoridated countries. They then falsely attribute this decline to national dental hygiene programs and the use of fluoride in school-based programs and fluoridated toothpaste. This is purely an opinion and not a statement of fact. Drs. Alberts and Shine then claim that the majority of animal studies have shown no effect on cancer, birth defects, genetic disorders or bone strength of very high and long-term fluoride exposure. This is an egregious misstatement of fact. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) found significant increases in the incidence of cancer, thyroid tumors, and bone disease in rodents to correlate with fluoride intake that resulted in tissue concentrations in the same range as found in people drinking fluoridated water for several decades. Further, the fluoride compound used in most animal studies is pure sodium fluoride (NF) and purified water, not industrial grade hydrofluorosilicic acid as is commonly used in public water fluoridation. The fluoride compounds used in public water fluoridation are contaminated with a number of toxic chemicals such as lead, mercury, and aluminum which, by synergy, are known to increase the toxicity of fluoride with the potential of brain damage and other health problems. And, since rats are more resistant to fluoride toxicity than humans, it would seem that rat studies using pure NaF rather than the industrial toxic waste used in public water fluoridation are actually designed to obscure the true toxic risk of the fluoride exposure humans face. In discussing fluoride-induced osteofluorosis (osteosclerosis), Drs. Alberts and Shine claim that skeletal fluorosis, even in its earliest stages, has not been shown to occur in the U.S. and Canada where water fluoride concentration is less than 10 ppm (mg/L). This is another slippery statement designed to obscure the facts. Worldwide skeletal fluorosis, and even disabling osteo-fluorosis, is found to occur commonly when water fluoride concentration is less than 4 ppm. The fact that osteofluorosis is rarely reported in the U.S. and Canada is more likely due to three factors: (1) the relatively high calcium intake we enjoy; (2) the poor diagnostic acumen of conventional physicians; and (3) the low expectation of finding it since they are not taught to look for it. When confronted with a patient with osteofluorosis, the usual diagnosis is arthritis and the usual treatment is aspirin or other non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs. Drs. Alberts and Shine conclude that “Given the complexities of the issues the report considers, we are confident that much room remains for further objective inquiry.” Doesnít this strike you as strange, considering that fluoridation has been promoted for 50 years? Isn’t it more reasonable to conclude that because the important health issues have not been resolved in 50 years that perhaps we should avoid fluoridation until they are resolved? How long are the U.S. Public Health agencies going to continue their “objective inquiry”? The majority of advanced countries have seen enough to know that public water fluoridation should be abandoned. The problem (of persistent, egregious fluoridation promotion) is actually quite simple. Fluoride is an industrial toxic waste product. A typical phosphate fertilizer plant, for example, produces about 500 tons per day. Disposal of this toxic waste is strictly controlled by our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the exception of fluoride in drinking water which is under the control (?) of our Public Health agencies. Fifty years ago fluoride promoters gained control of our Public Health agencies. Job security and career advancement within the Public Health agencies are linked to fluoridation promotion. This has led to the prostitution of science in order to maintain this convenient, cost-saving method of toxic fluoride waste disposal. Surely you have seen the same problem (of science data manipulation) in venues such as auto safety, pollution control, and other toxic waste disposal. Senator Specter, does it surprise you that the scientists of the EPA unanimously voted to oppose water fluoridation? Within the EPA, it is only the political administrators that advocate continued water fluoridation. In fact, they punish any scientist employee that publicly expresses any doubt of the wisdom of fluoridation. To whom would you go to find the scientific truth of fluoride exposure the EPA scientists or their political administrators? You have served well in prodding Drs. Alberts and Shine to answer the challenging Burgstahler letter. Now that you observe their disingenuous reply, perhaps you will look further into the problem and join the ranks of intelligent, responsible citizens opposing this unwise practice. Most sincerely yours, John R. Lee, MD FRAUD AT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES? and IS FLUORIDE A NUTRIENT? • Review of “Dietary Reference Intakes Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride”, published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Richard G Foulkes BA MD, Fluoride, 1997, 30:4 • October 15th letter to NAS president by 15 professionals (published in Fluoride 1998;31(3):153-157). • February 4, 1998, another letter was sent because there was no reply to the first (published in Fluoride 1998;31(3):153-157). • NAS finally responds after prompting, November 20, 1998. • NAS fails to respond again! (published in Fluoride 1999;32(3):191-192, January 12, 1999). • NAS fails to respond to Safe Water Foundation (published in Fluoride 1999, 32(3): 193-197). • September 23, 1997 News Release by W.J. Hirzy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientist and senior VP of the NFFE • NAS statement in 1971 on “nutrient” fluoride — still true today • Statement by the National Research Council, the principal operating agency of NAS, on “nutrient” fluoride — 1993 • U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s position on “nutrient” fluoride • U.S. Public Health Services on “nutrient” fluoride –1991 • Canadian federal-provincial subcommittee on “nutrient” fluoride, quoting Health Canada — 1997 DISCUSSION SECTION: Fluoride 1998;31(3):153-157 Two Unanswered Letters The following letter received no reply or acknowledgment: [reply later received – see below] October 15, 1997 Dr. Bruce Alberts, President National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 Dear Dr. Alberts: As you may be aware, the Dietary Reference Intakes report on calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, vitamin D, and fluoride prepared by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and scheduled for publication this month, contains a number of recommendations concerning fluoride that are cause for grave concern over their validity for setting public health policy. This concern has been heightened by statements made by speakers and panel members and their responses to queries at the recent September 23rd workshop on the report held at the National Academy of Sciences. We, the undersigned, regard the problem as so serious that we are requesting you to take immediate steps to delete the fluoride section of the report and to have it re-addressed by a panel that includes members of the scientific community who are not committed to promoting or supporting fluoride use. What follows is a brief summary of the basis for our concern. At the heart of the matter is whether fluorine, as fluoride (F¯), should be ranked with Ca, Mg, P, and vitamin D as an essential nutrient. In fact, there is no known essential biochemical role for fluoride in any animal, including humans. The formation of sound, decay-resistant and caries-free teeth as well as strong, sturdy bones, whether in animal or human populations, does not require fluoride, or at least not in more than minuscule, trace amounts. As acknowledged by sources cited in the report, even when a mother’s fluoride intake is elevated, her milk is extremely low in fluoride, but owing to prenatal accumulation, her baby excretes more fluoride than it ingests from her milk. This fact clearly indicates that any natural physiological need for fluoride, if indeed any exists, must be exceedingly small and certainly far below that being recommended in the report. At the September 23rd workshop, as recorded on videotape, fluoride was repeatedly regarded by speakers and panel members as an essential nutrient. But, toward the end, when challenged on this key issue, Dr. Vernon R. Young, Chair of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, bluntly stated that fluoride should not be considered as an “essential” component of the diet. Instead, without clarifying the distinction, he insisted that it should be viewed as only a “beneficial element.” The fact that fluoride is incorporated into the mineral matrix of bones and teeth does not make it an essential nutrient. Other elements hardly considered essential, such as lead and cadmium, also accumulate in bones and teeth, and they are not regarded as beneficial. Obviously, if fluoride is not essential in human nutrition, any consideration of it in terms of an “adequate intake” is clearly not appropriate and should not be part of a “dietary reference intakes” report. An association of fluoride with reduction in dental caries is cited as the basis for recommending the various intakes of fluoride. At the same time, the report acknowledges that most of the anti-caries effect attributed to fluoride occurs by topical exposure, not through systemic ingestion. Moreover, large, whole-population studies not cited in the report (e.g., in New Zealand) show that declines in tooth decay over the last 40-50 years have been occurring independently of fluoride exposure and use, thereby further challenging current arguments for significant benefit from fluoride. Without question, however, ingestion of even milligram amounts of fluoride during infancy and early childhood can produce the unmistakable toxic effects of dental fluorosis. This disruption of normal enamel formation is stated in the report not to be of “public health significance” if the fluoride concentration in the drinking water is below 2 mg/liter (2 ppm). But reports of disfiguring dental fluorosis with staining and pitting of the enamel in areas with 1-2 ppm fluoride in the drinking water were evidently overlooked, despite the claim at the workshop that the literature review was comprehensive and thorough. Of even greater concern, in relation to public health, is the proposal in the report that only the early stages of skeletal fluorosis are the appropriate criteria for fluoride intoxication. For this purpose a tolerable upper level ingestion limit of 10 milligrams of fluoride per day for 10 or more years in persons age 9 or older is proposed. But this level of intake is not tolerable, and, according to the sources cited in the report, it can and does lead to crippling skeletal fluorosis (Hodge, 1979). For young adults, assuming 50% retention of ingested fluoride in hard tissues, as stated on page 8-2 of the prepublication copy of the report, an absorbed intake of 10 mg/day amounts to a yearly accumulation of 1.8 grams or over 50 grams after 30 years. At this level debilitating skeletal fluorosis was observed by Raj Roholm in his classic studies of cryolite workers. But before this condition is reached, there are various pre-skeletal phases of fluoride intoxication with serious health implications that arise from much lower levels of intake, especially when calcium and magnesium are marginal, an aspect not considered in the report. Among these manifestations are increased hip-fracture among the elderly from deterioration in bone strength and quality (in agreement with long-term laboratory animal studies), increased osteosarcoma in young males (also demonstrated in male rats), chronic gastrointestinal irritation (reversible with decreased exposure to fluoride), and various neuromuscular disorders whose connection with fluoride has been well confirmed in peer-reviewed publications without convincing refutation. Recent studies showing decreased IQ scores correlating with dental fluorosis (again backed up by laboratory animal research) were also omitted from consideration. When questioned at the workshop about these omissions, the speakers and the members of the panel became defensive and were unwilling or unable to explain why such findings had been excluded in setting the upper tolerance level of fluoride at 10 mg/day. From the record of some of the committee members’ past promotion or support of fluoride use, including slow-release fluoride for treatment of osteoporosis (known to produce abnormal bone of inferior strength), these responses, although disappointing, are perhaps not too surprising. But, in such an important matter, should not at least some balance of viewpoint have been represented? As seen in the videotape (a copy of which has been sent to the Academy) the attitude of some of the presenters and panelists toward those who cited contrary data and questioned why such findings were not discussed can only be described as condescending and demeaning. Today, with so many additional sources of fluoride present in processed foods, commercial beverages, and dental care products that were not there when water fluoridation began, the total intake of fluoride, even among children, has increased to as much as 2-5 milligrams or more per day, well above the initially proposed optimum of 1 mg/day (from one liter of 1-ppm fluoridated water). With these higher levels of fluoride intake, dental fluorosis and other toxic effects noted above have also increased. We are sure that you would agree that it is immensely important to both the national interest and the world of science that the publications of the National Academy of Sciences maintain the highest standards of competence, objectivity, and integrity. In our view, unless the section on fluoride is withdrawn from this report on essential nutrients it could seriously threaten those standards. Therefore, we urge you to remove this section, and further request that should the fluoride issue be revisited by the Academy at some time in the future, that you should ensure that the investigating panel includes independent scientists who are fully conversant with the literature on the full range of fluoride’s harmful effects. Sincerely yours, ALBERT W. BURGSTAHLER, Ph.D. (Organic Chemistry and Environmental Fluoride), Professor of Chemistry, The University of Kansas*, Department of Chemistry, 4035 Malott Hall, Lawrence, Kansas 66045. ROBERT J. CARTON, Ph.D. (Environmental Sciences and Risk Assessment), Former Risk Assessment Manager for the Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mailing address: 2455 Ballenger Creek Pike, Adamstown, MD 21710. PAUL CONNETT, Ph.D. (Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology), Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University*, Department of Chemistry, Canton, New York 13617. RICHARD FOULKES, B.A.,M.D. (Physician). Former Consultant to the Minister of Health, Province of British Columbia, Canada. PO Box 278, Abbotsford, B.C., Canada V2S 4N9. J. WILLIAM HIRZY, Ph.D., (Chemistry and Risk Assessment). Senior Vice President, National Federation of Federal Employees*, Local 2050, P.O. Box 76082, Washington D.C. 20013. ROBERT L. ISAACSON, Ph.D., (Neurobehavioral Science). Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychology, Binghamton University*, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000. DAVID C. KENNEDY, D.D.S., (Dentist). Past President of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology*, 3243 Madrid Street, San Diego, CA 92110. HAROLD D. KLETSCHKA, M.D., F.A.C.S., (Cardiovascular Surgeon). Past military consultant in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery to the U.S. Air Force Surgeon General and the Surgeon of Headquarters Command, Washington, D.C. Founder and first Chief of the USAF Cardiovascular Research Center (Parks Air Force Base, CA). Former Chairman, President and CEO of Bio-Medicus, Inc. Mailing address: 1925 Noble Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55422-4158. LENNART KROOK, D.V.M., Ph.D., (Pathology). Cornell University*, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853-6401. RICHARD A. KUNIN, M.D., President, Society for Orthomolecular Health Medicine, 2698 Pacific, San Francisco, CA 94115 JOHN R. LEE, M.D. (Physician), 9620 Bodega Highway, Sebastopol, CA 95472. WILLIAM MARCUS, Ph.D., (Toxicology). GENE W. MILLER, Ph.D., (Biochemistry and Toxicology). Former Head of Biology, Associate I Dean of Science and Dean of Environmental Science, Utah State University*, Emeritus, College of Science, Department of Biology, Logan, Utah 84322-5305. PHYLLIS MULLENIX, Ph.D. (Pharmacology and Neurotoxicology). Former Head of the Department of Toxicology, Forsyth Dental Center*, Boston. Research Associate, Department of Psychiatry, Children’s Hospital*, Boston. Mailing address: P.O. Box753, Andover, MA 0180. ALBERT SCHATZ, Ph.D. Microbiology). Former Professor of Science Education, Temple University*, Philadelphia, PA. *These affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply endorsement of this letter by the institutions involved. ________________________________________ Sixteen weeks later the following letter was sent, also receiving no reply or acknowledgment. Fluoride 1998;31(3):153-157 February 4, 1998 Kenneth I. Shine, M.D. President, Institute of Medicine National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC 20418 Dear Dr. Shine: Last October my co-signers and I sent to Dr. Bruce Alberts the enclosed joint letter concerning the fluoride recommendations in the impending publication by the National Academy Press of the report on Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Although we do not understand why we have not received a reply, we trust that our letter was brought to the attention of the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine for appropriate action. When we submitted our letter we were under the impression that the position of the Food and Nutrition Board on the questions we raised was not yet settled. We have since learned, however, through the publication of the full text of the Summary of the report in the September/ October 1997 issue of Nutrition Today, pp. 182-188, that the upper level intake and other recommendations for fluoride had already been officially submitted for general distribution, even at the time the September 23rd workshop on the report was held at the Academy. Does the appearance of the pre-publication version of the report Summary in that issue of Nutrition Today (which only reached our science library here on November 13) mean that the Food and Nutrition Board still considers an intake of 10 milligrams of fluoride per day (Table S-6) to be a tolerable upper level for persons over age 9 without significant risk of serious adverse health effects? What is especially troublesome about the Board’s position on this matter is that it explicitly and emphatically contradicts the recently published views of the most distinguished and long-time fluoride expert member of the Panel on Calcium and Related Nutrients – Professor Gary M. Whitford of the Medical College of Georgia. In the second, revised edition of his widely-cited monograph on The Metabolism and Toxicity of Fluoride (Karger, Basel, 1996), he states on page 138 (copy enclosed): “Most estimates indicate that crippling skeletal fluorosis occurs when 10-20 mg of fluoride have been ingested on a daily basis for at least 10 years.” With this clinical condition, he notes, “. . . bone ash fluoride concentrations generally exceed 9,000 ppm. Calcification ofligaments often precludes joint mobility and numerous exostoses may be present. These effects may be associated with muscle wasting and neurological complications due to spinal cord compression.” Why do the recommendations of the Food and Nutrition Board on this critical matter contradict these well-considered views of the leading fluoride expert on the Board’s Panel on Calcium and Related Nutrients? Clearly, a fluoride intake level that produces “crippling skeletal fluorosis” can hardly be regarded as tolerable and certainly should not remain uncorrected. Although it is widely believed that”. . . crippling skeletal fluorosis has not been and is not a public health problem in the USA” (Whitford, op. cit., page 137), the same cannot be said of the situation in other parts of the world, e.g., in China, India, the Middle East, and Africa, where crippling skeletal fluorosis is still a serious endemic health problem—even at less than 10 mg/day fluoride intake. Moreover, in the absence of sufficient numbers of contemporary biopsy and necropsy bone fluoride analyses, it is very unwise to assume that little or none of the extensive middle and old-age osteoarthritis that plagues so many people in the United States is not an undiagnosed manifestation of various stages of skeletal fluorosis. In this connection it is important to note that otherwise unexplained intermittent episodes of gastric pain and muscular weakness have been clinically linked in areas of endemic dental and skeletal fluorosis to fluoride intakes as low as 2 to 5 mg/day (ref. 1). These peer-reviewed reports fully validate earlier clinical findings of the occurrence of these very same and related effects in fluoridated communities in the United States and other countries which have been discounted or ignored without scientific refutation (ref. 2). Today, when many officials at all levels in our government seem to have difficulty in being forthright and admitting what is true, it ill behooves us as scientists not to tell the public what is known to be true, whether or not it agrees with what is generally accepted as true. “For truth is truth, though never so old, and time cannot make that false which was once true.” (ref. 3). Because the recommendations of your report on Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride have been released to the public before correction of the serious errors and oversights pointed out here and in previous communications to the Food and Nutrition Board, I presume there is no objection to this letter being made part of the public record. Yours sincerely, Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry Enclosures: Copy of October 15, 1997 letter to Dr. Bruce Alberts Page 138 of the 2nd, revised edition of The Metabolism and Toxicity of Fluoride Copy: Bruce Alberts Gary M. Whitford Co-signers of October 15, 1997 letter to Dr. Alberts References: 1. A.K. Susheela et al. Fluoride Ingestion and its Correlation with Gastrointestinal Discomfort. Fluoride 25:5-22, 1992; Prevalence of Endemic Fluorosis with Gastrointestinal Manifestations in People Living in Some North-Indian Villages. Fluoride 26:97-104, 1993; S. Desarathy et al. Gastroduodenal Manifestations in Patients with Skeletal Fluorosis. Journal of Gastroenterology 32:333-337, 1996. 2. G.L. Waldbott. Incipient Fluorine Intoxication from Drinking Water. Acta Medica Scandinavica 156:157-168, 1956; Fluoride in Clinical Medicine. Supplement 1 to International Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology 20:1-60, 1962; Fluoridation: A Clinician’s Experience. Southern Medical Journal 73:302-306, 1980; 74:519, 1981. 3. Letter of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, May 7, 1603. Cf. William Shakespeare. Measure for Measure, V.1.45-46: “. . . for truth is truth To the end of reckoning.” Discussion Section: Fluoride 1999;32(3):187-198 EDITOR’S NOTE [Professor Albert Burgstahler] The two letters referred to at the beginning of the letter below were published in Fluoride 31(3) 153-157 August 1998. In a separate letter from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), also dated November 20, 1998, James Jensen, Director of the National Research Council Office of Congressional and Governmental Affairs of NAS, replied to an inquiry from Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter on behalf of one of his constituents, who wanted to know why my joint letter of October 15, 1997 to Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of NAS, had not received a reply. In his letter to Senator Specter, Mr. Jensen wrote: “When Dr. Burgstahler’s letter on fluoridation [actually, it was about the proposed Dietary Reference Intake standards for fluoride and only indirectly about fluoridation] arrived at the Academy, a response was drafted but never sent out. There is little excuse for this, but this is what occurred. . . . “Please accept our sincere apologies. There was no intent to show disrespect to your constituent.” The letter below, therefore, although “drafted” earlier, was sent only after prompting from Senator Specter’s inquiry. ________________________________________ NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20418 November 20, 1998 Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D. and others Professor of Chemistry The University of Kansas 4035 Malott Hall Lawrence, Kansas 66045 Dear Dr. Burgstahler: We apologize for the delay in responding to your letters of October 15, 1997 and February 4, 1998, to each of us individually. At the time we had a very large number of inquiries and comments, and while letters were prepared in response to your letter along with the others, for some reason they did not reach you. The letter that we found in our files is reprinted below. We want to thank you and your co-signers for your October 15, 1997 letter to us concerning the Food and Nutrition Board’s (FNB) recent report, Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. The publication of the report represents the initial report of a major new activity of the FNB: the development of a comprehensive set of reference values for nutrients and food components of possible benefit to health, that may not meet the traditional concept of a nutrient. If adequate scientific data exist that support a health benefit from the inclusion of these components in the diet, reference intakes will be established. In replying to your letter, we have consulted with the Committee that produced the FNB report and asked them to review the important points that you raised concerning their report and the associated workshop, as well as to explain why they have reached the conclusions they reached despite the information you cite. First, let us reassure you with regard to one concern. Nowhere in the report is it stated that fluoride is an essential nutrient. If any speaker or panel member at the September 23rd workshop referred to fluoride as such, they misspoke. As was stated in Recommended Dietary Allowances 10th Edition, which we published in 1989: “These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluoride as an essential element, according to accepted standards. Nonetheless, because of its valuable effects on dental health, fluoride is a beneficial element for humans.” Dr. Vernon Young, Chair of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, stated this at the workshop’s conclusion. The adequate intake (AI) of fluoride for infants 0 to 6 months of age is set at 0.01 mg/day. As explained in Chapter I of the report, the average intake of a particular nutrient by full-term infants who are born to well-nourished mothers and exclusively fed human milk has been adopted as the basis for deriving an AI for all nutrients and other food components during the first 6 months of life. Using the human milk-fed infant as the model supports the recommendation that exclusive breast feeding is the preferred method of feeding for normal fullterm infants for the first 4 to 6 months of life – a recommendation shared by the Canadian Paediatric Society (Health Canada, 1990), the American Academy of Pediatrics (1982), and the Food and Nutrition Board’s report Nutrition During Lactation (IOM, 1991). (Infants who are exclusively breast fed for the first six months of life would have a low fluoride intake, and yet scientific evidence showing that these infants are at greater risk for dental caries than formula-fed infants is lacking.) During the second six months of life and thereafter, the AI for fluoride from all sources is set at 0.05 mg/kg/day because it confers a high level of protection against dental caries and is associated with no known unwanted health effects. Although the report acknowledges that most of the anti-caries effect attributed to fluoride occurs by topical exposure, it does not matter whether that exposure is from food, water or dental products. As you state, the prevalence of caries in some countries around the world without water fluoridation has declined over the years. This has been attributed to national dental hygiene programs and the use of fluoride in school-based prevention programs (rinses or tablets), as well as to the use of fluoridated toothpaste. These programs provide both systemic and topical fluoride exposures. In following the model for the development of Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs), as explained in Chapter 3 of the report, moderate enamel fluorosis was considered as the critical adverse effect in children under 9 years of age. As noted by Dean and coworkers some 60 years ago, mild enamel fluorosis was present in some residents of areas where water contained < 2 mg/liter of fluoride. At that time the diet, particularly the water, was the only significant source of fluoride so that the daily intake of fluoride could be estimated with reasonable accuracy. The average intake by children at risk was 0.05 mg/kg/day. The prevalences of both dental caries and fluorosis in these communities was low and there is no reason to expect that level of intake (from all sources) to produce different results today. Compared with Dean’s findings, recent studies have revealed a higher prevalence of dental fluorosis in the United States and Canada, including a few cases of moderate fluorosis. However, analytical epidemiological studies have repeatedly shown that the major risk factors are ingestion due to the early use of fluoride toothpaste and/or the use of dietary supplements. Thus, the total fluoride intake by some children whose water is fluoridated is now higher than in Dean’s time. This is the reason that age-specific intakes for total fluoride, including that from dental products, are based on 0.05 mg/kg/day. To the extent that this intake level is followed, the prevalence of dental fluorosis can be expected to decline while a healthy dentition is maintained. Three recent reviews of the literature, Kaminsky et al., 1990; NRC, 1993; USPHS, 1991, attempted to identify adverse functional effects of fluoride ingestion in adults. Fluoride exposures included those associated with drinking water containing as much as 8 mg/liter of fluoride and the use of dental products. These reviews concluded that evidence linking chronic, high fluoride exposures with adverse effects such as cancer, including osteosarcoma, birth defects, genetic disorders, or bone fractures is either insufficient or highly contradictory. In addition, the majority of animal studies have shown no effect on cancer, birth defects, genetic disorders or bone strength of very high and long-term fluoride exposures. Thus, the primary adverse effects associated with chronic, excess fluoride intake are enamel fluorosis in children through 8 years of age and skeletal fluorosis in adolescents and adults over 8 years of age. In Hodge’s 1979 article, he reported that evidence of crippling fluorosis "was not seen in communities in the United States where water supplies contained up to 20 ppm." In such communities daily fluoride intakes of 20 mg would not be uncommon. Fluoride is continuously taken up by newly formed bone and released from older bone being resorbed. As long as intake remains constant, the concentration in bone tends to increase during life. It is not entirely clear why this happens but it may be due to the preferential resorption of bone crystallites that do not contain fluoride. In any event, in the United States and Canada, it is known that the development of skeletal fluorosis, even in earliest stages, has not occurred, even where the water fluoride concentrations have been in excess of 10 ppm. In reviewing Kaj Roholm’s classic 1937 report of bone changes among Danish cryolite workers, it was noted that Roholm reported no intake data for fluoride, apparently because the researchers were not able to measure air-borne fluoride. On page 279, Roholm states: "It must be admitted that with respect to the important question of dose, that the observations available are sporadic and to some extent contradictory; in most of the spontaneous intoxications the intaken (his word) quantity of fluoride is not known at all." Later on page 319 Roholm states: "In man the disease (he is referring to crippling skeletal fluorosis) is probably caused by 0.20-0.35 mg fluoride daily per kg body weight." The reason for this estimate is not given. It is unfortunate that, in the absence of scientific data, these estimates were ever made. Although we are uncertain about the lower level of intake and time of exposure that causes clinically significant skeletal fluorosis, we do know that, at least for U.S. and Canadian citizens, intakes associated with water fluoride concentrations in excess of 10 ppm do not cause clinically significant skeletal fluorosis. Our study was funded entirely by the governments of the United States and Canada. The funding agencies were the National Institute of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Agricultural Research Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Food and Drug Administration; and Health Canada. We thank you and your co-signers for your careful reading of the report and interest in assuring its accuracy and completeness. Given the complexities of the issues the report considers, we are confident that much room remains for further objective inquiry. We have tried to give you some of the reasons for the Committee’s conclusions. However, we hope that the report will lead to additional research on which to base dietary reference intakes – for both essential nutrients and other dietary constituents with documented health benefits. Once again, we regret that this reply to your thoughtful letter did not reach you much earlier, when it was prepared. Sincerely, Bruce Alberts, Ph.D. President, National Academy of Sciences Kenneth Shine President, Institute of Medicine ________________________________________ National Academy of Sciences fails to respond again! EDITOR’S COMMENT [published in Fluoride 1999:32(3);191-192] On January 12, 1999, the following letter was faxed to Drs. Alberts and Shine: Drs Bruce Alberts and Kenneth Shine National Academy of Sciences & Institute of Medicine 2101 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20418 Fax: (202) 334-2316 Dear Drs. Alberts and Shine, Your letter of November 20, 1998 in response to my letters of October 15, 1997, and February 4, 1998, awaited me on my return late last month from an extended trip to the Far East beginning in mid-November. A related letter dated November 19, 1998, from Professor Gary M. Whitford had also arrived. Next week I plan to attend the workshop scheduled for January 21 at the Academy. Several others who cosigned my October 15, 1997, letter also plan to be there. In view of the gravity of the issues addressed in these letters, would it be possible for some of us to meet briefly with either or both of you before 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 20, at the National Academy of Sciences? I will be leaving Lawrence early Monday morning (January 18), so the favor of your early reply by fax or e-mail (addresses below) would be appreciated. Yours sincerely, Albert W. Burgstahler Professor Emeritus of Chemistry The University of Kansas ________________________________________ There was no reply to the above letter. Upon my arrival at the NAS headquarters in Washington on the morning of January 20, there was still no reply, and no meeting could be arranged with either Dr. Alberts or Dr. Shine. As indicated at the end of my February 4, 1998 letter to Dr. Shine (see Fluoride 31(3) 157 August 1998), I also sent a copy of that letter to Professor Gary M. Whitford of the Medical College of Georgia, who was the ranking fluoride expert on the review panel. Then on February 17, 1998, I again wrote to Professor Whitford, specifically asking why his views, published prominently in the 1996 edition of his monograph, Metabolism and Toxicity of Fluoride (p. 138), that "crippling skeletal fluorosis occurs when 10-20 mg of fluoride have been ingested on a daily basis for at least 10 years," were set aside in favor of suggesting that a much higher level of fluoride intake is required to produce this effect. Nine months later a reply finally arrived from Professor Whitford. Dated November 19, 1998, just one day before the date on the foregoing letter from Drs. Alberts and Shine, Professor Whitford stated in his letter: "During the course of assisting with the development of the DRIs [Dietary Reference Intakes],…I concluded that the literature does not support the liklihood [sic] of advanced skeletal fluorosis in U.S. residents whose daily intake does not exceed 10 mg." This statement, however, is contradicted by the evidence presented in my letter of February 4 to Dr. Shine. It is also of interest that much of the material in Professor Whitford’s letter to me is found in the November 20, 1998 letter from Drs. Alberts and Shine, including the passage from Roholm’s treatise Fluorine Intoxication – A Clinical Hygienic Study, that a daily fluoride intake of 0.20-0.35 mg/kg body weight is likely to cause crippling skeletal fluorosis. But then Drs. Alberts and Shine go on and boldly assert: "…we do know that, at least for U.S. and Canadian citizens, intakes associated with water fluoride concentrations in excess of 10 ppm fluoride do not cause clinically significant skeletal fluorosis." But clearly, the average fluoride intake of an adult drinking water containing more than 10 ppm fluoride will very likely exceed 10 mg/day and therefore, according to Professor Whitford, would create a risk for crippling skeletal fluorosis, even in the United States and Canada. Why residents of these two countries supposedly do not develop skeletal fluorosis from levels of fluoride intake that are well known to cause it elsewhere is deftly shoved aside by citing studies in the U.S. that did not report finding it. Equally disturbing in the Alberts-Shine letter is the unexplained jump of an "adequate" fluoride intake of only 0.01 mg/day for infants up to age six months to 0.05 mg/kg body weight/day for the second six months of life and thereafter. By age six months, a baby weighing 6-8 kg would therefore have an "adequate" fluoride intake of 0.3 to 0.4 mg/day – a 30- to 40-fold increase from the first six months to the second six months of life after birth! No such huge increase is proposed for any other dietary component. As pointed out by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis at the end of the following letter, this 0.05 mg/kg/day figure for fluoride appears to be based on an effort to justify or "sanctify" water fluoridation. Thus, an average daily total fluoride intake of 3.5-mg by a 70-kg adult drinking 1-ppm fluoridated water amounts to 3.5 mg/70 kg/day or 0.05 mg/kg/day. And this is sound "scientific" thinking by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences? In the end, however, all these considerations are moot, since the basis for setting an "adequate intake" of fluoride rests on its alleged ability to prevent tooth decay. But since any such dental benefit from fluoride, to whatever extent it exists, is now known to be largely topical and not systemic (from ingestion), how can there even be a daily "adequate intake"? ________________________________________ Discussion Section continued Fluoride, 1999;32(3):193-198 Safe Water Foundation 6439 Taggart Road, Delaware, Ohio 43015 Bruce Alberts, Ph.D. President, National Academy of Sciences Kenneth Shine, M.D. President, Institute of Medicine 2101 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20418 Dear Drs. Alberts and Shine: A copy of your November 20, 1998 letter to Professor Albert Burgstahler has been sent to me for comment. If you actually believe what you wrote in that letter, I am sure you will welcome the following information. I. In your letter, you cite the 10th edition of Recommended Dietary Allowances as stating that while fluoride cannot be classified as an essential element, [but] "because of its valuable effect on dental health [which you later define as its ‘anticaries effect’], fluoride is a beneficial element for humans." You then state as a fact that the intake of .05 mg/kg/day of fluoride confers a high level of protection against dental caries. Implicit in your letter is the claim that fluoridation of water reduces tooth decay. You then explain that part of the reason for the decline in tooth decay in nonfluoridated areas is due to the administration of fluoride tablets. However, as any informed professional would know, there is a general consensus among experts on both sides of the fluoride issue that swallowing fluoride does nothing to prevent tooth decay. In fact, the only proven effect that swallowing fluoride has on teeth is to poison ameloblasts and odontoblasts, resulting in dental fluorosis, the formation of imperfect or damaged enamel or dentine, respectively, and slowing down the eruption rate of deciduous teeth. Evidence that swallowing fluoride does not prevent tooth decay – In water All the recent large-scale studies taken together show that fluoridation is ineffective in reducing the decay rate of permanent teeth. Earlier studies claiming a reduction in tooth decay have already been discredited by those who have and/or still do promote fluoridation. For example, Dr. John Colquhoun, former Chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand and at one time the President of the Fluoridation Society conducted the largest tooth decay study and found no difference in tooth decay rates in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas in New Zealand. Dr. A.S. Gray, former Chief Dental Officer of British Columbia, found that British Columbia, the province with the lowest fluoridation rate in Canada, also had the lowest tooth decay rate in Canada. And Dr. Elmer Green and Taimi Carnahan, two of the most ardent promoters of fluoridation, coauthored a study with two others that showed that there was no significant difference in the tooth decay rates in fluoridated Newburgh and nonfluoridated Kingston (in 1986) despite the fact that these two cities were used to show that fluoridation reduced tooth decay rate by 70% (from 1945 to 1955) {J.V. Kumar, et al., "Trends in Dental Fluorosis and Dental Caries Prevalences in Newburgh and Kingston, NY", American Journal of Public Health, Volume 79, pp. 565-569 (1989)}. Even Dr. Hardy Limeback, the fluoride expert for the Canadian Dental Association admits that the ingestion of fluoride does nothing to reduce tooth decay. On February 14, 1998, he wrote: You should be glad to know that I no longer take such a profluoride stand. I don’t care if I alienate all my dental public health colleagues anymore on this whole issue and I realize just how much out on a limb I’m climbing in no longer supporting water fluoridation. Putting hydrofluorosilicic acid from smoke stack scrubbers to fluoridate the water for me was the breaking point. Consider me still a pro-fluoride dentist but a converted antifluoridationist who now advocates that we stop putting toxic waste in Canadian water supplies – shame! – In tablet or drop form Contrary to your claims, fluoride tablets have been shown to be ineffective in reducing tooth decay in the Rand report sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Special Report No.2, 1983) and in the scientific literature {H Kalsbeek, et al., Use of fluoride tablets and effect on prevalence of dental caries and dental fluorosis, Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol 20:243-245 (1992)}. II. In your letter, you claim that part of the reason for the decline in tooth decay in nonfluoridated areas is due to the use of fluoride in school-based rinse programs. Contradicting this unsubstantiated claim, a Rand Corporation study {Disney, et al., A case study in contesting the conventional wisdom. school-based mouthrinse programs in the USA, Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol 18:46-56 (1990)} has shown that topical fluoride exposure in school programs does not reduce tooth decay rates. III. You acknowledge that "recent studies have revealed a higher prevalence of dental fluorosis" and claim that this is "due to the early use of fluoride toothpaste and/or the use of dietary supplements." The absurdity of this can be seen by comparing the 1-2 mg per day children get from fluoridated water with the 1/4 mg per day of fluoride these same children get from ingesting toothpaste. While there are many studies showing the fluoridated water causes dental fluorosis, there are no studies showing that fluoride ingestion from fluoridated toothpaste by itself causes dental fluorosis. [This is not to deny, however, that the approximate 1/4 mg/day of fluoride consumed from toothpaste might push the total fluoride intake over the top to cause dental fluorosis in marginal cases]. The fact that fluoridation causes dental fluorosis is obvious from your own NRC, 1993 report. Let’s ask it some questions: Does fluoridation result in dental fluorosis (fluoride-induced tooth damage)? According to page 37 of your report: "…the prevalence of dental fluorosis in optimally fluoridated areas (both natural and added) in recent years ranged from 8% to 51%, compared with 3% to 26% in nonfluoridated areas." Two things are obvious here: (1) we can safely assume that fluoride toothpaste usage is similar in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas and (2) we know that fluoride supplement use is higher in nonfluoridated areas – yet dental fluorosis rates are twice as high in fluoridated areas. As a result, should we stop water fluoridation? According to page 43 of your report: "Indeed, most dental researchers (Horowitz, 1991; Rozier, 1991 Szpunar and Burt, 1992) believe that the best approach to stabilizing the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis is to control fluoride ingestion from foods, processed beverages, and dental products rather than reduce the recommended concentrations of fluoride in drinking water." And on page 44 of your report it is stated: "Fluoride in foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water has long been suspected as a risk factor.…" But how can you control fluoride ingestion from foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water? According to page 48 of your report: "applying such a policy would be formidable; reductions of fluoride in drinking water would be easier to administer, monitor, and evaluate." The mission to fanatically support water fluoridation has apparently allowed you to disregard any form of logic, if necessary, in the production of your NRC, 1993 report. IV. In you[r] letter, you claim to rely on "Three recent reviews of the literature, Kaminsky, et al., 1990; NRC, 1993;, and USPHS, 1991." Enclosed are critiques of Kaminsky, et al., 1990, NRC, 1993, and USPHS, 1991. V. In your letter, you claim "the majority of animal studies have shown no effect on cancer, birth defects, genetic disorders, or bone strength". I have enclosed a list of 10 animal studies that show that fluoride initiates tumors and/or cancer and/or promotes tumor growth rate and/or increases the cancer-causing potential of other carcinogens. Can you come up with 11 negative animal studies? I have enclosed a list of 2 animal studies that show that fluoride has an effect on birth defects. Can you come up with 3 negative animal studies? I have enclosed a list of 22 animal studies that show that fluoride causes genetic disorders. Can you come up with 23 negative animal studies? In your own publication, NRC, 1993, on Table 6-2, you list six in vitro animal studies, five of which deal with the effect of fluoride on genetic disorders (aberrations) and all five of which found that fluoride exposure caused chromosomal damage. In table 6-6, you list four in vivo studies which deal with the effect of fluoride on genetic disorders (aberrations), two of which are listed as showing positive results and two of which are listed as showing negative results. While I don’t have a large number of animal studies regarding the adverse effects of fluoride on bone strength of very high and long-term fluoride exposures, I do have a large number of human clinical and epidemiological studies, for a total of 34 references. Can you provide 35 negative studies? VI. At this point, it must be obvious how preposterous is the statement made in your letter: "Thus, the primary adverse effects associated with chronic excess fluoride intake are [moderate] enamel fluorosis in children through 8 years of age and [crippling] skeletal fluorosis in adolescents and adults over 8 years of age." But this statement not only covers up the well-documented findings that fluoride causes and/or promotes tumors and cancers as well as possibly enhancing the cancer-causing effects of other carcinogens and that fluoride causes genetic damage down to and including the levels proposed in your "adequate intake" re
  24. Chris you said: Fluoride is considered a nutrient, like other minerals found in water (e.g. iron, calcium), and is needed for strong bones and teeth. Please provide proof that fluoride is a nutrient and that you can be deficient of it? Fluoride is not needed for strong teeth and bones, you are not aware of Dr. Weston Price’s work I guess http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lee4cfOj108 These indigenous people did not have tooth decay and some never brushed their teeth or had fluoridated toothpaste, cavities have more to do with nutrition. Why promote fluoridation, why not promote better nutrition?

    Here are 2 studies showing that fluoride does not really work systemically, the first study by Leverett et al is a randomized double blind trial, the other is a clinical, retrospective study both studies show that fluoride supplementation for pregnant women do not support the hypothesis that prenatal supplementation of fluoride can help prevent caries. In the second study I mention the control group who did not have fluoride supplementation had a lower dfs/DFS score than the group that had the fluoride supplementation.

    Prenatal fluoride supplementation Caries Res. 1997;31(3):174-9.
    Randomized clinical trial of the effect of prenatal fluoride supplements in preventing dental caries.
    Leverett DH, Adair SM, Vaughan BW, Proskin HM, Moss ME.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9165186

    “These findings do not support the hypothesis that prenatal fluoride has a strong caries-preventive effect.”

    Oral Implantol (Rome). 2011 Jan-Jun; 4(1-2): 23–27.

    Published online 2011 November 8.
    PMCID: PMC3530971
    Fluoride supplements in pregnancy, effectiveness in the prevention of dental caries in a group of children
    P. MATURO, M. COSTACURTA, C. PERUGIA, and R. DOCIMO
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3530971/

    “The dfs/DFS index result was 3.41 in the TEST group and 2.48 in the CONTROL group (Table 1). The differences in dfs/DFS index in the two groups are not statistically significant.”

    Here is a study showing bottled water use did not increase risk of caries:
    While bottled water users had significantly lower fluoride intakes, this study found no conclusive evidence of an association with increased caries,” according to “An investigation of bottled water use and caries in the mixed dentition,” published in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17899900

    Many fluoride cessation studies shows that there is no increase in caries.

    • Indeed, the evidence of benefit is very weak | http://youtu.be/-yq3zZXzU7M

    • A new study conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Adelaide, Australia, has produced the strongest evidence yet that fluoride in drinking water provides dental health benefits to adults, even those who had not received fluoridated drinking water as children. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130501112855.htm

      • Studies show that Warfarin helps reduce the risk of blood clots [ http://wp.me/p2ZRjZ-oM ]. Let’s add Warfarin to the water too, shall we? But why stop there, throw in a few more treatments while you’re at it, for all types of ailments. We could have “miracle water”! Drink tap water and you’ll have great teeth, thin blood, reduced risk of suicide, lower cholesterol, increased sex drive, greater immunity to disease, and a million other things. Yes, drink up, drink up. Miracle tap water. “It’s safe, because the authorities tell me it is.”

        Meanwhile, for the non-sociopaths out there, refer to:

        > Fluoride & Tooth Decay: An Overview
        > Fluoride & Tooth Decay: The Facts
        > The Evidence of Benefit is Very Weak
        > The Iowa Fluoride Study
        > The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay
        > Available via: http://wp.me/P2ZRjZ-2I

      • http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/01/0022034513481190.abstract

        Since this paper appeared, the toxic waste pushers have been claiming that adults are benefited. The propaganda in Australia has focused on a figure of “up to a 30 percent reduction in tooth decay”. The abstract says “Socio-demographic and preventive dental behaviours were included in multivariable least-squares regression models adjusted for potential confounding. In fully adjusted models, > 75% of lifetime exposure to fluoridation relative to < 25% of lifetime exposure was associated with 11% and 10% fewer DMF-Teeth in the pre-1960 (p < .0001) and 1960-1990 cohorts (p = .018), respectively. Corresponding reductions in DF-Surfaces were 30% (p < .001) and 21% (p < .001)."

        It wasn't a randomised controlled trial, and it wasn't blinded, and even then they only found piddling 11% and 10% differences in DMFT. The usual statistic of comparison is DMFT, but apparently 11% and 10% don't sound impressive enough, so they decided to ignore missing teeth for their "DF-Surfaces" statistic in order to falsely claim "up to a 30 percent reduction in tooth decay". Who needs teeth, anyway? She'll be right mate. There is no mention of minerals in water which may affect rates of cavities, such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and molybdenum, or of diet in general. The study was based on data from the 2004-2006 Australian National Survey of Adult Oral Health, which is clearly biased because it ignores dental fluorosis. It also lists Colgate Oral Care as one of its funding sources. It doesn't matter how many of these dodgy studies are churned out, it doesn't change the fact that when communities have been freed from fluoridation rates of dental cavities have fallen, or the fact that the countries with the lowest rates of dental cavities are mostly not fluoridated.

      • That link to the study won’t allow anyone to view it

        Peter Loskill, Christian Zeitz, Samuel Grandthyll, Nicolas Thewes, Frank Müller, Markus Bischoff, Mathias Herrmann, Karin Jacobs. Reduced Adhesion of Oral Bacteria on Hydroxyapatite by Fluoride Treatment. Langmuir, 2013;
        http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/la4008558

        Purchase temporary access to this content.
        ACS Members purchase additional access options
        Ask your library to provide you and your colleagues site-wide access to ACS Publications.
        Use your free ACS Member Universal Access (if available)

        If you can, could you post a link to that study so everyone can view it?

        • New Evidence On How Fluoride Fights Tooth Decay

          May 1, 2013 — In an advance toward solving a 50-year-old mystery, scientists are reporting new evidence on how the fluoride in drinking water, toothpastes, mouth rinses and other oral-care products prevents tooth decay.
          Share This:
          79

          Their report appears in the ACS journal Langumir.

          Karin Jacobs and colleagues explain that despite a half-century of scientific research, controversy still exists over exactly how fluoride compounds reduce the risk of tooth decay. That research established long ago that fluoride helps to harden the enamel coating that protects teeth from the acid produced by decay-causing bacteria. Newer studies already found that fluoride penetrates into and hardens a much thinner layer of enamel than previously believed, lending credence to other theories about how fluoride works.

          The report describes new evidence that fluoride also works by impacting the adhesion force of bacteria that stick to the teeth and produce the acid that causes cavities. The experiments — performed on artificial teeth (hydroxyapatite pellets) to enable high-precision analysis techniques — revealed that fluoride reduces the ability of decay-causing bacteria to stick, so that also on teeth, it is easier to wash away the bacteria by saliva, brushing and other activity.

          • The study also found that fluoride does not eliminate tooth decay, citing dietary sugars as the primary cause. People living in areas with fluoridated water and/or using fluoride toothpaste still got dental caries. http://www.irishdentist.ie/news/news_detail.php?id=5436

            REPORT: 100% fluoridated Kentucky, USA – Rampant Dental Decay & chronic disease epidemic – DDB http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rampant-dental-decay-chronic-disease-epidemic-in-100-fluoridated-kentucky-usa-13-aug-2013-ddb.pdf

            REPORT: Can Dentists & Doctors be trusted when they say Water Fluoridation is Safe & Effective?
            http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/can-dentists-doctors-be-trusted-when-they-say-water-fluoridation-is-safe-effective.pdf

            THE FLUORIDE DEBATE

            A Response to the American Dental Association’s Booklet Fluoridation Facts

            THIS BOOKLET CONTAINS EVIDENCE THAT …
            Fluoridation is not about “children’s teeth”. Rather, it is about industry ridding itself of crude hazardous waste products, silicofluorides, for a profit. Silicofluorides are 85 times more toxic than naturally-occurring calcium fluoride.
            Fluoride is more toxic than lead and like lead in minute doses, accumulates in and can be damaging to brain/mind development of children, producing abnormal behavior in animals and reducing IQ in humans, especially in conjunction with deficiencies of key nutrients such as calcium, iodine and vitamins. It can also contribute to many disease processes. Because it is almost as toxic as arsenic, fluoride’s ability to play havoc in the human body should surprise no one.
            There is as much, or more, dental decay in fluoridated communities as there is in the non- fluoridated areas; however, the dental costs are higher in fluoridated communities due to dental fluorosis. Drinking fluoridated water may delay decay, but it does not prevent it.
            Dental fluorosis is not simply a “cosmetic effect”. Dental fluorosis is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. Today there is an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15% to 65% in fluoridated areas and 5% to 40% in non-fluoridated areas in North America.
            Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists, after studying all the evidence, concluded that the public water supply should not be used “as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless … substance.”
            The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient; it is a prescription drug. Every prescription drug has side-effects, including fluoride. Fluoride has never received FDA approval and does not meet the legal requirements of safety and effectiveness necessary for such approval. Once this drug is put in the water there is no control over individual dosage.
            The American Dental Association supplement schedule shows that fluoride prescription drugs should not be given to infants under 6 months of age. One cup of water per day for children age 6 months to 3 years matches the supplement controlled dose. Therefore, in fluoridated areas, most children under 3 are getting an overdose of this drug via their drinking water, yet the ADA continues to recommend fluoridation.
            The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in our water, dental products, and foods and beverages (grown and processed in fluoridated communities), is causing pervasive over- exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population. Most developed countries have rejected, stopped, or banned fluoridation because there is no margin of safety.
            Fluoride is not just “one of forty chemicals used to treat water”. It is the only chemical added to public drinking water to treat individuals, rather than the water. It is mass medication. This website explains why a good number of leading scientists, doctors, and some dentists are avidly opposed to putting fluoride in our water supply. It also shows that this controversy has existed in the scientific field from the onset.

            http://www.fluoridedebate.com/Download/fluoridedebate.pdf

          • Yeah but what does fluoride do to the rest of the body?
            What are we, a walking set of teeth?
            Look at what mercury has done to the victims of the dental profession.

  25. One of the most amazing things about the promotion of fluoridation is the simple nature of how companies like those who mine phosphate or smelt such metals as aluminum and steel can take the pollution by product fluorosilicic acid and legally send it all around the country for sale to water utilities. This allows them to make a hefty profit off of a pollution substance that is otherwise very expensive to store or dispose of. This is a substance that is illegal to dump in any natural body of water. This is a substance that will melt concrete and requires hazmat procedures to clean up when accidentally spilled. In its dry form, it must be handled very carefully and mixed completely into water using strict hazmat procedures that are not always adhered to by water utilities.

    Let’s also consider that the authorities who push this toxin on the public continue to do so by fabricating propaganda written by a select group of individuals who are expert at using the original techniques pioneered by the father of modern advertising techniques, Edward Bernays (the man who brought you healthy cigarettes). When you look back on the history of how fluoridation actually started, it becomes very clear that the government of the US simply wanted to stop the numerous lawsuits that were being filed against it by farmers and workers whose livelihood and lives had been ruined by fluoride pollution exposure from the unchecked pollution output of industrial production during WW-II. What better way to alleviate the problem than by capturing the toxin using smoke stack scrubbers – inundating the unsuspecting public with literature and advertising stating how “safe and effective” fluoride is against tooth decay – and placing fluoride toxin into water systems at such a low dose so as to give the appearance that the substance is doing no harm to the public. Classic stuff. It’s an ingenious way to get rid of a pesky pollution by product by dilution and by stealth. And, the corporation providing this service gets paid handsomely for the privilege of dumping the toxin back into the environment.

    And, unbelievably, a substance that is known to have absolutely NO benefits for biological health in humans or animals is being promoted by pro-fluoridationists as being a “nutrient.” This in itself is a criminal act.

    Then, there’s the incredible math. Only a very small amount of fluoride is placed into drinking water. It is a known and accepted engineering fact that in most all water departments, more than 90 percent of the water is never actually used for drinking. Instead, it is used for washing, industrial production, watering of plants, food production and a myriad of other uses and non-uses (such as system leaks) that completely bypass human ingestion. So, this unapproved drug (FDA) is spread around into our environment and food, and later ends up as an unacknowledged pollutant that goes back into our environment through the sewerage system. It’s an astoundingly wasteful and unscientific method of delivering a drug (pollutant) of any type to the masses.

    In fact, the new government recommendation of .7 ppm flat has never been made official by the very organization that announced it. The standing recommendation is .7 to 1.2 ppm depending upon the theoretical weather of the area into which it is dumped (which is supposed to determine how much water everyone drinks (everyone?) and how much exposure to fluoride one gets – (the worst example of how not to apply any drug to an entire population). This recommendation was originally announced by the US Public Health Service in the 1950’s. Then, in January of 2011, they made a very public announcement with the PROPOSAL that the policy change to .7 ppm flat because of the proliferation of fluorosis among young children in the US (CDC estimate of over 40 percent). Supposedly, we were getting “too much of a good thing.” That policy PROPOSAL for a new recommendation has never been made official. But, the EPA has released a so-called scientific analysis that clumsily defends the move by the USPHS. Yet, every fluoridating water department and health department acts like .7 ppm is now the gospel. And, the US Public Health Service is guarded from responsibility because all of these recommendations are just that – RECOMMENDATIONS. They aren’t law and they aren’t regulations. (Although in some states and countries such as Australia, fluoridation is mandated). So, whatever long term adverse health effects or liability may be attributed to human exposure to fluoride, they cannot be used in court against a public government authority that maintains that it was acting in the best interests of the public by promoting a health intervention that is “generally accepted by scientific consensus.” This basically puts the entire burden of proof onto those in the public who understand what is really being done to them. Fluoridation is basically a direct and clever contradiction of the Precautionary Principle. It is an unnecessary and outdated experiment on an unsuspecting public that has gone completely out of control.

    As long as it is profitable to do so, and as long as the government and health professionals continue to use bad science and illogical arguments to defend it, fluoridation will be used and defended by those who need a cheap method of ridding themselves of a dangerous pollution by product with known long term adverse health effects.

    It’s so ingenious, the general public has been bamboozled by the scam for almost seven decades. Thank god a growing number of us are beginning to understand the magnitude of this scam.

    • Great comment, Jack! Thanks for taking the time.

      AFAM

    • Has the general public really been bamboozled? The toxic waste pushers have lost most of the referendums on the issue, and forced-fluoridation has often been imposed without a vote. Don’t make the mistake of thinking we live in democracies.

      • CDC has released the latest statistics on community water fluoridation for the nation on its Web site (www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2012stats.htm).

        The latest data show that in 2012, 74.6% of the U.S. population on community water systems, or a total of 210.7 million people, had access to optimally fluoridated water. This is significant progress from the Healthy People 2020 baseline of 72.4% (2008) towards the target of 79.6%. Since 2008, an additional 15 million people have received the benefit of fluoridated water. Evidence shows that the prevalence of tooth decay is substantially lower in communities with water fluoridation.

        For more information on water fluoridation, visit the CDC Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation.
        And fluoride is on the way out. dream on

  26. Looks like Ken Perrott from New Zealand is posting under the name Chris. If you have been following the debate on Ken’s blog you will know that Ken is not reasonable and is obsessed with wanting to force fluoride chemicals down everyone’s throat.

    • The question is, what has got them so worried that they need to come over here to a “little” anti-fluoridation blog based in country Victoria to try and discredit us? It makes me wonder if the material on this blog is hitting a nerve. GOOD! They won’t stop us. Inspires us to destroy them even further.

    • For those interested in following the debate between me and Paul Connett go to http://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoride-debate/. I thought the debate had concluded because Paul pulled out, but he has found new life and wants to make at least one more response. So it is not over yet. Thanks for mentioning my blog, Mary.

      • Ken, Here’s a new forum for you to respond to how you can justify ignoring the ‘informed consent to treatment’ criterion whereby those with ‘capacity’ can make individual decisions for themselves about their own treatments.

        • Ken doesn’t like talking about informed consent to treatment | https://afamildura.wordpress.com/category/notes/ | Obviously because he and his fluoridation cronies have no legitimate ethical defense for their actions. Instead, all they have are smoke and mirrors. These worked for a while, but now their fraud is crumbling before their eyes.

          • This issue was thrashed out I. Depth in my exchange with Paul – and in the discussion section of the articles.

            • We have been notified about your debate page. It was an interesting concept, to have a detailed Internet debate over time, but I think your biggest mistake was to open up the Comments section. We enjoyed the debate between yourself and Paul, but many of the comments – from both sides – were disgraceful. Eventually, the comments started to interfere with the original debate as they began to be included in the debate itself. Eventually, all we heard about was the comments, rather than the actual debate between you and Paul. After a while, that became a turn off. No offense, just our humble view on the matter. It would have been nice to see two chemists have a debate – clean and simple – without all the external noise going on.

              • It wasn’t just the comments which were disgraceful. The Parrot himself is a very dishonest, depraved individual, as clearly demonstrated in his so-called debate.

                • “It wasn’t just the comments which were disgraceful. The Parrot himself is a very dishonest, depraved individual, as clearly demonstrated in his so-called debate.”

                  This may be the case, but we are not familiar with Perrot, so we couldn’t really make that call. From what we know of him, he seems like just a typical pro-fluoridationist, although it is interesting that he seems to have a chemistry background as opposed to a dental background (like most others). Also, we only followed the debate casually, not intensively as others have. You are welcome to elaborate on Perrot and why you feel this way about him, if you like. We don’t censor comments.

                  And of course, Ken is welcome to respond.

          • I encourage readers to think for themselves and look through the exchange. Shortly I will post a PDF file with the total exchange (no, not feasible to include all the comments, unfortunately) which will make that easier.

            Paul and Mary chose to use a diversion tactic by quoting single comments out of context. I guess because they could not handle the content of the exchange themselves. And it is telling you attempt the same.

            All this has done is bring attention to the specific comment which would otherwise have been buried in the almost 2000 comments received. Sort of backfired, didn’t it?

            But, personally, I found the comments in the whole very useful. There were some very bright people commenting. And most of Paul’s office had a go too so it was hardly one sided. (one even commented under an alias which I thought somewhat dishonest).

            I personally learned a lo from the comments and got a fair number if interesting citations.

            The exchange was a learning experience for me – it is a pity that Paul packed a sad and withdrew. But it gave me an opportunity to out my thoughts in order and actually see know weak Paul’s arguments are.

            • Of course, Ken, it is your blog – your turf – and you have the right to operate things as you wish. However, would you be willing to take a few suggestions as to how we feel it could have been improved (for the benefit of everyone, not just one side or the other)?

              • The appropriate place to comment is at the exchange itself – probably best at http://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoride-debate/. That way others can join in (there has been a number of comments already about the exchange – most favourable). I don’t see any value in a critique here as it would not be objective.

                However, the appropriate time would have been at the beginning as the exchange is now finished, although Paul has indicated he wants to take advantage of a right of reply.

                However, comments on the form of the PDF document of the exchange would now be useful. Also whether anyone is interested in a ePub or mobi eBook version. And how it should be circulated.

                Now is the time to comment on that as such comment can have an influence.

                • “I don’t see any value in a critique here as it would not be objective.” | Perhaps we weren’t clear. Out critique would not be of your position on fluoridation, or advocacy for ours. Rather, notes on general formatting, protocols, etc, for this type of debate. Simply from one blogger to another, rather than two opposing viewpoints.

                  “Now is the time to comment on that as such comment can have an influence.” | Okay, we’ll see what we can do, but tomorrow, we’re going offline for a few weeks.

                • PS. Okay Ken, on second thoughts, tell you what, we’ll hold back on any suggestions until you release your PDF. That may solve a few issues in itself.

            • Parrot, you shouldn’t be criticising the weakness of other people’s arguments. I have challenged you many times to cite a single good quality original research study which indicates that the forced-fluoridation experiment is anything but dangerous and useless, and you never respond. Paul Connett made a similar challenge more than once, which you also ignored. Your deflection and waffle is laughable. You and the rest of the toxic waste pushing gang have to be the world’s biggest hypocrites.

        • Thanks, Dan. You have just illustrated why such a critique is impossible here.

          • Running scared again Ken, you and all your proponents of fluoridation cronies “never ever” answer the hard questions, you’re all pathetic school yard bullies, pathetically hiding behind all the corporate dollars and that’s the only motivation you people have.

            WATER FLUORIDATION HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PUBLIC’S OR THE CHILDREN’S GOOD HEALTH!

            For the umpteenth time I’ll ask you and any of your proponents of water fluoridation cronies, show me, us and the whole world, the original stand alone published peer reviewed paper that proves hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluoride and/or calcium fluoride for that matter, is “SAFE AND EFFECTIVE?”

            You damn well know that there is not one and that’s why you are going to slide back under the rock where you came from.

            Cheers Kenny and yes I am the person who wrote to you on your Open Parachute site who has been formally diagnosed with “SKELETAL FLUOROSIS” which not one Dr, up to about 10 different Drs, 2 different Physiotherapists, 2 Endocrinologists, one Neuroendocrinologist, a Rheumatologist, 2 Medical Students who my diagnosing Dr asked me to talk to about skeletal fluorosis and many more so called medical professionals including a dentist and several pharmacists have ever heard of the condition.

            It took a Dr from the USA who is now practicing here in South Australia to diagnose me and Professor A. K. Susheela who I’ve been in contact with as well said that before I was diagnosed that I am a patient of skeletal fluorosis and she treats thousands of fluoride poisoned patients in India.

            Now if that’s not a massive coverup, then I don’t know what is.

            These medical professionals aren’t being taught about fluoride poisoning/skeletal fluorosis at Medical Schools around Australia and/or in Universities.

            How the hell are you going to explain that fact Ken?

            So how would they know what arthritis is from skeletal fluorosis when they have absolutely no idea what they are looking at in the 1st place Ken?

            So don’t give me that crap about there’s hundreds and thousands of papers that prove hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluoride and/or calcium fluoride for that matter, is “SAFE AND EFFECTIVE because there is not one original stand alone published peer reviewed paper out there because there isn’t ONE and you and ALL your water fluoridation cronies know it!

            Have a nice day Kenny.

            • Kaboom !!! good on you Darryl – brilliantly said – yes I had to laugh at that Open Parachute F debate – what debate??? full of Pro-fluoridation cronies and not interested in anything else – I put one lot of comments in and of course, got lectured by him that he will only approve it this time but don’t do the copy and pasting of information links – so I never bothered again and I’ll bet this happened to countless people – which he deceptively called it ‘debate’ – I bet he never approved many – he got the chance to shoot his mouth of and the other cronies here on AFAM – pray tell ?? how else do we get the truth to the public that water fluoridation is not safe and not effective when we have nothing but ‘butt puppets’ in mainstream media and pretty much elsewhere (thanks to AFAM for that term which says it spot on) – it’s very difficult to impossible just comments approved in mainstream media let alone them publishing the truth.

              Thank you Darryl for this much deserved kaboom on these Pro-fluoridation (chronic poisoning) fanatics – they have put us all in harm’s way with our health and many of us are suffering and will continue to suffer until these hazardous waste pollutants aka water fluoridation is banned for all time.

            • Oh yes Darryl, the ignorance/cover-up in mainstream medicine, veterinary medicine etc. etc., in Australia re: ‘fluorides’ is utterly staggering – I guess it doesn’t help us at all that our Dental schools/universities are industry sponsored …..one example The Dental School at Adelaide University is referred to as The Colgate Wing. Conflicts of interests coming out of the eyeballs……….

              Corrupt to the core – the old saying industry frontmen stacked everywhere – revolving doors from industries to governments………….
              and a little reminder again why we don’t think chronically poisoning the population, animals, all life and environment with hazardous waste pollutants aka water fluoridation should be happening especially for so many decades and we are in dental crisis !!! Australia & USA !!! and why we don’t trust THE PRO-FLUORIDATION WHITECOATS their arrogance, wilfull and reckless negligence at our expense AND THEIR PARROTED PHRASE ‘WATER FLUORIDATION IS SAFE & EFFECTIVE’ – BULLDUST !!! there’s nothing safe nor effective about hazardous waste & co-contaminants from the phosphate fertilizer industries etc… being dumped/disposed of into the populations’ drinking water, hence contaminating our food chain, hence contaminating us, our environment and all life. Absolute madness and it must be stopped by the power of the people.

              +
              Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 – Political Donations – list includes ADA & AMA
              ADA 48th AMA 24th http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=a
              ADA http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000105
              AMA http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000068
              +
              Can Dentists & Doctors be trusted when they say Water Fluoridation is Safe & Effective?
              http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/can-dentists-doctors-be-trusted-when-they-say-water-fluoridation-is-safe-effective.pdf

              Revealing How Dentists Profit By Abusing Children – In ‘Drilling for Dollars,’ a local TV reporter presented shocking visual and audio testimony about a situation in which children were being needlessly treated and harmed because of corporate greed. 2009 http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100963/Revealing-How-Dentists-Profit-By-Abusing-Children.aspx

              REPORT: Brief Overview of Water Fluoridation/Pollution – 11 September, 2013 Diane Drayton Buckland
              http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/brief-overview-of-water-fluoridation_pollution-11-september-2013-diane-drayton-buckland1.pdf

  27. Bring back parental responsibility! Fluoridation leads, in some instances, to parental delinquency when it comes to monitoring children’s diets and dental care.

    • That’s a very interesting point. Not to mention, the supposed ‘evidence’ is very weak | http://youtu.be/-yq3zZXzU7M | Parents obviously get a false sense of security, “believing” childrens’ teeth will magically fixed by drinking fluoridated water. Of course, they have been taken in by the decades of propaganda that supports this scientific and ethical fraud.

    • Re fluoridation causing parental delinquency: When Melbourne was fluoridated, a child ate lollies while two women conversed. One women remarked about the potential for the lollies to cause tooth decay. The mother of the lolly-eating child responded to the effect that it’s alright – because the water is fluoridated!

  28. Here is one of the Dentists with integrity, honor, ethics who truly cares for the population and who is absolutely against ‘water fluoridation’:-

    Delivered to Lismore Council
    By Dr Andrew Taylor BDS
    Tuesday 3rd December 2013

    Councillors, ladies and gentlemen,

    My name is Andrew Taylor, I am a dentist, and I want to tell you tonight why I take the position I do on this issue.

    I graduated from Sydney Univ. Dental Faculty in 1975. I worked in Sydney for 21years, and moved to the Far north coast in 2000.

    Whilst setting up my practice, I worked as the Norfolk Is dentist for three months and also locumed at Walgett, Rockhampton, Ceduna and the Local Public clinics of Ballina, Mullumbimby and G’bar .

    I have seen a broad range of dental situations & caries incidence, in both the private and public systems, in both fluoridated and non- fluoridated areas and frankly, there is no difference- you wouldn’t know that you were in one, or the other.

    The image constantly shown, by the DoH presenters, of the child with a full mouth of decay is an exception. That scenario may be caused by one or more of the following reasons; the child is born with genetically defective teeth, low parental education, lack of parental care where children are left to fend for themselves, and poverty. Severe tooth decay is not due to a lack of fluoride.

    WHY do we have the beliefs we hold? From a dentist’s perspective, we learnt our information at University, as recent school leavers, keen to gain a profession, given information from our Professors and lecturers, believing it all to be true, and who are we to question them? We are kept so busy with the volume of information to absorb that there really is no time for independent research. There is also the expectation to reproduce information at exam time, in order to graduate.

    We now have established in us, by the system, our new found core beliefs.
    These are unshakable. However, generally we have not studied the research, nor the history in any depth. We only know what our teachers wanted us to know.

    In 1990 my eyes were opened to the misinformation I had been taught, for example, about the safety of mercury in dental amalgam. Incredibly, the use of dental amalgam is still taught in dental schools today despite the United Nations Environment Plan to reduce mercury in the environment world- wide, notwithstanding the fact that Australia recently signed up to the Minimatta Protocol to phase out dental amalgam.

    The history of Fluoridation has an equally sordid past as mercury amalgam. When it was first proposed to add fluoride waste from the aluminium industry to drinking water, the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association & United States Public Health Service, all expressed concerns “ Fluorides are protoplasmic poisons, inhibiting certain enzyme systems” and “we do know the use of drinking water containing as little as 1-3 ppm fluoride will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, & osteoporosis, as well as goiter, and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances…”Osteoporosis and thyroid issues are at epidemic levels today.

    In 1945 the city fathers of GRAND RAPIDS in Michigan recklessly pushed ahead and fluoridated the people without bothering to obtain their opinion or consent. The nearby non fluoridated city of MUSKEGON was to be used as a control. The trial was to run for 10 years. However, at the 5 year mark, the caries incidence in Grand Rapids had fallen dramatically. The caries incidence had also fallen by the same amount in non-fluoridated Muskegon. The trial was abandoned and Muskegon was quickly fluoridated.

    The United States Public Health Service in 1986-87 conducted the largest survey in US history involving 39,207 children in 84 areas across the USA.
    The result showed that there was very little difference in the decay rate of permanent teeth in fluoridated and non-fluoridated USA communities.

    I appreciate that as councilors, you have the best interests of your community at heart, and believe that you are making a positive contribution to your community as demonstrated by your interest in obtaining more information on this issue. I applaud you for this.

    I have heard that some of you have read all there is to read on this issue.
    I draw your attention to a book by Dr Philip Sutton DDSc, LDS, FRACDS, he graduated in 1935, and immediately undertook post graduate study in Physiology and Biochemistry. Post WW II he completed his Doctor of Dental Science degree, the highest dental research degree possible. The Professor of Statistics persuaded Dr Sutton to establish a course now called Statistics for Research Workers. He joined the Statistical Society and was later elected Chairman of the Biometric Society. In 1956 he was appointed Senior Research Fellow at the Uni of Melbourne and in 1957 was asked by the DEAN of the Faculty Sir Arthur Aimes, to check the numerical data, published from the original fluoridation trials and the scientific methods used in them. This study led Dr Sutton to write a 70 page monograph titled FLUORIDATION: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials (Published 1959 Melb Univ Press). He published a second 142 page edition in 1960 which answered the criticisms of the first edition, showing that they were false. This book remains scientifically unchallenged.

    It is now documented in the Australian Govt. National Health and Medical Research Council’s 1991 Study into Fluoridation that: “the quality of the early intervention trials was generally poor.” This study from the NHMRC also found no difference between decay rates in fluoridated and non- fluoridated areas.

    To the end of his life Dr Sutton was a seeker of truth.

    Dr John YIAMOUYIANNIS’s book Fluoride the Aging Factor is also an excellent text on the history of fluoridation, and how Fluoride affects our physiology. Another extraordinarily definitive resource, rich in quality research, is Prof Paul Connet’s book, “The Case Against Fluoride” .

    Having seen many presentations from our Dept of Health representatives, I have yet to see any real evidence to support the use of fluoridation. Their own document Oral Health 2020 indicates that there is little to no difference in decay rates between NSW areas, in the permanent teeth of young people. There are no health and safety studies or risk assessments or randomized controlled trials presented by the NSW Health.

    Instead we hear statements from proponents such as “every anti fluoridation article I’ve ever read, simply has not stood up to any rigor. It has been taken from-with a bias, cherry picking data. There is no anti-fluoride article or expert that stands up to scientific rigor.” “… all their science is flawed”.

    So let’s think about that again! All that science is flawed! Whose science is flawed? History and Dr Sutton’s work, tells me that the original studies upon which fluoridation was based, are flawed. The current studies clearly indicate little or NO difference in decay rates in the fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.

    As a population we are constantly told that fluoride is “safe and effective”, that for some, it’s become so ingrained in their thinking that they believe it completely. I now cringe when I hear the words “safe and effective”. In relation to water fluoridation, there is nothing safe or effective about it.

    You will have noticed that I have a little display of a familiar soft drink in 3 sizes, and attached to each bottle is the amount of sugar contained in each bottle. SUGAR, is the main source of the tooth decay problem, combined with a real lack of effective preventive education. Not the water, and not the lack of fluoride. I urge you not to inflict a known cumulative biological toxin on the people of Lismore.

    This is not an issue of whether we need Fluoride,
    This is not an issue of good science or bad science;
    Fluoride is NOT an essential element.
    We are lacking effective quality education.
    Adding fluoride to the water does not stop tooth decay.

    I hope that I’ve given you a few reasons why I changed my position on this issue and my fellow presenters have shown enough evidence that there is reasonable doubt you should not ignore.

    What else is available to us? – a brand new 5 chair dental clinic in ROUS Rd just waiting to be used. I have a proposal to help with the dental education of mothers to be and mothers with young children. A program supported by motivated local dentists, and that includes me, and I imagine, I would be supported by Dr White, and others , who would provide Voluntary pre-natal and anti- natal practical dental education to our community, as most local dentists have a fairly sharp social conscience. A preventive program similar to the University of Qld project that was very successfully trialed in the Logan-Beaudesert area of Qld by Ms Kathryn Plonka ( PhD student). I know all councilors have been provided the information and the link to Ms Plonks presentation. Her program, “Stop Tooth Rot in Tiny Tots” has reduced the caries incidence in a low socio-economic area from 23% of children with Early Childhood Caries down to 2-7%.. A program such as this is extremely cost effective, saving dental intervention costs and trauma, fluoride dosing infrastructure costs, plus on- going costs of ineffective fluoridation. Dr Plonka’s project showed a projected saving to the public purse of $85,000 per 100 children up to the age of 6.

    We are so blessed and should be grateful to live in this beautiful region, with its clean and abundant water supply. When most of the developed countries in the world have rejected fluoridation, it leaves me scratching my head and asking myself ‘Why does anyone still do this?’

    I have given you my reasons for rejecting fluoridation, my fellow presenters have shown you enough scientific evidence to reject fluoridation. I have outlined a cost effective and workable solution, we have the educational venue, motivated dental talent, just waiting to be utilized.

    The people of Lismore and in fact the whole of Australia, deserve Clean water for life, and I urge you not to risk exposing them to any detrimental effects that fluoridation of their water could deliver.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    A Mayor with integrity and ethics – against Water Fluoridation (pollution) – Byron Shire Mayor Simon Richardson said it was “no surprise” the state had stepped in.

    “It’s disappointing that those who have reservations to fluoride have been labelled some sort of extremist hysterical fringe,” he said.
    “I think they are as informed; they’re just not supported by large companies whose interest it is to dump their fluoride in our water system.”
    http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/legislation-could-force-fluoridation-on-byron/2019082/

    The ethical Byron Bay Mayor says the shire is happy to be a ‘black sheep’ on the issue of fluoridation. The north coast council today voted 5-3 against a motion to add fluoride to its water supplies.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-21/byron-black-sheep-flouridation/5108468

    He said he would prefer the $7 million state government money allocated for fluoride infrastructure be spent on pre-natal and post-natal education and free dental clinics. “Bring back primary school dental health check-ups.”

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/byron-shire-council-says-no-thanks-to-fluoride-in-their-water-supply/story-fnii5s41-1226765617670

  29. I want to chose what medication i put in my body. End of story.

  30. Ah yes, Vegemite Kurt, Little Johnny and Slick Steve – regurgitating their Pro-fluoridation Propaganda all over the Internet – these members of the Fluoride Dental Mafia are well known everywhere – they head the Pro-Fluoridation Rabid Response Team – many more informed and aware people will realise why these blokes are fighting so hard to keep this terrible hazardous waste (aka water fluoridation) in our water supplies and hence food chain.

    Now the people can clearly see with the Pro-fluoride attack dogs just how much money is obviously involved in this chronic poisoning of the population by way of dangerously corrosive hazardous waste known as water fluoridation – they are everywhere bullying, ridiculing, slandering, attacking anyone who stands up against this forced chronic poisoning via water fluoridation. It is the individuals themselves in all populations who decide what treatment they consent to or refuse, it is the individual who decides what goes into our bodies and what does not as we are supposed to be in charge of our own well being – these pro-fluoridation extremists must be stopped ramming these hazardous waste pollutants down our throats – all I hope is in my lifetime I get to see massive class actions against all those responsible for continuing to force this on our population.

    All thinking people must ask, who in their right minds would force an entire population to consume this in everything we eat, drink and bathe in, also ask why would Dentists and doctors fight to the death to enforce this pollutant on us all & our environment if as they say it is effective at reducing dental decay by between 30 & 60% thus reducing their income. What BS ! You know it’s a dirty fraud when they are fighting like this to keep these hazardous waste pollutants in our water and food supplies. They say it is safe and effective and Australia wide and USA all in dental crisis after decades of the poison fluoridation commencing firstly in Australia 1953 and USA in 1945. They all squeal like stuck pigs when any place tries to end water fluoridation pollution or stop it from starting.

    One can assume that you can’t get a better cash cow than a chronically sick and diseased population with damaged teeth (and our pets suffer too) and we like the US are in ‘dental crisis – from years, decades, lifetimes of consuming ( in everything we eat drink and bathe in) dangerously corrosive hazardous waste pollutants, hexafluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, beryllium etc.. (also added in this hazardous waste soup is aluminium sulphate).

    The only answer EVER was to provide access to affordable dental health care services for all the population, not the disposal of hazardous waste pollutants hexafluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, beryllium, etc., known as water fluoridation; into our drinking water supplies and hence also the contamination of our food chain and using the populations’ kidneys as hazardous waste disposal/filtration units.

    What a bloody disgrace this Fluoridation Fraud/Web of Deception is.

    Can Dentists & Doctors be trusted when they say Water Fluoridation is Safe & Effective?
    http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/can-dentists-doctors-be-trusted-when-they-say-water-fluoridation-is-safe-effective.pdf

    The population must demand that water fluoridation/pollution be banned for all time.

    And tell this Pro-fluoridation Rabid Response Team of Dentists where to go !!

    • We wonder where they would sell their toxic waste, if not to water departments | https://afamildura.wordpress.com/fluoridation-chemicals/ | They would have a dillema for sure.

    • Diane states, “Why would Dentists and doctors fight to the death to enforce this pollutant on us all & our environment if as they say it is effective at reducing dental decay by between 30 & 60% thus reducing their income. ”

      Answer: Public health.

      • You speak with forked tongue and your well known disgraceful arrogant and obnoxious unprofessional behavior gives you away; that you are not a kind, compassionate, caring and loving human being who cares about public health – you don’t care about public health at all or you would not be part of the Pro-fluoride cartel pushing this hazardous waste on us all – all you care about is $$$$$$$
        You are all so desperate for your ‘agenda’ to continue that you will attack and ‘spin doctor’ anything, anyone, anywhere who goes against your Pro-fluoridation Cartel/Web of Deception.

        USA is in dental crisis just like Australia is after decades of WF /pollution.

        One of the many examples dental crisis /fluoridation: Free dental clinic draws thousands in need of care in FLUORIDATED SACRAMENTO, California, where dentists removed thousands of rotten teeth, One young attendee pulled her own teeth because dental care is so expensive 25 Aug. 2012
        http://www.kcra.com/Free-dental-clinic-draws-thousands-in-need-of-care/-/11798090/16269130/-/tgwae4/-/index.html

        +
        100% FLUORIDATED KENTUCKY – ORAL CRISIS WILLIAMSBURG, Ky. (AP) – Twelve-year-old Jordan Rickett nervously waited his turn in the Whitley County Central Elementary School gym, watching as a classmate seated in a dental chair got his teeth examined. “He’s sure been there a long time,” Jordan said, fidgeting. “I hope it doesn’t take that long for me.” For children in parts of rural Kentucky where dentists are in short supply, the dentists come to them. A specially equipped truck packed with portable chairs, lights, tables and instruments rolls into school gyms as part of Seal Kentucky, a program aimed at improving access to dental care for underserved children. Jordan had four teeth sealed that day; the boy ahead of him, 11-year-old Larry Angel, had 15 that needed sealing. “Oral disease is reaching a crisis level for children across the country and here in Kentucky,” said Jim Cecil, administrator of Oral Health Programs for the Kentucky Department of Public Health. http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/fluoridated-kentucky-part-of-the-oral-health-crisis/
        +

        Springfield Missouri Fluoridated
        Springfield Dentists to Decide What to Do With 3000 Pulled Teeth
        Springfield, Missouri – After the free dental clinic this weekend local dentist have to decide what to do with nearly 3000 pulled teeth. The dentists are submitting ideas at their super-secret dentist meetings this Thursday in the basement of Richard’s Candy House (which they super secretly own to drum-up more business). The ideas range from the absurd to the grotesque, to the perfectly sensible and back to grotesque. 
        http://www.faircitynews.com/2011/10/03/springfield-dentist-try-to-decide-what-to-do-with-3000-pulled-teeth/
        +

        Dental Crisis in America – After up to 67 years of water fluoridation foisted upon Americans by the American Dental Association and its constituents groups, a Dental Crisis exists in America. Senator Sanders introduced legislation to remedy this situation which is endorsed by 37 groups but not the ADA because it includes funding for Dental Therapists which would infringe upon dentists lucrative monopoly. The ADA prefers fluoridation because it doesn’t stop tooth decay and doesn’t hurt their bottom line. In fact, dentists are making lots of money covering up fluoride-stained teeth with expensive veneers because American children are now over-fluoridated with up to 60% affected with dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. Veneers cost about $1,000.00 a tooth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oaINr51MrM

        +

        For some Americans, dental care means a sturdy chair, a fluoride swish, and a free toothbrush. But for one in three Americans, it’s a nightmare, including astronomical bills, crippling credit card debt, panicked visits to the emergency room, and life-threatening disease. 
These hardships are chronicled in a new Frontline documentary, Dollars and Dentists, which airs tonight on PBS stations. Frontline correspondent Miles O’Brien takes us behind the scenes of the documentary that explores America’s broken dental system. Frontline is produced by our partner WGBH. You can find when “Dollars and Dentists” is airing on your local PBS station here.
        http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/218621-one-third-americans-cant-afford-dental-care-says-frontline-documentary-dentists-and-dollars/
        +

        ******* Revealing How Dentists Profit By Abusing Children – In ‘Drilling for Dollars,’ a local TV reporter presented shocking visual and audio testimony about a situation in which children were being needlessly treated and harmed because of corporate greed. 2009 http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100963/Revealing-How-Dentists-Profit-By-Abusing-Children.aspx
        +

        Wall Street Journal says Dentists Are Big Political Players and do all they can to preserve their monopoly.” Huge donations to secure their political agendas.
        They boasted the largest single health-care PAC in 2008, gave nearly $13 million to state and local politicians in 2010, raising the question: What do dentists want? Alicia Mundy has details on The News Hub. Photo: Reuters. http://live.wsj.com/video/why-dentists-are-big-political-players/4ADDACA4-8F50-43D4-B694-D541A38FBF3A.html#!4ADDACA4-8F50-43D4-B694-D541A38FBF3A

        +

        Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 – Political Donations – list includes ADA & AMA
        ADA 48th AMA 24th http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=a
        ADA http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000105
        AMA http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000068

        +

        *******Can Dentists & Doctors be trusted when they say Water Fluoridation is Safe & Effective?
        NO they cannot.
        http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/can-dentists-doctors-be-trusted-when-they-say-water-fluoridation-is-safe-effective.pdf

        +

        REPORT: 100% fluoridated Kentucky, USA – Rampant Dental Decay & chronic disease epidemic – DDB http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rampant-dental-decay-chronic-disease-epidemic-in-100-fluoridated-kentucky-usa-13-aug-2013-ddb.pdf

        +
        INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE IN SOCIETY Science Society Sustainability
        NO TO FLUORIDATION
        
DENTAL DISEASE INCREASES SIX‐FOLD BY FLUORIDATION http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NotoFluoridation.php

        +
        FLUORIDATION – FOLLOW THE MONEY
        http://fluorideinformationaustralia.wordpress.com/corruption-conflicts-of-interest/

        +

        The study also found that fluoride does not eliminate tooth decay, citing dietary sugars as the primary cause. People living in areas with fluoridated water and/or using fluoride toothpaste still got dental caries.  
        http://www.irishdentist.ie/news/news_detail.php?id=5436

        Australia wide in dental crisis after widespread fluoridation in every State, first commencing Beaconsfield, Tasmania in 1953 – likewise USA in dental crisis after widespread `fluoridation` first beginning in 1945 Grand Rapids Michigan

        The only answer EVER was to provide access to affordable dental health care services for all the population, not the disposal of hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, berrylium, etc., (known as water fluoridation); into our drinking water supplies and hence also the contamination of our food chain and using the populations` kidneys as hazardous waste disposal/filtration units.

      • Can’t you just feel the love and generosity from the Denti$t$ ? (chuckle)

        Politics, Power and Misinformation Bullied City to Resume Fluoridation
        NEW YORK, Oct. 18, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Struggling to balance the budget, 2 years ago, the Brooksville, Florida, City Council voted unanimously to stop fluoridation to ease the tax burden on their 8,000 residents. Under siege from misguided and misinformed activists headed by dentist Johnny Johnson and the Tampa Bay Times, the council reversed its decision, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
        Only Mayor Bradburn stuck to her convictions to reject fluoridation in Brooksville. Few, if any, local residents engaged in the discussion and 3 local dentists who opposed fluoridation feared publicly stating their position would hurt them.
        “We suspect fear of political retribution or personal character assassination forced the reversal vote,” says Connett. “We need more brave legislators like Mayor Bradburn. But, instead of praising her for a good fiscal decision to cut an unnecessary program to save money for her aging constituents, the Tampa Bay Times vilified her.”
        **The Florida Council of 100 includes a representative from Mosaic, a company that supplies all of Florida’s and much of the country’s fluoridation chemicals e.g. hydrofluosilicic acid.
        http://www.FluorideAction.Net
        http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/politics-power-and-misinformation-bullied-city-to-resume-fluoridation-228351851.html

        ~~

        Clean Water Portland Calls for Investigation of Improper Collaboration
        New emails reveal direct involvement by State Health Authority in Pro-Fluoride Campaign
        https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2Y7zHHCABQAazlDWXFGYmdhRzQ/edit

        Did state employees help pro-fluoride advocates on state time?
        | Politics | KATU.com Portland, Oregon http://www.katu.com/politics/Did-state-employees-help-pro-fluoride-advocates-on-state-time-208242221.html?tab=video&c=y

        NO FLUORIDATION FOR PORTLAND, OREGON
        Portland’s Vote Reflects Recent Scientific Findings on Fluoridation’s Risks
        Source: Clean Water Portland: Press Release | May 22nd, 2013 |
        Portland dentist Dr. Jay Levy, DDS, who was active in opposing the Portland fluoridation measure, agreed. “Many dentists I know have the best intentions when it comes to fluoridation, but they just are not aware that the science regarding fluoridation risks has changed so significantly in recent years. For many, the belief that fluoridation is safe is akin to a knee-jerk reflex based on what they learned in dental school, and that’s a real problem when you’re dealing with public health.”
        “Across the country, we are seeing people who once supported fluoridation switch their position after spending some time reading the recent studies for themselves and realizing that a practice they long assumed to be safe is far riskier than they thought,” says Michael Connett, a researcher with the Fluoride Action Network, the nation’s leading organization on fluoridation issues.
        “Portland voters chose to protect children from risky fluoridation chemicals. As a community, we stand on the side of science, which clearly shows growing cause for concern about health risks associated with fluorosilicic acid. Anyone can spend an hour on the internet and read for themselves what the National Academy of Science report has to say about fluoride’s risks,” says Antonia Giedwoyn with the Sierra Club’s Columbia Group, which has opposed the Portland fluoridation measure.
        http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/cwp_may22/

        Photographs from Clean Water Portland http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/portland_photos/
        +

        Portland’s Vote Reflects Recent Scientific Findings on Fluoridation’s Risks
        22 May, 2013 – Portland dentist Dr. Jay Levy, DDS, who was active in opposing the Portland fluoridation measure, agreed. “Many dentists I know have the best intentions when it comes to fluoridation, but they just are not aware that the science regarding fluoridation risks has changed so significantly in recent years. For many, the belief that fluoridation is safe is akin to a knee-jerk reflex based on what they learned in dental school, and that’s a real problem when you’re dealing with public health.”
        “Across the country, we are seeing people who once supported fluoridation switch their position after spending some time reading the recent studies for themselves and realizing that a practice they long assumed to be safe is far riskier than they thought,” says Michael Connett, a researcher with the Fluoride Action Network, the nation’s leading organization on fluoridation issues.
        “Portland voters chose to protect children from risky fluoridation chemicals. As a community, we stand on the side of science, which clearly shows growing cause for concern about health risks associated with fluorosilicic acid. Anyone can spend an hour on the internet and read for themselves what the National Academy of Science report has to say about fluoride’s risks,” says Antonia Giedwoyn with the Sierra Club’s Columbia Group, which has opposed the Portland fluoridation measure.
        http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/cwp_may22/
        ~~

        Let us clarify something regarding FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK (Professor Paul Connett) website http://www.fluoridealert.org – FAN seeks to broaden awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds among citizens, scientists, and policymakers alike. FAN not only provides comprehensive and up-to-date information, but remains vigilant in monitoring government agency actions that impact the public’s exposure to fluoride.

        I am sure many will be disturbed by the actions of the ADA and when this first happened some years ago, it certainly was disturbing to all Truth Seekers; the lengths to which some pro-fluoride fanatics go, in this case, please note that after Fluoride Action Network and the dot org domain was originally secured (fluoridealert.org ) and before Fluoride Action Network could secure the domain name fluoridealert.com – that the American Dental Association (allegedly) deviously many say, swooped in and ‘nicked’ the fluoridealert.com domain name of Fluoride Action Network’s fluoridealert.org

        So to re-clarify this ‘interesting’ piece of pro-fluoride ‘manoeuvering’/deception by the ADA:-

        Fluoride Action Network Professor Paul Connett http://www.fluoridealert.org

        American Dental Association (who allegedly) ‘nicked’ the dot com http://www.fluoridealert.com

        I guess that’s a pretty effective way to impede people and researchers getting truth !

        ~~

        The continuing fraud of water fluoridation/pollution is obscene:
        Fluoridation & The Web Of Deceit – Conflicts of Interests

        The Girl Against Fluoride Independent Researcher and Activist – Ireland –
        Professor Denis O Mullane is Vice Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Irish Expert Body of fluorides & health. Although he calls himself “an independent objective research worker in the field of Dental Public Health”, this man has promoted water fluoridation around the world for many years. He has pushed water fluoridation in South Africa along with Seamus Hickey.
        Despite Mr Mullane’s pro fluoride bias, in 2002 Michael Martin gave him a grant estimated at a million to investigate the benefits and risks of water fluoridation.

        The British Fluoridation Society includes Denis Mullane in their information leaflets. He is also connected with the British Nutrition Foundation – this was set up in the 1960’s by sugar & pharmaceutical companies such as Tate and Lyle ltd, Cadburys, Proctor & Gamble. Denis Mullane’s uncle was chief chemist of Irish Sugar Company.

        Mr Mullane is part of a group rewriting a document on “Fluorides and Oral Health”, for the WHO. This is one of the men who continues to say that water fluoridation is safe & yet the chemicals used in water fluoridation in Ireland were banned for their use as a wood preservative.
        ~~

        UK Government Health Departments fund the British Fluoridation Society 
http://www.fluoridationfacts.com/news/pressrel/pr001203_006.htm

        ~~

        Bulletin of the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Print version ISSN 0042-9686
Bull World Health Organ vol.83 no.9 Genebra Sept. 2005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0042-96862005000900012  
POLICY AND PRACTICE 
The effective use of fluorides in public health
Sheila JonesI,1; Brian A. BurtII; Poul Erik PetersenIII; Michael A. LennonIV
British Fluoridation Society, Ward 4, Booth Hall Children’s Hospital, Charlestown Road, Manchester M9 7AA, England 
IIDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, USA 
IIIOral Health Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland 
IVDepartment of Oral Health and Development, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, England
Competing interests: Sheila Jones is a paid officer of the British Fluoridation Society – a not-for-profit organization funded largely by United Kingdom government health promotion grants to support water fluoridation initiatives. Michael A. Lennon is unpaid Chairman of the British Fluoridation Society. 
http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862005000900012&script=sci_arttext
        ~~

        Conflicts of Interests……Fluoridation Fraud……
        Wednesday, July 17, 2013
        Pew Foundation Misleads Legislators about Fluoride
        A 7/2/2013 letter signed by Shelly Gehshan of the Pew Foundation to The Dalles, Oregon, Mayor and City Council contains many falsehoods. The most egregious is her dismissal of  Harvard research showing a link between fluoride and lower IQ.  Gehshan wrote the following:

        “anti-fluoride groups claim that fluoride causes lower IQ scores in children, but many of the studies they cite were from areas in China, Mongolia and Iran in which the natural fluoride levels were at least four or five times higher than the level used to fluoridate water in The Dalles.  One study including fluoride levels that reached as high as 11.5 milligrams per liter – a concentration that is roughly 10 times higher than the level that is used to fluoridate American communities. In addition, the Harvard researchers who examined these IQ studies found that each of the studies “had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious, which limit the conclusions that can be drawn.” 17 Furthermore, the Harvard researchers publicly distanced themselves from the way that anti-fluoride groups were misrepresenting these IQ studies.18  Anti-fluoride groups also ignore historical evidence that undermines their claim – between the 1940s and the 1990s, the average IQ scores of Americans improved 15 points while fluoridation steadily expanded to serve millions of additional people 19.”

        When Gehshan writes, “the Harvard researchers (Grandjean et. al)  publicly distanced themselves from the way that anti-fluoride groups were misrepresenting these IQ studies,” she uses an error-laden Wichita KS newspaper article as a reference which some believe was ghost-written by Pew’s fluoridation Public Relations employee.  

        The truth is that Harvard scientist, Philippe Grandjean, MD, states the newspaper never “checked their information with the authors, even though statements were attributed to them.”

        Dr. Philippe Grandjean, the senior scientist on the Harvard team, criticized the Wichita paper for deceptively attributing its own conclusions on fluoridation to the Harvard scientists. Fluoridation’s potential to produce “chemical brain drain,” Grandjean writes, is an issue that “definitely deserves concern.”

        Grandjean also takes objection to the Wichita paper’s claim that the Harvard review only looked at studies that used “very high levels of fluoride.” The Wichita paper conveyed this impression by focusing on a single, cherry-picked study (Hu 1989) that was never published, nor even included in the Harvard review.

        The truth, Grandjean writes, is that “only 4 of 27 studies” in the Harvard review used the high levels that the Wichita paper described, and “clear differences” in IQ “were found at much lower exposures.”

        Grandjean identifies fluoride is one of 213 known brain-toxic chemicals that may lower the intelligence of generations of children, in his new book, “Only One Chance: How Environmental Pollution Impairs Brain Development,”

        EPA lists fluoride as having “Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity.”
        When environmental chemicals affect developing brains, children risk cognitive deficits, learning disabilities, mental retardation, ADHD, autism, cerebral palsy, and other disorders that will remain for a lifetime, says Grandjean. 

        “Fluorides are known to cause brain toxicity and neurological symptoms in humans,” Dr. Grandjean says. He laments that vested interests often manipulate brain-drain research and manufacture uncertainties to wrongly discredit scientists’ conclusions and credibility.
         
        Vested interests caused decades to pass before children were protected from the brain-damaging effects of lead exposure reported in the literature. We unnecessarily lost a generation to lead-induced brain damage, reports Grandjean.

        When Grandjean’s research team published a careful review of studies (meta-analysis) linking fluoride to children’s lower IQ, worried fluoridation promoters and regulators immediately and incorrectly claimed that only excessive exposures are toxic, the effect is insignificant, decades of fluoridation would have revealed brain deficits (although nobody looked, yet), and that it was probably lead and arsenic that lowered IQ, not fluoride.  Example here

        “When such a misleading fuselage is aimed at the authors of a careful meta-analysis of 27 different studies, what would it take to convince critics like that,” asks Grandjean.

        Thirty-seven human studies now link fluoride to children’s lowered IQ, some at levels considered safe in the US. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/iq-facts/ and that no research on fluoride’s human brain effects have ever been conducted in the US

        We don’t understand why Pew continues to distort the truth. 
        http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/pew-foundation-misleads-legislators.html
        +

        FLUORIDATION: A HORROR STORY  
By Wade Frazier
Brief extract: In the fluoridation issue, the same conflicts of interest and corruption that pervade organized medicine are clearly seen.  The AMA has never has had much to do with promoting the public’s well being, instead promoting cigarettes and helping to cover up health disasters.  That dynamic can also be found in the American Dental Association (ADA), where its financial relationship with candy companies is similar to the relationship the AMA had for generations with the tobacco interests.  In 1995, the ADA received 15% of its money from trade groups such as the Sugar Association, Coca-Cola, and M & M.  The ADA actively promotes compulsory fluoridation.  The ADA was also guilty of stating that the ACLU endorsed fluoridation when it in fact did not.[34]  Since 1993, the ADA has had to drop many organizations from its list of fluoridation supporters, including the EPA.[35] 
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/fluoride.htm

        ~~

        This video has Dr David Kennedy DDS speaking about how the EPA was ordered to
        lie about the safety of water fluoridation because it was/is bought and sold
        by industry: Water Fluoridation Regulations Are Based on Lies

        ~~

        Fluoridegate – The Film – US EPA shredded evidence of harm and fired Chief Scientist/Toxicologist to silence him http://www.fluoridegate.org/ and http://youtu.be/zpw5fGt4UvI

        ~~

        This FROM 1999 !! FLUORIDE/ALUMINIUM BRAIN & KIDNEY DAMAGE

        1999 US EPA MINIMIZES 80% DEATH RATE IN EXPERIMENTAL LAB RATS by George Glasser
        Recent USEPA concerns over arsenic, a Group 1 (a) carcinogen, caused the government-contracted water treatment chemical certification laboratory, National Sanitation Foundation International, to say that there will be “increased product failures” due to high arsenic levels in fluorosilicic acid. USEPA has asked the US Government to dramatically reduce arsenic levels in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 5 parts per billion. The EPA is keen to change the regulations because arsenic in known to cause a wide range of cancers in humans.
        More recently, the primary component of fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate – silicon – has also been discovered in the brain plaque of Alzheimer’s and Alzheimer’s-like dementia (ALD) victims. Silica has also been found in the brain tissue of people with primary brain tumors, which is considered a terminal condition. Although aware of these new developments, no responsible government agency including the USEPA will request that any research be done with the actual toxic waste “product” used to fluoridate public drinking water.
        source: http://www.frequencyrising.com/water_filters_fluoride_aluminum.htm
        ~~

        The Atomic Fig Leaf: How Military and Industrial Collusion foisted Fluoride on our population by Howard Straus, Editor The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson, Seven Stories Press, new York City, 2004
        Once the government could be seen as approving this chemical to “protect” our children’s dental health, it became impossible for attorneys to convince juries of the widespread and lethal toxicity of fluorine compounds. A tube of fluoridated toothpaste waved in front of a jury was the “fig leaf” for the industrial devastation on trial. Opposing scientists found their careers terminated, funds cut off, totally discredited by their colleagues. Devastated workers and their families were callously abandoned by their governments and employers. As time progressed, further industrial uses were found for fluoride, including Teflon[R], CFC propellants, GoreTex[R] and other fabrics.

        Each required worker and community exposure to fluorine, thus causing more suffering in the name of profit. Bryson documents his statements with long-suppressed studies, interviews with scientists, executives, physicians, victims and others, letters, memos, publications. Fully one third of the book is endnotes.

        THIS IS A POWERFUL INDICTMENT OF THE CALLOUS AND DEADLY COLLUSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY, IN TOTAL DISREGARD FOR THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE SURROUNDING POPULATION, WORKERS, CUSTOMERS.

        It is well worth a read. By Howard Straus, Editor.

        “In point of fact, fluorine causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.” – Dean Burk, PhD, former chief of cytochemistry at the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
        Document sourced here:
        http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Atomic+Fig+Leaf%3a+How%20+Military+and+Industrial+Collusion+Foisted+…-a0207705502

        ~~

        Almost immediately following her dismissal, Dr. Mullenix said, the Forsyth Institute received a quarter-million dollar grant from the Colgate company.
        Coincidence or reward?

        Her findings clearly detailed the developmental effects of fluoride, pre- and postnatal. Doses administered before birth produced marked hyperactivity in offspring. Postnatal administration caused the infant rats to exhibit what Dr. Mullenix calls the “couch potato syndrome”–a malaise or absence of initiative and activity. One need only observe the numerous children being dosed with Ritalin as treatment for their hyperactivity to draw logical correlations.

        Following her dismissal, the scientist’s equipment and computers, designed specifically for the studies, were mysteriously damaged and destroyed by water leakage before she could remove them from Forsyth. Coincidence?

        Dr. Mullenix was then given an unfunded research position at Children’s Hospital in Boston, but with no equipment and no money–what for? “The people at Children’s Hospital, for heaven’s sake, came right out and said they were scared because they knew how important the fluoride issue was,” Mullenix said. “Even at Forsyth they told me I was endangering funds for the institution if I published that information.”

        “It has become clear to such as Dr. Mullenix et al, that money, not truth, drives science–even at the expense of the health and lives of the nation’s citizens.” http://www.fluoridationfacts.com/education/propaganda/980100_mullenix.htm
        ~~

        FLUORIDATION – FOLLOW THE MONEY on FIA website > this is only the ‘tip of the iceberg’
        http://fluorideinformationaustralia.wordpress.com/corruption-conflicts-of-interest/

        The Fluoridation Fraud/Web of Deception is extensive and absolutely criminal to do this to we the people – the people have the power to demand that all water fluoridation/pollution be blanket banned ….and banned forever more.

        The study also found that fluoride does not eliminate tooth decay, citing dietary sugars as the primary cause. People living in areas with fluoridated water and/or using fluoride toothpaste still got dental caries.  
        http://www.irishdentist.ie/news/news_detail.php?id=5436

  31. Sue them definitely! Poisoning our water supplies on the premise of some decades old research that’s been proven dangerously wrong countless times.

  32. Nice to have some friendly shills on board, spouting their garbage. If only we were just TEETH… it would make things so much easier for the shills….. BUT, we are not. Ever heard of the ‘Bell Shaped Curve’ Kurt? And give us – PUL-EASE – the long-term safety data for all organs being ‘influenced’ by S5/6/7 – after all, none of this stuff is meant to be ingested. Topically, fine, if you want a neurotoxin near your brain. Alzhiemers is raging quite nicely in Australia, propped up by the NHMRC fob off’s; and, the Heart, Kidney and Cancer foundations who won’t even give the courtesy of warning Mothers with infants of the dangers of ingesting industrial grade fluoride….. shame on them, for making, then keeping people sick. Google – ADHD causes’ – its most revealing. But, if you don’t look, you won’t find I guess….! Blinkered vision does only the chemical cartels good. Welcome Kurt – glad you could find the time to stop by… we trust our people will educate you properly now.

  33. Nothing more toxic than a vegemite sandwich. This rubbish that I’ve just read reminds me of a young knucklehead who recently testified in front of a local city council of a long-standing fluoridated community (55 years) that anyone who supports fluoridation should be arrested for bio-terrorism for wanting to poison the public water supply.

    I looked at the facial expressions of the city council members, who had all lived in this community for most of their adult lives, raised children in this community who are now college educated and starting their families, and all love this community dearly.

    Their expressions said it all, and shortly after this testimony, which wrapped up 2 hours of pro and con speakers, saw the city council and mayor vote 6-0 to continue this proven, safe and effective public health measure called fluoridation.

    • Well, well, everybody, look who we have here. It’s Kurt Ferre – the famous butt puppet of Johnny Johnson [ http://aswla.wordpress.com/tag/dr-johnny-johnson/ ] and Steve Slott. Kurt is a well-known member of the Fluoridation Rapid Response Team, a fanatical online branch of the pro-fluoride religious police. Kurt, it is an honour to have you here. Thanks for stopping by our humble little blog. What happened? Did the American sites ban you for spamming and shilling too much? Gee, so sorry to hear about your big loss in Portland [ http://fluoridealert.org/articles/portland_victory/ ]. I know that must have broken your poor little heart. You’re angry now, aren’t you? Seeking revenge? Well, okay… do your worst. We don’t mind some entertainment. 🙂

    • Why use chimney waste which is industrial grade fluoride containing lead, arsenic and radio active compounds?
      By the way Kurt, animals that traditionally bite through bone without breaking their teeth have the highest amount of Magnesium Phosphate in the enamel. M A G N E S I U M Kurt, not fluoride is what hardens tooth enamel. It’s what they used to use to make those really hard billiard balls.
      Oh and here is the kicker Kurt, mothers milk doesn’t have much fluoride in it even when she’s taking fluoride tablets in the mistaken belief that she’s providing an essential nutrient to her baby. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Half a gram will kill an adult.
      Tell me a nutrient that will do that?
      I wonder what possessed all those apostate dentists to turn their back on fluoride around the world?
      If fluoride was so good there would not be one…not one KURT.
      In fact I have always wondered Kurt, why dentists would push so hard for something that technically should reduce their income.
      Guess what KURT……..it doesn’t.
      Go you Portland freedom fighters……..yeha!

      Cheers,
      Pete

      • my home town stopped fluoridation of the water supply decades ago..
        whether or not it is toxic no one has the right to force it on people thru drinking water.. unlike the other nasty chemicals required to make water safe fluoride is an option..
        if i want to use fluoride i have the right to buy it at the pharmacy like everybody else but keep it out of my body without my explicit consent!

      • Peter states, ” Half a gram will kill an adult.” That would be 500mgs taken at one time. Let’s do some math, Peter. 0.7 ppm = 0.7 mgs in one liter of water. 500/0.7 = 714. Peter, that would be 714 liters of water consumed at one time.

        Water can be toxic. If you drank 2 gallons or approximately 8 liters of fluoride-free water at one time, you would die from water toxicity or hyponatremia.

        16th Century European doctor and alchemist, Paracelsus, stated it well:

        “All Substances are poisons: there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.”

        Fluoride at 0.7 parts per million (ppm) is NOT toxic or poisonous.

        • Why do you have such an obsession with 0.7 ppm, Fairy? The forced-fluoridation experiment is mostly conducted with higher fluoride concentrations in Australia. Aren’t you embarrassed that you still have no idea about the concept of chronic toxicity? I’m sure it has been explained to you that healthy adults retain about 50% of absorbed fluoride on average, with the figure being much higher for some. It is very common for people who are being subjected to forced-fluoridation to have much more fluoride in their bodies than is required to kill them from acute toxicity. The only reason they are not already dead is that most of the fluoride is in their bones rather than blood and soft tissues.

          That dogma from Paracelsus is out of date. Apparently the Fairy doesn’t realise it’s the 21st century, just like the rest of the dinosaur fluoride fanatics.

        • “Water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups. In addition to the “known” adverse health effects of dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and increased risk of bone fracture, “anticipated” adverse health effects from fluoride exposure or community water fluoridation include (but are not limited to) carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, endocrine effects, increased blood lead levels, and hypersensitivity (reduced tolerance) to fluoride.” | http://wp.me/p2ZRjZ-pY

        • Typical cherry picker
          Fluoride displaces Iodine and therefore interferes with thyroid hormone production.
          Kurt haven’t you heard of bio accumulation?
          What you don’t drink ends up in the beer, soft drinks, coffee, soups, fruit and vegetables irrigated with fluoridated water. That’s why so many kids in Australia have fluorosis of the teeth and bones from too much Fluoride.
          Kurt, do you know any miners, construction workers or athletes?
          Do you know they drink up to 10 litres of water a day.
          That’s 7mg a day Kurt. TOXIC!
          Game over.Check Mate.

          But what about the confession from this Dentist: Dr Andrew Taylor BDS ?????

          Diane Lorna Drayton Buckland
          January 4, 2014 at 20:10
          Here is one of the Dentists with integrity, honor, ethics who truly cares for the population and who is absolutely against ‘water fluoridation’:-
          Delivered to Lismore Council
          By Dr Andrew Taylor BDS
          Tuesday 3rd December 2013
          Councillors, ladies and gentlemen,
          My name is Andrew Taylor, I am a dentist, and I want to tell you tonight why I take the position I do on this issue.
          I graduated from Sydney Univ. Dental Faculty in 1975. I worked in Sydney for 21years, and moved to the Far north coast in 2000.
          Whilst setting up my practice, I worked as the Norfolk Is dentist for three months and also locumed at Walgett, Rockhampton, Ceduna and the Local Public clinics of Ballina, Mullumbimby and G’bar .
          I have seen a broad range of dental situations & caries incidence, in both the private and public systems, in both fluoridated and non- fluoridated areas and frankly, there is no difference- you wouldn’t know that you were in one, or the other.
          The image constantly shown, by the DoH presenters, of the child with a full mouth of decay is an exception. That scenario may be caused by one or more of the following reasons; the child is born with genetically defective teeth, low parental education, lack of parental care where children are left to fend for themselves, and poverty. Severe tooth decay is not due to a lack of fluoride.
          WHY do we have the beliefs we hold? From a dentist’s perspective, we learnt our information at University, as recent school leavers, keen to gain a profession, given information from our Professors and lecturers, believing it all to be true, and who are we to question them? We are kept so busy with the volume of information to absorb that there really is no time for independent research. There is also the expectation to reproduce information at exam time, in order to graduate.
          We now have established in us, by the system, our new found core beliefs.
          These are unshakable. However, generally we have not studied the research, nor the history in any depth. We only know what our teachers wanted us to know.
          In 1990 my eyes were opened to the misinformation I had been taught, for example, about the safety of mercury in dental amalgam. Incredibly, the use of dental amalgam is still taught in dental schools today despite the United Nations Environment Plan to reduce mercury in the environment world- wide, notwithstanding the fact that Australia recently signed up to the Minimatta Protocol to phase out dental amalgam.
          The history of Fluoridation has an equally sordid past as mercury amalgam. When it was first proposed to add fluoride waste from the aluminium industry to drinking water, the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association & United States Public Health Service, all expressed concerns “ Fluorides are protoplasmic poisons, inhibiting certain enzyme systems” and “we do know the use of drinking water containing as little as 1-3 ppm fluoride will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, & osteoporosis, as well as goiter, and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances…”Osteoporosis and thyroid issues are at epidemic levels today.
          In 1945 the city fathers of GRAND RAPIDS in Michigan recklessly pushed ahead and fluoridated the people without bothering to obtain their opinion or consent. The nearby non fluoridated city of MUSKEGON was to be used as a control. The trial was to run for 10 years. However, at the 5 year mark, the caries incidence in Grand Rapids had fallen dramatically. The caries incidence had also fallen by the same amount in non-fluoridated Muskegon. The trial was abandoned and Muskegon was quickly fluoridated.
          The United States Public Health Service in 1986-87 conducted the largest survey in US history involving 39,207 children in 84 areas across the USA.
          The result showed that there was very little difference in the decay rate of permanent teeth in fluoridated and non-fluoridated USA communities.
          I appreciate that as councilors, you have the best interests of your community at heart, and believe that you are making a positive contribution to your community as demonstrated by your interest in obtaining more information on this issue. I applaud you for this.
          I have heard that some of you have read all there is to read on this issue.
          I draw your attention to a book by Dr Philip Sutton DDSc, LDS, FRACDS, he graduated in 1935, and immediately undertook post graduate study in Physiology and Biochemistry. Post WW II he completed his Doctor of Dental Science degree, the highest dental research degree possible. The Professor of Statistics persuaded Dr Sutton to establish a course now called Statistics for Research Workers. He joined the Statistical Society and was later elected Chairman of the Biometric Society. In 1956 he was appointed Senior Research Fellow at the Uni of Melbourne and in 1957 was asked by the DEAN of the Faculty Sir Arthur Aimes, to check the numerical data, published from the original fluoridation trials and the scientific methods used in them. This study led Dr Sutton to write a 70 page monograph titled FLUORIDATION: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials (Published 1959 Melb Univ Press). He published a second 142 page edition in 1960 which answered the criticisms of the first edition, showing that they were false. This book remains scientifically unchallenged.
          It is now documented in the Australian Govt. National Health and Medical Research Council’s 1991 Study into Fluoridation that: “the quality of the early intervention trials was generally poor.” This study from the NHMRC also found no difference between decay rates in fluoridated and non- fluoridated areas.
          To the end of his life Dr Sutton was a seeker of truth.
          Dr John YIAMOUYIANNIS’s book Fluoride the Aging Factor is also an excellent text on the history of fluoridation, and how Fluoride affects our physiology. Another extraordinarily definitive resource, rich in quality research, is Prof Paul Connet’s book, “The Case Against Fluoride” .
          Having seen many presentations from our Dept of Health representatives, I have yet to see any real evidence to support the use of fluoridation. Their own document Oral Health 2020 indicates that there is little to no difference in decay rates between NSW areas, in the permanent teeth of young people. There are no health and safety studies or risk assessments or randomized controlled trials presented by the NSW Health.
          Instead we hear statements from proponents such as “every anti fluoridation article I’ve ever read, simply has not stood up to any rigor. It has been taken from-with a bias, cherry picking data. There is no anti-fluoride article or expert that stands up to scientific rigor.” “… all their science is flawed”.
          So let’s think about that again! All that science is flawed! Whose science is flawed? History and Dr Sutton’s work, tells me that the original studies upon which fluoridation was based, are flawed. The current studies clearly indicate little or NO difference in decay rates in the fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.
          As a population we are constantly told that fluoride is “safe and effective”, that for some, it’s become so ingrained in their thinking that they believe it completely. I now cringe when I hear the words “safe and effective”. In relation to water fluoridation, there is nothing safe or effective about it.
          You will have noticed that I have a little display of a familiar soft drink in 3 sizes, and attached to each bottle is the amount of sugar contained in each bottle. SUGAR, is the main source of the tooth decay problem, combined with a real lack of effective preventive education. Not the water, and not the lack of fluoride. I urge you not to inflict a known cumulative biological toxin on the people of Lismore.
          This is not an issue of whether we need Fluoride,
          This is not an issue of good science or bad science;
          Fluoride is NOT an essential element.
          We are lacking effective quality education.
          Adding fluoride to the water does not stop tooth decay.
          I hope that I’ve given you a few reasons why I changed my position on this issue and my fellow presenters have shown enough evidence that there is reasonable doubt you should not ignore.
          What else is available to us? – a brand new 5 chair dental clinic in ROUS Rd just waiting to be used. I have a proposal to help with the dental education of mothers to be and mothers with young children. A program supported by motivated local dentists, and that includes me, and I imagine, I would be supported by Dr White, and others , who would provide Voluntary pre-natal and anti- natal practical dental education to our community, as most local dentists have a fairly sharp social conscience. A preventive program similar to the University of Qld project that was very successfully trialed in the Logan-Beaudesert area of Qld by Ms Kathryn Plonka ( PhD student). I know all councilors have been provided the information and the link to Ms Plonks presentation. Her program, “Stop Tooth Rot in Tiny Tots” has reduced the caries incidence in a low socio-economic area from 23% of children with Early Childhood Caries down to 2-7%.. A program such as this is extremely cost effective, saving dental intervention costs and trauma, fluoride dosing infrastructure costs, plus on- going costs of ineffective fluoridation. Dr Plonka’s project showed a projected saving to the public purse of $85,000 per 100 children up to the age of 6.
          We are so blessed and should be grateful to live in this beautiful region, with its clean and abundant water supply. When most of the developed countries in the world have rejected fluoridation, it leaves me scratching my head and asking myself ‘Why does anyone still do this?’
          I have given you my reasons for rejecting fluoridation, my fellow presenters have shown you enough scientific evidence to reject fluoridation. I have outlined a cost effective and workable solution, we have the educational venue, motivated dental talent, just waiting to be utilized.
          The people of Lismore and in fact the whole of Australia, deserve Clean water for life, and I urge you not to risk exposing them to any detrimental effects that fluoridation of their water could deliver.

          • Al you quote Connetts book as a reliable publication, the only reason he pushes his book is he has not got the respect to have a paper published in a peer reviewed quality publication
            and i,m still waiting for a peer reviewed paper that says fluoride at the .7PPM level is dangerous to humans,,
            chirp chirp I can hear the crickets chirping, and the sound of rustling in the scrub but no proof

            • chris, it is obvious to all sane people that the burden of proof is on the toxic waste pushers. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that scientific research requires funding. The lack of good quality safety studies is disgraceful.

            • Chris,
              Where have you been? Forget crickets. How about a killer koala ready to rip your throat out.
              Here are the pier reviewed studies you say don’t exist.
              I won’t be expecting a reply for at least a week unless you can read all these in less time.

              FLUORIDE & DIABETES:
              Tokar VI, et al. (1992). Chronic fluoride’s impact on pancreatic islet cells in workers. Gigiena i Sanitariia Nov.-Dec.:42.44.
              Xie Y, et al. (2000). Clinical study of effect of high fluoride on the function of the pancreatic islet B cells. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 19(2):84-86.
              FLUORIDE & ARTHRITIS/SKELETAL FLUOROSIS:
              Bao W, et al. (2003). Report of investigations on adult hand osteoarthritis in Fengjiabao Village, Asuo Village, and Qiancheng Village. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 22(6):517-18.
              Chen X. (1988): Radiological Analysis of Fluorotic Elbow Arthritis. Journal of Guiyang Medical College 13(2):303-305.
              Dai G, et al. (1988). Quantitative epidemiological research on the relationship between fluoride concentration of drinking water and endemic fluoride poisoning. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 7(1):21-26.
              Expert Group of the Ministry of Health for the Study of Tea-Induced Fluoride Poisoning. (2000). The dose-response relationship of tea-induced osteofluorosis and brick tea fluoride intake. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 19(4):266-68.
              Ge X, et al. (2006). Investigations on the occurrence of osteoarthritis in middle-aged and elderly persons in fluorosis-afflicted regions of Gaomi City with high fluoride concentration in drinking water. Preventive Medicine Tribune 12(1):57-58.
              Huang C. (2009). Diagnosis of endemic skeletal fluorois: clinical examination vs. X-rays. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 28(2):194-196.
              Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China. (2008). Diagnostic Criteria for Endemic Fluorosis. WS 192-2008.
              FLUORIDE & FETAL HEALTH:
              Dong Z, et al. (1993). Determination of the contents of amino-acid and monoamine neurotransmitters in fetal brains from a fluorosis-endemic area. Journal of Guiyang Medical College 18(4):241-45.
              Yu Y. (2000). Effects of fluoride on the ultrastructure of glandular epithelial cells of human fetuses. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 19(2):81-83.
              FLUORIDE & THE BRAIN:
              An J, et al. (1992). The effects of high fluoride on the level of intelligence of primary and secondary students. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 7(2):93-94.
              Dong Z, et al. (1993). Determination of the contents of amino-acid and monoamine neurotransmitters in fetal brains from a fluorosis-endemic area. Journal of Guiyang Medical College 18(4):241-45.
              Fan Z, et al. (2007). The effect of high fluoride exposure on the level of intelligence in children. Journal of Environmental Health 24(10):802-03.
              Li X, et al. (2010). Investigation and analysis of children’s IQ and dental fluorosis in high fluoride area. Chinese Journal of Pest Control 26(3):230-31.
              Li F, et al. (2009). The impact of endemic fluorosis caused by the burning of coal on the development of intelligence in children. Journal of Environmental Health 26(4):838-40.
              Liu L, et al. (1995). Brain mapping of mentally retarded children in high-fluoride regions. Journal of Applied Clinical Pediatrics 10(6):333-35.
              Shao Q, et al. (2003). Study of cognitive function impairment caused by chronic fluorosis. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 22(4):336-38.
              Sun M, et al. (1991). Measurement of intelligence by drawing test among the children in the endemic area of Al-F combined toxicosis. Journal of Guiyang Medical College 16(3):204-06.
              Wang X, et al. (2001). Effects of high iodine and high fluorine on children’s intelligence and thyroid function. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 20(4):288-90.
              Xu Y, et al. (1994). The effect of fluorine on the level of intelligence in children. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 9(2):83-84.
              Yao Y, et al. (1997). Comparable analysis on the physical and mental development of children in endemic fluorosis area with water improvement and without water improvement. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 3(1):42-43.
              Yao Y, et al. (1996). Analysis on TSH and intelligence level of children with dental Fluorosis in a high fluoride area. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 2(1):26-27.
              Zhang J, et al. (1998). The effect of high levels of arsenic and fluoride on the development of children’s intelligence. Chinese Journal of Public Health 17(2):119.
              Impact of fluoride on neurological development in children (HSPS (Harvard) and China Medical University, Shenyang)
              http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
              FLUORIDE & MALE FERTILITY:
              Chen P et al. (1997). Effects of hyperfluoride on reproduction-endocrine system of male adults. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 12(2):57-58.
              Hao P, et al. (2010). Effect of fluoride on human hypothalamus-hypophysis-testis axis hormones. Journal of Hygiene Research 39(1):53-55.
              Liu H, et al. (1988). Analysis of the effect of fluoride on male infertility in regions with reported high level of fluoride (endemic fluorosis). Journal of the Medical Institute of Suzhou 8(4):297-99.
              Sure, it shows concentration causes these effects in some studies, but this, combined with how Fluoride is metabolized and how it tricks the body into thinking it’s iodine causes iodine deficiency. Keep water pure, and keep Fluoride as a product that can be optionally bought by the consumer.

          • I couldn’t agree with you more Peter and talking about “CHERRY PICKING” information, the proponents of fluoridation are the champions of the universe at cherry picking eg:

            http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_2.pdf

      • They have to sell it to someone 🙂 | http://wp.me/P2ZRjZ-3J

    • Fairy, all your little story demonstrates is that some people are stupidly complacent. You claim that forced-fluoridation is “proven”. How can that be when you can’t even cite a single good quality original research study which indicates that the forced-fluoridation experiment is anything but dangerous and useless, you delusional twit?

    • lol. So it has been put in the water so long now, and everyone in the council is convinced by the propaganda, so it should stay. Gotta love the logic there. Forced treatment, it’s good for everyone.

      • That’s the best logic they can figure out at this point. They have no science; no ethics; no integrity. But at least they are mildly entertaining, watching them stumble around and squirm when they are regularly exposed.

  34. first thing Fluorine and fluoride are completly diffrent beasts. fluorine is a gas flouride is a mineral there is no peer reviewed papers that say fluoride is dangerous to the brain or nervous system in the .7 PPM range

    In July 2012, anti-fluoride activists circulated an article from a journal called Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) to support their claim that fluoride lowers IQ scores in children. There are several reasons why the claim being made by opponents lacks credibility.

    The EHP article reviewed studies on IQ scores for children living in areas of China, Mongolia and Iran where the water supplies have unusually high, natural fluoride levels. In many cases, the high-fluoride areas were significantly higher than the levels used to fluoridate public water systems in the U.S. In fact, the high-fluoride areas in these countries reached levels as high as 11.5 mg/L — more than 10 times higher than the optimal level used in the U.S.

    The article cites 1/2 mg of fluoride from the air and put up the usual scaremonger about levels. WHO states the top being 10 mg per day, and if you take their data ,take 25% off for other sources there is stil a lot of water to drink to get to the level of 10mg at ,7per liter
    Kumar in his studies has said that mild fluorosis acually helps teeth “Conclusion: This study’s findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis.” Iida, Hiroko, Kumar, Jayanth V., The Journal of the American Dental Association, July 2009 vol. 140 no. 7, 855-862

    Fluorosis does not degrade the health of a tooth. In fact, studies have shown that teeth with fluorosis are more resistant to cavities:

    “Conclusion: This study’s findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis.” Iida, Hiroko, Kumar, Jayanth V., The Journal of the American Dental Association, July 2009 vol. 140 no. 7, 855-862

    http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.abstract

    In responce to the cited article Archives of Environmental Health” (published by A.M.A.), February 1961

    Fluoride is not continuously cumulative in the body tissues – see recent comprehensive
    reviews (NHMRC, 1999; York Report, 2000; MRC, 2002; WHO, 2002). Approximately
    99% of body fluoride is stored in the mineralised tissues (bones and teeth). However,
    these mineralised tissues can accumulate up to a maximum 4% by weight. . Kidney is
    the only organ with soft tissue that has a changing fluoride content – reflecting its
    glomerular fluid. Fluoride does not accumulateover a lifetime, its levels in the blood
    and tissues reflect recent exposure to fluoride, with excess fluoride lost via sweat and
    faeces. Cumulative concentration of fluoride in the pineal gland is unproven. [Note:
    Kidney tissues are not affected by low levelsof fluoride – urinary concentrations of
    fluoride are proportional to intake.]

    Hydrofluoric acid cannot get into the body as it is netralised by water When FSA is added to water, it immediately breaks down into 3 things: water, silica (a bit of sand), and fluoride ions. These ions are identical to those already found in ground water, and merely serve to supplement the amount – which is miniscule.

    Fluoride is considered a nutrient, like other minerals found in water (e.g. iron, calcium), and is needed for strong bones and teeth.

    Fluoridated water helps everyone, even the elderly who have exposed roots, by continually remineralizing teeth. No other form of fluoride can equal its protection.

    • Regarding the 2012 EHP study, ‘Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’, we have listed it here alongside some key clarifications: https://afamildura.wordpress.com/reports-reviews/ | It is particularly worth noting that fluoridation promoters have misrepresented the authors repeatedly, as we show here: https://afamildura.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/rebuttal-dr-gary-m-whitford/

      Regarding the supposed ‘effectiveness’ of fluoridation, check the sub-heading ‘Tooth Decay’ at this link: https://afamildura.wordpress.com/basics/

      Regarding the 0.7ppm claim, check out this recent post (under ‘Claim 2’): https://afamildura.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/spineless-advertising-standards-authority-fails-the-people-of-new-zealand/

      So nice that you guys have stopped by. Wonder what took you so long. 🙂

      • and you send me to Connett He calls himself an expert on fluoride, but in 18yrs or so he says .He had not had a peer reviewed paper pubished on his expert subject
        And about the 07 PPM, show me the peer reviewed paper that says it is harmfull

        . Let me share with you the opinion of Dr. John Doull, highly respected toxicologist and Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee of which, as you stated, Dr. Thiessen was a member:

        “I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”

        —John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water

        This 2006 Committee deemed fluoride at 2.0 ppm to be adequately protective of the health of the public. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the level deemed safe by the Committee on which Dr. Thiessen sat.

        Additionally, let me point out a petition filed with the EPA by Dr. William Hirzy, long time antifluoridationist, former EPA Scientist, and current paid lobbyist for the antifluoridationist group, FAN. Hirzy sought for the EPA to recommend cessation of hyfrofluorosilic acid as a fluoridation substance. He based this petition on a study he and fellow antifluoridationist Robert Carton had done supposedly demonstrating costly expenses due to cancer caused by HFA. The EPA recently rejected Hirzy’s petition. The reason? Because he had made an elementary math error which overestimated his figures by 70-fold. When the EPA reviewers corrected for this error they found that Hirzy’s figures actually demonstrated just the opposite of what he had claimed. When Hitzy was notified of this, he stated that he was “embarrassed”

        Ok, so, what does this have to do with Thiessen? Well, Thiessen was asked to comment on Hirzy’s study before he presented his petition. Here is the quote of her assessment:

        “I think this is a reasonable study, and that they haven’t inflated anything,” said Kathleen Thiessen, a senior scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Inc., a health and environmental risk assessment company.”

        • Yes, we stand by each link we provided above.

        • The claim that “This 2006 Committee deemed fluoride at 2.0 ppm to be adequately protective of the health of the public” is a blatant lie. Unlike you, I have actually read the full report, chris.

          The statement that “Hirzy’s figures actually demonstrated just the opposite of what he had claimed” is misleading because it only considers the financial costs involved. The best estimate, after correction of the arithmetical error, is that the arsenic which comes with the industrial grade hexafluorosilicic acid which is used for forced-fluoridation causes three or four deaths from cancer in the US each year.

        • The law firm Covington and Burling, was the lead law firms supporting the tobacco industry. Covington and Burling were involved in the “Whitecoat Project” set up to recruit doctors and scientists to pimp for the tobacco industry, often without revealing their connections. Both John Doull and Bernard Wagner, chairs of the NRC (1993) and NRC (2006) fluoride reports, were involved in providing the tobacco industry a veneer of “respectability”.

        • Matt Jacob, who also put together this Fluoridation Rapid Response Team (Budd, Johnson, Ferre, Thatcher, and newcomer Slott) asked Doull a question – some would say pressured – to make a positive statement about fluoridation, even though he was quoted by a respected science journalist in Scientific American as saying the thyroid effects concern him and that fluoride’s link to osteosarcoma should be studied.

          You would think with a highly paid Pew fluoridation PR guru another highly paid dentist who once was CDC oral health director but now works for Pew and the ADA and CDC which FOIS emails show that some of the above are communicating about fluoridation, someone of these well-paid individuals would have… done a little more research on Dr. Doull and not pressured him to make a statement in the first place because the following doesn’t put him in a good light.

          Scientfic America Article regarding fluoride:
          The endocrine system is yet another area where some evidence exists that fluoride can have an impact. The NRC committee conclud¬ed that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine func¬tion, especially in the thyroid—the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and me-tabolism. Although researchers do not know how fluoride consumption can influence the thyroid, the effects appear to be strongly influ¬enced by diet and genetics. Says John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxi¬cology at the University of Kansas Medical Cen¬ter, who chaired the NRC committee: “The thy¬roid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored.”
          The report is, however, prompting some re¬searchers to wonder whether even 1 mg/L is too much in drinking water, in light of the growing recognition that food, beverages and dental products are also major sources of fluoride, es¬pecially for young children. The NRC commit¬tee did not formally address the question, but its analyses suggest that lower water fluorida¬tion levels may pose risks, too. “What the com¬mittee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look,” Doull says. “In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these ques¬tions are unsettled and we have much less infor¬mation than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of igno¬rance, controversy is rampant.”
          Jayanth V. Kumar, director of oral health surveillance and research at the New York State Department of Health and a member of the NRC panel who dissented from some of its findings. He acknowledges, however, that the argument for water fluoridation is not as strong in affluent areas with good nutrition and dental care. “Today it depends on what the car¬ies level is in the community. If the disease is low, the return on investment [for fluoridation] may not be all that great.”
          Opponents of fluoridation, meanwhile, have been emboldened by the NRC report. “What the committee did was very, very important, be¬cause it’s the first time a truly balanced panel has looked at this and raised important ques¬tions,” says Paul Connett, a chemistry professor at St. Lawrence University and the executive di¬rector of the Fluoride Action Network, one of the most active antifluoridation groups world¬wide. “I absolutely believe it’s a scientific turn¬ing point because now everything’s on the table. Fluoride is the most consumed drug in the U.S., and it’s time we talked about it.”

    • This disgraceful propaganda by these Extremists of Pro-fluoridation should be sued out of existence. It is purely the political and media power of the Pro-fluoridation Cartel that has allowed this Monster of Fluoridation to continue.
      See: http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/the_case_against_fluoride/

      Drinking, eating & bathing in dangerously corrosive hazardous waste pollutants hexafluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, barrylium, etc.,  (and added also to that hazardous waste soup is aluminium sulphate)  known as water fluoridation chemicals is absolutely insane:-

      FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS
      https://afamildura.wordpress.com/fluoridation-chemicals/

      Raw Fluoridation Chemical Analyses – Freedom of Information – South Australia Water Corp. Raw fluoridation chemical analyses of South Australia’s drinking water, listed below. This data has been scanned from original documents provided to Sapphire Eyes Productions by Dr. Andrew Harms and Ann Bressington. These documents show the toxic, heavy metal contaminants contained in the chemicals used to fluoridate your drinking water. These include lead, arsenic, mercury, lead, thallium, beryllium, uranium, and more. ‘FIRE WATER’ FILM SOURCE: http://tiny.cc/9oj4g  
      Source:    http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com/ Watch:  http://www.firewaterfilm.com

      The Chemistry of Water Fluoridation – What is Water Fluoridation? http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-chemistry-of-water-fluoridation.pdf

      Hydrofluoric Acid – Acutely toxic chemical
      http://www-esh.fnal.gov/CourseHandout_Mat/Hydrofluoric_Acid_Safety_Handout.pdf

      Explaining the truth about “water fluoridation” and the phosphate mining industry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZ15m-D_n8&feature=share

      Fluosilicic Acid. TOXNET profile from Hazardous Substances Data Base http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/fluosilicic.acid.toxnet.hsd.htm

      Raw Fluoridation Chemical Analyses
      http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/foi-water-analysesfor-sa-2010.html

      Hydrofluorosilicic Acid Origins http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-acid-origins/

      Dangerous Substances Regulations The Dangerous Substances Regulations 2001, prescribe water quality standards in relation to certain substances in surface waters, e.g., rivers, lakes and tidal waters. The substances include certain pesticides (atrazine, simazine, tributyltin), solvents (dichloromethane, toluene, xylene), metals (arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc) and certain other compounds (cyanide and fluoride). The Regulations give further effect to the EU Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EC) and give effect to certain provisions of the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). http://www.lcc.ie/Environment/Water_Quality/Dangerous_Substances_Regulations/
      ~~

      From Darryl Turner, Independent Researcher, South Australia

      Here is some additional information that is very damning against water fluoridation.

      As we all know:

      “Fluorine-containing gases are produced as a by-product in the manufacturing of fertilizer, phosphoric acid, phosphates and other phosphorous-containing materials from minerals such as fluorapatite and phosphate rock.

      When such minerals are reacted with an acid, such as phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, or hydrochloric acid, which treatment is common in preparing useful materials from these minerals, silicon tetrafluoride is liberated….

      The liberated silicon tetrafluoride is usually recovered by absorption in water.
      The silicon tetrafluoride reacts with water to form fluosilicic acid (H2SiF6).
      The acid is generally an undesirable by-product having little economic value.
      The fluorine-containing off gases from the manufacture of various products from phosphatic starting materials are recovered usually for the sole purpose of preventing their escape to the atmosphere.
      The fluorine-containing off gases results in serious atmospheric pollution problems, since the gases are both corrosive and toxic.
      It is therefore desirable that a worthwhile use be found for these waste materials….”

      United States Patent Office
      3,271,107

      Patented Sept, 6, 1966

      http://www.google.com.au/patents?hl=en&lr=&vid=USPAT3271107&id=WQBfAAAAEBAJ&oi=fnd&dq=Utilization+of+waste+fluosilicic+acid&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q=Utilization%20of%20waste%20fluosilicic%20acid&f=true

      ~~

      http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-chemistry-of-water-fluoridation.pdf

      http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/fluorine-ian-stephens.pdf

      http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/fsate-1-what-do-fluorosilicic-acid-sarin-and-1080-have-in-common.pdf

      http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/hexafluorosilicic-acid-as-an-ingredident-in-fluoridation-of-drinking-water_waugh_2012.pdf

      The only answer EVER was to provide access to affordable dental health care services for all the population, not the dumping/disposal of hazardous waste pollutants hexafluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, beryllium, etc., known as water fluoridation; into our drinking water supplies and hence also the contamination of our food chain and using the populations’ kidneys as hazardous waste disposal/filtration units.

      Can Dentists & Doctors be trusted when they say Water Fluoridation is Safe & Effective? – You be the judge ! and this is the ‘tip of the iceberg’
      http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/can-dentists-doctors-be-trusted-when-they-say-water-fluoridation-is-safe-effective.pdf

    • chris, you’re obviously seriously confused and just regurgitating the rubbish you have swallowed whole. Fluoride is the ionic form of fluorine; the terms “fluoride” and “fluorine” are not mutually exclusive.

      There are many peer-reviewed papers which conclude that fluoride is neurotoxic at a concentration in drinking water of 0.7 ppm or close to it. If you knew anything about toxicology, you would realise that a safety factor of at least 10 should be applied to account for individual variability. You also don’t show any understanding of the difference between dose and concentration. The 10 mg per day figure you cite is from the US, not the WHO. The latter’s figure is 6 mg per day, which is still ridiculously high. Your 0.7 ppm “optimal level” is merely a US recommendation, which is yet to be implemented to my knowledge. Anyhow, this is an Australian blog. The last time I checked, the nominal concentration used in Sydney and Melbourne was 1 ppm, with 0.9 ppm for Perth, for example. The concentrations used in the forced-fluoridation experiment are merely nominal because they are not tightly controlled, as anyone can see for themselves by looking at water quality reports.

      Kumar is a rabid toxic waste pusher, so wouldn’t take his “research” seriously.

      You have contradicted yourself with your claim that “Fluoride is not continuously cumulative in the body tissues” and yet “is stored in the mineralised tissues”. Your reassurance that “these mineralised tissues can accumulate up to a maximum of 4% by weight” is laughable. 4% by weight is 40,000 ppm. The crippling third stage of skeletal fluorosis has been found at a fluoride concentration in bone ash of 4200 ppm. There are large numbers of people in India, China, and elsewhere suffering from crippling skeletal fluorosis, so clearly the 4% by weight limit is not protective.

      Fluoride does accumulate over a lifetime, and its levels in the blood and soft tissues do not simply reflect recent exposure. Fluoride leaves the body predominantly in urine, not sweat and faeces. You are clueless.

      You have completely missed the point about hydrofluoric acid, which is formed in the stomach after fluoride is ingested. The pH of stomach acid is much lower than that of tap water. Hydrofluoric acid is highly corrosive, and can damage the stomach lining.

      Even the toxic waste pushers have conceded that fluoride is not an essential nutrient, and is not needed by the body for anything. It does not strengthen bones and teeth, it damages them.

      • so you will try and tell me fluoride is not a mineral next

        • Doesn’t matter what it is. The point is it is being promoted as a treatment. Treatment requires informed consent | https://www.facebook.com/notes/anti-fluoridation-association-of-mildura/final-nails-in-the-ethical-coffin-of-water-fluoridation/314696628676056 | You have a lot to learn, son.

        • Fluorite is, Fluoride isn’t. Material means a rock. It originally was, until modified but what’s process from the rock and sold as products by the chemical manufacturing companies isn’t. It’s a synthetic, co-contaminant. A rock is a rock, but when you open it and extract the contents of it through boiling with other chemicals, then you get it. That’s what the proponents push.

          Saying all things that are ingested in low levels are safe doesn’t make sense because there has been instances of medications that has been proven, and when people insist they don’t want something, no science has prevailed to show it.

          Example: Thalidomide was first used in the late 1950’s all over the world as a wonder drug that would help stop nausea and insomnia in pregnant women. After they found out it caused babies to become born without arms and legs, they pulled most of it out and the patients tried to sue them, some successful.

          Thalidomide prevents the immune system from overreacting to disease and harming the body by reducing the levels of cytokine tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), a protein in the body that causes inflammatory reactions.

          When will you people learn to go with nature, not against? Like not creating something from an element and modify it, which makes it toxic and this and that. First thing: Common Sense and Natural Eating. Last thing: Science.

          Look at Fukoshima and it’s Nuclear. Arrogance, and Stubborness, profit over health and reason. The radiation spreads in the water, and it already hit the West Coast of the United States. Google: ‘US Government Orders 14 Million Doses of Potassium Iodide’. If all Fluoride Plants have an earthquake, everyone is stuffed. It is much more polluting than Carbon Dioxide, and it’s simply insane. Industries will stop when they know they can’t make money off of it.

          Fluorocarbons, Fluoropolymers, Specialty Organics (Lack of Carbon Atom), Gases, Inorganic Chemicals (Lack of Carbon Atom), Mined Phosphate (Calcium Phosphate), Hydrofluoric Acid, Sodium Fluoride, Hexafluorosilicic acid, etc etc are all used in products like refridgerators, metal production (Calcium Phosphate), glass dissolvent (Hydrofluoric Acid), Wood Preservation Hexafluorosilicic Acid Agents, ‘tooth decay’ (Sodium Fluoride) etc etc

          Global Fluorochemicals Market to Exceed 2.6 Million Tons by 2015, According to a New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc.
          GIA announces the release of a comprehensive global report on Fluorochemicals markets. The global market for Fluorochemicals is forecast to exceed 2.6 million tons by the year 2015. Growing use of cooling equipment and refrigerators is likely to impact market growth. In addition, growing demand for fluorochemicals in developing world is expected to significantly improve market prospects.

          October 28, 2010:
          http://www.prweb.com/releases/fluorochemicals/organic_inorganic/prweb4708534.htm

          It’s a money-making industry. I’m sure you and your other friends are paid well to still try and manage to herd the blind sheep. All you guys with white lab coats on have PR, and convincing skills using what I call ‘Politically-Correct Science’ to make anyone believe it’s an acceptable practice. What happened to not eating sugar foods and having a healthy, balanced diet? Why medicate everyone?

          Sorry, but after people do their own research which is what you and others want to do, aka your goal then the wool is lifted from their eyes.

          • Talking about money making It seems to me an organisation that is aligned with a major natural health distributer has more to do with money making ,than a scientist telling the truth, who will benifit if fluoride is stopped ,the pill peddlers opps Mercola a partner of FANN in the USA

        • And even Thalidomide is still used in other things. Why? Because those companies lobbied hard to get it stayed in the market although majority of stock is withdrawn.

          How about Statins? Used to Lower Cholesterol. Well it damages the heart. 900 Studies here:
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?orig_db=PubMed&db=pubmed&cmd=Search&term=%22American%20journal%20of%20cardiovascular%20drugs%20%3A%20drugs%2C%20devices%2C%20and%20other%20interventions%22%5bJour%5d%20AND%20Golomb%5bauthor%5d

          ‘For starters, some of the possible consequences of taking statins in strong doses, or for a lengthy period of time, include:

          Cognitive loss
          Neuropathy
          Anemia
          Acidosis
          Frequent fevers
          Cataracts
          Sexual dysfunction
          Other serious and potentially life threatening side effects include, but are not limited to:

          An increase in cancer risk
          Immune system suppression
          Serious degenerative muscle tissue condition (rhabdomyolysis)
          Pancreatic dysfunction
          Hepatic dysfunction. (Due to the potential increase in liver enzymes, patients must be monitored for normal liver function)
          According to the latest review published in the American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, adverse effects are dose dependent, and your health risks are also amplified by a number of factors, such as:

          Drug interactions that increase statin potency
          Metabolic syndrome
          Thyroid disease
          Other genetic mutations linked to mitochondrial dysfunction
          How Statin Drugs Destroy Your Muscles

          The most common side effect is muscle pain and weakness, a condition called rhabdomyolysis. Unfortunately, many older adults are likely unable to distinguish between muscle pain related to a statin effect versus an effect of aging, and therefore adverse effects of statins in older adults may be grossly under-reported.

          Researchers have now discovered that there is more than one way this condition can arise as a result of taking statins, including:

          Depleting your body of Co-Q10, a nutrient that supports muscle function. In my view it is medical malpractice to prescribe a statin drug without recommending one take CoQ10, or better yet ubiquinol.
          Altering the ability of skeletal muscle to repair and regenerate due to the anti-proliferative effects of statins. In one recent study, the viability of proliferating cells was reduced by 50 percent at a dose equivalent to 40 milligrams of Simvastatin – the dose per day used in some patients. This could clearly have a negative effect on your skeletal muscles’ ability to heal and repair themselves, and could lead to eventually becoming more or less incapacitated.
          Activating the atrogin-1 gene, which plays a key role in muscle atrophy.
          The breakdown of skeletal muscle tissue can in turn also lead to kidney failure.

          The industry insists that only 2-3 percent of patients get muscle aches and cramps but according to one study, 98 percent of patients taking Lipitor and one-third of the patients taking Mevacor (a lower-dose statin) suffered from muscle problems!

          Adding insult to injury, active people are actually more likely to develop problems from statin use than those who are sedentary. In a study carried out in Austria, only six out of 22 athletes with familial hypercholesterolemia were able to endure statin treatment. The others discontinued treatment because of muscle pain.’
          Source: Mercola (Yeah Groan all you want)
          http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/21/900-studies-show-statin-drugs-are-dangerous.aspx

          Calling health effects ‘Side-effects’ as if they are to be expected is rubbish, as if it’s acceptable that there are risks. Natural Medications have a much bigger tolerance than lab-created stuff, although there are medications that helped lives and saved them which I won’t attack since unlike Fluoridation, they aren’t forced.

          Do they care about health? No. The moment one is a corporation is the one that they are motivated by the reward: Money. That’s concerning since big companies become greedy and they become bad outside of profitting.

          I actually believe that Pharmaceutical Medicine is unnecessary. People can live better lives by using herbs and food as healing, with lifestyle changes, not medication ingesting. There are no quick fixes for any condition, there’s always a cause and effect, then symptoms. Medications fix the symptoms but not the root problems, though companies capitalize on the idea that patients are looking for a quick fix and then make products.

          F isn’t treatment, it’s not even close.

          Corporations need regulations on what they do and can’t do, like to absolutely not be in governments, and accepting liabilities for any damage from people by dismantling their business.

          • I agree all supplements should be under some sort of strict control But you lot fought to keep supplements out of the inspection process so they can have all sorts of contaminates in them and no one is accountable, See 2 sets of rules, 1 for your quack pills and one for fluoride

        • Asbestos’s studies of harm were hidden by industries because they enjoyed profit from raising prices and their sales, and knowing if it’s leaked that it would be controversial for them. They knew it caused harm, and the chemical industries also know about their products and health effects, but use double-standards to hide it, same tactics every chemical company would use to avoid public scrutiny.

    • Wether you believe it works or not, doesn’t easy my mind that you want enforce treatments on the public, without consent. Lets just start pouring Statins into the public water to keep everyone healthy too.

  35. TAKE NOTICE: STOP FLUORIDE DISEASES BY ROBERT C. OLNEY, M.D.

    REMOVE FLUORIDES FROM FOOD, WATER, AIR AND DRUGS

    TO PROMOTERS OF FLUORIDATION:

    Do you know the diseases caused by the “cumulative effect” of fluorine? If not, why not? Don’t you think you should know these facts before you advocate forcing more of this most powerful and indestructible poison on innocent people? Don’t you believe that anyone forcing helpless, innocent people to take in more fluorides should be held morally and legally liable for any damage to these people? Don’t you believe that the medical profession and Public Health officials have a great responsibility in protecting the people from the serious, harmful effects of fluorides?

    Have you read any of the many articles on the harmful effects of fluorides taken from the world’s medical and biochemical literature (some of which have been abstracted by John J. Miller, Ph.D., Chicago, Illinois, abstractor for many years for “Chemical Abstracts,” one of the most important publications in the chemical world)?

    Do you know one of the most serious effects of fluorine is on the brain and nervous system? As a result of the work of so many authorities all over the world, it is shown that fluorine acts to tie up magnesium-forming magnesium fluorine – an insoluble compound which thus prevents the essential enzymes from using magnesium. As a result, mental processes are seriously interfered with and nerve reactions throughout the body are depressed.

    Fluorine is known as a powerful enzyme inhibitor and a poison, thus gradually destroying enzymatic function. This is the same process by which all vital organs are slowly and seriously damaged. The more vital the organ, the more serious the damage. Fluorine is such a powerful, destructive force that it takes only a minute amount to do great damage. This damage is then permanent to the person, and becomes gradually worse due to the accumulation of fluorine in the enzymes. Fluorine appears to be the cause of many mental and physical defects in the newborn.

    From the “Archives of Environmental Health” (published by A.M.A.), February 1961, there is an interesting article compiled from authorities all over the world showing the amount of fluorides in diseased tissues. This shows that in some diseased tissues, such as aorta, tumor, cataract, etc., there are fluorides from 39 to 158 PPM compared with adjoining tissues having from 0.0 to 6.9 PPM. This is evidence that fluorine is an important factor in the cause of these diseases.

    Doctors Alfred and Nell Taylor, working in the University of Texas and reporting on the effect of fluorine as a cause of cancer, made the following statement: “The terrifying conclusion of the studies was that fluorine greatly induced cancer tumor growth. If doctors and the public can be made aware of this catastrophe, fluoridation shall quickly end. It will some day be recognized as the most lethal and stupid ‘Health Program’ ever conceived by the mind of man, with doctors and bloodletters not excepted.”

    Everyone must know that fluorides constitute the most serious pollution problem in air, food, water and drugs. From all forms of combustion – industrial, automobile, etc. – large amounts of fluoride enter the atmosphere. In some highly industrialized areas it is estimated that each person will absorb 1/2 mg of fluorine through his lungs from the air daily. Large amounts of fluoride, the amount of fluoride in food, has greatly increased There is also a problem of increased use of fluorides in drugs.

    It is important to know that when any fluoride is taken into the stomach in the presence of the normal hydrochloric acid, the fluorine, being a much more powerful element than chlorine, replaces the chlorine and we have hydrofluoric acid produced, which is one of the most caustic and destructive substances known. Hydrofluoric acid is absorbed into the body (stable fluorides are almost insoluble) and can also cause serious ulceration of the stomach and duodenum.

    Extensive research has also shown that fluorides change the chemical structure of the living enamel of the tooth, making it a dead chalky substance. Fluorides also cause calcific plugs in the dentin, greatly disturbing the nutrition and circulation. Thus, fluorides are harmful to teeth and cause periodontal diseases from which people lose their teeth in mid-life. Public Health officials and Boards of Health should be protecting innocent people from this killer instead of promoting fluoride diseases.

    For the U.S. Public Health Service to use hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money to promote fluoridation of the public water supply and deceive the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association and many millions of citizens, is an organized attack on the health of the people.

    Reprinted from Cancer News Journal, Vol. 9, No. Sourced: http://www.rethinkingcancer.org/resources/magazine-articles/12_11-12/stop-fluoride-diseases.php

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s