EUES Ireland

The Fight against Forced Medication Continues

2011-12-28T17:37:00.005Z

As I pointed out a number of years ago in my own research into the CDC figures for fluoridation vs cancer deaths in the various states of America, (Blogger 6/10/2007-Black People Suffer More from the Effects of Fluoridation) it seemed obvious that black and hispanic groups were reaping even more drastic effects from fluoridation than caucasian communities. It seems that my feeling has been further backed up by research in the intervening years. I welcome the release of the information that hydrofluorosilicic acid (it is NEVER pharma-grade fluoride that is used in public fluoridation, just phosphate industry slop) attacks even more minority groups than originally believed. Maybe this will finally cause wilful and ignorant governments to finally pull the plug on their misguided fluoridation campaigns.

Daniel Stockin of The Lillie Center in Georgia, and FAN's Georgia state contact person, provides the following summary of the dramatic developments of 2011 pertaining to the growing awareness that minorities are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects, and that the government is failing to offer warnings about this fact. We suggest that you print this summary and share it with the leaders of your cities and water districts.

2011: A Dramatic Year in the Fight Against Fluoridation

by Daniel G. Stockin

At The Lillie Center we have felt inspired to pursue the involvement of black and other minority communities to help end fluoridation. In 2006, we published our first article "Harmed Babies and Minorities: Acceptable Collateral Damage of Fluoridation?" Since then our focus on harmed minority groups has continued, and this year we have been fortunate in gaining the involvement of leaders across the United States in this effort.

We have worked particularly to involve leaders in the black community in Georgia and Tennessee, in the backyard of the Centers for Disease Control (the Oral Health Division of the CDC is the number one promoter of fluoridation in the U.S.). In 2011, Andrew Young, former Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador, and Reverend Gerald Durley, a nationally known civil rights leader and prominent Atlanta pastor, both released letters opposing fluoridation.

We were also pleased to work with Bernice King and Alveda King, the daughter and niece of Martin Luther King Jr., and they each released statements opposing fluoridation. In addition, prominent Atlanta resident Laura Seydel, daughter of CNN founder Ted Turner and a widely respected environmental advocate, was of great assistance in our efforts, and she also released a statement on her website, opposing fluoridation.

In addition to working with leaders in the black community, we also joined efforts with Nikki Kuhns and Henry Rodriguez from San Antonio, Texas, who worked tirelessly and with great sacrifice to secure the passage of a dramatic civil rights resolution opposing fluoridation by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the oldest hispanic civil rights organization in the U..S.

The developments in Atlanta elicited a damage control response by the American Dental Association and the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health. In reading the excerpts printed below from the minority community leaders who have now spoken out against fluoridation, one can see why fluoridation promoters are nervous (see also the quote from ADA below):

From former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young: "People are calling for investigative Fluoridegate hearings, and one can understand why, given the fact that the story about fluorides keeps changing. I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion."

From civil rights leader Rev. Gerald Durley: "I support the holding of Fluoridegate hearings at the state and national level so we can learn...why our government agencies haven't told the black community openly that fluorides disproportionately harm black Americans..."

From William Owens, President of the 5,000-member-strong Coalition of African American Pastors: "African Americans have more kidney disease and more diabetes, but nobody elected to tell us that kidney patients and diabetics are more susceptible to harm from ingested fluorides... We need to investigate this Fluoridegate mess. This is a civil rights and environmental justice issue.."

From Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr.: "Water fluoridation needs to end. It is good that organizations are lending their support to help push this outdated and harmful practice of fluoridation toward collapse."

From Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr.: "This is a civil rights issue. No one should be subjected to drinking fluoride in their water, especially sensitive groups like kidney patients and diabetics, babies in their milk formula, or poor families that cannot afford to purchase unfluoridated water. Black and Latino families are being disproportionately harmed."

From Laura Seydel, well-known environmental leader and daughter of CNN founder Ted Turner: "...the government should stop adding fluoride chemicals to our water immediately...Gerber is selling bottles of non-fluoridated water that parents can use for their infant children. However, as Atlanta leaders have pointed out, bottled water is not always an option for low-income families."

Attempts at Damage Control by Fluoridation Supporters

Here is the telling statement in a letter sent to Howard Koh, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health, from the President-Elect and Executive Director of the American Dental Association: "...we have asked for your help in addressing the concerns raised by Former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young and Pastor Gerald Durley regarding the safety of water fluoridation for minority populations. We believe that this issue has the potential to gain traction."

Adding fuel to the fire later in the year, the resolution passed by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) was fiercely resisted, removed from the LULAC website, and then later restored. The resolution stated, "LULAC supports efforts by all citizens working to stop forced medication through the public water system because it violates civil rights; and...LULAC demands to know why government agencies entrusted with protecting the public health are more protective of the policy of fluoridation than they are of public health."

The Message Reaches California

With key assistance from Patty Ducey-Brooks, David Kennedy, and others, nationally known black leader Bishop George McKinney and San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water hosted an event this past summer, a "Town Hall Meeting on Fluoridegate." Bishop McKinney issued a statement that, "Our state and federal elected representatives should convene FluorideGate hearings immediately and put people under oath...And we need to find out why minority community leaders weren't told that fluorides disproportionately harm Black Americans, Hispanics, and other people of color.."

The Vital Assistance in These Efforts from the Fluoride Action Network

At The Lillie Center, we are grateful that the Fluoride Action Network identified fluoridation as an Environmental Justice issue (also see FAN's submission to HHS). With FAN's wonderful connections and expertise, news about fluoride harm to minorities is now being used in city council meetings, in state legislative houses, in pieces published in the media, and elsewhere. We will be continuing our work of reaching out to black, hispanic and other minority leaders, and we recognize the vital role of Dr. Connett and the FAN team in helping to spread the word about this issue. The message simply won't go away. We are pleased that the top leaders of the American Dental Association are concerned about these efforts "gaining traction," and we look forward to even more awareness by minority citizens about their greater risk for harm from water fluoridation, and awareness of the fact that those promoting fluoridation are not warning them about their increased risk.

Thank you Dan for all the wonderful work you have done to help end fluoridation this year and for several years before. If ever the quote "one person can make difference" applies it applies to you. And thank you to everyone else who is making a difference on this issue. I have no need to tell you how difficult this task is but if we keep together as a worldwide team we will prevail.

Paul Connett,

FAN Director

Minister John Gormley T.D., Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, OPPOSES Fluoridation!

2009-06-01T15:22:00.014+01:00

Almost 2 and a half years after the now Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, John Gormley, the Chair of the Oireachtas Health and Children Committee, wrote this intelligent Report calling for the immediate stop to water fluoridation on numerous grounds, we are STILL drinking toxic waste with no proven benefits. Why? Now that he is a Minister in Government why has he not moved to halt this criminal poisoning of a nation? Where is the spine? Has it, like the skeletal and dental structures of the fluoride-imbibing public, become brittle and weakened, too?
Introductory Note
Extracted from: Irish Times, Thursday 15th March 2007:
«The publication of a report on fluoridation to the Oireachtas Health and Children Committee written by Green Party Dublin South East TD, John Gormley, is expected to be strongly opposed by some other committee members in the coming weeks.

Rejecting the Green's opposition to fluoridation, the Fianna Fáil TD, Jimmy Devins, vice-chair of the committee, said water fluoridation "is in the interests of public health and should not be discontinued. ...All the evidence available has indicated to us that water fluoridation is in the interests of public health. It prevents dental caries and has no negative side effects aside from a slight staining of teeth in a small number of cases which can be easily treatable."

Mr Devins said he would oppose Mr Gormley's report getting the official sanction of the committee.»
Here is the report which was suppressed by certain committee members.

This report was never put to the vote.
Incidentally, Mr Devins' statement is completely untrue in every aspect.
”All the evidence” can be neatly summed up by the York Report of 2000&2003 which analysed all the hundreds of reports on fluoridation and found “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor. “ - http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
“ has no negative side effects aside from a slight staining of teeth” is also completely untrue. There are over 500 reports and scientific papers available which point to fluoride's negative effects on the thyroid, heart, pilial gland, bone density and soft tissue and its effects causing bone cancers, Alzheimers Disease and lowered IQ levels, among other negatives. Check: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/ for a full overview.
Furthermore, “ slight staining of teeth in a small number of cases which can be easily treatable” - over 40% of Irish children now suffer from dental, and ergo skeletal fluorosis, in the more severe cases this can involve cosmetic processes costing thousands of euro.
To continually dose a population for 50+ years with a substance that contains mercury, lead, arsenic , massive amounts of phosphate and sulphur, and indeed 30+ other chemicals in it WITHOUT A HEALTH CHECK EVER HAVING BEEN MADE...anywhere in the world, is asking for trouble. Is it a mere co-incidence that Ireland, the most fluoridated country in Europe, has the highest cancer and heart disease rates, rampant Alzheimer's and high incidence of broken hips? Hardly, when similar increases were registered in the American cities that started fluoridating. And if it is so good for our teeth, why are we in sixth place in the European caries league, after 5 non-fluoridating countries? There are vested interests that have been pushing fluoride for almost 50 years now, but there is a change happening due to the research and the dubious history of fluoridation that has been released over the last ten years. Help to speed that change by publicising this health horror for what it is – someone's handy way to turn what would otherwise be classed as toxic waste – hydrofluorosilicic acid- and would have to be treated at great expense, into a commodity that they sell to us to dump unregulated into our own drinking water, on a false promise.
For the buried report summary check: http://euesireland.blogspot.com/
The Oireachtas (Joint Irish Houses of Parliament) Draft report on Water Fluoridation in Ireland 11/1/2007 presented by Mr John Gormley T.D., now Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in Ireland.

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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 out weighed 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 modem 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.

2 CONCLUSIONS
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.

12.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.
13.It is clear and, indeed, accepted by both the pro-and anti- fluoridation sides that the action of fluoride is topical and not systemic.
14.We note that of the 33 recommendations of the Fluoride forum, not one has been implemented to date.
15.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.
16.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.
17.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.
18.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.
19.It is now accepted by all sides that the sources of fluoride in our diet have increased dramatically since the introduction of water fluoridation.
20.The Committee believes that fluoride toothpastes have contributed to a decline in dental caries in this country and other states.
21.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.
22.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.
23.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.
24.We note that the fluoridating agent hydrofluorosilic acid has not been sanctioned by the Irish Medicines Board.
Recommendations
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.

John Gormley, whatever happened to your policies?

2009-05-26T13:44:00.006+01:00

http://www.greenparty.ie/

en/news/latest_news/greens_in_govt

_would_stop_water_fluoridation

When he was the Chair of the Interparty Study of Fluoridation for the Dept. of Health and Children, John Gormley and the group concensus came out strongly against continuing the policy of Fluoridation in Ireland. Where has this 2007 report been hidden and why has Minister Gormley not pursued the sensible option of halting this ineffective practice of dumping toxic waste into our drinking water? The clock is ticking and this blog will provide some of the answers shortly, before the elections...

"One of the dangerous pollutants in Haulbowline is fluoride, and successive Irish Governments have always covered up the dangers of fluoride (in water fluoridation, pollution from Moneypoint, Aughinish, Haulbowline, Intel Leixlip, and many other industries and practices). The politicians have consistently been appointing pro-fluoridation people to key positions in agencies such as the EPA, Food Safety Authority (which calls fluoride "a nutrient"!), and so on -- and the Greens used to criticize those public appointments, until last year.

Now look at what the Greens have done in relation to fluoride:

1997: “It is time to stop this crazy experiment with our health. It cannot be lawful for a state to poison its own people. We have ample evidence that fluoridation is damaging our health.” -- Trevor Sargent in the Dáil, 6 Feb 1997

2002: Green Party Private Member's Bill in the Dáil to stop fluoridation (see here).
General Election: An end to fluoridation was a non-negotiable condition for the Greens to enter coalition.

2007: "For me it's never been a question about votes on this issue. it's about the truth. I know they [the fluoridators] are lying. If I'm in government fluoridation will go in the first month in office. That's a guarantee." -- John Gormley, 11 Feb 2007, personal e-mail. (On the basis of such assurances, members of the anti-fluoridation movement canvassed for Gormley in his constituency.)

"Greens in Government would stop water fluoridation" -- Green Party press release, 13 March 2007

And since the general election? Not a word from the Greens about fluoridation. They haven't lifted a finger."

"It cannot be lawful for a state to poison its own people. We have ample evidence that fluoridation is damaging our health." -- Trevor Sargent TD, Feb 1997

"If I'm in government fluoridation will go in the first month in office. That's a guarantee." -- John Gormley TD, Feb 2007

"In Government we would immediately ban water fluoridation." -- Green Party health policy,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk

Fluoridation Ineffective & Harmful, studies show

By nyscof

Posted May 25, 2009 at 3:51 p.m.

New York - May 25 - Over 2,470 professionals urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted, citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html.

Also, eleven Environmental Protection Agency employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals called for a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs across the country, and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. (1a)

Last election day, 53 US cities rejected fluoridation joining a growing list of communities saying "No," to fluoridation. (1)

Since the professionals' statement was first issued (Aug 2007), the following occurred:

-- The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Canada’s leading voice on environmental health issues, released a statement opposing fluoridation. (2)

-- The National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation support replacing it with this caution: “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.” (3)

-- Researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal indicate that fluoridation never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (4)

-- “A qualitative review of ...studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ,” concluded Tang el al., in "Fluoride and Children’s Intelligence: A Meta-analysis” in Biological Trace Element Research (5)

-- Scientific American editors wrote in January 2008, "Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland"

-- Dr. A. K. Susheela, a leading fluoride expert, explains in a video why US physicians overlook fluoride as a possible cause of diseases commonly caused by fluoride. http://tinyurl.com/Susheela

-- A study in the Fall 2008 Journal of Public Health Dentistry reveals that cavity-free teeth have little to do with fluoride intake. Researchers report, "The benefits of fluoride are mostly topical…while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake."

-- Research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009). indicates that blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups. (13) Osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, occurs mostly in children and young adults

A Tennessee State legislator who is also an MD is urging all Tennessee Water Districts to stop fluoridation, reported a Tennessee newspaper on 11/29/08. At least 30 Tennessee water districts have already complied with his request.(6)

On 1/5/09, the Burlington Board of Health recommended that Burlington cease fluoridation because fluoridation can harm some people. (7)

On 1/6/09, a Canadian town, Drayton, stopped fluoridation, not to save money, but because it was in the best interests of residents, said the Mayor. (8)

On 2/10/2009 Skagit County, WA officials reversed their 2007 fluoridation decision. (9)

On 3/3/2009, Plainfield, Vermont bans fluoridation. (10)

The Arkansas Oral Health Director is accused of giving eight "false or misleading statements" on fluoridation to an Arkansas legislative Committee. (12)

Signers to the FAN statement include:

-- Dr. Arvid Carlsson,winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine -- Vyvyan Howard, MD, PhD, President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment -- Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, Environmental Working Group -- Lois Gibbs, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice -- Joseph Mercola, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, who runs the #1 most visited natural health website -- Theo Colborn, PhD, co-author, “Our Stolen Future” -- Sam Epstein, MD, Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition -- The current and six past Presidents of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology -- Board of Directors (2007), American Academy of Environmental Medicine -- FIVE Goldman Prize winners - given for excellence in protecting the environment -- Three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology -- Three officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters -- Hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.

Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”

An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement is available on FAN's web site, http://congress.fluorideaction.net

Fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies, according to data presented in a 2006 National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) report. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children's teeth. (11) At least three panel members advise avoiding fluoridated water.

“The NRC fluoride report dramatically changed scientific understanding of fluoride's health risks," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network. "Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” he added.

The Professionals’ Statement also references:

-- The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula NOT be prepared with fluoridated water. -- The CDC’s concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic. -- CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children. -- Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. -- A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and bone cancer.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, “It is time for the US to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it's as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.”

Adverse health effects of fluoride: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health

References:

(1a) http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/Press%20Release.%20Fluoride.htm

(1) http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm

(2) http://www.fluoridealert.org/cape.html

(3) National Kidney Foundation, “Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease,” April 15, 2008

http://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf

(4) "Adding fluoride to water supplies," British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, Iain Chalmers, Trevor A. Sheldon, October 6, 2007

(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

(6) http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2840202

(7) http://www.swabvt.org/node/300

(8) http://www.draytonvalleywesternreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1373584

(9) http://www.goskagit.com/home/article/commissioners_vote_to_halt_fluoride_program/

(10) http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090303/NEWS0301/90303100/1009/NEWS01

(11) National Research Council (2003-2006): Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/

(12) "State oral health director challenged over comments about fluoridation," March 10, 2009,by Kathryn Lucariello, Carroll County News http://www.carrollconews.com/story/1509198.html

(13) Biological Trace Element Research, “Serum Fluoride and Sialic Acid Levels in Osteosarcoma,” by Sandhu R, Lal H, Kundu ZS, Kharb S, Apr 24, 2009 [Epub ahead of print]

SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideAction.Net

Galway Water Shock - Part Two! Not Just Lead...

2008-11-11T13:39:00.003Z

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?

The Latest News on Aspartame: Not Good

2008-04-20T13:19:00.003+01:00

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

Philadelphia Reconsiders Fluoridation

2008-04-17T10:22:00.004+01:00

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

Birmingham,UK held up as example of fluoride success - NOT!

2008-02-05T23:14:00.000Z

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

Fluoride Causes Harm - The Facts vs The Rhetoric

2008-01-27T13:23:00.000Z

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

Australia's Big Fluoride Mistake by Cap'n Anna Bligh!

2007-12-11T16:55:00.000Z

One has to admire a politician who sees a problem and takes decisive steps to remedy it. However, in the case of Queensland Premier Anna Bligh's decision to fluoridate Queensland, the last remaining part of Australia not fluoridated, one can only wonder if she bothered to read the following recent Open Letter to the Queensland Government from knowledgable and concerned medical professionals denouncing fluoridation as a failed policy. And if she did read it, how did she follow up her investigations on it? Where is the open and frank discussion of a hotly debated "health" policy? And given the overwhelming modern science showing the negative effects of fluoridation, as opposed to the mid-1900's "pseudo-science" proposing it is safe and effective, how could she possibly have enough faith in this toxic chemical to prescribe it to the whole population without any medical discussion whatsoever???!

Also, view my post on the effects of fluoridation on black ethnic (incl Aboriginal) groups and the higher incidence of cancer and related diseases in fluoridated areas.

http://www.smile.org.au/Images/Open%20Letter%20040830.pdf

OPEN LETTER
The Premier of Queensland
Queensland Minister for Health
Lord Mayor of Brisbane
Deputy Lord Mayor of Brisbane
Councillors, all Cities and Shires of Queensland

We wish to express our grave concerns regarding renewed proposals to fluoridate
Queensland’s water supplies. Fluoridation began at a time when asbestos lined our pipes,
when lead was added to petrol, and DDT was regarded as safe and effective. These
chemicals have now been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/absurdity.htm

Research is now raising doubts about fluoridation’s effectiveness. Data compiled by the
World Health Organization shows tooth decay has declined at a similar rate in all
Western Countries, irrespective of each country’s water or salt fluoridation status.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/WHO-DMFT.htm

New evidence for potential serious harm from long-term fluoride ingestion
is also emerging. This evidence is summarised on the following web sites:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm

http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

It is extraordinary that the same people who reject abundant global evidence about the
association between fluoride ingestion and organ damage (e.g. to bones, teeth, glands, or
immune system), embrace the questionable science used to support its benefits. They
ignore the many confounding possible influences in this research. This includes sugar
consumption (averaging 1 kg per week per person in Australia) much of which is hidden,
other nutritional influences, general dental hygiene, use of floss and movements in
population.

Recent studies by several eminent researchers strongly suggest that fluoride works
primarily by topical means through direct action on the surface of the teeth via
toothpaste, or gels used in dental treatments http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
see: XIII, 'topical versus systemic effects', (Centers for Disease Control {CDC}1999 and
2001). Ingestion of fluoride through drinking fluoridated water is not essential or
effective for caries reduction.

Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, BSc, (Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry,
University of Toronto and Past President of the Canadian Association for Dental
Research) apologised in 1999 for inadvertently misleading both his colleagues and dental
students in his support for fluoridation. Addressing them he concluded: “For the past 15
years, I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to
anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind” .
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/1537.html

The fluoridating agent most commonly used is a hazardous contaminated industrial-grade
product from the phosphate fertilizer industry .
http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm

We strongly reject the notion that placing a chronic poison in our water supplies is clever
preventive medicine.
We represent 1500 doctors, dentists, scientists and others working in the interests of
public health who are primarily interested in prevention and early intervention in disease
processes.
The question of fluoridation was considered with care, openness and good representation
by the Lord Mayor’s Task Force in 1997 which came down clearly against fluoridating
Brisbane’s water supply .
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-4/314-232.htm

It is astounding that this issue could again be raised in Queensland in an apparently coordinated
national campaign. No new evidence has been put forward to our knowledge
that would warrant a revision of the 1997 decision.

We will urge Queenslanders to study the evidence showing potential serious harm from
long-term fluoride ingestion and to inform their councillors and state members how they
feel about this matter.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Doug Everingham MBBS
1972-75 Australian Minister for Health
World Health Assembly 1975
National Delegation Leader
and Vice-President for Western Pacific WHO region

Dr Eric Davis
BDSc Dip. Clin. Nutr. FACNEM
Qld Chair ASOMAT, Past National President ASOMAT
(ASOMAT is the Australasian Society of Oral Medicine and Toxicology – a Dental
Practitioners’ Association)
(FACNEM is Fellowship of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental
Medicine - ACNEM)

Dr Gary Deed
MBBS (Qld) FACNEM
Qld Board Member ACNEM
Qld Chair and National Vice President AIMA (Australian Integrative Medicine
Association)
Chair, Diabetes Australia (Qld)

Dr Barry Ryan
MBBS (Qld) FACNEM
American Board Certified, Environmental Medicine
Member, Brisbane Lord Mayor’s Taskforce on Fluoride 1997

Dr Philip Stowell
MBBS (London) FACNEM
Qld Board Member FACNEM

Dr John Ryan
MBBS Qld FRACGP, DCH (Irel)
MSc Nutrition with Distinction (London)
FACNEM, FAMAC, MRCGP (UK)
Past Qld President ACNEM AMAC & AIMA
CMEC Member, Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia
Deputy Chair, Council, Australian College of Natural Medicine (ACNM)
Chair, Human Research Ethics Committee (ACNM)
Nea Cameron-Smith RN
Past Secretary, Australian College of Holistic Nurses

Dr Kris Mylonas
MBBS Qld FACNEM
Post-grad Dip.Acup BCTANT
Chair, Brisbane Bayside Division of General Practice Committee for
GP Health & Wellbeing
Chair, Brisbane Bayside Division of General Practice Committee for
Continuing Professional Education/Development

Shirley Strachan ND BHSc(Comp Med) MA(Hons)History Grad Dip(Mar Arch)
Mark Diesendorf BSc PhD
Adjunct Professor, Murdoch University
Director, Sustainability Centre Pty Ltd

Dr Robyn Cosford
Representing:
Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine
The Australian Integrative Medicine Association
Holistic Dental Association
Mona Vale NSW

Cr Lisa C Intemann BA(Hons) BAppSc DipSocSc
Community Development worker (thirty years)
Wauchope, NSW

Professor Ian Brighthope
MBBS (Melb) BAg FACNEM
Founding Director, President, Australian College of Nutritional & Environmental
Medicine (ACNEM)

Professor Noel Campbell
FACNEM FASID BDSc LDS
Melbourne VIC

Philip Robertson BHSc ND
Lecturer Natural Medicine, Dept Health Science
Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC

Dr Vicki Kotsirilos
MBBS (Monash) FACNEM DipHerbMed, CertAcup, DipHyp

Dr Bogdan Sikorski
Senior Toxicologist
Office of Complementary Medicines
Canberra ACT

Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith PhD (Law)
Coordinator National Toxics Network Inc.
Rivett ACT

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD DDS
Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto
Toronto Canada

Richard G Foulkes BA MD
Abbotsford British Columbia Canada

Ella Haley BSc PhD
Centre for Global and Social Analysis,
Athabasca University
Alberta Canada

Dr Robert C Dickson MD CCFP
Calgary Alberta Canada

Michelle Meyer ND
Member, Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors

Dr Rosalie Bertell PhD GNSH
Founder and immediate Past President
International Institute of Concern for Public Health www.iicph.org
Canada

Patrick Chapus
President, Association de Sauvegarde du Patrimonine et du Cadre de Vie de Solerieux
or (Association of Safeguard of the Inheritance and the Framework of Life of Solerieux
Solerieux, France

Professor Dr Leo Rebello
ND PhD DSc FFHom
Fellow of the European Medical Association
President, AIDS Alternativa International
World Peace Envoy, Bombay India.

Dr Philip Michael MB BCh BAO MICGP
Chairperson, Irish Doctors' Environmental Association
Ireland

Dr Elizabeth Cullen
MB BCh BAO MSc(Community Health)
Diploma in Pollution Control,
Irish Doctors Environmental Association, Ireland

Irish Dentists Opposed to Fluoridation (61 members) idof@eircom.net
(IDOF's primary aim is to highlight the undemocratic, unethical and unsafe nature of
fluoridation in Ireland)
Endorsed by Dr Don Mac Auley MDS (Dental Surgeon)

Dr Andrew Rynne
Medical Practitioner
Life long campaigner for civil liberty and free choice, writer and
Founder, Clane General Hospital, Co. Kildare
Kildare Ireland

Loty Zilberman MSc
Chemical engineer (Specialized in drug manufacture and toxicology)
Ghivataiim, Israel

Bruce Spittle MB ChB DPM FRANZCP
Dunedin New Zealand

Dr Michael E Godfrey
MBBS (London) FACAM FACNEM
President NZ Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
Director, Bay of Plenty Environmental Health
Tauranga New Zealand

Tohru Murakami DDS PhD
Vice President, Japanese Society for Fluoride Research

Kenichi Narita DDS
Vice President, Japanese Society for Fluoride Research

Kenji Akiniwa DDS
Editor of the Journal of Japanese Society for Fluoride Research

Junji Kato MD PhD
Director of Miyachiyo Kato Clinic, Miyagi Pref, Japan
Member, Medwatcher Japan

Yoshihiro Satoh MD
3-2-6 Shintohna Naruse-Town Miyagi, Japan

Mageswari Sangaralingam
Research Officer
Consumers' Association of Penang
Penang Malaysia

Marie-Lou Roux
Executive Officer: Habitat Council
Cape Town, South Africa

George Cheng
Executive Director
Taiwan (Environmental) Watch Institute, Taiwan

Herlin Hsieh
Researcher
Taiwan (Environmental) Watch Institute, Taiwan

Dr C Vyvyan Howard MB ChB PhD FRCPath.
Developmental Toxico-Pathology Group
Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology
The University of Liverpool
Liverpool UK

Paul Connett PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St Lawrence University
Canton, New York

Roger D Masters PhD
Research Professor and Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government
Department of Government HB
Dartmouth College
Hanover NH USA

Robert J Carton PhD (Environmental Science)
Former Chief, Environmental Compliance US Army Medical Research and Materiel
Command Fort Detrick Maryland USA

Russell L Blaylock MD
Neurosurgeon and Neuroscientist
Advanced Nutritional Concepts
Past Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery, University of Mississippi Medical
Center, Visiting Professor of Biology Belhaven College
Jackson Mississippi USA
"This is to plea with you not to fluoridate your water supplies. I am a neurosurgeon and
neuroscientist who has studied the issue of effects of water fluoridation on the developing
brain as well as adult brain. Fluoridation of drinking water is a grave mistake and health hazard."

Vinod Barot
MSc PhD DIS (India) MEng(USA) CCEP(Canada)Technical Director
Sanitary District of Hammond
Hammond IN USA

W Robert Heterick AB MSc PhD (Clinical Psychology)
Witchita KS USA

David Kennedy DDS
Past President, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
Former Brisbane Lord Mayor’s Taskforce Consultant on Fluoride 1997
San Diego CA USA

Mae Woo DDS
Montana USA

Samuel E Epstein MD
Professor Emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
University of Illinois at Chicago
School of Public Health
Chicago Illinois USA

Christopher Bryson
Investigative Journalist, Author "The Fluoride Deception"
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/books/8233/8233books.html (book review)
New York USA

Firuzeh Mahmoudi MSc MPA (Environmental)
Health Care Without Harm
International Coordinator
Berkley CA USA

Bruce Randall
Longmeadow Water & Sewer Commission Chairman, ex-oficio
Longmeadow Massachusetts USA

Jeanine Trevillyan MD
Texarkana Arkansas USA

Tony Tweedale MS(Environmental Studies)
Secretary, Montana Coalition for Health, Environmental & Economic Rights
Missoula MT USA

Dr Neil Carman
BS (Plant Biology), MS(Plant Biology), PhD(Phytochemistry)
Environmental scientist
Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter
Austin, TX 78702

Raymond R White PhD(Stanford Biological Sciences 1973)
56 City College of San Francisco
San Francisco CA USA

Susan Augustoni
Licensed Certified Nutritionist
Superior Colorado USA

Phillip M Allen MD PhD & June Allen MEd
Enviro-Health Concerns (pro bono publico)
Wichita KS USA

Michael F Dolan PhD
Research Professor
Department of Geosciences
UMASS
Amherst MA 01003 USA
Wichita KS USA

Albert W Burgstahler PhD
Emeritus Professor of Chemistry
University of Kansas Lawrence Kansas USA
Endorsed by Dr John Ryan Bridgeman Downs, Queensland, Australia

Donegal citizens surveyed and above the maximum safe fluoride levels!

2007-10-16T17:51:00.000+01:00

The majority of people surveyed in Donegal
are above the safe fluoride intake level!

This article is from the VOICE IRELAND website - for a free list of 50 bottled waters available in Ireland and their fluoride and mineral contents, please send an email to euesireland@eircom.net.

Seven out of ten people in Co Donegal are getting too much fluoride, says VOICE campaigner Robert Pocock. His comments are backed up by results from a survey involving volunteers from three different fluoridated areas of County Donegal, who monitored their urinary fluoride intake over a 24-hour period.

The survey was carried out by Clane GP, Dr Andrew Rynne who engaged an EU accredited pathology laboratory to obtain the results. Urine samples from Inishowen, Letterkenny and Stranorlar were obtained from people aged between 19 and 68 and evenly split between men and women. 72% of the subjects tested in Co Donegal were at or above the safe intake of fluoride. (1) The safe level was based on the UK Food Standard Agency guideline value based on daily fluoride intake related to body weight. The proportion at or above the safe limit in largely unfluoridated UK is 20%, suggesting that the addition of fluoride to Irish drinking water is completely unjustifiable.

“Of the 32 subjects who volunteered, only nine tested within a safe intake” said Dr Rynne. “This confirms the suspicion that the fluoridation of Irish drinking water is the major contributor to fluoride over-exposure. Several subjects are many times over the stated safe intake.”

These results highlight the negligence of the Health Minister Mary Harney who after over two years in office has still failed to investigate fluoride exposure in the population. In the light of this evidence from three different parts of Co Donegal, her recently introduced Regulation (S.I.42,2007) reducing the fluoride concentration by a small amount on July 1st 2007, is a totally inadequate response to the problem of fluoride over-exposure. (2)
Pocock added “Donegal councillors should now instruct the eleven public water supplies (3) that dose the drinking water of 75,000 people in Donegal with fluoride, not only to turn down the fluoride taps but to turn them off completely. Neither the new Pollen Dam supply that came on stream recently nor the Killybegs supply, where local fishermen refused years ago to allow their fish to be processed with this toxic chemical, are fluoridated. In view of this alarming new evidence, all of Donegal people exposed to fluoridated water supplies are at a risk”.

The national implications of this evidence is alarming since 73% of the population (3 million) are served with fluoridated drinking water, indicating that over two million people could be getting above the safe daily intake of fluoride. (4)There is also plenty of other supporting evidence such as the recent oral health survey revealing that one in three fifteen year-olds have dental fluorosis. (5) This is caused by excessive fluoride during the tooth-forming years. Other recent advice from the American Dental Assocation warns parents not to use fluoridated tap water in infant formula because of the risk of fluorosis. (6)

Since there is no cure or treatment for fluorosis, only prevention, it is obvious that the Health Minister must immediately turn off the fluoride taps across the country.

For more info contact Robert Pocock of Voice Ireland on 086 811 3071

NOTES

(1) The UK Food Standards Agency has defined under 0.05mg Fluoride per kg body weight per day as the safe intake. The UK National Diet & Nutrition survey (2003) revealed that 20% of the population (19 - 64 yr olds) are above this safe level. While only six million people in England have fluoridated drinking water, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland have all rejected it.

(2) www.voiceireland.org

(3) Fluoridated Public Water Supplies in Co Donegal.
Area Population Area Population Area Population
Buncrana 3,500 Gortahork 4,200 Rosses
Bundoran 6,000 Inishowen E 5,050 Regional 8,000
Cranford 839 Letterkenny 17,000
River Eske 4,500 Lough Mourne17,000
Creeslough 4,000 Milford 4,000

Source EPA The Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland, 2005

(4) www.voiceireland.org Ministers New Regulations Nonsensical.
(5) www.fluoridealert.org/dental-fluorosis.html
(6) North South Survey of Children’s Oral Health in Ireland, 2002 p58-59

Black Ethnic People Suffer Most from Fluoridation!

2007-10-06T14:04:00.000+01:00

Dental Association Disputes Report on Blacks Harmed by Fluorides

This Report mirrors what I am finding in the stats about American Cancer Rates from the CDC - that higher level Fluoridated States have much higher rates of Cancer Deaths for Blacks than lower level fluoridated States - I will continue to research this over the next few weeks and publish further in due course. I am sure this statistic will apply to Aboriginie people, as well.

Story Created: Oct 2, 2007 at 4:21 PM MDT
BELOW IS A VERBATIM PRESS RELEASE FROM THE LILLIE CENTER, INC. THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION SAYS THE CENTER IS NOT AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE FOR INFORMATION. THE ADA SAYS FOR ACCURATE INFORMATION ON FLOURIDE, GO TO ADA.ORG.The Lillie Center, Inc. Press Release:Fluoride, the controversial chemical added to city water supplies to help prevent cavities, now has three strikes against it in having harmful effects in African Americans. Strike number one: A blue ribbon panel of scientists has identified kidney patients and diabetics as being especially susceptible to harm from ingested fluorides. Blacks suffer disproportionate amounts of kidney disease and diabetes in America. Strike number two: Information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows blacks disproportionately at risk for disfiguring teeth damage from fluoride, compared to whites. And strike number three: The American Dental Association and the CDC are now suggesting that parents of newborns may wish to consider using unfluoridated water when mixing infant milk formula for their babies -- but they offer no outreach to tell black parents this information, and no funds to pay for minority and other low-income families to purchase other sources of water.“I know the facts are embarrassing and potentially even lawsuit material against CDC, but it’s not morally right that CDC is not telling African Americans of their multiple, intersecting risks for harm from fluoride,” says Daniel Stockin, a public health professional of The Lillie Center, Inc., a firm working to educate Americans about harm from ingested fluorides. “How does CDC continue to say that fluoridated water is safe and effective ‘for all’? Do African Americans not count?” he asks.Stockin points to disturbing information in a report last year from the National Research Council that acknowledged diabetics and kidney patients to be “susceptible subpopulations” that are especially vulnerable to harmful effects from fluoride ingestion. According to the National Kidney Foundation, blacks comprise 28.4% of kidney failure patients, but number only 13% of the U.S. population. The American Diabetes Association states that African Americans are 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic whites. Increased risk from fluoride for kidney patients and diabetics logically points towards increased risk for blacks, Stockin says. Stockin also asks why a chart showing disproportionate harm to African Americans from moderate and severe dental fluorosis, a staining and pitting of teeth indicative of overexposure to fluoride as a child, is buried at the very back of a review published by CDC and has not been shared with the black community.
(See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm.)
He also notes that CDC this year quietly added information on a little-noticed web page that mothers of newborns may wish to use unfluoridated water when mixing powdered infant milk formula. ( http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1 ) CDC has not issued a press release about the subject. “Millions of parents in minority, low-income, and limited-English communities are affected by CDC’s change in policy, but these families have neither the facts about fluoride nor the funds to pay for unfluoridated bottled water or an expensive home water fluoride removal system,” Stockin says.The bad news about fluoride adds to a growing swell of sentiment against use of the chemical. The influential Canadian city of Quebec has voted to stop water fluoridation. In looking at fluoridation, Alaska’s Juneau Empire newspaper recently wrote, “What about people who are more sensitive to the damaging effects of fluoride than the general population?” Eleven unions in EPA, representing 7,000 EPA lab workers, scientists, and others have called for the immediate nationwide halt to fluoridation. There are petitions now to end fluoridation, and a call for congressional hearings (http://www.fluorideaction.net). So why does CDC continue to promote fluoridation? Why has CDC not responded to the ethics charges its ethics committees received in August concerning fluoridation? And why aren’t black communities being told of their increased risk for harm from fluorides? “Fair questions,” Stockin says. “And disturbing.”

Source: http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/10/05/blacks-disproportionately-harmed-by-fluorides-and-fluoridated-water/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.2news.tv%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2F10188561.html&frame=true

CDC - Tainted Protector of U.S. Fluoride Polluters

2007-08-14T09:36:00.000+01:00

Dan Stockin Charges CDC with Ethics Violations re: Fluoride
The Lillie center takes on The CDC!!!! (on Fluoride)

August 13, 2007

The Tainted Protector of America's Health that is the CDC is finally coming under fire for it's biased promotion of the industrial toxic waste dumping that is fluoridation. Look back to my blog post that searched for {and found} information on the CDC site which was hidden away, but which showed that fluoridation was A) not effective against caries and B) probably a major carcinogenic effector.

If you want the spreadsheet where I compare the caries and cancer rates across the U.S. against the fluoridation rates (according to the CDC's own figures) then send me an email to euesireland@eircom.net.

Dear All,
Last Thursday, the same day as the Fluoride Action Network released theProfessionals' Statement calling for end to fluoridation worldwide, theLillie Center was making a thrust into the belly of the beast: the CDC -that continues to promote fluoridation despite the growing evidence of harm and little evidence of benefit. In a press release issued this morning, the Lillie Center announced that it had filed ethics charges against the CDC's Oral Health Division and CDC's director Julie Gerberding for their failure to follow the ethical code produced by the CDC and promoted by them around the country. The charge specifically focuses on their failure to warn the public, especially vulnerable sub-groups, of the dangers posed by fluoridated water -dangers which were clearly articulated in the NRC (2006) review of fluoride's toxicity as well as concerns raised by the US Department of Agriculture about the total dose of fluoride people are getting today from a variety of sources, including the food supply. According to the complaint, "the unethical actions of Oral Health Division manager William Maas and CDC Director Julie Gerberding are --serious and egregious in not disseminating findings of the National Research Council that kidney patients, diabetics, infants, and seniors are especially susceptible to harm from fluoride." The spokesperson for the Lillie Center, Dan Stockin stated that, "We have provided very specific examples of statements and actions by Doctors Maas and Gerberding that show blatant disregard for the most fundamental principles of ethics in public health. CDC is striving mightily to defend its policy supporting water fluoridation to prevent cavities, but the facts about harm from fluoride are now coming from highly respected organizations like theNational Research Council." The Lillie Center used the Professionals' Statement as supporting material in its arguments. Below is their press release and the full statement with attachments can be reviewed at http://www.fluoridealert.org/cdc.ethics.complaint.aug.13.2007.pdf
I urge readers to forward a copy of this press release to local news outlets.
Paul Connett
The Lillie Center, Inc.P.O. Box 839 Ellijay GA 30540Ph: 706.669.0786 // Fax: 706.635.8170 Email: stockin2@yahoo.com or dan@thelilliecenter.com

NEWS RELEASE -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: 706-669-0786
Formal Complaint Charges CDC Oral Health Division with Ethics Violations
August 13, 2007
A joint meeting of two ethics committees for the Centers for Disease Control has received a detailed formal complaint alleging a series of unethical activities by the CDC Oral Health Division and the CDC Director. The complaint points to a quote by a highly placed CDC official that the public health ethics code CDC espouses is not being internally applied within CDC itself. The complaint specifically questions why CDC's own data on disproportionate harm from ingested fluoride in minority groups is not being communicated to these communities, and points to new, state of the art National Research Council information showing certain groups to be especially susceptible to harm from fluoride.The charges were presented to CDC's joint ethics panel on August 9th by Daniel Stockin, a public health professional of The Lillie Center, Inc., a private sector firm. In a separate development, news surfaced on the same day that 600 doctors, dentists, and other professionals have signed a petition calling for a halt to water fluoridation and for congressional hearings on fluoridation (see: www.FluorideAction.net).According to the complaint, the unethical actions of Oral Health Division manager William Maas and CDC Director Julie Gerberding are "serious and egregious" in not disseminating findings of the National Research Council that kidney patients, diabetics, infants, and seniors are especiallysusceptible to harm from fluoride. The complaint contains photos of a condition called dental fluorosis, a staining and pitting of teeth indicative of overexposure to fluoride that is disproportionately present in African Americans and perhaps Mexican Americans, compared to Caucasians."This is an explosive and deeply disturbing issue," states Stockin. "We have provided very specific examples of statements and actions by Dr.'s Maas and Gerberding that show blatant disregard for the most fundamental principles of ethics in public health. CDC is striving mightily to defend its policy supporting water fluoridation to prevent cavities, but the facts about harm from fluoride are now coming from highly respected organizations like theNational Research Council.""People with kidney disease or on dialysis should see this complaint and the report by the National Research Council on fluoride," Stockin says, "And if you happen to be a member of the population with diabetes or HIV, you will be amazed how the NRC report contains important information you should know about -- but that CDC has elected not to openly share with the public because it runs at odds with putting fluoride in drinking water." The ethics complaint and the 600 professionals' statement are the latest in a string of blows to the conventional wisdom that fluoride and water fluoridation are safe. In 2005, frustrated by EPA administrators' lack of response to mounting evidence of harm from fluoride, eleven unions within the EPA representing 7,000 lab workers, scientists, and others publicly called for the immediate halt to fluoridation based on concerns about fluoride-caused bone cancer. In 2006, the American Dental Association quietly stated on its web site that mothers of newborns might wish to consider using unfluoridated water when mixing powdered infant milk formula. CDC this year similarly changed its policy about use of fluoridated water for mixing formula, but did so only on its web site, not issuing even a press release to alert millions of parents to the news. The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture has recently developed software to begin to assess the quantity of fluoride Americans are ingesting, citing concern that cumulative fluoride intake could lead to a painful bone and joint condition called "skeletal fluorosis." The new, detailed list of alleged unethical actions by CDC in protecting its long-held policy is likely to spur groups and legislators across the country to join in the call for an official ethics inquiry into CDC's actions. Were CDC officials willing to sacrifice the health of Americans in order to prevent embarrassment to the agency and themselves? Stockin points to supporting materials in the ethics complaint that offer little wiggle room for discomfited CDC officials. "At-risk groups have a moral right to be told the whole story about fluoride," Stockin says. "Get ready for their lawsuits. The world is not flat, and fluoride is not safe," he says.The full text of the ethics complaint with its attachments can be accessed at:http://www.fluoridealert.org/cdc.ethics.complaint.aug.13.2007.pdf .Daniel Stockin of The Lillie Center may be contacted at (706)-669-0786

Into the Phosphate Valley Rode the 600....

2007-08-09T23:26:00.000+01:00

Slowly but surely the world MAY be coming to its senses regarding fluoride in drinking water...but no doubt the vested interests of the dentists' brigade and the fluoride manufacturers will try to find a way to refute the irrefutable!

End Fluoridation, Say 600 Physicians, Dentists, Scientists, and Environmentalists
NEW YORK, Aug. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a statement released
today, over 600 professionals are urging Congress to stop water
fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted. They cite new
scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay,
is ineffective and has serious health risks.
(http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html)
Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious
2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride's
toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA
headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the
Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and
environmental professionals, worldwide.
Signer Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine,
says, "Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's
really obsolete."
Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network
(FAN), announced that an Online Action Petition to Congress in support of
the Professionals' Statement will soon be available at FAN's web site,
http://www.fluorideaction.org/.
"The NRC report dramatically changed scientific understanding of
fluoride's health risks," says Connett. "Government officials who continue
to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring
the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report," he added.
An Assistant NY State Attorney General calls the report "the most
up-to- date expert authority on the health effects of fluoride exposure."
The Professionals' Statement also references:
-- The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula
NOT be prepared with fluoridated water.
-- The CDC's concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is
topical not systemic.
-- CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride
over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children.
-- Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between
fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
-- A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and
bone cancer.
-- The silicofluoride chemicals used for fluoridation are contaminated
industrial waste and have never been FDA-approved for human ingestion.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a
Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for
three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, "It is time for the US to
recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor
benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it's as easy to end
as turning off a valve at the water plant."
CONTACTS:
Dr. Paul Connett
+1-802-338-5577
paul@fluoridealert.org

AUSTRALIANS FIGHT BACK AGAINST ENFORCED FLUORIDATION!

2007-07-30T11:48:00.000+01:00

I have often wondered in the past why the Australian Government was so completely gung-ho about fluoridation...even when the evidence shows that their longest and most fluoridated regions (which include all the Aboriginal areas) have HIGHER rates of dental caries than other regions! I think the article below gives a very strong clue as to who is pouring the money into the pro-fluoride campaign down under!!!

THESE 12 REASONS ALSO APPLY TO THE HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID USED FOR FLUORIDATION PURPOSES IN IRELAND AND THE U.S.

12 Reasons to reject Fluoridation!
For over 100 years, science and medicine have understood the poisonous nature of fluoride. In the 1930's and 40's, giant US companies, e.g. ALCOA, were sued for millions of dollars due to toxic fluoride waste escaping from factory smokestacks killing crops and livestock. ALCOA's owners (Mellon) figured that if people could be persuaded fluoride isn't poisonous but is good for teeth, profits could be protected. So, to introduce water fluoridation, they hired the brilliant 'father of propaganda' Edward L. Bernays. Joined later by other fluoride polluting industries (e.g. nuclear) and the multi-billion dollar sugar, toothpaste, confectionary and soft drink industries, they became strong financial supporters of dental associations that promoted fluoridation. One such support group, the Dental Health Education & Research Foundation (DHERF) was founded in Australia in 1962. Its Governors, Members and donors comprised key representatives from Coca-Cola, CSR, Kelloggs, Colgate-Palmolive, Wrigleys, Arnotts, Scanlens, Cadbury Schweppes, etc.
The following 12 points require no expertise in fluoride toxicity, just common sense.
1. Only parents or individuals have the right to decide if they or their children take drugs. This point should end the debate on compulsory fluoridation. (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration show fluoride isn't a food, nutrient or dietary supplement: "Sodium fluoride used for therapeutic effect *[e.g. water fluoridation] would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient." F.D.A. 1963).
2. Claiming fluoride is natural, as it is found in the Earth's crust or water, is misleading. So is arsenic, mercury and other poisons. The fluoride chemical used for fluoridation in Australia is untreated toxic waste captured inside fertiliser factory smokestacks.
3. Doctors have legal and medical restrictions in prescribing drugs. A patient's medical history, age, weight, sex, allergic reactions, other drugs taken and illnesses must be determined. After an adequate medical examination, scripts must be for a specific person, drug, duration and dose - never 'take some whenever you're thirsty'. Harmful side-effects must be explained. You have the right to refuse! There are 14 safety requirements which are vital. All are ignored with fluoridation.
4. The World Health Organisation's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer, reports sodium silicofluoride [as used for fluoridation in Australia] as, "... an insecticide, fungicide, bactericide and rodenticide [rat poison] ... [and] a fluoridating agent for municipal drinking-water. ... The Commission of the European Communities (1978) requires that sodium silicofluoride be labelled as toxic by inhalation, in contact with the skin or if swallowed." I.A.R.C. Monograph on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, 27-4-82, p 250.
5. Fluoride deaths. In a 5 month court case of world experts in Pittsburgh 1978, scientists, led by Dr Burk, a US National Cancer Institute founder and its Chief Chemist for 35 years, proved fluoridation **kills 10,000 yearly (cancer), admitted by opponents under cross-examination. In Brisbane, 2 year old **Jason Burton died after taking 6 fluoride pills. His death certificate states, 'Fluoride poisoning'. In New York, 3 year old **William Kennerly died from a 'fluoride rinse' at a dentist. The Court awarded US$750,000.
6. Fluoridation is undemocratic. We've rejected fluoridation in over 90% of referendums with votes as high as 98% against. Now, referendums are denied us.
7. Fluoridation does not reduce decay. Few (4%) countries are fluoridated yet nearly all have decades of falling decay rates, including all 10 (unfluoridated) in west continental Europe. WHO (www.whocollab.od.mah.se)1. Also, decay was reducing decades before fluoridation, e.g. NZ school records since 1930 show steep decay reductions for 25-35 years before fluoridation.
8. Fluoride is so toxic it causes fluorosis, a disease of constant 'whole body' fluoride poisoning. Its first sign is chalky white mottling of teeth called dental fluorosis. Teeth can also fracture, pit or become dark brown. This irreversible, disfiguring tooth decay is the cellular break down of teeth. Australia's three major government fluoridation inquiries (Tas 1968, Vic 1979, ACT 89-91) all reported that up to 10% of children will get mottled teeth if water is fluoridated. In practice, mottling is as high as 48% (UK Govt. York Report, 2000). Dentists make $600-$1,200 per tooth to hide (cover) fluorosis.
9. Fluoridation aside, most other decay is due to a poor diet of lots of processed carbohydrates, e.g. we average 22 teaspoons of sugar a day. The only reason teeth get badly decayed is they weren't filled early enough as parents often can't pay the high costs charged by dentists (earning up to $500,000 a year).
10. Australian authorities often make mistakes. Fluoridation is claimed to be safe, but so was Arsenic, DDT, Thalidomide, Dioxin, Asbestos, Agent Orange, the Dalkon Shield, Deildrin, Mercury, Lead and more recently, Vioxx, all shown later to harm or kill people. But at least they weren't compulsory. Fluoridation is!
11. If someone tried to force us to take a pill every time we drank a glass of water, we'd suggest they go where it's eternally hot. The only real difference with fluoridation is that the pill is dissolved in the water before they make us take it.
12. Among experts, the controversy rages over fluoridation. Regardless of who's right, if the safety of any drug is so hugely controversial, doesn't common sense demand it not be used at all? Certainly not forced on millions of people for their whole life!
If fluoridation is forced onto any State, deaths and tooth decay will increase (search 'fluoride deaths', 'dental fluorosis' on the internet) and the ecosystem, other life forms and our rights will suffer.

ACTION: 1. Copy this page - as is. 2. Form a team. 3. Letterbox your electorate. 4. Display on notice boards/shops. 5. Tell representatives of your will. For a digital copy, email nofluoridation@aanet.com.au© 2006 Dennis Stevenson (07) 5594 2023 can help with fluoridation interviews, debates, talks, humour, workshops and campaign plans.

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

Everyday More Proof: Fluoride and Fluoridation Is NOT Safe and Effective!

2007-07-26T13:50:00.000+01:00

New York - May 2007 - Contrary to belief, fluoridation is damaging teeth with little cavity reduction, according to a review of recent studies reported in Clinical Oral Investigations.(1) Fluoride chemicals are added to 2/3 of U.S. water supplies in an attempt to reduce tooth decay and is in virtually 100% of the food supply. Yet, the Centers for Disease Control reports cavities are rising in our most fluoridated generation - toddlers. (1a) Pizzo and colleagues reviewed English-language fluoridation studiespublished from January 2001 to June 2006 and write, "Several epidemiological studies conducted in fluoridated and non-fluoridatedcommunities suggest that [fluoridation] may be unnecessary for caries prevention..." They also report that fluoride-damaged teeth spiked upwards to 51% from the 10-12% found over 60 years ago in "optimally" fluoridated communities. Dental fluorosis is white-spotted, yellow, brown-stained and/or pitted teeth. Fluoridation began in 1945 when dentists thought that ingested fluoride incorporated into children's developing tooth enamel to prevent cavities. However, Pizzo's group reports that fluoride ingestion confers little, if any, benefit and fails to reduce oral health disparities in low-income Americans. Also, any difference in fluoride tooth enamel surface concentration between fluoridated and low-fluoridated areas is minimal. And the relationship between higher enamel fluoride levels to less tooth decay was not found. "Some risk of increasing fluorosis may be attributed to the ingestion of powdered infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water... [and] foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas... Furthermore, the use of dietary fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing fluorosis," they write. Lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation says, "Recent news reports claiming fluoride-free bottled water caused the cavity increase trends in toddlers are implausible because rising fluorosis rates clearly indicate that children are over- fluoridated, not under-fluoridated." "There's no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth, actually making them more decay-prone. Research is indicated to see if fluoride is causing the cavity escalation," says Beeber. Some studies Pizzo reviewed focused on communities that stopped water fluoridation. "...after the cessation, caries prevalence did not rise, remained almost the same or even decreased further," writes Pizzo's group. "In most European countries, where [water fluoridation] has never been adopted, a substantial decline [75%] in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades," they report. To avoid dental fluorosis, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control advise against mixing concentrated infant formulas with fluoridated water. "Fluoride is bone- and health-damaging as well," says Beeber. In 1999, researchers found that children in Connersville, Indiana, (2) consumed over recommended levels of fluoride even though their water supply wasn't fluoridated. Organised dentistry still successfully instigated fluoridation and the American Dental Association (3) bragged about it, carelessly putting more children at risk of developing dental fluorosis.
See also my earlier posts where I compare the cancer and dental caries against the fluoridation rates across the U.S. states. Some very surprising stats show up! Get it now (free, of course) at euesireland@eircom.net

References: 1) "Community Water Fluoridation and Caries Prevention: A Critical Review," Clinical Oral Investigations, by Giuseppe Pizzo & Maria R. Piscopo & Ignazio Pizzo & Giovanna Giuliana 2007 Feb 27; [Epub ahead of print] http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Pizzo-2007.pdf 1a) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_248.pdf 2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10403089&dopt=Abstract 3) http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/us_fluoridation.pdf http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof http://www.FluorideAction.Net http://www.FluorideResearch.Org Fluoridation News Releases http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/_________________New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof Fluoridation News Releases http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/

Fluoride: Lies,Brown Envelopes, Subterfuge and more Lies

2007-06-23T14:53:00.000+01:00

Corruption Revealed Among Defenders of Fluoridation
REPRINTED FROM AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN:
THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF ORAL MEDICINE AND TOXICOLOGY JAN, 2007

A paper provided by the Fluoride Action Network documents that some of the most influential epidemiologists of the twentieth century, defenders of water fluoridation, were extensively compromised by industry money. The original UK watchdog group article is available at this link.
The Doll-Hoover-Douglass connections.By Chris Neurath,Senior Science Researcher for FANA UK group has just revealed that the prominent epidemiologist, Sir Richard Doll, who died last year, received millions of dollars in consulting fees from chemical companies, asbestos companies, and other industries which create carcinogenic materials. Among other retainers he received $1000 a day (rising to $1500 a day) for over thirty years from Monsanto. Yet in scientific publications, as an expert witness, and before government authorities he often defended these chemicals against evidence they caused cancer.According to the UK based group injurywatch.co.uk in a sidebar entitled "Sir Richard Doll: the industry man?" they note: "In 1976, in spite of well-documented concerns on the risks of fluoridation of drinking water with industrial wastes, Doll declared that it was "unethical" not to do so."
Thus fluoride may have been the first suspected carcinogen that Doll protected. He defended water fluoridation in scientific papers, public statements, and court testimony. Fluoride has been a major pollutant from the aluminum, steel, chemical, atomic, and fertilizer industries. Fertilizer industry waste is the source of most fluoride used to fluoridate drinking water.Doll's connection with HooverDr. John Yiamouyiannis, in his book Fluoride, The Aging Factor, details what appears to have been a coordinated effort between American cancer epidemiologist, Dr. Robert Hoover, and Doll and Doll's co-worker Leo Kinlen, to publish seemingly independent, but in fact duplicate studies, finding no evidence of cancer risk from fluoridated water. Dr. Robert Hoover works at the National Cancer Institute, and is an officer in the Public Health Service Medical Corps.Correspondence, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that Hoover sent Doll and Kinlen data and calculated results, and asked them to simply check the math and then publish the same results but under their names. When published, the Doll and Kinlen paper appeared to be an independent evaluation of the issue which corroborated Hoover's conclusion that there was no link between fluoridation and cancer. But in fact, it was simply a re-hash, with no independent data or new methods applied. Doll and Kinlen then sent the same data on to a third group of workers in the UK at the Royal Statistical Society and asked them to conduct yet another reiteration with the same data.This coordinated effort to make it look like three groups had independently arrived at the same finding was uncovered when it turned out that Hoover had made an error transcribing the population size of one of the study cities. The two UK papers repeated this error, proving they had not independently gathered any data. In their private correspondence, they admit this gaff, and also admit they conducted no new analyses but simply repeated the same calculations on the same erroneous data.In a letter from Hoover to Kinlen and Doll: "I am sorry for this error, particularly since it seems to have been perpetuated by yourselves and the Royal Statistical Society. I am a bit distressed also that neither you nor the Society checked some of the original numbers. When Professor Doll visited us, I believe I suggested that the numbers be checked against the original sources, since our reanalyses were done very hastily and under severe political pressure. In fact, I thought the Society had abstracted the data themselves, since I did not send them any of the original material. However, they must have obtained it elsewhere, as they have the erroneous number also." (Sept. 26, 1977)Of course, the Royal Statistical Society authors did receive it "elsewhere", from Doll and Kinlen. That's why it contained the same error in the data, exactly as it had been given to Doll and Kinlen by Hoover.This embarrassing episode for Robert Hoover back in the mid-1970s was not an isolated instance for him concerning the question of fluoride's carcinogenicity. In the early 1990s, right after a National Toxicology Program animal study found evidence that fluoride caused bone cancer, Hoover was again enlisted to defend against this alarming evidence. He did a new epidemiological analysis focused on bone cancers. His first method of analyzing the data returned disturbing positive results, especially for the US Public Health Service, his employer and the leading proponent of fluoridation in the US. In Hoover's comparison of changes in bone cancer rates for young males between fluoridated and non-fluoridated counties, the fluoridated counties experienced an 80% increase relative to the non-fluoridated county rates which decreased slightly.The Public Health Service then asked Hoover to conduct another analysis, using different methods to see if this association could be "confirmed". Hoover's second analysis methods were flawed. He compared rates of bone cancer in counties which were in different states and therefore not comparable. Also, Hoover had different mixes of counties occurring in the different exposure level categories. Essentially, he was comparing apples to oranges, so it was not surprising that he found no association between "duration of fluoridation" and bone cancer rates.The Hoover-Douglass connectionThe connection between Hoover and defense of fluoridation continues to the present day. Hoover was recently put in charge of the Harvard study of osteosarcoma and fluoride, taking over as Principal Investigator from Dr. Chester Douglass. Douglass has been accused of covering up his graduate student's study, which found a significant strong association between fluoridation and osteosarcoma, the most common form of bone cancer. Douglass happens to also be on the payroll of Colgate, a major seller of fluoridated toothpaste. Like Doll, Douglass appears to have a conflict of interest with industry.Douglass' student, Dr. Elise Bassin, eventually published her groundbreaking study with several Harvard co-authors but not Douglass.Hoover has kept out of the spotlight in this most recent episode, yet he has been co-author of reports and presentations which have perpetuated the cover-up of Bassin's results. These claimed no evidence of a link had been found in the Harvard osteosarcoma-fluoride study.Recently, the history of defending fluoride came full circle back to Doll. Doll's name is invoked in a letter to the editor from Douglass, responding to the publication of Bassin's findings. Douglass tries to justify the delay in publicizing Bassin's finding by citing Doll's experience after uncovering cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer in the 1950s. Douglass incorrectly states Doll chose to delay publication of his first findings until follow-up studies could confirm the link. Yet it was not Doll's choice to delay publication, it was the head of the UK Medical Research Council who urged delay, saying that Doll's startling new finding would be too disturbing in a country where over 3/4ths of men smoked.Perhaps things have not changed so much. In the US in 2006 is it "too disturbing" to publicize a scientific study which finds that fluoridation causes bone cancer, in a nation where 2/3rds of all people drink fluoridated water?Have Douglass and Hoover suppressed Bassin's findings? Where will their own analyses lead? Their study began in 1993 and today, 13 years later, they have yet to publish a single result of those studies. Yet they keep promising that they will publish soon, including results of more "sophisticated" analyses using bone biopsy specimens to determine fluoride exposure. Yet recent revelations indicate their bone specimen study has a severe design flaw, potentially fatal to its validity.The control bone samples were all obtained from cancer patients in the same hospitals as the osteosarcoma cases. But never mentioned publicly until this year was that all these cancer controls were bone-cancer patients, mostly with Ewing's sarcoma, the second most common form of bone cancer after osteosarcoma. If fluoride causes both these forms of bone cancer, which is distinctly possible because fluoride concentrates in bones, then using Ewing's sarcoma patients as controls would make as little sense as comparing levels of cigarette use between cases with one form of lung cancer and controls with a slightly different form of lung cancer. This is one of the worst choices of controls imaginable. Yet it is exactly what Hoover and Douglass have done. If their comparison of osteosarcoma to Ewing's sarcoma patients shows little difference in fluoride exposures, that will hardly be convincing evidence that fluoride does not cause bone cancer.US Public Health Service employees like Hoover defending fluoridation against scientific evidence of carcinogenicity may represent a new, insidious form of conflict of interest. It is not as obvious as industry funding a scientific researcher. Instead, a federal agency is the intermediary between industries' interests and questionable scientific studies. Behind the scenes efforts by polluting industries seem to have played an important role in the US PHS choosing to endorse and promote fluoridation, starting in 1950.Now we learn that Sir Richard Doll, a supposedly independent academic/government researcher, received millions of dollars from polluting industries. In the 1970s Robert Hoover of the National Cancer Institute worked closely behind the scenes with Doll to defend fluoride. Today Hoover is still apparently defending fluoride against scientific evidence. Hoover's colleague Douglass invokes Doll to justify delaying publication of an important new study which found a clear link between fluoride and osteosarcoma. Where does industry manipulation of science leave off and government collusion take over?Yiamouyiannis J (1986) Fluoride: The Aging Factor, Health Action Press, Delaware Ohio.Doll R, Kinlen L (1977) Fluoridation of water and cancer mortality in the USA, Lancet, pp 1300-1302.Newell, DJ (1977) Fluoridation of water supplies and cancer - a possible association? Applied Statistics, pp 125-135.-- cneurath@AmericanHealthStudies.org

Vice President of EPA Testifies Against Fluoridation

2007-06-13T11:47:00.000+01:00

As mentioned in a previous posting" Who watches the Watchers" on this site, here is the link to the Senate testimony...

Vice President of EPA's Scientist Union Testifies Against Fluoridation
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8903910725020792574
The testimony of Dr. William Hirzy, Vice President of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Headquarters Union, before the US Senate on June 29, 2000.

For a copy of Dr. Hirzy's written testimony, see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/testimony.htm

Cuppa, Anyone?

2007-06-08T11:14:00.000+01:00

Cuppa, Anyone?

I must admit that it doesn’t surprise me that a procedure as obnoxious as adding chemical waste to the drinking water supply comes from the desks of coffee-gulping Americans!

If the idea had been dreamed up in the marketing agencies of the U.K., India or Ireland, it would never have gotten off the ground. Why? Simply because those societies are tea drinking cultures and drank very little coffee during the 50’s when this monstrous idea was first mooted by the higher echelons in the aluminium, steel and nuclear industries. So what, you ask?

Because the tea-drinking cultures would have realised that because of the high levels of drinking teas, many people were already imbibing more than the recommended levels of natural fluoride through their cuppas in the morning , afternoon and evening already!

In fact, your average cup of tea holds fluoride at the rate of 6mg per litre, with green teas clocking in at up to 12 mg of fluoride! (Corrected from a previous post that said 6mg per cup). The Tolerable Upper Intake Level is 10 milligrams of fluoride daily (it was set that high in order to avoid crippling skeletal fluorosis later on in life - which you also actually risk at only 8mg per day). Then include all the other sources of fluoride that the average person intakes from nearly all processed foods and drinks manufactured in water fluoridated areas.

The RECOMMENDED intake by the pro-fluoride lobby is 4mg per day!

SO…If you use fluoridated tapwater at 1PPM (or 1 mg/L) to make your cuppa, then boil the water (usual procedure) – that concentrates the fluoride which can then more easily be retained in the body, binds itself with aluminium and lead (both frequent in our pipes, and Aluminium is also used as an agent to clear the turbidity out of tapwater) AND if you happen to have used an aluminium kettle or pan to boil that water ( as was common up until stainless steel became more popular) that added further massive concentrations of aluminium to your simple cuppa. What was a relaxing tannic brew had now become (without your knowing or being warned about it) a satanic chemical hodge-podge!!!

50% of fluoride intake is retained in the body by adults, and 80% by children. People with Alzheimer’s Disease have much higher levels of aluminium in their brains than normal. So when Granny who led a good life and only drank tea suddenly goes ga-ga, which more Grannies than ever are doing as the population ages, well, maybe we should look again at whether the reported 14% less cavities in fluoridated countries (as claimed by the fluoride lobby) is really worth the heartbreak of Alzheimer’s, osteoporosis, fluorosis, bone cancers, thyroid malfunctions, heart disease and all the other negative side-effects!
P.S. If anyone can supply the full text of the Mayo Clinic report below, it would be greatly appreciated…

Fluoride-Related Bone Disease Associated With Habitual Tea Consumption
JULIE E. HALLANGER JOHNSON, MD; ANN E. KEARNS, MD, PHD; PATRICK M. DORAN, MD; TECK KIM KHOO, MD; ROBERT A. WERMERS, MD
Individual reprints of this article are not available. Address correspondence to Robert A. Wermers, MD, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (e-mail: wermers.robert@mayo.edu).
Acquired osteosclerosis is a rare disorder of bone formation but an important consideration in adults with sclerotic bones or elevated bone density results. In such patients, malignancy, hepatitis C, and fluorosis should all be considered when making a diagnosis. We describe 4 patients evaluated at our Metabolic Bone Disease Clinic from May 1, 1997, to July 1, 2006, whose bone disorders resulted from chronic fluoride exposure due to excessive tea intake. Three of these patients had toxic serum fluoride levels (>15 μmol/L). Although the clinical presentation of the patients varied, all 4 had an unexpectedly elevated spine bone mineral density that was proportionately higher than the bone mineral density at the hip. Other clinical features included gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and weight loss; lower extremity pain sometimes associated with stress fractures of the lower extremities; renal insufficiency; and elevated alkaline phosphatase levels. Readily available, tea often contains high levels of fluoride. Obsessive-compulsive drinking behaviours and renal insufficiency may predispose to excessive fluoride consumption and accumulation. The current cases show that fluoride-related bone disease is an important clinical consideration in patients with dense bones or gastrointestinal symptoms and a history of excessive tea consumption. Furthermore, fluoride excess should be considered in all patients with a history of excessive tea consumption, especially due to its insidious nature and nonspecific clinical presentation.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(6):719-724

Did you happen to think that Robinson's Apple and Blackcurrant drink might be Harmless for your baby/kids? Err, think again!

2007-06-04T23:23:00.000+01:00

Sodium Metabisulfite - the preservative used in this kiddies drink, along with the sweetener Aspartame (disguised as Phenylalanine, see post further below) !!!
From Wikipedia:
General
Other names
Sodium Pyrosulfite Sodium Disulfite
Molecular formula
Na2S2O5
Molar mass
190.1 g/mol
Appearance
white powder
CAS number
7681-57-4
Properties
Density and phase
1100 to 1200 kg/m³, solid
Solubility in water
65 g/100 ml (25 °C)
Melting point
>170 °C
Boiling point
Hazards
MSDS
External MSDS
EU classification

Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa)Infobox disclaimer and references

Structural formula of sodium metabisulfite
Sodium metabisulfite or sodium pyrosulfite (American spelling; English spelling is Sodium metabisulphite or sodium pyrosulphite) is an inorganic compound of chemical formula Na2S2O5. The name is sometimes referred to as disodium (metabisulfite, etc). It is used as a sterilizer and antioxidant/preservative.
Contents[hide]
1 Uses
1.1 Food additive
1.2 Sterilization / Cleaning agent
2 Packaging
3 Chemical properties
4 External links
//

[edit] Uses

[edit] Food additive
It is used as a food additive, mainly as a preservative and is sometimes identified as E223. As an additive, it may cause allergic reactions, particularly skin irritation, gastric irritation and asthma.

It is not recommended for consumption by children.

[edit] Sterilization / Cleaning agent
It is commonly used in homebrewing preparations to sanitize equipment. It is used as a cleaning agent for potable water reverse osmosis membranes in desalination systems. It is also used to remove chloramine from drinking water after treatment.

[edit] Packaging
It can be purchased in powdered form, and is also the primary ingredient in campden tablets. In solid form it ranges in color from white to slightly yellow.

[edit] Chemical properties
When mixed with water, sodium metabisulfite releases sulfur dioxide (SO2), a pungent, unpleasant smelling gas that can also cause breathing difficulties in some people. For this reason, sodium metabisulfite has fallen from common use in recent times, with agents such as hydrogen peroxide becoming more popular for effective and odorless sterlization of equipment.

How do you hide Aspartame in drinks? Just call it Phenylalanine!

2007-06-04T23:08:00.000+01:00

Phenylalanine - Aspartame
Phenylalanine is a hidden danger to anyone consuming aspartame. Most consumers don't know that too much Phenylalanine is a neurotoxin and excites the neurons in the brain to the point of cellular death.
ADD/ADHD, emotional and behavioral disorders can all be triggered by too much Phenylalanine in the daily diet. If you are one in ten thousand people who are PKU or carry the PKU gene, Phenylalanine can cause irreversible brain damage and death, especially when used in high quantities or during pregnancy. Phenylalanine is 50% of aspartame, and to the degree humans consume diet products, Phenylalanine levels are reaching a dangerous peak.
It is important to learn about the ingredients within your foods, especially isolated amino acids like Phenylalanine. They are in combination within nature for a reason - they don't belong in isolated form for the healthy human diet.
Aspartame Information:
Aspartame Side Effects
Aspartame Case Histories
Artifical Sweeteners
Phenylalanine
Phenylketonuria
Aspartame Detoxifcation:
How to Detox
Read about SweetPoison

Phenylalanine - Aspartame
Nutrition fact about Phenylalanine in aspartame:
The 1976 Groliers encyclopedia states cancer cannot live without phenylalanine. Phenylalanine makes up 50% of aspartame.
Phenylalanine is one of the essential amino acids found in proteins, but I am one of the believers that amino acids should be eaten in combination, not in isolated form. Nature provides amino acids in combination; only man isolates them for processing purposes.
Phenylalanine is found naturally in foods such as eggs, milk, bananas, and meat. If you are PKU (Phenylketonuric) or sensitive to phenylalanine, you will react to the phenylalanine in aspartame. You may want to get a blood test to check for this condition. Over the past 20 years, humans have become more aware of PKU reactions because human beings began using isolated phenylalanine to the degree it is harmful to some individuals, many as aspartame side effects. My suggestion would be to research PKU and phenylalanine extensively. Phenylalanine can be very harmful to diabetics.
Read all food labels and avoid anything with isolated amino acids. You want to buy products with at least eight amino acids in combination.

Just a quick look at other beverages besides fluoridated water...

2007-06-04T22:43:00.000+01:00

Caution: Some soft drinks may seriously harm your health

Expert links additive to cell damage
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent , The Independent
Published: 27 May 2007
A new health scare erupted over soft drinks last night amid evidence they may cause serious cell damage. Research from a British university suggests a common preservative found in drinks such as Fanta and Pepsi Max has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA.
The problem - more usually associated with ageing and alcohol abuse - can eventually lead to cirrhosis of the liver and degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's.
The findings could have serious consequences for the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who consume fizzy drinks. They will also intensify the controversy about food additives, which have been linked to hyperactivity in children.
Concerns centre on the safety of E211, known as sodium benzoate, a preservative used for decades by the £74bn global carbonated drinks industry. Sodium benzoate derives from benzoic acid. It occurs naturally in berries, but is used in large quantities to prevent mould in soft drinks such as Sprite, Oasis and Dr Pepper. It is also added to pickles and sauces.
Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance. A Food Standards Agency survey of benzene in drinks last year found high levels in four brands which were removed from sale.
Now, an expert in ageing at Sheffield University, who has been working on sodium benzoate since publishing a research paper in 1999, has decided to speak out about another danger. Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology, tested the impact of sodium benzoate on living yeast cells in his laboratory. What he found alarmed him: the benzoate was damaging an important area of DNA in the "power station" of cells known as the mitochondria.
He told The Independent on Sunday: "These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: they knock it out altogether.
"The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it - as happens in a number if diseased states - then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA - Parkinson's and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of ageing."
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) backs the use of sodium benzoate in the UK and it has been approved by the European Union but last night, MPs called for it to investigate urgently.
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat chair of Parliament's all-party environment group said: "Many additives are relatively new and their long-term impact cannot be certain. This preservative clearly needs to be investigated further by the FSA."
A review of sodium benzoate by the World Health Organisation in 2000 concluded that it was safe, but it noted that the available science supporting its safety was "limited".
Professor Piper, whose work has been funded by a government research council, said tests conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration were out of date.
"The food industry will say these compounds have been tested and they are complete safe," he said. "By the criteria of modern safety testing, the safety tests were inadequate. Like all things, safety testing moves forward and you can conduct a much more rigorous safety test than you could 50 years ago."
He advised parents to think carefully about buying drinks with preservatives until the quantities in products were proved safe by new tests. "My concern is for children who are drinking large amounts," he said.
Coca-Cola and Britvic's Pepsi Max and Diet Pepsi all contain sodium benzoate. Their makers and the British Soft Drinks Association said they entrusted the safety of additives to the Government.

Now Fluoride Linked To Gum Disease!

2007-05-23T11:36:00.001+01:00

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 (and 40% of Irish 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. Two thirds of U.S. public water suppliers ( and 100% of Irish public water supplies ) purposely add fluoride chemicals (silicofluorides) in an attempt to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers.
Some U.S. communities have natural fluoride levels up to 4 ppm.. "How much longer do the American ( AND IRISH!)people have to be the guinea pigs in the U.S.'s fluoridation experiment," asks lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. 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 Beeber. "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." New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=71584

Fluoridation Doing More Harm Than Good, Studies Show

2007-05-13T12:35:00.000+01:00

Article Date: 12 May 2007 - 1:00 PDT
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=70558'

Contrary to belief, fluoridation is damaging teeth with little cavity reduction, according to a review of recent studies reported in Clinical Oral Investigations.(1) Pizzo and colleagues reviewed English-language fluoridation studies published from January 2001 to June 2006 and write, "Several epidemiological studies conducted in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities suggest that [fluoridation] may be unnecessary for caries prevention…"They also report that fluoride-damaged teeth spiked upwards to 51% from the 10-12% found over 60 years ago in "optimally" fluoridated communities. Dental fluorosis is white-spotted, yellow, brown-stained and/or pitted teeth. Fluoridation began in 1945 when dentists thought that ingested fluoride incorporated into children's developing tooth enamel to prevent cavities. However, Pizzo's group reports that fluoride ingestion confers little, if any, benefit and fails to reduce oral health disparities in low-income Americans. Also, any difference in fluoride tooth enamel surface concentration between fluoridated and low-fluoridated areas is minimal. And the relationship between higher enamel fluoride levels to less tooth decay was not found. "Some risk of increasing fluorosis may be attributed to the ingestion of powdered infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water… [and] foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas… Furthermore, the use of dietary fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing fluorosis," they write. Lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation says, "Recent news reports claiming fluoride-free bottled water caused the cavity increase trends in toddlers are implausible because rising fluorosis rates clearly indicate that children are over-fluoridated, not under-fluoridated." "There's no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth, actually making them more decay-prone. Research is indicated to see if fluoride is causing the cavity escalation," says Beeber. Some studies Pizzo reviewed focused on communities that stopped water fluoridation. "…after the cessation, caries prevalence did not rise, remained almost the same or even decreased further," writes Pizzo's group. "In most European countries, where [water fluoridation] has never been adopted, a substantial decline [75%] in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades," they report. To avoid dental fluorosis, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control advise against mixing concentrated infant formulas with fluoridated water. "Fluoride is bone- and health-damaging as well," says Beeber.
-- www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Pizzo-2007.pdf
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, IncPO Box 263Old Bethpage, NY 11804www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof http://www.fluorideaction.net/

Fluoride Shortage in U.S.

2007-05-11T23:04:00.000+01:00

Fluoride shortages abound throughout US

Friday, May 11, 2007

EVANSVILLE, INDIANA — A fluoride shortage has been reported in this city as well as other cities in the Midwest and along the East Coast, a May 11 Courier Press story reported.
In Evansville, fluoride has not been added to the water since last February, and the company that runs the city's treatment plant has not been able to get more.
The water quality manager for American Water Enterprises at Evansville, Mary Armacost, said the shortage is due to damages caused by Hurricane Katrina at fluoride processing facilities, according to the State Board of Health.
Armacost said in the story that everyone is facing the same problem, and the company has looked to many other vendors without luck. She said suppliers are no longer saying when supplies will be back to normal.
Another cause of the shortage is due to a slump in the phosphate mining industry.
Early this year, distributors in Florida were quoted as saying that fluoride had been in short supply for 18 months following the closing of one of the state's major mining companies and a production problem at another, as reported by WaterTech Online™.
The Florida distributors had also said the cost of the compound was skyrocketing due to demand and the fact that there weren't a lot of companies to produce it. A number of Florida water systems were forced to cease fluoridation earlier this year at least temporarily, due to the shortage.

Don't they realise that the fluoridation was really only for the convenience of industry anyway! If they don't produce it there is no need to dispose of the toxic waste in the public water supply. They should thank their lucky stars!

The Irish " Expert Body of Dentists" and Their Hypocrisy.

2007-05-11T22:54:00.000+01:00

Dear Sir,
To pretend that the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to public water supplies is a common naturally occurring element is highly misleading and erroneous. It is in fact a hodge-podge of chemicals, a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry! We are expected to believe the standard mantra repeated ad nauseam by the pro-fluoride lobby that 40, 50 or 60, (take your pick) years of fluoridation have proven it safe and efficacious. Why should we believe that? Well, let's have a look at some of that 50 years research, will we? York University (UK) had a review in 1999-2000 to assess the merits or otherwise of fluoridation. The Report was commissioned by the UK government who wanted to lay the anti-fluoride lobby's arguments to rest once and for all so that they could bring fluoridation into the UK en masse. The report looked at all the fluoride literature worldwide since the inception of fluoridation. Unfortunately for them and for the whole fluoride lobby, they found the following, and I quote: "We were UNABLE to discover ANY reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found SUGGESTED that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, BUT that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight DISBENEFIT to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the EXPENSE of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was POOR." My emphasis. OK, so the pro-fluoride evidence over 50 years was POOR. So we will discount it because an expert and independent and comprehensive university / government report has said so. What about since 2000? York say that up until October 2003 they still had not received any convincing research to change their minds. Nothing that I am aware of has come out in fluoride's defence since! http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm for what the York Report REALLY said!

The WHO support which Dr O'Hickey regularly quotes was based on "over 100 studies of fluoride over 50 years". These reports and studies have been minutely examined by Philip Sutton and published in Chemical & Engineering News in 1988,and have been PROVEN to be highly suspect: No controls, no allowance for bias, 34 didnt exist, 2 studies with data from more than 1 town were listed as 6, 7 case reports in different years from the same study were listed as 14, 20 were about something else, 51 were of poor scientific quality, 4 could not be verified and the last 19 were from fluoridated countries and did not show in a scientific manner that fluoridation was efficacious! Moreover, the WHO has always stated that "the TOTAL fluoride intake of the individual MUST ALWAYS be taken into account BEFORE adding more"! Just for a start, this nation has always had tea as its main beverage, unlike the US coffee culture, and the fact that tea already contains between 6-8mg/L of naturally occurring fluoride seems to have passed all the fluoride pushers by! Ireland is SIXTH in the European caries league BEHIND non-fluoridating countries and all countries have shown a similar caries reduction curve over the last 40 years - even without fluoridation!

Please send me any links to recent health research that shows the efficacy of dumping toxic waste into our drinking water, I would love to see it. On the other hand, the last 30 years have shown major links to damage of the health of fluoridated people. How many cavities avoided justify the death through osteosarcoma of a young boy? How many suffer from hypothyroidism, kidney trouble, broken hips, Alzheimer's Disease, fluorosis, brittle bones and general illness due to the attack hydrofluorosilicic acid and its attendant chemicals (including mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, phosphate) wreak on the human immune system all because someone CLAIMS this helps kids teeth? There has NEVER been a long-term health survey on a fluoridated population ANYWHERE! Rather strange, isn't that?

Caries have reduced world wide over the past 30 years and faster in some non-fluoridated countries than in fluoridated ones. So where is the PROOF that these pro-fluoride people offer? I am sick and tired of hearing the generalisations based on old and discredited "research". Wasn't it only in the 70's that the lawyers, scientists and experts who worked for the tobacco companies claimed: There is your proof that smoking does not damage ones health or cause cancer - BECAUSE two or three hundred years of smoking proves it!!! Sounds like the same argument that the fluoride lobby are trying to pass off on us. Fluoride can't hurt us BECAUSE it hasn't shown up major health problems yet! As has been said - if you don't look for it, you won't find it! People should research the issue and make themselves aware of what may turn out to be a major health calamity in the (near) future. Fluoride attacks iodine and magnesium in the body, absolutely vital nutrients, along with enzymes, the body's neuro transmitters. Give me the word of a trained toxicologist(the major discipline which was NOT represented on the Irish "Expert Body of Dentists" researches)above that of a mere dentist, who has NO overview of the whole body, any day!

In the end, decisions that have long ranging implications on health should only be made when considering ALL the evidence gathered over a period of time and not just the same tired and discredited fluoride mantra that Dr. O'Hickey repeats ad nauseam. When will Dr O'Hickey admit that HE makes a lot of money by "pushing" fluoride to countries such as South Africa, and indeed , acting as a consultant to the WHO along with Prof. O'Mullane, also on the "Expert Body of Dentists"? He has a hypocritical nerve to regularly accuse anyone in the anti-fluoride lobby of making money from the fluoride debate, as he does so himself! EUES Ireland

There's Both Eatin' and Drinkin' In It!

2007-05-10T17:41:00.000+01:00

Although a FAN (Fluoride Action Network) fan, I think it would be beneficial to let people know that water fluoridation is not the only type of mass medication being practiced by some governments and that salt fluoridation now affects even more people than water fluoridation does! The following article is from the Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC) Canadian website in response to a FAN article, which you can link to at the end of this posting. Fluoride for food - food for thought.

June 15, 2003
FAN’s “Swiss Cheese”
In the past few weeks we have received a flurry of mails, mainly from Europe and Canada, about the situation in Basel, Switzerland and the reports which have been circulated by the anti-fluoridation movement on this issue. It has become obvious that many anti-fluoridation campaigners are and have been misinformed.
Of particular concern to most were several bulletins by the International Fluoride Information Network (IFIN) and the present lead article on the newly revamped website by FAN, the global Fluoride Action Network. FAN distributes the IFIN bulletins, which are usually authored by Prof. Paul Connett, to other anti-fluoridation activists worldwide.
Please be informed that the lead item on the FAN website site entitled "Basel Switzerland Votes to Stop Water Fluoridation" (1) is very inaccurate, highly misleading, and has “as many holes as Swiss Cheese”.
Background
The FAN article refers to a report by the Commission on Health and Social Issues (GSK) which led to the cessation of water fluoridation in Basel. The report was written on Feb. 26, 2003 and passed on to the Great Council on March 19, 2003. The Council voted upon the matter on April 9th, 2003. The original GSK report has been placed on-line by the GSK (2) as well as the PFPC (3).
Unfortunately, throughout the FAN article key points of the GSK report are mis-represented.
A few examples:
[1] FAN:
"In March, the GSK presented their advice to end water fluoridation in a ten page report delivered to Parliament. The two main reasons supporting their recommendation were:
COMMENT: First of all, there were THREE main reasons given by the GSK, not two. They are listed further below. But for now, let's go to the next item, allegedly reason #1:
[2] FAN:
1) Lack of evidence that water fluoridation is more effective than other, less intrusive, means of reducing tooth decay.
As noted in GSK's report:
"No study or investigation can belay clearly that water fluoridation obtains better results as a measure to reduce tooth decay than other uses of fluoride."
COMMENT: Not only is this matter not reason "1)", but the GSK report does NOT say this. The sentence above shows up under reason #3:
"No study or investigation can show plainly and clearly that water fluoridation as a measure to protect against caries can achieve better results than other measures of BASE-FLUORIDATION."
This is a VERY important difference.
Base-fluoridation ("Basisfluoridierung") describes fluoride which is taken up by the masses via the oral/intestinal tract (systemic), while "Individualfluoridierung" (individual fluoridation) means local applications via toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel, etc. Another associated term encountered in the document is the word "flächendeckend" which means area-covering, i.e. both water fluoridation and salt fluoridation cover large population areas, thus are described as "area-covering". This is a very important aspect if we are to discuss "forced medication", but more on this later.
The fact is: what water fluoridation is being specifically compared to here is SALT fluoridation - another form of systemic fluoride intake by the masses and which is in place in virtually all of Switzerland, the first country to sell fluoridated salt in 1955, and where 85% of the population uses fluoridated salt. This aspect is clearly described in the GSK report [Point 4, Page 5].
It is hard to understand how this could have been misinterpreted as FAN’s own postings of newsarticles report on the fluoride-salt “ersatz” (4). It is further very hard to understand how an organization campaigning against systemic fluoride intake can show such ignorance.
Newspaper articles had been circulating on the Internet on this issue since March 20th, specifying the GSK position and its “political” motive - a day after the report was handed to the Great Council (i.e. Tagesblatt Bern, March 20, 2003).
[3] FAN:
"In 1999, the GSK had asked public dental clinics to investigate whether Basel had a lower rate of tooth decay than 'areas or cities with similar population structures, such as Zurich or St. Gall'. Four years later, these investigations had yet to be conducted, or if they were, the results were never presented."
COMMENT: The GSK did not ask such thing and should never be quoted as such, really. What the GSK DID ask for were studies which investigated if fluoride in water was any better than fluoride in salt, both being examples of "base- fluoridation" (Feb, 1999). Zurich and St. Gallen are BOTH fluoridated salt areas with "similar population structures", and were therefore proposed. (There are 11 unique ethnic communities). Zurich has used fluoridated salt since 1955.
NOTE: Numerous cantons in Switzerland fluoridate all salt destined for human consumption, thus fluoride is taken in from all processed foods, bakery products, in restaurants, cafeterias, canteens, etc. - in short, any food item with salt. In those areas, the daily intake of bread alone may already provide more than 1.2 mg per day of fluoride - per person (5). Such measures certainly are “forced mass-medication”, and worse than any water fluoridation, as now all foods made with such salt contain much more fluoride.
[4] FAN:
Adding to these doubts were recent findings showing that tooth decay had risen in Basel's children since 1996, coupled with an absence of any evidence showing Basel to have a lower rate of tooth decay than other Swiss cities (most of which have very low rates of tooth decay).
COMMENT:
This is also an incorrect and misleading statement. Again the impression is created that “other Swiss cities” are “un-fluoridated”, which is entirely untrue, as discussed above. It is further untrue that most other Swiss cities have very low rates of tooth decay.
The GSK reports on the position statement given by the Director of Public Dental Clinics, who said that caries had become clearly worse between 1996 and 2001 in Basel. Especially for seven-year-olds caries occurrence had actually doubled. The GSK report states this with special emphasis ("Verdopplung!"). However, a similar situation exists in Zurich, and a similar increase is seen in this age group. From the year 1992 to 2000, caries prevalence in 7-year-olds increased by 64% in Zurich (6). (Please note that nowhere in Switzerland can there be any “fluoride deficiency”. There are extensive school-brushing programs with fluoride toothpaste, almost all people use fluoride toothpastes (w/ organic fluoride compounds), fluoridated salt is used by 85 % of the population - yet there is such an alarming increase in caries?
[5] FAN:
According to extensive data collected by the World Health Organization and various national/regional surveys, unfluoridated countries in western Europe have experienced - without exception - the same general decline in tooth decay over the past 30 to 50 years, as that experienced in the US. As a result, children today in unfluoridated countries such as Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden have as low - or even lower - levels of tooth decay as US children.
This is sheer nonsense and it boggles the mind how anyone can speak of “unfluoridated countries” here, or even attempt to compare caries rates without any apparent knowledge on fluoride exposure and intake in these countries.
If the Netherlands are “unfluoridated” - how come Dutch public health officials in 1988 calculated total daily fluoride intake to be up to 6.0 mg of fluoride? Food was estimated to be the source of 80-85% of fluoride intake; intake from drinking-water was 0.03-0.68 mg/day and from toothpaste 0.2-0.3 mg (7). “For children, total intake via food and water is decreased because of lower consumption. Intake of food and water relative to body weight is higher, however, and is further increased by the swallowing of toothpaste or fluoride tablets (up to 3.5 mg of fluoride per day)” (8).
NOTE: For comparison - in 1991 the US PHS estimated daily fluoride intake of adults in “optimally” fluoridated areas of the US to be up to 6.6 mg/day (9).
In Germany, fluoridated salt has within a few years grabbed the major share of the market, driven by a PR campaign initiated by salt producers (13). Dentists have been lobbying to have regulations lifted to allow bakeries and large kitchens to use fluoridated salt. Test case has been the kitchen at the University of Heidelberg which has used fluoridated salt in its foods since 1999.
FAN has a special page alerting to “other sources of fluoride intake” (10). However, fluoridated salt is not mentioned at all.
THE GSK's THREE REASONS
1) No reason for Basel to be the "lone island" in Switzerland. As around Basel other methods of caries prophylaxis are in existence, and no unique benefit of fluoridated water could be identified, the GSK felt this "lone island" approach of water fluoridation was not justified. The GSK rejected the idea to “half the fluoridation” (fluoridate at 0.5 ppm), as had been proposed by Peter H. Miehl, the Director of the Public Dental Clinics. [It is noted in the report that fluoridated salt is available in Basel as well, posing another problem commonly described in the literature as “overlap”. Earlier there had been a sort of "gentleman's agreement" with distributors "sacrificing" sales, but now fluoridated salt was once again widely available.]
2) The second reason was that fluoridated water has a "Streuverlust" (scatterloss), meaning it is being scattered, not used for drinking or cooking, but ends up being wasted. The report states: "with fluoridated food salt, as is used in the rest of Switzerland for base-fluoridation, this scatter-loss and with it the unnecessary burden on the environment would be considerably less."
3) Here it is stated that the "island solution" as well as "scatterloss" could only be justified if there were no other alternative and comparable means to base-fluoridate available. It is here where it is stated that no study exists which can show that fluoridated water is better than other means of base-fluoridation - meaning fluoridated salt - NOT "other uses of fluoride" or “less intrusive measures”, as stated by FAN. It is here that the report also addresses the question of "personal freedom" and "forced medication" imposed upon by water fluoridation. This has been a political item since 1990 when a Basel couple sued because fluoride-free water was not available and the case made it to Supreme Court (Bundesgericht)[see Point 2, page 4 ].
SO - the GSK recommended to stop water fluoridation, and to use fluoridated salt instead. Has the government stopped “fluoridation”? No, it will chose another medium to fluoridate the people. The GSK report further states that the transition from fluoridated water to fluoridated salt should be accompanied by a one-time info-campaign, and that this could be done when water bills were being sent out by the IWB (Industrial Works Basel).
Please also note that elsewhere in the report [Point 6, page 7] it is stated that the IWB cannot sell its water to other cantons or countries because of the fluoride content. The GSK claims that it has not concerned itself with this aspect of the "Politikum of TWA" (fluoridated drinking water). One can see this point also stressed in the submission by Ziegelbecker from the day before the report was made (11).
The report further states that no longer fluoridating the water of Basel will save 200,000 francs a year. Fluoridated salt has no costs what-so-ever to the state.
NOTE:This fact is very advantageous for dental public health officials everywhere who, long aware of the political implications in water fluoridation, now quietly go about starting massive fluoridated salt programs. More on this below.
Fluoridated salt is no more expensive than other salt, and is actually sold under a slight subsidy, making its selling price just a bit lower than other salt (Yewe-Dyer, 2002). The "poor" family - which really doesn’t exist in Switzerland where 99% of the population is literate and the average income is above US $28,000 a year - will go for fluoride salt, the cheaper salt. Marketing is aggressive and has been very successful, aided greatly by salt producers - as in many other countries. Now even common recipes call specifically for fluoridated salt (12).
98% fluoridation- free?
Often encountered on FAN’s website is the statement that 98% of Europe is “unfluoridated”. Anyone who knows about the global drive to fluoridate salt supplies knows how wrong such a statement really is. “Fuzzy Math”? Perhaps one day soon FAN will wake up and take its mandate to “minimize fluoride exposure” seriously and actually pay a bit of attention to the remaining 98% NOT affected by water fluoridation programs, but other means of “base-fluoridation” and “mass-medication” programs?
While it was estimated in the 1990s that worldwide 230 million people received artificially fluoridated water (13), the number of people now affected by fluoridated salt programs greatly exceeds those affected by water fluoridation. 350 million people were added in 1996 alone when the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) launched a massive salt fluoridation program in Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela (14).
The project was part of a multi-year plan launched by PAHO in 1994 to “fluoridate the entire Region of the Americas”. The project was funded - once again - by a multi-year deal grant from Kellogg’s (15).
Since then many other countries have been added and many more are currently in the process. In Jamaica, Costa Rica and Columbia all salt destined for human consumption is fluoridated (“universal” salt fluoridation).
Forced Medication?
Just like in water fluoridation - where it was presumed that people would drink 4 glasses of water every day and thus take in the “optimal” intake of 1 mg of fluoride/per day - salt was fluoridated at 250 ppm. Here it was presumed that “individual application” (meaning use of the salt shaker at the table - the “sprinkling over food”) would contribute 1 to 4 g of the daily total salt intake, thus a person would take in 1 mg of fluoride a day at 4 grams a day - the “optimal” dose of fluoride intake to “protect against caries”.
How dentists ever convinced public health policy makers that the same salt (also called “cooking salt”) wasn’t also used for all cooking, including breadmaking, soups, etc. is anyone’s guess.
Fluoridated salt - which also has plenty of contaminants (16) - has one quality much worse than fluoridated water: an individual's preferred level of salt may be raised or lowered by progressively raising or lowering the actual level over a period of time. In other words, the amount of salt you use today might not be enough for you a month from now when you will be adding a little bit more! Salt consumption has shot through the roof, and worldwide efforts are underway to reduce overall salt intake to 5 g/day. In Costa Rica - just as one example - all salt is fluoridated at 250 ppm and people consume on average 10 g of salt per day, ensuring a daily fluoride intake of 2.5 mg/day from this source alone.
“Fluoride-free by 2003”?
Not this way.
Bob Johannsen, Rainer Neuhaus & Andreas Schuld
Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC)Vancouver, BC, Canada
PFPC Website: http://www.bruha.com/pfpc
E-mail: pfpccanada@shaw.ca

To read FAN’s updated article see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/basel.htm

Public Anti - fluoridation Meeting In Dublin, May 6th.

2007-05-03T16:59:00.000+01:00

May 3rd 2007

Leading scientist speaks on dosage of fluoride in Irish drinking water and its toxicity. Venue is St John's Hall, Tower Road, Dublin 22. (In Clondalkin village) at 3pm on Sunday 6th May.

Professor Vyvyan Howard of the University of Ulster and a European authority on the toxicity of chemicals, will speak for the first time in Ireland on the scientifically controversial practice of water fluoridation. In addressing the Scientific and Medical Network in Dublin on Sunday 6th May, he will reveal some of the main toxicological risks, in particular as they affect the development of infants and children.

Professor C. Vyvyan Howard. MB. ChB. PhD. FRC Path. is a medically qualified toxico-pathologist and has recently set up a Bio-imaging Research Group in the Centre for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Ulster in Coleraine. His areas of interest include the way in which nanotechnology could create a variety of new and potentially serious health risks.

Dr Howard has written the foreword to Drinking Ourselves to Death? by Barry Groves published in 2001 in Dublin by Gill and Macmillan. This is the leading analysis of the failings of fluoridation policy in Ireland and the UK, the only two EU member states in which it is tolerated.
Dr Howard has regularly advised the European Commission on the toxicity of chemicals in humans. He is a member of the UK Government’s Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Professor Howard is also the President Elect of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE). This body has over 100,000 medical doctors affiliated to it and is recognised by the World Health Organisation and the United Nations. He will take up the Presidency of ISDE in June 2007.

Dr Andrew Rynne, founder of Clane General Hospital will demonstrate that fluoridated drinking water is a medicinal product according to the Irish Medicines Board’s own definition of that term. Since it is not licensed by the regulatory authority who defines it as a medicine, it is an illegal product. The fact of the matter is that it could not be licensed because it would fall far short of the Irish Medicines Board’s strict and correct criteria for a medicine’s safety and efficacy.

Dr Rynne will also argue that Irish citizens are supposed to be protected under the Irish Constitution, which promises, inter alia, a right to bodily integrity. The force-feeding of an unspecified dose of an unlicensed medicine on a daily basis is clearly a violation of an individual’s right to that bodily integrity.

Mr Robert Pocock of the environmental group VOICE of Irish Concern for the Environment will outline other policy contradictions of fluoridation including evidence of greatly increased levels of fluoride exposure.
For more information phone 087-6488748 …. Jacqui Nielsen SciMedNet

Tooth Decay Rise in U.S. Children -May1st

2007-05-01T11:55:00.002+01:00

ATLANTA (AP) - Preschoolers are getting more cavities. The largest government study of the nation's dental care in more than 25 years shows a rise in tooth decay in children's baby teeth. The study also notes a drop in the number of adults who visited a dentist in the past year, a possible indicator of declining health insurance. The study's lead author is Doctor Bruce Dye of the National Center for Health Statistics. Some reasons he cites for the increase in children's tooth decay: parents are giving their children more processed snack foods than in the past, and children are getting more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water.

Here we go again! Instead of looking at the reality, dentists continue in denial.

Dr. Bruce A. Dye assigns part of the blame for the increase in U.S. children’s dental caries to “children are getting more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water”. When does the penny actually drop for these people? The US has 100% fluoridated most of its cities for 50 years now, and there is still complete surprise that “poorer people” (i.e. in general, inner city dwellers) have much higher caries rates than others. This is the same racial group, black people, who 70 years ago had the BEST teeth in America! Sheer co-incidence that the highest fluoride areas have the highest caries rates?
Look at the CDC figures across the whole United States and you find there is NO definitive correlation between dental caries reduction and fluoride use. Co-incidence? I can send you the spreadsheet.
Look at the American Cancer Society’s statistics of cancer rates in the various states and set them against the fluoridation rates and you DO find a clear trend to higher cancer death rates in the most fluoridated states. Co-incidence?
I hardly think that the worst caries groups (the poor) are the same ones who are substituting expensive bottled water for tapwater for their children! Does Dr. Dye (not a medical doctor, I take it) really expect us to swallow that one?
Fluoride is pervasive throughout the food and drink chain in fluoridated countries now. Hardly anything escapes some measure of fluoride toxification – children ingesting fruit and soda drinks are, along with an overabundance of sugars, taking in AND RETAINING in their bones and organs, high levels of fluoride. For anyone to suggest that even more fluoride is the answer is to go beyond foolishness to wilful assault on the health of the nation. Maybe Dr. Dye is aptly named.
The dental profession is, as usual, looking for a scapegoat to divert attention from their failure to tackle the caries of those who cannot afford their treatment. More fluoride, more fluoride is their call, as if the human body is suffering from a lack of fluoride, as if it doesn’t have a multitude of negative health effects on the rest of the body, as if it isn’t causing cancer, as if it has actually been tested before use for health, which it never has been on a human population. Meanwhile the 67% of Americans, the Irish, some Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders using fluoride (by which I mean, of course, hydrofluorosilicic acid – the waste from phosphate fertiliser factories which is used to “fluoridate”) DO see their cancer rates rising, their asthma and heart disease rates rising, their sperm counts decreasing, their IQ’s reducing, ADD and Alzheimer's and autism rates increasing and, oh, the caries rate increasing! But, surely, that is all just co-incidence?http://euesireland.blogspot.com/

WELL, DAUGHTER OF DR.DYE, YOUR LOYALTY TO YOUR FAMILY IS TO BE COMMENDED. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU CAN RESEARCH AND ANSWER THE 5 QUESTIONS POSED IN MY "RAMBLINGS" ABOVE, THEN I MAY FIND SOME RESPECT FOR YOU AS A SERIOUS AND CONCERNED CITIZEN.REGARDS.

The Fluoride and Cancer Link Exposed

2007-04-21T13:53:00.000+01:00

WASHINGTON D.C.
100% FLUORIDATED

241.2 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 2,860 in the District of Columbia.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 1,180 in the District of Columbia.

KENTUCKY
99.60% FLUORIDATED

227 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 22,720 in Kentucky.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 9,360 in Kentucky.

HAWAII
8.60% FLUORIDATED

158 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 5,070 in Hawaii.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 2,090 in Hawaii.

UTAH
2.20% FLUORIDATED

151 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 6,360 in Utah.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 2,620 in Utah.

All figures from the American Cancer Society and the CDC websites cross-referenced by myself.
They feature the two most and the two least fluoridated areas in the States, yet the trend continues when all the other states are included. How come government don't make these statistic correlations themselves? Is it so that the authorities can hide the relationship between high levels of fluoride in a state's drinking water and the high levels of cancers in that state? I cannot paste an Excel spreadsheet to this blog, so if anyone wants the whole list of U.S. states that I put together and wants to see the undeniable link to higher rates, incidence and trends in cancer to higher levels of fluoride in drinking water, then send a request to euesireland@eircom.net. These are truly frightening figures!

Bloody Times

2007-04-18T22:55:00.000+01:00

In the current tragic situation in Virginia, USA, and considering the rampant violence in American major cities, all of which are fluoridated, it is worth looking again at the studies which show a correlation between fluoridated areas, fluoride derived psychotropic drugs, lead uptake in babies to adults and the high levels of violence and erratic murderous behaviour. Many of the people involved in previous random shootings of this type were found to be taking fluoride based anti-depressant drugs. With love and sorrow for all the victims of violence everywhere.

State - Kentucky (the most fluoridated State -only Washington, D.C. is higher - at 100%)
99.60% % of state fluoridated
59.80% % of caries in 3rd graders

State - Utah (least fluoridated State)
2.20% % of state fluoridated
61.05% % of caries in 3rd graders

State - Virginia (7th most fluoridated State)
95.50% % of state fluoridated
61% % of caries in 3rd graders

Association of SiF Usage with Higher Blood Lead Levels, Rates of Violent Crime, and Substance Abuse
Masters, R. and Coplan, M. (1999a) "Water Treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity," International Journal of Environmental Studies, 56: 435-49.
First published analysis of data linking silicofluoride treatment of public water supplies with higher uptake of lead, focused on survey of children's blood lead in Massachusetts (by town).
Masters, R. and Coplan, M. (1999b) "A Dynamic, Multifactorial Model of Alchohol, Drug Abuse, and Crime: Linking Neuroscience and Behavior to Toxicology," Social Science Information, 38: 591-624.
Articulation of the linkages between neurotoxicity, brain chemistry, environmental pollution, and behavior (with focus on substance abuse and crime), using data from National Institute of Justice study of drug use in over 30,000 criminal offenders at time of arrest). Data show that where SiF is in use, criminals are more likely to consume alchohol, and to have used cocaine at time of arrest (as well as confirming that such communities have significantly higher violent crime rates).
Wilson, Jim (1999). "The Chemistry of Violence," Popular Mechanics, (April), pp. 42-43.
Masters, R.D., Coplan, M. J., Hone, B. T., and Dykes, J. E. (2000). "Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead," Neurotoxicology 21: 101-1100.
Follow-up epidemiological study of the association between SiF treated water and enhanced child blood lead. This statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead tests taken from children ages 0-6, living in 105 communities with populations from 15,000 to 75,000 in New York state, shows for every age and racial group a significant association between SiF usage and elevated blood lead.
Masters, Roger D. (2003). "The Social Implications of Evolutionary Psychology: Linking Brain Biochemistry, Toxins, and Violent Crime," in Richard W. Bloom and Nancy K. Dess, eds., Evolutionary Psychology and Violence: A Primer for Policymakers and Public Policy Advocates (Westwood: Praeger), Ch. 2, pp. 23-56.
Analysis of evidence of neurotransmitter dysfunction due to toxins associated with increased rates of violent crime, with extensive discussion of silicofluoride neurotoxicity as an important instance.

Average Daily Fluoride Intake???Who Knows???

2007-04-17T17:58:00.001+01:00

Excerpts from The Secret War and The Fluoride Conspiracy By Dr. Geoffrey E. Smith
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has always measured the safety of fluoridation on the basis of one study of crippling skeletal fluorosis, which was first published in 1935. The EPA's regulation for the maximum allowable concentration of fluoride in drinking water was established for one purpose - to prevent this disease. However, crippling is the [bioaccumulative] end stage of chronic fluoride poisoning. The earlier stages involve gastrointestinal problems, arthritis, and osteoporosis. None of these earlier symptoms are considered in the regulation ... only the end stage. In 1985, when the EPA [suddenly pretended there was a grand change in human biology and] raised the maximum contaminant level to 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water, they used dosage figures miscalculated in 1953 by Harold C. Hodge, who was chairman of the NAS committee on toxicology. Hodge's original figures (20-80 mg/day for 10-20 years) were corrected by Hodge in 1979, and by NAS in 1993. The corrected figures, based on Roholm's classic study of workers in the cryolite industry, amount to 0.2 to 0.35 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight per day, for eleven years. When extrapolated over a lifetime of 55 to 96 years, these crippling dosage figures equal 1 milligram of fluoride daily for each 55 pounds of body weight ... 0.04 mg/kg/day. In the early years of water fluoridation [human experimentation], this dosage was not the norm. At that time, water was virtually the only source of fluoride in the American diet. The total intake for most adults was 0.02 mg/kg/day ... about one to one and a half milligrams of fluoride daily. Today, the figure is 0.095 mg/kg/day... from food and drinking water alone ... more than 6 milligrams daily. This increase in ingested fluoride, largely due to the use of artificial fertilizers containing fluoride, pesticide residues, dental products, and modern food processing, has changed a relatively safe dosage into one capable of causing crippling deformities of the spine and major joints, as well as the muscle pain associated with fibromyalgia. Beer and wine often contain significant quantities of fluoride, as does ordinary tea. Grape juice often contains even larger quantities of fluoride, due to the widespread use of pesticides, which remain on the grape skin. Fluoride in toothpaste can be absorbed through the tissues of the mouth, as well as swallowed accidentally. Many prescription drugs also contain fluoride. None of these items are labeled to indicate the quantity of fluoride added to the daily dietary total.

Fluoridation Monument(al Blunder)! A.K.A. The Dentists' Mantra

2007-04-17T14:01:00.000+01:00

Reprinted from a blog I found recently. Many thanks to the publishers for their good taste!

Saturday, November 18, 2006
HMMM...I thought the meaning of the 33 foot sculpture (pictured above) recently erected at Grand Rapids - the home of the world's first mass fluoridation experiment - by the West Michigan Dental Association, was quite clear. Regards, Dennis Stevenson

Firstly, at the right of the picture is a patient. That they are a dental patient is obvious from their mouth being wide open. As their tongue is all the way out, obviously they are screaming. We'll get to why they are screaming in a moment. Gathered around the patient are 5 dentists. Equally obviously, as there are five dentists and not just one, it must be a training session, as only one dentist is required to extract whatever money a patient might have.The two dentists on the left can be seen to be senior to the other three, as is clearly shown by their height. The tallest dentist is the lead instructor and his colleague, on his immediate right, is the 'watchdog'. I'm sure all of us are aware that when a dentist speaks at a public meeting, there has to be another ADA approved dentist in the audience to report on what the first dentist says.? Naturally the same requirement exists when dentists are being trained. Though it is almost preposterous to consider that any ADA approved dentist would tell the truth (remember what happened to Mel Gibson in the movie Conspiracy Theory) the ADA is ever vigilant to ensure that no dentist should mention, even accidentally, that fluoridation is anything but "absolutely safe and effective". Though it seems silly and is extremely unlikely to occur, imagine the repercussions if a dentist told students that fluorosis was chronic fluoride poisoning of the 'whole body' and not just a 'minor cosmetic effect' on teeth only?Which leads us into exactly what the trainee-dentists were learning at the time the picture was taken. This is revealed by the attitude of the students. You will note their proximity to the patient: this shows that the 'cosmetic effect' of dental fluorosis is being discussed and specifically, the vast fees that can be made from gluing white plastic covers over the fluorosis disfigured teeth of patients - at $600 to $1,200 per tooth. This is, of course, why the patient is screaming.?However, you can imagine why the trainees are so excited. Not only have they just learned how much they can charge patients, but they have also discovered that fluorosis, or 'egg-shell white' mottling as they prefer to call it, is a never-ending source of money, provided they keep promoting fluoridation, as this is what causes the mottling. Now they realise how they can easily pay cash for a new premier Mercedes every year, not to mention the endless golf and wonderful conferences sponsored and paid for by Mars Bars Pty. Ltd.You will also notice at the bottom left side of the picture, almost hidden behind trees, is what can just be seen of a car window. The window, exactly positioned so that it has a clear view of the meeting through the trees, looks black. However, expanded digital film analysis reveals that state of the art video equipment is recording everything that is being done at the meeting. This is another requirement of Sigma-Delta-Sigma, the secret society of dentists, which dentists are on a blood oath never to mention. You may recall the deputy President of the NZ Dental Association who accidentally acknowledged that the society exists before he realized his error and stumbled out with "My membership of any organisation has got nothing to do with your interview." Have you ever seen him again?Something to also be seen in the photograph is the golden path. Because of poor reflection, this shows in the photograph as a white section on which the dentists are standing. This is always there when dentists are being trained to ever remind them of the dental brotherhood and the riches that await them if they obey the 5 Golden Rules.You will notice one of the dentists, the smallest and most junior one, has the 5 Golden Rules written on his back. Enlarged, they read:1. I promise to always pretend I and brother dentists are doctors though we are not medically qualified and do not have doctorates.2. I promise to protect any brother dentist who kills a patient with mercury or a topical fluoride treatment.3. I promise to charge every patient extra for: cleaning, topical fluoride treatment and x-rays and to never reduce fees or disclose to outsiders how many hundreds of thousands of dollars I make annually.4. I promise never to publicly debate fluoridation but only to forever repeat the dental mantra "Fluoridation is absolutely safe and effective". I will always vehemently deny that fluoride is a rat poison.5. I promise to follow the 50-year-old published advice from the American Dental Association to always denigrate and ridicule those who speak against fluoridation, no matter how well qualified they are.

HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID COMPOSITION

2007-04-07T14:05:00.000+01:00

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.
DUE TO ITS PROPENSITY TO BIND WITH ALUMINIUM AND LEAD, BY THE TIME THE WATER GETS THROUGH OUR WATER SYSTEM THE VOLUMES OF THOSE TWO ELEMENTS ARE EVEN HIGHER!
PERSONALLY, I HAVE NEVER LIKED THE TASTE OF IRISH TAPWATER SINCE THE MID 60'S. I WAS TOLD THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TASTE THE FLUORIDE...MAYBE IT WAS PHOSPOROUS AND SULPHUR I WAS TASTING ALL ALONG!!!

HERE IS A REFERENCE LINK TO AN AMAZING LETTER WRITTEN BY CHEMIFLOC, THE COMPANY SUPPLYING HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID TO THE IRISH GOVERNMENT. TRULY SHOCKING WHAT ONE'S OWN GOVERNMENT WILL SANCTION DONE TO ITS CITIZENS, JUST TO GET A LOCAL VOTE OR TO SAVE A FEW BOB!

EUES asked "Would anyone like to give me an alternative source for hydrofluorosilicic acid other than the phosphate fertiliser industry?"

Well, it seems that the supplier at the moment is Chemifloc in Shannon. I don't know if they import the stuff from foreign fertilizer factories or if they produce the hydrofluorosilicic acid using a chemical process that apes what happens in the fertilizer factories. It's one or the other. It hardly matters; there's no evidence that Chemifloc's product is any less toxic than the toxic waste that was used for most of the 43 years of Irish fluoridation.

But do look at this astonishing letter that Chemifloc wrote ten years ago, when they had lost the supply contract:

HTTP://www.fluoridealert.org/fluosilicic.htm

THANKS, JOE, FOR THIS REFERENCE.

Scare Tactics Don't Change the Truth About Fluoride! Oh Yeah!

2007-04-07T02:00:00.001+01:00

To The Editor, Onalaska Life Newspaper:
Sir,
(Your Guest Columnist) Dentist, Mr Randall Moseng, states that Mr Michael Berkley is beating the drum of inaccuracy. If that is the case, then Mr Moseng has a whole brass band! I hardly know where to begin to retort to his dogged "dentistry school world view", regurgitating "facts" he learned there without the benefit of actual research. But, with the reader's indulgence, I will make an attempt:- MY COMMENTS IN CAPITALS:

Mr Randall Moseng: Michael Berkley makes a nice attempt to frighten the public into fearing community water fluoridation, but unfortunately his argument is mostly opinion, assertion and speculation rather than based on any actual science. PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES?

His greatest argument seems to be that fluoridating a community water supply is mass medication. Fluoride is not a medication in the water supply, it is a naturally occurring mineral found in the earth, soil and water all around the planet. IF CARIES ARE A DISEASE, AND FLUORIDE PLACED THERE IS TO FIGHT CARIES, DOESN’T THAT MAKE IT A MEDICATION? FLOURINE IS A COMMON ENOUGH ELEMENT, FOUND IN SEAWATER AT 1.35 PPM, HIGHER THAN USED IN FLUORIDATION. GOOD THAT WE DON’T DRINK SEAWATER THEN! IN SURFACE RIVER WATER IT IS AT 0.10 PPM – ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION RAISES THIS BY A FACTOR OF TEN! 0.2 PPM HAS BEEN SHOWN TO AFFECT FISH STOCKS IN RUN-OFFS FROM FLUORIDATED CITIES – SEE THE EUES IRELAND BLOG.

In fact, the earliest studies in the 1930s to determine the benefits of fluoridation were conducted in areas where natural fluoridation was present in the water supply and the foundations for which scientists were able to determine the proper amounts of fluoride to ingest for maximum benefit. THE STUDIES WERE TO FIND WAYS TO ELIMINATE FLUOROSIS. THE LIMITS SET ARE AN ARBITRARY GUESS BUILT ON ERRONEOUS SCIENCE. MODERN TECHNOLOGY HAS PROVED NEUROTOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS AT 1PPM. ORIGINAL "RESEARCH" WAS FUNDED BY ALCOA AND ALUMINIUM, NUCLEAR AND STEEL INDUSTRY PARTNERS.
Water fluoridation involves precise adjustment of the existing naturally occurring fluoride levels to ideal levels recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service. THE ORIGINAL BRIEF TO SELL FLUORIDE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WAS INSTIGATED BY THE HEAD OF THE TREASURY DEPT., WHICH RAN THE P.H.S. (At the end of the war, with massive amounts of fluoride waste needing disposal, the Public Health Service began pushing to add fluoride to the water in Grand Rapids, Mich., and dozens of other U.S. cities. At the time, the Public Health Service was being run by Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), which had dominated fluoride research since the 1920s. By 1950, as the fluoridation campaign gained steam, the Public Health Service was headed by another top Alcoa official, Oscar R. Ewing, who in turn was aided by Edward L. Bernays, the father of modern public relations and author of the book "Propaganda," who sought to portray fluoride's opponents as wackos.)

No, community water fluoridation is not mass medication. Mr. Berkley and his ilk have been beating this drum of inaccuracy for many years under the guise of “too much government.”
He claims the chemicals commonly used to adjust fluoride levels to optimum levels are similar in chemical composition to “waste products of the fertilizer industry.” What he neglects to tell readers is that they are not the source of said chemicals. H20 is water, H202 is hydrogen peroxide. Similar chemical composition, but one is essential for human life, one is not. THEY ARE NOT SIMILAR – THEY ARE ACTUALLY WASTE PRODUCTS FROM THE FLORIDA PHOSPHATE CHIMNEY SCRUBBERS (AND IN EUROPE FROM FINLAND AND BENELUX PHOSPHATE FERTILISER COMPANIES) – THIS CHEMICAL IS HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID – H2SiF6 – A CHEMICAL HODGE PODGE WHICH INCLUDES CHROMIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, LOTS OF PHOSPHORUS, SULPHUR,MERCURY, INDEED OVER 30 CHEMICALS ARE INVOLVED! SEE MY BLOG FOR THE PRECISE BREAKDOWN OF A TYPICAL ANALYSIS.

Dentistry simply supports this idea as a cost effective means to prevent tooth decay. DENTISTRY NEVER LOOKS AT THE WHOLE BODY EFFECTS OF FLUORIDATION – ONLY AT THE MOUTH.

Fluoridation always wins in the court of law as a safe, effective, inexpensive means to protect the public health. The truth is, no court of last resort (including the California Supreme Court in 2006) has ruled against community water fluoridation. Ever. NOT QUITE TRUE - (Findings of Fact by Judges: In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here.In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland, New Zealand wrote the following about the case:“In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary. . . .“Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation.”In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: “[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City Ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man.”The significance of Judge Flaherty’s statement and his and the other two judges’ findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind.)

He argues that we do not have data to know the long term effects of fluoridation. Again, here he is either ignoring the literature, or refuses to acknowledge that over 60 years of scientific data supports the practice of community water fluoridation. RUBBISH! THE LAST 30 YEARS HAVE SHOWN A LOT MORE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON HUMANS THAN POSITIVE ONES. DENTAL CARIES HAVE DROPPED WORLD-WIDE, WITH OR WITHOUT FLUORIDE, IT IS THE SAME. AS SCIENTISTS, CHEMISTS AND TOXICOLOGISTS LOOK AT THE WHOLE BODY EFFECTS, MORE AND MORE ARE COMING OUT AGAINST THIS DISGUSTING PRACTICE OF DUMPING CHEMICAL WASTE INTO DRINKING WATER. SEE THE EUES IRELAND BLOG FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE E.P.A. SCIENTISTS UNION GAVE TO A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. THEY WORK WITH TOXIC WASTE EVERY DAY, THEY INVESTIGATE IT AND DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS IT POSES EVERY DAY, AND THEY FEEL THAT THE PRACTICE SHOULD BE STOPPED! WHAT CREDENTIALS FOR ACTUALLY WORKING WITH THIS TOXIC WASTE DOES MR MOSENG HAVE? THE YORK REVIEW IN THE U.K LOOKED AT OVER 3000 STUDIES OF FLUORIDE AND FOUND: “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.” – READ THE FULL TEXT ON http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm

Frankly, it is almost cavalier of him to suggest proper oral hygiene at home is the only answer to a healthy mouth and prevention of oral manifestations. He is obviously ignoring a big at-risk segment of the population who are at or below the poverty line and lack proper access to good dental care and frequently have poor oral hygiene habits. IN 1937, THE A.D.A PUBLISHED RESEARCH WHICH SHOWED THE BLACK PEOPLE ACROSS THE U.S. HAD VERY LOW CARIES RATES. MUCH LOWER THAN WHITES. AFTER 50 YEARS OF FLUORIDATION, BLACK PEOPLES TEETH ARE THE WORST IN THE COUNTRY. THEY ARE ALSO PRONE TO DAMAGED IMMUNE SYSTEMS DUE TO POOR DIET. FLUORIDE THEREFORE HAS PROPORTIONALLY GREATER EFFECTS FOR THE POOR ON THEIR GENERAL HEALTH THAN ON HIGHER INCOME GROUPS. WHEN GIVEN ACCESS TO DENTAL TREATMENT, POORER PEOPLE ACTUALLY ARE VERY GOOD ON THE TAKE-UP OF THOSE SERVICES, SO THE HIGHER CARIES RATES CANNOT BE ASSIGNED TO POOR DENTAL REGIMES, BUT MUST ALSO INCLUDE DIET. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT FLUORIDE INGESTION OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS MAKES TEETH BRITTLE. HAVE YOU SEEN PEOPLE WITH BROKEN TEETH? THIS HAPPENS MUCH MORE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE!

What about the senior citizen who cannot get to a dentist easily due to a physical limitation? Community water fluoridation helps young and old the most, and it is a good thing, since they are the most in need. RIDICULOUS POINT TO MAKE – RESEARCH HAS BEEN PUBLISHED TO SHOW THAT FLUORIDE HAS LITTLE OR NO EFFECT ON OLDER PEOPLE’S TEETH!

Mr. Berkley also questions whether we should use “the public water supply to deliver drugs, chemicals or substances for the prevention of disease.” I suggest the answer is yes — as evidenced by the use of iodized salt (prevents thyroid problems like goiter), Vitamin D to milk (links with calcium to strengthen bones) and Vitamin C to many foods (to prevent many ailments such as scurvy). MR. MOSENG AGAIN MISSES THE POINT – PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE TO TAKE THESE THINGS. FLUORIDATED WATER MEANS THAT THEY ARE FORCED TO TAKE IT, AND THAT IT IS IN EVERYTHING MANUFACTURED IN FLUORIDATED AREAS, AS WELL. HE FEELS THAT IT IS OK TO MEDICATE PEOPLE THIS WAY – MOST PEOPLE, WHEN ASKED, DON’T.

Go ahead, Google fluoride on the Internet. But beware while the Internet can be a wonderful tool and great resource for information, it is fraught with hucksters and charlatans purported to be authentic or scientifically based but are in fact distortions of fact and merely opinion to skew the truth and support a belief system rather than present true science in an unbiased fashion. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, MR. MOST PEOPLE I KNOW WHO ARE AGAINST FLUORIDE AND WANT TO TELL OTHERS ABOUT IT HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN. THEY MERELY SEEK TO ALERT PEOPLE TO A HARMFUL PRACTICE WHICH THEY HAVE RESEARCHED THEMSELVES, AND/OR HAVE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF THE HARMFUL EFFECTS TO HEALTH OF THIS PRACTICE. NOW WHO IS PEDDLING CONSPIRACY THEORIES?

Please take the time to visit the Web sites of authorities charged with protecting the public such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov), American Dental Association (ada.org), Academy of General Dentistry (agd.org) to learn what science says about fluoridating your water. WHICH REMINDS ME, THE FLUORIDE LOBBY TOOK THE NAME http://www.fluoridealert.com/ TO CONFUSE PEOPLE AND TAKE THEM AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL SITE http://www.fluoridealert.org/ !! LOVELY PEOPLE, INSTANTLY TRUSTWORTHY - NOT.

And finally, Berkley even goes so far as to claim that fluoride does not prevent cavities. Truth is, the scientific community has conducted dozens of peer reviewed, non-biased, double blind credible studies since 1945 and the overwhelming weight of evidence concludes that fluoridation provides a clear, real, measurable, direct correlation with a decrease in cavity rates for all people, whether they practice proper oral hygiene or not. FLUORIDE HAS AN EFFECT ON CAVITIES, IT KILLS THE ENZYMES WHICH CAUSE CARIES – THAT IS WHY PEOPLE USE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE. PUTTING IT IN DRINKING WATER WHEN ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT WORKS TOPICALLY AND NOT SYSTEMICALLY IS NON-SENSICAL! YOU DO NOT NEED TO DRINK IT!! PERSONALLY, I USE A NON-FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE AND MY RATE OF CARIES HAS SINCE ALMOST STOPPED. FURTHERMORE THE YORK REPORT COULD NOT FIND ANY GREATER EVIDENCE WORLDWIDE GREATER THAN A CLAIM OF 14% CARIES DECLINE WITH FLUORIDE, IN MANY PLACES THE EFFECT WAS UNMEASURABLE. EVEN SO, THIS IS LESS THAN 1/2 A TOOTH! NOT WORTH THE DOCUMENTED RISK TO OTHER BODY AREA HEALTH!

Please do not let the likes of Mr. Berkley frighten you. Dentistry is in the profession of preventing disease and promoting public health. Our focus is helping the public, not harming it. Why else would we support an idea which stands to decrease business and by extension our income? FIGURES HAVE SHOWN THAT DENTISTS MAKE ON AVERAGE 17% HIGHER INCOMES IN FLUORIDATED AREAS. THE COSTS IN WHAT THEY CALL THE “COSMETIC” TREATMENT OF FLUOROSIS ARE VERY HIGH. TODAY, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KINGSTON, N.Y. THE FIRST FLUORIDATED TOWN AND ITS UNFLUORIDATED CONTROL TOWN IN THE NUMBER OF CARIES. DR.H.TRENDLEY DEAN, THE “FATHER OF FLUORIDATION” DECLARED FLUORIDE WAS SAFE AND ESTABLISHED THE FIRST TRIALS IN GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN IN 1945. SINCE THEN, HE HAS TWICE CONFESSED IN COURT THAT STATISTICS FROM THE EARLY TESTS, ALLEGEDLY SUPPORTING THE USE OF FLUORIDATION IN COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS, WERE INVALID.

Based on 2002 data, approximately 170 million people (or over two-thirds of the population) in the United States are served by public water systems that are fluoridated. In Minnesota and Iowa, community water fluoridation is state law. OVER 95% OF THE WORLD’S POPULATION DOES NOT FLUORIDATE ITS WATER. SOME COUNTRIES TRIED IT AND STOPPED DUE TO HEALTH CONCERNS. SOME HAVE OUTLAWED THE ADDITION OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN CLEANSING AGENTS TO THEIR WATER. THE TEETH OF FORMERLY FLUORIDATED EAST GERMAN CITIZENS ACTUALLY IMPROVED WHEN THEY JOINED WITH WEST GERMANY, WHICH WILL NOT ALLOW FLUORIDATION. IF ONE LOOKS AT THE FIGURES FOR FLUORIDATION PERCENTAGES VS CARIES ACROSS THE U.S. THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT CORRELATION TO PROVE THE EFFICACY OF FLUORIDE. AFTER 60 YEARS WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ANYONE ON THE PLANET TO DO A MAJOR HEALTH STUDY OF OTHER EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE ON A MAJOR POPULATION! HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE PART OF AN “EXPERIMENT”?

Who Watches the Watchers?

2007-04-04T19:46:00.000+01:00

Who Watches the Watchers?

Statement of Dr. J. William Hirzy,National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280
Before The Subcommittee On Wildlife, Fisheries And Drinking Water,
United States Senate, June 29, 2000

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present the views of the union, of which I am a Vice-President, on the subject of fluoridation of public water supplies.
Our union is comprised of and represents the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C.
Our members include toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and others defined by law as “professionals.” The work we do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for management’s use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy. I am not here as a representative of EPA, but rather as a representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union. The union first got involved in this issue in 1985 as a matter of professional ethics. In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our opposition has strengthened since then.

Summary of Recommendations
1) We ask that you order an independent review of a cancer bioassay previously mandated by Congressional committee and subsequently performed by Battelle Memorial Institute with appropriate blinding and instructions that all reviewer’s independent determinations be reported to this Committee.
2) We ask that you order that the two waste products of the fertilizer industry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future toxicity studies, rather than a substitute chemical. Further, since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man, woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an entire lifetime.
3) We ask that you order an epidemiology study comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years for behavioral and other disorders.
4) We ask that you convene a joint Congressional Committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves.
National Review of Fluoridation The Subcommittee’s hearing today can only begin to get at the issues surrounding the policy of water fluoridation in the United States, a massive experiment that has been run on the American public, without informed consent, for over fifty years. The last Congressional hearings on this subject were held in 1977. Much knowledge has been gained in the intervening years. It is high time for a national review of this policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. New hearings should explore, at minimum, these points:
1) excessive and uncontrolled fluoride exposures;
2) altered findings of a cancer bioassay;
3) the results and implications of recent brain effects research;
4) the “protected pollutant” status of fluoride within EPA;
5) the altered recommendations to EPA of a 1983 Surgeon General’s Panel on fluoride;
6) the results of a fifty-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities;
7) the findings of fact in three landmark lawsuits since 1978;
8) the findings and implications of recent research linking the predominant fluoridation chemical with elevated blood-lead levels in children and anti-social behavior; and
9) changing views among dental researchers on the efficacy of water fluoridation

Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled
According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of America’s children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980's and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.
Centers for Disease Control and EPA claim that dental fluorosis is only a “cosmetic” effect. God did not create humans with fluorosed teeth. That effect occurs when children ingest more fluoride than their bodies can handle with the metabolic processes we were born with, and their teeth are damaged as a result. And not only their teeth. Children’s bones and other tissues, as well as their developing teeth are accumulating too much fluoride. We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, are looking for the effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and other tissues in American children. What has been reported so far in this connection is disturbing. One example is epidemiological evidence (2a, 2b) showing elevated bone cancer in young men related to consumption of fluoridated drinking water.
Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we do know that American children in large numbers are afflicted with hyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on the rise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are on the rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. There are biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed research on fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures (e.g. 3,4,5,6). Considering the economic and human costs of these conditions, we believe that Congress should order epidemiology studies that use dental fluorosis as an index of exposure to determine if there are links between such effects and fluoride over-exposure.
In the interim, while this epidemiology is conducted, we believe that a national moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted. There will be a hue and cry from some quarters, predicting increased dental caries, but Europe has about the same rate of dental caries as the U.S. (7) and most European countries do not fluoridate (8). I am submitting letters from European and Asian authorities on this point. There are studies in the U.S. of localities that have interrupted fluoridation with no discernable increase in dental caries rates (e.g., 9). And people who want the freedom of choice to continue to ingest fluoride can do so by other means.
Cancer Bioassay Findings In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (10), the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a special commission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in the salvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The final, published version of the NTP report says that there is, “equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats,” changed from “clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats.”
The change prompted Dr. William Marcus, who was then Senior Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, to blow the whistle about the issue (22), which led to his firing by EPA. Dr. Marcus sued EPA, won his case and was reinstated with back pay, benefits and compensatory damages. I am submitting material from Dr. Marcus to the Subcommittee dealing with the cancer and neurotoxicity risks posed by fluoridation.
We believe the Subcommittee should call for an independent review of the tumor slides from the bioassay, as was called for by Dr. Marcus (22), with the results to be presented in a hearing before a Select Committee of the Congress. The scientists who conducted the original study, the original reviewers of the study, and the “review commission” members should be called, and an explanation given for the changed findings.
Brain Effects Research
Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children (11,12). Another paper (3) shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the “optimal” dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million (13). And another (14) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal. Another publication (5) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on the brain’s pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals. Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New York has also been reported (6).
Given the national concern over incidence of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism in our children, we believe that the authors of these studies should be called before a Select Committee, along with those who have critiqued their studies, so the American public and the Congress can understand the implications of this work.

Fluoride As A Protected Pollutant
The classic example of EPA’s protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940's and 1950's as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPA’s then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer manufacture as,
“...an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride...”In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the pollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not into rivers or the atmosphere. I am submitting a copy of her letter.
Other Federal entities are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvert of the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and other Federal entities on the matter of fluoride, answers to which have not yet been received.
We believe that EPA and other Federal officials should be called to testify on the manner in which fluoride has been protected. The union will be happy to assist the Congress in identifying targets for an inquiry. For instance, hydrofluosilicic acid does not appear on the Toxic Release Inventory list of chemicals, and there is a remarkable discrepancy among the Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, arsenic and lead, given the relative toxicities of these substances.
Surgeon General’s Panel on Fluoride
We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon General’s panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon General’s panel (16) were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride.
Kingston and Newburg, New York Results
In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17). In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city.
We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of the Centers For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a Select Committee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among American children and the implications of that increase for skeletal and other effects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fractures and arthritis.
Findings of Fact by Judges
In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here.
In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland, New Zealand wrote the following about the case:
“In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary. . . .
“Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation.”
In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”
Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: “[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City Ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man.”
The significance of Judge Flaherty’s statement and his and the other two judges’ findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.
Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind.
I am submitting a copy of the excerpted letter from Judge Flaherty and another letter referenced in it that was sent to Judge Flaherty by Dr. Peter Sammartino, then Chancellor of Fairleigh Dickenson University. I am also submitting a reprint copy of an article in the Spring 1999 issue of the Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law by Jack Graham and Dr. Pierre Morin, titled “Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies." Mr. Graham was chief litigator in the case before Judge Flaherty and in the other two cases (in Illinois and Texas).
We believe that Mr. Graham should be called before a Select Committee along with, if appropriate, the judges in these three cases who could relate their experience as trial judges in these cases.
Hydrofluosilicic Acid
There are no chronic toxicity data on the predominant chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, used to fluoridate American communities. Newly published studies (19) indicate a link between use of these chemicals and elevated level of lead in children’s blood and anti-social behavior. Material from the authors of these studies has been submitted by them independently.
We believe the authors of these papers and their critics should be called before a Select Committee to explain to you and the American people what these papers mean for continuation of the policy of fluoridation.
Changing Views on Efficacy and Risk
In recent years, two prominent dental researchers who were leaders of the pro-fluoridation movement announced reversals of their former positions because they concluded that water fluoridation is not an effective means of reducing dental caries and that it poses serious risks to human health. The late Dr. John Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand, and he published his reasons for changing sides in 1997 (20). In 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, announced his change of views, then published a statement (21) dated April 2000. I am submitting a copy of Dr. Limeback’s publications.
We believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who have not changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernest Newbrun and Herschel Horowitz, should be called before a Select Committee to testify on the reasons for their respective positions.
Thank you for you consideration, and I will be happy to take questions.
REFERENCES: DR. HIRZY'S PRESENTATION
1. Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E et al, J . Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 (1997)2a. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992)2b. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEERS) Program. National Cancer Institute. In: Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. 1991: F1-F7.3. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J. et al, Neurotoxicol Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995) 4a. Fluoride and bone - quantity versus quality [editorial] New Engl. J. Med. 322 845-6 (1990) 4b. Summary of workshop on drinking water fluoride influence on hip fracture and bone health. Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B. Natl. Inst. Health. April 10, 1991.5. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994)6. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R. et al, JADA 52 296-306 (1956)7. WHO oral health country/area profile programme. Department of Non-Communicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmo University, Sweden. URL: www.whocollab.odont.lu.se/countriesalphab.html8. Letters from government authorities in response to inquiries on fluoridation status by E. Albright. Eugene Albright: contact through J. W. Hirzy, P.O Box 76082 , Washington, D.C. 20013.9. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. Burt, B.A., Keels., Heller, K.E., J. Dent. Res.2000 Feb; 79 (2): 761-9.10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991) 11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B. et al, Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S. et al, Fluoride 28 (1995)13. Chronic administration of aluminum - fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A. et al, Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998)14. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan et al, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998)15. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.16. Transcript of proceedings - Surgeon General's (Koop) ad hoc committee on non-dental effects of fluoride. April 18-19, 1983. National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, MD. 17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. et al, New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century on artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. Graham, J.R. et al, Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14 195-248 (Spring 1999) Florida State University College of Law.19. Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. Masters, R.D. et al, Intern. J. Environ. Studies 56 435-49 (1999)20. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine 41 1-16 (1997)21. Letter. Limeback, H. April 2000. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto. 22. Memorandum: Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division Office of Drinking Water. May 1, 1990.
The media didn't cover Dr. Hirzy's testimony. Hydrofluosilicic acid is the primary substance used to fluoridate drinking water in the United States; it contains fluoride, arsenic, cadmium, polonium-210, and lead. There are no scientific studies that demonstrate hydrofluosilicic acid is safe for human consumption. Dr. Hirzy stated:
"Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children. Another paper shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the 'optimal' dosage of flouride, viz. one part per million. And another (article) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other papers. . . ."
Recent academic testing of U.S. students reveals:
". . . U.S. fourth-graders performing poorly, mid-school students worse, and high school students are unable to compete (with foreign students-ed) . . . 'we appear to be the bottom' at the high school level. . . . People have a tendency to think this picture bleak, but it doesn't apply to their own school. Chances are, even if your school compares well in SAT scores, it will still be a lightweight on an international scale." [1]

NOT REALLY "only adjusting the background levels of fluoride in water"!!!!

2007-04-03T21:20:00.000+01:00

Much is being made by the fluoride lobby that fluoride occurs “naturally” in surface water and that they are just “slightly adjusting” the fluoride levels to 1mg/l to help teeth. That is TEN times the normal amount and just under 0.5 mg/l from the EPA maximum allowable industrial pollutant level of 1.5 mg/l. However, Fluoride ions enter surface waters from soil leeching, precipitation, and human emissions. The concentration in river water varies with the geology of the drainage basins, but an average of 0.1 ppm has been determined (cited in Olausson and Cato, 1980), and indeed, research is showing that the habitat of fish is affected at levels over 0.2mg/l. So much for another great fluoride lie!

“The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)1 and the Province of British Columbia2 adhere to a "permissible level" of 1.5 ppm (1.5 mg/L) for fluoride discharged into fresh water. BC's "recommended guideline" is currently 0.2 ppm fluoride ; but this does not have the force of legislation. Neither the Minister of the Environment nor the Washington State Department of Ecology requires fluoride estimations for sewer effluent permits as it is considered fluoride is not significantly toxic to aquatic life in concentrations expected in discharges.3, 4
A review of the literature and other documents, including court transcripts, reveals that levels below 1.5 ppm have been shown to have both lethal and other adverse effects on salmon.
Smelters vs. Salmon

In a field study, Damkaer and Dey10 demonstrated that high salmon loss at John Day Dam on the Columbia River, 1982-1986, was caused by the inhibition of migration by fluoride contamination from an aluminum smelter located 1.6 km [one mile] above the dam. In 1982, the average daily discharge of fluoride was 384 kg and the salmon loss was 55%. In 1985, discharge averaged 49 kg and was accompanied by a concentration of 0.2 ppm and a salmonid loss of 5%.
Damkaer and Dey confirmed the cause-and-effect relationship by means of a two-choice flume for fluoride gradient salmon behaviour tests. These determined that the "critical level" was 0.2 ppm.
There are other studies that indicate that fluoride at levels below 1.5 ppm have lethal and other adverse effects on fish. Delayed hatching of rainbow trout have occurred at 1.5 ppm;11 brown mussels have died at 1.4 ppm12; an alga (Porphyria tenera) was killed by a four-hour fumigation with fluoride with a critical concentration of 0.9 ppm13; and, levels below 0.1 ppm were shown to be lethal to the water flea, Daphnia magna.14 These latter two studies suggest that salmon species also may be affected by fluoride-induced reduction of food supply.
Documents used in a 1961 court case involving Meader's Trout farm in Pocatello, Idaho,15 contain evidence that between 1949 and 1950 trout damage and loss was related to fluoride contamination due to rain washing airborne particles from leaves into hatchery water at levels as low as 0.5 ppm. This evidence suggests that the "safe level" of fluoride in the fresh water habitat of salmon species is not 1.5 ppm but, 0.2 ppm.
Is City Water Deadly to Salmon?

In fluoridated areas, drinking water obtained from surface water with an average fluoride concentration of 0.1-0.2 ppm16 is raised to the "optimal" level of 0.7-1.2 ppm by the addition of sodium fluoride, hydrofluosilicic acid, or sodium silicofluoride. [Note: In 1985, the EPA raised the Maximum Contaminant Level to 4 ppm.]
Fluoride, in community drinking water, enters the fresh water ecosystem in various ways. Surface run-off from fire-fighting, washing cars, and watering gardens may enter streams directly or through storm sewers at optimal concentration, 0.7-1.2 ppm. Most enters during waste water treatment.
Masuda17 studied a large number of cities and calculated the concentrations in waste water that were in excess of the concentration present in the cities' water supplies. In raw sewage, this was 1.30 ppm; primary treatment reduced this slightly to 1.28 ppm; secondary treatment to 0.39 ppm. Singer and Armstrong18 found 0.38 ppm in unfluoridated sewage and 1.16-1.25 ppm in fluoridated sewage.
It is clear that, in the case of artificially fluoridated communities, the concentration of fluoride in both surface run-off and sewer effluent exceeds 0.2 ppm.”
Extract from: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon In the Northwest US and British Columbia
by Richard G Foulkes, MD and Anne C. Anderson, RPN
Read the whole article here: http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fluoride/fluoride_salmon.html

Kids & Osteoporosis - An Epidemic

2007-04-03T20:58:00.000+01:00

Courtesy of Parents.Com:

The Broken-Bone Epidemic
Calcium deficiency in U.S. kids is at an all-time high -- and their bodies may pay the price for a lifetime.
By Sandra Gordon

Pages in this Story:
•
Osteoporosis and Kids

•
Substitutions, Supplements, and Exercise
•
Steps Toward Healthy Bones

•
Surprising Calcium Sources

Osteoporosis and Kids
You wouldn't think that osteoporosis -- the brittle-bone disease that afflicts 10 million Americans over age 50 -- is something you need to worry about for your kids. But now you do. Just ask Maribel Burke, a mother of two from Jacksonville, Florida...

Full story at: http://parents.com/parents/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/parents/story/data/1171647087699.xml&catref=prt83&ordersrc=rafstory

Bangor, Maine Fluoride Debate

2007-04-02T15:19:00.000+01:00

Reader Comments:EUES Ireland, Dublin, Ir, - 03/22/07
Dear Sir, To pretend that the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to public water supplies is a common naturally occurring element is highly misleading and erroneous. It is in fact a hodge-podge of chemicals, a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry! We are expected to believe the standard mantra repeated ad nauseam by the pro-fluoride lobby that 40, 50 or 60, (take your pick) years of fluoridation have proven it safe and efficacious. Why? Well, let's have a look at some of that 50 years research, will we? Oh, we don't have to - York University (UK) had a review in 1999-2000 to assess the merits or otherwise of fluoridation. The Report was commissioned by the UK government who wanted to lay the anti-fluoride lobby's arguments to rest once and for all so that they could bring fluoridation into the UK en masse. The report looked at all the fluoride literature worldwide since the inception of fluoridation. Unfortunately for them and for the whole fluoride lobby, they found the following, and I quote: "We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor." My emphasis. OK, so the pro-fluoride evidence over 50 years was POOR. So we will discount it because an expert and independent and comprehensive university / government report has said so. What about since 2000? York say that up until October 2003 they still had not received any convincing research to change their minds. Nothing that I am aware of has come out in fluoride's defence since! Please send me any links to recent health research that shows the efficacy of dumping toxic waste into our drinking water, I would love to see it. On the other hand, the last 30 years have shown major links to damage of the health of fluoridated people. How many cavities avoided justify the death through osteosarcoma of a young boy? How many suffer from thyroid malfunctions, kidney trouble, broken hips, Alzheimer's Disease, fluorosis, brittle bones and general illness due to the attack hydrofluorosilicic acid and its attendant chemicals (including mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, phosphate) wreak on the human immune system all because someone CLAIMS this helps kids teeth? There has NEVER been a long-term health survey on a fluoridated population ANYWHERE! Rather strange, isn't that? Caries have reduced world wide over the past 30 years and faster in some non-fluoridated countries than in fluoridated ones. So where is the PROOF that these pro-fluoride people offer? I am sick and tired of hearing the generalisations based on old and discredited "research". Wasn't it only in the 70's that the scientists and experts who worked for the tobacco companies claimed: There is the proof that smoking does not damage ones health or cause cancer - BECAUSE two or three hundred years of smoking proves it!!! Sounds like the same argument that the fluoride lobby are trying to pass off on us. People should research the issue and make themselves aware of what may turn out to be a major health calamity in the (near) future. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm for what the York Report REALLY said! I certainly DO agree with Dr. Rosen's final sentence: In the end, decisions that have long ranging implications on health should only be made when considering all the evidence. EUES Ireland

Irish Bottled Water Survey - The Results

2007-04-02T14:20:00.000+01:00

To get a free copy of the EUES Ireland bottled water survey in Excel format, just click on this address and request it! euesireland@eircom.net
The survey is broken down into the following categories and water suitable for the reconstitution of infant formula is clearly indicated on it. We recommend that you confirm the suitability with your family doctor.

BRAND NAME
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
QTY IN mg/ltr:
CALCIUM
MAG
SODIUM(NA)
POTASSIUM(K)
BICARBONATE(HCO3)
CHLORIDE
SULPHATE
NITRATE(NO3)
SILICA
TOT DISPLACED SOLIDS
PH
FLUORIDE
IRON
ALUMINIUM

Maximum Daily Fluoride Intake Limits
The maximum daily intake depends on the age:
Age
female
male
0 - 6 months
0.01 mg
0.01 mg

6 - 12 months
0.5 mg
0.5 mg

1 - 3 years
0.7 mg
0.7 mg

IRISH PUBLIC FLUORIDATION IS AT 1 mg/L
AT 3 mg/day FLUORIDE INTAKE, THYROID FUNCTION IS IMPAIRED
WE ARE GIVING OUR BABIES 100 TIMES THE MAXIMUM DAILY DOSE BY USING TAPWATER
PLEASE NOTE THAT BOTTLED WATER MUST BE BOILED BEFORE USE IN BABY FORMULA
FLUORIDATED WATER IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN UNDER 4

Oversupply of Fluoride
Too much fluoride colours the teeth (fluorosis) and if taken over an extended period may lead to changes in the bone structure.
Inadvertent swallowing of fluoride from toothpaste may add further to the total fluoride intake which is already known to be above safe levels in the UK and Ireland.

I have compiled this list over a few weeks and as I cannot cover the whole country, where there are numerous local bottled waters, therefore I would appreciate it if you could either send me a close-up photo of any waters not on this list, showing their mineral contents or alternatively, please list the name, origin and different constituent minerals in the manner above.

Please do NOT change this list and forward it on, as that will lead to many different versions in circulation. I will compile all new waters and send out a 6 monthly update to all on request. Many thanks for your help.

Fluoride and the Thyroid

2007-03-30T22:01:00.000+01:00

Interesting links to Thyroid complaints due to Fluoridation:
http://thyroid.about.com/cs/toxicchemicalsan/a/flouride.htm
http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoride2006.htm

http://thyroid.about.com/library/derry/bl7.htm

Thyroid & Fluoride:the thyroid gland requires iodine to produce the hormone,thyroxine, which controls the rate of metabolism in the body. But when fluoride is present,iodine is displaced,which will cause a thyroid to stop working properly(K.Roholm,Handbuch Experimenteller Pharmakologie,Ergaenzungwerk,Vol7,Berlin:Springer, 1938:20) The parathyroid gland, which regulates distribution of calcium and phosporus in the body, is also extremely sensitive to fluoride. So, it displaces iodine and accumulates calcium in soft tissue, also being linked to heart disease. Research from India has shown red blood cells die prematurely when exposed to fluoride lowering haemoglobin and causing anemia. And the list goes on...Who in their right mind would believe that dumping a toxic by-product (and fluoride has been described in the Physicians Handbook as more toxic than lead and only slightly less toxic than arsenic) from the fertiliser industry into the public drinking water without any health check whatsoever anywhere in the world, and no regulation for individual intakes, could be beneficial?! Lobbyists for vested interests excepted. Everyone should look at the latest statistics on prescribed drugs in the GMS. The third most prescribed drug in Ireland is Levothyroxine -- the treatment for hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid). In other words, there is now an epidemic of hypothyroidism, very surprising in a maritime nation. Get it out of Irish drinking water now.

Reply to BILL W., a systems analyst who writes in to the Irish Medical News constantly defending fluoridation and using as his main point the fact that there are microscopic quantities of most elements in the human body – as if this excuses dumping more lead, arsenic, etc etc into our bodies in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid or its close relatives. Seems he should analyse the system which foisted this awful practice on us in the first place instead of acting like the fluoridation marketing manager!

Bill - what is your PROOF that fluoride added in the doses used for fluoridation are safe? I have asked you this before and you still have not answered. If you are a member of the dental fraternity, then you will answer by rote : 40, 50 60 years of fluoridation have shown, blah blah. Sorry! Will not do! Show me the proof through a long-term public health survey of a fluoridated population. The Expert Body on Fluoridation admitted only last month that they couldn't find a toxicologist for their investigation (probably the most important branch of science in the study of a poison - hydrofluorosilicic acid - steadily fed on a long-term basis to a population)!!! Neither are dentists doctors, although some like to think they are. Dentists’ preserve of expertise is in the mouth, they do not look at the whole body. It seems to me that WE are the long-term toxicological experiment right now. And with the increase in various conditions which have been linked to the fluoride, arsenic and lead in hydrofluorosilicic acid - at MUCH HIGHER LEVELS than normally occurring in the body, in the general run down of iodine in the population (fluoride fights iodine and calcium), in the growth of hyperthyroidism, etc etc - it seems to me that the experiment on us is showing that fluoridation is a damn stupid idea in the long run!

Letter to Irish Citizens

2007-03-27T21:59:00.000+01:00

February 5th, 2007

Dear Sir or Madam,

This letter concerns a matter that affects all of us living in Ireland, young and older.

In light of the recent declaration by the American Dental Association and the U.S. Center for Disease Control, together with numerous warnings from scientists, doctors and dentists, that the use of fluoridated water (tapwater) is NOT recommended for the reconstitution of baby and infant formula, I enclose a copy of a self-financed poster and billboard campaign currently active in Dublin to highlight the situation for the Irish public. This campaign is running in 50 locations throughout Dublin and an in-store poster campaign is about to begin.

The situation is very serious as fluoride accumulates in the body and young children retain up to 80% of ingested fluoride. Research over the past 30 years indicates that use of fluoride in a public water scheme leads to:
1) higher levels of bone cancer in boys, and brittle bones in adults
2) lower IQ levels (from 6-12 IQ points has been noted)
3) 40% of Irish children have fluorosis (mottling of teeth indicating enamel and related bone changes)
4) 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)
5) fluoride displaces iodine in the body – with evidence of associated thyroid problems
6) 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!

Ireland was sold a pup in 1960 by Dr Harold Hodge, an American expert on fluoride who pushed compulsory fluoridation on the Irish people through what is now known to have been manipulated and false reporting of the benefits. Newburgh, NY was the American town held up by the fluoridation lobby to be the shining example of the benefits of fluoridation. At the Supreme Court in Dublin in 1964, we didn’t know that Hodge had halted the 10 year trials for Newburgh after 5 years, that he knew of experiments with dogs in 1962 which had shown fluoride as highly toxic, and that he had experimented on subjects for the Manhattan Project, injecting unknowing car crash victims with radioactive materials to study the effects. This is the man who convinced our judiciary (who had no scientific background) that this was a safe and beneficial method of keeping down cavities. We didn’t learn the truth about him until documents were declassified in the early 1990’s.

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.

The Irish health authorities pay over a million euro per annum and dump 10,000 liters of hydrofluorosilicic acid into our drinking water every day. It is illegal to emit this substance into the air, open water or land. But into our kidneys is fine. An analysis of this acid shows it is contaminated by many chemicals and elements such as lead, aluminium, mercury, chromium - there are, in fact over 40 different items in this “chemical soup”. The analysis has been done by the Eastern Health Board . Moreover, it is left to the supplying chemical companies to ensure the integrity and standard of the fluoridating acid. It is important to realise that what goes into our water is NOT AT ALL similar to pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride as used in toothpaste – instead we get a toxic soup in drinking water.

Why does the health minister risk what is becoming an obvious long-term health hazard? Why has she not reduced the levels of fluoride in our water as recommended by the Governments OWN scientific study group – the Fluoridation Forum? That was back in 2002 and levels have been left unchanged! What is the story? Is it laziness, inefficiency or is there a possible agenda? Granted that the phosphate industries save hundreds of millions of dollars every year by selling their waste for use in water fluoridation in the U.S, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland instead of having to pay for costly treatment of this hazardous waste, but our politicians wouldn’t risk the health of the nation for that. Would they?

Our Department of Health has been totally silent about not using tapwater for babies’ formula. Why do they risk our babies’ health? The consensus worldwide is that tapwater fluoridated at 1ppm, as is in Ireland, should NOT be given to children under 4 years of age – where are the warnings from our government? In fact, I have discovered that nurses are told to tell mothers NOT to use bottled waters for formula! Why? Because some waters have too much sodium! Instead of letting the public know which bottled waters can be used, they direct newborn babies on to fluoridated tapwater in direct disregard of all medical advice! I have spent a few days locating many of the bottled waters available in Ireland and have compiled a list of which ones are suitable to use for infant formula and which are not. Happily, the best ones to use are among the cheapest on the market! This survey is available free of charge to anyone who wants it by emailing euesireland@eircom.net and requesting a copy.

Everyone, including the pro-fluoride lobby, agrees that fluoride works 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 which caused a number of environmental disasters, was cynically transformed into the essential ingredient for nice shiny teeth!

I urge you to make every effort over the next few weeks to have fluoride taken out of the Irish water supply. It is only by informing people of the long term dangers of this policy (and strangely, there has never, ever been a long term toxicity test for water fluoridation, anywhere) that we can persuade the Government to stop what is not just an infringement of people’s rights, but an infringement of their and their children’s health, as well. It is mass medication without regulation or concern for those who suffer from reactions to fluoride.

I can substantiate all comments in this letter. I am available should you wish further information. I have started the publicity ball rolling by placing these billboards over Dublin. In the near future the campaign will be expanded to Cork, Limerick and Galway. It is you, though, who will have to shoulder some of the responsibility for informing the public and our leaders. If you are worried about the consequences, just remember that when consulted by the Fluoridation Forum, 90% of Irish people said they did not want fluoridation; many city and county councils have also voted against it. The best result for us all will be to stop the policy dead. Please sign our petition which will be brought to the EU Commission to request the halt to this practice. Also please sign the petition at http://www.voiceireland.org/ . And mention it on-line or in person to you local politician.
With Thanks & Best Regards,

European Union Environmental Services Ireland

SUGGESTED READING FOR THE INTERESTED & CONCERNED:
Christopher Bryson – The Fluoride Deception
Barry Groves – Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death?
WEBSITES:
www.kildare.ie/healthfitness/2006/12/fluoride_in_water.html -very interesting look at all the physical effects of fluoride
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller17.html - A Doctors View -in plain English
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
http://www.voiceireland.org/
http://www.nofluoride.com/
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i13/8413notw8.html -what the chemical companies say
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm -what the York Report REALLY said
http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20060322/index.php -analysis of baby FL intake
http://www.just-think-it.com/no-f.htm - just one of many scientists’ view
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=25017 - leaching of lead due to FL
http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html - links with Alzheimers
http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/
http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Fluoride/Fluoride31.html - Prof.Paul Connett
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000072.htm - Dr. Don MacAuley – Irish Dentist
http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluorideinformation.htm - DoHC Hiding Report?
http://bruha.com/pfpc/ - A parents view site
http://www.waterwatchofutah.com/thecontroversy.htm - U.S. Community concern
http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/ZWAReports11-2-98.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7319752042352089988&pl=true - the Fluoride Deception film trailer
LEARN – INFORM – CAUSE CHANGE

Hi, I am writing to you from an Irish environmental company, which is involved in the campaign to have fluoride removed from our drinking water in Ireland.

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 works 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!

Tennessean.com

2007-03-27T21:52:00.000+01:00

Saturday, 03/10/07
Bellevue water problem under control, utility district says
By CLAY CAREYStaff Writer
Officials with the Harpeth Valley Utility District (Tennessee) say they’ve addressed a mechanical problem that fed too much fluoride into water that went out to about 1,000 homes in the Bellevue area.Early Friday morning, the district discovered a “mechanical malfunction” that let too much fluoride into the water system, according to John Brown, general manager of the utility district.The district halted the flow of fluoride into the public water system that morning, and fluoride levels were back to normal in most areas by 11 a.m. Friday, Brown said.As of Saturday night, however, the agency said it had not yet started adding fluoride back into the system.Homes and businesses in Bellevue between River Road and Highway 70 at the Bellevue mall were impacted, he said.The district has already distributed information to most of the customers in the impacted area, he said.In all, the Harpeth Valley Utility District provides water to about 16,000 customers in Davidson and Williamson counties.Utility districts across the country have been adding fluoride to water for decades. Brown said it’s been fed into the Harpeth Valley Utility District’s water supply for at least 25 years. It’s put into the water to strengthen the consumer’s teeth.Too much fluoride can be harmful, but it takes years of overexposure for fluoride to negatively impact a person’s health, Brown said. Levels in the Bellevue area were only out of line for about six hours.But “to err on the safe side,” Brown said, the district is encouraging customers who used tap water to mix drinks like baby formula and orange juice Friday morning to throw those drinks out.
View All Comments

Sir, I am surprised that as general manager of the Harpeth Valley Water Utility Company, Mr. John Brown is not aware of the recent declaration by the American Dental Association and the U.S. Center for Disease Control, together with numerous warnings from scientists, doctors and dentists, that the use of fluoridated water (tapwater) is NOT recommended for the reconstitution of baby and infant formula AT ALL! And that fluoridated water should not be given to children under the age of 1 year as this is the age which is most important in the formation of and whether they will have fluorosis (staining of the teeth) or not on their PERMANENT teeth. Yours, EUES IrelandPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:29 am

While this story about a “malfunction” in feeding a deadly toxin into the public water supply is important, it appears that neither Mr. Carey nor his editor fully recognizes this importance. They apparently sense that there is something worth reporting, but Mr. Carey’s approach is to assure the reader that despite this mishap, all is well in Smallville, as well as in Metropolis. Mr. Carey regurgitates what the utility manager blithely tells him about the accident without giving the reader any sense of the potential gravity of the situation (people have died or have been severely injured by such “malfunctions”) and also without acknowledging that there are major medical and ethical questions about the practice of dosing citizens with a poison, which is more toxic than lead and only slightly less toxic than arsenic, without their informed consent. Furthermore, he has not bothered to research the fact that the fluoridating agent also contains, as acknowledged by the CDC, small amounts of arsenic, lead, and even radioactive elements, because it is toxic waste! Any amount of lead or arsenic increases the rate of cancer in the population. See the recent report by a distinguished panel of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (March 2006) for some of the important issues. Citizens need journalism that helps them to weigh thoughtfully the alternatives and assorted factors before making any fateful decision (e.g., whether or not to allow fluoridation to continue). True journalism also emphasizes the ethical and moral choices inherent in decisions that can never be settled even by having all the facts. Journalism that is well thought out and well executed can help people to think and decide rather than simply to believe uncritically what they are being spoon fed by a media reporter. And, Mr. Carey has shown that he is just that--a reporter--not a journalist. As a responsible citizen, I want to know what someone other than a utility manager has to say about the potential for damage of such mishaps. He is not a toxicologist, nor is he a doctor, nor is he even informed on the subject, or he would have known that it is unsafe to mix infant formula with fluoridated water. But, obviously, he is a true believer in what he has been told and so, apparently, is Mr. Carey. Journalists ask questions, a lot of them! They don’t just accept. And, they explore all sides of an issue, especially one as controversial as fluoridation. Or take aspartame as yet another example of politically generated and unconscionable FDA approval of a deadly toxin as safe for human consumption. It has been reported that the Pentagon once listed aspartame in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons submitted to Congress. Reporters write what they are told to write, either by their interviewees or by those with the power to compel. Journalism is a dying art. Bravery is a dying virtue. But, it is a bull market for propaganda it seems.Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:24 am

That's Fit Blog

2007-03-27T21:44:00.000+01:00

Reader Comments
(Page 1)
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride

2. anything ending in "-ide" is usually the ionic form of a halide (ie the elements in the second column from the right on the periodic table). Examples include, Calcium Chloride, sodium iodide, hydrogen bromide...
4. Hi, I am writing to you from an Irish environmental company, which is involved in the campaign to have fluoride removed from our drinking water in Ireland.Research over the past 30 years indicates that use of fluoride in a public water scheme leads to:7) higher levels of bone cancer in boys, and brittle bones in adults8) lower IQ levels (from 6-12 IQ points has been noted)9) 40% of Irish children have fluorosis (mottling of teeth indicating enamel and related bone changes)10) 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)11) fluoride displaces iodine in the body – with evidence of associated thyroid problems12) no increase in dental caries where fluoride ceases to be added to drinking waterDon’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 works 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? European Union Environmental Services Ireland
Posted at 7:09AM on Feb 6th 2007 by Brian
5. Personally, I totally agree with Brian White, I, too, have not touched tapwater for 10 years - I use bottled for drinking and Euthymol unfluoridated toothpaste for brushing. Haven't needed a filling in years!

Russian Website - Healthy Drinks for Teeth Blog

2007-03-27T21:37:00.000+01:00

Teeth - Healthy Drinks For Your Children
Choose the right container for drinks.
Its very important for overall health and particularly for teeth care of your child to choose the right container for drinks for each situation. You can use only one, but it will be not so healthy. Try to remember or right down when and what should you use for your child in order to save teeth healthy.
BABY CUP — ages 6 months to 2 years milk, 1/2 cup of 100% fruit juice a day, water with fluoride at all other times“I sit up, I use a cup”
KIDS CUP — ages 2 years and up milk at meals, 1/2 cup of 100% fruit juice a day, water with fluoride at all other times“I sit down to eat and drink”
BABY BOTTLE — newborn to 1 year breast milk is best, formula or water with fluoride (read comments below)“I am ready to stop the bottle at one year old”
TRAVEL MUG water with fluoride only for traveling“I save my travel mug for car trips”
Parents — You can keep your child cavity free.
Brush morning and night with fluoride toothpaste
Limit sweet and sticky foods to meal times
Have regular dental check ups
by Tea and Healthy Drinks
And remember: whats good for children cant be bad for adults.

-->
4 Responses to “Teeth Healthy Drinks For Your Children”
1. EUES Ireland Says:
March 1st, 2007 at 12:23 pm Visit EUES Ireland
BABY BOTTLE — “newborn to 1 year breast milk is best, formula or water with fluoride”
The above statement is criminal in its ignorance of the recent ADA and CDC advisories NOT to use fluoridated water for babies under 1 year of age. Ref. Dr. Stephen Levy’s, Ohio, research showing the first 12 months of a baby’s life determines the appearance and level of fluorosis in PERMANENT teeth.
2. nyscof Says:
March 1st, 2007 at 1:46 pm Visit nyscof
The American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control now advise that no child under one year of age should be given fluoridated water.
Without fanfare or public announcement, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) posted a new fluoride caution on their website - avoid mixing fluoridated water into concentrated infant formula to prevent discolouring babies’ new teeth. (1)This came after the American Dental Association issued this alert to its members, but not the public, on November 9, 2007(1a) and after the Food and Drug Administration’s similar announcement (1b).
There is no dispute that too much fluoride causes dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow or brown and sometimes pitted enamel. The CDC now admits that babies can ingest too much fluoride when fluoridated water is mixed into their concentrated infant formula and foods. Fluoride is added to 2/3 of public water supplies based on a disproved theory that fluoride ingestion prevents cavities.
“Where’s the media alert so that the parents, caregivers, healthcare workers and legislators know about this,” asks lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.(NYSCOF).
A New Hampshire newspaper reports the federal Women, Infant and Children (WIC) program still encourages mothers to mix formula with fluoridated water. (2)
“The CDC leaves it up to groups like ours to share the bad fluoride news,” says Beeber, “And then they will probably criticize us for doing so as they have in the past.” (2a)
This is what the CDC’s website says (1):
“It now appears that the amount of the fluoride contained in the water used for mixing infant formula may influence a child’s risk for developing enamel fluorosis, particularly if the child’s sole source of nutrition is from reconstituted infant formula.”
“If tap water is fluoridated or has substantial natural fluoride (0.7 mg/L or higher), a parent may consider using a low-fluoride alternative water source. Bottled water known to be low in fluoride is labeled as purified, deionized, demineralized, distilled, or prepared by reverse osmosis.”
“Using only water with low fluoride levels to mix formula will not eliminate the risk of enamel fluorosis…Other factors that contribute to developing fluorosis include swallowing of toothpaste and use of dietary supplements that include fluoride (tablets or drops).”
The CDC reports that, “formula itself has low amounts of fluoride,” [and] “when infant formula concentrate is mixed with fluoridated water and used as the primary source of nutrition, it may introduce fluoride at levels above the amount recommended to minimize the risk for fluorosis.”
What is recommended?
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (3), to avoid moderate fluorosis (yellow or brown teeth), the adequate daily intake of fluoride, from all sources, should not exceed:
– 0.01 mg/day for 0 – 6-month-olds– 0.5 mg/day for 7 through 12 months
– 0.7 mg/day for 1 – 3-year-olds
Babies, under one year, consume over their adequate intake from the water supply alone at the so-called optimal concentrations (0.7 - 1.2 mg/L), according to the March 2006 NAS’ National Research Council (NRC) fluoride report (4).
The CDC reports, “one-third (33%) of children aged 12 to 15 years in the United States have very mild to mild forms of this condition.” However, the CDC omits that about 4% have moderate or severe fluorosis, according to the same reference. And up to ½ of all schoolchildren have fluorosis when the “questionable” category is included. (5)
The American Dental Association’s Fluoridation Facts describes questionable fluorosis as “A few white specks or white spots.” (6)
The CDC admits that “More cosmetically objectionable forms of this condition can occur when young children consume excess fluoride from all sources during critical periods of tooth development [up to age 8].”
Also alarming is that bottled water with added fluoride is now sold with the now-contraindicated instructions to mix into infant formula.(7)
Also little publicized is that the NRC report reveals that some people risk thyroid dysfunction and bone damage from drinking even low levels of fluoride; and studies linking fluoride to cancer and lowered IQ are plausible.
Few know that too much fluoride can actually decay teeth.(7a) And that the most widely used fluoridation chemicals, silicofluorides, are linked to higher rates of tooth decay.(7b)
“Parents also need to be taught the fluoride content of foods in easy-to-understand language, so it’s possible to tally daily fluoride intake and to be taught fluoride’s adverse health and dental effects,” says Beeber.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has compiled fluoride content of foods. (8)
NYSCOF warned the public about a research review published in 2000 showing infant formula mixed with fluoridated water leads to fluorosis.(2a) Many published studies link infant formula to fluorosis.(9)
A Tennessee legislator who is also a medical doctor asked all water departments in Tennessee to shut off the fluoride because of health concerns.(10) In Oregon, a fluoridation bill is stalled by a doctor and nurse in the legislature citing health concerns.(11)
References:
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
Accessed 1/18/07
(1a) http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/epubs/egram/egram_061109.pdf
1b) US FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements, October 14, 2006, “Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flfluoro.html
(2) “Formula, fluoride mix may discolor infants’ teeth,” By Mark Hayward, Union Leader, Jan 11, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/35ot7c
(2a) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg10.php3
(3) The National Academies of Science, “Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride,:1997
(4) The National Academies of Science, Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards,” March 2006
(5) US Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/s403a1t23.gif
(6) http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf (page 28)
(7) http://www.nurserywater.com/home.html
(7a) “Dentistry, Dental Practice, and the Community,” 5th edition 1999 Burt/Eklund
(7b) http://tinyurl.com/yq8y66
(8) http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/Fluoride.html
(9) http://tinyurl.com/y58bfc
(10) http://www.fluoridealert.org/press/hensley.htm
(11) http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=116915487295110600
3. AleS Says:
March 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm Visit AleS
I’ll change it immediately. Because I wasn’t sure about fluoride at all, but needed confirmation. Thanks!
4. EUES Ireland Says:
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 am Visit EUES Ireland
Dear AleS,Congratulations on taking such prompt action and correcting the earlier mistake. For concerned parents and citizens, who may like to note that there is deep controversy concerning the fluoridation of public drinking water in general, here are a few links to relevant sites where they can inform themselves.
SUGGESTED READING FOR THE INTERESTED & CONCERNED:Christopher Bryson – The Fluoride DeceptionBarry Groves – Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death?
WEBSITES:www.kildare.ie/healthfitness/2006/12/fluoride_in_water.html -very interesting look at all the physical effects of fluoridehttp://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller17.html - A Doctors View -in plain Englishhttp://www.fluoridealert.org/http://www.voiceireland.org/ - lots of baby postings

Some general points about hydrofluorosilicic acid

2007-03-27T21:28:00.000+01:00

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 adultsb) 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 problemsf) no increase in dental caries where fluoride ceases to be added to drinking waterDon’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 works 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?

South Africa & Florida - Two areas with Fluoride-producing phosphate industry

2007-03-27T21:24:00.000+01:00

To: The Editor, Pretoria News
14 March 2007
Sir,

Before wondering at the recurring insistence of the ( South African) Health Dept. to add fluoride to the public water supply in the face of the ever accruing volume of evidence of negative effects of such policies, perhaps one should contemplate the following: that pressures from mining companies and fluoride manufacturers in South Africa would be greatly eased by giving them an outlet for their waste products (hydrofluosilicic acid - the usual fluoridating agent) which is not just a free toxic waste dump, but also a source of revenue from those whose kidneys are being used to filter this chemical hodge-podge!
Among other elements it contains arsenic, mercury, aluminium, phosphorus, chromium, lead and sulphur in high volumes. Contact me at euesireland@eircom.net for a chemical analysis of this substance.
Yours,

An attempt at irony in rebuffing the Florida, USA TC Palm Newspaper editorial which was vehemently pro-fluoridation. Not sure it worked, though, as it stopped the debate cold! lol

Sir, I fully agree with TCPalm. We are not entitled to both sides of the story. The assurances of vested interests such as the ADA should be enough for us! I mean, who in their right minds would want to make an opinion balanced on conflicting points of view? If we only get the one side of the story then it will be easy to make a decision and we wont have to worry about spending vast amounts of money on bottled water because there are added chemicals - toxic, schmoxic - in what comes out of our taps. I mean, poorer people cant spend that much to avoid it, can they? I say let those older wiser heads sponsored by the phosphate industry tell us what we can and cannot drink! They, after all, doubtless have our best interests at heart. And, good on ye, TCP, ban those dirty anti-fluoride people with their twisted lies from expressing THEIR viewpoint! Just because the last 30 years of research is coming out with all the negatives to fluoridation, doesn't mean you can't go on supporting that old guff, now does it?5:54:06 a.m. on March 1, 2007

Holmen,Wisconsin Fluoride Debate March 2007

2007-03-27T20:50:00.000+01:00

On March 27th, 2007 around 5.15pm GMT many of the posts and debates on the fluoride issue disappeared from The Holmen Courier website on a number of articles. No explanation has been forthcoming.

wrote on March 27, 2007 11:12 AM (Wisconsin Time): "Hi. OK, to answer your questions, some of which I find completely irrelevant, but however: 1) No, I do not use fluoridated toothpaste - I use a Pfizer brand called Euthymol and have for about 10 years. Funny, but the number of filling I get has dropped from about 3 a year to 1 every two years, and that is replacing old ones. I have had NO caries since starting to use it. I never realised that until you asked, so thanks! 2) If you knew something that could help to improve a person's life through contacting them, would it really matter to you where they lived? If they lived far away would that cause you to ignore the help you could give? As it happens, I lived in Chicago for a number of years and vacationed in Wisconsin, so I have a soft spot for the state. I believe the Internet helps us all to realize that we are part of the larger world community anyway. 3) The clues of where I get my information are in some of my previous posts and the many links I give. I have studied fluoridation on the Internet, in books and on video, I have read articles, research papers and do a search every day via Google for new fluoride information. That is how I first heard of Holmen. I encourage everybody to do their OWN research and not just to take the word of vested interests! 4) My profession is as an environmental consultant in recycling. I run the logistics for one of the two Irish Producer WEEE Compliance schemes. As I said before, fluoride research is something I have undertaken at my own initiative as my "special interest". I also think it is one of the most disgusting and cynical practices inflicted on a human population without their consent by those who stand to gain financially by it. The long-term hazards to human health are totally unknown, but by the rates of increases in Alzheimer's Disease, cancers, osteoporosis, hyperthyroidism and other conditions in the populations of fluoridating countries it is only a matter of time until the penny drops. "

To: lucifersmirror 24/3/2007

Hi. I, and I am sure others, would appreciate if you kept this blog on topic. However, as the pro-fluoride lobby do not try to spread information and instead try to subdue it, I will answer your questions and remarks. First, you mention fluoride and the Nazis. I have read the fascinating " The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" which is the work usually referred to as containing the statements about concentration camp use of fluoride. The book does not mention this at all. Pending further substantiated information you can lump that together with the fluoride lobby's repeated references to Dr Strangelove and 50 year of fluoridation prove this is safe, etc...! As to beer, you can trust most beers brewed in countries without fluoridation, i.e. most of Europe, i.e. Belgium, Holland, Germany, France, etc. You must contact a company which brews beer on licence in Ireland to ascertain whether they use local fluoridated water or not. Most do. Carlsberg is safe in that it uses Northern Ireland water, Hoegarden also , as it is brewed in Belgium. For baby formula, use bottled water with sodium content under 15mg/l. Good luck, but please keep on topic in future. Regards.

wrote on March 19, 2007 12:46 PM:"Thank you. I agree that the cynical concept of mass medication and toxic waste dumping known as fluoridation is a world -wide problem (at least in Ireland, US, Canada, NZ and Australia where it is practiced) wherever it raises its ugly head, and that it does not matter where one lives - if you have some knowledge about the situation and you see people in danger, you try to help. Not doing so is an abrogation of responsibility. It seems that people who want this is their water are looking for the State to stop their caries, are they reluctant to ensure a proper dental regime and diet for themselves? Don't they realise that if you look after your teeth you don't need additives, especially in public water, to do the job you should be doing yourself? Is it just laziness? If they spent even three days researching this subject -say starting with Christopher Bryson's well researched book "The Fluoride Deception" (Video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7319752042352089988&pl=true ) maybe they would start to see that the claims of the fluoride lobby revolve around something way beyond teeth. Why was the ADA AGAINST fluoridation until 1952?! They had discovered fluoride effects on the public in the 1920's. Unfortunately, there are just some people who want government to do everything for them without regard to the rights of others, especially those who try to educate themselves, regard their and their family members bodies as temples and are very aware of the pollutive effects of this hydrofluorosilicic acid. Buy a toothbrush and cut down on the sugar instead of trying to medicate everybody, that is the lazy way. SUGGESTED READING FOR THE INTERESTED & CONCERNED: Christopher Bryson – The Fluoride Deception Barry Groves – Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death? WEBSITES: www.kildare.ie/healthfitness/2006/12/fluoride_in_water.html -very interesting look at all the physical effects of fluoride http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller17.html - A Doctors View -in plain English www.fluoridealert.org www.voiceireland.org http://www.nofluoride.com http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i13/8413notw8.html -what the chemical companies say http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm -what the York Report REALLY said http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20060322/index.php -analysis of baby FL intake http://www.just-think-it.com/no-f.htm - just one of many scientists’ view http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=25017 - leaching of lead due to FL http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html - links with Alzheimers http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/ http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Fluoride/Fluoride31.html - Prof.Paul Connett http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000072.htm - Dr. Don MacAuley – Irish Dentist http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluorideinformation.htm - DoHC Hiding Report? http://bruha.com/pfpc/ - A parents view site http://www.waterwatchofutah.com/thecontroversy.htm - U.S. Community concern http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/ZWAReports11-2-98.htm LEARN – INFORM – CAUSE CHANGE EUES Ireland"

EUES Ireland wrote on March 18, 2007 12:15 PM:"Good Day! In relation to remarks about Ireland & fluoridation: 76% of public water is fluoridated and has been since 1964 after a 4 year case was taken by a citizen fighting it on the basis of individual freedom was brought all the way to the Supreme Court. As the only European country fluoridating by statute you would think that we would be number one in the European caries league, but we are 6th, behind 5 non-fluoridating countries. Even in the US, Utah has the lowest fluoridation AND the lowest caries rate. Ireland does though, have some of the highest heart disease rates, increasing Alzheimer's Disease rates and 40% higher levels of bone cancer in young men than non-fluoridated Northern Ireland! To say there is a very strong debate going on at this time is quite accurate. Recently, an Expert Fluoridation Forum institued by the government advised reducing the fluoridation rate from 1ppm to 0.6-0.8 ppm, a 25% reduction. Interesting as up until the last couple of years the ADA claimed that fluoridation under 0.7ppm had no effects! They have quietly dropped that claim, as public pressure causes governments to look at reducing the levels of hydrofluorosilicic acid added to water. A Dept of Health & Children committee has examined the situation and is considering advising that this toxic waste dumping known as fluoridation be ceased altogether. For those who still believe that fluoride makes bones and teeth stronger here is just the latest of many articles by professionals (in this case a pediatrician from Bangor, Maine) showing the fluoride claims up as false and misleading. http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?articleid=147576&zoneid=35 "

March 16th, 2007
Hi people. Sorry I missed the last couple of days discussion – I actually DO have a job that keeps me way busy!! But I also have made it my business to investigate this fluoride issue for the past six years for myself. I will try to answer some of the comments made earlier.

The reference to lowered IQ levels is based on research conducted in China, where non-fluoridated villages were trial-twinned with those that had a higher natural fluoride level in the water. From 6-12 IQ points LOWER were noted as common in the fluoridated well water villages. See the science here:
http://www.fluoridation.com/brain.htm and here: www.fluoride-journal.com/00-33-2/332-74.pdf and here: http://fluoridealert.org/news/1655.html

Speaking of trial-twinning villages – did you know that the NY town of Newburgh (which incidentally used pure sodium fluoride in the 1950’s trials, not the hodge-podge of chemicals known as hydrofluosilicic acid used today) 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.

It is difficult to know who I am talking to here as names do not come up on the website, but if anyone has questions (which I may or may not be able to answer) please feel free to ask– I much prefer questions asked honestly, rather than name calling and slagging off people. To JS, who said keep it brief – erm, why? How much do they charge you for people to put stuff up here??? You don’t have to read it. No one is forcing you to read, so, why do you want to force others to drink this gunk? Why are you even here if you think it’s all a waste of time?

Ireland is now into its third year of a smoking ban in all public buildings, including pubs. I love it!!! I smoked for 17 years and gave it up in my thirties. It is SO pleasant to go into a pub or concert now and not come out smelling like an ashtray. So that comment about being anti-ban is just stupid.

Check the Irish dentists site for the fluorosis figures. In the States it is estimated by the CDC that the figure is now that 50% of school-going children suffer from some form of fluorosis.
Here: http://homepage.eircom.net/~aud/home.html
And here: http://medserv.no/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3382

WHAT benefit of fluoride??? That is part of the problem, chuck. Cavity figures worldwide have dropped tremendously – WITH or WITHOUT fluoride! Seems like better education and dental habits to me. UTAH has the lowest (3%) fluoridated water supply of all the States – AND the lowest caries rate. U.S. Government figures – check it. In 2000 the British Government set up the York (University) Report – a forum of scientists which was to back the government’s intent to bringing in fluoridation. It examined all the science and research done on fluoridation since the 50’s. In its final report it said, and I quote: “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight dis-benefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.” Doesn’t sound like they thought the argument about the benefits was proven! What convinced you?
Get it here: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
I ALWAYS encourage people to investigate and learn FOR THEMSELVES – something that you, Mr Smoking Ban, seem never to have bothered to do. Before you go slagging me and others off, why don’t you just move your, em, mouse and check some of the sites I have listed in my previous email? You don’t even have the courage to leave a name!

PS And sadly, yes, the Irish Guinness IS made with fluoridated Dublin water – now I have to drink Carlsberg, brewed in non-fl Northern Ireland –but hey, it’s OK! And there is fluoride in your Miller and all other beers and juices and any product manufactured in a fluoridated area. Happy St.Patrick’s Day!

And just to mention a good point made by another contributor to the Holmen debate:

By ROBERT BRIGGSKailua, HawaiiThis is in response to your recent article “Push to fluoridate Holmen's water could renew debate about practice.” You have provided much food for thought, Thank you very much.There is much I could comment on, but I wish for you, and those receiving a copy, to consider what water fluoridation has NOT done for cities fluoridated for many years. To name a few, New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., and Cincinnati, are all experiencing dental decay rates much higher than the national average. The dental decay rates in these cities are probably higher than in Holmen.I doubt that there is anything unique about Holmen to suggest that fluoridating its water would reduce dental decay.

Fluoridation - A Cynical Hoax

2007-03-27T20:31:00.000+01:00

For the past few years I have been studying the fluoride debate, hah, even the name fluoride debate is erroneous, as what is commonly used throughout the English-speaking fluoridating community (5% of world population) is actually hydrofluorosilicic acid, a toxic waste from the phosphate fertiliser industry, which, together with various mining, aluminium manufacturing and uranium enriching industries, gains from the millions of dollars saved per year by not having to treat this cocktail of chemicals as hazardous waste, but actually turns another profit by selling it to the US, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and Irish governments as the fluoridating agent for public water supplies!

For an excellent review of how the nuclear and aluminium industries spun the deadly toxin fluoride during the 40's and 50's from an accident prone killer of workers to the substance that give kiddies nice shiny teeth, read Christopher Bryson's - The Fluoride Deception. A video interview with this author is available at :

Rather than go into a synopsis of my feelings about this disgusting practice I will instead cut and paste some of my posts and comments to various sites and blogs around the world over the past month or so. My feelings should become obvious. I intend to use this blog as my main method of communication in future. I welcome any scientist who would like to comment, especially those who can refer myself and the reader to a link to actual verifiable research on fluoride-relevant matters - pro or con.

EUES Ireland stands for European Union Environmental Services Ireland and is part of a network of environmental consultants in the UK, France, Holland and Ireland. I would like to make it plain that this blog and its contents are my personal comments & feelings and not necessarily those of the EUES network. Welcome to my space.