How We Got Fluoridated

How We Got Fluoridated

by Philip Heggen

Preface

Throughout the world, and from the beginning, virtually all living creatures have been exposed to fluoride. It's nothing new. Fluoride is one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust - cumulative and toxic to all forms of life at remarkably low dosage.

Sixty years ago U.S. dental researchers had identified areas in sixteen states where disfiguring mottled enamel was a serious problem. Thirty years ago, the World Health Organization had noted that high concentrations of fluoride are found in areas of every continent and that dental fluorosis is a problem from Finland to South Africa and from England to Japan.

But fluoride affects more than just developing teeth. Even dinosaurs have ingested water and vegetation contaminated by fluoride from volcanic gases and ash - and suffered the consequence in terms of painful arthritic effects.

Industrial mining and manufacturing, like mini-volcanoes, bring up fluorides from the earth into the biosphere, with similar effects on human communities. In the past century or so, man has spawned these "mini-volcanoes" without fully understanding the consequences. Modern well-drilling equipment has provided much needed water from deep within the earth - and this, too, has resulted in fluoride poisoning.

Fluoridation has not been a conspiracy in the usual sense of the word ... but rather, a colossal blunder.

"The problem is enormous, unbelievable," says Andezhath Susheela of the Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation in Delhi, India. She has been unraveling the national story for a decade during which time her estimate of the number of people leading "a painful and crippled life" from fluorosis has risen from one million to 25 million and now to 60 million - six million of them children - spread across tens of thousands of communities. "In some villages three-quarters of the population are seriously affected."

This paper is a chronicle and overview spanning the history of modern industry. It shows the rise of fluoride pollution and how economic motives have overridden concerns for human health. We take you back to the early metal refinery pollution in Europe and show the record of lawsuits for fluoride damage. This reveals the basis for American industry's fear of being shut down by lawsuits. We also document the steps taken by industry to divert public attention away from fluoride air pollution. This chronicle shows that the origin of water fluoridation is in these fluoride fears of industry -- not in concern for children's teeth.

During the 1940s, the development of the atom bomb required handling huge amounts of fluoride in the production of nuclear weapons. Documented here is a major safety study by the Atomic Energy Commission. As a result of this extensive study, the federal government became involved in the suppression of information about fluoride poisoning. Formerly restricted government documents now made available under the Freedom of Information Act have filled in blank spaces in this chronology.

Thus, both big government and big industry, for different reasons, became involved in the cover up. The succeeding collaboration of industry and government is documented below in detail.

The difficulties in maintaining a deception over an extended time are sizable. This is especially true with an ongoing issue like fluoridation. A compounding of dishonest statements and actions is required to maintain the original deception. At a certain point, the truth of the situation becomes obvious. These consequences are now coming to bear on the defenders of fluoridation. The Epilogue deals with this coming confrontation.

Introduction

So posting the comments of a "past president" of the AMA WITHOUT mentioning it was SIXTY FIVE YEARS PAST

Now you are being DISHONEST Tom. First off, are you implying that Dr. Heyd WAS NOT a president of the AMA? You appear to be doing so with the use of your quotation marks. Secondly, WHEN EXACTLY do you think Dr. Heyd made those comments? Do you think he made them BEFORE OR AFTER fluoridation was taking place?

or personally awarding someone a Nobel Prize because you "think he deserved it" are only "minor inaccuracies". Geez, it hate to see what the major ones are.

If Dr. Mercola has an inaccuracy on his website, send him an email and ask him to correct it. I didn't quote from his site, you did. Dr. Mercola may have simply transposed the info incorrectly, who knows.. And as I said, compared to your DELIBERATE deception, the mistake is trivial.

You are building up quite an impressive list of goofs.

Not as impressive as yours pal. And it wasn't MY mistake, it was Dr. Mercola's...

Now tell me, why should anybody believe you?

Because I'm honest, unlike you.

Now, unless you are speaking another language, or are brain damaged, it is plainly clear that I said SPECIFICALLY that Dr. Heyd was a president of the AMA.

Well I suppose that we can all say that you are a "dentist" Tom. Although in YOUR case, I think the "quotes" are justified...

My problem is that you conviently forget to inform people he was president back before fluoridation began.

And how exactly does that effect his stature and reputation? Is he any less qualified to make that observation because he may not STILL HAVE BEEN president of the AMA when he made the statement? And if they KNEW fluoride to be toxic back THEN, why do you think it's any LESS toxic now?

It is intentionally misleading that you leave that fact out when you refer to him as a "past president" of the AMA.

I don't think so Tom. It's not like referring to fluoride workers as cavity free while neglecting to mention that fluoride caused all their teeth to fall out..

BTW, what is the solubility of calcium fluoride at 20 degrees Celsius?

Here's a little something on the "study" that you referenced..

Reviewed 3,231 studies - rejected 93% or 3,017 studies - used 214 studies.

They give specific reasons for rejecting those studies. Most of them were pro-fluoridation studies.

Excludes ALL animal and toxicological studies.

Yes, as I have been saying, since people have been consuming fluoride for decades (or centuries), in vitro studies (where you purposely poison a lab animal) are of no use when you can actually study effects first hand.

Ignored the question of Total Fluoride Intake from all sources.

Where do you find these websites? They are worthless:

12.7.2 Total fluoride exposure

Whoops.

At a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm, the prevalence of fluorosis was estimated to be 48%

"Fluorosis"? More blatant dishonesty. Of course the study was referring to dental fluorosis, which is common and not even noticable on most people. Other than light white spots on some teeth, there is NO OTHER EFFECT.

The possible negative effects of water fluoridation were examined as broadly as possible. The effects on dental fluorosis are the clearest. There is a dose-response relationship between water fluoride level and the prevalence of fluorosis. Fluorosis appears to occur frequently (predicted 48%, 95% CI 40 to 57) at fluoride levels typically used in artificial fluoridation schemes (1 ppm). The proportion of fluorosis that is aesthetically concerning is lower (predicted 12.5%, 95% CI 7.0 to 21.5)."

You really need to start reading these things before you post them.

Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendations of the Natick Fluoridation Study Committee
So we've gone from old doctors to committees.

Er, not just ANY committee there TomB..

The Natick Fluoridation Committee consisted of the following team;

Benedict J. Gallo, Ph.D. - Research Microbiologist, U.S. Army
Jason Kuppershmidt, B. - Environmental Chemist
Norman R. Mancuso, Ph.D. - Apollo Program Project Scientist
Alfred J. Murray, M.S.T. - Researcher, U.S. Army Natick Research Labs
Harlee S. Strauss, Ph.D. - Microbiologist

You are desperate.

You are pathetic.

So tell me, what SPECIFIC diesases or other illness result from drinking properly fluoridated water?

Read the Natick report, maybe you'll learn something..

And I'm STILL waiting for the answer from you and aruanan in relation to the solubility of calcium fluoride at 20 degrees Celsius...

Where do you find these websites? They are worthless:

You've got to be kidding me. You post what looks like a page out of the phone book and call that "evidence", yet you play semantic games and attempt to ridicule valid comments?

First of all, your pal aruanan was caught red handed posting false info FROM A CDC webpage, where of course they disclaim any and all data there, as it is obviously DANGEROUSLY false. Yet, HE used it in an attempt to prove me wrong. You ridiculously cling to YOUR false claim that ALL calcium fluoride dissolves in water, where HE said NONE of it did. Yet neither YOU NOR HIM have come forward with a correction. Now THAT'S what I call dishonesty...

You try to twist the observation that the York study DID NOT take total fluoride into consideration, where they ADMIT RIGHT IN THE PARAGRAPH THAT YOU QUOTE THAT THEY DIDN'T...

Mentioning it is not the same as USING data from those studies that DID consider TOTAL fluoride intake. They even recommend that future studies SHOULD "attempt to measure total fluoride exposure in areas being researched.".

"Fluorosis"? More blatant dishonesty. Of course the study was referring to dental fluorosis, which is common and not even noticable on most people.

In one breath your saying they're dishonest for making the observation, and in the other you admit that they were right. Are you sipping to much "optimal" water Tom?

Other than light white spots on some teeth, there is NO OTHER EFFECT.

You mean like this?

Journal of the Canadian Dental Association

And actually, it is said that the teeth are a window as to what is going on with our bones.

You asked for studies, here's some you might like..

Bone structure assessment on radiographs of distal radial metaphysis in children with dental fluorosis

What are the long-term effects of ingesting fluoride on our bones? Fluoride is a bioaccumulator and is toxic to bones

Fluorosis appears to occur frequently (predicted 48%, 95% CI 40 to 57) at fluoride levels typically used in artificial fluoridation schemes (1 ppm).

What don't you understand concerning the above paragraph?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.