241.2 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8) 1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 2,860 in the District of Columbia. 563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 1,180 in the District of Columbia.
KENTUCKY 99.60% FLUORIDATED
227 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8) 1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 22,720 in Kentucky. 563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 9,360 in Kentucky.
HAWAII 8.60% FLUORIDATED
158 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8) 1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 5,070 in Hawaii. 563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 2,090 in Hawaii.
UTAH 2.20% FLUORIDATED
151 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8) 1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 6,360 in Utah. 563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 2,620 in Utah.
All figures from the American Cancer Society and the CDC websites cross-referenced by myself. They feature the two most and the two least fluoridated areas in the States, yet the trend continues when all the other states are included. How come government don't make these statistic correlations themselves? Is it so that the authorities can hide the relationship between high levels of fluoride in a state's drinking water and the high levels of cancers in that state? I cannot paste an Excel spreadsheet to this blog, so if anyone wants the whole list of U.S. states that I put together and wants to see the undeniable link to higher rates, incidence and trends in cancer to higher levels of fluoride in drinking water, then send a request to euesireland@eircom.net. These are truly frightening figures!
In the current tragic situation in Virginia, USA, and considering the rampant violence in American major cities, all of which are fluoridated, it is worth looking again at the studies which show a correlation between fluoridated areas, fluoride derived psychotropic drugs, lead uptake in babies to adults and the high levels of violence and erratic murderous behaviour. Many of the people involved in previous random shootings of this type were found to be taking fluoride based anti-depressant drugs. With love and sorrow for all the victims of violence everywhere.
State - Kentucky (the most fluoridated State -only Washington, D.C. is higher - at 100%) 99.60% % of state fluoridated 59.80% % of caries in 3rd graders
State - Utah (least fluoridated State) 2.20% % of state fluoridated 61.05% % of caries in 3rd graders
State - Virginia (7th most fluoridated State) 95.50% % of state fluoridated 61% % of caries in 3rd graders
Association of SiF Usage with Higher Blood Lead Levels, Rates of Violent Crime, and Substance Abuse Masters, R. and Coplan, M. (1999a) "Water Treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity," International Journal of Environmental Studies, 56: 435-49. First published analysis of data linking silicofluoride treatment of public water supplies with higher uptake of lead, focused on survey of children's blood lead in Massachusetts (by town). Masters, R. and Coplan, M. (1999b) "A Dynamic, Multifactorial Model of Alchohol, Drug Abuse, and Crime: Linking Neuroscience and Behavior to Toxicology," Social Science Information, 38: 591-624. Articulation of the linkages between neurotoxicity, brain chemistry, environmental pollution, and behavior (with focus on substance abuse and crime), using data from National Institute of Justice study of drug use in over 30,000 criminal offenders at time of arrest). Data show that where SiF is in use, criminals are more likely to consume alchohol, and to have used cocaine at time of arrest (as well as confirming that such communities have significantly higher violent crime rates). Wilson, Jim (1999). "The Chemistry of Violence," Popular Mechanics, (April), pp. 42-43. Masters, R.D., Coplan, M. J., Hone, B. T., and Dykes, J. E. (2000). "Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead," Neurotoxicology 21: 101-1100. Follow-up epidemiological study of the association between SiF treated water and enhanced child blood lead. This statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead tests taken from children ages 0-6, living in 105 communities with populations from 15,000 to 75,000 in New York state, shows for every age and racial group a significant association between SiF usage and elevated blood lead. Masters, Roger D. (2003). "The Social Implications of Evolutionary Psychology: Linking Brain Biochemistry, Toxins, and Violent Crime," in Richard W. Bloom and Nancy K. Dess, eds., Evolutionary Psychology and Violence: A Primer for Policymakers and Public Policy Advocates (Westwood: Praeger), Ch. 2, pp. 23-56. Analysis of evidence of neurotransmitter dysfunction due to toxins associated with increased rates of violent crime, with extensive discussion of silicofluoride neurotoxicity as an important instance.
Excerpts from The Secret War and The Fluoride Conspiracy By Dr. Geoffrey E. Smith The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has always measured the safety of fluoridation on the basis of one study of crippling skeletal fluorosis, which was first published in 1935. The EPA's regulation for the maximum allowable concentration of fluoride in drinking water was established for one purpose - to prevent this disease. However, crippling is the [bioaccumulative] end stage of chronic fluoride poisoning. The earlier stages involve gastrointestinal problems, arthritis, and osteoporosis. None of these earlier symptoms are considered in the regulation ... only the end stage. In 1985, when the EPA [suddenly pretended there was a grand change in human biology and] raised the maximum contaminant level to 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water, they used dosage figures miscalculated in 1953 by Harold C. Hodge, who was chairman of the NAS committee on toxicology. Hodge's original figures (20-80 mg/day for 10-20 years) were corrected by Hodge in 1979, and by NAS in 1993. The corrected figures, based on Roholm's classic study of workers in the cryolite industry, amount to 0.2 to 0.35 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight per day, for eleven years. When extrapolated over a lifetime of 55 to 96 years, these crippling dosage figures equal 1 milligram of fluoride daily for each 55 pounds of body weight ... 0.04 mg/kg/day. In the early years of water fluoridation [human experimentation], this dosage was not the norm. At that time, water was virtually the only source of fluoride in the American diet. The total intake for most adults was 0.02 mg/kg/day ... about one to one and a half milligrams of fluoride daily. Today, the figure is 0.095 mg/kg/day... from food and drinking water alone ... more than 6 milligrams daily. This increase in ingested fluoride, largely due to the use of artificial fertilizers containing fluoride, pesticide residues, dental products, and modern food processing, has changed a relatively safe dosage into one capable of causing crippling deformities of the spine and major joints, as well as the muscle pain associated with fibromyalgia. Beer and wine often contain significant quantities of fluoride, as does ordinary tea. Grape juice often contains even larger quantities of fluoride, due to the widespread use of pesticides, which remain on the grape skin. Fluoride in toothpaste can be absorbed through the tissues of the mouth, as well as swallowed accidentally. Many prescription drugs also contain fluoride. None of these items are labeled to indicate the quantity of fluoride added to the daily dietary total.
Reprinted from a blog I found recently. Many thanks to the publishers for their good taste!
Saturday, November 18, 2006 HMMM...I thought the meaning of the 33 foot sculpture (pictured above) recently erected at Grand Rapids - the home of the world's first mass fluoridation experiment - by the West Michigan Dental Association, was quite clear. Regards, Dennis Stevenson
Firstly, at the right of the picture is a patient. That they are a dental patient is obvious from their mouth being wide open. As their tongue is all the way out, obviously they are screaming. We'll get to why they are screaming in a moment. Gathered around the patient are 5 dentists. Equally obviously, as there are five dentists and not just one, it must be a training session, as only one dentist is required to extract whatever money a patient might have.The two dentists on the left can be seen to be senior to the other three, as is clearly shown by their height. The tallest dentist is the lead instructor and his colleague, on his immediate right, is the 'watchdog'. I'm sure all of us are aware that when a dentist speaks at a public meeting, there has to be another ADA approved dentist in the audience to report on what the first dentist says.? Naturally the same requirement exists when dentists are being trained. Though it is almost preposterous to consider that any ADA approved dentist would tell the truth (remember what happened to Mel Gibson in the movie Conspiracy Theory) the ADA is ever vigilant to ensure that no dentist should mention, even accidentally, that fluoridation is anything but "absolutely safe and effective". Though it seems silly and is extremely unlikely to occur, imagine the repercussions if a dentist told students that fluorosis was chronic fluoride poisoning of the 'whole body' and not just a 'minor cosmetic effect' on teeth only?Which leads us into exactly what the trainee-dentists were learning at the time the picture was taken. This is revealed by the attitude of the students. You will note their proximity to the patient: this shows that the 'cosmetic effect' of dental fluorosis is being discussed and specifically, the vast fees that can be made from gluing white plastic covers over the fluorosis disfigured teeth of patients - at $600 to $1,200 per tooth. This is, of course, why the patient is screaming.?However, you can imagine why the trainees are so excited. Not only have they just learned how much they can charge patients, but they have also discovered that fluorosis, or 'egg-shell white' mottling as they prefer to call it, is a never-ending source of money, provided they keep promoting fluoridation, as this is what causes the mottling. Now they realise how they can easily pay cash for a new premier Mercedes every year, not to mention the endless golf and wonderful conferences sponsored and paid for by Mars Bars Pty. Ltd.You will also notice at the bottom left side of the picture, almost hidden behind trees, is what can just be seen of a car window. The window, exactly positioned so that it has a clear view of the meeting through the trees, looks black. However, expanded digital film analysis reveals that state of the art video equipment is recording everything that is being done at the meeting. This is another requirement of Sigma-Delta-Sigma, the secret society of dentists, which dentists are on a blood oath never to mention. You may recall the deputy President of the NZ Dental Association who accidentally acknowledged that the society exists before he realized his error and stumbled out with "My membership of any organisation has got nothing to do with your interview." Have you ever seen him again?Something to also be seen in the photograph is the golden path. Because of poor reflection, this shows in the photograph as a white section on which the dentists are standing. This is always there when dentists are being trained to ever remind them of the dental brotherhood and the riches that await them if they obey the 5 Golden Rules.You will notice one of the dentists, the smallest and most junior one, has the 5 Golden Rules written on his back. Enlarged, they read:1. I promise to always pretend I and brother dentists are doctors though we are not medically qualified and do not have doctorates.2. I promise to protect any brother dentist who kills a patient with mercury or a topical fluoride treatment.3. I promise to charge every patient extra for: cleaning, topical fluoride treatment and x-rays and to never reduce fees or disclose to outsiders how many hundreds of thousands of dollars I make annually.4. I promise never to publicly debate fluoridation but only to forever repeat the dental mantra "Fluoridation is absolutely safe and effective". I will always vehemently deny that fluoride is a rat poison.5. I promise to follow the 50-year-old published advice from the American Dental Association to always denigrate and ridicule those who speak against fluoridation, no matter how well qualified they are.
BEAR IN MIND THAT THE ABOVE IS JUST WHAT IS IN THE FLUORIDATING AGENT. DUE TO ITS PROPENSITY TO BIND WITH ALUMINIUM AND LEAD, BY THE TIME THE WATER GETS THROUGH OUR WATER SYSTEM THE VOLUMES OF THOSE TWO ELEMENTS ARE EVEN HIGHER! PERSONALLY, I HAVE NEVER LIKED THE TASTE OF IRISH TAPWATER SINCE THE MID 60'S. I WAS TOLD THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TASTE THE FLUORIDE...MAYBE IT WAS PHOSPOROUS AND SULPHUR I WAS TASTING ALL ALONG!!!
HERE IS A REFERENCE LINK TO AN AMAZING LETTER WRITTEN BY CHEMIFLOC, THE COMPANY SUPPLYING HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID TO THE IRISH GOVERNMENT. TRULY SHOCKING WHAT ONE'S OWN GOVERNMENT WILL SANCTION DONE TO ITS CITIZENS, JUST TO GET A LOCAL VOTE OR TO SAVE A FEW BOB!
EUES asked "Would anyone like to give me an alternative source for hydrofluorosilicic acid other than the phosphate fertiliser industry?"
Well, it seems that the supplier at the moment is Chemifloc in Shannon. I don't know if they import the stuff from foreign fertilizer factories or if they produce the hydrofluorosilicic acid using a chemical process that apes what happens in the fertilizer factories. It's one or the other. It hardly matters; there's no evidence that Chemifloc's product is any less toxic than the toxic waste that was used for most of the 43 years of Irish fluoridation.
But do look at this astonishing letter that Chemifloc wrote ten years ago, when they had lost the supply contract:
To The Editor, Onalaska Life Newspaper: Sir, (Your Guest Columnist) Dentist, Mr Randall Moseng, states that Mr Michael Berkley is beating the drum of inaccuracy. If that is the case, then Mr Moseng has a whole brass band! I hardly know where to begin to retort to his dogged "dentistry school world view", regurgitating "facts" he learned there without the benefit of actual research. But, with the reader's indulgence, I will make an attempt:- MY COMMENTS IN CAPITALS:
Mr Randall Moseng: Michael Berkley makes a nice attempt to frighten the public into fearing community water fluoridation, but unfortunately his argument is mostly opinion, assertion and speculation rather than based on any actual science. PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES?
His greatest argument seems to be that fluoridating a community water supply is mass medication. Fluoride is not a medication in the water supply, it is a naturally occurring mineral found in the earth, soil and water all around the planet. IF CARIES ARE A DISEASE, AND FLUORIDE PLACED THERE IS TO FIGHT CARIES, DOESN’T THAT MAKE IT A MEDICATION? FLOURINE IS A COMMON ENOUGH ELEMENT, FOUND IN SEAWATER AT 1.35 PPM, HIGHER THAN USED IN FLUORIDATION. GOOD THAT WE DON’T DRINK SEAWATER THEN! IN SURFACE RIVER WATER IT IS AT 0.10 PPM – ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION RAISES THIS BY A FACTOR OF TEN! 0.2 PPM HAS BEEN SHOWN TO AFFECT FISH STOCKS IN RUN-OFFS FROM FLUORIDATED CITIES – SEE THE EUES IRELAND BLOG.
In fact, the earliest studies in the 1930s to determine the benefits of fluoridation were conducted in areas where natural fluoridation was present in the water supply and the foundations for which scientists were able to determine the proper amounts of fluoride to ingest for maximum benefit. THE STUDIES WERE TO FIND WAYS TO ELIMINATE FLUOROSIS. THE LIMITS SET ARE AN ARBITRARY GUESS BUILT ON ERRONEOUS SCIENCE. MODERN TECHNOLOGY HAS PROVED NEUROTOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS AT 1PPM. ORIGINAL "RESEARCH" WAS FUNDED BY ALCOA AND ALUMINIUM, NUCLEAR AND STEEL INDUSTRY PARTNERS. Water fluoridation involves precise adjustment of the existing naturally occurring fluoride levels to ideal levels recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service. THE ORIGINAL BRIEF TO SELL FLUORIDE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WAS INSTIGATED BY THE HEAD OF THE TREASURY DEPT., WHICH RAN THE P.H.S. (At the end of the war, with massive amounts of fluoride waste needing disposal, the Public Health Service began pushing to add fluoride to the water in Grand Rapids, Mich., and dozens of other U.S. cities. At the time, the Public Health Service was being run by Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), which had dominated fluoride research since the 1920s. By 1950, as the fluoridation campaign gained steam, the Public Health Service was headed by another top Alcoa official, Oscar R. Ewing, who in turn was aided by Edward L. Bernays, the father of modern public relations and author of the book "Propaganda," who sought to portray fluoride's opponents as wackos.)
No, community water fluoridation is not mass medication. Mr. Berkley and his ilk have been beating this drum of inaccuracy for many years under the guise of “too much government.” He claims the chemicals commonly used to adjust fluoride levels to optimum levels are similar in chemical composition to “waste products of the fertilizer industry.” What he neglects to tell readers is that they are not the source of said chemicals. H20 is water, H202 is hydrogen peroxide. Similar chemical composition, but one is essential for human life, one is not. THEY ARE NOT SIMILAR – THEY ARE ACTUALLY WASTE PRODUCTS FROM THE FLORIDA PHOSPHATE CHIMNEY SCRUBBERS (AND IN EUROPE FROM FINLAND AND BENELUX PHOSPHATE FERTILISER COMPANIES) – THIS CHEMICAL IS HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID – H2SiF6 – A CHEMICAL HODGE PODGE WHICH INCLUDES CHROMIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, LOTS OF PHOSPHORUS, SULPHUR,MERCURY, INDEED OVER 30 CHEMICALS ARE INVOLVED! SEE MY BLOG FOR THE PRECISE BREAKDOWN OF A TYPICAL ANALYSIS.
Dentistry simply supports this idea as a cost effective means to prevent tooth decay. DENTISTRY NEVER LOOKS AT THE WHOLE BODY EFFECTS OF FLUORIDATION – ONLY AT THE MOUTH.
Fluoridation always wins in the court of law as a safe, effective, inexpensive means to protect the public health. The truth is, no court of last resort (including the California Supreme Court in 2006) has ruled against community water fluoridation. Ever. NOT QUITE TRUE - (Findings of Fact by Judges: In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here.In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland, New Zealand wrote the following about the case:“In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary. . . .“Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation.”In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: “[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City Ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man.”The significance of Judge Flaherty’s statement and his and the other two judges’ findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind.)
He argues that we do not have data to know the long term effects of fluoridation. Again, here he is either ignoring the literature, or refuses to acknowledge that over 60 years of scientific data supports the practice of community water fluoridation. RUBBISH! THE LAST 30 YEARS HAVE SHOWN A LOT MORE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON HUMANS THAN POSITIVE ONES. DENTAL CARIES HAVE DROPPED WORLD-WIDE, WITH OR WITHOUT FLUORIDE, IT IS THE SAME. AS SCIENTISTS, CHEMISTS AND TOXICOLOGISTS LOOK AT THE WHOLE BODY EFFECTS, MORE AND MORE ARE COMING OUT AGAINST THIS DISGUSTING PRACTICE OF DUMPING CHEMICAL WASTE INTO DRINKING WATER. SEE THE EUES IRELAND BLOG FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE E.P.A. SCIENTISTS UNION GAVE TO A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. THEY WORK WITH TOXIC WASTE EVERY DAY, THEY INVESTIGATE IT AND DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS IT POSES EVERY DAY, AND THEY FEEL THAT THE PRACTICE SHOULD BE STOPPED! WHAT CREDENTIALS FOR ACTUALLY WORKING WITH THIS TOXIC WASTE DOES MR MOSENG HAVE? THE YORK REVIEW IN THE U.K LOOKED AT OVER 3000 STUDIES OF FLUORIDE AND FOUND: “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.” – READ THE FULL TEXT ON http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
Frankly, it is almost cavalier of him to suggest proper oral hygiene at home is the only answer to a healthy mouth and prevention of oral manifestations. He is obviously ignoring a big at-risk segment of the population who are at or below the poverty line and lack proper access to good dental care and frequently have poor oral hygiene habits. IN 1937, THE A.D.A PUBLISHED RESEARCH WHICH SHOWED THE BLACK PEOPLE ACROSS THE U.S. HAD VERY LOW CARIES RATES. MUCH LOWER THAN WHITES. AFTER 50 YEARS OF FLUORIDATION, BLACK PEOPLES TEETH ARE THE WORST IN THE COUNTRY. THEY ARE ALSO PRONE TO DAMAGED IMMUNE SYSTEMS DUE TO POOR DIET. FLUORIDE THEREFORE HAS PROPORTIONALLY GREATER EFFECTS FOR THE POOR ON THEIR GENERAL HEALTH THAN ON HIGHER INCOME GROUPS. WHEN GIVEN ACCESS TO DENTAL TREATMENT, POORER PEOPLE ACTUALLY ARE VERY GOOD ON THE TAKE-UP OF THOSE SERVICES, SO THE HIGHER CARIES RATES CANNOT BE ASSIGNED TO POOR DENTAL REGIMES, BUT MUST ALSO INCLUDE DIET. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT FLUORIDE INGESTION OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS MAKES TEETH BRITTLE. HAVE YOU SEEN PEOPLE WITH BROKEN TEETH? THIS HAPPENS MUCH MORE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE!
What about the senior citizen who cannot get to a dentist easily due to a physical limitation? Community water fluoridation helps young and old the most, and it is a good thing, since they are the most in need. RIDICULOUS POINT TO MAKE – RESEARCH HAS BEEN PUBLISHED TO SHOW THAT FLUORIDE HAS LITTLE OR NO EFFECT ON OLDER PEOPLE’S TEETH!
Mr. Berkley also questions whether we should use “the public water supply to deliver drugs, chemicals or substances for the prevention of disease.” I suggest the answer is yes — as evidenced by the use of iodized salt (prevents thyroid problems like goiter), Vitamin D to milk (links with calcium to strengthen bones) and Vitamin C to many foods (to prevent many ailments such as scurvy). MR. MOSENG AGAIN MISSES THE POINT – PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE TO TAKE THESE THINGS. FLUORIDATED WATER MEANS THAT THEY ARE FORCED TO TAKE IT, AND THAT IT IS IN EVERYTHING MANUFACTURED IN FLUORIDATED AREAS, AS WELL. HE FEELS THAT IT IS OK TO MEDICATE PEOPLE THIS WAY – MOST PEOPLE, WHEN ASKED, DON’T.
Go ahead, Google fluoride on the Internet. But beware while the Internet can be a wonderful tool and great resource for information, it is fraught with hucksters and charlatans purported to be authentic or scientifically based but are in fact distortions of fact and merely opinion to skew the truth and support a belief system rather than present true science in an unbiased fashion. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, MR. MOST PEOPLE I KNOW WHO ARE AGAINST FLUORIDE AND WANT TO TELL OTHERS ABOUT IT HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN. THEY MERELY SEEK TO ALERT PEOPLE TO A HARMFUL PRACTICE WHICH THEY HAVE RESEARCHED THEMSELVES, AND/OR HAVE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF THE HARMFUL EFFECTS TO HEALTH OF THIS PRACTICE. NOW WHO IS PEDDLING CONSPIRACY THEORIES?
Please take the time to visit the Web sites of authorities charged with protecting the public such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov), American Dental Association (ada.org), Academy of General Dentistry (agd.org) to learn what science says about fluoridating your water. WHICH REMINDS ME, THE FLUORIDE LOBBY TOOK THE NAME http://www.fluoridealert.com/ TO CONFUSE PEOPLE AND TAKE THEM AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL SITE http://www.fluoridealert.org/ !! LOVELY PEOPLE, INSTANTLY TRUSTWORTHY - NOT.
And finally, Berkley even goes so far as to claim that fluoride does not prevent cavities. Truth is, the scientific community has conducted dozens of peer reviewed, non-biased, double blind credible studies since 1945 and the overwhelming weight of evidence concludes that fluoridation provides a clear, real, measurable, direct correlation with a decrease in cavity rates for all people, whether they practice proper oral hygiene or not. FLUORIDE HAS AN EFFECT ON CAVITIES, IT KILLS THE ENZYMES WHICH CAUSE CARIES – THAT IS WHY PEOPLE USE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE. PUTTING IT IN DRINKING WATER WHEN ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT WORKS TOPICALLY AND NOT SYSTEMICALLY IS NON-SENSICAL! YOU DO NOT NEED TO DRINK IT!! PERSONALLY, I USE A NON-FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE AND MY RATE OF CARIES HAS SINCE ALMOST STOPPED. FURTHERMORE THE YORK REPORT COULD NOT FIND ANY GREATER EVIDENCE WORLDWIDE GREATER THAN A CLAIM OF 14% CARIES DECLINE WITH FLUORIDE, IN MANY PLACES THE EFFECT WAS UNMEASURABLE. EVEN SO, THIS IS LESS THAN 1/2 A TOOTH! NOT WORTH THE DOCUMENTED RISK TO OTHER BODY AREA HEALTH!
Please do not let the likes of Mr. Berkley frighten you. Dentistry is in the profession of preventing disease and promoting public health. Our focus is helping the public, not harming it. Why else would we support an idea which stands to decrease business and by extension our income? FIGURES HAVE SHOWN THAT DENTISTS MAKE ON AVERAGE 17% HIGHER INCOMES IN FLUORIDATED AREAS. THE COSTS IN WHAT THEY CALL THE “COSMETIC” TREATMENT OF FLUOROSIS ARE VERY HIGH. TODAY, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KINGSTON, N.Y. THE FIRST FLUORIDATED TOWN AND ITS UNFLUORIDATED CONTROL TOWN IN THE NUMBER OF CARIES. DR.H.TRENDLEY DEAN, THE “FATHER OF FLUORIDATION” DECLARED FLUORIDE WAS SAFE AND ESTABLISHED THE FIRST TRIALS IN GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN IN 1945. SINCE THEN, HE HAS TWICE CONFESSED IN COURT THAT STATISTICS FROM THE EARLY TESTS, ALLEGEDLY SUPPORTING THE USE OF FLUORIDATION IN COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS, WERE INVALID.
Based on 2002 data, approximately 170 million people (or over two-thirds of the population) in the United States are served by public water systems that are fluoridated. In Minnesota and Iowa, community water fluoridation is state law. OVER 95% OF THE WORLD’S POPULATION DOES NOT FLUORIDATE ITS WATER. SOME COUNTRIES TRIED IT AND STOPPED DUE TO HEALTH CONCERNS. SOME HAVE OUTLAWED THE ADDITION OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN CLEANSING AGENTS TO THEIR WATER. THE TEETH OF FORMERLY FLUORIDATED EAST GERMAN CITIZENS ACTUALLY IMPROVED WHEN THEY JOINED WITH WEST GERMANY, WHICH WILL NOT ALLOW FLUORIDATION. IF ONE LOOKS AT THE FIGURES FOR FLUORIDATION PERCENTAGES VS CARIES ACROSS THE U.S. THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT CORRELATION TO PROVE THE EFFICACY OF FLUORIDE. AFTER 60 YEARS WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ANYONE ON THE PLANET TO DO A MAJOR HEALTH STUDY OF OTHER EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE ON A MAJOR POPULATION! HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE PART OF AN “EXPERIMENT”?
Statement of Dr. J. William Hirzy,National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 Before The Subcommittee On Wildlife, Fisheries And Drinking Water, United States Senate, June 29, 2000
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present the views of the union, of which I am a Vice-President, on the subject of fluoridation of public water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C. Our members include toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and others defined by law as “professionals.” The work we do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for management’s use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy. I am not here as a representative of EPA, but rather as a representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union. The union first got involved in this issue in 1985 as a matter of professional ethics. In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our opposition has strengthened since then.
Summary of Recommendations 1) We ask that you order an independent review of a cancer bioassay previously mandated by Congressional committee and subsequently performed by Battelle Memorial Institute with appropriate blinding and instructions that all reviewer’s independent determinations be reported to this Committee. 2) We ask that you order that the two waste products of the fertilizer industry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future toxicity studies, rather than a substitute chemical. Further, since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man, woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an entire lifetime. 3) We ask that you order an epidemiology study comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years for behavioral and other disorders. 4) We ask that you convene a joint Congressional Committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves. National Review of Fluoridation The Subcommittee’s hearing today can only begin to get at the issues surrounding the policy of water fluoridation in the United States, a massive experiment that has been run on the American public, without informed consent, for over fifty years. The last Congressional hearings on this subject were held in 1977. Much knowledge has been gained in the intervening years. It is high time for a national review of this policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. New hearings should explore, at minimum, these points: 1) excessive and uncontrolled fluoride exposures; 2) altered findings of a cancer bioassay; 3) the results and implications of recent brain effects research; 4) the “protected pollutant” status of fluoride within EPA; 5) the altered recommendations to EPA of a 1983 Surgeon General’s Panel on fluoride; 6) the results of a fifty-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities; 7) the findings of fact in three landmark lawsuits since 1978; 8) the findings and implications of recent research linking the predominant fluoridation chemical with elevated blood-lead levels in children and anti-social behavior; and 9) changing views among dental researchers on the efficacy of water fluoridation
Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of America’s children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980's and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher. Centers for Disease Control and EPA claim that dental fluorosis is only a “cosmetic” effect. God did not create humans with fluorosed teeth. That effect occurs when children ingest more fluoride than their bodies can handle with the metabolic processes we were born with, and their teeth are damaged as a result. And not only their teeth. Children’s bones and other tissues, as well as their developing teeth are accumulating too much fluoride. We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, are looking for the effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and other tissues in American children. What has been reported so far in this connection is disturbing. One example is epidemiological evidence (2a, 2b) showing elevated bone cancer in young men related to consumption of fluoridated drinking water. Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we do know that American children in large numbers are afflicted with hyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on the rise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are on the rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. There are biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed research on fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures (e.g. 3,4,5,6). Considering the economic and human costs of these conditions, we believe that Congress should order epidemiology studies that use dental fluorosis as an index of exposure to determine if there are links between such effects and fluoride over-exposure. In the interim, while this epidemiology is conducted, we believe that a national moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted. There will be a hue and cry from some quarters, predicting increased dental caries, but Europe has about the same rate of dental caries as the U.S. (7) and most European countries do not fluoridate (8). I am submitting letters from European and Asian authorities on this point. There are studies in the U.S. of localities that have interrupted fluoridation with no discernable increase in dental caries rates (e.g., 9). And people who want the freedom of choice to continue to ingest fluoride can do so by other means. Cancer Bioassay Findings In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (10), the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a special commission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in the salvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The final, published version of the NTP report says that there is, “equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats,” changed from “clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats.” The change prompted Dr. William Marcus, who was then Senior Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, to blow the whistle about the issue (22), which led to his firing by EPA. Dr. Marcus sued EPA, won his case and was reinstated with back pay, benefits and compensatory damages. I am submitting material from Dr. Marcus to the Subcommittee dealing with the cancer and neurotoxicity risks posed by fluoridation. We believe the Subcommittee should call for an independent review of the tumor slides from the bioassay, as was called for by Dr. Marcus (22), with the results to be presented in a hearing before a Select Committee of the Congress. The scientists who conducted the original study, the original reviewers of the study, and the “review commission” members should be called, and an explanation given for the changed findings. Brain Effects Research Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children (11,12). Another paper (3) shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the “optimal” dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million (13). And another (14) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal. Another publication (5) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on the brain’s pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals. Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New York has also been reported (6). Given the national concern over incidence of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism in our children, we believe that the authors of these studies should be called before a Select Committee, along with those who have critiqued their studies, so the American public and the Congress can understand the implications of this work.
Fluoride As A Protected Pollutant The classic example of EPA’s protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940's and 1950's as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPA’s then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer manufacture as, “...an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride...”In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the pollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not into rivers or the atmosphere. I am submitting a copy of her letter. Other Federal entities are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvert of the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and other Federal entities on the matter of fluoride, answers to which have not yet been received. We believe that EPA and other Federal officials should be called to testify on the manner in which fluoride has been protected. The union will be happy to assist the Congress in identifying targets for an inquiry. For instance, hydrofluosilicic acid does not appear on the Toxic Release Inventory list of chemicals, and there is a remarkable discrepancy among the Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, arsenic and lead, given the relative toxicities of these substances. Surgeon General’s Panel on Fluoride We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon General’s panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon General’s panel (16) were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride. Kingston and Newburg, New York Results In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17). In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city. We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of the Centers For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a Select Committee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among American children and the implications of that increase for skeletal and other effects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fractures and arthritis. Findings of Fact by Judges In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here. In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland, New Zealand wrote the following about the case: “In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary. . . . “Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation.” In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.” Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: “[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City Ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man.” The significance of Judge Flaherty’s statement and his and the other two judges’ findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified. Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind. I am submitting a copy of the excerpted letter from Judge Flaherty and another letter referenced in it that was sent to Judge Flaherty by Dr. Peter Sammartino, then Chancellor of Fairleigh Dickenson University. I am also submitting a reprint copy of an article in the Spring 1999 issue of the Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law by Jack Graham and Dr. Pierre Morin, titled “Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies." Mr. Graham was chief litigator in the case before Judge Flaherty and in the other two cases (in Illinois and Texas). We believe that Mr. Graham should be called before a Select Committee along with, if appropriate, the judges in these three cases who could relate their experience as trial judges in these cases. Hydrofluosilicic Acid There are no chronic toxicity data on the predominant chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, used to fluoridate American communities. Newly published studies (19) indicate a link between use of these chemicals and elevated level of lead in children’s blood and anti-social behavior. Material from the authors of these studies has been submitted by them independently. We believe the authors of these papers and their critics should be called before a Select Committee to explain to you and the American people what these papers mean for continuation of the policy of fluoridation. Changing Views on Efficacy and Risk In recent years, two prominent dental researchers who were leaders of the pro-fluoridation movement announced reversals of their former positions because they concluded that water fluoridation is not an effective means of reducing dental caries and that it poses serious risks to human health. The late Dr. John Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand, and he published his reasons for changing sides in 1997 (20). In 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, announced his change of views, then published a statement (21) dated April 2000. I am submitting a copy of Dr. Limeback’s publications. We believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who have not changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernest Newbrun and Herschel Horowitz, should be called before a Select Committee to testify on the reasons for their respective positions. Thank you for you consideration, and I will be happy to take questions. REFERENCES: DR. HIRZY'S PRESENTATION 1. Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E et al, J . Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 (1997)2a. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992)2b. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEERS) Program. National Cancer Institute. In: Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. 1991: F1-F7.3. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J. et al, Neurotoxicol Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995) 4a. Fluoride and bone - quantity versus quality [editorial] New Engl. J. Med. 322 845-6 (1990) 4b. Summary of workshop on drinking water fluoride influence on hip fracture and bone health. Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B. Natl. Inst. Health. April 10, 1991.5. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994)6. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R. et al, JADA 52 296-306 (1956)7. WHO oral health country/area profile programme. Department of Non-Communicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmo University, Sweden. URL: www.whocollab.odont.lu.se/countriesalphab.html8. Letters from government authorities in response to inquiries on fluoridation status by E. Albright. Eugene Albright: contact through J. W. Hirzy, P.O Box 76082 , Washington, D.C. 20013.9. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. Burt, B.A., Keels., Heller, K.E., J. Dent. Res.2000 Feb; 79 (2): 761-9.10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991) 11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B. et al, Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S. et al, Fluoride 28 (1995)13. Chronic administration of aluminum - fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A. et al, Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998)14. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan et al, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998)15. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.16. Transcript of proceedings - Surgeon General's (Koop) ad hoc committee on non-dental effects of fluoride. April 18-19, 1983. National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, MD. 17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. et al, New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century on artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. Graham, J.R. et al, Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14 195-248 (Spring 1999) Florida State University College of Law.19. Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. Masters, R.D. et al, Intern. J. Environ. Studies 56 435-49 (1999)20. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine 41 1-16 (1997)21. Letter. Limeback, H. April 2000. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto. 22. Memorandum: Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division Office of Drinking Water. May 1, 1990. The media didn't cover Dr. Hirzy's testimony. Hydrofluosilicic acid is the primary substance used to fluoridate drinking water in the United States; it contains fluoride, arsenic, cadmium, polonium-210, and lead. There are no scientific studies that demonstrate hydrofluosilicic acid is safe for human consumption. Dr. Hirzy stated: "Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children. Another paper shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the 'optimal' dosage of flouride, viz. one part per million. And another (article) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other papers. . . ." Recent academic testing of U.S. students reveals: ". . . U.S. fourth-graders performing poorly, mid-school students worse, and high school students are unable to compete (with foreign students-ed) . . . 'we appear to be the bottom' at the high school level. . . . People have a tendency to think this picture bleak, but it doesn't apply to their own school. Chances are, even if your school compares well in SAT scores, it will still be a lightweight on an international scale." [1]
Much is being made by the fluoride lobby that fluoride occurs “naturally” in surface water and that they are just “slightly adjusting” the fluoride levels to 1mg/l to help teeth. That is TEN times the normal amount and just under 0.5 mg/l from the EPA maximum allowable industrial pollutant level of 1.5 mg/l. However, Fluoride ions enter surface waters from soil leeching, precipitation, and human emissions. The concentration in river water varies with the geology of the drainage basins, but an average of 0.1 ppm has been determined (cited in Olausson and Cato, 1980), and indeed, research is showing that the habitat of fish is affected at levels over 0.2mg/l. So much for another great fluoride lie!
“The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)1 and the Province of British Columbia2 adhere to a "permissible level" of 1.5 ppm (1.5 mg/L) for fluoride discharged into fresh water. BC's "recommended guideline" is currently 0.2 ppm fluoride ; but this does not have the force of legislation. Neither the Minister of the Environment nor the Washington State Department of Ecology requires fluoride estimations for sewer effluent permits as it is considered fluoride is not significantly toxic to aquatic life in concentrations expected in discharges.3, 4 A review of the literature and other documents, including court transcripts, reveals that levels below 1.5 ppm have been shown to have both lethal and other adverse effects on salmon. Smelters vs. Salmon
In a field study, Damkaer and Dey10 demonstrated that high salmon loss at John Day Dam on the Columbia River, 1982-1986, was caused by the inhibition of migration by fluoride contamination from an aluminum smelter located 1.6 km [one mile] above the dam. In 1982, the average daily discharge of fluoride was 384 kg and the salmon loss was 55%. In 1985, discharge averaged 49 kg and was accompanied by a concentration of 0.2 ppm and a salmonid loss of 5%. Damkaer and Dey confirmed the cause-and-effect relationship by means of a two-choice flume for fluoride gradient salmon behaviour tests. These determined that the "critical level" was 0.2 ppm. There are other studies that indicate that fluoride at levels below 1.5 ppm have lethal and other adverse effects on fish. Delayed hatching of rainbow trout have occurred at 1.5 ppm;11 brown mussels have died at 1.4 ppm12; an alga (Porphyria tenera) was killed by a four-hour fumigation with fluoride with a critical concentration of 0.9 ppm13; and, levels below 0.1 ppm were shown to be lethal to the water flea, Daphnia magna.14 These latter two studies suggest that salmon species also may be affected by fluoride-induced reduction of food supply. Documents used in a 1961 court case involving Meader's Trout farm in Pocatello, Idaho,15 contain evidence that between 1949 and 1950 trout damage and loss was related to fluoride contamination due to rain washing airborne particles from leaves into hatchery water at levels as low as 0.5 ppm. This evidence suggests that the "safe level" of fluoride in the fresh water habitat of salmon species is not 1.5 ppm but, 0.2 ppm. Is City Water Deadly to Salmon?
In fluoridated areas, drinking water obtained from surface water with an average fluoride concentration of 0.1-0.2 ppm16 is raised to the "optimal" level of 0.7-1.2 ppm by the addition of sodium fluoride, hydrofluosilicic acid, or sodium silicofluoride. [Note: In 1985, the EPA raised the Maximum Contaminant Level to 4 ppm.] Fluoride, in community drinking water, enters the fresh water ecosystem in various ways. Surface run-off from fire-fighting, washing cars, and watering gardens may enter streams directly or through storm sewers at optimal concentration, 0.7-1.2 ppm. Most enters during waste water treatment. Masuda17 studied a large number of cities and calculated the concentrations in waste water that were in excess of the concentration present in the cities' water supplies. In raw sewage, this was 1.30 ppm; primary treatment reduced this slightly to 1.28 ppm; secondary treatment to 0.39 ppm. Singer and Armstrong18 found 0.38 ppm in unfluoridated sewage and 1.16-1.25 ppm in fluoridated sewage. It is clear that, in the case of artificially fluoridated communities, the concentration of fluoride in both surface run-off and sewer effluent exceeds 0.2 ppm.” Extract from: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon In the Northwest US and British Columbia by Richard G Foulkes, MD and Anne C. Anderson, RPN Read the whole article here: http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fluoride/fluoride_salmon.html
Osteoporosis and Kids You wouldn't think that osteoporosis -- the brittle-bone disease that afflicts 10 million Americans over age 50 -- is something you need to worry about for your kids. But now you do. Just ask Maribel Burke, a mother of two from Jacksonville, Florida...
Reader Comments:EUES Ireland, Dublin, Ir, - 03/22/07 Dear Sir, To pretend that the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to public water supplies is a common naturally occurring element is highly misleading and erroneous. It is in fact a hodge-podge of chemicals, a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry! We are expected to believe the standard mantra repeated ad nauseam by the pro-fluoride lobby that 40, 50 or 60, (take your pick) years of fluoridation have proven it safe and efficacious. Why? Well, let's have a look at some of that 50 years research, will we? Oh, we don't have to - York University (UK) had a review in 1999-2000 to assess the merits or otherwise of fluoridation. The Report was commissioned by the UK government who wanted to lay the anti-fluoride lobby's arguments to rest once and for all so that they could bring fluoridation into the UK en masse. The report looked at all the fluoride literature worldwide since the inception of fluoridation. Unfortunately for them and for the whole fluoride lobby, they found the following, and I quote: "We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor." My emphasis. OK, so the pro-fluoride evidence over 50 years was POOR. So we will discount it because an expert and independent and comprehensive university / government report has said so. What about since 2000? York say that up until October 2003 they still had not received any convincing research to change their minds. Nothing that I am aware of has come out in fluoride's defence since! Please send me any links to recent health research that shows the efficacy of dumping toxic waste into our drinking water, I would love to see it. On the other hand, the last 30 years have shown major links to damage of the health of fluoridated people. How many cavities avoided justify the death through osteosarcoma of a young boy? How many suffer from thyroid malfunctions, kidney trouble, broken hips, Alzheimer's Disease, fluorosis, brittle bones and general illness due to the attack hydrofluorosilicic acid and its attendant chemicals (including mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, phosphate) wreak on the human immune system all because someone CLAIMS this helps kids teeth? There has NEVER been a long-term health survey on a fluoridated population ANYWHERE! Rather strange, isn't that? Caries have reduced world wide over the past 30 years and faster in some non-fluoridated countries than in fluoridated ones. So where is the PROOF that these pro-fluoride people offer? I am sick and tired of hearing the generalisations based on old and discredited "research". Wasn't it only in the 70's that the scientists and experts who worked for the tobacco companies claimed: There is the proof that smoking does not damage ones health or cause cancer - BECAUSE two or three hundred years of smoking proves it!!! Sounds like the same argument that the fluoride lobby are trying to pass off on us. People should research the issue and make themselves aware of what may turn out to be a major health calamity in the (near) future. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm for what the York Report REALLY said! I certainly DO agree with Dr. Rosen's final sentence: In the end, decisions that have long ranging implications on health should only be made when considering all the evidence. EUES Ireland
To get a free copy of the EUES Ireland bottled water survey in Excel format, just click on this address and request it! euesireland@eircom.net The survey is broken down into the following categories and water suitable for the reconstitution of infant formula is clearly indicated on it. We recommend that you confirm the suitability with your family doctor.
BRAND NAME COUNTRY OF ORIGIN QTY IN mg/ltr: CALCIUM MAG SODIUM(NA) POTASSIUM(K) BICARBONATE(HCO3) CHLORIDE SULPHATE NITRATE(NO3) SILICA TOT DISPLACED SOLIDS PH FLUORIDE IRON ALUMINIUM
Maximum Daily Fluoride Intake Limits The maximum daily intake depends on the age: Age female male 0 - 6 months 0.01 mg 0.01 mg
6 - 12 months 0.5 mg 0.5 mg
1 - 3 years 0.7 mg 0.7 mg
IRISH PUBLIC FLUORIDATION IS AT 1 mg/L AT 3 mg/day FLUORIDE INTAKE, THYROID FUNCTION IS IMPAIRED WE ARE GIVING OUR BABIES 100 TIMES THE MAXIMUM DAILY DOSE BY USING TAPWATER PLEASE NOTE THAT BOTTLED WATER MUST BE BOILED BEFORE USE IN BABY FORMULA FLUORIDATED WATER IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN UNDER 4
Oversupply of Fluoride Too much fluoride colours the teeth (fluorosis) and if taken over an extended period may lead to changes in the bone structure. Inadvertent swallowing of fluoride from toothpaste may add further to the total fluoride intake which is already known to be above safe levels in the UK and Ireland.
I have compiled this list over a few weeks and as I cannot cover the whole country, where there are numerous local bottled waters, therefore I would appreciate it if you could either send me a close-up photo of any waters not on this list, showing their mineral contents or alternatively, please list the name, origin and different constituent minerals in the manner above.
Please do NOT change this list and forward it on, as that will lead to many different versions in circulation. I will compile all new waters and send out a 6 monthly update to all on request. Many thanks for your help.
.jpg)
