Confronting the Myths of Water Fluoridation Promoters
Wednesday 01 December 2010
by: Chelsea Green Publishing | Book Excerpt
(Photo: Cayusa)
The following is an excerpt adapted from the recently-released book, The Case Against Fluoride by Paul Connett, PhD; James Beck, PhD; and H. S. Micklem, DPhil (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2010).
Proponents of fluoridation have made a number of claims that have been effective with an ill-informed public. However, when those claims are examined carefully, they are found to have little merit. Although opponents have pointed out the weaknesses and fallacies in some of these “chestnuts” over the many years of this debate, they continue to crop up. Let’s take a look at them.
Claim 1: Fluoride is “natural.” We are just topping up what is there anyway.
Natural does not necessarily mean good. Arsenic, like fluoride, leaches naturally from rocks into groundwater, but no one suggests topping that up. Besides, there is nothing “natural” about the fluoridating chemicals, as they are obtained largely from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The chemicals used in most fluoridation programs are either hexafluorosilicic acid or its sodium salt, and those silicon fluorides do not occur in nature. What is more, under international law they cannot be dumped into the sea, yet a dilution of about 180,000 to 1 is supposed to protect against all harm when the same chemicals are added to the domestic water supply. Yet the language used in a recent Q&A pamphlet from the Victoria (Australia) Department of Human Services is an effort to persuade citizens that the chemicals used in fluoridation are not hazardous waste products of the fertilizer industry.
Claim 2: Fluoridation is no different than adding iron, folic acid, or vitamin D to bread and other foodstuffs.
There is a world of difference:
1. Iron, folic acid, and vitamin D are known essential nutrients. Fluoride is not.
2. All of those substances have large margins of safety between their toxic levels and their beneficial levels. Fluoride does not.
3. People who do not want those supplements can seek out foods without them. It is much more difficult to avoid tap water.
Claim 3: The amount of fluoride added to the public water system, 1 ppm, is so small it couldn’t possibly hurt you.
Promoters use analogies such as 1 ppm is equivalent to one cent in $10,000 or one inch in sixteen miles to make it appear that we are dealing with insignifi cant quantities of fluoride. Such analogies are nonsensical without reference to the toxicity of the chemical in question. For example, 1 ppm is about a million times higher than the safe concentration to swallow of dioxin, and 100 times higher than the safe drinking water standard for arsenic; it is also up to 250 times higher than the level of fluoride in mother’s milk.
Claim 4: You would have to drink a whole bathtub of water to get a toxic dose of fluoride.
Here again, proponents are confusing a toxic dose with a lethal dose—that is, a dose causing illness or harmful effect as opposed to a dose causing death. Opponents of fluoridation are not suggesting that people are going to be killed outright from drinking fluoridated water, but we are suggesting that it may cause immediate health problems in those who are very sensitive and, with long-term exposure, persistent health problems in others.
Claim 5: Fluoridated water is only delivered to the tap. No one is forced to drink it.
Unfortunately, that is not a simple option, especially for families of low income who cannot afford bottled water or expensive fluoride filtration systems. Even those who can afford alternatives cannot easily protect themselves from the water they get outside the home. Fluoridated tap water is used in many processed foods and beverages (soda, beer, coffee, etc.).
Claim 6: Fluoridation is needed to protect children in low-income families.
Don’t miss a beat - get Truthout Daily Email Updates. Click here to sign up for free.
This is a powerful and emotional argument. However, it ignores the fact that poor nutrition is most prevalent in families of low income, and the people most vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects are those with a poor diet. Thus, while children from low-income families are a special target for this program, they are precisely the ones most likely to be harmed. Moreover, some of the many distressing newspaper accounts of children suffering from tooth decay are found in low-income areas located in cities that have been fluoridated for over thirty years. In fact numerous state oral health reports indicate the continued disparity in tooth decay between low-income and high-income families, even in states with a high percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water.
Claim 7: Fluoridation has been going on for over sixty years; if it caused any harm, we would know about it by now.
Such statements would start to be meaningful only if fluoridated countries had conducted comprehensive health studies of their fluoridated populations. Most have not. Only a few health studies have been performed in the United States, most many years ago; very few health studies have been performed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the UK; and none has been performed in Colombia, Ireland, Israel, or Singapore (all coun tries with more than 50 percent of the population drinking fluoridated water).
Claim 8: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fluoridation is one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century.
Most journalists, newspaper editors, and officials who quote this claim have little or no idea how poorly it is supported by the report that supposedly justifies the statement.
Claim 9: For every dollar spent on fluoridation, $38 is saved in dental costs.
This statement is taken from another report written by members of the Oral Health Division of the CDC. Two of its three authors, Susan Griffin and Scott Tomar, also wrote the report mentioned in Claim 11 above.
Griffin et al. inflated the benefits of fluoridation and ignored the costs of any side effects, including the one effect no one can deny, dental fluorosis. Cosmetic veneer treatment for fluorosis costs upward of $1,000 per tooth. The CDC authors also allowed a loss of earnings of $18 an hour for time off work to get a dental filling. Not all people lose pay when they get dental treatment, and certainly children don’t.
Claim 10: The majority of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water.
This statement is misused to put pressure on communities that do not fluoridate their water. They are led to believe that they are the odd ones out, behind the times, blocking progress. They are not. Only about 400 million people worldwide drink fluoridated water, and most of them live in North America. Globally, those who do are a distinct minority. Only eight countries have more than 50 percent of their population drinking fluoridated water; only 2 percent of the population of Europe drinks fluoridated water.
Claim 11: Every major dental and medical authority supports fluoridation.
Here we return to the dubious nature of endorsements not backed up by inde pendent and current reviews of the literature. Many of the major associations on the list frequently cited by the American Dental Association endorsed fluo ridation before a single trial had been completed and before the first health study had been published, in 1954.
Claim 12: When fluoridation is stopped, tooth decay rates go up.
There now have been at least four modern studies showing that when fluo ridation was halted in communities in East Germany, Finland, Cuba, and British Columbia (Canada), tooth decay rates did not go up.
Claim 13: Hundreds (or thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is effective.
On the contrary, the UK’s York Review was able to identify very few studies of even moderate quality, and the results were mixed.
Claim 14: Fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 20–60 percent.
The evidence found for fluoridation’s benefits is very weak. Even a 20 percent reduction in tooth decay is a figure rarely found in more recent studies. Moreover, we have to remember that percentages can give a very misleading picture. For example, if an average of two decayed tooth surfaces are found in a non-fluoridated group and one decayed surface in a fluoridated group, that would amount to an impressive 50 percent reduction. But when we consider the total of 128 surfaces on a complete set of teeth, the picture—which amounts to an absolute saving in tooth decay of a mere 0.8 percent—does not look so impressive.
Claim 15: Hundreds (or thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is safe.
When proponents are asked to produce just one study (a primary study, not a governmental review) that has convinced them that fluoridation is safe, they are seldom able to do so. Apparently, they have taken such assurances from others at face value, without reading the literature for themselves. The fact is, it is almost impossible to prove conclusively that a substance has no ill effects. A careful and properly controlled study may show that, under the conditions and limitations of the investigation, no harm is apparent. A hundred such studies may permit a considerable degree of confidence—but in the case of fluoridation, very few studies have even been attempted. As fluoride accumulates progressively in the skeleton and probably the pineal gland, studies need to extend over a lifetime. Meanwhile, fluoride at moderate to high doses can cause serious health problems, leav ing little or no margin of safety for people drinking fluoridated water.
Claim 16: Opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications.
Some opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications (of course); many do. Many highly qualified doctors, dentists, and scientists have opposed fluoridation in the past and do so today. Currently, over 3,000 indi viduals from medicine, dentistry, science, and other relevant professions are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. Furthermore, many opponents without professional qualifications have educated themselves on the science relevant to fluoridation and are qualified to evaluate many aspects of it.
Claim 17: Opponents of fluoridation get their information from the Internet.
No one denies that plenty of rubbish appears on the Internet. But just because a published study can be found using the Internet does not invalidate it. In fact, scientists now do much of their reading of the scientific literature online. The Fluoride Action Network maintains a Health Effects Database on its Web site, which provides citations, excerpts, abstracts, and in some cases complete pdf files of many published studies. Proponents would do well to read some of these papers, rather than trying to dismiss them because they are available online.
Claim 18: There is no evidence that fluoride at the levels used in fluoridation schemes causes any health problems.
There are three weaknesses to this argument. First, it does not make clear that fluoridating countries have done few basic health studies of populations drinking fluoridated water. Absence of studies does not mean absence of harm. Second, just because a study is conducted at a higher water fluoride level than 1 ppm does not mean that it is not relevant to water fluoridation. Toxicologists are nearly always extrapolating from high-dose animal experi ments to estimate safe doses for humans. In the case of fluoride, we have the luxury of a large number of human studies conducted in countries with moderate to high levels of exposure to naturally occurring fluoride. What is required here is a “margin-of-safety” analysis to see if there is a sufficient safety margin between the doses that cause harm and the doses likely to be experienced in fluoridated communities. In our view, there is not. And third, it is not true that there is no evidence of ill effects from fluoride at present levels of fluoridation.
Claim 19: There is no evidence that any individuals are particularly sensitive to fluoride’s toxic effects.
It would be far more accurate to state that governments practicing fluorida tion have shown no interest in testing scientifically the many anecdotal reports from citizens (along with case studies published by a number of authors) that they are sensitive to fluoride. Patients complain of a number of symptoms that disappear when the source of fluoride is removed and return when the source is reintroduced.
Claim 20: Dental fluorosis is only a “cosmetic” problem.
Dental fluorosis is the one condition caused by fluoride that proponents do not deny. However, they commonly claim that the condition is not a health effect but merely a cosmetic effect. Fluoridation opponents, on the other hand, maintain that dental fluorosis—the result of fluoride’s interference with the growing tooth cells—is the first visible evidence that fluoride has had an adverse systemic effect on the body, and they wonder what other developing tissues may have been affected while the tooth cells were being damaged. Of particular concern are the skeletal system, the brain, and the endocrine system, where damage could be happening without visible telltale signs. Proponents offer no evidence that other tissues have not been affected while dental fluo rosis is occurring.
Nor are cosmetic effects necessarily trivial. Moderate dental fluorosis, which involves discoloration of 100 percent of a tooth surface and affects over 1 percent of children living in fluoridated communities, is likely to cause psychological damage to teenagers and is very expensive to treat.
Of some pertinence are the CDC’s stated objectives of the fluoridation program: “Adjusted fluoridation is the conscious maintenance of the optimal fluoride concentration in the water supply for reducing dental caries and mini mizing the risk of dental fluorosis” [emphasis added]. Regardless of whether the CDC’s first objective has been met, with 32 percent of American children now affected by dental fluorosis, the second objective has clearly not been.
Claim 21: Skeletal fluorosis is very rare in fluoridated countries.
It is difficult for promoters of fluoridation to deny that high natural levels of fluoride have caused severe bone damage in millions of people in India, China, and several other countries. However, proponents insist that skeletal fluorosis is a rare occurrence in countries with artificial fluoridation like the United States. What they really mean by this is that the crippling phase (stage III) of this condition is rare in the United States; they fail to recognize that the earlier phases (stage I and stage II) are associated with pains in the joints and bones, symptoms identical to the early symptoms of arthritis, a condition that affects many millions of adults in the United States.The 2006 NRC review recommends that stage II skeletal fluorosis be considered an adverse effect: “The committee judges that stage II is also an adverse health effect, as it is associated with chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, slight calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones.” No fluoridating country has undertaken a study to see if there is a relationship between fluoridation and arthritis.
Claim 22: Opponents use “scare tactics.”
In reality, the potential that fluoride might be causing a number of harms (including osteosarcoma in young men; arthritis and hip fractures in the elderly; lowered IQ in children; and lowered thyroid function) in some of the 400 million people who are drinking fluoridated water daily is indeed worrying (see chapters 10–19). The risks for one individual may be small, but if millions of people drink fluoridated water, a small risk multiplies up to a lot of cases. If we suppose a risk of some harm to 1 in 1,000, that would mean 400,000 cases worldwide or 10,000 in a large city.
Summary
Proponents of fluoridation possess a wide repertoire of incorrect statements about the science and unfounded generalizations about those who disagree with them. We have reproduced and refuted some of the commoner ones in this chapter.
* * *
About the Authors:
Dr. Paul Connett is the Director of the Flouride Action Network (FAN), and the Executive Director of its parent body, the American Environmental Health Studies Project (AEHSP). He has spoken and given more than 2,000 presentations in forty-nine states and fifty-two countries on the issue of waste management. He holds a bachelors degree from the University of Cambridge and a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College and is a retired professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at St. Lawrence University. He lives in Canton, New York.
Dr. James S. Beck is a Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics at the University of Calgary and holds doctorates in medicine from Washington University School of Medicine and biophysics from the University of California, Berkeley. He lives in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
H. Spedding Micklem is a Professor Emeritus in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. He holds a D.Phil from the University of Oxford. He lives in Edinburgh, Scotland.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Ive heard that flouride
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 16:22 — howie bledsoe (not verified)Ive heard that flouride makes you stupid, but gives you a perfect smile. If youve ever been to the USA, you cannot deny that there must be a connection.
Does anyone else hear the
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 17:18 — Harry Thomas (not verified)Does anyone else hear the voice of General Jack D. Ripper after reading this article?
Are these three authors
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 17:35 — Anonymous (not verified)Are these three authors connected with the dental industry? What industry has funded them in the past, present? Would they reveal their affiliations? I am neither for nor against fluoridation of public water supplies but am very Leary of anyone coming up with public health remedies. With the advent of DICK/Bush mafia system, it is hard to distinguish between politics and science any more.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 17:43 — mysterioso (not verified)Correct me if I'm wrong. Studies stating that fluoride prevents tooth decay were done using a "topical" fluoride, not an ingested fluoride. Meaning putting a paste directly on the teeth and allowing it to set for a while. No study of ingested fluoride has proven to prevent tooth decay. The Soviets used fluoride in the gulags because they found that it made people complacent. Does anyone have more information on either of these points?
Interesting excerpt.
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 17:49 — Anonymous (not verified)Interesting excerpt. Unfortunately no EVIDENCE is given showing that fluoridation causes illness, in fact it does not even state any symptoms of fluoride toxicity.
Weak, very weak.
Howie - it does make you
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 18:00 — Anonymous (not verified)Howie - it does make you stupid. You spelled fluoride wrong and forgot the apostrophe in "you've".
None of the authors has
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 18:02 — Anonymous (not verified)None of the authors has medical qualifications.
Has anyone noticed the
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 18:12 — Anonymous (not verified)Has anyone noticed the correlation of fluoridation and the erosion of faucets and water pipes in the homes ? It has become evident to me just during the past several years of the water being fluoridated. The faucet in the bathtub is corroded and jagged. The other faucets have had to be replaced. This has occurred during the past ten years..as apposed to the over 10 years I lived in the home Before the water was fluoridated. No one can convince me that the water is safer because of the fluoride being added. Before that, we had a Private water company and there was no erosion. The problem occurred after being connected up to the City's fluoridated water supply.
Independent experts so often
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 18:14 — JadeQueen (not verified)Independent experts so often have credentials from offshore or live offshore. This is a pattern. U.S. people seem the last to get the downside of how industrial chemicals affect us over a long term.
Why assume the dental
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 18:18 — E. Lee Matthews (not verified)Why assume the dental industry would be against fluoridation, when the majority of dental care providers push fluoride treatments and tooth care with fluoride added to their patients? I happen to be highly allergic to fluoride, which makes it difficult for me to find a non-fluoridated drink anywhere. My reaction to fluoride is disgusting to view, though it might cause more people to stop and think about the forced use of the same.
As for the first commentary, it is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
...and "The Flintstones" is
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 18:32 — Phil C (not verified)...and "The Flintstones" is a documentary. Yeah! Uh-huh! ...and another thing...
It's a little disappointing,
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 19:34 — bogglesthemind (not verified)It's a little disappointing, or did I miss it, that the 'reason(s)' for a pro-floridation position are not given.
What is the scam behind water fluoridation, if there is one?
Even if I thought fluoride
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 19:42 — Tim M (not verified)Even if I thought fluoride was the greatest thing in the world for teeth - which I don't - I have to question putting it into the tap water.
How will flushing my toilet, or taking a shower or washing the clothes, dishes or my car help protect my teeth? To say nothing of filling the pool or watering the lawn.
If there is a more expensive and less effective method of delivering fluoride to teeth, I can't think of it.
You could have a chauffeur deliver tubes of the stuff to those who wanted it for a fraction of what is being spent to waste it.
I have never responded
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 20:43 — Dave Bohmer (not verified)I have never responded before, but this piece sounds like the McCartyites and Birchers claiming that fluoridation is a Communist conspiracy to take us over. This is perhaps the weakest piece I have read in the years I have subscribed to Truthout.
With trace elements there is
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 20:53 — John Of perth (not verified)With trace elements there is often a very fine line between adequate and toxicity. Selenium is one that to ensure adequate levels fish meal is used in some intensive livestock rations in the USA. Sure it depletes the sea of fish.
In Tasmania, my wife’s family (1940's - early 50's) uniformly had very bad teeth ie > 80% loss to nearly zero cavities for their children over about 15 - 20 years. Yet the anti fluoride groups have continued to this day.
There is plenty of data re the damage of high rates of fluoride, (just live next to a brick works, plenty goes up the smoke stack,) yet not too much published re any damage to the general population at a 1 ppm rate of use. Major changes in the population should have been present in places which have more than 60 – 70 years of exposure.
There seems to be a case for looking at the effects of several other trace elements and teeth, is of interest in parts of Australia as our trace element levels are so marginal.
Good work is needed as we know more about trace elements and livestock than in humans.
Of course we object to adding iodine to salt to prevent depressed lower mental abilities/even madness from Iodine deficiency, until confronted by the alternative.
I'm afraid TruthOut has been
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 21:23 — Don (not verified)I'm afraid TruthOut has been taken in and should know better than to publish this kind of pseudo-science trash! The fluoride "controversy" was pretty much settled many years ago. Beware of these types of SCARY stories about stuff that is supposedly bad for you.
As I scientist, I find this article typical of the conspiracy theory, we-know-the-real-truth-that-"they"-don't-want-you-to-know school of bogus huckersterism. After all, they're trying to sell you a book, right? Most all the "arguments" on each of the items listed are just generalized assertions and there are no specific references that you can actually check.
I wouldn't be surprised if the credentials are bogus, too.
Hello 1960 and the John
Wed, 12/01/2010 - 21:23 — Rick Levy (not verified)Hello 1960 and the John Birch Society. You forgot to mention that fluoridation is a communist conspiracy to poison our drinking water.
Ho hum, I've seen all this
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 00:20 — Bob (not verified)Ho hum, I've seen all this before on anti/pseudo science blogs. I trust that Truth-Out will solicit a certificated health professional or a spokesperson for the ADA to refute this quackery?
I cannot believe Truthout
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 02:05 — Anonymous (not verified)I cannot believe Truthout has stooped to tinfoil hat conspiracies. I grew up without fluoridated water and have a mouthful of fillings to show for it. Once I started drinking fluoridated water I stopped getting cavities. For all the unspecified maladies that this article hints at and yet does not identify, it does not disprove the very real and proven benefits of fluoridated water on dental health. Really people, do you think this is some communist/dentist conspiracy to get us to drink fluoridated water? Are you the same people who believe vaccines cause autism? Please unsubscribe me from this sensational newsletter.
For some reason I was under
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 02:44 — Anonymous (not verified)For some reason I was under the impression that Truthout was a serious enterprise. After reading this article it seems I need to reassess that impression. Thanks for the chuckles, safeguard your precious bodily essences.
Really? Pseudo-science? For
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 03:48 — Anonymous (not verified)Really? Pseudo-science? For "balance," can we have creationist articles?
Fluoride is one of the main
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 05:12 — Anonymous (not verified)Fluoride is one of the main ingredients in rat poisoning. Fluoride does the exact opposite of strengthening your teeth and preventing cavities--it weakens your teeth and CAUSES cavities(not to mention that it weakens the pineal gland...hmmnn). It has been proven to be hazardous to practically every part of your body, especially the brain and kidneys. Fluoride was introduced to drinking water originally for chemical warfare purposes.
Go to Paul Connett's site:
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 06:42 — Fluoride is a Neurotoxin- (not verified)Go to Paul Connett's site: www.fluoridealert.org
Paul Connett has a PH.D in Chemist, I"ll bet you can't say that about any dentist or doctor for that matter. They hate chemistry. They take 4 hrs of Nutritional Courses in Med school too. The Big Pharmaceutical companies sales rep.visit their offices once a week, tell them about a drug and then give them a prescription pad to make sure they write for it. Then the following month the come back after they have acquired the data from the local pharmacies to let the doctor know , hey buddy, I see you have only written a few prescriptions for the drug I told you about last month. Why is that, could get you to watch a video for a trip to the Bahamas or maybe season tickets to the baseball games?
Doctors go to school to study the anatomy of the body, and disease process. and in the USA disease is treated with Toxic Drugs with a LD-50 rating, that means it has to kill the rat.
The the doctor gets out of med school after his internship, and orders labwork, x-rays, and drugs. Aren't their titles , Practicing Medicines! Then if you have a disease your sent to specialist.
Or you go to a hospital, or a surgeon.
It takes 9 years to be able to write a prescription! The Drug reps rely the science behind the drug , then sell to the doctor to give to you.
Its the nurse who has to know all of the side effects, the adverse reaction and who reports it the doctor. The Pharmacist hands you the "print out" when you pick up the prescription, all the doctor has to do is give you the order and you go pick it up. And pay big for one to write it and one to fill it. LOL!
I do feel Paul Connett should be more scientific about the chemicals , not try to convince people to believe him without that knowledge. His site has thousands of facts and articles all endorsed by EPA workers and Doctors and Dentists who have discovered the truth, and refuse to use it in their practice now.
I am a nurse for 45 years, and I can tell you that Fluoride is a Industrial toxic Waste, not Sodium fluroide made from a rock. I have 3 diseases from it! I been mandated to drink it all my life living in Michigan , where it was first experimented with in 1945.
Check our your yearly Quality Water Reports and find the level of Fluroide in your water. One thing he did not point out is that right there on the water report , it says "F" ion, if your city addes it , then it will list it still as the F ion.
If your city doesn't add it will state, the level, and then to the far right, it says "from farm fertilizer runoff or from aluminum factory runoff. "
The Fluoride type or F ion that add to our water is now imported from China with arsenic and lead in it...and how they make it I have no idea, but they used to collect it from Fertilizer manufacturers, the phosphates powder , well it emits Fluorine gas, and our country used to emit tons of it in our environment, which was killing people, and cows in Florida. Also when they made the Atomic bombs in New Jersey, they would take ore and use an acid to extract the Uranium , and the byproduct was Fluorine gas, and those people were getting sick , lung problems bone problems and death.
So, some Nazi dentist came over here after the war in Germany, where Hitler and Stalin did experiment with toxic doses of fluoride on the people in and concentration camps, to keep them docile and well it causes brain damage , ever heard of a Chemical Frontal Lobotomy? That makes people zombies..that is how Prozac and Zoloft work on the brain too.....which is make of F again the F ion Flurextine.
YOU should know that any Neurotoxin as Fluoride in the natural or unnatural is toxic! They are all Bio-Accumulative, Endocrine Disruptors, is why F ion causes 59 million people in the USA with hypothyroidism. My thyroxine and Iodine levels are messed up from Fluroide. Ask my doctor!
So the CEO of the Atomic bomb makers in N.J, and the imported scientist and dentists from Germany got together and they said, we can't have these people suing us, and we know that if we add it to their drinking water, for the prevention of tooth decay, that will make them believe its safe, and we can stop the lawsuits.
So, that is who conspired against us , we are not conspiring against them.
We just know there is more science against it then for it. We know they really did not listen to the scientists that told them back then , that we know it will cause Osteoporosis and dental fluorosis, and Goiter (that is what they called it back then), so we in the AMA and the Scientists do not feel you should put this toxin in peoples tap water.
And of course they didnt' listen to them.
The EPA was not around until what the 1950's....maybe even later in our history.
So, they had no regulators for years long into their little experiment.
I will list the websites when I am done here, that you can verify my statements.
Our EPA director informed me about the Fluroide when I first started questioning it. I questioned him about the chemicals action on the human/animal body.
And why am I seeing as a nurse, and now myself was diagnosed with Osteoporosis/Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease/Hypothyroidism. Why are we seeing so many people with Osteoporosis, when maybe twenty years ago we never heard of it? He said, the hydrofluorisilicic acid your water department adds or any natural sodium fluoride also, will deposit in the bones as it is a bio-accumulative. and it is demineralizing your bones, which doctors call Osteoporosis, and the bone density test is fairly new way to diagnosis it, but they usually do not order the test until after age 65yr , then they can call it an Old age disease. But children are getting many more fractures as well, then they used to.
And then he said, the liquid acid is coming in from China now, and the F ion will attach to lead, or arsenic, or aluminum(lots of Aluminum in Baking Soda, Maalox, and other antiacids, its in our soil, or aluminum pans) and is causing holes in the brain and plaque, now called Alzheimers! The F-ion is the most negative ion on the planet, it is like a magnet to other toxins, and it attaches itself to and changes it molecularly. That is how it works when ingested, to prevent tooth decay, which I agree it does but their comes a time after the age of 7 years old and our teeth are no longer layering enamel on our permanent teeth, that stops around 7yrs of age. Therefore, we do not need to drink it any longer, all it will do is accumulate and deposit in our bones causing further or another health problem. Wouldn't you agree its common sense, why continue to drink a toxin especially a neurotoxin.
And most children stop having dental caries after the age of 15yrs old when they really care for their own dental hygiene much more frequently, to look good for their dates! ?And that is true whether they have drank fluoridated water or not. And remember that most people use fluoridated toothpaste as well.
NOw back to the chemistry of our teeth.
Calcium hydroxyappatite. is the natural chemical inside our teeth, that begin the enamel layering on the permanent teeth up under the gums, that then erupt as the 'baby teeth fall out". So, when fluoride ion is ingested, or when the Pediatrician gives your infant Polyfluor vitamins , or when your dentist wants to apply high dosed Fluroide Varnishes to the infants gums and to the child's teeth, every 3 months it will absorb into the tooth and into the second teeth and I am sure some gets absorbed systemicly through the buccal cavity, gums/capillaries and saliva as well.
So, then the permanent teeth the dentist or doctor doesn't see now, they are doing this blind. And then chemically what happens is this negative F ion attaches to the Calcium hydroxyappetite, and becomes
CalciumFluroide Hydroxyappeitite!
Now how bad the child will get Dental Fluorosis will be due to the amount of calcium and fluoride they are either getting from their water, F-varnishes, and Polyflur, and because it is in most of the cities throughout the USA, and manufacturers of food products for babies , use the city tap water for juices, baby formula, food etc.
If a calcium gets too much fluoride combining with their calcium, what will happen is they get Big Teeth, thick enamel, stained brown or white with indentions. It can be mild to severe.
And the outside of the tooth become more brittle and and tooth fractures can occur.
Now does anyone know what it costs to have a 'fractured tooth", I've had 4 in my lifetime. Root Canal/Porcelain crown $1800! And when a child's self esteem gets ruined because their teeth are stained and big, and not white, the dentists can't fix the teeth , by whitening them , no he has to veneer them, that cost about $1,000 a tooth, now days. I paid $1500 for 8 front teeth, in the 1980's I also paid to have my all of amalgam removed. I felt so much better getting that toxic Mercury out of my mouth....it took years to detox from that toxin.
I had my teeth fluoridated in the 2nd grade, and I had more tooth decay after they plastered my teeth with some kind of white paste in our school gym, then I ever did before. My entire mouth was filled with that plaster and I could hardly breathe. I am sure I got one heck of a dose of that Fluoride then. Too much, and who knows how many milligrams that was! The fluroide gels are 22,500ppm/mgs. 1ppm =1mg. and according to my EPA guy, they Fatal dose is 3ppm-5ppm !
A tube of toothpaste is 1000ppm to 2000ppm. That is why kids are not to swallow their toothpaste. It says right on the box, if your child swallows more than a pea size amt. =.25mg's call the Poison Control 800# !
It will eat the lining of our kids stomach up,how many kids complain of tummy aches , when their young? Its called GERD in adults, that is probably caused from drinking too much fluoridated water too....and of course its in 290 other food and drinks, e.g colas etc.
Pepsi filters their water 7 or 9 different ways, and the only way to filter out fluoride is by Reverse Osmosis, which they do.
So, how do the make hydrofluorilicic acid out of Flurine gas? They hydrate it and cool it and it goes from a ordorless, colorless gas to a yellow liquid acid.
If you take fluorine gas and light it , it will burn a hole in a steel wool pad instantly! Think what it would do if you breathed it. And the water department guys have to suit up with a mask as the Hazardous Chemical trunk pulls in to empty a load of that into the reservoir.
All of the products used by Dentists and what is put in our drinking water has never been approved by the FDA!
Also, the EPA does not endorse it because its a hazardous waste and toxic chemical , not used to treat the water but to prevent dental caries. They have told the AD to contact the National Institute of Health or the Hazardous Chemical Distributors , because they only endorse the treatment of water not humans.
They will monitor the machinery,the calibration, the daily recording of amt used, that injects a dose every so many gallons of water that passes by....but who knows if it really gets diluted properly. I don't think they do either. I know on several occasions me and my neighbors have had our eyes burn terribly during a shower and it was before the soap was used too!
And if your city, also, adds Chlorine, in a hot shower with Fluorine and Chlorine fumes, its called nerve gas!
So, not that the dentists endorse the water to be fluroidated, with this unapproved FDA toxin, the Anestheiologists, have changed from Nitrous Oxide gas, which the antidote is Oxygen....to administering Flurothane to put you in a coma so you don't feel the operation. I don't know if there is a antidote for that. Its not part of the natural air that we breathe. All, I know is I read the research on it , how it got through the back door of the FDA 5 yrs ago, to use it clinically on real humans.
I noticed there was a graft showing no side effects like nausea or confusion, with Nitrous Oxide, but lots of those problems with Flurothane. And when used on infants during surgery many died. But, of course that information is not publicized. Hush hush.........
You can see it for yourself on the FDA site.
OH, and why there is no publized or published negativity or diseases or stats on this water flurodiation and fluoride treatments the dentists give is because, they toss those out too....and I asked the Oral Health Department of Michigan, who heads up the Dental Varnish Bus ....
would she send me a Peer Review study please,on the results or adverse reactions that you may have seen having F Varnished the kids in Michigan for years now.
She said, well, I get them from Europe, I said why is that? She said well, its Illegal in the USA to do Clinical Studies on Children. I said So that is why ....and especially to do a clinical study on children with an unapproved toxic chemical by the FDA!
She said well its called "Reading the label, type drug". Oh so the City Hall has to read the label, which says its "Toxic Poison"? And the dentists or dental hygienist reads the label ?
She said they have to be certified in order to apply it. And trained to do it.
I said oh that's good.......
And so does the Dentists or Dental Hygienist disclose this to the parents?
She said they are suppose to read the brochure. I said does the Brochure tell you the drugs action and the side effects?
NO . Does the dentist sign off on liability for possibly causing Dental Fluorosis in that infant or child? NO.
"its safe if applied appropriately" I said does the dentist or dental hygienst tell the patient to swallow their toothpaste or their gels or varnishes to get a better systemic effect from this treatment?
She, said of course not! Never! I said so why do these dentists want us to swallow Fluoridated water then? No answer, end of conversation..........
Now if you go to the National Osteoporosis Foundation site , you will see the Numbers of People with that disease is growing, 100,000 people a year are being diagnosed with it. Also, 100,000 people a year are having to get Total Hip and Knee surgeries.
They expect by the year 2020 that there will be 41million people with Osteoporosis!
Now, due the illegal HF acid put into our water and on our teeth. The treatment for Osteoporosis, is Fosamax and others , but Fosamax is a bi-phosphate.
Guess what it is made from? You guessed it the white powder fertilizer!
So, when my doctor suggested I take it for the treatment of my Osteoporosis.
I said, no I can't afford it , its $35 a pill given once a week. I had given it to many nursing home patients, and they complained many times of stomach problems, so I would report it and the doctor would discontinue it.
I told my doctor I want to study it first.
So I got home and called a Ph.D in Pharmacy. He told me its a bi-phosphate, when you take it as instructed, with 8oz of water and you sit up afterwords because , with the water it creates a fluorsilicic acid slush in your stomach and if it backs up into your esophagus it will cause cancer! I said you got to be kidding me. So, that is why we had to roll the head of the bed up to insist they stay sitting up? He said yes, and those Fosamax pills range in doses from 10mg to 70mgs! And why you only gave it once a week is it is a toxic dose of the biphosphate . I said well its rat poison isn't it? He said well you know Coumadin, a blood thinner, is a rat poison too don't you. Its Arsenic. And that is why the doctor orders frequent lab tests, on clotting time etc.and liver enzymes so they don't, get too much or they will bleed out. That is how the rat is killed with it.
So, I said well what is the chemcial action of this drug Fosamax. He said, It accumulates in the bones, and it blocks the Osteoblasts, which are the cells that build bone and get rid of old bone, making the bones weaker inside, and then layers the calcium on the outside of the bone making it thicker but more brittle. I said ,well then that is how the fluoride works then too, that is the action of that toxin. He said well, I am glad you refused to take it, they really didn't do that many clinical studies on it and put it on the market.
I do know there have been many lawsuits concerning it because the peoples jawbones were breaking after being on it. He said, it really doesn't help prevent fractures that much in those with Osteoporosis. The studies showed that with the placebo or with the drug the placebo person had two breaks and the one who took the Fosamax had one break. so 50-50, chance and you risk getting cancer from it!!!!!
So, you who want information. Go ask your pharmacist for a "print-out" on Fosamax and Fluoride tablets. They'll give you one to read.
Your toothpaste box says
"Drug Ingredients: Stannous Fluoride....its has tin in it! that is what Stanouss stands for.
Now if you want to know what chemicals are considered Neurotoxins, that means its causes brain damage....go to
wwwcomprehensiveneurotoxinresearch.com
They are M.D's out of University of Minnisota. They have 400 clinics throughout the USA. They list many diseases caused from Neurotoxins, and they detox people of them . The list is on the first page, you have to scroll down to view the list of 1079 of them.!
Many of your medications will be listed there as well.
And so that is what Big Pharma uses mostly to treat disease with.
I prefer food form vitamins. Myself that is only thing that can get our chemistry back to normal. I don't want to add more toxins to my body.
Some medications are made from plants and flowers, like Foxglove is used to regulate the heart , that drug I am sure you have all heard of , Digitalis.
Or Poppy plants , the seeds are used to make heroin or morphine....
Preparation H if applied works good to shrink hemorrhoids, but I wouldn't want our water department adding it to our drinking water to see if worked better systemically!
And I don't like them putting toothpaste in our water either . To treat my teeth.
Especially since its toxic if swallowed!
And its totally unconstitutional to do such a thing......WE didn't give them consent to add that toxin to our water and its our water and we have to pay them so the manufacturers can dissipate our bodies as their Industrial toxic waste dump! And I don't think our City Managers have a license to Practice Medicine. Fluoride tablets have to be prescribed to take and they are the same dose that they put in our water!
google or youtube these sites if interested in the facts. It took me hours of study to find these .....and to come to my own conclusion. Being a nurse and having taken lots of chemistry courses, plus pharmacy classes.....Plus I do have some good Critical thinking skills also.
*The Chronology of Fluoridation by
Val Valerian 48 pages- read 1930-1944
*Comprehensive Neurotoxin Research-
look up Fluroide-MethyMercury in vaccines...
* Dr. A.K. Susheela studied it since 1974
* Dr. Osmundson D.D.S video's
* The Fluoride Deception-Dr. Paul Connett chair........former college chemistry professor.
* 1986 EPA Dr. Hirsy speaks to congress to Stop Water Fluoridation
Dr. BlayBlock
* Dr. Musinlix studies. you tube as well.
* Dr. Kathleen Theisen Ph.D.
*The Fluoride Action Network
* New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoride NYSCOF and on facebook
* No Fluoride Michigan -facebook
* The Public Health Grants for Fluoridation of Water. Money given by Pharmaceutical Companies, the Human Genome Sciences . with the request to study people for Infertility& more. But they never do a blood level or a teeth or bone biopsy to test for toxicity.
* Youtube the videos by the Colorado Ranch that had 8 horses and 4 dogs die after they had to drink fluoridated water for 3 years.
*google: Photos Flurosis =18K pictures of peoples teeth with mild to severe of Dental Flurosis.
* Photos of Skeletal Flurosis/ Osteoporosis
* the F ion also dissolves cartilage and the thin covering on our bones.
And to the guy that mentioned his pipes had to be replaced due to corrosion after getting water fluoridated.
Yes that is another expense our city is going through and probably many home owners as well
Fluorsilicic acid is highly corrosive to the water pipes.
Again we taxpayers and property owners have to pay for those pipes to be replaced.
Does the Dentists care?
No they insist that fluoride is preventing tooth decay in your kid ........
Wait til you have to pay for veneers!
If a dentist fluoridates 100 kids teeth a year....and 41% of them end up with Dental Flurosis, becasuse that is the percentage that will.....
41 X $1000 a tooth and we have 36 teeth. you do the math.
Also, the ADA said in one study they did that Fluoride is preventing Dental Caries in 18% of the child's teeth.
We have 36 teeth, so that would be two surfaces of two tooth! Is it worth it?
Also, young boy's,9yrs-11yrs, are getting Osteosarcoma, they have studied that and think it could be from too much fluoride...The parents of those kids wouldn't say it was worth it........
there is one parent on Youtube who was interviewed. his son died.......
There is alot of learn about this Fluoride chemical , and how it is used and all of the side effects of it....its very interesting to me....Years ago I knew it was bad but not this bad. I have learned so much about it.
As one of the authors of the
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 07:01 — Paul Connett, PhD (not verified)As one of the authors of the book from which this précis was taken, I must say how disappointed I am with some of the negative responses this discussion has generated. I’m afraid some people are so convinced that the people opposed to fluoridation are a bunch of crazies that they won't even read one sentence on this issue - no matter how rational that sentence might be - before they turn to ridicule and abuse.
In the negative comments above we see little reference to what is being said or argued in the text, instead we get references to Dr. Strangelove (twice); the John Birch Society (twice); Tinfoil conspiracies; McCarthyism; pseudo-science (twice); Flintstones (I am not sure whether that was a positive or negative comment!) and Quackery. In addition the credentials of the authors are challenged (but easily checked with one click of a button to the publisher’s page on the book). Incidentally my colleague James Beck holds an MD as well as a PhD.
These commentators are probably unaware that their pre-conceived attitudes on this issue has been part of a very successful effort over the past 50 or 60 years by the promoters of this practice to keep dentists, doctors and professionals away from the science on this issue. Their method has been to convince people of fluoridation’s so called “benefits and safety” using two tactics. First, by referring constantly to “endorsements” by government agencies and professional bodies rather than scientific studies (in our book we examine the feebleness of the science underpinning these endorsements) and second by denigrating opponents as a ‘bunch of crazies.” In other words their side has “authority” the other side has none. Case closed. There is no debate. No need to read the literature. “This issue was resolved years ago.”
In our book we have done our level best to focus on that science in a way that the average person can understand it. At the same time we have backed up our text with documentation (over 80 pages of references) for every argument we make so that any professional can check their factual basis. This is a very sober analysis, far removed from the extreme utterances of some of the commentators above.
Needless to say, if proponents play true to form, they will do their level best to keep people away from our book and thereby discourage them from reviewing the evidence for themselves. They will also try to intimidate any media outlet like Truthout for having the temerity to give our arguments space.
Heaven help this society if we cannot revisit a controversial issue in a rational and courteous manner; heaven help medicine if a medical practice, being imposed on over 180 million American daily, cannot be questioned and heaven help science if a “beautiful” theory can no longer be toppled by an ugly fact.
Paul Connett, PhD,
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry,
St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY
Director of the Fluoride Action Network.
PS I regret that in the précising of the chapter from our book a few typos have crept in. I hope these can be corrected.
Hey Prof. Connett, PhD, ABC,
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 08:14 — Anonymous (not verified)Hey Prof. Connett, PhD, ABC, WTFBBQ, maybe you should read the post above yours to see why it is hard to take you seriously?
[quote] These commentators are probably unaware that their pre-conceived attitudes on this issue has been part of a very successful effort over the past 50 or 60 years by the promoters of this practice to keep dentists, doctors and professionals away from the science on this issue. [/quote]
What was that you were saying about tinfoil conspiracies?
Maybe you actually think you are doing good, maybe you are just out to fleece the rubes, or maybe being an emeritus professor doesn't pay as well as it used too?
What are your views regarding Obama's birth certificate? How about vaccinations? I'm sure you're well aware that 9/11 was an inside job, right? Tell me about Jesus and the dinosaurs...
Dear Dr. Connett, Please
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 08:55 — Jonathan Bell (not verified)Dear Dr. Connett,
Please don't expect that the comment section following your article is a credible forum for discussion of the same. While Truthout is a very credible website and your article is very credible, the comments are open to the public which means anyone in the world can comment.
Opposing flouridation will attract wingnuts from out of the woods as well as industry operatives bent on disinformation. I am surprised that you would not be used to vociferous attacks by now.
American society has accepted tabloid journalism as science and the Bible as a text book suitable for science classes. Corporations have the rights of people and more power since they never die. We live in a Brave New World which is quite insane.
Thank you for your work.
I am by no means an
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 10:42 — Anonymous (not verified)I am by no means an extremist on either side of this issue. However, I did find the piece a bit weak. I understand it was heavily edited from the volume of work, but to use words like "many", "few", etc. in place of data does little to validate the author's position. It ends up reading like an amateur conspiracy theory. Sorry, but that's what happens when you "dumb down" science.
Have the 'professors'
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:14 — Bruce Gruber (not verified)Have the 'professors' managed to correlate the tavern compliment "Nice tooth!" with the successful anti-fluoridation campaign across much of rural America?
... the 113th Congress is apparently already underway and the House committees on government intrusion and socialist plots will be entertaining to watch.
Hey, perfessers, how about studying the chemical effects of tobacco growing chemicals and smoke and smokeless product additives in the same population base?
We should remain aware that
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:24 — Bruce Gruber (not verified)We should remain aware that in the areas of rural America where the Communist fluoridation plot was most effectively sold .. a common tavern compliment is "Nice tooth!"
Professors: Your skills and inquiries might be more effectively applied to the study of chemicals used in the cultivation and production of tobacco products and their resultant influences on the teeth, mouth, throat, lungs and heart of your fellow humans.
I would like to respond to
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 13:03 — Paul Connett, PhD (not verified)I would like to respond to this comment:
"I am by no means an extremist on either side of this issue. However, I did find the piece a bit weak. I understand it was heavily edited from the volume of work, but to use words like "many", "few", etc. in place of data does little to validate the author's position. It ends up reading like an amateur conspiracy theory. Sorry, but that's what happens when you "dumb down" science."
Dear anonymous did you actually read what we wrote and why we wrote it? We were responding to 21 (actually 40 in the original chapter) common arguments used by promoters of fluoridation. To how many of these 21 arguments do your comments apply? In which arguments did we "dumb down" science? Is it not possible that there is plenty of science in the chapters 10-19 we refer to? Which arguments sound like an "amateur conspiracy theory" to you? Please be specific.
Dr. Connett- Wile I applaud
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 13:20 — Laura Schleifer (not verified)Dr. Connett-
Wile I applaud your work on exposing the truth about fluoride, I am wondering why there is no mention here of who was in charge of implementing the fluoride-in-the-tap-water initiative in the first place, as I think that is an EXTREMELY important detail.
As it turns out, no dentist was behind the decision to fluoridate the drinking water supply. It was none other than propaganda guru Edward Bernays who was hired by the U.S. govt. to design and implement the fluoridation of tap water. For those not familiar with Bernays, he was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, who took his uncle's theories on the subconscious mind in the human psyche and applied them to advertising, marketing, and public relations. He is known as the Father of Modern Propaganda, and is the premiere figure behind social engineering efforts within the United States in the 20th century. For more info. on Edward Bernays, the excellent BBC documentary "The Century of the Self" is available on youtube.
In regards to his involvement in the addition of fluoride to the public water supply, there can be no misconceptions as to its true aim. As Bernays blatantly stated in a letter to his government contact in 1960, he was interested in working on the water fluoridation project as part of his, "overall efforts to manufacture consent."
For more info., please visit: http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/17/the_fluoride_deception_how_a_nuclear
This leaves little doubt (actually, in my opinion, NO doubt) as to why a toxic nuclear-waste byproduct has been intentionally put into our drinking water supply for the last 50-60 years.
All I know is my wife and I
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 13:45 — AnonymousDV (not verified)All I know is my wife and I come from a long line of people without all of their teeth. Our grown children, on the the other hand, not only have all their teeth but have only a few fillings. This situation is not at all uncommon. If I were a dentist I might be alarmed about that!
As a self-avowed Doubter, it
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 16:24 — Anonymous (not verified)As a self-avowed Doubter, it behooves me to question, question and question again anything that a self-proclaimed 'person of authority' tells me. That is because too many times they have been proven wrong, too late to rectify the damage done or to be held accountable. After decades of gaining knowledge from the School of Hard Knocks (of which I am a proud Graduate) I can safely say that most of what comes from these so-called Experts is complete nonsense. Listening to these Experts, as though they just came down off the Mount, is what has led the world to the door of destruction. It is time to practice that old-fashioned concept called Common Sense. Which clearly is not Common, anymore. Demand the end of Fluoridation of our water supply Now.
My family quit drinking tap
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 16:45 — Karen (not verified)My family quit drinking tap water years ago for various reasons. Neither of my children have any cavities as of their last dental appointment, which was six months ago. I have never been comfortable with flouride being added to my tap water. Haven't any of you ever wondered why you would need to call poison control if you swallow any more than just a small amount of your toothpaste. Read the side of your tooth paste tube. Thank you for this interesting article, I wish that more people would do research themselves rather than lambasting the author's of this article.
Please someone explain why
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 17:47 — Robert Corsini (not verified)Please someone explain why printed on every tube of flouride toothpaste is "WARNING KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN UNDER 6 YEARS OF AGE. If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical attention or help from a poison control center immediately."
There really is only one conclusion to be drawn from this... THE SHIT IS POISONOUS AND IT GOES INTO MY MOUTH EVERY DAY.
to all the challengers of
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 23:04 — Anon (not verified)to all the challengers of this article, i return the challenge. find me a scientific study of water fluoridation done in the past 20 years that was NOT sponsored by the dental industry OR the producers of fluoride products that validates the benefits of ingested fluoride.
i'm not interested in your peer reviewed journals. peers protect their own. it's human nature.
"communist/dentist
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 23:46 — Anonymous (not verified)"communist/dentist conspiracy". no douche bag, i think i was a corporate conspiracy...do at least a little bit of research before opening your trap next time. if these fertilizer companies were not selling the fluoride waste to water companies they would be required to go thru the trouble of disposing of it according to "toxic waste" protocols. you may as well unsubscribe, i'm pretty sure you were looking for fox news.
First, it was not my intent
Thu, 12/02/2010 - 23:50 — non-extremist response to Dr.Connett (not verified)First, it was not my intent to offend the author. I am both pleased that you are reading the comments and honored that you took the time to respond to me directly. I have provided a "few" ;-) examples below. I have capitalized key words and provided questions and comments in brackets. It isn't that I disagree with you and your co-writers, it's just that this piece likely doesn't do justice to your work. I am certain that taken as a whole, your book makes a compelling argument. My point is that extracted as it was for this publication, it is lacking substantive data. That is what I mean by "dumbing down". It is a digested version of scientific study for popular consumption. I have come to expect more from truthout.
"SOME of the MANY distressing newspaper accounts of children suffering from tooth decay are found in low-income areas located in cities that have been fluoridated for over thirty years. In fact NUMEROUS state oral health reports indicate the continued disparity in tooth decay between low-income and high-income families," [this is neither proof of lack of efficacy, nor a causal relationship. It is anecdotal at best. In fact, it begs the question as to whether the oral health of poor children would be worse in the absence of fluoridation. this would be an interesting and possibly illuminating study to pursue.]
"Only a FEW health studies have been performed in the United States, MOST many years ago; very FEW health studies have been performed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the UK" [This leads one to believe there are some recent US and other studies. Are they any good? If not, why?]
"MOST journalists, newspaper editors, and officials who quote this claim have little or no idea how poorly it is supported by the report that supposedly justifies the statement." [So there are some who are aware but quote anyway; purposely misleading readers? If so this would be VERY concerning? Or are there some journalists who have rigorously reviewed the studies and concluded it is beneficial? In the end, this statement appears gratuitous. ]
"When proponents are asked to produce just one study (a primary study, not a governmental review) that has convinced them that fluoridation is safe, they are SELDOM able to do so." [this appears to indicate there are in fact such primary studies, the proponents are just unable to cite them. Are there such primary studies? If so, what is your assessment of those studies?]
"it is almost impossible to prove conclusively that a substance has no ill effects." [Do you have conclusive proof that it IS harmful? If so that would be compelling.]
I hope my examples adequately respond to your request. Thanks again, Daniel
PS. my sister and I grew up drinking fluoridated water in Berkeley, CA and also took Fluoride tablets. I have fantastic teeth. My sister, not so much....She has spent $50,000+ in veneers. I don't believe fluoride played a role in either outcome. Too random. Also, the N is waaaay too small.
PPS. If fluoride did
Fri, 12/03/2010 - 00:25 — Daniel (not verified)PPS. If fluoride did adversely affect my sis' teeth, it didn't impact her physical development (competitive track and field) or her brain, unless being an MD, MPH is less than she otherwise might have attained.
I can't help but to reflect further on your assessment regarding the POSSIBLE ill effect on a small percentage of people. My pediatrician and dentist and those of my daughter, support the use of fluoride and confirmed their children drink only tap water to ensure consumption. Is this a situation where the benefit to the greatest number is worth the risk? You speculate on 1:1,000, is this based on data? there are those who avoid vaccines based on some possible risk to a very small number of people. However, we know that not vaccinating is definitely a serious health risk. pointing readers to peer reviewed, published research would be great. Thanks again, Daniel
My feeling about this is the
Fri, 12/03/2010 - 08:57 — john mag (not verified)My feeling about this is the same as the (vaccine debacle) If the morons who think it`s okay to ingest fluoride (and ridicule other`s for not doing so), to combat tooth decay want to do it, be my guest. You deserve the the consequences.
To anonymous 10:12,
Fri, 12/03/2010 - 12:16 — Anonymous (not verified)To anonymous 10:12, fluoride is not used in current commercial rat poison. It appears to have been used in some insecticides and possibly rat poison back in the 1920's and 30's. Of course, in higher doses, almost anything is poisonous (such as salt, aspirin, etc.). Some chemicals, such as selenium and chromium, are essential to health at very low levels but very poisonous at higher levels.
And by the way, why are all the authors retired? If most of their information is not really new, as it appears, then why did they wait until retirement to publish their expose? Why didn't they publish this as a review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Speaking of water, I'm
Fri, 12/03/2010 - 18:15 — AnonymousDV (not verified)Speaking of water, I'm surprised anyone would claim it was fluoridation that is causing them their maladies. The stuff tastes like crap everywhere I go except NYC.
This is from chapter 24 of
Sat, 12/04/2010 - 13:51 — Anonymous (not verified)This is from chapter 24 of the 25-chapter (380 page) book " The Case Against Fluoride" that I have in front of me. The comments of "a non-extremist response" and others who rightly identify weaknesses or omissions in the excerpt are mostly :) (maybe all) dealt with in detail in other chapters. There are several hundred citations of original scientific papers up to early 2010.
Anonymous 18:51, what is
Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:33 — Anonymous (not verified)Anonymous 18:51, what is from chapter 24? You say "this is from chapter 24," but don't provide anything...
Thanks for publishing this!
Mon, 12/06/2010 - 14:54 — Jane Nielson (not verified)Thanks for publishing this!
designer outlet
Mon, 02/13/2012 - 12:39 — Owekvern (not verified)get cheap designer outlet to take huge discount