Sunday, September 09, 2012

Dumbing Down the Nation

Breaking news: Fluoride stunts neurological development in children

By David Liu, PHD
with thanks to
Saturday Sept 8, 2012 ( -- Many food consumers and lawmakers believe fluoridation of drinking water provides dental benefits for all people.  A new review study by Harvard researchers confirm that increased fluoride exposure lowers intellectual quotient (IQ) in children to say the least.

Anna L Choi of Harvard School of Public Health and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 27 previous studies and reported at ISEE Conference - August 26  to 30, 2012 - Columbia, South Carolina that fluoride causes an adverse effect on children's neurodevelopment.

For the review, the researchers searched a number of major research databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Water Resources Abstracts and TOXNET databases and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database on fluoride neurotoxicity through 2011 for eligible studies and identified 27 epidemiological studies suitable for the meta-analysis.

The major findings: children who were exposed to fluoride, compared to those who were not, had their IQ (intellectual quotient) lowered by 0.45 point.  That is, the researchers said children in high fluoride area has significantly lowered IQ score compared to those who lived in low fluoride areas.

The researchers concluded their study confirms the notion of an adverse effect of fluoride on children's intellectual quotient or neurobehavioral development.

fluoride, lowered IQ, fluoridation, toxic chemical waste

Thursday, September 06, 2012

Fluoride Linked To Gum Disease

Scientists report a link between dental fluorosis and periodontal disease in the June 2007 Indian Journal of Dental Research. (1) Dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown stained and/or pitted teeth - is a visual manifestation of fluoride overdose during childhood. Dental fluorosis afflicts from 1/3 to 1/2 of U.S. schoolchildren, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. (2) Inhabitants of the Davangere district of India were studied where natural water fluoride levels ranged from 1.5 to 3.0 parts-per-million (ppm) which is similar to fluoride levels allowed in U.S. water supplies (up to 4 ppm). The sample consisted of 1,029 subjects between 15- and 74-years-old. As the degree of dental fluorosis increased, periodontitis (advanced gum infection) increased. "The results suggest that there is a strong association of occurrence of periodontal disease in high-fluoride areas," write Vandana and Reddy. "Surprisingly, studies have not paid attention to the periodontal status in high-fluoride areas from a research perspective," the authors write. "In addition to inflammatory process, which remains common to high- and low-fluoride areas, the fluorosis-induced changes in hard and soft tissues of periodontium requires... attention to suspect fluoride as an etiological (environmental) agent for periodontal disease," the authors conclude. Ireland and two thirds of U.S. public water suppliers purposely add fluoride chemicals (silicofluorides) in an attempt to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers.

The National Research Council advises more studies are required on fluoride's effects on reasoning ability, endocrine functions, the immune deficient, fertility, gastric response, bladder cancer, kidney and liver enzyme functions and more. (3) Studies already link fluoride to cancer, genetic defects, IQ deficits, thyroid dysfunction, kidney, tooth and bone damage. (3a) But government officials want even more studies before they condemn fluoridation. "Who will decide when fluoride's mounting risks outweigh its questionable benefits. The individual or the government?" asks Paul Beeber, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. "Fluoridation leaves it in the hands of the government." "Fluoridation chemicals are in short supply these days," (5) says Beeber, "This would be a good time to gracefully bow out of water fluoridation." ,
Article URL:

Former Irish Environment Minister Rejected Drinking Water Fluoridation!

The Oireachtas (Joint Irish Houses of Parliament) Draft report on Water Fluoridation in Ireland 11/1/2007 presented by Mr John Gormley T.D., former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in Ireland.
I am very pleased to present my Report on Water Fluoridation to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children. I was appointed first to undertake this work in 1999 during the last Dáil. Unfortunately, I was advised by the Committee Chairman to interrupt my work when the then Minister for Health and Children, Micheal Martin, set up the Fluoridation Forum to conduct a similar investigation into the action of fluoride. Following the completion of the Forum Report, the Health Committee recommenced its own investigation. Given that sufficient time has now elapsed since the publication of the Forum Report and that not a single recommendation out of 33 has been implemented, it is timely to publish our deliberations on the subject.
Having agreed to become the rapporteur, I quickly discovered that I faced a complex and mammoth task. Not only did I have to analyse the testimony of those who appeared before the Committee, I also had to wade through the often contradictory scientific evidence and the endless archive material.
I have tried to distil the essential elements of my research into this report. As well as looking at why water fluoridation was introduced into this country, the report seeks to answer two fundamental questions — (1) how effective is water fluoridation in fighting tooth decay? (2) what are the side effects of water fluoridation?
Those who came before the committee had often diametrically opposed views on the subject. There is no doubting the sincerity and dedication of both sides in this debate. It is worth noting however, that whereas there was almost unanimity in the dental community when water fluoridation was introduced as to its effectiveness, there are now clear differences of opinion among dentists on the subject. One only has to contrast the testimony of Dr. O'Mullane and Dr. Clarkson with Dr. MacAuley and Dr. Limeback to understand how greatly views diverge on water fluoridation. But there is some common ground. And it's worth reflecting on these points of agreement at the very outset. When fluoride was first introduced it was thought generally to act systemically i.e. it had to be ingested. We now know it acts topically i.e. in the mouth and on the surface of the tooth. We also know that there are increased sources of fluoride now compared to fifty years ago. All sides admit - and the evidence points to - a huge increase in the incidence of fluorosis, a condition which indicates an excess of fluoride. Both sides also took the view that fluoride in toothpaste did reduce the rate of dental caries. They also agree that children who use fluoride toothpaste require supervision and proper instruction.
The crucial question for the committee was whether the perceived benefits of water fluoridation outweighed the negative side effects. The contribution of international expert, Dr. Hardy Limeback was persuasive in this regard when he commented that using the most authoritative international data, the risk of fluorosis far outweighed the benefits of fluoride. Dr. Limeback was also very clear in his recommendation that fluoridated water should not be used to bottle feed babies. Indeed, his advice seemed to have been accepted by the Food Safety Authority until it changed its mind in circumstances that have not been explained to the satisfaction of the committee. The committee has also noted the latest advice of the American Dental Association which states: "If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride". (ADA 9th November 2006).
Given that it is extremely impractical for mothers who are bottle feeding to source non-fluoridated water supplies and that fluorosis rates continue to rise, our central recommendation — based on the precautionary principle - is that the practice of water fluoridation should end immediately. All of the available evidence suggests that not only will this lead to a marked reduction in fluorosis but that there would not be a significant rise in dental caries.
The evidence presented by Dr O'Mullane showed that Ireland had a very serious dental health problem in the 1950s and early 60s. All of the available historical records confirm this to be the case. They also show that Ireland had a real shortage of dentists at the time. The committee fully appreciates why a prophylactic measure such as water fluoridation seemed like a sensible approach at the time. However, we have had to base our conclusions and recommendations on all of the data now available to us. Quantifying the effectiveness of fluoridation was our most difficult task. In our view, the most accurate measurement of this is contained in the York Review, undoubtedly, the most comprehensive study ever to be carried out on water fluoridation. Similarly, we have referred to York Review in quantifying fluorosis rates.
A key recommendation of the Fluoridation Forum was the reduction in the level of fluoride in our water supplies. Significantly, this recommendation has not been implemented, and even if the fluoride levels in the water were slightly reduced, we could not recommend that this water be used to bottle feed babies.
The Ireland of 2006 is a very different place with very different standards of general and oral hygiene. We are a modern European state with dental caries rates equal to and sometimes below other EU states which do not fluoridate their water supplies. We do, however, continue to consume too much confectionary, and our snacking habits are leading to continued dental caries problems as well as higher rates of obesity. The Department for Health and Children should tackle this problem by concentrating its efforts on education in relation to better oral hygiene, banning junk food vending machines and using fiscal means to change these poor eating habits.
If our recommendations are implemented we are convinced that not only will we see a reduction in fluorosis rates but that there will also be a drop in dental caries rates.


  1. The rates of dental decay and the lack of dentists justified the introduction of a prophylactic measure such as water fluoridation.(in 1960)
  2. Those who advocated water fluoridation were motivated by concern about the serious decline in dental health standards.
  3. We believe that basic health and hygiene habits in Irish society have changed dramatically in the intervening period.
  4. We note that dental health has improved to the same degree in countries where there is no water fluoridation.
  5. The Department of Health's assessment of the overwhelming benefits of water fluoridation is not justified.
  6. While positive aspects of fluoridation have been over-stated, the growing negative impact has not been properly recognised. The Committee views the officially reported sevenfold increase in fluorosis since 1984, as completely unacceptable, requiring immediate action.
  7. The Committee is disappointed and alarmed that no general health studies, as provided for in S.6 of the 1960 Fluoridation Act have ever been carried out, particularly considering that four in ten 15 year olds are now affected by fluorosis. By disregarding this provision of the Act, the Department of Health has left itself liable for the harmful effects of fluoridation of Irish drinking water.
  8. It is the view of the committee that the Department of Health has failed to offer a coherent scientific justification for continuing the policy of water fluoridation and has notably failed to deal with Dr Connett's 50 Reasons to oppose fluoridation either in the Fluoridation Forum or since.
  9. Despite emphasizing the expertise of its membership, the Fluoridation Forum failed to apply key principles of toxicology, for example the toxic dosage for Irish children. Another failure was to overlook the synergistic effects of fluoride chemicals with other substances (e.g. aluminium) that are ever-present in many Irish drinking water supplies.
  10. The Committee notes that the recommendation of FSAI advising against the use of fluoridated water for the bottle feeding of babies was changed subsequently following representations form a minority of members in 2001.
  11. The Committee believes that the manner this was done was both irregular and suspect and represented a "process mess". The replies given to the former Chair by Dr Wayne Anderson in this regard were unsatisfactory. The Committee notes a similar change in advice on using un-fluoridated water in infant formula by Prof John Clarkson.

  1. The committee notes that the vast of majority of those on the Forum for fluoridation had records of being strongly in favour of water fluoridation.
  2. It is clear and, indeed, accepted by both the pro-and anti- fluoridation sides that the action of fluoride is topical and not systemic.
  3. We note that of the 33 recommendations of the Fluoride forum, not one has been implemented to date.
  4. We believe on the basis of the international studies there would be no long-term increase in dental decay if fluoride were not added to Irish drinking water.
  5. There is no evidence to suggest that Irish people are fluoride deficient, in fact, the evidence at hand suggests that we have too much fluoride in our systems.
  6. On the basis of the available archive material the Committee believes that the original Fluorine consultative council did not approach its task with an open mind. It would appear to have had a very strong pro water fluoridation bias.
  7. We are disappointed that only the minutes of one of the meetings of the Fluorine consultative Council survive, the others having been destroyed in a flood.
  8. It is now accepted by all sides that the sources of fluoride in our diet have increased dramatically since the introduction of water fluoridation.
  9. The Committee believes that fluoride toothpastes have contributed to a decline in dental caries in this country and other states.
  10. Fluoride toothpastes should carry a warning about the dangers of children swallowing fluoride toothpastes, and children properly supervised when brushing their teeth using fluoride toothpaste.
  11. The increase in membership of Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation from single figures when the Forum reported, to over 120 dental practitioners today reflects the growing professional opposition to the policy.
  12. There is sufficient scientific evidence in relation to health effects — albeit contradictory — to justify the application of the precautionary principle. We also note the latest advice from the American Dental Association which advises parents to choose non-fluoridated water for the bottle feeding babies.
  13. We note that the fluoridating agent hydrofluorosilic acid has not been sanctioned by the Irish Medicines Board.
  1. Fluoridated water should not be used to bottle feed babies;
  2. Given the impracticality of sourcing non-fluoridated water for the bottle feeding of babies, the committee — on the basis of the precautionary principle — believes the practice of water fluoridation should cease immediately;
  3. The savings accruing from the policy change must be assessed in each HSE region. They should be ring-fenced before being re-allocated to educational programmes aimed at the socially deprived, in line with best practice in other European countries;
  4. Independent research into general health effects should be undertaken in order to assess the full impact of lifetime fluoride exposure in the population. Particular attention should be given to effects on infants and children of exposure to fluoride from all sources;
  5. The Minister for Health should not permit indiscriminate medication measures to treat the whole population via water or food because of the inability to control dosage and monitor individual reaction, evidenced by the forty year experience of water fluoridation;
  6. The Government should undertake a major educational programme to encourage healthy eating in order to tackle the twin problems of dental caries and obesity;
  7. More public dentists need to be employed and more regular check ups encouraged;
  8. Parents should be given advice about teeth brushing and the use of fluoridated toothpaste. Along with imaginative education programmes on regular tooth brushing, existing nutritional programmes already underway should continue to target sugary diets of children from 5 yr olds to 15 yr olds. Special emphasis should be laid on initiatives that target the socially disadvantaged where dental decay linked to poor diet is most prevalent; and
  9. Fluoride toothpastes should carry warnings similar to those in the United States about the dangers of swallowing fluoride toothpaste.

It is Fluoride, Jim, but not as we know it

So... industrial accidents caused by DuPont and its fluoride derived industries. See    

As you well know, I am continually opposed to dumping hydrofluorosilicic acid into our drinking water, as this by-product of the phosphate fertiliser industry is not only highly corrosive and toxic, but is un-regulated by any government department & has never been licenced for use as medication, which is what it is being used for when they make us drink it.

Today I have another fluoride culprit, which I only found out about today, but some fast research has shown that for the past 6 years the American EPA has been at odds with DuPont over their use of, and hiding the negative effects of, another fluoride derivative, namely Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), commonly used in Teflon and many household coatings... have YOU checked your cookware lately?

Articles courtesy of 

September 9th, 2012 -

Common chemical linked to heart disease, researchers find

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a common industrial chemical used in the manufacture of many household products, may be associated with higher risks of cardiovascular disease, according to a study by researchers at the West Virginia University School of Public Health.
PFOA, also known as C8, is a manmade, perfluorinated carboxylic acid and fluorosurfactant. One of its main industrial applications is as a surfactant in the emulsion polymerization of fluoropolymers. It has been detected in the blood of more than 98% of the U.S. population.
WVU researchers examined 1,216 subjects from the 1999-2003 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey, a major program of the National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The team found that increased PFOA levels were positively associated with cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease, independent of traditional risk factors, such as age, sex and race/ethnicity.
“These two factors – increased PFOA levels and cardiovascular disease – are co-existing together for some reason,” said Dr. Anoop Shankar, the lead author of the study. “To determine the cause and effect, we would have to do follow-up studies over time, which we are, in fact, doing. At this point, we cannot say that one caused the other.”
In 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency worked with eight major companies in the industry to launch the 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program, in which companies committed to reduce global facility emissions and product content of PFOA and related chemicals by 95% by 2010, and to work toward eliminating emissions and product content by 2015.

December 2010 -

3M, DuPont Settle Patent Fight Over Coating Process for Teflon

3M Co. and DuPont Co. settled their patent dispute over a process of making protective coatings including Teflon that are free of a chemical suspected of causing cancer, according to Bloomberg. The companies submitted a filing in federal court in Minneapolis seeking dismissal of the U.S. suit, filed in March. DuPont and 3M were among companies that agreed to eliminate perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, from products including Teflon by 2015 amid government and consumer concern that the chemical may harm people. DuPont has said PFOA has mostly been removed from products introduced since 2007, while 3M said it completed the phase-out of last year. 3M said it filed the complaint after DuPont rejected offers to license the patent, which was issued in April 2008 and covers a way to make aqueous Teflon coatings that are effectively free of PFOA. The agreement to eliminate PFOA was made after an Environmental Protection Agency scientific advisory panel said PFOA is a likely human carcinogen, based on animal studies.
January 2006 -

Bottled water in Ohio test positive for DuPont chemical

The Associated Press reports that bottled water provided to about 1,000 southeast Ohio residents whose tap water contained a chemical used by DuPont Company to make Teflon has tested positive for trace amounts of the same substance, the company providing the water said last Thursday. Marietta-based Crystal Spring Water, which has been supplying the water to residents since September, confirmed the presence of perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts in tests after a learning of a similar finding by the local water association, it said. The company's tests on the bottled water showed C8 levels at 13 to 17 parts per trillion. The well supply that provides the residents' tap water contained 3,500 parts per trillion to 7,200 parts per trillion. The company is one of three hired by DuPont, the third-largest chemical company in the U.S., to provide water to local residents until it installs filters to remove the chemical at well-water treatment plants near its Parkersburg, West Virginia facility as part of the settlement of a 2001 class action lawsuit against it. Crystal Spring is giving the 1,000 people treated water and is installing a filter to remove the chemical, known as PFOA or C-8, from the spring it uses across the Ohio River in West Virginia, owner Gary Matheny said. It is also sending 2,000 letters to customers to tell them about plans to install the filter. The chemical, used in DuPont products from nonstick cookware coating to computer chips, is a "likely" carcinogenic, according to a draft report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency science panel. Ohio and West Virginia residents who sued DuPont in 2001 claimed the company intentionally withheld and misrepresented information about the human health threat posed by the chemical. DuPont, which says C8 poses no human health threat, agreed to pay more than $107 million to settle the lawsuit with the residents over the chemical from the West Virginia plant. 

December 2005 -

EPA, DuPont in settlement over chemical

According to the Associated Press, federal regulators have reached an agreement with DuPont to settle allegations the company hid information about the dangers of a toxic chemical known as C8 used in the manufacture of Teflon. Lawyers for DuPont and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told an administrative law judge that they had reached a final agreement, but needed more time to put together the paperwork. The EPA alleged that DuPont for 20 years covered up important information about C8's health effects and about the pollution of water supplies near the company's Washington Works plant. Under federal law, DuPont could face civil fines of more than $300 million for not reporting information that showed C8 posed "substantial risk of injury to health or the environment." The company has set aside $15 million to cover the costs of the lawsuit, according to corporate disclosures filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. DuPont also faces a federal criminal investigation of its actions concerning C8 pollution, the company has told shareholders. Since May, DuPont and the EPA repeatedly have said they were close to a settlement in the civil case, but had one item left to resolve. They would not identify that item. DuPont has maintained that C8, also known as perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA, has no negative health effects. In February, DuPont settled a class-action lawsuit for $107.6 million brought by Ohio and West Virginia residents in 2001, alleging the Wilmington, Del.-based company intentionally withheld and misrepresented information concerning the nature and extent of the human health threat posed by C8.

Monday, February 13, 2012

More Scientific Evidence of Fluoride links to Cancer

The latest survey of American cities comparing the ten MOST fluoridated against the ten LEAST fluoridated cities in the USA shows clearly that while cancer rates climb a steep upward trajectory in the fluoridated cities, in the non-fluoridated cities it has levelled off 30 years ago. Pure and simple proof that the hydrofluorosilicic acid that they "call" fluoride has even worse effects than causing Alzheimers , brittle bones and fluorosis on teeth. Watch the youtube video of an interview with the scientist running the analysis here:

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Latest Links of Heart Disease to FLUORIDATION!

Recent research on causes of heart disease has revealed a link between fluoride and coronary artery disease. The study, referred to as: Association of Vascular Fluoride Uptake with Vascular Calcification and Coronary Artery Disease.

Researchers examined the arteries of 61 people for signs of calcification – artery hardening due to calcium, and fluoride absorption.
Connection between fluoride and heart disease was described as “significant”.
Fluoride was detected in the vascular walls (veins) of 96% of study participants, and calcification was observed in the vascular walls of 88% of participants. Study participants arteries also showed significant calcification and fluoride absorption.
Doctors who reviewed study participants’ medical histories noted that there was a very strong link between the presence of fluoride in artery walls and the history of heart disease. Researchers concluded that: ”An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.”

Too much fluoride in public water supplies:

Earlier this year, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly announced that they would be recommending that fluoride levels in drinking water be lowered because of a slow rise in fluorosis – fluoride poisoning that causes brittle bones, brain damage, and discolored teeth, among other health problems.

The HHS proposed lowering maximum allowable levels of fluoride in water to 0.7 mg/l. The EPA, which actually sets the standard, currently allows up to 4 mg/l of fluoride in water. This means that the EPA allows 5.71 times more fluoride in water supplies than the HHS actually deems safe! The EPA has said it is considering lowering the allowable level of fluoride in water, but has not officially acted yet.

Why the difference?

The EPA and the HHS have two separate goals when it comes to fluoride:
HHS – (recommendation) Reduce tooth decay while minimizing the rate of fluorosis
EPA – (Sets the standard) Maximum concentration of fluoride it considers safe
What this means: The EPA now believes its current standard (4 mg/l) is too high, but the EPA is not ready to set a new standard yet. Until the EPA sets a new standard, it is possible that the level of fluoride in your water could pose risks to your health.

In Ireland, the Expert Body on Fluoridation recomended in 2002 that the level of hydrofluorosilicic acid be reduced from 1ppm to 0,7 ppm to reduce the incidence of fluorosis and other possible side effects of this chemical. Four years later the Dept. of Health had still not implemented the reduction. It is impossible to tell at what level we are being fluoridated/medicated at present as the EPA website which used to list the results of the fluoride additive testing was taken down in 2001 , at the height of the Celtic Tiger.

Li, Y. et al. Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery disease. PubMed:

Lowes R. HHS Recommends Lower Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water (Medscape)