Recent research on causes of heart disease has revealed a link between fluoride and coronary artery disease. The study, referred to as: Association of Vascular Fluoride Uptake with Vascular Calcification and Coronary Artery Disease.
Researchers examined the arteries of 61 people for signs of calcification – artery hardening due to calcium, and fluoride absorption.
Connection between fluoride and heart disease was described as “significant”.
Fluoride was detected in the vascular walls (veins) of 96% of study participants, and calcification was observed in the vascular walls of 88% of participants. Study participants arteries also showed significant calcification and fluoride absorption.
Doctors who reviewed study participants’ medical histories noted that there was a very strong link between the presence of fluoride in artery walls and the history of heart disease. Researchers concluded that: ”An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.”
Too much fluoride in public water supplies:
Earlier this year, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly announced that they would be recommending that fluoride levels in drinking water be lowered because of a slow rise in fluorosis – fluoride poisoning that causes brittle bones, brain damage, and discolored teeth, among other health problems.
The HHS proposed lowering maximum allowable levels of fluoride in water to 0.7 mg/l. The EPA, which actually sets the standard, currently allows up to 4 mg/l of fluoride in water. This means that the EPA allows 5.71 times more fluoride in water supplies than the HHS actually deems safe! The EPA has said it is considering lowering the allowable level of fluoride in water, but has not officially acted yet.
Why the difference?
The EPA and the HHS have two separate goals when it comes to fluoride:
HHS – (recommendation) Reduce tooth decay while minimizing the rate of fluorosis
EPA – (Sets the standard) Maximum concentration of fluoride it considers safe
What this means: The EPA now believes its current standard (4 mg/l) is too high, but the EPA is not ready to set a new standard yet. Until the EPA sets a new standard, it is possible that the level of fluoride in your water could pose risks to your health.
In Ireland, the Expert Body on Fluoridation recomended in 2002 that the level of hydrofluorosilicic acid be reduced from 1ppm to 0,7 ppm to reduce the incidence of fluorosis and other possible side effects of this chemical. Four years later the Dept. of Health had still not implemented the reduction. It is impossible to tell at what level we are being fluoridated/medicated at present as the EPA website which used to list the results of the fluoride additive testing was taken down in 2001 , at the height of the Celtic Tiger.
References
Li, Y. et al. Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery disease. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946616
Lowes R. HHS Recommends Lower Fluoride Levels in Drinking Water (Medscape) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/735486
Showing posts with label Average Daily Fluoride Intake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Average Daily Fluoride Intake. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Black Ethnic People Suffer Most from Fluoridation!
Dental Association Disputes Report on Blacks Harmed by Fluorides
This Report mirrors what I am finding in the stats about American Cancer Rates from the CDC - that higher level Fluoridated States have much higher rates of Cancer Deaths for Blacks than lower level fluoridated States - I will continue to research this over the next few weeks and publish further in due course. I am sure this statistic will apply to Aboriginie people, as well.
Story Created: Oct 2, 2007 at 4:21 PM MDT
BELOW IS A VERBATIM PRESS RELEASE FROM THE LILLIE CENTER, INC. THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION SAYS THE CENTER IS NOT AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE FOR INFORMATION. THE ADA SAYS FOR ACCURATE INFORMATION ON FLOURIDE, GO TO ADA.ORG.The Lillie Center, Inc. Press Release:Fluoride, the controversial chemical added to city water supplies to help prevent cavities, now has three strikes against it in having harmful effects in African Americans. Strike number one: A blue ribbon panel of scientists has identified kidney patients and diabetics as being especially susceptible to harm from ingested fluorides. Blacks suffer disproportionate amounts of kidney disease and diabetes in America. Strike number two: Information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows blacks disproportionately at risk for disfiguring teeth damage from fluoride, compared to whites. And strike number three: The American Dental Association and the CDC are now suggesting that parents of newborns may wish to consider using unfluoridated water when mixing infant milk formula for their babies -- but they offer no outreach to tell black parents this information, and no funds to pay for minority and other low-income families to purchase other sources of water.“I know the facts are embarrassing and potentially even lawsuit material against CDC, but it’s not morally right that CDC is not telling African Americans of their multiple, intersecting risks for harm from fluoride,” says Daniel Stockin, a public health professional of The Lillie Center, Inc., a firm working to educate Americans about harm from ingested fluorides. “How does CDC continue to say that fluoridated water is safe and effective ‘for all’? Do African Americans not count?” he asks.Stockin points to disturbing information in a report last year from the National Research Council that acknowledged diabetics and kidney patients to be “susceptible subpopulations” that are especially vulnerable to harmful effects from fluoride ingestion. According to the National Kidney Foundation, blacks comprise 28.4% of kidney failure patients, but number only 13% of the U.S. population. The American Diabetes Association states that African Americans are 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic whites. Increased risk from fluoride for kidney patients and diabetics logically points towards increased risk for blacks, Stockin says. Stockin also asks why a chart showing disproportionate harm to African Americans from moderate and severe dental fluorosis, a staining and pitting of teeth indicative of overexposure to fluoride as a child, is buried at the very back of a review published by CDC and has not been shared with the black community.
(See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm.)
He also notes that CDC this year quietly added information on a little-noticed web page that mothers of newborns may wish to use unfluoridated water when mixing powdered infant milk formula. ( http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1 ) CDC has not issued a press release about the subject. “Millions of parents in minority, low-income, and limited-English communities are affected by CDC’s change in policy, but these families have neither the facts about fluoride nor the funds to pay for unfluoridated bottled water or an expensive home water fluoride removal system,” Stockin says.The bad news about fluoride adds to a growing swell of sentiment against use of the chemical. The influential Canadian city of Quebec has voted to stop water fluoridation. In looking at fluoridation, Alaska’s Juneau Empire newspaper recently wrote, “What about people who are more sensitive to the damaging effects of fluoride than the general population?” Eleven unions in EPA, representing 7,000 EPA lab workers, scientists, and others have called for the immediate nationwide halt to fluoridation. There are petitions now to end fluoridation, and a call for congressional hearings (http://www.fluorideaction.net). So why does CDC continue to promote fluoridation? Why has CDC not responded to the ethics charges its ethics committees received in August concerning fluoridation? And why aren’t black communities being told of their increased risk for harm from fluorides? “Fair questions,” Stockin says. “And disturbing.”
Source: http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/10/05/blacks-disproportionately-harmed-by-fluorides-and-fluoridated-water/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.2news.tv%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2F10188561.html&frame=true
This Report mirrors what I am finding in the stats about American Cancer Rates from the CDC - that higher level Fluoridated States have much higher rates of Cancer Deaths for Blacks than lower level fluoridated States - I will continue to research this over the next few weeks and publish further in due course. I am sure this statistic will apply to Aboriginie people, as well.
Story Created: Oct 2, 2007 at 4:21 PM MDT
BELOW IS A VERBATIM PRESS RELEASE FROM THE LILLIE CENTER, INC. THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION SAYS THE CENTER IS NOT AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE FOR INFORMATION. THE ADA SAYS FOR ACCURATE INFORMATION ON FLOURIDE, GO TO ADA.ORG.The Lillie Center, Inc. Press Release:Fluoride, the controversial chemical added to city water supplies to help prevent cavities, now has three strikes against it in having harmful effects in African Americans. Strike number one: A blue ribbon panel of scientists has identified kidney patients and diabetics as being especially susceptible to harm from ingested fluorides. Blacks suffer disproportionate amounts of kidney disease and diabetes in America. Strike number two: Information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows blacks disproportionately at risk for disfiguring teeth damage from fluoride, compared to whites. And strike number three: The American Dental Association and the CDC are now suggesting that parents of newborns may wish to consider using unfluoridated water when mixing infant milk formula for their babies -- but they offer no outreach to tell black parents this information, and no funds to pay for minority and other low-income families to purchase other sources of water.“I know the facts are embarrassing and potentially even lawsuit material against CDC, but it’s not morally right that CDC is not telling African Americans of their multiple, intersecting risks for harm from fluoride,” says Daniel Stockin, a public health professional of The Lillie Center, Inc., a firm working to educate Americans about harm from ingested fluorides. “How does CDC continue to say that fluoridated water is safe and effective ‘for all’? Do African Americans not count?” he asks.Stockin points to disturbing information in a report last year from the National Research Council that acknowledged diabetics and kidney patients to be “susceptible subpopulations” that are especially vulnerable to harmful effects from fluoride ingestion. According to the National Kidney Foundation, blacks comprise 28.4% of kidney failure patients, but number only 13% of the U.S. population. The American Diabetes Association states that African Americans are 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic whites. Increased risk from fluoride for kidney patients and diabetics logically points towards increased risk for blacks, Stockin says. Stockin also asks why a chart showing disproportionate harm to African Americans from moderate and severe dental fluorosis, a staining and pitting of teeth indicative of overexposure to fluoride as a child, is buried at the very back of a review published by CDC and has not been shared with the black community.
(See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm.)
He also notes that CDC this year quietly added information on a little-noticed web page that mothers of newborns may wish to use unfluoridated water when mixing powdered infant milk formula. ( http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1 ) CDC has not issued a press release about the subject. “Millions of parents in minority, low-income, and limited-English communities are affected by CDC’s change in policy, but these families have neither the facts about fluoride nor the funds to pay for unfluoridated bottled water or an expensive home water fluoride removal system,” Stockin says.The bad news about fluoride adds to a growing swell of sentiment against use of the chemical. The influential Canadian city of Quebec has voted to stop water fluoridation. In looking at fluoridation, Alaska’s Juneau Empire newspaper recently wrote, “What about people who are more sensitive to the damaging effects of fluoride than the general population?” Eleven unions in EPA, representing 7,000 EPA lab workers, scientists, and others have called for the immediate nationwide halt to fluoridation. There are petitions now to end fluoridation, and a call for congressional hearings (http://www.fluorideaction.net). So why does CDC continue to promote fluoridation? Why has CDC not responded to the ethics charges its ethics committees received in August concerning fluoridation? And why aren’t black communities being told of their increased risk for harm from fluorides? “Fair questions,” Stockin says. “And disturbing.”
Source: http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/10/05/blacks-disproportionately-harmed-by-fluorides-and-fluoridated-water/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.2news.tv%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2F10188561.html&frame=true
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Vice President of EPA Testifies Against Fluoridation
As mentioned in a previous posting" Who watches the Watchers" on this site, here is the link to the Senate testimony...
Vice President of EPA's Scientist Union Testifies Against Fluoridation
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8903910725020792574
The testimony of Dr. William Hirzy, Vice President of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Headquarters Union, before the US Senate on June 29, 2000.
For a copy of Dr. Hirzy's written testimony, see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/testimony.htm
Vice President of EPA's Scientist Union Testifies Against Fluoridation
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8903910725020792574
The testimony of Dr. William Hirzy, Vice President of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Headquarters Union, before the US Senate on June 29, 2000.
For a copy of Dr. Hirzy's written testimony, see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/testimony.htm
Friday, June 08, 2007
Cuppa, Anyone?
Cuppa, Anyone?
I must admit that it doesn’t surprise me that a procedure as obnoxious as adding chemical waste to the drinking water supply comes from the desks of coffee-gulping Americans!
If the idea had been dreamed up in the marketing agencies of the U.K., India or Ireland, it would never have gotten off the ground. Why? Simply because those societies are tea drinking cultures and drank very little coffee during the 50’s when this monstrous idea was first mooted by the higher echelons in the aluminium, steel and nuclear industries. So what, you ask?
Because the tea-drinking cultures would have realised that because of the high levels of drinking teas, many people were already imbibing more than the recommended levels of natural fluoride through their cuppas in the morning , afternoon and evening already!
In fact, your average cup of tea holds fluoride at the rate of 6mg per litre, with green teas clocking in at up to 12 mg of fluoride! (Corrected from a previous post that said 6mg per cup). The Tolerable Upper Intake Level is 10 milligrams of fluoride daily (it was set that high in order to avoid crippling skeletal fluorosis later on in life - which you also actually risk at only 8mg per day). Then include all the other sources of fluoride that the average person intakes from nearly all processed foods and drinks manufactured in water fluoridated areas.
The RECOMMENDED intake by the pro-fluoride lobby is 4mg per day!
SO…If you use fluoridated tapwater at 1PPM (or 1 mg/L) to make your cuppa, then boil the water (usual procedure) – that concentrates the fluoride which can then more easily be retained in the body, binds itself with aluminium and lead (both frequent in our pipes, and Aluminium is also used as an agent to clear the turbidity out of tapwater) AND if you happen to have used an aluminium kettle or pan to boil that water ( as was common up until stainless steel became more popular) that added further massive concentrations of aluminium to your simple cuppa. What was a relaxing tannic brew had now become (without your knowing or being warned about it) a satanic chemical hodge-podge!!!
50% of fluoride intake is retained in the body by adults, and 80% by children. People with Alzheimer’s Disease have much higher levels of aluminium in their brains than normal. So when Granny who led a good life and only drank tea suddenly goes ga-ga, which more Grannies than ever are doing as the population ages, well, maybe we should look again at whether the reported 14% less cavities in fluoridated countries (as claimed by the fluoride lobby) is really worth the heartbreak of Alzheimer’s, osteoporosis, fluorosis, bone cancers, thyroid malfunctions, heart disease and all the other negative side-effects!
P.S. If anyone can supply the full text of the Mayo Clinic report below, it would be greatly appreciated…
Fluoride-Related Bone Disease Associated With Habitual Tea Consumption
JULIE E. HALLANGER JOHNSON, MD; ANN E. KEARNS, MD, PHD; PATRICK M. DORAN, MD; TECK KIM KHOO, MD; ROBERT A. WERMERS, MD
Individual reprints of this article are not available. Address correspondence to Robert A. Wermers, MD, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (e-mail: wermers.robert@mayo.edu).
Acquired osteosclerosis is a rare disorder of bone formation but an important consideration in adults with sclerotic bones or elevated bone density results. In such patients, malignancy, hepatitis C, and fluorosis should all be considered when making a diagnosis. We describe 4 patients evaluated at our Metabolic Bone Disease Clinic from May 1, 1997, to July 1, 2006, whose bone disorders resulted from chronic fluoride exposure due to excessive tea intake. Three of these patients had toxic serum fluoride levels (>15 μmol/L). Although the clinical presentation of the patients varied, all 4 had an unexpectedly elevated spine bone mineral density that was proportionately higher than the bone mineral density at the hip. Other clinical features included gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and weight loss; lower extremity pain sometimes associated with stress fractures of the lower extremities; renal insufficiency; and elevated alkaline phosphatase levels. Readily available, tea often contains high levels of fluoride. Obsessive-compulsive drinking behaviours and renal insufficiency may predispose to excessive fluoride consumption and accumulation. The current cases show that fluoride-related bone disease is an important clinical consideration in patients with dense bones or gastrointestinal symptoms and a history of excessive tea consumption. Furthermore, fluoride excess should be considered in all patients with a history of excessive tea consumption, especially due to its insidious nature and nonspecific clinical presentation.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(6):719-724
I must admit that it doesn’t surprise me that a procedure as obnoxious as adding chemical waste to the drinking water supply comes from the desks of coffee-gulping Americans!
If the idea had been dreamed up in the marketing agencies of the U.K., India or Ireland, it would never have gotten off the ground. Why? Simply because those societies are tea drinking cultures and drank very little coffee during the 50’s when this monstrous idea was first mooted by the higher echelons in the aluminium, steel and nuclear industries. So what, you ask?
Because the tea-drinking cultures would have realised that because of the high levels of drinking teas, many people were already imbibing more than the recommended levels of natural fluoride through their cuppas in the morning , afternoon and evening already!
In fact, your average cup of tea holds fluoride at the rate of 6mg per litre, with green teas clocking in at up to 12 mg of fluoride! (Corrected from a previous post that said 6mg per cup). The Tolerable Upper Intake Level is 10 milligrams of fluoride daily (it was set that high in order to avoid crippling skeletal fluorosis later on in life - which you also actually risk at only 8mg per day). Then include all the other sources of fluoride that the average person intakes from nearly all processed foods and drinks manufactured in water fluoridated areas.
The RECOMMENDED intake by the pro-fluoride lobby is 4mg per day!
SO…If you use fluoridated tapwater at 1PPM (or 1 mg/L) to make your cuppa, then boil the water (usual procedure) – that concentrates the fluoride which can then more easily be retained in the body, binds itself with aluminium and lead (both frequent in our pipes, and Aluminium is also used as an agent to clear the turbidity out of tapwater) AND if you happen to have used an aluminium kettle or pan to boil that water ( as was common up until stainless steel became more popular) that added further massive concentrations of aluminium to your simple cuppa. What was a relaxing tannic brew had now become (without your knowing or being warned about it) a satanic chemical hodge-podge!!!
50% of fluoride intake is retained in the body by adults, and 80% by children. People with Alzheimer’s Disease have much higher levels of aluminium in their brains than normal. So when Granny who led a good life and only drank tea suddenly goes ga-ga, which more Grannies than ever are doing as the population ages, well, maybe we should look again at whether the reported 14% less cavities in fluoridated countries (as claimed by the fluoride lobby) is really worth the heartbreak of Alzheimer’s, osteoporosis, fluorosis, bone cancers, thyroid malfunctions, heart disease and all the other negative side-effects!
P.S. If anyone can supply the full text of the Mayo Clinic report below, it would be greatly appreciated…
Fluoride-Related Bone Disease Associated With Habitual Tea Consumption
JULIE E. HALLANGER JOHNSON, MD; ANN E. KEARNS, MD, PHD; PATRICK M. DORAN, MD; TECK KIM KHOO, MD; ROBERT A. WERMERS, MD
Individual reprints of this article are not available. Address correspondence to Robert A. Wermers, MD, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (e-mail: wermers.robert@mayo.edu).
Acquired osteosclerosis is a rare disorder of bone formation but an important consideration in adults with sclerotic bones or elevated bone density results. In such patients, malignancy, hepatitis C, and fluorosis should all be considered when making a diagnosis. We describe 4 patients evaluated at our Metabolic Bone Disease Clinic from May 1, 1997, to July 1, 2006, whose bone disorders resulted from chronic fluoride exposure due to excessive tea intake. Three of these patients had toxic serum fluoride levels (>15 μmol/L). Although the clinical presentation of the patients varied, all 4 had an unexpectedly elevated spine bone mineral density that was proportionately higher than the bone mineral density at the hip. Other clinical features included gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and weight loss; lower extremity pain sometimes associated with stress fractures of the lower extremities; renal insufficiency; and elevated alkaline phosphatase levels. Readily available, tea often contains high levels of fluoride. Obsessive-compulsive drinking behaviours and renal insufficiency may predispose to excessive fluoride consumption and accumulation. The current cases show that fluoride-related bone disease is an important clinical consideration in patients with dense bones or gastrointestinal symptoms and a history of excessive tea consumption. Furthermore, fluoride excess should be considered in all patients with a history of excessive tea consumption, especially due to its insidious nature and nonspecific clinical presentation.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(6):719-724
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Now Fluoride Linked To Gum Disease!
Scientists report a link between dental fluorosis and periodontal disease in the June 2007 Indian Journal of Dental Research. (1) Dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown stained and/or pitted teeth - is a visual manifestation of fluoride overdose during childhood. Dental fluorosis afflicts from 1/3 to 1/2 of U.S. schoolchildren (and 40% of Irish schoolchildren), according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. (2) Inhabitants of the Davangere district of India were studied where natural water fluoride levels ranged from 1.5 to 3.0 parts-per-million (ppm) which is similar to fluoride levels allowed in U.S. water supplies (up to 4 ppm). The sample consisted of 1,029 subjects between 15- and 74-years-old. As the degree of dental fluorosis increased, periodontitis (advanced gum infection) increased. "The results suggest that there is a strong association of occurrence of periodontal disease in high-fluoride areas," write Vandana and Reddy. "Surprisingly, studies have not paid attention to the periodontal status in high-fluoride areas from a research perspective," the authors write. "In addition to inflammatory process, which remains common to high- and low-fluoride areas, the fluorosis-induced changes in hard and soft tissues of periodontium requires … attention to suspect fluoride as an etiological (environmental) agent for periodontal disease," the authors conclude. Two thirds of U.S. public water suppliers ( and 100% of Irish public water supplies ) purposely add fluoride chemicals (silicofluorides) in an attempt to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers.
Some U.S. communities have natural fluoride levels up to 4 ppm.. "How much longer do the American ( AND IRISH!)people have to be the guinea pigs in the U.S.'s fluoridation experiment," asks lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. The National Research Council advises more studies are required on fluoride's effects on reasoning ability, endocrine functions, the immune deficient, fertility, gastric response, bladder cancer, kidney and liver enzyme functions and more. (3) Studies already link fluoride to cancer, genetic defects, IQ deficits, thyroid dysfunction, kidney, tooth and bone damage. (3a) But government officials want even more studies before they condemn fluoridation. "Who will decide when fluoride's mounting risks outweigh its questionable benefits. The individual or the government?" asks Beeber. "Fluoridation leaves it in the hands of the government." "Fluoridation chemicals are in short supply these days," (5) says Beeber, "This would be a good time to gracefully bow out of water fluoridation." New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=71584
Friday, May 11, 2007
The Irish " Expert Body of Dentists" and Their Hypocrisy.
Dear Sir,
To pretend that the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to public water supplies is a common naturally occurring element is highly misleading and erroneous. It is in fact a hodge-podge of chemicals, a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry! We are expected to believe the standard mantra repeated ad nauseam by the pro-fluoride lobby that 40, 50 or 60, (take your pick) years of fluoridation have proven it safe and efficacious. Why should we believe that? Well, let's have a look at some of that 50 years research, will we? York University (UK) had a review in 1999-2000 to assess the merits or otherwise of fluoridation. The Report was commissioned by the UK government who wanted to lay the anti-fluoride lobby's arguments to rest once and for all so that they could bring fluoridation into the UK en masse. The report looked at all the fluoride literature worldwide since the inception of fluoridation. Unfortunately for them and for the whole fluoride lobby, they found the following, and I quote: "We were UNABLE to discover ANY reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found SUGGESTED that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, BUT that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight DISBENEFIT to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the EXPENSE of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was POOR." My emphasis. OK, so the pro-fluoride evidence over 50 years was POOR. So we will discount it because an expert and independent and comprehensive university / government report has said so. What about since 2000? York say that up until October 2003 they still had not received any convincing research to change their minds. Nothing that I am aware of has come out in fluoride's defence since! http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm for what the York Report REALLY said!
The WHO support which Dr O'Hickey regularly quotes was based on "over 100 studies of fluoride over 50 years". These reports and studies have been minutely examined by Philip Sutton and published in Chemical & Engineering News in 1988,and have been PROVEN to be highly suspect: No controls, no allowance for bias, 34 didnt exist, 2 studies with data from more than 1 town were listed as 6, 7 case reports in different years from the same study were listed as 14, 20 were about something else, 51 were of poor scientific quality, 4 could not be verified and the last 19 were from fluoridated countries and did not show in a scientific manner that fluoridation was efficacious! Moreover, the WHO has always stated that "the TOTAL fluoride intake of the individual MUST ALWAYS be taken into account BEFORE adding more"! Just for a start, this nation has always had tea as its main beverage, unlike the US coffee culture, and the fact that tea already contains between 6-8mg/L of naturally occurring fluoride seems to have passed all the fluoride pushers by! Ireland is SIXTH in the European caries league BEHIND non-fluoridating countries and all countries have shown a similar caries reduction curve over the last 40 years - even without fluoridation!
Please send me any links to recent health research that shows the efficacy of dumping toxic waste into our drinking water, I would love to see it. On the other hand, the last 30 years have shown major links to damage of the health of fluoridated people. How many cavities avoided justify the death through osteosarcoma of a young boy? How many suffer from hypothyroidism, kidney trouble, broken hips, Alzheimer's Disease, fluorosis, brittle bones and general illness due to the attack hydrofluorosilicic acid and its attendant chemicals (including mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, phosphate) wreak on the human immune system all because someone CLAIMS this helps kids teeth? There has NEVER been a long-term health survey on a fluoridated population ANYWHERE! Rather strange, isn't that?
Caries have reduced world wide over the past 30 years and faster in some non-fluoridated countries than in fluoridated ones. So where is the PROOF that these pro-fluoride people offer? I am sick and tired of hearing the generalisations based on old and discredited "research". Wasn't it only in the 70's that the lawyers, scientists and experts who worked for the tobacco companies claimed: There is your proof that smoking does not damage ones health or cause cancer - BECAUSE two or three hundred years of smoking proves it!!! Sounds like the same argument that the fluoride lobby are trying to pass off on us. Fluoride can't hurt us BECAUSE it hasn't shown up major health problems yet! As has been said - if you don't look for it, you won't find it! People should research the issue and make themselves aware of what may turn out to be a major health calamity in the (near) future. Fluoride attacks iodine and magnesium in the body, absolutely vital nutrients, along with enzymes, the body's neuro transmitters. Give me the word of a trained toxicologist(the major discipline which was NOT represented on the Irish "Expert Body of Dentists" researches)above that of a mere dentist, who has NO overview of the whole body, any day!
In the end, decisions that have long ranging implications on health should only be made when considering ALL the evidence gathered over a period of time and not just the same tired and discredited fluoride mantra that Dr. O'Hickey repeats ad nauseam. When will Dr O'Hickey admit that HE makes a lot of money by "pushing" fluoride to countries such as South Africa, and indeed , acting as a consultant to the WHO along with Prof. O'Mullane, also on the "Expert Body of Dentists"? He has a hypocritical nerve to regularly accuse anyone in the anti-fluoride lobby of making money from the fluoride debate, as he does so himself! EUES Ireland
To pretend that the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to public water supplies is a common naturally occurring element is highly misleading and erroneous. It is in fact a hodge-podge of chemicals, a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry! We are expected to believe the standard mantra repeated ad nauseam by the pro-fluoride lobby that 40, 50 or 60, (take your pick) years of fluoridation have proven it safe and efficacious. Why should we believe that? Well, let's have a look at some of that 50 years research, will we? York University (UK) had a review in 1999-2000 to assess the merits or otherwise of fluoridation. The Report was commissioned by the UK government who wanted to lay the anti-fluoride lobby's arguments to rest once and for all so that they could bring fluoridation into the UK en masse. The report looked at all the fluoride literature worldwide since the inception of fluoridation. Unfortunately for them and for the whole fluoride lobby, they found the following, and I quote: "We were UNABLE to discover ANY reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found SUGGESTED that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, BUT that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight DISBENEFIT to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the EXPENSE of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was POOR." My emphasis. OK, so the pro-fluoride evidence over 50 years was POOR. So we will discount it because an expert and independent and comprehensive university / government report has said so. What about since 2000? York say that up until October 2003 they still had not received any convincing research to change their minds. Nothing that I am aware of has come out in fluoride's defence since! http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm for what the York Report REALLY said!
The WHO support which Dr O'Hickey regularly quotes was based on "over 100 studies of fluoride over 50 years". These reports and studies have been minutely examined by Philip Sutton and published in Chemical & Engineering News in 1988,and have been PROVEN to be highly suspect: No controls, no allowance for bias, 34 didnt exist, 2 studies with data from more than 1 town were listed as 6, 7 case reports in different years from the same study were listed as 14, 20 were about something else, 51 were of poor scientific quality, 4 could not be verified and the last 19 were from fluoridated countries and did not show in a scientific manner that fluoridation was efficacious! Moreover, the WHO has always stated that "the TOTAL fluoride intake of the individual MUST ALWAYS be taken into account BEFORE adding more"! Just for a start, this nation has always had tea as its main beverage, unlike the US coffee culture, and the fact that tea already contains between 6-8mg/L of naturally occurring fluoride seems to have passed all the fluoride pushers by! Ireland is SIXTH in the European caries league BEHIND non-fluoridating countries and all countries have shown a similar caries reduction curve over the last 40 years - even without fluoridation!
Please send me any links to recent health research that shows the efficacy of dumping toxic waste into our drinking water, I would love to see it. On the other hand, the last 30 years have shown major links to damage of the health of fluoridated people. How many cavities avoided justify the death through osteosarcoma of a young boy? How many suffer from hypothyroidism, kidney trouble, broken hips, Alzheimer's Disease, fluorosis, brittle bones and general illness due to the attack hydrofluorosilicic acid and its attendant chemicals (including mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, phosphate) wreak on the human immune system all because someone CLAIMS this helps kids teeth? There has NEVER been a long-term health survey on a fluoridated population ANYWHERE! Rather strange, isn't that?
Caries have reduced world wide over the past 30 years and faster in some non-fluoridated countries than in fluoridated ones. So where is the PROOF that these pro-fluoride people offer? I am sick and tired of hearing the generalisations based on old and discredited "research". Wasn't it only in the 70's that the lawyers, scientists and experts who worked for the tobacco companies claimed: There is your proof that smoking does not damage ones health or cause cancer - BECAUSE two or three hundred years of smoking proves it!!! Sounds like the same argument that the fluoride lobby are trying to pass off on us. Fluoride can't hurt us BECAUSE it hasn't shown up major health problems yet! As has been said - if you don't look for it, you won't find it! People should research the issue and make themselves aware of what may turn out to be a major health calamity in the (near) future. Fluoride attacks iodine and magnesium in the body, absolutely vital nutrients, along with enzymes, the body's neuro transmitters. Give me the word of a trained toxicologist(the major discipline which was NOT represented on the Irish "Expert Body of Dentists" researches)above that of a mere dentist, who has NO overview of the whole body, any day!
In the end, decisions that have long ranging implications on health should only be made when considering ALL the evidence gathered over a period of time and not just the same tired and discredited fluoride mantra that Dr. O'Hickey repeats ad nauseam. When will Dr O'Hickey admit that HE makes a lot of money by "pushing" fluoride to countries such as South Africa, and indeed , acting as a consultant to the WHO along with Prof. O'Mullane, also on the "Expert Body of Dentists"? He has a hypocritical nerve to regularly accuse anyone in the anti-fluoride lobby of making money from the fluoride debate, as he does so himself! EUES Ireland
Thursday, May 10, 2007
There's Both Eatin' and Drinkin' In It!
Although a FAN (Fluoride Action Network) fan, I think it would be beneficial to let people know that water fluoridation is not the only type of mass medication being practiced by some governments and that salt fluoridation now affects even more people than water fluoridation does! The following article is from the Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC) Canadian website in response to a FAN article, which you can link to at the end of this posting. Fluoride for food - food for thought.
June 15, 2003
FAN’s “Swiss Cheese”
In the past few weeks we have received a flurry of mails, mainly from Europe and Canada, about the situation in Basel, Switzerland and the reports which have been circulated by the anti-fluoridation movement on this issue. It has become obvious that many anti-fluoridation campaigners are and have been misinformed.
Of particular concern to most were several bulletins by the International Fluoride Information Network (IFIN) and the present lead article on the newly revamped website by FAN, the global Fluoride Action Network. FAN distributes the IFIN bulletins, which are usually authored by Prof. Paul Connett, to other anti-fluoridation activists worldwide.
Please be informed that the lead item on the FAN website site entitled "Basel Switzerland Votes to Stop Water Fluoridation" (1) is very inaccurate, highly misleading, and has “as many holes as Swiss Cheese”.
Background
The FAN article refers to a report by the Commission on Health and Social Issues (GSK) which led to the cessation of water fluoridation in Basel. The report was written on Feb. 26, 2003 and passed on to the Great Council on March 19, 2003. The Council voted upon the matter on April 9th, 2003. The original GSK report has been placed on-line by the GSK (2) as well as the PFPC (3).
Unfortunately, throughout the FAN article key points of the GSK report are mis-represented.
A few examples:
[1] FAN:
"In March, the GSK presented their advice to end water fluoridation in a ten page report delivered to Parliament. The two main reasons supporting their recommendation were:
COMMENT: First of all, there were THREE main reasons given by the GSK, not two. They are listed further below. But for now, let's go to the next item, allegedly reason #1:
[2] FAN:
1) Lack of evidence that water fluoridation is more effective than other, less intrusive, means of reducing tooth decay.
As noted in GSK's report:
"No study or investigation can belay clearly that water fluoridation obtains better results as a measure to reduce tooth decay than other uses of fluoride."
COMMENT: Not only is this matter not reason "1)", but the GSK report does NOT say this. The sentence above shows up under reason #3:
"No study or investigation can show plainly and clearly that water fluoridation as a measure to protect against caries can achieve better results than other measures of BASE-FLUORIDATION."
This is a VERY important difference.
Base-fluoridation ("Basisfluoridierung") describes fluoride which is taken up by the masses via the oral/intestinal tract (systemic), while "Individualfluoridierung" (individual fluoridation) means local applications via toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel, etc. Another associated term encountered in the document is the word "flächendeckend" which means area-covering, i.e. both water fluoridation and salt fluoridation cover large population areas, thus are described as "area-covering". This is a very important aspect if we are to discuss "forced medication", but more on this later.
The fact is: what water fluoridation is being specifically compared to here is SALT fluoridation - another form of systemic fluoride intake by the masses and which is in place in virtually all of Switzerland, the first country to sell fluoridated salt in 1955, and where 85% of the population uses fluoridated salt. This aspect is clearly described in the GSK report [Point 4, Page 5].
It is hard to understand how this could have been misinterpreted as FAN’s own postings of newsarticles report on the fluoride-salt “ersatz” (4). It is further very hard to understand how an organization campaigning against systemic fluoride intake can show such ignorance.
Newspaper articles had been circulating on the Internet on this issue since March 20th, specifying the GSK position and its “political” motive - a day after the report was handed to the Great Council (i.e. Tagesblatt Bern, March 20, 2003).
[3] FAN:
"In 1999, the GSK had asked public dental clinics to investigate whether Basel had a lower rate of tooth decay than 'areas or cities with similar population structures, such as Zurich or St. Gall'. Four years later, these investigations had yet to be conducted, or if they were, the results were never presented."
COMMENT: The GSK did not ask such thing and should never be quoted as such, really. What the GSK DID ask for were studies which investigated if fluoride in water was any better than fluoride in salt, both being examples of "base- fluoridation" (Feb, 1999). Zurich and St. Gallen are BOTH fluoridated salt areas with "similar population structures", and were therefore proposed. (There are 11 unique ethnic communities). Zurich has used fluoridated salt since 1955.
NOTE: Numerous cantons in Switzerland fluoridate all salt destined for human consumption, thus fluoride is taken in from all processed foods, bakery products, in restaurants, cafeterias, canteens, etc. - in short, any food item with salt. In those areas, the daily intake of bread alone may already provide more than 1.2 mg per day of fluoride - per person (5). Such measures certainly are “forced mass-medication”, and worse than any water fluoridation, as now all foods made with such salt contain much more fluoride.
[4] FAN:
Adding to these doubts were recent findings showing that tooth decay had risen in Basel's children since 1996, coupled with an absence of any evidence showing Basel to have a lower rate of tooth decay than other Swiss cities (most of which have very low rates of tooth decay).
COMMENT:
This is also an incorrect and misleading statement. Again the impression is created that “other Swiss cities” are “un-fluoridated”, which is entirely untrue, as discussed above. It is further untrue that most other Swiss cities have very low rates of tooth decay.
The GSK reports on the position statement given by the Director of Public Dental Clinics, who said that caries had become clearly worse between 1996 and 2001 in Basel. Especially for seven-year-olds caries occurrence had actually doubled. The GSK report states this with special emphasis ("Verdopplung!"). However, a similar situation exists in Zurich, and a similar increase is seen in this age group. From the year 1992 to 2000, caries prevalence in 7-year-olds increased by 64% in Zurich (6). (Please note that nowhere in Switzerland can there be any “fluoride deficiency”. There are extensive school-brushing programs with fluoride toothpaste, almost all people use fluoride toothpastes (w/ organic fluoride compounds), fluoridated salt is used by 85 % of the population - yet there is such an alarming increase in caries?
[5] FAN:
According to extensive data collected by the World Health Organization and various national/regional surveys, unfluoridated countries in western Europe have experienced - without exception - the same general decline in tooth decay over the past 30 to 50 years, as that experienced in the US. As a result, children today in unfluoridated countries such as Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden have as low - or even lower - levels of tooth decay as US children.
This is sheer nonsense and it boggles the mind how anyone can speak of “unfluoridated countries” here, or even attempt to compare caries rates without any apparent knowledge on fluoride exposure and intake in these countries.
If the Netherlands are “unfluoridated” - how come Dutch public health officials in 1988 calculated total daily fluoride intake to be up to 6.0 mg of fluoride? Food was estimated to be the source of 80-85% of fluoride intake; intake from drinking-water was 0.03-0.68 mg/day and from toothpaste 0.2-0.3 mg (7). “For children, total intake via food and water is decreased because of lower consumption. Intake of food and water relative to body weight is higher, however, and is further increased by the swallowing of toothpaste or fluoride tablets (up to 3.5 mg of fluoride per day)” (8).
NOTE: For comparison - in 1991 the US PHS estimated daily fluoride intake of adults in “optimally” fluoridated areas of the US to be up to 6.6 mg/day (9).
In Germany, fluoridated salt has within a few years grabbed the major share of the market, driven by a PR campaign initiated by salt producers (13). Dentists have been lobbying to have regulations lifted to allow bakeries and large kitchens to use fluoridated salt. Test case has been the kitchen at the University of Heidelberg which has used fluoridated salt in its foods since 1999.
FAN has a special page alerting to “other sources of fluoride intake” (10). However, fluoridated salt is not mentioned at all.
THE GSK's THREE REASONS
1) No reason for Basel to be the "lone island" in Switzerland. As around Basel other methods of caries prophylaxis are in existence, and no unique benefit of fluoridated water could be identified, the GSK felt this "lone island" approach of water fluoridation was not justified. The GSK rejected the idea to “half the fluoridation” (fluoridate at 0.5 ppm), as had been proposed by Peter H. Miehl, the Director of the Public Dental Clinics. [It is noted in the report that fluoridated salt is available in Basel as well, posing another problem commonly described in the literature as “overlap”. Earlier there had been a sort of "gentleman's agreement" with distributors "sacrificing" sales, but now fluoridated salt was once again widely available.]
2) The second reason was that fluoridated water has a "Streuverlust" (scatterloss), meaning it is being scattered, not used for drinking or cooking, but ends up being wasted. The report states: "with fluoridated food salt, as is used in the rest of Switzerland for base-fluoridation, this scatter-loss and with it the unnecessary burden on the environment would be considerably less."
3) Here it is stated that the "island solution" as well as "scatterloss" could only be justified if there were no other alternative and comparable means to base-fluoridate available. It is here where it is stated that no study exists which can show that fluoridated water is better than other means of base-fluoridation - meaning fluoridated salt - NOT "other uses of fluoride" or “less intrusive measures”, as stated by FAN. It is here that the report also addresses the question of "personal freedom" and "forced medication" imposed upon by water fluoridation. This has been a political item since 1990 when a Basel couple sued because fluoride-free water was not available and the case made it to Supreme Court (Bundesgericht)[see Point 2, page 4 ].
SO - the GSK recommended to stop water fluoridation, and to use fluoridated salt instead. Has the government stopped “fluoridation”? No, it will chose another medium to fluoridate the people. The GSK report further states that the transition from fluoridated water to fluoridated salt should be accompanied by a one-time info-campaign, and that this could be done when water bills were being sent out by the IWB (Industrial Works Basel).
Please also note that elsewhere in the report [Point 6, page 7] it is stated that the IWB cannot sell its water to other cantons or countries because of the fluoride content. The GSK claims that it has not concerned itself with this aspect of the "Politikum of TWA" (fluoridated drinking water). One can see this point also stressed in the submission by Ziegelbecker from the day before the report was made (11).
The report further states that no longer fluoridating the water of Basel will save 200,000 francs a year. Fluoridated salt has no costs what-so-ever to the state.
NOTE:This fact is very advantageous for dental public health officials everywhere who, long aware of the political implications in water fluoridation, now quietly go about starting massive fluoridated salt programs. More on this below.
Fluoridated salt is no more expensive than other salt, and is actually sold under a slight subsidy, making its selling price just a bit lower than other salt (Yewe-Dyer, 2002). The "poor" family - which really doesn’t exist in Switzerland where 99% of the population is literate and the average income is above US $28,000 a year - will go for fluoride salt, the cheaper salt. Marketing is aggressive and has been very successful, aided greatly by salt producers - as in many other countries. Now even common recipes call specifically for fluoridated salt (12).
98% fluoridation- free?
Often encountered on FAN’s website is the statement that 98% of Europe is “unfluoridated”. Anyone who knows about the global drive to fluoridate salt supplies knows how wrong such a statement really is. “Fuzzy Math”? Perhaps one day soon FAN will wake up and take its mandate to “minimize fluoride exposure” seriously and actually pay a bit of attention to the remaining 98% NOT affected by water fluoridation programs, but other means of “base-fluoridation” and “mass-medication” programs?
While it was estimated in the 1990s that worldwide 230 million people received artificially fluoridated water (13), the number of people now affected by fluoridated salt programs greatly exceeds those affected by water fluoridation. 350 million people were added in 1996 alone when the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) launched a massive salt fluoridation program in Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela (14).
The project was part of a multi-year plan launched by PAHO in 1994 to “fluoridate the entire Region of the Americas”. The project was funded - once again - by a multi-year deal grant from Kellogg’s (15).
Since then many other countries have been added and many more are currently in the process. In Jamaica, Costa Rica and Columbia all salt destined for human consumption is fluoridated (“universal” salt fluoridation).
Forced Medication?
Just like in water fluoridation - where it was presumed that people would drink 4 glasses of water every day and thus take in the “optimal” intake of 1 mg of fluoride/per day - salt was fluoridated at 250 ppm. Here it was presumed that “individual application” (meaning use of the salt shaker at the table - the “sprinkling over food”) would contribute 1 to 4 g of the daily total salt intake, thus a person would take in 1 mg of fluoride a day at 4 grams a day - the “optimal” dose of fluoride intake to “protect against caries”.
How dentists ever convinced public health policy makers that the same salt (also called “cooking salt”) wasn’t also used for all cooking, including breadmaking, soups, etc. is anyone’s guess.
Fluoridated salt - which also has plenty of contaminants (16) - has one quality much worse than fluoridated water: an individual's preferred level of salt may be raised or lowered by progressively raising or lowering the actual level over a period of time. In other words, the amount of salt you use today might not be enough for you a month from now when you will be adding a little bit more! Salt consumption has shot through the roof, and worldwide efforts are underway to reduce overall salt intake to 5 g/day. In Costa Rica - just as one example - all salt is fluoridated at 250 ppm and people consume on average 10 g of salt per day, ensuring a daily fluoride intake of 2.5 mg/day from this source alone.
“Fluoride-free by 2003”?
Not this way.
Bob Johannsen, Rainer Neuhaus & Andreas Schuld
Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC)Vancouver, BC, Canada
PFPC Website: http://www.bruha.com/pfpc
E-mail: pfpccanada@shaw.ca
To read FAN’s updated article see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/basel.htm
June 15, 2003
FAN’s “Swiss Cheese”
In the past few weeks we have received a flurry of mails, mainly from Europe and Canada, about the situation in Basel, Switzerland and the reports which have been circulated by the anti-fluoridation movement on this issue. It has become obvious that many anti-fluoridation campaigners are and have been misinformed.
Of particular concern to most were several bulletins by the International Fluoride Information Network (IFIN) and the present lead article on the newly revamped website by FAN, the global Fluoride Action Network. FAN distributes the IFIN bulletins, which are usually authored by Prof. Paul Connett, to other anti-fluoridation activists worldwide.
Please be informed that the lead item on the FAN website site entitled "Basel Switzerland Votes to Stop Water Fluoridation" (1) is very inaccurate, highly misleading, and has “as many holes as Swiss Cheese”.
Background
The FAN article refers to a report by the Commission on Health and Social Issues (GSK) which led to the cessation of water fluoridation in Basel. The report was written on Feb. 26, 2003 and passed on to the Great Council on March 19, 2003. The Council voted upon the matter on April 9th, 2003. The original GSK report has been placed on-line by the GSK (2) as well as the PFPC (3).
Unfortunately, throughout the FAN article key points of the GSK report are mis-represented.
A few examples:
[1] FAN:
"In March, the GSK presented their advice to end water fluoridation in a ten page report delivered to Parliament. The two main reasons supporting their recommendation were:
COMMENT: First of all, there were THREE main reasons given by the GSK, not two. They are listed further below. But for now, let's go to the next item, allegedly reason #1:
[2] FAN:
1) Lack of evidence that water fluoridation is more effective than other, less intrusive, means of reducing tooth decay.
As noted in GSK's report:
"No study or investigation can belay clearly that water fluoridation obtains better results as a measure to reduce tooth decay than other uses of fluoride."
COMMENT: Not only is this matter not reason "1)", but the GSK report does NOT say this. The sentence above shows up under reason #3:
"No study or investigation can show plainly and clearly that water fluoridation as a measure to protect against caries can achieve better results than other measures of BASE-FLUORIDATION."
This is a VERY important difference.
Base-fluoridation ("Basisfluoridierung") describes fluoride which is taken up by the masses via the oral/intestinal tract (systemic), while "Individualfluoridierung" (individual fluoridation) means local applications via toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel, etc. Another associated term encountered in the document is the word "flächendeckend" which means area-covering, i.e. both water fluoridation and salt fluoridation cover large population areas, thus are described as "area-covering". This is a very important aspect if we are to discuss "forced medication", but more on this later.
The fact is: what water fluoridation is being specifically compared to here is SALT fluoridation - another form of systemic fluoride intake by the masses and which is in place in virtually all of Switzerland, the first country to sell fluoridated salt in 1955, and where 85% of the population uses fluoridated salt. This aspect is clearly described in the GSK report [Point 4, Page 5].
It is hard to understand how this could have been misinterpreted as FAN’s own postings of newsarticles report on the fluoride-salt “ersatz” (4). It is further very hard to understand how an organization campaigning against systemic fluoride intake can show such ignorance.
Newspaper articles had been circulating on the Internet on this issue since March 20th, specifying the GSK position and its “political” motive - a day after the report was handed to the Great Council (i.e. Tagesblatt Bern, March 20, 2003).
[3] FAN:
"In 1999, the GSK had asked public dental clinics to investigate whether Basel had a lower rate of tooth decay than 'areas or cities with similar population structures, such as Zurich or St. Gall'. Four years later, these investigations had yet to be conducted, or if they were, the results were never presented."
COMMENT: The GSK did not ask such thing and should never be quoted as such, really. What the GSK DID ask for were studies which investigated if fluoride in water was any better than fluoride in salt, both being examples of "base- fluoridation" (Feb, 1999). Zurich and St. Gallen are BOTH fluoridated salt areas with "similar population structures", and were therefore proposed. (There are 11 unique ethnic communities). Zurich has used fluoridated salt since 1955.
NOTE: Numerous cantons in Switzerland fluoridate all salt destined for human consumption, thus fluoride is taken in from all processed foods, bakery products, in restaurants, cafeterias, canteens, etc. - in short, any food item with salt. In those areas, the daily intake of bread alone may already provide more than 1.2 mg per day of fluoride - per person (5). Such measures certainly are “forced mass-medication”, and worse than any water fluoridation, as now all foods made with such salt contain much more fluoride.
[4] FAN:
Adding to these doubts were recent findings showing that tooth decay had risen in Basel's children since 1996, coupled with an absence of any evidence showing Basel to have a lower rate of tooth decay than other Swiss cities (most of which have very low rates of tooth decay).
COMMENT:
This is also an incorrect and misleading statement. Again the impression is created that “other Swiss cities” are “un-fluoridated”, which is entirely untrue, as discussed above. It is further untrue that most other Swiss cities have very low rates of tooth decay.
The GSK reports on the position statement given by the Director of Public Dental Clinics, who said that caries had become clearly worse between 1996 and 2001 in Basel. Especially for seven-year-olds caries occurrence had actually doubled. The GSK report states this with special emphasis ("Verdopplung!"). However, a similar situation exists in Zurich, and a similar increase is seen in this age group. From the year 1992 to 2000, caries prevalence in 7-year-olds increased by 64% in Zurich (6). (Please note that nowhere in Switzerland can there be any “fluoride deficiency”. There are extensive school-brushing programs with fluoride toothpaste, almost all people use fluoride toothpastes (w/ organic fluoride compounds), fluoridated salt is used by 85 % of the population - yet there is such an alarming increase in caries?
[5] FAN:
According to extensive data collected by the World Health Organization and various national/regional surveys, unfluoridated countries in western Europe have experienced - without exception - the same general decline in tooth decay over the past 30 to 50 years, as that experienced in the US. As a result, children today in unfluoridated countries such as Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden have as low - or even lower - levels of tooth decay as US children.
This is sheer nonsense and it boggles the mind how anyone can speak of “unfluoridated countries” here, or even attempt to compare caries rates without any apparent knowledge on fluoride exposure and intake in these countries.
If the Netherlands are “unfluoridated” - how come Dutch public health officials in 1988 calculated total daily fluoride intake to be up to 6.0 mg of fluoride? Food was estimated to be the source of 80-85% of fluoride intake; intake from drinking-water was 0.03-0.68 mg/day and from toothpaste 0.2-0.3 mg (7). “For children, total intake via food and water is decreased because of lower consumption. Intake of food and water relative to body weight is higher, however, and is further increased by the swallowing of toothpaste or fluoride tablets (up to 3.5 mg of fluoride per day)” (8).
NOTE: For comparison - in 1991 the US PHS estimated daily fluoride intake of adults in “optimally” fluoridated areas of the US to be up to 6.6 mg/day (9).
In Germany, fluoridated salt has within a few years grabbed the major share of the market, driven by a PR campaign initiated by salt producers (13). Dentists have been lobbying to have regulations lifted to allow bakeries and large kitchens to use fluoridated salt. Test case has been the kitchen at the University of Heidelberg which has used fluoridated salt in its foods since 1999.
FAN has a special page alerting to “other sources of fluoride intake” (10). However, fluoridated salt is not mentioned at all.
THE GSK's THREE REASONS
1) No reason for Basel to be the "lone island" in Switzerland. As around Basel other methods of caries prophylaxis are in existence, and no unique benefit of fluoridated water could be identified, the GSK felt this "lone island" approach of water fluoridation was not justified. The GSK rejected the idea to “half the fluoridation” (fluoridate at 0.5 ppm), as had been proposed by Peter H. Miehl, the Director of the Public Dental Clinics. [It is noted in the report that fluoridated salt is available in Basel as well, posing another problem commonly described in the literature as “overlap”. Earlier there had been a sort of "gentleman's agreement" with distributors "sacrificing" sales, but now fluoridated salt was once again widely available.]
2) The second reason was that fluoridated water has a "Streuverlust" (scatterloss), meaning it is being scattered, not used for drinking or cooking, but ends up being wasted. The report states: "with fluoridated food salt, as is used in the rest of Switzerland for base-fluoridation, this scatter-loss and with it the unnecessary burden on the environment would be considerably less."
3) Here it is stated that the "island solution" as well as "scatterloss" could only be justified if there were no other alternative and comparable means to base-fluoridate available. It is here where it is stated that no study exists which can show that fluoridated water is better than other means of base-fluoridation - meaning fluoridated salt - NOT "other uses of fluoride" or “less intrusive measures”, as stated by FAN. It is here that the report also addresses the question of "personal freedom" and "forced medication" imposed upon by water fluoridation. This has been a political item since 1990 when a Basel couple sued because fluoride-free water was not available and the case made it to Supreme Court (Bundesgericht)[see Point 2, page 4 ].
SO - the GSK recommended to stop water fluoridation, and to use fluoridated salt instead. Has the government stopped “fluoridation”? No, it will chose another medium to fluoridate the people. The GSK report further states that the transition from fluoridated water to fluoridated salt should be accompanied by a one-time info-campaign, and that this could be done when water bills were being sent out by the IWB (Industrial Works Basel).
Please also note that elsewhere in the report [Point 6, page 7] it is stated that the IWB cannot sell its water to other cantons or countries because of the fluoride content. The GSK claims that it has not concerned itself with this aspect of the "Politikum of TWA" (fluoridated drinking water). One can see this point also stressed in the submission by Ziegelbecker from the day before the report was made (11).
The report further states that no longer fluoridating the water of Basel will save 200,000 francs a year. Fluoridated salt has no costs what-so-ever to the state.
NOTE:This fact is very advantageous for dental public health officials everywhere who, long aware of the political implications in water fluoridation, now quietly go about starting massive fluoridated salt programs. More on this below.
Fluoridated salt is no more expensive than other salt, and is actually sold under a slight subsidy, making its selling price just a bit lower than other salt (Yewe-Dyer, 2002). The "poor" family - which really doesn’t exist in Switzerland where 99% of the population is literate and the average income is above US $28,000 a year - will go for fluoride salt, the cheaper salt. Marketing is aggressive and has been very successful, aided greatly by salt producers - as in many other countries. Now even common recipes call specifically for fluoridated salt (12).
98% fluoridation- free?
Often encountered on FAN’s website is the statement that 98% of Europe is “unfluoridated”. Anyone who knows about the global drive to fluoridate salt supplies knows how wrong such a statement really is. “Fuzzy Math”? Perhaps one day soon FAN will wake up and take its mandate to “minimize fluoride exposure” seriously and actually pay a bit of attention to the remaining 98% NOT affected by water fluoridation programs, but other means of “base-fluoridation” and “mass-medication” programs?
While it was estimated in the 1990s that worldwide 230 million people received artificially fluoridated water (13), the number of people now affected by fluoridated salt programs greatly exceeds those affected by water fluoridation. 350 million people were added in 1996 alone when the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) launched a massive salt fluoridation program in Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela (14).
The project was part of a multi-year plan launched by PAHO in 1994 to “fluoridate the entire Region of the Americas”. The project was funded - once again - by a multi-year deal grant from Kellogg’s (15).
Since then many other countries have been added and many more are currently in the process. In Jamaica, Costa Rica and Columbia all salt destined for human consumption is fluoridated (“universal” salt fluoridation).
Forced Medication?
Just like in water fluoridation - where it was presumed that people would drink 4 glasses of water every day and thus take in the “optimal” intake of 1 mg of fluoride/per day - salt was fluoridated at 250 ppm. Here it was presumed that “individual application” (meaning use of the salt shaker at the table - the “sprinkling over food”) would contribute 1 to 4 g of the daily total salt intake, thus a person would take in 1 mg of fluoride a day at 4 grams a day - the “optimal” dose of fluoride intake to “protect against caries”.
How dentists ever convinced public health policy makers that the same salt (also called “cooking salt”) wasn’t also used for all cooking, including breadmaking, soups, etc. is anyone’s guess.
Fluoridated salt - which also has plenty of contaminants (16) - has one quality much worse than fluoridated water: an individual's preferred level of salt may be raised or lowered by progressively raising or lowering the actual level over a period of time. In other words, the amount of salt you use today might not be enough for you a month from now when you will be adding a little bit more! Salt consumption has shot through the roof, and worldwide efforts are underway to reduce overall salt intake to 5 g/day. In Costa Rica - just as one example - all salt is fluoridated at 250 ppm and people consume on average 10 g of salt per day, ensuring a daily fluoride intake of 2.5 mg/day from this source alone.
“Fluoride-free by 2003”?
Not this way.
Bob Johannsen, Rainer Neuhaus & Andreas Schuld
Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC)Vancouver, BC, Canada
PFPC Website: http://www.bruha.com/pfpc
E-mail: pfpccanada@shaw.ca
To read FAN’s updated article see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/basel.htm
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Tooth Decay Rise in U.S. Children -May1st
ATLANTA (AP) - Preschoolers are getting more cavities. The largest government study of the nation's dental care in more than 25 years shows a rise in tooth decay in children's baby teeth. The study also notes a drop in the number of adults who visited a dentist in the past year, a possible indicator of declining health insurance. The study's lead author is Doctor Bruce Dye of the National Center for Health Statistics. Some reasons he cites for the increase in children's tooth decay: parents are giving their children more processed snack foods than in the past, and children are getting more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water.
Here we go again! Instead of looking at the reality, dentists continue in denial.
Dr. Bruce A. Dye assigns part of the blame for the increase in U.S. children’s dental caries to “children are getting more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water”. When does the penny actually drop for these people? The US has 100% fluoridated most of its cities for 50 years now, and there is still complete surprise that “poorer people” (i.e. in general, inner city dwellers) have much higher caries rates than others. This is the same racial group, black people, who 70 years ago had the BEST teeth in America! Sheer co-incidence that the highest fluoride areas have the highest caries rates?
Look at the CDC figures across the whole United States and you find there is NO definitive correlation between dental caries reduction and fluoride use. Co-incidence? I can send you the spreadsheet.
Look at the American Cancer Society’s statistics of cancer rates in the various states and set them against the fluoridation rates and you DO find a clear trend to higher cancer death rates in the most fluoridated states. Co-incidence?
I hardly think that the worst caries groups (the poor) are the same ones who are substituting expensive bottled water for tapwater for their children! Does Dr. Dye (not a medical doctor, I take it) really expect us to swallow that one?
Fluoride is pervasive throughout the food and drink chain in fluoridated countries now. Hardly anything escapes some measure of fluoride toxification – children ingesting fruit and soda drinks are, along with an overabundance of sugars, taking in AND RETAINING in their bones and organs, high levels of fluoride. For anyone to suggest that even more fluoride is the answer is to go beyond foolishness to wilful assault on the health of the nation. Maybe Dr. Dye is aptly named.
The dental profession is, as usual, looking for a scapegoat to divert attention from their failure to tackle the caries of those who cannot afford their treatment. More fluoride, more fluoride is their call, as if the human body is suffering from a lack of fluoride, as if it doesn’t have a multitude of negative health effects on the rest of the body, as if it isn’t causing cancer, as if it has actually been tested before use for health, which it never has been on a human population. Meanwhile the 67% of Americans, the Irish, some Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders using fluoride (by which I mean, of course, hydrofluorosilicic acid – the waste from phosphate fertiliser factories which is used to “fluoridate”) DO see their cancer rates rising, their asthma and heart disease rates rising, their sperm counts decreasing, their IQ’s reducing, ADD and Alzheimer's and autism rates increasing and, oh, the caries rate increasing! But, surely, that is all just co-incidence?http://euesireland.blogspot.com/
WELL, DAUGHTER OF DR.DYE, YOUR LOYALTY TO YOUR FAMILY IS TO BE COMMENDED. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU CAN RESEARCH AND ANSWER THE 5 QUESTIONS POSED IN MY "RAMBLINGS" ABOVE, THEN I MAY FIND SOME RESPECT FOR YOU AS A SERIOUS AND CONCERNED CITIZEN.REGARDS.
Here we go again! Instead of looking at the reality, dentists continue in denial.
Dr. Bruce A. Dye assigns part of the blame for the increase in U.S. children’s dental caries to “children are getting more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water”. When does the penny actually drop for these people? The US has 100% fluoridated most of its cities for 50 years now, and there is still complete surprise that “poorer people” (i.e. in general, inner city dwellers) have much higher caries rates than others. This is the same racial group, black people, who 70 years ago had the BEST teeth in America! Sheer co-incidence that the highest fluoride areas have the highest caries rates?
Look at the CDC figures across the whole United States and you find there is NO definitive correlation between dental caries reduction and fluoride use. Co-incidence? I can send you the spreadsheet.
Look at the American Cancer Society’s statistics of cancer rates in the various states and set them against the fluoridation rates and you DO find a clear trend to higher cancer death rates in the most fluoridated states. Co-incidence?
I hardly think that the worst caries groups (the poor) are the same ones who are substituting expensive bottled water for tapwater for their children! Does Dr. Dye (not a medical doctor, I take it) really expect us to swallow that one?
Fluoride is pervasive throughout the food and drink chain in fluoridated countries now. Hardly anything escapes some measure of fluoride toxification – children ingesting fruit and soda drinks are, along with an overabundance of sugars, taking in AND RETAINING in their bones and organs, high levels of fluoride. For anyone to suggest that even more fluoride is the answer is to go beyond foolishness to wilful assault on the health of the nation. Maybe Dr. Dye is aptly named.
The dental profession is, as usual, looking for a scapegoat to divert attention from their failure to tackle the caries of those who cannot afford their treatment. More fluoride, more fluoride is their call, as if the human body is suffering from a lack of fluoride, as if it doesn’t have a multitude of negative health effects on the rest of the body, as if it isn’t causing cancer, as if it has actually been tested before use for health, which it never has been on a human population. Meanwhile the 67% of Americans, the Irish, some Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders using fluoride (by which I mean, of course, hydrofluorosilicic acid – the waste from phosphate fertiliser factories which is used to “fluoridate”) DO see their cancer rates rising, their asthma and heart disease rates rising, their sperm counts decreasing, their IQ’s reducing, ADD and Alzheimer's and autism rates increasing and, oh, the caries rate increasing! But, surely, that is all just co-incidence?http://euesireland.blogspot.com/
WELL, DAUGHTER OF DR.DYE, YOUR LOYALTY TO YOUR FAMILY IS TO BE COMMENDED. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU CAN RESEARCH AND ANSWER THE 5 QUESTIONS POSED IN MY "RAMBLINGS" ABOVE, THEN I MAY FIND SOME RESPECT FOR YOU AS A SERIOUS AND CONCERNED CITIZEN.REGARDS.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
The Fluoride and Cancer Link Exposed
WASHINGTON D.C.
100% FLUORIDATED
241.2 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 2,860 in the District of Columbia.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 1,180 in the District of Columbia.
KENTUCKY
99.60% FLUORIDATED
227 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 22,720 in Kentucky.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 9,360 in Kentucky.
HAWAII
8.60% FLUORIDATED
158 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 5,070 in Hawaii.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 2,090 in Hawaii.
UTAH
2.20% FLUORIDATED
151 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 6,360 in Utah.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 2,620 in Utah.
All figures from the American Cancer Society and the CDC websites cross-referenced by myself.
They feature the two most and the two least fluoridated areas in the States, yet the trend continues when all the other states are included. How come government don't make these statistic correlations themselves? Is it so that the authorities can hide the relationship between high levels of fluoride in a state's drinking water and the high levels of cancers in that state? I cannot paste an Excel spreadsheet to this blog, so if anyone wants the whole list of U.S. states that I put together and wants to see the undeniable link to higher rates, incidence and trends in cancer to higher levels of fluoride in drinking water, then send a request to euesireland@eircom.net. These are truly frightening figures!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Bloody Times
In the current tragic situation in Virginia, USA, and considering the rampant violence in American major cities, all of which are fluoridated, it is worth looking again at the studies which show a correlation between fluoridated areas, fluoride derived psychotropic drugs, lead uptake in babies to adults and the high levels of violence and erratic murderous behaviour. Many of the people involved in previous random shootings of this type were found to be taking fluoride based anti-depressant drugs. With love and sorrow for all the victims of violence everywhere.
State - Kentucky (the most fluoridated State -only Washington, D.C. is higher - at 100%)
99.60% % of state fluoridated
59.80% % of caries in 3rd graders
State - Utah (least fluoridated State)
2.20% % of state fluoridated
61.05% % of caries in 3rd graders
State - Virginia (7th most fluoridated State)
95.50% % of state fluoridated
61% % of caries in 3rd graders
Association of SiF Usage with Higher Blood Lead Levels, Rates of Violent Crime, and Substance Abuse
Masters, R. and Coplan, M. (1999a) "Water Treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity," International Journal of Environmental Studies, 56: 435-49.
First published analysis of data linking silicofluoride treatment of public water supplies with higher uptake of lead, focused on survey of children's blood lead in Massachusetts (by town).
Masters, R. and Coplan, M. (1999b) "A Dynamic, Multifactorial Model of Alchohol, Drug Abuse, and Crime: Linking Neuroscience and Behavior to Toxicology," Social Science Information, 38: 591-624.
Articulation of the linkages between neurotoxicity, brain chemistry, environmental pollution, and behavior (with focus on substance abuse and crime), using data from National Institute of Justice study of drug use in over 30,000 criminal offenders at time of arrest). Data show that where SiF is in use, criminals are more likely to consume alchohol, and to have used cocaine at time of arrest (as well as confirming that such communities have significantly higher violent crime rates).
Wilson, Jim (1999). "The Chemistry of Violence," Popular Mechanics, (April), pp. 42-43.
Masters, R.D., Coplan, M. J., Hone, B. T., and Dykes, J. E. (2000). "Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead," Neurotoxicology 21: 101-1100.
Follow-up epidemiological study of the association between SiF treated water and enhanced child blood lead. This statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead tests taken from children ages 0-6, living in 105 communities with populations from 15,000 to 75,000 in New York state, shows for every age and racial group a significant association between SiF usage and elevated blood lead.
Masters, Roger D. (2003). "The Social Implications of Evolutionary Psychology: Linking Brain Biochemistry, Toxins, and Violent Crime," in Richard W. Bloom and Nancy K. Dess, eds., Evolutionary Psychology and Violence: A Primer for Policymakers and Public Policy Advocates (Westwood: Praeger), Ch. 2, pp. 23-56.
Analysis of evidence of neurotransmitter dysfunction due to toxins associated with increased rates of violent crime, with extensive discussion of silicofluoride neurotoxicity as an important instance.
State - Kentucky (the most fluoridated State -only Washington, D.C. is higher - at 100%)
99.60% % of state fluoridated
59.80% % of caries in 3rd graders
State - Utah (least fluoridated State)
2.20% % of state fluoridated
61.05% % of caries in 3rd graders
State - Virginia (7th most fluoridated State)
95.50% % of state fluoridated
61% % of caries in 3rd graders
Association of SiF Usage with Higher Blood Lead Levels, Rates of Violent Crime, and Substance Abuse
Masters, R. and Coplan, M. (1999a) "Water Treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity," International Journal of Environmental Studies, 56: 435-49.
First published analysis of data linking silicofluoride treatment of public water supplies with higher uptake of lead, focused on survey of children's blood lead in Massachusetts (by town).
Masters, R. and Coplan, M. (1999b) "A Dynamic, Multifactorial Model of Alchohol, Drug Abuse, and Crime: Linking Neuroscience and Behavior to Toxicology," Social Science Information, 38: 591-624.
Articulation of the linkages between neurotoxicity, brain chemistry, environmental pollution, and behavior (with focus on substance abuse and crime), using data from National Institute of Justice study of drug use in over 30,000 criminal offenders at time of arrest). Data show that where SiF is in use, criminals are more likely to consume alchohol, and to have used cocaine at time of arrest (as well as confirming that such communities have significantly higher violent crime rates).
Wilson, Jim (1999). "The Chemistry of Violence," Popular Mechanics, (April), pp. 42-43.
Masters, R.D., Coplan, M. J., Hone, B. T., and Dykes, J. E. (2000). "Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead," Neurotoxicology 21: 101-1100.
Follow-up epidemiological study of the association between SiF treated water and enhanced child blood lead. This statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead tests taken from children ages 0-6, living in 105 communities with populations from 15,000 to 75,000 in New York state, shows for every age and racial group a significant association between SiF usage and elevated blood lead.
Masters, Roger D. (2003). "The Social Implications of Evolutionary Psychology: Linking Brain Biochemistry, Toxins, and Violent Crime," in Richard W. Bloom and Nancy K. Dess, eds., Evolutionary Psychology and Violence: A Primer for Policymakers and Public Policy Advocates (Westwood: Praeger), Ch. 2, pp. 23-56.
Analysis of evidence of neurotransmitter dysfunction due to toxins associated with increased rates of violent crime, with extensive discussion of silicofluoride neurotoxicity as an important instance.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Average Daily Fluoride Intake???Who Knows???
Excerpts from The Secret War and The Fluoride Conspiracy By Dr. Geoffrey E. Smith
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has always measured the safety of fluoridation on the basis of one study of crippling skeletal fluorosis, which was first published in 1935. The EPA's regulation for the maximum allowable concentration of fluoride in drinking water was established for one purpose - to prevent this disease. However, crippling is the [bioaccumulative] end stage of chronic fluoride poisoning. The earlier stages involve gastrointestinal problems, arthritis, and osteoporosis. None of these earlier symptoms are considered in the regulation ... only the end stage. In 1985, when the EPA [suddenly pretended there was a grand change in human biology and] raised the maximum contaminant level to 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water, they used dosage figures miscalculated in 1953 by Harold C. Hodge, who was chairman of the NAS committee on toxicology. Hodge's original figures (20-80 mg/day for 10-20 years) were corrected by Hodge in 1979, and by NAS in 1993. The corrected figures, based on Roholm's classic study of workers in the cryolite industry, amount to 0.2 to 0.35 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight per day, for eleven years. When extrapolated over a lifetime of 55 to 96 years, these crippling dosage figures equal 1 milligram of fluoride daily for each 55 pounds of body weight ... 0.04 mg/kg/day. In the early years of water fluoridation [human experimentation], this dosage was not the norm. At that time, water was virtually the only source of fluoride in the American diet. The total intake for most adults was 0.02 mg/kg/day ... about one to one and a half milligrams of fluoride daily. Today, the figure is 0.095 mg/kg/day... from food and drinking water alone ... more than 6 milligrams daily. This increase in ingested fluoride, largely due to the use of artificial fertilizers containing fluoride, pesticide residues, dental products, and modern food processing, has changed a relatively safe dosage into one capable of causing crippling deformities of the spine and major joints, as well as the muscle pain associated with fibromyalgia. Beer and wine often contain significant quantities of fluoride, as does ordinary tea. Grape juice often contains even larger quantities of fluoride, due to the widespread use of pesticides, which remain on the grape skin. Fluoride in toothpaste can be absorbed through the tissues of the mouth, as well as swallowed accidentally. Many prescription drugs also contain fluoride. None of these items are labeled to indicate the quantity of fluoride added to the daily dietary total.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has always measured the safety of fluoridation on the basis of one study of crippling skeletal fluorosis, which was first published in 1935. The EPA's regulation for the maximum allowable concentration of fluoride in drinking water was established for one purpose - to prevent this disease. However, crippling is the [bioaccumulative] end stage of chronic fluoride poisoning. The earlier stages involve gastrointestinal problems, arthritis, and osteoporosis. None of these earlier symptoms are considered in the regulation ... only the end stage. In 1985, when the EPA [suddenly pretended there was a grand change in human biology and] raised the maximum contaminant level to 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water, they used dosage figures miscalculated in 1953 by Harold C. Hodge, who was chairman of the NAS committee on toxicology. Hodge's original figures (20-80 mg/day for 10-20 years) were corrected by Hodge in 1979, and by NAS in 1993. The corrected figures, based on Roholm's classic study of workers in the cryolite industry, amount to 0.2 to 0.35 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight per day, for eleven years. When extrapolated over a lifetime of 55 to 96 years, these crippling dosage figures equal 1 milligram of fluoride daily for each 55 pounds of body weight ... 0.04 mg/kg/day. In the early years of water fluoridation [human experimentation], this dosage was not the norm. At that time, water was virtually the only source of fluoride in the American diet. The total intake for most adults was 0.02 mg/kg/day ... about one to one and a half milligrams of fluoride daily. Today, the figure is 0.095 mg/kg/day... from food and drinking water alone ... more than 6 milligrams daily. This increase in ingested fluoride, largely due to the use of artificial fertilizers containing fluoride, pesticide residues, dental products, and modern food processing, has changed a relatively safe dosage into one capable of causing crippling deformities of the spine and major joints, as well as the muscle pain associated with fibromyalgia. Beer and wine often contain significant quantities of fluoride, as does ordinary tea. Grape juice often contains even larger quantities of fluoride, due to the widespread use of pesticides, which remain on the grape skin. Fluoride in toothpaste can be absorbed through the tissues of the mouth, as well as swallowed accidentally. Many prescription drugs also contain fluoride. None of these items are labeled to indicate the quantity of fluoride added to the daily dietary total.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)