Fluoride

News from Fluoride Action Network:

February 28, 2015

Dear Raphael:

A New Day, Another Study

Just when you thought we wouldn’t get any more bombshells this week, a study was published yesterday linking fluoridation to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States.

The study entitled, “Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association,” was published in the journal Environmental Health.  According to the authors:

“State prevalence of artificial water fluoridation in 1992 significantly positively predicted state prevalence of ADHD in 2003, 2007 and 2011, even after controlling for socioeconomic status.

A multivariate regression analysis showed that after socioeconomic status was controlled each 1% increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011. Overall state water fluoridation prevalence (not distinguishing between fluoridation types) was also significantly positively correlated with state prevalence of ADHD for all but one year examined.

Conclusions: Parents reported higher rates of medically-diagnosed ADHD in their children in states in which a greater proportion of people receive fluoridated water from public water supplies.” 

Stay tuned for more FAN coverage of this and the thyroid study as they continue to get covered by the media, and as the pro-fluoridation lobby responds with their criticisms and propaganda.

More Great Media Coverage of Thyroid Study

The media continues to widely cover the new study published earlier this week in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health linking fluoridation to an increase in hypothyroidism in the U.K.  Since the publication of FAN’s bulletin on the study entitled “Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England?  A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water,” the story has been covered by more mainstream media outlets then we can list.  Some include:

WebMD

Philadelphia Inquirer

UK Daily Mail

The Oregonian

Birmingham Mail

The New American

Our favorite news story published since Tuesday’s great Newsweek article, was in the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday.  Two endocrinologists were interviewed and both had great quotes in opposition to fluoridation, including the following:

“This dramatic increase in thyroid dysfunction associated with fluoridation of the water supply adds to previous studies indicating that fluoride has an inhibitory effect on the thyroid gland,” said Dr. Terry Davies, a professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York City.

The study “supports the argument that our water supply should be pure water and nothing else,” said Davies, who is also an endocrinologist at The Mount Sinai Hospital.

A Steady Stream of Victories

February has been a very good month for the fluoride-free movement, not only due to the publication of two great studies, but also due to a steady stream of communities ending the practice, with even more on the verge:  

South Dublin, Ireland—South Dublin County Council become the 5th major council calling for an end to fluoridation in 2015 and the 10th in the past year, collectively representing more than 2 million Irish residents.  This comes less than a month after councilors in Cavan County and the community of Galway both passed motions calling for members to register their opposition to fluoridation.

Yoshikawa, Japan—Officials in this Japanese city with 70,000 residents decided against fluoridating the drinking water after considering a fluoridation proposal for 17 years.  The proposal was defeated by a strong fluoride-free grassroots movement in combination with the election of a new Mayor who opposed the practice.

New Brunswick, New Jersey—Councilors voted to stop using fluoride in the water supply for their 50,000 residents as part of their plans to improve the town’s infrastructure.  They felt that fluoride was readily available in other forms and that people were choosing to drink bottle water instead of tap water, making the practice a waste of money.  Also in NJ, Egg Harbor will hold a meeting on March 5 to consider ending the practice after the Water and Sewer Department Superintendent urged councilors to oppose the practice.

Boynton Beach, Florida—Town officials will no longer fluoridate the drinking water for their 70,000 residents due to the cost of updating the broken fluoride injection equipment and the limited availability of the additive.

Montello, Wisconsin—Councilors approved a motion ending fluoridation on February 12th after contacting area dentists and learning that “a person would get more fluoride from brushing their teeth daily than by drinking a gallon of city water daily.”  The decision will save nearly $40,000 this year, and $7,000 each year.  Rice Lake, Wisconsin is also considering removing fluoride. 

Brackenridge, Pennsylvania—Councilors are discontinuing their fluoridation program because of the availability of fluoride in other forms, and because, as one councilor stated, “…it’s dangerous to work with.”  Brackenridge follows Ford, PA, which voted to end fluoridation in December.           

Arkansas Legislature—The full Arkansas House passed legislation (HB1355) that will give municipalities the ability to opt-out of the statewide fluoridation mandate, effectively reversing the policy by allowing local control on the issue.  The bill won by a vote of 60-34 despite efforts by the Arkansas Dental Association to oppose it.  The bill will now go to the Senate, where it will have a public hearing in the Health committee before being heard on the Senate floor.

February’s Teleconference Audio

If you missed this month’s International Fluoride Free Teleconference you can now download the audio.  February’s call was dedicated to campaigners from around the world coming together to offer each other support in the effort to end fluoridation.

Click Here to Download the Audio 

You can also register for the March teleconference entitled, “Social Media: Today’s Way to Change Hearts and Minds.”  The call will take place on Saturday, March 14th at 5PM (Eastern Time).  Register today! 

News You May Have Missed

New York’s Fluoridation Fuss, 50 Years Later (New York)

NYS Governor is Misled About Fluoride Safety (New York)

In Oneida, Opposing Views Expressed on Fluoridation (New York)

Bennington: Citizens Against Fluoridated Water Speak Out (Vermont)

Fluoride Toxicity in Plants Irrigated With City Water (Michigan)

Sonoma: Council Delays Stand on Fluoridation (California)

Farmington’s Efforts to Remove Fluoridation Ordinance (Missouri)

Rice Lake Considers Removing Fluoride (Wisconsin)

Fluoride Committee Appointed by Topsfield Town Moderator (Massachusetts)

Lewiston-Auburn Water Agencies to Repair Fluoride System (Maine)

Campaign to Stop Adding Fluoride to Hull Water Supply (U.K.)

New Push to Block Ballina Fluoridation Plan (Australia)

Acclaimed Fluoridation Experts Touring New Zealand in February (New Zealand)

 Stuart Cooper, Campaign Manager
Fluoride Action Network
*******************************************************

Ten Key Papers that Challenge the Pro-fluoridation MantraIntroduction 

Promoters of fluoridation repeat ad nauseam the mantra that fluoridation is “safe”, “effective” and “cost effective” (how many times have unsuspecting legislators been told that for every $1 spent we save $38?). Instead of backing up these claims with any solid scientific evidence, they use a long list of impressive but fairly meaningless (i.e. “science-free”) endorsements. This is not surprising because the science is not there to support the mantra. What is surprising is that public health officials and professional bodies repeat these claims with no sense of embarrassment. I believe that historians will be astounded that so many “respectable” professional associations and health agencies (in the handful of countries that fluoridate) have endorsed a practice, which has such little scientific and no ethical justification. In Orwell’s Animal Farm the pigs rule, in the fluoridated world the sheep rule.

Below is a list of 10 studies (actually nine studies and one review) that invalidate this mantra.  Fluoridation is neither effective, nor safe, nor cost-effective. In addition I give a few words about the first four studies that challenge the mantra of fluoridation’s “effectiveness” and  “cost-effectiveness.”

In part 2 of this article, I will say a few words on the papers that pertain to safety.

Part 1. A Listing of the 10 studies

1. Brunelle and Carlos. 1990. Recent Trends in DentalCaries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation. Journal of Dental Research,69(Special Issue):723-727.

2. Featherstone JD. 2000.The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA), Jul; 131(7):887-99.

3. Warren JJ, et al. 2009. Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes–a longitudinal study. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 69(2):111-15. Spring.

4. Ko L, Thiessen KM. 2014. A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.

5. Luke J. 2001. Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Research 35(2):125-128. See also Luke’s PhD thesis click here.

6. Xiang Q, et al. 2003a. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36(2):84-94, and Xiang Q, et al. 2003b. Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study [letter]. Fluoride 36(3):198-199.

7. National Resource Council of the National Academies. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.

8. Bassin EB, et al. 2006. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control, May;17(4):421-8.

9. Choi AL, Grandjean P, et al. 2012. Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10):1362–1368.

10. Choi AL, et al. 2015. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot studyNeurotoxicology and Teratology, 47:96–101.

A few words about papers 1-4.

STUDIES ON EFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION

1. Brunelle and Carlos. 1990.Recent Trends in DentalCaries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation. Journal of Dental Research,69 (Special Issue):723-727.

This was the largest survey of dental decay in children in the US (the authors studied 39,000 children in 84 communities). The study was organized by the pro-fluoridation National Institute for Dental Research (NIDR). These NIDR authors found an average difference of only 0.6 of one tooth surface between children (aged 5-17) who lived all their lives in a fluoridated community compared to a non-fluoridated community (see Table 6). This result was NOT shown to be statistically significant. The pro-fluoridation bias of the authors becomes apparent in the way they present these unimpressive results in their abstract. They do not report the difference in tooth decay as an absolute value (i.e. 0.6 of one tooth surface) but as a relative % difference. This value of 18% looks more impressive than an absolute saving of 0.6 of about 100 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth (there are 128 when all the teeth have erupted). Nor did the authors admit that they had not shown that this result was statistically significant: it wasn’t! Here is an excerpt from their abstract, which says more about the politics of this issue than the science.

“Children who had always been exposed to community water fluoridation had mean DMFS (decayed missing and filled surfaces, PC) about 18% lower than those who had never lived in a fluoridated communities. When some of the “background” effect of topical fluoride was controlled, this difference increased to 25%. The results suggest that water fluoridation has played a dominant role in the decline in caries and must continue to be a major prevention methodology.” (my emphasis, PC)

Really?

2. Featherstone JD. 2000.The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA), Jul; 131(7):887-99.

In this article, which was a cover story in JADA edition of July 2000, Featherstone reached the same conclusions that many prominent dental researchers had reached over the previous 20 years: Namely, that the predominant mechanism of fluoride’s beneficial action is topical not systemic. The CDC acknowledged the same thing in 1999. In other words you don’t have to swallow fluoride to protect your teeth and therefore there is no need to force it on people who don’t want it via their drinking water. This is probably one of the reasons why, according to the World Health Organizations data online, that tooth decay rates in 12-year-olds have been declining at about the same rates in non-fluoridated as in fluoridated countries since the 1960s (http://fluoridealert.org/issues/caries/who-data/ ). Here are Featherstone’s conclusions:

CONCLUSIONS:

Fluoride, the key agent in battling caries, works primarily via topical mechanisms: inhibition of demineralization, enhancement of remineralization and inhibition of bacterial enzymes.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:

Fluoride in drinking water and in fluoride-containing products reduces caries via these topical mechanisms.

3. Warren JJ, Levy SM, Broffitt B. et al. 2009. Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes–a longitudinal study. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 69(2):111-15. Spring.

If the Brunelle and Carlos (1990) paper was the largest US government funded study, the Warren et al (2009) paper was the most precise. This investigation was conducted as part of the “Iowa study,” which has been examining tooth decay in a cohort of children since birth. Warren et al. examined tooth decay as a function of daily ingestion of fluoride in mg/day (i.e. they examined individual exposure rather than the traditional way of comparing dental decay rates between communities with different concentrations of fluoride in water). The authors could not determine a clear relationship between caries experience and daily dose in mg/day. The authors’ state:

These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.

CONCLUSIONS: Given the overlap among caries/fluorosis groups in mean fluoride intake and extreme variability in individual fluoride intakes, firmly recommending an “optimal” fluoride intake is problematic.

Please note that all three of these studies were carried out by pro-fluoridation dental researchers. Many dentists are oblivious of the fact that research carried out by their own pro-fluoridation colleagues has undermined the effectiveness that they claim. In addition it should be noted that in the 70 years since fluoridation was launched in 1945 there has never been a Randomized Control Trial (RCT) to establish in a scientific fashion that swallowing fluoride lowers tooth decay. This is the gold standard used by the FDA to establish the efficacy of any drug. Considering such a flimsy scientific basis for the effectiveness of this practice it is the height of arrogance to force a known toxic substance on people who don’t want it.

STUDIES ON THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION

4. Ko L, Thiessen KM. 2014. A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.

This paper demolished the claim by Susan Griffin (an economist at the CDC) that for every dollar spent on fluoridation $38 was saved on dental costs. This statement has been used countless times by state dental directors, public health officials and other promoters of fluoridation.  We have provided more details on this in a previous bulletin.

In part 2, I will say a few words about papers 5-10 that challenge the mantra of fluoridation’s “safety.”

Part 2:

CHALLENGING THE PRO-FLUORIDATION MANTRA, part 2.
Introduction.

Promoters of fluoridation repeat ad nauseam the mantra that fluoridation is “safe”, “effective” and “cost effective.” In part 2 I discuss the 6 KEY PAPERS that challenge the mantra of fluoridation’s “safety.” Or to be more precise – since there is no question that fluoride is very toxic and damages health – we will demonstrate that there is no adequate margin of safety to protect all citizens drinking artificially fluoridated water (and getting fluoride from other sources) from known health effects.

STUDIES ON THE TOXICITY OF FLUORIDE AND SAFETY OF FLUORIDATION

5. National Resource Council of the National Academies. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.

A landmark report on the toxicology of fluoride is available to read and search for free online. It is one of the very few reviews of fluoride for which the panel was balanced. It contained both pro and anti-fluoridation scientists. The report concluded that the current U.S. maximum contaminant level for fluoride (4 ppm) in drinking water is an unsafe level for human health. The panel recommended that the EPA conduct a new risk assessment to establish a goal for a safe level of fluoride in drinking water (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, MCLG) and thence a new Federally enforceable standard (or MCL). After over 8 years the EPA has not completed this determination and so for 8 years the US continued to operate under unsafe standards for fluoride in water.

BONE DAMAGE. Among many health concerns the panel noted that fluoride damages the bone and accumulates there with a significantly long half-live. The first symptoms of bone damage are indistinguishable from arthritis and with further accumulation (fluoride’s half life in bone is at least 20 years) it makes the bones more brittle and prone to fracture.

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTER. The panel also concluded that fluoride is an endocrine disrupter. It lowers thyroid function and accumulates in the pineal gland (see paper 6 below).

NEUROTOXICIY.  Many animal studies indicate that fluoride can enter and damage the brain via a number of mechanisms. At thetime this review was published only 5 IQ studies were available. Since publication this total has risen dramatically. Including new studies and older Chinese studies that have been translated by FAN, there are now (as of Dec 2014) 49 studies, of which 42 show an association between exposure to fairly modest doses of fluoride and lowered IQ (see papers 7-9 below). For those who want more details of all the animal and human studies on fluoride’s toxicity see FAN’s health database

OSTEOSARCOMA.At the time of publication the NRC panel had been informedbyFAN of a doctoral thesis by Elise Bassin from Harvard, whichindicated an association between exposure to fluoridated water at a critical age range in young boys (6-8 years) and succumbing by the age of 20, to osteosarcoma, a frequently fatal bone cancer. The NRC did not take a definitive position on this study preferring to wait for the study to be published. Bassin’s publication came in May of 2006 (discussed below, see paper 10). However the same edition of the journal also contained a letter from her pro-fluoridation thesis advisor Chester Douglass claiming that his larger study would show that her thesis did not hold. However, he has never published this promised rebuttal of her thesis.

Subsets of US population exceeding EPA’s safe reference dose. While the NRC review did not study fluoridation as such (either its risk or benefits), the authors did provide an exposure analysis (see Chapter 2). The panel showed that several subsets of the population drinking fluoridated water at 1 ppm fluoride (including bottle-fed infants) are exceeding the EPA’s safe reference dose of 0.06 mg/kg/day (see the diagram on page 85). This finding makes nonsense of the claim by both ADA and the CDC that this very important review was not relevant to water fluoridation.

No margin of safety. Based on this review it is abundantly clear that fluoride damages health and that for several end-points (including lowered IQ), there is no adequate margin of safety to protect all individuals in a large population drinking fluoridated water. This critical conclusion is often lost on promoters of fluoridation who confuse concentration with dose. They simplistically compare the concentration of fluoride in the water of the community examined with the concentration of fluoride in artificially fluoridated water. Such a comparison does not provide a margin of safety. For that one needs two things:

First, one has to ascertain the range of dosesin the fluoridated population. This takes into account how much water citizens drink (which can be very large because there is no control on the amount of water consumed) and how much fluoride they get from other sources.

Second, in order to determine a safe dose (sufficient to protect everyone) one also has to take into account the full range of sensitivity to a toxic substance anticipated in a large population. It is the failure to do this that has been the biggest and most reckless mistake of the fluoridation program since it began and fluoridation promoters today.

6. Luke J. 2001. Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland.Caries Research 35(2):125-128. See also Luke’s PhD thesis click here.

Luke showed that fluoride accumulates on the calcified deposits in the human pineal gland and lowers melatonin production in animals. No health agency in any fluoridating country has attempted to repeat Luke’s work despite the fact that melatonin levels have been related to many health problems. For example, Autistic children produce no melatonin.

7. Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen L, et al. 2003a. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36(2):84-94, and Xiang Q, Liang Y, Zhou M, and Zang H. 2003b. Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study [letter]. Fluoride 36(3):198-199.

Of the 42 (out of 49) studies (as of Dec 2014) that have found a relationship between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ, the Xiang study is one of the most important.

In the Xiang study, the authors controlled for key confounding values such as lead, and iodine (and arsenic retrospectively), parental income and educational status. In addition to comparing the mean IQ of children between the high-fluoride and low-fluoride village (a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the whole age range) they also sub-divided the children in the high-fluoride village into 5 groups with mean fluoride concentrations ranging from 0.7 to 4.3 ppm (see Table 8 in their study).

By focusing on one village they eliminated any other environmental differences between the two villages. They found that as the fluoride concentration in the five sub-groups increased two things happened: 1) the mean IQ systematically decreased and 2) the percentage of children with an IQ less than 80 (borderline mentally handicapped) dramatically increased from 0% to 37.5%.

Lowest level where IQlowered. The lowering of IQ is first observed in the sub-group at 1.53 ppm, and bearing in mind the range of fluoride concentration for that sub-group, one has to conservatively assume that some children in this study would have had their IQ lowered at the lower end of the range fluoride concentrations in this group 1.26 ppm.

Such a result leaves absolutely no margin of safety to protect all children in an artificially fluoridated community (fluoride levels between 0.7 to 1.2 ppm) from this serious outcome. Please note there is no margin of safety to protect:

A) Against the full range of exposure, especially when you consider the different amounts of water drunk by children and their exposure to other sources such as toothpaste. It should also be added that in two respects the Chinese children in the Xiang study would have had less exposure to fluoride from two key sources than American children. Children living in rural Chinese villages are less likely to be using fluoridated toothpaste and less likely to be bottle-fed (bottle-fed babies, where the formula is made up with fluoridated water, get about 200 times more fluoride than breast-fed babies).

B) Nor does it protect against the full range of sensitivity expected in a large population (as discussed in 5 above).

The last children that need a further lowering of IQ are children from low-income families, whose IQ has already been compromised by so many other factors (e.g. poorer diet, poorer educational opportunities and more exposure to pollution). Yet it is these children who are the primary target of fluoridation programs.

8. Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P. 2012. Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10):1362–1368.

This Meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies was conducted by a team from Harvard including world-famous neuroscientist Philippe Grandjean (an expert on mercury and author of the recent book, “Only One Chance”). This team acknowledged weaknesses in many of the studies but also noted the remarkable consistency of the finding that IQ was lowered in 26 out of the 27 studies reviewed. The average lowering was 7 IQ points, which is substantial, considering that at the population level even an average lowering of one IQ should be avoided.

9. Choi AL, Zhang Y, Sun G, et al. 2015. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 47:96–101.

This Pilot study in China was carried out at fluoride levels, which overlap levels used in US fluoridation programs. They didn’t measure IQ specifically in this study but reported the results of a very simple test: the child’s ability to repeat a sequence of numbers both forwards and backwards. Even children with very mild dental fluorosis performed less well on this specific mental development test, than children without fluorosis. One of the experts involved in this study was Dr. David Bellenger who is world famous for his studies on lead’s neurotoxicity.

Another co-author was Dr. Philippe Grandjean and in an editorial on his website “Chemical Brain Drain”he used this study to counteract the claim from proponents that the IQ findings were not relevant to the fluoride levels used in water fluoridation. For the children in this study, Grandjean writes:

“Their lifetime exposures to fluoride from drinking water covered the full range allowed in the US. Among the findings, children with fluoride-induced mottling of their teeth – even the mildest forms that appears as whitish specks on the enamel – showed lower performance on some neuropsychological tests. This observation runs contrary to popular wisdom that the enamel effects represent a cosmetic problem only and not a sign of toxicity. At least one of five American children has some degree of mottling of their teeth…Prevention of chemical brain drain should be considered at least as important as protection against caries.” (my emphasis, PC).

10. Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. 2006. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control, May;17(4):421-8.

This is the only study of osteosarcoma (a frequently fatal bone cancer in children), which studied the age at which exposure to fluoride was experienced. The authors write:

We observed that for males diagnosed before the age of 20 years, fluoride level in drinking water during growth was associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma, demonstrating a peak in the odds ratios from 6 to 8 years of age. All of our models were remarkably robust in showing this effect, which coincides with the mid-childhood growth spurt.

The finding that there may a critical window of vulnerability in young men has never been refuted – or even investigated – since Bassin’s paper was published in 2006. The shocking fact is that with this paper comes the possibility that a few young men each year may be dying from osteosarcoma because they have been exposed to fluoridated water at a critical age. Even though this has not been refuted the practice of fluoridation continues to be pushed by health authorities. Where is the precautionary principle here?

Conclusion:

Between them the TEN KEY PAPERS (listed in part 1) invalidate all three claims of the pro-fluoridation mantra.

Fluoridation is not effective.

 The largest US study (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990) and the most precise study of children’s tooth decay (Warren et al., 2010) provide little evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay. Featherstone, 2000 (and others) have provided the probable reason for these problematic results. The predominant (if any) benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic. There is no need to swallow fluoride to fight tooth decay and there is no justifiable reason to force people to drink fluoridated water against their will.

Fluoridation is not safe.

There is no disputing the fact that fluoride damages health but what about fluoridation? The landmark 500-page review by the National Research Council (NRC, 2006) showed that certain subsets of the US public are exceeding the EPA’s safe reference dose for fluoride, including bottle-fed infants. The NRC (2006) reviewed many health impacts for which there is no adequate margin of safety to protect all individuals drinking fluoridated water. These include lowered thyroid function, accumulation in the pineal gland (Luke et al., 2001), bone damage, and lowered IQ (Xiang at al, 2003a,b). Xiang found that some children had their IQ lowered at fluoride levels as low as 1.26 ppm. Xiang’ study was one of 42 studies that have found this effect. A Review by a Harvard team (Choi et al, 2012) found an average lowering of 7 IQ points in 26 out of 27 studies. Choi et al, 2015 found learning disabilities in children with very mild fluorosis, which impacts many US children. Thus fluorosis at any level can no longer be considered merely a cosmetic affect. A study by Bassin et al., 2006 has disturbingly shown that some young boys may be losing their lives each year from being exposed to fluoridated water at 1 ppm in their 6th, 7th and 8th years. This study remains unrefuted.

Fluoridation is not cost-effective.

Lo and Thiessen(2014) have demolished the claim by CDC economist Susan Griffin that for every dollar spent on fluoridation $38 is saved on dental treatment. This claim by Griffin has been used Ad Nauseam by promoters of fluoridation including many state public health officials. Will they continue to do so? 

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network
Co-Author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010)

See Bulletin Online

Paul Connet, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network

Latest news from Fluoride ****************

Action Network:

September 13, 2014

Recent Victories

  • Oliver Springs, Tennessee–Water Board members in the community of 3,500 voted to stop adding fluoride to the town’s water at their September 4 meeting after more then two years of discussion and debate. The town’s fluoride stockpile is expected to run out this week. A water department employee initially raised concerns over the safety of the additive, and a majority of citizens polled on the issue opposed the practice. See short video report on the vote.
  • Multnomah County, Oregon—County officials have decided to phase out a long-standing fluoride supplement program at local schools in favor of a “scientifically proven” and “more effective” sealant program. According to the county’s new Dental Director, “ Fluoride tablets are just not an effective way to deliver fluoride to children.” Multnomah County is home to the city of Portland, and the decision will impact about 28,000 children in 108 schools who will no longer be ingesting the neurotoxin on a daily basis.
  • San Francisco, California—Approximately 7.4 million more people will now be warned not to reconstitute infant formula with fluoridated tap water or else risk overexposing their children to fluoride and giving them dental fluorosis. Clean Water California has reported that their members successfully convinced the East Bay and San Francisco municipal officials to add the warnings to annual water quality reports. Click here to learn how you can start your own infant warning campaign.

5TH Citizens Conference on Fluoride was a success

FAN’s conference in Washington, DC this past weekend was a great success! We had a very good turnout, both for the conference and for our first fluoride lobby day. As you can see from the pictures posted below, we had more then two-dozen professional and citizen campaigners meeting with elected officials on Monday (not all are pictured), and our conference room was at capacity on Saturday, with standing room only for Dr. Quangong Xiang’s keynote address on IQ and fluoride.

News you may have missed:

Legal Scholar: Is fluoridation an illegitimate human experiment (New York)

Israel Bans Fluoridation (Mercola.com)

Rockport Officials To Eye Fluoride Vote (Massachusetts)

Oak Bluffs: Sept. 25 Public Hearing on Ending Fluoridation (Massachusetts)

Fight Over Fluoride Heating Up in Schuylkill County (Pennsylvania)

Newton County: Authority Resists Adding Fluoride to Water (Arkansas)

New Plymouth: Mayor Wants Gov’t to Decide on Fluoride (New Zealand)

Cornwall Council to Decide on Fluoride Issue (Ontario, Canada)
Visit FAN’s News Archive for more fluoride media coverage.

Sincerely,

 

Stuart Cooper

Campaign Manager

Fluoride Action Network

********************

PR Newswire: news distribution, targeting and monitoring

Study Claiming Fluoride Does Not Lower IQ is Flawed

NEW YORK, May 27, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A recent New Zealand study published in the American Journal of Public Health, which claims to exonerate a link between fluoride and lowered IQ, is scientifically flawed and reveals blatant examiner bias, says the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

The study’s co-author, pro-fluoridation activist and dentist Jonathan Broadbent, claimed: “Our findings will hopefully help to put another nail in the coffin of the complete canard that fluoridating water is somehow harmful to children’s development.”  However, the limitations of Broadbent’s study mean it is inconclusive at best.

Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executor Director says, “Even if this study was high quality science, which it is not, it could not cancel out over 100 animal and 45+ human studies showing fluoride can cause brain deficits. Broadbent’s research has serious weaknesses.”

For example:

1) The study’s small sample size of non-water-fluoridated subjects (99 compared to 891 water-fluoridated subjects) means it has low ability to detect an effect. Even worse, 139 subjects took fluoride tablets, but Broadbent does not say which. Since fluoride tablets are only recommended for children living in non-water-fluoridated areas, there may have been little difference in total fluoride intake between his comparison groups. Broadbent’s failure to consider total fluoride exposure may thus explain why he found “no effect”.

2) Broadbent falsely criticizes 27 previous studies linking fluoride to children’s lower IQ – implying they didn’t adjust for any potentially confounding variables like lead, iodine, arsenic, nutrition, parent’s IQ, urban/rural and fluoride from other sources.  In fact, several of the studies did control for these factors.  A good example is Xiang’s work, which has controlled for lead, iodine, arsenic, urban/rural, fluoride from all sources, parent’s education, and socio-economic status (SES).  Ironically, Broadbent failed to adjust for most of these factors in his own study despite having access to information on many of them.

3) Of the four factors Broadbent did adjust for, most were only crudely controlled. For example, SES was determined solely by the father’s occupation and classified into just 3 levels. Inadequate adjustment for SES could obscure a lowering of IQ caused by fluoride, because almost all of the non-water-fluoridated children came from one outlying town that had lower SES than the fluoridated areas.

“Broadbent is one of New Zealand’s leading political promoters of fluoridation.  He is a dentist not a developmental neurotoxicologist,” says Connett.  “This single weak study is hardly sufficient to outweigh the substantial body of evidence showing fluoride’s potential to harm the developing brain at relatively low exposure levels.”

http://www.FluorideAction.Net

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network

RELATED LINKS
http://www.fluorideaction.net

**************

April 1, 2014

Dear Raphael:

Before we get to the very exciting news about the enthusiastic response to our appeal for groups to join the Worldwide Alliance to End fluoridation, we start with a few other items.
1) We have some disappointing news from New Zealand. Sadly, the councilors in Hamilton, New Zealand voted to restart fluoridation.  The group Fluoride Free Hamilton has responded to the vote with a press release, and the vote may now be facing a judicial review.

2) Here is a link to a 30 minute interview on Pacifica Radio out of Berkeley, California featuring spokespersons from three of the groups in the Worldwide Alliance: Jay Sanders (Clean Water California), Arlene Goetze (Say No To Poison, Sunnyvale, California and Paul Connett (Fluoride Action Network).

The response to our bulletin requesting groups fighting fluoridation to join the Worldwide Alliance to End Fluoridation has been fantastic. We have had over 50 more groups from 12 countries join the Alliance since we sent out the announcement last week.   Below is the updated list of the Founding Member groups of the Worldwide Alliance to  End Fluoridation. We are working on a separate list of individuals and businesses supporting the Alliance.  If your group has a website or Facebook page please email the links to stuart@fluoridealert.org.  We would like to include this information on the official alliance list that will soon be found at www.fluoridealert.org .Thank you again to everyone who has signed on and for everything else you are all doing to end this unethical and reckless practice around the world.

Stuart Cooper Campaign Director of FAN,   Worldwide Alliance to End Fluoridation  AUSTRALIA

  BRAZIL    CANADA  

  ENGLAND   *   Birmingham Against Fluoridation. Contact: Lynne Habermacher.

•       Fluoride Free Bedford. Contact: Cynthia Bagchi cynthiabagchi@gmail.com    Safe Water Information Service (SWIS). Contact: Ivor Hueting, info@safewaterinfrmation.org

  IRELAND    JAPAN    KENYA    MALAYSIA    NEPALNEW ZEALAND

  UNITED STATES

 Twitter | Facebook
*******************************

The Fluoride Action Network is excited to announce the launch of the FAN Study Tracker, the most up-to-date and comprehensive source for fluoride health research, including studies investigating how fluoride affects the brain (e.g., IQ scores), the bones/joints (e.g., arthritis), the cardiovascular system, the kidneys, and the thyroid gland.

Features of the Study-Tracker include:

•    Over 1,500 abstracts and over 400 full-text studies.

•    Filters that enable 80+ years of research to be organized by health category/subcategory, study type, and date.

•    FAN’s entire set of translated studies, including over 25 new translations that have not previously been released.

•    A “Related Content” feature that provides links to relevant FAN content for each study.

The depth of the Study-Tracker can be seen in the following numbers:

•    845 studies since 2000, including 181 studies since 2013.

•    456 studies on the skeletal system, including 76 studies on arthritis.

•    294 studies on the mechanisms by which fluoride damages cells, including 155 on oxidative stress.

•    237 studies on the brain, including 95 studies on cognitive function.

•    182 studies on the kidneys, including 64 studies on the heightened risks faced by kidney patients.

These numbers will continue to grow as new research is published, and new features will continue to be added.

FAN is committed to improving public awareness about the risks that fluoride poses to human health. We believe the Study-Tracker will help in this effort by making the science on fluoride toxicity more readily available than ever before. For information about how to use the Study Tracker, we put together the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flhSYK-TKI4.

And now, without further ado, the FAN Study Tracker.

*NOTE about SAFARI BROWSER: It has come to our attention that the Study Tracker is not currently working properly in Safari browser. We are currently working to fix this problem and recommend, in the meantime, that you use another browser (e.g. Firefox or Chrome) to access the Tracker.

Sincerely,
Michael Connett,
Special Projects Director
Fluoride Action Network
************************

600 Physicians, Dentists, Scientists and Environmentalists Call for an End to Fluoridation

A statement asking Congress to end water fluoridation in the United States has been released by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). Over 600 professionals, including a Nobel Prize winner, officers in the Union that represents Environmental Protection Agency professionals, and members of the National Research Council panel on fluoride’s toxicology, have signed the statement.

The report urges Congressional members to “recognize that fluoridation is outdated, has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound medical ethics, and denies freedom of choice.”

It cites eight recent events that call for an urgent end to water fluoridation. Among them:

  • A 500-page review of fluoride’s toxicology by the National Research Council of the National Academies, published in 2006.
  • Evidence from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that found 32 percent of U.S. children have dental fluorosis, which is caused by fluoride.
  • The American Dental Association’s 2006 policy change, which recommends not giving fluoridated water to infants for the first 12 months of life.
  • A Harvard University study that found a five- to seven-fold increased risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) among young men who were exposed to fluoride between the ages of 6 and 8.
  • The CDC’s recognition that fluoride is beneficial in reducing tooth decay when it’s applied topically, not taken systemically.

The statement calls for members of Congress to sponsor a new Congressional Hearing on Fluoridation that requires those who continue to support water fluoridation to provide scientific basis, under oath, for their continued recommendations.

According to one of the statement’s signers, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It’s really obsolete.”

Sources:
Fluoride Action Network August 9, 2007
Medical News Today August 10, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

This is truly excellent news! Slowly but surely, the truth about fluoride has been leaking out, and now it may finally have the chance to sink in and really prompt some major changes.

If you are new to the site, you’re probably still under the impression that fluoridated water is a good thing, so this news may come as a surprise. In reality, fluoride is a dangerous poison that does not help to protect your teeth when you ingest it via your drinking water. As even the CDC has admitted, fluoride may help your teeth if it’s applied topically, but taking it in systemically does not.

What it DOES do, as this much-needed statement points out, is:

On top of that, the statement reveals that federal agencies have admitted that “the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90 percent of America’s drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing or FDA safety-tested approval for human ingestion.”

The fact that Americans have been drinking fluoridated water for more than 50 years has really been a giant experiment, at the expense of your health.

You can learn the underlying corruption and abuses of power that have allowed fluoride to be shamelessly promoted in the United States in Christopher Bryon’s The Fluoride Deception. The publication of this book is one of the eight recent events that’s referenced in the statement, simply because it reveals so clearly that industrial interests were behind the early promotion of fluoride.

How You Can Avoid Fluoride, and Help to Ban it in Your Water

If all goes well, this statement should make members of Congress take notice, and may prompt new regulations about fluoridated water.

Until then, you can protect yourself from fluoride by using only non-fluoride toothpaste and not receiving fluoride treatments from your dentist. To remove fluoride from your drinking water, you must use a reverse osmosis filter. Be sure that you’re filtering not only the water that you drink, but also the water you use to wash vegetables, make ice cubes, and cook with.

If you’re wondering how to keep your teeth healthy, remember that fluoride was never the answer in the first place. Eating right and avoiding processed foods (along with regular cleanings with your natural dentist) will ensure that your teeth stay healthy naturally.

Finally, if you’d like to voice your opinion about ending water fluoridation, the Fluoride Action Network has an online petition that you can sign to call for a Congressional Hearing.

Remember, every voice makes a difference, so please feel free to forward this message to all of your interested friends and family members.

Together, we have the power to prompt some real changes for the good of your health, and the health of future generations!

Related Links:
What You Don’t Know About Fluoridation Could Hurt You
The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation
Media Reports on Dangers of Fluoride in Your Water

*********************

fluoride

What you and your family need to know about fluoride<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
►www.collective-evolution.com/2013/03/25/fluoride-what-you-and-your-family-need-to-know/
******************
Sodium fluoride, sodium silicofluoride and  hydrofluorosilicic acid are all used in dental offices, toothpaste and water fluoridation practices. They are toxic waste substances created from the creation processes in the fertilizer, steel, nuclear and aluminum industries.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
►www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/01/another-canadian-city-bans-fluoride-from-its-water-supply/
Sodium fluoride, sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid are all used in dental offices, toothpaste and water fluoridation practices. They are toxic waste substances created from the creation processes in the fertilizer, steel, nuclear and aluminum industries.
www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/01/another-canadian-city-bans-fluoride-from-its-water-supply/

*************

Seven ways to naturally protect yourself against fluoride toxicity

Saturday, February 23, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(From:  www.NaturalNews.com )

More than 200 million Americans today are forcibly exposed to toxic fluoride through their public water supplies, and many more are exposed through the general food supply, much of which is made and processed with fluoridated water. And aside from installing a whole-house reverse osmosis water filtration system and growing all your own food at home, there is little that can be done to avoid fluoride exposure in some capacity.

The good news; however, is that there are practical steps you can take to detoxify your body of fluoride naturally, despite the fact that the chemical ion is relatively difficult to eliminate from the body. Here are seven ways you can naturally protect yourself against fluoride toxicity on a regular basis:

1) Tamarind. A tropical fruit tree native to eastern Africa, tamarind is a powerful weapon against fluoride toxicity. A 2002 study published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that the sour, acidic fruit possesses a unique ability to capture and flush fluoride poisons from the body. In children, tamarind consumption was found to significantly increase the amount of fluoride excreted via the urine, as well as decrease the amount of magnesium and zinc excreted from the body. (http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n1/full/1601287a.html)

Another study published in the journal Research in Veterinary Science in 2011 arrived at similar results, having found that extracts of tamarind fruit pulp helped prevent sodium fluoride from accumulating in the blood, urine, and bones of rats. Compared to rats not receiving tamarind, tamarind-fed rats had far lower concentrations of fluoride throughout their bodies, illustrating the powerful fluoride-cleansing benefits of tamarind. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20980037)

2) Magnesium. If you regularly supplement with the mineral magnesium, or eat plenty of foods that are naturally rich in magnesium, chances are you have lower-than-average concentrations of fluoride in your body. This is due to magnesium’s unique ability to block the absorption of fluoride into cells. Conversely, chronic exposure to fluoride via water, food, and other sources actually depletes the body of magnesium, which means magnesium supplementation is typically needed simply to maintain adequate levels of this important, cleansing nutrient. (http://www.fluoridationfacts.com)

3) Iodine. The cells throughout the body contain special receptors that are intended for iodine, but that become occupied instead by fluoride as a result of excess fluoride exposure. As a result, the body develops iodine deficiency, which can lead to thyroid disease, infertility, mental retardation, early mortality, and a host of other illnesses. Because of this, it is important to regularly supplement with a high-quality iodine supplement such a Lugol’s or Detoxadine’s Nascent Atomic Iodine. (http://www.vrp.com)

“Iodine intake immediately increases the excretion of bromide, fluoride, and some heavy metals including mercury and lead,” explains Dr. Mark Sircus in a recent GreenMedInfo.com article. “Bromide and fluoride are not removed by any other chelator or detoxifying technique,” he adds, noting how important iodine is for fluoride detoxification. (http://www.greenmedinfo.com)

4) Coffee enemas, liver cleanses. The liver is the body’s repository for toxins, which means it is another common source of fluoride toxicity. Liver cleanses, and particularly coffee enemas, are important for chelating not only fluoride, but also other toxins and heavy metals that can build up in an overburdened liver and cause disease. HealthGuardians.com has created a helpful paper on coffee enemas and how to do them, which you can access here:
http://www.healthguardians.com/pdf/THE%20COFFEE%20ENEMA%20NOW.pdf

5) Infrared sauna therapy. An increasingly popular natural method for eliminating toxins from the body, infrared sauna therapy is another approach you can take to excrete fluoride from your body. Infrared sauna therapy uses energy to penetrate bodily tissue and release bound-up toxins, which are then flushed out through the skin by resultant sweating. Among these expelled toxins are heavy metals, chemicals, viruses and pathogens, and fluoride. (http://drlwilson.com/articles/sauna_therapy.htm)

6) Vitamin C. Therapeutic doses of natural vitamin C, that is vitamin C obtained through food-based sources, is another way to flush fluoride from your system, especially when taken alongside non-GM (genetically-modified) soy or sunflower lecithin. Some of the best sources of natural vitamin C include camu camu berry and acerola cherry, and to a lesser extent citrus fruits, berries, and green vegetables. (http://drlwilson.com/articles/sauna_therapy.htm)

You can also try making liposomal encapsulated vitamin C, which delivers mega-doses of bioavailable vitamin C directly into the bloodstream for maximum benefits. (http://www.naturalnews.com/034591_vitamin_C_mega-dose_healing.html)

7) Fulvic acid. Naturally produced by soil-based microorganisms for the purpose of making minerals and other nutrients assimilable by plants, fulvic acid is one of nature’s most powerful organic electrolytes. Fulvic acid works to achieve and maintain an appropriate chemical balance in cells, which includes ridding them of fluoride and other toxins. One of the most powerful free radical scavengers and antioxidants known to man, fulvic acid will not only help eliminate internal fluorides, but also replace them with trace minerals and other nutrients. (http://www.supremefulvic.com/documents/html/fulvic_acid.php)

Sources for this article include:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com

http://www.draxe.com/avoiding-fluoride-and-how-to-detox-it-from-your-… target=”_blank”>http://www.draxe.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039221_fluoride_toxicity_protection.html#ixzz2Lm69njOR

*******************************

Washington Judges Set to Hear Case on Water Fluoridation

Submitted by  on January 5, 2013 – 7:42 pmOne Comment

08af87190ebe24ffe978720b8f74c19dThis Monday three appeals court justices in Tacoma, Washington will hear cases for and against fluoridation of the public water supply.

Those in opposition to water fluoridation point out that those in support claim fluoridated water is promoted as tooth decay prevention, thus fluoride should be recognized as a drug, (any substance used with intent to treat or prevent disease) and protected drug laws should apply. At this time the government does not consider it a drug.

As more citizens begin to question the safety of fluoridated water, the EPA has had to recently admit that the amount in the water supply is dangerous to children. A Harvard study recently linked fluoride to lower IQ’s but was quickly changed to say that “IQ’s were only lowered outside the United States.” The West Virginia University Rural Health Research Center recently reported that U.S. children in urban areas, with a higher exposure to fluoridated dental care and water, have just as many cavities as less fluoride-exposed rural children. A study by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute and Yiamouyiannis, showed a massive cancer increase in areas who received water fluoridation.

Many countries like Sweden, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands have discontinued water fluoridation and several areas within the United States are following suit. A recent hidden camera video inside a water treatment facility has pushed the anti-fluoridation movement even further with its attempts to remove the substance from the water. Just last year citizens in Wichita, Kansasand Pulaski, New York joined the more than 130 communities across the country to ban water fluoridation.

Whether you are for or against water fluoridation, you can attend the hearing by visiting yes4cleanwater.org to find out more.

Source:

http://www.examiner.com/article/washington-judges-set-to-hear-case-on-water-fluoridation

 *******************

Click on  the link below to see the video of this program:

 http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/video?id=8887125&pid=8887007

ABC11 Investigates

How safe is Fluoride in our water?

Thursday, November 15, 2012

abc11 investigates, steve daniels

Steve Daniels

More: Bio, E-mail, Facebook, Twitter, Request Steve to speak at your event, News Team

DURHAM, N.C. (WTVD) — Corey Sturmer didn’t know much about fluoride in his drinking water until a year ago, when his dentist told him he has fluorisis, a condition that causes white spotting, yellowing and browning of the teeth, and erosion of the enamel.

“I asked my dentist … is there fluoride in the drinking water? And he said, yeah … it’s good for your teeth. So then I began to wonder, if it’s so good for your teeth, why am I, at 25 years old, having all these issues with my teeth?” Sturmer said.

Sturmer was a college athlete. He eats healthy food and exercises.  He started doing research and found evidence that convinced him fluoride might not be as safe as he was led to believe. He came across an I-Team story ABC11 did five years ago in which a Durham dentist told us he believed we’re getting too much Fluoride.

“Fluoride in the water is essentially a drug. It’s an uncontrolled use of a drug,” offered dentist Michael Fleming.

Sturmer said what he learned made him take action.

“That motivated me to reach to you and to continue spreading the word and building up the website and talking to people,” said Sturmer.

Sturmer developed a www.durhamagainstfluoride.com website and took his cause to the Durham County Health Department. He’s also raising awareness by putting information on cars in downtown Durham.

Sturmer said he’s so concerned about the issue that he filters his tap water. His crusade may be limited to Durham, but he’s not alone in his fight. A movement to ban fluoride in drinking water is heating up across the country.

In Portland, Oregon this fall, residents protested a city council vote to begin  fluoridating tap water next year. They have enough signatures on a petition to take the issue  to the ballot box next year. In Wichita, Kansas last week, voters rejected a plan to add fluoride to their public water supply.

“Our task was essentially one of just education.  Myself, I thought fluoride was a good thing not long ago,” explained Jonathan Hall with Wichitans Opposed to Fluoride.

As the I-Team dug into the science behind the fluoride controversy, we found study after study dating back to the 80s from respected academic and scientific institutions that connect fluoride to health dangers. Some of the studies were funded by the government. They  suggest fluoride can be linked to brain, blood and bone deficiencies in humans. This past summer, Harvard University released a report after reviewing 27 studies of children in China exposed to fluoride. It concluded the higher the fluoride exposure, the lower the child’s IQ.

One of the most recognized reports was published in 2006 by The National Academy of Sciences. It found fluoride can affect the thyroid gland and potentially lower the intelligence of children.

“EPA’s drinking water standards are supposed to protect all persons against anticipated adverse health effects of the contaminant in question,” explained Kathleen Thiessen – one of the scientists who worked on the 400-page study. “And we concluded after three years worth of work that the drinking water standard for fluoride was not protected and cannot be assumed to be safe for humans.”

Thiessen  said the EPA was warned about potential fluoride health dangers by one of its own chemists more than a decade ago. Dr. William Hirzy testified before a Senate subcommittee in 2000.  He was representing the views of EPA scientists and staff who analyze hazards in the environment.

“In 1997, we voted to oppose fluoridation, and our opposition has grown stronger as more adverse data on the practice has come in,” said Hirzy.

“The CDC and others say whatever beneficial effect there is from fluoride is from topical use. It’s not from swallowing it. It never has been from swallowing it,” said Thiessen.

The I-Team discovered most western countries do not fluoridate their water. Dental records kept by the World Health Organization show tooth decay in those countries has declined at the same rate as here in the United States – where we do fluoridate our water. The American Dental Association has endorsed fluoridation since it began in this country more than 50 years ago.

“[It] has been shown to be a very safe and very effective preventive measure for treating a disease that is rampant in our population,” said Dr. Tim Wright with the UNC School of Dentistry. “There is no public health measure that is as cost effective as water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay … Fluoride is like so many things that in the right amount it’s very beneficial, and if you have too much, too much is not a good thing. So are we getting too much?”

Six years ago, the ADA thought infants  might be getting too much fluoride and it warned parents not to use fluoridated water – but bottled water – to mix  baby formula. Dentists also want to make sure children don’t get too much when they brush their teeth.

“That is why we currently recommend a smear or a grain-sized amount. So a very small amount in a child from the time they first get their teeth – which is six months to a year – until they turn 3. And then at 3, the recommendation is to go to more of a pea-sized amount so there’s a little bit more,” Dr. Wright explained.

Sturmer points to the warning label on toothpaste.

“If you look on the other side of that toothpaste tube, it says ‘Do not swallow.’ We’ve been taught as kids, when you’re brushing your teeth, do not swallow the toothpaste foam. Why is that?” he asked. “Because fluoride is poisonous … So why is it in the water? Why do we need to drink it?”

The EPA doesn’t believe the amount of fluoride in water is causing harm. It has not changed fluoride standards for drinking water more than six years after the report by The National Academy of Sciences, and that frustrates scientist Kathleen Thiessen.

“There probably never was a beneficial effect. Certainly by now when we have fluoride in toothpaste, we have fluoride in mouth rinse, we have fluoride in a number of sources. It is extremely easy to have too much fluoride. It’s much harder to control it,” she said.

“I think all city governments … need to reconsider water fluoridation. The science is out there, the citizens who are concerned are out there, and they are making their voices known,” said Sturmer.

Sturmer has convinced the Durham County Public Health Department to look into the safety of fluoride in the water.

The National Institutes of Health – for the first time ever – is currently funding an animal study to assess fluoride’s effect on the brain.

Click here for more information on Fluoride

**********************************

here below is some new current information that just showed up!

New post on LeRoyMoore’s Blog

Plutonium in public water that contains fluoride

by leroymoore

The following paragraphs and references I quote word for word from a piece of paper I uncovered in my file. The exact source for this passage is unknown to me. I’d be grateful if someone out there could identify the sourse so I can give credit where credit is due. I quote the passage and pass it along because of its significance.  Please note that the Johnson mentioned is Carl Johnson, MD, for several years the chief public health officer for Jefferson County where Rocky Flats is located,

“Johnson discovered from work done elsewhere that ‘plutonium is virtually 100 percent soluble in Denver area drinking water because of the presence of carbonate and fluoride in the water.’ (1) Appreciable amounts of plutonium were found in Denver drinking water as late as 1972, with lesser concentrations thereafter. Plutonium in water that has been chlorinated is readily absorbed into the gastrointestinal tract of children.

“One of the studies regarding plutonium solubility that Johnson cites was done by J. M. Cleveland,(2) whose authoritative The Chemistry of Plutonium (NY: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1970, was written when he was the chief plutonium specialist at Rocky Flats.

“The multi-year Actinide Migration Evaluation conducted as part of the Rocky Flats cleanup concluded that plutonium in the Rocky Flats environment was unlikely to become soluble. These studies did not consider plutonium in water containing fluoride, carbonate, or chlorine.(3)”

1. Johnson, “Some Studies of Low-Level Radiation and Cancer in the United States,” presented at the University of Basel, June9, 1987; notes 25 and 27-30. See also Johnson, “Contamination of municipal water supplies in the Denver metropolotan area by the Rocky Flats plutonium plant,” presented at the 146th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, January 4, 1980.

2. Cleveland et al., “Plutonium speciation in water from Mono Lke, California,” Science, 222 (12-23-83): 1323-1325.

3. Kaiser-Hill Company, Report on Soil Erosion and Surface Watyer Sediment Transport Modeling for the Actinide Migration Evaluations at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (00-RF-01823) (DOE-00-o3258) August 2000. See also “Approved Modifications to the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (DOE, EPA, CDPHE, June 9, 2003), Response to Comments, pp. 67-74.

leroymoore | November 6, 2012 at 3:34 am | Categories: EnvironmentPlutoniumPublic HealthRocky Flats | URL:http://wp.me/pNCL4-7I

 

http://leroymoore.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/plutonium-in-public-water-that-contains-fluoride/

About

New post from Face Book page:
Photo
Fluorosilicic acid (aka Sodium Fluoride) is being added to our water around the US. The cons outweigh the “supposed” pro’s. Is it worth the pro’s? You decide for yourself.
Description

This all began in the 1930’s and 40’s, the aluminum and phosphate manufacturers were stockpiling Industrial Fluorosilicic acid, which was a byproduct of their operations. The growing accumulation of this waste was contaminating local water, harming livestock and crops near aluminum plants.

Looking for a profitable way to dispose of this toxic substance, they began to market it as rat poison. It is effective for killing rats, but that did not sell enough of it. Using some research that suggested it hardened teeth, the aluminum executives and their allies in business and government worked hard to convince the dental association to endorse sodium fluoride for public consumption through the water supply.

Fluoride makers change fluorosilicic acid from its water-based solution into powdered derivatives called sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride, which suppliers add to drinking water.

This gave them a way to get rid of poisonous waste at a profit.

Water fluoridation began in the USA in 1945. As a safe and cost effective way to prevent tooth decay. Today more than 195 million Americans are on fluoridated water systems thats 72% of the US. But careful statistical studies by John Yiamiyanous Phd., biochemist and specialist in epidemiology (the study of population health statistics) showed no appreciable health benefit to teeth from fluoridation of water. On the other hand there has been a clear increase in cancer in cities where the water is fluoridated. Too much Fluorosilicic acid also makes the teeth and bones brittle.

Teeth can become mottled, and eventually more likely to crumble. Further, fluoride interferes with the uptake of iodine in the system, contributing to thyroid problems. Children have been seriously harmed or even died from swallowing fluoridated toothpaste or mouthwash not to mention is also harms the enamel on the teeth of young children.
Below I will list some pros and cons of Fluorosilicic acid in our local water system.

Pro’s
1. It is thought that adding Sodium Fluoride helps strengthen the enamel of teeth, preventing tooth decay, cavities and tooth loss. Which none of these have been scientifically proven.

Con’s
1. Sodium Fluoride taken in doses of 10-20 parts per million may cause bone weakness.

2. Does not reduce cavaties and has been linked to thyroid disease and bone cancer in young males.

3. Fluorosilicic acid is a byproduct of fertilizer, aluminum, and phosphate production.

4. Causes fluorosis, Dental flourosis is a developmental disturbance of dental enamel caused by excessive exposure to high concentraions of sodium fluoride during tooth development.

5. Increases the chance of bone cancer, hyper and depressed activities and bone fluorosis which cause the bone density to reduce.

6. Though Sodium fluoride stimulates the oxygen formation and consumptions in white blood cells, it hinders this process once the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood.

7. Sodium fluoride decreases the amount of energy reserves in the white blood cell and it also decreses it’s ability to properly destroy foreign agents.

8. It also confuses the bodys immune system and thus, it starts to attack it’s own tissues and increase the chance of tumor growth rate in cancer affected individuals.
____________________________________________________________

Dr. Dean Burk once co-founder of the US National Cancer Institute has conclusive evidence linking fluoridated water to increase of cancer in consumers. He conducted and completed a study comparing the ten largest US flouridated cities to the 10 largest non fluoridated cities and concluded that sodium fluoride should not be in our water. Citing cancer increase and death as one of his top reasons, also stating sodium fluoride should be banned by federal law quoting the Delaney Amendment Clause Armed with studies that conclude fluoride can cause osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer, concerned groups asked the state to list it as a carcinogen.

************************************

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment debated whether fluoride belongs on

the Proposition 65 list.California voters passed Proposition 65 in 1986. It’s a warning label that the business you’re visiting or product you’re using could expose you to cancer-causing substances.

https://www.facebook.com/EndFluoridationOfOurWater

****************************

Letters to the editor, Oct. 7, 2012

The New Mexican
Posted: Saturday, October 06, 2012 -Truth about fluoride

I praise the five city councilors sponsoring a bill to cease fluoridating our water. Patti Bushee, Carmichael Dominguez, Ron Trujillo, Chris Rivera and Bill Dimas know about Harvard’s scientific study recently published that too much fluoride lowers human IQ.

Educators now understand that fluoride contributes to dumbed-down children. “Pseudoscience” from false data and hidden reports convinced an unsuspecting public in the 1940s and ’50s that “fluoride is good for you.” We believed that drinking fluoride and using fluoride toothpaste prevented tooth decay. We’re smarter now.

Drinking, breathing and eating fluoride, a toxic, industrial waste product, is not good for you and does not prevent tooth decay. Eating natural sugar, good oral hygiene, eating right and wise parenting prevent tooth decay. Drinking fluoride throughout a lifetime causes devastating side effects: calcifies soft tissues, muscles, organs, glands and brains. Deposits in our bones: skeletal fluorosis. The new breed of scientists tells the truth about fluoride. Thank you, councilors.

Helen Oates

Santa Fe

 

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Fluoride

  1. Pingback: Fluoride « HealingtheScars Blog

  2. Pingback: Fluoride « Santa Fe Water Awareness Group

  3. Hello, I have some very important information for you, if you would, please share it with as many people as you can as soon as possible.

    No Well Water is safe or suitable for animal consumption or plant growth, Fluorine is the 13th most abundant element in the earths crust, and water obtained from the ground will be contaminated with very high levels of Fluorides (fluorine + a positive ion). One small glass of Well Water, on average, contains the Fluoride equivalent of one pea sized dab of Fluoridated Toothpaste, this is about 0.7 parts per million of fluoride, however, any amount of fluoride exposure is incredibly harmful for all biological life.

    We have effectively increased our exposure to Fluorides on average by 50,000% when we choose to expose our selves to this water source, that is in comparison to the majority of our evolutionary history of drinking surface waters that contain which contain roughly 500x less fluoride, although, some wells may even be contaminated with levels as high as 12+ ppm.

    I believe that most people do not understand the science of why fluoride’s are so dangerous, so I’d like to explain why, but first I’d like to point out the fact that we are the only life on this planet to dig deep holes in the ground to obtain water to drink, at least deep enough to contaminate our water with high levels of fluoride in this way.

    The safest alternative is distilled water, or rain water (I suggest a collection time during long periods of rain to avoid polluted air contamination), filters like reverse osmosis do not do enough and they hardly filter the majority of fluorides at all because most naturally occurring fluorides are relatively small compounds, but they may help filter many larger fluoride compounds like those which may be additionally added to water supplies by many city water suppliers. Regardless of which fluorides are getting through, distilled water, or rain, will remove them all, except those leached into water droplets through out atmosphere, rain will be especially vulnerable to this and there are about 50 parts per billion of hydrogen fluoride / other fluoride gasses in our atmosphere, but rain collected should contain less than 0.008 parts per million of fluorides on average.

    So, why are fluorides dangerous…?

    Besides specific bond formations that may occur within the body and disrupt normal biological processes, like that of calcium bonds in our bones rather than our teeth due to excessive fluorides in the blood stream, here is the key issue behind fluorides disastrous effects, which continue be disastrous even after bonds like this occur.

    “Electronegativity”, which is the tendency to draw in electron mass, is a fundamental atomic property of all the elements on the periodic table, out of all these 118 elements of the Periodic Table, the element fluorine has the highest Electronegativity, and, more importantly, one eighth of the entire spectrum of Electronegativy for these Elements on the Periodic Table, is a gap between Element Oxygen, and Element Fluorine.

    Let me just repeat that once again…

    1/8th, of the entire spectrum of Electronegativity, for the elements on the periodic table, is a gap, between elements oxygen and fluorine.

    That kind of Electronegative energy, drawing in electrons in a biological system, (which is a finely tuned system of exchanging electrons), will extremely distort functions of biological systems, especially systems that have not evolved to cope with the levels of Fluoride they are being exposed to.

    We are 70% water like most life on this planet, and only throughout roughly the last 100,000 years or so have we begun digging these holes in the ground to obtain water.

    Evolution does not occur rapidly enough for this fluoride contaminated water to really be called “safe” by now, one quick example of the the slow progression of evolution is that we split from Chimpanzee’s / Bonobo’s nearly 7 million years ago.

    There is roughly 500 times less fluoride in natural sources of water like rain, or springs, even rivers and lakes, than there is in this water from holes in the ground. Drinking and using this water for farming, globally, is destroying our bodies, developing a wide spectrum of health issues for us, our pets, and our plants, I’m sure you’ve noticed we are the only wild animals getting cancer.

    A good example of the powerful Electronegativity that the Element Fluorine has is when experiments are done in it’s pure state as a Gas, in this state, it is so reactive, that almost any substance, Glass, Metals, or even WATER, BURN, with a Bright Flame in a Jet of Fluorine Gas, WITHOUT the need for a Spark.

    This incredibly high Electronegativite Energy still lingers even after Fluorine forms a bond with positive ions, and these are what we call “Fluoride’s”.

    Among the wide spectrum of various health Issues fluoride can cause, Cancer is a big one, but i’d like to focus on another not so obvious symptom of fluoride exposure.

    I think it is crucial to understand this particular issue, i’ll start with the fact that we are 70% water, we need a lot of water each and every day, and our body can detect the amounts of Fluoride, along with the minerals that end up in our water as it is processed for use in the blood stream, and if this amount is higher than the natural levels we have evolved to cope with, our brains have evolved a coping mechanism which attempts to put a damper on precious processes such as higher cognitive functions involved with imagination, functions that are involved with implementing new neurons, or functions that strengthen new neurons and neurons already in use for more reliable access. This damper is done as a way to preserve these functions for more significant moments, which will be judged by your conscious thought and with emotions, rather than just allowing these functions to be used all the time, because doing so would damage neurons your trying to strengthen if there are fluorides present in the blood stream. (this is hard for me to explain so I hope you understand.)

    This damper is the reason why cognitive dissonance occurs in the minds of so many people, many of us who are so heavily poisoned by these fluorides would much rather rely on a set of neurons that are already hardwired and therefore reliable, than to risk developing new ones that may be distorted by the presence of excessive amounts of fluorides.

    Stress, Anxiety, and Depression, are emotions that help you to overcome this damper that the Human Brain Implements, these emotions help your conscious mind in ways that get you “worked up” enough to use these higher cognitive functions, it is like forcing your brain to use these parts it’s trying to preserve (imagination and functions that are involved with implementing new neurons) because your consciously telling it that you think what your doing is extremely important. A good example of this, is if your having a discussion with your boss at work and he is noticeably upset because you didn’t do your job right, you’ll stress your self out over this kind of event in order to strengthen particular neurons for more reliable access so it won’t happen again.

    That sort of behavior can cause someone to act impulsively, i’m sure you’ve seen it many times even with your self, we want to stick to a set of reliable and hardwired neurons, as if we know it all and we don’t need improvement on our methods or awareness of particular things… and many times cognitive dissonance will occur as we try to avoid stress, anxiety, and depression, as we are met with concepts perhaps true, which seem counter intuitive to us.

    To make it short, excessive fluoride in the blood stream can literally makes it stressful to try to imagine and develop new ways of thinking… Your brain is telling you not too do something via these emotions, because of fluorides present in your blood stream, and unless you overcome this stress with your conscious judgement of importance, like realization of truth and excitement for learning this truth, cognitive dissonance will occur.

    Money, and other various ways of cultures, will keep us plugging along sticking to Hardwired Neurons doing something we wish we weren’t doing, or preforming a job which barely pays at all, perhaps worthless and unsustainable as well. There are many various ways our cultures promote these bad ideas, among each other in this adversity, must stand up for the rights of our planet, to live sustainability, to do so we must use our consciousness to it’s utmost potential, that means getting off of fluoride as soon as possible…. that’s the first step I believe. Money is evil in the sense that it is a false incentive and provides many unconscious opportunity’s for the destruction of our planet, it will promote the success of particular neurons, meanwhile demoting others, and we rewarded our selves self chemically when we receive “money” for doing a job right, or when we receive / spend / have money, this strengthens those neurons even further, it’s all about money sometimes, and not the actual thing it’s self.

    Rain (Like Distillation) = Averages 0.008 ppm (parts per million) fluoride.
    Surface Waters (For example, Lakes, Rivers, Springs) = Averages 0.05 ppm fluoride.
    Bottled Water = Averages 0.1 ppm fluoride.
    Well Water = Ranges from 0.7 – 12+ ppm fluoride .
    Tap Water = Ranges from 0.7 – 12+ ppm fluoride (In america, the maximum allowance is 4.0 ppm, regulated by the FDA).

    Additionally fluoridated water supplies often use chemicals we’ve never even come into contact with throughout the last 3.5 billion years of evolution here on earth, for example, chemicals like Sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6)and HydroFluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6). Fluoridation of a public water supply is medication without consent.

    Some Of The Easiest Thing And Most Important Thing You Can And Should Do Immediately to avoid the majority of Fluoride Exposure, Is to drink distilled water, and to avoid tea or tobacco, they both contain very high levels of fluoride.

    Distilled water is very inexpensive, it cost roughly $0.88 for a 1 Gallon jug which is available at nearly every grocery store, otherwise you can order it from a water supplier like “Culigan”, for nearly the same price.

    Please start drinking distilled water, or rain water (collected sometime near the end of a storm, during a long duration of rain preferably, to give time to clean the atmosphere and avoid polluted air contamination) as soon as possible, drink, cook, and process your foods with this water.

    Distilled water and rain water, are the process of evaporating water, collecting and condensing the Vapors, which will leave you with 100% uncontaminated (no dissolved solids) h2o.

    If your worried about not getting enough minerals anymore once you switch to distilled water, let me assure you that if you eat acidic fruits, or add some lime or lemon (Organic) to your distilled water, you will be completeeeely fine… and feeling much better than you were before.

    For water with more alkalinity, you can add coconut water to your distilled water, and there are plenty more options out there for you to try, but a proper food diet is all that is necessary, many fruits will contain all the minerals you need in your diet, Banana, Cantaloupe, Water Melon, etc, fruit is incredibly healthy, especially raw fresh fruit, which happens to contain incredibly low levels of fluoride as well, especially if grown organically.

    Home Water Distilling Units range in Price from 100$ which is sufficient to start drinking, to 1000$ which will be ridiculously efficient, supporting your entire Family and a Home Garden as well, although rain can be very sufficient for a home garden if unpolluted, rain water (<0.008 ppm fluoride)

    If you decide to distill rain, or even reverse osmosis water, you will never have to clean your distillation unit, you will only need to drain the water from the boiling tank occasionally and replace the post filter every 2-5 months.

    Fluorine is in low friction "plastics" such as Teflon which is a molecule comprised of only carbon and fluorine atoms, when Teflon Coated Cookware is Heated, it will release Carbon Fluoride Vapors into the Air or into your Food, do not use Teflon for this reason, and it is well known to cause cancer,

    Aluminum is very dangerous as well, it will increase the toxic build up of Fluorides in the Human Body, avoid aluminum cookware because it aluminum has a low melting point and if scraped, bits of it will end up in your food, small amounts may boil off into water or evaporate like Teflon as well.

    Aluminum is the 3rd most abundant element in the Earth's Crust, and Fluorine is the 13th most abundant element in the Earths Crust: An average of 950 ppm of Fluoride are contained in it. Top Soils contain approximately 330 ppm of Fluorine, ranging from 150 to 400 ppm. Some Soils can have as much as 1000 ppm, and contaminated soils from industrial processes have been found with 3500 ppm.

    Rain water has 0.008 ppm as I've mentioned, and it is what the majority of the water that the Life on this Planet has evolved to cope with, waters are further contaminated when they make contact with the surface of this planet, and the further down those waters go before they are dug up from wells for various human purposes, the more contaminated they are going to be.

    Fluorine that is located in Soils may potentially accumulate in Plants, Especially the Tobacco or Tea plants, i'd like to suggest to you that you avoid exposing your body to these two plants in particular, you can find very credible information on wikipedia about them and their fluoride contamination.

    The amount of uptake of fluoride by Plants depends upon the type of Plant, and the type of Soil, and the amount and type of Fluoride found in the Soil / Water.

    Too much Fluoride, whether taken in from the Soil by Roots, or absorbed from the Atmosphere by the Leaves, retards the growth of Plants and reduces Crop Yields. Growing plants with well water is like pumping the fluoride equivalent of 25 to 100+ tubes of fluoridated tooth paste in with the soil throughout the plants life… that's because well water averages a 0.7 ppm contamination of fluoride… and unfortunately that is what I assume the majority of our foods are grown with at this time.

    With Plants that are Sensitive to Fluoride Exposure, even Low Concentrations of Fluoride can cause Leaf Damage, and a Decline in Growth.

    Although Fluoride was once considered an Essential Nutrient, the U.S. National Research Council has since removed this Designation due to the lack of Studies showing it is essential for Human growth.

    It is important to note that if Fluorides are absorbed too frequently it will cause Calcification of the mammalian Pineal Gland. The Pineal Gland is Biological Filter for Fluoride. It has the most Profuse Blood Flow 2nd only to the Kidneys, with the Highest Concentrations of Fluoride throughout the entire Mammalian Body, ranging from 20,000 ppm to 25,000 ppm.

    Both the Pineal Gland and The Kidneys turn Fluorides from our Diet / Blood Stream (note: Smoking, Vaporizing, Water Vapors in the shower, Air (15-50 ppb) into Calcium Fluorides, which are safer to process out of the body. The Pineal Gland processes built up calcium fluorides to safely exit the body through urine at night, the process involves the molecule n,n-DMT which is produced naturally in the Pineal Gland, many plants contain this molecule, and this molecule is good medicine for decalcification of the Pineal Gland if taken before your sleep as concentrated dried plant matter (nearly boil plant matter containing n,n-DMT, let settle for an hour, scoop off top layer of water and dry it in a glass dish), the urge to urinate will increase and you should wake up to do so accordingly. The molecule n,n-dmt neutralizes the electronegative effects of fluorides in the blood stream by clumping together with fluorides to help them safely exit the body.

    If these two filters cannot handle the fluoride they are being exposed to, then Fluorides may end up in other calcium deposits throughout our bodies, like our Bones, which can cause Skeletal Flurosis, (which may lead to Arthritis or Joint Pains), this may even be the general cause of Arthritis.

    Dental Flurosis (White spots on Teeth) which may lead to Tooth Decay, is an obvious sign of wider systemic damage.

    This information is updated as frequently as I can update it at DamageReport.org

    An obvious indication of a significant reduction in fluoride exposure to your body is remembering your dreams from each time you sleep, and vividly.

    (You are experiencing a subjective reality, and there are many others experiencing a subjective reality as well, but we are all the universe it's self, and so we must not activate neural pain networks.)

    Much Love,

    – И

    • This is very long and may not get read by too many people. I suggest you edit it for future posting. Also it would be good (I would appreciate it) if you would identify yourself by name. As the page on Fluoride is very long, this might be better posted as a blog post when it is abbreviated and edited. I am approving it for the benefit of those who may end up finding and reading it.

  4. Pingback: Fluoride update from Fluoride Action Network | Santa Fe Water Awareness Group

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s