For the people of GALWAY , who are currently experiencing high levels of lead in their water, there is another, hidden, effect that has been affecting them for almost two generations now. The constant leaching from LEAD pipes into the water system is aggravated by the use of what is termed “fluoride” in Irish tapwater, but that is actually a waste product from the steel, aluminium and phosphate fertiliser industries called hydrofluorosilicic acid. This acid causes even greater deterioration of lead and aluminium piping and actually chemically binds with these metals to cause greater deposition of lead and aluminium in our bodies. This is linked to higher incidents of heart disease, thyroid problems, Alzheimers Disease and lead in the brain causing lower IQ ratios. All this has been scientifically proven. Please read below for further information. And google www.fluoridealert.org for further information, not fluoridealert.com, which the ADA highjacked for their pro-fluoride campaign. Be prepared for a shock.
TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID (H2SiF6) AS ANALYSED IN DUBLIN ON 14/08/2000 IN A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
CALCIUM 51 PPM
MAGNESIUM 23.9 PPM
SODIUM(NA) 33.6 PPM
POTASSIUM(K) 6.2 PPM
ALUMINIUM 2.1 PPM
BORON 14 PPB
MANGANESE 571 PPB
COPPER 90 PPB
ZINC 523 PPB
PHOSPHORUS 26187 PPM
BARIUM 168 PPB
IRON 11.85 PPM
SULPHUR 134.9 PPM
ARSENIC 4826 PPB
CADMIUM 4 PPB
CHROMIUM 3763 PPB
MERCURY 5 PPB
NICKEL 1742 PPB
LEAD 15 PPB
SELENIUM 2401 PPB
THALLIUM <2 PPB
ANTIMONY 14 PPB
TIN 4 PPB
COBALT 56 PPB
STRONTIUM 88 PPB
MOLYBDENUM 490 PPB
BERYLLIUM <2 PPB
VANADIUM 87 PPB
BEAR IN MIND THAT THE ABOVE IS JUST WHAT IS IN THE FLUORIDATING AGENT!
INCREDIBLY, THE REGULATION OF THE COMPOSITION IS LEFT TO THE FERTILISER COMPANIES WHICH ARE SUPPLYING THIS CHEMICAL WASTE COCKTAIL FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION!!
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!!!
Some general points about hydrofluorosilicic acid
Research over the past 30 years indicates that use of fluoride in a public water scheme leads to:
a) higher levels of bone cancer in boys, and brittle bones in adults
b) lower IQ levels (from 6-12 IQ points has been noted)
c)40% of Irish children have fluorosis (mottling of teeth indicating enamel and related bone changes)
d) possible increased incidence of Alzheimer’s Disease (due to fluoride’s propensity to combine with other minerals, mainly lead and aluminium – higher than normal levels of aluminium are recorded in sufferer’s brains, fluoride is retained by the body, usually 50% in adults)
e) fluoride displaces iodine in the body – with evidence of associated thyroid problems
f) no increase in dental caries where fluoride ceases to be added to drinking water
Don’t forget, Ireland is the ONLY country in Europe to fluoridate by statute, only the UK (10% of pop.) and some cities in Spain (3%) permit the addition of fluoride to drinking water. You would think that being the only European fluoridating country that we would have by far the best caries rating, however, we come SIXTH in the league!
We still do not hear the truth about the fluoridation issue from our media. Newburgh (which incidentally used pure sodium fluoride in the trials) has no better dental record 50 years down the line than Kingston, the “control” town that it was compared with. It does, however, have one of the highest heart disease rates in the U.S. “Fluoride concentrates in the arteries, attracting calcium and can contribute directly to their hardening” according to scientists. This high rate of heart disease is shared by Grand Rapids, Michigan, another test town for fluoride in the 1950’s, which doubled its disease rate only 5 years into the trials. And it is shared by Ireland.
Everyone, including the pro-fluoride lobby, agrees that fluoride acts topically, not systemically. OK, so there is no need to swallow it. So WHY do we put it into the drinking water? It is estimated that the “target” for fluoridation, namely 5 –12 year olds who are forming teeth, consume only 0.01% of the water. Isn’t it better to target them through educational methods and selective treatment, rather than a mass medication of everyone?
The “background level” of fluoride in our world is now extremely high. In the 1960’s there was hardly any. In the 2000’s fluoride in toothpaste, food, drinks, and industrial processes is pervasive. Of course, we already brush our teeth with it, but also we eat it, drink it, spray our crops with it, bathe in it, wash our clothes and bed-linen in it, every time we come in contact with something that has used fluoridated tapwater, we add that little bit of fluoride to our bodies. In the 1990’s neurological effects were shown in laboratory animals at 1ppm, which is the level we put into our drinking water! Up until the 1930’s they were trying to get fluoride OUT of water, since then industry has seen to it that what was then a dangerous chemical that caused a number of environmental disasters, was cynically transformed into the essential ingredient for nice shiny teeth! What does it take to open YOUR mind?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Latest News on Aspartame: Not Good
The latest scientific reports confirm links between aspartame, the ubiquitous artificial sweetener found in most soft drinks and children's drinks, and brain cell disruption and cell death. Check my other blog post on this chemical for links to asthma and hyperactivity...
April 4, 2008
Review raises questions over aspartame and brain health
By staff reporter 03/04/2008- Excessive intake of aspartame may inhibit the ability of enzymes in the brain to function normally, suggests a new review that could fan the flames of controversy over the sweetener.
The review, by scientists from the University of Pretoria and the University of Limpopo and published recently in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, indicated that high consumption of the sweetener may lead to neurodegeneration.
Aspartame is made up of phenylalanine (50 per cent), aspartic acid (40 per cent) and methanol (10 per cent). It is commonly used in food products for the diet or low calorie market, including soft drinks and chewing gums. It was approved for use in foods in the US and EU member states in the early 1980s.
The sweetener has caused much controversy amid suspicions on whether it is entirely safe, with studies linking the ingredient and cancer in rats.
It has also previously been found that aspartame consumption can cause neurological and behavioural disturbances in sensitive individuals. Symptoms that have been reported include headaches, insomnia and seizures.
Despite strong concerns being raised from some quarters over the sweetener, both the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have not changed their guidelines regarding the safety of the ingredient or intake advice.
The new review also challenges finding published last year in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (Informa Healthcase) that considered over 500 studies, articles and reports conducted over the last 25 years - including work that was not published, but that was submitted to government bodies as part of the regulatory approvals process.
The earlier review concluded: “The weight of existing evidence s that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption… No credible evidence was found that aspartame is carcinogenic, neurotoxic, or has any other adverse effect on health when consumed even at quantities many times the established ADI [acceptable daily intake] levels.”
New review
Writing in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a Nature journal, the scientists behind the new review state: “The aim of this study was to discuss the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain, and we propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders, and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning.”
The researchers found a number of direct and indirect changes that occur in the brain as a result of high consumption levels of aspartame, leading to neurodegeneration.
They found aspartame can disturb the metabolism of amino acids, protein structure and metabolism, the integrity of nucleic acids, neuronal function and endocrine balances. It also may change the brain concentrations of catecholamines, which include norepinephrine, epinephrine and domapine.
Additionally, they said the breakdown of aspartame causes nerves to fire excessively, which can indirectly lead to a high rate of neuron depolarisation.
The researchers added: “The energy systems for certain required enzyme reactions become compromised, thus indirectly leading to the inability of enzymes to function optimally.
“The ATP stores [adenosine triphosphate] in the cells are depleted, indicating that low concentrations of glucose are present in the cells, and this in turn will indirectly decrease the synthesis of acetylcholine, glutamate and GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid).”
Furthermore, the functioning of glutamate as an excitatory neurotransmitter is inhibited as a result of the intracellular calcium uptake being altered, and mitochondria are damaged, which the researchers said could lead to apoptosis (cell death) of cells and also a decreased rate of oxidative metabolism.
As a result of their study, the researchers said more testing is required to further determine the health effects on aspartame and bring an end to the controversy.
Source: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition2008, doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866“Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain”Authors: P. Humphries, E. Pretorius, H. Naude
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Thursday, April 3, 2008
April 4, 2008
Review raises questions over aspartame and brain health
By staff reporter 03/04/2008- Excessive intake of aspartame may inhibit the ability of enzymes in the brain to function normally, suggests a new review that could fan the flames of controversy over the sweetener.
The review, by scientists from the University of Pretoria and the University of Limpopo and published recently in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, indicated that high consumption of the sweetener may lead to neurodegeneration.
Aspartame is made up of phenylalanine (50 per cent), aspartic acid (40 per cent) and methanol (10 per cent). It is commonly used in food products for the diet or low calorie market, including soft drinks and chewing gums. It was approved for use in foods in the US and EU member states in the early 1980s.
The sweetener has caused much controversy amid suspicions on whether it is entirely safe, with studies linking the ingredient and cancer in rats.
It has also previously been found that aspartame consumption can cause neurological and behavioural disturbances in sensitive individuals. Symptoms that have been reported include headaches, insomnia and seizures.
Despite strong concerns being raised from some quarters over the sweetener, both the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have not changed their guidelines regarding the safety of the ingredient or intake advice.
The new review also challenges finding published last year in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (Informa Healthcase) that considered over 500 studies, articles and reports conducted over the last 25 years - including work that was not published, but that was submitted to government bodies as part of the regulatory approvals process.
The earlier review concluded: “The weight of existing evidence s that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption… No credible evidence was found that aspartame is carcinogenic, neurotoxic, or has any other adverse effect on health when consumed even at quantities many times the established ADI [acceptable daily intake] levels.”
New review
Writing in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a Nature journal, the scientists behind the new review state: “The aim of this study was to discuss the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain, and we propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders, and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning.”
The researchers found a number of direct and indirect changes that occur in the brain as a result of high consumption levels of aspartame, leading to neurodegeneration.
They found aspartame can disturb the metabolism of amino acids, protein structure and metabolism, the integrity of nucleic acids, neuronal function and endocrine balances. It also may change the brain concentrations of catecholamines, which include norepinephrine, epinephrine and domapine.
Additionally, they said the breakdown of aspartame causes nerves to fire excessively, which can indirectly lead to a high rate of neuron depolarisation.
The researchers added: “The energy systems for certain required enzyme reactions become compromised, thus indirectly leading to the inability of enzymes to function optimally.
“The ATP stores [adenosine triphosphate] in the cells are depleted, indicating that low concentrations of glucose are present in the cells, and this in turn will indirectly decrease the synthesis of acetylcholine, glutamate and GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid).”
Furthermore, the functioning of glutamate as an excitatory neurotransmitter is inhibited as a result of the intracellular calcium uptake being altered, and mitochondria are damaged, which the researchers said could lead to apoptosis (cell death) of cells and also a decreased rate of oxidative metabolism.
As a result of their study, the researchers said more testing is required to further determine the health effects on aspartame and bring an end to the controversy.
Source: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition2008, doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866“Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain”Authors: P. Humphries, E. Pretorius, H. Naude
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Thursday, April 3, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Philadelphia Reconsiders Fluoridation
This article covers many of the relevant points that should be made to any governing body anywhere which currently advocates fluoridation and the Pennsylvania experience is in microcosm what other fluoridated areas are going through. Hopefully their City Fathers will do the right thing and halt fluoridation now.
Reprinted from New Jersey Cosmetic Dentistry Blog http://cent4dent.com:80/blog/?p=66
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
The issue of pharmaceuticals in drinking water has hit the mass media in the past couple of months. In response to numbers showing many drug residues in Philadelphia’s drinking water and water sources, Philadelphia City Council held a hearing on the issue. Of the four groups lined up to speak, I was (also) invited so that ActionPA would be one of two environmental groups to testify. With permission from the organizer, I used the opportunity to talk about water fluoridation at the hearing this past Monday.
My testimony is below and attached. Amazingly, it was well-received and when the city council turned around to ask the Philadelphia Water Department to verify if it was true that the fluoridation chemicals aren’t pharmaceutical grade, but are from the phosphate industry, the Water Department confirmed it (and some of my other statements). The affirmed that it’s not necessary or mandatory and that they do it because a city ordinance requires it. Of course, they contradicted me by claiming that they think it’s safe. However, they admitted that they weren’t on top of the recent science on the issue.
I was delighted to see the council president’s special counsel and the mayor’s legislative and government affairs coordinator express interest in it, asking for a copy of my testimony (which I put together after I delivered it). Maybe this is the first crack in the 54-year old fluoridation practice in this city.
Anyway… feel free to use any of this. Most of the info is the same as what we already have on our website, but repackaged for Philadelphia City Council.
Mike—–
Testimony of Mike EwallDirector of ActionPA before City Council Committee on Public Health & Human Services Public Hearing Concerning the Safety of the City’s Drinking Water Resolution #080288
April 14th, 2008
Hi, my name is Mike Ewall and I’m the Founder and Director of ActionPA, a statewide environmental group based here in Philadelphia.
I’m here to speak to the issue of the single most dangerous “drug” in the water – one that is the most preventable.
Others are here to talk about pharmaceutical drugs that are present in waters in parts per trillion (ppt), which is a real concern. The debate is about whether there are health effects at that level and the science is still being developed as more studies are done on the matter.
Philadelphia pays around $1,000,000 per year to put fluoridation chemicals in the water at one part per million (ppm) – a level one million times higher than what we’re talking about with the other drugs. This 1 ppm level is a level at which health effects are intended and expected.
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
However, the “fluoride” that is put in the drinking water isn’t pharmaceutical grade, even though it’s put in the water with a pharmaceutical intention. They’re not squirting toothpaste into the water. The chemical purchased by the Philadelphia Water Department (and 92% of U.S. drinking water systems that fluoridate) is hydrofluosilicic acid, a hazardous waste byproduct of the phosphate industry. Literally, if the same chemicals were dumped into a river or lake, it would be regulated as hazardous waste. However, injecting the same chemicals into drinking water supplies at 1 ppm is considered medication. Legally, 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. Over 99% of fluoridated water is released directly into the environment at around 1 ppm and is not even used for drinking or cooking.
These chemicals are not FDA approved for safety or effectiveness and the delivered chemicals are not batch tested for contaminants, even though these chemicals are known to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive particles and more. The arsenic levels in particular are enough to be at levels that should concern a water system, since they’re high enough to potentially push a water system over the safe drinking water act limit for arsenic (a limit that was lowered in 2001). [See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-arsenic.htm]
Fluoridation not effective at reducing tooth decayThe intended effect of putting hydrofluosilicic acid in the drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. However, data from our own state Department of Health [Oral Health Needs Assessment, 2000] shows that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh, with Philadelphia in second place. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3] Both cities have been fluoridated since the 1950s. National and international data backs this up. Looking at the tooth decay trends in the few countries where fluoridation is common compared to comparable first world countries where fluoridation isn’t used, you can see that tooth decay is falling overall, regardless of fluoridation status. [See 2nd chart at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html] On the national level, a state-by-state review of data from the CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the percentage of U.S. residents with ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ teeth is related directly to income levels and is totally unaffected by the percentage of the state’s population that is receiving fluoridated water. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/50states.pdf] Populations with more tooth decay are those who are poor and can’t afford dental care.
Fluoridation causes discoloration of teeth (fluorosis)
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh also have the state’s highest rates of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the white, brown or yellow spotting (or ‘mottling’) of tooth enamel. It’s a disease named after the fluoride chemicals that cause it. The PA Department of Health data from the aforementioned Oral Health Needs Assessment shows that Philadelphia’s rate of children with dental fluorosis is the highest in the state (25.6%) compared to a state-wide average of 14.9% and a rate in the (largely unfluoridated) Philadelphia suburbs of 9.9%. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3]
Agencies warn not to mix infant formula with fluoridated tap waterIn late 2006, two of the largest organizational promoters of fluoridation – the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control – both issued a press release warning that parents shouldn’t use fluoridated water to mix infant formula for infants in their first year of age. No warnings have gone to fluoridated water customers, however, to let parents of young children know that they’re not supposed to mix infant formula with Philadelphia tap water. [See links to the press releases here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason6]
Scientific studies in recent years show many health problems with fluoride exposure
Various other health problems have been linked to fluoride exposure, as documented many times in recent years. A recent Scientific American article [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/sciam.pdf] brought some of this to popular attention. The landmark study of the issue is the National Research Council’s March 2006 extensive review of over 1,000 scientific studies. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2006.pdf] The National Research Council (NRC) is part of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, which does research for the federal government, in this case, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report concluded that the level determined to be “safe” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unsafe and needs to be lowered to protect public health. EPA’s “no longer considered safe” level of 4 ppm is already dangerously close to the 1 ppm level put in drinking water. Since the dose can’t be controlled, there are some populations that drink more water and are at higher risk, including diabetics and athletes. Health Departments and other fluoridation promoters will argue that the report isn’t relevant to water fluoridation due to the difference between the 4 ppm level studied and the 1 ppm level used. This position has been refuted by one of the NRC report’s authors and others. [See http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html] Additional links on the topic are here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason1
EPA scientists call for national ban on fluoridation
The NRC report affirmed the long-standing position of EPA’s own scientists, who have long objected to the determination that 4 ppm was a “safe” level. In August 2005, eleven EPA unions representing over 7,000 environmental and public health professionals at the federal agency wrote to Congress and called for a national moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young males. The union representing scientists at the EPA Region III office in Philadelphia, which covers Pennsylvania is one of the unions signed onto this statement. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason9]
Fluoride-lead connection implicates fluoridation with violence, drugs and learning problems
Another major concern is the fluoride-lead connection. Some studies have shown that hydrofluosilicic acid leaches lead from pipes. [For the most recent study, see: Neurotoxicology. Sept. 28, 2007, “Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.” RP Maas, SC Patch, AM Christian, MJ Coplan] Other studies have shown that exposure to hydrofluosilicic acid increases the brain’s absorption of lead – especially in African-Americans and Latinos. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason2] The increased exposure to (and absorption of) lead is well known to affect learning ability and IQ. Because it affects the dopamine levels in the brain, the fluoride-enhanced lead exposure has also been implicated with increased affinity for violence and cocaine addiction. That such pressing urban problems could be made worse by fluoridation is cause enough to take precaution and stop adding fluoride acids to the water system.
Philadelphia’s hydrofluosilicic acid purchases; rising chemical costs
Since hydrofluosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate industry, its availability is subject to the trend of falling phosphate production. In late 2007, the American Water Works Association and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued warnings of fluoridation chemical shortages. [See links to these warnings at the bottom section of: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals/shortagesandrisingcosts.html ] As phosphate production has been dropping, the costs of purchasing the chemicals has been rising dramatically, nation-wide. Since at least 1999, Philadelphia’s supplier has been Solvay Fluoride. In 1999, the city paid $447/ton, spending nearly $200,000 on the chemicals that year. In 2007, the city bought the same chemicals for $1,194/ton and the costs are expected to double again in the city’s current purchasing for the coming year. If this expected doubling takes place, the city will now be paying about $1 million a year just for the chemicals, not to mention the cost of handling and administering the chemicals.
State mandate would take away local control and further increase costsThe state legislature is considering House Bill 1649 [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/bills/], which would mandate fluoridation statewide, taking away the rights of local governments to choose whether to fluoridate their water systems. Currently, about 9% of the state’s water systems are fluoridated, affecting 52% of the state’s water customers (it’s mostly the urban systems that are fluoridating). [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/map/] If HB 1649 passes, it’ll nearly double the demand for fluoridation chemicals in the state, making the current chemical shortages even more dire and dramatically pushing the chemical costs even higher. Even if Philadelphia wanted to keep fluoridating forever, it’s in the city’s financial interest not to see HB 1649 pass, since the mandate would further drive up the cost to the city.
City Council can take precaution, repeal the 1951 ordinance and save moneyIn the medical profession, there is the principle “first, do no harm.” This precautionary principle should be applied in this case – where there is mounting evidence of harm, very questionable benefit and no requirement that the practice continue. The only requirement currently in place is a 1951 city ordinance that caused the city’s water to start being fluoridated in 1954. [The ordinance and related documents provided by the Philadelphia Water Department can be found here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/philly/]
In light of the mounting costs and rising awareness of health and social problems relating to fluoridation, City Council is encouraged to repeal the 1951 ordinance and instruct the Philadelphia Water Department to cease water fluoridation – which would also save the city around $1 million or more a year. Ending water fluoridation can be done through a simple DEP permit process. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/383-2125-001.pdf]
There are many credentialed scientific experts who are familiar with the newest science on water fluoridation and fluoride exposure. I’d encourage this committee to invite some of these experts to the hearings on this important topic – and I’d be glad to provide access to these experts.
If the city wanted to effectively address the tooth decay problem, the savings from ending water fluoridation could be used to hire dentists that could treat eligible low-income city residents who can’t afford dental care.
Thank you.
Mike EwallFounder & DirectorActionPA1434 Elbridge St.Philadelphia, PA 19149215-743-4884catalyst@actionpa.orghttp://www.actionpa.org
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 16th, 2008
Reprinted from New Jersey Cosmetic Dentistry Blog http://cent4dent.com:80/blog/?p=66
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
The issue of pharmaceuticals in drinking water has hit the mass media in the past couple of months. In response to numbers showing many drug residues in Philadelphia’s drinking water and water sources, Philadelphia City Council held a hearing on the issue. Of the four groups lined up to speak, I was (also) invited so that ActionPA would be one of two environmental groups to testify. With permission from the organizer, I used the opportunity to talk about water fluoridation at the hearing this past Monday.
My testimony is below and attached. Amazingly, it was well-received and when the city council turned around to ask the Philadelphia Water Department to verify if it was true that the fluoridation chemicals aren’t pharmaceutical grade, but are from the phosphate industry, the Water Department confirmed it (and some of my other statements). The affirmed that it’s not necessary or mandatory and that they do it because a city ordinance requires it. Of course, they contradicted me by claiming that they think it’s safe. However, they admitted that they weren’t on top of the recent science on the issue.
I was delighted to see the council president’s special counsel and the mayor’s legislative and government affairs coordinator express interest in it, asking for a copy of my testimony (which I put together after I delivered it). Maybe this is the first crack in the 54-year old fluoridation practice in this city.
Anyway… feel free to use any of this. Most of the info is the same as what we already have on our website, but repackaged for Philadelphia City Council.
Mike—–
Testimony of Mike EwallDirector of ActionPA before City Council Committee on Public Health & Human Services Public Hearing Concerning the Safety of the City’s Drinking Water Resolution #080288
April 14th, 2008
Hi, my name is Mike Ewall and I’m the Founder and Director of ActionPA, a statewide environmental group based here in Philadelphia.
I’m here to speak to the issue of the single most dangerous “drug” in the water – one that is the most preventable.
Others are here to talk about pharmaceutical drugs that are present in waters in parts per trillion (ppt), which is a real concern. The debate is about whether there are health effects at that level and the science is still being developed as more studies are done on the matter.
Philadelphia pays around $1,000,000 per year to put fluoridation chemicals in the water at one part per million (ppm) – a level one million times higher than what we’re talking about with the other drugs. This 1 ppm level is a level at which health effects are intended and expected.
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
However, the “fluoride” that is put in the drinking water isn’t pharmaceutical grade, even though it’s put in the water with a pharmaceutical intention. They’re not squirting toothpaste into the water. The chemical purchased by the Philadelphia Water Department (and 92% of U.S. drinking water systems that fluoridate) is hydrofluosilicic acid, a hazardous waste byproduct of the phosphate industry. Literally, if the same chemicals were dumped into a river or lake, it would be regulated as hazardous waste. However, injecting the same chemicals into drinking water supplies at 1 ppm is considered medication. Legally, 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. Over 99% of fluoridated water is released directly into the environment at around 1 ppm and is not even used for drinking or cooking.
These chemicals are not FDA approved for safety or effectiveness and the delivered chemicals are not batch tested for contaminants, even though these chemicals are known to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive particles and more. The arsenic levels in particular are enough to be at levels that should concern a water system, since they’re high enough to potentially push a water system over the safe drinking water act limit for arsenic (a limit that was lowered in 2001). [See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-arsenic.htm]
Fluoridation not effective at reducing tooth decayThe intended effect of putting hydrofluosilicic acid in the drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. However, data from our own state Department of Health [Oral Health Needs Assessment, 2000] shows that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh, with Philadelphia in second place. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3] Both cities have been fluoridated since the 1950s. National and international data backs this up. Looking at the tooth decay trends in the few countries where fluoridation is common compared to comparable first world countries where fluoridation isn’t used, you can see that tooth decay is falling overall, regardless of fluoridation status. [See 2nd chart at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html] On the national level, a state-by-state review of data from the CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the percentage of U.S. residents with ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ teeth is related directly to income levels and is totally unaffected by the percentage of the state’s population that is receiving fluoridated water. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/50states.pdf] Populations with more tooth decay are those who are poor and can’t afford dental care.
Fluoridation causes discoloration of teeth (fluorosis)
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh also have the state’s highest rates of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the white, brown or yellow spotting (or ‘mottling’) of tooth enamel. It’s a disease named after the fluoride chemicals that cause it. The PA Department of Health data from the aforementioned Oral Health Needs Assessment shows that Philadelphia’s rate of children with dental fluorosis is the highest in the state (25.6%) compared to a state-wide average of 14.9% and a rate in the (largely unfluoridated) Philadelphia suburbs of 9.9%. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3]
Agencies warn not to mix infant formula with fluoridated tap waterIn late 2006, two of the largest organizational promoters of fluoridation – the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control – both issued a press release warning that parents shouldn’t use fluoridated water to mix infant formula for infants in their first year of age. No warnings have gone to fluoridated water customers, however, to let parents of young children know that they’re not supposed to mix infant formula with Philadelphia tap water. [See links to the press releases here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason6]
Scientific studies in recent years show many health problems with fluoride exposure
Various other health problems have been linked to fluoride exposure, as documented many times in recent years. A recent Scientific American article [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/sciam.pdf] brought some of this to popular attention. The landmark study of the issue is the National Research Council’s March 2006 extensive review of over 1,000 scientific studies. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2006.pdf] The National Research Council (NRC) is part of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, which does research for the federal government, in this case, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report concluded that the level determined to be “safe” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unsafe and needs to be lowered to protect public health. EPA’s “no longer considered safe” level of 4 ppm is already dangerously close to the 1 ppm level put in drinking water. Since the dose can’t be controlled, there are some populations that drink more water and are at higher risk, including diabetics and athletes. Health Departments and other fluoridation promoters will argue that the report isn’t relevant to water fluoridation due to the difference between the 4 ppm level studied and the 1 ppm level used. This position has been refuted by one of the NRC report’s authors and others. [See http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html] Additional links on the topic are here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason1
EPA scientists call for national ban on fluoridation
The NRC report affirmed the long-standing position of EPA’s own scientists, who have long objected to the determination that 4 ppm was a “safe” level. In August 2005, eleven EPA unions representing over 7,000 environmental and public health professionals at the federal agency wrote to Congress and called for a national moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young males. The union representing scientists at the EPA Region III office in Philadelphia, which covers Pennsylvania is one of the unions signed onto this statement. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason9]
Fluoride-lead connection implicates fluoridation with violence, drugs and learning problems
Another major concern is the fluoride-lead connection. Some studies have shown that hydrofluosilicic acid leaches lead from pipes. [For the most recent study, see: Neurotoxicology. Sept. 28, 2007, “Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.” RP Maas, SC Patch, AM Christian, MJ Coplan] Other studies have shown that exposure to hydrofluosilicic acid increases the brain’s absorption of lead – especially in African-Americans and Latinos. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason2] The increased exposure to (and absorption of) lead is well known to affect learning ability and IQ. Because it affects the dopamine levels in the brain, the fluoride-enhanced lead exposure has also been implicated with increased affinity for violence and cocaine addiction. That such pressing urban problems could be made worse by fluoridation is cause enough to take precaution and stop adding fluoride acids to the water system.
Philadelphia’s hydrofluosilicic acid purchases; rising chemical costs
Since hydrofluosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate industry, its availability is subject to the trend of falling phosphate production. In late 2007, the American Water Works Association and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued warnings of fluoridation chemical shortages. [See links to these warnings at the bottom section of: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals/shortagesandrisingcosts.html ] As phosphate production has been dropping, the costs of purchasing the chemicals has been rising dramatically, nation-wide. Since at least 1999, Philadelphia’s supplier has been Solvay Fluoride. In 1999, the city paid $447/ton, spending nearly $200,000 on the chemicals that year. In 2007, the city bought the same chemicals for $1,194/ton and the costs are expected to double again in the city’s current purchasing for the coming year. If this expected doubling takes place, the city will now be paying about $1 million a year just for the chemicals, not to mention the cost of handling and administering the chemicals.
State mandate would take away local control and further increase costsThe state legislature is considering House Bill 1649 [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/bills/], which would mandate fluoridation statewide, taking away the rights of local governments to choose whether to fluoridate their water systems. Currently, about 9% of the state’s water systems are fluoridated, affecting 52% of the state’s water customers (it’s mostly the urban systems that are fluoridating). [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/map/] If HB 1649 passes, it’ll nearly double the demand for fluoridation chemicals in the state, making the current chemical shortages even more dire and dramatically pushing the chemical costs even higher. Even if Philadelphia wanted to keep fluoridating forever, it’s in the city’s financial interest not to see HB 1649 pass, since the mandate would further drive up the cost to the city.
City Council can take precaution, repeal the 1951 ordinance and save moneyIn the medical profession, there is the principle “first, do no harm.” This precautionary principle should be applied in this case – where there is mounting evidence of harm, very questionable benefit and no requirement that the practice continue. The only requirement currently in place is a 1951 city ordinance that caused the city’s water to start being fluoridated in 1954. [The ordinance and related documents provided by the Philadelphia Water Department can be found here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/philly/]
In light of the mounting costs and rising awareness of health and social problems relating to fluoridation, City Council is encouraged to repeal the 1951 ordinance and instruct the Philadelphia Water Department to cease water fluoridation – which would also save the city around $1 million or more a year. Ending water fluoridation can be done through a simple DEP permit process. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/383-2125-001.pdf]
There are many credentialed scientific experts who are familiar with the newest science on water fluoridation and fluoride exposure. I’d encourage this committee to invite some of these experts to the hearings on this important topic – and I’d be glad to provide access to these experts.
If the city wanted to effectively address the tooth decay problem, the savings from ending water fluoridation could be used to hire dentists that could treat eligible low-income city residents who can’t afford dental care.
Thank you.
Mike EwallFounder & DirectorActionPA1434 Elbridge St.Philadelphia, PA 19149215-743-4884catalyst@actionpa.orghttp://www.actionpa.org
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 16th, 2008
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Birmingham,UK held up as example of fluoride success - NOT!
SO, Once again the "powers that be" decide what is best for us without any definitive evidence to support their claims! I have been listening to SKY News today and the debate that is once again being dragged through the media (NO BAD THING) about whether it is better to fluoride our drinking water in order to save us all from our bad dental hygiene and dietary habits or whether hydrofluorocilicic acid is actually a manufacturing waste that is accumulating in our bodies and slowly (but surely) causing the rise of osteoporosis, brittle bones, lower IQ, Alzheimers Disease and underactive thyroid.... (it actually is, unfortunately).
Just to put the debate into some kind of perspective, below I have reprinted an article issued in 2003 which refers to the fact that Birmingham UK has NOT benefited from 40 years of fluoridation - at least no more than the 70% decreases in dental caries also experienced by NON-FLUORIDATED EU countries over the last 50 years!
When listening to the claims of the pro-fluoride brigade one must pay as much attention to what they don't say!
So, when they say Birmingham has 50% fewer cavities, demand to see the evidence - personally, I would love to see it. But it does not actually exist.
If you really want to learn about the harm that fluoridation does to communities, read this blog. watch the videos, check out fluoridealert.org (NOT fluoridealert.com which the American Dental Association hijacked in order to confuse those who were seeking to research the fluoride debate), read, read, read...then ask, WHY?!
Any questions, euesireland@eircom.net
Daily Mail - LondonTuesday 08 July 2003FLUORIDEby Bob Woffinden
TOMORROW, peers will be asked to approve a piece of legislation so sinister, so Draconian and so far-reaching in its implications that it is hard to believe it is happening with barely a murmur of protest.
The new Bill will force water companies to add fluoride to all drinking water when ordered to do so by local health authorities - in other words, millions of us will be forced to take medication against our will.
It sounds like a totalitarian nightmare, and it is. Once fluoride is in the water supply, everyone will be exposed to it. It will be in our tea, coffee, food, and absorbed through the pores of our skin when we take baths or showers. For years, dental authorities have lobbied for fluoridation, arguing it prevents decay in children's teeth - but dentists should play no part in the debate. The first, and most important, consideration is not teeth, but whether fluoride has adverse effects on the human body. There is mounting evidence that it does.
Cancer, osteoporosis, kidney problems and skeletal fluorosis - a crippling disease which causes muscle weakness and gastrointestinal disorders - have all been linked in scientific studies to fluoridation.
How ironic that, when France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have all rejected mass water fluoridation, our government is embracing it with such enthusiasm.
Why? After all, even the evidence that adding fluoride to water prevents tooth decay is patchy. In December 2002, four leading British scientists, who had reviewed the subject, wrote to the Government pointing this out.
They said the effects of fluoride on teeth could range from 'a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit'. In other words, fluoride might actually be harming children's teeth.
We shouldn't really be surprised when we consider the origins of fluoridation. The Americans were the first to add fluorides - chemical compounds used by modern industry and commerce, which, once in the body, build up in teeth and bone - to water after World War II.
The plan was to study a fluoridated city and a non-fluoridated one in a five-year scientific experiment to see whether children's teeth improved.
HOWEVER, the experiment was never carried out.
Within 18 months, the control city was also fluoridated on the grounds it was unfair to deprive children there of the 'benefits' of fluoridation.
So, instead of reaching a conclusion based on research, it was decided by the U.S. medical authorities, and the research was abandoned.
Yet despite this, fluoridation spread. Harold Wilson introduced it to Britain in the Sixties when about ten per cent of our water supply, reaching five million people, was fluoridated - mainly Birmingham, the West Midlands, and the Newcastle area. Much of the U.S. followed suit, as did Ireland and parts of Australia and New Zealand.
Forty years later, however, it has still not been conclusively proved that fluoride benefits children's teeth. One British study found children in fluoridated areas suffered, on average, 15 per cent less tooth decay compared to those in non-fluoridated areas.
But studies in Finland, Germany, Cuba and Canada found the rate of dental decay did not increase when communities stopped fluoridation.
So how is it supposed to work?
Well, astonishingly, no one knows.
One of the main possibilities is that it helps the re-mineralisation of teeth enamel.
If this is true, then it is a process that works simply through fluoride being applied to the surface of the teeth. Therefore, the benefits can be obtained through fluoride toothpaste, and there is no point in adding fluoride to the water supply.
A second way in which fluoride might work is by suppressing the enzymes that cause the build-up of the acid that leads to tooth decay.
But is fluoride clever enough to know that it should affect just those enzymes and no others? Of course not. Different enzymes will react to fluoride in different ways, and some enzyme systems will function less efficiently.
There will also be a range of individual responses to fluoride, in which age, sex, race and genetic susceptibility will play a part. It is a chilling thought, but if the Government adds fluoride to the water supply, then it will be saying to some people, we are going to make you ill.
Once fluoride is in the body, one of its actions is to displace iodine, which ensures the correct functioning of the thyroid gland.
The consequences of an underperforming thyroid include muscle and joint pain, high cholesterol, heart disease, weight gain, fatigue and low energy levels. Not surprisingly, having an underactive thyroid is a increasing problem for people in the U.S., the world's most fluoridated country.
In the Eighties, scientists wondered whether fluoride could help treat bone disease, and gave fluoride to patients suffering from osteoporosis in an attempt to harden their bones and prevent fractures.
The trials had to be abandoned, however, when it became clear that patients were suffering more fractures. Studies have also linked fluoride to osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer.
Even more alarmingly, reports from China have shown that children growing up in fluoridated areas have lower IQs than those in non-fluoride areas.
Birmingham has been fluoridated for 35 years, so one might expect people's teeth to be in a better condition than elsewhere in the country. Yet that is not the case. The cost of dental treatment per person in Birmingham is as high as in other major cities.
But why is this government so in thrall to the pro-fluoridation lobby?
Ministers point to statistics showing that by the age of five, two out of three children in the most deprived parts of the country have at least one rotten tooth.
Fluoridation is a way of acting when feckless parents won't.
Yet it is precisely these children whose bodies are already low in calcium, magnesium and essential nutrients who are going to be most at risk from fluoride poisoning.
More cynically, campaigners attribute ministers' enthusiasm to astute lobbying from the big chemical companies.
Fluoride is a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry. If it was classified as toxic waste, firms would have to pay to get it cleaned up. But if they persuade the Government that fluoride should be added to our water supply, then they can make money from it.
LIKE previous administrations, this government has started from the conclusion that fluoridation is a good thing. Plan A was to gather government-friendly scientists to give fluoride the all clear.
That was the York Review of September 2000, which, unfortunately, concluded there had been few studies into fluoride's harmful effects, and emphasised the need for research into the links between fluoride and 'infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ'.
So Plan B was to get together an even friendlier group of scientists from the Medical Research Council. However, in September 2002, even its report acknowledged that 'little high quality research has been undertaken in the area of fluoride and health'. Plan C, wheeled out just days ago, was to go ahead with fluoridation anyway.
New legislation will indemnify water companies against damage to public health caused by fluoride - in other words, if victims of fluoridation go to court, taxpayers will foot the bill.
Water companies will no longer be allowed to refuse requests by the health authorities to add fluoride to their water.
The Government says fluoride schemes will be subject to public approval.
Just how it intends to obtain this is unclear. Certainly, those unfortunate people in Birmingham were not asked for approval before their city was fluoridated.
Before more of us are exposed to the potential dangers of fluoridation we are entitled to an answer to the following question - is there published peer-reviewed scientific research linking fluoride to cancer, poor thyroid function, stillbirths, Down's syndrome, the early onset of puberty, increased rates of hip fracture, and diminished IQ levels in children?
The straight answer is, 'Yes'. If the Government presses ahead with this sinister programme of forced medication, then political morality will have sunk to new depths.
Fluoride Action Network 802-355-0999 info@fluoridealert.org
Just to put the debate into some kind of perspective, below I have reprinted an article issued in 2003 which refers to the fact that Birmingham UK has NOT benefited from 40 years of fluoridation - at least no more than the 70% decreases in dental caries also experienced by NON-FLUORIDATED EU countries over the last 50 years!
When listening to the claims of the pro-fluoride brigade one must pay as much attention to what they don't say!
So, when they say Birmingham has 50% fewer cavities, demand to see the evidence - personally, I would love to see it. But it does not actually exist.
If you really want to learn about the harm that fluoridation does to communities, read this blog. watch the videos, check out fluoridealert.org (NOT fluoridealert.com which the American Dental Association hijacked in order to confuse those who were seeking to research the fluoride debate), read, read, read...then ask, WHY?!
Any questions, euesireland@eircom.net
Daily Mail - LondonTuesday 08 July 2003FLUORIDEby Bob Woffinden
TOMORROW, peers will be asked to approve a piece of legislation so sinister, so Draconian and so far-reaching in its implications that it is hard to believe it is happening with barely a murmur of protest.
The new Bill will force water companies to add fluoride to all drinking water when ordered to do so by local health authorities - in other words, millions of us will be forced to take medication against our will.
It sounds like a totalitarian nightmare, and it is. Once fluoride is in the water supply, everyone will be exposed to it. It will be in our tea, coffee, food, and absorbed through the pores of our skin when we take baths or showers. For years, dental authorities have lobbied for fluoridation, arguing it prevents decay in children's teeth - but dentists should play no part in the debate. The first, and most important, consideration is not teeth, but whether fluoride has adverse effects on the human body. There is mounting evidence that it does.
Cancer, osteoporosis, kidney problems and skeletal fluorosis - a crippling disease which causes muscle weakness and gastrointestinal disorders - have all been linked in scientific studies to fluoridation.
How ironic that, when France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have all rejected mass water fluoridation, our government is embracing it with such enthusiasm.
Why? After all, even the evidence that adding fluoride to water prevents tooth decay is patchy. In December 2002, four leading British scientists, who had reviewed the subject, wrote to the Government pointing this out.
They said the effects of fluoride on teeth could range from 'a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit'. In other words, fluoride might actually be harming children's teeth.
We shouldn't really be surprised when we consider the origins of fluoridation. The Americans were the first to add fluorides - chemical compounds used by modern industry and commerce, which, once in the body, build up in teeth and bone - to water after World War II.
The plan was to study a fluoridated city and a non-fluoridated one in a five-year scientific experiment to see whether children's teeth improved.
HOWEVER, the experiment was never carried out.
Within 18 months, the control city was also fluoridated on the grounds it was unfair to deprive children there of the 'benefits' of fluoridation.
So, instead of reaching a conclusion based on research, it was decided by the U.S. medical authorities, and the research was abandoned.
Yet despite this, fluoridation spread. Harold Wilson introduced it to Britain in the Sixties when about ten per cent of our water supply, reaching five million people, was fluoridated - mainly Birmingham, the West Midlands, and the Newcastle area. Much of the U.S. followed suit, as did Ireland and parts of Australia and New Zealand.
Forty years later, however, it has still not been conclusively proved that fluoride benefits children's teeth. One British study found children in fluoridated areas suffered, on average, 15 per cent less tooth decay compared to those in non-fluoridated areas.
But studies in Finland, Germany, Cuba and Canada found the rate of dental decay did not increase when communities stopped fluoridation.
So how is it supposed to work?
Well, astonishingly, no one knows.
One of the main possibilities is that it helps the re-mineralisation of teeth enamel.
If this is true, then it is a process that works simply through fluoride being applied to the surface of the teeth. Therefore, the benefits can be obtained through fluoride toothpaste, and there is no point in adding fluoride to the water supply.
A second way in which fluoride might work is by suppressing the enzymes that cause the build-up of the acid that leads to tooth decay.
But is fluoride clever enough to know that it should affect just those enzymes and no others? Of course not. Different enzymes will react to fluoride in different ways, and some enzyme systems will function less efficiently.
There will also be a range of individual responses to fluoride, in which age, sex, race and genetic susceptibility will play a part. It is a chilling thought, but if the Government adds fluoride to the water supply, then it will be saying to some people, we are going to make you ill.
Once fluoride is in the body, one of its actions is to displace iodine, which ensures the correct functioning of the thyroid gland.
The consequences of an underperforming thyroid include muscle and joint pain, high cholesterol, heart disease, weight gain, fatigue and low energy levels. Not surprisingly, having an underactive thyroid is a increasing problem for people in the U.S., the world's most fluoridated country.
In the Eighties, scientists wondered whether fluoride could help treat bone disease, and gave fluoride to patients suffering from osteoporosis in an attempt to harden their bones and prevent fractures.
The trials had to be abandoned, however, when it became clear that patients were suffering more fractures. Studies have also linked fluoride to osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer.
Even more alarmingly, reports from China have shown that children growing up in fluoridated areas have lower IQs than those in non-fluoride areas.
Birmingham has been fluoridated for 35 years, so one might expect people's teeth to be in a better condition than elsewhere in the country. Yet that is not the case. The cost of dental treatment per person in Birmingham is as high as in other major cities.
But why is this government so in thrall to the pro-fluoridation lobby?
Ministers point to statistics showing that by the age of five, two out of three children in the most deprived parts of the country have at least one rotten tooth.
Fluoridation is a way of acting when feckless parents won't.
Yet it is precisely these children whose bodies are already low in calcium, magnesium and essential nutrients who are going to be most at risk from fluoride poisoning.
More cynically, campaigners attribute ministers' enthusiasm to astute lobbying from the big chemical companies.
Fluoride is a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry. If it was classified as toxic waste, firms would have to pay to get it cleaned up. But if they persuade the Government that fluoride should be added to our water supply, then they can make money from it.
LIKE previous administrations, this government has started from the conclusion that fluoridation is a good thing. Plan A was to gather government-friendly scientists to give fluoride the all clear.
That was the York Review of September 2000, which, unfortunately, concluded there had been few studies into fluoride's harmful effects, and emphasised the need for research into the links between fluoride and 'infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ'.
So Plan B was to get together an even friendlier group of scientists from the Medical Research Council. However, in September 2002, even its report acknowledged that 'little high quality research has been undertaken in the area of fluoride and health'. Plan C, wheeled out just days ago, was to go ahead with fluoridation anyway.
New legislation will indemnify water companies against damage to public health caused by fluoride - in other words, if victims of fluoridation go to court, taxpayers will foot the bill.
Water companies will no longer be allowed to refuse requests by the health authorities to add fluoride to their water.
The Government says fluoride schemes will be subject to public approval.
Just how it intends to obtain this is unclear. Certainly, those unfortunate people in Birmingham were not asked for approval before their city was fluoridated.
Before more of us are exposed to the potential dangers of fluoridation we are entitled to an answer to the following question - is there published peer-reviewed scientific research linking fluoride to cancer, poor thyroid function, stillbirths, Down's syndrome, the early onset of puberty, increased rates of hip fracture, and diminished IQ levels in children?
The straight answer is, 'Yes'. If the Government presses ahead with this sinister programme of forced medication, then political morality will have sunk to new depths.
Fluoride Action Network 802-355-0999 info@fluoridealert.org
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Fluoride Causes Harm - The Facts vs The Rhetoric
Region's fluoride (rejection) decision justified!
Posted 23 hours ago
The decision on Thursday night of Regional Council's Committee of the Whole in Niagara to vote down a motion to fluoridate all of Niagara's municipal water was a good one for the community.
As the Region of Niagara has 12 communities and only one full community (Welland) which has received water fluoridation for over 40 years, its uniqueness to assess the impact of fluoridation was more obvious than in most communities.
Dr. Klooz, Associate Commissioner of Health for the region, presented data at a public meeting in July which revealed Welland children have higher tooth decay rates, at many different ages, after years of exposure to fluoridation in Welland's water supply.
At the committee meeting, local dentists made claims about the benefits of water fluoridation and ignored the local data. On average, compared to other regional children, tooth decay rates are up 27 per cent in Welland.
Many councillors voiced their concerns over possible negative health effects and the inability to control the dose of fluoride from one individual to another, considering there are many more sources of fluoride in our diets and the environment than years ago. They were also concerned about the fact the Public Works Department confirmed the chemical used for water fluoridation is not a pure product and does contain trace amounts of lead, arsenic and other contaminants which they do not have a process to remove, only dilute.
The issue of water fluoridation should not be surrounded by emotion and fear mongering about the possible outbreak of rampant tooth decay, but simply about new science that has evolved.
Modern medical science has brought forward new studies and awareness about adding synthetic toxins to our diets and the environment.
We need to educate the public about dental hygiene, good nutrition and to fight poverty, not throw more fluoride at the problem.
Cindy Mayor
Waterdown
From the Welland Tribune, Ontario, Canada - January 26th,2008
Posted 23 hours ago
The decision on Thursday night of Regional Council's Committee of the Whole in Niagara to vote down a motion to fluoridate all of Niagara's municipal water was a good one for the community.
As the Region of Niagara has 12 communities and only one full community (Welland) which has received water fluoridation for over 40 years, its uniqueness to assess the impact of fluoridation was more obvious than in most communities.
Dr. Klooz, Associate Commissioner of Health for the region, presented data at a public meeting in July which revealed Welland children have higher tooth decay rates, at many different ages, after years of exposure to fluoridation in Welland's water supply.
At the committee meeting, local dentists made claims about the benefits of water fluoridation and ignored the local data. On average, compared to other regional children, tooth decay rates are up 27 per cent in Welland.
Many councillors voiced their concerns over possible negative health effects and the inability to control the dose of fluoride from one individual to another, considering there are many more sources of fluoride in our diets and the environment than years ago. They were also concerned about the fact the Public Works Department confirmed the chemical used for water fluoridation is not a pure product and does contain trace amounts of lead, arsenic and other contaminants which they do not have a process to remove, only dilute.
The issue of water fluoridation should not be surrounded by emotion and fear mongering about the possible outbreak of rampant tooth decay, but simply about new science that has evolved.
Modern medical science has brought forward new studies and awareness about adding synthetic toxins to our diets and the environment.
We need to educate the public about dental hygiene, good nutrition and to fight poverty, not throw more fluoride at the problem.
Cindy Mayor
Waterdown
From the Welland Tribune, Ontario, Canada - January 26th,2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)