Precious bodily fluids!
Precious bodily fluids!
Precious bodily fluids!
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.
Why'd you do it, Doc? Why'd you toss the fluoride folks overboard?"
I had just tracked down Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D., in Biochemistry, D.D.S., head of
the Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto, and president of the
Canadian Association for Dental Research.
Dr. Limeback is Canada's leading fluoride authority and, until recently, the country's
primary promoter of the controversial additive.
In a surprising newsmaker interview this past April, Dr. Limeback announced a dramatic
change of heart. "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste,"
he counseled. "Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up
using Toronto tap water. Never."
Why, I wondered? What could have caused such a powerful paradigm shift?
"It's been building up for a couple of years," Limeback told me during a recent
telephone interview. "But certainly the crowning blow was the realization that we
have been dumping contaminated fluoride into water reservoirs for half a century. The vast
majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, Florida, smokestack scrubbers. The
additives are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry."
"Tragically," he continued, "that means we're not just dumping toxic
fluoride into our drinking water. We're also exposing innocent, unsuspecting people to
deadly elements of lead, arsenic and radium, all of them carcinogenic. Because of the
cumulative properties of toxins, the detrimental effects on human health are
catastrophic."
A recent study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr. Limeback's worst fears.
"Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride in their hip bones
vis-a-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually
altering the basic architecture of human bones."
Skeletal fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in
bones, making them extremely weak and brittle. The earliest symptoms?
"Mottled and brittle teeth," Dr. Limeback told me. "In Canada we are now
spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we do treating cavities. That includes
my own practice."
One of the most obvious living experiments today, Dr. Limeback believes, is a
proof-positive comparison between any two Canadian cities. "Here in Toronto we've
been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver - which has never fluoridated - has a cavity
rate lower than Toronto's." And, he pointed out, cavity rates are low all across the
industrialized world including Europe, which is 98% fluoride free. Low because of improved
standards of living, less refined sugar, regular dental checkups, flossing and frequent
brushing. Now less than 2 cavities per child Canada-wide, he said. "I don't get it, Doc. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) ran a puff piece all across America saying the stuff was better than sliced bread.
Why Americans Are SHEEPLES: FLUORIDE
Fluoride - The Lunatic DrugFluoride Is Good For Us Says Government
Comments?
Good post..thanks
We're all gonna die!!!
Dude, that's why my toothpaste has "Do not swallow" on it, and why there's a fluoride poisoning warning on the box.
Chemicals are chemicals, nothing more.
Mottled and brittle teeth
This happened to my son. We now have pure artesian well water from our own well in north Florida.
Radiation Ovens - The Proven Dangers of Microwaves
My children are in their 20's now, but I still recall the dentist writing a perscription for fluoride when they were toddlers (we lived in an area without the fluoride water). I threw it away and said no thank you. They both have fabulous teeth - never had fluoride. I did not like the studies that I read in the early 80's about it.
GuvvminTS*
D@#$%^*& them ALL.....
""Your well-intentioned dentist is simply following 50 years of misinformation from public health and the dental association. Me, too. Unfortunately, we were wrong."
The same can be said for your CPA who does your taxes. He doesn't know the law exempts a large majority of us from paying taxes, he was just trained to robotically comply using IRS disinformation publications.
You can protect yourself from flouride if you wrap your cup in tinfoil before taking a drink.
mottled teeth
When Crest first came out when I was a boy, this happened to me. I quit using it and it went away. I use Tom's of Maine Baking Soda Toothpaste with no fluoride.
Thanks for the post and the links.
Well, I'm 23, and I've been hearing of this off and on for a few years. I was waiting before, well, reports with details and studies like this before making a real judgement on the fluoridization of water. I know that some cities have had the attitude, "if a little helps, a LOT will help even more", which is, from a chemistry point of view, very, very dumb. Obviously damage has been done here. On the other hand people are not dying left and right, so let's not go overboard. Primarily, I expect civilization to learn from this error. If all we do is blame and sue, we'll never learn a thing as we OJ-ize the issue.
I know that some cities have had the attitude, "if a little helps, a LOT will help even more", which is, from a chemistry point of view, very, very dumb.
Good point. I also agree that we shouldn't sue and "OJize" the issue. We should learn from this.
Always approach government studies with caution. In other words, verify. Uncle Sam's been lying to us for some time now and his credibility is shot, BIG TIME.
FRegards, IHC
But the government was only trying to help! They had the best of intentions! How can you be against that?!
/sarcasm>
It would be helpful if the articles you linked to were serious scientific research results. Unfortunately they are in the vein of fluoridation is a communist plot. If there is a legitimate position in all of this it is deligitimized by the kind of material cited in support.
Even the good Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D. admits right off that he is not a toxicoligist. He is just realying on his interpretation of the effect of what he reads on warning labels. What he needs to do, to maintain credibility, is to point to a recognized expert who has studied it, scientifically, and does not come across as a raving lunatic. One would hope that the president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research is not a raving lunatic, but based on this article, the case is open.
FYI
"I have absolutely no training in toxicity...."
Go ya one better, Inspector Harry Callahan: physicians have absolutely no training in health, public, private, or otherwise.
And if they were honest,or even capable of honesty, they would not call it "Health Care" but, "Illness and Injury" care.
Instead, you will note, the medicos and hospitals are now moving into "Wellness."
Add "government" to the mix, and what do you get—"Compulsive Government Wellness Care"—hoho, hehe, hoho...
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
About microwave ovens I have anecdotal evidence. I nuked my lunch in my microwave and I had a slice of cheese on top of the oven, after running the microwave for a couple of minutes the cheese was warm! I think I'll stay back from a functioning microwave oven from now on.
I read an excellent book years ago, I believe it was dead Dr's don't lie. Where they basically showed that one of the worst lies and dangerous additives was flouride and how we've been blaming fast food joints and fatty foods for years. And yet they did experiments on other cultures like the ezkimos which main diet consist of whale blubber and pure fat and yet they almost all live to their 90's and 100's. Some of their main points were the damage to the vital organs and body that flouride was doing!
Our dentist emphasized to use very very very little flouride toothpaste with our small son. He said, "It's poison". I really got the impression he would rather us not use it at all.
I've also noticed that the dentists don't give flouride treatments anymore...at least the last few I've been to. First they went to a paint, then a rinse, and now nothing.
Besides, I really think the teeth thing has more to do with genetics than flouride.
Oh! and the main point being they weren't seeing these in the areas that hadn't introduced or had flouride in their water. Much longer & healthier lives!
"We're all gonna die!!!"
YOU gonna Die, me, I'm on an Ozarks DeepWell :-)
I think you better check the facts about Eskimo's living into their 90's and 100's......don't think that is true.
Flouridate sugar, not water.
This is why I NEVER use toothpaste. (Brushing with plain soda and salt is all you need to do, and a lot better for your teeth.) SUGAR is so bad for people's teeth that dentists tell us not to eat candy and sweets, then APPROVE toothpaste tubes FILLED with it (anything that ends with "-ose" is a sugar. (Check the ingredient panel of ANYTHING you buy prepared and pre-packaged and be prepared for a shock.) Why are they forcing people not only to drink flouride in the city water, but to brush their teeth with it in their sugar-laced toothpastes, and even putting it into vitamin pills for little kids?? What GIVES here??
Mottled or brown teeth is a well-known phenomenon in areas where well-water is naturally flouride rich. The Canucks may well spend more money on this than on tooth decay--because with all that flouride, there ain't no tooth decay. That's the whole point of adding it to water supplies! Idjuts!
As for the main article, the doc was talking about impurities in the flouride supplies brought in from Florida, like heavy metals, which are known toxins and irrelevant to flouride per se.
Sorry, but this was hashed out in the U.S. back in the fifties. As far as I know, we haven't had any epidemics of flouride poisoning in the U.S. in the last forty years. Screw it, Cartman, blame Canada!
" The vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, Florida, smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry."
I once saw the bagging operation at this plant, where the solid flouride material was bagged for shipment to Dallas water treating and to ceramic manufacurers.
The bags to the ceramic manufacturers was marked "poison," but the bags to water treating were not so marked. They said it would not look very good for the public to see bags being dumped into the water supply to be marked "poison."
Re: your #25. It USED to be true. As long as Eskimos remained on their primitive diet, they were literally disease free. They had no cavities, no heart disease, no high blood pressure, no diabetes, etc. It was only when they began to eat the introduced, displacing white diet (rice, flour, sugar, beans) that these diseases began to appear. The interesting thing is that if the sufferers return to a primitive diet high in the saturated animal and fish fats that their ancestors thrived on, these symptoms all subsided. Today's Eskimos mostly eat a White man's diet, and suffer all the White man's diseases.
WOW! Thanks for the FReport. Unreal.
Regards, Callahan
I guess you hold the same views regarding MTBE entering the drinking water supply of open lakes and now being found in ground wate. I don't know about you but, I am fed up with government mandated poisoning of the population on very shakey science.
Radiation Ovens - The Proven Dangers of Microwaves
BSometer off the scale on this one, Harry.
About microwave ovens I have anecdotal evidence. I nuked my lunch in my microwave and I had a slice of cheese on top of the oven, after running the microwave for a couple of minutes the cheese was warm! I think I'll stay back from a functioning microwave oven from now on.
Suggestion. Rerun this experiment without the cheese on top of the microwave oven. Immediately after the oven stops, feel the top metal surface. Warm? Mine is.
It is physically impossible for the oven to generate noticeable microwave field intensity right above the top metal surface of the oven cabinet. If there's heat there, it's from convection and conduction through the metal cabinet from inside the oven.
Similarly you can protect yourself from income taxes by wrapping your 1040 in tinfoil, or your income in tinfoil--then bury it in the back yard.
Soilent Green is PEOPLE! PEOPLE!
I am emailing this to everyone I know, especially my friends with little ones.
There's a rather solid Ph.D. at U. of Pgh. who maintains that a little radiation is good for you. Science is called hormesis. Anecdotal, but the 'spring water' baths which supposedly cured all ills back at the turn of the century in Waukesha, WI., were spring water, all right, but damn near glowed in the dark from the radiation. Seems the water flowed through a bazillion feet of limestone and granite, getting more and more radiant by the foot. Still a problem--now the tinfoilhat bedwetters got soccer moms all feelng WORRIED about radon, the gaseous version of granite radiation. Too bad nobody reads ANYTHING solid anymore...
Yeah, convection sounds like a more plausible explanation. Guess my Nobel prize will have to wait. :-)
I agree about the flour and sugar causing so many problems and that native diets are probably the best...soooo maybe it's the sugar and flour causing all the problems with the teeth???? Just a thought. (Dirty little secret about Type II diabetes is that refined flour is probably the biggest cause.)
Well, I'm not a city dweller. My greatest annoyance in life is that my family's tolerated the decline of the water quality from the tap, just because they're too cheap to use a filter as good as the one that they had before. I'll probably get a tap filter soon, but i've had more soft drinks this year than I've ever had... I shouldn't have to. I'm just saying that I really don't have the kind of knowledge I would have if I was in a city and hearing about this sort of thing constantly. I don't like rural Canada, frankly. I'm not sure how I'd deal with tapwater in a major city, but I'm sure I can find some kind of accomodation by the time I move to a better location..
sorry, off topic, but isn't it about time for them buzzards to be gittin back to hinckley for a floride party or sumthin?
Flouride may have made me a zombie, but my smile gets me laid a lot.
As to the many many posts recently by the very very conservative Inspector Harry Callahan, an article by Kimberley Jane Wilson:
Not Everyone who smiles in your face is your friend.
I knew you'd come through! LOL!
You disappointed me on the microwave thread. Shame on you, Pardek!
I appreciate you calling me "very very" conservative, that's certainly the case, and that linked article of yours was a good read. But may I ask, what the heck does it have to do with me or anything on this thread?
Confused greetings, Callahan
(the ultra-conservative that your teachers warned you about)
Next thing you know they'll be putting this in children's ice cream.
Nothing but pure rain water and vodka for me.
We must preserve our precious bodily fluids.
OPE
POE
I think you are a lefty of course. That is why I am so amused by your posts.
I think you are a lefty of course.
Good grief, my FRiend. You have a head wound? Always nice talking with you but when you get on the whiskey, you're impossible to reason with.
Keep an eye on me...... I'll be the one demanding justice, truth, and the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.
See ya round, Callahan
After voting down fluoridated water at least twice in the past ten years, San Antonio recently voted on the issue again.
This time the fools voted for fluoridated water.
It's simply forced medication.
FYI
Aren't you the one who posted that nutty article on Microwave ovens?
Do you have any links to info about this "diry little secret?" I know so many people with typeII diabetes.
Now why would you post on this thread when you have wooden teeth?
I recently traveled to Rome and Pompei and while I was there, they noted the use of lead pipes and how that really caused a ton of learning disabilities and other problems that helped end the Roman Empire. I grew up in Colorado and actually grew up on the other side of this debate. I now wonder if this is our "lead" problem
You should take a look at this.
1944 Oscar Ewing is put on the payroll of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), as an attorney, at an annual salary of $750,000. Within a few months, Ewing was made Federal Security Administrator, with the announcement that he was taking a big cut in salary. The US Public Health Service, then a division of the FSA, comes under the command of Ewing, and he begins to vigorously promote fluoridation nationwide. Ref: May 25-27 Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. A by-product of aluminum manufacture is toxic sodium fluoride. Ewings public relations strategist for the fluoride campaign was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward L. Bernays. Bernays conducts a public relations campaign to promote fluorine ingestion by applying Freudian theory to induce public acceptance. It was one of Bernays most successful campaigns.
Via Trufax on Dark Shadows of German Industry
This is "junk science" at its best. I am an RN, over 25 years, currently working with a national insurance co. with millions of beneficiaries. I have NEVER seen or heard of a case of skeltal flurosis! I looked for it in the criteria used for medical necessity and could not even find it. Mottled and brittle teeth are almost always due to genetics or possible use of tetracyclines as a child. As for his comments regarding the low cavity rate in Europe - honestly, has he ever seen their teeth! If people would quit giving their children sugar and bottles full of soda pop and sugared juices to sip then perhaps fluoride would not be needed! Between this and the hatchet job NBC news did last night on the poor quality of medical care in America my blood pressure is up 20 points. I would love to see an American trained dentist comment on this.
"Next thing you know they'll be putting this in children's ice cream."
When taken with dairy products, sodium flouride (the water additive or infant supplement) will tend to convert to calcium flouride, which is less able to be absorbed into the body.
All this paranoid hype... Flouride, like any other mineral, iron for instance, can be toxic in high doses - this does not negate the benefits when administered as part of a sensible monitored regimen.
Did you ever see the movie Dr. Strangelove?
I have NEVER seen or heard of a case of skeltal flurosis!
Look harder because I have seen pictures of too much flouride use.
Nasty looking, turns your teeth brown/tan if you use too much.
CATO
What is the difference between skeletal fluorsis and osteoporosis? Hmm. The rates of osteoporosis and hip fractures are disproportionately higher in areas of the United States which are fluoridated.
Here's an interesting story...
My son has never used fluoridated anything. We have always had well-water, he was nursed, he's never had a tetracycline product, never had a fluoride treatment at the dentist, never had fluoride drops, no one in my family has a 'genetic history' of mottled teeth. My son has dental fluorosis. He is only seven years old.
While everyone seems to be focused on how hazardous fluoride in the water is, many are missing the full scope of the problem. When you add fluoride to the public drinking water, EVERYTHING that is made or processed using public water can - and DOES - contain additional fluoride.
From fruits and vegetables watered with fluoridated water to cereals and juices made with fluoridated water - we get tons and tons and tons of fluorided.
'Junk science'? Not at all. Can you say 'Common Sense'?
Do any of you know that fluoride is a component of Prozac and many other psychiatric drugs? Hmmm.
Do any of you know that fluoride is also a component of many thyroid-inhibiting drugs because of its propensity to reduce thyroid activity? Hmmm.
Various medical researchers from around the world have studied and noted negative health effects from fluorides alone, not to mention the fact that the fluoride added to our drinking water is NOT the nice, clean pharmaceutical grade that is used in many studies, but the sludge from the phosphate fertilizer industry pollution recovery process. This soup includes lead, arsenic, and a whole host of other ingredients including various strains of radiation. Cute. Mmmm, tasty. Even if it were concluded beyond any shadow of doubt that fluoride is good for children's teeth - it doesn't exempt the fact that fluoride negatively effects every other system in the human body.
later, nem
http://users.erols.com/neminly/fluoride/index.shtml
ping.
"Precious Bodily Fluids..." Good grief! The General was right. Time to go to Code R.
So Harry, considering probably HALF of the ground water in this country has fluoride NATURALLY OCCURRING in it, much of it in concentrations higher than what is put in municipal water supplies, what do you suppose these people do?
After all, they've been drinking it for hundreds of years.
So Harry, considering probably HALF of the ground water in this country has fluoride NATURALLY OCCURRING in it, much of it in concentrations higher than what is put in municipal water supplies, what do you suppose these people do? After all, they've been drinking it for hundreds of years.
Nothing can be done about naturally occurring fluoride. I object to the fact that the goverment is putting these chemicals, which have not proven to be safe, in my water. This does not give me a choice. I have the right to a choice in this matter.
First of all, the fact that it is naturally occuring, and has been for all of history, proves it is safe. If it wasn't, there would be a clearly demonstrable effect between the areas that have high and low naturally occurring levels.
Second, I believe that the constitutional argument is a strong one, I only object to these ridiculous scare tactics.
Sorry Harry, reviewing my post I see I made a mistake. Fluoride occurs naturally in almost ALL the water in this country. In half of that the concentration is below .03 ppm, which is considered fluoride free.
Now, at what level does this naturally occurring substance become the deadly killer you talk about?
We now have pure artesian well water from our own well in north Florida.
If you tell me what area or county of Florida you live in, I'll try to look up the amount of fluoride that is naturally occurring in that area.
It was during that physical act of love making that I first sensed it. A profound sense of emptiness and fatigue followed. Fortunately, I was able to perceive the meaning of this as loss of essence. Women sense my power and try to deprive me of my essence, but I deny them.
While fluorine can be naturally occurring, you must consider the fact that naturally occurring fluorine is bound to calcium deposits. BOTH are consumed in tandem.
Consider this:
Poisons and Antidotes:
For treatment of fluoride ingestion: Administer limewater (calcium carbonate), calcium chloride solution or milk in order to bind as much fluoride ion as possible, followed by gastric lavage with any of the above fluids. For hydrofluoric skin burns, wash with cold water and administer magnesium oxide.
In essence, calcium reduces the retention of fluoride by the human body.
Lead and arsenic are also naturally occurring. Does this prove that they are also safe? Hmmm.
There IS a clearly demonstrable effect between areas that have high naturally high and naturally low naturally occurring fluoride.
As for the wonderful soup that is poured into our water, as I mentioned above, it is not naturally occurring flourine bound to calcium. It is the waste that is removed from phosphate fertilizer plants that, if allowed escape into the environment, is considered one of the most corrosive substances known to man.
Based on the Constitutional argument, mass medication of any population against their will is flat out wrong - no matter what the perceived benefits.
Scare tactics? Is the evidence against tobacco a scare tactic? It was considered as such less than fifty years ago and all who published evidence displaying tobacco as a human toxin were labled as quacks. Interesting. The same goes for asbestos, arsenic, lead, bleach, and so on.
Informing the public of the existance of peer reviewed scientific evidence is not evidence of scare tactics, only evidence of how grossly misinformed the public is on this issue.
later,
nem
http://users.erols.com/neminly/fluoride/toc.shtml
While fluorine can be naturally occurring, you must consider the fact that naturally occurring fluorine is bound to calcium deposits. BOTH are consumed in tandem.
When a fluorine containing compound is put into water, it separates into it's positive ion and it's negative ion. If it is Sodium Fluoride, it is present in water as Na+ and Fl-. Now, in the presence of high amounts of high levels of fluoride ion, introducing a positive ion such as Calcium will bind up EXTRA fluoride, but will do nothing with the normal ionic concentration.
Once fluoride is in water, it doesn't matter what is was once bound to, it becomes a free fluoride ion. If that were not the case, how does naturally occurring fluoride bind to the hydroxyapaite crystals in teeth? If the ions are bound, they would have no effect.
Lead and arsenic are also naturally occurring. Does this prove that they are also safe? Hmmm.
Yes, and they are naturally occurring in all water supplies, and those water supplies are safe. BTW, trace amounts of arsenic in the body are necessary for life. HMMM.
There IS a clearly demonstrable effect between areas that have high naturally high and naturally low naturally occurring fluoride.
And that is? Please provide a link.
As for the wonderful soup that is poured into our water, as I mentioned above, it is not naturally occurring flourine bound to calcium. It is the waste that is removed from phosphate fertilizer plants that, if allowed escape into the environment, is considered one of the most corrosive substances known to man.
Do you know how fluoride naturally gets into the water supply? Rain, which is acidic (usually sulfuric acid), seeps through the ground and comes into contact with PHOSPHATE bearing rocks. Sounds familiar, no?
Informing the public of the existance of peer reviewed scientific evidence is not evidence of scare tactics, only evidence of how grossly misinformed the public is on this issue.
I must have missed these "peer reviewed" studies, how about a link?
There is simply too much evidence that fluoride has negative consequences to human health. I did provide a link. You can go to JAMA for the entire studies, or you can take a peek at some excerpts I've been collecting over the years at the site I posted above: http://users.erols.com/neminly/fluoride/toc.shtml
which pretty much covers the fluoride years from beginning to now.
Arsenic, good for the body? Please, post references. I ran a quick search, but found nothing on the benefits of arsenic on the human body.
later,
nem
Clay County
You guys sound like the wacko environmentalists who oppose the Bovine Growth Hormone that John Stossil reported about on 20/20. Start reading the "Junk Science" guy on Foxnews.com. Jeesh!!! Fluoride has been around along time and yet our life expectancy keep going up-even with fluoride in the water.....c'mon people!
Yes little punkin...your body needs a certain amount of arsenic...did we not go to school?
You gonna die too, son. We all gonna die. I told a Yankee from New Hampshire one time that his license plate should read, "Live Free, Die Anyway". ahaha
Sometimes I just crack myself up. ;-)
My children are in their 20's now, but I still recall the dentist writing a perscription for fluoride when they were toddlers (we lived in an area without the fluoride water). I threw it away and said no thank you. They both have fabulous teeth - never had fluoride.
I too have children in their 20's now. Unfortunately we did use those fluoride tablet presriptions -- my youngest son (who is 19) not only has mottled teeth, but gets cavities like you wouldn't believe! (Plus the kid doesn't eat sweets, drinks no soda, flosses and brushes several times a day, etc.)
I know the evidence is anecdotal, but hey, that's where it all starts.
Well, I searched JAMA and I found the latest article from 1999 on the safety and efficacy of fluoride.
As far as arsenic goes, I'll dig out my physiology book if you'd like, but the main point with that is that "it is the dose that makes the poison".
However the main point I wanted to get across is that this idea that somehow natural fluoride and the type added to water supplies is somehow different. Chemically, that is impossible.
How much, how often, what are the benefits, cite a source.
later,
nem
Why are you trying to change the subject? Maybe you'd like to address the "difference" in fluoride ions? That is, after all, what the thread is about.
How about a non-biased source? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention simply isn't unbiased.
OH!!!! This is so FUNNY!
"Dental caries is an infectious, communicable, multifactorial disease in which bacteria dissolve the enamel surface of a tooth."
Cavities; CUMMUNICABLE!
sure, whatever they say.
Funny how a company with a financial incentive can find a benefit to resolve their waste crisis. ALCOA keeps popping up in the history of fluoridation...
"In 1930, H. V. Churchill, a chemist with Aluminum Company of America, an aluminum manufacturing company that had bauxite mines in the town, used a newly available method of spectrographic analysis that identified high concentrations of fluoride (13.7 parts per million [ppm]) in the water of the abandoned well."
Amazing that Dr. H. Trendley Dean, the one who supposedly 'found' the benefits of fluoride also testified in that he, well, sorta twisted the truth a bit in his papers.
When other scientists investigated Dean's data, they did not reach the same conclusions. In fact, Dean had engaged in "selective use of data," using findings from 21 cities that supported his case while completely disregarding data from 272 other locations that did not show a correlation.(1) In court cases Dean was forced to admit under oath that his data were invalid.(2) In 1957 he had to admit at AMA hearings that even waters containing a mere 0.1ppm (0.1 mg/l) could cause dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of fluoride overdose.(3) Moreover, there is not one single double-blind study to indicate that fluoridation is effective in reducing cavities.(4)
1. J.Colquhoun, Chief Dental Officer, NZ, International Symposium on Fluoridation, Porte Alegre, Brazil, September 1988
2. Proceedings, City of Orville Vs. Public Utilities Commission of the State of Carlifornia, Orville, CA, October 20-21 (1955)
3. AMA Council Hearing, Chicago, August 7, 1957
4. NTEU - "Why EPA's Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation", Prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D.
Do you know what happens to that tiny little fluoride ion when it comes in contact with stomach acids? Look up hydrofluoric acid.
later,
nem
Well, since you've essentially acknowledged that you were wrong about the fluoride ion issue, let's move on. I hope you are considerate enough to remove any incorrect information from your website.
How about a non-biased source? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention simply isn't unbiased.
Well, you first brought up an article in JAMA, so I just followed with another one. The ones that agree with you are unbiased and the ones that don't, aren't? How convenient.
OH!!!! This is so FUNNY!
"Dental caries is an infectious, communicable, multifactorial disease in which bacteria dissolve the enamel surface of a tooth."
Cavities; CUMMUNICABLE!
sure, whatever they say.
Perhaps, before we move on, you could tell me how dental caries occurs?
Do you know what happens to that tiny little fluoride ion when it comes in contact with stomach acids? Look up hydrofluoric acid.
First of all, the operative word there is TINY. Not in size, but in concentration. Since the level of fluoride in the water supply is adjusted to around .8 parts per MILLION, the amount of Hydrofluoric Acid, if formed at all, would be miniscule. And since the main substance present in the stomach is rather concentrated HYDROCHLORIC ACID, I don't see why this would be a concern.
The rest of your post is typical conspiracy theory, if anybody is truly interested, they can search any health website from pretty much any heath organization in the world and see a multitude of studies showing the safety and efficacy of fluoride.
BTW, I'm still waiting for a link to prove your statement, "here IS a clearly demonstrable effect between areas that have high naturally high and naturally low naturally occurring fluoride."
Oh, and since you seemed so fired up about Arsenic, here it is:
Minerals are very important in everyone's diet. Minerals are essential, acting as necessary co-factors of enzymes, and as organizers of the molecular structure of the cell and its membrane. Without them, the body could not function, and in some cases, deficiencies can cause diseases. Some minerals are called macronutrients, and are needed in amounts of 100 or more milligrams per day for the average healthy person. Some of the beneficial minerals are needed in such small quantities (levels needed of only a few milligrams per day in healthy people) that they are referred to as micronutrients. There are also a few minerals that are known to be essential, but the daily intake a healthy person needs has not yet been established by the scientific community. These are known as trace elements. Remember also that too much of a mineral can be toxic, such as selenium, iron, arsenic, nickel, lithium, phosphorus, etc. The form in which a mineral enters the body is also important. For example, chlorine and sodium are highly poisonous gases, yet in the form of common table salt, they are an essential part of our health.
Arsenic:
May possibly be involved in normal growth in childhood, although it is not clear at this time what mechanisms are involved. Most diets contain enough of this possible trace element and no specific sources are indicated at this time.
My nephew recently had his spleen removed and I am sure that the culprit is flouride! Each person's sensitivity is different, to one a little flouride is lethal!
Did you see this thread a few months ago?
Preserve those vital essences, bump!
Bump for later....
Precious bodily fluids!
Precious bodily fluids!
Precious bodily fluids!
Reproducing flouride zombies. What an ingeneously diobolical plan!
Thanks for the post IHC! forwarding to my family and friends. BTTT
"You gonna die too, son. We all gonna die."
I wanna die like that cool dude in the picture above --- with a ceegar in my mouth and a scotch and water in my hand!
Thanks for nothing Darth, I was having a nice time debunking neminly and you had to go scare him away with that horrible picture!
Actually its pretty impressive, neminly signs on with his first post on FR at 5:55 PDT, and then goes AWOL at 11:09. That has to be a record for the shortest stay for someone not named A+Bert or Arator.
Oh Lordy. I hope he didn't put water in there. I do like a seegar myself.
Comments?
Sure :) I've known about this for quite some time. It's poison. The data are available for any who wish to look.
I wanna die like that cool dude in the picture above --- with a ceegar in my mouth and a scotch and water in my hand!
Yer a man after my own heart, 'ceptin I be using soda 'stead o' water. And preferably a Cuban Montecristo #2 :)
In a surprising newsmaker interview this past April, Dr. Limeback announced a dramatic change of heart. "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste," he counseled. "Or drink fluoridated water.
The water in Nairobi, Kenya has a very high content of natural flouride. For years the water bills have come imprinted with a large, bold-faced warning that children under three should not drink the water. Does that make us fourth-world when it comes to this topic?
I believe the fluoride concentration in the water there was over 30 ppm, as compared to the optimal .8 to 1. The exact same thing will happen if you put too much chlorine in the water. Do you think we should stop chlorination of the water supply also?
Do you think we should stop chlorination of the water supply also?
Coals to Newcastle.
What kinda wacko wouldnt wanna brush their teeth with pesticide? Sometimes when I run out of Crest I pull out a bag of diazanon granules and mix it up with some durisban. Brush your teeth with that stuff and they come up clean and stuff. Sometimes I drool and twitch a little after brushing but you know what, drooling and twitching can happen in nature too. Everything in moderation thats my motto.
What about chlorine? You should ask a good nutritionist on that one....chlorine is extremely dangerous to the body. Don't drink it or swim in it!!
Sorry, alcohol's a poison also.
Sometimes I drool and twitch a little after brushing....
You seem to do it while typing at your computer also.
I don't believe it. It has too much wackoism connected to it. And, like everything else, it probably depends on exposure level. Asprin is great, but only in small doses. If you take too many asprins, it will cure your headache permenently.
I suspect that the truth is that small doses help harden teeth and prevent cavities
Yes, a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. But, try to understand that fluoride is NOT the only thing being dumped into our water supply during the fluoridation process.
Oh, I don't know. Did you read the entire article? It based current benefits on studies that were either incomplete or declared false during many trials. There was new rhetoric, but no new studies showing that fluoride has any benefit for teeth.
Cavities are not communicable. Give me a break. You don't catch them off a doorknob or when someone sneezes. You can't get them during intercourse. You don't get them from ANY exchange of ANY bodily fluids. They don't spread like the flu or even pneumonia. Cavities form from neglecting dental care, eating too many sweets without properly cleaning your mouth afterwards and lots of soda - especially cola drinks. (Side note, cola drinks are notoriously high in fluoride as is black tea. Imagine, one can of diet Coke contains as much as 1 mg of fluoride.)
Our bodies create HYDROCHLORIC ACID, without any additives. Yet our bodies don't create hydrofluoric acid.
Yes, there are plenty of documents relating to two studies. One declared false under oath and the other study was never completed since as soon as negative evidence started to surface, the second city was fluoridated.
Skeletal fluorosis. Dental fluorosis. Pitted brittle teeth. If fluoride is so effective at hardening enamel on teeth, why do we need dental sealants? New York Oral Health Center tackles Dental Health of Minorities in Harlem (ADA News, 10/7/96) "The kids' mouths tell the story of poverty and lack of access to dental care. There's more dental decay among these kids, and we see the beginning of inflamed gingivitis in their mouths. A lot of these children haven't received any fluoride treatments," says Dr. Bailey. "In addition, about 99 percent of them haven't gotten dental sealants." (Note: Harlem is fluoridated)
Council sees need for more Staff at Indian Dental Health Facilities (ADA News, 10/17/96) "Native American children have a much higher incidence of dental caries and other oral health problems than children in the U.S. population as a whole." (Note: All Indian Reservations are fluoridated by government mandate).
Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000 Where fluoridation has been discontinued, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased.
later,
nem
You posted, "it is the dose that makes the poison."
What is a toxic daily dose of fluoride and how much are we receiving from all sources?
My child has dental fluorosis when we don't use fluoridated toothpaste, don't use ANY fluoridated dental products, have never had a fluoride treatment, and does not have fluoride in the water he drinks (yes, our well water is tested regularly for fluoride and other harmful substances). Our ONLY source of fluoride is from purchased foods. How much fluoride is necessary to cause this condition? Now, how much fluoride are you taking in if your water is fluoridated at 1 ppm which is the equivalent to 1 mg per litre? If you eat one apple, and drink one litre of water, you have just consumed 2 mg of fluoride. Grab a Big Mac, there's another miligram. Brush your teeth, yet another half a milligram. There's 3.5 mg and you haven't even finished eating for the day. Eat a can of campbell's chicken noodle soup and there's yet another 4 mg of fluoride. That's 7.5 mg of fluoride in less than one day. The 1ppm standard was set in 1945, with estimated total daily intake of fluoride was less than 1.5 to 3.2 mg per day from all sources.
If some people, such as yourself, choose to take fluoride than I'm all for your right to consume clinical grade fluoride from your pharmacy of choice. At a recommended intake level of 1.5 mg per day. You choice.
later,
nem
We're all gonna die!!!
Not only that, but many have already died!
The Government says it is good for me? You mean they were wrong, they can't be wrong.
Darn, you beat me to it. Purity of Essence! (Of course, I always withhold my essence from my lovers...)
Follow the money?
Yes, a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. But, try to understand that fluoride is NOT the only thing being dumped into our water supply during the fluoridation process.
Well? What else are you talking about? But it doesn't matter, because you are talking about the alleged dangers of FLUORIDE. Therefore it follows that if the majority of the water in this country has fluoride naturally occurring, why whould adjusted fluoride be any worse? The answer is, IT ISN'T. You've completely failed to answer this simple question. Anybody reading this thread should be aware of this.
Oh, I don't know. Did you read the entire article? It based current benefits on studies that were either incomplete or declared false during many trials. There was new rhetoric, but no new studies showing that fluoride has any benefit for teeth.
I've already posted a recent study by the CDC stating fluoride is effective.
Our bodies create HYDROCHLORIC ACID, without any additives. Yet our bodies don't create hydrofluoric acid.
Please tell me, in one liter of water, how much fluoride ion is present? When joined with stray hydrogen ions in the stomach, HOW MUCH HF is produced? Obvioulsy, if you look at the numbers, not enough to be even measurable.
Skeletal fluorosis. Dental fluorosis. Pitted brittle teeth. If fluoride is so effective........
Yada yada yada. Can you show me a case of skeletal fluorosis in this country linked to a municipal water supply? And since teeth that are stained by dental fluorosis are extremely resistant to caries, the term "pitted, brittle teeth" is untrue.
Council sees need for more Staff at Indian Dental Health Facilities (ADA News, 10/17/96) "Native American children have a much higher incidence of dental caries and other oral health problems than children in the U.S. population as a whole." (Note: All Indian Reservations are fluoridated by government mandate).
Lower income people also have a much lower level of personal dental care. Fluoridated water won't help much if you completely neglect your teeth, as many lower income people tend to do.
Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000 Where fluoridation has been discontinued, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased.
Not every study there says what you say it does and almost without fail they say they can draw no definite conclusions. That brings up another point, why don't you link or at least give a complete web location for you sources?
Cavities are not communicable. Give me a break.
I saved this one for last because it proves that you are completely and utterly clueless when it comes to the entire subject. I called you on your lack of knowledge of chemistry, which, when writing a website on the dangers of fluoride is bad. But this is bordering on the ridiculous.
In another post I asked you to describe the etiology of dental caries (decay). In your pitiful attempt, you left out more than you put in.
Yes, dental caries is considered a communicable disease. The reason? It is caused, not by sweets, but by certain cariogenic bacteria (usually strep mutans) that, as a wasteproduct of feeding on the food debris in our mouths, excrete a dilute solution of acid. It is this acid that lies on the teeth and destroys the enamel.
Everybody has bacteria living in their oral cavities, what makes people more or less prone to decay is the concentration or numbers of "bad" or cavity producing bacteria. These bacteria CAN BE TRANSMITTED from one person to another, usually a mother to infant. Thus altering the concentration of bacteria. No, it isn't communicable in that you "catch" decay, but the bacteria can most definitely be transmitted.
Now, you show yourself to be completely unable to grasp even the most general concepts concerning fluoride chemistry and dental caries in general. Please stop trying to be an expert.
What is a toxic daily dose of fluoride and how much are we receiving from all sources?
Unless you can give me a source for those numbers, I will assume they are as reliable as the rest of the information you give.
Anyway, if the numbers were true, why is dental fluorosis so rare?
Sodium Fluoride: is a heavy white powder which is required by law to be tinted blue or green in order to prevent it from being mistaken for such things as powdered suger or flour. It is generally used as a dust, either alone or in combination with pyrethrum, (something new to consider for your toothpaste) for the control of cockroaches. It acts as a stomach poison and, to a lesser degree, as a contact poison against crawling insects. It is quite toxic to mammals; great care should be exercised in its storage and use.
OralLD50 75mg Danger
Dang, dursban and diazinon arent even close to as toxic as fluoride. Plus they break down to quick in comparison to fluoride. Kinda ruins that whole "dose" idea when it dont build up.
The JBS'ers and others were right.
But with a poisoned watter supply I don't get a lot of satisfaction out of stating that!
If all the indust. world including Europe has less decay than we do, what is causing all thoes French people's teeth to be black?
And, as I've pointed out before, chlorine is even more dangerous, yet I don't see any sane people recommending we remove it from the water supply. Arsenic is a terrible poison, yet in very small amounts it is vital for human life.
There are endless examples of substances that are deadly in large amounts and beneficial in small amounts (aspirin). It is a point that is really not that difficult to grasp if you really try.
Toxicologists (people who determine how TOXIC something is) have a saying, "The dose makes the poison". That means it isn't the substance, but the AMOUNT of substance that determines how dangerous it is.
I remember back in the 50's in the town where I grew up in Norther Michigan all of us kids were given flouride treatments on our teeth by the school.....
I forgot to mention...
Any fluoride that is not excreted by the kidneys is immediatle bound up by apatite or other calcium phosphate containing substances.
I got those numbers all over the place, including some tests I sent to a lab. I sorta took an interest in HOW my son acquired dental fluorosis with all the non-fluoride criteria I mentioned above. Was pretty interesting.
As for your statement as to the supposed 'rare' condition of dental fluorosis, I'm wondering where you dreamed that up.
The Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA’s Dec. 1995, July 1996, July 1997, March 1999, June 2000) has published a series of studies reporting on pervasive overexposure to fluoride due to "the widespread use of fluoridated water, fluoride dentifrice, dietary fluoride supplements and other forms of fluoride... {There is} an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15% to 65% in fluoridated areas and 5% to 40% in non-fluoridated areas in North America." In February of 1997, The Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), representing 35,000 dentists, warned parents to limit their children’s intake of juices due to fluoride content.
I gather the mean prevalence of dental fluorosis, of varying severity to be around 31.35%, not exactly rare. And that info is from what YOU may consider to be a reliable source, yet a source that I consider downplaying the rate of dental fluorosis.
Additionally, did you notice that there was not one, but a FIVE part series of studies urging dentists to WARN parents to limit their children's intake of juices, not due to natural sugars, but due to FLUORIDE CONTENT.
Why, exactly, would there be a warning to reduce intake of juices due to fluoride content? Is it because our food supply is so saturated with fluoride that juices now contain an extremely high concentration of fluoride? Maybe even a concentration known to be hazardous to human health? Go figure.
later,
nem
First of all I find it interesting that you choose to ignore almost my entire post for one point. Are you conceeding all those points? If so, then your point on fluorosis is no more relevant.
When you describe the condidtion of severly mottled teeth, with the concurrent brown stain, that is, tecnically, dental fluorosis. For purposes here that is what I'm referring to as that is what you are referring to. I defy you to head over to your "anti-fluoridation" websites and cut-and-paste any indormation that shows severe deformities are anything but rare.
Living in an area that has fluoridated water, I have NEVER seen a severe case like that.
This happened to my son. We now have pure artesian well water from our own well in north Florida.
North florida is one of many areas in the country with natural floride. I grew up there and have pretty good teeth. My wife grew up before the age of floride and has soft teeth that need constant attention.
Thanks js, I forgot that I told Joan that I would look up the natural fluoride level for her area and clean forgot.
I've had a chance now to research your last post and I can safely say it is as accurate as all your others.
The Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA’s Dec. 1995, July 1996, July 1997, March 1999, June 2000) has published a series of studies reporting on pervasive overexposure to fluoride
That is a complete and total fabrication. I went back to some old issues and looked up some of these studies and the conclusions are not what you say they are:
"Results. In the nonfluoridated study sample, sixty-five percent of the enamel fluorosis cases were attributed to fluoride supplementation under the pre-1994 protocol. An additional 34 percent were explained by the children having brushed more thanonce per dayduring the first two years of life. In theoptimally fluoridated study sample, 68percent of the enamel fluorosis cases were explained by the children using more than a pea-sizedamount of toothpaste during the first year of life, 13 percent by having been inappropriately given a fluoridesupplement, and 9 percent by the use of infant formula in the form of a powdered concentrate."
It should also be noted that a journal such as the JADA is not considered the mouthpiece of the ADA. May studies have been published that are subsequently found to be untrue (i.e. the skeletal fluorosis study that the anti-fluoridationists like to quote). If you don't understand the purpose of a peer-reviewed journal, you shouldn't quote them.
I also searched the AGD website, and there is absolutely NO mention of fluoride in juice. It does have a position statement on fluoride which can be found here. If you will notice, no mention is made of juice.
I'm wondering, do you question ANYTHING you read on these anti-fluoridation websites?
'But it doesn't matter, because you are talking about the alleged dangers of FLUORIDE.'
Adjusting fluoride with industrial sludge IS a problem. Anyone reading this thread can see that you are simply avoiding this aspect of 'adjusting' fluoride, but fluoride is fluoride and fluoride is harmful.
'I've already posted a recent study by the CDC stating fluoride is effective.'
Yes, an article that used excerpts from ancient studies that the author testified during trial were not only inconclusive, but that he lied - for a fee of course.
'Please tell me, in one liter of water, how much fluoride ion is present? When joined with stray hydrogen ions in the stomach, HOW MUCH HF is produced? Obvioulsy, if you look at the numbers, not enough to be even measurable.'
The problem is that hydrofluoric acid is produced at all. The fact is that HF is more corrosive and more of a health risk than hydrochloric acid. Support your position. How much HF is produced? How much is benign? If HF is not even measurable, how do we know that the combination creates HF at all?
later,
nem
'Can you show me a case of skeletal fluorosis in this country linked to a municipal water supply?'
Skeletal fluorosis: Preliminary stages of skeletal fluorosis are not likely to be recognised by North American doctors because they are not trained to diagnose fluorosis. The preliminary stages can easily be misdiagnosed for rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis or other similar diseases.
There are four phases of skeletal fluorosis:
1. sporadic pain; stiffness of joints; osteosclerosis of pelvis and vertebral column
2. chronic joint pain; arthritic symptoms; slight calcification of ligaments; increased osteosclerosis/cancellous bones; with/without osteoporosis of long bones
3. Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis: limitation of joint movement; calcification of ligaments/neck and vertebral column; crippling deformities of spine and major joints; muscle wasting; neurological defects/ compression of spinal cord
Osteoarthritis: (Compare to Phase I of skeletal fluorosis...)The pain of osteoarthritis almost always begins gradually, progressing slowly over many years. People under 40 may have the condition with no symptoms at all. Osteoarthritis is commonly identified by the following symptoms:
Aching pain in one or more joints, stiffness, and loss of mobility.
Inflammation may or may not be present.
Stiffness tends to follow periods of inactivity, such as sleep or sitting, and can be eased by stretching and exercise.
The pain may behave like a roller coaster, with bad spells followed by periods of relative relief.
Pain seems to increase in humid weather.
It often worsens after extensive use of the joint and is more likely to occur at night than in the morning. As the disease advances, the pain may occur even when the joint is at rest and can keep a sufferer awake at night.
There are too many overlaps in 'osteo' type diseases. Skeletal fluorosis in the US has NEVER been diagnosed as such, but is more than likely diagnosed as another disease.
Look at the increasing prevalence of all types of arthritis (especially in children), Ankylosing spondylitis, and 'osteo' type diseases. One of the known causes of osteoporosis, and many other degenerative diseases, is a hypoactive thyroid. Fluoride reduces thyroid activity.
Finland abandoned water fluoridation after 20 years of research, which revealed that there are higher than normal rates of osteoporosis in fluoridated water areas. I can easily cite more, and will do so at your request.
In 1990,1991, and1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published three separate articles linking increased hip fracture rates to fluoridated areas. Another article from the March 22, 1990 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine found that fluoride treatment of osteoporosis causes bone fractures. Osteoporosis is one of the first signs of poisoning due to fluoride in the water. As little as 0.7 part per million fluoride in the water has been associated with skeletal fluorosis. In addition to bone damage, reports of premature wrinkled skin and arthritis, as wess as the possibility of a greater frequency of torn ligaments and tendons in fluoridated areas result from the effect of fluoride on collagen.
later,
nem
Who claims that teeth that are stained by dental fluorosis are extremely resistant to caries? Pitted and brittle, yes, they are.
E.P.A. Scientist Condemns the Practice Of Fluoridating Water
The following document is a copy of a letter written by an E.P.A. scientist to Mr. Rick Matthew.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460.
OFFICE OF WATER.
June 13, 1995.
Second I reiterate that when using the measures of filled, partially filled and missing teeth-comparing fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies the world over, including the U.S.A., --there is either no significant difference--or more often, people using fluoridated water have significantly more caries. That even very small amounts of fluoride cause brittle, hard to repair teeth.
You must remember that the National Academy of Science released a report that sort of said fluoridation was OK. They do not know that the members hand-picked for the panel were known to be pro-fluoridation. They were not present when the pathologist from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology stated that any bone or tooth structure that contains fluoride is weak, crumbling and highly undesirable.
They did not allow me to explain that the levels of fluoride found in the bones of rodents who had osteosarcoma was lower than the level found in human adults exposed to allowable levels of fluoride. I was not permitted to explain that with the exception of fluoride, no other compounds including radioactive compounds, have been able to produce osteocarcomas in rodents.
The more I find out about fluoride, the more disgusted I am.
later,
nem
'Lower income people also have a much lower level of personal dental care. Fluoridated water won't help much if you completely neglect your teeth, as many lower income people tend to do.'
How do you rationalize away the rest of these articles?
Water Fluoridation and Tooth Decay: Results from the 1986-1987 National Survey of US School Children (Fluoride, 23(2) 1990)It has become widely accepted among dental and public health professionals that fluoridation reduces tooth decay by ˝ to 2/3. However, recent studies by public health dentists in New Zealand, Canada and the US have reported similar of lower tooth decay rates in nonfluoridated areas as compared to fluoridated areas. Moreover findings in the US and worldwide show that, over the last 25 years, reductions in tooth decay rates in nonfluoridated areas are comparable to those in fluoridated areas.
Child Dental Health Differences in New Zealand (Fluoride, 22(1) 1989)When considering the socioeconomic variable, child dental health appears to be better in the nonfluoridated area.…there was more decay, not less, among fluoridated-area upper class 7-year olds.
North Slope Dental Health called worst in U.S. (Ketchikan Daily News, 12/17/90)Examiners reported finding active cavities among Native children aged 3 through 5 at three times the national average. Nearly three-fourths of the 62 Native elders aged 65 or older had no teeth at all. …Examiners said 40% of elementary students had cavities, and 70% had cavities by the time they reached high school. (Note: North Slope is fluoridated)
Demand Taxes Clinics serving the Poor - A Crisis in Dental Care (The Morning News Tribune, 3.30.92)· "It's bad out there," said Dr. Dennis Christiani. …"We're seeing more people with bombed-out mouths, as we say in the trade - teeth decayed all the way to the gums. It's not that uncommon anymore."· "It's getting worse, we're seeing more kids with more sever dental needs than ever before, kids with a lot of needs and obviously not a lot of money." (Note: Tacoma is fluoridated)
Please cite anything at all, other than articles reiterating reduction of caries in papers that have been declared false under oath by its own author or incomplete studies, that shows a reduction in caries in due to fluoride. You simply can't. There aren't any.
'Yes, dental caries is considered a communicable disease. The reason? It is caused, not by sweets, but by certain cariogenic bacteria (usually strep mutans) that, as a wasteproduct of feeding on the food debris in our mouths, excrete a dilute solution of acid. It is this acid that lies on the teeth and destroys the enamel.'
By that standard acne is also a communicable disease.
Everybody has bacteria living in their oral cavities, what makes people more or less prone to decay is the concentration or numbers of "bad" or cavity producing bacteria.
So an anti-bacterial rinse would be even more effective than fluoride? Wow. A bit of peroxide, tea tree or peppermint could solve the problem without harm to the ENTIRE population? Imagine that.
later,
nem
You do realize that NOTHING that you just cut and pasted refeutes ANYTHING I said. Are you unable to think for yourself?
Adjusting fluoride with industrial sludge IS a problem. Anyone reading this thread can see that you are simply avoiding this aspect of 'adjusting' fluoride, but fluoride is fluoride and fluoride is harmful.
I've already pointed out that fluoride is naturally present in ALL water supplies, with over half being above the .08ppm optimal level. So yes, fluoride is fluoride. But arsenic is arsenic, and while dangerous in high levels, and these low levels it is essential to human life. "THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON". Remember.
Yes, an article that used excerpts from ancient studies that the author testified during trial were not only inconclusive, but that he lied - for a fee of course.
Another lie. But you are pretty good at that. Here is another link to the study so people can judge for themselves.
The problem is that hydrofluoric acid is produced at all. The fact is that HF is more corrosive and more of a health risk than hydrochloric acid. Support your position. How much HF is produced? How much is benign? If HF is not even measurable, how do we know that the combination creates HF at all?
I've alseady pointed out that water contains .8 PARTS PER MILLION of fluoride ions. Considering only half of those ions bind with hydrogen to form HF, the amout is not measurable, therefore not a problem. What you are doing is taking fluoride poisoning cases where people ingest many GRAMS and suffer gastric pain due to the formation of HF and somehow extrapolating it to normal situations. That is very dishonest.
There are too many overlaps in 'osteo' type diseases. Skeletal fluorosis in the US has NEVER been diagnosed as such, but is more than likely diagnosed as another disease.
That is another lie. Since skeletal fluorosis is very common in other parts of the world with very high levels of natural fluoride, the symptoms are well known. The reason SF is not diagnosed in the U.S. is because it doesn't occur here.
Fluoride reduces thyroid activity.
Only at toxic levels. Another intentional misstatement.
In 1990,1991, and1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published three separate articles linking increased hip fracture rates to fluoridated areas.
And all those studies have subsequently been disproven.
Please cite anything at all, other than articles reiterating reduction of caries in papers that have been declared false under oath by its own author or incomplete studies, that shows a reduction in caries in due to fluoride. You simply can't. There aren't any.
Featherstone JD. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999;27:31-40.
Burt BA, Eklund SA. Dentistry, dental practice, and the community. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: WB Saunders, 1999.
Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. Recent trends in dental caries in US children and the effect of water fluoridation. J Dent Res. 1990;69:723-7
Newbrun E. Effectiveness of water fluoridation. J Public Health Dent. 1989;49:279-89.
Horowitz HS. The effectiveness of community water fluoridation in the United States. J Public Health Dent. 1996;56:253-8
Riley JC, Lennon MA, Ellwood RP. The effect of water fluoridation and social inequalities on dental caries in 5-year-old children. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28:300-5
Shellis RP, Duckworth RM. Studies on the cariostatic mechanisms of fluoride. Int Dent J. 1994;44(3 suppl 1):263-73.
CDC. Fluoridation census 1992. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, CDC, National Center for Prevention Services, Division of Oral Health, 1993.
Brown LJ, Beazoglou T, Heffley D. Estimated savings in U.S. dental expenditures, 1979-89. Public Health Rep. 1994;109:195-203.
Hodge HC. Evaluation of some objections to water fluoridation. In: Newbrun E, ed. Fluorides and dental caries. 3rd ed. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1986:221-55.
National Research Council. Health effects of ingested fluoride. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993.
Kaste LM, Selwitz RH, Oldakowski RJ, Brunelle JA, Winn DM, Brown LJ. Coronal caries in the primary and permanent dentition of children and adolescents 1-17 years of age: United States, 1988-1991. J Dent Res. 1996;75:631-41
As of 1977 there were 35,000 studies published in peer reviewed journals that demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of fluoride.
Face it nem, those websites you cut your info from are lying to you. They are making things up and taking other things out of context. The supposed journal "Fluoride" is not considered a legitimate journal by scientists in general because of their shoddy procedures...
You are being duped.
Maybe you should question pro-fluoridation groups. Who would stand to lose more profits if fluoridation were discontinued?
later,
nem
One other thing.
You are saying that fluoride adjustment causes maladies from brittle bones to brittle teeth to cancer. You also claim that it is all easily shown by all these great studies you so readily cut-and-paste from.
Now, where are the lawyers? I mean, if this is such an obvious poison, why aren't the lawyers suing everybody in sight? We've seen they can sue pretty much anybody for anything, despite a lack of evidence (Dow Corning, Pacific Power etc.). Obviously the lack of a feeing frenzy shows just how weak your "evidence" really is.
Maybe you should question pro-fluoridation groups. Who would stand to lose more profits if fluoridation were discontinued?
For God's sake will you please think before you post?
At least a little?
Nobody stands to gain more if fluoridation is discontinued than ME. Nobody.
Both my father and I have practiced in the same area before and after fluoridation, and we have both seen the number of pediatric carious lesions decline markedly after fluoridation.
Obviously, if greed were the overriding factor, every dentist in the world would be screaming for fluoride to be taken out of the water supply. We could then watch our offices fill up with kids with cavities, and makes lots more money.
What are you thinking?
I guess we'll all know for sure in about 20 years, when the citizens who have had a high intake of fluoride from water, food and dentrifices since conception are hunched, suffering from spontaneous hip fractures, suffering from osteoarthritis, suffering from conditions caused by hypothyroidism (including various cancers), suffering from osteoporosis, ad nauseum - ALL common symptoms of skeletal fluorosis.
Oh, I forgot, that IS happening now - and the highest rates are in fluoridated communities.
As for your assumption that the thyroid is affected by fluoride ONLY at toxic levels, do a bit more research. Hyperthyroidism was successfully medicated with 5-10 mg fluoride per day. The AMA even notes that we are currently consuming 6 or more mg per day even in areas without fluoridated water. Now, why are we ALL being medicated for hyperthyroidism - reducing thyroid funtion in healthy thyroid glands with KNOWN negative consequences, for a slight, although disproven, reduction in cavities?
Later,
nem
Which is more profitable:
filling a cavity
dental sealants
cosmetic repair of dental fluorosis
later,
nem
I guess we'll all know for sure in about 20 years, when the citizens who have had a high intake of fluoride from water, food and dentrifices since conception are hunched, suffering from spontaneous hip fractures, suffering from osteoarthritis, suffering from conditions caused by hypothyroidism (including various cancers), suffering from osteoporosis, ad nauseum - ALL common symptoms of skeletal fluorosis.
I've pointed this out before, but, just like all my other points, you have ignored them.
Prior to the mid 1940s, there was no additon of fluoride to the water supply. However, in many areas of the country, there were fluoride levels many times greater than what is considered optimal. Indeed in some areas the fluoride levels fluctuated so much that one town would have extrememly high levels and another town fairly close would have next to none.
So is should be a simple thing to look at those areas and show elevated cases of osteosclerosis, hyperthyroidism, cancer, etc. in the areas with the high fluoride levels. Yet no correlation can be found. That, more than any other research, disproves you statements.
You also failed to answer my questions regarding lawyers. You need to pointout why the trail lawyers haven't jumped on this gravy train if the evidence is as strong as you say. This is not an insignificant point.
Which is more profitable:
Aside from your implication that I am greedy and dishonset, considering most, if not all, insurances do NOT pay for cosmetic dentistry, doing fillings is much more profitable. Also, the fact that 90% of the fluorsis cases I see are so slight that, by the time the child reaches his late teens, the stains fade, I don't do very much cosmetic work fixing fluorosis.
Nem, why don't you give it up? You are really starting to embarrass yourself.
I almost forgot...
I just spoke to a physician friend of mine and I asked him how he would do a differential diagnosis of skeletal fluorosis, and his answer was, "It's easy, just look at their teeth!"
DUH, makes sense, why didn't I think of that?
Thanks to both. We lived in McAllen TX for a year or so before my son got his permanent teeth. The water there is so recycled it tastes like dirt--literally. His dentist told us that his mottled teeth were due to the over-flouridated, re-recycled water there. But, his teeth are otherwise healthy.
I'm glad to be back in Florida.
No problem Joan.
But if you are truly concerned about fluoride levels, you should consider having your well water checked. I'm sure any reputable University (heck, maybe even Florida State ;))in the area can help.
And I suppose your doctor friend has never seen anyone with a history of dental fluorosis who now has osteoporosis, arthritis, osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, right?
later,
nem
All other suspicions aside, I find it a remarkable coincidence that the fluoridation of water coincided almost exactly along with the burgeoning nuclear weapons production.
It all started in 1947, Mandrake...
Do you realize the difference between causality and correlation???
Chalk and detergents are also ingredients in toothpaste, I forget the others. The chalk is what gives teeth that (temporary) white appearance right after brushing... The stuff is pure garbage!
maybe it's the sugar and flour causing all the problems with the teeth
You're on the right track.
It's our "civilized" diet that rots our teeth.
How might it be otherwise?
Nature has given to all other animals equipment exactly suited to what they need to ingest their nourishment.
How might man alone have been given eating equipment so defective that it is actually destroyed by ingestion of nourishment itself?
The first Europeans in Polynesia noted that the Polynesians had perfect teeth.
Now there are now parts of Polynesia where the favorite breakfast is toast soaked in coffee--coffee that is so saturated with sugar as to make it into a sugary paste.
Polynesians are now dental cripples.
I guess you would consider Draino medication too, if it was forced.
In the early part of the twentieth century, the favorite toothpaste in Germany contained radium.
Nothing like radium for a bright smile!
I'll just bet, from very recent experience, you have never seen a case of Milroy's disease either. You health care idiots damned near killed my father by focusing on that disease, without knowing a damn thing about it, rather than the bleeding inside his skull. You see, he fell, on concrete and shattered his shoulder and severely bruised his head. The shoulder took precedence, next was the Milroy's and no one even thought to look for bleeding in the head. You look right at things and are so sanctimonious in your righteousness you don't see what you are looking at and have no ear for what you are being told. I'll just bet you are well schooled in sympathy when a patient is lost because of uncarring ignorance.
"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison…."
Paracelsus (1493-1541)
The Dose Makes the Poison
A substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within your body in a sufficient concentration (a high enough dose). The toxic effect of a substance increases as the exposure (or dose) to the susceptible biological system increases. For all chemicals there is a dose response curve, or a range of doses that result in a graded effect between the extremes of no effect and 100% response (toxic effect). All chemical substances will exhibit a toxic effect given a large enough dose. If the dose is low enough even a highly toxic substance will cease to cause a harmful effect. The toxic potency of a chemical is thus ultimately defined by the dose (the amount) of the chemical that will produce a specific response in a specific biological system.
-Univ. of Maryland Dept of Environmental Safety
Want to read the truth go to:
Gary Null
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
Ummmm, we've covered that already, please try to keep up.
Anyway, as has been pointed out already, arsenic is also poison, yet it is essential for human life.
How can you and Gary explain that?
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 152 | Top | Last ]
"We're all gonna die!!!"
Well duhh!
"Dude, that's why my toothpaste has "Do not swallow" on it, and why there's a fluoride poisoning warning on the box."
HG, Say gal, do you think{?} the very yooung children read the fine print? Or many "intelligent" persons for that matter? Peace and love, George.
Harry, I missed this the first time around. THANKS for this post!! Peace and love, George.
"Fluoride - The Lunatic Chemical"
Callahan - The Lunatic *****
TOP FLUORIDE EXPERT APOLOGIZES FOR PUSHING POISON
"I have absolutely no training in toxicity," he stated firmly.
I think his conversion has been of a religious rather than a scientific nature.
This happened to my son. We now have pure artesian well water from our own well in north Florida.
Check your well. The way that fluoride was discovered to prevent cavities was by noticing that people in areas having high naturally-occurring levels of fluoride had mottled teeth, but very few cavities (yes, I've gone back and read the original papers in the original publications). Later a level sufficient to be prophylactic for dental caries but insufficient to promote mottling of enamel was determined. As with any good thing, people go overboard. Very small children shouldn't be given toothpaste of any kind until they're old enough to be able to spit. Too much fluoride during tooth formation (from swallowing toothpaste combined with fluoridated water) can result in teeth coming in mottled. Of course, once they're in, no level of fluoride will mottle them. Also, remember that "pure" water--nothing but H2O, no dissolved minerals of any sort--is deadly. If you drank really pure water you'd damage your electrolyte balance and run a serious risk of dying from a cadiac event.
Cavities are not communicable.
Ha ha ha. Of course they're communicable. Cavities are caused by enzymes produced by oral bacteria, mutans streptococci. When the oral bacteria of children was compared to that of the parents, specifically the mother, it was found that they were closely related. That is, the child got the bacteria from the mother, presumably from the mother's tasting the food on the spoon to show the kid it was yummy.
One of many references on the subject at PubMed:
J Dent Res 1995 Feb;74(2):681-5
The fidelity of initial acquisition of mutans streptococci by infants from their mothers.
Li Y, Caufield PW.
Department of Oral Biology,
University of Alabama
Birmingham 35294, USA.
Previous cross-sectional studies using bacteriocin profiles, serotyping, or genotyping suggest that mothers are the principle
source of mutans streptococci (MS) to their infants. This study determined the commonality of MS genotypes between mothers
and their infants at the time of initial acquisition. Oral bacteria of mothers and their infants were monitored from birth for
approximately 3 years at three-month intervals. Genotypes of MS in infants appeared identical to those present in mothers in
approximately 71% of 34 mother-infant pairs studied. Interestingly, female infants acquired MS genotypes identical to their
mothers' with significantly greater fidelity than male infants (88% vs. 53%). Homology of genotypes between mothers and their
infants at initial acquisition strongly suggests that MS strains were transmitted from mother to infant and that this transfer
exhibited gender specificity. In no instance did we observe homology of genotypes between fathers and infants or fathers and
mothers, further supporting the notion that acquisition of MS in humans follows maternal lines.
I. Wasn't it you who posted both of these articles months ago? Regardless, The Proven Dangers of Microwaves is a JOKE. The author should be ashamed of himself for writing such a shoddy piece. He's also guilty of plagiarism*. People who are Christians should be thoroughly ashamed to have that name associated with this author (Christian Law Fellowship). For instance, the author said:
"It seems the nurse had warmed the blood in a microwave oven. This tragedy makes
it very apparent that there's much more to "heating" with microwaves than we've been led to believe. Blood for transfusions is routinely warmed, but not in
microwave ovens. In the case of Mrs. Levitt, the microwaving altered the blood and it killed her."
The fact is that blood is routinely warmed in microwave ovens. Microwave warming of blood doesn't alter the blood any more than storing it or warming it by counter-current water bath. In fact, a method which more rapidly heats the stored blood to body temperature is desired since there is less time for it to be damaged (see III below).
The story about Norma Levitt is not listed in Lexis-Nexis nationally for all available dates nor for Oklahoma newspapers for all available dates. Nor is there any story retrieved for the search parameters of "microwave" AND "blood" AND "lawsuit". The oldest site (1998) on the web where the Norma story makes its appearance is New-Age Online Australia in a piece by a kinesiologist named Stephanie that screams, "Eating Microwaved Food Is like eating Nuclear Waste! [sic]". Of course, there is no source cited for the Norma story. Stephanie blesses us with such idiocies as:
>"Eating microwaved food seriously zaps you of energy"
>"Most of my clients came back to see me after about two weeks....they were again 'out of balance'. That is, their electrical circuits were out....why did their electrical circuits go out?...Using muscle testing, I went through the process testing if the cause was
electrical, chemical/nutritional, emotional or structural. Again and again the same answer would come up - electrical.
>
"When I then went through a range of possible electrical causes, the same answer again came up again and again - the person had eaten microwaved food!"
>"Other kinesiologists can confirm these results. David Bridgman, who has years of experience as a kinesiologist, said "Of all the people I test for allergies,
99.9% so far show severe sensitivity to any microwaved food"."
>"I had been doing quite a lot of kinesiology and feeling on top of the world when for
no apparent reason I began to feel rather 'grey' and rather low. I realised that I needed a balance from a kinesiologist. Sure enough, I was out of balance.
When the kinesiologist used muscle testing to see why my body had gone out of balance, the answer came up ... microwaved food!"
>
"Also, standing in front of a microwave is highly damaging to your health. Perhaps you have already felt this intuitively? We know that cells explode in the
microwave - just fry an egg in your microwave. We are made up of trillions of cells. So work out how many are getting damaged if you stand in front of your
microwave for 5-10 minutes. "
II. The plagiarism.
*In 1999, the following appeared "Extracted from NEXUS Magazine, Volume 2, #25 (April-May '95)." and publised by Sheri Nakken in the Homeopathy Mail List.
"In early 1991, word leaked out about a lawsuit in Oklahoma. A woman named
Norma Levitt had hip surgery, only to be killed by a simple blood
transfusion when a nurse "warmed the blood for the transfusion in a
microwave oven"!
Logic suggests that if heating or cooking is all there is to it, then it
doesn't matter what mode of heating technology one uses. However, it is
quite apparent that there is more to 'heating' with microwaves than we've
been led to believe.
Blood for transfusions is routinely warmed-but not in microwave ovens! In
the case of Mrs Levitt, the microwaving altered the blood and it killed her."
Compare this to William P. Kopp's anti-microwave missive published in 2001 with no attribution (but this is common in these hysterical publications--everyone says what everyone else says until it attains a level of presumed facticity):
"In 1991, there was a lawsuit in Oklahoma concerning the hospital use of a microwave oven to warm blood needed in a transfusion. The case involved a hip
surgery patient, Norma Levitt, who died from a simple blood transfusion. It seems the nurse had warmed the blood in a microwave oven. This tragedy makes
it very apparent that there's much more to "heating" with microwaves than we've been led to believe. Blood for transfusions is routinely warmed, but not in
microwave ovens. In the case of Mrs. Levitt, the microwaving altered the blood and it killed her."
III. A couple of citations from PubMed.
The effect of rewarming of stored blood on plasma value and erythrocytes
Anaesthesist. 1985 Jul;34(7):352-4.
30 units of stored blood of different age were rewarmed from 4 degrees C to 32 degrees C by microwave blood-warmer
Infusotherm 407. The resulting damage to blood components and change of function of erythrocytes were compared with those
caused by storage of CPD-blood. Dependent on the age of stored blood we found considerable increases in the plasma-levels
of potassium, lactate, and free haemoglobin. Compared with cold CPD-blood rewarming of stored blood produced a 7%
increase in lactate and a 8% increase in free haemoglobin. There were no changes in platelet and erythrocyte counts,
haematocrit, plasma-levels of haemoglobin, electrolytes, cholesterol, blood viscosity, osmotic resistance, and oxygen-binding
capacity. As damage of stored blood produced by warming is minimal compared with that produced by storage, the
Infusotherm 407 is considered to be a clinically useful blood-warmer.
In-line microwave blood warming of in-date human packed red blood cells.
Crit Care Med 1995 Jul;23(7):1243-50
CONCLUSIONS: a) Both in-line countercurrent warming and in-line microwave warming were associated
with small increases in parameters of red cell damage representing statistically and clinically insignificant hemolysis. b) Blood
sitting in any blood warming device is subject to statistically significant but clinically irrelevant increases in those parameters. c)
At high-flow rates, the in-line microwave device warmed blood to higher outlet temperatures than the single channel
countercurrent water bath warmer. This method may represent a clinical blood warming modality of the near future.
Trust me, neminly reads NOTHING that doesn't come from those wacky anti-fluoridation websites. Hence his/her complete ignorance of chemistry, toxicology, dental biology, or physiology.
Just as a review:
Nem, didn't understand the chemistry of the fluoride ion, implying that natural fluoride was somehow different from supplemented fluoride.
He/she had the temerity to laugh at the CDC for saying caries was communicable, when 30 seconds with a search engine would prove him wrong. He later tries to press the point further by stating that, if the bacteria nature of caries were true, anit-bacterial rises would cure decay. All this proves is that he's utterly illiterate when it comes to oral medicine.
Then, when asked, he was completely unable to give the correct etiology of dental caries.
Lets not forget implying we were crazy for saying arsenic is an essential trace mineral, something anybody with the slightest knowledge of physiology would know.
He/she states that fluoride has never been proven to be effective and safe, but I post over a dozen recent studies and alluded to the fact that, prior to 1977 there were over 35,000 studies on fluoride.
Speaking of studies, he makes mention of studies in the JADA which don't say anything that he says they say (huh?).
Nem also mentions a dire waring the AGD gave about juice and fluoride, but there's no mention of this on their website.
He uses numbers over and over again that, when I ask for references, he can't produce.
I asked him about the lack of legal action from a trial lawyers lobby that never misses a chance to sue, yet he ignored the question.
I asked him why, in the face of a potential goldmine of cavities from removing fluoride from the water supply, dentist still support fluoridation. He tried to say that we would make money fixing fluorosis, which only demonstrates his complete ignorance of fluorosis and dental insurance.
Why would anybody believe this person, and how deep must their delusion be to imagine themselves an expert?
but this is common in these hysterical publications--everyone says what everyone else says until it attains a level of presumed facticity
Aruanan, if you spend any time on these hysterical websites, you see just that, the EXACT same things are reproduced over and over, word for word, until people like the ones around here assume it is true.
After one of these types of threads appeared a few years ago I ventured to check the resources listed. After the article there was an impressive list of journal articles. But when I looked at some of them, they either didn't exist or said absolutely nothing about the issue.
I believe the professional organizations are partly to blame though. It would be very easy for them to address the allegations on these website point by point and prove them to be garbage. But they suffer from an elitism that makes them feel they shouldn't bother.
Thanks for both posts. www.quackwatch.com and www.junkscience.com both have a lot to say with respect to anti-science nuttiness. Also, I don't, though, think that the reason that we don't hear more from people in science is due to elitism. Even in PubMed if you use 'nutrition' AND 'quackery' as search terms you get 50 hits; 'health' and 'quackery' returns 253 hits. And these are in scientific journals. One reason a lot of this stuff doesn't get into the same places that the hysteria does is because hysteria sells better than debunking the hysteria does.
Here are a couple, one new and one about 10 years old, that look interesting and apropos to this and other such threads:
1. Acad Med 2001 Mar;76(3):230-7
Alternative medicine and common errors of reasoning.
Beyerstein BL.
Brain-Behaviour Laboratory,
Department of Psychology,
Simon Fraser University
, Burnaby, British Columbia,
Canada.
bbeyerstein@arts.sfu.ca
Why do so many otherwise intelligent patients and therapists pay considerable sums for products and therapies of alternative
medicine, even though most of these either are known to be useless or dangerous or have not been subjected to rigorous
scientific testing? The author proposes a number of reasons this occurs: (1) Social and cultural reasons (e.g., many citizens'
inability to make an informed choice about a health care product; anti-scientific attitudes meshed with New Age mysticism;
vigorous marketing and extravagant claims; dislike of the delivery of scientific biomedicine; belief in the superiority of "natural"
products); (2) psychological reasons (e.g., the will to believe; logical errors of judgment; wishful thinking, and "demand
characteristics"); (3) the illusion that an ineffective therapy works, when actually other factors were at work (e.g., the natural
course or cyclic nature of the disease; the placebo effect; spontaneous remission; misdiagnosis). The author concludes by
acknowledging that when people become sick, any promise of a cure is beguiling. But he cautions potential clients of alternative
treatments to be suspicious if those treatments are not supported by reliable scientific research (criteria are listed), if the
"evidence" for a treatment's worth consists of anecdotes, testimonials, or self-published literature, and if the practitioner has a
pseudoscientific or conspiracy-laden approach, or promotes cures that sound "too good to be true."
2. Clin Chem 1992 Aug;38(8B Pt 2):1574-86
Quackery: a national scandal.
Jarvis WT.
Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
Loma Linda University School of Medicine, CA.
The U.S. Congress determined quackery to be the most harmful consumer fraud against elderly people. Americans waste $27
billion annually on questionable health care, exceeding the amount spent on biomedical research. Quackery is characterized by
the promotion of false and unproven health schemes for profit and does not necessarily involve imposture, fraud, or greed. The
real issues in the war against quackery are the principles, including scientific rationale, encoded into consumer protection laws,
primarily the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. More such laws are badly needed. Regulators are failing the public by
enforcing laws inadequately, applying double standards, and accrediting pseudomedicine. Non-scientific health care (e.g.,
acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy) is licensed by individual states. Practitioners use
unscientific practices and deception on a public who, lacking complex health-care knowledge, must rely upon the
trustworthiness of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the scientific enterprise and should be actively
opposed by every scientist.
Quackwatch and Junkscience are two of my favorite websites.
As far as elitism goes, I believe the ADA specifically does not answer the anti-fluoridation or anti-amalgam website for fear of giving them publicity. That's a shame because, as anybody can see here, a little research and common sense destroys their arguments.
Gen. Jack Ripper: Mandrake, have you ever wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater?
Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Yes, Jack actually I had wondered about that, yes...
Gen. Ripper: Have you ever heard of flouridation, Mandrake? Flouridation of water?
Wow, I get to ask a dentist!
1. As I asked above, how much fluoride would need to be consumed from conception to eruption of permanent teeth to produce dental fluorosis?
2. If a child has no sources of fluoride, (fluoridated water, fluoride supplements, fluoridated dental products, fluoride treatments), how saturated with fluoride must our environment be to achieve dental fluorosis ONLY from purchased food sources?
3. Fluoride was found to be effective at reducing thyroid activity at a rate of 6mg NaF (2.9 F-) daily. Additionally, it is known that fluoride is absorbed through the skin. In Austria 20 minute baths containing 30ccm (0.03l) HF per 200 liters of water. A much lower concentration of fluoride than is in fluoridated water supplies. What are the effects of reduced thyroid activity on the human body?
4. Fluoride reduces plasma bound iodine, even at 0.9 mg/day. What are the effects of reduced plasma bound iodine on the human body?
5. Fluoride reduces the Basal Metabolic Rate, even at less than 0.9mg/day. What are the effects of reduced Basal Metabolic Rate on the human body?
6. In India, where high naturally occuring fluoride has caused severe medical problems, what is the cut-off point for declaring water unfit for human consumption due to fluoride content?
7. In the United States, do any physicians, osteopathic surgeons, physical therapists, chiropractors, etc, check blood fluoride levels for patients with arthritis (any type) or osteoporosis? Additionally, do any physicians request dental records to see if there is a history of dental fluorosis?
8. Has it been proven, beyond any doubt, that fluoride, at ONE milligram per day, has absolutely no negative effects on ANY part of the body?
9. Which country has the highest rate of cancer, osteoporosis, arthritis and degenerative bone disease?
10. Which country is the only country to fluoridate the water, and subsequently the food supply, of over half of the population?
later,
nem
Why don't you quit playing games, nem?
You've proven to be comlpetely illiterate in every subject we've discussed. About the only thing you've proven to be adept in is the art of cut-and-paste.
Since you know NOTHING about chemsitry, physiology and oral medicine, any answers to the above questions (undoubtedly culled from an anti-fluoridation website) would go completely over your head. ANyway, I'm sure any numbers I'd produce would differ greatly from the bogus numbers you'd dig up.
Until you answer my questions, detailed above, the game is over.
Let's start out with these, which you have ingnored:
What is the difference between causality and correlation?
Why are epidemologists (you DO know what they are?) unable to demonstrate any health differences in this country between areas of low natural flouride concentration and high, wether now or in the past?
Government at it's best...no, people can't be trusted to brush with flouridated toothpaste...they might forget or decide against it. We must do it for them, even if it means poisoning the drinking water. The price of an advanced civilization. (Don't forget, panel, we don't have to use the resevoir's water, we can afford to buy pure spring water...just sign here.)
...this does not negate the benefits when administered as part of a sensible monitored regimen...
Whether you agree or not.
I'll answer him, Tom, even though it appears it will be an exercise in futility.
1. As I asked above, how much fluoride would need to be consumed from conception to eruption of permanent teeth to produce dental fluorosis?
It varies since there are all sorts and degrees of opacities of tooth enamel--some do not come from fluoride. It also can vary from person to person. However, 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water has been shown to provide the greatest protection against dental caries with the least amount of dentally significant fluorosis. If people pile large amounts of fluoride toothpaste, fluoride rinses, and prepared foods that had been made with fluoride-containing water (such as bottled soft drinks, soups, sauces, etc.), they will be increasing their intake of fluoride. However, if they're not children whose teeth are developing, they're not going to have a problem with fluorosis.
2. If a child has no sources of fluoride, (fluoridated water, fluoride supplements, fluoridated dental products, fluoride treatments), how saturated with
fluoride must our environment be to achieve dental fluorosis ONLY from purchased food sources?
If the child has no source of fluoride, then it doesn't make any difference how much fluoride food has in it since the child wouldn't be getting any to begin with (ie., no sources). However, if you mean fluoride coming only through food, then it would take an amount greater than that present at the 1ppm for a normal water intake to perhaps maybe result in some fluorosis. It would take a whole lot more for significant fluorosis.
3. Fluoride was found to be effective at reducing thyroid activity at a rate of 6mg NaF (2.9 F-) daily. Additionally, it is known that fluoride is absorbed
through the skin. In Austria 20 minute baths containing 30ccm (0.03l) HF per 200 liters of water. A much lower concentration of fluoride than is in
fluoridated water supplies. What are the effects of reduced thyroid activity on the human body?
There are no studies indicating any problems between ingested fluoride (other than poisoning) in the ranges found in fluoridated water and thyroid activity. Someone can get poisoned through the skin by getting burned with hydrofluoric acid. This isn't equivalent to taking a bath in fluoridated water or even in very dilute hydrofluoric acid.
4. Fluoride reduces plasma bound iodine, even at 0.9 mg/day. What are the effects of reduced plasma bound iodine on the human body?
Again, there are no human studies on PubMed for "fluoride" and "plasma bound iodine" with these results, or with any results, for that matter.
5. Fluoride reduces the Basal Metabolic Rate, even at less than 0.9mg/day. What are the effects of reduced Basal Metabolic Rate on the human body?
The only two of the four references returned on PubMed for 'fluoride' AND 'basal metabolic rate' that had anything to do with a whole organism: a bacterium and a rat.
Molan PC, Hartles RL.
The differential effect of sodium fluoride on the aerobic and anaerobic metabolism of the human oral flora.
Arch Oral Biol. 1966 Nov;11(11):1163-70.
2. Faenzi C.
[Effect of sodium fluoride on the enzymatic activity of the thyroid and on the basal metabolism of the rat].
Ann Stomatol (Roma). 1965 Aug;14(8):601-19. Italian.
6. In India, where high naturally occuring fluoride has caused severe medical problems, what is the cut-off point for declaring water unfit for human
consumption due to fluoride content?
The recommendation is <0.5ppm. However, this is in the context of children with dietary deficiences in calcium intake, not healthy children (Indian J Pediatr 1998 May-Jun;65(3):371-81). From an epidemiological standpoint this doesn't mean that people getting more than 0.5ppm are suddenly subject to horrible diseases.
7. In the United States, do any physicians, osteopathic surgeons, physical therapists, chiropractors, etc, check blood fluoride levels for patients with
arthritis (any type) or osteoporosis? Additionally, do any physicians request dental records to see if there is a history of dental fluorosis?
Well, fluoride therapy has been tested for use in preventing bone loss in
rheumatoid arthritis (Rheumatol. 1997 Dec;24(12):2308-13.). Who gives a rat's ass what a chiropracter thinks or does, except to the degree that it has a negative impact on those foolish enough to trust them in matters of disease? Additionally, a physician with eyes wouldn't have to ask for "dental records" to determine if someone sitting in front of him has dental fluorosis. Of course, he couldn't be sure that fluoride was the cause of the discoloration, only that it could be. The greatest correlation between dental fluorosis and disease is that those with dental fluorosis are much less likely to suffer from dental caries.
8. Has it been proven, beyond any doubt, that fluoride, at ONE milligram per day, has absolutely no negative effects on ANY part of the body?
Weasal words: absolutely & negative. These render this question unanswerable as you intended.
9. Which country has the highest rate of cancer, osteoporosis, arthritis and degenerative bone disease?
Probably the country which has the healthiest population that is able to live long enough to be able to develop degenerative diseases of old age.
10. Which country is the only country to fluoridate the water, and subsequently the food supply, of over half of the population?
Probably the one with half the population that has significantly less tooth decay than the other half. Still, there are other countries with a greater than 50% fluoridation rate, among them Israel (estimated to be >85% by 2000) and Singapore (100%). Your attempt to use question 10 to imply some sort of causal relationship between fluoridated water and the diseases in question 9 is both pathetid and ludicrous.
J Am Diet Assoc 2000 Oct;100(10):1208-13
Position of the American Dietetic Association: the impact of fluoride on health.
Fluoride is an important element for mineralization of body tissues. The use of topical and systemic fluoride for oral
health has resulted in major reductions in dental caries and its associated disability. Fluoridation of public water supplies
has been endorsed by over 90 professional health organizations as the most effective dental public health measure in
existence. Still, about half of the US population fails to receive the maximum benefits possible from community water
fluoridation and the use of fluoride products. Fluoride also plays a role in bone health. The role of high doses of fluoride
for prevention of osteoporosis is undergoing active study and is considered experimental at this point. Dietetics
professionals should routinely monitor and promote the use of systemic and topical fluorides, especially in children and
adolescents. The American Dietetic Association strongly reaffirms its endorsement of the use of systemic and topical
fluorides, including water fluoridation, at appropriate levels of intake, as an important public health measure.[emphasis added] However,
clients should be cautioned that experimental use of high intakes of fluoride should be avoided unless they are
participating in clinical trials.
Going over some of your posts it occurs to me that you are missing another point. Anything but the most severe cases of skeletal or dental fluorosis will cause a strengthening of the affected structure, NOT weakening. It seems that you automatically associate fluorosis with a negative effect, when that isn't nearly the case.
In Austria 20 minute baths containing 30ccm (0.03l) HF per 200 liters of water.
Could you explain this sentence fragment? What is it's point and could you be a little more specific with the numbers. Also, could you be more specific regarding the affintiy of the fluoride ion for skin absorption?
I just come upon this:
"A ten-year comparison study of long-time residents of Bartlett and Cameron, Texas, where the water supplies contained 8.0 and 0.4 parts per million of fluoride respectively, included examinations of organs, bones and tissues. Other than a higher prevalence of dental fluorosis in the Bartlett residents, the study indicated that long term consumption of dietary fluoride (resident average length of fluoride exposure was 36.7 years), even at levels considerably higher than recommended for decay prevention, resulted in no clinically significant physiological or functional effects."
Gee, I wonder how they missed all the rampant osteosclerosis and hyperthyroidism?
From the ADA (those greedy liars):
"Fluoride in Food
The fluoride content of fresh solid foods in the United States generally ranges from 0.01 to 1.0 part per million.104 Fish, such as sardines, may contribute to higher dietary fluoride intake if the bones are ingested. Brewed teas may also contain fluoride concentrations of 1 ppm to 6 ppm depending on the amount of dry tea used, the water fluoride concentration and the brewing time.
The average daily dietary intake of fluoride (expressed on a body weight basis) by children residing in optimally fluoridated (1 ppm) communities is 0.05 mg/kg/day; in communities without optimally fluoridated water, average intakes for children are about 50% lower.74 Dietary fluoride intake by adults in optimally fluoridated (1 ppm) areas averages 1.4 to 3.4 mg/day, and in nonfluoridated areas averages 0.3 to 1.0 mg/day.
A 1990 review of literature identified no significant increases in concentrations of fluoride in food associated with water fluoridation.
Questions concerning the possible concentration of fluoride through the biologic food chain have been addressed by the National Academy of Sciences, which concluded:
Indeed, domestic animals can serve as a protective barrier for humans. Approximately 99% of the fluoride retained in the body is stored in bone, and only slight increases in the concentration of soft tissue fluoride occur even at high levels of dietary fluoride intake. There is, therefore, little danger to humans from the consumption of meat or milk from domestic animals even if the animals have ingested excessive fluoride. A few meat and fish products prepared for human consumption contain portions of comminuted (crushed) bone that may contribute to a higher fluoride content. The proportion of the total diet represented by these products, however, would generally be very small indeed.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has established "market baskets" which reflect the actual 14-day consumption of various food items by an average individual in different age groups from six-month-old children to adults. In a nationwide study of market baskets from areas with varying levels of fluoride in water supplies, it was determined that little or no change in food fluoride content has occurred as a result of the fluoridation of U.S. water supplies.
Whoops! Forgot references:
Whitford GM. The metabolism and toxicity of fluoride, 2nd rev. ed. Monographs in oral science, Vol. 16. Basel, Switzerland: Karger;1996.
Kaminsky LS, Mahoney MC, Leach J, Melius J, Miller MJ. Fluoride: benefits and risks of exposure. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1990;1:261-81.
National Academy of Sciences. Effects of fluorides in animals. Committee on Animal Nutrition and the Subcommittee on Fluorosis, 1974.
Pendrys DG, Stamm JW. Relationship of total fluoride intake to beneficial effects and enamel fluorosis. J Dent Res 1990;69(Spec Iss):529-38.
Olson RE, ed. Fluoride in food and water. Nutr Rev 1986;44(7):233-5.
Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary reference intakes for calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D and fluoride. Report of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington, DC: National Academy Press;(In press).
In this country, if high bone/blood content of fluoride and/or history of fluorosis is NOT indicative of skeletal fluorosis, yet these are the criteria in almost all of the rest of the world, how can skeletal fluorosis ever be diagnosed in this country? Why is skeletal fluorosis NOT in our medical books as a medical condition? It can't even be diagnosed in the first place in this country - according to our medical books, the condition doesn't even exist!
'Why are epidemologists unable to demonstrate any health differences in this country between areas of low natural flouride concentration and high, wether now or in the past?'
Wrong. The epidemiologists and toxicologists of the EPA recommended a immediate moratorium on all water fluoridation. The union has STRONLY objected to the EPA's position that 4 ppm is a 'safe' level in drinking water. That's only a couple hundred epidemiologists and toxicologists who have noted many health differences IN THIS COUNTRY between naturally high fluoridated areas, adjusted fluoride areas and non-fluoridated areas.
Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.
Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Miles, ,T.P. et al. JAMA 264 500-502 (1990)
Hip fracture and fluoridation in Utah?s elderly population. Danielson, C., Lyon, J.L., Egger, M., and Goodenough, G.K. JAMA 268 746-748 (1992).
The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: a national ecological study. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Cooper, C. and Lockwood, S.A. Ann. Epidemiol.2 617-626 (1992).
Fluorine concentration is drinking water and fractures in the elderly [letter]. Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Commenges, D. and Dartigues, J.F. JAMA 273 775-776 (1995).
Water fluoridation and hip fracture [letter]. Cooper, C., Wickham, C.A.C., Barker, D.J.R. and Jacobson, S.J. JAMA 266 513-514 (1991).
There have been many studies in by epidemiologists in other countries on our country and the negative health consequences of fluoride. You just dismiss them ALL as quackery and adhere to your close to fervent faith that fluoride is harmless.
You mentioned yourself that caries are caused by bacteria, the only studies that show ANY reduction in caries show that fluorides effects are topical. Even the article you posted above stated this fact. Could it be that the topical effects are because the fluoride, a KNOWN poison, is KILLING the bacteria? Hmmm.
later,
nem
1. You did not answer how much fluoride was necessary over the course of conception to eruption of permanent teeth to cause dental fluorosis. You did bring up a very good point, that if they are not children whose teeth are developing, dental fluorosis is not going to be an issue. The question is, since we know that fluoride has an affinity for teeth (calcium, bone structure), where does the fluoride go? Can fluoride really differentiate between children's developing teeth and the ongoing process of bone restruction?
2. My son has fluorosis. Twelve percent of the children in un-fluoridated Kingston have dental fluorosis. Unlike the children in Kingston, I know that my child has never used fluoridated dental products, I know that my child has never had fluoridated water, I know that my child has never had fluoride drops, tablets or dental treatments. I know that I did not use any of the above-mentioned products while pregnant or for at least 12 years prior to pregnancy. I also know that my child's dentist recommended that I stop letting him swallow the toothpaste due to the fluorosis of his permanent teeth. Now, answer the question - how much fluoride would have to be ingested to develop dental fluorsis? Our environment is saturated to the point that children without fluoride in their water, dental products/treatments are getting fluorosis. What are the long term effects of this exposure? As for why I don't sue?! Who can I sue? I can't do a damn thing even though my son has been poisoned.
3. While you are still under the naive, and stupid, impression that fluoridated water is only used for drinking, and that only what is ingested as plain water is contributing to total daily intake of fluoride - 1 mg per litre, you neglect to look at the FACT that fluoridated water is used to process foods, water crops, reconstitute juice, flouridated water is used for cooking, coffee making, bathing, swimming, etc and so on. What happens to the fluoride in fluoridated water during all of these things? Does the fluoride magically fall out? Use your head for something other than a hat rack.
4. In studies during the 1950's concerning the use of fluoride on controlling hyperthyroidism, one of the negative effects was the reduction of plasma bound iodine. This was just one of the reasons fluoride was discontinuted as a medication for control of hyperthyroidism. Not all studies are available online. According to the International Council for the Control of Iodine Deficiency Disorders, "Children with IDD can grow up stunted, apathetic, mentally retarded and incapable of normal movement, speech or hearing. IDD in pregnant women cause miscarriage, stillbirth and mentally retarded children." I have tons more, and if you would like, I'll be happy to post it for you.
5. In the following study by Galletti & Joyet, fluoride at just 2.27 to 4.54 mg* a day was found to be successful at treating hyperthyroidism. According to the authors, the daily administration of fluoride, "completely relieved" the symptoms of hyperthyroidism in 6 of the 15 patients. Furthermore, the authors present data on the Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) before and after the prescription of fluoride in 9** of these patients. Of these 9 patients, 8 experienced a depression in their BMR, and in two cases where the fluoride treatment was withdrawn, the BMR reversed back to a substantially higher rate. Yet another reason fluoride was discontinued as a thyroid medication. Fluoride would substantially reduce the basal metabolic rate prior to successful treatment of hyperthyroidism, even at very low doses. Now, can you tell anyone what the consequences of reducing the metabolic rate are on the human body?
6. I guess the assumption is that there are no unhealthy or calcium deficient children in fluoridated areas? Wait a minute, isn't calcium the antedote for excess fluoride consumption? So if we aren't getting enough of the antidote, fluoride isn't good for us? What a profound concept!
7. Fluoride treatment of osteoporosis has been linked by more studies than not, to increases in hip fractures among the elderly. If fluoride is the cure, rather than the cause, why is osteoporosis more prevalent among fluoridated communities both in the United States and abroad?
8. Then we should NOT be dumping it in our water - the risks should be a CHOICE.
9. Well, there are many societies which live years longer than we do, have dramatically lower incidence of cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis and other degenerative bone diseases, lower rates of spontaneous abortions, higher rates of fertility, lower rates of infant mortality and extremely lower rates of digestive problems in newborns than the US. What they don't do is fluoridate the water supply.
10. Of course, 90 organizations with a vested interest...
later,
nem
1943 Researchers from the US Public Health Service examine the health of residents of Bartlett, Texas to see if the 8ppm fluoride in the drinking water was affecting their health. It was checked again in 1953. They find that the death rate in Bartlett was three times higher than a neighboring town which contained 0.4 ppm fluoride.
Ahh, yes. The fluoride promotion specialty. Using flawed studies conducted 50 years ago, you know, back when tobacco smoking didn't cause cancer.
Leone et al, Am J. Roentgen 74:874, 1955
A roentgenologic study of a human population exposed to high-fluoride domestic water. A ten-year study
Many researchers have commented on flaws in this study (Bartlett, Texas) in which X-Ray films made in 1943 were compared with films made in 1953. For example, in 1952 a defluoridation unit was installed in Bartlett, reducing the fluoride content to 1.2 ppm. Only 11 people were life-long residents of Bartlett. If only 11 people from Bartlett moved to Cameron during the study, the outcome of the study would be voided. The Public Health Service says Cameron water contains 0.4 ppm fluoride -- the supply, however, is from the Little River, and such sources are notoriously variable in floride content. A single determination means absolutely nothing. As in the case of other Public Health Service studies, they are not comparing a fluoride city with a nonfluoride city. Both are fluoride cities, and within a range where some Cameron people will ingest more water-borne fluoride than some in Bartlett.
At this point, all fluoride comparisons within the United States would be flawed. When the environment is so saturated with fluoride that children living without fluoridated water or dentrifices develop fluorosis, there is simply NO control group.
later,
nem
Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.
You never read these studies, did you??? Because they don't prove anything conclusively, for the most part, they show no statistically significant change.
But don't take my word for it, if you look at the authors of the studies, three of them were written by Steven Jacobsen, M.D., Ph.D. In a public statement in response to the prevalence of anti-fluoridation website trying to use his studies to identify a risk of hip fracture, in 1997 Dr. Jacobsen wrote:
"To my knowledge, no study has demonstrated that the introduction of fluoride to the public water supplies has increased the risk of (hip) fracture, let alone a doubling of the risk."
Whoops! The dangers of believing those websites, I guess.
Something else you seem to be confused about. The statement about a moratorium on fluoridation was not from the EPA's "epidemologists and toxicologists". It was from a UNION, consisting of "approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters". Considering a few loudmouths are usually the ones setting policy in a union, it doesn't mean much. Not as impressive now, huh?
You mentioned yourself that caries are caused by bacteria, the only studies that show ANY reduction in caries show that fluorides effects are topical. Even the article you posted above stated this fact. Could it be that the topical effects are because the fluoride, a KNOWN poison, is KILLING the bacteria? Hmmm.
Aside from it being a stupid comment, it would be a very simple thing to prove. I did oral cultures in college. Just take a culture proir to using a fluoride rinse, then take another one after. Do you understand ANYTHING about Oral Medicine???
Another thing...
Can you explain exactly how fluoride gets from the digestive system to the thyroid???
Of course, 90 organizations with a vested interest...
Could you also please go over this "vested interest" thing again? I made it clear that I stand to make more money fixing cavities than I do fixing fluorosis.
I'd appreciate answers to all my other quetions that you continue to ignore.
Yes, the union includes the EPA's epidemiologists and toxicologists along with lawyers, scientists, etc. ALL of the EPA's members are part of the two unions which filed the lawsuit. Did you happen to take the time to see how the conclusion by the EPA PR members was extremely and fatally flawed? Didn't think so.
So the fluoride rinse didn't kill any of the bacteria? It kills rats in lower concentrations but just can't kill bacteria?
Can you explain how aluminum crosses the blood/brain barrier? Or maybe how nicotine crosses the placenta? How about how lead crosses the blood/brain barrier?
'Dietary fluoride intake by adults in optimally fluoridated (1 ppm) areas averages 1.4 to 3.4 mg/day, and in nonfluoridated areas averages 0.3 to 1.0 mg/day.'
In 1991, the US PHS estimated flouride intake in fluoridated areas exceeded 6 mg per day. How old are the numbers you stated above?
Oh, my fragment. Oops. The history of treating hyperthyroidism. Gorlitzer von Mundy, was aware that fluorides also get absorbed through the skin and began fluoride treatments of hyperthyroid patients in Austria by prescribing 20 minute baths containing 30ccm (0.03l) HF per 200 liters of water. He reported on this successful treatment spanning over 30 years and involving over 600 patients.
I've answered your questions, yet you continue to neglect mine. Wonder why that is... There's a whole list of them up above that you've neglected.
later,
nem
"Can you explain exactly how fluoride gets from the digestive system to the thyroid???"
The flouride ion is highly reactive. It bonds to the water molecule and passes throughout the body carrying with it whatever its picked up beforehand. This is suspected to be the way that aluminum and other metals get into the brain of Alzheimers patients.
Some neurotoxicity abstrats on flouride:
Me? I've got a case of skeletal flourosis and compounded with an back injury from the Army I have an acutely painful reaction to flouride, even at EPA-approved levels. I live on a set diet and must drink reverse osmosis filtered water. The effects are like night-and-day to me. There's no debating this. To me, injesting products with flouride in them is like being picked-up and thrown into a brick wall. The pain can last up to 10 days.
The numbers you give are as false as the "studies" you posted above that you claimed "proved" a link between hip fractures and fluoride. Either you are lying through your teeth or you don't read and question those websites you frequent.
You have proven to be completely unbelievable.
The first study discusses toxic levels of fluoride, so it isn't an issue here, and the second is a joke coming from a fringe publication "Fluoride".
The flouride ion is highly reactive. It bonds to the water molecule and passes throughout the body carrying with it whatever its picked up beforehand.
And how exactly does a fluoride ion "bond" to a water molecule? How about a chemical equation to show the reaction?
The fact of the matter is that fluoride bonds to the calcium in bone almost immediatly after getting into the bloodstream. That is why, try as they might, anti-fluoridationists can't reliably measure blood fluoride levels.
I guess the fluoride rinse killed the bacteria, huh? Darn. Salt does too. So does peroxide. And lemons or other citrus fruits. Also baking soda. Maybe you should try some more cultures and see which of the above is most effective at killing the bacteria so you can promote something other than a chemical that, if it weren't dumped into our water supply, has to be disposed of as toxic waste.
Oh, this is too cool...
From the California Dental Association...
In the spring of 1990, NTP released the findings of its fluoride study. Although the study found no evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats or in mice of either sex, it did find "equivocal evidence" of carcinogenicity based on a small number of osteosarcomas in male rats in the medium and high-dosed exposure groups. The term "equivocal evidence" is one of five standardized categories used by NTP to describe the strength of evidence of carcinogenicity of individual experiments. The category "equivocal evidence" is used to describe the results of studies in which an association between administration of a chemical and a particular tumor response is uncertain.
Cancer
The two approaches used to determine whether there is an association between exposure to fluoridated water and cancer are: a) carcinogenicity studies of rodents and b) epidemiologic analyses to compare cancer incidence and mortality rates in communities with fluoridated water and in those with negligible levels of fluoride in drinking water.
Animal Studies
The NTP study found that rates of osteosarcomas rose as the dose of sodium fluoride exposure for male rates increased, but not for female rats or for mice of either gender. These findings were interpreted as "equivocal evidence" of carcinogenicity for male rats but no evidence of carcinogenicity for the other gender/species tested. In another recent carcinogenicity study conducted by Maurer, Cheng, Boysen, and Anderson and sponsored by Procter and Gamble (P&G), no evidence was found for an association between the development of malignant tumors and exposure to sodium fluoride in rodents of either gender. Taken together, the NTP and P&G studies fail to establish an association between fluoride and cancer.
Epidemiologic Studies
The ad hoc subcommittee of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs reviewed the results from numerous epidemiologic studies of the relation between exposure to fluoridated water and cancer that have been conducted during the last 40 years. In addition to the review of these studies, the Subcommittee reviewed the findings of a recent study from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which updated and expanded an earlier county-specific analysis for cancer mortality in the United States in relation to water fluoridation. This study evaluated cancer mortality data and examined patterns of cancer incidence from 1973 through 1987 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program cancer registries. The Seer registries were used to obtain data on incidence for all types of cancer, with special emphasis placed on trends in osteosarcomas.
The NCI study identified no trends in cancer risk that could be attributed to the introduction of fluoride into drinking water. There were no substantial differences in cancer mortality rates among persons whom lived in counties that had initiated water fluoridation and those in persons who lived in counties without water fluoridation. Similarly, there was no apparent relation between introduction and duration of fluoridation and the incidence of cancer, including bone and joint cancer and the subset of osteosarcomas.
The NCI also conducted a more detailed evaluation of osteosarcomas using nationwide age-adjusted incidence from the entire SEER database for the years 1973-1987. During this time, the annual incidence of osteosarcoma among males <20 years of age increased from 3.6 cases/106 population to 5.5 cases/106 population. The incidence among females decreased slightly during the same period (from 3.8 cases/106 population to 3.7 cases/106 population). Although the increase in rates of osteosarcoma for males during this period was greater in fluoridated than nonfluoridated areas, extensive analyses revealed that these patterns were unrelated to either the introduction or duration of fluoridation. Consequently, the NCI report concluded that, while the explanation for the increase in rates of osteosarcoma among young males is unknown, it is not due to exposure to water fluoridation. Both this report and the reports from previous international expert panels which have reviewed earlier data concluded that there is no credible evidence of any association between the risk of cancer and exposure to either natural or adjusted fluoride in drinking water.
Imagine, Procter and Gamble, who sponsored the one study, found no connection. What does Procter and Gamble make? Could you just imagine the lawsuits if Procter and Gamble supported the case that fluoride is linked to cancer? Sorta like Marlboro supporting the case the tobacco is linked to lung cancer.
Yet the other study done by the National Toxicology Program found that cancer rates among male rats, and male humans, increased with fluoride.
Follow the money...When you look at who financed the study, ALCOA, Procter and Gamble, Occidental Chemical/Petroleum, you are more apt to see the truth.
Do you know why New Jersey quit fluoridating the water?
later,
nem
p.s. I'm getting the second bone spur [osteophyte] out of my hand on the 23rd. I've scheduled an independent lab to test the excised bone for fluoride. Won't those results be interesting?...
Yet the other study done by the National Toxicology Program found that cancer rates among male rats, and male humans, increased with fluoride.
Once again you give proof that you do not read what you post. That comment is a complete and total LIE.
And, we can now add statistics to the subjects of which you know nothing. Also from that same NTP report:
"These studies are designed and conducted to characterize and evaluate the toxicologic potention, including carcinogenic activity, of selected chemicals in laboratory animals (usually two species, rats and mice). Chemicals selected for NTP toxicology and carcinogenesis studies are chosen primarily on the bases of human exposure, level of production, and chemical structure. The interpretive conclusions presented in these Technical Reports are based only on the results of these NTP studies. Extrapolation of these results to other species and quantitative risk analyses for humans require wider analyses beyond the purview of these studies. Selection per se is not an indicator of a chemical's carcinogenic potential "
So, not human, but rats. But, despite the fact the study doesn't say what you imply, the term "equivocal evidence" is a very specific term which doesn't show a definite correlation.
But since aruanan deals with these terms more than I, perhaps he'd like to bang his head against the wall for a while.
Remember, there are studies that show saccharin causes cancer, as well as alar, and many other benign substances. It isn't a study that proves effect, it is REPEATABLE studies, that is, further studies that show reproducability.
How's this for reproducability??
Hoover RN, McKay FW, Fraumeni JF. Fluoridated drinking water and the occurrence of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1976;57(4):757-68.
144. Erickson JD. Mortality in selected cities with fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies. New Eng J Med 1978;298(20):1112-6.
Rogot E, Sharrett AR, Feinleib M, Fabsitz RR. Trends in urban mortality in relation to fluoridation status. Am J Epidemiol 1978;107(2):104-12.
Chilvers C. Cancer mortality and fluoridation of water supplies in 35 US cities. Int J Epidemiol 1983;12(4):397-404.
Mahoney MC, Nasca PC, Burnett WS, Melius JM. Bone cancer incidence rates in New York State: time trends and fluoridated drinking water. Am J Public Health 1991;81(4):475-9.
Cohn PD, New Jersey Department of Health, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. An epidemiologic report on drinking water and fluoridation. Trenton, NJ;1992.
Tohyama E. Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa Prefecture, Japan. J Epidemiology 1996;6(4):184-190.
Kinlen L. Cancer incidence in relation to fluoride level in water supplies. Br Dent J 1975;138:221-4.
Chilvers C, Conway D. Cancer mortality in England in relation to levels of naturally occurring fluoride in water supplies. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1985;39:44-7.
Cook-Mozaffari PC, Bulusu L, Doll R. Fluoridation of water supplies and cancer mortality I: a search for an effect in the UK on risk of death from cancer. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1981;35:227-32.
Raman S, Becking G, Grimard M, Hickman JR, McCullough RS, Tate RA. Fluoridation and cancer: an analysis of Canadian drinking water fluor-idation and cancer mortality data. Environmental Health Directorate, Health Protection Branch. Ottawa, Canada: Authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare;1977.
Richards GA, Ford JM. Cancer mortality in selected New South Wales localities with fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies. Med J Aust 1979;2:521-3.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Vol. 27. Switzerland;1982. 62 Fed. Reg. 64297 (Dec. 5, 1997).
Clemmesen J. The alleged association between artificial fluoridation of water supplies and cancer: a review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 1983;61(5):871-83.
Jenkins G, Venkateswarlu P, Zipkin I. Physiological effects of small doses of fluoride. In: Fluorides and human health. World Health Organization Monograph Series No. 59. Geneva;1970:163-224.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride. Washington, DC; February 1991.
Knox EG. Fluoridation of water and cancer: a review of the epidemiological evidence. Report of the Working Party. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office;1985.
Leone NC, Shimkin MB, Arnold FA, et al. Medical aspects of excessive fluoride in a water supply. Public Health Rep 1954;69(10):925-36.
National Research Council. Health effects of ingested fluoride. Report of the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. Washington, DC: National Academy Press;1993.
All of these studies, from all over the world, show UNEQUIVOCAL evidence of no relation between fluoride and cancer.
I guess the fluoride rinse killed the bacteria, huh? Darn. Salt does too. So does peroxide. And lemons or other citrus fruits.
You really have no clue, do you. Do you realize the concentration of those substances necessary to be completely bacteriocidal?
No, I guess I have no clue. Please tell me. Seems you are pretty good at tossing insults around, but I'm still not seeing any answers. What is the concentration of those items I mentioned above necessary to kill bacteria which causes tooth decay? What is the concentration fluoride which is necessary to kill the bacteria which causes tooth decay?
Neat. I went over to check out the notes on the heartings which re-instated Dr. William Marcus to the EPA - you know, the Senior Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water? Remember he got fired over reporting that there was some document fudging - a report by National Toxicology Program on the carcinogenic effects of fluoride...
Seems the original NTP document was change to "equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats," from the original wording in the report. The original report was worded "clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats." Pretty slick, huh?
He got fired, filed a lawsuit and for some reason won that lawsuit and got his job back - along with back pay and $50,000 (that's FIFTY THOUSAND for those of you who are decimal impaired). I guess he was able to prove to the judge that this change occured. Guess a quick look at the original study by the judge was all that was needed. Imagine that. But we still get the watered-down version, wonder why?
As for your claim that the above-mentioned studies related ONLY to rats, read it again. The two approaches used to determine whether there is an association between exposure to fluoridated water and cancer are: a) carcinogenicity studies of rodents and b) epidemiologic analyses to compare cancer incidence and mortality rates in communities with fluoridated water and in those with negligible levels of fluoride in drinking water.
The NCI also conducted a more detailed evaluation of osteosarcomas using nationwide age-adjusted incidence from the entire SEER database for the years 1973-1987. During this time, the annual incidence of osteosarcoma among males <20 years of age increased from 3.6 cases/106 population to 5.5 cases/106 population.
Okay, so then it goes on to claim that there wasn't a clear relation to fluoridation being the cause of the dramatically increased cancer of male residents in fluoridated areas, even though the cause is unknown. Now, taken with the fact that there was "clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats" and clearly a significant increase in of osteosarcoma in males under 20 living in fluoridated areas - what does common sense dictate? That it's okay to kill males as long as there MIGHT be a benefits for children's teeth?
Let's go a bit deeper into this issue of osteosarcoma as compared to rats and humans...
First we need a complete understanding of Dr. Marcus' background:
I received my B.A. from Brooklyn College in 1961, My M.S. in Pharmacology from Howard University in 1968, and my Ph.D. in Pharmacology from Howard University in 1971.
I have held the following positions:
1990-1992 Senior Science Advisor in the Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Drinking Water, EPA, Washington, D.D.
1983-1987 Adjunct Assistant Professor of Toxicology in the Department of Biometrics, Bethesda Naval Hospital, Bethesda, MD.
1979 Senior Science Advisor and designated Chief Toxicologist by Director of Criteria and Standards Div., Office of Drinking Water, EPA.
1978-1979 Branch Chief of the Health Efforts Review Branch, Office of Drinking Water, EPA.
1975-1978 Senior Toxicologist, Office of Toxic Substances, EPA.
I have been awarded the BRONZE MEDAL, US EPA 1977. This medal was awarded for "Contributions to Development and Review of Toxicological Studies." Also, the BRONZE MEDAL, US EPA 1983. This medal was awarded for the Initiation and Development of the Health Advisory Program for the Office of Drinking Water.
I also received a COMMENDATION, from the Office of Toxic Substance for Work on the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Toxicology Profiles on Benzene and Arsenic.
Not much of a quack or self-claimed specialist, right?
In my memorandum entitled, Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report, the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) report was discussed and critically reviewed. . This report concerned studies performed on rats to examine a possible link between cancer and fluoridation. The original report submitted by NTP's contractor (Battelle) was rewritten. Most carcinogenic endpoints determined by Battelle's board certified veterinarian pathologists were systematically downgraded by NTP employees to lesser carcinogenic lesions.
The use of historical controls by NTP was the basis of the characterization that there was equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity. Independent investigators for the U.S. Congress have determined that the systematic downgrading of the different types of cancer as stated in the report done by the original contractors, was coerced from NTP employees.
My review of the evidence did not agree with the NTP's conclusions because there were logical errors and omissions of fact in the report.
I also pointed out in my memos that, in the animal studies the levels of fluoride found in the bones of the animals were the same as or lower than those found in people. The highest dosed level of rats had lower levels of fluoride in their bones (5,470 ppm) compared to people (7,000 ppm) at the MCL (maximum amount allowed by law) of 4 ppm.
This can be interpreted as people who ingest drinking water at the MCL have 1.3 times more fluoride in their bones than male rats who get osteosarcoma. This is the first time in my memory that animals have lower concentrations of the carcinogen at the site of adverse effect than do humans.
Subsequently an evaluation of fluoride and nonfluoride exposed human populations was published. The study demonstrated that in New Jersey there is as high as an eight-fold increase in osteosarcoma (almost always fatal within 4 years) in white men under eighteen years of age in fluoridated areas, as compared with nonfluoridated areas. This demonstrates that my original concerns were well founded.
There's a lot more to this some things about mutagenic, hip fracture rates and all, but the end-point is good enough for now...
When I continued to speak out against this politicalization of science, and the lies and cover-up I had witnessed, my dismissal from the EPA was engineered.
Judge Clarke in his decision of December 3, 1992 so eloquently stated, "I conclude that the reasons given for Dr. Marcus' firing were a pretext and that his employment was terminated because he publicly questioned and opposed E.P.A.'s fluoride policy."
The official line in Washington has been "fluoride is good", and all evidence to the contrary has been and is being ridiculed, denied, distorted or suppressed.
It is my professional opinion, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty, that fluoridation has no efficacy in preventing tooth decay and represents an unacceptable risk of cancer and other adverse health effects to the general population if added to drinking water.
I make this affidavit in support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
later,
nem
I find it amazing that you raise Dr. Marcus up for worship only because he holds your views. Reading the Marcus vs EPA case, I noticed the EPA has since reaffirmed their view that fluoride does not cause cancer. A trip to their website confirms this. If he was right about hiding evidence, they would have been forced to change their position.
But do you really want to get into a battle of experts and credentials? If that is the case I can start posting all the scientists who support fluoridation.
I also noticed you completely ignored the 20 studies which show no relation? I wonder why? If you'd like, I can post HUNDREDS more. Those are facts, not the OPINION of one scientist.
Hey, I can find the writings of a Harvard professor who says people are being abducted by aliens. Does that mean it is true?
And as far as the studies you posted before, you ARE aware that the NCI study, the one done on humans, showed NO realtion between cancer and fluoride?
I'm beginning to think you have a real comprehension problem.
You wrote this in your previous post:
"The NCI also conducted a more detailed evaluation of osteosarcomas using nationwide age-adjusted incidence from the entire SEER database for the years 1973-1987. During this time, the annual incidence of osteosarcoma among males <20 years of age increased from 3.6 cases/106 population to 5.5 cases/106 population."
But you left out the rest:
" extensive analyses revealed that these patterns were unrelated to either the introduction or duration of fluoridation. Consequently, the NCI report concluded that, while the explanation for the increase in rates of osteosarcoma among young males is unknown, it is "
That means it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FLUORIDE! I don't think it could be any clearer.
You are taking two completely different studies, completely changing the wording of the first study based one the rants of ONE scientist, and then somehow applying those results to another study. And then completely ignoring the conclusions of the second study, to come up with a result entirely different.
That is delusional.
Aruanan, you write scientific papers. What would they do to you if you tried this kind of "reasoning".
Excellent...bump
I had fluoride treatments when I was a kid. I went on to work at the phosphate plant in Tampa for seventeen years. My teeth are fine. My dentist marvels at the hardness of my teeth. I'm now 54 years of age.
It's the same-old-same-old. In toxicology, the dose makes the poison. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. The right amount can work wonders.
Aruanan, you write scientific papers. What would they do to you if you tried this kind of "reasoning".
The author of a paper that would do this would be judged either incompetent or deceitful; incompetent, if he didn't even realize what he was doing; deceitful, if he was deliberately and selectively quoting a source to make it look as though it were supporting his own conclusion rather than what the author of the quote intended. If you were found doing this in a grant application, you'd probably never get funded again.
You can protect yourself from flouride if you wrap your cup in tinfoil before taking a drink
That's kinda what Patrio76 (# 10 above) believes about the IRS Code. See, he wraps his paychecks in tinfoil before he deposits them--then they're tax-proof.
You better be careful nine, as gullible as these people are, they just may believe you.
I didn't leave anything out. You decided not to read the entire post.
Specifically, NOT DUE TO 'EXPOSURE' TO WATER FLUORIDATION. Where does it say that the increase in osteosarcoma is not due to fluoride overall?
The report doesn't say 'not due to consuming fluoridated water'. I thought all those scientific reports were QUITE clear in their wording.
I didn't change any wording, show me where.
If Dr. Marcus is lied, why did he get his job back?
The trial wasn't about forcing the EPA to publicly announce that refuse to acknowledge the fact that flouride causes cancer. It was about firing Dr. Marcus because he made it public that there were logical errors and omissions of fact in the final report which the NTP released to the public. He's back to work, obviously he was able to prove, beyond a doubt, that there were, in fact, logical errors and omissions of fact and the EPA fired Dr. Marcus because he made this information public.
"In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical." Dr. Dean Burk, former Chief Chemist Emeritus, U.S. National Cancer Institute. I can post his incredible list of credentials, publications and projects if you would like. You'll just claim he's just another quack, though.
What would the effects on society be if the American Cancer Society supported the fact that fluoride causes cancer? Can you just imagine the lawsuits after they's supported fluoridation for the past 50 years?
What would the effects on society be if the American Dental Association be if they changed their minds and admitted that fluoride has negligable effects on reductions of tooth decay, and can cause cancer in the rates claimed by them to be safe?
Why is fluoride still categorized by the Food and Drug Administration as an 'Unapproved New Drug'?
What would the impact on society be if the American Medical Association admitted that the fluoride they dumped in the drinking water was causing an increase in cancer? Oh, the lawsuits!
A bit more info:
In the U.S., a comparison between the ten largest fluoridated cities and the ten largest non-fluoridated cities showed that, while cancer rates had been similar initially, after 20 years the fluoridated cities had 10 percent more cancer deaths than the non-fluoridated ones. (Yiamouyiannis JA, Burk D. Fluoridation of public water systems and the cancer death rate in humans. Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Biologists and Chemists and the American Society of Experimental Biologists. June 1976.) The U.S. National Cancer Institute checked these figures and confirmed their validity in 1976. In Poland, scientists at the Pomeranian Medical Academy reported that as little as 0.6 parts per million produced chromosomal damage to human white blood cells.(Jachimczak D, Skotarczak B. The effect of fluorine and lead ions on the chromosomes of human leucocytes in vitro. Genetica Polonica . 1978; 19 (3): 353-7.)
Dr. Perry Cohn of the New Jersey Department of Health discovered an epidemiological correlation between osteosarcoma (one of the principal cancers of childhood) and fluoridation. He surveyed its incidence in seven counties of New Jersey relative to water fluoridation. He found that, as demonstrated below, in the fluoridated areas, the incidence of osteosarcoma in boys under the age of 10 was 4.6 times higher than in the unfluoridated areas, 3.5 times higher in the 10 to 19 age group and over twice as high in the 20 to 49 age group.
Here are the results:
Seven Counties, New Jersey, 1979-1987
Age Cases Population Rate/100,000
0-9 Fluoridated 2 48,129 4.6
0-9 Unfluoridated 1 102,123 1.0
10-19 Fluoridated 10 62,990 17.6
10-19 Unfluoridated 7 151,384 5.1
20-49 Fluoridated 5 141,429 3.9
20-49 Unfluoridated 5 348,570 1.5
Municipalities, NJ, 1979-1987
Age Cases Population Rate/100,000
0-9 Fluoridated 2 38,654 5.7
0-9 Unfluoridated 1 46,708 2.3
10-19 Fluoridated 10 50,297 20.0
10-19 Unfluoridated 2 67,678 3.2
20-49 Fluoridated 4 115,367 3.8
20-49 Unfluoridated 2 153,713 1.4
Cohn PD. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males . N J Dept of Health, Trenton, New Jersey. Nov 8, 1992.
Seems those boys in Jersey, and the other 10 cities weren't just exposed, but actually consumed the fluoridated water...
later,
nem
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |
