TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID (H2SiF6)
AS ANALYSED IN DUBLIN ON 14/08/2000 IN A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
CALCIUM 51 PPM
MAGNESIUM 23.9 PPM
SODIUM(NA) 33.6 PPM
POTASSIUM(K) 6.2 PPM
ALUMINIUM 2.1 PPM
BORON 14 PPB
MANGANESE 571 PPB
COPPER 90 PPB
ZINC 523 PPB
PHOSPHORUS 26187 PPM
BARIUM 168 PPB
IRON 11.85 PPM
SULPHUR 134.9 PPM
ARSENIC 4826 PPB
CADMIUM 4 PPB
CHROMIUM 3763 PPB
MERCURY 5 PPB
NICKEL 1742 PPB
LEAD 15 PPB
SELENIUM 2401 PPB
THALLIUM <2 PPB
ANTIMONY 14 PPB
TIN 4 PPB
COBALT 56 PPB
STRONTIUM 88 PPB
MOLYBDENUM 490 PPB
BERYLLIUM <2 PPB
VANADIUM 87 PPB
BEAR IN MIND THAT THE ABOVE IS JUST WHAT IS IN THE FLUORIDATING AGENT.
DUE TO ITS PROPENSITY TO BIND WITH ALUMINIUM AND LEAD, BY THE TIME THE WATER GETS THROUGH OUR WATER SYSTEM THE VOLUMES OF THOSE TWO ELEMENTS ARE EVEN HIGHER!
PERSONALLY, I HAVE NEVER LIKED THE TASTE OF IRISH TAPWATER SINCE THE MID 60'S. I WAS TOLD THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TASTE THE FLUORIDE...MAYBE IT WAS PHOSPOROUS AND SULPHUR I WAS TASTING ALL ALONG!!!
HERE IS A REFERENCE LINK TO AN AMAZING LETTER WRITTEN BY CHEMIFLOC, THE COMPANY SUPPLYING HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID TO THE IRISH GOVERNMENT. TRULY SHOCKING WHAT ONE'S OWN GOVERNMENT WILL SANCTION DONE TO ITS CITIZENS, JUST TO GET A LOCAL VOTE OR TO SAVE A FEW BOB!
EUES asked "Would anyone like to give me an alternative source for hydrofluorosilicic acid other than the phosphate fertiliser industry?"
Well, it seems that the supplier at the moment is Chemifloc in Shannon. I don't know if they import the stuff from foreign fertilizer factories or if they produce the hydrofluorosilicic acid using a chemical process that apes what happens in the fertilizer factories. It's one or the other. It hardly matters; there's no evidence that Chemifloc's product is any less toxic than the toxic waste that was used for most of the 43 years of Irish fluoridation.
But do look at this astonishing letter that Chemifloc wrote ten years ago, when they had lost the supply contract:
HTTP://www.fluoridealert.org/fluosilicic.htm
THANKS, JOE, FOR THIS REFERENCE.
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Who Watches the Watchers?
Who Watches the Watchers?
Statement of Dr. J. William Hirzy,National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280
Before The Subcommittee On Wildlife, Fisheries And Drinking Water,
United States Senate, June 29, 2000
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present the views of the union, of which I am a Vice-President, on the subject of fluoridation of public water supplies.
Our union is comprised of and represents the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C.
Our members include toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and others defined by law as “professionals.” The work we do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for management’s use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy. I am not here as a representative of EPA, but rather as a representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union. The union first got involved in this issue in 1985 as a matter of professional ethics. In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our opposition has strengthened since then.
Summary of Recommendations
1) We ask that you order an independent review of a cancer bioassay previously mandated by Congressional committee and subsequently performed by Battelle Memorial Institute with appropriate blinding and instructions that all reviewer’s independent determinations be reported to this Committee.
2) We ask that you order that the two waste products of the fertilizer industry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future toxicity studies, rather than a substitute chemical. Further, since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man, woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an entire lifetime.
3) We ask that you order an epidemiology study comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years for behavioral and other disorders.
4) We ask that you convene a joint Congressional Committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves.
National Review of Fluoridation The Subcommittee’s hearing today can only begin to get at the issues surrounding the policy of water fluoridation in the United States, a massive experiment that has been run on the American public, without informed consent, for over fifty years. The last Congressional hearings on this subject were held in 1977. Much knowledge has been gained in the intervening years. It is high time for a national review of this policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. New hearings should explore, at minimum, these points:
1) excessive and uncontrolled fluoride exposures;
2) altered findings of a cancer bioassay;
3) the results and implications of recent brain effects research;
4) the “protected pollutant” status of fluoride within EPA;
5) the altered recommendations to EPA of a 1983 Surgeon General’s Panel on fluoride;
6) the results of a fifty-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities;
7) the findings of fact in three landmark lawsuits since 1978;
8) the findings and implications of recent research linking the predominant fluoridation chemical with elevated blood-lead levels in children and anti-social behavior; and
9) changing views among dental researchers on the efficacy of water fluoridation
Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled
According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of America’s children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980's and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.
Centers for Disease Control and EPA claim that dental fluorosis is only a “cosmetic” effect. God did not create humans with fluorosed teeth. That effect occurs when children ingest more fluoride than their bodies can handle with the metabolic processes we were born with, and their teeth are damaged as a result. And not only their teeth. Children’s bones and other tissues, as well as their developing teeth are accumulating too much fluoride. We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, are looking for the effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and other tissues in American children. What has been reported so far in this connection is disturbing. One example is epidemiological evidence (2a, 2b) showing elevated bone cancer in young men related to consumption of fluoridated drinking water.
Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we do know that American children in large numbers are afflicted with hyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on the rise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are on the rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. There are biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed research on fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures (e.g. 3,4,5,6). Considering the economic and human costs of these conditions, we believe that Congress should order epidemiology studies that use dental fluorosis as an index of exposure to determine if there are links between such effects and fluoride over-exposure.
In the interim, while this epidemiology is conducted, we believe that a national moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted. There will be a hue and cry from some quarters, predicting increased dental caries, but Europe has about the same rate of dental caries as the U.S. (7) and most European countries do not fluoridate (8). I am submitting letters from European and Asian authorities on this point. There are studies in the U.S. of localities that have interrupted fluoridation with no discernable increase in dental caries rates (e.g., 9). And people who want the freedom of choice to continue to ingest fluoride can do so by other means.
Cancer Bioassay Findings In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (10), the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a special commission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in the salvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The final, published version of the NTP report says that there is, “equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats,” changed from “clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats.”
The change prompted Dr. William Marcus, who was then Senior Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, to blow the whistle about the issue (22), which led to his firing by EPA. Dr. Marcus sued EPA, won his case and was reinstated with back pay, benefits and compensatory damages. I am submitting material from Dr. Marcus to the Subcommittee dealing with the cancer and neurotoxicity risks posed by fluoridation.
We believe the Subcommittee should call for an independent review of the tumor slides from the bioassay, as was called for by Dr. Marcus (22), with the results to be presented in a hearing before a Select Committee of the Congress. The scientists who conducted the original study, the original reviewers of the study, and the “review commission” members should be called, and an explanation given for the changed findings.
Brain Effects Research
Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children (11,12). Another paper (3) shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the “optimal” dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million (13). And another (14) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal. Another publication (5) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on the brain’s pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals. Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New York has also been reported (6).
Given the national concern over incidence of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism in our children, we believe that the authors of these studies should be called before a Select Committee, along with those who have critiqued their studies, so the American public and the Congress can understand the implications of this work.
Fluoride As A Protected Pollutant
The classic example of EPA’s protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940's and 1950's as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPA’s then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer manufacture as,
“...an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride...”In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the pollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not into rivers or the atmosphere. I am submitting a copy of her letter.
Other Federal entities are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvert of the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and other Federal entities on the matter of fluoride, answers to which have not yet been received.
We believe that EPA and other Federal officials should be called to testify on the manner in which fluoride has been protected. The union will be happy to assist the Congress in identifying targets for an inquiry. For instance, hydrofluosilicic acid does not appear on the Toxic Release Inventory list of chemicals, and there is a remarkable discrepancy among the Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, arsenic and lead, given the relative toxicities of these substances.
Surgeon General’s Panel on Fluoride
We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon General’s panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon General’s panel (16) were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride.
Kingston and Newburg, New York Results
In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17). In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city.
We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of the Centers For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a Select Committee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among American children and the implications of that increase for skeletal and other effects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fractures and arthritis.
Findings of Fact by Judges
In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here.
In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland, New Zealand wrote the following about the case:
“In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary. . . .
“Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation.”
In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”
Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: “[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City Ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man.”
The significance of Judge Flaherty’s statement and his and the other two judges’ findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.
Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind.
I am submitting a copy of the excerpted letter from Judge Flaherty and another letter referenced in it that was sent to Judge Flaherty by Dr. Peter Sammartino, then Chancellor of Fairleigh Dickenson University. I am also submitting a reprint copy of an article in the Spring 1999 issue of the Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law by Jack Graham and Dr. Pierre Morin, titled “Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies." Mr. Graham was chief litigator in the case before Judge Flaherty and in the other two cases (in Illinois and Texas).
We believe that Mr. Graham should be called before a Select Committee along with, if appropriate, the judges in these three cases who could relate their experience as trial judges in these cases.
Hydrofluosilicic Acid
There are no chronic toxicity data on the predominant chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, used to fluoridate American communities. Newly published studies (19) indicate a link between use of these chemicals and elevated level of lead in children’s blood and anti-social behavior. Material from the authors of these studies has been submitted by them independently.
We believe the authors of these papers and their critics should be called before a Select Committee to explain to you and the American people what these papers mean for continuation of the policy of fluoridation.
Changing Views on Efficacy and Risk
In recent years, two prominent dental researchers who were leaders of the pro-fluoridation movement announced reversals of their former positions because they concluded that water fluoridation is not an effective means of reducing dental caries and that it poses serious risks to human health. The late Dr. John Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand, and he published his reasons for changing sides in 1997 (20). In 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, announced his change of views, then published a statement (21) dated April 2000. I am submitting a copy of Dr. Limeback’s publications.
We believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who have not changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernest Newbrun and Herschel Horowitz, should be called before a Select Committee to testify on the reasons for their respective positions.
Thank you for you consideration, and I will be happy to take questions.
REFERENCES: DR. HIRZY'S PRESENTATION
1. Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E et al, J . Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 (1997)2a. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992)2b. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEERS) Program. National Cancer Institute. In: Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. 1991: F1-F7.3. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J. et al, Neurotoxicol Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995) 4a. Fluoride and bone - quantity versus quality [editorial] New Engl. J. Med. 322 845-6 (1990) 4b. Summary of workshop on drinking water fluoride influence on hip fracture and bone health. Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B. Natl. Inst. Health. April 10, 1991.5. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994)6. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R. et al, JADA 52 296-306 (1956)7. WHO oral health country/area profile programme. Department of Non-Communicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmo University, Sweden. URL: www.whocollab.odont.lu.se/countriesalphab.html8. Letters from government authorities in response to inquiries on fluoridation status by E. Albright. Eugene Albright: contact through J. W. Hirzy, P.O Box 76082 , Washington, D.C. 20013.9. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. Burt, B.A., Keels., Heller, K.E., J. Dent. Res.2000 Feb; 79 (2): 761-9.10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991) 11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B. et al, Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S. et al, Fluoride 28 (1995)13. Chronic administration of aluminum - fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A. et al, Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998)14. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan et al, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998)15. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.16. Transcript of proceedings - Surgeon General's (Koop) ad hoc committee on non-dental effects of fluoride. April 18-19, 1983. National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, MD. 17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. et al, New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century on artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. Graham, J.R. et al, Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14 195-248 (Spring 1999) Florida State University College of Law.19. Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. Masters, R.D. et al, Intern. J. Environ. Studies 56 435-49 (1999)20. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine 41 1-16 (1997)21. Letter. Limeback, H. April 2000. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto. 22. Memorandum: Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division Office of Drinking Water. May 1, 1990.
The media didn't cover Dr. Hirzy's testimony. Hydrofluosilicic acid is the primary substance used to fluoridate drinking water in the United States; it contains fluoride, arsenic, cadmium, polonium-210, and lead. There are no scientific studies that demonstrate hydrofluosilicic acid is safe for human consumption. Dr. Hirzy stated:
"Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children. Another paper shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the 'optimal' dosage of flouride, viz. one part per million. And another (article) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other papers. . . ."
Recent academic testing of U.S. students reveals:
". . . U.S. fourth-graders performing poorly, mid-school students worse, and high school students are unable to compete (with foreign students-ed) . . . 'we appear to be the bottom' at the high school level. . . . People have a tendency to think this picture bleak, but it doesn't apply to their own school. Chances are, even if your school compares well in SAT scores, it will still be a lightweight on an international scale." [1]
Statement of Dr. J. William Hirzy,National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280
Before The Subcommittee On Wildlife, Fisheries And Drinking Water,
United States Senate, June 29, 2000
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present the views of the union, of which I am a Vice-President, on the subject of fluoridation of public water supplies.
Our union is comprised of and represents the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C.
Our members include toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and others defined by law as “professionals.” The work we do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for management’s use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy. I am not here as a representative of EPA, but rather as a representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union. The union first got involved in this issue in 1985 as a matter of professional ethics. In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our opposition has strengthened since then.
Summary of Recommendations
1) We ask that you order an independent review of a cancer bioassay previously mandated by Congressional committee and subsequently performed by Battelle Memorial Institute with appropriate blinding and instructions that all reviewer’s independent determinations be reported to this Committee.
2) We ask that you order that the two waste products of the fertilizer industry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future toxicity studies, rather than a substitute chemical. Further, since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man, woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an entire lifetime.
3) We ask that you order an epidemiology study comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years for behavioral and other disorders.
4) We ask that you convene a joint Congressional Committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves.
National Review of Fluoridation The Subcommittee’s hearing today can only begin to get at the issues surrounding the policy of water fluoridation in the United States, a massive experiment that has been run on the American public, without informed consent, for over fifty years. The last Congressional hearings on this subject were held in 1977. Much knowledge has been gained in the intervening years. It is high time for a national review of this policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. New hearings should explore, at minimum, these points:
1) excessive and uncontrolled fluoride exposures;
2) altered findings of a cancer bioassay;
3) the results and implications of recent brain effects research;
4) the “protected pollutant” status of fluoride within EPA;
5) the altered recommendations to EPA of a 1983 Surgeon General’s Panel on fluoride;
6) the results of a fifty-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities;
7) the findings of fact in three landmark lawsuits since 1978;
8) the findings and implications of recent research linking the predominant fluoridation chemical with elevated blood-lead levels in children and anti-social behavior; and
9) changing views among dental researchers on the efficacy of water fluoridation
Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled
According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of America’s children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980's and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.
Centers for Disease Control and EPA claim that dental fluorosis is only a “cosmetic” effect. God did not create humans with fluorosed teeth. That effect occurs when children ingest more fluoride than their bodies can handle with the metabolic processes we were born with, and their teeth are damaged as a result. And not only their teeth. Children’s bones and other tissues, as well as their developing teeth are accumulating too much fluoride. We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, are looking for the effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and other tissues in American children. What has been reported so far in this connection is disturbing. One example is epidemiological evidence (2a, 2b) showing elevated bone cancer in young men related to consumption of fluoridated drinking water.
Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we do know that American children in large numbers are afflicted with hyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on the rise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are on the rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. There are biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed research on fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures (e.g. 3,4,5,6). Considering the economic and human costs of these conditions, we believe that Congress should order epidemiology studies that use dental fluorosis as an index of exposure to determine if there are links between such effects and fluoride over-exposure.
In the interim, while this epidemiology is conducted, we believe that a national moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted. There will be a hue and cry from some quarters, predicting increased dental caries, but Europe has about the same rate of dental caries as the U.S. (7) and most European countries do not fluoridate (8). I am submitting letters from European and Asian authorities on this point. There are studies in the U.S. of localities that have interrupted fluoridation with no discernable increase in dental caries rates (e.g., 9). And people who want the freedom of choice to continue to ingest fluoride can do so by other means.
Cancer Bioassay Findings In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (10), the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a special commission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in the salvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The final, published version of the NTP report says that there is, “equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats,” changed from “clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats.”
The change prompted Dr. William Marcus, who was then Senior Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, to blow the whistle about the issue (22), which led to his firing by EPA. Dr. Marcus sued EPA, won his case and was reinstated with back pay, benefits and compensatory damages. I am submitting material from Dr. Marcus to the Subcommittee dealing with the cancer and neurotoxicity risks posed by fluoridation.
We believe the Subcommittee should call for an independent review of the tumor slides from the bioassay, as was called for by Dr. Marcus (22), with the results to be presented in a hearing before a Select Committee of the Congress. The scientists who conducted the original study, the original reviewers of the study, and the “review commission” members should be called, and an explanation given for the changed findings.
Brain Effects Research
Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children (11,12). Another paper (3) shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the “optimal” dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million (13). And another (14) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal. Another publication (5) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on the brain’s pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals. Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New York has also been reported (6).
Given the national concern over incidence of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism in our children, we believe that the authors of these studies should be called before a Select Committee, along with those who have critiqued their studies, so the American public and the Congress can understand the implications of this work.
Fluoride As A Protected Pollutant
The classic example of EPA’s protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940's and 1950's as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPA’s then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer manufacture as,
“...an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride...”In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the pollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not into rivers or the atmosphere. I am submitting a copy of her letter.
Other Federal entities are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvert of the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and other Federal entities on the matter of fluoride, answers to which have not yet been received.
We believe that EPA and other Federal officials should be called to testify on the manner in which fluoride has been protected. The union will be happy to assist the Congress in identifying targets for an inquiry. For instance, hydrofluosilicic acid does not appear on the Toxic Release Inventory list of chemicals, and there is a remarkable discrepancy among the Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, arsenic and lead, given the relative toxicities of these substances.
Surgeon General’s Panel on Fluoride
We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon General’s panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon General’s panel (16) were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride.
Kingston and Newburg, New York Results
In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17). In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city.
We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of the Centers For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a Select Committee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among American children and the implications of that increase for skeletal and other effects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fractures and arthritis.
Findings of Fact by Judges
In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here.
In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland, New Zealand wrote the following about the case:
“In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary. . . .
“Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation.”
In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”
Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: “[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City Ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man.”
The significance of Judge Flaherty’s statement and his and the other two judges’ findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.
Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind.
I am submitting a copy of the excerpted letter from Judge Flaherty and another letter referenced in it that was sent to Judge Flaherty by Dr. Peter Sammartino, then Chancellor of Fairleigh Dickenson University. I am also submitting a reprint copy of an article in the Spring 1999 issue of the Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law by Jack Graham and Dr. Pierre Morin, titled “Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies." Mr. Graham was chief litigator in the case before Judge Flaherty and in the other two cases (in Illinois and Texas).
We believe that Mr. Graham should be called before a Select Committee along with, if appropriate, the judges in these three cases who could relate their experience as trial judges in these cases.
Hydrofluosilicic Acid
There are no chronic toxicity data on the predominant chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, used to fluoridate American communities. Newly published studies (19) indicate a link between use of these chemicals and elevated level of lead in children’s blood and anti-social behavior. Material from the authors of these studies has been submitted by them independently.
We believe the authors of these papers and their critics should be called before a Select Committee to explain to you and the American people what these papers mean for continuation of the policy of fluoridation.
Changing Views on Efficacy and Risk
In recent years, two prominent dental researchers who were leaders of the pro-fluoridation movement announced reversals of their former positions because they concluded that water fluoridation is not an effective means of reducing dental caries and that it poses serious risks to human health. The late Dr. John Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand, and he published his reasons for changing sides in 1997 (20). In 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, announced his change of views, then published a statement (21) dated April 2000. I am submitting a copy of Dr. Limeback’s publications.
We believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who have not changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernest Newbrun and Herschel Horowitz, should be called before a Select Committee to testify on the reasons for their respective positions.
Thank you for you consideration, and I will be happy to take questions.
REFERENCES: DR. HIRZY'S PRESENTATION
1. Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E et al, J . Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 (1997)2a. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992)2b. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEERS) Program. National Cancer Institute. In: Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. 1991: F1-F7.3. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J. et al, Neurotoxicol Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995) 4a. Fluoride and bone - quantity versus quality [editorial] New Engl. J. Med. 322 845-6 (1990) 4b. Summary of workshop on drinking water fluoride influence on hip fracture and bone health. Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B. Natl. Inst. Health. April 10, 1991.5. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994)6. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R. et al, JADA 52 296-306 (1956)7. WHO oral health country/area profile programme. Department of Non-Communicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmo University, Sweden. URL: www.whocollab.odont.lu.se/countriesalphab.html8. Letters from government authorities in response to inquiries on fluoridation status by E. Albright. Eugene Albright: contact through J. W. Hirzy, P.O Box 76082 , Washington, D.C. 20013.9. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. Burt, B.A., Keels., Heller, K.E., J. Dent. Res.2000 Feb; 79 (2): 761-9.10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991) 11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B. et al, Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S. et al, Fluoride 28 (1995)13. Chronic administration of aluminum - fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A. et al, Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998)14. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan et al, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998)15. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.16. Transcript of proceedings - Surgeon General's (Koop) ad hoc committee on non-dental effects of fluoride. April 18-19, 1983. National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, MD. 17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. et al, New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century on artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. Graham, J.R. et al, Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14 195-248 (Spring 1999) Florida State University College of Law.19. Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. Masters, R.D. et al, Intern. J. Environ. Studies 56 435-49 (1999)20. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine 41 1-16 (1997)21. Letter. Limeback, H. April 2000. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto. 22. Memorandum: Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division Office of Drinking Water. May 1, 1990.
The media didn't cover Dr. Hirzy's testimony. Hydrofluosilicic acid is the primary substance used to fluoridate drinking water in the United States; it contains fluoride, arsenic, cadmium, polonium-210, and lead. There are no scientific studies that demonstrate hydrofluosilicic acid is safe for human consumption. Dr. Hirzy stated:
"Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children. Another paper shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the 'optimal' dosage of flouride, viz. one part per million. And another (article) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other papers. . . ."
Recent academic testing of U.S. students reveals:
". . . U.S. fourth-graders performing poorly, mid-school students worse, and high school students are unable to compete (with foreign students-ed) . . . 'we appear to be the bottom' at the high school level. . . . People have a tendency to think this picture bleak, but it doesn't apply to their own school. Chances are, even if your school compares well in SAT scores, it will still be a lightweight on an international scale." [1]
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
NOT REALLY "only adjusting the background levels of fluoride in water"!!!!
Much is being made by the fluoride lobby that fluoride occurs “naturally” in surface water and that they are just “slightly adjusting” the fluoride levels to 1mg/l to help teeth. That is TEN times the normal amount and just under 0.5 mg/l from the EPA maximum allowable industrial pollutant level of 1.5 mg/l. However, Fluoride ions enter surface waters from soil leeching, precipitation, and human emissions. The concentration in river water varies with the geology of the drainage basins, but an average of 0.1 ppm has been determined (cited in Olausson and Cato, 1980), and indeed, research is showing that the habitat of fish is affected at levels over 0.2mg/l. So much for another great fluoride lie!
“The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)1 and the Province of British Columbia2 adhere to a "permissible level" of 1.5 ppm (1.5 mg/L) for fluoride discharged into fresh water. BC's "recommended guideline" is currently 0.2 ppm fluoride ; but this does not have the force of legislation. Neither the Minister of the Environment nor the Washington State Department of Ecology requires fluoride estimations for sewer effluent permits as it is considered fluoride is not significantly toxic to aquatic life in concentrations expected in discharges.3, 4
A review of the literature and other documents, including court transcripts, reveals that levels below 1.5 ppm have been shown to have both lethal and other adverse effects on salmon.
Smelters vs. Salmon
“The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)1 and the Province of British Columbia2 adhere to a "permissible level" of 1.5 ppm (1.5 mg/L) for fluoride discharged into fresh water. BC's "recommended guideline" is currently 0.2 ppm fluoride ; but this does not have the force of legislation. Neither the Minister of the Environment nor the Washington State Department of Ecology requires fluoride estimations for sewer effluent permits as it is considered fluoride is not significantly toxic to aquatic life in concentrations expected in discharges.3, 4
A review of the literature and other documents, including court transcripts, reveals that levels below 1.5 ppm have been shown to have both lethal and other adverse effects on salmon.
Smelters vs. Salmon
In a field study, Damkaer and Dey10 demonstrated that high salmon loss at John Day Dam on the Columbia River, 1982-1986, was caused by the inhibition of migration by fluoride contamination from an aluminum smelter located 1.6 km [one mile] above the dam. In 1982, the average daily discharge of fluoride was 384 kg and the salmon loss was 55%. In 1985, discharge averaged 49 kg and was accompanied by a concentration of 0.2 ppm and a salmonid loss of 5%.
Damkaer and Dey confirmed the cause-and-effect relationship by means of a two-choice flume for fluoride gradient salmon behaviour tests. These determined that the "critical level" was 0.2 ppm.
There are other studies that indicate that fluoride at levels below 1.5 ppm have lethal and other adverse effects on fish. Delayed hatching of rainbow trout have occurred at 1.5 ppm;11 brown mussels have died at 1.4 ppm12; an alga (Porphyria tenera) was killed by a four-hour fumigation with fluoride with a critical concentration of 0.9 ppm13; and, levels below 0.1 ppm were shown to be lethal to the water flea, Daphnia magna.14 These latter two studies suggest that salmon species also may be affected by fluoride-induced reduction of food supply.
Documents used in a 1961 court case involving Meader's Trout farm in Pocatello, Idaho,15 contain evidence that between 1949 and 1950 trout damage and loss was related to fluoride contamination due to rain washing airborne particles from leaves into hatchery water at levels as low as 0.5 ppm. This evidence suggests that the "safe level" of fluoride in the fresh water habitat of salmon species is not 1.5 ppm but, 0.2 ppm.
Is City Water Deadly to Salmon?
Damkaer and Dey confirmed the cause-and-effect relationship by means of a two-choice flume for fluoride gradient salmon behaviour tests. These determined that the "critical level" was 0.2 ppm.
There are other studies that indicate that fluoride at levels below 1.5 ppm have lethal and other adverse effects on fish. Delayed hatching of rainbow trout have occurred at 1.5 ppm;11 brown mussels have died at 1.4 ppm12; an alga (Porphyria tenera) was killed by a four-hour fumigation with fluoride with a critical concentration of 0.9 ppm13; and, levels below 0.1 ppm were shown to be lethal to the water flea, Daphnia magna.14 These latter two studies suggest that salmon species also may be affected by fluoride-induced reduction of food supply.
Documents used in a 1961 court case involving Meader's Trout farm in Pocatello, Idaho,15 contain evidence that between 1949 and 1950 trout damage and loss was related to fluoride contamination due to rain washing airborne particles from leaves into hatchery water at levels as low as 0.5 ppm. This evidence suggests that the "safe level" of fluoride in the fresh water habitat of salmon species is not 1.5 ppm but, 0.2 ppm.
Is City Water Deadly to Salmon?
In fluoridated areas, drinking water obtained from surface water with an average fluoride concentration of 0.1-0.2 ppm16 is raised to the "optimal" level of 0.7-1.2 ppm by the addition of sodium fluoride, hydrofluosilicic acid, or sodium silicofluoride. [Note: In 1985, the EPA raised the Maximum Contaminant Level to 4 ppm.]
Fluoride, in community drinking water, enters the fresh water ecosystem in various ways. Surface run-off from fire-fighting, washing cars, and watering gardens may enter streams directly or through storm sewers at optimal concentration, 0.7-1.2 ppm. Most enters during waste water treatment.
Masuda17 studied a large number of cities and calculated the concentrations in waste water that were in excess of the concentration present in the cities' water supplies. In raw sewage, this was 1.30 ppm; primary treatment reduced this slightly to 1.28 ppm; secondary treatment to 0.39 ppm. Singer and Armstrong18 found 0.38 ppm in unfluoridated sewage and 1.16-1.25 ppm in fluoridated sewage.
It is clear that, in the case of artificially fluoridated communities, the concentration of fluoride in both surface run-off and sewer effluent exceeds 0.2 ppm.”
Extract from: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon In the Northwest US and British Columbia
by Richard G Foulkes, MD and Anne C. Anderson, RPN
Read the whole article here: http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fluoride/fluoride_salmon.html
Fluoride, in community drinking water, enters the fresh water ecosystem in various ways. Surface run-off from fire-fighting, washing cars, and watering gardens may enter streams directly or through storm sewers at optimal concentration, 0.7-1.2 ppm. Most enters during waste water treatment.
Masuda17 studied a large number of cities and calculated the concentrations in waste water that were in excess of the concentration present in the cities' water supplies. In raw sewage, this was 1.30 ppm; primary treatment reduced this slightly to 1.28 ppm; secondary treatment to 0.39 ppm. Singer and Armstrong18 found 0.38 ppm in unfluoridated sewage and 1.16-1.25 ppm in fluoridated sewage.
It is clear that, in the case of artificially fluoridated communities, the concentration of fluoride in both surface run-off and sewer effluent exceeds 0.2 ppm.”
Extract from: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon In the Northwest US and British Columbia
by Richard G Foulkes, MD and Anne C. Anderson, RPN
Read the whole article here: http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fluoride/fluoride_salmon.html
Friday, March 30, 2007
Fluoride and the Thyroid
Interesting links to Thyroid complaints due to Fluoridation:
http://thyroid.about.com/cs/toxicchemicalsan/a/flouride.htm
http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoride2006.htm
http://thyroid.about.com/library/derry/bl7.htm
Thyroid & Fluoride:the thyroid gland requires iodine to produce the hormone,thyroxine, which controls the rate of metabolism in the body. But when fluoride is present,iodine is displaced,which will cause a thyroid to stop working properly(K.Roholm,Handbuch Experimenteller Pharmakologie,Ergaenzungwerk,Vol7,Berlin:Springer, 1938:20) The parathyroid gland, which regulates distribution of calcium and phosporus in the body, is also extremely sensitive to fluoride. So, it displaces iodine and accumulates calcium in soft tissue, also being linked to heart disease. Research from India has shown red blood cells die prematurely when exposed to fluoride lowering haemoglobin and causing anemia. And the list goes on...Who in their right mind would believe that dumping a toxic by-product (and fluoride has been described in the Physicians Handbook as more toxic than lead and only slightly less toxic than arsenic) from the fertiliser industry into the public drinking water without any health check whatsoever anywhere in the world, and no regulation for individual intakes, could be beneficial?! Lobbyists for vested interests excepted. Everyone should look at the latest statistics on prescribed drugs in the GMS. The third most prescribed drug in Ireland is Levothyroxine -- the treatment for hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid). In other words, there is now an epidemic of hypothyroidism, very surprising in a maritime nation. Get it out of Irish drinking water now.
Reply to BILL W., a systems analyst who writes in to the Irish Medical News constantly defending fluoridation and using as his main point the fact that there are microscopic quantities of most elements in the human body – as if this excuses dumping more lead, arsenic, etc etc into our bodies in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid or its close relatives. Seems he should analyse the system which foisted this awful practice on us in the first place instead of acting like the fluoridation marketing manager!
Bill - what is your PROOF that fluoride added in the doses used for fluoridation are safe? I have asked you this before and you still have not answered. If you are a member of the dental fraternity, then you will answer by rote : 40, 50 60 years of fluoridation have shown, blah blah. Sorry! Will not do! Show me the proof through a long-term public health survey of a fluoridated population. The Expert Body on Fluoridation admitted only last month that they couldn't find a toxicologist for their investigation (probably the most important branch of science in the study of a poison - hydrofluorosilicic acid - steadily fed on a long-term basis to a population)!!! Neither are dentists doctors, although some like to think they are. Dentists’ preserve of expertise is in the mouth, they do not look at the whole body. It seems to me that WE are the long-term toxicological experiment right now. And with the increase in various conditions which have been linked to the fluoride, arsenic and lead in hydrofluorosilicic acid - at MUCH HIGHER LEVELS than normally occurring in the body, in the general run down of iodine in the population (fluoride fights iodine and calcium), in the growth of hyperthyroidism, etc etc - it seems to me that the experiment on us is showing that fluoridation is a damn stupid idea in the long run!
http://thyroid.about.com/cs/toxicchemicalsan/a/flouride.htm
http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoride2006.htm
http://thyroid.about.com/library/derry/bl7.htm
Thyroid & Fluoride:the thyroid gland requires iodine to produce the hormone,thyroxine, which controls the rate of metabolism in the body. But when fluoride is present,iodine is displaced,which will cause a thyroid to stop working properly(K.Roholm,Handbuch Experimenteller Pharmakologie,Ergaenzungwerk,Vol7,Berlin:Springer, 1938:20) The parathyroid gland, which regulates distribution of calcium and phosporus in the body, is also extremely sensitive to fluoride. So, it displaces iodine and accumulates calcium in soft tissue, also being linked to heart disease. Research from India has shown red blood cells die prematurely when exposed to fluoride lowering haemoglobin and causing anemia. And the list goes on...Who in their right mind would believe that dumping a toxic by-product (and fluoride has been described in the Physicians Handbook as more toxic than lead and only slightly less toxic than arsenic) from the fertiliser industry into the public drinking water without any health check whatsoever anywhere in the world, and no regulation for individual intakes, could be beneficial?! Lobbyists for vested interests excepted. Everyone should look at the latest statistics on prescribed drugs in the GMS. The third most prescribed drug in Ireland is Levothyroxine -- the treatment for hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid). In other words, there is now an epidemic of hypothyroidism, very surprising in a maritime nation. Get it out of Irish drinking water now.
Reply to BILL W., a systems analyst who writes in to the Irish Medical News constantly defending fluoridation and using as his main point the fact that there are microscopic quantities of most elements in the human body – as if this excuses dumping more lead, arsenic, etc etc into our bodies in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid or its close relatives. Seems he should analyse the system which foisted this awful practice on us in the first place instead of acting like the fluoridation marketing manager!
Bill - what is your PROOF that fluoride added in the doses used for fluoridation are safe? I have asked you this before and you still have not answered. If you are a member of the dental fraternity, then you will answer by rote : 40, 50 60 years of fluoridation have shown, blah blah. Sorry! Will not do! Show me the proof through a long-term public health survey of a fluoridated population. The Expert Body on Fluoridation admitted only last month that they couldn't find a toxicologist for their investigation (probably the most important branch of science in the study of a poison - hydrofluorosilicic acid - steadily fed on a long-term basis to a population)!!! Neither are dentists doctors, although some like to think they are. Dentists’ preserve of expertise is in the mouth, they do not look at the whole body. It seems to me that WE are the long-term toxicological experiment right now. And with the increase in various conditions which have been linked to the fluoride, arsenic and lead in hydrofluorosilicic acid - at MUCH HIGHER LEVELS than normally occurring in the body, in the general run down of iodine in the population (fluoride fights iodine and calcium), in the growth of hyperthyroidism, etc etc - it seems to me that the experiment on us is showing that fluoridation is a damn stupid idea in the long run!
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
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.
Fluoridation - A Cynical Hoax
For the past few years I have been studying the fluoride debate, hah, even the name fluoride debate is erroneous, as what is commonly used throughout the English-speaking fluoridating community (5% of world population) is actually hydrofluorosilicic acid, a toxic waste from the phosphate fertiliser industry, which, together with various mining, aluminium manufacturing and uranium enriching industries, gains from the millions of dollars saved per year by not having to treat this cocktail of chemicals as hazardous waste, but actually turns another profit by selling it to the US, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and Irish governments as the fluoridating agent for public water supplies!
For an excellent review of how the nuclear and aluminium industries spun the deadly toxin fluoride during the 40's and 50's from an accident prone killer of workers to the substance that give kiddies nice shiny teeth, read Christopher Bryson's - The Fluoride Deception. A video interview with this author is available at :
Rather than go into a synopsis of my feelings about this disgusting practice I will instead cut and paste some of my posts and comments to various sites and blogs around the world over the past month or so. My feelings should become obvious. I intend to use this blog as my main method of communication in future. I welcome any scientist who would like to comment, especially those who can refer myself and the reader to a link to actual verifiable research on fluoride-relevant matters - pro or con.
EUES Ireland stands for European Union Environmental Services Ireland and is part of a network of environmental consultants in the UK, France, Holland and Ireland. I would like to make it plain that this blog and its contents are my personal comments & feelings and not necessarily those of the EUES network. Welcome to my space.
For an excellent review of how the nuclear and aluminium industries spun the deadly toxin fluoride during the 40's and 50's from an accident prone killer of workers to the substance that give kiddies nice shiny teeth, read Christopher Bryson's - The Fluoride Deception. A video interview with this author is available at :
Rather than go into a synopsis of my feelings about this disgusting practice I will instead cut and paste some of my posts and comments to various sites and blogs around the world over the past month or so. My feelings should become obvious. I intend to use this blog as my main method of communication in future. I welcome any scientist who would like to comment, especially those who can refer myself and the reader to a link to actual verifiable research on fluoride-relevant matters - pro or con.
EUES Ireland stands for European Union Environmental Services Ireland and is part of a network of environmental consultants in the UK, France, Holland and Ireland. I would like to make it plain that this blog and its contents are my personal comments & feelings and not necessarily those of the EUES network. Welcome to my space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)