This article covers many of the relevant points that should be made to any governing body anywhere which currently advocates fluoridation and the Pennsylvania experience is in microcosm what other fluoridated areas are going through. Hopefully their City Fathers will do the right thing and halt fluoridation now.
Reprinted from New Jersey Cosmetic Dentistry Blog http://cent4dent.com:80/blog/?p=66
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
The issue of pharmaceuticals in drinking water has hit the mass media in the past couple of months. In response to numbers showing many drug residues in Philadelphia’s drinking water and water sources, Philadelphia City Council held a hearing on the issue. Of the four groups lined up to speak, I was (also) invited so that ActionPA would be one of two environmental groups to testify. With permission from the organizer, I used the opportunity to talk about water fluoridation at the hearing this past Monday.
My testimony is below and attached. Amazingly, it was well-received and when the city council turned around to ask the Philadelphia Water Department to verify if it was true that the fluoridation chemicals aren’t pharmaceutical grade, but are from the phosphate industry, the Water Department confirmed it (and some of my other statements). The affirmed that it’s not necessary or mandatory and that they do it because a city ordinance requires it. Of course, they contradicted me by claiming that they think it’s safe. However, they admitted that they weren’t on top of the recent science on the issue.
I was delighted to see the council president’s special counsel and the mayor’s legislative and government affairs coordinator express interest in it, asking for a copy of my testimony (which I put together after I delivered it). Maybe this is the first crack in the 54-year old fluoridation practice in this city.
Anyway… feel free to use any of this. Most of the info is the same as what we already have on our website, but repackaged for Philadelphia City Council.
Mike—–
Testimony of Mike EwallDirector of ActionPA before City Council Committee on Public Health & Human Services Public Hearing Concerning the Safety of the City’s Drinking Water Resolution #080288
April 14th, 2008
Hi, my name is Mike Ewall and I’m the Founder and Director of ActionPA, a statewide environmental group based here in Philadelphia.
I’m here to speak to the issue of the single most dangerous “drug” in the water – one that is the most preventable.
Others are here to talk about pharmaceutical drugs that are present in waters in parts per trillion (ppt), which is a real concern. The debate is about whether there are health effects at that level and the science is still being developed as more studies are done on the matter.
Philadelphia pays around $1,000,000 per year to put fluoridation chemicals in the water at one part per million (ppm) – a level one million times higher than what we’re talking about with the other drugs. This 1 ppm level is a level at which health effects are intended and expected.
Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products
However, the “fluoride” that is put in the drinking water isn’t pharmaceutical grade, even though it’s put in the water with a pharmaceutical intention. They’re not squirting toothpaste into the water. The chemical purchased by the Philadelphia Water Department (and 92% of U.S. drinking water systems that fluoridate) is hydrofluosilicic acid, a hazardous waste byproduct of the phosphate industry. Literally, if the same chemicals were dumped into a river or lake, it would be regulated as hazardous waste. However, injecting the same chemicals into drinking water supplies at 1 ppm is considered medication. Legally, upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”, allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Over 99% of fluoridated water is released directly into the environment at around 1 ppm and is not even used for drinking or cooking.
These chemicals are not FDA approved for safety or effectiveness and the delivered chemicals are not batch tested for contaminants, even though these chemicals are known to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive particles and more. The arsenic levels in particular are enough to be at levels that should concern a water system, since they’re high enough to potentially push a water system over the safe drinking water act limit for arsenic (a limit that was lowered in 2001). [See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-arsenic.htm]
Fluoridation not effective at reducing tooth decayThe intended effect of putting hydrofluosilicic acid in the drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. However, data from our own state Department of Health [Oral Health Needs Assessment, 2000] shows that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh, with Philadelphia in second place. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3] Both cities have been fluoridated since the 1950s. National and international data backs this up. Looking at the tooth decay trends in the few countries where fluoridation is common compared to comparable first world countries where fluoridation isn’t used, you can see that tooth decay is falling overall, regardless of fluoridation status. [See 2nd chart at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html] On the national level, a state-by-state review of data from the CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the percentage of U.S. residents with ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ teeth is related directly to income levels and is totally unaffected by the percentage of the state’s population that is receiving fluoridated water. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/50states.pdf] Populations with more tooth decay are those who are poor and can’t afford dental care.
Fluoridation causes discoloration of teeth (fluorosis)
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh also have the state’s highest rates of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the white, brown or yellow spotting (or ‘mottling’) of tooth enamel. It’s a disease named after the fluoride chemicals that cause it. The PA Department of Health data from the aforementioned Oral Health Needs Assessment shows that Philadelphia’s rate of children with dental fluorosis is the highest in the state (25.6%) compared to a state-wide average of 14.9% and a rate in the (largely unfluoridated) Philadelphia suburbs of 9.9%. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3]
Agencies warn not to mix infant formula with fluoridated tap waterIn late 2006, two of the largest organizational promoters of fluoridation – the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control – both issued a press release warning that parents shouldn’t use fluoridated water to mix infant formula for infants in their first year of age. No warnings have gone to fluoridated water customers, however, to let parents of young children know that they’re not supposed to mix infant formula with Philadelphia tap water. [See links to the press releases here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason6]
Scientific studies in recent years show many health problems with fluoride exposure
Various other health problems have been linked to fluoride exposure, as documented many times in recent years. A recent Scientific American article [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/sciam.pdf] brought some of this to popular attention. The landmark study of the issue is the National Research Council’s March 2006 extensive review of over 1,000 scientific studies. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2006.pdf] The National Research Council (NRC) is part of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, which does research for the federal government, in this case, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report concluded that the level determined to be “safe” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unsafe and needs to be lowered to protect public health. EPA’s “no longer considered safe” level of 4 ppm is already dangerously close to the 1 ppm level put in drinking water. Since the dose can’t be controlled, there are some populations that drink more water and are at higher risk, including diabetics and athletes. Health Departments and other fluoridation promoters will argue that the report isn’t relevant to water fluoridation due to the difference between the 4 ppm level studied and the 1 ppm level used. This position has been refuted by one of the NRC report’s authors and others. [See http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html] Additional links on the topic are here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason1
EPA scientists call for national ban on fluoridation
The NRC report affirmed the long-standing position of EPA’s own scientists, who have long objected to the determination that 4 ppm was a “safe” level. In August 2005, eleven EPA unions representing over 7,000 environmental and public health professionals at the federal agency wrote to Congress and called for a national moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young males. The union representing scientists at the EPA Region III office in Philadelphia, which covers Pennsylvania is one of the unions signed onto this statement. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason9]
Fluoride-lead connection implicates fluoridation with violence, drugs and learning problems
Another major concern is the fluoride-lead connection. Some studies have shown that hydrofluosilicic acid leaches lead from pipes. [For the most recent study, see: Neurotoxicology. Sept. 28, 2007, “Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.” RP Maas, SC Patch, AM Christian, MJ Coplan] Other studies have shown that exposure to hydrofluosilicic acid increases the brain’s absorption of lead – especially in African-Americans and Latinos. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason2] The increased exposure to (and absorption of) lead is well known to affect learning ability and IQ. Because it affects the dopamine levels in the brain, the fluoride-enhanced lead exposure has also been implicated with increased affinity for violence and cocaine addiction. That such pressing urban problems could be made worse by fluoridation is cause enough to take precaution and stop adding fluoride acids to the water system.
Philadelphia’s hydrofluosilicic acid purchases; rising chemical costs
Since hydrofluosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate industry, its availability is subject to the trend of falling phosphate production. In late 2007, the American Water Works Association and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued warnings of fluoridation chemical shortages. [See links to these warnings at the bottom section of: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals/shortagesandrisingcosts.html ] As phosphate production has been dropping, the costs of purchasing the chemicals has been rising dramatically, nation-wide. Since at least 1999, Philadelphia’s supplier has been Solvay Fluoride. In 1999, the city paid $447/ton, spending nearly $200,000 on the chemicals that year. In 2007, the city bought the same chemicals for $1,194/ton and the costs are expected to double again in the city’s current purchasing for the coming year. If this expected doubling takes place, the city will now be paying about $1 million a year just for the chemicals, not to mention the cost of handling and administering the chemicals.
State mandate would take away local control and further increase costsThe state legislature is considering House Bill 1649 [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/bills/], which would mandate fluoridation statewide, taking away the rights of local governments to choose whether to fluoridate their water systems. Currently, about 9% of the state’s water systems are fluoridated, affecting 52% of the state’s water customers (it’s mostly the urban systems that are fluoridating). [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/map/] If HB 1649 passes, it’ll nearly double the demand for fluoridation chemicals in the state, making the current chemical shortages even more dire and dramatically pushing the chemical costs even higher. Even if Philadelphia wanted to keep fluoridating forever, it’s in the city’s financial interest not to see HB 1649 pass, since the mandate would further drive up the cost to the city.
City Council can take precaution, repeal the 1951 ordinance and save moneyIn the medical profession, there is the principle “first, do no harm.” This precautionary principle should be applied in this case – where there is mounting evidence of harm, very questionable benefit and no requirement that the practice continue. The only requirement currently in place is a 1951 city ordinance that caused the city’s water to start being fluoridated in 1954. [The ordinance and related documents provided by the Philadelphia Water Department can be found here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/philly/]
In light of the mounting costs and rising awareness of health and social problems relating to fluoridation, City Council is encouraged to repeal the 1951 ordinance and instruct the Philadelphia Water Department to cease water fluoridation – which would also save the city around $1 million or more a year. Ending water fluoridation can be done through a simple DEP permit process. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/383-2125-001.pdf]
There are many credentialed scientific experts who are familiar with the newest science on water fluoridation and fluoride exposure. I’d encourage this committee to invite some of these experts to the hearings on this important topic – and I’d be glad to provide access to these experts.
If the city wanted to effectively address the tooth decay problem, the savings from ending water fluoridation could be used to hire dentists that could treat eligible low-income city residents who can’t afford dental care.
Thank you.
Mike EwallFounder & DirectorActionPA1434 Elbridge St.Philadelphia, PA 19149215-743-4884catalyst@actionpa.orghttp://www.actionpa.org
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 16th, 2008
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Holmen,Wisconsin Fluoride Debate March 2007
On March 27th, 2007 around 5.15pm GMT many of the posts and debates on the fluoride issue disappeared from The Holmen Courier website on a number of articles. No explanation has been forthcoming.
wrote on March 27, 2007 11:12 AM (Wisconsin Time): "Hi. OK, to answer your questions, some of which I find completely irrelevant, but however: 1) No, I do not use fluoridated toothpaste - I use a Pfizer brand called Euthymol and have for about 10 years. Funny, but the number of filling I get has dropped from about 3 a year to 1 every two years, and that is replacing old ones. I have had NO caries since starting to use it. I never realised that until you asked, so thanks! 2) If you knew something that could help to improve a person's life through contacting them, would it really matter to you where they lived? If they lived far away would that cause you to ignore the help you could give? As it happens, I lived in Chicago for a number of years and vacationed in Wisconsin, so I have a soft spot for the state. I believe the Internet helps us all to realize that we are part of the larger world community anyway. 3) The clues of where I get my information are in some of my previous posts and the many links I give. I have studied fluoridation on the Internet, in books and on video, I have read articles, research papers and do a search every day via Google for new fluoride information. That is how I first heard of Holmen. I encourage everybody to do their OWN research and not just to take the word of vested interests! 4) My profession is as an environmental consultant in recycling. I run the logistics for one of the two Irish Producer WEEE Compliance schemes. As I said before, fluoride research is something I have undertaken at my own initiative as my "special interest". I also think it is one of the most disgusting and cynical practices inflicted on a human population without their consent by those who stand to gain financially by it. The long-term hazards to human health are totally unknown, but by the rates of increases in Alzheimer's Disease, cancers, osteoporosis, hyperthyroidism and other conditions in the populations of fluoridating countries it is only a matter of time until the penny drops. "
To: lucifersmirror 24/3/2007
Hi. I, and I am sure others, would appreciate if you kept this blog on topic. However, as the pro-fluoride lobby do not try to spread information and instead try to subdue it, I will answer your questions and remarks. First, you mention fluoride and the Nazis. I have read the fascinating " The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" which is the work usually referred to as containing the statements about concentration camp use of fluoride. The book does not mention this at all. Pending further substantiated information you can lump that together with the fluoride lobby's repeated references to Dr Strangelove and 50 year of fluoridation prove this is safe, etc...! As to beer, you can trust most beers brewed in countries without fluoridation, i.e. most of Europe, i.e. Belgium, Holland, Germany, France, etc. You must contact a company which brews beer on licence in Ireland to ascertain whether they use local fluoridated water or not. Most do. Carlsberg is safe in that it uses Northern Ireland water, Hoegarden also , as it is brewed in Belgium. For baby formula, use bottled water with sodium content under 15mg/l. Good luck, but please keep on topic in future. Regards.
wrote on March 19, 2007 12:46 PM:"Thank you. I agree that the cynical concept of mass medication and toxic waste dumping known as fluoridation is a world -wide problem (at least in Ireland, US, Canada, NZ and Australia where it is practiced) wherever it raises its ugly head, and that it does not matter where one lives - if you have some knowledge about the situation and you see people in danger, you try to help. Not doing so is an abrogation of responsibility. It seems that people who want this is their water are looking for the State to stop their caries, are they reluctant to ensure a proper dental regime and diet for themselves? Don't they realise that if you look after your teeth you don't need additives, especially in public water, to do the job you should be doing yourself? Is it just laziness? If they spent even three days researching this subject -say starting with Christopher Bryson's well researched book "The Fluoride Deception" (Video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7319752042352089988&pl=true ) maybe they would start to see that the claims of the fluoride lobby revolve around something way beyond teeth. Why was the ADA AGAINST fluoridation until 1952?! They had discovered fluoride effects on the public in the 1920's. Unfortunately, there are just some people who want government to do everything for them without regard to the rights of others, especially those who try to educate themselves, regard their and their family members bodies as temples and are very aware of the pollutive effects of this hydrofluorosilicic acid. Buy a toothbrush and cut down on the sugar instead of trying to medicate everybody, that is the lazy way. SUGGESTED READING FOR THE INTERESTED & CONCERNED: Christopher Bryson – The Fluoride Deception Barry Groves – Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death? WEBSITES: www.kildare.ie/healthfitness/2006/12/fluoride_in_water.html -very interesting look at all the physical effects of fluoride http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller17.html - A Doctors View -in plain English www.fluoridealert.org www.voiceireland.org http://www.nofluoride.com http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i13/8413notw8.html -what the chemical companies say http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm -what the York Report REALLY said http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20060322/index.php -analysis of baby FL intake http://www.just-think-it.com/no-f.htm - just one of many scientists’ view http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=25017 - leaching of lead due to FL http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html - links with Alzheimers http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/ http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Fluoride/Fluoride31.html - Prof.Paul Connett http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000072.htm - Dr. Don MacAuley – Irish Dentist http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluorideinformation.htm - DoHC Hiding Report? http://bruha.com/pfpc/ - A parents view site http://www.waterwatchofutah.com/thecontroversy.htm - U.S. Community concern http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/ZWAReports11-2-98.htm LEARN – INFORM – CAUSE CHANGE EUES Ireland"
EUES Ireland wrote on March 18, 2007 12:15 PM:"Good Day! In relation to remarks about Ireland & fluoridation: 76% of public water is fluoridated and has been since 1964 after a 4 year case was taken by a citizen fighting it on the basis of individual freedom was brought all the way to the Supreme Court. As the only European country fluoridating by statute you would think that we would be number one in the European caries league, but we are 6th, behind 5 non-fluoridating countries. Even in the US, Utah has the lowest fluoridation AND the lowest caries rate. Ireland does though, have some of the highest heart disease rates, increasing Alzheimer's Disease rates and 40% higher levels of bone cancer in young men than non-fluoridated Northern Ireland! To say there is a very strong debate going on at this time is quite accurate. Recently, an Expert Fluoridation Forum institued by the government advised reducing the fluoridation rate from 1ppm to 0.6-0.8 ppm, a 25% reduction. Interesting as up until the last couple of years the ADA claimed that fluoridation under 0.7ppm had no effects! They have quietly dropped that claim, as public pressure causes governments to look at reducing the levels of hydrofluorosilicic acid added to water. A Dept of Health & Children committee has examined the situation and is considering advising that this toxic waste dumping known as fluoridation be ceased altogether. For those who still believe that fluoride makes bones and teeth stronger here is just the latest of many articles by professionals (in this case a pediatrician from Bangor, Maine) showing the fluoride claims up as false and misleading. http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?articleid=147576&zoneid=35 "
March 16th, 2007
Hi people. Sorry I missed the last couple of days discussion – I actually DO have a job that keeps me way busy!! But I also have made it my business to investigate this fluoride issue for the past six years for myself. I will try to answer some of the comments made earlier.
The reference to lowered IQ levels is based on research conducted in China, where non-fluoridated villages were trial-twinned with those that had a higher natural fluoride level in the water. From 6-12 IQ points LOWER were noted as common in the fluoridated well water villages. See the science here:
http://www.fluoridation.com/brain.htm and here: www.fluoride-journal.com/00-33-2/332-74.pdf and here: http://fluoridealert.org/news/1655.html
Speaking of trial-twinning villages – did you know that the NY town of Newburgh (which incidentally used pure sodium fluoride in the 1950’s trials, not the hodge-podge of chemicals known as hydrofluosilicic acid used today) has no better dental record 50 years down the line than Kingston, the “control” town that it was compared with? It does, however, have one of the highest heart disease rates in the U.S. “Fluoride concentrates in the arteries, attracting calcium and can contribute directly to their hardening” according to scientists. This high rate of heart disease is shared by Grand Rapids, Michigan, another test town for fluoride in the 1950’s, which doubled its disease rate only 5 years into the trials.
It is difficult to know who I am talking to here as names do not come up on the website, but if anyone has questions (which I may or may not be able to answer) please feel free to ask– I much prefer questions asked honestly, rather than name calling and slagging off people. To JS, who said keep it brief – erm, why? How much do they charge you for people to put stuff up here??? You don’t have to read it. No one is forcing you to read, so, why do you want to force others to drink this gunk? Why are you even here if you think it’s all a waste of time?
Ireland is now into its third year of a smoking ban in all public buildings, including pubs. I love it!!! I smoked for 17 years and gave it up in my thirties. It is SO pleasant to go into a pub or concert now and not come out smelling like an ashtray. So that comment about being anti-ban is just stupid.
Check the Irish dentists site for the fluorosis figures. In the States it is estimated by the CDC that the figure is now that 50% of school-going children suffer from some form of fluorosis.
Here: http://homepage.eircom.net/~aud/home.html
And here: http://medserv.no/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3382
WHAT benefit of fluoride??? That is part of the problem, chuck. Cavity figures worldwide have dropped tremendously – WITH or WITHOUT fluoride! Seems like better education and dental habits to me. UTAH has the lowest (3%) fluoridated water supply of all the States – AND the lowest caries rate. U.S. Government figures – check it. In 2000 the British Government set up the York (University) Report – a forum of scientists which was to back the government’s intent to bringing in fluoridation. It examined all the science and research done on fluoridation since the 50’s. In its final report it said, and I quote: “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight dis-benefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.” Doesn’t sound like they thought the argument about the benefits was proven! What convinced you?
Get it here: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
I ALWAYS encourage people to investigate and learn FOR THEMSELVES – something that you, Mr Smoking Ban, seem never to have bothered to do. Before you go slagging me and others off, why don’t you just move your, em, mouse and check some of the sites I have listed in my previous email? You don’t even have the courage to leave a name!
PS And sadly, yes, the Irish Guinness IS made with fluoridated Dublin water – now I have to drink Carlsberg, brewed in non-fl Northern Ireland –but hey, it’s OK! And there is fluoride in your Miller and all other beers and juices and any product manufactured in a fluoridated area. Happy St.Patrick’s Day!
And just to mention a good point made by another contributor to the Holmen debate:
By ROBERT BRIGGSKailua, HawaiiThis is in response to your recent article “Push to fluoridate Holmen's water could renew debate about practice.” You have provided much food for thought, Thank you very much.There is much I could comment on, but I wish for you, and those receiving a copy, to consider what water fluoridation has NOT done for cities fluoridated for many years. To name a few, New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., and Cincinnati, are all experiencing dental decay rates much higher than the national average. The dental decay rates in these cities are probably higher than in Holmen.I doubt that there is anything unique about Holmen to suggest that fluoridating its water would reduce dental decay.
wrote on March 27, 2007 11:12 AM (Wisconsin Time): "Hi. OK, to answer your questions, some of which I find completely irrelevant, but however: 1) No, I do not use fluoridated toothpaste - I use a Pfizer brand called Euthymol and have for about 10 years. Funny, but the number of filling I get has dropped from about 3 a year to 1 every two years, and that is replacing old ones. I have had NO caries since starting to use it. I never realised that until you asked, so thanks! 2) If you knew something that could help to improve a person's life through contacting them, would it really matter to you where they lived? If they lived far away would that cause you to ignore the help you could give? As it happens, I lived in Chicago for a number of years and vacationed in Wisconsin, so I have a soft spot for the state. I believe the Internet helps us all to realize that we are part of the larger world community anyway. 3) The clues of where I get my information are in some of my previous posts and the many links I give. I have studied fluoridation on the Internet, in books and on video, I have read articles, research papers and do a search every day via Google for new fluoride information. That is how I first heard of Holmen. I encourage everybody to do their OWN research and not just to take the word of vested interests! 4) My profession is as an environmental consultant in recycling. I run the logistics for one of the two Irish Producer WEEE Compliance schemes. As I said before, fluoride research is something I have undertaken at my own initiative as my "special interest". I also think it is one of the most disgusting and cynical practices inflicted on a human population without their consent by those who stand to gain financially by it. The long-term hazards to human health are totally unknown, but by the rates of increases in Alzheimer's Disease, cancers, osteoporosis, hyperthyroidism and other conditions in the populations of fluoridating countries it is only a matter of time until the penny drops. "
To: lucifersmirror 24/3/2007
Hi. I, and I am sure others, would appreciate if you kept this blog on topic. However, as the pro-fluoride lobby do not try to spread information and instead try to subdue it, I will answer your questions and remarks. First, you mention fluoride and the Nazis. I have read the fascinating " The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" which is the work usually referred to as containing the statements about concentration camp use of fluoride. The book does not mention this at all. Pending further substantiated information you can lump that together with the fluoride lobby's repeated references to Dr Strangelove and 50 year of fluoridation prove this is safe, etc...! As to beer, you can trust most beers brewed in countries without fluoridation, i.e. most of Europe, i.e. Belgium, Holland, Germany, France, etc. You must contact a company which brews beer on licence in Ireland to ascertain whether they use local fluoridated water or not. Most do. Carlsberg is safe in that it uses Northern Ireland water, Hoegarden also , as it is brewed in Belgium. For baby formula, use bottled water with sodium content under 15mg/l. Good luck, but please keep on topic in future. Regards.
wrote on March 19, 2007 12:46 PM:"Thank you. I agree that the cynical concept of mass medication and toxic waste dumping known as fluoridation is a world -wide problem (at least in Ireland, US, Canada, NZ and Australia where it is practiced) wherever it raises its ugly head, and that it does not matter where one lives - if you have some knowledge about the situation and you see people in danger, you try to help. Not doing so is an abrogation of responsibility. It seems that people who want this is their water are looking for the State to stop their caries, are they reluctant to ensure a proper dental regime and diet for themselves? Don't they realise that if you look after your teeth you don't need additives, especially in public water, to do the job you should be doing yourself? Is it just laziness? If they spent even three days researching this subject -say starting with Christopher Bryson's well researched book "The Fluoride Deception" (Video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7319752042352089988&pl=true ) maybe they would start to see that the claims of the fluoride lobby revolve around something way beyond teeth. Why was the ADA AGAINST fluoridation until 1952?! They had discovered fluoride effects on the public in the 1920's. Unfortunately, there are just some people who want government to do everything for them without regard to the rights of others, especially those who try to educate themselves, regard their and their family members bodies as temples and are very aware of the pollutive effects of this hydrofluorosilicic acid. Buy a toothbrush and cut down on the sugar instead of trying to medicate everybody, that is the lazy way. SUGGESTED READING FOR THE INTERESTED & CONCERNED: Christopher Bryson – The Fluoride Deception Barry Groves – Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death? WEBSITES: www.kildare.ie/healthfitness/2006/12/fluoride_in_water.html -very interesting look at all the physical effects of fluoride http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller17.html - A Doctors View -in plain English www.fluoridealert.org www.voiceireland.org http://www.nofluoride.com http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i13/8413notw8.html -what the chemical companies say http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm -what the York Report REALLY said http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20060322/index.php -analysis of baby FL intake http://www.just-think-it.com/no-f.htm - just one of many scientists’ view http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=25017 - leaching of lead due to FL http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html - links with Alzheimers http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/ http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Fluoride/Fluoride31.html - Prof.Paul Connett http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000072.htm - Dr. Don MacAuley – Irish Dentist http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluorideinformation.htm - DoHC Hiding Report? http://bruha.com/pfpc/ - A parents view site http://www.waterwatchofutah.com/thecontroversy.htm - U.S. Community concern http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/ZWAReports11-2-98.htm LEARN – INFORM – CAUSE CHANGE EUES Ireland"
EUES Ireland wrote on March 18, 2007 12:15 PM:"Good Day! In relation to remarks about Ireland & fluoridation: 76% of public water is fluoridated and has been since 1964 after a 4 year case was taken by a citizen fighting it on the basis of individual freedom was brought all the way to the Supreme Court. As the only European country fluoridating by statute you would think that we would be number one in the European caries league, but we are 6th, behind 5 non-fluoridating countries. Even in the US, Utah has the lowest fluoridation AND the lowest caries rate. Ireland does though, have some of the highest heart disease rates, increasing Alzheimer's Disease rates and 40% higher levels of bone cancer in young men than non-fluoridated Northern Ireland! To say there is a very strong debate going on at this time is quite accurate. Recently, an Expert Fluoridation Forum institued by the government advised reducing the fluoridation rate from 1ppm to 0.6-0.8 ppm, a 25% reduction. Interesting as up until the last couple of years the ADA claimed that fluoridation under 0.7ppm had no effects! They have quietly dropped that claim, as public pressure causes governments to look at reducing the levels of hydrofluorosilicic acid added to water. A Dept of Health & Children committee has examined the situation and is considering advising that this toxic waste dumping known as fluoridation be ceased altogether. For those who still believe that fluoride makes bones and teeth stronger here is just the latest of many articles by professionals (in this case a pediatrician from Bangor, Maine) showing the fluoride claims up as false and misleading. http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?articleid=147576&zoneid=35 "
March 16th, 2007
Hi people. Sorry I missed the last couple of days discussion – I actually DO have a job that keeps me way busy!! But I also have made it my business to investigate this fluoride issue for the past six years for myself. I will try to answer some of the comments made earlier.
The reference to lowered IQ levels is based on research conducted in China, where non-fluoridated villages were trial-twinned with those that had a higher natural fluoride level in the water. From 6-12 IQ points LOWER were noted as common in the fluoridated well water villages. See the science here:
http://www.fluoridation.com/brain.htm and here: www.fluoride-journal.com/00-33-2/332-74.pdf and here: http://fluoridealert.org/news/1655.html
Speaking of trial-twinning villages – did you know that the NY town of Newburgh (which incidentally used pure sodium fluoride in the 1950’s trials, not the hodge-podge of chemicals known as hydrofluosilicic acid used today) has no better dental record 50 years down the line than Kingston, the “control” town that it was compared with? It does, however, have one of the highest heart disease rates in the U.S. “Fluoride concentrates in the arteries, attracting calcium and can contribute directly to their hardening” according to scientists. This high rate of heart disease is shared by Grand Rapids, Michigan, another test town for fluoride in the 1950’s, which doubled its disease rate only 5 years into the trials.
It is difficult to know who I am talking to here as names do not come up on the website, but if anyone has questions (which I may or may not be able to answer) please feel free to ask– I much prefer questions asked honestly, rather than name calling and slagging off people. To JS, who said keep it brief – erm, why? How much do they charge you for people to put stuff up here??? You don’t have to read it. No one is forcing you to read, so, why do you want to force others to drink this gunk? Why are you even here if you think it’s all a waste of time?
Ireland is now into its third year of a smoking ban in all public buildings, including pubs. I love it!!! I smoked for 17 years and gave it up in my thirties. It is SO pleasant to go into a pub or concert now and not come out smelling like an ashtray. So that comment about being anti-ban is just stupid.
Check the Irish dentists site for the fluorosis figures. In the States it is estimated by the CDC that the figure is now that 50% of school-going children suffer from some form of fluorosis.
Here: http://homepage.eircom.net/~aud/home.html
And here: http://medserv.no/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3382
WHAT benefit of fluoride??? That is part of the problem, chuck. Cavity figures worldwide have dropped tremendously – WITH or WITHOUT fluoride! Seems like better education and dental habits to me. UTAH has the lowest (3%) fluoridated water supply of all the States – AND the lowest caries rate. U.S. Government figures – check it. In 2000 the British Government set up the York (University) Report – a forum of scientists which was to back the government’s intent to bringing in fluoridation. It examined all the science and research done on fluoridation since the 50’s. In its final report it said, and I quote: “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight dis-benefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.” Doesn’t sound like they thought the argument about the benefits was proven! What convinced you?
Get it here: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
I ALWAYS encourage people to investigate and learn FOR THEMSELVES – something that you, Mr Smoking Ban, seem never to have bothered to do. Before you go slagging me and others off, why don’t you just move your, em, mouse and check some of the sites I have listed in my previous email? You don’t even have the courage to leave a name!
PS And sadly, yes, the Irish Guinness IS made with fluoridated Dublin water – now I have to drink Carlsberg, brewed in non-fl Northern Ireland –but hey, it’s OK! And there is fluoride in your Miller and all other beers and juices and any product manufactured in a fluoridated area. Happy St.Patrick’s Day!
And just to mention a good point made by another contributor to the Holmen debate:
By ROBERT BRIGGSKailua, HawaiiThis is in response to your recent article “Push to fluoridate Holmen's water could renew debate about practice.” You have provided much food for thought, Thank you very much.There is much I could comment on, but I wish for you, and those receiving a copy, to consider what water fluoridation has NOT done for cities fluoridated for many years. To name a few, New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., and Cincinnati, are all experiencing dental decay rates much higher than the national average. The dental decay rates in these cities are probably higher than in Holmen.I doubt that there is anything unique about Holmen to suggest that fluoridating its water would reduce dental decay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)