By Alan Pryor –
Background – At the most recent Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (CWA) Board meeting for the planned Sacramento River water import project, it was recommended and approved that West-Yost engineers of Davis be issued an engineering contract to provide design and cost estimates for possible future fluoride addition to the drinking water before the water is delivered to Davis or Woodland.
The final decision to add fluoride to the Woodland or Davis drinking water will almost certainly be a contentious one if the parties lining up on each side of the fence and the discussions that have occurred so far are any indication.
The pro-fluoridation forces in Yolo County include many local dentists, the California Dental Association, (CDA) and most public health officials and agencies (including First Five Yolo and the Yolo Health Council). These parties contend that fluoridation is the most cost effective preventative measure that can be taken to reduce cavities and dental decay – especially in children in economically disadvantaged sectors of the community.
To support their position, this local coalition has prepared and distributed a document which presents the case for fluoridation of our local water supply entitled “Community Water Fluoridation. The Benefits of Fluoridating Woodland and Davis Water.”
Unfortunately, there is very little referenced peer-reviewed scientific data in this document and research sources that are listed often are decades old – some going back to 1950s. In addition to a dearth of verifiable scientific data, this document discourages objective debate and dismisses opponents to local water fluoridation by claiming that “There are some community members who, for whatever reasons, are spreading misinformation about water fluoridation“. Later, the documents states “Opponents of water fluoridation distort science and logic to prejudice people against this safe effective health measure“.
Unfortunately, minimizing the opponents of fluoridation by claiming they are uninformed zealots who hide behind dubious data is a scare tactic often used by proponents of water fluoridation, themselves. In fact, it is these same local proponents of water fluoridation who have engaged in a pattern of secrecy attempting to avoid a full and honest open debate of the science supporting or in opposition to water fluoridation.
For example, according to the December 9, 2010 minutes of the Yolo County Health Council, “…the committee developed a strategy and is hoping to meet with the JPA. They are updating the materials used in the previous campaign. They want to keep the campaign low key for as long as possible“ (emphasis added by author).
Further, according to the September 9, 2010 minutes of the meeting of the Yolo Health Council, “There was discussion regarding the health benefits of fluoride, the cost effectiveness of adding fluoride to local water supplies, the need for policy decisions from local government to move forward, the need for community support, and the need to avoid allowing the anti-fluoride groups to derail the process before it begins” (emphasis added by author)
In fact, many of those opposed to water fluoridation are physicians, dentists, environmental scientists, and toxicologists (including this author) who contend that recent scientific advances in epidemiology, toxicology, and physiology clearly demonstrate potential adverse health and environmental effects of fluoridation that far outweigh the dubious claims of benefits of dental hygiene efficacy claimed by pro-fluoridation forces.
History of Fluoride Use in Drinking Water
Fluoridation of drinking water in the US began in the 1950s and started to become more widespread in the 1960s and 1970s. Currently about 60% of the US population receives fluoridated potable water. Fluoridation is also popular in other English speaking countries including Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand but very few other countries in the world fluoridate their water. In non-English speaking countries in Europe, water fluoridation is very rare and extremely controversial.
Historically, the battle for or against fluoridation in the US has been aggressively fought city -by-city for the past 50 years. In California, the pro-fluoridation forces were fighting a losing battle until recently. According to the Yolo Health Council, in 2006, only 27% of the population received fluoridated water. Implementation of California Health and Safety Code Sections 116409-116415 changed all that, however. Essentially, this code forces city to fluoridate their water but ONLY if outside funds are provided for equipment, operation, and maintenance of the fluoridation systems. In response, the California Dental Association amassed a very substantial war chest to provide this funding to municipalities and functionally force fluoridation on communities whether they wanted it or not.
As an example, these funds were recently used to compel the Metropolitan Water District to fluoridate the water delivered to over 18 million Southern Californians. As a result, today over 60% of Californians now receive fluoridated potable water from their municipal utilities.
However, under this law such an forced imposition of fluoridation specifically could NOT be imposed on the CWA and the cities of Davis and Woodland without also providing funding to each of the respective cities to additionally provide fluoridation equipment to all of the 18 -24 wellheads used in each of the cities This would be extremely cost prohibitive. (see California Health and Safety Code 116410 (f) for this exemption language).
Further, because of the critical necessity of providing uniform and consistent fluoridation levels in water to avoid over fluoridation of infant formula made with the water as later discussed herein, only partial fluoridation of the drinking water supplied to city residents could expose the city to legal liability. This is because they could potentially be held to be responsible repair of fluorosis damage to teeth in children overexposed to fluoride as a result of uneven fluoridation and or improper notification of fluoridation warnings by the respective cities.
Effects of Fluoride on Tooth Enamel Development and Maintenance and Dental Health
Fluoride works topically to harden dental enamel thus protecting the underlying tooth from the decaying effects of acidic byproducts of bacterial growth and acidic foods such as citrus fruits and soft drinks, etc. There is really no significant dispute between pro- and anti-fluoridation forces that fluoride is important in dental enamel health. Both pro and anti-fluoridation advocates also agree that fluoridation toothpastes and enamels applied topically increase the strength of the enamel and contribute to lower cavity rates across all age groups. The disagreements between these opposing forces revolve entirely around the efficacy and safety of fluoridating drinking water.
The Pro-Water Fluoridation Argument
Water fluoridation advocates point out that cavity rates across the United States and in other English speaking countries that generally have fluoridated their water have plummeted over the past 4 decades. This is undeniably true. An average 12 year old in the US has between 60 and 90% fewer cavities today than similar 12 year olds in the 1960s depending on the scale used for measurement. A number of other studies, mostly predating 1990, compared cavity rates in cities that have fluoridated their water over long periods and concluded they are statistically lower than in comparable cities in which water fluoridation is not practiced.
Based on these early studies, water fluoridation is recommended by virtually all professional dental associations and many public health agencies in the United States. Indeed, the US Surgeon General has stated that water fluoridation is one of the 10 greatest public health achievements in the US over the past 100 years along with vaccination and family planning, among others.
The Anti-Water Fluoridation Argument
Recently, though, some researchers are now questioning the veracity of the surgeon general’s claim. Dr. John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology of the University of Kansas Medical Center, recently stated, “We’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years- for too long, really – and now we need to take a fresh look. In the public health community people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest health care achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should considering how long this (fluoridation) has been going on. I think that is why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant“
Indeed, other researchers have challenged the validity of many of those early studies pointing out that they were funded by interests supporting fluoridation and that the studies were intentionally biased. This was done by picking cities for the study that used fluoridated water that had unusually low dental decay rates and then comparing them to cities not fluoridating their water but that otherwise had abnormally high dental decay rates to skew the results.
Those who oppose mandatory fluoridation of drinking water point out that almost all of the studies showing benefits of water fluoridation are over 25 years old and no longer applicable given that dental cavity rates are so much lower now due to the widespread use of fluoridated toothpastes and fluoride topical treatments.
Further, opponents also claim this overall drop in cavity rates is also seen in all cities across the country including those that have never fluoridated their water. They also point out that the same overall decrease in cavity rates is seen in every major European country despite the fact that very few municipalities in Europe have ever fluoridated their water.
Thus, fluoridation opponents say that proponents of fluoridation have not proven a causal relationship between water fluoridation and a decrease in cavities. They instead claim that the remarkable drop in cavity rates is instead almost exclusively due to the fact that virtually all toothpastes now contain fluoride after Crest introduced the first fluoridated toothpaste in the 1950s or to the fact that fluoride is now consumed in so many more foods and beverages than 25 years ago and more.
In addition, opponents of fluoridation cite more recent evidence about potential adverse health effects (both proven and suspected) as well as ethical concerns.
Potential Adverse Health Effects
A watershed article was recently published in Scientific America in January 2008 entitled “2nd Thoughts about Fluoride” which discussed the implications of a 2006 report released by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science (NAS). This panel spent almost 3 years reviewing 100s of papers in the literature of the efficacy of fluoridation and potential adverse side effects.
Among the many finding of the report, they concluded that excessive fluorine ingested through drinking water and other food and drink sources can discolor and disfigure emerging permanent teeth – a condition called dental fluorosis – which also leaves them more susceptible to cavities. Fluorosis is irreversible and the effects can only be hidden by cosmetic dental care using veneers and caps costing thousands of dollars per patient.
Further, one of the 12 scientists who served on that NAS panel that issued the 2006 report, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA’s Standards.” has spoken out more aggressively and publicly against fluoridation.
Dr. Hardy Limeback is the Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto with a PhD in Biochemistry and a practicing dentist with 27 years experience. He has done years of funded research in tooth formation, bone and fluoride
States Dr. Limeback in an open letter he recently released entitled, “The Evidence that Fluoride is Harmful is Overwhelming,” “We have tripled our exposure to fluoride since fluoridation was conceived in the 1940s. This has lead to every third child (of those drinking fluoridated water) with some measurable amount of dental fluorosis (CDC, 2005). Fluorosis is not just a cosmetic effect. The more severe forms are associated with an increase in dental decay (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) and the psychological impact on children is a negative one. Most children with moderate and severe dental fluorosis seek extensive restorative work costing thousands of dollars. Dental fluorosis can be reduced by turning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental decay rates (Burt et al 2000 Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9).” The same CDC study showed that only 22% of children in communities drinking non-fluoridated water showed sign of dental fluorosis compared to 33% of children in cities drinking fluoridated water.
In another open letter published by Dr. Limeback, “Why I Am Now Officially Opposed to Adding Fluoride to Drinking Water“, he states “The studies that water fluoridation works are over 25 years old and were carried out before the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste. There are numerous modern studies to show that there no longer is a difference in dental decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. Recent water fluoridation cessation studies show that dental fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by fluoride) declines but there is no corresponding increase in dental decay“
After reviewing the evidence that fluoridation may also be implicated in cancer, bone fracture, adverse thyroid function and adverse neurological effects, Dr. Limeback concluded, “In my opinion, having served on the NAS Committee in the US for more than 3 years, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and cities that avoid thoroughly considering ALL the recent data do so, in my opinion, at risk of future legal action.”
Another problem with water fluoridation is that it may contribute to excessive fluorine ingestion by very young children fed baby formula made with fluoridated water. As a result of these concerns, the US Center for Disease Control recently recommended that infants not be fed formula made exclusively with fluoridated water.
This will be particularly problematic in Davis and Woodland because both Public Utility Directors in both cities now admit that all residents will not be getting Sacramento River water all the time but will receive well water at some times. If the CWA water is fluoridated while other well waters are not, a mother could inadvertently expose their infant to excess fluoride thus inducing fluorosis. The cities have not devised a method to inform citizens when different households will receive CWA vs. well water meaning that if only the CWA water is fluoridated, mothers formula-feeding their infants will be forced to purchase deionized bottled water ALL the time to avoid inadvertently overdosing their young children with fluoride.
Lastly, it has been noted that virtually all of the scientific studies investigating the potential adverse effects of fluorine used reagent grade sodium fluoride as the fluorine source. Almost all water treatment plants that fluoridate their water, however, do so with flourosilicate compounds. Flourosilicate compounds are a waste byproduct of phosphate fertilizer manufacture. It is obtained by scraping the hardened substance from plant gas flues that would otherwise have to be disposed of as hazardous waste. Instead of incurring these hazardous waste disposal costs, these manufacturers instead sell the product to the US potable water treatment industry.
There are no FDA standards regulating the purity of this product, however, and it has been shown to contain a variety of trace metals and mineral s that could contribute to the toxicity of the product including arsenic and lead. It is hard to imagine taking a product considered a hazardous waste by one measure and turning around and injecting it into our drinking water supply and then claiming the water supply is being improved! Yet that is exactly what is happening with water fluoridation across the nation.
Ethical Concerns –
The ethical concerns of fluoridation opponents can generally be summarized as follows
1) Fluoridation violates an individual’s right to informed consent to medication.
2) Although a municipality can reasonably control the dosage of fluoride in drinking water, there is no way they can control the actual dose consumed by any citizen without regulating and mandating actual quantities of water drank by each member of the public each day.
3) A municipality cannot track each individual’s response to fluoride and its potential adverse effects. Mandatory fluoridation ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit
Differing Dental Decay Rates in Woodland vs. Davis Suggest Different Approaches May be Needed
The Yolo Health Council published a series of graphs and data in their brochure touting the benefits of water fluoridation. In that they reported that 27% of Woodland kindergarten children had at least one cavity when they entered school while only 15% of Davis kindergarten students showed any dental decay which is less than the national average despite the fact that Davis has never fluoridated its water
This difference in community dental decay rates is a very important distinction according to researchers – even those who are otherwise ardent supporters of greater water fluoridation. As reported in the Scientific America article, Jayanth Kumar is director of oral health surveillance and research at the New York State Department of Health and a member of the NAS panel who dissented from some of the final report find cautioning against increased fluoridation. He stated, “We feel there are enough communities out there with high caries rates to justify additional fluoridation“. He acknowledges, however, that the argument for water fluoridation is not as strong in affluent areas with good nutrition and dental care saying, “Today it depends on what the caries level is in the community. If the disease rate is low, the return on investment for fluoridation may not be all the great“. Given the proven increase in fluorosis attributed to water fluoridation, I would have to say that is probably the understatement of the year.
This clearly indicates that many of the arguments for fluoridating our water in Davis are simply not applicable because our dental health is otherwise quite good
Summary
For many, many years, citizens in the US were told cigarette smoking was safe and that lead paint and asbestos in homes posed little health risk to the population. DDT was deemed to be so safe that it was often sprayed in classrooms and city parks where children congregated. Today we know much differently and society is paying an awful price for that oversight and misinformation.
By many measures, a very similar situation exists with respect to Fluoridated water. The US dental industry claims it is safe but the overwhelming evidence points to the contrary. Given the scientific data about the potential adverse effects of over ingestion of fluoride particularly with respect to young children and fluorosis, the critical concern that over-fluoridation could occur in babies fed formula made with fluoridated tap water, and the paucity of recent data supporting the efficacy of fluoridation with respect to dental health in more affluent communities, it would seem to be particularly fool hardy, at best, to proceed with fluoridation of our water supply until more information is available.
But where is the evidence that F is damaging young people? Surely with the large sample of people drinking F in their water for 50 years you would be able to show us the numbers.
Shouldn’t you be more concerned about all the pollutants in the current water supply? We never drink the stuff from the tap because of all the weird stuff in the ppm and ppb ranges.
The issue of fluoridation in the surface water project was recently discussed at the Davis Senior Citizens Commission. Alan Pryor spoke to us at that meeting, as well as three other opponents of fluoridation. A dentist from Davis, Dr. Wallace, spoke for fluoridation. It was a very informative and interesting discussion, and at times became somewhat heated.
Of the six commissioners present, four were against fluoridation, one was on the fence but leaning against, and only one was for fluoridation, and that would be me!
I grew up with fluoridated water, and had virtually no cavities – until I came to CA, where there was no fluoridation. Because of a medication that caused dry mouth, I developed a serious cavity problem at the gumline. I now must get fluoride treatments every year. So I am in favor of fluoridating the water – for me it is a no brainer.
However, the opponents make some interesting points, one of which I think is certainly deserving of some serious consideration:
[quote]This will be particularly problematic in Davis and Woodland because both Public Utility Directors in both cities now admit that all residents will not be getting Sacramento River water all the time but will receive well water at some times. If the CWA water is fluoridated while other well waters are not, a mother could inadvertently expose their infant to excess fluoride thus inducing fluorosis. The cities have not devised a method to inform citizens when different households will receive CWA vs. well water meaning that if only the CWA water is fluoridated, mothers formula-feeding their infants will be forced to purchase deionized bottled water ALL the time to avoid inadvertently overdosing their young children with fluoride.[/quote]
I should add that my concern is more for determining the level of fluoride for all persons, not just infants. For me, this was the most compelling argument the opponents of fluoridation had, and one that would need to be addressed. It would seem to me there needs to be some uniformity in the level of fluoridation a household receives…
[quote]But where is the evidence that F is damaging young people? Surely with the large sample of people drinking F in their water for 50 years you would be able to show us the numbers. [/quote]
Now this is an interesting point. One issue that was brought up was that some people are allergic to fluorine – but I didn’t find that particularly compelling, bc they can drink bottled water. There are so many minerals in the water now that people could be allergic to…
RE a request for numbers about harm from fluoridation (the most readily monitored of this is dental fluorosis):
Here is a link the article “Prevalence and trends in enamel fluorosis in the United States from the 1930s to the 1980s” from a 2002 issue of JADA (the Journal of the American Dental Association.) http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html It talks about the increase in dental fluorosis in the United States as exposure to fluoride, including fluoridated water, has increased. It also notes two main public health implications of this trend.
1. “First, there is a need to reinforce current recommendations for appropriate fluoride use. Children younger than 8 years of age should receive fluoride according to their needs rather than routinely.”
Surely fluoridating the water violates the recommendation to use “fluoride according their needs rather than routinely.”
It also notes 2. “The second implication is the need to determine whether current enamel fluorosis prevalence warrants a re-evaluation and possible reduction in the fluoride concentration in water, as has been suggested by some investigators.”
In May of 2011, the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services did indeed propose lowering the recommended levels of fluoride to be added to the water because–after fifty years of fluoridation–they realized the higher amounts recommended for cooler climates was not justified. Shouldn’t this have been discovered sooner, and why wasn’t it?
Also of interest in this article is that it reports that rates of enamel fluorosis have increased since the 1986-87 survey (which was used in the 2002 JADA article above.
“The prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis among 12 – 15 year olds in 1999-2004 were compared to estimates from the Oral Health of United States Children Survey, 1986-87, which was the first national survey to include measures of dental fluorosis. Although these two national surveys differed in sampling and representation (schoolchildren versus household), findings support the hypothesis that there has been an increase in dental fluorosis that was very mild or greater between the two surveys. In 1986-87 and 1999-2004 the prevalence of dental fluorosis was 23% and 41%, respectively, among adolescents aged 12 to 15. (Beltrán-Aguilar ED, et al, 2010a). Similarly, the prevalence of very mild fluorosis (17.2% and 28.5%), mild fluorosis (4.1% and 8.6%) and moderate and severe fluorosis combined (1.3% and 3.6%) have increased. The estimates for severe fluorosis for adolescents in both surveys were statistically unreliable because of too few cases in the samples. “
It is dismaying that we were 30+ years into water fluoridation before ” the first national survey to include measures of dental fluorosis.” Shouldn’t that survey have been done decades sooner if the government were really keeping a close eye on the risks of fluoridation?
Last, both the CDC and the ADA have recommended that parents not used fluoridated water exclusively to reconstitute baby formula, to lower the risk of fluorosis. http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
I for one am not convinced of the fact that fluoride is a good thing….and I work in a dental office not as a clinician. Try brushing your teeth after meals and flossing daily…their is no substitute. Less sugar and starch and maybe even some xylitol candy…makes your tooth and root surfaces slippery..so the cavity causing bacteria cannot attach themselves…also gives you gas if you eat to much of it..that’ll learn ya!
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm
and what about the threat to our POE.. Purity of Essence?
Gotta love it! [ Google “purity of essence if you want in on this joke. ]
In the meantime, here is a link to the autobiographic account of John Colquhoun, who went from fluoride enforcer to fluoride opponent, based on what he found when he actually looked at the scientific data. Even aside from the information about fluoridation, this is a good read about one man’s personal journey. The piece is titled “Why I Change My Mind about Water Fluoridation,” and you can see it here: http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm
Also informative is the piece “Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water,” by Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto You can see this piece here: http://www.qawf.org/UploadFiles/file/officiallyopposed-HardyLimeback.pdf
The dentist who spoke in support of water fluoridation at the Senior Citizen Commission meeting repeatedly stated that he was “only a dentist” who supported fluoridation because he trusted what the government told him. More people need to ask, “Says who, and on the basis of what scientific evidence?” more often.
[I am reposting this because I can see this post only when I am signed on, and my husband cannot see it. Sorry for the repetition.]
==========
Gotta love it! [ Google “purity of essence” if you want in on this joke. ]
In the meantime, here is a link to the autobiographic account of John Colquhoun, who went from fluoride enforcer to fluoride opponent, based on what he found when he actually looked at the scientific data. Even aside from the information about fluoridation, this is a good read about one man’s personal journey. The piece is titled “Why I Change My Mind about Water Fluoridation,” and you can see it here: http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm
Also informative is the piece “Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water,” by Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto You can see this piece here: http://www.qawf.org/UploadFiles/file/officiallyopposed-HardyLimeback.pdf
The dentist who spoke in support of water fluoridation at the Senior Citizen Commission meeting repeatedly stated that he was “only a dentist” who supported fluoridation because he trusted what the government told him. More people need to ask, “Says who, and on the basis of what scientific evidence?” more often.
Dentists were just as dishonest and sneaky when they forced a California statewide fluoridation mandate law in 1995 and then bragged about it in a California dental journal See:
http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/how-dentists-manipulate-legislators-to.html
When Sacramento put in Fluoridation there was a huge run on water filters and bottled water. The providers brought in all the sales people they had from all over the country. People probably are worried that the correct amount on a cold day is way to much of a hot day. Actually because of that there can never have a “correct” amount.
I believe the fluoride in toothpast is doing the job.
When fluoridation began in 1945, it was virtually the only fluoride source. The idea was to deliver 1 milligram of fluoride via one liter of water to children, whom early researchers believed could only “benefit” from fluoride while their teeth were forming. Dental researchers said even doctors’ wives forgot to give their children a daily one milligram fluoride tablet, so it had to be put in the water. There was no mention of the now oft-repeated unscientific reason that fluoridation is needed to treat low-income people who can’t afford toothpaste.
And children who lived in non-fluoridated areas were given one milligram daily sodium fluoride tablets – even though they had never been safety tested by the FDA for ingestion (and still have not been) The idea of fluoride tablets was based on the false belief that fluoridation reduced tooth decay if a child drank one liter of water a day.
Now children are getting way over 1 milligram a day. Some studies say it’s at 6 milligrams daily. So it’s no surprise that dental fluorosis (fluoride overdose symptoms) are accelerated in rate and severity as reported by the CDC.
American children are fluoride-overdosed and dentist deficient because 80% of dentists refuse to treat Medicaid patients and 46% of Americans don’t have dental insurance.
So what’s their solution: More fluoride in the form of fluoride varnish which contains a hugely toxic 26,600 ppm fluoride.
Fluoridationists make it up as they go along and it’s pitiful how our legislators fall for it or maybe it’s in their political interest to not bite the hand that feeds them. Organized dentistry is one of the richest and powerful health lobbyists in the nation.
Dental Therapist could ease the dentist-shortaget but organized dentistry lobbys extensively against this infringement upon their lucrative monopoly – even though it’s a viable solution.
a few more things:
[b]CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS CALL FOR HALT TO WATER FLUORIDATION[/b]
Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador and former Atlanta Mayor, along with Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, Pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Atlanta, both inductees in the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame, expressed concerns about the fairness, safety, and full disclosure regarding fluoridation … more:
[url]http://fluoridealert.org/press.release.4-14-11.html[/url]
[b]THE LEAD ISSUE[/b]
Chemicals added to your water supply under the process called Water Fluoridation are known to contain levels of lead. Also by their corrosive nature they drawn lead out of your household plumbing.
[url]http://fluoridefreesacramento.org/html/lead.html[/url]
[b]VIDEO – with Christopher Bryson[/b]
In this 28 minute video, Christopher Bryson, an award-winning journalist and former producer at the BBC, discusses the findings of his new book The Flouride Deception.
[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7319752042352089988&hl=en#[/url]
[b]PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON WATER FLUORIDATION [/b]
This 15 minute video features a Nobel Laureate in Medicine, three scientists from the National Research Council’s landmark review on fluoride, as well as dentists, medical doctors, and leading researchers in the field. The 15 minute (edited version) program presents a powerful indictment of water fluoridation programs.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ePxDTDS9beQ[/url]
[b]@Mr.Toad [/b]
“where is the evidence?”
this website alone has enough material [url]http://www.fluoridealert.org/[/url]
but before you look into the evidence I would suggest you research the history. Here is a short history of fluoridation, maybe it will prompt you to research the subject. The very first suggestion of adding fluoride to public water supply came from Gerald Cox of Mellon Institute at the end of 1930’s. G. Cox got into fluoride thanks to Francis Frary’s “suggestion” to look into fluoride’s dental effects. Mr. Frary at the time was the director of the Aluminum Laboratory of the Aluminum Company of America, and was struggling with the issue of fluoride pollution of food and water. A bit later Gerald Cox comes to the rescue with this statement in 1939 “The present trend toward complete removal of fluoride from water and food may need some reversal.” guess who sponsored the study? Are you starting to see the conflict of interest here?
Now back to Mellon Institute and their track record, the Mellon Institute was the leading defender of the Asbestos Industry,,, for a long time they produced “research” that showed that Mesothelioma was NOT caused by asbestos. We all know how that turned out.
for more watch the documentary by Christopher Bryson called Fluoride Deception
[b]E Roberts Musser[/b]
I’m sorry I have to make this analogy but if you believe that ingesting synthetic Fluosilicic and Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is benefiting teeth then same should be true if we drank lotion for our skin. The benefits from fluoride are topical and the Dentists know it. But the medical majority is still treating a waste byproduct from Aluminum and Phosphate industries as a drug with absolutely no side effects. Just how does fluoride allegedly treat only teeth and not affect the rest of the body?
Although I can’t explain why you developed cavities after moving to California I can share my story. I have moderate Dental Fluorosis and Skeletal Fluorosis or Fluoride overdose as they call it. I simply call it fluoride poisoning. A google image search should bring up a few pictures. Now you would thing my teeth would be bulletproof with all this fluoride but no I have 11 cavities, ohh and dental fluorosis is irreversible by the way. So no doctor or dentist will ever tell me that ingesting fluoride is good for my teeth.
[quote]So no doctor or dentist will ever tell me that ingesting fluoride is good for my teeth. [/quote]
And there you have it … your mind is made up, period, which is fine. But people can agree to disagree…
[b]@E Roberts Musser[/b]
you still don’t get it do you? this is what most cities add to water
[b]WCVBtv: Team 5 Investigates Fluoride Fears[/b]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZRWvcvPo3o[/url]
lets apply your logic to every controversial/appalling practice from history defended by the medical majority with who you are currently siding on fluoridation. Here’s a few, when Melon Institute and other science for hire Universities “produced” studies defending the safety of Asbestos while hundreds were dying of Mesothelioma, would you say to the opponents lets agree to disagree? When American doctors were injecting hundreds of Guatemalans with Syphilis [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g08bbe–gis[/url] in the name of science and research, would you still say lets agree to disagree? Or lets just agree that the perfect solution to pollution is dilution, it worked out for synthetic fluoride why not lithium? [url]http://youtu.be/RtT0p2lhcJ4[/url]
my mind is made up because I’m a walking breathing proof that fluoride does more harm than the alleged good. The damage done to my body is irreversible.
[b]@E Roberts Musser[/b]
this is recent
[b]New Study: Fluoride Can Damage the Brain – Avoid Use in Children[/b]
[url]http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20110621/pl_usnw/DC23851_1[/url]