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
Showing posts with label toxic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label toxic. Show all posts
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Birmingham,UK held up as example of fluoride success - NOT!
SO, Once again the "powers that be" decide what is best for us without any definitive evidence to support their claims! I have been listening to SKY News today and the debate that is once again being dragged through the media (NO BAD THING) about whether it is better to fluoride our drinking water in order to save us all from our bad dental hygiene and dietary habits or whether hydrofluorocilicic acid is actually a manufacturing waste that is accumulating in our bodies and slowly (but surely) causing the rise of osteoporosis, brittle bones, lower IQ, Alzheimers Disease and underactive thyroid.... (it actually is, unfortunately).
Just to put the debate into some kind of perspective, below I have reprinted an article issued in 2003 which refers to the fact that Birmingham UK has NOT benefited from 40 years of fluoridation - at least no more than the 70% decreases in dental caries also experienced by NON-FLUORIDATED EU countries over the last 50 years!
When listening to the claims of the pro-fluoride brigade one must pay as much attention to what they don't say!
So, when they say Birmingham has 50% fewer cavities, demand to see the evidence - personally, I would love to see it. But it does not actually exist.
If you really want to learn about the harm that fluoridation does to communities, read this blog. watch the videos, check out fluoridealert.org (NOT fluoridealert.com which the American Dental Association hijacked in order to confuse those who were seeking to research the fluoride debate), read, read, read...then ask, WHY?!
Any questions, euesireland@eircom.net
Daily Mail - LondonTuesday 08 July 2003FLUORIDEby Bob Woffinden
TOMORROW, peers will be asked to approve a piece of legislation so sinister, so Draconian and so far-reaching in its implications that it is hard to believe it is happening with barely a murmur of protest.
The new Bill will force water companies to add fluoride to all drinking water when ordered to do so by local health authorities - in other words, millions of us will be forced to take medication against our will.
It sounds like a totalitarian nightmare, and it is. Once fluoride is in the water supply, everyone will be exposed to it. It will be in our tea, coffee, food, and absorbed through the pores of our skin when we take baths or showers. For years, dental authorities have lobbied for fluoridation, arguing it prevents decay in children's teeth - but dentists should play no part in the debate. The first, and most important, consideration is not teeth, but whether fluoride has adverse effects on the human body. There is mounting evidence that it does.
Cancer, osteoporosis, kidney problems and skeletal fluorosis - a crippling disease which causes muscle weakness and gastrointestinal disorders - have all been linked in scientific studies to fluoridation.
How ironic that, when France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have all rejected mass water fluoridation, our government is embracing it with such enthusiasm.
Why? After all, even the evidence that adding fluoride to water prevents tooth decay is patchy. In December 2002, four leading British scientists, who had reviewed the subject, wrote to the Government pointing this out.
They said the effects of fluoride on teeth could range from 'a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit'. In other words, fluoride might actually be harming children's teeth.
We shouldn't really be surprised when we consider the origins of fluoridation. The Americans were the first to add fluorides - chemical compounds used by modern industry and commerce, which, once in the body, build up in teeth and bone - to water after World War II.
The plan was to study a fluoridated city and a non-fluoridated one in a five-year scientific experiment to see whether children's teeth improved.
HOWEVER, the experiment was never carried out.
Within 18 months, the control city was also fluoridated on the grounds it was unfair to deprive children there of the 'benefits' of fluoridation.
So, instead of reaching a conclusion based on research, it was decided by the U.S. medical authorities, and the research was abandoned.
Yet despite this, fluoridation spread. Harold Wilson introduced it to Britain in the Sixties when about ten per cent of our water supply, reaching five million people, was fluoridated - mainly Birmingham, the West Midlands, and the Newcastle area. Much of the U.S. followed suit, as did Ireland and parts of Australia and New Zealand.
Forty years later, however, it has still not been conclusively proved that fluoride benefits children's teeth. One British study found children in fluoridated areas suffered, on average, 15 per cent less tooth decay compared to those in non-fluoridated areas.
But studies in Finland, Germany, Cuba and Canada found the rate of dental decay did not increase when communities stopped fluoridation.
So how is it supposed to work?
Well, astonishingly, no one knows.
One of the main possibilities is that it helps the re-mineralisation of teeth enamel.
If this is true, then it is a process that works simply through fluoride being applied to the surface of the teeth. Therefore, the benefits can be obtained through fluoride toothpaste, and there is no point in adding fluoride to the water supply.
A second way in which fluoride might work is by suppressing the enzymes that cause the build-up of the acid that leads to tooth decay.
But is fluoride clever enough to know that it should affect just those enzymes and no others? Of course not. Different enzymes will react to fluoride in different ways, and some enzyme systems will function less efficiently.
There will also be a range of individual responses to fluoride, in which age, sex, race and genetic susceptibility will play a part. It is a chilling thought, but if the Government adds fluoride to the water supply, then it will be saying to some people, we are going to make you ill.
Once fluoride is in the body, one of its actions is to displace iodine, which ensures the correct functioning of the thyroid gland.
The consequences of an underperforming thyroid include muscle and joint pain, high cholesterol, heart disease, weight gain, fatigue and low energy levels. Not surprisingly, having an underactive thyroid is a increasing problem for people in the U.S., the world's most fluoridated country.
In the Eighties, scientists wondered whether fluoride could help treat bone disease, and gave fluoride to patients suffering from osteoporosis in an attempt to harden their bones and prevent fractures.
The trials had to be abandoned, however, when it became clear that patients were suffering more fractures. Studies have also linked fluoride to osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer.
Even more alarmingly, reports from China have shown that children growing up in fluoridated areas have lower IQs than those in non-fluoride areas.
Birmingham has been fluoridated for 35 years, so one might expect people's teeth to be in a better condition than elsewhere in the country. Yet that is not the case. The cost of dental treatment per person in Birmingham is as high as in other major cities.
But why is this government so in thrall to the pro-fluoridation lobby?
Ministers point to statistics showing that by the age of five, two out of three children in the most deprived parts of the country have at least one rotten tooth.
Fluoridation is a way of acting when feckless parents won't.
Yet it is precisely these children whose bodies are already low in calcium, magnesium and essential nutrients who are going to be most at risk from fluoride poisoning.
More cynically, campaigners attribute ministers' enthusiasm to astute lobbying from the big chemical companies.
Fluoride is a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry. If it was classified as toxic waste, firms would have to pay to get it cleaned up. But if they persuade the Government that fluoride should be added to our water supply, then they can make money from it.
LIKE previous administrations, this government has started from the conclusion that fluoridation is a good thing. Plan A was to gather government-friendly scientists to give fluoride the all clear.
That was the York Review of September 2000, which, unfortunately, concluded there had been few studies into fluoride's harmful effects, and emphasised the need for research into the links between fluoride and 'infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ'.
So Plan B was to get together an even friendlier group of scientists from the Medical Research Council. However, in September 2002, even its report acknowledged that 'little high quality research has been undertaken in the area of fluoride and health'. Plan C, wheeled out just days ago, was to go ahead with fluoridation anyway.
New legislation will indemnify water companies against damage to public health caused by fluoride - in other words, if victims of fluoridation go to court, taxpayers will foot the bill.
Water companies will no longer be allowed to refuse requests by the health authorities to add fluoride to their water.
The Government says fluoride schemes will be subject to public approval.
Just how it intends to obtain this is unclear. Certainly, those unfortunate people in Birmingham were not asked for approval before their city was fluoridated.
Before more of us are exposed to the potential dangers of fluoridation we are entitled to an answer to the following question - is there published peer-reviewed scientific research linking fluoride to cancer, poor thyroid function, stillbirths, Down's syndrome, the early onset of puberty, increased rates of hip fracture, and diminished IQ levels in children?
The straight answer is, 'Yes'. If the Government presses ahead with this sinister programme of forced medication, then political morality will have sunk to new depths.
Fluoride Action Network 802-355-0999 info@fluoridealert.org
Just to put the debate into some kind of perspective, below I have reprinted an article issued in 2003 which refers to the fact that Birmingham UK has NOT benefited from 40 years of fluoridation - at least no more than the 70% decreases in dental caries also experienced by NON-FLUORIDATED EU countries over the last 50 years!
When listening to the claims of the pro-fluoride brigade one must pay as much attention to what they don't say!
So, when they say Birmingham has 50% fewer cavities, demand to see the evidence - personally, I would love to see it. But it does not actually exist.
If you really want to learn about the harm that fluoridation does to communities, read this blog. watch the videos, check out fluoridealert.org (NOT fluoridealert.com which the American Dental Association hijacked in order to confuse those who were seeking to research the fluoride debate), read, read, read...then ask, WHY?!
Any questions, euesireland@eircom.net
Daily Mail - LondonTuesday 08 July 2003FLUORIDEby Bob Woffinden
TOMORROW, peers will be asked to approve a piece of legislation so sinister, so Draconian and so far-reaching in its implications that it is hard to believe it is happening with barely a murmur of protest.
The new Bill will force water companies to add fluoride to all drinking water when ordered to do so by local health authorities - in other words, millions of us will be forced to take medication against our will.
It sounds like a totalitarian nightmare, and it is. Once fluoride is in the water supply, everyone will be exposed to it. It will be in our tea, coffee, food, and absorbed through the pores of our skin when we take baths or showers. For years, dental authorities have lobbied for fluoridation, arguing it prevents decay in children's teeth - but dentists should play no part in the debate. The first, and most important, consideration is not teeth, but whether fluoride has adverse effects on the human body. There is mounting evidence that it does.
Cancer, osteoporosis, kidney problems and skeletal fluorosis - a crippling disease which causes muscle weakness and gastrointestinal disorders - have all been linked in scientific studies to fluoridation.
How ironic that, when France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have all rejected mass water fluoridation, our government is embracing it with such enthusiasm.
Why? After all, even the evidence that adding fluoride to water prevents tooth decay is patchy. In December 2002, four leading British scientists, who had reviewed the subject, wrote to the Government pointing this out.
They said the effects of fluoride on teeth could range from 'a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit'. In other words, fluoride might actually be harming children's teeth.
We shouldn't really be surprised when we consider the origins of fluoridation. The Americans were the first to add fluorides - chemical compounds used by modern industry and commerce, which, once in the body, build up in teeth and bone - to water after World War II.
The plan was to study a fluoridated city and a non-fluoridated one in a five-year scientific experiment to see whether children's teeth improved.
HOWEVER, the experiment was never carried out.
Within 18 months, the control city was also fluoridated on the grounds it was unfair to deprive children there of the 'benefits' of fluoridation.
So, instead of reaching a conclusion based on research, it was decided by the U.S. medical authorities, and the research was abandoned.
Yet despite this, fluoridation spread. Harold Wilson introduced it to Britain in the Sixties when about ten per cent of our water supply, reaching five million people, was fluoridated - mainly Birmingham, the West Midlands, and the Newcastle area. Much of the U.S. followed suit, as did Ireland and parts of Australia and New Zealand.
Forty years later, however, it has still not been conclusively proved that fluoride benefits children's teeth. One British study found children in fluoridated areas suffered, on average, 15 per cent less tooth decay compared to those in non-fluoridated areas.
But studies in Finland, Germany, Cuba and Canada found the rate of dental decay did not increase when communities stopped fluoridation.
So how is it supposed to work?
Well, astonishingly, no one knows.
One of the main possibilities is that it helps the re-mineralisation of teeth enamel.
If this is true, then it is a process that works simply through fluoride being applied to the surface of the teeth. Therefore, the benefits can be obtained through fluoride toothpaste, and there is no point in adding fluoride to the water supply.
A second way in which fluoride might work is by suppressing the enzymes that cause the build-up of the acid that leads to tooth decay.
But is fluoride clever enough to know that it should affect just those enzymes and no others? Of course not. Different enzymes will react to fluoride in different ways, and some enzyme systems will function less efficiently.
There will also be a range of individual responses to fluoride, in which age, sex, race and genetic susceptibility will play a part. It is a chilling thought, but if the Government adds fluoride to the water supply, then it will be saying to some people, we are going to make you ill.
Once fluoride is in the body, one of its actions is to displace iodine, which ensures the correct functioning of the thyroid gland.
The consequences of an underperforming thyroid include muscle and joint pain, high cholesterol, heart disease, weight gain, fatigue and low energy levels. Not surprisingly, having an underactive thyroid is a increasing problem for people in the U.S., the world's most fluoridated country.
In the Eighties, scientists wondered whether fluoride could help treat bone disease, and gave fluoride to patients suffering from osteoporosis in an attempt to harden their bones and prevent fractures.
The trials had to be abandoned, however, when it became clear that patients were suffering more fractures. Studies have also linked fluoride to osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer.
Even more alarmingly, reports from China have shown that children growing up in fluoridated areas have lower IQs than those in non-fluoride areas.
Birmingham has been fluoridated for 35 years, so one might expect people's teeth to be in a better condition than elsewhere in the country. Yet that is not the case. The cost of dental treatment per person in Birmingham is as high as in other major cities.
But why is this government so in thrall to the pro-fluoridation lobby?
Ministers point to statistics showing that by the age of five, two out of three children in the most deprived parts of the country have at least one rotten tooth.
Fluoridation is a way of acting when feckless parents won't.
Yet it is precisely these children whose bodies are already low in calcium, magnesium and essential nutrients who are going to be most at risk from fluoride poisoning.
More cynically, campaigners attribute ministers' enthusiasm to astute lobbying from the big chemical companies.
Fluoride is a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry. If it was classified as toxic waste, firms would have to pay to get it cleaned up. But if they persuade the Government that fluoride should be added to our water supply, then they can make money from it.
LIKE previous administrations, this government has started from the conclusion that fluoridation is a good thing. Plan A was to gather government-friendly scientists to give fluoride the all clear.
That was the York Review of September 2000, which, unfortunately, concluded there had been few studies into fluoride's harmful effects, and emphasised the need for research into the links between fluoride and 'infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ'.
So Plan B was to get together an even friendlier group of scientists from the Medical Research Council. However, in September 2002, even its report acknowledged that 'little high quality research has been undertaken in the area of fluoride and health'. Plan C, wheeled out just days ago, was to go ahead with fluoridation anyway.
New legislation will indemnify water companies against damage to public health caused by fluoride - in other words, if victims of fluoridation go to court, taxpayers will foot the bill.
Water companies will no longer be allowed to refuse requests by the health authorities to add fluoride to their water.
The Government says fluoride schemes will be subject to public approval.
Just how it intends to obtain this is unclear. Certainly, those unfortunate people in Birmingham were not asked for approval before their city was fluoridated.
Before more of us are exposed to the potential dangers of fluoridation we are entitled to an answer to the following question - is there published peer-reviewed scientific research linking fluoride to cancer, poor thyroid function, stillbirths, Down's syndrome, the early onset of puberty, increased rates of hip fracture, and diminished IQ levels in children?
The straight answer is, 'Yes'. If the Government presses ahead with this sinister programme of forced medication, then political morality will have sunk to new depths.
Fluoride Action Network 802-355-0999 info@fluoridealert.org
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Everyday More Proof: Fluoride and Fluoridation Is NOT Safe and Effective!
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/
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/
Saturday, April 21, 2007
The Fluoride and Cancer Link Exposed
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!
Saturday, April 07, 2007
HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID COMPOSITION
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Who Watches the Watchers?
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]
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]
Friday, March 30, 2007
Fluoride and the Thyroid
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!
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!
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Letter to Irish Citizens
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!
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!
That's Fit Blog
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!
(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!
Holmen,Wisconsin Fluoride Debate March 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)