Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How We Got Fluoridated
Stop Fluoridation USA ^ | Unknown | Philip Heggen

Posted on 11/22/2002 7:33:34 PM PST by FormerLurker

 
 
 
                              stop fluoridation
 

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
home


       
 
 
 


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-420 last
To: RadioAstronomer; FormerLurker
Are dental amalgams safe?

Yes. Dental amalgam has been used in tooth restorations worldwide for more than 100 years. Studies have failed to find any link between amalgam restorations and any medical disorder. Amalgam continues to be a safe restorative material for dental patients.

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I went home for Thanksgiving and just got back.

It's true that many dentists have no problem whatsoever with mercury/amalgam fillings, yet a growing number are voicing their concern (not so much regarding new amalgams, but older amalgam fillings that are prone to leakage).

There is a device that measures the level of mercury vapors in the mouth, and some dentists use this device on their patients with older amalgams. If the level of mercury vapor is too high, the dentist will recommend replacing the older amalgams with either composites or with new amalgam fillings [most dental insurance doesn't cover (or fully cover) composite fillings (more expensive) used on molars and bicuspids (considered cosmetic).]

401 posted on 12/04/2002 12:27:20 PM PST by schmelvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
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...

No, your "website" said this:

    Ignored the question of Total Fluoride Intake from all sources.

Note the word is "ignored". If it is discussed in the study, it wasn't ignored. More semantical gymnastics.

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?

I realize this is a very hard concept for you to understand, but there are TWO DIFFERENT CONDITIONS, skeletal fluorosis and dental fluorosis. By combining the two your "source" is being blatantly dishonest (again).

What don't you understand concerning the above paragraph?

How you can claim to have any idea what you are talking about.

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

No. There is no connection between mild or moderate dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis.

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

I'm sorry, your garbage journal "Fluoride" is not recognized as a valid peer-reviewed journal. How about something more mainstream?

Lowers IQ, causes cancer, skeletal fluorosis, hip fractures, and various neurological disorders.

If that were true, all your researchers would have to do is look at a similar population in a city that has fluoridation vs one that didn't, and show increased problems. But, of course, that can't consistently be done, because no association exists. This type of epidemological study doesn't even require large amounts of money, just a lot of legwork.

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?

Yes, comments made without substantiation. This is the picture on the front page of the website of one of your "valid" sources:

Yep, that's what I call a believable source.

402 posted on 12/04/2002 2:52:02 PM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
Hip fractures

The fluoridation of drinking water and hip fracture hospitalization rates in two Canadian communities

    CONCLUSIONS. These findings suggest that fluoridation of drinking water has no impact, neither beneficial nor deleterious, on the risk of hip fracture.

Hip fracture incidence before and after the fluoridation of the public water supply, Rochester, Minnesota

    These ecologic trend data suggest that the fluoridation of public water supplies is not associated with an immediate increase in rates of hip fracture.

Community water fluoridation, bone mineral density, and fractures: prospective study of effects in older women

    Conclusions: Long term exposure to fluoridated drinking water does not increase the risk of fracture.

Those are just a few. If I get bored later I post more on cancer and the rest.

403 posted on 12/04/2002 3:00:59 PM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: TomB
cancer

From the Calgary Regional Health Authority:

    Does water fluoridation cause cancer?

    No. More than 50 epidemiological studies have been conducted to evaluate the relationship between fluoride concentrations in drinking water and cancer. The U.S. Public Health Service reviewed the results of these studies and concluded there was no credible evidence for an association between fluoride in drinking water and the risk of cancer.

    Professor Sheldon Roth, Departments of Pharmacology & Therapeutics and Anaesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, stated in the 1998 Report of the Expert Panel for Water Fluoridation Review that "There is no conclusive evidence that levels of fluoride found in fluoridated water are associated with greater incidence of cancer."

    *****snip******

    Several studies were initiated in response to these results. In Alberta, 1970 -1988 rates of osteosarcoma in Calgary (non-fluoridated) were compared with Edmonton (fluoridated - 1967). There were no differences observed in the cancer rates. Similar studies were conducted in New York State, New Jersey counties, Wisconsin, Ontario, and an international study analyzing bone cancers in US, Canada, and Europe. All these studies concluded that there was no association between osteosarcoma, or other cancer risk and fluoride in the drinking water.

    After reviewing the epidemiological studies, a number of national and international commissions including the National Research Council Subcommittee on the Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride also concluded there was no association between fluoride exposure and increased cancer risk in humans.

    Reference:

    City of Calgary, Calgary Regional Health Authority. Report of the expert panel for water fluoridation review - Executive Summary. March 1998.

    Cook-Mozaffari P. Cancer and fluoridation. Community Dental Health. 13, Suppl 2, 1996.

    Hrudley, S., Soskolne, C., Berkel, J., Fincham, S. Drinking water fluoridation and osteosarcoma. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 81,Nov/Dec 1990.

    National Research Council. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride - Executive Summary. Committee on Toxicology, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1993.

    U.S. Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks - Executive Summary. Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs, 1991.


404 posted on 12/04/2002 4:04:23 PM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Still at it eh? You both have endurance!
405 posted on 12/04/2002 4:22:26 PM PST by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
Still at it eh? You both have endurance!

It's either this or beat my dog. And this is a lot more fun.

;-)

406 posted on 12/04/2002 4:26:34 PM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: TomB
For the dog too! Everybody wins...

Carry on!
407 posted on 12/04/2002 4:29:24 PM PST by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: TomB
It's either this or beat my dog. And this is a lot more fun.

Does your dog tell you what to write Tom?

408 posted on 12/05/2002 6:28:39 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Yes, comments made without substantiation. This is the picture on the front page of the website of one of your "valid" sources:

Which ones that Tom?

409 posted on 12/05/2002 6:29:49 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: TomB
I'm sorry, your garbage journal "Fluoride" is not recognized as a valid peer-reviewed journal. How about something more mainstream?

That's only according to your wackjob quacks. In reality, the ADA has engaged in massive quackery, motivated by a desire to avoid litigation that would bankrupt those polluting our bodies with fluoride. That's the fact of the matter, and no matter how much you jump up and down and hold your breath, the facts remain the same...

410 posted on 12/05/2002 6:32:38 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: TomB
No. There is no connection between mild or moderate dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis.

Sure Tom. I'll believe medical researchers before I believe someone playing a "dentist" on FR...

411 posted on 12/05/2002 6:34:09 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Note the word is "ignored". If it is discussed in the study, it wasn't ignored. More semantical gymnastics.

It was discussed as to how it would be ignored. Would that trip your trigger Tom?

412 posted on 12/05/2002 6:35:18 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Community water fluoridation, bone mineral density, and fractures: prospective study of effects in older women
Conclusions: Long term exposure to fluoridated drinking water does not increase the risk of fracture.

From Critical difference was overlooked

On the basis of their meta-analysis, McDonagh et al claim that there is no evidence of a relation between hip fracture in elderly people and fluoridation but mischaracterise some of the key studies. For example, they indicated that Li et al showed no association.3 Li et al showed, however, that at above 1.5 ppm hip fracture rates were doubled and above 4 ppm they were tripled. Although I pointed this out to McDonagh et al twice, they still report no association.

413 posted on 12/05/2002 6:42:50 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: TomB
FromFormer NIH (National Inst. of Health) scientist opposed to fluoride


Former NIH (National Inst. of Health) scientist opposed to fluoride

Statement by James B. Patrick, Ph.D. at the Joint Congressional Committee on Health and Appropriations Against the Inclusion of Fluoridation in the Preventive Health & Health Services Block Grant, Held August 4, 1982.

 Dr. Patrick earned his B.S. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University majoring in chemistry. His experience as Antibiotics Research Scientist was with the National Institute of Health and Lederle Laboratories.

Dr. Patrick is Senior Professor and Chairman of the Department of Chemistry, Mary Baldwin College, Stauton, Virginia, 1967 to date. He is author of 28 technical papers and holder of 7 U.S,. patents.

 

"A number of scholarly volumes and numerous technical articles have been written showing the biochemical and toxicological hazards of deliberately exposing the population to continuous dosages of such a potent chronic toxin as fluoride. I cannot summarizes them in the time of space at my disposal here, but will confine myself to sketching three points.

1. Fluoride is an enzyme poison, in the same class as cyanide, oxalate, or azide, which means that it is capable of a very wide variety of harmful effects, even at low doses. This characteristic of fluoride has long been known and accounts for the opposition to fluoridation of such eminent scientists as Sumner (co-author of Sumner and Myrback, “The Enzymes,” which was the Bible of enzymology for an entire generation); Laubengayer, also of Cornell, and a leading authority on all aspects of fluoride chemistry; Theorell and Von Euler, both Swedes and both Nobel Prize winners for work in enzymology; Waldbott, one of the country’s foremost allergists who first described penicillin allergy; and a number of others. This enzyme toxicity is the principal cause of the very low margin of safety involved in fluoridating water. A concentration of about 1 part per million is recommended for fluoridation whereas in several countries severe skeletal fluorosis has been documented from water supplies containing only two or three parts per million. In the development of drugs, even for life-threatening diseases, we generally insist on a therapeutic index (margin of safety) of the order of 100; a therapeutic index of 2 or 3 is totally unacceptable, yet that is what has been proposed for public water supplies.

2. Because of this well-known toxicity, the vast majority of civilized nations with advanced standards of public health have rejected fluoridation and in most cases prohibit it. The Swiss Ministry of Health studied fluoride administration for years but never adopted it and it is now prohibited: a canton can not put fluoride in its water under any circumstances.

In Sweden the government sought the opinion of the Nobel Medical Institute, one of the most prestigious in the world. The Institute recommended against fluoridation, based largely on the toxicity I have described above, and Swedish water is not fluoridated. In a similar way the French government consulted the Pasteur Institute; that Institute strongly recommended against fluoridation and France remains unfluoridated. West Germany experimented with a few limited local fluoridation projects and then dropped the whole idea. Denmark adopted fluoridation a number of years ago, but then sharply reversed itself and now strictly prohibits the addition of fluoride to public water supplies. The only nations that I know of that have advance standards of public health and permit fluoridation are the U.S., Great Britain, and a few of the British Dominions. The reason seems to be that dentists campaigned vigorously in the English-speaking countries very early and got fluoridation adopted because of its claimed dental benefits. But the opposition of fluoridation is not concerned with dental effects nearly so much as whole body toxicity. Dentists are not trained in toxicology or enzyme biochemistry and are in no position to assess the public health hazards of fluoridation. In all of the countries that have rejected fluoridation it is conspicuous that biochemists, physiologists, pharmacologists, and enzymologists have been consulted and listened to.

3. Over 20 years ago the U.S. public health authorities who were pushing fluoridation admitted that raising the level of fluoride in the drinking water much above one part per million, or otherwise increasing the fluoride intake of the population, was hazardous. But since the introduction of fluoridation in the United States the average fluoride intake has risen sharply. Canned goods prepared with fluoridated water have elevated fluoride content because of concentration. Marier and Rose first demonstrated the significant rise in total fluoride burden, and later Jerard and I studied the question in more detail and concluded that most people are already receiving more fluoride than the public health guidelines permitted. But Jerard and I did our work when fluoride toothpastes were only beginning to be used, and fluoride mouthwashes had not yet come on the market. It is clear that fluoride intake is rising year by year, and this is a serious matter. When Jerard and I did our work Rapoport had already shown the increase in mongoloid births associated with fluoride intake, and Waldbott’s work on fluoride allergies was becoming widely known. Since then the Indian, Chinese, and East German work on skeletal fluorosis has made it plain that this insidious ailment can easily masquerade as intractible arthritis if physicians are not looking for it, and the statistical association of heart disease and fluoridation of soft water has been shown. Most recently, the massive Burk-Yamouyannis survey has revealed an association between cancer and fluoridation that is a good deal more convincing than some of the more widely publicized associations such as saccharin, benzene, etc.

For these three reasons, as well as for a number of others that I have not attempted to cover here. I strongly advise against the legislature of this Commonwealth having anything to do with fluoridation. It is a scientific disgrace that a well organized lobby of the American Dental Association ever managed to stampede American legislators into ignoring the highly technical but very cogent objection to fluoridations."

   

414 posted on 12/05/2002 6:47:54 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: TomB
From STATEMENT OF DR. J. WILLIAM HIRZY BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND DRINKING WATER


Dr. Hirzy, EPA Sr. Scientist, Testifies before Congress

STATEMENT OF Dr. J. WILLIAM HIRZY
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 280

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND DRINKING WATER

UNITED STATES SENATE

JUNE 29, 2000

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

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

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

Summary of Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

1) excessive and un-controlled fluoride exposures;

2) altered findings of a cancer bioassay;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surgeon Generals Panel on Fluoride
We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon Generals panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon Generals panel (16) were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride.Kingston and Newburg, New York Results In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17). In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city.

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

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

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

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

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

In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: "This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislatures determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health."

Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: "[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man."

The significance of Judge Flahertys statement and his and the other two judges findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: A record of all presentations made at the hearing on the Safe Drinking Water Act can be found at http://www.senate.gov/~epw/stm1_106.htm#06-29-00


CITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


415 posted on 12/05/2002 6:53:18 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: TomB
From UC Davis Study finds fluoridation studies especially rich in fallacies

The announced opinions and published papers favoring mechanical fluoridation of public drinking water are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude. Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics at the very first meeting. The students see through them straightway, and are afforded great amusement.Uproarious laughter frequently ensues. No special statistical equipment is necessary to detect those peccancies. Of course the class and the Group soon tired of those infantilities, and sought and found greater challenge.

416 posted on 12/05/2002 7:02:48 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: TomB
And actually, it is said that the teeth are a window as to what is going on with our bones.
No. There is no connection between mild or moderate dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis.

Wrong again Tom..

From Fluoride, Teeth and the A-Bomb

"The teeth are windows to what's happening in the bones," explains Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University (NY). In recent years, pediatric bone specialists have expressed alarm about an increase in stress fractures among US youth. Connett and other scientists are concerned that fluoride - linked to bone damage by studies since the 1930's - may be a contributing factor.

417 posted on 12/05/2002 7:07:37 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
I'm continually amazed at how you worship at the feet of these few people opposed to fluoride. There are thousands of scientists, physicians and dentists who say fluoridation is safe, and yet you cling to these few malcontents.

Anybody reading your spam (and you have my sympathies) will see the same few names and the same few websites you continually harvest your spam from.

And you asked me where the UFO came from. Really, you need to start checking your sources better:

ALERT - Fluoride Facts 'Toxic Secrets: Fluoride And The Manhattan Project"

Is from Rense.com. These are some of the subjects covered on this important health webiste:

100' Glowing Disc Hovers 60' From Oregon Home
Dancing UFOs In Korean Skies
UFO 'Fleet' Reported Over Buenos Aires?
UFOs In 15th Century Paintings
Chemtrails Over St. Petersburg
Arctic Will Lose All Its Summer Ice By 2100
The Microwave Phaser
'Mayberry Machiavellis' - Shutting Down A Truth-Teller
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
Unknown Fibers (From Above?) Tied To New Skin Disease

Maybe this explains what happend to you (from the Rense site):

Rememeber, these are the kinds of websites this guy is going to to get his health infomation.

418 posted on 12/05/2002 8:34:44 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Rememeber, these are the kinds of websites this guy is going to to get his health infomation.

Yep, that's where all the information comes from Tom, right. Rense.com contains LOTS of interesting informtion, much of which I'm sure is controversial. Well Tom, in case you aren't aware of it, fluoride IS a controversial subject. It's just one more source of information that demonstrates that there is a large body of evidence pertaining to this coverup, of which you of course are an active participant.

You ignore the fact that the CDC itself has been shown to post fraudulent data on its "safety cards", and you ignore the fact that the ADA are shills and lobbyists for the biggest fluoride producers and polluters in the country. The EPA's scientists have tried to blow the lid off of the fluoride coverup, only to be ignored or dismissed. Parties with no vested interest HAVE performed studies indicating the serious health hazards posed by fluoride, and even the chief scientists for the Canadian Dental Association has spoken out against fluoride after learning of its dangers.

The overwhelming body of legitimate research clearly shows fluoride to be a danger to society, yet people like you shill for the continued use of it as some sort of snake oil tonic.

From the history of fluoridation, it is apparant that any study promoting fluoride arose from the Manhatten Project and the concerted effort to nullify and litigation in relation to fluoride poisonings that occured at that time.

It is clear that the Public Health Service, once a branch of the Federal Security Agency, was an active participant in this snow job.

From The Donora Fluoride Fog: A Secret History of America's Worst Air Pollution Disaster

US industry was well-placed to orchestrate a whitewash of the Donora investigation. The PHS was then a part of the Federal Security Agency. The FSA, in turn, was headed by Oscar R. Ewing, a former top lawyer for Alcoa. Neither his old industry connections, nor the fact that Alcoa had been facing lawsuits around the country for its wartime airborne fluoride pollution was mentioned in Ewing's introduction to the official report on Donora.

419 posted on 12/05/2002 9:17:25 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: TomB
I'm continually amazed at how you worship at the feet of these few people opposed to fluoride.

I don't worship them or thier feet Tom. You appear to worship the fluorine god though, and seem to want to shove as much of it as you can into the minds and bodies of the American people.

There are thousands of scientists, physicians and dentists who say fluoridation is safe, and yet you cling to these few malcontents.

As I stated, dentists are REQUIRED to promote fluoride by the ADA or face losing their license. The MD's you and others con with your fradulent pamphlets have simply been hoodwinked. Any "scientist" pretending that fluoride is good and safe should be forced to testify in court as to why it's safe, as there is clear and overwhelming evidence that demonstrates that is is NOT..

420 posted on 12/05/2002 9:23:28 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-420 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson