Petition to END Flourdiation of water

[AFTFNJ]

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2477/t/2782/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21960

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

Pass it on :cool:

[lucius]

Done!

If we had a free press this would of been the largest news of 2000, sadly it was not.

EPA Union Calls for a Moratorium on Water Fluoridation at the US Senate Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water, June 29, 2000 (9 minutes): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8903910725020792574&q=epa+fluoride+senate&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[noztnac]

Flouridation of the water is a good thing. I've lived in several countries where they don't add flouride to the water and all of the people have rotten black teeth.

[lucius]

"Kingston and Newburg, New York Results

In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17). In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city.

We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of the Centers For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a Select Committee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among American children and the implications of that increase for skeletal and other effects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fractures and arthritis."

From Vice President of EPA's Scientist Union Testifies Against Fluoridation (see blue text below):

"STATEMENT OF Dr. J. WILLIAM HIRZY

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 280
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND DRINKING WATER UNITED STATES SENATE

JUNE 29, 2000

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present the views of the union, of which I am a Vice-President, on the subject of fluoridation of public water supplies.

Our union is comprised of and represents the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C. Our members include toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and others defined by law as "professionals." The work we do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for managements use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy.

I am not here as a representative of EPA, but rather as a representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union. The union first got involved in this issue in 1985 as a matter of professional ethics. In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our opposition has strengthened since then.

Summary of Recommendations

1) We ask that you order an independent review of a cancer bioassay previously mandated by Congressional committee and subsequently performed by Battelle Memorial Institute with appropriate blinding and instructions that all reviewers independent determinations be reported to this Committee.

2) We ask that you order that the two waste products of the fertilizer industry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future toxicity studies, rather than a substitute chemical. Further, since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an entire lifetime.

3) We ask that you order an epidemiology study comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years for behavioral and other disorders.

4) We ask that you convene a joint Congressional Committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves.

National Review of Fluoridation

The Subcommittees hearing today can only begin to get at the issues surrounding the policy of water fluoridation in the United States, a massive experiment that has been run on the American public, without informed consent, for over fifty years. The last Congressional hearings on this subject were held in 1977. Much knowledge has been gained in the intervening years. It is high time for a national review of this policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. New hearings should explore, at minimum, these points:

1) excessive and un-controlled fluoride exposures;

2) altered findings of a cancer bioassay;

3) the results and implications of recent brain effects research;

4) the "protected pollutant" status of fluoride within EPA;

5) the altered recommendations to EPA of a 1983 Surgeon Generals Panel on fluoride;

6) the results of a fifty-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities;

7) the findings of fact in three landmark lawsuits since 1978;

8) the findings and implications of recent research linking the predominant fluoridation chemical with elevated blood-lead levels in children and anti-social behavior; and

9) changing views among dental researchers on the efficacy of water fluoridation

Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled

According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of Americas children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980's and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.

Centers for Disease Control and EPA claim that dental fluorosis is only a "cosmetic" effect. God did not create humans with fluorosed teeth. That effect occurs when children ingest more fluoride than their bodies can handle with the metabolic processes we were born with, and their teeth are damaged as a result. And not only their teeth. Childrens bones and other tissues, as well as their developing teeth are accumulating too much fluoride. We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, are looking for the effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and other tissues in American children. What has been reported so far in this connection is disturbing. One example is epidemiological evidence (2a, 2b) showing elevated bone cancer in young men related to consumption of fluoridated drinking water.

Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we do know that American children in large numbers are afflicted with hyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on the rise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are on the rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. There are biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed research on fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures (e.g. 3,4,5,6). Considering the economic and human costs of these conditions, we believe that Congress should order epidemiology studies that use dental fluorosis as an index of exposure to determine if there are links between such effects and fluoride over-exposure.

In the interim, while this epidemiology is conducted, we believe that a national moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted. There will be a hue and cry from some quarters, predicting increased dental caries, but Europe has about the same rate of dental caries as the U.S. (7) and most European countries do not fluoridate (8). I am submitting letters from European and Asian authorities on this point. There are studies in the U.S. of localities that have interrupted fluoridation with no discernable increase in dental caries rates (e.g., 9). And people who want the freedom of choice to continue to ingest fluoride can do so by other means.

Cancer Bioassay Findings

In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (10), the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a special commission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in the salvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The final, published version of the NTP report says that there is, "equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats," changed from "clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats."

The change prompted Dr. William Marcus, who was then Senior Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, to blow the whistle about the issue (22), which led to his firing by EPA. Dr. Marcus sued EPA, won his case and was reinstated with back pay, benefits and compensatory damages. I am submitting material from Dr. Marcus to the Subcommittee dealing with the cancer and neurotoxicity risks posed by fluoridation.

We believe the Subcommittee should call for an independent review of the tumor slides from the bioassay, as was called for by Dr. Marcus (22), with the results to be presented in a hearing before a Select Committee of the Congress. The scientists who conducted the original study, the original reviewers of the study, and the "review commission" members should be called, and an explanation given for the changed findings.

Brain Effects Research

Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children (11,12). Another paper (3) shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the "optimal" dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million (13). And another (14) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal. Another publication (5) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on the brains pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals. Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New York has also been reported (6).

Given the national concern over incidence of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism in our children, we believe that the authors of these studies should be called before a Select Committee, along with those who have critiqued their studies, so the American public and the Congress can understand the implications of this work.

Fluoride as a Protected Pollutant

The classic example of EPAs protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940's and 1950's as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPAs then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer manufacture as,

"...an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride..."

In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the pollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not into rivers or the atmosphere. I am submitting a copy of her letter.

Other Federal entities are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvert of the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and other Federal entities on the matter of fluoride, answers to which have not yet been received.

We believe that EPA and other Federal officials should be called to testify on the manner in which fluoride has been protected. The union will be happy to assist the Congress in identifying targets for an inquiry. For instance, hydrofluosilicic acid does not appear on the Toxic Release Inventory list of chemicals, and there is a remarkable discrepancy among the Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, arsenic and lead, given the relative toxicities of these substances.

Surgeon Generals Panel on Fluoride

We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon Generals panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon Generals panel (16) were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride.

Kingston and Newburg, New York Results

In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17). In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city.

We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of the Centers For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a Select Committee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among American children and the implications of that increase for skeletal and other effects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fractures and arthritis.

Findings of Fact by Judges

In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here.

In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland New Zealand wrote the following about the case:

"In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary...

"Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation."

In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: "This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislatures 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 Flahertys statement and his and the other two judges findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.

Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind.

I am submitting a copy of the excerpted letter from Judge Flaherty and another letter referenced in it that was sent to Judge Flaherty by Dr. Peter Sammartino, then Chancellor of Fairleigh Dickenson University. I am also submitting a reprint copy of an article in the Spring 1999 issue of the Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law by Jack Graham and Dr. Pierre Morin, titled "Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water. Mr. Graham was chief litigator in the case before Judge Flaherty and in the other two cases (in Illinois and Texas).

We believe that Mr. Graham should be called before a Select Committee along with, if appropriate, the judges in these three cases who could relate their experience as trial judges in these cases.

Hydrofluosilicic Acid

There are no chronic toxicity data on the predominant chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, used to fluoridate American communities. Newly published studies (19) indicate a link between use of these chemicals and elevated level of lead in childrens blood and anti-social behavior. Material from the authors of these studies has been submitted by them independently.

We believe the authors of these papers and their critics should be called before a Select Committee to explain to you and the American people what these papers mean for continuation of the policy of fluoridation.

Changing Views on Efficacy and Risk

In recent years, two prominent dental researchers who were leaders of the pro-fluoridation movement announced reversals of their former positions because they concluded that water fluoridation is not an effective means of reducing dental caries and that it poses serious risks to human health. The late Dr. John Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand, and he published his reasons for changing sides in 1997 (20). In 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, announced his change of views, then published a statement (21) dated April 2000. I am submitting a copy of Dr. Limebacks publications.

We believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who have not changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernest Newbrun and Herschel Horowitz, should be called before a Select Committee to testify on the reasons for their respective positions.

Thank you for your consideration, and I will be happy to take questions."

CITATIONS

1.Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E, Eklund, S.A. and Burt, B.A. J. Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 (1997).

2a. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992).

2b. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute. In: Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services.1991: F1-F7.

3.Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995)

4a. Fluoride and bone - quantity versus quality [editorial] N. Engl. J. Med. 322 845-6 (1990)

4b. Summary of workshop on drinking water fluoride influence on hip fracture and bone health. Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B. Natl. Inst. Health. April 10, 1991.

5. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994).

6. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956).

7. WHO oral health country/area profile programme. Department of Non-Communicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden. URL:

8. Letters from government authorities in response to inquiries on fluoridation status by E. Albright. Eugene Albright: contact through J. W. Hirzy, P.O. Box 76082, Washington, D.C. 20013.

9. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. Burt B.A., Keels ., Heller KE. J. Dent. Res. 2000 Feb;79(2):761-9.

10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).

11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on childrens intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)

12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995).

13. Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998).

14. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).

15. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.

16.Transcript of proceedings - Surgeon Generals (Koop) ad hoc committee on non-dental effects of fluoride. April 18-19, 1983. National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, MD.

17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47.

18. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century on artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. Graham, J.R. and Morin, P. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14 195-248 (Spring 1999) Florida State University College of Law.

19. Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. Masters, R.D. and Coplan, M.J. Intern. J. Environ. Studies 56 435-49 (1999).

20. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. And Medicine 41 1-16 (1997).

21. Letter. Limeback, H. April 2000. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto.

22. Memorandum: Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division Office of Drinking Water. May 1, 1990.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/testimony.htm

[lucius]

//

[lucius]

//

[Nicketas]

,.,.

[DanConway]

Get a water filter.

I did. It says on the back, "Leaves Beneficial Fluoride In The Water."

It also doesn't attach to the faucet in my new apartment.

As for the "rotten black teeth" claim -- so all of France and Japan have rotten teeth?

[Nicketas]

.,.,.,

[lucius]

I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find an anti-flouride water filter.

Campaign for the free market, you'll have 1000% better shot with that than you would fighting the EPA.

Just sell people on the dangers of existing waters and the benefits of flouride-free water filters.

That is exactly what this petition is about, free market: How about we help destroy yet another Utopian Dreamer Big Government Statism project gone awry?

With what is known now, the kindest argument one could make for water fluoridation is that large corporations colluded with government to dispose of a hazardous waste from the phosphate industry by dilution in our public water supply--170 million Americans drink fluoridated water. Not to mention all the extras you get from this non-refined industrial grade waste product, increase arsenic and heavy metals [7. The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion (Fox, 1999; Hazan, 2000; Plaisier, 2000; Thurnau, 2000).]

How about my family drinks non-fluoridated water from the tap and others buy fluoride tablets for their children if so concerned? By the way, the tablets are not going to help to prevent tooth decay. [4. The CDC’s concession, in 1999 and 2001, that the predominant benefit of fluoride in reducing tooth decay is TOPICAL and not SYSTEMIC. To the extent fluoride works to reduce tooth decay, it works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. It makes no sense to drink it and expose the rest of the body to the long term risks of fluoride ingestion when fluoridated toothpaste is readily available.]

Sign the petition, help stop the Statists: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2477/t/2782/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21960

"PROFESSIONALS' STATEMENT CALLING FOR AN END TO WATER FLUORIDATION
AUGUST 9, 2007

We, the undersigned professionals, come from a variety of disciplines but all have an abiding interest in ensuring that government public health and environmental policies be determined honestly, with full attention paid to the latest scientific research and to ethical principles.

EIGHT recent events make action to end water fluoridation urgent.

1. The publication in 2006 of a 500-page review of fluoride’s toxicology by a distinguished panel appointed by the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC, 2006). The NRC report concluded that the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (i.e. maximum contaminant level goal or MCLG) of 4 parts per million (ppm) is unsafe and should be lowered. Despite over 60 years of fluoridation, the report listed many basic research questions that have not been addressed. Still, the panel reviewed a large body of literature in which fluoride has a statistically significant association with a wide range of adverse effects. These include an increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, lowered IQ, arthritic-like conditions, dental fluorosis and, possibly, osteosarcoma.

The average fluoride daily intakes (*) associated with many of these adverse effects are reached by some people consuming water at the concentration levels now used for fluoridation -- especially small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics, people with poor kidney function and other vulnerable sub-groups. For example, the average fluoride daily intake associated with impaired thyroid function in people with iodine deficiency (about 12% of the US population) is reached by small children with average consumption of fluoridated water at 1 ppm and by people of any age or weight with moderate to high fluoridated water consumption. Of special note among the animal studies is one in which rats fed water containing 1 ppm fluoride had an increased uptake of aluminum into the brain, with formation of beta-amyloid plaques, which is a classic marker of Alzheimer's disease pathology in humans. Considering the substantial variation in individual water intake, exposure to fluoride from many other sources, its accumulation in the bone and other calcifying tissues and the wide range of human sensitivity to any toxic substance, fluoridation provides NO margin of safety for many adverse effects, especially lowered thyroid function.
* Note: "Daily intake" takes into account the exposed individual’s bodyweight and is measured in mg. of fluoride per kilogram bodyweight.

2. The evidence provided by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2005 that 32% of American children have dental fluorosis – an abnormal discoloration and mottling of the enamel. This irreversible and sometimes disfiguring condition is caused by fluoride. Children are now being overdosed with fluoride, even in non-fluoridated areas, from water, swallowed toothpaste, foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water, and other sources. Fluoridated water is the easiest source to eliminate.

3. The American Dental Association’s policy change, in November 2006, recommending that only the following types of water be used for preparing infant formula during the first 12 months of life: "purified, distilled, deionized, demineralized, or produced through reverse osmosis." This new policy, which was implemented to prevent the ingestion of too much fluoride by babies and to lower the risk of dental fluorosis, clearly excludes the use of fluoridated tap water. The burden of following this recommendation, especially for low income families, is reason alone for fluoridation to be halted immediately. Formula made with fluoridated water contains 250 times more fluoride than the average 0.004 ppm concentration found in human breast milk in non-fluoridated areas (Table 2-6, NRC, 2006).

4. The CDC’s concession, in 1999 and 2001, that the predominant benefit of fluoride in reducing tooth decay is TOPICAL and not SYSTEMIC. To the extent fluoride works to reduce tooth decay, it works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. It makes no sense to drink it and expose the rest of the body to the long term risks of fluoride ingestion when fluoridated toothpaste is readily available.

Fluoride’s topical mechanism probably explains the fact that, since the 1980s, there have been many research reports indicating little difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Leverett, 1982; Colquhoun, 1984; 1985 and 1987; Diesendorf, 1986; Gray, 1987; Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Spencer,1996; deLiefde, 1998; Locker, 1999; Armfield and Spencer, 2004; and Pizzo 2007 - see citations). Poverty is the clearest factor associated with tooth decay, not lack of ingested fluoride. According to the World Health Organization, dental health in 12-year olds in non-fluoridated industrialized countries is as good, if not better, than those in fluoridated countries (Neurath, 2005).

5. In 2000, the publication of the UK government sponsored “York Review,” the first systematic scientific review of fluoridation, found that NONE of the studies purporting to demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation to reduce tooth decay were of grade A status, i.e. “high quality, bias unlikely” (McDonagh et al., 200).

6. The publication in May 2006 of a peer-reviewed, case-controlled study from Harvard University which found a 5-7 fold increase in osteosarcoma (a frequently fatal bone cancer) in young men associated with exposure to fluoridated water during their 6th, 7th and 8th years (Bassin et al., 2006). This study was surrounded by scandal as Elise Bassin’s PhD thesis adviser, Professor Chester Douglass, was accused by the watchdog Environmental Working Group of attempting to suppress these findings for several years (see video). While this study does not prove a relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma beyond any doubt, the weight of evidence and the importance of the risk call for serious consideration.

7. The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion (Fox, 1999; Hazan, 2000; Plaisier, 2000; Thurnau, 2000).

8. The publication in 2004 of “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson. This meticulously researched book showed that industrial interests, concerned about liabilities from fluoride pollution and health effects on workers, played a significant role in the early promotion of fluoridation. Bryson also details the harassment of scientists who expressed concerns about the safety and/or efficacy of fluoridation (see Bryson interview).

We call upon Members of Congress (and legislators in other fluoridating countries) to sponsor a new Congressional (or Parliamentary) Hearing on Fluoridation so that those in government agencies who continue to support the procedure, particularly the Oral Health Division of the CDC, be compelled to provide the scientific basis for their ongoing promotion of fluoridation. They must be cross-examined under oath if the public is ever to fully learn the truth about this outdated and harmful practice.

We call upon all medical and dental professionals, members of water departments, local officials, public health organizations, environmental groups and the media to examine for themselves the new documentation that fluoridated water is ineffective and poses serious health risks. It is no longer acceptable to simply rely on endorsements from agencies that continue to ignore the large body of scientific evidence on this matter -- especially the extensive citations in the NRC (2006) report discussed above.

The untold millions of dollars that are now spent on equipment, chemicals, monitoring, and promotion of fluoridation could be much better invested in nutrition education and targeted dental care for children from low income families. The vast majority of enlightened nations have done this (see statements).

It is time for the US, and the few remaining fluoridating countries, to recognize that fluoridation is outdated, has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound medical ethics and denies freedom of choice. Fluoridation must be ended now."

http://www.fluoridealert.org/statement.august.2007.html

[Matt Collins]

Who cares? If you don't want fluoride in your water, buy water without fluoride in it.

[lucius]

"When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the state owns our bodies." ~U.S. Representative Ron Paul

I care that 170 million of my fellow Americans are being are being mass-medicated, unregulated, all subsidized with Federal Tax dollars.

"Fagin, award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York
University's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, writes,
"There is no universally accepted optimal level for daily intake of fluoride."
Some researchers even wonder whether the 1 mg/L added into drinking water is
too much, reports Fagin.

After 3 years of scrutinizing hundreds of studies, a National Research Council
(NRC) committee "concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function,
especially in the thyroid -- the gland that produces hormones regulating
growth and metabolism," reports Fagin.

Fagin quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at
the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly,
"The thyroid changes do worry me."

Fluoride in foods, beverages, medicines and dental products can result in
fluoride over-consumption, visible in young children as dental fluorosis --
white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. We can't normally see
fluoride's effects to the rest of the body.

Reports Fagin, "a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated
high fluoride exposures with lower IQ..."

'Second Thoughts about Fluoride,' Reports Scientific American

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS108377+02-Jan-2008+PRN20080102

[Jenna!]

Flouridation of the water is a good thing. I've lived in several countries where they don't add flouride to the water and all of the people have rotten black teeth.

Where has Flouride been a good thing??

which countries are speaking of?

[berrybunches]

The black teeth comment - people that drink well water or water with a lot of minerals in it get "black teeth" Its not the flouride
Since I started using flouride free tooth paste my teeth no longer hurt and they are whiter

[Xenophage]

Why does this bring Dr. Strangelove to memory :)

[Matt Collins]

Why does this bring Dr. Strangelove to memory :)

HA HA HA.

[Strangelove's plan for post-nuclear war survival involves living underground with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio]

General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

[Lymeade-Lady]

Get a water filter.

We use a really nice (read expensive) one, but think about the water used to cook your food in restaurants, even if you use only pure water at home! Not to mention if you drink water in restaurants (which is by the way better than a coke!)

Thanks for posting this.

[noztnac]

Where has Flouride been a good thing??

which countries are speaking of?

It seems to be a good thing in the United States. The people in the United States have much better teeth than any other country I've visited. I live in South Korea. Flouride is not added to the water and half my kids have rotten, black teeth. I know they are brushing them because I am their teacher and I am the one who makes sure they do it. I'm no dental expert though. Someone said something about well water and too many minerals. That's not the cause. The kids only drink bottled water. Maybe we should get a dentist on here to clear things up. If flouride is indeed bad I will change my view. I just need more evidence.

[lucius]

It seems to be a good thing in the United States. The people in the United States have much better teeth than any other country I've visited. I live in South Korea. Flouride is not added to the water and half my kids have rotten, black teeth. I know they are brushing them because I am their teacher and I am the one who makes sure they do it. I'm no dental expert though. Someone said something about well water and too many minerals. That's not the cause. The kids only drink bottled water. Maybe we should get a dentist on here to clear things up. If flouride is indeed bad I will change my view. I just need more evidence.

PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVES: A Statement on Fluoride in Tap Water by Dr Bill Osmunson, a general and cosmetic dentist-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk

[MrsW]

The Fluoride Deception:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2886269353175462948&hl=en-CA

BTW, reverse osmosis filters remove fluoride - regular water filters do not. We have been buying water filters from www.mrwaterfilter.com.
There is no shower filter that removes fluoride at this time.

As a side note, you can look at your county water district's annual water quality report to see what the fluoride levels and sources are. For example our county has this note:
"Erosion of natural deposits; water additive that promotes strong teeth; discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories"

Oh, one last thing, there are warnings out there stating that children under a certain age (I thought it was 1yr) should never be given fluoridated tap water. I'll look for the source and post it. Here's one: http://www.ewg.org/node/22429

[thuja]

Flouridation of the water is a good thing. I've lived in several countries where they don't add flouride to the water and all of the people have rotten black teeth.

lack of flouride is not the reason, you have been brainwashed.

[thuja]

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2477/t/2782/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21960

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

Pass it on :cool:

do sign this, and pass it on.

if ou are unaware, please research the effects of flouride on health.

we should not have to filter our bathing and drinking water, and worry about tap water being sprayed on organic vegs at stores, and used in our food.

[LynnB]

It is also absorbed thru the skin, to a lesser degree.

[Carl Corey]

It seems to be a good thing in the United States. The people in the United States have much better teeth than any other country I've visited. I live in South Korea. Flouride is not added to the water and half my kids have rotten, black teeth.
The cause is mostly genetic and has to do with the acidity of your saliva. Dental carries are rare among Africans, rampant among Asians, and tend to run in families.

So there's little you can do about it.

[noztnac]

66% of the USA has its water flouridated
10% of the UK has its water flouridated.

That's a pretty strong argument for flouridation.
What other contributing factor are you anti-flouridation people using to explain the difference in general teeth quality if it isn't flouridation?

[noztnac]

The cause is mostly genetic and has to do with the acidity of your saliva. Dental carries are rare among Africans, rampant among Asians, and tend to run in families.

So there's little you can do about it.

Since you mention acidity it may have something to do with diet. Here in Korea people eat kimchi three times a day. Fermented cabbage is bound to have some acidity.

[Stacey S]

Weston A Price is the source.


Fluoride: Worse than We Thought
By Andreas Schuld

In 1999 the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) released a glowing report on the fluoridation of public water supplies, citing the procedure as one of the century's great public health successes.1

Ironically, the same report hints that the alleged benefit from fluorides may not be due to ingestion: "Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral."

The CDC report then acknowledges new studies which indicate that the effects are "topical" rather than "systemic." "However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children."

The obvious question is this: How can the CDC consider the addition of fluoride to public water supplies to be a public health success while admitting at the same time that fluoride's benefits are not "systemic," in other words, are not obtained from drinking it?

The truth, now becoming increasingly evident, is that fluoridation and the proclaimed benefit of fluoride as a way of preventing dental decay is perhaps the greatest "scientific" fraud ever perpetrated upon an unsuspecting public.

Even worse, the relentless promotion of fluoride as a "dental benefit" is responsible for the huge neglect in proper assessment of its toxicity, an issue that has become a major concern for many nations. As there is no substance as biochemically active in the human organism as fluoride, excessive total intake of fluoride compounds might well be contributing to many diseases currently afflicting mankind, particularly those involving thyroid dysfunction. In the United States, most citizens are kept entirely ignorant of any adverse effect that might occur from exposure to fluorides. Dental fluorosis, the first visible sign that fluoride poisoning has occurred, is declared a mere "cosmetic effect" by the dental profession, although the "biochemical events which result in dental fluorosis are still unknown."2,3,4 The quantity of fluoride needed to prevent caries but avoid dental fluorosis is also unknown.5

What is Fluoride?
Fluoride is any combination of elements containing the fluoride ion. In its elemental form, fluorine is a pale yellow, highly toxic and corrosive gas. In nature, fluorine is found combined with minerals as fluorides. It is the most chemically active nonmetallic element of all the elements and also has the most reactive electro-negative ion. Because of this extreme reactivity, fluorine is never found in nature as an uncombined element.

Fluorine is a member of group VIIa of the periodic table. It readily displaces other halogens--such as chlorine, bromine and iodine--from their mineral salts. With hydrogen it forms hydrogen fluoride gas which, in a water solution, becomes hydrofluoric acid.

There was no US commercial production of fluorine before World War II. A requirement for fluorine in the processing of uranium ores, needed for the atomic bomb, prompted its manufacture.6

Fluorine compounds or fluorides are listed by the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) as among the top 20 of 275 substances that pose the most significant threat to human health.7 In Australia, the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) recently considered 400 substances for inclusion on the NPI reporting list. A risk ranking was given based on health and environmental hazard identification and human and environmental exposure to the substance. Some substances were grouped together at the same rank to give a total of 208 ranks. Fluoride compounds were ranked 27th out of the 208 ranks.8

Fluorides, hydrogen fluoride and fluorine have been found in at least 130, 19, and 28 sites, respectively, of 1,334 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).9 Consequently, under the provisions of the Superfund Act (CRECLA, 1986), a compilation of information about fluorides, hydrogen fluoride and fluorine and their effects on health was required. This publication appeared in 1993.9

Fluorides are cumulative toxins. The fact that fluorides accumulate in the body is the reason that US law requires the Surgeon General to set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride content in public water supplies as determined by the EPA. This requirement is specifically aimed at avoiding a condition known as Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis (CSF), a disease thought to progress through three stages. The MCL, designed to prevent only the third and crippling stage of this disease, is set at 4ppm or 4mg per liter. It is assumed that people will retain half of this amount (2mg), and therefore 4mg per liter is deemed "safe." Yet a daily dose of 2-8mg is known to cause the third crippling stage of CSF.10,11

In 1998 EPA scientists, whose job and legal duty it is to set the Maximum Contaminant Level, declared that this 4ppm level was set fraudulently by outside forces in a decision that omitted 90 percent of the data showing the mutagenic properties of fluoride.12

The Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 5th Edition (1984) gives lead a toxicity rating of 3 to 4 (3 = moderately toxic, 4 = very toxic) and the EPA has set 0.015 ppm as the MCL for lead in drinking water--with a goal of 0.0ppm. The toxicity rating for fluoride is 4, yet the MCL for fluoride is currently set at 4.0ppm, over 250 times the permissable level for lead.

Water Fluoridation
In 1939 a dentist named H. Trendley Dean, working for the U.S. Public Health Service, examined water from 345 communities inTexas. Dean determined that high concentrations of fluoride in the water in these areas corresponded to a high incidence of mottled teeth. This explained why dentists in the area found mottled teeth in so many of their patients. Dean also claimed that there was a lower incidence of dental cavities in communities having about 1 ppm fluoride in the water supply. Among the native residents of these areas about 10 percent developed the very mildest forms of mottled enamel ("dental fluorosis"), which Dean and others described as "beautiful white teeth."

Dean's report led to the initiation of artificial fluoridation of drinking water at 1part-per-million (ppm) in order to supply the "optimal dose" of 1mg fluoride per day--assuming that drinking four glasses of water every day would duplicate Dean's "optimal" intake for most people. Now, according to the American Dental Association, all people, rich or poor, could have "beautiful white teeth" and be free of caries at the same time. After all, the benefits of water fluoridation had been documented "beyond any doubt."13

When other scientists investigated Dean's data, they did not reach the same conclusions. In fact, Dean had engaged in "selective use of data," using findings from 21 cities that supported his case while completely disregarding data from 272 other locations that did not show a correlation.14 In court cases Dean was forced to admit under oath that his data were invalid.15 In 1957 he had to admit at AMA hearings that even waters containing a mere 0.1ppm (0.1 mg/l) could cause dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of fluoride overdose.16 Moreover, there is not one single double-blind study to indicate that fluoridation is effective in reducing cavities.17

So What's the Truth About Tooth Decay?
The truth is that more and more evidence shows that fluorides and dental fluorosis are actually associated with increased tooth decay. The most comprehensive US review was carried out by the National Institute of Dental Research on 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years.18 It showed no significant differences in terms of DMF (decayed, missing and filled teeth). What it did show was that high decay cities (66.5-87.5 percent) have 9.34 percent more decay in the children who drink fluoridated water. Furthermore, a 5.4 percent increase in students with decay was observed when 1 ppm fluoride was added to the water supply. Nine fluoridated cities with high decay had 10 percent more decay than nine equivalent non-fluoridated cities.

The world's largest study on dental caries, which looked at 400,000 students, revealed that decay increased 27 percent with a 1ppm fluoride increase in drinking water.19 In Japan, fluoridation caused decay increases of 7 percent in 22,000 students,20 while in the US a decay increase of 43 percent occured in 29,000 students when 1ppm fluoride was added to drinking water.21

Dental Fluorosis: A "Cosmetic" Defect?
Dental fluorosis is a condition caused by an excessive intake of fluorides, characterized mainly by mottling of the enamel (which starts as "white spots"), although the bones and virtually every organ might also be affected due to fluoride's known anti-thyroid characteristics. Dental fluorosis can only occur during the stage of enamel formation and is therefore a sign that an overdose of fluoride has occurred in a child during that period.

Dental fluorosis has been described as a subsurface enamel hypomineralization, with porosity of the tooth positively correlated with the degree of fluorosis.22 It is characterized by diffuse opacities and under-mineralized enamel. Although identical enamel defects occur in cases of thyroid dysfunction, the dental profession describes the defect as merely "cosmetic" when it is caused by exposure to fluoride.

What is now becoming apparent is that this "cosmetic" defect actually predisposes to tooth decay. In 1988 Duncan23 stated that hypoplastic defects have a strong potential to become carious. In 1989, Silberman,24 evaluating the same data on Head Start children, wrote that "preliminary data indicate that the presence of primary canine hypoplasia [enamel defects] may result in an increased potential for the tooth becoming carious." In 1996 Li 25 wrote that children with enamel hypoplasia demonstrated a significantly higher caries experience than those who did not have such defects and, further, that the "presence of enamel hypoplasia may be a predisposing factor for initiation and progression of dental caries, and a predictor of high caries susceptibility in a community." In 1996 Ellwood & O'Mullane26 stated that "developmental enamel defects may be useful markers of caries susceptibility, which should be considered in the risk-benefit assessment for use of fluoride."

Currently up to 80 percent of US children suffer from some degree of dental fluorosis, while in Canada the figure is up to 71 percent. A prevalence of 80.9 percent was reported in children 12-14 years old in Augusta, Georgia, the highest prevalence yet reported in an "optimally" fluoridated community in the United States. Moderate-to-severe fluorosis was found in 14 percent of the children.27

Before the push for fluoridation began, the dental profession recognized that fluorides were not beneficial but detrimental to dental health. In 1944, the Journal of the American Dental Association reported: "With 1.6 to 4 ppm fluoride in the water, 50 percent or more past age 24 have false teeth because of fluoride damage to their own."28

The Wonder Nutrient?
On countless internet sites, fluoride is proclaimed as the "wonder nutrient," the "deficiency" symptom being increased dental caries.29 It boggles the mind that a cumulative toxin and toxic waste product can be described a "nutrient." Nevertheless, such claims are repeatedly made by pro-fluoridationists.30

On March 16, 1979, the FDA deleted paragraphs 105.3(c) and 105.85(d)(4) of Federal Register documents which had classified fluorine, among other substances, as "essential" or "probably essential." Since that time, nowhere in the Federal Regulations is fluoride classified as "essential" or "probably essential." These deletions were the immediate result of 1978 Court deliberations.31 No essential function for fluoride has ever been proven in humans.32,33,34,35,36

"Nature Thought of It First"
A popular slogan employed by the ADA and other pro-fluoridation organizations is, "Nature thought of it first!" The slogan creates the impression that the fluoridation compounds used in water fluoridation are the same as those discovered many years ago in the water in some areas of the US.37 The fluoride compound in "naturally" fluoridated waters is calcium fluoride. Sodium fluoride, a common fluoridation agent, dissolves easily in water, but calcium fluoride does not.9

Animal studies performed by Kick and others in 1935 revealed that sodium fluoride was much more toxic than calcium fluoride.38 Even worse, toxicity was recorded for hydrofluorosilicic acid, the compound now used in over 90 percent of fluoridation programs, Hydrofluorosilicic acid is a direct byproduct of pollution scrubbers used in the phosphate fertilizer and aluminum industries. Our government adds it to water supplies even though it is also involved in getting rid of its own stockpile of fluoride compounds left over from years and years of stockpiling fluorides for use in the process of refining uranium for nuclear power and weapons.39

In the Kick study, less than 2 percent of calcium fluoride was absorbed and this was excreted quantitatively in the urine. But even calcium fluoride is not benign. As the animals given calcium fluoride also developed mottled teeth, it was clear that such compounds could produce changes on the teeth merely by passing through the body, and not by being "stored in a tooth" or anywhere else. No calcium fluoride was retained.

In 1946 Samuel Chase, one of the authors of the Kick study, became president of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR). This organization promoted the idea that only the fluoride ion in the various fluoridation compounds was of importance. Yet he well knew that sodium fluoride did not behave like calcium fluoride. Unlike calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride was retained in great amounts in the body and was very toxic. Rock phosphate and hydro-fluorosilicic acid experiments yielded the same information.

New areas with "natural" fluoride are appearing all over the world, as now all areas not "artificially" fluoridated are considered "natural." The problem is that this "natural" fluoride is the result of direct water and soil contamination from petrochemical land treatment, uncontrolled fertilizer use, pesticide applications, ground water contamination from industrial waste sites, rocket fuel "burial grounds," and so forth. Suddenly we have "natural" fluorides showing up in areas previously deemed "fluoride deficient"!

Total Intake
It is well established that it is TOTAL fluoride intake from ALL sources which must be considered for any adverse health effect evaluation.40,41,42 This includes intake by ingestion, inhalation and absorption through the skin. In 1971, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated: "In the assessment of the safety of a water supply with respect to the fluoride concentration, the total daily fluoride intake by the individual must be considered."41 Exposure to airborne fluorides from many diverse manufacturing processes--pesticide applications, phosphate fertilizer production, aluminum smelting, uranium enrichment facilities, coal-burning and nuclear power plants, incinerators, glass etching, petroleum refining and vehicle emissions--can be considerable.

In addition, many people consume fluorine-based medications such as Prozac, which greatly adds to fluoride's anti-thyroid effects. ALL fluoride compounds--organic and inorganic--have been shown to exert anti-thyroid effects, often potentiating fluoride effects many fold.43

Household exposures to fluorides can occur with the use of Teflon pans, fluorine-based products, insecticides sprays and even residual airborne fluorides from fluoridated drinking water. Decision-makers at 3M Corporation recently announced a phase-out of Scotchgard products after discovering that the product's primary ingredient--a fluorinated compound called perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS)--was found in all tested blood bank examinations.44 3M's research showed that the substance had strong tendencies to persist and bioaccumulate in animal and human tissue.

In 1991 the US Public Health Service issued a report stating that the range in total daily fluoride intake from water, dental products, beverages and food items exceeded 6.5 milligrams daily.42 Thus, the total intake from those sources alone already greatly exceeds the levels known to cause the third stage of skeletal fluorosis.

Besides fluoridated water and toothpaste, many foods contain high levels of flouride compounds due to pesticide applications. One of the worse offenders is grapes.45 Grape juice was found to contain more than 6.8 ppm fluoride. The EPA estimates total fluoride intake from pesticide residues on food and fluoridated drinking water alone to be 0.095 mg/kg/day, meaning a person weighing 70 kg takes in more than 6.65 mg per day.45b Soy infant formula is high in both fluoride and aluminum, far surpassing the "optimal" dose46,47 and has been shown to be a risk factor in dental fluorosis.48

Tea
In their drive to fluoridate the public water supplies, dental health officials continue to pretend that no other sources of fluoride exist. This notion becomes absurd when one looks at the fluoride content in tea. Tea is very high in fluoride because tea leaves accumulate more fluoride (from pollution of soil and air) than any other edible plant.49,50,51 It is well established that fluoride in tea gets absorbed by the body in a manner similar to the fluoride in drinking water.49,52

Fluoride content in tea has risen dramatically over the last 20 years due to industry contamination. Recent analyses have revealed a fluoride content of 17.25 mg per teabag or cup in black tea, and a whopping 22 mg of soluble fluoride ions per teabag or cup in green tea. Aluminum content was also high--over 8 mg. Normal steeping time is five minutes. The longer a tea bag steeped, the more fluoride and aluminum were released. After ten minutes, the measurable amounts of fluoride and aluminum almost doubled.53

A website by a pro-fluoridation infant medical group states that a cup of black tea contains 7.8 mgs of fluoride54 which is the equivalent amount of fluoride from 7.8 litres of water in an area fluoridated at 1ppm. Some British and African studies from the 1990s showed a daily fluoride intake of between 5.8 mgs and 9 mgs a day from tea alone.55, 56, 57 Tea has been found to be a primary cause of dental fluorosis in many international studies.58-70

In Britain, over three-quarters of the population over the age of ten years consumes three cups of tea per day.71Yet the UK government and the British Dental Association are currently contemplating fluoridation of public water supplies! In Ireland, average tea consumption is four cups per day and the drinking water is heavily fluoridated.

Next to water, tea is the most widely consumed beverage in the world. Tea can be found in almost 80 percent of all US households and on any given day, nearly 127 million people--half of all Americans--drink tea.71

The high content of both aluminum and fluoride in tea is cause for great concern as aluminum greatly potentiates fluoride's effects on G protein activation,72 the on/off switches involved in cell communication and of absolute necessity in thyroid hormone function and regulation.

Fluoride and the Thyroid
The recent re-discovery of hundreds of papers dealing with the use of fluorides in effective anti-thyroid medication poses many questions demanding answers.73,74 The enamel defects observed in hypothyroidism are identical to "dental fluorosis." Endemic fluorosis areas have been shown to be the same as those affected with iodine deficiency, considered to be the world's single most important and preventable cause of mental retardation,75 affecting 740 million people a year. Iodine deficiency causes brain disorders, cretinism, miscarriages and goiter, among many other diseases. Synthroid, the drug most commonly prescribed for hypothyroidism, became the top selling drug in the US in 1999, according to Scott-Levin's Source Prescription Audit, clearly indicating that hypothyroidism is a major health problem. Many more millions are thought to have undiagnosed thyroid problems.

Environment
Every year hundreds and thousands of tons of fluorides are emitted by industry. Industrial emissions of fluoride compounds produce elevated concentrations in the atmosphere. Hydrogen fluoride can exist as a particle, dissolving in clouds, fog, rain, dew, or snow. In clouds and moist air it will travel along the air currents until it is deposited as wet acid deposition (acid rain, acid fog, etc.) In waterways it readily mixes with water.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), emitted by the electric power industry, is now among six greenhouse gases specifically targeted by the international community, through the Kyoto protocol, for emission reductions to control global warming. The others are carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), methane and nitrous oxide (N2O).

SF6 is about 23,900 times more destructive, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide over the course of 100 years. EPA estimates that some seven-million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) escaped from electric power systems in 1996 alone. The concentration of SF6 in the atmosphere has reportedly increased by two orders of magnitude since 1970. Atmospheric models have indicated that the lifetime of an SF6 molecule in the atmosphere may be over 3000 years.76

The ever-increasing fluoride levels in food, water and air pose a great threat to human health and to the environment as evidenced by the endemic of fluorosis worldwide. It is of utmost urgency that public health officials cease promoting fluoride as beneficial to our health and address instead the issue of its toxicity.

About the Author

Andreas Schuld is head of Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC), an organization of parents whose children have been poisoned by excessive fluoride intake. The group includes educators, artists, scientists, journalists and authors, lawyers, researchers and nutritionists. It is active in worldwide efforts to have the toxicity of fluoride properly assessed. For further information, visit their website at www.bruha.com/fluoride.

[noztnac]

lack of flouride is not the reason, you have been brainwashed.

You know what? You are right. We have all been brainwashed to a certain degree.
But rather than explain that flouride is not the reason, please tell me why of all the countries I've been to, the people of the United States have far and away the best teeth.
If it isn't the flouride, what is it?

Again...I'm open to adopting your anti-flouridation viewpoint, but you will need to be more convincing and less insulting.

[AmyPA]

You know what? You are right. We have all been brainwashed to a certain degree.
But rather than explain that flouride is not the reason, please tell me why of all the countries I've been to, the people of the United States have far and away the best teeth.
If it isn't the flouride, what is it?

Again...I'm open to adopting your anti-flouridation viewpoint, but you will need to be more convincing and less insulting.
What countries are you even referring to? And did you inquire as to the oral hygeine habits of these people? Do they brush daily? Weekly? Ever? Do they Floss? Do they recieve regular dental care? Do they chew roots or use salt water rinses? Have healthy diets? Anything?

There are communities in India, Jordan, etc. that subsist on mainly raw diets and consume pure, unfiltered water. Many of them have better dental health than your average American could even dream of. Some even reportedly experience dental regeneration, where teeth that were once damaged heal themselves without any professional dental care.

My little sisters, on the other hand, brush twice daily, floss a few times a week, use listerine, see a dentist every 6 months for a cleaning and checkup, etc. And yet they each have a minimum of 1 cavity per year. (One drinks soda all the time, the other drinks only water. The health of their teeth, however, is nearly identical.) And both live in a household that get city water, which is pumped full of various chemicals, including fluoride.

I have a hard time believing that the fluoride does any good at all, and I'm glad my water comes directly from an underground spring.

[Shellshock1918]

I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find an anti-flouride water filter.

Campaign for the free market, you'll have 1000% better shot with that than you would fighting the EPA.

Just sell people on the dangers of existing waters and the benefits of flouride-free water filters.

Until of course the FDA bans fluoride filters, "citing a risk to public health".

[noztnac]

What countries are you even referring to? And did you inquire as to the oral hygeine habits of these people? Do they brush daily? Weekly? Ever? Do they Floss? Do they recieve regular dental care? Do they chew roots or use salt water rinses? Have healthy diets? Anything?

There are communities in India, Jordan, etc. that subsist on mainly raw diets and consume pure, unfiltered water. Many of them have better dental health than your average American could even dream of. Some even reportedly experience dental regeneration, where teeth that were once damaged heal themselves without any professional dental care.

My little sisters, on the other hand, brush twice daily, floss a few times a week, use listerine, see a dentist every 6 months for a cleaning and checkup, etc. And yet they each have a minimum of 1 cavity per year. (One drinks soda all the time, the other drinks only water. The health of their teeth, however, is nearly identical.) And both live in a household that get city water, which is pumped full of various chemicals, including fluoride.

I have a hard time believing that the fluoride does any good at all, and I'm glad my water comes directly from an underground spring.


I've lived in Spain and Colombia and I live in South Korea right now.
South Korea and Spain are relatively wealthy by world standards. Neither flouridates the water and the people brush and floss just like we do, if not more. The children in Spain and South Korea have much worse teeth than in the states.

I've travelled all over the world and would characterize the general state of American's teeth to be far superior to anywhere I've been.

I'm not sure about Colombia because I lived there a long time ago.

As for your statement about India I find it extremely difficult to believe. There is no "pure" "unfiltered" water anywhere in India. It is one of the most polluted countries in the world. Actually, I have not been to a single Asian country where you can drink water directly from the tap.

Americans take quite a bit for granted.

[lucius]

Petition to End Water Fluoridation: Tell your Congressional representatives you want an end to fluoridation now!

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2477/t/2782/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21960

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

Pass it on.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/flor_dees.JPG