Almost 2 and a half years after the now Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, John Gormley, the Chair of the Oireachtas Health and Children Committee, wrote this intelligent Report calling for the immediate stop to water fluoridation on numerous grounds, we are STILL drinking toxic waste with no proven benefits. Why? Now that he is a Minister in Government why has he not moved to halt this criminal poisoning of a nation? Where is the spine? Has it, like the skeletal and dental structures of the fluoride-imbibing public, become brittle and weakened, too?
Introductory Note
Extracted from: Irish Times, Thursday 15th March 2007:
«The publication of a report on fluoridation to the Oireachtas Health and Children Committee written by Green Party Dublin South East TD, John Gormley, is expected to be strongly opposed by some other committee members in the coming weeks.
Rejecting the Green's opposition to fluoridation, the Fianna Fáil TD, Jimmy Devins, vice-chair of the committee, said water fluoridation "is in the interests of public health and should not be discontinued. ...All the evidence available has indicated to us that water fluoridation is in the interests of public health. It prevents dental caries and has no negative side effects aside from a slight staining of teeth in a small number of cases which can be easily treatable."
Mr Devins said he would oppose Mr Gormley's report getting the official sanction of the committee.»
Here is the report which was suppressed by certain committee members.
This report was never put to the vote.
Incidentally, Mr Devins' statement is completely untrue in every aspect.
”All the evidence” can be neatly summed up by the York Report of 2000&2003 which analysed all the hundreds of reports on fluoridation and found “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor. “ - http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
“ has no negative side effects aside from a slight staining of teeth” is also completely untrue. There are over 500 reports and scientific papers available which point to fluoride's negative effects on the thyroid, heart, pilial gland, bone density and soft tissue and its effects causing bone cancers, Alzheimers Disease and lowered IQ levels, among other negatives. Check: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/ for a full overview.
Furthermore, “ slight staining of teeth in a small number of cases which can be easily treatable” - over 40% of Irish children now suffer from dental, and ergo skeletal fluorosis, in the more severe cases this can involve cosmetic processes costing thousands of euro.
To continually dose a population for 50+ years with a substance that contains mercury, lead, arsenic , massive amounts of phosphate and sulphur, and indeed 30+ other chemicals in it WITHOUT A HEALTH CHECK EVER HAVING BEEN MADE...anywhere in the world, is asking for trouble. Is it a mere co-incidence that Ireland, the most fluoridated country in Europe, has the highest cancer and heart disease rates, rampant Alzheimer's and high incidence of broken hips? Hardly, when similar increases were registered in the American cities that started fluoridating. And if it is so good for our teeth, why are we in sixth place in the European caries league, after 5 non-fluoridating countries? There are vested interests that have been pushing fluoride for almost 50 years now, but there is a change happening due to the research and the dubious history of fluoridation that has been released over the last ten years. Help to speed that change by publicising this health horror for what it is – someone's handy way to turn what would otherwise be classed as toxic waste – hydrofluorosilicic acid- and would have to be treated at great expense, into a commodity that they sell to us to dump unregulated into our own drinking water, on a false promise.
For the buried report summary check: http://euesireland.blogspot.com/
The Oireachtas (Joint Irish Houses of Parliament) Draft report on Water Fluoridation in Ireland 11/1/2007 presented by Mr John Gormley T.D., now Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in Ireland.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I am very pleased to present my Report on Water Fluoridation to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children. I was appointed first to undertake this work in 1999 during the last Dáil. Unfortunately, I was advised by the Committee Chairman to interrupt my work when the then Minister for Health and Children, Micheal Martin, set up the Fluoridation Forum to conduct a similar investigation into the action of fluoride. Following the completion of the Forum Report, the Health Committee recommenced its own investigation. Given that sufficient time has now elapsed since the publication of the Forum Report and that not a single recommendation out of 33 has been implemented, it is timely to publish our deliberations on the subject.
Having agreed to become the rapporteur, I quickly discovered that I faced a complex and mammoth task. Not only did I have to analyse the testimony of those who appeared before the Committee, I also had to wade through the often contradictory scientific evidence and the endless archive material.
I have tried to distil the essential elements of my research into this report. As well as looking at why water fluoridation was introduced into this country, the report seeks to answer two fundamental questions — (1) how effective is water fluoridation in fighting tooth decay? (2) what are the side effects of water fluoridation?
Those who came before the committee had often diametrically opposed views on the subject. There is no doubting the sincerity and dedication of both sides in this debate. It is worth noting however, that whereas there was almost unanimity in the dental community when water fluoridation was introduced as to its effectiveness, there are now clear differences of opinion among dentists on the subject. One only has to contrast the testimony of Dr. O'Mullane and Dr. Clarkson with Dr. MacAuley and Dr. Limeback to understand how greatly views diverge on water fluoridation. But there is some common ground. And it's worth reflecting on these points of agreement at the very outset. When fluoride was first introduced it was thought generally to act systemically i.e. it had to be ingested. We now know it acts topically i.e. in the mouth and on the surface of the tooth. We also know that there are increased sources of fluoride now compared to fifty years ago. All sides admit - and the evidence points to - a huge increase in the incidence of fluorosis, a condition which indicates an excess of fluoride. Both sides also took the view that fluoride in toothpaste did reduce the rate of dental caries. They also agree that children who use fluoride toothpaste require supervision and proper instruction.
The crucial question for the committee was whether the perceived benefits of water fluoridation out weighed the negative side effects. The contribution of international expert, Dr. Hardy Limeback was persuasive in this regard when he commented that using the most authoritative international data, the risk of fluorosis far outweighed the benefits of fluoride. Dr. Limeback was also very clear in his recommendation that fluoridated water should not be used to bottle feed babies. Indeed, his advice seemed to have been accepted by the Food Safety Authority until it changed its mind in circumstances that have not been explained to the satisfaction of the committee. The committee has also noted the latest advice of the American Dental Association which states: "If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride". (ADA 9th November 2006).
Given that it is extremely impractical for mothers who are bottle feeding to source non-fluoridated water supplies and that fluorosis rates continue to rise, our central recommendation — based on the precautionary principle - is that the practice of water fluoridation should end immediately. All of the available evidence suggests that not only will this lead to a marked reduction in fluorosis but that there would not be a significant rise in dental caries.
The evidence presented by Dr O'Mullane showed that Ireland had a very serious dental health problem in the 1950s and early 60s. All of the available historical records confirm this to be the case. They also show that Ireland had a real shortage of dentists at the time. The committee fully appreciates why a prophylactic measure such as water fluoridation seemed like a sensible approach at the time. However, we have had to base our conclusions and recommendations on all of the data now available to us. Quantifying the effectiveness of fluoridation was our most difficult task. In our view, the most accurate measurement of this is contained in the York Review, undoubtedly, the most comprehensive study ever to be carried out on water fluoridation. Similarly, we have referred to York Review in quantifying fluorosis rates.
A key recommendation of the Fluoridation Forum was the reduction in the level of fluoride in our water supplies. Significantly, this recommendation has not been implemented, and even if the fluoride levels in the water were slightly reduced, we could not recommend that this water be used to bottle feed babies.
The Ireland of 2006 is a very different place with very different standards of general and oral hygiene. We are a modem European state with dental caries rates equal to and sometimes below other EU states which do not fluoridate their water supplies. We do, however, continue to consume too much confectionary, and our snacking habits are leading to continued dental caries problems as well as higher rates of obesity. The Department for Health and Children should tackle this problem by concentrating its efforts on education in relation to better oral hygiene, banning junk food vending machines and using fiscal means to change these poor eating habits.
If our recommendations are implemented we are convinced that not only will we see a reduction in fluorosis rates but that there will also be a drop in dental caries rates.
2 CONCLUSIONS
1.The rates of dental decay and the lack of dentists justified the introduction of a prophylactic measure such as water fluoridation.(in 1960)
2.Those who advocated water fluoridation were motivated by concern about the serious decline in dental health standards.
3.We believe that basic health and hygiene habits in Irish society have changed dramatically in the intervening period.
4.We note that dental health has improved to the same degree in countries where there is no water fluoridation.
5.The Department of Health's assessment of the overwhelming benefits of water fluoridation is not justified.
6.While positive aspects of fluoridation have been over-stated, the growing negative impact has not been properly recognised. The Committee views the officially reported sevenfold increase in fluorosis since 1984, as completely unacceptable, requiring immediate action.
7.The Committee is disappointed and alarmed that no general health studies, as provided for in S.6 of the 1960 Fluoridation Act have ever been carried out, particularly considering that four in ten 15 year olds are now affected by fluorosis. By disregarding this provision of the Act, the Department of Health has left itself liable for the harmful effects of fluoridation of Irish drinking water.
8.It is the view of the committee that the Department of Health has failed to offer a coherent scientific justification for continuing the policy of water fluoridation and has notably failed to deal with Dr Connett's 50 Reasons to oppose fluoridation either in the Fluoridation Forum or since.
9.Despite emphasizing the expertise of its membership, the Fluoridation Forum failed to apply key principles of toxicology, for example the toxic dosage for Irish children. Another failure was to overlook the synergistic effects of fluoride chemicals with other substances (e.g. aluminium) that are ever-present in many Irish drinking water supplies.
10.The Committee notes that the recommendation of FSAI advising against the use of fluoridated water for the bottle feeding of babies was changed subsequently following representations form a minority of members in 2001.
11.The Committee believes that the manner this was done was both irregular and suspect and represented a "process mess". The replies given to the former Chair by Dr Wayne Anderson in this regard were unsatisfactory. The Committee notes a similar change in advice on using un-fluoridated water in infant formula by Prof John Clarkson.
12.The committee notes that the vast of majority of those on the Forum for fluoridation had records of being strongly in favour of water fluoridation.
13.It is clear and, indeed, accepted by both the pro-and anti- fluoridation sides that the action of fluoride is topical and not systemic.
14.We note that of the 33 recommendations of the Fluoride forum, not one has been implemented to date.
15.We believe on the basis of the international studies there would be no long-term increase in dental decay if fluoride were not added to Irish drinking water.
16.There is no evidence to suggest that Irish people are fluoride deficient, in fact, the evidence at hand suggests that we have too much fluoride in our systems.
17.On the basis of the available archive material the Committee believes that the original Fluorine consultative council did not approach its task with an open mind. It would appear to have had a very strong pro water fluoridation bias.
18.We are disappointed that only the minutes of one of the meetings of the Fluorine consultative Council survive, the others having been destroyed in a flood.
19.It is now accepted by all sides that the sources of fluoride in our diet have increased dramatically since the introduction of water fluoridation.
20.The Committee believes that fluoride toothpastes have contributed to a decline in dental caries in this country and other states.
21.Fluoride toothpastes should carry a warning about the dangers of children swallowing fluoride toothpastes, and children properly supervised when brushing their teeth using fluoride toothpaste.
22.The increase in membership of Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation from single figures when the Forum reported, to over 120 dental practitioners today reflects the growing professional opposition to the policy.
23.There is sufficient scientific evidence in relation to health effects — albeit contradictory — to justify the application of the precautionary principle. We also note the latest advice from the American Dental Association which advises parents to choose non-fluoridated water for the bottle feeding babies.
24.We note that the fluoridating agent hydrofluorosilic acid has not been sanctioned by the Irish Medicines Board.
Recommendations
1.Fluoridated water should not be used to bottle feed babies;
2.Given the impracticality of sourcing non-fluoridated water for the bottle feeding of babies, the committee — on the basis of the precautionary principle — believes the practice of water fluoridation should cease immediately;
3.The savings accruing from the policy change must be assessed in each HSE region. They should be ring-fenced before being re-allocated to educational programmes aimed at the socially deprived, in line with best practice in other European countries;
4.Independent research into general health effects should be undertaken in order to assess the full impact of lifetime fluoride exposure in the population. Particular attention should be given to effects on infants and children of exposure to fluoride from all sources;
5.The Minister for Health should not permit indiscriminate medication measures to treat the whole population via water or food because of the inability to control dosage and monitor individual reaction, evidenced by the forty year experience of water fluoridation;
6.The Government should undertake a major educational programme to encourage healthy eating in order to tackle the twin problems of dental caries and obesity;
7.More public dentists need to be employed and more regular check ups encouraged;
8.Parents should be given advice about teeth brushing and the use of fluoridated toothpaste. Along with imaginative education programmes on regular tooth brushing, existing nutritional programmes already underway should continue to target sugary diets of children from 5 yr olds to 15 yr olds. Special emphasis should be laid on initiatives that target the socially disadvantaged where dental decay linked to poor diet is most prevalent; and
9.Fluoride toothpastes should carry warnings similar to those in the United States about the dangers of swallowing fluoride toothpaste.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
John Gormley, whatever happened to your policies?
http://www.greenparty.ie/
en/news/latest_news/greens_in_govt
_would_stop_water_fluoridation
When he was the Chair of the Interparty Study of Fluoridation for the Dept. of Health and Children, John Gormley and the group concensus came out strongly against continuing the policy of Fluoridation in Ireland. Where has this 2007 report been hidden and why has Minister Gormley not pursued the sensible option of halting this ineffective practice of dumping toxic waste into our drinking water? The clock is ticking and this blog will provide some of the answers shortly, before the elections...
"One of the dangerous pollutants in Haulbowline is fluoride, and successive Irish Governments have always covered up the dangers of fluoride (in water fluoridation, pollution from Moneypoint, Aughinish, Haulbowline, Intel Leixlip, and many other industries and practices). The politicians have consistently been appointing pro-fluoridation people to key positions in agencies such as the EPA, Food Safety Authority (which calls fluoride "a nutrient"!), and so on -- and the Greens used to criticize those public appointments, until last year.Now look at what the Greens have done in relation to fluoride:
1997: “It is time to stop this crazy experiment with our health. It cannot be lawful for a state to poison its own people. We have ample evidence that fluoridation is damaging our health.” -- Trevor Sargent in the Dáil, 6 Feb 1997
2002: Green Party Private Member's Bill in the Dáil to stop fluoridation (see here).
General Election: An end to fluoridation was a non-negotiable condition for the Greens to enter coalition.
2007: "For me it's never been a question about votes on this issue. it's about the truth. I know they [the fluoridators] are lying. If I'm in government fluoridation will go in the first month in office. That's a guarantee." -- John Gormley, 11 Feb 2007, personal e-mail. (On the basis of such assurances, members of the anti-fluoridation movement canvassed for Gormley in his constituency.)
"Greens in Government would stop water fluoridation" -- Green Party press release, 13 March 2007
And since the general election? Not a word from the Greens about fluoridation. They haven't lifted a finger."
"It cannot be lawful for a state to poison its own people. We have ample evidence that fluoridation is damaging our health." -- Trevor Sargent TD, Feb 1997
"If I'm in government fluoridation will go in the first month in office. That's a guarantee." -- John Gormley TD, Feb 2007
"In Government we would immediately ban water fluoridation." -- Green Party health policy,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk
Fluoridation Ineffective & Harmful, studies show
Posted May 25, 2009 at 3:51 p.m.
New York - May 25 - Over 2,470 professionals urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted, citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html.
Also, eleven Environmental Protection Agency employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals called for a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs across the country, and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. (1a)
Last election day, 53 US cities rejected fluoridation joining a growing list of communities saying "No," to fluoridation. (1)
Since the professionals' statement was first issued (Aug 2007), the following occurred:
-- The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Canada’s leading voice on environmental health issues, released a statement opposing fluoridation. (2)
-- The National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation support replacing it with this caution: “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.” (3)
-- Researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal indicate that fluoridation never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (4)
-- “A qualitative review of ...studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ,” concluded Tang el al., in "Fluoride and Children’s Intelligence: A Meta-analysis” in Biological Trace Element Research (5)
-- Scientific American editors wrote in January 2008, "Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland"
-- Dr. A. K. Susheela, a leading fluoride expert, explains in a video why US physicians overlook fluoride as a possible cause of diseases commonly caused by fluoride. http://tinyurl.com/Susheela
-- A study in the Fall 2008 Journal of Public Health Dentistry reveals that cavity-free teeth have little to do with fluoride intake. Researchers report, "The benefits of fluoride are mostly topical…while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake."
-- Research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009). indicates that blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups. (13) Osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, occurs mostly in children and young adults
A Tennessee State legislator who is also an MD is urging all Tennessee Water Districts to stop fluoridation, reported a Tennessee newspaper on 11/29/08. At least 30 Tennessee water districts have already complied with his request.(6)
On 1/5/09, the Burlington Board of Health recommended that Burlington cease fluoridation because fluoridation can harm some people. (7)
On 1/6/09, a Canadian town, Drayton, stopped fluoridation, not to save money, but because it was in the best interests of residents, said the Mayor. (8)
On 2/10/2009 Skagit County, WA officials reversed their 2007 fluoridation decision. (9)
On 3/3/2009, Plainfield, Vermont bans fluoridation. (10)
The Arkansas Oral Health Director is accused of giving eight "false or misleading statements" on fluoridation to an Arkansas legislative Committee. (12)
Signers to the FAN statement include:
-- Dr. Arvid Carlsson,winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine -- Vyvyan Howard, MD, PhD, President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment -- Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, Environmental Working Group -- Lois Gibbs, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice -- Joseph Mercola, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, who runs the #1 most visited natural health website -- Theo Colborn, PhD, co-author, “Our Stolen Future” -- Sam Epstein, MD, Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition -- The current and six past Presidents of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology -- Board of Directors (2007), American Academy of Environmental Medicine -- FIVE Goldman Prize winners - given for excellence in protecting the environment -- Three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology -- Three officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters -- Hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.
Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”
An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement is available on FAN's web site, http://congress.fluorideaction.net
Fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies, according to data presented in a 2006 National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) report. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children's teeth. (11) At least three panel members advise avoiding fluoridated water.
“The NRC fluoride report dramatically changed scientific understanding of fluoride's health risks," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network. "Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” he added.
The Professionals’ Statement also references:
-- The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula NOT be prepared with fluoridated water. -- The CDC’s concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic. -- CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children. -- Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. -- A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and bone cancer.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, “It is time for the US to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it's as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.”
Adverse health effects of fluoride: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health
References:
(1a) http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/Press%20Release.%20Fluoride.htm
(1) http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm
(2) http://www.fluoridealert.org/cape.html
(3) National Kidney Foundation, “Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease,” April 15, 2008
http://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf
(4) "Adding fluoride to water supplies," British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, Iain Chalmers, Trevor A. Sheldon, October 6, 2007
(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
(6) http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2840202
(7) http://www.swabvt.org/node/300
(8) http://www.draytonvalleywesternreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1373584
(9) http://www.goskagit.com/home/article/commissioners_vote_to_halt_fluoride_program/
(10) http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090303/NEWS0301/90303100/1009/NEWS01
(11) National Research Council (2003-2006): Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/
(12) "State oral health director challenged over comments about fluoridation," March 10, 2009,by Kathryn Lucariello, Carroll County News http://www.carrollconews.com/story/1509198.html
(13) Biological Trace Element Research, “Serum Fluoride and Sialic Acid Levels in Osteosarcoma,” by Sandhu R, Lal H, Kundu ZS, Kharb S, Apr 24, 2009 [Epub ahead of print]
SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideAction.Net
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Galway Water Shock - Part Two! Not Just Lead...
For the people of GALWAY , who are currently experiencing high levels of lead in their water, there is another, hidden, effect that has been affecting them for almost two generations now. The constant leaching from LEAD pipes into the water system is aggravated by the use of what is termed “fluoride” in Irish tapwater, but that is actually a waste product from the steel, aluminium and phosphate fertiliser industries called hydrofluorosilicic acid. This acid causes even greater deterioration of lead and aluminium piping and actually chemically binds with these metals to cause greater deposition of lead and aluminium in our bodies. This is linked to higher incidents of heart disease, thyroid problems, Alzheimers Disease and lead in the brain causing lower IQ ratios. All this has been scientifically proven. Please read below for further information. And google www.fluoridealert.org for further information, not fluoridealert.com, which the ADA highjacked for their pro-fluoride campaign. Be prepared for a shock.
TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID (H2SiF6) AS ANALYSED IN DUBLIN ON 14/08/2000 IN A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
CALCIUM 51 PPM
MAGNESIUM 23.9 PPM
SODIUM(NA) 33.6 PPM
POTASSIUM(K) 6.2 PPM
ALUMINIUM 2.1 PPM
BORON 14 PPB
MANGANESE 571 PPB
COPPER 90 PPB
ZINC 523 PPB
PHOSPHORUS 26187 PPM
BARIUM 168 PPB
IRON 11.85 PPM
SULPHUR 134.9 PPM
ARSENIC 4826 PPB
CADMIUM 4 PPB
CHROMIUM 3763 PPB
MERCURY 5 PPB
NICKEL 1742 PPB
LEAD 15 PPB
SELENIUM 2401 PPB
THALLIUM <2 PPB
ANTIMONY 14 PPB
TIN 4 PPB
COBALT 56 PPB
STRONTIUM 88 PPB
MOLYBDENUM 490 PPB
BERYLLIUM <2 PPB
VANADIUM 87 PPB
BEAR IN MIND THAT THE ABOVE IS JUST WHAT IS IN THE FLUORIDATING AGENT!
INCREDIBLY, THE REGULATION OF THE COMPOSITION IS LEFT TO THE FERTILISER COMPANIES WHICH ARE SUPPLYING THIS CHEMICAL WASTE COCKTAIL FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION!!
DUE TO ITS PROPENSITY TO BIND WITH ALUMINIUM AND LEAD, BY THE TIME THE WATER GETS THROUGH OUR WATER SYSTEM THE VOLUMES OF THOSE TWO ELEMENTS ARE EVEN HIGHER!
PERSONALLY, I HAVE NEVER LIKED THE TASTE OF IRISH TAPWATER SINCE THE MID 60'S. I WAS TOLD THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TASTE THE FLUORIDE...MAYBE IT WAS PHOSPOROUS AND SULPHUR I WAS TASTING ALL ALONG!!!
Some general points about hydrofluorosilicic acid
Research over the past 30 years indicates that use of fluoride in a public water scheme leads to:
a) higher levels of bone cancer in boys, and brittle bones in adults
b) lower IQ levels (from 6-12 IQ points has been noted)
c)40% of Irish children have fluorosis (mottling of teeth indicating enamel and related bone changes)
d) possible increased incidence of Alzheimer’s Disease (due to fluoride’s propensity to combine with other minerals, mainly lead and aluminium – higher than normal levels of aluminium are recorded in sufferer’s brains, fluoride is retained by the body, usually 50% in adults)
e) fluoride displaces iodine in the body – with evidence of associated thyroid problems
f) no increase in dental caries where fluoride ceases to be added to drinking water
Don’t forget, Ireland is the ONLY country in Europe to fluoridate by statute, only the UK (10% of pop.) and some cities in Spain (3%) permit the addition of fluoride to drinking water. You would think that being the only European fluoridating country that we would have by far the best caries rating, however, we come SIXTH in the league!
We still do not hear the truth about the fluoridation issue from our media. Newburgh (which incidentally used pure sodium fluoride in the trials) has no better dental record 50 years down the line than Kingston, the “control” town that it was compared with. It does, however, have one of the highest heart disease rates in the U.S. “Fluoride concentrates in the arteries, attracting calcium and can contribute directly to their hardening” according to scientists. This high rate of heart disease is shared by Grand Rapids, Michigan, another test town for fluoride in the 1950’s, which doubled its disease rate only 5 years into the trials. And it is shared by Ireland.
Everyone, including the pro-fluoride lobby, agrees that fluoride acts topically, not systemically. OK, so there is no need to swallow it. So WHY do we put it into the drinking water? It is estimated that the “target” for fluoridation, namely 5 –12 year olds who are forming teeth, consume only 0.01% of the water. Isn’t it better to target them through educational methods and selective treatment, rather than a mass medication of everyone?
The “background level” of fluoride in our world is now extremely high. In the 1960’s there was hardly any. In the 2000’s fluoride in toothpaste, food, drinks, and industrial processes is pervasive. Of course, we already brush our teeth with it, but also we eat it, drink it, spray our crops with it, bathe in it, wash our clothes and bed-linen in it, every time we come in contact with something that has used fluoridated tapwater, we add that little bit of fluoride to our bodies. In the 1990’s neurological effects were shown in laboratory animals at 1ppm, which is the level we put into our drinking water! Up until the 1930’s they were trying to get fluoride OUT of water, since then industry has seen to it that what was then a dangerous chemical that caused a number of environmental disasters, was cynically transformed into the essential ingredient for nice shiny teeth! What does it take to open YOUR mind?
TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID (H2SiF6) AS ANALYSED IN DUBLIN ON 14/08/2000 IN A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
CALCIUM 51 PPM
MAGNESIUM 23.9 PPM
SODIUM(NA) 33.6 PPM
POTASSIUM(K) 6.2 PPM
ALUMINIUM 2.1 PPM
BORON 14 PPB
MANGANESE 571 PPB
COPPER 90 PPB
ZINC 523 PPB
PHOSPHORUS 26187 PPM
BARIUM 168 PPB
IRON 11.85 PPM
SULPHUR 134.9 PPM
ARSENIC 4826 PPB
CADMIUM 4 PPB
CHROMIUM 3763 PPB
MERCURY 5 PPB
NICKEL 1742 PPB
LEAD 15 PPB
SELENIUM 2401 PPB
THALLIUM <2 PPB
ANTIMONY 14 PPB
TIN 4 PPB
COBALT 56 PPB
STRONTIUM 88 PPB
MOLYBDENUM 490 PPB
BERYLLIUM <2 PPB
VANADIUM 87 PPB
BEAR IN MIND THAT THE ABOVE IS JUST WHAT IS IN THE FLUORIDATING AGENT!
INCREDIBLY, THE REGULATION OF THE COMPOSITION IS LEFT TO THE FERTILISER COMPANIES WHICH ARE SUPPLYING THIS CHEMICAL WASTE COCKTAIL FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION!!
DUE TO ITS PROPENSITY TO BIND WITH ALUMINIUM AND LEAD, BY THE TIME THE WATER GETS THROUGH OUR WATER SYSTEM THE VOLUMES OF THOSE TWO ELEMENTS ARE EVEN HIGHER!
PERSONALLY, I HAVE NEVER LIKED THE TASTE OF IRISH TAPWATER SINCE THE MID 60'S. I WAS TOLD THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TASTE THE FLUORIDE...MAYBE IT WAS PHOSPOROUS AND SULPHUR I WAS TASTING ALL ALONG!!!
Some general points about hydrofluorosilicic acid
Research over the past 30 years indicates that use of fluoride in a public water scheme leads to:
a) higher levels of bone cancer in boys, and brittle bones in adults
b) lower IQ levels (from 6-12 IQ points has been noted)
c)40% of Irish children have fluorosis (mottling of teeth indicating enamel and related bone changes)
d) possible increased incidence of Alzheimer’s Disease (due to fluoride’s propensity to combine with other minerals, mainly lead and aluminium – higher than normal levels of aluminium are recorded in sufferer’s brains, fluoride is retained by the body, usually 50% in adults)
e) fluoride displaces iodine in the body – with evidence of associated thyroid problems
f) no increase in dental caries where fluoride ceases to be added to drinking water
Don’t forget, Ireland is the ONLY country in Europe to fluoridate by statute, only the UK (10% of pop.) and some cities in Spain (3%) permit the addition of fluoride to drinking water. You would think that being the only European fluoridating country that we would have by far the best caries rating, however, we come SIXTH in the league!
We still do not hear the truth about the fluoridation issue from our media. Newburgh (which incidentally used pure sodium fluoride in the trials) has no better dental record 50 years down the line than Kingston, the “control” town that it was compared with. It does, however, have one of the highest heart disease rates in the U.S. “Fluoride concentrates in the arteries, attracting calcium and can contribute directly to their hardening” according to scientists. This high rate of heart disease is shared by Grand Rapids, Michigan, another test town for fluoride in the 1950’s, which doubled its disease rate only 5 years into the trials. And it is shared by Ireland.
Everyone, including the pro-fluoride lobby, agrees that fluoride acts topically, not systemically. OK, so there is no need to swallow it. So WHY do we put it into the drinking water? It is estimated that the “target” for fluoridation, namely 5 –12 year olds who are forming teeth, consume only 0.01% of the water. Isn’t it better to target them through educational methods and selective treatment, rather than a mass medication of everyone?
The “background level” of fluoride in our world is now extremely high. In the 1960’s there was hardly any. In the 2000’s fluoride in toothpaste, food, drinks, and industrial processes is pervasive. Of course, we already brush our teeth with it, but also we eat it, drink it, spray our crops with it, bathe in it, wash our clothes and bed-linen in it, every time we come in contact with something that has used fluoridated tapwater, we add that little bit of fluoride to our bodies. In the 1990’s neurological effects were shown in laboratory animals at 1ppm, which is the level we put into our drinking water! Up until the 1930’s they were trying to get fluoride OUT of water, since then industry has seen to it that what was then a dangerous chemical that caused a number of environmental disasters, was cynically transformed into the essential ingredient for nice shiny teeth! What does it take to open YOUR mind?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Latest News on Aspartame: Not Good
The latest scientific reports confirm links between aspartame, the ubiquitous artificial sweetener found in most soft drinks and children's drinks, and brain cell disruption and cell death. Check my other blog post on this chemical for links to asthma and hyperactivity...
April 4, 2008
Review raises questions over aspartame and brain health
By staff reporter 03/04/2008- Excessive intake of aspartame may inhibit the ability of enzymes in the brain to function normally, suggests a new review that could fan the flames of controversy over the sweetener.
The review, by scientists from the University of Pretoria and the University of Limpopo and published recently in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, indicated that high consumption of the sweetener may lead to neurodegeneration.
Aspartame is made up of phenylalanine (50 per cent), aspartic acid (40 per cent) and methanol (10 per cent). It is commonly used in food products for the diet or low calorie market, including soft drinks and chewing gums. It was approved for use in foods in the US and EU member states in the early 1980s.
The sweetener has caused much controversy amid suspicions on whether it is entirely safe, with studies linking the ingredient and cancer in rats.
It has also previously been found that aspartame consumption can cause neurological and behavioural disturbances in sensitive individuals. Symptoms that have been reported include headaches, insomnia and seizures.
Despite strong concerns being raised from some quarters over the sweetener, both the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have not changed their guidelines regarding the safety of the ingredient or intake advice.
The new review also challenges finding published last year in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (Informa Healthcase) that considered over 500 studies, articles and reports conducted over the last 25 years - including work that was not published, but that was submitted to government bodies as part of the regulatory approvals process.
The earlier review concluded: “The weight of existing evidence s that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption… No credible evidence was found that aspartame is carcinogenic, neurotoxic, or has any other adverse effect on health when consumed even at quantities many times the established ADI [acceptable daily intake] levels.”
New review
Writing in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a Nature journal, the scientists behind the new review state: “The aim of this study was to discuss the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain, and we propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders, and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning.”
The researchers found a number of direct and indirect changes that occur in the brain as a result of high consumption levels of aspartame, leading to neurodegeneration.
They found aspartame can disturb the metabolism of amino acids, protein structure and metabolism, the integrity of nucleic acids, neuronal function and endocrine balances. It also may change the brain concentrations of catecholamines, which include norepinephrine, epinephrine and domapine.
Additionally, they said the breakdown of aspartame causes nerves to fire excessively, which can indirectly lead to a high rate of neuron depolarisation.
The researchers added: “The energy systems for certain required enzyme reactions become compromised, thus indirectly leading to the inability of enzymes to function optimally.
“The ATP stores [adenosine triphosphate] in the cells are depleted, indicating that low concentrations of glucose are present in the cells, and this in turn will indirectly decrease the synthesis of acetylcholine, glutamate and GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid).”
Furthermore, the functioning of glutamate as an excitatory neurotransmitter is inhibited as a result of the intracellular calcium uptake being altered, and mitochondria are damaged, which the researchers said could lead to apoptosis (cell death) of cells and also a decreased rate of oxidative metabolism.
As a result of their study, the researchers said more testing is required to further determine the health effects on aspartame and bring an end to the controversy.
Source: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition2008, doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866“Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain”Authors: P. Humphries, E. Pretorius, H. Naude
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Thursday, April 3, 2008
April 4, 2008
Review raises questions over aspartame and brain health
By staff reporter 03/04/2008- Excessive intake of aspartame may inhibit the ability of enzymes in the brain to function normally, suggests a new review that could fan the flames of controversy over the sweetener.
The review, by scientists from the University of Pretoria and the University of Limpopo and published recently in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, indicated that high consumption of the sweetener may lead to neurodegeneration.
Aspartame is made up of phenylalanine (50 per cent), aspartic acid (40 per cent) and methanol (10 per cent). It is commonly used in food products for the diet or low calorie market, including soft drinks and chewing gums. It was approved for use in foods in the US and EU member states in the early 1980s.
The sweetener has caused much controversy amid suspicions on whether it is entirely safe, with studies linking the ingredient and cancer in rats.
It has also previously been found that aspartame consumption can cause neurological and behavioural disturbances in sensitive individuals. Symptoms that have been reported include headaches, insomnia and seizures.
Despite strong concerns being raised from some quarters over the sweetener, both the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have not changed their guidelines regarding the safety of the ingredient or intake advice.
The new review also challenges finding published last year in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (Informa Healthcase) that considered over 500 studies, articles and reports conducted over the last 25 years - including work that was not published, but that was submitted to government bodies as part of the regulatory approvals process.
The earlier review concluded: “The weight of existing evidence s that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption… No credible evidence was found that aspartame is carcinogenic, neurotoxic, or has any other adverse effect on health when consumed even at quantities many times the established ADI [acceptable daily intake] levels.”
New review
Writing in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a Nature journal, the scientists behind the new review state: “The aim of this study was to discuss the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain, and we propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders, and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning.”
The researchers found a number of direct and indirect changes that occur in the brain as a result of high consumption levels of aspartame, leading to neurodegeneration.
They found aspartame can disturb the metabolism of amino acids, protein structure and metabolism, the integrity of nucleic acids, neuronal function and endocrine balances. It also may change the brain concentrations of catecholamines, which include norepinephrine, epinephrine and domapine.
Additionally, they said the breakdown of aspartame causes nerves to fire excessively, which can indirectly lead to a high rate of neuron depolarisation.
The researchers added: “The energy systems for certain required enzyme reactions become compromised, thus indirectly leading to the inability of enzymes to function optimally.
“The ATP stores [adenosine triphosphate] in the cells are depleted, indicating that low concentrations of glucose are present in the cells, and this in turn will indirectly decrease the synthesis of acetylcholine, glutamate and GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid).”
Furthermore, the functioning of glutamate as an excitatory neurotransmitter is inhibited as a result of the intracellular calcium uptake being altered, and mitochondria are damaged, which the researchers said could lead to apoptosis (cell death) of cells and also a decreased rate of oxidative metabolism.
As a result of their study, the researchers said more testing is required to further determine the health effects on aspartame and bring an end to the controversy.
Source: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition2008, doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866“Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain”Authors: P. Humphries, E. Pretorius, H. Naude
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Thursday, April 3, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Philadelphia Reconsiders Fluoridation
This article covers many of the relevant points that should be made to any governing body anywhere which currently advocates fluoridation and the Pennsylvania experience is in microcosm what other fluoridated areas are going through. Hopefully their City Fathers will do the right thing and halt fluoridation now.
Reprinted from New Jersey Cosmetic Dentistry Blog http://cent4dent.com:80/blog/?p=66
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
The issue of pharmaceuticals in drinking water has hit the mass media in the past couple of months. In response to numbers showing many drug residues in Philadelphia’s drinking water and water sources, Philadelphia City Council held a hearing on the issue. Of the four groups lined up to speak, I was (also) invited so that ActionPA would be one of two environmental groups to testify. With permission from the organizer, I used the opportunity to talk about water fluoridation at the hearing this past Monday.
My testimony is below and attached. Amazingly, it was well-received and when the city council turned around to ask the Philadelphia Water Department to verify if it was true that the fluoridation chemicals aren’t pharmaceutical grade, but are from the phosphate industry, the Water Department confirmed it (and some of my other statements). The affirmed that it’s not necessary or mandatory and that they do it because a city ordinance requires it. Of course, they contradicted me by claiming that they think it’s safe. However, they admitted that they weren’t on top of the recent science on the issue.
I was delighted to see the council president’s special counsel and the mayor’s legislative and government affairs coordinator express interest in it, asking for a copy of my testimony (which I put together after I delivered it). Maybe this is the first crack in the 54-year old fluoridation practice in this city.
Anyway… feel free to use any of this. Most of the info is the same as what we already have on our website, but repackaged for Philadelphia City Council.
Mike—–
Testimony of Mike EwallDirector of ActionPA before City Council Committee on Public Health & Human Services Public Hearing Concerning the Safety of the City’s Drinking Water Resolution #080288
April 14th, 2008
Hi, my name is Mike Ewall and I’m the Founder and Director of ActionPA, a statewide environmental group based here in Philadelphia.
I’m here to speak to the issue of the single most dangerous “drug” in the water – one that is the most preventable.
Others are here to talk about pharmaceutical drugs that are present in waters in parts per trillion (ppt), which is a real concern. The debate is about whether there are health effects at that level and the science is still being developed as more studies are done on the matter.
Philadelphia pays around $1,000,000 per year to put fluoridation chemicals in the water at one part per million (ppm) – a level one million times higher than what we’re talking about with the other drugs. This 1 ppm level is a level at which health effects are intended and expected.
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
However, the “fluoride” that is put in the drinking water isn’t pharmaceutical grade, even though it’s put in the water with a pharmaceutical intention. They’re not squirting toothpaste into the water. The chemical purchased by the Philadelphia Water Department (and 92% of U.S. drinking water systems that fluoridate) is hydrofluosilicic acid, a hazardous waste byproduct of the phosphate industry. Literally, if the same chemicals were dumped into a river or lake, it would be regulated as hazardous waste. However, injecting the same chemicals into drinking water supplies at 1 ppm is considered medication. Legally, upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”, allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Over 99% of fluoridated water is released directly into the environment at around 1 ppm and is not even used for drinking or cooking.
These chemicals are not FDA approved for safety or effectiveness and the delivered chemicals are not batch tested for contaminants, even though these chemicals are known to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive particles and more. The arsenic levels in particular are enough to be at levels that should concern a water system, since they’re high enough to potentially push a water system over the safe drinking water act limit for arsenic (a limit that was lowered in 2001). [See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-arsenic.htm]
Fluoridation not effective at reducing tooth decayThe intended effect of putting hydrofluosilicic acid in the drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. However, data from our own state Department of Health [Oral Health Needs Assessment, 2000] shows that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh, with Philadelphia in second place. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3] Both cities have been fluoridated since the 1950s. National and international data backs this up. Looking at the tooth decay trends in the few countries where fluoridation is common compared to comparable first world countries where fluoridation isn’t used, you can see that tooth decay is falling overall, regardless of fluoridation status. [See 2nd chart at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html] On the national level, a state-by-state review of data from the CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the percentage of U.S. residents with ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ teeth is related directly to income levels and is totally unaffected by the percentage of the state’s population that is receiving fluoridated water. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/50states.pdf] Populations with more tooth decay are those who are poor and can’t afford dental care.
Fluoridation causes discoloration of teeth (fluorosis)
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh also have the state’s highest rates of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the white, brown or yellow spotting (or ‘mottling’) of tooth enamel. It’s a disease named after the fluoride chemicals that cause it. The PA Department of Health data from the aforementioned Oral Health Needs Assessment shows that Philadelphia’s rate of children with dental fluorosis is the highest in the state (25.6%) compared to a state-wide average of 14.9% and a rate in the (largely unfluoridated) Philadelphia suburbs of 9.9%. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3]
Agencies warn not to mix infant formula with fluoridated tap waterIn late 2006, two of the largest organizational promoters of fluoridation – the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control – both issued a press release warning that parents shouldn’t use fluoridated water to mix infant formula for infants in their first year of age. No warnings have gone to fluoridated water customers, however, to let parents of young children know that they’re not supposed to mix infant formula with Philadelphia tap water. [See links to the press releases here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason6]
Scientific studies in recent years show many health problems with fluoride exposure
Various other health problems have been linked to fluoride exposure, as documented many times in recent years. A recent Scientific American article [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/sciam.pdf] brought some of this to popular attention. The landmark study of the issue is the National Research Council’s March 2006 extensive review of over 1,000 scientific studies. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2006.pdf] The National Research Council (NRC) is part of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, which does research for the federal government, in this case, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report concluded that the level determined to be “safe” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unsafe and needs to be lowered to protect public health. EPA’s “no longer considered safe” level of 4 ppm is already dangerously close to the 1 ppm level put in drinking water. Since the dose can’t be controlled, there are some populations that drink more water and are at higher risk, including diabetics and athletes. Health Departments and other fluoridation promoters will argue that the report isn’t relevant to water fluoridation due to the difference between the 4 ppm level studied and the 1 ppm level used. This position has been refuted by one of the NRC report’s authors and others. [See http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html] Additional links on the topic are here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason1
EPA scientists call for national ban on fluoridation
The NRC report affirmed the long-standing position of EPA’s own scientists, who have long objected to the determination that 4 ppm was a “safe” level. In August 2005, eleven EPA unions representing over 7,000 environmental and public health professionals at the federal agency wrote to Congress and called for a national moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young males. The union representing scientists at the EPA Region III office in Philadelphia, which covers Pennsylvania is one of the unions signed onto this statement. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason9]
Fluoride-lead connection implicates fluoridation with violence, drugs and learning problems
Another major concern is the fluoride-lead connection. Some studies have shown that hydrofluosilicic acid leaches lead from pipes. [For the most recent study, see: Neurotoxicology. Sept. 28, 2007, “Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.” RP Maas, SC Patch, AM Christian, MJ Coplan] Other studies have shown that exposure to hydrofluosilicic acid increases the brain’s absorption of lead – especially in African-Americans and Latinos. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason2] The increased exposure to (and absorption of) lead is well known to affect learning ability and IQ. Because it affects the dopamine levels in the brain, the fluoride-enhanced lead exposure has also been implicated with increased affinity for violence and cocaine addiction. That such pressing urban problems could be made worse by fluoridation is cause enough to take precaution and stop adding fluoride acids to the water system.
Philadelphia’s hydrofluosilicic acid purchases; rising chemical costs
Since hydrofluosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate industry, its availability is subject to the trend of falling phosphate production. In late 2007, the American Water Works Association and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued warnings of fluoridation chemical shortages. [See links to these warnings at the bottom section of: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals/shortagesandrisingcosts.html ] As phosphate production has been dropping, the costs of purchasing the chemicals has been rising dramatically, nation-wide. Since at least 1999, Philadelphia’s supplier has been Solvay Fluoride. In 1999, the city paid $447/ton, spending nearly $200,000 on the chemicals that year. In 2007, the city bought the same chemicals for $1,194/ton and the costs are expected to double again in the city’s current purchasing for the coming year. If this expected doubling takes place, the city will now be paying about $1 million a year just for the chemicals, not to mention the cost of handling and administering the chemicals.
State mandate would take away local control and further increase costsThe state legislature is considering House Bill 1649 [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/bills/], which would mandate fluoridation statewide, taking away the rights of local governments to choose whether to fluoridate their water systems. Currently, about 9% of the state’s water systems are fluoridated, affecting 52% of the state’s water customers (it’s mostly the urban systems that are fluoridating). [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/map/] If HB 1649 passes, it’ll nearly double the demand for fluoridation chemicals in the state, making the current chemical shortages even more dire and dramatically pushing the chemical costs even higher. Even if Philadelphia wanted to keep fluoridating forever, it’s in the city’s financial interest not to see HB 1649 pass, since the mandate would further drive up the cost to the city.
City Council can take precaution, repeal the 1951 ordinance and save moneyIn the medical profession, there is the principle “first, do no harm.” This precautionary principle should be applied in this case – where there is mounting evidence of harm, very questionable benefit and no requirement that the practice continue. The only requirement currently in place is a 1951 city ordinance that caused the city’s water to start being fluoridated in 1954. [The ordinance and related documents provided by the Philadelphia Water Department can be found here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/philly/]
In light of the mounting costs and rising awareness of health and social problems relating to fluoridation, City Council is encouraged to repeal the 1951 ordinance and instruct the Philadelphia Water Department to cease water fluoridation – which would also save the city around $1 million or more a year. Ending water fluoridation can be done through a simple DEP permit process. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/383-2125-001.pdf]
There are many credentialed scientific experts who are familiar with the newest science on water fluoridation and fluoride exposure. I’d encourage this committee to invite some of these experts to the hearings on this important topic – and I’d be glad to provide access to these experts.
If the city wanted to effectively address the tooth decay problem, the savings from ending water fluoridation could be used to hire dentists that could treat eligible low-income city residents who can’t afford dental care.
Thank you.
Mike EwallFounder & DirectorActionPA1434 Elbridge St.Philadelphia, PA 19149215-743-4884catalyst@actionpa.orghttp://www.actionpa.org
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 16th, 2008
Reprinted from New Jersey Cosmetic Dentistry Blog http://cent4dent.com:80/blog/?p=66
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
The issue of pharmaceuticals in drinking water has hit the mass media in the past couple of months. In response to numbers showing many drug residues in Philadelphia’s drinking water and water sources, Philadelphia City Council held a hearing on the issue. Of the four groups lined up to speak, I was (also) invited so that ActionPA would be one of two environmental groups to testify. With permission from the organizer, I used the opportunity to talk about water fluoridation at the hearing this past Monday.
My testimony is below and attached. Amazingly, it was well-received and when the city council turned around to ask the Philadelphia Water Department to verify if it was true that the fluoridation chemicals aren’t pharmaceutical grade, but are from the phosphate industry, the Water Department confirmed it (and some of my other statements). The affirmed that it’s not necessary or mandatory and that they do it because a city ordinance requires it. Of course, they contradicted me by claiming that they think it’s safe. However, they admitted that they weren’t on top of the recent science on the issue.
I was delighted to see the council president’s special counsel and the mayor’s legislative and government affairs coordinator express interest in it, asking for a copy of my testimony (which I put together after I delivered it). Maybe this is the first crack in the 54-year old fluoridation practice in this city.
Anyway… feel free to use any of this. Most of the info is the same as what we already have on our website, but repackaged for Philadelphia City Council.
Mike—–
Testimony of Mike EwallDirector of ActionPA before City Council Committee on Public Health & Human Services Public Hearing Concerning the Safety of the City’s Drinking Water Resolution #080288
April 14th, 2008
Hi, my name is Mike Ewall and I’m the Founder and Director of ActionPA, a statewide environmental group based here in Philadelphia.
I’m here to speak to the issue of the single most dangerous “drug” in the water – one that is the most preventable.
Others are here to talk about pharmaceutical drugs that are present in waters in parts per trillion (ppt), which is a real concern. The debate is about whether there are health effects at that level and the science is still being developed as more studies are done on the matter.
Philadelphia pays around $1,000,000 per year to put fluoridation chemicals in the water at one part per million (ppm) – a level one million times higher than what we’re talking about with the other drugs. This 1 ppm level is a level at which health effects are intended and expected.
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
However, the “fluoride” that is put in the drinking water isn’t pharmaceutical grade, even though it’s put in the water with a pharmaceutical intention. They’re not squirting toothpaste into the water. The chemical purchased by the Philadelphia Water Department (and 92% of U.S. drinking water systems that fluoridate) is hydrofluosilicic acid, a hazardous waste byproduct of the phosphate industry. Literally, if the same chemicals were dumped into a river or lake, it would be regulated as hazardous waste. However, injecting the same chemicals into drinking water supplies at 1 ppm is considered medication. Legally, upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”, allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Over 99% of fluoridated water is released directly into the environment at around 1 ppm and is not even used for drinking or cooking.
These chemicals are not FDA approved for safety or effectiveness and the delivered chemicals are not batch tested for contaminants, even though these chemicals are known to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive particles and more. The arsenic levels in particular are enough to be at levels that should concern a water system, since they’re high enough to potentially push a water system over the safe drinking water act limit for arsenic (a limit that was lowered in 2001). [See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-arsenic.htm]
Fluoridation not effective at reducing tooth decayThe intended effect of putting hydrofluosilicic acid in the drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. However, data from our own state Department of Health [Oral Health Needs Assessment, 2000] shows that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh, with Philadelphia in second place. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3] Both cities have been fluoridated since the 1950s. National and international data backs this up. Looking at the tooth decay trends in the few countries where fluoridation is common compared to comparable first world countries where fluoridation isn’t used, you can see that tooth decay is falling overall, regardless of fluoridation status. [See 2nd chart at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html] On the national level, a state-by-state review of data from the CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the percentage of U.S. residents with ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ teeth is related directly to income levels and is totally unaffected by the percentage of the state’s population that is receiving fluoridated water. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/50states.pdf] Populations with more tooth decay are those who are poor and can’t afford dental care.
Fluoridation causes discoloration of teeth (fluorosis)
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh also have the state’s highest rates of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the white, brown or yellow spotting (or ‘mottling’) of tooth enamel. It’s a disease named after the fluoride chemicals that cause it. The PA Department of Health data from the aforementioned Oral Health Needs Assessment shows that Philadelphia’s rate of children with dental fluorosis is the highest in the state (25.6%) compared to a state-wide average of 14.9% and a rate in the (largely unfluoridated) Philadelphia suburbs of 9.9%. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3]
Agencies warn not to mix infant formula with fluoridated tap waterIn late 2006, two of the largest organizational promoters of fluoridation – the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control – both issued a press release warning that parents shouldn’t use fluoridated water to mix infant formula for infants in their first year of age. No warnings have gone to fluoridated water customers, however, to let parents of young children know that they’re not supposed to mix infant formula with Philadelphia tap water. [See links to the press releases here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason6]
Scientific studies in recent years show many health problems with fluoride exposure
Various other health problems have been linked to fluoride exposure, as documented many times in recent years. A recent Scientific American article [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/sciam.pdf] brought some of this to popular attention. The landmark study of the issue is the National Research Council’s March 2006 extensive review of over 1,000 scientific studies. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2006.pdf] The National Research Council (NRC) is part of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, which does research for the federal government, in this case, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report concluded that the level determined to be “safe” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unsafe and needs to be lowered to protect public health. EPA’s “no longer considered safe” level of 4 ppm is already dangerously close to the 1 ppm level put in drinking water. Since the dose can’t be controlled, there are some populations that drink more water and are at higher risk, including diabetics and athletes. Health Departments and other fluoridation promoters will argue that the report isn’t relevant to water fluoridation due to the difference between the 4 ppm level studied and the 1 ppm level used. This position has been refuted by one of the NRC report’s authors and others. [See http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html] Additional links on the topic are here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason1
EPA scientists call for national ban on fluoridation
The NRC report affirmed the long-standing position of EPA’s own scientists, who have long objected to the determination that 4 ppm was a “safe” level. In August 2005, eleven EPA unions representing over 7,000 environmental and public health professionals at the federal agency wrote to Congress and called for a national moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young males. The union representing scientists at the EPA Region III office in Philadelphia, which covers Pennsylvania is one of the unions signed onto this statement. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason9]
Fluoride-lead connection implicates fluoridation with violence, drugs and learning problems
Another major concern is the fluoride-lead connection. Some studies have shown that hydrofluosilicic acid leaches lead from pipes. [For the most recent study, see: Neurotoxicology. Sept. 28, 2007, “Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.” RP Maas, SC Patch, AM Christian, MJ Coplan] Other studies have shown that exposure to hydrofluosilicic acid increases the brain’s absorption of lead – especially in African-Americans and Latinos. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason2] The increased exposure to (and absorption of) lead is well known to affect learning ability and IQ. Because it affects the dopamine levels in the brain, the fluoride-enhanced lead exposure has also been implicated with increased affinity for violence and cocaine addiction. That such pressing urban problems could be made worse by fluoridation is cause enough to take precaution and stop adding fluoride acids to the water system.
Philadelphia’s hydrofluosilicic acid purchases; rising chemical costs
Since hydrofluosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate industry, its availability is subject to the trend of falling phosphate production. In late 2007, the American Water Works Association and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued warnings of fluoridation chemical shortages. [See links to these warnings at the bottom section of: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals/shortagesandrisingcosts.html ] As phosphate production has been dropping, the costs of purchasing the chemicals has been rising dramatically, nation-wide. Since at least 1999, Philadelphia’s supplier has been Solvay Fluoride. In 1999, the city paid $447/ton, spending nearly $200,000 on the chemicals that year. In 2007, the city bought the same chemicals for $1,194/ton and the costs are expected to double again in the city’s current purchasing for the coming year. If this expected doubling takes place, the city will now be paying about $1 million a year just for the chemicals, not to mention the cost of handling and administering the chemicals.
State mandate would take away local control and further increase costsThe state legislature is considering House Bill 1649 [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/bills/], which would mandate fluoridation statewide, taking away the rights of local governments to choose whether to fluoridate their water systems. Currently, about 9% of the state’s water systems are fluoridated, affecting 52% of the state’s water customers (it’s mostly the urban systems that are fluoridating). [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/map/] If HB 1649 passes, it’ll nearly double the demand for fluoridation chemicals in the state, making the current chemical shortages even more dire and dramatically pushing the chemical costs even higher. Even if Philadelphia wanted to keep fluoridating forever, it’s in the city’s financial interest not to see HB 1649 pass, since the mandate would further drive up the cost to the city.
City Council can take precaution, repeal the 1951 ordinance and save moneyIn the medical profession, there is the principle “first, do no harm.” This precautionary principle should be applied in this case – where there is mounting evidence of harm, very questionable benefit and no requirement that the practice continue. The only requirement currently in place is a 1951 city ordinance that caused the city’s water to start being fluoridated in 1954. [The ordinance and related documents provided by the Philadelphia Water Department can be found here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/philly/]
In light of the mounting costs and rising awareness of health and social problems relating to fluoridation, City Council is encouraged to repeal the 1951 ordinance and instruct the Philadelphia Water Department to cease water fluoridation – which would also save the city around $1 million or more a year. Ending water fluoridation can be done through a simple DEP permit process. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/383-2125-001.pdf]
There are many credentialed scientific experts who are familiar with the newest science on water fluoridation and fluoride exposure. I’d encourage this committee to invite some of these experts to the hearings on this important topic – and I’d be glad to provide access to these experts.
If the city wanted to effectively address the tooth decay problem, the savings from ending water fluoridation could be used to hire dentists that could treat eligible low-income city residents who can’t afford dental care.
Thank you.
Mike EwallFounder & DirectorActionPA1434 Elbridge St.Philadelphia, PA 19149215-743-4884catalyst@actionpa.orghttp://www.actionpa.org
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 16th, 2008
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Birmingham,UK held up as example of fluoride success - NOT!
SO, Once again the "powers that be" decide what is best for us without any definitive evidence to support their claims! I have been listening to SKY News today and the debate that is once again being dragged through the media (NO BAD THING) about whether it is better to fluoride our drinking water in order to save us all from our bad dental hygiene and dietary habits or whether hydrofluorocilicic acid is actually a manufacturing waste that is accumulating in our bodies and slowly (but surely) causing the rise of osteoporosis, brittle bones, lower IQ, Alzheimers Disease and underactive thyroid.... (it actually is, unfortunately).
Just to put the debate into some kind of perspective, below I have reprinted an article issued in 2003 which refers to the fact that Birmingham UK has NOT benefited from 40 years of fluoridation - at least no more than the 70% decreases in dental caries also experienced by NON-FLUORIDATED EU countries over the last 50 years!
When listening to the claims of the pro-fluoride brigade one must pay as much attention to what they don't say!
So, when they say Birmingham has 50% fewer cavities, demand to see the evidence - personally, I would love to see it. But it does not actually exist.
If you really want to learn about the harm that fluoridation does to communities, read this blog. watch the videos, check out fluoridealert.org (NOT fluoridealert.com which the American Dental Association hijacked in order to confuse those who were seeking to research the fluoride debate), read, read, read...then ask, WHY?!
Any questions, euesireland@eircom.net
Daily Mail - LondonTuesday 08 July 2003FLUORIDEby Bob Woffinden
TOMORROW, peers will be asked to approve a piece of legislation so sinister, so Draconian and so far-reaching in its implications that it is hard to believe it is happening with barely a murmur of protest.
The new Bill will force water companies to add fluoride to all drinking water when ordered to do so by local health authorities - in other words, millions of us will be forced to take medication against our will.
It sounds like a totalitarian nightmare, and it is. Once fluoride is in the water supply, everyone will be exposed to it. It will be in our tea, coffee, food, and absorbed through the pores of our skin when we take baths or showers. For years, dental authorities have lobbied for fluoridation, arguing it prevents decay in children's teeth - but dentists should play no part in the debate. The first, and most important, consideration is not teeth, but whether fluoride has adverse effects on the human body. There is mounting evidence that it does.
Cancer, osteoporosis, kidney problems and skeletal fluorosis - a crippling disease which causes muscle weakness and gastrointestinal disorders - have all been linked in scientific studies to fluoridation.
How ironic that, when France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have all rejected mass water fluoridation, our government is embracing it with such enthusiasm.
Why? After all, even the evidence that adding fluoride to water prevents tooth decay is patchy. In December 2002, four leading British scientists, who had reviewed the subject, wrote to the Government pointing this out.
They said the effects of fluoride on teeth could range from 'a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit'. In other words, fluoride might actually be harming children's teeth.
We shouldn't really be surprised when we consider the origins of fluoridation. The Americans were the first to add fluorides - chemical compounds used by modern industry and commerce, which, once in the body, build up in teeth and bone - to water after World War II.
The plan was to study a fluoridated city and a non-fluoridated one in a five-year scientific experiment to see whether children's teeth improved.
HOWEVER, the experiment was never carried out.
Within 18 months, the control city was also fluoridated on the grounds it was unfair to deprive children there of the 'benefits' of fluoridation.
So, instead of reaching a conclusion based on research, it was decided by the U.S. medical authorities, and the research was abandoned.
Yet despite this, fluoridation spread. Harold Wilson introduced it to Britain in the Sixties when about ten per cent of our water supply, reaching five million people, was fluoridated - mainly Birmingham, the West Midlands, and the Newcastle area. Much of the U.S. followed suit, as did Ireland and parts of Australia and New Zealand.
Forty years later, however, it has still not been conclusively proved that fluoride benefits children's teeth. One British study found children in fluoridated areas suffered, on average, 15 per cent less tooth decay compared to those in non-fluoridated areas.
But studies in Finland, Germany, Cuba and Canada found the rate of dental decay did not increase when communities stopped fluoridation.
So how is it supposed to work?
Well, astonishingly, no one knows.
One of the main possibilities is that it helps the re-mineralisation of teeth enamel.
If this is true, then it is a process that works simply through fluoride being applied to the surface of the teeth. Therefore, the benefits can be obtained through fluoride toothpaste, and there is no point in adding fluoride to the water supply.
A second way in which fluoride might work is by suppressing the enzymes that cause the build-up of the acid that leads to tooth decay.
But is fluoride clever enough to know that it should affect just those enzymes and no others? Of course not. Different enzymes will react to fluoride in different ways, and some enzyme systems will function less efficiently.
There will also be a range of individual responses to fluoride, in which age, sex, race and genetic susceptibility will play a part. It is a chilling thought, but if the Government adds fluoride to the water supply, then it will be saying to some people, we are going to make you ill.
Once fluoride is in the body, one of its actions is to displace iodine, which ensures the correct functioning of the thyroid gland.
The consequences of an underperforming thyroid include muscle and joint pain, high cholesterol, heart disease, weight gain, fatigue and low energy levels. Not surprisingly, having an underactive thyroid is a increasing problem for people in the U.S., the world's most fluoridated country.
In the Eighties, scientists wondered whether fluoride could help treat bone disease, and gave fluoride to patients suffering from osteoporosis in an attempt to harden their bones and prevent fractures.
The trials had to be abandoned, however, when it became clear that patients were suffering more fractures. Studies have also linked fluoride to osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer.
Even more alarmingly, reports from China have shown that children growing up in fluoridated areas have lower IQs than those in non-fluoride areas.
Birmingham has been fluoridated for 35 years, so one might expect people's teeth to be in a better condition than elsewhere in the country. Yet that is not the case. The cost of dental treatment per person in Birmingham is as high as in other major cities.
But why is this government so in thrall to the pro-fluoridation lobby?
Ministers point to statistics showing that by the age of five, two out of three children in the most deprived parts of the country have at least one rotten tooth.
Fluoridation is a way of acting when feckless parents won't.
Yet it is precisely these children whose bodies are already low in calcium, magnesium and essential nutrients who are going to be most at risk from fluoride poisoning.
More cynically, campaigners attribute ministers' enthusiasm to astute lobbying from the big chemical companies.
Fluoride is a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry. If it was classified as toxic waste, firms would have to pay to get it cleaned up. But if they persuade the Government that fluoride should be added to our water supply, then they can make money from it.
LIKE previous administrations, this government has started from the conclusion that fluoridation is a good thing. Plan A was to gather government-friendly scientists to give fluoride the all clear.
That was the York Review of September 2000, which, unfortunately, concluded there had been few studies into fluoride's harmful effects, and emphasised the need for research into the links between fluoride and 'infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ'.
So Plan B was to get together an even friendlier group of scientists from the Medical Research Council. However, in September 2002, even its report acknowledged that 'little high quality research has been undertaken in the area of fluoride and health'. Plan C, wheeled out just days ago, was to go ahead with fluoridation anyway.
New legislation will indemnify water companies against damage to public health caused by fluoride - in other words, if victims of fluoridation go to court, taxpayers will foot the bill.
Water companies will no longer be allowed to refuse requests by the health authorities to add fluoride to their water.
The Government says fluoride schemes will be subject to public approval.
Just how it intends to obtain this is unclear. Certainly, those unfortunate people in Birmingham were not asked for approval before their city was fluoridated.
Before more of us are exposed to the potential dangers of fluoridation we are entitled to an answer to the following question - is there published peer-reviewed scientific research linking fluoride to cancer, poor thyroid function, stillbirths, Down's syndrome, the early onset of puberty, increased rates of hip fracture, and diminished IQ levels in children?
The straight answer is, 'Yes'. If the Government presses ahead with this sinister programme of forced medication, then political morality will have sunk to new depths.
Fluoride Action Network 802-355-0999 info@fluoridealert.org
Just to put the debate into some kind of perspective, below I have reprinted an article issued in 2003 which refers to the fact that Birmingham UK has NOT benefited from 40 years of fluoridation - at least no more than the 70% decreases in dental caries also experienced by NON-FLUORIDATED EU countries over the last 50 years!
When listening to the claims of the pro-fluoride brigade one must pay as much attention to what they don't say!
So, when they say Birmingham has 50% fewer cavities, demand to see the evidence - personally, I would love to see it. But it does not actually exist.
If you really want to learn about the harm that fluoridation does to communities, read this blog. watch the videos, check out fluoridealert.org (NOT fluoridealert.com which the American Dental Association hijacked in order to confuse those who were seeking to research the fluoride debate), read, read, read...then ask, WHY?!
Any questions, euesireland@eircom.net
Daily Mail - LondonTuesday 08 July 2003FLUORIDEby Bob Woffinden
TOMORROW, peers will be asked to approve a piece of legislation so sinister, so Draconian and so far-reaching in its implications that it is hard to believe it is happening with barely a murmur of protest.
The new Bill will force water companies to add fluoride to all drinking water when ordered to do so by local health authorities - in other words, millions of us will be forced to take medication against our will.
It sounds like a totalitarian nightmare, and it is. Once fluoride is in the water supply, everyone will be exposed to it. It will be in our tea, coffee, food, and absorbed through the pores of our skin when we take baths or showers. For years, dental authorities have lobbied for fluoridation, arguing it prevents decay in children's teeth - but dentists should play no part in the debate. The first, and most important, consideration is not teeth, but whether fluoride has adverse effects on the human body. There is mounting evidence that it does.
Cancer, osteoporosis, kidney problems and skeletal fluorosis - a crippling disease which causes muscle weakness and gastrointestinal disorders - have all been linked in scientific studies to fluoridation.
How ironic that, when France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have all rejected mass water fluoridation, our government is embracing it with such enthusiasm.
Why? After all, even the evidence that adding fluoride to water prevents tooth decay is patchy. In December 2002, four leading British scientists, who had reviewed the subject, wrote to the Government pointing this out.
They said the effects of fluoride on teeth could range from 'a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit'. In other words, fluoride might actually be harming children's teeth.
We shouldn't really be surprised when we consider the origins of fluoridation. The Americans were the first to add fluorides - chemical compounds used by modern industry and commerce, which, once in the body, build up in teeth and bone - to water after World War II.
The plan was to study a fluoridated city and a non-fluoridated one in a five-year scientific experiment to see whether children's teeth improved.
HOWEVER, the experiment was never carried out.
Within 18 months, the control city was also fluoridated on the grounds it was unfair to deprive children there of the 'benefits' of fluoridation.
So, instead of reaching a conclusion based on research, it was decided by the U.S. medical authorities, and the research was abandoned.
Yet despite this, fluoridation spread. Harold Wilson introduced it to Britain in the Sixties when about ten per cent of our water supply, reaching five million people, was fluoridated - mainly Birmingham, the West Midlands, and the Newcastle area. Much of the U.S. followed suit, as did Ireland and parts of Australia and New Zealand.
Forty years later, however, it has still not been conclusively proved that fluoride benefits children's teeth. One British study found children in fluoridated areas suffered, on average, 15 per cent less tooth decay compared to those in non-fluoridated areas.
But studies in Finland, Germany, Cuba and Canada found the rate of dental decay did not increase when communities stopped fluoridation.
So how is it supposed to work?
Well, astonishingly, no one knows.
One of the main possibilities is that it helps the re-mineralisation of teeth enamel.
If this is true, then it is a process that works simply through fluoride being applied to the surface of the teeth. Therefore, the benefits can be obtained through fluoride toothpaste, and there is no point in adding fluoride to the water supply.
A second way in which fluoride might work is by suppressing the enzymes that cause the build-up of the acid that leads to tooth decay.
But is fluoride clever enough to know that it should affect just those enzymes and no others? Of course not. Different enzymes will react to fluoride in different ways, and some enzyme systems will function less efficiently.
There will also be a range of individual responses to fluoride, in which age, sex, race and genetic susceptibility will play a part. It is a chilling thought, but if the Government adds fluoride to the water supply, then it will be saying to some people, we are going to make you ill.
Once fluoride is in the body, one of its actions is to displace iodine, which ensures the correct functioning of the thyroid gland.
The consequences of an underperforming thyroid include muscle and joint pain, high cholesterol, heart disease, weight gain, fatigue and low energy levels. Not surprisingly, having an underactive thyroid is a increasing problem for people in the U.S., the world's most fluoridated country.
In the Eighties, scientists wondered whether fluoride could help treat bone disease, and gave fluoride to patients suffering from osteoporosis in an attempt to harden their bones and prevent fractures.
The trials had to be abandoned, however, when it became clear that patients were suffering more fractures. Studies have also linked fluoride to osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer.
Even more alarmingly, reports from China have shown that children growing up in fluoridated areas have lower IQs than those in non-fluoride areas.
Birmingham has been fluoridated for 35 years, so one might expect people's teeth to be in a better condition than elsewhere in the country. Yet that is not the case. The cost of dental treatment per person in Birmingham is as high as in other major cities.
But why is this government so in thrall to the pro-fluoridation lobby?
Ministers point to statistics showing that by the age of five, two out of three children in the most deprived parts of the country have at least one rotten tooth.
Fluoridation is a way of acting when feckless parents won't.
Yet it is precisely these children whose bodies are already low in calcium, magnesium and essential nutrients who are going to be most at risk from fluoride poisoning.
More cynically, campaigners attribute ministers' enthusiasm to astute lobbying from the big chemical companies.
Fluoride is a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry. If it was classified as toxic waste, firms would have to pay to get it cleaned up. But if they persuade the Government that fluoride should be added to our water supply, then they can make money from it.
LIKE previous administrations, this government has started from the conclusion that fluoridation is a good thing. Plan A was to gather government-friendly scientists to give fluoride the all clear.
That was the York Review of September 2000, which, unfortunately, concluded there had been few studies into fluoride's harmful effects, and emphasised the need for research into the links between fluoride and 'infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ'.
So Plan B was to get together an even friendlier group of scientists from the Medical Research Council. However, in September 2002, even its report acknowledged that 'little high quality research has been undertaken in the area of fluoride and health'. Plan C, wheeled out just days ago, was to go ahead with fluoridation anyway.
New legislation will indemnify water companies against damage to public health caused by fluoride - in other words, if victims of fluoridation go to court, taxpayers will foot the bill.
Water companies will no longer be allowed to refuse requests by the health authorities to add fluoride to their water.
The Government says fluoride schemes will be subject to public approval.
Just how it intends to obtain this is unclear. Certainly, those unfortunate people in Birmingham were not asked for approval before their city was fluoridated.
Before more of us are exposed to the potential dangers of fluoridation we are entitled to an answer to the following question - is there published peer-reviewed scientific research linking fluoride to cancer, poor thyroid function, stillbirths, Down's syndrome, the early onset of puberty, increased rates of hip fracture, and diminished IQ levels in children?
The straight answer is, 'Yes'. If the Government presses ahead with this sinister programme of forced medication, then political morality will have sunk to new depths.
Fluoride Action Network 802-355-0999 info@fluoridealert.org
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Fluoride Causes Harm - The Facts vs The Rhetoric
Region's fluoride (rejection) decision justified!
Posted 23 hours ago
The decision on Thursday night of Regional Council's Committee of the Whole in Niagara to vote down a motion to fluoridate all of Niagara's municipal water was a good one for the community.
As the Region of Niagara has 12 communities and only one full community (Welland) which has received water fluoridation for over 40 years, its uniqueness to assess the impact of fluoridation was more obvious than in most communities.
Dr. Klooz, Associate Commissioner of Health for the region, presented data at a public meeting in July which revealed Welland children have higher tooth decay rates, at many different ages, after years of exposure to fluoridation in Welland's water supply.
At the committee meeting, local dentists made claims about the benefits of water fluoridation and ignored the local data. On average, compared to other regional children, tooth decay rates are up 27 per cent in Welland.
Many councillors voiced their concerns over possible negative health effects and the inability to control the dose of fluoride from one individual to another, considering there are many more sources of fluoride in our diets and the environment than years ago. They were also concerned about the fact the Public Works Department confirmed the chemical used for water fluoridation is not a pure product and does contain trace amounts of lead, arsenic and other contaminants which they do not have a process to remove, only dilute.
The issue of water fluoridation should not be surrounded by emotion and fear mongering about the possible outbreak of rampant tooth decay, but simply about new science that has evolved.
Modern medical science has brought forward new studies and awareness about adding synthetic toxins to our diets and the environment.
We need to educate the public about dental hygiene, good nutrition and to fight poverty, not throw more fluoride at the problem.
Cindy Mayor
Waterdown
From the Welland Tribune, Ontario, Canada - January 26th,2008
Posted 23 hours ago
The decision on Thursday night of Regional Council's Committee of the Whole in Niagara to vote down a motion to fluoridate all of Niagara's municipal water was a good one for the community.
As the Region of Niagara has 12 communities and only one full community (Welland) which has received water fluoridation for over 40 years, its uniqueness to assess the impact of fluoridation was more obvious than in most communities.
Dr. Klooz, Associate Commissioner of Health for the region, presented data at a public meeting in July which revealed Welland children have higher tooth decay rates, at many different ages, after years of exposure to fluoridation in Welland's water supply.
At the committee meeting, local dentists made claims about the benefits of water fluoridation and ignored the local data. On average, compared to other regional children, tooth decay rates are up 27 per cent in Welland.
Many councillors voiced their concerns over possible negative health effects and the inability to control the dose of fluoride from one individual to another, considering there are many more sources of fluoride in our diets and the environment than years ago. They were also concerned about the fact the Public Works Department confirmed the chemical used for water fluoridation is not a pure product and does contain trace amounts of lead, arsenic and other contaminants which they do not have a process to remove, only dilute.
The issue of water fluoridation should not be surrounded by emotion and fear mongering about the possible outbreak of rampant tooth decay, but simply about new science that has evolved.
Modern medical science has brought forward new studies and awareness about adding synthetic toxins to our diets and the environment.
We need to educate the public about dental hygiene, good nutrition and to fight poverty, not throw more fluoride at the problem.
Cindy Mayor
Waterdown
From the Welland Tribune, Ontario, Canada - January 26th,2008
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Australia's Big Fluoride Mistake by Cap'n Anna Bligh!
One has to admire a politician who sees a problem and takes decisive steps to remedy it. However, in the case of Queensland Premier Anna Bligh's decision to fluoridate Queensland, the last remaining part of Australia not fluoridated, one can only wonder if she bothered to read the following recent Open Letter to the Queensland Government from knowledgable and concerned medical professionals denouncing fluoridation as a failed policy. And if she did read it, how did she follow up her investigations on it? Where is the open and frank discussion of a hotly debated "health" policy? And given the overwhelming modern science showing the negative effects of fluoridation, as opposed to the mid-1900's "pseudo-science" proposing it is safe and effective, how could she possibly have enough faith in this toxic chemical to prescribe it to the whole population without any medical discussion whatsoever???!
Also, view my post on the effects of fluoridation on black ethnic (incl Aboriginal) groups and the higher incidence of cancer and related diseases in fluoridated areas.
Also, view my post on the effects of fluoridation on black ethnic (incl Aboriginal) groups and the higher incidence of cancer and related diseases in fluoridated areas.
http://www.smile.org.au/Images/Open%20Letter%20040830.pdf
OPEN LETTER
The Premier of Queensland
Queensland Minister for Health
Lord Mayor of Brisbane
Deputy Lord Mayor of Brisbane
Councillors, all Cities and Shires of Queensland
We wish to express our grave concerns regarding renewed proposals to fluoridate
Queensland’s water supplies. Fluoridation began at a time when asbestos lined our pipes,
when lead was added to petrol, and DDT was regarded as safe and effective. These
chemicals have now been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/absurdity.htm
Research is now raising doubts about fluoridation’s effectiveness. Data compiled by the
World Health Organization shows tooth decay has declined at a similar rate in all
Western Countries, irrespective of each country’s water or salt fluoridation status.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/WHO-DMFT.htm
New evidence for potential serious harm from long-term fluoride ingestion
is also emerging. This evidence is summarised on the following web sites:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm
It is extraordinary that the same people who reject abundant global evidence about the
association between fluoride ingestion and organ damage (e.g. to bones, teeth, glands, or
immune system), embrace the questionable science used to support its benefits. They
ignore the many confounding possible influences in this research. This includes sugar
consumption (averaging 1 kg per week per person in Australia) much of which is hidden,
other nutritional influences, general dental hygiene, use of floss and movements in
population.
Recent studies by several eminent researchers strongly suggest that fluoride works
primarily by topical means through direct action on the surface of the teeth via
toothpaste, or gels used in dental treatments http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
see: XIII, 'topical versus systemic effects', (Centers for Disease Control {CDC}1999 and
2001). Ingestion of fluoride through drinking fluoridated water is not essential or
effective for caries reduction.
Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, BSc, (Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry,
University of Toronto and Past President of the Canadian Association for Dental
Research) apologised in 1999 for inadvertently misleading both his colleagues and dental
students in his support for fluoridation. Addressing them he concluded: “For the past 15
years, I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to
anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind” .
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/1537.html
The fluoridating agent most commonly used is a hazardous contaminated industrial-grade
product from the phosphate fertilizer industry .
http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm
We strongly reject the notion that placing a chronic poison in our water supplies is clever
preventive medicine.
We represent 1500 doctors, dentists, scientists and others working in the interests of
public health who are primarily interested in prevention and early intervention in disease
processes.
The question of fluoridation was considered with care, openness and good representation
by the Lord Mayor’s Task Force in 1997 which came down clearly against fluoridating
Brisbane’s water supply .
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-4/314-232.htm
It is astounding that this issue could again be raised in Queensland in an apparently coordinated
national campaign. No new evidence has been put forward to our knowledge
that would warrant a revision of the 1997 decision.
We will urge Queenslanders to study the evidence showing potential serious harm from
long-term fluoride ingestion and to inform their councillors and state members how they
feel about this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Doug Everingham MBBS
1972-75 Australian Minister for Health
World Health Assembly 1975
National Delegation Leader
and Vice-President for Western Pacific WHO region
Dr Eric Davis
BDSc Dip. Clin. Nutr. FACNEM
Qld Chair ASOMAT, Past National President ASOMAT
(ASOMAT is the Australasian Society of Oral Medicine and Toxicology – a Dental
Practitioners’ Association)
(FACNEM is Fellowship of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental
Medicine - ACNEM)
Dr Gary Deed
MBBS (Qld) FACNEM
Qld Board Member ACNEM
Qld Chair and National Vice President AIMA (Australian Integrative Medicine
Association)
Chair, Diabetes Australia (Qld)
Dr Barry Ryan
MBBS (Qld) FACNEM
American Board Certified, Environmental Medicine
Member, Brisbane Lord Mayor’s Taskforce on Fluoride 1997
Dr Philip Stowell
MBBS (London) FACNEM
Qld Board Member FACNEM
Dr John Ryan
MBBS Qld FRACGP, DCH (Irel)
MSc Nutrition with Distinction (London)
FACNEM, FAMAC, MRCGP (UK)
Past Qld President ACNEM AMAC & AIMA
CMEC Member, Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia
Deputy Chair, Council, Australian College of Natural Medicine (ACNM)
Chair, Human Research Ethics Committee (ACNM)
Nea Cameron-Smith RN
Past Secretary, Australian College of Holistic Nurses
Dr Kris Mylonas
MBBS Qld FACNEM
Post-grad Dip.Acup BCTANT
Chair, Brisbane Bayside Division of General Practice Committee for
GP Health & Wellbeing
Chair, Brisbane Bayside Division of General Practice Committee for
Continuing Professional Education/Development
Shirley Strachan ND BHSc(Comp Med) MA(Hons)History Grad Dip(Mar Arch)
Mark Diesendorf BSc PhD
Adjunct Professor, Murdoch University
Director, Sustainability Centre Pty Ltd
Dr Robyn Cosford
Representing:
Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine
The Australian Integrative Medicine Association
Holistic Dental Association
Mona Vale NSW
Cr Lisa C Intemann BA(Hons) BAppSc DipSocSc
Community Development worker (thirty years)
Wauchope, NSW
Professor Ian Brighthope
MBBS (Melb) BAg FACNEM
Founding Director, President, Australian College of Nutritional & Environmental
Medicine (ACNEM)
Professor Noel Campbell
FACNEM FASID BDSc LDS
Melbourne VIC
Philip Robertson BHSc ND
Lecturer Natural Medicine, Dept Health Science
Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC
Dr Vicki Kotsirilos
MBBS (Monash) FACNEM DipHerbMed, CertAcup, DipHyp
Dr Bogdan Sikorski
Senior Toxicologist
Office of Complementary Medicines
Canberra ACT
Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith PhD (Law)
Coordinator National Toxics Network Inc.
Rivett ACT
Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD DDS
Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto
Toronto Canada
Richard G Foulkes BA MD
Abbotsford British Columbia Canada
Ella Haley BSc PhD
Centre for Global and Social Analysis,
Athabasca University
Alberta Canada
Dr Robert C Dickson MD CCFP
Calgary Alberta Canada
Michelle Meyer ND
Member, Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors
Dr Rosalie Bertell PhD GNSH
Founder and immediate Past President
International Institute of Concern for Public Health www.iicph.org
Canada
Patrick Chapus
President, Association de Sauvegarde du Patrimonine et du Cadre de Vie de Solerieux
or (Association of Safeguard of the Inheritance and the Framework of Life of Solerieux
Solerieux, France
Professor Dr Leo Rebello
ND PhD DSc FFHom
Fellow of the European Medical Association
President, AIDS Alternativa International
World Peace Envoy, Bombay India.
Dr Philip Michael MB BCh BAO MICGP
Chairperson, Irish Doctors' Environmental Association
Ireland
Dr Elizabeth Cullen
MB BCh BAO MSc(Community Health)
Diploma in Pollution Control,
Irish Doctors Environmental Association, Ireland
Irish Dentists Opposed to Fluoridation (61 members) idof@eircom.net
(IDOF's primary aim is to highlight the undemocratic, unethical and unsafe nature of
fluoridation in Ireland)
Endorsed by Dr Don Mac Auley MDS (Dental Surgeon)
Dr Andrew Rynne
Medical Practitioner
Life long campaigner for civil liberty and free choice, writer and
Founder, Clane General Hospital, Co. Kildare
Kildare Ireland
Loty Zilberman MSc
Chemical engineer (Specialized in drug manufacture and toxicology)
Ghivataiim, Israel
Bruce Spittle MB ChB DPM FRANZCP
Dunedin New Zealand
Dr Michael E Godfrey
MBBS (London) FACAM FACNEM
President NZ Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
Director, Bay of Plenty Environmental Health
Tauranga New Zealand
Tohru Murakami DDS PhD
Vice President, Japanese Society for Fluoride Research
Kenichi Narita DDS
Vice President, Japanese Society for Fluoride Research
Kenji Akiniwa DDS
Editor of the Journal of Japanese Society for Fluoride Research
Junji Kato MD PhD
Director of Miyachiyo Kato Clinic, Miyagi Pref, Japan
Member, Medwatcher Japan
Yoshihiro Satoh MD
3-2-6 Shintohna Naruse-Town Miyagi, Japan
Mageswari Sangaralingam
Research Officer
Consumers' Association of Penang
Penang Malaysia
Marie-Lou Roux
Executive Officer: Habitat Council
Cape Town, South Africa
George Cheng
Executive Director
Taiwan (Environmental) Watch Institute, Taiwan
Herlin Hsieh
Researcher
Taiwan (Environmental) Watch Institute, Taiwan
Dr C Vyvyan Howard MB ChB PhD FRCPath.
Developmental Toxico-Pathology Group
Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology
The University of Liverpool
Liverpool UK
Paul Connett PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St Lawrence University
Canton, New York
Roger D Masters PhD
Research Professor and Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government
Department of Government HB
Dartmouth College
Hanover NH USA
Robert J Carton PhD (Environmental Science)
Former Chief, Environmental Compliance US Army Medical Research and Materiel
Command Fort Detrick Maryland USA
Russell L Blaylock MD
Neurosurgeon and Neuroscientist
Advanced Nutritional Concepts
Past Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery, University of Mississippi Medical
Center, Visiting Professor of Biology Belhaven College
Jackson Mississippi USA
"This is to plea with you not to fluoridate your water supplies. I am a neurosurgeon and
neuroscientist who has studied the issue of effects of water fluoridation on the developing
brain as well as adult brain. Fluoridation of drinking water is a grave mistake and health hazard."
Vinod Barot
MSc PhD DIS (India) MEng(USA) CCEP(Canada)Technical Director
Sanitary District of Hammond
Hammond IN USA
W Robert Heterick AB MSc PhD (Clinical Psychology)
Witchita KS USA
David Kennedy DDS
Past President, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
Former Brisbane Lord Mayor’s Taskforce Consultant on Fluoride 1997
San Diego CA USA
Mae Woo DDS
Montana USA
Samuel E Epstein MD
Professor Emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
University of Illinois at Chicago
School of Public Health
Chicago Illinois USA
Christopher Bryson
Investigative Journalist, Author "The Fluoride Deception"
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/books/8233/8233books.html (book review)
New York USA
Firuzeh Mahmoudi MSc MPA (Environmental)
Health Care Without Harm
International Coordinator
Berkley CA USA
Bruce Randall
Longmeadow Water & Sewer Commission Chairman, ex-oficio
Longmeadow Massachusetts USA
Jeanine Trevillyan MD
Texarkana Arkansas USA
Tony Tweedale MS(Environmental Studies)
Secretary, Montana Coalition for Health, Environmental & Economic Rights
Missoula MT USA
Dr Neil Carman
BS (Plant Biology), MS(Plant Biology), PhD(Phytochemistry)
Environmental scientist
Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter
Austin, TX 78702
Raymond R White PhD(Stanford Biological Sciences 1973)
56 City College of San Francisco
San Francisco CA USA
Susan Augustoni
Licensed Certified Nutritionist
Superior Colorado USA
Phillip M Allen MD PhD & June Allen MEd
Enviro-Health Concerns (pro bono publico)
Wichita KS USA
Michael F Dolan PhD
Research Professor
Department of Geosciences
UMASS
Amherst MA 01003 USA
Wichita KS USA
Albert W Burgstahler PhD
Emeritus Professor of Chemistry
University of Kansas Lawrence Kansas USA
Endorsed by Dr John Ryan Bridgeman Downs, Queensland, Australia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)