1) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.
2) Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the US (See data from World Health Organization in Appendix 1, and the time trends presented graphically at http://www.fluoridealert.org/who-dmft.htm ). The reasons given by countries for not fluoridating are presented in Appendix 2.)
3) Fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface! There are 128 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth. This result was not shown to be statistically significant. In a review commissioned by the Ontario government, Dr. David Locker concluded:
“The magnitude of [fluoridation’s] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance” (Locker 1999). At our law firm, we specialize in helping our clients get back on track after an accident or traumatic injury. We care deeply about the people in the Miami community and we understand you shouldn’t be mad to confront hardship on your own. By calling our office, you will get a team of experts to champion your cause and get you the maximum compensation you deserve. You can check here the best personal injury attorney in miami.
4) Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).
5) There have been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US cities (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, New York City) which have been fluoridated for over 20 years. There appears to be a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and income level than with water fluoride levels.
6) Modern research (e.g. Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997, and De Liefde, 1998) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized. Many other factors influence tooth decay. Some recent studies have found that tooth decay actually increases as the fluoride concentration in the water increases (Olsson 1979; Retief 1979; Mann 1987, 1990; Steelink 1992; Teotia 1994; Grobleri 2001; Awadia 2002 and Ekanayake 2002).
7) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged the findings of many leading dental researchers, that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC. Thus, you don’t have to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. As the benefits of fluoride (if any exist) are topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense, for those who want to take the risks, to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, there is no reason to force people (against their will) to drink fluoride in their water supply. This position was recently shared by Dr. Douglas Carnall, the associate editor of the British Medical Journal. His editorial appears in Appendix 3.
8) Despite being prescribed by doctors for over 50 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective. Fluoride supplements are designed to deliver the same amount of fluoride as ingested daily from fluoridated water (Kelly 2000).
9) The US fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e. to lower dental decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis (mottled and discolored enamel), a condition known to be caused by fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its mildest form) to 10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). A major US survey has found 30% of children in optimally fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis on at least two teeth (Heller 1997), while smaller studies have found up to 80% of children impacted (Williams 1990; Lalumandier 1995 and Morgan 1998). The York Review estimates that up to 48% of children in optimally fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms and 12.5% with symptoms of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000).
10) Dental fluorosis means that a child has been overdosed on fluoride. While the mechanism by which the enamel is damaged is not definitively known, it appears fluorosis may be a result of either inhibited enzymes in the growing teeth (Dan Besten 1999), or through fluoride’s interference with G-protein signaling mechanisms (Matsuo 1996). In a study in Mexico, Alarcon-Herrera (2001) has shown a linear correlation between the severity of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures in children.
11) The level of fluoride put into water (1 ppm) is up to 200 times higher than normally found in mothers’ milk (0.005 – 0.01 ppm) (Ekstrand 1981; Institute of Medicine 1997). There are no benefits, only risks, for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (this is an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).
12) Fluoride is a cumulative poison. On average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm.
13) Fluoride is very biologically active even at low concentrations. It interferes with hydrogen bonding (Emsley 1981) and inhibits numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978).
14) When complexed with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with many hormonal and some neurochemical signals (Strunecka & Patocka 1999, Li 2003).
15) Fluoride has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in a variety of cell and tissue studies (Tsutsui 1984; Caspary 1987; Kishi 1993 and Mihashi 1996). Recent studies have also found a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans (Sheth 1994; Wu 1995; Meng 1997 and Joseph 2000).
16) Fluoride forms complexes with a large number of metal ions, which include metals which are needed in the body (like calcium and magnesium) and metals (like lead and aluminum) which are toxic to the body. This can cause a variety of problems. For example, fluoride interferes with enzymes where magnesium is an important co-factor, and it can help facilitate the uptake of aluminum and lead into tissues where these metals wouldn’t otherwise go (Mahaffey 1976; Allain 1996; Varner 1998).
17) Rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water, using either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the formation of beta amyloid deposits which are characteristic of Alzheimers disease (Varner 1998).
18) Aluminum fluoride was recently nominated by the Environmental Protection Agency and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for testing by the National Toxicology Program. According to EPA and NIEHS, aluminum fluoride currently has a “high health research priority” due to its “known neurotoxicity” (BNA, 2000). If fluoride is added to water which contains aluminum, than aluminum fluoride complexes will form.
19) Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and exposure alters mental behavior in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent (Mullenix 1995). Rats dosed prenatally demonstrated hyperactive behavior. Those dosed postnatally demonstrated hypoactivity (i.e. under activity or “couch potato” syndrome). More recent animal experiments have reported that fluoride can damage the brain (Wang 1997; Guan 1998; Varner 1998; Zhao 1998; Zhang 1999; Lu 2000; Shao 2000; Sun 2000; Bhatnagar 2002; Chen 2002, 2003; Long 2002; Shivarajashankara 2002a, b; Shashi 2003 and Zhai 2003) and impact learning and behavior (Paul 1998; Zhang 1999, 2001; Sun 2000; Ekambaram 2001; Bhatnagar 2002).
20) Five studies from China show a lowering of IQ in children associated with fluoride exposure (Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Li 1995; Zhao 1996; Lu 2000; and Xiang 2003a, b). One of these studies (Lin Fa-Fu 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g. 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency.
21) Studies by Jennifer Luke (2001) showed that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland to very high levels. In her Ph.D. thesis Luke has also shown in animal studies that fluoride reduces melatonin production and leads to an earlier onset of puberty (Luke 1997).
22) In the first half of the 20th century, fluoride was prescribed by a number of European doctors to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from hyperthyroidism (over active thyroid) (Stecher 1960; Waldbott 1978). With water fluoridation, we are forcing people to drink a thyroid-depressing medication which could, in turn, serve to promote higher levels of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) in the population, and all the subsequent problems related to this disorder. Such problems include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease.
It bears noting that according to the Department of Health and Human Services (1991) fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities is estimated to range from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day, which is a range that actually overlaps the dose (2.3 – 4.5 mg/day) shown to decrease the functioning of the human thyroid (Galletti & Joyet 1958). This is a remarkable fact, particularly considering the rampant and increasing problem of hypothyroidism in the United States (in 1999, the second most prescribed drug of the year was Synthroid, which is a hormone replacement drug used to treat an underactive thyroid). In Russia, Bachinskii (1985) found a lowering of thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people, at 2.3 ppm fluoride in water.
23) Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa , mimic the symptoms of arthritis (Singh 1963; Franke 1975; Teotia 1976; Carnow 1981; Czerwinski 1988; DHHS 1991). According to a review on fluoridation by Chemical & Engineering News, “Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed” (Hileman 1988). Few if any studies have been done to determine the extent of this misdiagnosis, and whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America (1 in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis – CDC, 2002) is related to our growing fluoride exposure, which is highly plausible. The causes of most forms of arthritis (e.g. osteoarthritis) are unknown.
24) In some studies, when high doses of fluoride (average 26 mg per day) were used in trials to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a HIGHER number of fractures, particularly hip fractures (Inkovaara 1975; Gerster 1983; Dambacher 1986; O’Duffy 1986; Hedlund 1989; Bayley 1990; Gutteridge 1990. 2002; Orcel 1990; Riggs 1990 and Schnitzler 1990). The cumulative doses used in these trials are exceeded by the lifetime cumulative doses being experienced by many people living in fluoridated communities.
25) Nineteen studies (three unpublished, including one abstract) since 1990 have examined the possible relationship of fluoride in water and hip fracture among the elderly. Eleven of these studies found an association, eight did not. One study found a dose-related increase in hip fracture as the concentration of fluoride rose from 1 ppm to 8 ppm (Li 2001). Hip fracture is a very serious issue for the elderly, as a quarter of those who have a hip fracture die within a year of the operation, while 50 percent never regain an independent existence (All 19 of these studies are referenced as a group in the reference section).
26) The only government-sanctioned animal study to investigate if fluoride causes cancer, found a dose-dependent increase in cancer in the target organ (bone) of the fluoride-treated (male) rats (NTP 1990). The initial review of this study also reported an increase in liver and oral cancers, however, all non-bone cancers were later downgraded – with a questionable rationale – by a government-review panel (Marcus 1990). In light of the importance of this study, EPA Professional Headquarters Union has requested that Congress establish an independent review to examine the study’s results (Hirzy 2000).
27) A review of national cancer data in the US by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) revealed a significantly higher rate of bone cancer in young men in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas (Hoover 1991). While the NCI concluded that fluoridation was not the cause, no explanation was provided to explain the higher rates in the fluoridated areas. A smaller study from New Jersey (Cohn 1992) found bone cancer rates to be up to 6 times higher in young men living in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas. Other epidemiological studies have failed to find this relationship (Mahoney 1991; Freni 1992).
28) Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system – it damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility in a number of different species (Kour 1980; Chinoy 1989; Chinoy 1991; Susheela 1991; Chinoy 1994; Kumar 1994; Narayana 1994a, b; Zhao 1995; Elbetieha 2000; Ghosh 2002 and Zakrzewska 2002). While studies conducted at the FDA have failed to find reproductive effects in rats (Sprando 1996, 1997, 1998), an epidemiological study from the US has found increased rates of infertility among couples living in areas with 3 or more ppm fluoride in the water (Freni 1994), and 2 studies have found a reduced level of circulating testosterone in males living in high fluoride areas (Susheela 1996 and Barot 1998).
29) The fluoridation program has been very poorly monitored. There has never been a comprehensive analysis of the fluoride levels in the bones, blood, or urine of the American people or the citizens of other fluoridated countries. Based on the sparse data that has become available, however, it is increasingly evident that some people in the population – particularly people with kidney disease – are accumulating fluoride levels that have been associated with harm to both animals and humans, particularly harm to bone (see Connett 2004).
30) Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives. This is because 1) some people (e.g. manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink more water than others, and 2) we receive fluoride from sources other than the water supply. Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with fluoridated water (Kiritsy 1996 and Heilman 1999), fluoridated dental products (Bentley 1999 and Levy 1999), mechanically deboned meat (Fein 2001), teas (Levy 1999), and pesticide residues on food (Stannard 1991 and Burgstahler 1997).
31) Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are not being asked for their informed consent prior to medication. This is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of western Europe has ruled against fluoridation (see appendix 2).
As one doctor aptly stated, “No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.’ It is a preposterous notion.”
32) While referenda are preferential to imposed policies from central government, it still leaves the problem of individual rights versus majority rule. Put another way — does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it’s against that neighbor’s will)?
33) Some individuals appear to be highly sensitive to fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind studies (Shea 1967, Waldbott 1978 and Moolenburg 1987). In one study, which lasted 13 years, Feltman and Kosel (1961) showed that about 1% of patients given 1 mg of fluoride each day developed negative reactions. Can we as a society force these people to ingest fluoride?
34) According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1993), and other researchers (Juncos & Donadio 1972; Marier & Rose 1977 and Johnson 1979), certain subsets of the population may be particularly vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects; these include: the elderly, diabetics and people with poor kidney function. Again, can we in good conscience force these people to ingest fluoride on a daily basis for their entire lives?
35) Also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition (e.g. calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodide deficiencies and protein poor diets) (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Chen 1997; Teotia 1998). Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition are the poor, who are precisely the people being targeted by new fluoridation programs. While being at heightened risk, poor families are less able to afford avoidance measures (e.g. bottled water or removal equipment).
36) Since dental decay is most concentrated in poor communities, we should be spending our efforts trying to increase the access to dental care for poor families. The real “Oral Health Crisis” that exists today in the United States, is not a lack of fluoride but poverty and lack of dental insurance. The Surgeon General has estimated that 80% of dentists in the US do not treat children on Medicaid.
37) Fluoridation has been found to be ineffective at preventing one of the most serious oral health problems facing poor children, namely, baby bottle tooth decay, otherwise known as early childhood caries (Barnes 1992 and Shiboski 2003).
38) The early studies conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, which helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960 and 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials “are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.” In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could give no fluoridation trial a grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000, see Appendix 3 for commentary).
39) The US Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed (McClure 1970)!
40) Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little to prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, a fact that even the dental community has acknowledged (Seholle 1984; Gray 1987; PHS 1993; and Pinkham 1999). This is significant because pit and fissure tooth decay represents up to 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children today (Seholle 1984 and Gray 1987).
41) Despite the fact that we are exposed to far more fluoride today than we were in 1945 (when fluoridation began), the “optimal” fluoridation level is still 1 part per million, the same level deemed optimal in 1945! (Marier & Rose 1977; Levy 1999; Rozier 1999 and Fomon 2000).
42) The chemicals used to fluoridate water in the US are not pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they come from the wet scrubbing systems of the superphosphate fertilizer industry. These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities. Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these chemicals are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000).
43) These hazardous wastes have not been tested comprehensively. The chemical usually tested in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. The assumption being made is that by the time this waste product has been diluted, all the fluorosilicic acid will have been converted into free fluoride ion, and the other toxics and radioactive isotopes will be so dilute that they will not cause any harm, even with lifetime exposure. These assumptions have not been examined carefully by scientists, independent of the fluoridation program.
44) Studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children’s blood. Because of lead’s acknowledged ability to damage the child’s developing brain, this is a very serious finding yet it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries.
45) Sodium fluoride is an extremely toxic substance — just 200 mg of fluoride ion is enough to kill a young child, and just 3-5 grams (e.g. a teaspoon) is enough to kill an adult. Both children (swallowing tablets/gels) and adults (accidents involving fluoridation equipment and filters on dialysis machines) have died from excess exposure.
46) Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation (see appendix 4).
47) The recent Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Dr. Arvid Carlsson (2000), was one of the leading opponents of fluoridation in Sweden, and part of the panel that recommended that the Swedish government reject the practice, which they did in 1971. According to Carlsson:
“I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history…Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication – of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day – to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy” (Carlsson 1978).
48) While pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they cannot defend the practice in open public debate – even when challenged to do so by organizations such as the Association for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Toxicology, or the US Environmental Protection Agency (Bryson 2004). According to Dr. Michael Easley, a prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, “Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics’ view” (See appendix 5).
In light of proponents’ refusal to debate this issue, Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, observed that “the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues” (Martin 1991).
49) Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991). Most recently, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain; and Dr. William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoride-cancer study (Bryson 2004). Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific ground.
50) The Union representing the scientists at US EPA headquarters in Washington DC is now on record as opposing water fluoridation (Hirzy 1999). According to the Union’s Senior Vice President, Dr. William Hirzy:
“In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small – if there are any at all – that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments.”
When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, invested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a fifty year delay. Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science not political expediency. They have a tool with which to do this: it’s called the Precautionary Principle. Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children’s teeth have not suffered, while their public’s trust has been strengthened.
It is like a question from a Kafka play. Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child’s mouth?
For those who would call for further studies, I say fine. Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want. This folly must end without further delay.
Further arguments against fluoridation, can be viewed at http://www.fluoridealert.org. Arguments for fluoridation can be found at http://www.ada.org and a more systematic presentation of fluoride’s toxic effects can be found at http://www.Slweb.org/bibliography.html
I would like to acknowledge the help given to me in the research for this statement to my son Michael Connett and to Naomi Flack for the proofreading of the text. Any remaining mistakes are my own.
APPENDIX 1. World Health Organization Data
DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) Status for 12 year olds by Country
DMFTs Year Status*
Australia 0.8 1998 More than 50% of water is fluoridated
Zurich, Switzerland 0.84 1998 Water is unfluoridated, but salt is fluoridated
Netherlands 0.9 1992-93 No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
Sweden 0.9 1999 No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
Denmark 0.9 2001 No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
UK (England & Wales) 0.9 1996-97 11% of water supplies are fluoridated
Ireland 1.1 1997 More than 50% of water is fluoridated
Finland 1.1 1997 No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
Germany 1.2 2000 No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common
US 1.4 1988-91 More than 50% of water is fluoridated
Norway 1.5 1998 No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
Iceland 1.5 1996 No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
New Zealand 1.5 1993 More than 50% of water is fluoridated
Belgium 1.6 1998 No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common
Austria 1.7 1997 No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common
France 1.9 1998 No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common
Data from WHO Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme Department of Noncommunicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro.html
APPENDIX 2. Statements on fluoridation by governmental officials from several countries
Germany: “Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.” (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/germany.jpeg
France: “Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.” (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/france.jpeg
Belgium: “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-belgium.htm
Luxembourg: “Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs.” (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L’Environment, May 3, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/luxembourg.jpeg
Finland: “We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-finland.htm
“Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual’s right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of “force-feeding” was also mentioned.
Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water.” (Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.) www.fluoridealert.org/finland.jpeg
Denmark: “We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.” (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999). www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark.htm
Norway: “In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated.” (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-norway.htm
Sweden: “Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden…New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown.” (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket — National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm
Netherlands: “From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn.” (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm
Northern Ireland: “The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland.” (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/Northern-Ireland.jpeg
Austria: “Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.” (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm
Czech Republic:”Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered as follows:
(a) uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)
(b) unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)
(c) unethical (“forced medication”)
(d) toxicologically and phyiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor.” (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/czech.jpeg
APPENDIX 3. Statement of Douglas Carnall, Associate Editor of the British Medical Journal, published on the BMJ website (http://www.bmj.com ) on the day that they published the York Review on Fluoridation.
See this review on the web at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/904/a
British Medical Journal, October 7, 2000, Reviews, Website of the week: Water fluoridation
Fluoridation was a controversial topic even before Kubrick’s Base Commander Ripper railed against “the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids” in the 1964 film Dr Strangelove. This week’s BMJ shouldn’t precipitate a global holocaust, but it does seem that Base Commander Ripper may have had a point. The systematic review published this week (p 855) shows that much of the evidence for fluoridation was derived from low quality studies, that its benefits may have been overstated, and that the risk to benefit ratio for the development of the commonest side effect (dental fluorosis, or mottling of the teeth) is rather high.
Supplementary materials are available on the BMJ ‘s website and on that of the review’s authors, enhancing the validity of the conclusions through transparency of process. For example, the “frequently asked questions” page of the site explains who comprised the advisory panel and how they were chosen (“balanced to include those for and against, as well as those who are neutral”), and the site includes the minutes of their meetings. You can also pick up all 279 references in Word97 format, and tables of data in PDF. Such transparency is admirable and can only encourage rationality of debate.
Professionals who propose compulsory preventive measures for a whole population have a different weight of responsibility on their shoulders than those who respond to the requests of individuals for help. Previously neutral on the issue, I am now persuaded by the arguments that those who wish to take fluoride (like me) had better get it from toothpaste rather than the water supply (see www.derweb.co.uk/bfs/index.html and www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/index.html for the two viewpoints).
British Medical Journal
APPENDIX 4. List of 14 Noble Prize winners who have opposed or expressed reservations about fluoridation.
1) Adolf Butenandt (Chemistry, 1939)
2) Arvid Carlsson (Medicine, 2000)
3) Hans von Euler-Chelpin (Chemistry, 1929).
4) Walter Rudolf Hess (Medicine, 1949)
5) Corneille Jean-François Heymans (Medicine, 1938)
6) Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood (Chemistry, 1956)
7) Joshua Lederberg (Medicine, 1958)
8) William P. Murphy (Medicine, 1934)
8) Giulio Natta (1963 Nobel Prize in Chemistry)
10) Sir Robert Robinson (Chemistry, 1947)
11) Nikolai Semenov (Chemistry, 1956)
12) James B. Sumner (Chemistry, 1946)
13) Hugo Theorell (Medicine, 1955)
14) Artturi Virtanen (Chemistry, 1945)
APPENDIX 5. Quotes on debating fluoridation from Dr. Michael Easley, Director of the National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research, and one of the most active proponents of fluoridation in the US (Easley 1999). Easley’s quotes typify the historic contempt that proponents have had to scientific debate.
“A favorite tactic of the fluorophobics is to argue for a debate so that ‘the people can decide who is right.’ Proponents of fluoride are often trapped into consenting to public debates.”
“Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics’ view.”
“Like parasites, opponents steal undeserved credibility just by sharing the stage with respected scientists who are there to defend fluoridation”; and,
“Unfortunately, a most flagrant abuse of the public trust occasionally occurs when a physician or a dentist, for whatever personal reason, uses their professional standing in the community to argue against fluoridation, a clear violation of professional ethics, the principles of science and community standards of practice.”
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 any element and also is the most reactive electro-negative ion. Because of this extreme reactivity, fluorine isn’t 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.
Fluoride Deception part 1—————————————–Fluoride Poisoning
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 posing the most significant threat to human health. 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). Consequently, under the provisions of the Superfund Act (1986), a compilation of information about fluorides, hydrogen fluoride and fluorine and their effects on health was required. This publication appeared in 1993.
Fluorides are cumulative toxins. The fact that fluorides accumulate in the body is the reason that U.S. 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 for the purpose of avoiding a condition known as Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis (CSF), a disease that progresses 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 was assumed that people retain half of this amount (2mg), and therefore 4mg per liter is considered “safe.” However, a daily dose of 2-8 mg is known to cause the third crippling stage of CSF.
In 1998 EPA scientists, whose job and legal duty it is to set the Maximum Contaminant Level, declared that this 4ppm level was fraudulently set by outside forces in a decision omitting 90 percent of the data showing the mutagenic properties of fluoride. 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.
It is total fluoride intake from all sources which must be considered for any adverse health effect evaluation, including 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.”
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. Every year 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 as fog, rain, dew, or snow. In clouds and moist air it will travel in air currents until it is deposited as 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 concensus, 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. Soy infant formula is high in both fluoride and aluminum, far surpassing the “optimal” dose—even when de-fluoridated water is used in preparation—and has been shown to be a significant risk factor in dental fluorosis.
Forms of Fluoride
There are five forms of fluoride that are often discussed and sometimes get confused. First, there is elemental fluorine, which is a gas and the most reactive element in the periodic table. It reacts with every other element except three of the noble gases. It even reacts with asbestos. Free fluorine is not produced in nature. Fluorine is not put in our drinking water! Fluorine is found in the form of hydrogen fluoride, another gas. It etches glass. It dissolves in water to form a weak acid. It is a pollutant emitted by metal smelters, the oil industry, ceramic and brick industries, coal fired power stations, incinerators, and a number of other industries. It’s responsible for many deaths in air pollution incidents.
Then there is the fluoride ion. The fluoride ion cannot be placed in a bottle by itself. It is a negative ion; it must be accompanied by positive ions. Negative ions are formed when metals react with non-metals (fluorine is a non-metal). When this happens, the metal transfers one or more of its electrons (negative particles) to the non-metal. The result is a positively charged metal ion and a negatively charged ion. In the solid form, these positive ions and negative ions appear in a tidy three-dimensional arrangement. This internal arrangement gives rise to the crystalline shape of these substances. For example, table salt (sodium chloride) has crystals in the shape of a cube. When these substances (salts) are dissolved in water the positive ions and negative ions separate.
Sodium chloride is very soluble in water; calcium fluoride is far less soluble. Ten percent of the water fluoridated in the U.S. is fluoridated with sodium fluoride. Complex ions are positive metal ions that are surrounded by negative ions or neutral molecules that have a stronger bonding than simply electrostatic attraction. Thus they have different properties from the parent ions. Thus, AlF4- has different properties from the parent Al3+ ion and the F- ions. It is this ability of the fluoride ion to form complexes with so many ions—including a lot of toxic ones, and others that are needed by the body—which might help to explain why this unreactive species (in the chemical sense) can be so biologically active and dangerous. Another form of fluoride that we meet is hexafluoro silicic acid (H2SiF6) and its sodium salt sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6).
These substances are used to fluoridate 90% of the fluoridated water in the U.S. They are waste products from the superphosphate industry. Pro-fluoridation people claim that when these substances are diluted and dissolved in water, they completely dissolve into SiO2 and fluoride ion. This is disputed, as there are still some silicon fluoride complexes left when the water reaches our taps. These complexes facilitate the uptake of lead into the blood. Over 50% of the communities in the United States use fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate to fluoridate drinking water. Neither the EPA nor the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can provide one safety study proving the product is safe for long-term, low-level consumption. Not one clinical study with animal models has ever been done with the products. Interestingly, all the people who say this product is “safe” have no concept of how it is produced.
The last form of fluoride that we meet is the organofluoride group. These are compounds which have fluorine covalently bonded to carbon atoms. One of the organofluorines, which you have probably handled, is the plastic PTFE. This is poly tetra fluoro ethylene, used in non-stick frying pans. It consists of long chains of carbon attached to itself with two fluorines attached to each carbon. It is very stable and resistant to chemical attack. Fluorine is frequently added to pharmaceuticals. These drugs, when they are metabolized, break down in the body and produce fluoride ion. The net result is that these drugs carry fluoride into very sensitive places, like the brain, where it can cause problems. Little investigation has been done on this aspect of organofluorines.
There are other organofluorines that are very toxic in their own right–the toxicity has nothing to do with the fluoride ion itself; or the formation of the fluoride ion. Substances like fluorocitrate are very toxic because they bind to an enzyme involved in sugar metabolism, and they don’t let go–they block it–they prevent it from handling the citrate, and it usually changes into something else. This rather unreactive chemical species called fluoride ions can interfere with biological systems in three profound ways: a) by forming hydrogen bonds with key groups in proteins and nucleic acids, b) can complex with metal ions like aluminum, beryllium, lead and carbon) can interfere with enzymes that use magnesium ions as a co-factor. For many enzymes, magnesium helps to align the enzyme with the substrate it is working on, and fluoride can interfere with this alignment.
Unlike calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride is retained in great amounts in the body and is very toxic. Rock phosphate and hydro-fluorosilicic acid experiments yield 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 new ”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”, such as in Sosnivka, Ukraine.
We’re swallowing more fluoride each day with every glass of water. Since 1945, when fluoride was first put into the municipal water system in Newburgh, New York, 75% of the United States water supply has been fluoridated. Other countries are taking a suspicious look at fluoride. Sweden abandoned fluoridation on the recommendation of a special fluoride commission. Denmark, Holland, Finland, France, Germany and Japan have also rejected it, citing public health concerns. Plans to make fluoridation mandatory in Britain were suspended in 1998 after the British Home Secretary intervened and urged the Health Secretary to review the negative evidence. “Disreputable and power-hungry persons in high places have been know to experiment with fluoride to see if it could not be used to subjugate the people of a whole community more quickly than fighting them into submission,” according to William Guy Carr, a retired commander from the Royal Canadian Navy.
Controversial fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride). Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from the manufacture of aluminum and phosphate fertilizer, is a common ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas. Historically it has been quite expensive to properly dispose of, until some aluminum industries with an overabundance of the stuff sold the public on the terrifically insane but highly profitable idea of buying it at a 20,000% markup, injecting it into our water supplies, and then DRINKING it. Yes, a 20,000% markup: Fluoride–intended only for human consumption by people under 14 years of age–is injected into our drinking water supply at approx. 1 part-per-million (ppm), but since we only drink 1/2 of one percent of the total water supply, the rest literally goes down the drain as a free hazardous-waste disposal for the chemical industry, where we PAY them so that we can flush their expensive hazardous waste down our toilets.
Independent scientific evidence repeatedly showing up over the past 50 years reveals that fluoride allegedly shortens our life span, promotes cancer and various mental disturbances, accelerates osteoporosis and broken hips in old folks, and makes us stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one package. There are reports of aluminum in the brain possibly being a causative factor in Alzheimer`s Disease, and evidence points towards fluoride`s strong affinity for aluminum and also its ability to “trick” the blood-brain barrier by looking like the hydrogen ion, and thus allowing chemical access to brain tissue.
There are reportedly more than 11 million Americans with diabetes. Since many diabetics drink more liquids than other people, then according to the Physicians Desk Reference these 11 million Americans probably shouldn’t drink fluoridated water, because in doing so, they’ll receive an excessive dose of fluoride. Kidney disease, by definition, lowers the efficiency of the kidneys, which is your main route of fluoride elimination. So those people with kidney disease also shouldn’t drink fluoridated water. Cases are on record (Annapolis, Maryland, 1979) where kidney patients on dialysis machines died, due to a fluoride overdose in the city water supply.
The truth about fluoride does not reach the public easily because fluoride, produced as a toxic waste byproduct of many types of heavy industry–such as aluminum, steel, fertilizer, glass, cement and other industries–must be disposed of somewhere. If it’s not used as an additive to water, manufacturers would have to pay millions of dollars to dispose of it properly, so the pressure to keep fluoride listed as a healthy additive to water–and not as an environmental toxin that requires costly disposal–is great, and political pressures to keep fluoride in the drinking water is strong.
The U.S. government has been one of the key supporters for fluoridation. Despite the questions regarding fluoride’s effectiveness and safety, the administration’s stated federal health objective was to increase the number of Americans with fluoridated tap water from previous levels of 62 percent to 75 percent in 2000. Given half a century of support for fluoridation, it’s also not likely that the American Dental Association will backtrack on its support for fluoridation. Some cities are taking action, and making the decision to stop fluoridating their water supply–or not to fluoridate in the first place.
Sodium fluoride is the most violent protoplasmic poison known to science. The National Library of Medicine’s computerized data service on toxic substances rates fluorides 4-5 (very toxic–extremely toxic) on a scale of five. Scheele discovered fluorine in 1771, but Moissan did not produce it in gaseous elemental purity until 1886. Fluoride is added to the water supply of most American cities for the purpose of dental hygiene. The reader will be amazed to find out that such a result is not only unlikely but the reverse of the actual outcome. The U.S. has been fluoridating drinking water for so many decades that people hardly think about it. Very few articles appear about fluoridation in newspapers and magazines any more. At least chlorine will evaporate from a glass of water if you let it sit for an hour or so. Not so with fluoride. Even cooking, food processing, filtration, or digestion will not remove fluoride. Fluoride goes right up the food chain. It accumulates in fat cells when ingested or absorbed through the skin or mucous membranes.
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. 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.
There Is As Much Fluoride in Powdered Eggs as In Toothpaste
Dow Chemicals in their test of ProFume, their new fumigant for food handling facilities found a residue of 754 ppm (parts per million) of fluoride anion in powdered eggs. They have petitioned the USDA to permit a maximum of 900 ppm of fluoride anion residue in powdered eggs, which was granted in July 2010. Concentrations of fluoride in toothpaste sold in the United States range from 1,000 – 1,500 ppm. Toothpaste comes with a warning “Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.” To reconstitute 1 egg you would need a tablespoon of powdered eggs. That is a lot more fluoride than what is in toothpaste!
Ingested fluoride initially acts locally on the intestinal mucosa. It can form hydrofluoric acid in the stomach, which leads to GI irritation or corrosive effects. Following ingestion, the GI tract is the earliest and most commonly affected organ system.¨ If eaten in enough quantity, it can eat through the stomach lining. According to the Minnesota Poison Control System, “HydroFluoric Acid is a particularly dangerous acid because of its unique ability among acids to penetrate tissue.¨ They go on to say that “this can cause soft tissue damage, bone erosion, and electrolyte abnormalities. It leaches calcium and magnesium from the body creating deficiency, and is directly toxic to a number of cellular enzymes and metabolic processes.¨
How Much Fluoride Will Be In Our Food?
Here is some of what they have approved so far: residues for fluoride anion on all processed food commodities where a separate tolerance is not already established at 70 ppm;
cattle, meat, dried at 40 ppm;
cheese at 5.0 ppm;
cocoa bean, postharvest at 20 ppm;
coconut, postharvest at 40 ppm;
coffee, postharvest at 15 ppm;
cottonseed, postharvest at 70 ppm;
eggs, dried at 900 ppm;
ginger, postharvest at 70 ppm;
ham at 20 ppm;
herbs and spices, postharvest at 70 ppm;
milk, powdered at 5.0 ppm;
nut, pine, postharvest at 20 ppm;
peanut, postharvest at 15 ppm;
rice, flour, postharvest at 45 ppm;
and vegetables, legume, postharvest at 70 ppm.
Chronic Fluoride Poisoning
This contradicts the website of the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry of The University of Western Ontario where it says, In the broadest sense, the term “Fluorosis” describes a state of toxicity of the trace element, Fluorine (commonly referred to in its ionic state as Fluoride) within an organism. Humans appear to vary considerably with respect to their susceptibility to Fluorosis. As a general guideline, prolonged total Fluoride intake exceeding 1.0 mg/day can produce clinical signs of Fluorosis in adults. Generally speaking, human Fluoride toxicity will manifest as any combination of the following:
Dental Fluorosis: the most obvious and easily diagnosed form of Fluorosis by a characteristic bilateral white mottling of the dentition. Dental Fluorosis is usually caused by over-exposure to Fluoride when the dental enamel is actively mineralizing during early childhood.
Skeletal Fluorosis: involves abnormal mineralization of bone and soft tissues and/or the disruption of normal activity of the osteocytes. For this reason, Skeletal Fluorosis often mimics “generic” osteoarthritis and/or osteoporosis in relatively young adults.
Systemic Fluorosis: due to the chemical nature of Fluoride and its action(s) within mammalian systems which are not limited to teeth and bone, Fluoride toxicity may potentially be linked to every major multiple cause ailment of the 20th century from cancer to Attention Deficit Disorder.
Fluoride toxicity may be acute or chronic, with effects ranging from cosmetic damage, to disability and even death. With the exception of Dental Fluorosis, Fluoride-related illness is often attributed to other diseases or syndromes (i.e. osteoarthritis for Skeletal Fluorosis, cardiovascular failure for death by acute Fluoride poisoning) making Fluorosis in itself very difficult to track epidemiologically in the absence of an ecosystem health framework.¨
Symptoms of Fluorosis
Though apparently vague and non-specific, most of the symptoms of Fluoride toxicity point towards some kind of profound metabolic dysfunction, and are strikingly similar to the symptoms of Hypothyroidism.
Symptoms of Fluorosis
1. Learning Disorders/Difficulty Concentrating/Incoherence/Memory Loss/Confusion
2. Body Temperature Disturbances/Cold Shivers
3. Chest Pains
4. Heart Palpitations
8. Excessive Sleepiness/Fatigue
10. Joint Pains
13. Sensitivity to Light
14. Shortness of Breath
15. Difficulties Swallowing
18. Visual Disturbances
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. 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. 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. 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.”
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. In Japan, fluoridation caused decay increases of 7 percent in 22,000 students, while in the U.S. a decay increase of 43 percent occured in 29,000 students when 1ppm fluoride was added to drinking water. Fluoride drops, tablets, and vitamins are more likely to damage children’s teeth than to prevent cavities, according to mainstream dental groups such as the Canadian Dental Association and the Western Australia Health Department’s Dental Service. Both organizations have stopped recommending regular fluoride supplementation. Fluoride drops, tablets, and vitamins are more likely to damage children’s teeth than to prevent cavities, according to mainstream dental groups such as the Canadian Dental Association and the Western Australia Health Department’s Dental Service. Both organizations have stopped recommending regular fluoride supplementation.
Fluoride and the Thyroid Gland
Research reported on in a variety of medical journals has indicated that excess of fluoride in drinking water is a risk factor for more rapid development of thyroid problems. Other research has also found that high iodine and high fluorine exert severe damage to thyroid function, and potentially affect IQ. Workers exposed to fluorine are also at increased risk of thyroid problems.
Fluorine, being a halogen, and chemically related to iodine but very much more active, displaces iodine, so the uptake of iodine is compromised by the replacement of the iodine by fluorine. To condemn an entire population, already having marginal levels of iodine, to inevitable progressive failure of their thyroid system by fluoridating the water, borders on criminal lunacy. Out of the over 150 symptoms and associations of hypothyroidism, almost all are also symptoms of fluoride poisoning.
Fluorides are cumulative and build-up steadily with ingestion of fluoride from all sources, which include not just water but the air we breathe and the food we eat. The use of fluoride toothpaste in dental hygiene and the coating of teeth are further sources of substantial levels of fluoride intake. The body can only eliminate half of the total intake, which means that the older you are the more fluoride will have accumulated in your body. Inevitably this means the ageing population is particularly targeted. And even worse for the very young there is a major element of risk in baby formula made with fluoridated water and the extreme sensitivity of the very young to fluoride toxicity makes this unacceptable.
In concentrations as low as 1ppm, fluorides damage the thyroid system on 4 levels.
1. The enzyme manufacture of thyroid hormones within the thyroid gland itself. The process by which iodine is attached to the amino acid tyrosine and converted to the two significant thyroid hormones, thyroxine (T4) and triiodothyronine (T3), is slowed.
2. The stimulation of certain of the G proteins whose function is to govern uptake of substances into each of the cells of the body, from the toxic effect of fluoride, has the effect of switching off the uptake into the cell of the active thyroid hormone.
3. The thyroid control mechanism is compromised. The thyroid stimulating hormone output from the pituitary gland is inhibited by fluoride, thus reducing thyroid output of thyroid hormones.
4. Fluoride competes for the receptor sites on the thyroid gland which respond to the thyroid stimulating hormone; so that less of this hormone reaches the thyroid gland and so less thyroid hormone is manufactured.
These damaging effects, all of which occur with small concentrations of fluoride, have obvious and easily identifiable effects on thyroid status. The running down of thyroid hormone means a slow slide into hypothyroidism. Already the incidence of hypothyroidism is increasing as a result of other environmental toxins and pollution together with wide spread nutritional deficiencies.
The distortion of protein structure by fluoride causes the immune proteins to fail to recognize body proteins, and so instigate an attack on them, which is Autoimmune Disease. Autoimmune diseases constitute a body of disease processes troubling many thousands of people: R/A, SLE, Asthma, Systemic Sclerosis are examples. Thyroid antibodies will be produced which will cause thyroiditis resulting in the common hypothyroid disease, Hashimoto’s Disease and the hyperthyroidism of Graves’ Disease.
The original research intended to support the initial addition of fluoride into drinking water, was flawed. For example, in 1945, the US Public Health Service began to add sodium fluoride into the municipal drinking water of Grand Rapids, MI, the first city in the US to fluoridate. Grand Rapids was supposed to serve as the test city. It’s dental decay rates were to be compared with those of Muskegon, MI, which was non-fluoridated. After ten years, it was to be determined if fluoride was both safe and effective.
Amazingly, this “research” was to be performed on an entire city, rather than using a voluntary sampling group initially. More strange was that long before the study was completed, the Public Health Service and the American Dental Association endorsed fluoridation. This was in 1950, only a few years into the supposed ten-year study. WIthin a short time after that, Muskegon, the control city, was also fluoridated. The decision and the endorsements entirely overshadowed the fact that the tooth decay rate in non-fluoridated Muskegon had decreased about as much as the fluoridated city, Grand Rapids.
Not only was the science incomplete, but in addition, sodium fluoride was soon replaced by another fluoride substance, hydrofluosilicic acid, a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry primarily, and also from some aluminum plants. Early in the 1950’s, the PHS gave its blessing to these alternate sources of fluoride, without having even attempted to research them. The EPA admits it still has no data on the long term detrimental effects of silicofluorides.
In the past, the American Dental Association (ADA), the American Medical Association (AMA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have all endorsed fluoridation, and many established scientific bodies have declared that its advantages are not debatable. But, recently, the tide has been changing, and what the fluoride promoters will not reveal to their targeted legislators, City Council members, County Commissioners, or even their unsuspecting well-intended supporters: The July 2000, peer-reviewed cover story of the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) clarifed for every dentist in America that ingestion of fluoride does not provide any significant reduction in the incidence of tooth decay–that any beneficial dental effect is as a result of topical application directly to the tooth.
The American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have revised their recommendations for controlled-dose fluoride which restricts a doctor from prescribing fluoride to a child of 6 months to 3 years of age to 0.25 milligrams per day, the amount found in one cup of fluoridated water, and none to an infant–meaning that, as a public policy, fluoridation mass medicates at a higher expected dosage than a doctor in a non-fluoridated community can prescribe. The August 17, 2001 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) despite its touting of fluoridation, included: “The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration fo fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.” In short, dental cavities are not a result of a lack of fluoride exposure, and more fluoride is not better in the prevention of tooth decay.
In a Congressional investigation by the House Committee on Science, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the CDC, National Sanitation Foundation, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), all replied to inquiries that they have no scientific studies on the actual fluorine-bearing substances used in 90% of the nation’s fluoridaiton programs. The FDA, in a December 2000 communication, stated that “Fluoride, when used for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animal is a drug that is subject to Food and Drug Administration regulation.” and that “No fluoride substance intended to be ingested for the purpose of reducing tooth decay has ever been approved for safety and effectiveness.”
On June 29, 2000, at the U.S. Senate Congressional Hearing on Arsenic, Radon, and Fluoride, held by the subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, J. Willam Hirzy, Ph.D. testified on behalf of the union (that consists of and represents all of the toxicologists, biologists, chemists, physicians, statisticians, epidemiologists, attorneys, engineers, scientists, and other professionals at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.), calling for a moratorium on all fluoridation. In his testimony to Congress, Hirzy cited scientific evidence that the union of scientists have in their possession, and court findings in three different states, whose conclusions have never been overturned on the merits, that found, with reasonable certainty (i.e. beyond speculation and guess), and by preponderance of the evidence, including the testimony of experts learned in the field, that fluoride in public water supplies causes or contributes to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, chronic toxicity, dental fluorosis, bone pathology and neurological injury in humans, and that fluoride in public water supplies aggravates malnutrition, iodine deficiencies and other existing illnesses.
Before fluoridation’s implementation in 1945 and popular acceptance in 1950, sodium fluoride, a by-product of aluminum manufacture, was known as an intractable industrial pollutant. Waterworks engineers warned that water containing 1 part-per-million (ppm) fluoride is contaminated. The devilish plot to put fluoride in drinking water has been backed in Washington since an ex-employee of the Aluminum Company of America was made Secretary of the Public Health Administration. Fluoride is a very toxic substance, which is why it is the active ingredient in a number of pesticides. Two grams of fluoride is enough to kill an adult, and 500 mg. is enough to kill a child. A tube of toothpaste can have as much as 1,500 mgs., and fluoride gel contains up to 6,000 mgs. In the U.S., people have died, and many have become sick, when faltering fluoridation equipment has pumped excess fluoride into the water.
Once again we hear that poor children are not swallowing enough fluoride that promoters claim would otherwise eliminate tooth decay, completely ignoring that fluoride is already present in higher concentrations than fluoridated water in sodas, fruit juices, cereals, teas, and, because of fluoride-based pesticide residues, on such produce as tomatoes, lettuce, potatoes, cabbage, and raisins. In 1991, government documents reported that non-fluoridated communities already receive the original goal of 1 milligram of fluoride a day, with fluoridated communities receiving 3 to 7 milligrams a day–far exceeding the margin of safety, and causing permanent scarring of the enamel of at least one tooth of 66.4% of children in fluoridated communities.
Poor nutrition exacerbates the toxic effects of fluoride exposure, which is one reason why it’s wrong to target poor communities with fluoridation (poor nutrition is more prevalent in low income communities). Subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems.
Ninety-eight percent of Western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. This includes Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. The predominant reason for Europe’s rejection is the belief that public drinking water is not the appropriate vehicle with which to deliver medication to a population. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient, which means that no human disease (including dental decay) has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Fluoridation adds between 0.1 and 1.6 parts per billion (ppb) arsenic to drinking water, and therefore violates the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for arsenic–which is 0 ppb. When water fluoridation began 50 years ago, it was believed that fluoride needed to be ingested in order to be effective.
This is no longer the view of the dental establishment, which now generally concedes that fluoride’s benefits are derived primarily from topical application. No fluoride products designed for ingestion have ever been approved as safe or effective by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Fluoridated water can appropriately be classified as an unapproved prescription drug. Fluoride is ineffective at preventing the most common type of dental decay–pits and fissures. Pit & fissure decay–which is the decay found in the crevices of the chewing surfaces–accounts for upwards of 85% of dental decay now experienced in the U.S. Despite the fact that nearly all large U.S. cities have been fluoridated for decades, dental decay is currently rampant in virtually all poor urban areas. Routinely prescribed to U.S. children who don’t drink fluoridated water (starting with toothless six month olds), fluoride supplements were never tested for safety and efficacy by the U.S. F.D.A. These supplements comprise one category of many different medications the FDA officially “grandfathered” in, (they were sold before drug testing was required by law). Current research shows that many of the old fluoride studies were flawed. Fluoride’s benefits are merely topical, not systemic, as was once thought.
Moreover, ingested fluoride can result in unwanted side effects, including dental fluorosis (spotted, stained, or pitted teeth). Brian A. Burt of the University of Michigan School of Public Health states that “fluoride supplements should no longer be used for young children in North America…the risks of using supplements in infants and young children outweigh the benefits.” Euan Swan, author of the Canadian Dental Association’s (CDA) new fluoride supplement guidelines, said, “The evidence supporting the effectiveness of dietary fluoride supplements is relatively weak. There’s better evidence indicating that they contribute to dental fluorosis. The notion that systemic fluorides are needed in nonfluoridated areas is an outdated one that should be abandoned altogether,” says Canada’s leading fluoride authority, Hardy Limeback, head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto and past president of the Canadian Association for Dental research. He says, “We are now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we would spend treating new decay if water fluoridation was halted.”
When the government of any nation forgets its people and, instead, focuses on defending and promoting the interests of powerful corporations, you no longer have a Democracy. Instead, you have a Plutocracy, where the wealthy elite control the political process and use laws to further enrich themselves at the expense of the public.
It’s an accurate description of what’s happening in America today: The public is no longer represented by the Senate, the FDA, the USDA or the EPA. Instead, each of these governmental bodies (legislative for the Senate, executive for the other departments) is now operating in the interests of corporations. Campaign finance reform, of course, is impossible under such circumstances, since no corporate-controlled Senate will ever vote to cut itself off from corporate money. Thus, the only outcome of the situation is a further erosion of the integrity of U.S. legislative processes to the point where the public is impoverished, the nation is bankrupt, and the corporations run the government.
The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)
The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from Mr. Charles Perkins, a chemist:
“I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation regarding a statement made in my book, The Truth About Water Fluoridation, to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. “In the 1930`s, Hitler and the German Nazi’s envisioned a world to be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. …
“Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual’s power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient light lobotomy]
“The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children’s teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty.
“When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go into Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plan to communize the world. …
“I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great IG Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years` research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine–any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically.” CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October 1
Quoting Einstein’s nephew, Dr. E.H. Bronner (a chemist who had also been a prisoner of war during WWII) in a letter printed in The Catholic Mirror, Springfield, MA, January 1952: “It appears that the citizens of Massachusetts are among the `next` on the agenda of the water poisoners.
“There is a sinister network of subversive agents, Godless `intellectual` parasites, working in our country today whose ramifications grow more extensive, more successful and more alarming each new year and whose true objective is to demoralize, paralyze and destroy our great Republic–from within if they can, according to their plan–for their own possession. “The tragic success they have already attained in their long siege to destroy the moral fiber of American life is now one of their most potent footholds towards their own ultimate victory over us.
“Fluoridation of our community water systems can well become their most subtle weapon for our sure physical and mental deterioration. …
“As a research chemist of established standing, I built within the past 22 years, 3 American chemical plants and licensed 6 of my 53 patents. Based on my years of practical experience in the health-food and chemical field, let me warn: fluoridation of drinking water is criminal insanity, sure national suicide. Don’t do it.
“Even in small quantities, sodium fluoride is a deadly poison to which no effective antidote has been found. Every exterminator knows that it is the most efficient rat-killer. … Sodium fluoride is entirely different from organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate needed by our bodies and provided by nature, in God’s great providence and love, to build and strengthen our bones and our teeth. This organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate, derived from proper foods, is an edible organic salt, insoluble in water and assimilable by the human body, whereas the non-organic sodium fluoride used in fluoridating water is instant poison to the body and fully water soluble. The body refuses to assimilate it. “Careful, bonafide laboratory experimentation by conscientious, patriotic research chemists, and actual medical experience, have both revealed that instead of preserving or promoting `dental health,` fluoridated drinking water destroys teeth, before adulthood and after, by the destructive mottling and other pathological conditions it actually causes in them, and also creates many other very grave pathological conditions in the internal organisms of bodies consuming it. How can it be called a “health” plan? What’s behind it?
“That any so-called “doctors” would persuade a civilized nation to add voluntarily a deadly poison to its drinking water systems is unbelievable. It is the height of criminal insanity. “No wonder Hitler and Stalin fully believed and agreed from 1939 to 1941 that, quoting from both Lenin’s Last Will and Hitler’s Mein Kampf:
“America we shall demoralize, divide, and destroy from within.”…
“Are our Civil Defense organizations and agencies awake to the perils of water poisoning by fluoridation? Its use has been recorded in other countries. Sodium fluoride water solutions are the cheapest and most effective rat killers known to chemists: colorless, odorless, tasteless; no antidote, no remedy, no hope: Instant and complete extermination of rats…
“Fluoridation of water systems can be slow national suicide, or quick national liquidation. It is criminal insanity–treason!” Dr. E.H. Bronner, Mfg. Research Chemist, Los Angeles.
Earliest available Russian fluoride evidence: “I, Oliver Kenneth Goff, was a member of the Communist Party and the Young Communist League, from May 2, 1936, to October 9, 1939. During this period of time, I operated under the alias of John Keats with number 18-B-2. My testimony before the Government is in Volume 9 of the Un-American Activities Report for 1939.
“While a member of the Communist Party, I attended Communist training schools in New York and Wisconsin … and we were trained in the revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. Government.”… We discussed quite thoroughly the fluoridation of water supplies and how we were using it in Russia as a tranquilizer in the prison camps. The leaders of our school felt that if it could be induced into the American water supply, it would bring about a spirit of lethargy in the nation, where it could keep the general public docile during a steady encroachment of Communism. We also discussed the fact that keeping a store of deadly fluoride near the water reservoir would be advantageous during the time of the revolution, as it would give us opportunity to dump this poison into the water supply and either kill off the populace or threaten them with liquidation, so that they would surrender to obtain fresh water.
Expert Does About-Face on Fluoride
Hardy Limeback, B.S., Ph.D. in biochemistry, D.D.S., and head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto and president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research, now opposes the use of fluoride in drinking water or toothpaste.
Asked by The Tribune of Mesa, Ariz., why he had reversed a pro-fluoride position he had embraced for decades, Limeback responded: “It’s been building up for a couple of years. But certainly the crowning blow was the realization that we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into our water reservoirs for half a century. The vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, FL., smokestack scrubbers.
The additives are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry. Tragically, that means we’re not just dumping toxic fluoride into our drinking water. We’re also exposing innocent, unsuspecting people to deadly elements: lead, arsenic and radium, all of them carcinogenic. Because of the cumulative properties of toxins, the detrimental effects on human health are catastrophic.”
A new study at the University of Toronto supports Limeback’s argument: “Residents of cities that fluoridate have doubled the fluoride in their hip bones vis-à-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered that it is actually altering the architecture of human bones.” Skeletal fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in the bones, making them extremely weak and brittle.
“Mottled and brittle teeth” are the earliest symptoms, Limeback said. “In Canada we are now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we do treating cavities. That includes my own practice.” “Here in Toronto we have been fluoridating for 36 years,” Limeback said. “Yet Vancouver, which has never fluoridated, has a cavity rate lower than Toronto’s.” Cavity rates are low, he said, across the industrialized world, including Europe, which is 98 percent fluoride-free.
The Tribune pointed out that the Centers for Disease Control ran a puff piece all across America saying the stuff was better than sliced bread. “Unfortunately,” Limeback replied, “the CDC is basing its position on data that is 50 years old and questionable at best. Absolutely no one has done research on fluorosilicates, which is the junk they’re dumping into the drinking water. On the other hand, the evidence against systemic fluoride intake continues to pour in.”
Limeback recently apologized to faculty and students at the University Of Toronto Department Of Dentistry. “I told them I had unintentionally misled my colleagues and my students. For the past 15 years, I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind.”
Fluoride In Toothpaste
Contrary to its public image as a benign substance used solely to reduce tooth decay, fluoride is extremely corrosive, more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic. Sodium fluoride, the active ingredient in most brands of toothpaste, was originally sold as a rat poison. If a three-year-old ate half a tube of the toothpaste, it could kill him. “Fluoridated toothpaste contains 1,000-2,000 mgs. of fluoride. Fluoridated drinking water contains one to four parts per million. Fluoride is absorbed through mucous membranes in the mouth. A child may not consume the whole tube, but smaller amounts daily are certainly a hazard to anyone.
It is estimated that children swallow or absorb approximately 1 mg. of fluoride at each brushing with such toothpaste. In 1987 the Journal of Pediatrics issued a warning that children should use no more than “one-third of one pea-sized dollop of toothpaste” when brushing their teeth. Allowing for the 4-ppm standard to which the EPA has raised fluoride, and based upon accurate water consumption figures, approximately 50% of children under five are receiving a daily dose of fluoride known to cause skeletal fluorosis. Is the possible saving of 0.8% of one tooth surface over a seventeen-year period worth the risk of skeletal fluorisis, cancer or AIDS? Implementation of sound nutritional principles, removal of pollutants that reduce natural immunity and appropriate health education proves more effective in resolving the problems of tooth decay along with many other modern degenerative diseases.
Just as you lock your doors against unwanted intrusion, you must take the necessary steps to protect yourselves from this daily poisoning. It will have to be done by you. No one else will do it for you. Terry Leader, a dental hygienist from Long Island, witnessed, in 1969, a child given topical fluoride, who then went into convulsions and died in the dentist’s chair. She pleads: “I just wish parents would read before they subject their children to something so dangerous. It’s not going to save them money. Good oral hygiene prevents tooth decay; fluoride doesn’t. The mystique behind many “miracle” drugs is the belief that, like heat-seeking missiles, they will zoom right to the enemy symptom and zap it neatly out of existence. So with fluoride, our bodies should deliver all the fluoride directly to our teeth where it will supposedly harden the enamel and form an indestructible barrier to tooth decay. Such magical thinking bears little relationship to biochemical reality.
“Teflon-lined cookware may contribute to the fluoride ingested by humans. Full and Parkins boiled fluoridated water at a moderate rate until a one-third or one-half reduction in volume was attained, then determined the fluoride content of the residual water… In Teflon-coated ware, the concentration of fluoride ion increased to nearly 3 ppm. This result requires confirmation; but, if it is correct, then the release of fluoride into foods during cooking in plastic-coated wares requires investigation.” – Marier J, Rose D. (1977). Environmental Fluoride. National Research Council of Canada . Associate Committee on Scientific Criteria for Environmental Quality. NRCC No. 16081.
Fluoride In Water
Corporations have a lot invested in fluoridation, which allows them to dispose of industrial pollution via dilution. Today, the most common product used for fluoridation is hydrofluosilicic acid, which is not a natural substance but a waste product coming straight from the scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. When phosphate is mined, they have to get rid of the attached fluorine or it would kill the plants. So they put the phosphate through a sulfuric acid wash to separate the fluorine out into what is called hazardous waste liquor. The fluorine is captured by a scrubber system since they can’t let it go out into the air because it would kill all the plants and animals around.
If they had to dispose of this liquor as hazardous industrial waste, it would cost them $1.40 a gallon or more neutralize it, depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium, and arsenic are also present. They don’t want to pay that, so instead they call it a product and we pay them approximately 3 cents a gallon to dump in our water. Data collected in the largest survey to date–of over 39,000 American schoolchildren ages 5 to 17 in 84 communities, showed that children living in fluoridated areas had tooth decay rates nearly identical with those living in unfluoridated areas.
The cells that produce the collagen matrix that forms enamel are poisoned to the point that they can no longer produce opalescent pearl-like enamel. Fluorotic enamel is irregular in texture, porous, chalky white to brown in color and brittle. In severe cases, the enamel forms incompletely and corners easily break off the teeth. Even proponents of fluoridation acknowledge that fluorosis increases with the level of fluoride in the water. Currently, an estimated 22% of American children exhibit the symptoms of fluorosis. This is not just a cosmetic flaw; it’s proof of the fact that the body has been overdosed with fluoride and has not been able to handle it. Bottle-fed babies (whose formula is made with fluoridated water) are most likely to develop dental fluorosis. Mother’s milk has virtually no fluoride present. Those children who are deficient in protein, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, and vitamin C are especially vulnerable to fluoride poisoning. The accumulation of fluoride is greatly increased if the person has impaired kidney function.
In short, the weakest members of our society, the undernourished and the underfed, are the very children that fluoridation was to allegedly benefit. In some poorer communities, as much as 80% of the children have fluorosis. But don’t assume that if your child is healthy and well nourished, he or she runs no risk. Look at the toothpaste, and read the directions–“Children 2 to 6 years: To minimize swallowing, use a pea-sized amount, and supervise brushing and rinsing until good habits are established.” Tempted by bubble-gum flavors and artificial sweeteners, a child can easily ingest more than the recommended amount. Studies show that children under four inadvertently swallow 50% to 100% of the toothpaste they put in their mouths, simply because they lack a fully developed gag reflex. The American Dental Association will not give toothpaste its seal of approval unless it includes fluoride.
Dental fluorosis is just the first, visible evidence of much more serious changes in the body. When fluoride accumulates at high concentrations in the bones, they become weak and brittle. Victims of this debilitating condition, called skeletal fluorosis can only hobble forward, stiff and hunched. The osteoarthritis that afflicts many people in this country may actually be a misdiagnosed stage of skeletal fluorosis. Recent studies have linked fluoride to an increased incidence of hip fractures, damage to the central nervous system, and cancer. In China, researchers correlated dental fluorosis with a 10 point reduction in I.Q. Low levels of fluoride in the drinking water of test animals produced pathological changes in the brain similar to those in humans with Alzheimer’s disease. Another study demonstrated how fluoride interferes with the brain’s pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin.
What will happen when the first generation of fluoride-fed children turns 70, after accumulating this poison over a lifetime in their bones? Cavities are not life-threatening, but fluoridation comes with real risks and negligible benefits. Even if you believe in the value of fluoride, no one should be allowed to use our drinking water as a delivery system. A lot of people consider Vitamin C beneficial, but so far it doesn’t flow out of the tap. Water is our most precious resource, and we have no business adding anything to it, other than what’s necessary to make it safe to drink. It is our responsibility to maintain this gift, as pure and pristine as possible, for each and every person to enjoy. In 1990, Dr. William Marcus, chief toxicologist for the EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, was disturbed to find data from a study reporting specific fluoride-related cancers altered or omitted in the final National Toxicology Program report.
When he demanded an independent review of the raw data, he was fired. Later, an investigation by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee corroborated his charges and produced evidence that government scientists had been pressured to portray fluoride more positively. Because fluorine is the most negatively charged and interactive element of all, it bonds with practically everything and does not exist separately in nature, despite its rank as the 13th most abundant element in the earth’s crust. But most of it stays buried there, unless it is mined and brought to the surface or created as a by-product of various manufacturing processes. It’s kind of a bully; it aggressively seeks out other electrons and is prized for its ability to disrupt and reconfigure other molecular bonds.
One reason people have been reluctant to expose the problems of fluoride is that it cuts across so many industries. In its various forms, fluoride is used to etch glass, ceramics and computer chips; refine petroleum products; separate out heavy metal and power rockets. Our air is contaminated by fluoride emissions from the production of iron, steel, copper, aluminum and plastics. Fluoride is one of the world’s most widely used pesticides. If you walk past a house tented for termites, they’re probably spraying sulfuryl fluoride (Vikane) to kill the bugs.
Many prescription drugs contain a hidden dose of fluoride. Several fluoride-containing medications have been banned because they caused death and illness. Fluoride is highly toxic to the liver. In the liver, fluoride interferes with the metabolism of thyroid hormones; it creates thyroid disorders and associated diseases that affect muscles, heart, immune system, etc. Many psychiatric drugs contain fluoride. Siliconfluoride is linked to antisocial behavior in youth. The fluorine atom is attached to the active ingredients in many drugs in order to allow them to cross the blood-brain barrier and enter the brain or other organs more readily, so less of the active ingredient is needed, and more money is saved by the pharmaceutical manufacturer. But the side effects of all these fluoride-containing drugs are rarely known or discussed as health issues.
The fluorine ion is an enzyme inhibitor. The one side effect common to fluorinated drugs is memory loss. These drugs, including Prozac (fluoxetene)–and Paxil–antidepression drugs, contain three fluorine atoms in each molecule that kill enzymes in the brain that normally maintain mood stability.
Prozac and Paxil contain Fluorophenyl compounds which contain fluoride and cause liver disease.. Organic fluorides are transformed in the liver, and the resulting metabolites can have higher activity and/or greater toxicity than the original compound. Prozac can cause hepatitis and promote tumors in the liver. Rophypnol (flunitrazepam)–the date rape drug–is essentially fluorinated Valium, which is 20-30 times more potent than Valium. Phen-Fen (Fenfluramine) a weight-loss drug, fluorinated corticosteroids contains fluoride. People taking such drugs might exceed 5 mgs. in just one prescribed application.
Psychoactive drugs are essentially being placed in the water supply. Usually a fluoride-based anesthetic is used during surgery because fluoride destroys brain enzymes and immediately places the patient in a coma. Sevoflurane, one of many fluorinated substances used in anesthesia, such as florinated Halothane, is suspected to cause renal failure. Hydrogen fluoride is the only toxic element in the nerve gas Sarin (1500 times more poisonous than cyanide). On August 8th, 2001, Baycol–a cholesterol-lowering drug linked to 31 U.S. deaths–was removed from the market. Bayer AG, the manufacturer of , would not disclose the total number of deaths globally. Scientists know that all fluoride compounds interfere with thyroid hormones. Severals congenital defects are caused by first trimester exposure to an anti-fungal drug Fluconsazole. Several fluorinated drugs have been removed from the market recently, and most cause serious adverse cardiac effects, probably due to fluoride’s adverse effects on the thyroid hormone activity.
It is important to look at product inserts to see if fluoride compounds are described. Fluoride is usually listed as “fluoro”–something, or having an “F” in the chemical formula. However, the fluoride often is hidden in another chemical additive such as gelatin made from cow-bones, or in phosphates.
Fluoride in the Food Chain
So now we have fluoride in our water, which means we’re mass-medicating the population, although we can’t control the dose because everyone drinks varying amounts. Back when safety levels in the water were set at 1 ppm, there was basically no other source. Since then, fluoride has been added to toothpaste, mouth rinses and dental floss. Dentists treat the teeth topically with fluoride, and doctors prescribe fluoride supplements. And, of course, if fluoride is in the water, it’s in the food chain. Food is irrigated, washed, and processed with fluoridated water; we’re consuming much more fluoride than we think.
Independent lab reports show high levels in common products: .98 to 1.2 ppm in Coca-Cola, 1 ppm in Minute Maid orange juice, 2.1 ppm in Fruit Loops, 10 ppm in Wheaties, 6.8 ppm in Gerber’s white grape juice which is often used as a sweetener in baby foods. Grapes are commonly sprayed with an insecticide that contains fluoride. A 1996 study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association warned parents to limit their children’s intake of juices due to excessive fluoride content. In fact, according to a 1993 government survey, children in non-fluoridated communities are already receiving at least 3 times the amount of fluoride recommended for total consumption, while children in fluoridated communities are receiving 4.6 to 7 times the recommended amount.
The National Research Council of Canada has done extensive research on the many environmental sources of fluorides and the multiple avenues by which they enter the human food chain. Most packaged foods are processed with fluoridated water, and many fruits and vegetables contain fluorides in pesticide and fertilizer residues. When fluoridation first began, exposure to fluoride from sources other than fluoridated water was minimal. Today that is not the case. People now receive fluoride from a whole host of sources, including pesticide residues, fluoridated dental products, mechanically de-boned meat, fluoride air pollution, and processed foods & beverages prepared with fluoridated water (soda, juice, beer, cereal, etc). It has now reached the point where most people receive the “optimal” 1 mg./day of fluoride without ever drinking a glass of fluoridated water.
Foods such as sardines, tea, lettuce, spinach, and others have particularly high fluoride contents. If fluoride is ingested, even though a person is eating a nutritious diet and taking the best supplements in the world, all the good nutrition is rendered almost completely ineffective, and development or advancement of degenerative disease will ensue. The harmful effects of fluoride have been known for over one hundred years. How much more evidence is needed before we, the victims, stop this behavior modification program, being literally forced down out throats? Some beer-drinking men consume over six liters of fluoridated water a day from beer alone.
Despite repeated warnings that humans, particularly children, are currently receiving too much fluoride from their diets, fluoride pesticides continue to be added to the food supply under extremely lax regulations from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Currently, the main fluoride pesticide used in the US is cryolite (sodium aluminum fluoride). The EPA currently allows up to 7 ppm of fluoride on over 30 fruits and vegetables treated with cryolite. This 7 ppm fluoride tolerance applies to: apricots, beets, blackberries, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, citrus fruits, collards, cranberries, cucumbers, eggplants, grapes, kale, lettuce, melons, nectarines, peaches, peppers, plums, pumpkins, radishes, raspberries, squash, strawberries, tomatoes and turnip.
A 2 ppm standard has also been established for potatoes, which are second to grapes for total cryolite usage. The EPA’s standard of 7 ppm for fluoride residues is over 5 times greater than the standard set by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1933. In 1933, the USDA established the maximum level for fluoride residues on fruits and vegetables at 1.2 ppm, which was the same standard the USDA established for arsenic. While arsenic pesticides have since been phased out of use in the US , fluoride pesticides remain. In fact, the current tolerance levels for fluoride pesticides could become even higher–if the US EPA, under intense pressure from Dow Chemical, approves sulfuryl fluoride as a replacement fumigant for methyl bromide.
If EPA approves sulfuryl fluoride (an indoor fumigant that has never before been used on food) as the replacement for methyl bromide, there will be a substantial increase in the fluoride contamination of the food supply.
In a recent petition (February 15, 2002) to the EPA, Dow Chemical asked for extremely high fluoride tolerances on a wide number of common foods, including, 98 ppm for wheat germ, 40 ppm for wheat bran, 31 ppm for rice bran, 30 ppm for a variety of nuts, 28 ppm for corn meal, 26 ppm for corn flour, 25 ppm for millet grain, 25 ppm for wild rice grain, 25 ppm for sorghum grain, 25 ppm for wheat grain, and 17 ppm for oat grain!
“Infant formulas reconstituted with higher fluoride water can provide 100 to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk, or cows milk.”—Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.
“More than 50 percent of infants are currently formula fed by 1 month of age, and these infants are likely to be continuously exposed to high intakes of fluoride for 9 or 10 months – a circumstance quite rare in the 1960s and early 1970s.”—Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J. (1999). Fluoride intake by infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59(4):229-34.
“Parents should therefore be advised that they may be able to protect their children from dental fluorosis by breastfeeding their infant and by extending the duration for which they breastfeed. When infants are formula-fed, parents should be advised to reconstitute or dilute infant formula with deionized water (reverse osmosis, distilled, or low-fluoride bottled water) in order to reduce the amount of systemically ingested fluoride.” —Brothwell D, Limeback H. (2003). Breastfeeding is protective against dental fluorosis in a nonfluoridated rural area of Ontario , Canada . Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90.
Fluoride in Nature
In any case, fluoride is unavoidable in the diet, since it is the thirteenth most abundant element and is extremely reactive, forming many compounds available to the human body. Fluorine occurs in nature as calcium fluoride. Sodium fluoride is an industrial waste product from the aluminum and phosphate fertilizer industries. Since the 1920s and 1930s, it has been sold as a potent roach and rat killer. Sodium fluoride (NaF), is over five hundred times more soluble than calcium fluoride (CaF2). It requires eighty times more CaF2 to kill a rat than NaF. Fluoridation critics never accepted the transformation of sodium fluoride from dangerous chemical to benign cavity fighter.
Fluoride in Industry
The first fluoride compound purposely put in the public water was sodium fluoride, a toxic by-product of the aluminum industry. During World War II, as Alcoa accelerated production to meet the need for more warplanes, they produced more of this pollutant and faced mounting damage claims. Eager to put a positive spin on fluoride, the U.S. Public Health Service–then under the command of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of Alcoa–sent a dentist in its employ out West to investigate certain towns where fluoride occurs naturally in the water. This dentist observed that the inhabitants had fewer cavities than average-although they also had stained and eroded teeth.
In 1939, a scientist funded by Alcoa solved the disposal problem when he proposed adding fluoride to drinking water to reduce tooth decay. Then in the 1940s the unimpeded production of fluoride became a matter of national security–fluoride was the key substance used to separate the uranium isotope to build the atomic bomb. Millions of tons of fluoride were required. In 1944, according to declassified documents, an accident at a DuPont plant in New Jersey producing fluoride for the Manhattan Project released large quantities into the atmosphere. Crops were poisoned, animals were crippled, and people were sickened. The fluoride even etched windows in the local school. Scientists scrambled to gloss over the adverse effects in the interests of the war effort. Defense contractors and the government needed to create public support for fluoride and protect themselves from liability as well.
Fluoride’s Effects on Physiology
Some of the chemicals used in the fluoridation process alter the body’s natural defense against toxic heavy metals, especially lead. The link between lead and hyperactivity and violent behavior has been long established. Cravings for drugs such as alcohol and cocaine also are enhanced by the fluoride factor. Apparently the brain craves drugs to offset the harmful effects of fluoride ingestion. The average consumer of fluoridated water is usually not aware that sodium fluoride, or hydrofluosilicic acid, is rated as more toxic than lead in chemistry indexes and only slightly less toxic than arsenic. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient and, according to the National Academy of Sciences, has never been shown to be necessary for human life. Drs. Roger Berry and Wilfred Trillwood concluded that Sodium fluoride kills human cells at 1/20 the strength of fluoridated drinking water.
Dr. Sam Epstein, Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and author of The Politics of Cancer, wrote on May 29 in support of British MP John Butterfill’s motion (EDM 1258) opposing water fluoridation: “Fluoridation of water reflects high receptivity to the fluoride industry, and indifference with significant public health penalties to the UK population. I should further note that some 100 leading national and international cancer prevention scientists and representatives of consumer and environmental organizations have endorsed the Cancer Prevention Coalition’s opposition to fluoride in its Stop Cancer Before It Starts campaign report.
“Fluoride used for this purpose comes from highly contaminated industrial-grade fluorosilicic wastes; contaminants include heavy metals. Furthermore, there is significant experimental evidence that fluoride induces a dose-related incidence of bone cancer in rats. This is further supported by epidemiological studies incriminating fluoride and bone cancer in young men. It should further be noted that fluoride is currently added to the water supply of about 60% of the U.S. population. This is in sharp contrast to only 2% of the European population, which has much lower rates of dental caries.”
Biochemical research has established that chemical poisons like fluoride form hydrogen bonds with protein amide groups together. Thus: since DNA strands are connected by hydrogen bonds, fluoride will damage chromosomes. General Chemistry, McQuarrie and Rock, U. Cal., 1984, discusses fluorine, “Because its electro-negativity is higher than that of any other element, fluorine occurs with a positive oxidation state in any compound.” Thus, fluorine is the most reactive element known to chemists, and its greatest affinity is for calcium. Nature, The International Journal of Science, Jan. 15, 1987, let the cat out of the bag, further exposing the fluoridation fiasco. It published university studies showing that water boiled in an aluminum utensil for 10 minutes acquired 0.2-ppm of aluminum, which is a cause of Alzheimer’s.
If water is fluoridated at 1ppm, in ten minutes, 200 ppm of Aluminum are released–1,000 times more aluminum! Fluorine may cause irreversible loss of potassium from the human red cell. Fluorine increases excretion of iron–thus leading to anemia. Even at 10 mg. per liter, fluorine causes anemia, lymphocytosis and leukopenia. Blood levels of vitamin B12 are lowered. Damaging effects of fluorine may be found in the stomach, duodenum, small intestines, liver, spleen, lungs, brain, pancreas, adrenals and thyroid. Liver and muscle glycogen depletion and lactic acid accumulation, with increased blood sugar. Especially serious damage occurs in the spinal cord, with neurological symptoms following. The pituitary gland takes up several times as much fluorine as any other soft tissue, which is especially dangerous because the pituitary is the master gland of the endocrine system. Fluorine may cause anoxia in newborns and shorten their survival. Fluoride inhibits neuromuscular activity.
Fluoride depletes calcium from the body. Human Biochemistry, Orten and Neuhause, 9th Ed., tells us, “Calcium is needed by all cells. It is required for physiologic balance.” A particular and important effect of the calcium ion is on nervous tissue. If the ionic calcium of the blood falls, the nervous system becomes hyperirritable. Calcium is the main structural mineral in the body. Osteoporosis is a result of calcium loss in the skeleton. During the last trimester of pregnancy, between 200 and 300 mg. of calcium are deposited every day in the skeleton of the fetus. Pregnant women are given synthetic prenatal vitamins with added fluoride. Anyone with a calcium deficiency can experience muscle spasms and convulsions. Also, the tissue levels of two poisonous metals, lead and cadmium, increase, and blood clotting is adversely affected causing thrombosis and embolism. Oxygen deprivation in heart muscle is increased, with calcium deficiency causing arhythmias. Fluoride is a mutagen. Rats dosed with fluoride had a statistically significant increase in bone tumors. Fluoride-dosed rats had tumors of the thyroid, oral cavity and rare tumors of the liver. Female infertility is associated with elevated levels of fluoride (>3 ppm). One ppm fluoride in water facilitates the uptake of aluminum into the brain of rats, producing the type of brain tangles (amyloid deposits) that are associated with Alzheimers disease and other types of dementia. Fluoridated water was associated with elevated levels of lead in children’s blood.
Lead is associated with a variety of neurological problems, including reduced intelligence, aggression and hyperactivity. Recently released reports by the New York State Department of Public Health and an expert panel appointed by the U.S. Surgeon General dispute the American Dental Association’s blanket claim that there are no adverse health effects from fluoridation. Fluoridation’s effectiveness may be less than earlier studies had indicated, according to a new study by the National Institute for Dental Research. The largest study in the 50 years since fluoridation of U.S. water supplies began covers almost 40,000 children, aged 5 to 17, in 84 areas across the country.
The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 23, 1936, pp. 569-570, states. “There is an increasing amount of evidence of the injurious effects of fluorine, especially the chronic intoxication resulting from the ingestion of minute amounts of fluorine over long periods of time.” It adds, “Toxicity data suggests that fluorine, lead and arsenic belong to the same group, as far as the ability to cause some symptoms of toxicity in minute dosage is concerned.” Small daily doses of lead or arsenic are believed to be harmful. Fluoride is in the same category.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1939 surveyed and reported on the effects of fluoride. Fluorine was shown to be the cause of a disfiguring dental disease known as mottled enamel or fluorosis. Fluorine interferes with the normal process of calcification of teeth during the process of their formation, so that affected teeth, in addition to being unusually discolored and ugly in appearance, are structurally weak and deteriorate early in life.
For this reason, it is especially important that fluorine be avoided during the period of tooth formation, from birth to the age of 12 years. Pediatricians report that over 30% of U.S. children have some degree of noticeable dental fluorosis, or mottling of the teeth from exposure to excessively high levels of fluoride. There is an almost infinite array of fluoride-based toothpastes, mouthwashes, dentifrices, tablets and vitamins on pharmacy shelves, many of which warn (in very tiny print) that they should not be used if the fluoride concentration in drinking water exceeds 0.7-ppm. The sources of fluorine intoxication are…(among others)…drinking water containing 1 ppm or more of fluorine. It is estimated that approximately 40 million Americans suffer from arthritis, the most common type being osteoarthritis. Fluoride stimulates abnormal bone development. High dose fluoride treatment increases bone mass, but the newly formed bone is structurally unsound. Instead of reducing hip fracture, high doses of fluoride increase hip fracture.
Kyphosis (skeletal fluorosis spinal curvature) was very prevalent among a community whose drinking water contained 7.4 ppm fluoride. It’s alarming to learn of these adverse effects of fluoride at 1.1 parts per million when the U.S. EPA raised the safe level for fluoride up to 4.0 parts per million. Who is being protected, the people or the firms that sell fluoride and the manufacturers who produce fluoride as a by-product they can’t get rid of? Yes, the fluoride producers cannot dispose of this waste product unless all of us drink a little bit each day.
All fluoride compounds–inorganic and organic–affect thyroid hormone function. Though apparently vague and non-specific, most of the symptoms of fluoride toxicity point towards some kind of profound metabolic dysfunction, and are strikingly similar to the symptoms of Hypothyroidism. Up until the 1950s, European doctors used fluoride to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for people suffering from overactive thyroid (hyperthyroidism). The daily dose of fluoride which people are now receiving in fluoridated communities (1.6 to 6.6 mg/day) actually exceeds the dose of fluoride found to depress the thyroid gland (2.3 to 4.5 mg/day). Hypothyroidism is currently one of the most common medical problems in the U.S.
Following are a list of the symptoms of both fluoride poisoning and thyroid dysfunction: Abnormal Sweating:
Acne; ADHD/Learning Disorders; Allergies; Alopecia (Hair-loss) ; Alzheimer’s Disease; Anaphylactic Shock; Anemia; Apnea (Cessation of breath); Aorta Calcification; Asthenia (Weakness); Asthma; Atherosclerosis; Arthralgia; Arthritis; Ataxia; Autism; Back Pain; Behavioural Problems; Birth Defects; Blind Spots; Body temperature disturbances; Breast Cancer; Cachexia (wasting away); Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Cataracts; Change in blood pressure(=/-); Chest pain; Cholelithiasis (Gallstones); Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; Collagen breakdown; Cold Shivers; Coma; Concentration Inability; Constipation; Convulsions; Crying easily for no apparent reason; Death; Decrease in Testosterone; Dementia; Demyelinizing Diseases; Dental Abnormalities; Dental Arch smaller; Dentral Crowding; Dental enamel more porous; Dentral Fluorosis (Mottling of teeth); Delayed Eruption of teeth; Depression; Diabetes Insipidus; Diabetes Mellitus; Diarrhea; Dizziness; Down Syndrome; Dry Mouth; Dyspepsia; Dystrophy; Early/Delayed Onset of Puberty; Eczema; Edema(; Epilepsy; Eosinophilia; Excessive Sleepiness; Eye, ear and nose disorders; Fatigue; Fearfulness; Fever; Fibromyalgia; Fibrosarcoma; Fibrosis; Fingernails:Lines/Grooves; Fingernails:Brittle; Forgetfulness; Gastro-disturbances; Gastric Ulcers; Giant Cell Formation; Gingivitis; Goiter; Growth Disturbances; Headache; Hearing Loss; Heart Disorders; Heart Failure; Heart Palpitations; Hepatitis; Hemorrhage; Hives; Hoarseness; Hyperparathyroidism; Hypertension; Hypoplasia; Immunosuppression; Impotence; Incoherence; Infertility; Inflammatory Bowel Disease; Inner Ear Disorders; Irritability; Joint Pains; Kidney Failure; Lack of Energy; Lack of Co-ordination; Loss of Appetite; Loss of Consciousness; Loss of IQ; Loss of Spermatogenesis; Low Birth Weight; Lung Cancer; Lupus; Magnesium Deficiency; Memory Loss; Mental Confusion; Migraine; Monisiliasis (Candidasis); More fluorosis/high altitudes; Mouth Sores; Myalgia (Muscle Pain); Myotrophy (Muscle wasting); Multiple Sclerosis; Muscle Cramps; Muscle Stiffness; Muscle Weakness; Muscoskeletal Disease; Nausea; Osteoarthritis; Osteoporosis; Osteosarcoma; Optic Neuritis; Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma; Otosclerosis ; Parkinson’s Disease; Pins & Needles; Polydipsia; Polyneuropathy; Polyurea; Pyelocystitis; Premature Delivery; Pruritis (Itchy Skin); Pulminary Edema; Recurring Colds; Respiratory Complications; Restlessness; Retinitis; Rhinitis; Schizophrenia; Sceroderma; Skin Pigmentation; Secondary teeth erupt later; Sensitive to light; Seizures; Shortness of Breath; SIDS; Sinus Infections; Skeletal Changes; Sleep Disorders; Slipped Epiphysis; Sluggishness; Skin Irritations; Spondylitis, ankylosing; Stillbirths; Swallowing Difficulties (Dysphagia); Swelling in Face (Angioedema); Telangiectasia; Testicular Growth/Alteration; Thirst; Thrombosis; Thyroid Cancer; Tinnitus; Tingling Sensations; Visual disturbances; Ulcerative Colitis; Urticaria; Uterine Bleeding; Uterine Cancer; Vaginal Bleeding; Vas Deferens Alterations; Vertigo; Vitiligo (white spots/skin); Weak Pulse; Weight Disturbances; Zinc Deficiency.
Synthroid, the drug doctors prescribe to treat hypothyroidism, was the fourth most prescribed drug in the U.S. in 2000. Symptoms of hypothyroidism include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels and heart disease. From a recent University of York report, considered the “final word on fluoridation,” it was shown that symptoms described in the literature on fluoride’s adverse health effects are identical to those observed in thyroid dysfunction, and the condition known as dental fluorosis is a direct result of fluoride-induced iodine deficiency during the time of enamel formation. It showed an increase in thyroid cancers in the fluoridated areas when compared to non-fluoridated areas.
In China, where entire villages are being relocated due to fluoride contamination, fluoride is being openly acknowledged as the cause of thyroid cancer, Kaschin-Beck disease and iodine deficiency. It has been established since the 1930s that the thyroid hormones control tooth eruption. Fluoridation delays the eruption of teeth because of its hypothyroid effect. Dental fluorosis is a sign of thyroid dysfunction. Any anti-thyroid substance administered during the time of enamel formation will produce the effects seen in dental fluorosis. Fluorides actually cause cavities. There are countless papers–some of them found in the York Report–clearly state that the dental defects seen in fluorosis predispose to caries. Hyperthyroidism, caused after iodine was added to public water supplies in the early 1920s, led to the use of fluorides as anti-thyroid medication. Fluorides are the worst endocrine disruptor imaginable.
What was once known as fluoride-iodine antagonism can now be explained in detail by thousands of papers showing the fluoride power on G-protein activation. The biochemical activity of fluoride mimics TSH (thyroid-stimulating-hormone) on G-protein activation–molecular on/off switches by which all thyroid hormone activity is regulated.
Three-quarters of the world’s population is suffering from iodine deficiency in areas, which are identical to endemic fluorosis areas. Tooth decay is an epidemic in certain U.S. populations, whether or not they live in fluoridated cities. Eighty percent of decay occurs in 25% of the population, most of them poor and minorities. Well-meaning, but misguided dentists and hygienists are still pushing to get more of the U.S. fluoridated by the year 2010, primarily because they believe it will help poor children who suffer from needless dental pain every year that interferes with their eating, learning, and sleeping. One problem is that dentists want more money to actually treat poor children. Well-nourished children who practice good dental hygiene usually have the least decay.
Following is a list of a few fluoride compounds whose anti-thyroid effects are established, and which are included in many of today’s medications, as well as in pesticides:
3-fluoro-4-methoxy-phenylacetic acid; 3-fluoro-4-oxy-phenylacetic acid (Capacin); [p-fluorophenyl]-ethylketone; 3-fluoro-5-bromotyrosine; Iodofluorotyrosine; Fluorotyramine; 1-(3-fluoro-4-oxy) -phenyl-1-methyl-2-methyl-amino-ethane; 1-acetamino-2-fluoro-benzene-sulfonic-acid amide (fluorinated Prontalbin); Fluorphtiocol; Fluorobenzoic acid; Fluorotyrosine (Pardinon); PFOS (Scotchgard); perfluorooctance sulfonate; PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid; 1,1-dichloro-N-[(dimethylamino) sulfonyl]-1-fluoro-N-(4-methylphenyl) methanesulfenamide (Tolylfluanid); Fluoxetine (Prozac, Paxil); PMSF; Trifluoroiodomethane; Fluoroacetate; N-2-fluorenylacetamide; Trifluoperazine; Cyano(4-fluoro-3-phenoxyphenyl ) methyl 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dime thylcyclopropanecarboxylate; N-(4-fluorophenyl)-N-(1-methylet hyl)-2-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)- 1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]oxy]acetami de (Pesticide Flufenacet – Bayer); N-(p-fluorophenyl)-6-[3-(trifluoro methyl)phenoxy]-2-pyridinecarbo xamide (Picolinafen); [R*,S*-(E)]-(±)-7-[3-(4-fluoroph enyl)-1-(1-methylethyl)-1H-indol- 2-yl]-3,5-dihydroxy-6-heptenoate (Fluvastatin); N-[4-cyano-3-(trifluoromethyl)ph enyl]-3-[(4-fluorophenyl)sulfonyl] -2-hydroxy-2-methyl-,(+ -) (Casodex – AstraZeneca); 8-chloro-6-(2-fluorophenyl) -1-methyl-4H-imidazo[1,5-a] [1,4]benzodiazepine (Midazolam); 1-(4-fluorophenyl)-3®-(3-(4-fluor ophenyl)-3(S)-hydroxypropyl)-4( S)- (4-hydroxyphenyl)-2-azetidinone (Ezetimibe – ZETIA).
Politics and Suppression of Truth
When the fluoridation campaign began, it was determined that the optimal dose was 1 milligram per day, which translates to 1 part per million (ppm) in the water supply (assuming an individual drinks 1 liter of water a day). Officials concurred that concentrations of 2 ppm would not be acceptable because that would produce too many cases of dental fluorosis. But over the decades the maximum allowable contaminant level (fluoride is classified as a contaminant by the EPA), inched up to 2.4 ppm. Then in 1985 when the EPA increased the allowance to 4 ppm, something unprecedented occurred. The union representing employees at EPA headquarters in Washington D.C.–some 1500 scientists, engineers and other professionals–revolted against their own management and filed an amicus curiae brief in court to support a lawsuit brought by the National Resources Defense Council against the EPA.
As the brief stated, in their professional opinion, allowable fluoride levels should have been reduced rather than raised. They alleged that evidence of adverse effects was manipulated or ignored in order to arrive at a preordained political conclusion. Why was this allowed when the Federal Register of November 14, 1985, stated that the Office of Drinking Water received 11 out of 12 studies confirming the carcinogenicity (cancer-causing potential) of fluoride during a comment period on the safe allowable levels of fluoride in drinking water? An article titled Chronic Fluorine Intoxication in a 1943 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) declared, “Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, because of their capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by changing the permeability of the cell membrane and by inhibiting certain enzyme systems…”
Slander and smear campaigns have been commonplace in the frenzy of the fluoridation wars. The late Dr. John A. Yiamouyiannis, a biochemist and former biochemical editor of the prestigious Journal of the Chemical Abstracts Service, the world’s largest chemical information center, was removed from his post in 1969 when he began to publish articles critical of fluoridation. Since thousands of articles routinely passed through his hands, many of which showed the negative effects of even miniscule amounts of fluoride on enzyme function and the immune system, he began to question its use for human consumption. He says he was told by his editor-in-chief at the time, Dr. Russell Rowlett, that the Chemical Abstracts Service’s federal funding ($1.1 million) was in jeopardy and that if Yiamouyiannis did not “cease and desist” in his attack of fluoridation, he would be fired. When Yiamouyiannis did not comply, he was put on probation and ultimately forced to resign. He continued to be an outspoken critic of fluoridation until the time of his death. He has written a paper saying the NIDR data show no difference in decay rates between areas with fluoridated and unfluoridated water supplies. Research scientists have produced a report saying the same data, showing 18% less decay in the fluoridated areas, a difference they call significant, but which is far below the 40 to 60% reduction claimed by the ADA.
In the summer of 1988, an article in the 100,000-member American Chemical Society’s trade journal Chemical and Engineering News, examined the evidence on safety and effectiveness of fluoride and found many unresolved questions: “If the lifeblood of science is open debate of evidence, scientific journals are the veins and arteries of the body scientific. Yet journal editors often have refused, for political reasons, to publish information that raises questions about fluoridation.” Submissions critical of fluoridation are returned as “inappropriate for publication.”
The bulk of the social science literature on fluoridation is scientifically proven and indeed scientifically unquestionable. The many studies that fall into this category make no examination of the scientific evidence, but rely entirely on the endorsements of dental and medical authorities. Those promoting fluoridation have had almost exclusive access to the resources of authority, even while claiming that scientific truth was their strongest plank and that opponents to fluoridation are spurred by personal or political motivation.
Therefore, opposition to fluoridation has always been treated as an anomaly, to be explained away as the activity of fringe groups and “quacks.” The problem began in 1950 when key public health and professional bodies such as the United States Public Health Service and the ADA came out supporting fluoridation. Almost overnight, the scientific issues were treated as closed. Fluoridation was considered scientifically proved and, furthermore, criticisms of fluoridation were treated as political rather than scientific. Opponents were classified as cranks rather than as rational critics. The climate is the same today. The combination of direct attacks on public opponents of fluoridation, fears about loss of grants, and the general labeling of them as ignorant and misguided, combine to discourage scientists from doing research or speaking out on the issues.
The relative lack of open opposition, in turn, encourages a perception of the fringe nature of critics. The pro-fluoridationists, through their control over dental and medical associations, their control over health authorities, and their influence over editorial policy of journals and publishers, have exerted power to stop expression of anti-fluoridation views by professionals. Nevertheless, not all critics of fluoridation have been effectively silenced.
Brian Dementi, toxicologist at the Virginia State Department of Health, discussed in his 1981 report, Fluoride in Drinking Water, the many scientific papers showing fluoride to be both mutagenic and carcinogenic. Dementi contends that there has not been nearly enough research done to warrant the claim that fluoridation is absolutely safe. He concludes, “The weight of the evidence from studies on mutagenic effects of fluoride indicates that the substance is mutagenic (causes mutations) at low concentrations.” He adds that “there appears to be virtually no margin of safety for fluoride of the nature generally sought after or required for exposures to toxic substances.” Dementi’s report includes a 1969 study that shows an average 48% reduction in the activity of the enzyme succinic dehydrogenase in the kidneys of golden hamsters that drank water containing 1-ppm sodium fluoride. He discusses a study done in 1975 in which squirrel monkeys exposed to fluoride at the 1-ppm level for eighteen months exhibited cytochemical changes in their kidneys.
A 1979 report stated, “The available evidence suggests that some patients with long-term renal failure are being affected by drinking water with as little as 2-ppm fluoride.” In his report, which was deleted from Virginia Health Department files because it was “too old,” Dementi chronicles the research on fluoride mutagenesis. He writes that in 1977 researchers observed leucocytes in cows suffering from fluorosis (a systemic poisoning caused by excessive fluoride which can lead to severe crippling). The chromosomal aberration rate was over twice that of controls. The authors concluded, “These data suggest that inorganic fluor compounds represent a potential genetic hazard to mammals.” Similarly, another 1977 study by a team who added sodium fluoride to drinking water at various concentrations and noticed the effects on mouse cells (bone marrow and spermatocytes), showed “statistically significant increases in chromosomal aberrations in both types of cells even at drinking water levels as low as 1-ppm sodium fluoride.”
Dementi states, “Any perturbation of this complex system must be viewed, a priori, as cause for concern.” The largest epidemiological study ever done on fluoridated water and carcinogenicity was conducted in 1977 by Yiamouyiannis and Dr. Dean Burk, retired head of cytochemistry at the National Cancer Institute, in which they monitored cancer rates over a twenty-year period in ten fluoridated American cities and ten non-fluoridated ones. After controlling for population differences in age, race and sex, the researchers found an increased cancer mortality rate in persons over age forty-five in fluoridated cities. The study was validated in three courts of law in the U.S. Further studies on DNA and DNA-repair systems have shown that fluoride inhibits or interferes with the ability of DNA to repair itself, thus providing a clue as to how fluoride might exert a carcinogenic impact on human cells. The New Jersey Department of Health had conducted a study and found the incidence of osteosarcoma to be significantly higher in fluoridated communities versus non-fluoridated ones.
The New Jersey findings supported similar ones by larger national studies and by the National Toxicology Program. In a 1989 Medical Tribune, a weekly publication for health professionals revealed that a panel appointed to study the issue in 1983 by C. Everett Koop, then surgeon general, also raised questions about health effects. All mention of those issues was edited out of the panel’s final report. The omission of health concerns from the panel’s final report is “shocking,” charged Robert Carton, an EPA scientist and president of the union that represents the agency’s scientific staff. The immune system, the body’s National Guard, so to speak, using white blood cells, is disrupted and rendered much less effective from the effects of fluoride. These white blood cells are calcium dependent. One consequence is hypersensitivity or allergy which will bring increased, more severe or longer-lasting colds, flus and other ills. Since studies have revealed that fluoride, taken over a long period of time, breaks down the immune system, some researchers feel that it is therefore conducive to AIDS.
The Cape Cod News, August 20, 1986, observed that the three longest fluoridated areas in the U.S.–New York, D.C. & San Francisco–are the most prolific with AIDS. L.A. and San Antonio, on the other hand, have never been fluoridated, and this plague has been miniscule in these cities. Though these two cities have large homosexual communities, AIDS isn’t as prevalent. Dean Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus at U.S. Cancer Institute, states, “In point of fact, fluoride causes more cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical.” (Fluoride and Cancer, Congressional Record H7176-6, July 21, 1975, by Dean Burk and J.A. Yiamouyiannis).
Several studies, including one carried on over a period of years at the University of Wisconsin and published in 1963, show that fluoridated areas have an exceptional number of stillbirths. Scientists know that fluoride passes through the placenta. Dr. Ionel Rapaport, University of Wisconsin, “carried out two studies showing that mongolism, a birth defect characterized by mental and physical retardation, occurs more often in areas where there is a relatively high fluoride content in the water.” According to the Grand Rapids Press, July 28, 1955, following widely publicized fluoridation experiments in Grand Rapids, Michigan: “Deaths rose sharply after four years of fluoridation which began in 1945. Deaths from cancer, heart disease, intracranial (brain) disease, diabetes and hardening of the arteries increased 25 to 50 percent over those in Michigan as a whole.” (First National Symposium on Fluoridation).
The J.A.M.A. for Feb. 10, 1961 states, “Fluorine also tends to accumulate in the bones, leading to hyper-calcification and brittleness. Ligaments and tendons also become calcified. Serious symptoms may ensue, such as loss of mobility of joints, easy fracture and pressure on the spinal cord. Other defects include baldness in young men, anemia and decreased blood clotting power. In women, painful menstruation, lowered birth rate, high incidence of fracture, thyroid alterations and liver damage.”
When one drinks sodium fluoride (NaF) in water, they excrete calcium fluoride (CaF2) in their urine. This calcium was stolen from the body. In 1936 50 percent of Americans were calcium deficient. The AMA journal of the same year reported that out of 4,000 persons checked in at a New York hospital, only two were not suffering from calcium deficiency. The situation is worse today. Fluoride in drinking or cooking water can disrupt the enzymatic activity of proteins. Dr. John Yiamouyiannis (Fluoride The Aging Factor, Health Action Press, 1983) observed, “If the shape (or conformation) of the protein is greatly distorted by fluoride, the body’s immune system will no longer be able to recognize the protein and will attempt to destroy it.”
The summer 1959 issue of Clinical Physiology reported on page 96, a study done by experimental embryologist James D. Eberrt and published in Scientific American March 1959. It relates: “…he found that sodium fluoride in low concentrations blocked, almost completely, the regions destined to form heart muscle but left the developing brain and spinal cord intact.” He correlated this with the high incidence of ventricular septal defect, which was relatively uncommon before the 1950s, and fluoridation. Most of the advanced Western European countries have banned fluoridation or given it up. The United States is the most fluoridated country, and it has the highest tooth decay rate in the world! So is fluoridation the “biggest hoax ever inflicted on humanity” or a modern miracle opposed by a small, ignorant minority?
Non-fluoridated toothpaste is available at your local health food store or co-op. Children and parents who are truly concerned about their children can refuse fluoride “swish” programs in public schools. The Union of Scientists and professionals at EPA headquarters has voted to oppose fluoridation and has called upon Congress to issue a “national moratorium” on the sixty year old policy. The toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small–if there is any at all–that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest is criminal behavior on the part of the government.
NO ONE REALLY KNOWS HOW MUCH PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY GETTING! People who exercise and drink a lot of water, who use fluoridated toothpaste, and use fluoride dental treatments thinking they are doing the right thing, and who drink sodas, juices, and teas likely made from fluoridated water, including those who bathe frequently, swim in pools, etc. may be overdosing on fluoride all the time without realizing it. There is no way to measure one’s exposure. Many children use gobs of toothpaste, and swallow it because it tastes so good.
Potentially Harmful Fluoride Levels found In Instant Teas
Instant tea, one of the most popular drinks in the United States , may be a source of harmful levels of fluoride, researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis report. The researchers found that some regular strength preparations contain as much as 6.5 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, well over the 4 ppm maximum allowed in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency and 2.4 ppm permitted in bottled water and beverages by the Food and Drug Administration.
The discovery stemmed from the diagnostic investigation of a middle-aged woman suffering from spine pain attributed to hyper-dense bones. Testing for the cause of her symptoms revealed the patient had high levels of fluoride in her urine. She then disclosed a high consumption of iced tea—claiming to drink one to two gallons of double-strength instant tea throughout the day—which led the researchers to test for fluoride content in several brands of instant tea available on grocery store shelves.
Each of the teas was tested as a regular-strength preparation in fluoride-free water, and each contained fluoride, with amounts ranging from 1.0 to 6.5 parts per million. The study is reported in the January 2005 issue of The American Journal of Medicine.
“The tea plant is known to accumulate fluoride from the soil and water. Our study points to the need for further investigation of the fluoride content of teas,” says Michael Whyte, M.D., professor of medicine, pediatrics and genetics. “We don’t know how much variation there is from brand to brand and year to year.”
The Public Health Service indicates that the fluoride concentration should not exceed 1.2 ppm.
Whyte said, “These findings could aid in the diagnosis and treatment of patients who have achiness in their bones. In the future, healthcare practitioners should ask such patients about their tea consumption.”