May 3rd 2007
Leading scientist speaks on dosage of fluoride in Irish drinking water and its toxicity. Venue is St John's Hall, Tower Road, Dublin 22. (In Clondalkin village) at 3pm on Sunday 6th May.
Professor Vyvyan Howard of the University of Ulster and a European authority on the toxicity of chemicals, will speak for the first time in Ireland on the scientifically controversial practice of water fluoridation. In addressing the Scientific and Medical Network in Dublin on Sunday 6th May, he will reveal some of the main toxicological risks, in particular as they affect the development of infants and children.
Professor C. Vyvyan Howard. MB. ChB. PhD. FRC Path. is a medically qualified toxico-pathologist and has recently set up a Bio-imaging Research Group in the Centre for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Ulster in Coleraine. His areas of interest include the way in which nanotechnology could create a variety of new and potentially serious health risks.
Dr Howard has written the foreword to Drinking Ourselves to Death? by Barry Groves published in 2001 in Dublin by Gill and Macmillan. This is the leading analysis of the failings of fluoridation policy in Ireland and the UK, the only two EU member states in which it is tolerated.
Dr Howard has regularly advised the European Commission on the toxicity of chemicals in humans. He is a member of the UK Government’s Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Professor Howard is also the President Elect of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE). This body has over 100,000 medical doctors affiliated to it and is recognised by the World Health Organisation and the United Nations. He will take up the Presidency of ISDE in June 2007.
Dr Andrew Rynne, founder of Clane General Hospital will demonstrate that fluoridated drinking water is a medicinal product according to the Irish Medicines Board’s own definition of that term. Since it is not licensed by the regulatory authority who defines it as a medicine, it is an illegal product. The fact of the matter is that it could not be licensed because it would fall far short of the Irish Medicines Board’s strict and correct criteria for a medicine’s safety and efficacy.
Dr Rynne will also argue that Irish citizens are supposed to be protected under the Irish Constitution, which promises, inter alia, a right to bodily integrity. The force-feeding of an unspecified dose of an unlicensed medicine on a daily basis is clearly a violation of an individual’s right to that bodily integrity.
Mr Robert Pocock of the environmental group VOICE of Irish Concern for the Environment will outline other policy contradictions of fluoridation including evidence of greatly increased levels of fluoride exposure.
For more information phone 087-6488748 …. Jacqui Nielsen SciMedNet
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Tooth Decay Rise in U.S. Children -May1st
ATLANTA (AP) - Preschoolers are getting more cavities. The largest government study of the nation's dental care in more than 25 years shows a rise in tooth decay in children's baby teeth. The study also notes a drop in the number of adults who visited a dentist in the past year, a possible indicator of declining health insurance. The study's lead author is Doctor Bruce Dye of the National Center for Health Statistics. Some reasons he cites for the increase in children's tooth decay: parents are giving their children more processed snack foods than in the past, and children are getting more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water.
Here we go again! Instead of looking at the reality, dentists continue in denial.
Dr. Bruce A. Dye assigns part of the blame for the increase in U.S. children’s dental caries to “children are getting more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water”. When does the penny actually drop for these people? The US has 100% fluoridated most of its cities for 50 years now, and there is still complete surprise that “poorer people” (i.e. in general, inner city dwellers) have much higher caries rates than others. This is the same racial group, black people, who 70 years ago had the BEST teeth in America! Sheer co-incidence that the highest fluoride areas have the highest caries rates?
Look at the CDC figures across the whole United States and you find there is NO definitive correlation between dental caries reduction and fluoride use. Co-incidence? I can send you the spreadsheet.
Look at the American Cancer Society’s statistics of cancer rates in the various states and set them against the fluoridation rates and you DO find a clear trend to higher cancer death rates in the most fluoridated states. Co-incidence?
I hardly think that the worst caries groups (the poor) are the same ones who are substituting expensive bottled water for tapwater for their children! Does Dr. Dye (not a medical doctor, I take it) really expect us to swallow that one?
Fluoride is pervasive throughout the food and drink chain in fluoridated countries now. Hardly anything escapes some measure of fluoride toxification – children ingesting fruit and soda drinks are, along with an overabundance of sugars, taking in AND RETAINING in their bones and organs, high levels of fluoride. For anyone to suggest that even more fluoride is the answer is to go beyond foolishness to wilful assault on the health of the nation. Maybe Dr. Dye is aptly named.
The dental profession is, as usual, looking for a scapegoat to divert attention from their failure to tackle the caries of those who cannot afford their treatment. More fluoride, more fluoride is their call, as if the human body is suffering from a lack of fluoride, as if it doesn’t have a multitude of negative health effects on the rest of the body, as if it isn’t causing cancer, as if it has actually been tested before use for health, which it never has been on a human population. Meanwhile the 67% of Americans, the Irish, some Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders using fluoride (by which I mean, of course, hydrofluorosilicic acid – the waste from phosphate fertiliser factories which is used to “fluoridate”) DO see their cancer rates rising, their asthma and heart disease rates rising, their sperm counts decreasing, their IQ’s reducing, ADD and Alzheimer's and autism rates increasing and, oh, the caries rate increasing! But, surely, that is all just co-incidence?http://euesireland.blogspot.com/
WELL, DAUGHTER OF DR.DYE, YOUR LOYALTY TO YOUR FAMILY IS TO BE COMMENDED. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU CAN RESEARCH AND ANSWER THE 5 QUESTIONS POSED IN MY "RAMBLINGS" ABOVE, THEN I MAY FIND SOME RESPECT FOR YOU AS A SERIOUS AND CONCERNED CITIZEN.REGARDS.
Here we go again! Instead of looking at the reality, dentists continue in denial.
Dr. Bruce A. Dye assigns part of the blame for the increase in U.S. children’s dental caries to “children are getting more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water”. When does the penny actually drop for these people? The US has 100% fluoridated most of its cities for 50 years now, and there is still complete surprise that “poorer people” (i.e. in general, inner city dwellers) have much higher caries rates than others. This is the same racial group, black people, who 70 years ago had the BEST teeth in America! Sheer co-incidence that the highest fluoride areas have the highest caries rates?
Look at the CDC figures across the whole United States and you find there is NO definitive correlation between dental caries reduction and fluoride use. Co-incidence? I can send you the spreadsheet.
Look at the American Cancer Society’s statistics of cancer rates in the various states and set them against the fluoridation rates and you DO find a clear trend to higher cancer death rates in the most fluoridated states. Co-incidence?
I hardly think that the worst caries groups (the poor) are the same ones who are substituting expensive bottled water for tapwater for their children! Does Dr. Dye (not a medical doctor, I take it) really expect us to swallow that one?
Fluoride is pervasive throughout the food and drink chain in fluoridated countries now. Hardly anything escapes some measure of fluoride toxification – children ingesting fruit and soda drinks are, along with an overabundance of sugars, taking in AND RETAINING in their bones and organs, high levels of fluoride. For anyone to suggest that even more fluoride is the answer is to go beyond foolishness to wilful assault on the health of the nation. Maybe Dr. Dye is aptly named.
The dental profession is, as usual, looking for a scapegoat to divert attention from their failure to tackle the caries of those who cannot afford their treatment. More fluoride, more fluoride is their call, as if the human body is suffering from a lack of fluoride, as if it doesn’t have a multitude of negative health effects on the rest of the body, as if it isn’t causing cancer, as if it has actually been tested before use for health, which it never has been on a human population. Meanwhile the 67% of Americans, the Irish, some Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders using fluoride (by which I mean, of course, hydrofluorosilicic acid – the waste from phosphate fertiliser factories which is used to “fluoridate”) DO see their cancer rates rising, their asthma and heart disease rates rising, their sperm counts decreasing, their IQ’s reducing, ADD and Alzheimer's and autism rates increasing and, oh, the caries rate increasing! But, surely, that is all just co-incidence?http://euesireland.blogspot.com/
WELL, DAUGHTER OF DR.DYE, YOUR LOYALTY TO YOUR FAMILY IS TO BE COMMENDED. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU CAN RESEARCH AND ANSWER THE 5 QUESTIONS POSED IN MY "RAMBLINGS" ABOVE, THEN I MAY FIND SOME RESPECT FOR YOU AS A SERIOUS AND CONCERNED CITIZEN.REGARDS.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
The Fluoride and Cancer Link Exposed
WASHINGTON D.C.
100% FLUORIDATED
241.2 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 2,860 in the District of Columbia.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 1,180 in the District of Columbia.
KENTUCKY
99.60% FLUORIDATED
227 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 22,720 in Kentucky.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 9,360 in Kentucky.
HAWAII
8.60% FLUORIDATED
158 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 5,070 in Hawaii.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 2,090 in Hawaii.
UTAH
2.20% FLUORIDATED
151 - The average annual age-adjusted death rate for cancer (NATIONAL AVERAGE 199.8)
1,368,030 - new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States, including 6,360 in Utah.
563,700 - cancer deaths will occur in the United States, including 2,620 in Utah.
All figures from the American Cancer Society and the CDC websites cross-referenced by myself.
They feature the two most and the two least fluoridated areas in the States, yet the trend continues when all the other states are included. How come government don't make these statistic correlations themselves? Is it so that the authorities can hide the relationship between high levels of fluoride in a state's drinking water and the high levels of cancers in that state? I cannot paste an Excel spreadsheet to this blog, so if anyone wants the whole list of U.S. states that I put together and wants to see the undeniable link to higher rates, incidence and trends in cancer to higher levels of fluoride in drinking water, then send a request to euesireland@eircom.net. These are truly frightening figures!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Bloody Times
In the current tragic situation in Virginia, USA, and considering the rampant violence in American major cities, all of which are fluoridated, it is worth looking again at the studies which show a correlation between fluoridated areas, fluoride derived psychotropic drugs, lead uptake in babies to adults and the high levels of violence and erratic murderous behaviour. Many of the people involved in previous random shootings of this type were found to be taking fluoride based anti-depressant drugs. With love and sorrow for all the victims of violence everywhere.
State - Kentucky (the most fluoridated State -only Washington, D.C. is higher - at 100%)
99.60% % of state fluoridated
59.80% % of caries in 3rd graders
State - Utah (least fluoridated State)
2.20% % of state fluoridated
61.05% % of caries in 3rd graders
State - Virginia (7th most fluoridated State)
95.50% % of state fluoridated
61% % of caries in 3rd graders
Association of SiF Usage with Higher Blood Lead Levels, Rates of Violent Crime, and Substance Abuse
Masters, R. and Coplan, M. (1999a) "Water Treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity," International Journal of Environmental Studies, 56: 435-49.
First published analysis of data linking silicofluoride treatment of public water supplies with higher uptake of lead, focused on survey of children's blood lead in Massachusetts (by town).
Masters, R. and Coplan, M. (1999b) "A Dynamic, Multifactorial Model of Alchohol, Drug Abuse, and Crime: Linking Neuroscience and Behavior to Toxicology," Social Science Information, 38: 591-624.
Articulation of the linkages between neurotoxicity, brain chemistry, environmental pollution, and behavior (with focus on substance abuse and crime), using data from National Institute of Justice study of drug use in over 30,000 criminal offenders at time of arrest). Data show that where SiF is in use, criminals are more likely to consume alchohol, and to have used cocaine at time of arrest (as well as confirming that such communities have significantly higher violent crime rates).
Wilson, Jim (1999). "The Chemistry of Violence," Popular Mechanics, (April), pp. 42-43.
Masters, R.D., Coplan, M. J., Hone, B. T., and Dykes, J. E. (2000). "Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead," Neurotoxicology 21: 101-1100.
Follow-up epidemiological study of the association between SiF treated water and enhanced child blood lead. This statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead tests taken from children ages 0-6, living in 105 communities with populations from 15,000 to 75,000 in New York state, shows for every age and racial group a significant association between SiF usage and elevated blood lead.
Masters, Roger D. (2003). "The Social Implications of Evolutionary Psychology: Linking Brain Biochemistry, Toxins, and Violent Crime," in Richard W. Bloom and Nancy K. Dess, eds., Evolutionary Psychology and Violence: A Primer for Policymakers and Public Policy Advocates (Westwood: Praeger), Ch. 2, pp. 23-56.
Analysis of evidence of neurotransmitter dysfunction due to toxins associated with increased rates of violent crime, with extensive discussion of silicofluoride neurotoxicity as an important instance.
State - Kentucky (the most fluoridated State -only Washington, D.C. is higher - at 100%)
99.60% % of state fluoridated
59.80% % of caries in 3rd graders
State - Utah (least fluoridated State)
2.20% % of state fluoridated
61.05% % of caries in 3rd graders
State - Virginia (7th most fluoridated State)
95.50% % of state fluoridated
61% % of caries in 3rd graders
Association of SiF Usage with Higher Blood Lead Levels, Rates of Violent Crime, and Substance Abuse
Masters, R. and Coplan, M. (1999a) "Water Treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity," International Journal of Environmental Studies, 56: 435-49.
First published analysis of data linking silicofluoride treatment of public water supplies with higher uptake of lead, focused on survey of children's blood lead in Massachusetts (by town).
Masters, R. and Coplan, M. (1999b) "A Dynamic, Multifactorial Model of Alchohol, Drug Abuse, and Crime: Linking Neuroscience and Behavior to Toxicology," Social Science Information, 38: 591-624.
Articulation of the linkages between neurotoxicity, brain chemistry, environmental pollution, and behavior (with focus on substance abuse and crime), using data from National Institute of Justice study of drug use in over 30,000 criminal offenders at time of arrest). Data show that where SiF is in use, criminals are more likely to consume alchohol, and to have used cocaine at time of arrest (as well as confirming that such communities have significantly higher violent crime rates).
Wilson, Jim (1999). "The Chemistry of Violence," Popular Mechanics, (April), pp. 42-43.
Masters, R.D., Coplan, M. J., Hone, B. T., and Dykes, J. E. (2000). "Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead," Neurotoxicology 21: 101-1100.
Follow-up epidemiological study of the association between SiF treated water and enhanced child blood lead. This statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead tests taken from children ages 0-6, living in 105 communities with populations from 15,000 to 75,000 in New York state, shows for every age and racial group a significant association between SiF usage and elevated blood lead.
Masters, Roger D. (2003). "The Social Implications of Evolutionary Psychology: Linking Brain Biochemistry, Toxins, and Violent Crime," in Richard W. Bloom and Nancy K. Dess, eds., Evolutionary Psychology and Violence: A Primer for Policymakers and Public Policy Advocates (Westwood: Praeger), Ch. 2, pp. 23-56.
Analysis of evidence of neurotransmitter dysfunction due to toxins associated with increased rates of violent crime, with extensive discussion of silicofluoride neurotoxicity as an important instance.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Average Daily Fluoride Intake???Who Knows???
Excerpts from The Secret War and The Fluoride Conspiracy By Dr. Geoffrey E. Smith
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has always measured the safety of fluoridation on the basis of one study of crippling skeletal fluorosis, which was first published in 1935. The EPA's regulation for the maximum allowable concentration of fluoride in drinking water was established for one purpose - to prevent this disease. However, crippling is the [bioaccumulative] end stage of chronic fluoride poisoning. The earlier stages involve gastrointestinal problems, arthritis, and osteoporosis. None of these earlier symptoms are considered in the regulation ... only the end stage. In 1985, when the EPA [suddenly pretended there was a grand change in human biology and] raised the maximum contaminant level to 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water, they used dosage figures miscalculated in 1953 by Harold C. Hodge, who was chairman of the NAS committee on toxicology. Hodge's original figures (20-80 mg/day for 10-20 years) were corrected by Hodge in 1979, and by NAS in 1993. The corrected figures, based on Roholm's classic study of workers in the cryolite industry, amount to 0.2 to 0.35 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight per day, for eleven years. When extrapolated over a lifetime of 55 to 96 years, these crippling dosage figures equal 1 milligram of fluoride daily for each 55 pounds of body weight ... 0.04 mg/kg/day. In the early years of water fluoridation [human experimentation], this dosage was not the norm. At that time, water was virtually the only source of fluoride in the American diet. The total intake for most adults was 0.02 mg/kg/day ... about one to one and a half milligrams of fluoride daily. Today, the figure is 0.095 mg/kg/day... from food and drinking water alone ... more than 6 milligrams daily. This increase in ingested fluoride, largely due to the use of artificial fertilizers containing fluoride, pesticide residues, dental products, and modern food processing, has changed a relatively safe dosage into one capable of causing crippling deformities of the spine and major joints, as well as the muscle pain associated with fibromyalgia. Beer and wine often contain significant quantities of fluoride, as does ordinary tea. Grape juice often contains even larger quantities of fluoride, due to the widespread use of pesticides, which remain on the grape skin. Fluoride in toothpaste can be absorbed through the tissues of the mouth, as well as swallowed accidentally. Many prescription drugs also contain fluoride. None of these items are labeled to indicate the quantity of fluoride added to the daily dietary total.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has always measured the safety of fluoridation on the basis of one study of crippling skeletal fluorosis, which was first published in 1935. The EPA's regulation for the maximum allowable concentration of fluoride in drinking water was established for one purpose - to prevent this disease. However, crippling is the [bioaccumulative] end stage of chronic fluoride poisoning. The earlier stages involve gastrointestinal problems, arthritis, and osteoporosis. None of these earlier symptoms are considered in the regulation ... only the end stage. In 1985, when the EPA [suddenly pretended there was a grand change in human biology and] raised the maximum contaminant level to 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water, they used dosage figures miscalculated in 1953 by Harold C. Hodge, who was chairman of the NAS committee on toxicology. Hodge's original figures (20-80 mg/day for 10-20 years) were corrected by Hodge in 1979, and by NAS in 1993. The corrected figures, based on Roholm's classic study of workers in the cryolite industry, amount to 0.2 to 0.35 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight per day, for eleven years. When extrapolated over a lifetime of 55 to 96 years, these crippling dosage figures equal 1 milligram of fluoride daily for each 55 pounds of body weight ... 0.04 mg/kg/day. In the early years of water fluoridation [human experimentation], this dosage was not the norm. At that time, water was virtually the only source of fluoride in the American diet. The total intake for most adults was 0.02 mg/kg/day ... about one to one and a half milligrams of fluoride daily. Today, the figure is 0.095 mg/kg/day... from food and drinking water alone ... more than 6 milligrams daily. This increase in ingested fluoride, largely due to the use of artificial fertilizers containing fluoride, pesticide residues, dental products, and modern food processing, has changed a relatively safe dosage into one capable of causing crippling deformities of the spine and major joints, as well as the muscle pain associated with fibromyalgia. Beer and wine often contain significant quantities of fluoride, as does ordinary tea. Grape juice often contains even larger quantities of fluoride, due to the widespread use of pesticides, which remain on the grape skin. Fluoride in toothpaste can be absorbed through the tissues of the mouth, as well as swallowed accidentally. Many prescription drugs also contain fluoride. None of these items are labeled to indicate the quantity of fluoride added to the daily dietary total.
Fluoridation Monument(al Blunder)! A.K.A. The Dentists' Mantra
.jpg)
Reprinted from a blog I found recently. Many thanks to the publishers for their good taste!
Saturday, November 18, 2006
HMMM...I thought the meaning of the 33 foot sculpture (pictured above) recently erected at Grand Rapids - the home of the world's first mass fluoridation experiment - by the West Michigan Dental Association, was quite clear. Regards, Dennis Stevenson
Firstly, at the right of the picture is a patient. That they are a dental patient is obvious from their mouth being wide open. As their tongue is all the way out, obviously they are screaming. We'll get to why they are screaming in a moment. Gathered around the patient are 5 dentists. Equally obviously, as there are five dentists and not just one, it must be a training session, as only one dentist is required to extract whatever money a patient might have.The two dentists on the left can be seen to be senior to the other three, as is clearly shown by their height. The tallest dentist is the lead instructor and his colleague, on his immediate right, is the 'watchdog'. I'm sure all of us are aware that when a dentist speaks at a public meeting, there has to be another ADA approved dentist in the audience to report on what the first dentist says.? Naturally the same requirement exists when dentists are being trained. Though it is almost preposterous to consider that any ADA approved dentist would tell the truth (remember what happened to Mel Gibson in the movie Conspiracy Theory) the ADA is ever vigilant to ensure that no dentist should mention, even accidentally, that fluoridation is anything but "absolutely safe and effective". Though it seems silly and is extremely unlikely to occur, imagine the repercussions if a dentist told students that fluorosis was chronic fluoride poisoning of the 'whole body' and not just a 'minor cosmetic effect' on teeth only?Which leads us into exactly what the trainee-dentists were learning at the time the picture was taken. This is revealed by the attitude of the students. You will note their proximity to the patient: this shows that the 'cosmetic effect' of dental fluorosis is being discussed and specifically, the vast fees that can be made from gluing white plastic covers over the fluorosis disfigured teeth of patients - at $600 to $1,200 per tooth. This is, of course, why the patient is screaming.?However, you can imagine why the trainees are so excited. Not only have they just learned how much they can charge patients, but they have also discovered that fluorosis, or 'egg-shell white' mottling as they prefer to call it, is a never-ending source of money, provided they keep promoting fluoridation, as this is what causes the mottling. Now they realise how they can easily pay cash for a new premier Mercedes every year, not to mention the endless golf and wonderful conferences sponsored and paid for by Mars Bars Pty. Ltd.You will also notice at the bottom left side of the picture, almost hidden behind trees, is what can just be seen of a car window. The window, exactly positioned so that it has a clear view of the meeting through the trees, looks black. However, expanded digital film analysis reveals that state of the art video equipment is recording everything that is being done at the meeting. This is another requirement of Sigma-Delta-Sigma, the secret society of dentists, which dentists are on a blood oath never to mention. You may recall the deputy President of the NZ Dental Association who accidentally acknowledged that the society exists before he realized his error and stumbled out with "My membership of any organisation has got nothing to do with your interview." Have you ever seen him again?Something to also be seen in the photograph is the golden path. Because of poor reflection, this shows in the photograph as a white section on which the dentists are standing. This is always there when dentists are being trained to ever remind them of the dental brotherhood and the riches that await them if they obey the 5 Golden Rules.You will notice one of the dentists, the smallest and most junior one, has the 5 Golden Rules written on his back. Enlarged, they read:1. I promise to always pretend I and brother dentists are doctors though we are not medically qualified and do not have doctorates.2. I promise to protect any brother dentist who kills a patient with mercury or a topical fluoride treatment.3. I promise to charge every patient extra for: cleaning, topical fluoride treatment and x-rays and to never reduce fees or disclose to outsiders how many hundreds of thousands of dollars I make annually.4. I promise never to publicly debate fluoridation but only to forever repeat the dental mantra "Fluoridation is absolutely safe and effective". I will always vehemently deny that fluoride is a rat poison.5. I promise to follow the 50-year-old published advice from the American Dental Association to always denigrate and ridicule those who speak against fluoridation, no matter how well qualified they are.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID COMPOSITION
TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID (H2SiF6)
AS ANALYSED IN DUBLIN ON 14/08/2000 IN A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
CALCIUM 51 PPM
MAGNESIUM 23.9 PPM
SODIUM(NA) 33.6 PPM
POTASSIUM(K) 6.2 PPM
ALUMINIUM 2.1 PPM
BORON 14 PPB
MANGANESE 571 PPB
COPPER 90 PPB
ZINC 523 PPB
PHOSPHORUS 26187 PPM
BARIUM 168 PPB
IRON 11.85 PPM
SULPHUR 134.9 PPM
ARSENIC 4826 PPB
CADMIUM 4 PPB
CHROMIUM 3763 PPB
MERCURY 5 PPB
NICKEL 1742 PPB
LEAD 15 PPB
SELENIUM 2401 PPB
THALLIUM <2 PPB
ANTIMONY 14 PPB
TIN 4 PPB
COBALT 56 PPB
STRONTIUM 88 PPB
MOLYBDENUM 490 PPB
BERYLLIUM <2 PPB
VANADIUM 87 PPB
BEAR IN MIND THAT THE ABOVE IS JUST WHAT IS IN THE FLUORIDATING AGENT.
DUE TO ITS PROPENSITY TO BIND WITH ALUMINIUM AND LEAD, BY THE TIME THE WATER GETS THROUGH OUR WATER SYSTEM THE VOLUMES OF THOSE TWO ELEMENTS ARE EVEN HIGHER!
PERSONALLY, I HAVE NEVER LIKED THE TASTE OF IRISH TAPWATER SINCE THE MID 60'S. I WAS TOLD THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TASTE THE FLUORIDE...MAYBE IT WAS PHOSPOROUS AND SULPHUR I WAS TASTING ALL ALONG!!!
HERE IS A REFERENCE LINK TO AN AMAZING LETTER WRITTEN BY CHEMIFLOC, THE COMPANY SUPPLYING HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID TO THE IRISH GOVERNMENT. TRULY SHOCKING WHAT ONE'S OWN GOVERNMENT WILL SANCTION DONE TO ITS CITIZENS, JUST TO GET A LOCAL VOTE OR TO SAVE A FEW BOB!
EUES asked "Would anyone like to give me an alternative source for hydrofluorosilicic acid other than the phosphate fertiliser industry?"
Well, it seems that the supplier at the moment is Chemifloc in Shannon. I don't know if they import the stuff from foreign fertilizer factories or if they produce the hydrofluorosilicic acid using a chemical process that apes what happens in the fertilizer factories. It's one or the other. It hardly matters; there's no evidence that Chemifloc's product is any less toxic than the toxic waste that was used for most of the 43 years of Irish fluoridation.
But do look at this astonishing letter that Chemifloc wrote ten years ago, when they had lost the supply contract:
HTTP://www.fluoridealert.org/fluosilicic.htm
THANKS, JOE, FOR THIS REFERENCE.
AS ANALYSED IN DUBLIN ON 14/08/2000 IN A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
CALCIUM 51 PPM
MAGNESIUM 23.9 PPM
SODIUM(NA) 33.6 PPM
POTASSIUM(K) 6.2 PPM
ALUMINIUM 2.1 PPM
BORON 14 PPB
MANGANESE 571 PPB
COPPER 90 PPB
ZINC 523 PPB
PHOSPHORUS 26187 PPM
BARIUM 168 PPB
IRON 11.85 PPM
SULPHUR 134.9 PPM
ARSENIC 4826 PPB
CADMIUM 4 PPB
CHROMIUM 3763 PPB
MERCURY 5 PPB
NICKEL 1742 PPB
LEAD 15 PPB
SELENIUM 2401 PPB
THALLIUM <2 PPB
ANTIMONY 14 PPB
TIN 4 PPB
COBALT 56 PPB
STRONTIUM 88 PPB
MOLYBDENUM 490 PPB
BERYLLIUM <2 PPB
VANADIUM 87 PPB
BEAR IN MIND THAT THE ABOVE IS JUST WHAT IS IN THE FLUORIDATING AGENT.
DUE TO ITS PROPENSITY TO BIND WITH ALUMINIUM AND LEAD, BY THE TIME THE WATER GETS THROUGH OUR WATER SYSTEM THE VOLUMES OF THOSE TWO ELEMENTS ARE EVEN HIGHER!
PERSONALLY, I HAVE NEVER LIKED THE TASTE OF IRISH TAPWATER SINCE THE MID 60'S. I WAS TOLD THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TASTE THE FLUORIDE...MAYBE IT WAS PHOSPOROUS AND SULPHUR I WAS TASTING ALL ALONG!!!
HERE IS A REFERENCE LINK TO AN AMAZING LETTER WRITTEN BY CHEMIFLOC, THE COMPANY SUPPLYING HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID TO THE IRISH GOVERNMENT. TRULY SHOCKING WHAT ONE'S OWN GOVERNMENT WILL SANCTION DONE TO ITS CITIZENS, JUST TO GET A LOCAL VOTE OR TO SAVE A FEW BOB!
EUES asked "Would anyone like to give me an alternative source for hydrofluorosilicic acid other than the phosphate fertiliser industry?"
Well, it seems that the supplier at the moment is Chemifloc in Shannon. I don't know if they import the stuff from foreign fertilizer factories or if they produce the hydrofluorosilicic acid using a chemical process that apes what happens in the fertilizer factories. It's one or the other. It hardly matters; there's no evidence that Chemifloc's product is any less toxic than the toxic waste that was used for most of the 43 years of Irish fluoridation.
But do look at this astonishing letter that Chemifloc wrote ten years ago, when they had lost the supply contract:
HTTP://www.fluoridealert.org/fluosilicic.htm
THANKS, JOE, FOR THIS REFERENCE.
Scare Tactics Don't Change the Truth About Fluoride! Oh Yeah!
To The Editor, Onalaska Life Newspaper:
Sir,
(Your Guest Columnist) Dentist, Mr Randall Moseng, states that Mr Michael Berkley is beating the drum of inaccuracy. If that is the case, then Mr Moseng has a whole brass band! I hardly know where to begin to retort to his dogged "dentistry school world view", regurgitating "facts" he learned there without the benefit of actual research. But, with the reader's indulgence, I will make an attempt:- MY COMMENTS IN CAPITALS:
Mr Randall Moseng: Michael Berkley makes a nice attempt to frighten the public into fearing community water fluoridation, but unfortunately his argument is mostly opinion, assertion and speculation rather than based on any actual science. PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES?
His greatest argument seems to be that fluoridating a community water supply is mass medication. Fluoride is not a medication in the water supply, it is a naturally occurring mineral found in the earth, soil and water all around the planet. IF CARIES ARE A DISEASE, AND FLUORIDE PLACED THERE IS TO FIGHT CARIES, DOESN’T THAT MAKE IT A MEDICATION? FLOURINE IS A COMMON ENOUGH ELEMENT, FOUND IN SEAWATER AT 1.35 PPM, HIGHER THAN USED IN FLUORIDATION. GOOD THAT WE DON’T DRINK SEAWATER THEN! IN SURFACE RIVER WATER IT IS AT 0.10 PPM – ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION RAISES THIS BY A FACTOR OF TEN! 0.2 PPM HAS BEEN SHOWN TO AFFECT FISH STOCKS IN RUN-OFFS FROM FLUORIDATED CITIES – SEE THE EUES IRELAND BLOG.
In fact, the earliest studies in the 1930s to determine the benefits of fluoridation were conducted in areas where natural fluoridation was present in the water supply and the foundations for which scientists were able to determine the proper amounts of fluoride to ingest for maximum benefit. THE STUDIES WERE TO FIND WAYS TO ELIMINATE FLUOROSIS. THE LIMITS SET ARE AN ARBITRARY GUESS BUILT ON ERRONEOUS SCIENCE. MODERN TECHNOLOGY HAS PROVED NEUROTOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS AT 1PPM. ORIGINAL "RESEARCH" WAS FUNDED BY ALCOA AND ALUMINIUM, NUCLEAR AND STEEL INDUSTRY PARTNERS.
Water fluoridation involves precise adjustment of the existing naturally occurring fluoride levels to ideal levels recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service. THE ORIGINAL BRIEF TO SELL FLUORIDE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WAS INSTIGATED BY THE HEAD OF THE TREASURY DEPT., WHICH RAN THE P.H.S. (At the end of the war, with massive amounts of fluoride waste needing disposal, the Public Health Service began pushing to add fluoride to the water in Grand Rapids, Mich., and dozens of other U.S. cities. At the time, the Public Health Service was being run by Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), which had dominated fluoride research since the 1920s. By 1950, as the fluoridation campaign gained steam, the Public Health Service was headed by another top Alcoa official, Oscar R. Ewing, who in turn was aided by Edward L. Bernays, the father of modern public relations and author of the book "Propaganda," who sought to portray fluoride's opponents as wackos.)
No, community water fluoridation is not mass medication. Mr. Berkley and his ilk have been beating this drum of inaccuracy for many years under the guise of “too much government.”
He claims the chemicals commonly used to adjust fluoride levels to optimum levels are similar in chemical composition to “waste products of the fertilizer industry.” What he neglects to tell readers is that they are not the source of said chemicals. H20 is water, H202 is hydrogen peroxide. Similar chemical composition, but one is essential for human life, one is not. THEY ARE NOT SIMILAR – THEY ARE ACTUALLY WASTE PRODUCTS FROM THE FLORIDA PHOSPHATE CHIMNEY SCRUBBERS (AND IN EUROPE FROM FINLAND AND BENELUX PHOSPHATE FERTILISER COMPANIES) – THIS CHEMICAL IS HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID – H2SiF6 – A CHEMICAL HODGE PODGE WHICH INCLUDES CHROMIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, LOTS OF PHOSPHORUS, SULPHUR,MERCURY, INDEED OVER 30 CHEMICALS ARE INVOLVED! SEE MY BLOG FOR THE PRECISE BREAKDOWN OF A TYPICAL ANALYSIS.
Dentistry simply supports this idea as a cost effective means to prevent tooth decay. DENTISTRY NEVER LOOKS AT THE WHOLE BODY EFFECTS OF FLUORIDATION – ONLY AT THE MOUTH.
Fluoridation always wins in the court of law as a safe, effective, inexpensive means to protect the public health. The truth is, no court of last resort (including the California Supreme Court in 2006) has ruled against community water fluoridation. Ever. NOT QUITE TRUE - (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.)
He argues that we do not have data to know the long term effects of fluoridation. Again, here he is either ignoring the literature, or refuses to acknowledge that over 60 years of scientific data supports the practice of community water fluoridation. RUBBISH! THE LAST 30 YEARS HAVE SHOWN A LOT MORE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON HUMANS THAN POSITIVE ONES. DENTAL CARIES HAVE DROPPED WORLD-WIDE, WITH OR WITHOUT FLUORIDE, IT IS THE SAME. AS SCIENTISTS, CHEMISTS AND TOXICOLOGISTS LOOK AT THE WHOLE BODY EFFECTS, MORE AND MORE ARE COMING OUT AGAINST THIS DISGUSTING PRACTICE OF DUMPING CHEMICAL WASTE INTO DRINKING WATER. SEE THE EUES IRELAND BLOG FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE E.P.A. SCIENTISTS UNION GAVE TO A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. THEY WORK WITH TOXIC WASTE EVERY DAY, THEY INVESTIGATE IT AND DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS IT POSES EVERY DAY, AND THEY FEEL THAT THE PRACTICE SHOULD BE STOPPED! WHAT CREDENTIALS FOR ACTUALLY WORKING WITH THIS TOXIC WASTE DOES MR MOSENG HAVE? THE YORK REVIEW IN THE U.K LOOKED AT OVER 3000 STUDIES OF FLUORIDE AND FOUND: “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.” – READ THE FULL TEXT ON http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
Frankly, it is almost cavalier of him to suggest proper oral hygiene at home is the only answer to a healthy mouth and prevention of oral manifestations. He is obviously ignoring a big at-risk segment of the population who are at or below the poverty line and lack proper access to good dental care and frequently have poor oral hygiene habits. IN 1937, THE A.D.A PUBLISHED RESEARCH WHICH SHOWED THE BLACK PEOPLE ACROSS THE U.S. HAD VERY LOW CARIES RATES. MUCH LOWER THAN WHITES. AFTER 50 YEARS OF FLUORIDATION, BLACK PEOPLES TEETH ARE THE WORST IN THE COUNTRY. THEY ARE ALSO PRONE TO DAMAGED IMMUNE SYSTEMS DUE TO POOR DIET. FLUORIDE THEREFORE HAS PROPORTIONALLY GREATER EFFECTS FOR THE POOR ON THEIR GENERAL HEALTH THAN ON HIGHER INCOME GROUPS. WHEN GIVEN ACCESS TO DENTAL TREATMENT, POORER PEOPLE ACTUALLY ARE VERY GOOD ON THE TAKE-UP OF THOSE SERVICES, SO THE HIGHER CARIES RATES CANNOT BE ASSIGNED TO POOR DENTAL REGIMES, BUT MUST ALSO INCLUDE DIET. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT FLUORIDE INGESTION OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS MAKES TEETH BRITTLE. HAVE YOU SEEN PEOPLE WITH BROKEN TEETH? THIS HAPPENS MUCH MORE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE!
What about the senior citizen who cannot get to a dentist easily due to a physical limitation? Community water fluoridation helps young and old the most, and it is a good thing, since they are the most in need. RIDICULOUS POINT TO MAKE – RESEARCH HAS BEEN PUBLISHED TO SHOW THAT FLUORIDE HAS LITTLE OR NO EFFECT ON OLDER PEOPLE’S TEETH!
Mr. Berkley also questions whether we should use “the public water supply to deliver drugs, chemicals or substances for the prevention of disease.” I suggest the answer is yes — as evidenced by the use of iodized salt (prevents thyroid problems like goiter), Vitamin D to milk (links with calcium to strengthen bones) and Vitamin C to many foods (to prevent many ailments such as scurvy). MR. MOSENG AGAIN MISSES THE POINT – PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE TO TAKE THESE THINGS. FLUORIDATED WATER MEANS THAT THEY ARE FORCED TO TAKE IT, AND THAT IT IS IN EVERYTHING MANUFACTURED IN FLUORIDATED AREAS, AS WELL. HE FEELS THAT IT IS OK TO MEDICATE PEOPLE THIS WAY – MOST PEOPLE, WHEN ASKED, DON’T.
Go ahead, Google fluoride on the Internet. But beware while the Internet can be a wonderful tool and great resource for information, it is fraught with hucksters and charlatans purported to be authentic or scientifically based but are in fact distortions of fact and merely opinion to skew the truth and support a belief system rather than present true science in an unbiased fashion. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, MR. MOST PEOPLE I KNOW WHO ARE AGAINST FLUORIDE AND WANT TO TELL OTHERS ABOUT IT HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN. THEY MERELY SEEK TO ALERT PEOPLE TO A HARMFUL PRACTICE WHICH THEY HAVE RESEARCHED THEMSELVES, AND/OR HAVE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF THE HARMFUL EFFECTS TO HEALTH OF THIS PRACTICE. NOW WHO IS PEDDLING CONSPIRACY THEORIES?
Please take the time to visit the Web sites of authorities charged with protecting the public such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov), American Dental Association (ada.org), Academy of General Dentistry (agd.org) to learn what science says about fluoridating your water. WHICH REMINDS ME, THE FLUORIDE LOBBY TOOK THE NAME http://www.fluoridealert.com/ TO CONFUSE PEOPLE AND TAKE THEM AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL SITE http://www.fluoridealert.org/ !! LOVELY PEOPLE, INSTANTLY TRUSTWORTHY - NOT.
And finally, Berkley even goes so far as to claim that fluoride does not prevent cavities. Truth is, the scientific community has conducted dozens of peer reviewed, non-biased, double blind credible studies since 1945 and the overwhelming weight of evidence concludes that fluoridation provides a clear, real, measurable, direct correlation with a decrease in cavity rates for all people, whether they practice proper oral hygiene or not. FLUORIDE HAS AN EFFECT ON CAVITIES, IT KILLS THE ENZYMES WHICH CAUSE CARIES – THAT IS WHY PEOPLE USE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE. PUTTING IT IN DRINKING WATER WHEN ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT WORKS TOPICALLY AND NOT SYSTEMICALLY IS NON-SENSICAL! YOU DO NOT NEED TO DRINK IT!! PERSONALLY, I USE A NON-FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE AND MY RATE OF CARIES HAS SINCE ALMOST STOPPED. FURTHERMORE THE YORK REPORT COULD NOT FIND ANY GREATER EVIDENCE WORLDWIDE GREATER THAN A CLAIM OF 14% CARIES DECLINE WITH FLUORIDE, IN MANY PLACES THE EFFECT WAS UNMEASURABLE. EVEN SO, THIS IS LESS THAN 1/2 A TOOTH! NOT WORTH THE DOCUMENTED RISK TO OTHER BODY AREA HEALTH!
Please do not let the likes of Mr. Berkley frighten you. Dentistry is in the profession of preventing disease and promoting public health. Our focus is helping the public, not harming it. Why else would we support an idea which stands to decrease business and by extension our income? FIGURES HAVE SHOWN THAT DENTISTS MAKE ON AVERAGE 17% HIGHER INCOMES IN FLUORIDATED AREAS. THE COSTS IN WHAT THEY CALL THE “COSMETIC” TREATMENT OF FLUOROSIS ARE VERY HIGH. TODAY, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KINGSTON, N.Y. THE FIRST FLUORIDATED TOWN AND ITS UNFLUORIDATED CONTROL TOWN IN THE NUMBER OF CARIES. DR.H.TRENDLEY DEAN, THE “FATHER OF FLUORIDATION” DECLARED FLUORIDE WAS SAFE AND ESTABLISHED THE FIRST TRIALS IN GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN IN 1945. SINCE THEN, HE HAS TWICE CONFESSED IN COURT THAT STATISTICS FROM THE EARLY TESTS, ALLEGEDLY SUPPORTING THE USE OF FLUORIDATION IN COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS, WERE INVALID.
Based on 2002 data, approximately 170 million people (or over two-thirds of the population) in the United States are served by public water systems that are fluoridated. In Minnesota and Iowa, community water fluoridation is state law. OVER 95% OF THE WORLD’S POPULATION DOES NOT FLUORIDATE ITS WATER. SOME COUNTRIES TRIED IT AND STOPPED DUE TO HEALTH CONCERNS. SOME HAVE OUTLAWED THE ADDITION OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN CLEANSING AGENTS TO THEIR WATER. THE TEETH OF FORMERLY FLUORIDATED EAST GERMAN CITIZENS ACTUALLY IMPROVED WHEN THEY JOINED WITH WEST GERMANY, WHICH WILL NOT ALLOW FLUORIDATION. IF ONE LOOKS AT THE FIGURES FOR FLUORIDATION PERCENTAGES VS CARIES ACROSS THE U.S. THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT CORRELATION TO PROVE THE EFFICACY OF FLUORIDE. AFTER 60 YEARS WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ANYONE ON THE PLANET TO DO A MAJOR HEALTH STUDY OF OTHER EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE ON A MAJOR POPULATION! HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE PART OF AN “EXPERIMENT”?
Sir,
(Your Guest Columnist) Dentist, Mr Randall Moseng, states that Mr Michael Berkley is beating the drum of inaccuracy. If that is the case, then Mr Moseng has a whole brass band! I hardly know where to begin to retort to his dogged "dentistry school world view", regurgitating "facts" he learned there without the benefit of actual research. But, with the reader's indulgence, I will make an attempt:- MY COMMENTS IN CAPITALS:
Mr Randall Moseng: Michael Berkley makes a nice attempt to frighten the public into fearing community water fluoridation, but unfortunately his argument is mostly opinion, assertion and speculation rather than based on any actual science. PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES?
His greatest argument seems to be that fluoridating a community water supply is mass medication. Fluoride is not a medication in the water supply, it is a naturally occurring mineral found in the earth, soil and water all around the planet. IF CARIES ARE A DISEASE, AND FLUORIDE PLACED THERE IS TO FIGHT CARIES, DOESN’T THAT MAKE IT A MEDICATION? FLOURINE IS A COMMON ENOUGH ELEMENT, FOUND IN SEAWATER AT 1.35 PPM, HIGHER THAN USED IN FLUORIDATION. GOOD THAT WE DON’T DRINK SEAWATER THEN! IN SURFACE RIVER WATER IT IS AT 0.10 PPM – ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION RAISES THIS BY A FACTOR OF TEN! 0.2 PPM HAS BEEN SHOWN TO AFFECT FISH STOCKS IN RUN-OFFS FROM FLUORIDATED CITIES – SEE THE EUES IRELAND BLOG.
In fact, the earliest studies in the 1930s to determine the benefits of fluoridation were conducted in areas where natural fluoridation was present in the water supply and the foundations for which scientists were able to determine the proper amounts of fluoride to ingest for maximum benefit. THE STUDIES WERE TO FIND WAYS TO ELIMINATE FLUOROSIS. THE LIMITS SET ARE AN ARBITRARY GUESS BUILT ON ERRONEOUS SCIENCE. MODERN TECHNOLOGY HAS PROVED NEUROTOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS AT 1PPM. ORIGINAL "RESEARCH" WAS FUNDED BY ALCOA AND ALUMINIUM, NUCLEAR AND STEEL INDUSTRY PARTNERS.
Water fluoridation involves precise adjustment of the existing naturally occurring fluoride levels to ideal levels recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service. THE ORIGINAL BRIEF TO SELL FLUORIDE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WAS INSTIGATED BY THE HEAD OF THE TREASURY DEPT., WHICH RAN THE P.H.S. (At the end of the war, with massive amounts of fluoride waste needing disposal, the Public Health Service began pushing to add fluoride to the water in Grand Rapids, Mich., and dozens of other U.S. cities. At the time, the Public Health Service was being run by Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), which had dominated fluoride research since the 1920s. By 1950, as the fluoridation campaign gained steam, the Public Health Service was headed by another top Alcoa official, Oscar R. Ewing, who in turn was aided by Edward L. Bernays, the father of modern public relations and author of the book "Propaganda," who sought to portray fluoride's opponents as wackos.)
No, community water fluoridation is not mass medication. Mr. Berkley and his ilk have been beating this drum of inaccuracy for many years under the guise of “too much government.”
He claims the chemicals commonly used to adjust fluoride levels to optimum levels are similar in chemical composition to “waste products of the fertilizer industry.” What he neglects to tell readers is that they are not the source of said chemicals. H20 is water, H202 is hydrogen peroxide. Similar chemical composition, but one is essential for human life, one is not. THEY ARE NOT SIMILAR – THEY ARE ACTUALLY WASTE PRODUCTS FROM THE FLORIDA PHOSPHATE CHIMNEY SCRUBBERS (AND IN EUROPE FROM FINLAND AND BENELUX PHOSPHATE FERTILISER COMPANIES) – THIS CHEMICAL IS HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID – H2SiF6 – A CHEMICAL HODGE PODGE WHICH INCLUDES CHROMIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, LOTS OF PHOSPHORUS, SULPHUR,MERCURY, INDEED OVER 30 CHEMICALS ARE INVOLVED! SEE MY BLOG FOR THE PRECISE BREAKDOWN OF A TYPICAL ANALYSIS.
Dentistry simply supports this idea as a cost effective means to prevent tooth decay. DENTISTRY NEVER LOOKS AT THE WHOLE BODY EFFECTS OF FLUORIDATION – ONLY AT THE MOUTH.
Fluoridation always wins in the court of law as a safe, effective, inexpensive means to protect the public health. The truth is, no court of last resort (including the California Supreme Court in 2006) has ruled against community water fluoridation. Ever. NOT QUITE TRUE - (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.)
He argues that we do not have data to know the long term effects of fluoridation. Again, here he is either ignoring the literature, or refuses to acknowledge that over 60 years of scientific data supports the practice of community water fluoridation. RUBBISH! THE LAST 30 YEARS HAVE SHOWN A LOT MORE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON HUMANS THAN POSITIVE ONES. DENTAL CARIES HAVE DROPPED WORLD-WIDE, WITH OR WITHOUT FLUORIDE, IT IS THE SAME. AS SCIENTISTS, CHEMISTS AND TOXICOLOGISTS LOOK AT THE WHOLE BODY EFFECTS, MORE AND MORE ARE COMING OUT AGAINST THIS DISGUSTING PRACTICE OF DUMPING CHEMICAL WASTE INTO DRINKING WATER. SEE THE EUES IRELAND BLOG FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE E.P.A. SCIENTISTS UNION GAVE TO A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. THEY WORK WITH TOXIC WASTE EVERY DAY, THEY INVESTIGATE IT AND DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS IT POSES EVERY DAY, AND THEY FEEL THAT THE PRACTICE SHOULD BE STOPPED! WHAT CREDENTIALS FOR ACTUALLY WORKING WITH THIS TOXIC WASTE DOES MR MOSENG HAVE? THE YORK REVIEW IN THE U.K LOOKED AT OVER 3000 STUDIES OF FLUORIDE AND FOUND: “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.” – READ THE FULL TEXT ON http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
Frankly, it is almost cavalier of him to suggest proper oral hygiene at home is the only answer to a healthy mouth and prevention of oral manifestations. He is obviously ignoring a big at-risk segment of the population who are at or below the poverty line and lack proper access to good dental care and frequently have poor oral hygiene habits. IN 1937, THE A.D.A PUBLISHED RESEARCH WHICH SHOWED THE BLACK PEOPLE ACROSS THE U.S. HAD VERY LOW CARIES RATES. MUCH LOWER THAN WHITES. AFTER 50 YEARS OF FLUORIDATION, BLACK PEOPLES TEETH ARE THE WORST IN THE COUNTRY. THEY ARE ALSO PRONE TO DAMAGED IMMUNE SYSTEMS DUE TO POOR DIET. FLUORIDE THEREFORE HAS PROPORTIONALLY GREATER EFFECTS FOR THE POOR ON THEIR GENERAL HEALTH THAN ON HIGHER INCOME GROUPS. WHEN GIVEN ACCESS TO DENTAL TREATMENT, POORER PEOPLE ACTUALLY ARE VERY GOOD ON THE TAKE-UP OF THOSE SERVICES, SO THE HIGHER CARIES RATES CANNOT BE ASSIGNED TO POOR DENTAL REGIMES, BUT MUST ALSO INCLUDE DIET. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT FLUORIDE INGESTION OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS MAKES TEETH BRITTLE. HAVE YOU SEEN PEOPLE WITH BROKEN TEETH? THIS HAPPENS MUCH MORE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE!
What about the senior citizen who cannot get to a dentist easily due to a physical limitation? Community water fluoridation helps young and old the most, and it is a good thing, since they are the most in need. RIDICULOUS POINT TO MAKE – RESEARCH HAS BEEN PUBLISHED TO SHOW THAT FLUORIDE HAS LITTLE OR NO EFFECT ON OLDER PEOPLE’S TEETH!
Mr. Berkley also questions whether we should use “the public water supply to deliver drugs, chemicals or substances for the prevention of disease.” I suggest the answer is yes — as evidenced by the use of iodized salt (prevents thyroid problems like goiter), Vitamin D to milk (links with calcium to strengthen bones) and Vitamin C to many foods (to prevent many ailments such as scurvy). MR. MOSENG AGAIN MISSES THE POINT – PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE TO TAKE THESE THINGS. FLUORIDATED WATER MEANS THAT THEY ARE FORCED TO TAKE IT, AND THAT IT IS IN EVERYTHING MANUFACTURED IN FLUORIDATED AREAS, AS WELL. HE FEELS THAT IT IS OK TO MEDICATE PEOPLE THIS WAY – MOST PEOPLE, WHEN ASKED, DON’T.
Go ahead, Google fluoride on the Internet. But beware while the Internet can be a wonderful tool and great resource for information, it is fraught with hucksters and charlatans purported to be authentic or scientifically based but are in fact distortions of fact and merely opinion to skew the truth and support a belief system rather than present true science in an unbiased fashion. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, MR. MOST PEOPLE I KNOW WHO ARE AGAINST FLUORIDE AND WANT TO TELL OTHERS ABOUT IT HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN. THEY MERELY SEEK TO ALERT PEOPLE TO A HARMFUL PRACTICE WHICH THEY HAVE RESEARCHED THEMSELVES, AND/OR HAVE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF THE HARMFUL EFFECTS TO HEALTH OF THIS PRACTICE. NOW WHO IS PEDDLING CONSPIRACY THEORIES?
Please take the time to visit the Web sites of authorities charged with protecting the public such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov), American Dental Association (ada.org), Academy of General Dentistry (agd.org) to learn what science says about fluoridating your water. WHICH REMINDS ME, THE FLUORIDE LOBBY TOOK THE NAME http://www.fluoridealert.com/ TO CONFUSE PEOPLE AND TAKE THEM AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL SITE http://www.fluoridealert.org/ !! LOVELY PEOPLE, INSTANTLY TRUSTWORTHY - NOT.
And finally, Berkley even goes so far as to claim that fluoride does not prevent cavities. Truth is, the scientific community has conducted dozens of peer reviewed, non-biased, double blind credible studies since 1945 and the overwhelming weight of evidence concludes that fluoridation provides a clear, real, measurable, direct correlation with a decrease in cavity rates for all people, whether they practice proper oral hygiene or not. FLUORIDE HAS AN EFFECT ON CAVITIES, IT KILLS THE ENZYMES WHICH CAUSE CARIES – THAT IS WHY PEOPLE USE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE. PUTTING IT IN DRINKING WATER WHEN ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT WORKS TOPICALLY AND NOT SYSTEMICALLY IS NON-SENSICAL! YOU DO NOT NEED TO DRINK IT!! PERSONALLY, I USE A NON-FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE AND MY RATE OF CARIES HAS SINCE ALMOST STOPPED. FURTHERMORE THE YORK REPORT COULD NOT FIND ANY GREATER EVIDENCE WORLDWIDE GREATER THAN A CLAIM OF 14% CARIES DECLINE WITH FLUORIDE, IN MANY PLACES THE EFFECT WAS UNMEASURABLE. EVEN SO, THIS IS LESS THAN 1/2 A TOOTH! NOT WORTH THE DOCUMENTED RISK TO OTHER BODY AREA HEALTH!
Please do not let the likes of Mr. Berkley frighten you. Dentistry is in the profession of preventing disease and promoting public health. Our focus is helping the public, not harming it. Why else would we support an idea which stands to decrease business and by extension our income? FIGURES HAVE SHOWN THAT DENTISTS MAKE ON AVERAGE 17% HIGHER INCOMES IN FLUORIDATED AREAS. THE COSTS IN WHAT THEY CALL THE “COSMETIC” TREATMENT OF FLUOROSIS ARE VERY HIGH. TODAY, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KINGSTON, N.Y. THE FIRST FLUORIDATED TOWN AND ITS UNFLUORIDATED CONTROL TOWN IN THE NUMBER OF CARIES. DR.H.TRENDLEY DEAN, THE “FATHER OF FLUORIDATION” DECLARED FLUORIDE WAS SAFE AND ESTABLISHED THE FIRST TRIALS IN GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN IN 1945. SINCE THEN, HE HAS TWICE CONFESSED IN COURT THAT STATISTICS FROM THE EARLY TESTS, ALLEGEDLY SUPPORTING THE USE OF FLUORIDATION IN COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS, WERE INVALID.
Based on 2002 data, approximately 170 million people (or over two-thirds of the population) in the United States are served by public water systems that are fluoridated. In Minnesota and Iowa, community water fluoridation is state law. OVER 95% OF THE WORLD’S POPULATION DOES NOT FLUORIDATE ITS WATER. SOME COUNTRIES TRIED IT AND STOPPED DUE TO HEALTH CONCERNS. SOME HAVE OUTLAWED THE ADDITION OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN CLEANSING AGENTS TO THEIR WATER. THE TEETH OF FORMERLY FLUORIDATED EAST GERMAN CITIZENS ACTUALLY IMPROVED WHEN THEY JOINED WITH WEST GERMANY, WHICH WILL NOT ALLOW FLUORIDATION. IF ONE LOOKS AT THE FIGURES FOR FLUORIDATION PERCENTAGES VS CARIES ACROSS THE U.S. THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT CORRELATION TO PROVE THE EFFICACY OF FLUORIDE. AFTER 60 YEARS WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ANYONE ON THE PLANET TO DO A MAJOR HEALTH STUDY OF OTHER EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE ON A MAJOR POPULATION! HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE PART OF AN “EXPERIMENT”?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)