There is an enormous debate going on about whether fluoride should be added to municipal drinking water or not. When I first began to research this subject, I had no idea there was such disagreement. My opinion about ADDING drugs or known toxins to our drinking seems like a no-brainer – don’t do it. But just read on to see the great diversity of opinions.
First of all, Fluoride isn’t really a drug at all. The Random House Dictionary (2010_ Definition is this:
1. a salt of hydrofluoric acid consisting of two elements, one of which is fluorine, as sodium fluoride, NaF.
2. a compound containing fluorine, as methyl fluoride, CH 3 F.
So now we know that it’s at least “natural” but “natural” doesn’t make it safe. After all, even rattlesnakes are “natural”. In point of fact, it is considered a poison, even a toxin. The ADA (AmericanDental Association) considers it a nutrient. The FDA considers it a drug. Yet, not even a doctor can write a prescription for this nutrient/drug. The reason doctors are prohibited from prescribing it is that it is a poison.
What is really added to our water – Fluoride or Something Else?
Actually,
"fluoride," as such, has never been added to any water supply. What is
added is one of the silicofluorides. The most commonly used one is
Hydrofluosilicic acid. "Hydrofluosilicic acid is the most corrosive
chemical agent known to man: it is derived from toxic gases produced in
the manufacture of phosphoric acid and phosphate fertilizers. It
contains lead, mercury, arsenic, and high concentrations of radio
nuclides; it is also the chemical agent most used for water fluoridation
in the U.S.
Because the industrial grade fluorosilicic acid is a toxic waste
by-product recovered from chimney pollution scrubbers ("scrubber
liquor"), the volume of contaminants is profoundly influenced by the
method of manufacture and the quality of raw materials used." (See 32-1:
"Water: A Toxic Dump?" by Journalist, George Glasser; reprinted from
the Sarasota ECO Report, Vol. 4:12, Dec. 1994, from Health Freedom News, July 1995).
After
reading many websites and listening to many You Tube productions, I
really wanted to pull it altogether into layman’s language, just to get a
grip on the matter.
After it all, there are these things to consider.
1. Fluoride is a byproduct of the process which produces fertilizer.
2. Fluoride as a pollutant posed a serious threat to growing crops and livestock, beginning in the 60’s.
3. How to safely get rid of this hazardous waste material became a huge problem.
4. Researchers learned that the application of fluoride might cause a decrease in tooth decay.
5. Municipalities began buying the hazardous waste and adding it to the drinking water consumed by their residents. Once
purchased for this purpose, it stops being a hazardous waste and
becomes a health bonus (without much further processing, if any.)
Sounds like a win-win situation but is it really just some sort of magic trick? Are
we waiving a magic wand over hazardous material by dumping it into our
municipal drink water and presto-chango, we have a health BENEFIT from
it?
Here is what I went in search of:
- What is the evidence of benefit to our children’s teeth?
- Are there any other benefits claimed and proven?
- What evidence is there showing that fluoride might in reality be a detriment to the health of our children and ourselves?
I found the most complete information, put into language at least accessible by a layman, at this site: http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html I don’t wish to just provide a link and leave it at that so I will do some overview and condensing of the site. It
is a very large site but if you are concerned about health issues and
want to do the very best things possible for your children and yourself,
this is a subject to give some thought to. All quotes throughout this article are taken from this website.
On
Jan. 17, 2001, the EPA ordered that allowable levels of arsenic be
reduced by 80%. They had proposed 5 ppb, but settled for 10 ppb. (See
2-3: "EPA Orders Sharp Reduction in Arsenic Levels in Drinking Water,"
H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press). The EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level
Official Goal (MCLG), however, is now 0 ppm for arsenic as well as lead,
yet silicofluorides (industrial waste, i. e., fluoride) which contain
some of both are still being added to our water supply.
The site contains a series of questions posed with an answer given by the ADA (American Dental Association – a supporter of fluoridated drinking water) and the opposition. Here are the comparison opinions of both on question 1, evidence of benefit to our teeth.
ADA's Fluoridation Facts Short AnswerOverwhelming evidence already exists to prove the effectiveness of water fluoridation.
ADA's Fluoridation Facts Long AnswerThe
effectiveness of water fluoridation has been documented in scientific
literature for well over 50 years. Even before the first community
fluoridation program began in 1945, epidemiologic data from the 1930s
and 1940s revealed lower decay rates in children consuming naturally
occurring fluoridated water compared to children consuming
fluoride-deficient water.4, 5 Since that time, numerous
studies have been done which continue to prove fluoride's effectiveness
in decay reduction. Three selected reviews of this work follow.
Opposition Response:
No, the original studies and many since then have proven that fluoridated water merely delays decay; it does not prevent it.
The
belief in fluoride as a tooth decay remedy persists despite the fact
that H. Trendley Dean, DDS, its original promoter, admitted 40 years ago
under oath, that his data purporting to prove the fluoridation
hypothesis were not valid. (H. Trendley Dean: Proceedings, City of
Oroville vs. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California,
Oroville, California, Oroville, California, October 20-21, 1955.)
From the day the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) completed their original 10-year Newburgh and Kingston (New York)
fluoridation experiment, fluoride promoters have repeatedly claimed
that fluoride added to drinking water can reduce tooth decay by as much
as 60 to 70%. They arrived at that figure by misreading the statistics.
This is how they did it:
They
ignored the fact that fluoride interferes with proper growth of
children's permanent teeth, which causes the teeth to erupt later than
normal. Teeth that have not yet erupted cannot decay, therefore, at
first (at age 6) the fluoridated Newburgh
children had 100% less tooth decay, by age 7 also 100% less, age 8 - 67%
less, age 9 - 50% less, and by age 10 - 40% less. Realizing their
experiment was going downhill, the USPHS stopped their experiment early,
totaled the five reductions shown, then divided by 5 to obtain what
they called "an over-all reduction of 70%." Obviously, the only
reduction that really counted at that time was the 40% (age 10).
Had
the Health Department continued their survey beyond age 10, they would
have found that the percentage of reduction continued down hill to 30%,
20%, 0%, and eventually these children had more cavities — not less. The
rate of decay is identical, once the children's teeth erupt. (See 4-1:
"Fluoridation Benefits — Statistical Illusion." Testimony of Konstantin
K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, Mar. 6, 1957).
John A. Forst, M.D., a New York public health official, found that after ten years of fluoridation in Newburgh, 63.2% of the school children had decayed teeth compared with fluorine-free Kingston,
which had only 41.7% with tooth defects. (See 4-2: statement from John
A. Forst, M.D., from The University of the State of New York, Oct. 26,
1954).
Data by Dr. David B. Ast, who was in charge of the fluoridation experiment (Tables, page 319, Journal American Dental Association, 1961) shows delay in decay only until age 15. Then Newburgh passes non-fluoridated Kingston in decayed and filled teeth, after 16 years of fluoridation. Newburgh, with a 9% increase in population, added 18% more dentists. Kingston, with 1% increase, dropped 3% of its dentists. (See 4-3: statement and chart).
Journal of American Dental Association (JADA),
1972, 84; 355-367, stated that dentists made 17% more profit in
fluoridated areas, as opposed to non-fluoridated areas. There are no
cost savings. (See Cost Effectiveness section).
This
"65% less dental decay" is just a statistical illusion. When the Health
Department's own statistics are read correctly, they prove that
fluoridation merely causes a temporary delay in decay. (See 4-4: Fluoridation Fallacies — ExposŽ of Fluoridation Claims Based on Advocates Own Statistics,
by Charles Klint). By ignoring this delay factor, the fluoride
promoters have continued reading statistics incorrectly to this day.
The site has further discussion of the harm fluoridated drinking water can cause for adults. Fluoride, from what I’ve read, accumulates in the body. Thus, as we age, damage can be seen that might be attributable to the added fluoride we have consumed. It appears there are no studies of adults and the long-term benefits or drawbacks to the use of fluoridated drinking water. A report by Czechoslovakian researchers indicates that fluoride matters little when it comes to preventing tooth decay. A study of 745 children aged 6 to 14 years, from several localities of Czechoslovakia where the drinking water contains calcium and magnesium in large amounts, showed impressively fewer caries in these children than in others throughout the country. This finding was no surprise to other scientists who reported previously that calcium combined with magnesium has a beneficial effect on the resistance of teeth to caries. Interestingly, in all of the localities where tooth decay was below average, the fluoride content of the water was also low. (Cesk. Stomat., May-June, 1966.).
"Fluoride gets a lot of the credit for preventing tooth decay that should go to magnesium, a University of Colorado dental researcher says. He is Dr. Lewis Barnett, who has been doing research into tooth decay since 1950. Barnett said that magnesium also strengthens teeth and bone. 'It is just as feasible for communities to add magnesium to their water supplies,' he said. Given a choice between fluoride and magnesium, Barnett said, he would choose magnesium." ("Researcher Says Magnesium Aids Dental Health," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 28, 1966.
The following page from this website, http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question13.html, discusses the safety of adding this drug (an unapproved by the FDA drug at that). I urge the reader to go to this site and carefully read the material to reach your own conclusion. However, it is mentioned in the material at this site that the EPA is very careful to order drinking water for its own offices which is fluoride-free.
The question of fluoride overdose is raised on this page http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question15.html Fluorosis, an overdose of fluoride, is increasing among youngsters. The outward evidence is a spotting or yellowing of the teeth. Overdosing becomes a problem because so many drinks designed for children are also made with fluoridated water. It should be noted that fluoride cannot be boiled away from water. Instead, boiling makes it increase in strength. Therefore, processed drinks could contain an unknown dosage of fluoride. Infants consuming formula made with fluoridated tap water are very much at risk, particularly with certain types of baby formula.
On many of the pages of this site, it is discussed that the ADA refers to fluoride as a nutrient. The FDA however calls it a prescriptive drug. But, no doctor can write a prescription for fluoride because it is a POISON, a restricted substance. If it truly were a nutrient, then the public would be able to purchase it without a prescription.
What happens in our bodies when fluoride is ingested, where does it go?
http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question17.html The ADA states that most of it is excreted, but that presupposed that the kidneys are working property. Excess is stored in the soft tissues of the body, where it will do the most harm. Dr. John Yiamouyiannis says that if you drink lots of distilled water that "within 3 to 6 months, you will have your soft tissue fluoride levels down to normal and this is what really makes the difference. It's not so much the fluoride that's accumulated in your bones or your teeth, which is very hard to remove, but it's the fluoride that accumulates in the soft, active tissues."
Diseases and Fluoride
The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) links hip fractures and fluoridation in four different issues since 1990. Studies published in the Journal in August 1992, specifically states that their objective was to "test the effect of water fluoridated to 1 ppm on the incidence of hip fractures." Their study demonstrated a link between hip fractures in the elderly and water fluoridated at 1 ppm, the so-called 'optimal dose.' "Hip fractures, (according to the report) are the second most common cause for admission (of elderly) to nursing homes accounting for approximately 60,000 admissions per year."
Cancer. http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question22.html
Fluoride poisons human enzymes, which are needed for all the chemical reactions that take place in the human body.
Allergic reactions have been observed in children and adults to the amount of fluoride contained in their drinking water. Some will have severe reactions to it.
Fluoride may compromise the immune system, opening the door to all disease.
Fluoride may have a very negative effect on our genetic development; to our children while they are still in the womb.
Fluoride was found to have an inhibiting effect on the pineal gland, bringing on early onset puberty. This gland produces melatonin. Low Melatonin levels have been linked to prostate and breast cancer. It can also have an effect on lower fertility rates.
Fluoride is also linked to an increased rate of Down’s Syndrome occurring in the population.
Fluoride has a negative impact on the neurological activity of the brain.
Alzheimer’s
Low
doses of sodium fluoride, equivalent to the amount found in 1 ppm
fluoridated water, were found to cause brain damage similar to that
found in Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, and that low doses of
aluminum fluoride (0.5 ppm) resulted in double the amount of aluminum
found in the brain compared to 100 times the dosage of aluminum (50 ppm)
without the fluoride. (See 29-1: Brain Research, 784, 1998, 284-298).
"
... water with 1 part per million (ppm) of fluoride frees nearly 200
ppm of aluminum when boiled 10 minutes in aluminum cooking pots. That is
1,000 times the aluminum leached by nonfluoridated water." (See 29-2: Science News, 1/31/87).
"With
the discovery that abnormally high levels of aluminum are present in
senile plaques in Alzheimer's dementia, the cumulative effects of
aluminum poisoning and the question of how this metal enters the body
become problems that need immediate attention." (See 29-2: "Aluminum
Leaching From Cooking from Utensils," in Nature, Jan. 1987).
Heart Disease
A
team of Japanese professors found that children with mottled teeth
(caused by fluoride poisoning) have a higher incident of heart damage
than those without mottling. This was indicated by electrocardiographic
studies. (The Lancet, Jan. 28, 1961, p. 197, Tokushima J. Exper., Med. 3-50-53, 1956.)
A result of a study in China
showed "that fluoride in drinking water consumed over time is harmful
not only to bones and teeth but also to the cardiovascular system." (See
30-4: "Electrocardiogram Analysis of Patients With Skeletal Fluorosis,"
from, Fluoride, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 16-18, 1997).
Kidney Disease
Dr.
Heyroth is a proponent for fluoridation yet, when testifying under oath
at Congressional Hearings to the question: "Would you give fluoridated
water to one with kidney trouble," he answered, "No, the advice would be
that he drink fluoride-free spring water." (Dr. Francis Heyroth of
Kettering Institute, Cincinnati, Ohio.)
Deaths Caused By Accidents in Municipalities
http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question33.html See "Fluoridation Accidents and Poisonings" at http://www.fluoridealert.org/ for over twenty incidences….
In 1983, Rebecca Hanmer, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water at the US Environmental Protection Agency, described the policy of using the phosphate industry's silicofluorides for fluoridation as follows:
"In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as the source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them." (See letter)
Another EPA official, Dr. J. William Hirzy, the current Senior Vice-President of EPA Headquarters Union, recently expressed a different view on the matter. According to Hirzy:
'"If this stuff gets out into the air, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it's a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it's not a pollutant. That's amazing... There's got to be a better way to manage this stuff" (Hirzy 2000). http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm#6
No comments:
Post a Comment